Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[David Orsam]

You forgot to weigh in how Durward Street sloped differently depending on how far out in it you were.
And me oh my, are some people far out!

You seem to make fun of this issue, Fisherman, but it is hardly unreasonable to ask you which route you took between Doveton Street and Durward Street considering that it significantly affects the timings. I did raise this with you back in 2014 after my walk produced a different time to yours but you didn't respond then and you still haven't responded. Without knowing the exact route you took, how is it even possible for anyone to come to any sensible conclusions about the timing?

[David Orsam]

When I answered your questions, you did not accept my answers since I did not dance to your pipe by accepting a choice between "yes" or "no" only.
Saying that I could not answer your questions because of that, and going on about how you conclude that was because there was no way to answer them for me without loosing the debate is - with respect - totally bonkers.
I am not saying that you know that quite well yourself - but I am quite prepared to "draw my own conclusions" about it.

Was Charles Lechmere the Whitechapel killer? Yes or no? How do you answer that question without qualifying the answer? In your case I would expect that you lean towards "probably no", whereas I would say "probably yes". And then we would need to further develop the answers with things like " a very small probability", "a very large probability" or something to that effect.

Well Fisherman there were two categories of question. Some you responded to but didn't answer yes or no as requested, some you have totally ignored and not responded to at all.

For those in the first category you could have answered them yes or no and then provided whatever qualification you wanted. I sought a yes or no answer for clarity because otherwise it provides the opportunity to ramble on without really answering them (as, I would argue, you did).

The questions I asked were simple questions perfectly capable of yes or no answers and were not of the type "Was Lechmere JTR?"

If you had Lechmere in the witness box on trial today you would presumably want to ask him: "Did you say at the inquest that you left your house at 3.30?"

That kind of question demands a yes or no answer. You don't want him rambling on and he wouldn't be allowed to. The judge would force him to answer directly.

As for those in the second category, why haven't you answered these?

I wasn't being unfair to you and I can still only conclude that you stopped responding because you thought the questions were too difficult to answer. If that's not true please go ahead and answer them.

[David Orsam]

Is this it?

Nope!

[Abby Normal]

Now, what?



See, thing is, if he thinks I'm going to reveal all if he just keeps quiet then there's no incentive for him to ask me.

So let's see if he does.

[For Fisherman: this is actually genuine. I'm reluctant to even tell you because it will only encourage your timing gap argument but happy to do so, despite your refusals to answer my questions, if you want to know.]

Hi David

I think the most interesting thing I discovered was just how far Corbet's Court was from Baker's Row - basically the entire length of Hanbury Street - so if Cross saw Paul walk into that court, as he says he did, the two of them must presumably have walked together all the way down Hanbury Street (talking to each other?).

Is this it?

[Patrick S]

You forgot to weigh in how Durward Street sloped differently depending on how far out in it you were.
And me oh my, are some people far out!

Ah, yes! The slope. And you forgot to weigh-in how one naturally walks more quickly when passing a dark alley. There were - by my count - six dark alleys on Lechmere's route to and through Buck's Row! That most certainly sped him up! As well, you didn't take into consideration the fact that Lechmere had not eaten that morning (based on my estimates of when he rose and left for work, there wasn't time). Thus, he essentially glided, almost weightless along the cobblestones! This gave him even more time with Nichols! And don't forget the fact that Madge Woodborough, who lived on Lechmere's route had a dog, Milky (due to his white coat). Milky - in all likelihood - liked to chase passersby. This hurried Lechmere along. Giving him more time to do his dastardly deed!

Of course, if he stopped to tie his shoes or cut a bit a leather from his boot all these timings are out the window. But, they do for me what they must (PROVE - based on the 'time evidence' - that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, Tommy Torso, and so many others). So, I'll hear no talk that these times are not rock solid and indisputable! In fact, if even suggest that they may not be wholly accurate and therefore damning for Lechmere, I'll mock you contemptuously for not seeing what's so clear to me and my fellow experts!

[Fisherman]

But how did the camera man beat you there? Were you walking faster than Andy? What about editing? Did they make you do more than one take? do you feel your shoe size could've made a difference? What about dinner? did you overdo your carbs and walk faster than you should've?

Apparently these are the kind of questions they'll come up with so I figure you might want to get a head start

Columbo

You forgot to weigh in how Durward Street sloped differently depending on how far out in it you were.
And me oh my, are some people far out!

[Fisherman]

No but, like I said, I draw my own conclusions about your reason for not answering my questions.

When I answered your questions, you did not accept my answers since I did not dance to your pipe by accepting a choice between "yes" or "no" only.
Saying that I could not answer your questions because of that, and going on about how you conclude that was because there was no way to answer them for me without loosing the debate is - with respect - totally bonkers.
I am not saying that you know that quite well yourself - but I am quite prepared to "draw my own conclusions" about it.

Was Charles Lechmere the Whitechapel killer? Yes or no? How do you answer that question without qualifying the answer? In your case I would expect that you lean towards "probably no", whereas I would say "probably yes". And then we would need to further develop the answers with things like " a very small probability", "a very large probability" or something to that effect.

I would not respect a flat out no or yes as any informed answer, since either choice would disregard vital information and overlook possibilities. That´s not to say that there will not be a number of posters who will pounce at this post and yell "NO!" - those shallow characters were always about out here.

But "yes" or "no" has their flaws at times, and when they do, we need to respect that. It would make for a sounder debate climate.

[Robert St Devil]

Petiot. Kurten. Kemper. Off the top of my head..

D---, ratatat tat and down goes my spitfire! So when did Stephen King get into the nonfiction business? BTW I will be sticking pins in your effigy tonite. Still, good show and cheers, mate

Hi Ros. I believe I have come up with a story that I can live with regarding PC Thain. I read an article that gave a new perspective. Here goes:
PC Thain is told to go and get the doctor by PC Neale, which he does. I read a quote by Dr. Llewylyn that said PC Thain arrived at 3:55a. Dressing may have meant pulling up his suspenders, putting on his shoes and coat, grabbing his hat and bag, and vamoose! And, PC Thain arrives with the doctor at 4a. Now, PC Thain is hanging out at the crime scene, awaiting direction, when about 4:15a, he decides to go get his cape from the slaughter-house. Now, here's the point of contention: he either does or doesn't tell the slaughter-house men about the murder. I'm not certain if he would have been breaking policy by announcing the murder. When PC Neale states at the inquest that two slaughter-house men were first to arrive on the scene, he means that they were the first of the public to arrive on the scene. He is not including the doctor or the constables, who are already there.

- - - - - -
Lechmere could have been basing his 'about' estimation on the time that he was accustomed to leaving his house for work. He could have estimated that he left 10 minutes after his normal time.

[Columbo]

Since the issue about how long the trek from Doveton Street to Bucks Row would have taken, and since it has been questioned that Andy Griffiths and I did it in a normal pace, arriving at 7.07 minutes, it may need to be added how Michael Connor - one of the very first to point a finger at Lechmere - timed it:
Walking time between Doveton Street and the Buck’s Row murder site today is approximately six minutes—it would have been quicker in 1888. Even on the basis of this modern timing, if he left home on that morning about 3.30 then he would have been in Buck’s Row about 3.36.

But how did the camera man beat you there? Were you walking faster than Andy? What about editing? Did they make you do more than one take? do you feel your shoe size could've made a difference? What about dinner? did you overdo your carbs and walk faster than you should've?

Apparently these are the kind of questions they'll come up with so I figure you might want to get a head start

Columbo

[Columbo]

A Note on Census Records

My main hobby has been genealogy for the last 6 years, and in doing so I have look at hundreds (if not thousands) of Census records, and have a fairly good understanding of their background.

The British Census records that we have pre-1911 are not primary sources. The process was that an “enumerator” was paid to service a district, usually anything from 100 to 400 households (sometimes more). Their job was to distribute the census forms, collect them, and then transfer all the information from each individual census form into their “enumerator book”. There were complaints from enumerators that the workload was too great and the pay was not enough. Some enumerators even registered their protest in their books. In early census' where illiteracy was still a problem (especially in poorer areas) the enumeraror would take the details from a person in the house and record them on the doorstep (and there are even records that show the enumerator asked the person next door for details of the people in a house!).

So what we look at now when we see pre-1911 Census records are only copies of the enumerators' books. The Government, in their wisdom, decided during the first world war that due to a paper shortage that they would pulp and recyle ALL the original census forms prior to 1911. That is why when you see a 1911 Census record it is an individual form, filled out by the householder (usually by the father as head of the house), and when you see a pre-1911 census record the page usually contains many households.

The problem with this is that we are now dependent on what the enumerator copied into their books. This has lead to many misspellings of people's names, their ages and their places of birth (quite understandable as the enumerator had to try to decipher people's handwriting, and were under pressure to complete their tasks on time – not easy when you dealing with many, many households). And believe me, these cause all sorts of headaches for genealogists!

From my experience, in households were the mother had remarried, it was unusual for her children from a previous marriage to adopt the stepfather's name. An official adoption process did not come into being until the 1920s/1930s. You find that most census records don't even mention the fact that they were step-sons or step-daughters – another headache for the genealogist. Adopting the name could happen, it is just in my experience that it was unusual.

The other problem with dealing with the transcriptions of the census forms was that sometimes the enumerator would make a mistake in copying the details over to their book (besides the normal misspellings). You occasionally find a household were the mother and father have been left off the record, even though you know they were there as the record in the house shows that children only live there, and the parents are not to be found in any other search. A lazy enumerator could also go overboard with “the ditto” and fail to record a different surname in the house and just continue with dittos.

So basically what I am saying is, do not put 100% faith in the accuracy of a census record, keep in mind that we are dealing with a secondary source and should be checked against other sources to confirm their accuracy.

Very informative. Thanks for this.

Columbo

[drstrange169]

Hello Billiou,

Time across Britain wasn't officially standardised until 1880.

More pertinent perhaps to this discussion, L.N.W.R (Broad Street Station) adopted the standardised time in the late 1840's, 1847 I think, and set all their clocks by it.

Providing he was telling the truth, Xmere's claim of arriving at Broad Street at four o'clock, was probably the only accurate time given by anybody that night.

PS Thanks for the info on census taking, very enlighting!

[Columbo]

All three initiated direct contact with police while committing their crimes. Either to mislead police or keep tabs on the investigation, maybe both. So they might have appeared helpful or innocently curious, but weren't.

If these men were never caught, they might still be regarded simply as concerned citizens.

Not that I think Lechmere is the Ripper. But there have been killers who have used police and the courts in their attempts to avoid arrest (as well as it being an act of arrogant smugness, in some cases). It could be argued that if he was the Ripper, it was in his interest to find 'legitimate' reasons to talk to police.. and proactively insert himself as a witness. And many non-serial killers have done exactly that.

Interesting. I think the Swedish one that Fisherman mentions is really strange. A cop who was a killer investigating his own crimes.

[Billiou]

Hello David,
Also keep in mind that we don't know Paul even owned a timepiece. He may have been woken by a "knocker upper", like so many in the area and simply assumed the time from that persons actions.

It would be interesting to know how the populace kept track of time in their everyday life throughout the 19th Century. I have heard that with the advent of the railways in the 1850s that this forced the country to adopt a consistent time, and brought about better timepieces so people could meet the timetable.

This, of course, would have taken a greater time to filter down through the various classes.

I hope maybe someone may have an expertise in this history and could maybe share it with the message boards. More for my own education and interest, if for not anything else!

[Billiou]

A Note on Census Records

A Note on Census Records

My main hobby has been genealogy for the last 6 years, and in doing so I have look at hundreds (if not thousands) of Census records, and have a fairly good understanding of their background.

The British Census records that we have pre-1911 are not primary sources. The process was that an “enumerator” was paid to service a district, usually anything from 100 to 400 households (sometimes more). Their job was to distribute the census forms, collect them, and then transfer all the information from each individual census form into their “enumerator book”. There were complaints from enumerators that the workload was too great and the pay was not enough. Some enumerators even registered their protest in their books. In early census' where illiteracy was still a problem (especially in poorer areas) the enumeraror would take the details from a person in the house and record them on the doorstep (and there are even records that show the enumerator asked the person next door for details of the people in a house!).

So what we look at now when we see pre-1911 Census records are only copies of the enumerators' books. The Government, in their wisdom, decided during the first world war that due to a paper shortage that they would pulp and recyle ALL the original census forms prior to 1911. That is why when you see a 1911 Census record it is an individual form, filled out by the householder (usually by the father as head of the house), and when you see a pre-1911 census record the page usually contains many households.

The problem with this is that we are now dependent on what the enumerator copied into their books. This has lead to many misspellings of people's names, their ages and their places of birth (quite understandable as the enumerator had to try to decipher people's handwriting, and were under pressure to complete their tasks on time – not easy when you dealing with many, many households). And believe me, these cause all sorts of headaches for genealogists!

From my experience, in households were the mother had remarried, it was unusual for her children from a previous marriage to adopt the stepfather's name. An official adoption process did not come into being until the 1920s/1930s. You find that most census records don't even mention the fact that they were step-sons or step-daughters – another headache for the genealogist. Adopting the name could happen, it is just in my experience that it was unusual.

The other problem with dealing with the transcriptions of the census forms was that sometimes the enumerator would make a mistake in copying the details over to their book (besides the normal misspellings). You occasionally find a household were the mother and father have been left off the record, even though you know they were there as the record in the house shows that children only live there, and the parents are not to be found in any other search. A lazy enumerator could also go overboard with “the ditto” and fail to record a different surname in the house and just continue with dittos.

So basically what I am saying is, do not put 100% faith in the accuracy of a census record, keep in mind that we are dealing with a secondary source and should be checked against other sources to confirm their accuracy.

[Ausgirl]

How do you figure? Kemper confessed, Kurten was identified by a rape victim and Petiot was on the lamb from the cops after they discovered bodies in his house.

All three initiated direct contact with police while committing their crimes. Either to mislead police or keep tabs on the investigation, maybe both. So they might have appeared helpful or innocently curious, but weren't.

If these men were never caught, they might still be regarded simply as concerned citizens.

Not that I think Lechmere is the Ripper. But there have been killers who have used police and the courts in their attempts to avoid arrest (as well as it being an act of arrogant smugness, in some cases). It could be argued that if he was the Ripper, it was in his interest to find 'legitimate' reasons to talk to police.. and proactively insert himself as a witness. And many non-serial killers have done exactly that.