The Lechmere trail - so far

[caz]

Why would Cross feel compelled to come forward in light of the publication of the Paul interview? There's no description of him. His role is marginalized by Paul. This - to me - seems to work in his favor.

If Cross had killed Nichols, approached Paul, went with him in search of the police, found a PC (Mizen), and successfully avoided capture (with the murder weapon on his person), unnamed and unidentified, why would he feel that "he had no choice" but to come forward in light of this "bombshell" from Lloyd's/Paul?

He got away with murder and was compelled to kill again. Why would he now submit himself - again - willfully, to the police?

He wouldn't, Patrick. The killer's aim, as we know, was to go on to bigger and better things on his next big night out. He had the best reason in the world to keep his head down and not get himself associated with the Nichols murder. The theory that Lechmere chose Hanbury Street for his next 'job' to focus police attention on Robert Paul for a second time (yes, you heard it right) is even more risible than the Mizen Scam. For one thing it was likely to have been the victims who dictated where they were prepared to 'do business', and for another, if Paul had become a serious suspect as a result, it would have been as Lechmere's partner-in-crime, given the order in which they claimed to have arrived in Buck's Row.

You couldn't make it up.

Oh wait...

Love,

Caz
X

[Sally]

"Killier", Sally?

No, to rhyme you need to be exact:

To listen to the advice of Sally
is to add to ignoranceīs tally

More like that. Have a try - itīs great fun once you get the hang of it!

Advice, Fish? I wouldn't dream of it. Simply my [albeit flippant] opinion - which is all any of us have at the end of the day [a gross simplification, true, but I'm feeling generous]

[Sally]

It does? How about this then?

The theory of Crossmere the Killer
Couldn't be any sillier



No?

[Actually I thought that rhymed quite well, myself]

Except that - it's not so much of a theory really as a rhetorical construct founded upon a central premise for which there is no evidence whatever.

But hey, what the hell - 'theory' scans better, imagine the clutter that would've resulted if I'd tried to get all that into a two line verse.

[Fisherman]

It does? How about this then?

The theory of Crossmere the Killer
Couldn't be any sillier



No?

[Actually I thought that rhymed quite well, myself]

"Killier", Sally?

No, to rhyme you need to be exact:

To listen to the advice of Sally
is to add to ignoranceīs tally

More like that. Have a try - itīs great fun once you get the hang of it!

[Sally]

It rhymes badly.

It does? How about this then?

The theory of Crossmere the Killer
Couldn't be any sillier



No?

[Actually I thought that rhymed quite well, myself]

[caz]

We do know, however, that Robert Paul said that he was in Bucks Row at "exactly" 3.45. If that was an estimation, it was a very odd one. The better guess is that he had a timepiece, either at home or a pocketwatch that he anxiously followed, being late for work.
At the inquest, he said that he left home "just before" 3.45, meaning that his Bucks Row estimate seems to fit very well here - he had but a minuteīs walk to Bucks Row.

But what if Paul was not always completely truthful , or the timepiece he was using not always 100% accurate to the minute?

Did he check the time just as he closed his front door, or a minute or two before he was ready to leave, guessing that interval? Did he check the time again when he came across Cross, or did he guess afterwards how many seconds it had probably taken him to get to the scene from the last time he checked?

Coupled with the habit people had back then of timing things by the hour, half-hour or, at best, the quarter-hour, when they had no fail-safe method of taking it down further to the nearest minute (unless like Dr. Blackwell they had a special reason to keep an accurate watch on them and to consult it on arrival at a murder scene, for example - 1.16 am precisely in Stride's case), I wouldn't feel confident in basing any theory on the seemingly universal 3.45 time given for the discovery (by anyone) of Nichols.

Would it not have suited Robert Paul to stick with 3.45 regardless of any possible inaccuracy on his part, in support of his beef that the police (PC Neil) came late to the party but claimed to be first? If Paul had arrived just two, three, four or five minutes earlier, then left with Lechmere to fetch Mizen, there would have been little wrong with the cops arriving at 3.45 (or thereabouts) and saying so.

Assuming Nichols was on the main Whitechapel Road looking for likely doss tokens when she met her killer, how can anyone be sure Lechmere would have had enough time to leave home, get solicited by her and agree to go to Buck's Row (a street where he might encounter familiar faces he has seen before on his walk to work - Robert Paul was luckily a stranger who used that route at the same time) and attack her there before the next person happened along?

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

I see a lot of insults here from "Fisherman" directed at anyone who doesn't agree with him. Odd from the guy who acts as if he's been nailed to the Cross if we're not leading cheers for him.

In all fairness to Christer, though, I'd be pretty nasty and insulting too if I were reduced to the sorts of leaps in logic he's been forced into making. I'm honestly left to wonder if he actually believes in this thing anymore. Alas, like a seasoned politician the only thing to do is to keep repeating the absurd in hopes that the "true believers" and the gullible, at least, will still buy-in.

[Fisherman]

Thinking about this more it could even be as simple as his supervisor being told"

"I'm that carman that was with Baul"

Sup: "Well Charlie me lad you'd better get along and tell the coppers all 'bout it then".

But Fish won't like that because the newspapers didn't mention it.

Yeah, but since when do you care about what I like or not...?

Read my answer to Harry - it covers my thoughts on this. But you wonīt like it, because... because, ehhh... well, you wonīt like it.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Just shows your ignorance of how the word summons can be used in it's broader sense.Who said anything about a written summons,or having the coroner involved,or a runner.Cross would certainly have told his employers the reason he needed to be absent from work,and a good employer w ould assist a good employee.Simple,but a little too difficult for you to understand.
Keep up the sarcasm,it's all you have going for you.

Oh, I donīt know that - I think the lacking quality on account of many a poster also works to my advantage.

So letīs look at all this again:

There is a gruesome murder committed in Bucks Row on Friday morning. A carman finds the body, but cannot make his mind up how grave the case is. He sets out, together with a fellow carman, to find a PC and tell him about the woman they have found.

On the next day, and the day after that, Saturday and Sunday, the papers are filled with reports about the worst murder ever to have been committed in London, more or less. It is the talk of the town.

The carman, though, takes no heed of this. He does not go to the police at this stage, in spite of knowing that he has played a large role in a very high-profile murder case. He instead lets the weekend pass, and then he tells a foreman at his work about it on Monday instead. The foreman alerts the police, who directly summons Lechmere to attend to the inquest.

But how does the foreman go about it? If he tells the nearest PC, this PC can hardly summons Lechmere on his own. So the foreman either goes to the closest police station, or the alerted PC does this, whereafter the summons is issued.

How does all of this pan out? Why did Lechmere not go to the police double quick? Because, it will no doubt be reasoned, he was anxious that he may be implied - or he did not want to embarrass his family (that IS a reoccurring theme, so letīs not forget it).

But if he had these incentives to stay away, and if staying away was his wish, then why did he tell a foreman and take the very obvious risk that the foreman would go to the police?

It rhymes badly.

Lechmere came forward out of his own free will, that much is obvious. It is equally obvious that he came forward at a remove in time that dovetailed with when the Robert Paul interview was published. It is equally obvious that if Lechmere felt a sudden urge to come clean, then that sudden urge was post- not pre the publishing of the Paul interview. And no matter how we look on things, that IS interesting from a perspective of suggested guilt.

The papers commented on how the carman emerged in a rough sacking apron. If he had been fetched by the police directly from Broad Street, there would have been little reason to comment on this.
If the carman came forward without having been summoned, it would be easier to see why the clothing was remarked upon.

Like I said, there can be no certainty about the details, and so we are left to look at the implications. Once we have, we can present a small number of credible scenarios and a huge number of less credible ones. In both cases, it applies that we cannot say with certainty that neither version is impossible.

[GUT]

The probability is that on the day he appeared at the inquest,Cross attended at work,sought advice from an overseer as to what should be done,and the police were advised.He w as summond to attend the inquest,given permission by an overseer to leave work,and arrived at the inquest in his work clothes. What is impossible in that happening?

Thinking about this more it could even be as simple as his supervisor being told"

"I'm that carman that was with Baul"

Sup: "Well Charlie me lad you'd better get along and tell the coppers all 'bout it then".

But Fish won't like that because the newspapers didn't mention it.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Just shows your ignorance of how the word summons can be used in it's broader sense.Who said anything about a written summons,or having the coroner involved,or a runner.Cross would certainly have told his employers the reason he needed to be absent from work,and a good employer w ould assist a good employee.Simple,but a little too difficult for you to understand.
Keep up the sarcasm,it's all you have going for you.

[Fisherman]

Probably for the same reason that newspapers today include all sorts of irrelevant material in articles. Which I often suspect is because they need to fill another few column lines.

You are going to make a stunning researcher one fine day, Gut! Yes, that is how the job is done - when a paper makes a remark on something, just treat it as irrelevant and an effort to fill a few column lines.

Finally, we are making some progress.

[GUT]

Nor am I, but I would opt for his Sunday best. But I am sure that the paper that remarked about it did NOT expect him to wear his working clothes. Simple soul that I am, I tend to think this is why they remarked at all.

Why do you think they remarked about it, Gut? Maybe you have something of interest to add here?

Probably for the same reason that newspapers today include all sorts of irrelevant material in articles. Which I often suspect is because they need to fill another few column lines.

[Fisherman]

And probably had to go back and finish his shift when he was done at the inquest. I'm not sure what people expect him to wear.

Nor am I, but I would opt for his Sunday best. But I am sure that the paper that remarked about it did NOT expect him to wear his working clothes. Simple soul that I am, I tend to think this is why they remarked at all.

Why do you think they remarked about it, Gut? Maybe you have something of interest to add here?

[Fisherman]

The probability is that on the day he appeared at the inquest,Cross attended at work,sought advice from an overseer as to what should be done,and the police were advised.He w as summond to attend the inquest,given permission by an overseer to leave work,and arrived at the inquest in his work clothes. What is impossible in that happening?

If all that is required is that a conjured up scenario is not impossible, we may even be able to bring a polar bear, Paul Cézanne and a bunch of lewd Transsylvanian dwarfs on the stage.

So he went to work, told a foreman about what had happened on Friday, the foreman called upon a PC, the PC told his superiors who turned to the coroners office, and from the coroners office a summons was issued and put in the hands of a runner who delivered it promptly to Pickfords Broad Street station who were able to tell the police where Lechmere had gone with his cart on the day, whereupon the police sought him out and handed over the summons, and Lechmere abandoned his cart and set out for for the Working Lads Institution and joined the inquest.

Nope. I canīt find a single thing here that is impossible as such. Bravo, Harry.