The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

I'd say that puts an end to the whole stupid 'false name' argument, but I have a feeling it won't make a hap'orth of difference.

Love,

Caz
X

And that means that he could have called himself Higginbottomsworth just that once, never having used it before, never again using it - and it STILL would not be a false name.
In fact, he could not use a false surname - it is impossible to do so. No matter which name you use, it is legally correct.

Could you explain to me, Caz, this excerpt from an article in the honourable Grimsby Express:

"A MAN who gave a false name to the police when he was spotted after failing to appear in court has been jailed for four months.

Nathan Gladwell, 25, of Risedale, Caistor, was stopped by officers after they saw him walking down Monks Road in Lincoln on June 19.

Gladwell was arrested and in interview admitted giving a false name because he knew he was wanted.

Judge John Pini QC told Gladwell: "You were seen by police officers on Monks Road at 3.15pm and you obstructed them by giving them a false name and date of birth."

Gladwell admitted obstructing a police officer, breaching a suspended sentence for theft, and breaching a conditional discharge for theft."


Wherefrom did that judge get the idea that Gladwell used a "false name"? He incidentally swopped Gladwell for Shepperton. Surely, that was his legal right to do so...?

In the documentary, did you notice how Andy Griffiths said that he would have been obliged to give his real name to the inquest? Griffiths seems to anoyher one of those people hanging on to the "stupid" idea of false names...

[Fisherman]

Cross: Her bonnet was off but close to her head

PC Neil:Her bonnet was off and lying close to her left hand



Described as close to her head, and close to her left hand - these are very helpful descriptions - no ambiguity

Why, maybe it was kicked their by accident, maybe someone picked it up with a view to putting it on her head, until they gave up trying to prop her up.



Indeed, with such attention to detail you should appreciate what I am trying to point out to you.
We know Paul and Cross tampered with the body before PC Neil got there.

I don`t know why you`re getting defensive about it, Christer ?
It`s just another little detail working towards an accurate picture of what happened.

Dear me, Jon - I am not defensive at all! Itīs just that I am thinking that the hat could well have been positioned between head and hand.
Polly Nichols was around 150 centimeters tall. That means that if she stretched out her arms, there would equally be 150 centimeters between the fingertips of each hand.
Since the trunk would have been around 40 centimeters wide, we are left with arms that were around 150/2 - 40/2 centimeters=55 centimeters long.

That means that there would have been a stretch of around half a metre between head and hand, roughly speaking. Place a hat in the middle of that distance, and it will be close to both body parts.

I donīt quite see how it is defensive to promote such a stance...? I am in no way opposed to thinking they could have moved the hat, I just donīt see any necessity.

[caz]

So why would the paper remark on it? You seem to forget this point.

If you want your suspect to be mister grey, boring, unremarkable everyman, the kind of guy who blends into the crowd and is careful not to draw negative attention to himself, particularly in a public setting like a murder inquest, where all eyes will be on the man who found the body, I would suggest you might want to change tack on this one and accept the argument that the paper was keen to describe the finder any way it could, while Lechmere was keen not to look out of place, and not to waste time changing his clothes if his whole working day was unlikely to be taken up with giving his evidence.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

No, no you aremissing the intricacies of the British class system. No working class man would address another as "old man".

That's still nonsense, I'm afraid, C4.

Yes, they would.

Working class people from Victorian times also thought nothing of using such expressions as "why" and "I say", as in "Why, isn't it strange how some people are determined to place an upper class gent in Buck's Row without any good evidence?", or "I say, there's an awful lot of misunderstanding here about Victorian slang!".

Just because they might sound a bit posh and archaic to a modern ear; it doesn't mean they would be considered so to a working class male (or "white collared" male from a working class background) in 1888.

But straight back to discussing Lechmere we go...(never thought I'd say that, let alone want it!)

[caz]

The 3.45 time was not much of a challenge of the police, methinks. There was a difference of five minute only, and any coroner would know that such a difference could easily be explained with no sinister implications,
Plus, it was not out of sync with the other timings on the whole - it was IN sync with the implications of Llewellyn.

Amazing, and yet you have argued that we can take Paul's 3.45 as an exact time because he gave it as an exact time.

Now, it's only a difference of five minutes, which as 'any coroner' would know could easily be explained with no sinister implications. Obviously this common sense approach would apply equally to Paul's timing and the police timings. Any coroner in Victorian times would know this, yes, and most other reasonable observers, but not apparently a Lechmere theorist in 2015, who sees only sinister implications for his suspect in the collective timings given by the various witnesses, even though accuracy could never be guaranteed in those days down to the nearest ten or fifteen minutes, let alone five.

Words - almost - fail me.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Interesting point I’ve just discovered, you can give any surname but you must give your real Christian names, which, of course is exactly what Xmere did.
"A man may have divers names at divers times, but not divers Christian names. Any one may take on himself whatever surname or as many surnames as he pleases, without statutory licence"
Dictionary of American and English Law, definitions.

I'd say that puts an end to the whole stupid 'false name' argument, but I have a feeling it won't make a hap'orth of difference.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jon Guy]

How does that NOT leave us with an area that was close to both head and hand? ..

Cross: Her bonnet was off but close to her head

PC Neil:Her bonnet was off and lying close to her left hand

I canīt see how the hat must have been moved. And why..

Described as close to her head, and close to her left hand - these are very helpful descriptions - no ambiguity

Why, maybe it was kicked their by accident, maybe someone picked it up with a view to putting it on her head, until they gave up trying to prop her up.

Oh, and the hand was not nearly touching the gate - it was in contact with it, I believe.

Indeed, with such attention to detail you should appreciate what I am trying to point out to you.
We know Paul and Cross tampered with the body before PC Neil got there.

I don`t know why you`re getting defensive about it, Christer ?
It`s just another little detail working towards an accurate picture of what happened.

[Fisherman]

But her left hand was nearly touching the gate ?

How does that NOT leave us with an area that was close to both head and hand? Maybe I am daft, but I canīt see how the hat must have been moved. And why.
Oh, and the hand was not nearly touching the gate - it was in contact with it, I believe.

[Fisherman]

awesome dog-lots of energy. Good luck!

Thanks, Abby - yeah, heīs a regular power plant...!

[Jon Guy]

In all modesty, can I point out that the hat could have been close to BOTH head and hand...?

But her left hand was nearly touching the gate ?

[Abby Normal]

An absolutely and incredibly awesome dog. I am training him to be a researcher - he is by far the smarter one of us. Problem is, whenever I ask him who the killer was, he goes "Baul! Baul! Baul!"

Then again, heīs just a pup.

awesome dog-lots of energy. Good luck!

[curious4]

Off-thread, I know

Further to my previous:

http://m.mentalfloss.com/article.php?id=53529

Although I have my doubts about no 18

Cheers
C4

[Fisherman]

The devil is in the detail, Christer



Cross: Her bonnet was off but close to her head
Daily News Sept 4th

PC Neil:Her bonnet was off and lying close to her left hand
Reynolds Sept 2nd

In all modesty, can I point out that the hat could have been close to BOTH head and hand...?

[Fisherman]

A beaut dog.

An absolutely and incredibly awesome dog. I am training him to be a researcher - he is by far the smarter one of us. Problem is, whenever I ask him who the killer was, he goes "Baul! Baul! Baul!"

Then again, heīs just a pup.

[Jon Guy]

If he took it to France, maybe a better question is how did the handout advertisements from the late evening clubs get to Sickert in France so he could doodle on them? :

He took them with him, someone posted them to him, someone from England visited him with them

-or-

Did Cross also obtain them, and somehow learn to draw in Sickert's exact hand?:

Very possibly. It wouldn`t have been that difficult to see a sample of Sickert`s handwriting. Sickert was a Victorian celebrity (which is why he and other Victorian celebrities are named in the Ripper suspect game )

-or-

Was France on Cross' meat delivery route?

Would Pickfords have delivered stuff to France ?
Yes