Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Geddy2112]

Another interesting point is that Richardson found the front door closed when he got there and closed it behind him when he left. But it was found wide open by John Davies, indicating that someone went through the front door after Richardson and left it wide open.

Very true, thank you. I just can't see how the door would have obscured his view like the poster suggested even if it was self closing. It's 19 inches from the floor and like I said if it did as he said he would have hit her in the head as he opened it.

[Geddy2112]

I don’t follow….some youtube comment that is clearly wrong is wrong. So what? I just commented on the claim that the door was not self closing. It was.
It wouldn’t have touched her, Richardson had a clear view and stated the body was not there, and had the special attention of the police examining his story. Which was accepted. This means she was killed after Richardson left.

The main part of the point was that he claimed the door was self closing and thus he could not have seen the body, or more to the point the bottom of the door hid his view of the body, which to me is complete rubbish as I said it's approx 19 inches from the floor. And of course he would have had to open the door to sit on the step. So if the door when open obscured the view surely opening the door would have smacked her in the head. I did think from the photos I've seen the door was not self closing but as you correctly say Richardson said it was, so I guess in 1888 it was, apologies for the misunderstanding.

[Jon Guy]

Here’s what’s interesting, the fact that some reports say “about” while others say “at” proves one thing, Lechmere didn’t say “around 3:30” in some vague, wishy washy way. If he had been uncertain, every paper would have reported it that way. That’s how reporting works, if someone says “I think it was around 3:30”, you don’t suddenly get some papers confidently printing “He left at 3:30” out of nowhere. That doesn’t happen. So the fact that we have some sources giving a precise 3:30 means that at some point, Lechmere himself must have given a specific, exact time, not an approximation, not a hazy guess, but a clear-cut, definitive, unquestionable 3:30.

And if that’s the case, then guess what? The “about” reports don’t matter. Because when faced with multiple versions, the more specific one wins. Every. Single. Time.

If someone tells five people they left home “around 3:30” but tells two people “I left at 3:30,” you don’t just ignore the exact statement and pretend it never happened.

But sure, if it helps people sleep better at night, let’s just pretend Lechmere was a timekeeping enigma who spoke in riddles, sometimes saying “about,” sometimes saying “at,” just to keep us all guessing...

And even if we humor the idea that he said “about 3:30”, let’s be generous, how much wiggle room are we actually talking about here? One minute? Two? Five? Are we really supposed to believe he left at 3:37, just casually shuffling around for no reason before starting his walk? Even if we push it to 3:33 (which is already being way too charitable), the 8-minute gap doesn’t magically disappear. It’s still there, sitting in the middle of this case like an elephant in the room, waiting to be explained, except this elephant isn’t just sitting there, it’s stomping around, trumpeting at full volume, knocking over furniture, this one has a marching band, a spotlight, and a banner reading ‘HEY, WHAT ABOUT THESE 8 MINUTES?’ and yet some people are still desperately looking in the other direction, and would rather pretend that elephant isn’t there at all.

Maybe if they close their eyes and wish hard enough, the missing 8 minutes will just cease to exist. Or better yet, maybe we can just argue that Victorian clocks ran slower when Lechmere looked at them. Because anything, anything, is apparently more believable than admitting that there’s an unexplained gap in his timeline.

And since I know some people need to hear this again: the more specific one wins. Always. No exceptions. That’s how this works. That’s how it has always worked. That’s how it will always work.

Oh, did I mention that he left AT 3:30?



The Baron

and you are aware that Victorian`s had a habit of rounding the time off to the quarter hour?
They were not anally retentive digital time keepers like us

[FISHY1118]

I recall a thread titled ''Richardson'' that had over 3000 post , most of which showed plenty of doubt over the Chapmans time of death. Whoever the killer was, 1.10, 1.35 ,3.30 ,3.45 , shows consistency for early morning kills.

[The Baron]

Here’s what’s interesting, the fact that some reports say “about” while others say “at” proves one thing, Lechmere didn’t say “around 3:30” in some vague, wishy washy way. If he had been uncertain, every paper would have reported it that way. That’s how reporting works, if someone says “I think it was around 3:30”, you don’t suddenly get some papers confidently printing “He left at 3:30” out of nowhere. That doesn’t happen. So the fact that we have some sources giving a precise 3:30 means that at some point, Lechmere himself must have given a specific, exact time, not an approximation, not a hazy guess, but a clear-cut, definitive, unquestionable 3:30.

And if that’s the case, then guess what? The “about” reports don’t matter. Because when faced with multiple versions, the more specific one wins. Every. Single. Time.

If someone tells five people they left home “around 3:30” but tells two people “I left at 3:30,” you don’t just ignore the exact statement and pretend it never happened.

But sure, if it helps people sleep better at night, let’s just pretend Lechmere was a timekeeping enigma who spoke in riddles, sometimes saying “about,” sometimes saying “at,” just to keep us all guessing...

And even if we humor the idea that he said “about 3:30”, let’s be generous, how much wiggle room are we actually talking about here? One minute? Two? Five? Are we really supposed to believe he left at 3:37, just casually shuffling around for no reason before starting his walk? Even if we push it to 3:33 (which is already being way too charitable), the 8-minute gap doesn’t magically disappear. It’s still there, sitting in the middle of this case like an elephant in the room, waiting to be explained, except this elephant isn’t just sitting there, it’s stomping around, trumpeting at full volume, knocking over furniture, this one has a marching band, a spotlight, and a banner reading ‘HEY, WHAT ABOUT THESE 8 MINUTES?’ and yet some people are still desperately looking in the other direction, and would rather pretend that elephant isn’t there at all.

Maybe if they close their eyes and wish hard enough, the missing 8 minutes will just cease to exist. Or better yet, maybe we can just argue that Victorian clocks ran slower when Lechmere looked at them. Because anything, anything, is apparently more believable than admitting that there’s an unexplained gap in his timeline.

And since I know some people need to hear this again: the more specific one wins. Always. No exceptions. That’s how this works. That’s how it has always worked. That’s how it will always work.

Oh, did I mention that he left AT 3:30?



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

There really can be no doubt about when Chapman was killed. As Kattrup said, Richardson couldn’t possibly have missed a mutilated corpse no more than a foot or so from his left boot. Anyone walking down those steps to end up with their feet on the flags would have been pushing that door further open with each step unless he wanted the door in his face. To stand on the flags the door would have had to have been at least 90 degrees open, probably more, with the corpse in easy view. Richardson also later saw the corpse from next door so he knew its exact location and how much floor space it took up and so he couldn’t have been mistaken about it somehow being obscured.

Add to this Cadosch hearing sounds in the yard which couldn’t have occurred had there been a corpse there.

Add to this Long seeing a man and a woman at just the right time (allowing for 5 minutes clock leeway or so)

Against this we have a Doctor using methods that every medical expert who ever drew breath tells us were unreliable and the conclusion is a fairly obvious one to arrive at.

Therefore, could Cross have killed Annie Chapman 90 minutes into his delivery schedule?

There’s more chance of us learning that Katy Price has vowed to live in a convent for the rest of her days and combine a life dedicated to prayer and solitary contemplation and an intensive study of medieval manuscripts.

[Fiver]

After he leaves his house AT 3:30, he strolls through Brady Street and Bucks Row, and by 3:45, he sees the woman by the wool warehouse. And what do we have here? We’ve got an 8-MINUTE GAP. 8 WHOLE MINUTES. Unaccounted for.

The Baron

And here you ignore what any of the police said to invent a gap.

"police constable Neil said that on Friday evening at a quarter to four he was proceeding down Buck’s-row Whitechapel, from Thomas-Street, when he found the body of the deceased." - Evening Post, 1 September, 1888

"Policeman George Myzen (sic) said that at a quarter to four on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-Street, Baker's-row. A man passing said to him, "You're wanted round in Buck's-row." That man was Carman Cross." - Star, 3 September, 1888.

"police Constable John Thail (sic) said that on his beat he passed the end of Buck's row. Witness passed the end about every thirty minutes. He, however, saw nothing there on the night of August 30th. At about 3.45 he was signalled by another constable, by the flashing of his lantern." - Echo, 17 September, 1888

"I beg to report that about 3.40. am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, “carman” of 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green was passing through Bucks Row, Whitechapel (on his way to work) he noticed a woman lying on her back on the footway...." - F.G. Abberline, 19 September, 1888

[FrankO]

OK, but like I said then for the YouTuber to be correct then when he opened it the door would surely have had to whack against her head if as he claims the door obscured his vision of the body when opened.

I don't know about the Youtuber, but Christer has something like this in mind (not the hands in front of his face, mind you). He's sitting facing more or less towards the cellar, the view to his left being blocked by the door.

Of course, at face value, he might have some point. If he was sitting like this, then while sitting, he probably wouldn't have been able to see Chapman's head and shoulders, but wouldn't he have been able to see her lower part of the body either? Or at least the left knee, that was turned outwards, towards the cellar?

Furthermore, he was sitting on the middle step with his feet were on the flags of the yard. When he stood up, he will have moved his upper body forward, as we all do when we stand up, especially from a low point as the middle step was. So, at that point the door wouldn't have blocked his view any longer.

But, aside from this theoretical approach, Richardson was clear in his testimony: it was getting light, he could see all over the place and could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then.



Another interesting point is that Richardson found the front door closed when he got there and closed it behind him when he left. But it was found wide open by John Davies, indicating that someone went through the front door after Richardson and left it wide open.

[Fiver]

The Birmingham Post - Tuesday, September 04, 1888

“He left his home at half-past three on Friday morning, and passed through Brady Street and Buck's Row. When he got near the gateway of the wool warehouse in Buck's Row, at about a quarter to four, he saw the figure of a woman on the opposite side of the road.”


I swear, I’m talking about one suspect, and the lot are busy chasing some random guy who probably couldn’t even tie his own shoelaces, let alone commit a murder...

Lechmere didn’t say he left his house around 3:30 AM, or maybe 3:30, or close to 3:30, or ‘give or take a few minutes.’ NO, NO, NO, Lechmere explicitly said he LEFT HIS HOUSE AT 3:30 AM. Not 3:29, not 3:31, but 3:30. 3:30.

The Baron

You are blatantly manipulating the evidence to match your theory rather than looking at the whole picture. The majority of newspapers said "about", not "at".

"Charles A. Cross, a carman, in the employ of Messrs. Pickford and Co., said that on Friday morning he left his home about half-past three." - Echo, 3 September, 1888.

"Charles Cross, the carman referred to, said he was in the employ of Messrs Pickford and Co. On Friday morning he left home about half-past three." - Evening Post, 3 September, 1888

"H Charles Cross, a carman in the employ of Messrs. Pickford and Co., said he left home about 3:30 on the morning of the murder and he reached Pickfords at about four o'clock." North Mail, Newcastle Daily Chronicle · Tuesday, September 04, 1888

"Charles A. Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for some years. On Friday morning he left home about half past three to go to work,..." - Daily News, 4 September, 1888.

"Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row." - Daily Telegraph, 4 September, 1888.

"Charles A. Cross, a carman, said that he was in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. He left home about half-past three o'clock on Friday morning to go to work, and in passing through Buck's-row he saw on the opposite side something lying against a gateway." - Illustrated Police News, 8 September, 1888

[Kattrup]

OK, but like I said then for the YouTuber to be correct then when he opened it the door would surely have had to whack against her head if as he claims the door obscured his vision of the body when opened.

I don’t follow….some youtube comment that is clearly wrong is wrong. So what? I just commented on the claim that the door was not self closing. It was.
It wouldn’t have touched her, Richardson had a clear view and stated the body was not there, and had the special attention of the police examining his story. Which was accepted. This means she was killed after Richardson left.

[Geddy2112]

How is it clear? The picture is much later. In 1888, the door closed on its own.

OK, but like I said then for the YouTuber to be correct then when he opened it the door would surely have had to whack against her head if as he claims the door obscured his vision of the body when opened.

[Kattrup]

Indeed, but from the pictures it's clear it does not self close

How is it clear? The picture is much later. In 1888, the door closed on its own.

[Geddy2112]

The Birmingham Post - Tuesday, September 04, 1888
“He left his home at half-past three on Friday morning, and passed through Brady Street and Buck's Row. When he got near the gateway of the wool warehouse in Buck's Row, at about a quarter to four, he saw the figure of a woman on the opposite side of the road.”

Ah goody, pleased you have posted that. You do know, using simple Pythagoras Theory that the Wool Warehouse is 61 feet away from where Polly lay. SO if he crossed the road on that diagonal, I'm presuming most would, then at the middle of the road he was 30 feet or 10 yards away from the body when he heard Robert Paul and turned back to go towards him.

He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed over to the body

So basic maths proves to us Charles Cross was never closer than 10 yards from the body alone. Case closed, not guilty... AGAIN.

[Geddy2112]

I'm pretty sure that if there were such a newspaper article, we would have heard about it from Ed and Christer.

Oh no they would not tell us, as I say that would mean he used the name Cross in 'everyday life.' They do not want that.. and it will be a minus one on the 12000 known documents that has his signature on etc.

[Geddy2112]

John Richardson at the inquest:
When I had cut the piece of leather off my boot I tied my boot up and went out of the house to the market. I did not close the back door ; it closes itself. I closed the front door.

Indeed, but from the pictures it's clear it does not self close and the YouTube poster said it was covering Annie's body. So surely that means if he had to open the door it would have cracked her across the head? Something does not add up here...