Charles Cross (Lechmere)

[Columbo]

I’m not saying he did. I’m saying there’s not sufficient evidence that he couldn’t have done so, that he had an ‘alibi’ for Chapman.

The Lechmere family connections to the horse flesh trade make it slightly more plausible that that’s what he carried.

Maybe but from what was discussed by more learned people like yourself on this case it would depend on what Pickfords told him to carry wouldn't it? He may have done meat one day, and something else another. We just don't know. But historically he seems to have been a solid worker due to the length of time he had the job and his future beyond that job. So to me he doesn't seem like the kind of man to jeopardize his livelihood and his family's doing something he apparently could do at another time if this theory is to be correct.

[MrBarnett]

Thanks, Gary. Yes, I suppose I formulated my question very poorly, but you answered it nonetheless, if Pickford's is known to have delivered cat's meat.

It's taken me a while to grasp why you think Lechmere's mother selling cat's meat is a link to Lechmere hauling knacker's meat for Pickford's, but maybe I've been too rash in dismissing it.

It could be true, but if a woman runs a petrol station and her son is a truck driver, it doesn't necessarily follow that he hauls petrol.

On the other hand, if he had hauled petrol for years, and had obviously made contracts with petrol stations through his work, I suppose he might have come to realize it was a lucrative business for a family member. A natural sort of 'spin off' from observations & contacts he made through his own work. Or I suppose it could have even worked the other way round, and a cat's meat seller might have found an 'in' with a bloke who was hauling meat from the knackers.

And, as you note, the grandson also followed in the cat's meat trade. The Lechmere threads are so vast and scattered around that I haven't read them all, but I suppose James Hardiman has been used to supply a theoretical link between Hanbury Street and Lechmere.

His son was a cat’s meat carter and while being so lived in Winthrop Street, a few doors from HB’s yard. According to Ed Stow, there was a Lechmere family connection to the horse flesh/cat’s meat trade well into the 20th century. Old Ma Lechmere was in that trade from at least 1890.

I’m not aware of any suggested connection between Hardiman and Lechmere. As far as I can tell, Hardiman was running a cat’s meat shop in Clerkenwell in 1888. If Lechmere was delivering horse flesh from Broad Street to HB, he’d have no obvious reason to be in contact with retail cats meat folk like the Hardimans, but if he’d been delivering that commodity for a number of years he may have brushed shoulders with them.

My reason for commenting on this subject is to contradict the suggestion that Lechmere had an alibi for Chapman. He didn’t, and there’s a perfectly plausible explanation for why he may have been near Hanbury Street at around 5.30 that morning. I’m not saying he was, or insisting that he carried horse meat on his cart, but the idea that he couldn’t have been is flawed.

[MrBarnett]

Maybe but from what was discussed by more learned people like yourself on this case it would depend on what Pickfords told him to carry wouldn't it? He may have done meat one day, and something else another. We just don't know. But historically he seems to have been a solid worker due to the length of time he had the job and his future beyond that job. So to me he doesn't seem like the kind of man to jeopardize his livelihood and his family's doing something he apparently could do at another time if this theory is to be correct.

You’d imagine drivers might specialise, though, wouldn’t you? Certain trains carrying certain goods arrived at certain times. Might not the same drivers, with experience of the goods, customers and routes have carried them each day? I believe there was a certain amount of shuffling of drivers to discourage theft/collusion, but who’d want to nick a cart load of (potentially diseased) horseflesh?

[rjpalmer]

My reason for commenting on this subject is to contradict the suggestion that Lechmere had an alibi for Chapman. He didn’t, and there’s a perfectly plausible explanation for why he may have been near Hanbury Street at around 5.30 that morning. I’m not saying he was, or insisting that he carried horse meat on his cart, but the idea that he couldn’t have been is flawed.

Understood, but the reason this is an irritant to many of us is that the goal posts keep shifting. Several people have commented on this. Christer himself was the one that insisted that Lechmere went to work at 4 a.m. When someone suggests this contradicts with one of the murders, someone else pops in and states that his work schedule is unknown. It comes across as wishy-washy.

At least you're now arguing that Lechmere was in Hanbury Street at 5.30 a.m., even though he was now on the clock, but this still undermines Christer's theory. It was the 3-4 a.m. pattern that supposedly convinced Scobie.

If there's no pattern, there's no reason to suspect Lechmere.

[MrBarnett]

Understood, but the reason this is an irritant to many of us is that the goal posts keep shifting. Several people have commented on this. Christer himself was the one that insisted that Lechmere went to work at 4 a.m. When someone suggests this contradicts with one of the murders, someone else pops in and states that his work schedule is unknown. It comes across as wishy-washy.

At least you're now arguing that Lechmere was in Hanbury Street at 5.30 a.m., even though he was now on the clock, but this still undermines Christer's theory. It was the 3-4 a.m. pattern that supposedly convinced Scobie.

If there's no pattern, there's no reason to suspect Lechmere.

As far as I know, Christer is still of the opinion that Lechmere killed on his way to work. His goal posts haven’t moved.

I’ve never been convinced by the whole ‘the murders took place on his work routes at times he would have been there’ idea. I’ve challenged that many times before. My goal posts haven’t changed.

When someone claims that Lechmere had an ‘alibi’ for Chapman, though, I feel that’s also worth challenging. As far as we know, he really didn’t. Because of my HB obsession, I use that as a possible scenario: At just after 4.00 am, Lechmere drove his cart, laden with provincial horse flesh consigned to HB in Bethnal Green, into Liverpool Street, turned left, then left again into Bishopsgate, right into Brushfield Street, then across Commercial Street into Hanbury Street and then on to Coventry Street. His single load of horse flesh took considerably less than an hour to unload and he returned to Broad Street by a similar route. If anyone can explain to me why that would have been impossible or so implausible as to be virtually impossible, then I’ll reconsider my refusal to accept that Lechmere had an alibi for Chapman.

[The Baron]

Chapman must have been killed between 3-4 am, anything else will ruin the Documentary, the book their alleged 'killing on his route to work" profiling.



The Baron

[MrBarnett]

Chapman must have been killed between 3-4 am, anything else will ruin the Documentary, the book their alleged 'killing on his route to work" profiling.



The Baron

Forget the bloody documentary, it’s a piece of cheap entertainment. Have Christer and Ed never entertained the idea that a later Chapman TOD might be explained by Lechmere having been in the area an hour or more after he started work?

[Paddy Goose]

Christer has left the building.
But this could be a good sequel. I would like to see that little chap in the TV show again, this time with his buggy all loaded up with HORSE FLESH. Yeah.

[JeffHamm]

Forget the bloody documentary, it’s a piece of cheap entertainment. Have Christer and Ed never entertained the idea that a later Chapman TOD might be explained by Lechmere having been in the area an hour or more after he started work?

Hi MrBarnett,

Fisherman (Christer) has argued very strongly in the past that the doctor's estimation of ToD by touch is what he believes, and the eye/ear witnesses are all wrong when they place the ToD closer to 5:25ish. While Cross/Lechmere killing Annie during his working hours would allow for an adjustment on that, it then means that the murder locations should be related to his work delivery route, and Fisherman argues that it is the location along his possible walks to work that links the cases. Also, Stride and Eddowes become harder to fit in because he was not working that evening, but Stride, at least, he connects to his mother's residence. Basically, I think Fisherman's belief in the accuracy of the touch based estimation of ToD would tend to suggest that while he wouldn't think your suggestion a problem in some ways, he would be inclined to disagree with you because, in his view, she was dead long before he started work at 4:00 am.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>so you cant admit to your mistakes which is what you accuse others of doing, which also makes you a hypocrite.<<

When I actually make a mistake I'm happy to, but any mistake is in your interpretation not my intent, just like when you claimed I said Christer was "obligated" to congratulate Chris and Pat. Did I call you a hypocrite for you not acknowledging your mistake? Let's try and keep this debate civil, Abby.

[drstrange169]

>>David Orsam's "Breaking Point" is a good balanced and unbiased overall take on Fisherman's book,<<

Steve is biased because Christer keeps insulting him, but David isn't???

Lawende was silenced thread posts:

"Watch your tongue, David …The only misleading and smearing here is signed David Orsam, and it is very unbecoming."

Post #356

"Now I really canīt be bothered with somebody who cannot read English. See you some other day."

Post #414

"Meaningless" is the word - applying to your pathetic attempts at baconsaving, David."

Post # 429

"Dear me, David. You are hellbent to inflict as much damage as you can, are you not?
It is a waste of time, let me tell you that. But by all means, keep making a fool of yourself. It saves me valuable time."

Blood Oozing thread posts:

#319

"You are trying to misrepresent me, and you are trying to create the impression that I am a devious person who consciously misled Payne-James.
Thatīs the bad news.The good news is that you are making a farce of the effort."

Post # 526

"If you can't produce the material, you will of course have revealed yourself as a trader of complete bogus."

Post #531

"I do on (sic) fact worry somewhat about David, who seems to have suffered a breakdown of sorts."

Just a random selection, dozens more out there.

If not being insulted by Christer is a qualification for reviewing the book, the book is unreviewable!


David ends his review thus,

"Why tell us fairy tales about the blood evidence when we already know from a forensic pathology expert that blood can easily ooze from a body for twenty minutes after death, meaning that it's absurd to find anything suspicious as against Lechmere in the oozing? Why tell us fairy tales about '100 signatures' in the name of Lechmere, especially while refusing to reveal what they are? Why omit the word 'about' from Lechmere's evidence and create a fairy tale of a supposed major gap in timings? All these things, which Holmgren seems to term as 'mischievous' but which might well be regarded as devious, spoil the argument completely. There is surely another way to tell the story without resorting to sophistry. It's unnecessary and self-defeating."


I'm genuinely staggered that people should make such a fuss about a well written and balanced sentence from Steve as,

"Some of it is pure imagination, such as his claim that Robert Paul was a hundred yards or more from Lechmere when he first became aware of him. He may have been, but I don’t know any source in which Lechmere says how far Paul was away from him when he first became aware of his presence."

Valid criticism isn't bias, it is just valid criticism, whether it comes from David or Steve.

[Columbo]

You’d imagine drivers might specialise, though, wouldn’t you? Certain trains carrying certain goods arrived at certain times. Might not the same drivers, with experience of the goods, customers and routes have carried them each day? I believe there was a certain amount of shuffling of drivers to discourage theft/collusion, but who’d want to nick a cart load of (potentially diseased) horseflesh?

Absolutely a driver could specialize. But did Cross specialize is the question. I would think Pickfords could answer this question as they’re still in business, and even reference this connection on their website. I would think a driver would have a regular route back then, but what was Cross’ route? Because he’s suspected you’re trying to place him at Hanbury street with no evidence he even covered that area on his job.

[drstrange169]

I've asked around old Pickford employees and in the modern era, drivers definately had runs. I've also been told that in Victorian times Pickfords would do it on first in line basis, but I've yet to see that confirmed anywhere.

[MrBarnett]

Absolutely a driver could specialize. But did Cross specialize is the question. I would think Pickfords could answer this question as they’re still in business, and even reference this connection on their website. I would think a driver would have a regular route back then, but what was Cross’ route? Because he’s suspected you’re trying to place him at Hanbury street with no evidence he even covered that area on his job.

Have you read my posts? I’m arguing against the statement that Lechmere had an alibi for Chapman. Which would mean that either that there is evidence that he was somewhere else when she was killed, or it is so implausible that he could have been anywhere near Hanbury Street at the time that it is not even worth considering. I’m not trying to place him at Hanbury Street I’m arguing that he could have been there.

I use the horseflesh example because that trade has some resonance in the Lechmere family and was handled by Pickfords, but he could have carried just about anything to just about anywhere, including to locations near Hanbury Street that didn’t take very long to unload.

[FrankO]

Curiously I wonder if either actually tried to wake Polly by giving her a gentle pat on the face, or talking to her? I know it's not mentioned but it seems the natural thing to do to a unconscious person.

As far as the evidence goes, they didn't, Columbo. But giving her a gentle pad on the face or shaking her a bit by the shoulders seems something that Paul could have done before Lechmere knew it.