Tweet
No spellcheck huh Lechmere?
I see. ‘And’ and ‘late’ are such buggers to spell.
OK, lets pick over this wreck of a post….
I merely show that these presented facts of yours and Fishermans are not facts at all.
Heh, you use the word ‘if’ then state its not conjecture. Try looking up the word Conjecture, it will help you.
Its conjecture. Pure and simple conjecture.
No, we know estimated times not established. 4 Minutes from that’s spot in Bucks Row to the corner of Bakers Row/Old Montague Street/Hanbury Street does not suggest swift pace.
As a side point. I never stated ‘zig zagging’. Those are your words and not mine.
We don’t know if Paul slowed down for him.
He does claim that.
I agree. However they are just as baseless as stating the times to the exact minute, which is what you require to bolster Cross. You have not taken into accounts any variants at all.
Yep, very serious. The timings are far from established, therefore to base any conclusion on said timings results in a conclusion open to question. You do not have the full information to hand, therefore you guess, therefore we have that word again…conjecture.
No I do not miss the point. I agree with you, the difference can be explained by that however not fully. It’s the next part which I do not get….
.
Right, so we make the leap that Cross has killed Nichols. This based on his proximity to her body when Paul arrives.
How close is ‘very close’?
Why didn’t he flee?
Could not the true killer have placed Nichols clothing upon Cross’s arrival?
You know nothing of Police procedure of the time, that is clear. You also know nothing of what action was taken regarding Cross.
Hmmm, no. The shortest route is entirely that, short and quick. However, as Dave points out, it may not be the route preferred by Cross for whatever reason (as Dave points out also). Cross's natural route may not be the shortest, again you assume.
If you were late for work. Or if being late for work really doesn’t matter as you are fully aware any time lost would be made up. Especially if one had a valid excuse like, oh, I don’t know, finding a woman in the street which you suspect was dead and notifying the police.
You have no need to tell me anything Lechmere, that is clear. However to weigh up the quickest against the safest and decide the difference is minimal (several minutes as you admit) then, as stated, the latter would suffice. Especially after finding a woman in the street.
Agreed, however this is not ascertained fact. Therefore conjecture.
Agreed again. Goose and Gander.
So Cross is willing to brazen it out with Nichols but very scared to go Old Montague Street way incase the very thick and incompetent Mizen makes a connection? Really?
And murders near Pauls workplace because?
We are delving off into the realms of uber conjecture now. Outstanding summising, outstanding.
Very interesting.
.
Its obvious you do not understand my point. The name is indeed irrelevant. It is the known as, the seen before. In other words its Paul and Mizen recognising the man who gave his name as Cross.
He gave an alternate name. Did he give an alternate work address? An alternate home address?
This name propaganda holds no relevance whatsoever and is not evidence of a killer.
It is beyond reason.
Again, it is not the name but that he was recognised. Muhammed Ali was known as Cassius Clay. Yet he is the same man. The name is of no great significance yet is used as ‘proof’ of Cross’s guilt.
An innocent passer by would not wanted to have propped up a person found in the street, especially if they thought said person was dead. I don’t think Id have been too keen, would you?
What I have done is no different to what you and Fisherman have done. Placed interpretation on information provided. What I haven’t done is stamped my feet and claimed this is what happened, this is fact, ergo Cross is guilty.
Your line about falsehoods amuses me, mainly because you and Christer have far from established fact. You have merely based your conclusions on interpretation of information, as have I.
Just that our conclusions differ. Therefore the case fails the reasonable test. In fact, our solicitors would even have taken it to court.
Christer,
Not even worth my time.
Its clear to all I was referring to the style rather than you personally.
Deal with it.
Monty
I see. ‘And’ and ‘late’ are such buggers to spell.
OK, lets pick over this wreck of a post….
Monty
You ask for facts and then answer with utter pie in the sky supposition, moulded byu a burning desire to find innocent explanations. I would suggest that a modren policeforce would not operate in such a manner or they would never apprehend, let alone suspect, anyone.
You ask for facts and then answer with utter pie in the sky supposition, moulded byu a burning desire to find innocent explanations. I would suggest that a modren policeforce would not operate in such a manner or they would never apprehend, let alone suspect, anyone.
If Lechmeer left home at 3.30 he wpould have passed the murder scene at about 3.37 and been well down Old Montague Street (or Hanbury Street) by the time Paul apeared at Brown's Stable Yard.
That is not conjecture.
That is not conjecture.
Its conjecture. Pure and simple conjecture.
You say we don't now how long he took to walk, whether he had ailments or whether he wanted to stop off on the way. Maybe he liked zig-zagging down te road - eh?
We know that Cross kept up with Paul when he walked from Brown's Stable Yard to where they met Mizen which took four minutes including the time they spent over Polly's body.
We know that Cross kept up with Paul when he walked from Brown's Stable Yard to where they met Mizen which took four minutes including the time they spent over Polly's body.
As a side point. I never stated ‘zig zagging’. Those are your words and not mine.
We know he kept up with Paul up to Corbett's Court.
He claims he was in work by 4 am.
I think Monty your conuecture's in answer to Fisherman's point about timings are utterly baseless.
You think the timings aren't relevant? Are you being serious? Having the opportunity to commit the crime due to the timings is quite obviously relevant.
You then seem to completely miss the point about the Tabram, Chapman and Eddowes reference with regard to the positioning of Polly's garments. With the three aforementioned victims, the garments were left 'up' displaying the abdominal wounds. In the case of Nichols, the garments were left 'down' hiding the abdominal injuries. This difference can be explained by the cuplrit being disburbed and wishing to disguise somewhat what had transpired.
As Cross seen by Paul very close to the body prior to Cross raising the alarm, this should be a matter of interest and would be I am sure to any half efficient police force today - were this case to be tranported 124 years into the future
Right, so we make the leap that Cross has killed Nichols. This based on his proximity to her body when Paul arrives.
How close is ‘very close’?
Why didn’t he flee?
Could not the true killer have placed Nichols clothing upon Cross’s arrival?
You know nothing of Police procedure of the time, that is clear. You also know nothing of what action was taken regarding Cross.
Then you say that Hanbury Street is the natural direction for Broad Street. Hmmm. I rather think the 'natural' direction is the shortest route - don't you?
You say the time difference is min imal. It isn't excessive but it is sevral minutes amndf if you ar elkate for work the presumption would be to take the shortest and quickest route.
Let me also tell you that a carman of twnety years local expirence would absolutely certainly have known the shortest and quickest routes. It was their job to know such things.
I think we can assume Cross was headed for Broad Street as he worked there and that is where he said he was going.
Again you conjecture that Cross may have had other tasks to perform in the market (Spitalfields I pressume) or may have stopped off for sustainence.
Again - Cross himself claimed to have got to work by 4 am . This actiually was impossible unless he sprinted but if he stopped off after leaving Paul he would have been even later. In other words Cross's own testimony makes your conjecture unfounded.
The relevance to Cross as the culprit is that by going down Hanbury Street he discovered where Paul worked and the next body appeared 100 yards from Paul's workplace. By going down Hanbury Street Cross also avoided going down Old Montague Street when he left Mizen - in the direction where Tabram's body had been found a few weeks before. I will spell out the implication here. It could have lit a little light in Mizen's mind if he had walked off in that direction and Mizen may have thought afterwards - 'hold on a minute...'
The relevance to Cross as the culprit is that by going down Hanbury Street he discovered where Paul worked and the next body appeared 100 yards from Paul's workplace. By going down Hanbury Street Cross also avoided going down Old Montague Street when he left Mizen - in the direction where Tabram's body had been found a few weeks before. I will spell out the implication here. It could have lit a little light in Mizen's mind if he had walked off in that direction and Mizen may have thought afterwards - 'hold on a minute...'
And murders near Pauls workplace because?
We are delving off into the realms of uber conjecture now. Outstanding summising, outstanding.
Lechmere is an anglicised name. The family name is as old as the Norman Conquest. There is a saying that when there are no more Lechmere in Worcestershire, there will be no more apples in Worcestershire.
You then seem to say that giving a fake name to the police doesn't matter so long as the police don't find out about it.
A novel approach
A novel approach
Its obvious you do not understand my point. The name is indeed irrelevant. It is the known as, the seen before. In other words its Paul and Mizen recognising the man who gave his name as Cross.
He gave an alternate name. Did he give an alternate work address? An alternate home address?
This name propaganda holds no relevance whatsoever and is not evidence of a killer.
It is beyond reason.
One extra factlet for you - Mizen referred to him as 'Cross' at the inquest but Mizen also said he only found out his name was Cross that morning... at the inquest...
No doubt that is of no significance.
No doubt that is of no significance.
You say you have no idea why the following implicate Cross:
"Mizen testified that Lechmere had claimed that another policeman awaited him in Buck´s Row.
" He also claimed that Lechmere had worded this in a passive mode, not giving away that Lechmere himself had found Nichols.
"Lechmere himself said that he and Paul had felt Nichols hands and face for warmth, but that he had rejected to help prop her up. "
By saying another policeman wanted him, Mizen did not feel the need to take Cross's name and address. If you cannot see that this would be to the advantage of a murderer, well what can one say?
By implying that he did npt find the body himself would again defuse any possible reason for Mizen to take his details.
By avoiding propping Polly up, Cross ensured that Paul did not see the massive neck injury that would have immediately become apparent and the fact of Polly's grusome death would have been obvious, which was not the case up to then. If it did become obvious, then Paul might insist on knocking neighbours up and making an immediate fuss. A murderer would want to avodi that possibility.
"Mizen testified that Lechmere had claimed that another policeman awaited him in Buck´s Row.
" He also claimed that Lechmere had worded this in a passive mode, not giving away that Lechmere himself had found Nichols.
"Lechmere himself said that he and Paul had felt Nichols hands and face for warmth, but that he had rejected to help prop her up. "
By saying another policeman wanted him, Mizen did not feel the need to take Cross's name and address. If you cannot see that this would be to the advantage of a murderer, well what can one say?
By implying that he did npt find the body himself would again defuse any possible reason for Mizen to take his details.
By avoiding propping Polly up, Cross ensured that Paul did not see the massive neck injury that would have immediately become apparent and the fact of Polly's grusome death would have been obvious, which was not the case up to then. If it did become obvious, then Paul might insist on knocking neighbours up and making an immediate fuss. A murderer would want to avodi that possibility.
What you have actually done is come up with some innocent explanations for Cross/Lechmere's behaviour - but interpretations that are mostly based on factual falsehoods or extremnely unlikley possibilities that dramatically fail the 'reasonableness' test.
I know some of this duplicates Fisherman's post.
I know some of this duplicates Fisherman's post.
Your line about falsehoods amuses me, mainly because you and Christer have far from established fact. You have merely based your conclusions on interpretation of information, as have I.
Just that our conclusions differ. Therefore the case fails the reasonable test. In fact, our solicitors would even have taken it to court.
Christer,
Not even worth my time.
Its clear to all I was referring to the style rather than you personally.
Deal with it.
Monty
Comment