What happened to Lechmere......

[MrBarnett]

MrBarnett: The time of the arrival of the Scotch train would seem to tie in to Lechmere's 4.00 a.m. arrival at Pickfords. Of course, there could have been other meat trains, and Lech may not have handled meat at all. He certainly never mentioned meat when he provided census info, unlike his son who thought it was relevant information.

Indeed! And a very relevant reason for that would be if his son was into the meat business, whereas the father himself was into the transporting business.


The son described himself as a meat carter. The father simply as a carman.

Perhaps Mon-Sat was the statistical mode for the Victorian workforce as a whole, but in a situation where the activity was 7 days a week, that would not apply.

We have the exact same today. Some people work weekends, most people donīt.


That's because many workplaces are closed at weekends. In situations where that is not the case there is a greater likelihood that an employee will be expected to do his/her fair share of weekend shifts.

Lechmere may not have been working on the morning of any of the murders other than Nichols. And on the night of the double event he may well have been tucked up in bed when the killings took place, knowing he had an early start the next morning.

He may have been to Aruba on holiday too. You forgot that!

Which of the following is an absurd statement?

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

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, what he carried on his cart, whether he drove the cart alone or in company, whether his first port of call was the stables in Primrose Street etc. etc.

[MrBarnett]

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:

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett: The time of the arrival of the Scotch train would seem to tie in to Lechmere's 4.00 a.m. arrival at Pickfords. Of course, there could have been other meat trains, and Lech may not have handled meat at all. He certainly never mentioned meat when he provided census info, unlike his son who thought it was relevant information.

Indeed! And a very relevant reason for that would be if his son was into the meat business, whereas the father himself was into the transporting business.

Perhaps Mon-Sat was the statistical mode for the Victorian workforce as a whole, but in a situation where the activity was 7 days a week, that would not apply.

We have the exact same today. Some people work weekends, most people donīt.

Lechmere may not have been working on the morning of any of the murders other than Nichols. And on the night of the double event he may well have been tucked up in bed when the killings took place, knowing he had an early start the next morning.

He may have been to Aruba on holiday too. You forgot that!

[MrBarnett]

The time of the arrival of the Scotch train would seem to tie in to Lechmere's 4.00 a.m. arrival at Pickfords. Of course, there could have been other meat trains, and Lech may not have handled meat at all. He certainly never mentioned meat when he provided census info, unlike his son who thought it was relevant information.

Perhaps Mon-Sat was the statistical mode for the Victorian workforce as a whole, but in a situation where the activity was 7 days a week, that would not apply.

Lechmere may not have been working on the morning of any of the murders other than Nichols. And on the night of the double event he may well have been tucked up in bed when the killings took place, knowing he had an early start the next morning.

[Fisherman]

This is from 1903, but may well reflect the situation 15 years earlier.

There was a Scotch Beef goods service train on Sundays and it carried meat in refrigerated carriages.

If Pickfords' meat delivery operation was 7 days a week and the normal working week was 6, not all their drivers could have Sunday off each week.

Refrigerated meat would leave no traces on the clothes of those who handled it.

[ATTACH]17504[/ATTACH]

Yes, it may - or may not - reflect the situation in 1888.

And yes - we cannot possibly know how Pickfords handled their carters schedules.

And yes - the normal working week in the victiroan society would run from Monday to Saturday.

And yes - refrigerated meat is less likely to produce traces on the clothes of those who handle it than fresh meat.

And yes - if you take out a pork chop from the fridge and rub it against your clothes, it WILL stain them.

And yes - we do not know in what shape or form Lechmere handled meat, if he DID handle meat. Which is not any established fact.

And yes - there will reasonably have been more than one source of meat transports to Broad Street Station.

And yes - I am still not relying on how the Broad Street work must have stained Lechmere with blood for him to be able to have been the Ripper.

And yes - it is nevertheless interesting to learn more about the reality of the goods depot back in 1888. And in 1903.

[MrBarnett]

This is from 1903, but may well reflect the situation 15 years earlier.

There was a Scotch Beef goods service train on Sundays and it carried meat in refrigerated carriages.

If Pickfords' meat delivery operation was 7 days a week and the normal working week was 6, not all their drivers could have Sunday off each week.

Refrigerated meat would leave no traces on the clothes of those who handled it.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: I have no such shortcomings that I'm aware of, Fish. I always seek to take a balanced view and, if I call things out umpteen times, it's because I see you making the same sorts of errors again and again.

You only have to scroll back a few posts to find where you treated it as a fact that Cadosch heard Chapman die and I have already pointed out to you how you equally treat it as a fact that Bagster Phillips was wrong on the TOD of Chapman.
So dubbing you a saint in this discipline may be a bit premature.
Itīs another thing that you always TRY to take a balanced view - I donīt doubt that. I do the exact same thing. We will nevertheless fail at times. But when I fail to weigh in that Lechmere may have worked shifts, it is not because I want to mislead - it is because I did not think of it. And I still believe that Monday to Saturday is the likleiest working week for Lechmere.
When faces with your sanctimonious assertions about repeatedly having to tell me off, it becomes a bit rich.

Don't shoot the messenger.

I will fire away at will if the messenger behaves the way you presently do, Iīm afraid. And I am an accomplished shot, actually.

I would not "make" anyone believe that you're anything of the sort, Fish. People will draw their own conclusions based on what you write and how you behave; they'll get no pointers from me.

So if I was to start a campaing where I repeatedly pointed you out as being very economical with the truth, nobody would consider that possibility, no matter how familiar they were with you? They would just say "no, he says heīs a good guy, so that must be right"?
Is that how you think it works? If EVERYBODY did it, and only you claimed to be righteous, how would newcomers react?
Maybe you need to give that some afterthought.

For the record, I certainly don't think you're an habitual (or even occasional) liar.

Nor do I think that you are so. But we are working with a case where it is treated as fact - for example - that Lechmere found Polly Nichols on his way to work, that he first thought that she was a tarpaulin, that he met Paul seconds after and so on.
What is fact and what is not is too rarely discussed, and in that respect, I donīt mind doing the rounds in the department.
But I very much dislike it when somebody takes it upon himself to be the much better man than me in this respect the way you are doing here. I often discuss tha case from a perspective where I treat Lechmere as the probable culprit, and that is something you are very well aware of. It goes wiothout saying that I will in such a discussion work from another angle than the one where he is "factually proven" to have been only a carman on his way to work on the morning of August the 31:st.
When I do so, I am hoping for much more fertile discussions than the reoccurring "You cannot prove it", believe it or not.
But what do I get...?

[dixon9]

that is true rosella,but my point was that Cross said at the nicholls scene he starts work at 4 am,which if you believe Cadosch,Long and Richardson in the chapman murder,Cross would have been very late for work(or nipped out during work hours/or on a works delivery)unless they started later on a weekend?

[Rosella]

So could hundreds of thousands of other men all across London and hundreds of men in employment in Whitechapel/Spitalfields. Cross and Paul weren't the only males out early on weekday mornings either, whether going to work or otherwise.

[dixon9]

thanks alot for that piece Mr Barnett,so he(cross) could well have been at work the saturday morning,of the Chapman slaying

[Sam Flynn]

[B]Well, chiefly your pointing out how you have told me upteen times not to call things fact prematurely, in spite of your own shortcomings in the exact same game.

I have no such shortcomings that I'm aware of, Fish. I always seek to take a balanced view and, if I call things out umpteen times, it's because I see you making the same sorts of errors again and again.

Don't shoot the messenger.

So it does. We could end u with you amking people believe that I am a habitual liar, for example.

I would not "make" anyone believe that you're anything of the sort, Fish. People will draw their own conclusions based on what you write and how you behave; they'll get no pointers from me.

For the record, I certainly don't think you're an habitual (or even occasional) liar.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: I'm just keen that we avoid presenting speculations as if they were facts. What's immodest about that?

Well, chiefly your pointing out how you have told me upteen times not to call things fact prematurely, in spite of your own shortcomings in the exact same game.

Earlier, I said that the evidence of three witnesses need to be evaluated against the opinion of one doctor, in connection with Annie Chapman's time of death. That was a perfectly true statement - one must evaluate all relevant aspects of the evidence in a case as challenging as this.

And your evaluation has led you to say that we may treat it as a fact that Bagster Phillips was wrong. So much for being discerning.

On the basis of such considered evaluation it is perfectly legit to opine that the person whom Cadoche heard was probably Annie Chapman, but it is quite another to boldly assert that "Cadoche heard Chapman fall against the fence".

But it is not "legit" to opine that Lechmere would have worked the normal working manīs week. Aha.

That would be wrong. That would be to present an opinion as if it were an established fact, just like the assertion that "all the victims save Stride and Eddowes died on Lechmere's working mornings". We know no such thing, because we don't know what Lechmere's working mornings really were.

And we donīt know who Cadosch heard. We only know that he SAID he heard things.

We shouldn't present speculations as if they were statements of fact, because they can so easily mislead the reader, and even the writer ends up believing it in the end!

You talkinīto me? Or to yourself?

It's just a matter of wording, but it makes a huge difference.

So it does. We could end u with you amking people believe that I am a habitual liar, for example.
And we would not want that, would we?

[Sam Flynn]

So letīs be a bit more modest, shall we?

I'm just keen that we avoid presenting speculations as if they were facts. What's immodest about that?

Some speculate that Cadoshe must have heard Chapman and nobody else.

Earlier, I said that the evidence of three witnesses need to be evaluated against the opinion of one doctor, in connection with Annie Chapman's time of death. That was a perfectly true statement - one must evaluate all relevant aspects of the evidence in a case as challenging as this.

On the basis of such considered evaluation it is perfectly legit to opine that the person whom Cadoche heard was probably Annie Chapman, but it is quite another to boldly assert that "Cadoche heard Chapman fall against the fence". That would be wrong. That would be to present an opinion as if it were an established fact, just like the assertion that "all the victims save Stride and Eddowes died on Lechmere's working mornings". We know no such thing, because we don't know what Lechmere's working mornings really were.

We shouldn't present speculations as if they were statements of fact, because they can so easily mislead the reader, and even the writer ends up believing it in the end!

It's just a matter of wording, but it makes a huge difference.

[Fisherman]

We don't know that, and neither do you, Fish, so it shouldn't be asserted as if it were true.

If we have Lechmere's work roster for the period in question, we can make statements like that. If we do not have his roster then we are speculating - no more - and our words should reflect this. We should not present speculations as if they were facts.

I've pointed this out umpteen times, but you keep doing it.

Some speculate that Cadoshe must have heard Chapman and nobody else. Thatīs a lot worse.

Iīve pointed this out now. Donīt make me do it again.

I pointed out your mistake on Halseīs testimony numerous times. All I got for that was your very odd suggestion that you did not need to get ir right since he meant what you said he meant.

So letīs be a bit more modest, shall we?

[Fisherman]

Long... and Cadoche... and Richardson, don't forget. The collective evidence of three witnesses, against the opinion of a thermometer-less doctor.

Long said she saw Chapman. None of the others did. Richardson was all over the place testimonywise to boot.
I forget nothing, Gareth.