Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[David Orsam]

Consequences? Well if he had left reasonably on time, say shortly after 3.30, it would mean he would not necessarily have been walking quickly. He might have been strolling to work but the delay caused by finding the body made him late. In other words, the 7 minutes that Fisherman has timed the walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row might have been 8 or 9 minutes.

Worth adding that the reverse is true. If he normally left at or shortly before 3.30 but that morning left at, say, 3.35 or 3.36 - meaning that he was already running late for work - he might have walked more quickly, done the walk in 6 or 7 minutes, but still ended up in Bucks Row at 3.42 with Paul catching up with him a minute later.

[Patrick S]

No, actually you said we don't know if he gave Cross at the inquest. That we only have newspaper accounts.

My question is: if he didn't give the name Cross at the inquest, then where did the papers get it from if not from Cross himself?

You didn't say anything to the contrary, I was just asking.

Columbo

Read again. That's not what I said. I said ONLY the name Cross. That is to say that he gave the name Cross to the exclusion of all other names, specifically Lechmere.

[GUT]

What if he said, my names Charles Allen Lechmere, but I go by Cross, what name do you think the press would use?

If they couldn't get Paul or Thain right, do you think they'd even have a go at Lechmere?

[Columbo]

Read again. That's not what I said. I said ONLY the name Cross. That is to say that he gave the name Cross to the exclusion of all other names, specifically Lechmere.

You did say that. I personally don' think he went around saying my name's Lechmere but call me Cross. Seems to make things a little complicated. It's possible I guess, just seems improbable.

I think it should also be considered that no newspaper used the name Lechmere or a variation there of, so I'm inclined to believe he said Cross, leaving out Lechmere all together.

Columbo

[Columbo]

What if he said, my names Charles Allen Lechmere, but I go by Cross, what name do you think the press would use?

If they couldn't get Paul or Thain right, do you think they'd even have a go at Lechmere?

I think there were enough unusual names from the Jewish and Russian population that they would be used to it. If they could do Louis Deimschutz I"m sure Lechmere wouldn't be a problem.

Columbo

[Patrick S]

You did say that. I personally don' think he went around saying my name's Lechmere but call me Cross. Seems to make things a little complicated. It's possible I guess, just seems improbable.

I think it should also be considered that no newspaper used the name Lechmere or a variation there of, so I'm inclined to believe he said Cross, leaving out Lechmere all together.

Columbo

God. This is tedious. The least you could have done was gone back and read the post in question before repeatedly posting "yes you did". I; have saved you the trouble. It's below, in its entirety. Note I say ONLY THE NAME CROSS. That means what it says: ONLY CROSS and NOT Lechmere. OR BOTH NAMES: CROSS and LECHMERE (note: CROSS is still one of the names), or five names THREE of which we haven't learned (that's hyperbole but still, if you do simple math and subtract the three names we may not have learned from FIVE you get......TWO! And what are those two? CROSS and LECHMERE! LECHMERE and CROSS! There is no combination here that does not have him giving the name CROSS!

"I'll say again that we simply do not know if he gave only the name Cross at the inquest, if he gave both names: Cross and Lechmere, or five names, three of which we haven't learned. All we can rely upon are demonstrably inaccurate press reports as the official records no longer exist.

I'll readily admit that I simply do not know. I can only say what I think is likely, plausible, what makes sense with the minimum of assumption and invention.

Initially, l found the name issue suspicious. Even as we understand references like Annie Sivvey and Kate Conway tell us how identification was not then what it is now, I found it interesting. Yet, in researching it, I found it much less so. In fact, I convinced there are 100 more likely scenarios that explain the "name issue" before we suspect the man of being a serial killer."

[Billiou]

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.

Thanks for the suggestion. I have subscribed the News archive site in the past in relation to doing genealogy research (and found a few interesting court cases in relation to criminal ancestors) and have found them fascinating, giving us a view of the past.
Good luck to you too.

[Patrick S]

I think there were enough unusual names from the Jewish and Russian population that they would be used to it. If they could do Louis Deimschutz I"m sure Lechmere wouldn't be a problem.

Columbo

GUT just gave you two examples from THIS case that they DID NOT get right. So, what exactly is your point?

[GUT]

I think there were enough unusual names from the Jewish and Russian population that they would be used to it. If they could do Louis Deimschutz I"m sure Lechmere wouldn't be a problem.

Columbo

You mean like


Times (London)
Tuesday, 19 March 1889

Diemschitz?

[Billiou]

Consequences? Well if he had left reasonably on time, say shortly after 3.30, it would mean he would not necessarily have been walking quickly. He might have been strolling to work but the delay caused by finding the body made him late. In other words, the 7 minutes that Fisherman has timed the walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row might have been 8 or 9 minutes.

It should be noted incidentally that, contrary to what was stated in the TV documentary, the route from Doveton Street to Bucks Row is not the same today as it was in 1888 so timings cannot be made with any degree of certainty. And it would only have needed Cross to be delayed by something like having to tie his shoelace or waiting to cross the road until some carriages had passed down the street and a whole minute or two could easily have got swallowed up.

Some newspaper reports also say he left at 3:20 to get to Pickford's at 4:00.

The distance from Doveton to Broad St was approx. 2.3km. To get there in 40 mins, he would have to walk at a rate (what I call a medium rate) of 3.5km/h (about 1km every 17 mins).

I do a fair amount of walking and know my walking pace (a call it a "quick" pace of 1 km/11 mins). I presume people who have to get to work on time every day would know how longs it takes them to walk there, take the same route and this would seldom vary.

The distance from Doveton St to the murder site (taking the most direct route) was approx 640m, which at a "medium" rate would take approx 11 mins.

Yes, anything could have taken place that morning after he left Doveton, stop for a fag, tie his shoes, a quick piss etc etc, and we will never know if it did....

All we have is his reply to a question from the Coroner that he said Paul said he was behind time (backed up by Paul's statement) and that Cross too was behind time.
ie The Daily Telegraph: Witness [Cross]: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself.

This is the only time this is mentioned by Cross. But whether he started his trip to work that morning "behind time", or whether he thought he became "behind time" because of him stopping in Buck's Row, we will never know for sure.

[Columbo]

God. This is tedious. The least you could have done was gone back and read the post in question before repeatedly posting "yes you did". I; have saved you the trouble. It's below, in its entirety. Note I say ONLY THE NAME CROSS. That means what it says: ONLY CROSS and NOT Lechmere. OR BOTH NAMES: CROSS and LECHMERE (note: CROSS is still one of the names), or five names THREE of which we haven't learned (that's hyperbole but still, if you do simple math and subtract the three names we may not have learned from FIVE you get......TWO! And what are those two? CROSS and LECHMERE! LECHMERE and CROSS! There is no combination here that does not have him giving the name CROSS!

"I'll say again that we simply do not know if he gave only the name Cross at the inquest, if he gave both names: Cross and Lechmere, or five names, three of which we haven't learned. All we can rely upon are demonstrably inaccurate press reports as the official records no longer exist.

I'll readily admit that I simply do not know. I can only say what I think is likely, plausible, what makes sense with the minimum of assumption and invention.

Initially, l found the name issue suspicious. Even as we understand references like Annie Sivvey and Kate Conway tell us how identification was not then what it is now, I found it interesting. Yet, in researching it, I found it much less so. In fact, I convinced there are 100 more likely scenarios that explain the "name issue" before we suspect the man of being a serial killer."

Forgive me, I'm young and foolish.

[Columbo]

GUT just gave you two examples from THIS case that they DID NOT get right. So, what exactly is your point?

I think it's interesting that you knew GUT was going to give me these examples 10 minutes before he posted them......

I didn't say anyone got the right spelling, all I said was they were used to unusual names.

Why the hostility?

Columbo

[Columbo]

You mean like


Times (London)
Tuesday, 19 March 1889

Diemschitz?

Yeah like those. What I was pointing out is that unusual names weren't strange to them.

[GUT]

Yeah like those. What I was pointing out is that unusual names weren't strange to them.

But they spelt it wrong so it's possible that if faced with a choice between Lechmere and Cross they would go with Cross.

[Ausgirl]

I think it's interesting that you knew GUT was going to give me these examples 10 minutes before he posted them......

Guys, I think he's figured out your machiavellian tag-team approach. You've been sprung, old cocks.