Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Robert St Devil]

Tomkins also said (as reported in the Times): "The constable was at the slaughterhouse at about a quarter past 4, when he called for his cape. It was then that they heard of the murder.", and Thain said "Witness ran for the doctor", "When he was sent for the doctor he did not first go to the horse-slaughterers and say that as a murder had been committed he had better fetch his cape." [but he may have told them when he went to the slaughterhouse after going to the doctor].The Illustrated Police News reported Tomkins testimony as: "He did not see anyone from one o'clock on Friday morning till a quarter-past four, when the policeman passed the slaughterhouse." and Thain "He went to fetch his cape because he did not know where he would be sent by his inspector."

So I take this to mean that Thain probably went to the slaughterhouse to get his cape after he went to the doctors, and he probably told them then, not before ie therefore I take it he went straight to the doctors from the murder site.

Hello Billiou. The story would be easier to understand if Tomkins stated quarter-to four instead of a quarter-after. Then you wouldn't have this 30 minute gap of PC Thain seeking a doctor 'by way of Mitre Square'.

Regarding your assessment, that's tough... only because PC Neil claims that two men from the slaughter-house were first on the scene. That would be prior to 4a, since that is the time of Dr. Llewelyn's arrival.

Much easier to understand if 3:45 PC Neil finds the body; alerts PC Thain; PC Thain goes to retrieve his cape about 'quarter to' four; PC Thain either does tell of the murder or doesn't; seeks Dr. Llewelyn; arrives at 4a.

[MrBarnett]

[QUOTE=Billiou;377631]

Pierre, he hadn't been walking from Doveton St to Pickfords for 20 years. He had only moved to Doveton St recently and before that lived in James St (south of Whitechapel).

Hi Billiou,

See post 618 :-)

In addition, of course, Lechmere did not say he had worked at Pickford's Broad Street depot for 20+ years, just that he had worked for Pickfords for that period. There was another Pickfords' depot (Haydon Square) much closer to his old address in James Street and in the police division to which his stepfather had been attached.

Gary

[harry]

Billou,Colombo,Fisherman,
No need for me to reply in detail to your recent posts,more able posters than I have done that.
I will however make some comment.The claim that a Prima Facia case has been proven,in itself contends there is incriminating evidence.and that claim has been made from your sources.
Cross is the only person found alone with a victim. True,but no evidence of being in the victim's company at the time she was killed,and nothing excludes the likelyhood that someone else was.
Reasonable cause was all that was necessary for the police to suspect Cross and bring him to court.One must assume they didn't even have that.Do you consider yourselves more experienced,more capable,more informed than they.

[Columbo]

So why are we still skirting around the timing thing? It's a tug of war that's not gonna have a winner.

I would like to know what Fisherman's, David's and Pierre's opinions are concerning the possibility of Lechmere being involved in the other murders.

The double event is of particular interest, because its been mentioned Stride may not be a victim.

What were the circumstances for Lechmere to be in the area for Eddowes murder? Did she not die earlier in the morning than Nichols or Chapman?

Columbo

[Billiou]

[QUOTE=Pierre;377623]

Did Lechmere say anything about the details of his walk through the area on his way to work? If you use The Daily Telegraph you get:

"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."

Firstly, there is the long perspective of twenty years. This should be related to "about half-past three". It is a habitual time, and therefore he most probably estimates the time he left for work from his own knowledge about what time he usually left for work. So the time is not exact. Had he left off at an unusual point in time, he would most probably have known the exact time and given that time. So his statement must be corresponding to his idea of when he usually left home for work. This means that we must take into consideration the word "about". So what does this mean? It could be any point in time "about half-past three" whatever about is defined as. And then you need to strengthen the validity of this interpretation and use a survey where you let people in 1888 (!!!) estimate what the phrase "about half-past three" could mean.

[/B]

Pierre, he hadn't been walking from Doveton St to Pickfords for 20 years. He had only moved to Doveton St recently and before that lived in James St (south of Whitechapel).

[Billiou]

[QUOTE=Columbo;377615]

Let's start over and not waste this thread picking at each other OK? we're way above wasting time with petty bickering.

Columbo

Totally and utterly agree.

[Billiou]

Try as one might, it's hard to put much stock in the times that were reported, tracking the actors movements in and around Buck's Row. As it applies to Thain, though, his delay in reaching Llewellyn may have been affected by his retrieving his cape from the slaughterhouse and informing Tomkins of the murder:

"He (Tomkins) deposed that he was in the employ of Messrs. Barber, and was working in the slaughterhouse, Winthrop-street, from between eight and nine o'clock on Thursday evening till twenty minutes past four on Friday morning. 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."

Yet, Thain, in his testimony denied this: "When I went to the horse-slaughterer's for my cape I did not say that I was going to fetch a doctor, as a murder had been committed. Another constable had taken my cape there."

Clearly Tomkins and co. learned of the murder somehow because they reported to Buck's Row and were observed to have remained there until the body was removed to the mortuary. Further, it is not obvious what would have motivated Tomkins to lie about such a thing while it is obvious why Thain might lie: in order to protect both himself and the Met from further embarrassment.

The same can be surmised with respect to Mizen's testimony regarding his interaction with Cross and Paul in Baker's Row. Cross and Paul are fairly consistent in describing Mizen's reaction. Mizen denies much of what both men had to say.

Both PCs testimony would seem quite understandable, and somewhat innocuous and forgivable, were it not for the fact that allowing for Mizen's dishonesty damages the Lechmere the Ripper theory.

Tomkins also said (as reported in the Times): "The constable was at the slaughterhouse at about a quarter past 4, when he called for his cape. It was then that they heard of the murder.", and Thain said "Witness ran for the doctor", "When he was sent for the doctor he did not first go to the horse-slaughterers and say that as a murder had been committed he had better fetch his cape." [but he may have told them when he went to the slaughterhouse after going to the doctor].The Illustrated Police News reported Tomkins testimony as: "He did not see anyone from one o'clock on Friday morning till a quarter-past four, when the policeman passed the slaughterhouse." and Thain "He went to fetch his cape because he did not know where he would be sent by his inspector."

So I take this to mean that Thain probably went to the slaughterhouse to get his cape after he went to the doctors, and he probably told them then, not before ie therefore I take it he went straight to the doctors from the murder site.

[MrBarnett]

[QUOTE=Pierre;377623]

OK. A gap in time. How many minutes? 5, 10, 15?

Now, letīs see. There is a gap in time. What could any person in Whitechapel on his way to work do with a gap in time?

He could have:

had a meal
had a drink
met a friend
met a colleague
bought a prostitute

and so on and so forth. So there were other alternatives than committing a murder.

Did Lechmere say anything about the details of his walk through the area on his way to work? If you use The Daily Telegraph you get:

"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."

Firstly, there is the long perspective of twenty years. This should be related to "about half-past three". It is a habitual time, and therefore he most probably estimates the time he left for work from his own knowledge about what time he usually left for work. So the time is not exact. Had he left off at an unusual point in time, he would most probably have known the exact time and given that time. So his statement must be corresponding to his idea of when he usually left home for work. This means that we must take into consideration the word "about". So what does this mean? It could be any point in time "about half-past three" whatever about is defined as. And then you need to strengthen the validity of this interpretation and use a survey where you let people in 1888 (!!!) estimate what the phrase "about half-past three" could mean.

Secondly, as he stated:

"About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row."

you have two points in an episode with "nothing" in between. The first point is an explicit time "about half-past three" but the second is not: "passed through Buckīs Row".

He "left his home" - and "passed through Buckīs Row". Now, you will probably interpret this as Lechmere having been a bad boy during the episode. But the problem is that a silence of a source does not justify, historically - and you do try to write history, I guess - a filling of that silence with postulated events that have no data.

Even if

XXXXX XXXXX

you can not put X there and say it exists if there is a space. You can have an hypothesis about X - but then you must consider that it might as well be Y, Z or T.

So why X - given that there were other alternatives than committing a murder?

Especially as he did not try to avoid the inquest.

Kind regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

FYI, the 'long perspective of twenty years' was actually less than three months. Charles Lechmere moved to Doveton Street on 16/6/88.

Gary.

[Hercule Poirot]

I wouldn't mind Hercule, but you've misunderstood the argument. I'm not saying that Cross didn't do it!

I'm aware of that. But the purpose of the image was to illustrate humourously the exsitence of an endless debate. I agree I could have used a different set of words such as
"Cross did it",
"Prove it",
"I did",
"No, you didn't",
"Yes I did",
"No, you didn't",
"Yes I did"

Above all, I must admit I love the way both of you handle your arguments and never would have 'created' this image had I not appreciated the efforts both of you make to deliver a precise and realistic idea of the Cross Case for the benefit of all of us.

Respectfully,
Hercule Poirot

P.S. Should I edit the image allowing for a change of its wording? LOL

[Pierre]

A gap

[QUOTE=Fisherman;377610]

If it appears there was a gap, then there was probably a gap. Maybe there was not, thatīs a possibility too - but things are more often than not what they appear to be. See what I mean?

OK. A gap in time. How many minutes? 5, 10, 15?

Now, letīs see. There is a gap in time. What could any person in Whitechapel on his way to work do with a gap in time?

He could have:

had a meal
had a drink
met a friend
met a colleague
bought a prostitute

and so on and so forth. So there were other alternatives than committing a murder.

Did Lechmere say anything about the details of his walk through the area on his way to work? If you use The Daily Telegraph you get:

"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."

Firstly, there is the long perspective of twenty years. This should be related to "about half-past three". It is a habitual time, and therefore he most probably estimates the time he left for work from his own knowledge about what time he usually left for work. So the time is not exact. Had he left off at an unusual point in time, he would most probably have known the exact time and given that time. So his statement must be corresponding to his idea of when he usually left home for work. This means that we must take into consideration the word "about". So what does this mean? It could be any point in time "about half-past three" whatever about is defined as. And then you need to strengthen the validity of this interpretation and use a survey where you let people in 1888 (!!!) estimate what the phrase "about half-past three" could mean.

Secondly, as he stated:

"About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row."

you have two points in an episode with "nothing" in between. The first point is an explicit time "about half-past three" but the second is not: "passed through Buckīs Row".

He "left his home" - and "passed through Buckīs Row". Now, you will probably interpret this as Lechmere having been a bad boy during the episode. But the problem is that a silence of a source does not justify, historically - and you do try to write history, I guess - a filling of that silence with postulated events that have no data.

Even if

XXXXX XXXXX

you can not put X there and say it exists if there is a space. You can have an hypothesis about X - but then you must consider that it might as well be Y, Z or T.

So why X - given that there were other alternatives than committing a murder?

Especially as he did not try to avoid the inquest.

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

More Evasion

It is from the documentary, David. I was never the scriptwriter nor the narrator of it.
If you need to bring that on stage in order to try and snare me - which has so far miserably failed - things are really in a sad state

I know where it came from Fisherman, I even stated that in my post. I said "Do you agree with the statement from the documentary...". I know you are not the author of the statement but I am asking you if you agree with it. You have failed to answer. You have ducked yet another question.

It's interesting that you think I am trying to "snare" you by asking you if you agree with a simple statement. It doesn't matter where it came from, do you agree with it? That statement is "Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere’s timings". It's not a difficult question.

[Fisherman]

Considering that I have quoted you in this thread as saying that Lechmere left his house "at 3.30" and, on this basis, you have said that you believe there is a timing gap, it seems that my contribution that timings are not always exact has been an important one.

Bearing in mind your constantly shifting explanations as to what it is you are arguing for - there was a gap, there probably was a gap, if something happened there was a gap, if Lechmere is guilty there was a gap - and bearing in mind your abject failure to answer two very straightforward questions, I honestly now don't know quite what point you seek to make about the timings in this case.

But I will try with one more question: Do you agree with the statement from the documentary that "Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere’s timings"? From your posts in this thread (which I have read unlike you not reading mine) I couldn't say whether your answer would be "yes" or "no" although I suspect that you will say it is too complicated to be answered in such a clear way.

It is from the documentary, David. I was never the scriptwriter nor the narrator of it.
If you need to bring that on stage in order to try and snare me - which has so far miserably failed - things are really in a sad state.

Then again, who is amazed?

Goodnight. If you wish to once more point out that timings can be inexact, I will see if I can muster the will to once more say "I know" tomorrow. But donīt take that as a promise - you have a flair for overinterpreting things, but try to fight that off this time, please.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;377575][QUOTE=Pierre;377574]

Once again, letīs leave Lechmere out of the equation. Letīs compare an anonymous Ripper to a likewise anonymous Torso killer.

I donīt know about any studies with that approach. Do you know any systematic study with comparisons between the two different sets of murders?

What are the similarities, do you think?

The evidence I have is not up for grabs as of now. It will be, though.

So for once, we are on the same level - we say weīve got the goods, but we donīt display it. Itīs a new feeling to me.

No problem.

What I will say is that I think I have the source of inspiration for the killings, just as I have numerous forensic bits of evidence, all pointing to a shared identity. To me, the case seems a clear one.

I think it is funny that you say so. I am not as sure as you are. That is, there is always room for doubt in my research. Funny that you think the case seems "a clear one". Even if I do note the word "seems".

Howīs that, Pierre? It is - I am sorry to say - a helping of your own medicine...

No problem, Fisherman. Such an approach is better than "Here is the serial killer Jack the Ripper!" based on very little data.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

You, however, have contributed the amazing insight that timings are not always exact.

Considering that I have quoted you in this thread as saying that Lechmere left his house "at 3.30" and, on this basis, you have said that you believe there is a timing gap, it seems that my contribution that timings are not always exact has been an important one.

Bearing in mind your constantly shifting explanations as to what it is you are arguing for - there was a gap, there probably was a gap, if something happened there was a gap, if Lechmere is guilty there was a gap - and bearing in mind your abject failure to answer two very straightforward questions, I honestly now don't know quite what point you seek to make about the timings in this case.

But I will try with one more question: Do you agree with the statement from the documentary that "Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere’s timings"? From your posts in this thread (which I have read unlike you not reading mine) I couldn't say whether your answer would be "yes" or "no" although I suspect that you will say it is too complicated to be answered in such a clear way.

[Columbo]

[QUOTE=Patrick S;377609]

Let me see if I understand this. You actually clicked "Submit Reply" after writing this? I must ask. How old are you, Columbo?

In all seriousness, I don't think you're equipped to keep up here, Columbo. I'm not sure what you've contributed aside from the wholly original "babysitter and parents" bit you so courageously and - seemingly without embarrassment or shame - posted here. Of course, I encourage you to continue in the conversation. I'll be looking forward to your first post that can't be boiled down to something like, "I agree with Mr. Holmgren" and/or "I'm an American, so if you insult me it's getting ugly because I'm a tough guy" or some such foolishness.

I am curious, though, as to what you're on about, identifying me as being so mean and nasty to poor Christer. I'm confident enough that any post I make (while not in the same league as your prose posted here) is at least 85% informative and/or lucidly stated opinion (and identified as opinion) and 15% acknowledgment and commentary directed at "Fisherman's" condescending arrogance. In any event, why don't cut and past an example of something particularly mean and offensive I've directed at Fisherman on this thread. I'll concede that I was overly harsh in the thread concerning my desire to debate "Mr. Holmgren". And while I will state that my offer to debate (at any Ripper event in North America or Europe), and pay for the venue, food, drinks, and let Christer keep any proceeds still stands (and will always stand as far as I'm concerned), I will not belabor the point further on these pages, and have not for months. You will find more examples of me complimenting Christer's research and resolve than you will examples of me outright insulting the man. I think it's wonderful that you've found a new hobby and that you are interested in making new friends with people from countries like Sweden. I support that. Just, try and be rational? And adult?

Well the joke was old. I apologize.

I've studied the Ripper for several years, and that's just what it is a hobby. Every once and a while I see new theories and have forgotten quite a bit really, so I'm not near as studied as people on this thread simply because I don't have the time.

I don't care if you insult Fisherman, he's a big boy and can take care of him self. You asked me a question and I gave my opinion. Alot of your comments come off as jealous and angry. Why do a separate thread to challenge him to a debate? I just answered your question, that's all.

You've made some terrific points on this thread that I agree with and some not. I've disagreed on some points with Fisherman and have given credit where credit is due.

Let's start over and not waste this thread picking at each other OK? we're way above wasting time with petty bickering.

Columbo