Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[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]

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...

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[David Orsam]

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.

That will do me Fisherman which shows why the Chapman timings are relevant to this discussion.

We know that Swanson put his name on both reports, and we know that he was superior to for example Abberline.

This makes me laugh. Senior people in an organization tend to be "big picture" individuals who leave details to the juniors. That's really my point. Swanson was applying a broad brush approach. He wasn't re-investigating the murders he was providing a summary of the evidence to the Home Office.

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.

I didn't say he was "bound to get it wrong" but when one looks at the Chapman timings it's obvious that he is not being precise about timings in his reports to the Home Office.

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....Surely we cannot establish that it would be "unlikely in the extreme" for this to be true?
[/B]

His function wasn't to be an investigative officer in the case. It was to review the evidence from his office in Scotland Yard and, in October, to present a summary of the evidence to the Home Office. Hence it is unlikely in the extreme that he was ever in any position to be able to amend the timings of the detective inspector who DID investigate the case and speak to the witnesses.

[David Orsam]

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.

Equally you don't include ANY time for conversations or any waiting around. Mizen of course did not go immediately to Bucks Row but finished knocking up. We don't know precisely how long it took for Cross and Paul to find Mizen. This is all in the context of approximate times in the first place. You keep taking an approximate time and turning it into a fixed time and then drawing conclusions from that.

[David Orsam]

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

You've missed the point here. I'm saying that EVEN if Paul said he left his house at "exactly" 3.45 he might well not have been correct because he might have been using an inaccurate watch or clock. If his timepiece was just five minutes out it would explain everything. It's unfortunate that the inquest never got to the bottom of the matter but there's where we are. My whole point, one that I keep repeatedly making, is that we cannot draw firm conclusions from the timings on this matter or talk of probabilities.

I know, incidentally, that you will probably come back and say to me "ah but he was going to work so he must have known the time" but that's not the case at all unless we know that he literally had to be at work at a exact time for which there is no evidence. And if he had to be at work at 4am at Cobbetts Court he had plenty of time. We just don't know.

[GUT]

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



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.

And it could have been 3:35 or even 3:40 and the much needed 7 minutes disappears totally.

I have said all along that any theory that relies on exact times in 1888 is doomed.

[David Orsam]

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.

I suggest you are seeing what you want to see but I will grant you that you could be right in the sense that Swanson might have had in mind a reading of Paul's witness statement which is where he got his time of "3.45" from. But if Swanson was doing no more than repeating Paul's evidence it gets us (and you) nowhere.