Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

I just checked Google Maps to see whether I know the names of all streets within an area that answers to the distance between Doveton Street and Bucks Row.
It turns out Iīm a gibbering idiot. And I have lived here for twenty years, whereas Mrs Lechmere had lived in Doveton Street for a month and a half.
Goodnight, Almighty!

But you are ignoring two essential facts here Fisherman.

Firstly, unless one went the long way round by heading north, Bucks Row was the gateway to Spitalfields and Bishopsgate. So you are asking us to believe that Mrs Lechmere did not know how to get to those two key locations (one of which was where her husband worked).

Secondly, that Mrs Lechmere simply must have known the location of Bucks Row after 31 August 1888 because of its infamy due to it being the location of the Nichols murder.

So your own lack of knowledge of every single street in your area is irrelevant because we are talking here about a street which was a vital thoroughfare for anyone living in Doveton Street (especially for someone who had lived there for over a month) and the location of a notorious local murder.

So Fisherman I need to repeat the question which you have now ducked twice:

Mrs Lechmere must have known that her husband left his house at about 4.30am to be at work at about 5.00am. So this particular carman called Charles, who had the same surname as Lechmere's stepfather, who discovered the body in Bucks Row at about 4.45am and was stated to be living in the very house that Mrs Lechmere was living could hardly be anyone else could it?

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

So, the same killer who, while being almost cornered by a witness and a policeman, found the best possible lie that gave him an almost nonexistent chance of not being identified AND a chance to get away with it in the case the police was going to identify him anyway...was definetely going to pick his haunting ground right into his working path in spite of the fact that he was almost caugh red-handed during the first kill!
Jack, you crazy old fox ...!

[Trevor Marriott]

Let me try this question on you, Trevor - if he presented himself by any other name than Cross with the police, donīt you think it would be reasonable if the coroner - who would have then carmans name in front of himself on the witness list - would have asked him why he changed his name from the one he had given the police?

I know that the question may seem a treacherous and subtle one, but in reality it is not. Just flex your brain and give it some afterthought, and we will see what you come up with.

If anything.

I dont need you to ask me a question. I need you to answer the one I put to you let me remind you of it again.

"What official source is there to show what name he gave to the police when he went to the police station in the first instance"

Let me add another question, In what official source does it say the coroner asked him about using two different names?

Because if he used the name Cross from the outset as I said before your theory is weakened.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I dont need you to ask me a question. I need you to answer the one I put to you let me remind you of it again.

"What official source is there to show what name he gave to the police when he went to the police station in the first instance"

Let me add another question, In what official source does it say the coroner asked him about using two different names?

Because if he used the name Cross from the outset as I said before your theory is weakened.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

1. There is no official source teling us what name he gave to the police.

2. There is no official source remaining from the inquest.

3. There can be no doubt that the carman used the same name with both the police and the inquest. Otherwise, the coroner would have remarekd on it at the inquest, and we would have known from the paper reports.

My belief is that if we can avoid being outright stupid, we owe it to ourselves and our fellow posters to do so.

[Trevor Marriott]

1. There is no official source teling us what name he gave to the police.

2. There is no official source remaining from the inquest.

3. There can be no doubt that the carman used the same name with both the police and the inquest. Otherwise, the coroner would have remarekd on it at the inquest, and we would have known from the paper reports.

My belief is that if we can avoid being outright stupid, we owe it to ourselves and our fellow posters to do so.

Well I am glad we agree on that point. So now we can deduce that there was no intent to device the police or the coroner at any time.

There is only one person being and looking outright stupid as far as I can see and that would appear to be you. Are you not the one who suggested that he used his two different names during all of this, and now when it is subjected to close scrutiny there is nothing to suggest that he used the two different names at all.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Jesus and Mary, David - all that bickering! The relentless pounding, with no opening at all for the possibility that I may be right (barely tolerable?) and you wrong (totally and utterly untolerable!!!).

I am going to play nice, David, and answer all your points and questions - in this post. What I have to say is the stance Ihold, and it is not likely to change, regardless of what you think of it. Once you have my answer, you also have all I am going to say, so nagging on will be absolutely moot. Deal?

Whatever.

But you are ignoring two essential facts here Fisherman.

Firstly, unless one went the long way round by heading north, Bucks Row was the gateway to Spitalfields and Bishopsgate. So you are asking us to believe that Mrs Lechmere did not know how to get to those two key locations (one of which was where her husband worked).

To begin with, David, you are making a mistake when you say that I am asking you to believe that Mrs Lechmere did not know how to get to Spitalfields and Bishopsgate.
You see, one can know how to get from one spot to another without knowing the names of the streets that take you along that route. I know how to get from my childrens old school to the new tennis stadium, a one-hour walk; I can find my way with no problems. But I cannot tell you what all the names of the streets are that I would need to walk!
So saying that what I have stated equals believing that Elizabeth Lechmerem did not know howw to get to Bishopsgate and Spitalfields is demonstrably false.

Moreover, when we try to learn the names of the streets we walk, we look at the street signs and read what the streets are called. In Elizabeths Lechmereīs case, this is not what would have happened, however, since she was illiterate. She could not read the signs, and she could therefore not pick up on the names that way. She would have to ask to find out what a street was called, and learn it that way.

Now, as I earlier stated, the Lechmeres had only just moved into Doveton Street when Nichols was killed; they had been resident in Doveton Street for around a month and a half. Quite obviously, learning the names of the streets where you live is something you do over time. If you have lived in a spot for a long time, you will know many street names in the area, if you have lived there for weeks only, you will know much fewer street names. It goes without saying.

Next point - a rather tenuous one, but interesting nevertheless. As you probaly know, I work from the assumption that Charles Lechmere must have been a psychopath if he was the killer. And a psychologist with whom I have contact once told me that psychopaths tend to choose their spouses from one of two groups. They either marry another psychopath and live on level terms, or they marry somebody to whom they are completely superior and who they can dominate at will.
In this context, I have often wondered if that was what Charles Lechmere did; he may have married an illiterate woman who he could dominate totally. If so, in such relationships, there is often a relationship where the psychopath handles the contacts with the outside world, while the spouse is isolated in the home and has very little contact with other people. If this was the case with the Lechmeres, then we may have Elizabeth Lechmere living a very confined life, with very little input from her surroundings and a very restricted area to move within.
This is pure speculation, of course, but it is something I weigh in when I try to assess to what extent Elizabeth would have been out and about and knowledgeable about the East End streets.


Secondly, that Mrs Lechmere simply must have known the location of Bucks Row after 31 August 1888 because of its infamy due to it being the location of the Nichols murder.

Says you. But I disagree, not least on account of what I have already written.
What errands would Elizabeth Lechmere have had that must have taken her through and beyond Bucks Row? How do we know that she had even passed through it at any time since moving to Doveton Street? How can we tell that she spoke to her neighbours and was informed about the murder? She did not read, so she could not have found out that way.
I still think that it is reasonable to suggest that she did hear of the murder, perhaps from her kids in school. But if she did not know what street Bucks Row was, then why would she couple it to Charlesī road to work?

Letīs say that a neigbour spoke to her in the street:
"Morning, mrs L! Did you hear about that dreadful murder in Bucks Row?"
"No, I did not. What happened?"
"Well, there was this woman who had her neck cut, and then, when they took her to the mortuary, it turns out that she had been ripped open like a market pig!"
"Oh dear! How dreadful! Did they catch the man who done it?"
"Nah, not a sign of īim, there wasnīt!"

This would to my mind be a quite possible exchange. Notice how:
A/ Mrs Lechmere does not ask about where Buckīs Row lies.
B/ She is not told when the murder occurred, day or time.
C/ Nothing is said about who found the body.

Of course, this is all fictional, but I find it totally plausible as a conversation. Over time, some of the gaps may have been filled in, but which ones? And to what extent?

We cannot bank on this illiterate woman being told every last detail, can we? There is even the chance that she disliked talking about the subject on the whole and told people this, effectively preventing her getting informed at all.

To predispose, like you do, that Elizabeth Lechmere must have known the location of Bucks Row and that she must have been informed about the details of the carmanīs role is to jump the gun in rather a flamboyant manner.

So your own lack of knowledge of every single street in your area is irrelevant because we are talking here about a street which was a vital thoroughfare for anyone living in Doveton Street (especially for someone who had lived there for over a month) and the location of a notorious local murder.

No, my lack of knowledge of street names in the vicinity where I live is not irrelevant at all, since it tells us that one can live close by a street for 20 years without picking up on itīs name.
Why that would be irrelevant is completely beyond me. Instead I find it completely relevant and very applicable to the issue we are discussing.

"A vital thoroughfare for anyone living in Doveton Street" you say, but that is no given truth at all. It can only be a vital thoroughfare to the persons who needed to get to Bishopsgate and Spitalfields. For those who did not go to Spitalfields and Bishopsgate, there was no need of any thoroughfare.
Did you forget that or did you choose to ignore it?

Why must Elizabeth Lechmere have gone to Bishopsgate? To watch the trains leaving from Liverpool Street station?

Why must she have gone to Spitalfields? Spitalfields market? There were other places to buy food.

What effect would it have if Charles Lechmere disallowed her to stray far from home? If we allow for that assumption?

And even if she did pass through Bucks Row at some stage during the first few weeks of their life in Doveton Street, who would read the street name out to her?

It is not as easy as you will have us believe. It is not a given thing at all that she would know the name and location of Bucks Row and it is not a given thing at all that she knew that the woman who was killed there was found by a Pickfords carman.


So Fisherman I need to repeat the question which you have now ducked twice:

Mrs Lechmere must have known that her husband left his house at about 4.30am to be at work at about 5.00am. So this particular carman called Charles, who had the same surname as Lechmere's stepfather, who discovered the body in Bucks Row at about 4.45am and was stated to be living in the very house that Mrs Lechmere was living could hardly be anyone else could it?

All the answers to these questions have been given above. And I would like to add that the address was something that was only carried by the Star, so in order for Elizabeth Lechmere to pick up on that, she would need to either
A/ Have somebody read that particular paper aloud to her, or
B/ Have somebody who had read that paper speaking to her about the murder, choosing to specifically point out the address as he/she did so.

This, you reason, MUST have happened.

Well, think again, David.

As a send-off, consider this:

Letīs assume that Elizabeths neighbour, Mr Pearbottom of 20 Dovetn Street (yes, a fictional character) DID read the Star aloud to her, remarking that it seemed that the carman Cross had given her own address as his residential address, and that it therefore seemed that her husband may have used a false name in court ...

... what exact impact would that have had, other than depriving Charles Lechmere of his incognito status with his wife (and Mr Pearbottom)?

Would Mrs Lechmere go to the police, and rat on how her husband had used a fake name?

Would she ask him "Was that you? And why did you call yorself Cross?"

And would he answer "I did not want to drag our family name in, my dear"?

It is not as if the case against him goes lost on account of such a matter, is it? And that is because the whole issue is about why he used the wrong name at the inquest and with the police (yep, Trevor!), and why he seemingly withheld his address from the inquest.

THAT is what the issue is about. And that was what raised the question whether the ruse as such was a good or a bad one, something I have already answered in depth.

So, David, you have had your answers, and once again, we part ways. That is not something you can influence in any way, Iīm afraid, so my advice is to simply learn to live with it.

[Pierre]

Well I am glad we agree on that point. So now we can deduce that there was no intent to device the police or the coroner at any time.

There is only one person being and looking outright stupid as far as I can see and that would appear to be you. Are you not the one who suggested that he used his two different names during all of this, and now when it is subjected to close scrutiny there is nothing to suggest that he used the two different names at all.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Actually, it is an historical fact that using two names is not an indication for being a serial killer.

Also, it is actually an historical fact that living and/or working in an area where serial murders were committed is not an indication for being a serial killer.

And it is also a historical fact that finding a dead body on a street is not an indication of being a serial killer.

These are historical facts but Fisherman constructs a theory against history by using sources from the past in the wrong way.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

So, the same killer who, while being almost cornered by a witness and a policeman, found the best possible lie that gave him an almost nonexistent chance of not being identified AND a chance to get away with it in the case the police was going to identify him anyway...was definetely going to pick his haunting ground right into his working path in spite of the fact that he was almost caugh red-handed during the first kill!
Jack, you crazy old fox ...!

Audacity is something that is often present within a serialist. And as he moves along, uncaught, that audacity tends to grow.
Edward Stow, who is the anchor of the Lechmere theory but who no longer posts here, believes that the Hanbury Street deed was perhaps intentionally carried out so as to implicate Robert Paul, who worked nearby, in Corbettīs Court. I think that is a plausible suggestion - he may have felt irritated by Paul, if the latter disturbed him before he got round to eviscerating Nichols.

[Trevor Marriott]

Audacity is something that is often present within a serialist. And as he moves along, uncaught, that audacity tends to grow.
Edward Stow, who is the anchor of the Lechmere theory but who no longer posts here, believes that the Hanbury Street deed was perhaps intentionally carried out so as to implicate Robert Paul, who worked nearby, in Corbettīs Court. I think that is a plausible suggestion - he may have felt irritated by Paul, if the latter disturbed him before he got round to eviscerating Nichols.

With beliefs such as that I can understand why he doesn't post here anymore

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

With beliefs such as that I can understand why he doesn't post here anymore

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Actually, I think his retirement was on account of the moronic attitude by some people out here, Trevor.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;385171]

Hi there, David and Fisherman,

This seems a lot of fun. So the historian will join in as well!

David said:

But you are ignoring two essential facts here Fisherman.

Firstly, unless one went the long way round by heading north, Bucks Row was the gateway to Spitalfields and Bishopsgate. So you are asking us to believe that Mrs Lechmere did not know how to get to those two key locations (one of which was where her husband worked).

This is a non question, historically. The knowledge of his wife is not in any source. So we can not pose that question. It doesnīt matter if David thinks it seems obvious or even "natural" - there are no sources for your statements about the knowledge of Mrs Lechmere, David.

It is like asking: Was there a woman standing in a window when Lechmere passed through Buckīs Row?

To begin with, David, you are making a mistake when you say that I am asking you to believe that Mrs Lechmere did not know how to get to Spitalfields and Bishopsgate.
You see, one can know how to get from one spot to another without knowing the names of the streets that take you along that route.

Yes, one can. But we can not know if Mrs Lechmere knew this, since there is no source for it. It is therefore not a question possible to pose to the sources. It doesnīt matter if Fisherman thinks he knows the knowledge of Mrs Lechmere, since there are no sources for her knowledge. You and David do make the same mistake, since you are not using historical methods.

I know how to get from my childrens old school to the new tennis stadium, a one-hour walk; I can find my way with no problems. But I cannot tell you what all the names of the streets are that I would need to walk!
So saying that what I have stated equals believing that Elizabeth Lechmerem did not know howw to get to Bishopsgate and Spitalfields is demonstrably false. Moreover, when we try to learn the names of the streets we walk, we look at the street signs and read what the streets are called.

This is absolutely anachronistic. Fisherman is deducing from his own life in 2016 to the life of almost unknown people in 1888! This is non historic. It says nothing about the past.

In Elizabeths Lechmereīs case, this is not what would have happened, however, since she was illiterate. She could not read the signs, and she could therefore not pick up on the names that way. She would have to ask to find out what a street was called, and learn it that way.

This seems to be based on a source, from what I can remember it was their marriage certificate where she wrote a "X". So it is a partly well established historical fact that she was illiterate. I say partly, since she might have been able to read a little or she might have learned later on to write a little, but I say "might" and do not pose that as an hypothesis, since there are no sources for it.

Now, as I earlier stated, the Lechmeres had only just moved into Doveton Street when Nichols was killed; they had been resident in Doveton Street for around a month and a half. Quite obviously, learning the names of the streets where you live is something you do over time. If you have lived in a spot for a long time, you will know many street names in the area, if you have lived there for weeks only, you will know much fewer street names. It goes without saying.

No sources again. Just assumptions from own experiences. Fisherman knows nothing about the knowledge they had of the area before moving in.

Next point - a rather tenuous one, but interesting nevertheless. As you probaly know, I work from the assumption that Charles Lechmere must have been a psychopath if he was the killer.

What is the source for this? Is there a source for Lechmere being a psychopath? If there isnīt, you must discard the hypothesis, since it is only based on your own assumption.

And a psychologist with whom I have contact once told me that psychopaths tend to choose their spouses from one of two groups. They either marry another psychopath and live on level terms, or they marry somebody to whom they are completely superior and who they can dominate at will.

There is no source for this postulate. And as a sociologist I have to tell you that you can not use one psychologist for drawing a conclusion. You need research, that is a well established scientific fact. As a an historian I tell you that you can not impose postmodern research on the past without discussing the problems with it.

In this context, I have often wondered if that was what Charles Lechmere did; he may have married an illiterate woman who he could dominate totally.

Anachronism again. Men did to a high degree "dominate" women in 1888 legally, economically and socially. It is very meaningless to hypothesize that there should have existed a level of domination, the "total" domination, based on a womanīs illiteracy, since that illiteracy already was a part of the domination. You are actually a lousy ripperologist, Fisherman. Sorry for saying that. I know how hard you try, but this is terrible.

If so, in such relationships, there is often a relationship where the psychopath handles the contacts with the outside world, while the spouse is isolated in the home and has very little contact with other people.

This was normal life for many women in 1888 due to the social norms, economic relations between men and women and legal rules. Were all those husbands also psychopaths?

If this was the case with the Lechmeres, then we may have Elizabeth Lechmere living a very confined life, with very little input from her surroundings and a very restricted area to move within.

This is pure speculation, of course, but it is something I weigh in when I try to assess to what extent Elizabeth would have been out and about and knowledgeable about the East End streets.

Everyone knows now that you consciously weigh in pure speculation in your theory. Thank you.

Secondly, that Mrs Lechmere simply must have known the location of Bucks Row after 31 August 1888 because of its infamy due to it being the location of the Nichols murder.

No source for her knowledge again. "Must have" has no source. You can not establish it as an historical fact. You can only establish it as speculation.

Says you. But I disagree, not least on account of what I have already written.

I see, it was David who said it. Yes, David, you are making the exact same mistakes as Fisherman. You have no source and you speculate.

What errands would Elizabeth Lechmere have had that must have taken her through and beyond Bucks Row? How do we know that she had even passed through it at any time since moving to Doveton Street? How can we tell that she spoke to her neighbours and was informed about the murder? She did not read, so she could not have found out that way.
I still think that it is reasonable to suggest that she did hear of the murder, perhaps from her kids in school. But if she did not know what street Bucks Row was, then why would she couple it to Charlesī road to work?

Speculations based on no sources.

Letīs say that a neigbour spoke to her in the street:
"Morning, mrs L! Did you hear about that dreadful murder in Bucks Row?"
"No, I did not. What happened?"
"Well, there was this woman who had her neck cut, and then, when they took her to the mortuary, it turns out that she had been ripped open like a market pig!"
"Oh dear! How dreadful! Did they catch the man who done it?"
"Nah, not a sign of īim, there wasnīt!"

What is this? Do you want to construct a source that does not exist? And on a detailed level! The journalists were not even that lousy in 1888.

This would to my mind be a quite possible exchange.

Yes. Since you were the one who constructed it. If historian interpret sources in different ways, at least they have sources. But you construct your own sources! It is Xmas, and you are Santa, giving gifts to yourself!

Notice how:
A/ Mrs Lechmere does not ask about where Buckīs Row lies.
B/ She is not told when the murder occurred, day or time.
C/ Nothing is said about who found the body.

We notice a child reflecting on his own Xmas gift.

Of course, this is all fictional, but I find it totally plausible as a conversation. Over time, some of the gaps may have been filled in, but which ones? And to what extent?

Is your documentary all fictional too, Fisherman? You do not need to answer that. I can do it. The answer is yes.

Since there is no evidence for Lechmere being a serial killer.

David - I think you should not even bother with discussing this theory with Fisherman. It is a waste of time. Especially since you are not using historical methods yourself. It only gets worse, see the fictional dialogue above.

You could discuss a fairy tale with me instead. At least that one is based on a source. It is not based on a dialogue in my head.

We cannot bank on this illiterate woman being told every last detail, can we? There is even the chance that she disliked talking about the subject on the whole and told people this, effectively preventing her getting informed at all.

Speculations based on no sources again.

To predispose, like you do, that Elizabeth Lechmere must have known the location of Bucks Row and that she must have been informed about the details of the carmanīs role is to jump the gun in rather a flamboyant manner.

You are both doing the same mistakes.

So your own lack of knowledge of every single street in your area is irrelevant because we are talking here about a street which was a vital thoroughfare for anyone living in Doveton Street (especially for someone who had lived there for over a month) and the location of a notorious local murder.

But it says nothing about a dead personīs knowledge.

No, my lack of knowledge of street names in the vicinity where I live is not irrelevant at all, since it tells us that one can live close by a street for 20 years without picking up on itīs name.

But it says nothing about a dead personīs knowledge.

Why that would be irrelevant is completely beyond me. Instead I find it completely relevant and very applicable to the issue we are discussing.

But it says nothing about a dead personīs knowledge.

From here I give up. This is actually one of the most non historic posts I have seen in this forum.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Audacity is something that is often present within a serialist. And as he moves along, uncaught, that audacity tends to grow.
Edward Stow, who is the anchor of the Lechmere theory but who no longer posts here, believes that the Hanbury Street deed was perhaps intentionally carried out so as to implicate Robert Paul, who worked nearby, in Corbettīs Court. I think that is a plausible suggestion - he may have felt irritated by Paul, if the latter disturbed him before he got round to eviscerating Nichols.

You desperately grasp for anything, Fisherman, in your speculations.

[Fisherman]

I am banking, Pierre, on you having nothing valuable to contribute to the discussion. So to be perfectly frank, I donīt read your posts. It saves time.

[Trevor Marriott]

Actually, I think his retirement was on account of the moronic attitude by some people out here, Trevor.

Or was it the case of, "If you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen"

I am sure he still reads the posts and will have seen yet another nail driven into the Lechmere theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Or was it the case of, "If you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen"

I am sure he still reads the posts and will have seen yet another nail driven into the Lechmere theory.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Those " nails" only exist in the minds of the people who made Edward take his leave - the morons.

Iīll have you know that there is not one single thing that has been presented that has in any way debunked the Lechmere theory. Disprove that if you can.

But all things in good order - you can begin by proving the existence of vaginal wall cartilage.