Pickford & Co.

[Geddy2112]

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.



The documentary is a joke.

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.

[rjpalmer]

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.

[Geddy2112]

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..

[Tani]

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.

[Fiver]

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.

[Geddy2112]

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.

[rjpalmer]

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!

[Tani]

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.

[Geddy2112]

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.

[Tani]

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?

[Geddy2112]

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.

[rjpalmer]

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.

[Tani]

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

[rjpalmer]

Given we have spoken evidence of his having worked for them for a good length of time, his name and nothing to contradict him, whilst I see where you're coming from, I do think Occam's Razor is useful here and this is more than likely the Charles Cross we're talking about. If anyone has evidence of the other Charles Cross and how long he was at Pickford's etc. that would work.

Our Cross would have been about 27 at this time and I think that works. If we find the other one we could see which seems to work best.

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.

[Tani]

Funny this, Occam's Razor is one of a few things I've only ever seen mentioned on these boards. Another is datum and falsehood (I tend to be less polite and just say 'bloody lies') I'm sure there is a couple more but I can't remember the other 'Casebookisms.'

Curious, I use it all the time. The other forum I'm on uses it a lot, but that one is dedicated to Religion and so those kinds of phrases come up a lot. I just like to use it as a first principle.