Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[David Orsam]

I'm going to use Swanson's reported time of 3:45 in his report. I use this because we have to start somewhere and Swanson had access to the Officers involved. Also I don't want to be accused of the "Pick and Choose" syndrome.

Neil says he found the body at 3:45.

With that as our baseline we can work backwards.

Well if we do that, it means Swanson must be wrong in saying that Cross and Paul discovered the body at 3.45 because Neil arrived after Cross and Paul had left.

So if Fisherman is right and Cross' trek from his home to Bucks Rows was 7 minutes and he left home at 3:30 (give or take a few minutes)that would place him at the murder scene at 3:37 (give or take a few minutes).

Well if you give or take a few minutes it could place Cross at the murder scene at 3.40 which is exactly when Abberline said he was there.

If the timing is correct he should've (a)seen the murder taken place. (b)seen someone running away.

I don't know on what basis you make that statement. We don't know what time the murder was committed. It could easily have been 2 minutes before Cross walked into Bucks Row.

So what's the catch? Neil's time of 3:45a. If his time is accurate and Cross' time for leaving the house is accurate, then Cross did not kill Nichols.

How can a time containing the word "about" be accurate?

Idea's or suggestions? Don't batter me too hard!

Given that Cross said he left his house at "about" 3.30 he could have left at 3.25 or 3.20. Or, being the murderer, he could have been lying and actually left at 3.00am or earlier. Either way, he could have had plenty of time to murder Nichols. What we can't say, however, is that there is a "missing" period of 7-10 minutes in the evidence. The reason for that is that we don't know what time Cross actually left his house.

[Fisherman]

Considering that this thread was named Lechmere-Cross bye bye, and designed to see the carman off the boards, it is reassuring to see that we have now reached 500 posts plus.
Heīs a hard man to get rid off, Charles Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

I wonder if there was extraneous lighting from the adjacent buildings and slaughterhouses? I used to work nights and although it was dark, it was not so much that you couldn't make out some details.

I must've missed the retreating footsteps in my research (shows how much I know) but that could go either way for Cross' being a suspect. If it wasn't a cop then maybe it was the killer and that would exonerate him. If it was a cop and he didn't follow the footsteps to tell what they found, this could look as if he's avoiding the police. There's no way to prove it either way unfortunately.

Obviously my post is an amateurish shot at this so I'm sure I missed a lot. I still think Paul should've seen Cross but again it's my speculation. I think if we could get some hard information on that small point, that would help clear up the Lechemere\Cross theory.

Other then what I saw on Fisherman's documentary I think he probably has more details on this. It's probably on this thread somewhere.

I hope Fisherman will add to our knowledge of this.

Columbo

I will try!

As for retreating footsteps, there was no such thing. The whole affair stems from this passage in the Daily Telegraph inquest report:

Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming.

So the steps were approaching, not retreating. And the passage is only involved in the Daily Telegraph. The general consensus about it is that it is a misreporting for that very reason. If they DID hear a policeman coming, then why would they jointly decide to go looking for another one...?

The light! Now that has been the object for many hot debates. Neil says that the street lay in darkness, but that there was a lamp shining at the end of the row.
Since Neil found Nichols at the beginning of the row, he seems to be talking about a lamp at the Brady Street intersection.

But! It seems that Rob Clack was able to show that he may instead have been talking about a lamp that was behind Neil, a lamp that he had already passed, outside Schneiders Cap factory, very roughly speaking opposite where the school building commenced to the west, on the same pavement that both Lechmere and Paul claimed to have walked down.

Of course, depending on where you thought the beginning of the row was, this could also be said to be at the end of the row.

The thing is, if there WAS a lamp shining outside Schneiders, then from Pauls point of view, walking behind Lechmere, that lamp should have produced the shape of Charles Lechmere in silhouette before Pauls eyes, and he should have seen when the carman veered off into the street and stopped.

But he does not say that he saw Lechmere at any time, until he came upon him, standing still out in the street.

[Fisherman]

This is so wrong. If the body was discovered by Cross and Paul at about 3.40, allowing them a few minutes to examine the body and go off to look for Mizen (who said they found him at about 3.45), Neil would have discovered the body at about 3.45. It might have taken a few minutes for Thain to appear while he was working out what to do. He and Thain might have had a chat about the situation so that Thain didn't go off to find the doctor until after 3:50. You seem to assume that the doctor leapt out of bed once Thain rang the doorbell. Thain might have first had to get the servant or housemaid out of bed, who needed a few minutes to get dressed then wake up the doctor who needed to get dressed and perhaps have something to eat and drink before noting that it was "about five minutes to four" (as he said in a statement issued to the press on 31 August).

We can always suggest other timings. It is a hard thing to establish. And we may be wrong.
However, I am satisfied that my take comes close to the truth, for various reasons.

One thing I would like to point to, is how you stretch things beyond what I find reasonable at times. For example, you add a few minutes here and there, one such passage being how you suggest that Neil and Thain struck up a lengthy conversation.
I donīt think there was time for that. Mizen was on his way, and would have arrived not very long after Neil himself arrived at the murder scene. And by then, Thain was gone.

But we can wring this inside out, both of us suggesting scenarios the other one cannot definitely kill off.
Letīs spend our time doing better things.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: We've been over this so many times; Paul didn't say this in his testimony at the inquest.

No.

Nor do we know if he ever said it.

Not for sure, no.

It comes from a newspaper report which contains definite inaccuracies and might well have been a reporter's poorly recollected summary of what he had been told by Paul rather than a verbatim account.

Absolutely.

At the inquest, Paul simply said that he left home at "about a quarter to four" (alternatively, in some reports "just before"). It doesn't matter though because Paul's timing could have easily been wrong by five minutes.

Of course it matters. When he said "Just before a quarter to four", that seemingly corroborates the time he gave in the inerview.

Now, letīs look at the overall picture once again, and knit this to the earlier post I answered. The report where Abberline and Swanson cooperated was fated the 19:th of September, very close in time to the 17:th, when Paul testified at the inquest. We donīt know when the police managed to haul Paul in, but it may well be that it was very close in time to this date.

In the 19:th of September report, 3.40 id the time fiven for the carmen finding Nichols.

At that approximate time, the police spoke to Paul and were able to ask him about his timings too.

In the 19:th of october report, the time is changed from 3.40 to 3.45.

I can certainly see a logical development of matters here, involving how Paul explained how he knew the time exactly - if that was what he did. Conjecture, yes - but anything but baseless conjecture.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: The fact that Swanson's timings are not accurate in the Chapman case must provide a strong indication that they are not accurate in the Nichols case either.

No, they "must" not do any such thing at all. They must open up for the poosibility that the Nichols timings MAY have been wrong, but thatīs as far as I am willing to go.
We know that Swanson put his name on both reports, and we know that he was superior to for example Abberline. So when the time went from 3.40 to 3.45, the best suggestion we can make is that there was a reason for it. My reason is that it had been decided that 3.40 was not the more likely timing, but instead 3.45. Your reason seems to be that the timing was changed because Swanson was bound to get it wrong as per the Chapman investigation.
You are welcome to that view, but you wonīt find me embracing it. Each case on itīs own, and accepting that the police had rational reasons when alterint times is the way I choose to go.

My disappointment is based on the fact that you fail even to consider the point and affect to treat it as of no significance, continuing to maintain that Swanson must have re-investigated the issue, and corrected Abberline's timeline of events by five minutes, when this would appear to be unlikely in the extreme.

I am not saying that Swanson "must" have reinvestigated the issue. The word "must" is a strong one, and it can lead us wrong. I am saying that I believe that the alteration owes to a changed mindset on behalf of Swanson and the police. And it would not be odd in the extreme at all if such a thing occurred. There will be lots and lots of investigations out there where the police hav found reason to review their original thoughts on things like the timings in different cases.
I find it understandable if Swanson originally leant against his own men, not least since there were three of them. But then, as he weighed the matter, taking in all parameters, he may have reached the exact same conclusion as a I have: that Pauls timing is the one that answers up best to the demands on getting the overall schedule right.
Surely we cannot establish that it would be "unlikely in the extreme" for this to be true?

[Billiou]

Imagine how close the ripper came to getting caught! Sometimes by seconds. If the guy going to the bathroom next to 29 Hanbury Street had just looked over the fence...

True, it is surprising when you look at the case of the canonicals, in nearly every case how close to being caught the killer came. It must have been part of the thrill. Surely if he wanted to, it all could have been done in more discrete locations.

[Billiou]

Also one inquest report has Cross saying,that as he and Paul stepped away from examining the body,footsteps of a policeman were heard retreating along the Row..As no policeman can be placed in the row at that time,and Cross does not state he saw one,what can be made of that claim.Cox?,in the Kelly murder,also speaks of footsteps in Millers Court as being like those of a policeman.Makes one wonder.

The one report by The Daily Telegraph stated:
"Witness [Cross] suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion [Paul] refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming.Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark."
Compared to the other newspapers (which did not mention hearing a policeman) BTW what does a policeman sound like?:
The Star: "but witness [Cross] said, “I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him.”"
The Morning Advertiser: "but I said, “No, let us go and tell a policeman”."

You would have to presume that The Daily Telegraph misreported the words spoken in the Inquest by Cross. Note this report also misreports other things eg "Witness [Cross] suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion [Paul] refused to touch her", when every other report states that it was Paul who suggested they move her, and Cross said no.
So I don't think The Daily Telegraph is a reliable source to quote when you compare it with the overall reports.

[Columbo]

Neil is reported as speaking of one street light in Bucks row,at the end.How is that to be interpreted?.One light only in the row or only one lit.So a person taking care,as the killer would be,might be hard to see at twenty yards.
Also one inquest report has Cross saying,that as he and Paul stepped away from examining the body,footsteps of a policeman were heard retreating along the Row..As no policeman can be placed in the row at that time,and Cross does not state he saw one,what can be made of that claim.Cox?,in the Kelly murder,also speaks of footsteps in Millers Court as being like those of a policeman.Makes one wonder.

Imagine how close the ripper came to getting caught! Sometimes by seconds. If the guy going to the bathroom next to 29 Hanbury Street had just looked over the fence...

[Columbo]

Neil is reported as speaking of one street light in Bucks row,at the end.How is that to be interpreted?.One light only in the row or only one lit.So a person taking care,as the killer would be,might be hard to see at twenty yards.
Also one inquest report has Cross saying,that as he and Paul stepped away from examining the body,footsteps of a policeman were heard retreating along the Row..As no policeman can be placed in the row at that time,and Cross does not state he saw one,what can be made of that claim.Cox?,in the Kelly murder,also speaks of footsteps in Millers Court as being like those of a policeman.Makes one wonder.

I wonder if there was extraneous lighting from the adjacent buildings and slaughterhouses? I used to work nights and although it was dark, it was not so much that you couldn't make out some details.

I must've missed the retreating footsteps in my research (shows how much I know) but that could go either way for Cross' being a suspect. If it wasn't a cop then maybe it was the killer and that would exonerate him. If it was a cop and he didn't follow the footsteps to tell what they found, this could look as if he's avoiding the police. There's no way to prove it either way unfortunately.

Obviously my post is an amateurish shot at this so I'm sure I missed a lot. I still think Paul should've seen Cross but again it's my speculation. I think if we could get some hard information on that small point, that would help clear up the Lechemere\Cross theory.

Other then what I saw on Fisherman's documentary I think he probably has more details on this. It's probably on this thread somewhere.

I hope Fisherman will add to our knowledge of this.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Colombo,
You surprise me.You say remarks of fisherman should be taken as humorous,and not offensive.What about his recent remarks about me,for example..do you not believe I could be humourous too.I will admit I Wasn't.You are so one sided,one might say you appear to be in bed with fisherman.You aren't are you?.Literaly that is.

Hi Harry,

I don't believe I said to take Fisherman's comments as not offensive, I think I suggested his offensive comments come from another place and not to take them seriously like others on this forum. That's a personal decision of course. I have read several remarks by him and others and sometimes he's just as bad as Patrick, but he doesn't offend me. Most remarks made by people on this forum are so childish I can't believe people bother with them. I do enjoy some decent jabs and sarcasm though.

I certainly don't fault anyone fighting back. If anyone decided to attack me on a personal level it would get ugly real quick.

Hmmm....I've seen Fisherman. I doubt I'd trade my wife for a Swedish man who's taller than me!

It's all about the Ripper man, it's all about the Ripper. Let's get back to that.

[harry]

Neil is reported as speaking of one street light in Bucks row,at the end.How is that to be interpreted?.One light only in the row or only one lit.So a person taking care,as the killer would be,might be hard to see at twenty yards.
Also one inquest report has Cross saying,that as he and Paul stepped away from examining the body,footsteps of a policeman were heard retreating along the Row..As no policeman can be placed in the row at that time,and Cross does not state he saw one,what can be made of that claim.Cox?,in the Kelly murder,also speaks of footsteps in Millers Court as being like those of a policeman.Makes one wonder.

[harry]

Colombo,
You surprise me.You say remarks of fisherman should be taken as humorous,and not offensive.What about his recent remarks about me,for example..do you not believe I could be humourous too.I will admit I Wasn't.You are so one sided,one might say you appear to be in bed with fisherman.You aren't are you?.Literaly that is.

[Columbo]

Hi Columbo,

Why is Fisherman right that Cross should not have been in Bucks Row at 3.45 or 3.40? He does not know what time Cross left his house. The best we can do, based on Cross's evidence, is say that it was "about 3.30". That could easily be plus or minus 5 minutes or even 10 minutes. It was about a 7-10 minute walk from Cross's house to the spot in Bucks Row where the body was found depending on the pace Cross walked. On his own account, Cross could easily have been there at 3.40, which is no doubt why Abberline put that time in his report.

Just to add regarding the discussion about Cross being late for work, this was after he stopped to look at the body with Paul, chat with Paul and go off to search for Mizen. After that of course he was running late but we don't know if he was running late when he left his house, hence we can't say whether he was walking fast or slow at that time.

Hi David,

To be transparent, my source is the Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion by Evans and Skinner.

I'm going to use Swanson's reported time of 3:45 in his report. I use this because we have to start somewhere and Swanson had access to the Officers involved. Also I don't want to be accused of the "Pick and Choose" syndrome.

Neil says he found the body at 3:45.

With that as our baseline we can work backwards.

So, unfortunately we have no official inquest papers and the newspapers are all over the place. For example The Times Edition from the 4th of September says Cross told Mizen at a quarter passed four he was wanted in Buck's Row because a woman had been found there. That same paper also says Cross left at 3:30 and made it to work at 4. The Times reported in the Sept. 18th edition that Paul left home a quarter to 4, the same time Neil says he found the body. With these kind of discrepancies I will discount the papers as a reliable source.

So if Fisherman is right and Cross' trek from his home to Bucks Rows was 7 minutes and he left home at 3:30 (give or take a few minutes)that would place him at the murder scene at 3:37 (give or take a few minutes).

So we have approximately an 8-9 minute period where Cross, instead of being out of Bucks Rows like he should have been is now sighted with a dead body.

So if it takes him 7-8 minutes to get to the middle of Buck's Row the it should've only taken a few minutes for him to traverse the rest of the way off of Buck's Row to the next intersection.

If the timing is correct he should've (a)seen the murder taken place. (b)seen someone running away.

Or he could've been given the unexpected opportunity to kill Nichols.

The same can be applied to Paul. If he was 40 yards from Cross in Buck's Row then he should've seen Cross discover the body. Some parts of Buck's row did have street lighting. Plus 40 yards is only 120ft. I'll even give him 50 yards and he still should've seen Cross walking in front of him at some point.

So what's the catch? Neil's time of 3:45a. If his time is accurate and Cross' time for leaving the house is accurate, then Cross did not kill Nichols.

Why? Because Neil would've discovered Cross and Paul just leaving the scene.

So since my baseline is an official document, and I believe Paul should've seen Cross at some point during the walk to work and didn't, I suggest that Cross left home much earlier than generally accepted, because whether you add more time or subtract it, Cross still has an 8-9 minute discrepancy in his story. Plenty of time to kill someone.

Idea's or suggestions? Don't batter me too hard!

Columbo

[Columbo]

[QUOTE=Patrick S;377236]I'm an American, too, Columbo. And I'm not really interested in your thoughts on Jack the Ripper, European/Swedish senses of humor, or much of anything else for that matter. I don't recall asking for them. You may have more fun in "Pub Talk". You asked why I was dismissive of "Fisherman's" Lechmere theory,

Oh well. I think I'll hang around anyway. Keep up those informative, neutral and mature posts.

I bet your babysitter hopes your parents will come home early. I'm sure she won't tell them you went over your computer time limit.

Columbo