Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

Wasn't the cap factory next door to Essex Wharf, ie almost opposite the gateway to Brown's stables? If so, surely the murder scene wouldn't have been so dark, being just across the road, if there was a lamp shining there. And Cross would have been just about underneath it when he spotted the body.

As for the approaching policeman's footsteps that the carmen were reported to have heard...

PC Neil said "I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him." Brady Street is about 400 feet (120m) from where Polly was found, which shows how loud policemen's boots could sound.
I'm not aware of the route Mizen's beat followed (is anyone?) but is it possible the two carmen heard his footsteps passing the other end of Buck's Row as he went up Bakers Row, and caught up with him at the corner of Hanbury Street?

[Fisherman]

Joshua Rogan: Wasn't the cap factory next door to Essex Wharf, ie almost opposite the gateway to Brown's stables? If so, surely the murder scene wouldn't have been so dark, being just across the road, if there was a lamp shining there. And Cross would have been just about underneath it when he spotted the body.

The cap factory was some way further up, more like opposite the corner of the school building, as I recall it. Next door to Essex wharf was the railroad. There was a lamp more or less directly opposite the murder spot, but it was out of order on the murder night, so the spot was dark. That lamp can be seen in this drawing:

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=9

As for the approaching policeman's footsteps that the carmen were reported to have heard...

PC Neil said "I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him." Brady Street is about 400 feet (120m) from where Polly was found, which shows how loud policemen's boots could sound.
I'm not aware of the route Mizen's beat followed (is anyone?) but is it possible the two carmen heard his footsteps passing the other end of Buck's Row as he went up Bakers Row, and caught up with him at the corner of Hanbury Street?

I wouldn´t have thought so. What was said in the Telegraph report was "just then they heard a policeman coming", so it seems we are dealing with approaching steps. And as I said, if the policeman was coming, then why go and look for another one? I think it is a case of misreporting, absent from all other sources we know of.

[Pierre]

Hi Fisherman,

It seems very important to establish a high substantial significance for data based on interpretations of minutes in newspaper articles - but there is not one single source indicating that Lechmere killed one of the other victims.

In this context, the minutes become unimportant and the substantial significance for data underlying the hypothesis that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper become very weak.

And the minutes described in statements in newspapers differ and must be interpreted. This means low validity.

Grand theory, very sparse and weak data.

Kind regards, Pierre

Hi Fisherman,

Are there any data sources for Lechmere having killed Chapman, Stride, Eddowes or Kelly?

I would very much appreciate an answer. Thank you.

Regards, Pierre

[Pcdunn]

First time for everything

Nope, the first time you've called Cross a finder.

Actually, Gutster, I think Fisherman has always said it's possible that Lechmere was an innocent passer-by... But then qualifies it by saying he thinks his interpretation is more likely the true one.

[David Orsam]

Why the upset tone? It cannot be good for the blood pressure, David.

There is no upset tone from me Fisherman even though you are still not understanding me.

You say: "I said that IF Lechmere left home at 3.30, then he SHOULD have been in Bucks Row at 3.37".

Firstly, that's not quite accurate. You said (post 477) that if Lechmere was in Bucks Row at 3.37 "it would be in line with the time Lechmere left home." So there was your first mistake, assuming that you know what time Lechmere left home. You only know an approximate time but that wasn't factored into your post.

Secondly, even if you had worded it more appropriately, the whole point of my posts is to say that your entire premise is flawed. You cannot base a theory of guilt on Lechmere leaving his house at 3.30 because we do not know what exact time he left his house and we only have his evidence of the approximate time. It's frankly bizarre. If you want to show that Lechmere had time to murder Nichols, why not make him leave his house at 3.25? I suggest the reason you don't do this is because you are attempting to prove that there is a missing time period based on the evidence, which evidence you clearly have always believed says that Lechmere left his house at exactly 3.30.

Thirdly, you always use 7 minutes but I think that is based on a reasonably fast walking pace. If he was strolling slowly I believe it could have taken 9 minutes and, as you know, I have done the walk.

You also say: "The object of the scenario was to show how it seems more likely for Paul to have been in place at 3.45 to 3.40." Abberline says "about 3.40" in his report so attempting to try to get Paul's arrival down to the very minute is futile.

But where I am particularly critical of your post is that you say: After that, you have stepped in and added time here and there, changing departure times to what you think is reasonable to allow for, putting Lechmere standing still in the middle of the road for a full minute, waiting for Paul, although it seems clear from the reports that Lechmere says that he heard Pauls footsteps immediately he stepped ut into the road. And Paul was hurrying along, meaning that he came upon Lechmere quickly."

If you want to challenge my interpretation of the evidence then fine but you cannot accuse me of "adding time here and there" because the whole point of the exercise is that I am attempting to fit a timing into the evidential scenario. Therefore it is perfectly permissible for me to make whatever adjustments I feel appropriate as long as they match the evidence we have.

So let's look at your challenge. I said that Lechmere: "Stands looking at body for a minute while Paul walks down the row." Here is the Daily Telegraph report of his evidence:

"He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement."

Giving that the evidence to the court might itself have taken a whole minute! (In fact, just reading it out slowly took me 35 seconds). He sees something, he stops, he looks at it, he walks into the middle of the road, he hears footsteps from 40 yards away and then, the thing you are missing, he has to wait for Paul to cover the 40 yards to speak to him. That's why I said that he looks at the body for a minute "while Paul walks down the row". That's basically got to be about a minute for all that to happen.

And then we get this from you: "Basically, you are saying that we can, with a little work and some generously added minutes, dissolve the picture that Paul was correct on the time Nichols was found. And you have showed that we can do that."

No, no, and thrice no! I am not trying to "dissolve the picture that Paul was correct on the time Nichols was found" because the only evidence we have from Paul is basically that he left his house at about 3.45, or just before, and that is incorporated into my timeline. So I'm not trying to dissolve anything that Paul said in his evidence at all.

After this you show once again that you are not, in fact, comprehending what I am saying because you say: "What I am saying is that much as we can do this (and we can stretch it even further than you do, all that takes is that we say "there is nothing strange with this"), the evidence given points to another picture than the one you propose." The evidence given does not "point to another picture" at all Fisherman. Yes you can create a gap in the timings if you want but please don't say that the evidence points to another picture because it doesn't. The reason it doesn't is because all timings given at the inquest were approximate.

And your comment "there is nothing strange with this" is odd because you are not saying that at all and never have been. You are saying that there is a massive timing gap and that the explanation for the gap is that Cross murdered Nichols in that gap.

Finally, you say, "At the end of the day, what I need to do when presenting Lechmere as a suspect is to show how he functions in the killer´s role, and that there are no obstacles to the suggestion." You can do this if you want but where you keep going wrong is in saying "Lechmere left his house at 3.30" and "Paul arrived in Bucks Row at 3.45" therefore there is a timing gap. This is not the evidence!

And, as I keep saying, but you continually ignore, Cross could have left his house at 3.00am so there never have been any obstacles to him murdering Nichols. If you think he was Jack the Ripper why do you continually place so much faith in his evidence about when he left his house?

[David Orsam]

Two things here:

1. You write that "there can be little doubt" that the 3.45 time was given to embarrass the police.
I disagree. There can be A LOT of doubt about that. It is a possibility, but by no means something that is a near certainty.

2. Paul and Lechmere were not the first to find the body. It was never a joint venture. Lechmere himself was the first finder, and Paul joined him afterwards. How long afterwards cannot be established.

As to point 1, I think that anyone who understands the context of that report will agree with me that there is little doubt that the reason for the inclusion of the time of "exactly" 3.45 is to contradict the police account of the finding of the body.

As to point 2, I refer you to the report of your friend Chief Inspector Swanson: "The body of a woman was found lying on the footway in Bucks Row, Whitechapel, by Charles Cross & Robert Paul".

[Columbo]

Two things.
"for gods sake Jack go and fetch a doctor"
Thain goes to Llewelln.Would he understand that was the doctor in mind,or was Llewelln a sort of doctor on call to the police.I presume there was several doctors resident in the area.
Secondly,we do not know how long the killer was in the company of Nichols before killing her,It could have been se veral to many minutes.
Yes I know the blood evidence will be thrown up,but how reliable is that,and did the police at that time consider it.Yes I know it would be a medical call,but it would be communicated to the police for consideration,to go with other evidence that was their call.and they still thought of Cross as a witness and not a killer.Cannot ignore their consideration.

Hi Harry,

The only thing you're missing is that Cross told Mizen a PC was already at the site, thus disarming him from considering him suspicious.

Columbo

[Columbo]

There is no upset tone from me Fisherman even though you are still not understanding me.

You say: "I said that IF Lechmere left home at 3.30, then he SHOULD have been in Bucks Row at 3.37".

Firstly, that's not quite accurate. You said (post 477) that if Lechmere was in Bucks Row at 3.37 "it would be in line with the time Lechmere left home." So there was your first mistake, assuming that you know what time Lechmere left home. You only know an approximate time but that wasn't factored into your post.

Secondly, even if you had worded it more appropriately, the whole point of my posts is to say that your entire premise is flawed. You cannot base a theory of guilt on Lechmere leaving his house at 3.30 because we do not know what exact time he left his house and we only have his evidence of the approximate time. It's frankly bizarre. If you want to show that Lechmere had time to murder Nichols, why not make him leave his house at 3.25? I suggest the reason you don't do this is because you are attempting to prove that there is a missing time period based on the evidence, which evidence you clearly have always believed says that Lechmere left his house at exactly 3.30.

Thirdly, you always use 7 minutes but I think that is based on a reasonably fast walking pace. If he was strolling slowly I believe it could have taken 9 minutes and, as you know, I have done the walk.

You also say: "The object of the scenario was to show how it seems more likely for Paul to have been in place at 3.45 to 3.40." Abberline says "about 3.40" in his report so attempting to try to get Paul's arrival down to the very minute is futile.

But where I am particularly critical of your post is that you say: After that, you have stepped in and added time here and there, changing departure times to what you think is reasonable to allow for, putting Lechmere standing still in the middle of the road for a full minute, waiting for Paul, although it seems clear from the reports that Lechmere says that he heard Pauls footsteps immediately he stepped ut into the road. And Paul was hurrying along, meaning that he came upon Lechmere quickly."

If you want to challenge my interpretation of the evidence then fine but you cannot accuse me of "adding time here and there" because the whole point of the exercise is that I am attempting to fit a timing into the evidential scenario. Therefore it is perfectly permissible for me to make whatever adjustments I feel appropriate as long as they match the evidence we have.

So let's look at your challenge. I said that Lechmere: "Stands looking at body for a minute while Paul walks down the row." Here is the Daily Telegraph report of his evidence:

"He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement."

Giving that the evidence to the court might itself have taken a whole minute! (In fact, just reading it out slowly took me 35 seconds). He sees something, he stops, he looks at it, he walks into the middle of the road, he hears footsteps from 40 yards away and then, the thing you are missing, he has to wait for Paul to cover the 40 yards to speak to him. That's why I said that he looks at the body for a minute "while Paul walks down the row". That's basically got to be about a minute for all that to happen.

And then we get this from you: "Basically, you are saying that we can, with a little work and some generously added minutes, dissolve the picture that Paul was correct on the time Nichols was found. And you have showed that we can do that."

No, no, and thrice no! I am not trying to "dissolve the picture that Paul was correct on the time Nichols was found" because the only evidence we have from Paul is basically that he left his house at about 3.45, or just before, and that is incorporated into my timeline. So I'm not trying to dissolve anything that Paul said in his evidence at all.

After this you show once again that you are not, in fact, comprehending what I am saying because you say: "What I am saying is that much as we can do this (and we can stretch it even further than you do, all that takes is that we say "there is nothing strange with this"), the evidence given points to another picture than the one you propose." The evidence given does not "point to another picture" at all Fisherman. Yes you can create a gap in the timings if you want but please don't say that the evidence points to another picture because it doesn't. The reason it doesn't is because all timings given at the inquest were approximate.

And your comment "there is nothing strange with this" is odd because you are not saying that at all and never have been. You are saying that there is a massive timing gap and that the explanation for the gap is that Cross murdered Nichols in that gap.

Finally, you say, "At the end of the day, what I need to do when presenting Lechmere as a suspect is to show how he functions in the killer´s role, and that there are no obstacles to the suggestion." You can do this if you want but where you keep going wrong is in saying "Lechmere left his house at 3.30" and "Paul arrived in Bucks Row at 3.45" therefore there is a timing gap. This is not the evidence!

And, as I keep saying, but you continually ignore, Cross could have left his house at 3.00am so there never have been any obstacles to him murdering Nichols. If you think he was Jack the Ripper why do you continually place so much faith in his evidence about when he left his house?

Hi David,

I might be wrong but the timing of Cross leaving the house is important because of the wounds found on Nichols.

Correct if I'm wrong Fisherman, but part of the Lechmere theory is that Nichols would've been drastically more mutilated if Lechmere wasn't interrupted. As soon as he heard Paul he stopped, covered the abdominal wounds and pretended he just found her.

If Lechmere had left the house earlier, Nichols would've been in a similar state as Eddowes (my guess) and Lechmere wouldn't have even been there when she was found.

Columbo

[Joshua Rogan]

The cap factory was some way further up, more like opposite the corner of the school building, as I recall it. Next door to Essex wharf was the railroad.

Ah yes. I was using this useful (but slightly inaccurate as it turns out) map with animated witness movements;

http://www.casebook.org/victims/polly.crossneil.html#ani

It has Schneider's labelled as '2' to the East of Essex Wharf, but having checked the Goad map that building is actually the 'Working Boys Club & Library", and the cap factory is where you said, to the West of the railway opposite the School.

I wouldn´t have thought so. What was said in the Telegraph report was "just then they heard a policeman coming", so it seems we are dealing with approaching steps. And as I said, if the policeman was coming, then why go and look for another one? I think it is a case of misreporting, absent from all other sources we know of.

I thought it was a bit unlikely. My thinking was that the carmen may have heard Mizen's footsteps as he approached the end of Bucks Row, and they headed towards the sound (as they were going that way anyway), but by the time they reached Bakers Row the constable had gone past. However, since this only appears in one report it probably doesn't need to be explained.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

I might be wrong but the timing of Cross leaving the house is important because of the wounds found on Nichols.

Correct if I'm wrong Fisherman, but part of the Lechmere theory is that Nichols would've been drastically more mutilated if Lechmere wasn't interrupted. As soon as he heard Paul he stopped, covered the abdominal wounds and pretended he just found her.

If Lechmere had left the house earlier, Nichols would've been in a similar state as Eddowes (my guess) and Lechmere wouldn't have even been there when she was found.

You're assuming he took a direct route and killed Nichols while on his way to work (the way people do). He could have left his house at 2:00am on the prowl for prostitutes, found Nichols, chatted with her, brought her into the area of Bucks Row and then murdered her.

[Fisherman]

David, you may take it from me that I am understanding you perfectly. And you may also take it from me that I nevertheless regard your effort to dispell the timings of my theory as of little more than academic interest; we can all produce alternative scenarios. And that is what you have done, nothing more, nothing less.

I told you so yesterday, adding that the only outcome will be our going round in endless circles.

And look what happened - I was right!

[Columbo]

You're assuming he took a direct route and killed Nichols while on his way to work (the way people do). He could have left his house at 2:00am on the prowl for prostitutes, found Nichols, chatted with her, brought her into the area of Bucks Row and then murdered her.

Possible, but if his intention was to kill a prostitute, I'm sure he would've found someone within an hour and 37 minutes wouldn't he? and there were no other prostitutes mutilated that night, so I'm not sure I agree with it, but it's possible.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

Possible, but if his intention was to kill a prostitute, I'm sure he would've found someone within an hour and 37 minutes wouldn't he?

You may be called "Columbo" but how do you know how long it would have taken him to find a lone prostitute, gain her confidence and bring her to Bucks Row?

In any event, 2am was no more than a random figure plucked from the air. If he was the murderer, he could have left his house at 3am, 3.10, 3.15 or any time you like. That's the point. We have no idea what time he left his house other than what he said at the inquest, and if he was Jack the Ripper he might just not have been telling the truth.

[Columbo]

You may be called "Columbo" but how do you know how long it would have taken him to find a lone prostitute, gain her confidence and bring her to Bucks Row?

In any event, 2am was no more than a random figure plucked from the air. If he was the murderer, he could have left his house at 3am, 3.10, 3.15 or any time you like. That's the point. We have no idea what time he left his house other than what he said at the inquest, and if he was Jack the Ripper he might just not have been telling the truth.

So Cross left 5 minutes earlier. Maybe he left 5 minutes late. I agree with you that if he were JTR he would lie about the time he left, but that doesn't matter because because of the level of mutilation of Nichols. In this theory, Cross was caught mutilating the body. Maybe the time he left doesn't matter, so you're right in that assumption.

I would suspect it would take less than 2 minutes to gain a prostitutes confidence. Did I redeem my name?

Columbo

[David Orsam]

I would suspect it would take less than 2 minutes to gain a prostitutes confidence. Did I redeem my name?

There's always one more question with you Columbo....

We don't know anything about the interaction between the murderer and his victim and I wouldn't like to say how easy it would have been for Jack the Ripper to manoeuvre Mary Ann Nichols to where he wanted her to go.