Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

[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).

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[Billiou]

[QUOTE=MrBarnett;377637]

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

Thanks, that would make sense.

[Columbo]

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.

Hi Harry,

You must've not read my recent post. I said at this stage of the game Cross needs to be considered innocent, because there is no proof against him or anyone. All we have is evidence, which is not proof. Granted it's not the best evidence, but it's a lot better than evidence against other suspects!

Cross is a good suspect because he was found with a victims body, That's about it. I see that a lot of people don't really debate as much as they try to convince someone to change there mind. 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.

No suspect is guilty, especially of a 128 year old unsolved murder. Cross is not guilty and there's no way to prove he's guilty. We can consider him a person of interest like the others. We all know that. But that shouldn't stop anyone from expressing an idea without the constant, redundant questioning that has basically hogged up most of this thread.

Don't you think it's time to move on to a different aspect of Lechmere besides the timing? I would like to see your insight on other parts of this theory because you seem to have a great grasp of the case.

Columbo

[Columbo]

[QUOTE=MrBarnett;377637]

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

Hi Mr. Barnett,

I have never heard that. It' a great piece of information!

Columbo

[Billiou]

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.

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".

[Billiou]

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.

Harry, what Prima Facia case? I have not made any case nor am pursuing any case re that Charles Lechmere was Jack The Ripper. And of course I do not think myself better than the police at the time, I am just doing what everyone else is doing and trawling through what sources we have to try to clarify and/or make sense of what happened.

Obviously no-one was ever brought to Court to face the charges of the five murders. Therefore there is no reasonable cause about anyone, ANY suspect. So why do people waste their time on this web site??

So obviously your post to me means you want me to stop posting anything re Lechmere??? So why is Lechmere even on this site as a suspect? But he is and you think we can't post on him????