Proposed modification to Lechmere's route to work

[R. J. Palmer]

I see no reason why Crossmere would go near Dorset Street unless he was specifically looking for a prostitute before heading off to work.

But if that's what he was doing, then the geographical argument becomes very dicey, because he is no longer specifically killing victims of 'opportunity' during his commute---he is trawling a wider area.

And anyone could have done that.

[Steve Blomer]

Looking at Lechmere's possible route to work.

The various possibilities, and there are a fair number, have been.looked at and discussed in Inside Bucks Row in some depth.
The next update, expands on this, corrects a few distances by a few yards, and adds a few more possibilities.

This is a good starting point, for those who do not have fixed views.

[Edward Stow]

I don't think Paul could have been going 'anywhere'.
Corbets Court was the last place Lechmere saw him, so it was the nearest place Lechmere knew to Paul's work. If you look at a map, if you turned down Corbets Court from Hanbury Street your options are limited.

[Rob Clack]

How do we know Lechmere knew where Paul worked? As far as Lechmere was aware he just saw Paul turn in Corbet's Court. He could have been going anywhere.

[Edward Stow]

I will consult the plans when I get a chance

[Mark J D]

I have a whole set of early plans for the site. There is no way of knowing really which entrance was used.

I have two images found online... One appears to show Eldon Street. Where's the other one taken??

M.

[Edward Stow]

I have a whole set of early plans for the site. There is no way of knowing really which entrance was used.
Occasionally someone comes up with a brain wave and suggests a entrance far from the main entrance in the hope or expectation that this somehow destroys the Lechmere theory by suggesting a route to work other than down Old Montague Street - to keep him away from the Tabram murder scene.
They never seem to realise that the route to work is really an axis. I don't suppose any of the victims were actually picked up on either Old Montague or Hanbury Streets, but rather when he was in the mood he cruised down the main drags where he would find a victim. Probably leaving a little earlier than usual.

[Mark J D]

...; The current consensus regarding Lechmere’s walk to work has him on Hanbury to Commercial then south to Brushfield. After looking at the ordinance map, I would like to suggest a slight modification to this view...

Can I shyly ask what might be the 'consensus' about Lechmere's actual point of entry to the Broad Street site? To me, it doesn't seem likely that the railway company allowed literally hundreds of scruffy delivery drivers and other stables & logistics workers to be pushing through the travelling/dining public outside Liverpool Street Station so they could use the Eldon Street gateway round the corner. Has anyone done a proper search for other easily controllable gates and barriers round the western perimeter -- and especially in the tunnels to which those bridges led?

My dark suspicion is that Lechmere's normal entry point was about half way up the site's western boundary -- allowing him to choose diffrent routes to the north, to the south, and through the centre, as his mood and his body count dictated...

Mark D.

[Mark J D]

... The theory I have personally long suggested, and currently still do, and have a personal consensus over, is that Lechmere (CAL) committed the Chapman (AC) murder near Paul's (RP) workplace to throw suspicion on RP (of whom he would have been angered for disturbing him and then obliging him to come forward after his Lloyds (LWN) story), to derail the investigation and get some sort of revenge by causing inconvenience to RP and loss of work...

When we consider the literal hundred miles of street, court and alleyway that extended through that locality, it seems pretty staggering that the two places are so close together...



M.

[Edward Stow]

CA is my dyslexic version of AC.
Wasn't that obvious to everyone?

It is a mistake to think that serial killers (or anyone for that matter) think through every permutation, every possible outcome before deciding on a course of action.

RP was cleared, obviously, as he was innocent. I am presuming here that he was regarded by the police with suspicion. I think we have enough pointers to suggest he was... although inevitably as this is a small (though non essential) element making up the Lechmere theory, I know the suggestion that RP was regarded with suspicion has been resisted at all costs.

But let's run through the potential CAL thought process.

He is confident the police believe his bystander story and that they have effectively dismissed him from the case.
Incidentally, to divert for a moment, I have seen it suggested that a guilty CAL should have said he saw someone in front of him, to divert attention from himself. This would have been a crass mistake as it would have put his testimony front and centre in the case and made him an essential witness as to the possible culprit. He would actually have wanted to sink back into the shadows as quickly as possible.

He will have dropped subtle hints making RP look suspicious.

He will have blarnied RP and won his trust while walking down HS together.

CAL would have presumed RP would be cleared as he knew he was innocent. But in any case the papers were full of other potential culprits - including Leather Apron.

So CAL will have been totally confident that the investigation wouldn't have swung back in his direction. Rightly or wrongly.
Actually as it turned out rightly as after clearing RP the police didn't look back at CAL - or if they did they somehow didn't find out his real name which is scarcely likely.

[Gary Barnett]

Would that be ED, Gary? On the street where she lived?

I was thinking more of RP having alibis for the later murders, particularly the double event - DE - so early on a Sunday morning. How would CAL have been able to keep the suspicion on RP after AC in H St?

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, of course. Why point out a geographical connection to the first murder that both he and Paul had in common? That could easily have backfired. And then commit the next murder on his old stamping ground. We know that at least one of the Berner Street witnesses knew Lechmere personally.

Because the geographical aspect fascinates me so much, I’m perhaps inclined to give it too much significance. Those cats meat sheds, a minute’s walk from the Pinchin Street arch in particular. If only we knew who was using them in 1889. If it was the mother of the man found by Polly’s corpse, that would put Charles Allen Lechmere head and shoulders above all other suspects IMO.

[Caroline Brown]

Would that be ED, Gary? On the street where she lived?

I was thinking more of RP having alibis for the later murders, particularly the double event - DE - so early on a Sunday morning. How would CAL have been able to keep the suspicion on RP after AC in H St?

Love,

Caz
X

[Gary Barnett]

I just wonder what would have happened if the plan had worked, and the entirely innocent witness, Robert Paul, had found himself under suspicion for both murders. He would surely have reacted by pointing the finger straight back at Charlie Cross, as the man who was at the scene of the first one and already pulling the strings as Paul arrived.

It sounds like a tv drama, which would typically end with Robert Paul having a perfect alibi for one or more subsequent murders. How would Cross know otherwise, being busy at the scene each time while Paul was elsewhere, minding his own business? This would quickly result in police attention returning to Cross, who could not prove his own whereabouts for any of the crimes, except the one where he was 'found' at the scene 'discovering' the victim, by the now exonerated Paul.

Love,

Caz
X

Paul may well have been chatting to Eliza Doolittle at the very moment Annie was slain. Wiv a ‘tec’ takin’ their words dahn.

[Gary Barnett]

There is no apparent contradiction on routes.

The theory I have personally long suggested, and currently still do, and have a personal consensus over, is that Lechmere (CAL) committed the Chapman (AC) murder near Paul's (RP) workplace to throw suspicion on RP (of whom he would have been angered for disturbing him and then obliging him to come forward after his Lloyds (LWN) story), to derail the investigation and get some sort of revenge by causing inconvenience to RP and loss of work.

This wouldn't get CAL off the hook - as he was already off the hook. His interactions with the police around his inquest appearance would have told him that. Just as much as his interactions would have told him that the police were interested in finding RP, and just as his interactions could have assisted in casting suspicion on RP (as per ICC by WD).

I hope this allays RJP's objections.

It answers why the AC murder was so soon after that of MAN.
Why it happened where it did.
If it happened at the later time (which it may or may not), why he took such a risk (when it was light).
We know Paul was searched for, regarded with suspicion, found and interrogated. As merely an extra witness at the MAN inquest that seems excessive as he didn't add anything to CAL's version of events.
We can be pretty sure CAL didn't undergo close scrutiny, in respect of either the MAN or CA murders (in contrast to RP, so his strategy - or is it tactic - worked)... as his true name remained a mystery and actually because there is no hint anywhere - in the police files, the newspapers or memoirs - that he was paid any attention to at all. Yet there are dozens of names extant of people who did undergo scrutiny, even briefly, during that same period in the first weeks of September 1888.

Who’s this CA, ES? Obviously not one of the C5 or the non-con WM.

[Caroline Brown]

I just wonder what would have happened if the plan had worked, and the entirely innocent witness, Robert Paul, had found himself under suspicion for both murders. He would surely have reacted by pointing the finger straight back at Charlie Cross, as the man who was at the scene of the first one and already pulling the strings as Paul arrived.

It sounds like a tv drama, which would typically end with Robert Paul having a perfect alibi for one or more subsequent murders. How would Cross know otherwise, being busy at the scene each time while Paul was elsewhere, minding his own business? This would quickly result in police attention returning to Cross, who could not prove his own whereabouts for any of the crimes, except the one where he was 'found' at the scene 'discovering' the victim, by the now exonerated Paul.

Love,

Caz
X