Was he lying?

[FrankO]

I'm not sure that the extra cut would consume very much time, and it did become one of Jack's signatures.

Hi George,

Both points are irrelevant, in my opinion. Even if it would take a second or two, that would be two precious seconds he could have used to get away or for some other thing that would have been more important at that point. Plus, what would the second (or the first) cut really add? And why would a signature like that, which he quickly dropped, be important in the situation he was supposedly in (having to return to Nichols and do things as quickly as possible)? Why cut down to the vertebrae in that situation? Why not just a more shallow cut in the right place? Why not just stab her once in the heart? Or even twice? That would have been quicker than cutting her throat twice and as deep as he did. Or why not stamp down very hard on her throat? Or just kick her head very hard, like a football?

If the victim did not know Jack I see the validity of your objection. My belief is that the victims knew Jack from being fellow drinkers at a local pub - The Tens Bells, Ringers, The Queen's Head, or, they knew him as a member of the local constabulary.

In considering Llewellyn's statement that any one of the abdominal wounds were sufficient to cause death, I am put in mind of the movie Spartacus (1960) where the trainer is demonstrating sword strikes on an opponent - "This is a kill, but your opponent may live long enough to kill you first". Emma Smith was delivered of a fatal injury, but lived long enough to say that it was a gang of youths that attacked her.

I’m not convinced. There’s no way of knowing they knew Jack from the local pub. Had she been killed close to home and all the pubs close to it, then your point would be stronger. But, even if Jack’s face was a familiar one to Nichols, it sure wouldn’t mean she would be able to describe him so distinctively as him, unless, as I wrote before, he had some very distinctive & remarkable characteristic as a scar, outstanding face form or eyes, a limp or his height. Otherwise, he would just be a man with a moustache, whiskers, maybe a beard, rather shabbily dressed in dark clothes and probably wearing a peaked cap – in short, the general East Ender of the day. But seeing the damage he’d done to her abdomen, there’s also the question of whether she would ever regain consciousness to begin with and, if she would have, if she would be conscious long enough to do him any damage at all. But let’s suppose she would give an accurate description of him and the police would have been able to trace him (even though he could have changed his appearance or have moved away), then what would they have? They’d have only her word and that’s all they would have had. And if she'd died by then, then that would really have been all. They wouldn't have anything they could prove and he would know it.

Of course, cutting the throat would be the safe thing to do, but considering everything, I have doubts that it would have gone as you've suggested.

Both these possibilities would explain the puzzlement of the victims allowing Jack to gain their confidence.

Of course, but I think Jack didn't need any puzzlement. As long as he didn't act too suspiciously and showed his victims the money, he'd be alright.

If Lechmere was Jack, it must have given him pause when Paul suggested that he detected a faint suggestion that Polly was still alive.

This, to me, seems another point against your scenario rather than anything else: even cutting her twice and as deep as he did, didn’t properly do the job.

Much has been said about hearing the footsteps created by hobnail boots in a narrow street, and there are contingencies to consider:

Was Jack wearing hobnail boots, or rubber soled shoes purchased for that purpose.
While hobnail boots were noisy at a normal working pace, could some stealth be obtained with careful slow footsteps.
While Cross testified that he heard Paul about 40 metres away, he could only have been estimating as it is unlikely that he could see him at that distance. As a result of my re-enactment, I have serious doubts about being able to distinguish a man's shape standing any more than about 15 metres away in that light - within the limitation that my re-enactment setup was only an approximation of the Buck's Row conditions. I have to say that I was surprised at the extent to which my preconceptions were dashed by that re-enactment.

I also wonder if Lechmere's estimate of 30 or 40 yards is accurate, partly, as you propose, because it would have been difficult to make an accurate estimate under the conditions and partly because I wonder if he would have been able to distinguish Paul's dark figure from the gloom immediately after turning towards the sound of the footsteps he heard.

All the best,
Frank

[Geddy2112]

In Cutting Point on page 92 he says:
“Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at 3.30, but the time 3.20 is also mentioned in one paper.”
And yet on here he said to me:
“We must however accept that since the absolute bulk of the papers spoke of ”around 3.30”, that is by far the likeliest wording to have been given.”

I think it is actually mentioned in two, with the regards to the 3:20, but since they are nearly word for word the same it could be accepted from the same source. I also believe there are six who go with the 'about 3:30.'

This is one point I've never 'understood', sorry it's not, there are many but one main reason I do not understand with the Lechmere theory is why they did not go more with the 3:20am leaving time. They argue it took him 40 mins to get to work so surely 3:20am would fit better. The problem there of course is the so called blood evidence and Christer's massive reliance on the time of death 'not far of 3:45am.' He relies on one thing and builds around it. That shows how weak the theory is, it actually tends to contradict itself.

So what has changed between then and now? What newspapers are available to him now that weren’t available then? Or was his abacus missing a few beads so that he couldn’t count properly? How could this ‘absolute bulk’ not only have escaped his attention at the time that he was researching then writing his book? He apparently had no problem finding and counting the one newspaper that mentioned 3.20 and was keen to mention it though. But this ‘absolute bulk’ apparently and very mysteriously eluded him.

I was reading a few old feuds with him vs Rob Clack the other day, sorry my mistake some 'threads' and Christer states back in 2017 on numerous occasions more new evidence has come to light and he can't mention it before 'publication.' What this new evidence is I'm not too sure as for me nothing has been updated since the book and fakeumentary. More fibs methinks...

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Both points are irrelevant, in my opinion. Even if it would take a second or two, that would be two precious seconds he could have used to get away or for some other thing that would have been more important at that point. Plus, what would the second (or the first) cut really add? And why would a signature like that, which he quickly dropped, be important in the situation he was supposedly in (having to return to Nichols and do things as quickly as possible)? Why cut down to the vertebrae in that situation? Why not just a more shallow cut in the right place? Why not just stab her once in the heart? Or even twice? That would have been quicker than cutting her throat twice and as deep as he did. Or why not stamp down very hard on her throat? Or just kick her head very hard, like a football?

I don't know why Jack chose to do what he did, I only observed that that's what he did.

I’m not convinced. There’s no way of knowing they knew Jack from the local pub. Had she been killed close to home and all the pubs close to it, then your point would be stronger.

Hi Frank,

I was looking at where the victims lived rather than where they were murdered.

Best regards, George

[FrankO]

I don't know why Jack chose to do what he did, I only observed that that's what he did.

Hi George,

Good to know, because I was under the strong impression that you were trying to make a point.

I was looking at where the victims lived rather than where they were murdered.

I'm not saying Jack couldn't have been a familiar face for one or even all of his victims, just that he certainly doesn't need to have been and, maybe in the case of Nichols, being so relatively far from her home, it seems a bit less likely that her killer was someone whose face she knew. But, of course, if she, for whatever reason, could wander far from home, then so could he.

Best regards,
Frank

[Fiver]

In Cutting Point on page 92 he says:


“Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at 3.30, but the time 3.20 is also mentioned in one paper.”

So he's even wrong on that. 3:20 was an exception, but mentioned in more than one paper.

"CARMAN CROSS was the the next witness. He lived at 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge-road. He was employed by Pickfords. He left home on Friday at twenty minutes past three, and got to Pickford's yard at Broad-Street at four o'clock." - 3 September 1888 Star

"George Cross, a carman, stated that he left home on Friday morning at 20 minutes past 3, and he arrived at his work, at Broad-Street, at 4 o'clock." - 4 September 1888 Times

[rjpalmer]

This is one point I've never 'understood', sorry it's not, there are many but one main reason I do not understand with the Lechmere theory is why they did not go more with the 3:20am leaving time. They argue it took him 40 mins to get to work so surely 3:20am would fit better. The problem there of course is the so called blood evidence and Christer's massive reliance on the time of death 'not far of 3:45am.' He relies on one thing and builds around it. That shows how weak the theory is, it actually tends to contradict itself.

Hi Geddy,

All these time estimates can become confusing, but it wouldn't have taken forty minutes to walk from Doveton Street to Broad Street---one estimate frequently tossed around is 25-30 minutes.

David Orsam posted this some years ago:

02-08-2017, 02:12 PM

I did some timings from 22 Doveton Street to the front of Liverpool Street Station.

At a slow walk it took me 31 minutes. At normal walking pace it took 25 minutes. At fast walking pace it took me less than 20 minutes.

--

Steve Blomer's timings are similar, see Post #15:

Bucks Row Project - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

[Geddy2112]

...At a slow walk it took me 31 minutes. At normal walking pace it took 25 minutes. At fast walking pace it took me less than 20 minutes.
Ripper Forums[/URL]

That is why they go with the 3:30 am leaving time them. Unless poor Charlie boy went on a mission via Whitechapel High Street of course Thank you.

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi Geddy,

All these time estimates can become confusing, but it wouldn't have taken forty minutes to walk from Doveton Street to Broad Street---one estimate frequently tossed around is 25-30 minutes.

David Orsam posted this some years ago:

02-08-2017, 02:12 PM

I did some timings from 22 Doveton Street to the front of Liverpool Street Station.

At a slow walk it took me 31 minutes. At normal walking pace it took 25 minutes. At fast walking pace it took me less than 20 minutes.

--

Steve Blomer's timings are similar, see Post #15:

Bucks Row Project - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

I wonder if the people who live there now know the history? Or for years have they wondered about an irregular occurence of middle aged men standing outside their home with a stop watch and heading of west at a brisk pace, only to return an hour later and repeat the exercise at a slower pace...

[caz]

Hi All,

I never really thought this through before, but reading the latest posts brought home to me the sheer unlikelihood of Lechmere leaving home that morning, knowing he had to be at work by 4am at the latest [my father-in-law, who worked in a foundry, used to say that a minute late would result in losing 15 minutes' pay - and no doubt the employer would dictate what the time was on arrival], and knowing how much time he needed to allow for the walk alone, would have dabbled along the way in a spot of murder and - with a good pinch of luck - abdominal mutilation, on a street he was by then familiar with, where he could expect a fellow worker, such as Robert Paul was, to come along at any moment and catch him up to his armpits in gore and gristle if he wasn't careful. And that's assuming Lechmere didn't go off-piste to look for a likely victim along the main Whitechapel Road, only to lure her back to Buck's Row, in the hope - forlorn as it would have turned out - that he would find it totally deserted for as long as he'd have liked to fill his carman's boots. No self-respecting serial killer would choose to lose himself in a bloody pile of innards, while acutely aware that he was due at work in less than 20 minutes and quite likely to have company before then.

The ripper, in my view, would have taken the risk because he wasn't bothered by the clock and Buck's Row was dark and deserted when he arrived with his victim, who may have reassured him that they could find a spot where business could be conducted - as long as he didn't take all day about it. I doubt he'd have been a happy bunny to know that men would shortly be passing by on their way to work, but if he didn't know and saw nobody, he must have felt he could take a chance. I suspect it was Lechmere's approach that alerted the killer to the danger of hanging round in that location a moment longer.

I also keep coming back to the psychology of the tarpaulin, as Lechmere so astutely described 'seeing' from a distance in the darkness, which is the lived experience of so many genuine witnesses whose very last expectation is to stumble across a human corpse as they go about their normal business, and can therefore only see an inanimate object until they get too close to deny the evidence of their own eyes.

Lechmere was not lying about the tarpaulin, IMHO, and was only guilty of a potential shortfall in his wage packet if doing the right thing made him late for work.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi All,

I never really thought this through before, but reading the latest posts brought home to me the sheer unlikelihood of Lechmere leaving home that morning, knowing he had to be at work by 4am at the latest [my father-in-law, who worked in a foundry, used to say that a minute late would result in losing 15 minutes' pay - and no doubt the employer would dictate what the time was on arrival], and knowing how much time he needed to allow for the walk alone, would have dabbled along the way in a spot of murder and - with a good pinch of luck - abdominal mutilation, on a street he was by then familiar with, where he could expect a fellow worker, such as Robert Paul was, to come along at any moment and catch him up to his armpits in gore and gristle if he wasn't careful. And that's assuming Lechmere didn't go off-piste to look for a likely victim along the main Whitechapel Road, only to lure her back to Buck's Row, in the hope - forlorn as it would have turned out - that he would find it totally deserted for as long as he'd have liked to fill his carman's boots. No self-respecting serial killer would choose to lose himself in a bloody pile of innards, while acutely aware that he was due at work in less than 20 minutes and quite likely to have company before then.

The ripper, in my view, would have taken the risk because he wasn't bothered by the clock and Buck's Row was dark and deserted when he arrived with his victim, who may have reassured him that they could find a spot where business could be conducted - as long as he didn't take all day about it. I doubt he'd have been a happy bunny to know that men would shortly be passing by on their way to work, but if he didn't know and saw nobody, he must have felt he could take a chance. I suspect it was Lechmere's approach that alerted the killer to the danger of hanging round in that location a moment longer.

I also keep coming back to the psychology of the tarpaulin, as Lechmere so astutely described 'seeing' from a distance in the darkness, which is the lived experience of so many genuine witnesses whose very last expectation is to stumble across a human corpse as they go about their normal business, and can therefore only see an inanimate object until they get too close to deny the evidence of their own eyes.

Lechmere was not lying about the tarpaulin, IMHO, and was only guilty of a potential shortfall in his wage packet if doing the right thing made him late for work.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Employers were slightly more considerate when I first worked in a foundry in the 80’s (1980’s by the way) as we were allowed 2 minutes. If you were 3 minutes late you lost 15 minutes pay and if this happened fairly regularly you would find yourself on the first rung of the companies disciplinary procedure. It’s almost impossible to believe that a Victorian employer would have been as employee-friendly at a time of child labour, unfair wages, women getting paid less than men, and no compensation if an unguarded machine happened to pull your arm off! I’m not saying that it would have happened but if Cross’s boss was in a foul mood one morning he could have sacked him on the spot without any fear of tribunals and had someone else sitting in his drivers chair in no time at all. And no Universal Credit for a recently sacked man. No wage, no rent, no food etc. So when we hear people say that Cross’s 4 am start time wouldn’t have been a consideration for him I think that they are looking at the situation as if it was 2024.

So either Cross was so incompetent that he couldn’t find a victim in an area where he would have been almost falling over prostitutes, until 20 minutes before he was due at work, or he saw a woman (again, 20 minutes before he was due to clock on) and he simply couldn’t control himself. I think that we’ve discussed things having the ‘ring of truth’ about them before Caz? The tarpaulin story has that ‘ring of truth’ to me. Another example is when Cross was asked if he’d told Mizen that he was wanted by a Constable? He replied “No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.” He doesn’t act or even sound like a guilty man.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

So when we hear people say that Cross’s 4 am start time wouldn’t have been a consideration for him I think that they are looking at the situation as if it was 2024.

Hi Herlock.

The same applies to all arguments and theories that rely on times given by witnesses that would inevitably have been estimates in 1888, rounded up or down to the nearest five minutes at best. Even in 2024, with smart phones and watches, most witnesses would not be confident in narrowing down the time of a sighting or conversation to an exact minute.

I remember when I worked for British Gas, back in the early 1980s, we had to clock in and out but our hours were at least flexible - a double-edged sword because if the traffic or the weather made you ten minutes later than your chosen start time, you had to make up the ten minutes at the end of the day or at some other time. When someone in the office had a birthday, we all had to clock out for however long it took to open the cards and pressies and serve cake to everyone! It became a miserable affair, with the birthday girl going as fast as she could so we would not have to make up much time. Modern technology is not always the worker's friend.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock.

The same applies to all arguments and theories that rely on times given by witnesses that would inevitably have been estimates in 1888, rounded up or down to the nearest five minutes at best. Even in 2024, with smart phones and watches, most witnesses would not be confident in narrowing down the time of a sighting or conversation to an exact minute.

I remember when I worked for British Gas, back in the early 1980s, we had to clock in and out but our hours were at least flexible - a double-edged sword because if the traffic or the weather made you ten minutes later than your chosen start time, you had to make up the ten minutes at the end of the day or at some other time. When someone in the office had a birthday, we all had to clock out for however long it took to open the cards and pressies and serve cake to everyone! It became a miserable affair, with the birthday girl going as fast as she could so we would not have to make up much time. Modern technology is not always the worker's friend.

Love,

Caz
X

Did you “Tell Sid” that you weren’t happy with it Caz?

[Geddy2112]

...and knowing how much time he needed to allow for the walk alone, would have dabbled along the way in a spot of murder and - with a good pinch of luck - abdominal mutilation, on a street he was by then familiar with, where he could expect a fellow worker, such as Robert Paul was, to come along at any moment and catch him up to his armpits in gore and gristle if he wasn't careful.

Hi caz, and this is one of the many issues with the Lechmere theory. On one hand you get 'no sane' person and on the other you get 'overtly mad' person. Team Lechmere love the 'overtly mad' phrase, I wonder if they actually know the difference between mad and overtly mad in the clinical sense. This is of course to throw the light on Lechmere and not the likes of Kosminski.
However I digress. Psychopath or not I just can't see anyone butchering someone on the way to work, which would make them late and all that entails in a street they travel at roughly the same time six days a week. Especially when they know there is a Policeman (PC 81 GER) maybe only a matter of 50 yards away or a night watchman just around the corner.
I think we should give Lechmere some more credit than that. The crux of it is no one in the history of serial killing has done those things, let alone those things twice if you count Hanbury Street within a week or so. Complete and utter bollocks I'm afraid...

[rjpalmer]

I wonder if the people who live there now know the history? Or for years have they wondered about an irregular occurence of middle aged men standing outside their home with a stop watch and heading of west at a brisk pace, only to return an hour later and repeat the exercise at a slower pace...

Thanks for the laugh.

I suppose one of the gang could peddle stopwatches and maps from a stand in Frank Dobson Square as a lucrative side hustle....

I don't know how Ed does it, but I was surprised to see that if one punches "Doveton Street" into Google Maps there's an icon showing the former home of one Charles Allen Lechmere.

What the actual flip.

I suppose the hapless carman will have his own blue plaque someday!

[Geddy2112]

I don't know how Ed does it, but I was surprised to see that if one punches "Doveton Street" into Google Maps there's an icon showing the former home of one Charles Allen Lechmere.

What the actual flip.

I suppose the hapless carman will have his own blue plaque someday!

That's probably Ed the tool ... he's told Google there is a hotel there (a business) so now Google will show it. Doveton Street will be on the next Monopoly Edition next.