Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Fisherman]

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.

You are being extremely rude now, David, and I donīt appreciate that one bit. Please donīt imply that I am ducking any of your questions, because I am not.

Ad for the documentary wording, my answer is that I would have worded it "It seems that Andy and Christer have found a major gap".

Letīs be very basic now, David:

You have not demolished the Lechmere theory as such (and I am not saying that you claim to have, I am just pointing out that you have not). The theory rests on circumstantial evidence that taken together can be used to form a chain of events that implies that Lechmere was the murderer of Nichols. This chain remains. And it also remains unproven.

The issue you seem to be having, is that you claim that I have stated as a fact that there is a gap in the timings. But I have not done that: I have pointed to how there SEEMS to be such a gap, working from the different timings.

So, effectively, I fail to see what point it is you think you have. At any rate, you do not have the point that I have claimed the time gap as a proven fact.

Now, if you cannot conclusively prove that I have claimed as a proven fact that there is a time gap, this discussion is over.

[Fisherman]

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

I salute your efforts to encourage all parts to move away from the timings issue, to begin with! So over to the question you ask:

Hereīs the thing:

If we look at the normally accepted string of murders, Nichols-Chapman-Stride-Eddowes-Kelly, then we can see that three out of these five victims were killed along the logical routes for the carman between his home and work: Nichols-Chapman-Kelly.
All of these three victims were, if we believe the medicos, killed at hours that seemingly correspond with the approximate times when Lechmere would have passed them.
Not so Stride and Eddowes, who died a lot earlier, and NOT along the carmanīs logical routes to work.
Why?
Well, to begon with, they did not die on a regular working day - they died on the night of a Saturday, meaning that if Lechmere followed the regular working schedule, he had the next day off.
Having the next day off was what opened up possibilitites for an Eastender in regular employment to make the Saturday evening an evening out. You could pay visits to friends and relatives, you could go out to a pub and stay out late, cause you were free the next day.
Liz Stride died in Dutfields Yard, Berner Street, St Georgeīs-in-the-East. She died at around 1 AM. A very short way from Dutfields Yard Mary Ann Street. Here, Lechmereīs mother lived together with one of his daughters.
It is easy to envisage a scenario where Lechmere had payed a visit to his motherīs place on that Sunday, and how he found and killed Stride on his way home. Similarly, he may have been on a pub round or visiting old friends - Berner Street was smack, bang in the midst of the houses where Lechmere had grown up and lived until a few weeks before the Ripper murders began.
Speculation has it that after killing Stride, a frustrated Ripper walked west to Mitre Square, where he found, killed and mutilated Kate Eddowes.
The logical route from Berner Street to Mitre Square goes along Lechmeres old trek to work from James Street (todays Burslem Street). Mitre Square is a copule of hundred yards from the Pickfords depot in Broad Street. And a straight line from Mitre Square to 22 Doveton Street will more or less take us past the doorway in Goulston Street where the apron piece carried away from the Mitre Square murder site was subsequently dropped.

Now, make the assumption that we swop murder dates for these victims. Letīs say that Nichols was killed on the Eddowes murder date and Eddowes on the Nichols murder date, and that Stride was killed on the Kelly murder date, whereas Kelly was slain on the Stride date.
What happens?
Well, then we have Nichols being killed in the right spot for Lechmere to have been the killer, but on the wrong date, since he probably had his day off, we have Eddowes being killed in a spot where Lechmere had no reason to be on his early morning job trek, we have Stride getting whacked on the wrong place and Kelly at what was seemingly the wrong time.
Move one bit of the puzzle and the accusations against Lechmere crumble.
Leave it as it is, and he seems to fit in every single part.

[Fisherman]

[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

The Broad Street depot opened in May of 1868. Lechmere worked there worked there at the time of the inquest. He said that he had worked for Pickfords for more than twenty years. If he was hired when the depot opened, when he was nineteen and quite probably making his own decisions, then he would have been a Broad Street employee for twenty years and four months when he testified at the inquest.
Of course he may have worked in another depot before, but there is no evidence at all to prove it and the Broad Street depot fits neatly timewise.
Are you suggesting that he worked in Haydon Square when the murders took place, and moved to Broad Street on September 1:st of 1888...?

[Billiou]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;377648]

The Broad Street depot opened in May of 1868. Lechmere worked there worked there at the time of the inquest. He said that he had worked for Pickfords for more than twenty years. If he was hired when the depot opened, when he was nineteen and quite probably making his own decisions, then he would have been a Broad Street employee for twenty years and four months when he testified at the inquest.
Of course he may have worked in another depot before, but there is no evidence at all to prove it and the Broad Street depot fits neatly timewise.
Are you suggesting that he worked in Haydon Square when the murders took place, and moved to Broad Street on September 1:st of 1888...?

Fish, I think MrBarnett was suggesting that Lechmere may have worked at Haydon Square when he lived in James Street and when he moved to Doveton Street was walking to Broad Street. But we don't necessarily know that for a fact or/if when it happened, it was just a theory (and could make some sense to work closer to home, after all, why walk past a depot to travel to another depot?) So he didn't spend 20 years travelling from Doveton to Broad St, which was referring to Pierre's original message, which suggested he did.

[Billiou]

[QUOTE=Patrick S;377596][QUOTE=Billiou;377589]Is this a valid summary of the "marks" against Cross/Lechmere (I am not saying they are signs of "guilt", just possible marks):

a) He is found near to the (possibly still alive but fatally wounded) body of Polly Nicholls

Not possibly still alive: Dr. Rees Ralph Llewellyn: "(The) incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae."

b) He and Paul leave behind a woman who they think may only be drunk lying on the pavement alone in the dark, instead of one of them staying to look after her while the other fetches a policeman

Not quite. There seems to have been some agreement regarding her condition. Robert Paul says this in Lloyd's Weekly: "I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle." Upon reaching Mizen in Baker's Row, Cross testified that he said this to the PC: "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."

c) Lechmere is identified as Cross in the Inquest reports and this is never corrected

If by reports you mean media reports, then that's correct. The inquest testimony (i.e. the official documentation) has not survived.

It's worth noting also that the media reports refer to "Lechmere" as "Chas. Andrew Cross", and "George Cross". The also call Robert Paul "Baul". Thus, it's hard to put much faith their accuracy.
d) Cross doesn't state his address out loud during the Inquest

Impossible to know. Again, the media do not contain his address. However, he did give his correct employer apparently, and this was reported.

e) The five canonical murders happen either on the way between his house and his place of work, or nearby to an area were he used to live and would therefore know well

Again, this takes some inference and assumption. For instance, we must assume that Lechmere was, say, visiting his mother on the night of the double event as those murders do not fit with his 'route to work'. As well, the Chapman murder was likely somewhat late to have occurred while he was on his way to work, so we may have him killing Chapman while his cart was being unloaded at the nearby market. This takes assumption as well as we have no idea what Cross delivered, where he delivered it, when, etc. And I must admit that I don't if this is still a part of the current theory.

f) By at least three newspaper accounts, according to Mizen, Cross "informed him that has was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row" (or words to that effect), when we know there was no policeman in Buck's Row when Cross was there.

That's correct. Three sounds about right. Two or three. In any event, this is a prime element in the "The Mizen Scam". Lechmere tells Mizen that another PC is in Buck's Row and Mizen is left to assume that the two men (Paul and Lechmere/Cross) have been "cleared" and therefore are left free to go, unsearched, and having not been asked to identify themselves. Keep in mind that it's also required belief that Lechmere said this to Mizen out of Paul's earshot, as Paul would have disagreed in that this was clearly not true.

I would suggest that Mizen was less than truthful as he was simply trying to explain the lack of seriousness and urgency in his response to what Paul and Lechemere had told him. Lechmere stated at the inquest: " He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on." Paul in Lloyd's: I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."

Comments bold.

Thanks for the reply.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Billiou;377650]

Fish, I think MrBarnett was suggesting that Lechmere may have worked at Haydon Square when he lived in James Street and when he moved to Doveton Street was walking to Broad Street. But we don't necessarily know that for a fact or/if when it happened, it was just a theory (and could make some sense to work closer to home, after all, why walk past a depot to travel to another depot?) So he didn't spend 20 years travelling from Doveton to Broad St, which was referring to Pierre's original message, which suggested he did.

Aha. Well, I think that the opening time of Broad Street dovetails so very well with Lechmere having worked 20 years plus for Pickfords, so I am leaning much towards thinking that this was always his working place. When the depot opened, there will have been a huge demand for carmen, and working opportunities were not always very easy to come by.
Thatīs not to exclude Haydon Square, but if he did work there before moving to Doveton Street, then why change? Would not Haydon Square be the nearest station anyway?

[harry]

Billiou,
Now do not get too excited.
If you read my post correctly,only the first and last sentence,includes you.
The rest is expressed in a general way,and if you do not understand my mention of Prima Facia,I suggest you haven't read too much of the Cross/Lechmere threads.
Also I do not believe my post in any way shows a desire on my part that you should not post on this,or any other thread.Be my guest,post as much as you desire,and as often.
If it eases your pain,I admit the police of that time were better than me too in making a judgement about Cross,and it seems they didn't consider him a killer,and that's good enough for me.

[MrBarnett]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;377652]

Aha. Well, I think that the opening time of Broad Street dovetails so very well with Lechmere having worked 20 years plus for Pickfords, so I am leaning much towards thinking that this was always his working place. When the depot opened, there will have been a huge demand for carmen, and working opportunities were not always very easy to come by.
Thatīs not to exclude Haydon Square, but if he did work there before moving to Doveton Street, then why change? Would not Haydon Square be the nearest station anyway?

Fish,

I was questioning the assumption that Lechmere had walked the same route for 20+ years. He hadn't. We know he had only lived at Doveton Street for a few weeks when Nichols was killed but we have no idea exactly how long he had worked for Pickfords or which depot(s) he had been attached to during that time.

I doubt Lechmere enjoyed the privilege of a higher education, so he would have started work long before the Broad Street Goods Yard had opened.The Haydon Square depot was open at the time he would probably have left school and he lived nearby. Furthermore it was in H div and his stepfather, who would have made a good referee, was an H division police officer. Lechmere's own son was working as a van guard aged 14. I would 'lean' towards his having secured the job on the recommendation of his father .

This stepfather of course is the man who referred to his stepson as Charles Cross a few years before, so I can see why you might 'lean' away from this scenario.

[Billiou]

[QUOTE=MrBarnett;377662]

I doubt Lechmere enjoyed the privilege of a higher education, so he would have started work long before the Broad Street Goods Yard had opened.The Haydon Square depot was open at the time he would probably have left school and he lived nearby. Furthermore it was in H div and his stepfather, who would have made a good referee, was an H division police officer. Lechmere's own son was working as a van guard aged 14. I would 'lean' towards his having secured the job on the recommendation of his father .

This stepfather of course is the man who referred to his stepson as Charles Cross a few years before, so I can see why you might 'lean' away from this scenario.

Good point about his starting-work age. I believe for most people it was around 13-14? So it puts that at around 1863...

[Billiou]

Billiou,
Now do not get too excited.
If you read my post correctly,only the first and last sentence,includes you.
The rest is expressed in a general way,and if you do not understand my mention of Prima Facia,I suggest you haven't read too much of the Cross/Lechmere threads.
Also I do not believe my post in any way shows a desire on my part that you should not post on this,or any other thread.Be my guest,post as much as you desire,and as often.
If it eases your pain,I admit the police of that time were better than me too in making a judgement about Cross,and it seems they didn't consider him a killer,and that's good enough for me.

Is this how patronising you normally are?

I did not say I didn't understand the mention of Prima Facia, I was questioning what it has to do with me and what I have been posting.

And thank you for your permission, you are very gracious.

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett:

Fish,

I was questioning the assumption that Lechmere had walked the same route for 20+ years. He hadn't. We know he had only lived at Doveton Street for a few weeks when Nichols was killed but we have no idea exactly how long he had worked for Pickfords or which depot(s) he had been attached to during that time.

Well, we do have some idea, but we cannot be sure. Thanks for the info, anyhow!

I doubt Lechmere enjoyed the privilege of a higher education, so he would have started work long before the Broad Street Goods Yard had opened.

Quite probably, yes.

The Haydon Square depot was open at the time he would probably have left school and he lived nearby. Furthermore it was in H div and his stepfather, who would have made a good referee, was an H division police officer. Lechmere's own son was working as a van guard aged 14. I would 'lean' towards his having secured the job on the recommendation of his father .

I would not go that far. Itīs a possibility amongst others. But I can warm to the idea that Lechmere would have started out working at an early age - but hardly as a carman. I am inclined to think that he may have done other work before joining up with Pickfords as a carman, and I think that may well have happened in combination with the opening of the Broad Street branch.


This stepfather of course is the man who referred to his stepson as Charles Cross a few years before, so I can see why you might 'lean' away from this scenario.

I am neither for nor against, Gary. And I try not to weigh all things so as to be able to promote Lechmere. I actually try to be neutral, since I believe that helps.
It would have been common enough to have your father helping out with getting a job. But if - as I speculate - he became a carman when the Broad Street branch opened, then he may quite well have gotten that job without his fathers help. Thomas Cross had a sickly year left to live when Broad Street opened up.

[Robert St Devil]

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".

Trust me, Billiou, i know better with this Board than to expect any acceptance of ,,rewriting,, history. But that wasn,t my intent. Only thst ,the story, {yea, postmodern thought} would make more sense HAD he stated ,,quarter to,,. Plus we have to accoung for the 2 slaughter-house men that PC Neil reports at the inquest.

Since you are doing news research, you might consider a month,s subscription to that British newd archive site. There is some insight there; however, it does challenge your reliance on press reporting since you will encounter varying accounts of events (I think i tracked 3 different ,tales, about the bloodhounds.) Two reports stuck out to me - the journalist who visits the sites of all the murders in late November (expands slightly on the Stride crime scene), AND the report of George Hutchinson,s appearance on the day he appeared with ,his evidence,. The reporter mentions that Hutch appeared to have had a boil removed from his face recently (shades of Blotchy).

Best o,luck to your research.

[Patrick S]

Hi Harry,

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.


Columbo

As it pertains to me, that's completely untrue. The issue - for me and others, I think - is that "Fisherman" presents something, something interesting and noteworthy even, and he interprets it in a way that - frankly makes little to no sense to many of us. He reaches conclusions that a majority would likely have never so much as entertained. And that's frustrating. Thus, we debate, argue our perspectives, present our rational. EVERY ONE here understands that "Fisherman" will not - EVER - say he is "wrong". Nor should he. Anything is possible, if unlikely. Thus, we have a subject for debate that can continue, unabated, as no is very likely to be PROVEN wrong!

It's also untrue that the people you named have not come up with new ideas. For instance, I've written extensively, offering a different and, I think, more reasonable explanation of Mizen and his behavior around Buck's Row. As well, I've researched Lechmere's life and posted what I've found. Further, MANY of us have posted our own "ideas" that have nothing to do with Lechmere. So, you won't find them here, on the Crossmere threads.

Last thing. Not to be overly complimentary to my fellow posters as I may come to regret it, but most everyone here is very intelligent and quick witted. They know this stuff inside out. Finding little insults and jabs in responses is part of the ambiance on this board. It's sometimes fun and sometimes not so much. Stop trying to referee. Stop trying to speak for your fellow posters motivations (i.e. jealousy) and, for GOD'S sake, stop trying to be "Fisheman's" hype-man, or bodyguard, or schoolyard defender, or whatever you're trying to do. He didn't ask for it and certainly doesn't need it.

[David Orsam]

Please donīt imply that I am ducking any of your questions, because I am not.

I'm not implying that you are ducking the question Fisherman, I'm saying you ARE ducking it. You HAVE ducked it. That's not being rude, it's being direct and blunt. I asked you if you agreed or disagreed with the statement in the documentary and you have failed to tell me. I wasn't asking you to re-word or improve the documentary script, I was asking whether you agreed with it. You have now twice failed to tell me if you agree or disagree with the statement so you've ducked it.

But let's take your preferred wording: "It seems that Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings". To me, that has effectively the same meaning as "Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings" so I don't understand your reluctance to agree. But let's move on to the next question which I would kindly request you to answer.

The statement in the documentary: "Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings" (now re-worded as "It seems that Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings") was based on you saying, and I quote, "That would have meant that if Lechmere left his home as he said at 3.30 he should have been here at 3.37". Do you say this is a completely accurate statement? Yes or no?

When answering could you please focus on two elements of your statement:

1. Is it correct that Lechmere said he left his home "at 3.30"?

2. Is 7 minutes the only possible time for the walk from Lechmere's home to the murder scene in Bucks Row?

Let's see if you can answer this in a straightforward and concise manner ("yes" or "no" only to each element please) without ducking or waffling. Then I can be polite and say "thank you".

[Fisherman]

I'm not implying that you are ducking the question Fisherman, I'm saying you ARE ducking it. You HAVE ducked it. That's not being rude, it's being direct and blunt. I asked you if you agreed or disagreed with the statement in the documentary and you have failed to tell me. I wasn't asking you to re-word or improve the documentary script, I was asking whether you agreed with it. You have now twice failed to tell me if you agree or disagree with the statement so you've ducked it.

But let's take your preferred wording: "It seems that Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings". To me, that has effectively the same meaning as "Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings" so I don't understand your reluctance to agree. But let's move on to the next question which I would kindly request you to answer.

The statement in the documentary: "Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings" (now re-worded as "It seems that Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings") was based on you saying, and I quote, "That would have meant that if Lechmere left his home as he said at 3.30 he should have been here at 3.37". Do you say this is a completely accurate statement? Yes or no?

When answering could you please focus on two elements of your statement:

1. Is it correct that Lechmere said he left his home "at 3.30"?

2. Is 7 minutes the only possible time for the walk from Lechmere's home to the murder scene in Bucks Row?

Let's see if you can answer this in a straightforward and concise manner ("yes" or "no" only to each element please) without ducking or waffling. Then I can be polite and say "thank you".

From my latest post to you:

Now, if you cannot conclusively prove that I have claimed as a proven fact that there is a time gap, this discussion is over.

And there it rests.