Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[MrBarnett]

It seems no (little records) survive or we might know what name he was known by there, and what he actually carted.

It seems that the goods station was open seven days a week, and that a regular Scotch Meat train arrived on a Sunday. So Lechmere may well have worked on a Sunday.

[Patrick S]

I said if you had PMd me instead I would've taken you more seriously. For the record you did not send me a PM although you are more than welcome.

It was quite rational wasn't it? Almost as rational as my computer time joke.

Columbo

AH! Honest mistake. Trying to understand your grammar and sentence structure is - I must confess - sometimes beyond me. Please continue advocating for and defending "Fisherman's" Crossmere theory! I'm sure he's very appreciative, having someone of your intellectual heft in his corner.

I'll pass on the PM invitation. No offense. I don't think we have much in common. I appreciate the invitation, though.

[GUT]

Thanks, I kind of figured that was explored but I thought maybe if any other documents, not necessarily about Lechmere, existed it would give us a picture of the processes a victorian cartman had to use.

Columbo

I'm not sure there was anything complex about the job. Drive the cart. Depending on what was being carried probably didn't even handle the goods (in spite of claims if blood from meat etc) that was the offsiders job the Carman was the driver and would watch, care for and control the horses while loading and unloading was going on.

[Columbo]

Quite a rational response. For all of our edification, please post this Private Message you claim that I sent you. I'd love to read it since I'm quite sure I didn't write it.

I said if you had PMd me instead I would've taken you more seriously. For the record you did not send me a PM although you are more than welcome.

It was quite rational wasn't it? Almost as rational as my computer time joke.

Columbo

[Columbo]

It seems no (little records) survive or we might know what name he was known by there, and what he actually carted.

Thanks, I kind of figured that was explored but I thought maybe if any other documents, not necessarily about Lechmere, existed it would give us a picture of the processes a victorian cartman had to use.

Columbo

[Patrick S]

When you read these posts you can tell the difference between the "quick witted" (like Harry) and the ones who are just flat out angry and jealous. You can deny it it but that doesn't make a bit of difference. You don't want anyone to agree with Fisherman and that's obvious. You're guilty of everything you've just accused me of doing but in a different direction. It's ok but it's not gonna change anything I post and it won't change yours. I'll defend and agree as I see fit. So should you. Now relax or I'll start a new thread accusing you of being JTR!

I would probably take you a little more seriously if you didn't feel the need to act like a little b**ch on a thread and just PM'd me.

Columbo

Quite a rational response. For all of our edification, please post this Private Message you claim that I sent you. I'd love to read it since I'm quite sure I didn't write it.

[GUT]

This will have me studying the maps tonight! I appreciate the info.

Another, possibly dumb question that may have already been addressed. Do any of Pickfords records survive from that time? I was thinking that the carmans obviously have schedules and delivery receipts that, if existed, may help us understand Lechmere's movements.

Columbo

It seems no (little records) survive or we might know what name he was known by there, and what he actually carted.

[David Orsam]

From my latest post to you:

Now, if you cannot conclusively prove that I have claimed as a proven fact that there is a time gap, this discussion is over.

And there it rests.

So you've ducked the question again, no surprise there Fisherman.

I have no idea why I need to "conclusively prove" that you have claimed as "a proven fact" that there is a time gap. I've never said that you have claimed as a proven fact that there is a time gap. That is why I ignored your previous statement.

But I will say that you have certainly challenged my claim that the "9 minute gap" is a gap of fiction which should not be repeated. And you have now said in this thread that it seems that "there is a major gap in Lechmere's timings". That is what I'm challenging.

Furthermore, to try and clarify what you are saying, in my previous question I expressly asked whether you agreed or disagreed with the statement that there is a major time gap and you decided not to respond.

What more can I do?

But if you don't want to answer questions from me designed to try to get to the bottom of this matter there is nothing I can do.

[Columbo]

I salute your efforts to encourage all parts to move away from the timings issue, to begin with! So over to the question you ask:

Hereīs the thing:

If we look at the normally accepted string of murders, Nichols-Chapman-Stride-Eddowes-Kelly, then we can see that three out of these five victims were killed along the logical routes for the carman between his home and work: Nichols-Chapman-Kelly.
All of these three victims were, if we believe the medicos, killed at hours that seemingly correspond with the approximate times when Lechmere would have passed them.
Not so Stride and Eddowes, who died a lot earlier, and NOT along the carmanīs logical routes to work.
Why?
Well, to begon with, they did not die on a regular working day - they died on the night of a Saturday, meaning that if Lechmere followed the regular working schedule, he had the next day off.
Having the next day off was what opened up possibilitites for an Eastender in regular employment to make the Saturday evening an evening out. You could pay visits to friends and relatives, you could go out to a pub and stay out late, cause you were free the next day.
Liz Stride died in Dutfields Yard, Berner Street, St Georgeīs-in-the-East. She died at around 1 AM. A very short way from Dutfields Yard Mary Ann Street. Here, Lechmereīs mother lived together with one of his daughters.
It is easy to envisage a scenario where Lechmere had payed a visit to his motherīs place on that Sunday, and how he found and killed Stride on his way home. Similarly, he may have been on a pub round or visiting old friends - Berner Street was smack, bang in the midst of the houses where Lechmere had grown up and lived until a few weeks before the Ripper murders began.
Speculation has it that after killing Stride, a frustrated Ripper walked west to Mitre Square, where he found, killed and mutilated Kate Eddowes.
The logical route from Berner Street to Mitre Square goes along Lechmeres old trek to work from James Street (todays Burslem Street). Mitre Square is a copule of hundred yards from the Pickfords depot in Broad Street. And a straight line from Mitre Square to 22 Doveton Street will more or less take us past the doorway in Goulston Street where the apron piece carried away from the Mitre Square murder site was subsequently dropped.

Now, make the assumption that we swop murder dates for these victims. Letīs say that Nichols was killed on the Eddowes murder date and Eddowes on the Nichols murder date, and that Stride was killed on the Kelly murder date, whereas Kelly was slain on the Stride date.
What happens?
Well, then we have Nichols being killed in the right spot for Lechmere to have been the killer, but on the wrong date, since he probably had his day off, we have Eddowes being killed in a spot where Lechmere had no reason to be on his early morning job trek, we have Stride getting whacked on the wrong place and Kelly at what was seemingly the wrong time.
Move one bit of the puzzle and the accusations against Lechmere crumble.
Leave it as it is, and he seems to fit in every single part.

This will have me studying the maps tonight! I appreciate the info.

Another, possibly dumb question that may have already been addressed. Do any of Pickfords records survive from that time? I was thinking that the carmans obviously have schedules and delivery receipts that, if existed, may help us understand Lechmere's movements.

Columbo

[Columbo]

It's also untrue that the people you named have not come up with new ideas. For instance, I've written extensively, offering a different and, I think, more reasonable explanation of Mizen and his behavior around Buck's Row. As well, I've researched Lechmere's life and posted what I've found. Further, MANY of us have posted our own "ideas" that have nothing to do with Lechmere. So, you won't find them here, on the Crossmere threads.

Well, you certainly have not come up with anything new on this thread lately. I've read plenty of your other posts on other subjects and you are bright about what you speak. I've never insulted that. But I stand but what I say.

Last thing. Not to be overly complimentary to my fellow posters as I may come to regret it, but most everyone here is very intelligent and quick witted. They know this stuff inside out. Finding little insults and jabs in responses is part of the ambiance on this board. It's sometimes fun and sometimes not so much. Stop trying to referee. Stop trying to speak for your fellow posters motivations (i.e. jealousy) and, for GOD'S sake, stop trying to be "Fisheman's" hype-man, or bodyguard, or schoolyard defender, or whatever you're trying to do. He didn't ask for it and certainly doesn't need it.

When you read these posts you can tell the difference between the "quick witted" (like Harry) and the ones who are just flat out angry and jealous. You can deny it it but that doesn't make a bit of difference. You don't want anyone to agree with Fisherman and that's obvious. You're guilty of everything you've just accused me of doing but in a different direction. It's ok but it's not gonna change anything I post and it won't change yours. I'll defend and agree as I see fit. So should you. Now relax or I'll start a new thread accusing you of being JTR!

I would probably take you a little more seriously if you didn't feel the need to act like a little b**ch on a thread and just PM'd me.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

I'm not implying that you are ducking the question Fisherman, I'm saying you ARE ducking it. You HAVE ducked it. That's not being rude, it's being direct and blunt. I asked you if you agreed or disagreed with the statement in the documentary and you have failed to tell me. I wasn't asking you to re-word or improve the documentary script, I was asking whether you agreed with it. You have now twice failed to tell me if you agree or disagree with the statement so you've ducked it.

But let's take your preferred wording: "It seems that Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings". To me, that has effectively the same meaning as "Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings" so I don't understand your reluctance to agree. But let's move on to the next question which I would kindly request you to answer.

The statement in the documentary: "Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings" (now re-worded as "It seems that Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings") was based on you saying, and I quote, "That would have meant that if Lechmere left his home as he said at 3.30 he should have been here at 3.37". Do you say this is a completely accurate statement? Yes or no?

When answering could you please focus on two elements of your statement:

1. Is it correct that Lechmere said he left his home "at 3.30"?

2. Is 7 minutes the only possible time for the walk from Lechmere's home to the murder scene in Bucks Row?

Let's see if you can answer this in a straightforward and concise manner ("yes" or "no" only to each element please) without ducking or waffling. Then I can be polite and say "thank you".

From my latest post to you:

Now, if you cannot conclusively prove that I have claimed as a proven fact that there is a time gap, this discussion is over.

And there it rests.

[David Orsam]

Please donīt imply that I am ducking any of your questions, because I am not.

I'm not implying that you are ducking the question Fisherman, I'm saying you ARE ducking it. You HAVE ducked it. That's not being rude, it's being direct and blunt. I asked you if you agreed or disagreed with the statement in the documentary and you have failed to tell me. I wasn't asking you to re-word or improve the documentary script, I was asking whether you agreed with it. You have now twice failed to tell me if you agree or disagree with the statement so you've ducked it.

But let's take your preferred wording: "It seems that Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings". To me, that has effectively the same meaning as "Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings" so I don't understand your reluctance to agree. But let's move on to the next question which I would kindly request you to answer.

The statement in the documentary: "Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings" (now re-worded as "It seems that Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings") was based on you saying, and I quote, "That would have meant that if Lechmere left his home as he said at 3.30 he should have been here at 3.37". Do you say this is a completely accurate statement? Yes or no?

When answering could you please focus on two elements of your statement:

1. Is it correct that Lechmere said he left his home "at 3.30"?

2. Is 7 minutes the only possible time for the walk from Lechmere's home to the murder scene in Bucks Row?

Let's see if you can answer this in a straightforward and concise manner ("yes" or "no" only to each element please) without ducking or waffling. Then I can be polite and say "thank you".

[Patrick S]

Hi Harry,

No dis-respect but it looks like you and David and Patrick along with a few others are more interested in getting Fisherman to say he's wrong then debate and come up with new ideas.


Columbo

As it pertains to me, that's completely untrue. The issue - for me and others, I think - is that "Fisherman" presents something, something interesting and noteworthy even, and he interprets it in a way that - frankly makes little to no sense to many of us. He reaches conclusions that a majority would likely have never so much as entertained. And that's frustrating. Thus, we debate, argue our perspectives, present our rational. EVERY ONE here understands that "Fisherman" will not - EVER - say he is "wrong". Nor should he. Anything is possible, if unlikely. Thus, we have a subject for debate that can continue, unabated, as no is very likely to be PROVEN wrong!

It's also untrue that the people you named have not come up with new ideas. For instance, I've written extensively, offering a different and, I think, more reasonable explanation of Mizen and his behavior around Buck's Row. As well, I've researched Lechmere's life and posted what I've found. Further, MANY of us have posted our own "ideas" that have nothing to do with Lechmere. So, you won't find them here, on the Crossmere threads.

Last thing. Not to be overly complimentary to my fellow posters as I may come to regret it, but most everyone here is very intelligent and quick witted. They know this stuff inside out. Finding little insults and jabs in responses is part of the ambiance on this board. It's sometimes fun and sometimes not so much. Stop trying to referee. Stop trying to speak for your fellow posters motivations (i.e. jealousy) and, for GOD'S sake, stop trying to be "Fisheman's" hype-man, or bodyguard, or schoolyard defender, or whatever you're trying to do. He didn't ask for it and certainly doesn't need it.

[Robert St Devil]

I don't presume that 4am was the time of the Doctor's arrival, it was the time he was called up by Thain. Then he had to get dressed and make his way to the murder scene, so he would have arrived at the murder scene after 4am (estimating 5 to 10 minutes).

The Daily Telegraph reports Tomkins said "When he arrived at Buck's-row the doctor and two or three policemen were there." And The Illustrated Police News: "When he arrived in Buck's-row with the intention of seeing the murdered woman he found the doctor and three or four policemen there,.."

So there is conflict there between Neil's and Tomkin's statements....

As for Tomkin's timings:
The Times: "On Friday morning he left off work at 20 minutes past 4 and went for a walk.....The constable was at the slaughterhouse at about a quarter past 4, when he called for his cape."
The Daily Telegraph: "He and his fellow workmen usually went home upon finishing their work, but on that morning they did not do so. They went to see the dead woman, Police-constable Thain having passed the slaughterhouse at about a quarter-past four, and told them that a murder had been committed in Buck's-row."
The Illustrated Police News: "He was at work in the slaughterhouse, Winthrop street, adjoining Buck's-row, from eight o'clock on Thursday night till twenty minutes past four o'clock on Friday morning. He generally went home after leaving work, but that morning he had a walk. A police-constable passed the slaughterhouse about a quarter-past four, and told the men there that a woman had been murdered in Buck's-row."

So too many mentions of 4:15-4:20 to expect he stated "quarter to" instead of "quarter past".

Trust me, Billiou, i know better with this Board than to expect any acceptance of ,,rewriting,, history. But that wasn,t my intent. Only thst ,the story, {yea, postmodern thought} would make more sense HAD he stated ,,quarter to,,. Plus we have to accoung for the 2 slaughter-house men that PC Neil reports at the inquest.

Since you are doing news research, you might consider a month,s subscription to that British newd archive site. There is some insight there; however, it does challenge your reliance on press reporting since you will encounter varying accounts of events (I think i tracked 3 different ,tales, about the bloodhounds.) Two reports stuck out to me - the journalist who visits the sites of all the murders in late November (expands slightly on the Stride crime scene), AND the report of George Hutchinson,s appearance on the day he appeared with ,his evidence,. The reporter mentions that Hutch appeared to have had a boil removed from his face recently (shades of Blotchy).

Best o,luck to your research.

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett:

Fish,

I was questioning the assumption that Lechmere had walked the same route for 20+ years. He hadn't. We know he had only lived at Doveton Street for a few weeks when Nichols was killed but we have no idea exactly how long he had worked for Pickfords or which depot(s) he had been attached to during that time.

Well, we do have some idea, but we cannot be sure. Thanks for the info, anyhow!

I doubt Lechmere enjoyed the privilege of a higher education, so he would have started work long before the Broad Street Goods Yard had opened.

Quite probably, yes.

The Haydon Square depot was open at the time he would probably have left school and he lived nearby. Furthermore it was in H div and his stepfather, who would have made a good referee, was an H division police officer. Lechmere's own son was working as a van guard aged 14. I would 'lean' towards his having secured the job on the recommendation of his father .

I would not go that far. Itīs a possibility amongst others. But I can warm to the idea that Lechmere would have started out working at an early age - but hardly as a carman. I am inclined to think that he may have done other work before joining up with Pickfords as a carman, and I think that may well have happened in combination with the opening of the Broad Street branch.


This stepfather of course is the man who referred to his stepson as Charles Cross a few years before, so I can see why you might 'lean' away from this scenario.

I am neither for nor against, Gary. And I try not to weigh all things so as to be able to promote Lechmere. I actually try to be neutral, since I believe that helps.
It would have been common enough to have your father helping out with getting a job. But if - as I speculate - he became a carman when the Broad Street branch opened, then he may quite well have gotten that job without his fathers help. Thomas Cross had a sickly year left to live when Broad Street opened up.