Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proposed modification to Lechmere's route to work

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Proposed modification to Lechmere's route to work

    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.

    An alternative route would be to head south-west on Spelman (just west of Lombard) then west on Booth-Princelet then south on Wilkes to Fournier then on to Brushfield. This south route is more direct and thus shorter and quicker than the north one and probably no more dangerous.

    As the distance from Booth-Princelet to Hanbury is trivial, I don’t think this route change in anyway exonerates Lechmere. If my assumptions are correct (including Lechmere as the killer), he murdered Ms. Chapman on Mr. Paul’s route but not on his. To me, this looks like an attempt by Lechmere to frame Robert Paul for the murder of Annie Chapman.

    If he wasn't the killer then this last part is obviously wrong. But I still think he would have normally taken the south route.


    Thanks for your time,
    Larry

  • #2
    I'm assuming you mean a consensus among the advocates of the Lechmere theory?

    If you're aware of it, what do you think of David Barrat's objection that Lechmere wouldn't have gone down Brushfield Street?

    Do you consider it rubbish or reasonable?


    Brushfield.jpg

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for your response.

      I'm not sure what map you're using. This one is somewhat different than the ordinance map I'm used to (which I believe is from 1892). It looks like the one you are using still has Spittlefields Market uncovered, which would be prior to 1887? Would you mind posting a link to the map you're referencing?

      Thanks,
      Larry

      Comment


      • #4
        My apologies. I don't know what map he used, but I transferred his route onto the 1892 ordinance map (in yellow) along with your proposed route in turquoise.

        Ignore my question, as I was a little slow on the up-take and failed to fully grasp your point. What you are suggesting is that after Lechmere's awkward encounter with Paul in Buck's Row on August 31st--and realizing the police might try to incriminate one of them--he hatched a plan to murder a woman along Paul's route to work, whereas the more natural route for Lechmere's own commute, in your estimation, would be the southernly route.

        I hope I now have that right.



        North South.jpg

        Comment


        • #5
          Personally, 9 times out of 10 when I’m walking from Liverpool Street station to Spitalfields, this is the route I take - even if I’m heading to Poppy’s for fish and chips. As you pass the top of Brushfield Street, there’s a somewhat distinctive landmark that beckons you. Occasionally, I opt for Artillery Street/Passage for the atmosphere, but I doubt I would have done so on my way to/from work in 1888.

          I’m not sure there is any kind of ‘party line’ that proposes the Brushfield Street route. I believe Christer has suggested a route that took CAL through Dorset Street itself.

          We have no idea what Lechmere’s regular route was, or even if he had one at the time, given that he’d only recently moved to Doveton Street.



          Attached Files

          Comment


          • #6
            Back in the day:
            Attached Files

            Comment


            • #7
              "Furthermore, Dorset Street was also one of Lechmere's direct routes to work" -- Edward Stow, p. 126 Who was Jack the Ripper?

              As I don't care to get involved in a protracted argument, I'll just leave it at that.

              Comment


              • #8
                One of his direct routes to work - one of.
                Do you see what I had done there?
                And of course it was. As was Brushfield Street.

                However as far as I'm concerned this is irrelevant as I don't suppose for a minute that Lechmere propositioned Annie Chapman outside 29 Hanbury Street, or Mary Jane Kelly outside Miller's Court... or for that matter Polly Nichols outside Brown's Stable Yard.

                I would guess Mary Kelly was 'found' on Commercial Street and she took him back to Miller's Court.
                That Nichols was 'found' on Whitechapel Road, and Annie Chapman on Commercial Street, Brick Lane or Hanbury Street.
                I have always thought this is far more likely - even in the exceptionally unlikely event that Lechmere didn't do it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
                  I'm assuming you mean a consensus among the advocates of the Lechmere theory?
                  I must admit I was a bit surprised at the idea of a consensus about Lechmere's route to work. How many people do there have to be for a consensus?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                    I must admit I was a bit surprised at the idea of a consensus about Lechmere's route to work. How many people do there have to be for a consensus?
                    Well, the only known route is what can be inferred from Crossmere's deposition in The Times: "The other man [ie. Robert Paul] left witness at the corner of Hanbury-street and turned into Corbett's court".

                    Which means that on that particular morning, Lechmere was taking the northerly route in yellow, sticking to Hanbury at least as far as Commercial Street. He didn't cut south or southwest any time before that junction.

                    But if I understand the current theory, it goes something like this. After his run-in with Paul in Buck's Row, when they agree to flag down a copper, he decides to keep walking with Paul along what was not his normal route in order to study him, find out where he worked, scope-out whether Paul was suspicious, etc., living by the old adage of 'keeping one's enemy close.' He learns that Paul sticks to Hanbury Street and works somewhere in Corbett's court. He then continues on to Pickford's, having filed this interesting fact in the back of his mind for future reference.

                    Next comes the inquest, and Paul is AWOL. Lechmere realizes that his best strategy would be to pin the blame on this absent patsy, so he commits his next murder along what is not his own route, but Paul's, hoping Helson and Co. are clever enough to work it out, especially with No. 29 Hanbury Street being so close to the turning into Corbett's Court.

                    The objection that I see is that Lechmere has already described this same route as his own (as reported by The Times) so by committing this murder at No. 29, he would be implicating himself just as much as he would be implicating Paul, and, by logic, even more so, since he was the man seen in Buck's Row before Paul's arrival.

                    It's a clever theory insofar as it would 'solve' the apparent contradiction of Lechmere's only known route being the northerly one (ie., nowhere near Dorset Street) but I don't quite see how Lechmere, if guilty, would think it could work. He's leaping into the fire along with Robert Paul.

                    If Lechmere believed that another murder being committed along the same route as already describing would be enough to set alarm bells ringing, can anyone still say with any confidence that since this second murder did indeed occur, Lechmere could have avoided suspicion being aimed in his direction? Or Paul for that matter?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

                      Well, the only known route is what can be inferred from Crossmere's deposition in The Times: "The other man [ie. Robert Paul] left witness at the corner of Hanbury-street and turned into Corbett's court".

                      Which means that on that particular morning, Lechmere was taking the northerly route in yellow, sticking to Hanbury at least as far as Commercial Street. He didn't cut south or southwest any time before that junction.

                      But if I understand the current theory, it goes something like this. After his run-in with Paul in Buck's Row, when they agree to flag down a copper, he decides to keep walking with Paul along what was not his normal route in order to study him, find out where he worked, scope-out whether Paul was suspicious, etc., living by the old adage of 'keeping one's enemy close.' He learns that Paul sticks to Hanbury Street and works somewhere in Corbett's court. He then continues on to Pickford's, having filed this interesting fact in the back of his mind for future reference.

                      Next comes the inquest, and Paul is AWOL. Lechmere realizes that his best strategy would be to pin the blame on this absent patsy, so he commits his next murder along what is not his own route, but Paul's, hoping Helson and Co. are clever enough to work it out, especially with No. 29 Hanbury Street being so close to the turning into Corbett's Court.

                      The objection that I see is that Lechmere has already described this same route as his own (as reported by The Times) so by committing this murder at No. 29, he would be implicating himself just as much as he would be implicating Paul, and, by logic, even more so, since he was the man seen in Buck's Row before Paul's arrival.

                      It's a clever theory insofar as it would 'solve' the apparent contradiction of Lechmere's only known route being the northerly one (ie., nowhere near Dorset Street) but I don't quite see how Lechmere, if guilty, would think it could work. He's leaping into the fire along with Robert Paul.

                      If Lechmere believed that another murder being committed along the same route as already describing would be enough to set alarm bells ringing, can anyone still say with any confidence that since this second murder did indeed occur, Lechmere could have avoided suspicion being aimed in his direction? Or Paul for that matter?
                      So, how many people do there have to be for a consensus? I think I once suggested Brushfield Street as an alternative to Dorset Street itself, which Christer had proposed as a short cut, and Ed seems to favour a pick up in Commercial Street. So where are all these ‘Lechmerians’ who favour Brushfield Street?

                      And who’s this ‘Crossmere’ person? Is he CAL? All this ‘Crossmere’, ‘Mac’, ‘MJD’ stuff is very confusing, RJ. I suppose it’s a case of do as I say not as I do’.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

                        So, how many people do there have to be for a consensus? I think I once suggested Brushfield Street as an alternative to Dorset Street itself, which Christer had proposed as a short cut, and Ed seems to favour a pick up in Commercial Street. So where are all these ‘Lechmerians’ who favour Brushfield Street?
                        I was being flippant in a slightly different way. I was surprised there were enough Lechmerians to have a consensus anyway. But I should rein in my flippancy.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                          I was being flippant in a slightly different way. I was surprised there were enough Lechmerians to have a consensus anyway. But I should rein in my flippancy.
                          Ooh, you are awful…

                          There may not be too many who post on the boards, but if you venture into the world of FB and elsewhere online, there do seem to be quite a few out there. Perhaps that’s where the Brushfield Street consensus is to be found.





                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I agree with RJ’s point that the only route Lechmere was known to have taken was the northern one. I’m not sure how a murder committed in Hanbury Street would have got him off the hook, unless he could have demonstrated, if required, that he had only used that route the one time to tag along with Paul.

                            What we’ll never know is how unfamiliar he was with Whitechapel and Spitalfields in August, 1888 and to what extent he may have been trying new routes to work.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X