Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[The Baron]

You shouldn’t have edited that, rjpalmer. See, before, it was just a dismissal, just a wave of the hand، but now?

Now you’ve acknowledged it. You felt it, didn’t you? That little hesitation, that tiny crack in the wall, that moment where you thought, hmm, maybe I should tweak that. And that’s beautiful. That’s all I need.

Because suspicion isn’t about whether it’s “weak” or “strong” whether it “should” or “shouldn’t” exist، it just does. Like a shadow, like a whisper in a quiet room.

You can argue against it all you want, but the second you felt the need to edit your words, suspicion was already standing right behind you, smiling.



The Baron

[Geddy2112]

And we can take it as read that Cross wasn’t wearing a pair of night vision goggles I assume Fiver?

Funny you should say that. I've tried to prove and I think I have successfully that the corner of the Wool Warehouse to where Polly was lying was 61 feet so on this diagonal the middle of the road was 30.5 feet from the body. (YouTube punters can't understand how this is possible if the road is only 25 feet wide, apparently they missed the day Pythagoras was being taught.)

So the point being according to YouTubers Cross can't have been 30.5 feet away and see well enough in the dark unless he had.....

Was he wearing X ray glasses to see that well in the dark?

Christ on a bike....

[rjpalmer]

You shouldn’t have edited that, rjpalmer. See, before, it was just a dismissal, just a wave of the hand، but now?

No, not really.

As I say, suspicion is just a state of mind--like joy, anger, curiosity, etc. It can be warranted or unwarranted, it can be well-deserved, or it can be bonkers.

There IS--for some reason--suspicion in your mind about a Victorian laborer stopping to inspect a tarpaulin, so it was foolish for me to deny your suspicion. That hardly means I share it.

As I see it, your suspicion about a simple act is based on a false assumption that a tarpaulin had little or no value. That's incorrect.

And what difference does it make? As I've roamed my own city, I've seen average, everyday people stop and inspect all sorts of things, including bags of garbage.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I do have a minor quibble. The East London Observer, the Daily News, Lloyd's, the Illustrated Police News, The Daily Telegraph, and other papers identified the tarpaulin as a 'tarpaulin sheet,' and I suspect that that is what it was. It just goes to show that different sources give conflicting data.

I don't think it matters, though. A tarpaulin sheet was hardly a worthless piece of fabric as suggested by The Baron. I've seen estimates of their worth, dating to the 1880s, as anywhere between one pound and two pounds. That's a lot of money for a working man, and it would be entirely natural that a man who dealt with tarpaulins to make a wrong assumption about an object in dim light, briefly assuming it was something he was used to seeing.

A dressmaker might have assumed a manikin, a rag-and-bone woman might have assumed a bundle of rags, etc.

Another weak attempt to muster suspicion where there isn't any.

Edit: suspicion is just a state of mind so let me rephrase that. Suspicion where there shouldn't be any.

Roger, as someone that used to work for a road haulage company a tarpaulin sheet is just another way of describing a tarpaulin. There is no such thing as a ‘tarpaulin’ and a ‘tarpaulin sheet.’ Cross thought that it might have been a tarpaulin, which could have fallen from a cart. And as he wasn’t an owl he couldn’t distinguish a dark tarpaulin in the pre-dawn in a very poorly lit street in a shadowed area.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Funny you should say that. I've tried to prove and I think I have successfully that the corner of the Wool Warehouse to where Polly was lying was 61 feet so on this diagonal the middle of the road was 30.5 feet from the body. (YouTube punters can't understand how this is possible if the road is only 25 feet wide, apparently they missed the day Pythagoras was being taught.)

So the point being according to YouTubers Cross can't have been 30.5 feet away and see well enough in the dark unless he had.....



Christ on a bike....

When you have to explain to those people the concept of the difficulty of seeing things in the dark in a poorly lit street you know what you are dealing with.

[Geddy2112]

It's clever how Lechmere somehow assumed the identity of an actual person living at No. 30 Berner Street in the 1881 census... And his father was a carman so that seals it!

But the YouTuber states -

your own your own flella , so maany folk thinkj its cross, top barristers ex detective superintendants ,im sorry but WHO ARE YOU?ever heard the expression if you carnt beat em , get some digging done with your new clue.

So he is convinced Lechmere and Letchford are the same man. I mean apart from Lechmere was already married and living in Doveton Street when the marriage cert you found showed Letchford married Christmas Day 1889. Evidence seems not to be important in this case... unless it's another bigamous marriage in the Lechmere clan.

[Geddy2112]

Fair enough, but quintuplets do happen, and the American boxer George Foreman had several sons named...George Foreman!

...and a grill, do not forget the grill.

[Geddy2112]

You shouldn’t have edited that, rjpalmer. See, before, it was just a dismissal, just a wave of the hand، but now?

Now you’ve acknowledged it. You felt it, didn’t you? That little hesitation, that tiny crack in the wall, that moment where you thought, hmm, maybe I should tweak that. And that’s beautiful. That’s all I need.

Because suspicion isn’t about whether it’s “weak” or “strong” whether it “should” or “shouldn’t” exist، it just does. Like a shadow, like a whisper in a quiet room.

You can argue against it all you want, but the second you felt the need to edit your words, suspicion was already standing right behind you, smiling.

The linguistics in your post seem rather 'fishy' to say the least. Mmmmm