What happened to Lechmere......

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: No, you did not merely "presume that a carman would have worked a normal working week" - you stated, without qualification (or evidence), that the mornings on which he worked coincided with all but the Stride/Eddowes murders.

... because I presumed he did so.

That is something quite different. It's not presuming - it is stating an assumption AS IF IT WERE FACT, which is bad argumentation. I "jumped" the argument (but not you) for that reason.

... which is the same reason I jumped your "Bagster Phillips was wrong on the TOD of Chapman."

Maybe we are not all that different after all.

[Sam Flynn]

Thatīs as it should be, no more, no less. But being jumped for presuming that a carman would have worked a normal working week

No, you did not merely "presume that a carman would have worked a normal working week" - you stated, without qualification (or evidence), that the mornings on which he worked coincided with all but the Stride/Eddowes murders. That is something quite different. It's not presuming - it is stating an assumption AS IF IT WERE FACT, which is bad argumentation. I "jumped" the argument (but not you) for that reason.

[Fisherman]

To be absolutely clear, it's not about you or me - it's about the argument. And I don't mean "argument" in the "handbags-at-ten-paces" sense, but in the strict meaning of "a statement or fact advanced for the purpose of influencing the mind". Given that we're serious researchers (n'est-ce pas?), and in a position to influence people's minds, we should be jolly careful with the "arguments" we construct. If we're not, then we can both expect any deficiencies in our arguments to be corrected.

Thatīs as it should be, no more, no less. But being jumped for presuming that a carman would have worked a normal working week, as if you had tried to mislead somebody, is not something I enjoy very much. And when you add how you have felt the need to correct me umpteen times, whilst yourself being a very balanced poster, I smell a rat, if you forgive me for saying so.

We have different views of the case. We both get it wrong at times. We both like to get it right, since we know that getting it wrong is dipping your toes into a pond of piranhas.

Now, you represent the "the case will probably never been solved" fraction, and one of the backdrwas of having such a fraction is that the people in it sometimes tend to get very patronizing towards those who say that they have a suspect. Itīs understandable, but it is not very entertaining. And - if I may be so bold - it makes people lazy, to a degree; here we are, at the end of things, sort of. And to wrap things up, matters are settled between peers in the most confortable way. Like the Chapman case, where we are asked to believe that the killer chatted away a number of minutes inside the backyard before remembering what he had come to do.

"But there are three witnesses corroborating each other", you say.

But I say there are three PEOPLE involved, and people will mistake themselves, they will reach for fifteen minutes of fame, they will lie, they will forget, they will distort.
And then there is one factuality involved - Chapman was very cold as Phillips examined her.
In my book, that trumps a set of witnesses like the triumvirate you lean upon ten times out of ten. But when I try to "correct the deficiency" in that argument, you say that you regard it as a proven fact that Phillips is wrong. And then you want to thrash me for not having taken into account that some people worked Sundays in 1888 - as if it mattered to the Lechmere theory, where it has NEVER been known where the carman was on the morning of four out of five canonical murders.
What matters is that it is a proven thing that he lived at Doveton Street and worked at Broad Street (although this too has come under question lately), and so he fits the bill for the kind of person we should look for geographywise - a man who seemingly had reason to be at the murder sites at the relevant hours.

Itīs too much shadowboxing going on, and too little interest in the facts.

[Sam Flynn]

I very much dislike it when somebody takes it upon himself to be the much better man than me in this respect

To be absolutely clear, it's not about you or me - it's about the argument. And I don't mean "argument" in the "handbags-at-ten-paces" sense, but in the strict meaning of "a statement or fact advanced for the purpose of influencing the mind". Given that we're serious researchers (n'est-ce pas?), and in a position to influence people's minds, we should be jolly careful with the "arguments" we construct. If we're not, then we can both expect any deficiencies in our arguments to be corrected.

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett:

I stand corrected re the whiskey.

Big deal, eh?

It's a bit odd that the man was a LNWR employee and yet he was driving a Pickfords van, don't you think? Unless he was pinching the van as well. I don't suppose every van was searched as it left the yard, so in this instance the 'officers' instincts were sound. Perhaps a blood-stained Lechmere simply breezed past him or other 'officers' with a cheery whistle each morning and never raised any suspicion, but it seems very likely that he would have been clocked as he entered and left his workplace.

My second point was that a man whose job it was to collect goods from a drop-off point in Primrose Street and deliver them to Broad Street Station might well describe himself as working at Broad Street, even if his first port of call each morning was the stables in Primrose Street. If that man lived somewhere East of Brady Street, an Old Montague Street route to work would not be 'logical'. So if we wish not to mislead we have to qualify 'logical routes' in some way.

Ah - there we are! Well, hereīs how the Times portrayed things:
"George Cross, a carman, stated that he left home on Friday morning at 20 minutes past 3, and he arrived at his work, at Broad-street, at 4 o'clock."
No Primrose Street mentioned there!

As for a blood-stained Lechmere breezing past the entrance guard/s every murder morning, I stand by what I have already said - thereīs no telling to what degree he would have been bloodstained. At any rate, a few specks on dark clothing would not have been easily spotted, whereas a bloodbathed person, the stuff dripping from the brim of his hat would be easier to reveal.

Once again - it all depends on how bloodied he was, what possibilitites he had to clean up (if needed) before he engaged his fellow workers and the lighting conditions.

[Fisherman]

Fish

Do you not consider Smith one of Lechmere's?

Gary

Thereīs a good many others I think are much more probable. Smith is a non-probable.

[MrBarnett]

Nichols, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly, Pierre. And quite possibly Tabram.

Fish

Do you not consider Smith one of Lechmere's?

Gary

[MrBarnett]

The dishonest carman said nothing about the whisky, actually - that was found at his home. When he was nicked, he only had champagne in his cart.
But thatīs beside the point!
What would he have described as his working place? I really donīt know. It probably hinges to some degree on who hired him, and where he spent most of his working time.
I am sure you are making some sort of point, but I would appreciate if you explained it to me.

I stand corrected re the whiskey.

It's a bit odd that the man was a LNWR employee and yet he was driving a Pickfords van, don't you think? Unless he was pinching the van as well. I don't suppose every van was searched as it left the yard, so in this instance the 'officers' instincts were sound. Perhaps a blood-stained Lechmere simply breezed past him or other 'officers' with a cheery whistle each morning and never raised any suspicion, but it seems very likely that he would have been clocked as he entered and left his workplace.

My second point was that a man whose job it was to collect goods from a drop-off point in Primrose Street and deliver them to Broad Street Station might well describe himself as working at Broad Street, even if his first port of call each morning was the stables in Primrose Street. If that man lived somewhere East of Brady Street, an Old Montague Street route to work would not be 'logical'. So if we wish not to mislead we have to qualify 'logical routes' in some way.

[Fisherman]

All his other deeds?

Regards, Pierre

Nichols, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly, Pierre. And quite possibly Tabram.

[Pierre]

If you believe the witness Long, then yes. If you believe George Bagster Phillips - which the police apparently did - then no.
I think the Ripper killed Chapman ar around 3.30, which is in line with Phillips assessment.

If Long was correct, however, then he could not have killed Chapman en route to work, but he was a carman who delivered goods, and so he may have killed her when on an errand. But that would deviate from all his other deeds where he worked during the dark hours.

All his other deeds?

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

I imagine the man was either an LNWR security guard or a Railway Police 'officer'. That's just a guess.

Here's a question for you: The thief was driving a van out of the station and claimed to have forgotten to unload the whisky and champagne. The LNWR receiving office was in Primrose Street where there were also apparently stables connected to the goods station. Do you think it's likely that if this man started his working day at Primrose Street each morning and took received items from there to the main station he might have described his place of employment as Pickfords, Broad Street?

The dishonest carman said nothing about the whisky, actually - that was found at his home. When he was nicked, he only had champagne in his cart.
But thatīs beside the point!
What would he have described as his working place? I really donīt know. It probably hinges to some degree on who hired him, and where he spent most of his working time.
I am sure you are making some sort of point, but I would appreciate if you explained it to me.

[MrBarnett]

I imagine the man was either an LNWR security guard or a Railway Police 'officer'. That's just a guess.

Here's a question for you: The thief was driving a van out of the station and claimed to have forgotten to unload the whisky and champagne. The LNWR receiving office was in Primrose Street where there were also apparently stables connected to the goods station. Do you think it's likely that if this man started his working day at Primrose Street each morning and took received items from there to the main station he might have described his place of employment as Pickfords, Broad Street?

[Pierre]

MrBarnett: Which of the following is an absurd statement?

Charles Lechmere may have holidayed in Aruba.
Charles Lechmere may have worked on a Sunday.

None of them. One is infinitely more likely, the other one very unlikely.

I'm not sure why you provided that response unless you were making the valid point that we know virtually nothing about Lechmere's working life - his shifts, his routes to Pickfords and from there to his points of delivery, whether he drove the cart alone or in company, whether his first port of call was the stables in Primrose Street etc. etc.

Oh, I donīt need to make such a point. I have it made for me on a daily basis. It is as if somebody had said that Lechmere MUST have been close to the murder sites at every murder occasion. But nobody did.
What is interesting about Charles Lechmere, the geography of the East End and the golden sands of Aruba, is that no matter that we do not know where he was apart from on the Nichols murder morning, a VERY good case can be made for him having had reason to pass every murder site at the approximate times of the murders.
After that, he may have called in sick, he may have chosen longer routes for the fun of it, he may have been in Old Montague Street (or in Banbury) on the morning Chapman died, etcetera, etcetera. Or in Aruba.

We all KNOW this. Which is why I think that as long as we cannot place him anywhere ELSE than on the murder spots, his viability as the killer will not go away.

Or to Aruba.

What is this? A game?

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

It seems there was an eagle-eyed 'officer' on guard at the entrance to the Broad Street Goods Yard. This is from The Standard of 6th October, 1885:

[ATTACH]17505[/ATTACH]

Thoughts and remarks:

Yes, this carman of luxurious habits (champagne, mind you!) was nicked by a man hired by Pickfords.

But apparently, he had managed to spirit away half a luggage train of goods before that happened.

Making it a tough exercise to establish how effectively the carmen were controlled.

A question for you, Gary: it is said that the man who nicked Champagne Charlie was an "officer". What does that tell us; do you know?

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett: Which of the following is an absurd statement?

Charles Lechmere may have holidayed in Aruba.
Charles Lechmere may have worked on a Sunday.

None of them. One is infinitely more likely, the other one very unlikely.

I'm not sure why you provided that response unless you were making the valid point that we know virtually nothing about Lechmere's working life - his shifts, his routes to Pickfords and from there to his points of delivery, whether he drove the cart alone or in company, whether his first port of call was the stables in Primrose Street etc. etc.

Oh, I donīt need to make such a point. I have it made for me on a daily basis. It is as if somebody had said that Lechmere MUST have been close to the murder sites at every murder occasion. But nobody did.
What is interesting about Charles Lechmere, the geography of the East End and the golden sands of Aruba, is that no matter that we do not know where he was apart from on the Nichols murder morning, a VERY good case can be made for him having had reason to pass every murder site at the approximate times of the murders.
After that, he may have called in sick, he may have chosen longer routes for the fun of it, he may have been in Old Montague Street (or in Banbury) on the morning Chapman died, etcetera, etcetera. Or in Aruba.

We all KNOW this. Which is why I think that as long as we cannot place him anywhere ELSE than on the murder spots, his viability as the killer will not go away.

Or to Aruba.