The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

So - if we could stick to the point for just a moment - you agree that it's not impossible Cross/Lechmere could have been 58 yards ahead of Paul in Bath Street, but only 40 yards ahead in Buck's Row after he had stopped to look at the body?

I will be happy to answer that the moment you tell me what you meant in post 1155. So far, you haven´t.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

I wonder how accurate any estimate of distance in a dark street would be, particularly having been dredged up from memory some days later.

Would anyone on here (other than map worms) have been able to estimate from memory of the location that it was approx 120 yards from Brady Street to the murder scene ?

[Colin Roberts]

... you agree that it's not impossible Cross/Lechmere could have been 58 yards ahead of Paul in Bath Street, but only 40 yards ahead in Buck's Row after he had stopped to look at the body?

I would have to say no more than 57.625 yards in Bath Street, but no less than 40.375 yards in Buck's Row.

This is absurd!

If - as both Christer and Ed are thoroughly convinced - Charles Lechmere did murder Mary Ann Nichols, then he probably left his home in Doveton Street much earlier than he claimed to have done.

At that wee hour, would anyone within his household have known the difference?

---

Here's a contribution to our knowledge of this case, as opposed to a frivolous waste of bandwidth, storage capacity and peace of mind:

Not that anyone will care, after all it's just factual information. Trivial, perhaps, but factual nonetheless …

Upon seeing Rob's map, I was reminded that Robert Paul's Foster Street address was situated within the boundaries of the Parish of St. Matthew Bethnal Green. So - colloquial interpretations of political geography notwithstanding - the historical recordings of "Foster Street, Whitechapel" are incorrect.

Of course I have asserted on several occasions that - colloquial interpretations of political geography notwithstanding - the historical recordings of "Doveton Street, Bethnal Green" were incorrect, as Charles Lechmere's 1888 abode was actually situated within the boundaries of the Hamlet of Mile End Old Town; but no one apart from Michael Connor has ever appeared to take notice.

Anyway, please pardon my intrusion. I really shouldn't have interrupted something as important as the discussion at hand.

[Rob Clack]

Hi Colin,

I noted 2 mistakes in The Daily Mail headline "Jack the Ripper was Whitechapel meat cart driver, claims Criminologist"

1, He wasn't a meat cart driver.

2, He was from Mile End.

Rob

[Colin Roberts]

I noted 2 mistakes in The Daily Mail headline "Jack the Ripper was Whitechapel meat cart driver, claims Criminologist"

1, He wasn't a meat cart driver.

2, He was from Mile End.

Thanks, Rob!

Might I add ...

3, He probably wasn't Jack the Ripper.

Oh, and of course ...

4, Liverpool are not in the top half of the table.

[Chris]

I will be happy to answer that the moment you tell me what you meant in post 1155. So far, you haven´t.

Is that really the best excuse you can think of for evading the question?

[Rob Clack]

Thanks, Rob!

Might I add ...

3, He probably wasn't Jack the Ripper.

Oh, and of course ...

4, Liverpool are not in the top half of the table.

Might I add...

5, He definitely wasn't Jack the Ripper.

6, Lets hope Costa doesn't get injured for your sake.

[Chris]

This is absurd!

If - as both Christer and Ed are thoroughly convinced - Charles Lechmere did murder Mary Ann Nichols, then he probably left his home in Doveton Street much earlier than he claimed to have done.

The time he left home is irrelevant.

What they are arguing is that if Cross/Lechmere was only 40 yards ahead of Paul after he stopped to look at the body in Buck's Row, then Paul must have seen him earlier on the journey (not that there's any evidence that he didn't see him!).

The argument is absurd from more than one angle, and perhaps you're right that it's absurd for us to waste time on it. I suppose it appeals to me because it's essentially a matter of arithmetic. Not that the Lechmerians seem capable of agreeing that 1+1=2 without putting up an almighty struggle ...

[Rob Clack]

The time he left home is irrelevant.

What they are arguing is that if Cross/Lechmere was only 40 yards ahead of Paul after he stopped to look at the body in Buck's Row, then Paul must have seen him earlier on the journey (not that there's any evidence that he didn't see him!).

The argument is absurd from more than one angle, and perhaps you're right that it's absurd for us to waste time on it. I suppose it appeals to me because it's essentially a matter of arithmetic. Not that the Lechmerians seem capable of agreeing that 1+1=2 without putting up an almighty struggle ...

I was under the impression what the Lechmere brigade were arguing is that if Lechmere left home when he said he did, than Paul would have seen him earlier than Bucks Row at the junction of Foster Street and Bath Street. The fact that they said he didn't, meant he had left home earlier than he said he did so he would have more time to find and murder Nichols.

Rob

[Fisherman]

Is that really the best excuse you can think of for evading the question?

No, I can think of many better ways to evade it, should I have wanted to. I´ll tell you what, I´ll answer it and put my trust in you as a gentleman answering MY question.

Yes, I think it is possible that Paul gained 18 yards on Lechmere down Buck´s Row. I must add that I don´t think it is a very good suggestion, since it involves Paul walking much faster than a man that had admitted to being late, but of course it is possible as such.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

I was under the impression what the Lechmere brigade were arguing is that if Lechmere left home when he said he did, than Paul would have seen him earlier than Bucks Row at the junction of Foster Street and Bath Street. The fact that they said he didn't, meant he had left home earlier than he said he did so he would have more time to find and murder Nichols.

Rob

Those Lech guys are always one move ahead. If they suggest he left earlier, then they have to explain why he said he left at 3.30 and not 3.38, thereby eliminating the 'major time gap' altogether. Some suggestion of a possible sighting by a neighbour was mentioned, I seem to recall.

[Rob Clack]

Those Lech guys are always one move ahead. If they suggest he left earlier, then they have to explain why he said he left at 3.30 and not 3.38, thereby eliminating the 'major time gap' altogether. Some suggestion of a possible sighting by a neighbour was mentioned, I seem to recall.

They want everything there own way. Look at Chapman's murder. If she was murdered just after 5:30 which is the most likely time, he was out on delivery. If she was murdered earlier like Philips believes then he was on his way to work and Richardson should have gone to Specsavers and a doctors to unblock his nose.

Rob

[Colin Roberts]

6, Lets hope Costa doesn't get injured for your sake.

Touché

This is absurd!

If - as both Christer and Ed are thoroughly convinced - Charles Lechmere did murder Mary Ann Nichols, then he probably left his home in Doveton Street much earlier than he claimed to have done.

The time he left home is irrelevant.

What they are arguing is that if Cross/Lechmere was only 40 yards ahead of Paul after he stopped to look at the body in Buck's Row, then Paul must have seen him earlier on the journey (not that there's any evidence that he didn't see him!).

"if Cross/Lechmere was only 40 yards ahead of Paul after he stopped to look at the body"

If Charles Lechmere murdered Mary Ann Nichols, then he never "stopped to look at the body", as he would have been in situ with the body, when Robert Paul happened along.

I would contend therefore that the time he left home is very relevant.

[Chris]

If Charles Lechmere murdered Mary Ann Nichols, then he never "stopped to look at the body", as he would have been in situ with the body, when Robert Paul happened along.

Well, of course. But they're attempting a reductio ad absurdum (appropriately enough), which obviously involves starting from the assumption that his statement is true and finding a contradiction.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

"The other man [Paul] left witness soon after. Witness [Cross] had never seen him before."

Cross and Paul were both carmen with, one supposes, fairly regular morning routines, yet this was the first time they had met.

Regards,

Simon