Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pickford & Co.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    The other Charles Cross, carman, mentioned in the 1881 Census lived at 9 Walcot Square, Lambeth, south of the river, but I found his marriage records and he lived in Poplar at the time of his marriage, May 1879. (No specific address). There is no indication for whom he worked.

    There was also a third Charles Cross, carman, aged 18 in 1879, so he is not a great fit.

    The man in the accident was probably "our" Charles Cross, but (in my opinion) this is a blow to the Lechmere theory, because it shows what many expected all along: he had joined Pickford's during his stepfather's lifetime and simply used the name "Charles Cross" at work, just as it was recorded in the 1861 census. These things "stick," so there was nothing nefarious about his use of the name.

    If on the other hand, this isn't Cross, it's still a blow to the Lechmere theory, because advocates like to imply that the road accident is evidence of a violent, callous man. In reality, two children were involved. One saw the van coming, the other didn't. The jury ruled it was a no-fault accident.

    Thanks for this.

    No, I would not suggest accidentally killing a child is evidence of a budding serial killer.

    Might give you some trauma, though
    O have you seen the devle
    with his mikerscope and scalpul
    a lookin at a Kidney
    With a slide cocked up.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Tani View Post
      Might give you some trauma, though
      Which could explain why Lechmere declined to shift Nichols' body before the police could be notified.

      It's even plausible that dragging the child out of the road had added to its injuries, since this is not uncommon.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
        The other Charles Cross, carman, mentioned in the 1881 Census lived at 9 Walcot Square, Lambeth, south of the river, but I found his marriage records and he lived in Poplar at the time of his marriage, May 1879. (No specific address). There is no indication for whom he worked.

        There was also a third Charles Cross, carman, aged 18 in 1879, so he is not a great fit.

        The man in the accident was probably "our" Charles Cross,
        Thank you, and this is my whole point. I've added my own emphasis to your post. It appears from all my reading we can't be 100% sure the Charles Cross, even if it is likely, is 'our' Charlie Boy and possibly, even if remote they could be two different Charles Cross's.

        So like I suggested the only time it seems to be mentioned that our Charles Cross worked specifically for Pickfords and not some other 'Carman' company is from the Polly Nichols inquest and this is IF we believe our man is telling the truth which of course the Lechmerians obviously do not. Surely they can't have it both ways.

        It also goes without saying if our Charles Cross did NOT work for Pickfords then the whole Lechmere case is firmly as dead as the poor women he is being accused of killing.
        Last edited by Geddy2112; 05-17-2024, 03:13 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

          Thank you, and this is my whole point. I've added my own emphasis to your post. It appears from all my reading we can't be 100% sure the Charles Cross, even if it is likely, is 'our' Charlie Boy and possibly, even if remote they could be two different Charles Cross's.

          So like I suggested the only time it seems to be mentioned that our Charles Cross worked specifically for Pickfords and not some other 'Carman' company is from the Polly Nichols inquest and this is IF we believe our man is telling the truth which of course the Lechmerians obviously do not. Surely they can't have it both ways.

          It also goes without saying if our Charles Cross did NOT work for Pickfords then the whole Lechmere case is firmly as dead as the poor women he is being accused of killing.
          I'm not sure how this follows?

          O have you seen the devle
          with his mikerscope and scalpul
          a lookin at a Kidney
          With a slide cocked up.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Tani View Post

            I'm not sure how this follows?
            One of the main strands of the Lechmere theory is if he killed Polly he killed them all. They have shown, or at least tried to that Polly, Tabram, Chapman and Kelly are reasonably on his way to work... IF he worked from Broad Street. They also claim Stride was near his mother's and Eddowes in Mitre square would have been his 'older' route to work from near where his mother lived.

            The problem of course is IF he did not work at Pickfords and thus Broad street this speculation is dead in the water and their whole Geo Profiling for Lechmere is tainted.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

              One of the main strands of the Lechmere theory is if he killed Polly he killed them all. They have shown, or at least tried to that Polly, Tabram, Chapman and Kelly are reasonably on his way to work... IF he worked from Broad Street. They also claim Stride was near his mother's and Eddowes in Mitre square would have been his 'older' route to work from near where his mother lived.

              The problem of course is IF he did not work at Pickfords and thus Broad street this speculation is dead in the water and their whole Geo Profiling for Lechmere is tainted.
              This is true, but you don't need him working on the day of the Double Event or for MJK who was killed on a bank holiday (people seemed to be off work, at least, for the Lord Mayor's show). You just need it for Polly and Chapman (and maybe Tabram, but she was killed somewhat early, around just gone 2 or half 2, and not necessarily tied to work hours). The time of Chapman's death could be problematic, but it is such a contentious issue I wouldn't think that's as much trouble as some would think.
              Last edited by Tani; 05-17-2024, 03:55 PM.
              O have you seen the devle
              with his mikerscope and scalpul
              a lookin at a Kidney
              With a slide cocked up.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

                Thank you, and this is my whole point. I've added my own emphasis to your post. It appears from all my reading we can't be 100% sure the Charles Cross, even if it is likely, is 'our' Charlie Boy and possibly, even if remote they could be two different Charles Cross's.
                For what it's worth, this is the other Charles Cross, carman, I came across--a petty criminal.

                As you can see, he's only 18 in January 1879, which means he would have been only 15 or 16 the year of the accident in Islington.

                I tend to think this would rule him out, but I was poking around in the 1881 census and there are carmen that age. Indeed, there are dozens of them. I found one lad in Battersea who was listed as a carman at the tender age of 10.

                That said, it might not be that simple, for the enumerators often put "van boy" or "carman's boy" in parenthesis, but this is not always the case. Possibly worth of further investigation for the Lechmerephiles.

                I imagine an outfit like Pickford's would have a sort of casual apprenticeship where one started out as a van guard and progressed. Indeed, I think Ed suggested this in one of his lectures. Putting the lad behind the team in London traffic at 14 seems a little insane to me, but we know how the Victorians loved their child labour. Maybe the age of the horse was more relevant!

                Click image for larger version  Name:	Cross No. 3.jpg Views:	0 Size:	124.4 KB ID:	834479

                Last edited by rjpalmer; 05-17-2024, 08:14 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Thank you rjpalmer so again it kind of looks like we can't be 100% sure our Cross was involved in the RTA, probably was him but we can't be 100% and thus the only other data we have for him working for Pickfords is his testimony, which I've explained opens up all sorts of issues for the Lechmere Theory.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Tani View Post

                    This is true, but you don't need him working on the day of the Double Event or for MJK who was killed on a bank holiday (people seemed to be off work, at least, for the Lord Mayor's show). You just need it for Polly and Chapman (and maybe Tabram, but she was killed somewhat early, around just gone 2 or half 2, and not necessarily tied to work hours). The time of Chapman's death could be problematic, but it is such a contentious issue I wouldn't think that's as much trouble as some would think.
                    Even with modern forensics, determining time of death is difficult. Period doctors were nowhere near as accurate as crime fiction portrays them. For Chapman, the three witnesses seem credible, putting her death after Charles Lechmere started work.

                    The Double Event also points against Charles Lechmere being the Ripper. To kill Stride and Eddowes, he would have needed to stay up 23+ hours or get up 3+ hours early on his only day off.
                    "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                    "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                      Even with modern forensics, determining time of death is difficult. Period doctors were nowhere near as accurate as crime fiction portrays them. For Chapman, the three witnesses seem credible, putting her death after Charles Lechmere started work.

                      The Double Event also points against Charles Lechmere being the Ripper. To kill Stride and Eddowes, he would have needed to stay up 23+ hours or get up 3+ hours early on his only day off.
                      This is interesting. One wonders as many serial killers are nightowls might they be insomniacs? I could see a murderer being up hours before normal to go killing if it's a compulsion. I quickly looked up sleeping habits of serial killers and came up empty. It's an interesting avenu to go down. I wonder about it.
                      O have you seen the devle
                      with his mikerscope and scalpul
                      a lookin at a Kidney
                      With a slide cocked up.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Tani View Post

                        This is interesting. One wonders as many serial killers are nightowls might they be insomniacs?
                        Good news fellow insomniacs, only 4 more sleeps till Christmas..

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          The point of the 'Missing Evidence' video is that Lechmere supposedly had a 'pattern of offending'--that the murders coincided with his 3:30-4:00 commute, and his various patterns of egress, and this became "one coincidence too many."

                          The problem is that this "pattern" is very weak, and a great deal of reasonable doubt exists in many of the cases. Tabram could easily have fallen outside of it. So could Annie Chapman. Liz and Kate clearly did. Kelly is only a 'maybe'--and then we have to get rid of Hutchinson's client. Alice McKenzie, if she is added in, is a definite no.

                          One can speculate insomnia, a day off from work, or a dozen other scenarios to explain how Lechmere could have still committed any individual murder, but this would seriously undermine the original prosecutorial argument of a "pattern of offending."

                          To use Mr. Scobie's own phrase, the jury wouldn't like it. The "pattern" has become vague and uncertain.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                            The point of the 'Missing Evidence' video is that Lechmere supposedly had a 'pattern of offending'--that the murders coincided with his 3:30-4:00 commute, and his various patterns of egress, and this became "one coincidence too many."

                            The problem is that this "pattern" is very weak, and a great deal of reasonable doubt exists in many of the cases. Tabram could easily have fallen outside of it. So could Annie Chapman. Liz and Kate clearly did. Kelly is only a 'maybe'--and then we have to get rid of Hutchinson's client. Alice McKenzie, if she is added in, is a definite no.
                            If you closely watch the video and I'm not suggesting you do, in fact quite the opposite because as Stow would say it should be in the 'nutty column.' The video actually gives Lechmere an alibi for the first three murders (including Tabram) and shows PC Neil 'finding' the body before Paul and Lechmere.

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	441069877_10161931654184769_4496770068098282980_n.jpg
Views:	140
Size:	145.5 KB
ID:	834592

                            The documentary is a joke.

                            Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                            One can speculate insomnia, a day off from work, or a dozen other scenarios to explain how Lechmere could have still committed any individual murder, but this would seriously undermine the original prosecutorial argument of a "pattern of offending."

                            To use Mr. Scobie's own phrase, the jury wouldn't like it. The "pattern" has become vague and uncertain.
                            There is no pattern of offending because all the video and Christer do is speculate about times he left home (in the case of AT 3:30am) Christer actually lies at least four times, twice in his book, once on the video and again on the viewable notes given to Scobie Doo. He has recently admitted on FB that he simply 'forgot' to add the 'about' in. What four times? That is some amnesia.
                            Scobie Doo's 'the times really hurt him' is again a pointless statement because he was told a lie. It's clear to see on the screen. The notes say 'at 3:30am' not about 3:30am. Scobie's 'opinion' in this video is irrelevant.


                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Hi Geddy,

                              In truth, I can't get on board with the idea that Christer Holmgren is dishonest. I know from personal experience that he's willing to discuss every aspect of his theory in enormous detail--even his internal thought process--and that's not the method of a grifter out to fool the public. Personally, I'm willing to accept his explanation.

                              To me, the debate over '3:30' or 'about 3:30' is of lesser importance and diverts our attention away from the far more relevant fact that the alleged "missing time" can be traced to Robert Paul's highly problematic deposition and the statement attributed to him in LWN. That Paul's estimated time of departure was left unchallenged in the Missing Evidence episode is a far greater omission than the single word "about."

                              Your visual demonstration admirably demonstrates the absurdity of putting too much faith in Paul's accuracy. Lechmere is crouching over Polly's body, knife in hand, a full minute after PC Neil has already discovered her lifeless body. And Neil's estimate dovetails with the accounts given by Mizen and Thain and Lechmere. Further, this account of events is supported by Abberline's internal report--the one man who seems to have tried to work it out as precisely as possible.

                              As has been pointed out about a hundred times, Robert Paul is the odd man out. A single witness being inaccurate is utterly commonplace.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                                Hi Geddy,
                                In truth, I can't get on board with the idea that Christer Holmgren is dishonest. I know from personal experience that he's willing to discuss every aspect of his theory in enormous detail--even his internal thought process--and that's not the method of a grifter out to fool the public. Personally, I'm willing to accept his explanation.
                                Hi sir, I'm sorry I believe is he being 'economical with the truth.' Do not get me wrong I do not think he is evil or anything like that. However, he twists facts, evidence and the English language (see Breaking point - David Orsam) to suit his agenda, if that is not dishonesty I not sure of another polite word to use. If there is a less 'unfriendly' term to use I'm all for it but from what I've read on these boards, his behaviour and his posting on Facebook he strikes me as rather stubborn man, not willing to allow others to disagree with his 'theory.' Many have tried and it seems, again from what I've read his rudeness and arrogance is at the forefront. I'm sorry but that is how I see it.

                                Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                                To me, the debate over '3:30' or 'about 3:30' is of lesser importance and diverts our attention away from the far more relevant fact that the alleged "missing time" can be traced to Robert Paul's highly problematic deposition and the statement attributed to him in LWN. That Paul's estimated time of departure was left unchallenged in the Missing Evidence episode is a far greater omission than the single word "about."
                                The 'about' for me is rather important. It's the seed of doubt planted so his readers can start to believe this invented time gap. It's not only that he does it with in his book he does it with Payne-James' 'evidence' and of course the 'name' thing to name two, there are many other examples in there as well.

                                Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                                Your visual demonstration admirably demonstrates the absurdity of putting too much faith in Paul's accuracy. Lechmere is crouching over Polly's body, knife in hand, a full minute after PC Neil has already discovered her lifeless body. And Neil's estimate dovetails with the accounts given by Mizen and Thain and Lechmere. Further, this account of events is supported by Abberline's internal report--the one man who seems to have tried to work it out as precisely as possible.
                                Absolutely correct. The book and the video have rather large holes in them, are they deliberate. I think so, a one off might be excusable but a dozen in the book or in the case of the video over 30. So whilst I certainly disagree with your point of Christer being dishonest, I told him today his book is good, good as in the sense it sets out to finger Lechmere and it does that, do I agree with it's conclusions, absolutely not, do I believe Lechmere is JtR? Not on what he presented no.

                                Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                                As has been pointed out about a hundred times, Robert Paul is the odd man out. A single witness being inaccurate is utterly commonplace.
                                Robert Paul is the suspicious one for me also and I've demonstrated a couple of times how he could have easily, just as easily as Lechmere have killed poor Polly. Do I think Paul is Jack the Ripper, absolutely not because I've not got 100% solid evidence to say so. However he could have been. Apologies if I've offended by suggesting Christer is dishonest.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X