Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Columbo]

There were a number of different routes he could have taken. We don't know what route he took, nor do we know if the route he took is in existence today.

There were a number of different speeds he could have walked at. We don't know what speed he walked at.

I believe we can only reasonably say that the walk from his house to the murder site would have taken somewhere between 5 and 10 minutes.

That sounds reasonable to me as well.

[David Orsam]

I would make a guess it would generally take 6-8 minutes by the research.

There were a number of different routes he could have taken. We don't know what route he took, nor do we know if the route he took is in existence today.

There were a number of different speeds he could have walked at. We don't know what speed he walked at.

I believe we can only reasonably say that the walk from his house to the murder site would have taken somewhere between 5 and 10 minutes.

[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.

I would make a guess it would generally take 6-8 minutes by the research.

[Fisherman]

Let's stand back for a moment and look at the closest official record of his name to when he most likely started work. What was it?

That would be a bit disingenuos to my mind, since one must assume that Thomas Cross was the person who signed the census record when Lechmere was eleven.
He was christianed Lechmere one year after Thomas Cross wed Maria Louisa, so a conscious choice was made about which name Charles would carry, presumably after Thomas and Maria having spoken together about it. And Lechmeres sister was born, baptised and died young - as a Lechmere.

Allowing the census to govern our reasoning on this issue would be unsound, for the reasons given. It is not what others called Lechmere we are after, it is what he called himself.

[David Orsam]

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.

I see Fisherman is responding to my posts now without actually saying so which strikes me as a bit silly.

Anyway, a few points in response.

1. Fisherman quotes Michael Connor as saying: "Walking time between Doveton Street and Bucks Row murder site today is approximately six minutes". Given the use of the word "today" what relevance is this to the issue at hand?

2. Fisherman says that Michael Connor says "it would have been quicker in 1888" but how does Michael Connor know this? I challenge this claim and request some supporting evidence more than the word of Michael Connor whoever he may be.

3. Does Fisherman agree that if Conner is saying the route would have been quicker in 1888 than it is "today" then Connor must have walked a route that did not exist in 1888?

I also have some additional questions for Fisherman which he will presumably ignore:

1. What exact route did he take when he performed the walk as shown on the television documentary?

2. Was it a route that existed in 1888?

3. On the TV documentary, we see him and Andy Griffiths set off on their walk from Doveton Street and in the next shot we see them arriving, which means the cameraman was already in Durward Street (Bucks Row) when they arrived. Then Fisherman stops his stopwatch at 7:07. Was this a genuine moment at the end of the walk showing the true moment of arrival? If so, how did the cameraman get there before him? Did the cameraman race on ahead? Or was there a second cameraman waiting in Durward Street for his arrival? Or was that a reconstruction created for the camera and the actual walk wasn’t filmed?

[Patrick S]

I agree. The theories posted have become thin. Evidence provided and they don't want to see it.

Columbo

WHICH "theories" with resect to name have "become thin"? The prevailing view is that the Crossmere theory, as a whole, has not held up to scrutiny and that the arguments supporting it are so thin as to be invisible. So, let's deal with each "thin theory" one at a time. Pick one and we'll start there.

[MrBarnett]

Let's stand back for a moment and look at the closest official record of his name to when he most likely started work. What was it?

[Columbo]

The ONLY two we have say Cross. There is no reason at all to think that any other report said Lechmere.

Lechmere was the name he was registered by, the name that he used officially. It was also the only of the two names that offered a possibility to search for him in the registers.
Are you suggesting that the police gave up that possibility, leaving posterity - including their own colleagues - at a loss to identify the man?
Why would he call himself Lechmere when speaking to the school authorities, the census takers, the voting administrators, the church authorities, instead of calling himself Cross there too, if he really did call himself Cross normally?

The desperation that surfaces when it cmes to this matter is astonishing. There is not a iot of evidence that he ever called himself Cross on any other occasion, in everyday life or in official circumstances, and still this idea is being pushed as if it was a very good one.
Amazing.

I agree. The theories posted have become thin. Evidence provided and they don't want to see it.

Columbo

[Patrick S]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You're still not getting it are you? You can't disprove Fisherman's theory and it's eating you up. Funny thing is that your approach is completely backwards.

Done with Choo!

Columbo

I'm sure it's quite "backwards", Columbo. I live in shame.

And may I say that I'm a big fan of the all caps "haha" with exclamation point. Well done. Your contributions are not going unnoticed.

[Patrick S]

So how many do you want? Fisherman provided two great examples and you're still not happy with that?

Let's suspend our focus on the name issue. I - for one - think it's somewhat easily explained. Keep in mind that it was mentioned in another thread that boys entered the workforce at 13 or 14 years old, and we have "Charles Cross", age 11, appearing in the 1861 census. Thus, it's not a leap that he was known as Charles Cross upon starting his first job a few years later.

So, let's assume an intent to deceive. He told them he was Cross and no one called him by that name. He was Lechmere. Always Lechmere. And? Now what? What else is there? The Mizen Scam? The 'blood evidence"? Both were - as I see it - created BECAUSE of the name issue (in order to make Lechmere "Jack the Ripper"). They don't stand on their own and they require immense assumption, trust in certain sources, disregard for others, and complicated mental gymnastics. It's sound and fury constructed to give an interesting if insignificant and likely innocently explained detail (Cross v. Lechmere) sinister implications.

[Columbo]

It's fair to say that you are properly estimated by those on these boards. To quote a great actor from a great movie, "I look forward to your next syllable with great eagerness."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You're still not getting it are you? You can't disprove Fisherman's theory and it's eating you up. Funny thing is that your approach is completely backwards.

Done with Choo!

Columbo

[Columbo]

Perfect.

doesn't mean anything. So what if they spelled the name wrong? The point is they didn't shy away from it and ask if the guy when by something easier to spell.

If Cross said Lechmere, they would've printed it. You're grasping at straws.

[Patrick S]

You are right that I don't know that much about this theory which is why I'm reading and participating.

But I wouldn't under estimate people.

Continue your barrage on us Patrick, I can take it.

Columb

It's fair to say that you are properly estimated by those on these boards. To quote a great actor from a great movie, "I look forward to your next syllable with great eagerness."

[Columbo]

So two say Cross.

I read hundreds, maybe thousands of police reports a year.

When a person has multiple names they are generally mentioned in one document, then one name (normally the one he is known by, his legal name or not) is used everywhere else.

Was it that way in 1888, I don't know, but I suspect so.

So how many do you want? Fisherman provided two great examples and you're still not happy with that?

[Columbo]

It's not hostility. I just figure, since you called me a "little bitch" a few pages back, and you seem to want to argue every obvious point, that I'd cut you very little slack. So, I'm not inclined to let your absurdities pass uncommented upon.

You are right that I don't know that much about this theory which is why I'm reading and participating.

But I wouldn't under estimate people.

Continue your barrage on us Patrick, I can take it.

Columb