Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another nail in the Lechmere coffin?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post
    I think this nail is one of speculation (at worst), or creative nonfiction (at best).

    It MAY have happened that way, or it MAY NOT have happened at all.

    A simpler explanation is that Paul was an attention-seeker with a distrust of policemen, and phrased his interview accordingly.
    Speculation or creative non fiction on a Lechmere thread well I never.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
      Speculation or creative non fiction on a Lechmere thread well I never.
      Do you speculate that Bury was the killer, John? Do let us know.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        Elamarna:

        The obvious conclusion is that the reports are wrong.

        No, Steve, it is not the obvious conclusion. It is one POSSIBLE conclusion. I have offered another possible conclusion that is in line with what was written. If I am correct, then all the papers reported what they heard in a correct manner. For you suggestion to be correct, there must have been severe misreportings.
        Yes of course there are several possible solutions.

        To me the most likely explanation is that it was misreporting, to you it is not, no problem with that.




        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        So where we stand is here:

        Either Paul told his story, the papers reported correctly and we can conclude that Paul sent Lechmere over to Mizen to do the talking. This is in line with what Mizen tells us and the only person to claim it was not so at the inquest is Lechmere.

        Or Paul told his story, some of the papers got it completely wrong and the sources are of no real use. Plus we are out of line with what Mizen tells us, but we accept what Lechmere said as the truth.

        Both can be correct, but your suggestion seems a bit of a shipwreck, does it not? And a tad desperate.

        Which suggestion? That the papers made a mistake ?

        Its not a shipwreck and certainly not desperate.



        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        To suggest another alternative is fine, however it will need evidence to prove it.

        Actually, I am going with the sources, so I am not "suggesting an alternative". You seem to be the one doing so.

        Actually you are going with some of the sources, no issue with that.
        However you are suggesting an alternative to what has been the general accepted view, that is not a problem to any investigator or researcher, without such thinking based on the sources, and this is, we will never advance, but to say it is not an alternative is ...inaccurate.




        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        I know you are trying to make a point, so the invented quotes are fine, but they remain that invention.

        An invention, letīs not forget, that is in line with the evidence.
        Inline with some of the evidence, not all and in direct contradiction to some, but that is how we progress by questioning, so again no issue.

        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        Why do you have a starting point of assuming he is not telling the truth?

        Can you see how I start the question with the word "If"? That is because I am exploring a possibility. I am doing so to check how the scenario works if Paul was not telling the truth. The reason I do so is to check how it all works together with my theory.
        In which case there is no problem, i missed the "if". Question answered.




        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        Hang on, you have just suggested that Paul carried on down Hanbury Street leaving Lechmere and Mizen alone:what happens? Does Lechmere chase after Paul? A man he does not know.

        When he met Paul, he did not know him. At this stage, the two have examined a woman in the street together, they have taken a joint decision to go looking for a policeman together and they have walked a couple of hundred yards together, presumably discussing the matter. So you see, Steve, not only DO they know each other somewhat by now, but they have also decided to cooperate.

        The informing of Mizen may have taken seconds only (try to say "Officer, you are wanted by another policeman down in Bucks Row. Thereīs a woman lying on the broad of her back there" and time it. I just did, and it took all of six seconds) and Lechmere may well have said "Iīll just tell this PC what we saw, and then Iīll catch up with you" before the two parted. Or not, six seconds is not an unbridgeable gap. And would it not be odd for Lechmere to stay six seconds behind Paul down Hanbury Street - a man with whom he had established contact and shared an experience with one minute earlier? Would the reasonable thing not be to catch up and rejoin Paul?



        As an hypothesis it is certainly viable, just that it cannot be proved one way or the other, but that is often the way with this case is it not?



        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        Again it is flight of fancy, fuelled by "lechmere is the killer"

        And it is not a flight of fancy to state unequivocally that it is "obvious" that the papers must have gotten Pauls statement at the inquest wrong, although there is a perfectly fine other suggestion where we must not predispose that the papers got it wrong?
        If you are right, I am wrong, but if I am wrong, then you are right, eh? Steve, the fair judge, hmm?
        It is not a "flight of fancy". It is a suggestion, part of a suggested scenario.

        No, I fully accept the possibility, However everything you write, once we get away from the hard facts, on which we agree is from a starting position that Lechmere was the killer and he lied. it colours all.

        All your hypothesis's have this Bias, that does not mean they are wrong, only that they have an inbuilt slant, which needs to to allowed for when weighting up the hypothesis.




        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post


        Maybe, however they could just as easily be totally erroneous.

        And what did my professor friend say was the norm? That we get things right or that we get them wrong?
        "Just as easily" suddenly becomes your very own flight of fancy, Steve.


        Back there again, Made it very clear That i do not accept such gross generalizations in any random case, each needs to be examined on its own merits.




        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        Actually its several removed because it is a premature burial.

        There is no burial. There is a road leading to understanding what happened. Lechmere is a very viable bid for the killerīs role, and this does in no way detract from that, since it opens up for what I have always suggested - that Paul was left out of the conversation with Mizen.
        You may have missed that I left a question mark after "coffin". I did so because I want a discussion, not because I am laying down as a fact that I am correct. I am laying down as a fact that the find opens up for me being correct.

        I did not miss the question mark, one nails down a coffin in preparation for burial, and I replied suggesting that we are far from putting another nail in we should be removing some which you have already said are there, as the burial is not needed yet





        steve

        Comment


        • #19
          Fisherman,

          The problem I'm having is that we must - in order to accept Mizen's testimony as truthful - accept Paul as both Lechmere's dupe and as a publicity seeker who "spiced up" his Lloyd's statement in order to overstate his role while diminishing Lechmere's role. Consequently, in my view, we must assign dishonest motives to both Lechmere (murderer of Nichols) and Paul (dishonest in his testimony, publicity seeker) while also viewing Paul as Lechmere's unwitting dupe, parroting his words, claiming them as his own in order to believe that Mizen was completely honest at all times, about everything that happened in Baker's Row and Buck's Row.

          Further (and apologies for repeating this but I know that you wish to consolidate to this thread, so I'm happy to do so), I'm troubled by this detail with respect to Paul having been duped by Lechmere into parroting his (Lechmere's) words to Lloyd's. If Paul claimed that it was HE who spoke to Mizen while it was actually Lechmere who did so and subsequently fed Paul a false version of that conversation then this causes me to me to view even more strongly Lechmere's appearance at the inquest the following day as the action of an innocent man. Allow me to elaborate......

          As I've mentioned, Paul marginalizes Lechmere completely in Lloyd's. He's simply "a man" who asks him to "come see this woman". The article leaves one to assume that Paul inspected the body, alone, without help from "the man":

          I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle.

          The reader is also led to understand that Paul leaves "the man" behind while he and he alone goes in search of a policeman:

          I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.

          If your theory is correct, then what comes next is Paul claiming to have had a conversation (with Mizen) that never occurred but was invented by Lechmere and told to Paul in order to divert suspicion and allow him (Lechmere) to elude capture:

          "I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.”

          In my view, Lechmere should have been ecstatic about Paul's Lloyd's interview. If he'd killed Nichols then he'd managed to recruit a stranger (Paul) to view the body, go with him in search of a PC. He finds Mizen. He manages to speak with Mizen away from Paul so that Paul couldn't hear their conversation (in which he does not tell Mizen that Nichols may be dead and does tell him that he's wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row). He then returns to Paul and tells him that Mizen was unconcerned, continued calling people up, didn't say if he "should go or not". He escapes the situation. He goes on to work. And on Sunday he reads an interview with the man he'd so completely duped, Robert Paul, who claims it was HE who did the talking and acting, so completely buying into the exchange with Mizen fed to him by Lechmere that he repeats it as having been he who had the conversation. All of these unconventional means of eluding capture worked better than Lechmere could have hoped, NOW he's reading Paul's account and he (Lechmere) is essentially completely cut out of the narrative. WHY would he rush to the inquest the following morning?

          Thanks in advance.

          Comment


          • #20
            Elamarna: Yes of course there are several possible solutions.

            Are there now? Splendid!

            To me the most likely explanation is that it was misreporting, to you it is not, no problem with that.

            No, Steve, to you it is OBVIOUS that it was misreporting. That was why I had a decisive problem with it. I thought to myself "How can Steve conclude that it is obvious that it was misreporting when there is an explanation at hand that works with what the papers reported?
            Now it seems you have come to your senses a little bit, which is great. But I would like an explanation as to why you think it "more likely" to be a misreporting than not.


            Which suggestion? That the papers made a mistake ? Its not a shipwreck and certainly not desperate.

            Who said it was a shipwreck? A bit of a shipwreck was what I said, considering how you claimed that it was obvious that we were dealing with a misreporting. Since the humble "I think it is more likely" debris is floating ashore now, I think my point is made.


            Actually you are going with some of the sources, no issue with that.
            However you are suggesting an alternative to what has been the general accepted view, that is not a problem to any investigator or researcher, without such thinking based on the sources, and this is, we will never advance, but to say it is not an alternative is ...inaccurate.

            Yes, I am going with the sources. And still, you managed to claim that it was "obvious" that I was wrong. Good to hear that you have no issue with that now. Itīs comforting to know.
            As for "what has been the general accepted view", I would say that what we are doing out here is to look at what has been the general accpeted view and try to assess if must be correct. Once we find things like the Morning Advertiser reporting, what was the general accepted view will be set in motion, and there will be a time of turmoil before a new general accepted view arrives on the scene.
            When new facts come to light, they will have an influence.


            Inline with some of the evidence, not all and in direct contradiction to some, but that is how we progress by questioning, so again no issue.

            Yes, it is how we progress - and when people find themselves suited to deem it "inventions" and "flights of fancy", it gets a bit improductive. It very much makes it sound as if there is an agenda at play, aiming to silence doen and belittle the efforts made to bolster a theory.
            Itīs not that I am nit used to it, Steve - I doubt that anyone is more used to it than me. Itīs just that it makes me a bitter, grumpy, sour old man who would have preferred a sounder debate.


            As an hypothesis it is certainly viable, just that it cannot be proved one way or the other, but that is often the way with this case is it not?

            So it is.

            No, I fully accept the possibility, However everything you write, once we get away from the hard facts, on which we agree is from a starting position that Lechmere was the killer and he lied. it colours all.
            All your hypothesis's have this Bias, that does not mean they are wrong, only that they have an inbuilt slant, which needs to to allowed for when weighting up the hypothesis.

            I have always said, and I am happy to say again, that I look at things from all angles. But I have for a long time been convinced that Lechmere is the only really viable bid for the killerīs role, based on the evidence at hand. And as I have delved deeper into the case, nothing at all has surfaced to contradict that view. Basically, what I am doing, is to leave it to others to try and dissolve the theory, to find the weak points, if there are any, to criticize, quite simply. Over the years, I have introduced a number of points against arguments the theory myself, although I have pointed out that these arguments are not the better ones to my way of thinking.
            So yes, expect me to look at the points of accusation - but that is not the same as denying whatever points of exoneration that may come along. In that vein, I woujld like to ask you: If you were to name one single point that you think is very damning for the Lechmere theory, something that you think very clearly points to innocence, what would that point be?


            Back there again, Made it very clear That i do not accept such gross generalizations in any random case, each needs to be examined on its own merits.

            Nobody is asking you to accept it in a specified case - but overall, manking builds itīs existence on the ability to communicate. Generally speaking, we can do so and get it right. THAT is what I am saying, and what I want recognized.

            I did not miss the question mark, one nails down a coffin in preparation for burial, and I replied suggesting that we are far from putting another nail in we should be removing some which you have already said are there, as the burial is not needed yet.

            Which nails do you perceive are unwarranted in the coffin lid, Steve?

            Comment


            • #21
              Fish, you frequently ask us to consider things from the perspective of your hypothesis, ie: if you just suppose for a moment that Cross/Lechmere was the killer and a liar, then my explanation for this statement or that action makes perfect sense.

              That may be true, but you do sometimes give the unmistakable impression of a man busy trying to get his cart to pull an unwilling horse, (to use a metaphor Mr Lechmere would have been familiar with).

              Assume he is guilty
              , and yes - his route to work becomes relevant (as long as we assume he was crazy enough to kill one woman in Buck's Row on his route to work, and then having voluntarily made himself known to the police, killed another a few minutes further along his route to work, in Hanbury St, a week later).

              Assume he is guilty, and yes - his relatives' addresses become relevant. Otherwise he is just one of many thousands of East Londoners who had relatives living in other nearby areas of East London, vaguely near the sites of a Ripper murder or two. High density slum housing and a large, not terribly mobile population make this a statistical near-certainty.

              Assume he was guilty, and yes - you see the guilty import of the Mizen scam. Otherwise you see either a combination of misunderstanding and misreporting, or a copper telling a lie to cover the inadequacy of his own response.

              It's like this all the way: if we assume he is guilty then certain things make a kind of sense when viewed through that lens, and a pattern emerges. But none of the evidence, viewed dispassionately, is enough to persuade many people to assume his guilt, and without that assumption the pattern is not there.

              It seems that this is going to be your big challenge, to get the horse back before the cart.

              Comment


              • #22
                Patrick S: Fisherman,

                The problem I'm having is that we must - in order to accept Mizen's testimony as truthful - accept Paul as both Lechmere's dupe and as a publicity seeker who "spiced up" his Lloyd's statement in order to overstate his role while diminishing Lechmere's role.

                Not really, no - as I mentioned before, it may all be the work of an enterprising journalist who preferred the idea of having the star role instead of a supporting one. So what we must accept is that EITHER Paul or that reporter spiced up Paulīs role.
                And frankly, is it not what clearly seems to have happened?


                Consequently, in my view, we must assign dishonest motives to both Lechmere (murderer of Nichols) and Paul (dishonest in his testimony, publicity seeker) while also viewing Paul as Lechmere's unwitting dupe, parroting his words, claiming them as his own in order to believe that Mizen was completely honest at all times, about everything that happened in Baker's Row and Buck's Row.

                If you want fifteen minutes of fame, is this not exactly what people do? Exaggerate their own roles?
                I see Paul as a man with an ego, but a man who was easy to impress. There is no contradiction in that suggestion, as I see things.
                When it comes to Mizen, his service record and his subsequent work must be weighed in. He managed things in a very commendable manner normally, going by that. So I would not expect him to be a complete dunce in Bakerīs Row - although it cannot be ruled out.
                But overall, since we can see that a scenario where Mizen was told that the carmen were the finders and that the woman in Bucks Row could be dead or dying should result in Mizen taking the mens names and detaining them, I think that a scenario where he was NOT told the truth is much more in line with the actions the PC took.
                Also, the fact that we do not have Mizen protesting against Neilīs claim to be the finder of the body, seems to me to suggest that Mizen beleived that this was so. If he had been told by the carmen that THEY were the finders, he really should have protested against Neilīs claim.
                As for the PC being squeaky clean in both Bucks Row and Bakers Row, is that not how it works? A honest PC is not half honest, a lying criminal (if Lechmere was the killer) does not opt for honesty half of the time. The normal outcome is not two greys, itīs one white and one black.


                Further (and apologies for repeating this but I know that you wish to consolidate to this thread, so I'm happy to do so), I'm troubled by this detail with respect to Paul having been duped by Lechmere into parroting his (Lechmere's) words to Lloyd's.

                It has to be a suggestion on my behalf only. But IF Paul was out of earshot, then he MUST have found the information somewhere. I donīt think he would just shoot away, not considering what ammunition he used.

                If Paul claimed that it was HE who spoke to Mizen while it was actually Lechmere who did so and subsequently fed Paul a false version of that conversation then this causes me to me to view even more strongly Lechmere's appearance at the inquest the following day as the action of an innocent man. Allow me to elaborate......

                As I've mentioned, Paul marginalizes Lechmere completely in Lloyd's. He's simply "a man" who asks him to "come see this woman". The article leaves one to assume that Paul inspected the body, alone, without help from "the man":

                I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle.

                The reader is also led to understand that Paul leaves "the man" behind while he and he alone goes in search of a policeman:

                I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.

                If your theory is correct, then what comes next is Paul claiming to have had a conversation (with Mizen) that never occurred but was invented by Lechmere and told to Paul in order to divert suspicion and allow him (Lechmere) to elude capture:

                "I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.”

                In my view, Lechmere should have been ecstatic about Paul's Lloyd's interview. If he'd killed Nichols then he'd managed to recruit a stranger (Paul) to view the body, go with him in search of a PC. He finds Mizen. He manages to speak with Mizen away from Paul so that Paul couldn't hear their conversation (in which he does not tell Mizen that Nichols may be dead and does tell him that he's wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row). He then returns to Paul and tells him that Mizen was unconcerned, continued calling people up, didn't say if he "should go or not". He escapes the situation. He goes on to work. And on Sunday he reads an interview with the man he'd so completely duped, Robert Paul, who claims it was HE who did the talking and acting, so completely buying into the exchange with Mizen fed to him by Lechmere that he repeats it as having been he who had the conversation. All of these unconventional means of eluding capture worked better than Lechmere could have hoped, NOW he's reading Paul's account and he (Lechmere) is essentially completely cut out of the narrative. WHY would he rush to the inquest the following morning?

                Because no matter how Paul - or the Lloyds reporter - tried to big up Pauls role, it still remained that Paul does not say that he found the body. He very clearly says that he saw a man standing where the body was. And in so doing, he exonerates himself - he was not alone with Nichols for a split second, so he could not be the killer.
                The OTHER man, however - HE was found alone with the body. And that meant that he was elegible for the killerīs role.
                At this stage, it should be remembered, Lechmere had not yeat told his story about having stepped out in to the middle of the street seconds only before Paul arrived. For all the police knew, the man found where the body was could have spent an hour with Nichols.
                Against that backdrop, it matters not that Paul - or the reporter - took it upon himself to steal the subsequent show. The woman was already dead or dying as Paul arrived, and it was apparently not his doing. And the police were more likely to look for a killer than for a bragger.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
                  Fish, you frequently ask us to consider things from the perspective of your hypothesis, ie: if you just suppose for a moment that Cross/Lechmere was the killer and a liar, then my explanation for this statement or that action makes perfect sense.

                  That may be true, but you do sometimes give the unmistakable impression of a man busy trying to get his cart to pull an unwilling horse, (to use a metaphor Mr Lechmere would have been familiar with).

                  Assume he is guilty
                  , and yes - his route to work becomes relevant (as long as we assume he was crazy enough to kill one woman in Buck's Row on his route to work, and then having voluntarily made himself known to the police, killed another a few minutes further along his route to work, in Hanbury St, a week later).

                  Assume he is guilty, and yes - his relatives' addresses become relevant. Otherwise he is just one of many thousands of East Londoners who had relatives living in other nearby areas of East London, vaguely near the sites of a Ripper murder or two. High density slum housing and a large, not terribly mobile population make this a statistical near-certainty.

                  Assume he was guilty, and yes - you see the guilty import of the Mizen scam. Otherwise you see either a combination of misunderstanding and misreporting, or a copper telling a lie to cover the inadequacy of his own response.

                  It's like this all the way: if we assume he is guilty then certain things make a kind of sense when viewed through that lens, and a pattern emerges. But none of the evidence, viewed dispassionately, is enough to persuade many people to assume his guilt, and without that assumption the pattern is not there.

                  It seems that this is going to be your big challenge, to get the horse back before the cart.
                  I agree wholeheartedy: If Lechmere was innocent, then it is just a coincidence that:
                  1. he was found with the body.
                  2. he was in place when the body would still bleed a number of minutes.
                  3. Paul did not see or her him before he arrived up at Browns.
                  4. Lechmere did not hear Paul until he was very close.
                  5. the carman used a name with the authorities that he otherwise never used.
                  6. the serving PC to whom he had spoken in the murder night disagreed with him over what was said and who said it.
                  7. his logical working routes covered four of the murder sites.
                  8. those who died on working days seems to have done so at the approximate time he would have been en route to work.
                  9. he had geographical ties to both Berner Street and Mitre Square.
                  10. Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly, the ones who died on working days, were not the ones to die at around 1-2 AM.
                  11. Stride and Eddowes, the ones who died on a non-working day, did not die at around 3-4 AM.
                  12. Lechmere did not go to the police until after Pauls interview was published.
                  13. Lechmere, while having called out to Paul to supply help to Nichols, refused to help prop her up.
                  14. the carman took a lot longer to reach Bucks Row than he should have.
                  15. Jason Payne-James says that another killer would stretch the bleeding schedule beyond what he would have expected.

                  These, and a number of other points (I listed 31 of them on another occasion), are simply coincidental if Lechmere was not the killer. So in the end, it boils down to how many coincidences we are willing to swallow. Iīve been full for the longest time, but there are people with a voracious appetite out here ...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Thank you for the information by Edwards, Fisherman. It clarifies what Cross may have meant by 'he stooped one side of her; I stooped the other'. Realizing the events helps to develop the investigation. Overall, I do find Cross' account of that morning to be suspicious.



                    Regarding leaving at different intervals, I pieced these together:

                    The Echo. September 3rd.
                    I [Cross] replied, "I'm not going to touch her. You [Paul] had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him." When I found her, her clothes were above her knees. There did not seem to be much clothing. The other man pulled her clothes down before he left...

                    {coroner continues questioning}

                    ...I then left her, went up Baker's-row, turned to the right, and saw a constable.


                    Lloyd's. Robert Paul interview.
                    I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I [Paul] went on and told the other man [Cross] I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up.
                    (my own emphasis)
                    there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Rainbow View Post
                      Its very clear Fisherman, otherwise The Coroner would have asked Paul in the inquest what had he told Mizen, and he would have asked him if they realy told Mizen he is wanted in Buck's Row by another policeman, as he did when he asked Lechmere the same question, especially after there was contradiction between Lechmere and Mizen about this very point.


                      Rainbow°
                      Not as clear as one would think. The situation with Mizen has not been proven to be true or not. And as others have pointed out this can be interpreted several ways(if true). This could also be used to exonerate Lechmere. This is another situation where newspaper accounts are being taken as fact without corroboration.

                      Columbo

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Elamarna: Yes of course there are several possible solutions.

                        Are there now? Splendid!



                        To me the most likely explanation is that it was misreporting, to you it is not, no problem with that.

                        No, Steve, to you it is OBVIOUS that it was misreporting. That was why I had a decisive problem with it. I thought to myself "How can Steve conclude that it is obvious that it was misreporting when there is an explanation at hand that works with what the papers reported?
                        Now it seems you have come to your senses a little bit, which is great. But I would like an explanation as to why you think it "more likely" to be a misreporting than not.


                        To suggest misreporting is a viable proposition, it happens, often in the ripper case, it is he simpler explanation.
                        It does not require a somewhat convoluted conspiracy theory, but we will not agree so lets not argue.




                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Which suggestion? That the papers made a mistake ? Its not a shipwreck and certainly not desperate.

                        Who said it was a shipwreck? A bit of a shipwreck was what I said, considering how you claimed that it was obvious that we were dealing with a misreporting. Since the humble "I think it is more likely" debris is floating ashore now, I think my point is made.

                        Semantics with you on shipwreck or bit of a shipwreck, both implying implying a disaster, but to varying degrees.

                        And by me, "obvious" was while to me correct, it was not the best choice of word to use.

                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        Actually you are going with some of the sources, no issue with that.
                        However you are suggesting an alternative to what has been the general accepted view, that is not a problem to any investigator or researcher, without such thinking based on the sources, and this is, we will never advance, but to say it is not an alternative is ...inaccurate.

                        Yes, I am going with the sources. And still, you managed to claim that it was "obvious" that I was wrong. Good to hear that you have no issue with that now. Itīs comforting to know.

                        Going with the sources does not mean one is right, it does of course give some factual support, and i was basing my view on the majority of the sources, who is to say which is right, if any?



                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        As for "what has been the general accepted view", I would say that what we are doing out here is to look at what has been the general accpeted view and try to assess if must be correct. Once we find things like the Morning Advertiser reporting, what was the general accepted view will be set in motion, and there will be a time of turmoil before a new general accepted view arrives on the scene.
                        When new facts come to light, they will have an influence.
                        [/B]
                        And I agree with the above, however it is an alternative view and that was my point.

                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Inline with some of the evidence, not all and in direct contradiction to some, but that is how we progress by questioning, so again no issue.

                        Yes, it is how we progress - and when people find themselves suited to deem it "inventions" and "flights of fancy", it gets a bit improductive. It very much makes it sound as if there is an agenda at play, aiming to silence doen and belittle the efforts made to bolster a theory.
                        Itīs not that I am nit used to it, Steve - I doubt that anyone is more used to it than me. Itīs just that it makes me a bitter, grumpy, sour old man who would have preferred a sounder debate.
                        No problem.



                        [QUOTE=Fisherman;399432]
                        As an hypothesis it is certainly viable, just that it cannot be proved one way or the other, but that is often the way with this case is it not?

                        So it is.

                        No, I fully accept the possibility, However everything you write, once we get away from the hard facts, on which we agree is from a starting position that Lechmere was the killer and he lied. it colours all.
                        All your hypothesis's have this Bias, that does not mean they are wrong, only that they have an inbuilt slant, which needs to to allowed for when weighting up the hypothesis.


                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        I have always said, and I am happy to say again, that I look at things from all angles. But I have for a long time been convinced that Lechmere is the only really viable bid for the killerīs role, based on the evidence at hand. And as I have delved deeper into the case, nothing at all has surfaced to contradict that view. Basically, what I am doing, is to leave it to others to try and dissolve the theory, to find the weak points, if there are any, to criticize, quite simply. Over the years, I have introduced a number of points against arguments the theory myself, although I have pointed out that these arguments are not the better ones to my way of thinking.
                        So yes, expect me to look at the points of accusation - but that is not the same as denying whatever points of exoneration that may come along. In that vein, I woujld like to ask you: If you were to name one single point that you think is very damning for the Lechmere theory, something that you think very clearly points to innocence, what would that point be?
                        A single point to innocence?

                        In my opinion we should be looking to see there is a lack of guilt, but different people work in different ways, however it does demonstrated you starting position.

                        For the lack of guilt position:

                        A genuine lack of real data linking him to the other sites, I do not mean maps with theories that he may have gone this way or that, but real data showing a real, not theorized link.

                        Theorized links can be provided for several suspect, no more so than Kosminski who at one point lived next door to the Berner street site, it certainly proves nothing other than what a coincidence..


                        However I will give a possible piece pointing to his innocence. (only possible because has you agree we have not data from which to draw firm conclusions ).


                        The time for Chapmans death.

                        You have told me that we do not know his actual work times, we know that on the day of the Nichols death he started at 4am.

                        He also said did he not that he was late and normally would leave at 3.20am?
                        we can make an educated guess, based on those statements, that 4.am was his normal start time.

                        If Cadosh is correct, then it is unlikely, and I say no more than that , he would have been available to do the murder.

                        if Phillips is correct, it takes it nearer to the start time, but still causes problems.

                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        Back there again, Made it very clear That i do not accept such gross generalizations in any random case, each needs to be examined on its own merits.

                        Nobody is asking you to accept it in a specified case - but overall, manking builds itīs existence on the ability to communicate. Generally speaking, we can do so and get it right. THAT is what I am saying, and what I want recognized.

                        You may well do, however that does not mean you will get your wish.

                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        I did not miss the question mark, one nails down a coffin in preparation for
                        burial, and I replied suggesting that we are far from putting another nail in we should be removing some which you have already said are there, as the burial is not needed yet.

                        Which nails do you perceive are unwarranted in the coffin lid, Steve?

                        I have no idea, not sure which ones you claim to have put in place; however the thread is about "another nail", and I do not see any evidence enough to justify a previous one.


                        steve

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Elamarna: To suggest misreporting is a viable proposition, it happens, often in the ripper case, it is he simpler explanation.

                          No, Iīm sorry, but misreporting is ALWAYS an exception and NEVER the rule. If it was, no paper would ever sell.
                          But Iīm happy weīve gone from obvious to viable.


                          And by me, "obvious" was while to me correct, it was not the best choice of word to use.

                          THATīS obvious!!


                          Going with the sources does not mean one is right, it does of course give some factual support, and i was basing my view on the majority of the sources, who is to say which is right, if any?

                          Well, to be honest, you said it was obvious that the source was a misreporting in this case.


                          A single point to innocence?

                          In my opinion we should be looking to see there is a lack of guilt, but different people work in different ways, however it does demonstrated you starting position.

                          For the lack of guilt position:

                          A genuine lack of real data linking him to the other sites, I do not mean maps with theories that he may have gone this way or that, but real data showing a real, not theorized link.

                          We have a man who is knit to one of the murder spots at a time when the victim was still bleeding, and would bleed for another couple of minutes. It just so hapens that this mans working route takes him straight through the killing grounds. The two murders that are not perpetrated here, are also perpetrtated in areas to which he has a very clear connection.

                          It cannot convict him. It cannot prove that he was at any of the other murder sites. But speaking from an investigative point of view, it spells disater for him. All we can say thatīs positive in this context is that there is no proven guilt.

                          Theorized links can be provided for several suspect, no more so than Kosminski who at one point lived next door to the Berner street site, it certainly proves nothing other than what a coincidence..

                          One coincidence is fine. A bagful is not. James Scobie says that the coincidences mount up in Lechmereīs case, and that it becomes one coincidence too many.
                          You disagree, perhaps, but he is the barrister.


                          However I will give a possible piece pointing to his innocence. (only possible because has you agree we have not data from which to draw firm conclusions ).

                          The time for Chapmans death.

                          You have told me that we do not know his actual work times, we know that on the day of the Nichols death he started at 4am.

                          Well, we know that he claimed to do so.

                          He also said did he not that he was late and normally would leave at 3.20am?
                          we can make an educated guess, based on those statements, that 4.am was his normal start time.

                          Agreed.

                          If Cadosh is correct, then it is unlikely, and I say no more than that , he would have been available to do the murder.

                          Why? Do you know where he was at the time? Or do you base "unlikely" on how he could have been in a good many other places?

                          if Phillips is correct, it takes it nearer to the start time, but still causes problems.

                          How is that? Phillips looked at her at 6.30 and at the inquest, the following was said:
                          Coroner: How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her?
                          Phillips: I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

                          So "AT LEAST two hours": 4.30 "and probably more": BEFORE 4.30.

                          You may well do, however that does not mean you will get your wish.

                          My money is on you being wrong on that score.


                          I have no idea, not sure which ones you claim to have put in place; however the thread is about "another nail", and I do not see any evidence enough to justify a previous one.

                          Then how could they be pulled out if they were never there...?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
                            Thank you for the information by Edwards, Fisherman. It clarifies what Cross may have meant by 'he stooped one side of her; I stooped the other'. Realizing the events helps to develop the investigation. Overall, I do find Cross' account of that morning to be suspicious.



                            Regarding leaving at different intervals, I pieced these together:

                            The Echo. September 3rd.
                            I [Cross] replied, "I'm not going to touch her. You [Paul] had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him." When I found her, her clothes were above her knees. There did not seem to be much clothing. The other man pulled her clothes down before he left...

                            {coroner continues questioning}

                            ...I then left her, went up Baker's-row, turned to the right, and saw a constable.


                            Lloyd's. Robert Paul interview.
                            I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I [Paul] went on and told the other man [Cross] I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up.
                            (my own emphasis)
                            The Lloyds material seems utterly unreliable. As for the Echo, Iīm thinking that Lechmere may have originally suggested that Paul did the trek himself, only to then discuss the matter with him and agree that they should walk together.

                            Overall, making sense of these things is what we should strive for.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              Patrick S: Fisherman,

                              The problem I'm having is that we must - in order to accept Mizen's testimony as truthful - accept Paul as both Lechmere's dupe and as a publicity seeker who "spiced up" his Lloyd's statement in order to overstate his role while diminishing Lechmere's role.

                              Not really, no - as I mentioned before, it may all be the work of an enterprising journalist who preferred the idea of having the star role instead of a supporting one. So what we must accept is that EITHER Paul or that reporter spiced up Paulīs role.
                              And frankly, is it not what clearly seems to have happened?


                              Consequently, in my view, we must assign dishonest motives to both Lechmere (murderer of Nichols) and Paul (dishonest in his testimony, publicity seeker) while also viewing Paul as Lechmere's unwitting dupe, parroting his words, claiming them as his own in order to believe that Mizen was completely honest at all times, about everything that happened in Baker's Row and Buck's Row.

                              If you want fifteen minutes of fame, is this not exactly what people do? Exaggerate their own roles?
                              I see Paul as a man with an ego, but a man who was easy to impress. There is no contradiction in that suggestion, as I see things.
                              When it comes to Mizen, his service record and his subsequent work must be weighed in. He managed things in a very commendable manner normally, going by that. So I would not expect him to be a complete dunce in Bakerīs Row - although it cannot be ruled out.
                              But overall, since we can see that a scenario where Mizen was told that the carmen were the finders and that the woman in Bucks Row could be dead or dying should result in Mizen taking the mens names and detaining them, I think that a scenario where he was NOT told the truth is much more in line with the actions the PC took.
                              Also, the fact that we do not have Mizen protesting against Neilīs claim to be the finder of the body, seems to me to suggest that Mizen beleived that this was so. If he had been told by the carmen that THEY were the finders, he really should have protested against Neilīs claim.
                              As for the PC being squeaky clean in both Bucks Row and Bakers Row, is that not how it works? A honest PC is not half honest, a lying criminal (if Lechmere was the killer) does not opt for honesty half of the time. The normal outcome is not two greys, itīs one white and one black.


                              Further (and apologies for repeating this but I know that you wish to consolidate to this thread, so I'm happy to do so), I'm troubled by this detail with respect to Paul having been duped by Lechmere into parroting his (Lechmere's) words to Lloyd's.

                              It has to be a suggestion on my behalf only. But IF Paul was out of earshot, then he MUST have found the information somewhere. I donīt think he would just shoot away, not considering what ammunition he used.

                              If Paul claimed that it was HE who spoke to Mizen while it was actually Lechmere who did so and subsequently fed Paul a false version of that conversation then this causes me to me to view even more strongly Lechmere's appearance at the inquest the following day as the action of an innocent man. Allow me to elaborate......

                              As I've mentioned, Paul marginalizes Lechmere completely in Lloyd's. He's simply "a man" who asks him to "come see this woman". The article leaves one to assume that Paul inspected the body, alone, without help from "the man":

                              I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle.

                              The reader is also led to understand that Paul leaves "the man" behind while he and he alone goes in search of a policeman:

                              I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.

                              If your theory is correct, then what comes next is Paul claiming to have had a conversation (with Mizen) that never occurred but was invented by Lechmere and told to Paul in order to divert suspicion and allow him (Lechmere) to elude capture:

                              "I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.”

                              In my view, Lechmere should have been ecstatic about Paul's Lloyd's interview. If he'd killed Nichols then he'd managed to recruit a stranger (Paul) to view the body, go with him in search of a PC. He finds Mizen. He manages to speak with Mizen away from Paul so that Paul couldn't hear their conversation (in which he does not tell Mizen that Nichols may be dead and does tell him that he's wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row). He then returns to Paul and tells him that Mizen was unconcerned, continued calling people up, didn't say if he "should go or not". He escapes the situation. He goes on to work. And on Sunday he reads an interview with the man he'd so completely duped, Robert Paul, who claims it was HE who did the talking and acting, so completely buying into the exchange with Mizen fed to him by Lechmere that he repeats it as having been he who had the conversation. All of these unconventional means of eluding capture worked better than Lechmere could have hoped, NOW he's reading Paul's account and he (Lechmere) is essentially completely cut out of the narrative. WHY would he rush to the inquest the following morning?

                              Because no matter how Paul - or the Lloyds reporter - tried to big up Pauls role, it still remained that Paul does not say that he found the body. He very clearly says that he saw a man standing where the body was. And in so doing, he exonerates himself - he was not alone with Nichols for a split second, so he could not be the killer.

                              The OTHER man, however - HE was found alone with the body. And that meant that he was elegible for the killerīs role.



                              At this stage, it should be remembered, Lechmere had not yeat told his story about having stepped out in to the middle of the street seconds only before Paul arrived. For all the police knew, the man found where the body was could have spent an hour with Nichols.
                              Against that backdrop, it matters not that Paul - or the reporter - took it upon himself to steal the subsequent show. The woman was already dead or dying as Paul arrived, and it was apparently not his doing. And the police were more likely to look for a killer than for a bragger.
                              I'll let others digest this and decide what they'd like to believe.

                              For me this is all seems a construct of selective reliability. Not only do you place credence in witnesses that aid you theory (while assuming or inventing motivations: Paul is the braggart or the reporter is "big upping" Paul's story) but you also allow that witnesses like Paul are truthful when their statements can be (however tenuously) interpreted as supporting your theory and lying when they don't. For instance, Paul is reliable when he states that Lechmere was in the road "where the woman was". He's reliable in some portions of his inquest testimony (the portions which - in your mind indicate that Lechmere said and did things that might cast suspicion on him) and unreliable when he's telling us the he spoke with Mizen, describing Mizen's reaction, and unreliable in that he never tells us that it was Lechmere feeding him these lines, something that he never tells us in his testimony.

                              Of course, we are to believe Mizen at all times, even though he seems to have told no one at the Met about his having spoken to and released two men (and not collecting their names) who claimed to have found Nichols, even as Neil testified that he'd found her body. It seems likely that Mizen was compelled to testify as a direct result of Paul's testimony.

                              Finally, I think I will never agree that there was anything in Paul's statement that drove Lechmere to testify at the inquest. We're talking about London, a city - at that time - of approximately 4 million people. No television. No radio. No description of Lechmere appeared in Lloyd's. The risk he would have been taking cannot be justified. Thus, I think it's apparent there was no risk in that he was - simply - an innocent man who was simply doing his duty as he saw it. Altering his appearance (shaving or growing a mustache) would have been a reasonable response. Taking an circuitous route to work to avoid the area around the murder would have been a reasonable response. Quitting his job and/or moving his family would have been more reasonable as he was not submitting himself to the police after he'd escaped the scene after committing murder. Only one path led to the gallows, the end of his life. And that's the path you ask us to believe he chose....because of what he read in Lloyd's.

                              I see things completely differently, obviously. But, again, I'll let others post their thoughts. Thanks again.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I do not know if Thomas Cross, Charles's stepfather was alive in 1888 but if he was it might have been him who encouraged Charles's to come forward, being a Policeman.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X