Evidence of innocence

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes, sorry. Typo.



Times (London) Wednesday, 7 November 1888



From the link:

"The Lord Mayor Elect and Mr. A. J. Newton, Sheriff of London and Middlesex, have provided a treat for 2,000 destitute people at the East-end of London on Lord Mayor's Day. A substantial meat tea will be given them in the Tower Hamlets Mission-hall, of which Mr. F. N. Charrington is honorary superintendent, and it will be followed by an amusing entertainment. Mr. Charrington, writing to us from Great Assembly-hall, Mile-end, says that he will be thankful to receive any further contributions, as arrangements have been made for entertaining 3,000 persons. The Lord Mayor Elect has also, in addition to the benefactions which have been previously announced, arranged special and suitable gifts to the 80 inmates of the City of London Union now in hospital at Margate and to 260 children from the same union now in schools at Hanwell. The total number entertained on the 9th by the new Lord Mayor will exceed 10,000. No condition has been imposed except that the recipients shall be the poor and needy."

Not everyone got the day off, the police being the most obvious example. If Lechmere did have to work, showing up coated in blood would have rather given the game away.

Thanks so much.

I did come across that link a couple of hours ago and had forgotten about it.

I was trying to work out whether the restrictions on traffic would have meant that Lechmere could not have used his vehicle that day, bearing in mind that he may have started work as early as 4 a.m.

Another consideration is that a member found a newspaper report about Pickfords' carters' working hours, being 14-18 hours per day, which means that Lechmere would not even have been able to work half a day.

I think possibly we have discovered why Stow won't say whether Lechmere was working that day.

It is unlikely that Pickfords would have required him to come to work.

I quote from Stow's correspondence with me:

There is zero evidence to suggest that Broad Street Goods Station closed at all, nor that the goods deliveries carried out by Pickfords on from Broad Street were interrupted.

[Fiver]

Another consideration is that a member found a newspaper report about Pickfords' carters' working hours, being 14-18 hours per day, which means that Lechmere would not even have been able to work half a day.

That would be me. The Standard 29 June 1891. 14 to 18 hour shifts and 3 days holiday for men who had worked there long enough. Mr Scrooge would have been proud.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That would be me. The Standard 29 June 1891. 14 to 18 hour shifts and 3 days holiday for men who had worked there long enough. Mr Scrooge would have been proud.

Yes.

I couldn't remember whether it was you.

Good to know.

Stow will be pleased.

[MrBarnett]

That law was actually superseded by another law in 1828, but the wording in that law is not materially different.

I did explain all this to Edward Stow, before he accused me of being ignorant and malicious.

I would like, if I may, to quote what I wrote to Edward Stow in response to his allegation that I am malicious:


That is ironic in that, whereas you devote your energies online to trying to prove that a certain carter, who worked for Pickfords and lived with his wife and nine children, murdered five women while on his way to work (except you admit you're not sure whether he went to work on the days most of them were murdered) and dismembered four more, and that his mother was a bigamist, you accuse ME of being malicious.

He replied: You are getting increasingly childish.

A limited number of roads along and adjacent to the route were closed for a few hours. Broad Street itself would have been unaffected.

If the closures affected Lechmere’s delivery schedule in some way, he may have worked a different shift that day.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

A limited number of roads along and adjacent to the route were closed for a few hours. Broad Street itself would have been unaffected.

If the closures affected Lechmere’s delivery schedule in some way, he may have worked a different shift that day.

Taking account of the roads that were closed, is it reasonable to think that his ability to travel in the vicinity of Broad Street would have been affected?

[MrBarnett]

Thanks so much.

I did come across that link a couple of hours ago and had forgotten about it.

I was trying to work out whether the restrictions on traffic would have meant that Lechmere could not have used his vehicle that day, bearing in mind that he may have started work as early as 4 a.m.

Another consideration is that a member found a newspaper report about Pickfords' carters' working hours, being 14-18 hours per day, which means that Lechmere would not even have been able to work half a day.

I think possibly we have discovered why Stow won't say whether Lechmere was working that day.

It is unlikely that Pickfords would have required him to come to work.

I quote from Stow's correspondence with me:

There is zero evidence to suggest that Broad Street Goods Station closed at all, nor that the goods deliveries carried out by Pickfords on from Broad Street were interrupted.

Do you somehow imagine the whole of London shut down for the day to accommodate a parade through a small section of the City?

Stow is correct in what he says. He should have gone on to say that the closure of a few roads between the Law Courts in the Strand and the Mansion House would not have impacted Broad Street.

Are you familiar with London?

[MrBarnett]

Taking account of the roads that were closed, is it reasonable to think that his ability to travel in the vicinity of Broad Street would have been affected?

No. Our posts crossed.

[MrBarnett]

"Provided always, that neither this Act, nor anything therein contained, shall extend to any person or persons whose husband or wife shall be continually remaining beyond the seas by the space of seven years together, or whose husband or wife shall absent him or herself the one from the other by the space of seven years together, in any parts within his Majesties Dominions, the one of them not knowing the other to be living within that time.' - Bigamy Act of 1603

All that is saying is that in a case where a woman remarried after having not seen her husband and not having any knowledge of him still being alive for seven years, she would not have committed the felony of bigamy even if her husband was indeed still alive.

However, if her husband was still alive, her subsequent marriage/marriages were legally invalid and children of a subsequent marriage would be illegitimate.

And if she was aware that her husband was still alive when she went through a form of marriage with someone else, she would be guilty of the felony of bigamy.

Shortly before Maria ‘married’ Tom Cross a cousin of her very much alive husband arrived in Hereford and joined the police force there. I suspect that was one of the reasons she and Tom moved to the East End. That and small town disapproval of her second (potentially bigamous) marriage.

[MrBarnett]

I seem to remember the details of the road closures were posted and discussed some time ago. I’ll see if I can find them. From memory, I think the Embankment, the route from the Strand along Fleet Street and Cheapside to the Mansion House were closed as were a few contiguous streets, but that’s nowhere near Broad Street. And the closures were for a limited period only.

[MrBarnett]

I don’t think this what I found before, but it gives the general gist. The Embankment was closed from 10.am and the Strand and Fleet were also closed. These were (are) the two main E-W arteries of central London. But they were by no means the only ones. If CAL’s delivery schedule was disrupted by these closures, perhaps he started his deliveries a bit earlier that day.

I have this theory that he carried horse flesh on his cart and would have made deliveries to the East End, possibly Islington and to certain locations south of the river. If so, the road closures in question would probably not have affected him beyond there possibly being some extra diverted traffic on his route. As I say, in anticipation of that his shift might have been altered.

[Dickere]

I'm tempted to suggest "cradle snatcher" but as that's in no way gender specific, I think you're right.

I don't think there is a specific pejorative term for men who date much younger women.

That's presumably because it's regarded as perfectly normal (commendable even) and unworthy of comment.

That said, we get called "cougar" which I wouldn't say is a pejorative as it has, to my mind, quite a nice predatory ring to it!!

Still the fact that there's a name for it and not for the male equivalent tells a story in itself.



Edit: Sorry! Just saw Mr B got to cradle snatcher before me.

You get called a cougar eh. I thought that was just a porno term, so a friend told me

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Do you somehow imagine the whole of London shut down for the day to accommodate a parade through a small section of the City?

Stow is correct in what he says. He should have gone on to say that the closure of a few roads between the Law Courts in the Strand and the Mansion House would not have impacted Broad Street.

Are you familiar with London?

I don't think your comment - made with unwarranted condescension - merits a reply, any more than the ludicrously-overbearing and insulting Stow's comments do.

I told Stow that only a person with a king-sized inferiority complex would behave in the way he does - and I stand by that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My questions would have to be - after he’d begun work that morning would Lechmere really have left his cart to go off and pick up a victim? Firstly it would have meant leaving a cart full of meat unattended in the street for however many minutes in an area of such poverty and crime (how could he have explained any missing goods from his cart to his superiors?) And secondly, would he really have been so reckless as to have left a cart with the name Pickford’s emblazoned on the side so that any number of people might have come forward to tell the police that they’d seen an unattended Pickford’s wagon parked nearby? One question to those in charge would have told them which driver(s) had business in that location.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

My questions would have to be - after he’d begun work that morning would Lechmere really have left his cart to go off and pick up a victim? Firstly it would have meant leaving a cart full of meat unattended in the street for however many minutes in an area of such poverty and crime (how could he have explained any missing goods from his cart to his superiors?) And secondly, would he really have been so reckless as to have left a cart with the name Pickford’s emblazoned on the side so that any number of people might have come forward to tell the police that they’d seen an unattended Pickford’s wagon parked nearby? One question to those in charge would have told them which driver(s) had business in that location.

I can't seen the earlier comments which gave rise to yours, but are you referring to the Hanbury Street murder?

I put forward similar arguments to yours quite a while ago elsewhere, but since then have come to the conclusion, based on medical evidence, that the murder took place no later than 2.30 a.m., which was an hour before Lechmere would have set out for work.

So, either he was at home or at work, and it is far-fetched to have him in Hanbury Street at the time of the murder.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can't seen the earlier comments which gave rise to yours, but are you referring to the Hanbury Street murder?

I put forward similar arguments to yours quite a while ago elsewhere, but since then have come to the conclusion, based on medical evidence, that the murder took place no later than 2.30 a.m., which was an hour before Lechmere would have set out for work.

So, either he was at home or at work, and it is far-fetched to have him in Hanbury Street at the time of the murder.

I am referring to the Hanbury Street murder. We have three witnesses all pointing to a later TOD and against a Doctor’s estimate. Forensic medical knowledge tells us that a Victorian Doctors estimate can’t be relied upon as being accurate. Even Phillips himself admitted the possibility that he could have been wrong. His estimation is of no use. All modern experts tell us this. Although I don’t want to get into this TOD debate as it has been gone over at great length on other threads.