Lechmere validity

[Patrick S]

You see, if Lechmere was the killer, and if he did not want a full scale murder hunt for his person to get launched - and yes, I speculate that this could well have happened if he stayed away - then he may have chosen to report into the cop shop and try to dissolve that picture before it had been fully formed.

What on Earth would lead anyone to the idea that a "full scale murder hunt" would be launched to find "Charles Cross"? What was known then is what is known now: He stopped Paul, alerted him to Nichols on the pavement, reported what he found to the police. We're asked to believe that Cross was flushed from hiding to the inquest because Paul mentioned him, "a man". Clearly, Paul's statement in Lloyd's should have had him turning cartwheels, were he a killer. He's nearly removed from the narrative and he is - most importantly - COMPLETELY un-described. And he feared a "murder hunt"? Absurd.

[Patrick S]

For example, if I speculate that the killer was a psychopath ( a very reasonable speculation, given the ratio of psychopaths within the serial killer ranks and the character of the Ripper deeds), then of course further speculation about how a psychopath could act in a given situation is something that is extremely useful to explore different paths that our man could have chosen.

If one cannot see the issues with this approach, there's no real argument to be had.

This scenario BEGINS with the idea that Cross killed Nichols (and virtually everyone else in the East End between between 1870 and 1900), then makes him a psychopath in order to explain behavior that otherwise is perfectly consistent with his being perfectly sane and having found a woman lying on the pavement, alerting a passer-by, telling the police, appearing the inquest.

You invent scenario upon scenario, nonsensical explanation upon another... to explain the premise you BEGIN with. What is KNOWN doesn't lead to the idea that Cross was Jack the Ripper. For that, we must ASSUME he was, thus he was a psychopath as well, and then view everything known through that lens. I'm afraid this isn't laughable... but there are other words. I won't use them here.

[Elamarna]

Oh. I had wanted to avoid that line. I recall about 15 or more years ago talking about the beats around Nichol's murder and at the time they weren't known (or people were saying they weren't). I had taken the presentation as indicating that something justified them (I was thinking about creating them, but couldn't be bothered to program in "and now we don't know where they are, but they reappear here x minutes later", not because it was hard, but because I had other things to do. I'm behind where the current knowledge is, and clearly, my skepticism meter needs re-calibrating. A shame, that was something that was quite impressive, but I suppose, that should have raised that flag.

- Jeff

Jeff

Yes the graphics are very impressive.
And while we can still not be 100% certain of the beats in J Division we have the testimony of Neil himself , which includes Bakers Row, and a press article, The echo 21st Sept which seems too detailed to be completely invention.

On the distances we are close enough to each other to make little difference.


Steve

[Patrick S]

It results in cherry picking when one refuses to acknowledge the disconfirming evidence. But, when you approach the goal of discussions as being won when you win over more people's beliefs rather than when you've uncovered how things really are, it's a rhetorical device. It's also why Fisherman often tries to get people to agree, or claims people agree with him, because those are the "points" that keep score. Even the resorting to insults, and the over-sensitivity to perceived insults, are rhetorical devices because by denigrating the other you have the chance of lowering the probability that others will take them seriously and you try and inflame the other so they make mistakes, and by presenting yourself as the victim, you try and win over by generating sympathy. Rhetorical argument is about convincing others, not about discovery and understanding.



Oh, I may have misunderstood or misremembered how it was presented in the documentary, but I thought he was involved in tracing those links down.

- Jeff

The documentary does lead one to the conclusion that Christer made the "name discovery". He didn't. He gladly accepted my compliments for his having done so over the years, though. I've since learned that, as Dr. Strange pointed out, all Christer has done is aid in crafting the scams and dupes, hypothoses based on nothing that Cross was a psychopath, a life-long serial killer, on and on. I suppose that deserves credit, for inventiveness and originality of nothing else.

[Patrick S]

The problem for Christer is, he's tripped up by his own theories.

Mizen is a paragon of truth and accuracy when it suits him in one argument, but Mizen's a confused witness when Christer argues a different point.

This is the theme throughout. The same applies to Paul. Dead-balls accurate when he says "exactly 345am", a "big-upping police-hater" when he's not useful to the silly "dupes" and "scams" and "theories"...

According to Christer, Mizen had no idea of the time, despite the fact he was actually engaged in knocking people up and giving them the time when Cross and Paul met him. In that case, unreliable Mizen is trumped by the highly reliable Lloyd's article.

We're also told to the Lloyd's article is highly UN-reliable as it pertains to Paul's description of Nichols' being "cold" and postulating that she was left on the pavement for some time and his marginalizing Cross to a great extent... BUT!... it contains the ONLY time worth trusting of the whole lot... simply because Paul's comments do not aid his blood "evidence" (point of fact: there IS NO blood evidence in this case) but his timings do - in Christer's view - aid his attempt to put Cross in Buck's Row when he wants him in Buck's Row.

And so, we have an example of the quality of of Christer thoeries and research acumen.

To be fair to Christer, all the research acumen in the world couldn't keep this thing afloat.

Above bold.

[JeffHamm]

Neil's beat has shown does not even match his own testimony. of course a shorter beat reinforces the impression of a heavy police presence.


Steve

Oh. I had wanted to avoid that line. I recall about 15 or more years ago talking about the beats around Nichol's murder and at the time they weren't known (or people were saying they weren't). I had taken the presentation as indicating that something justified them (I was thinking about creating them, but couldn't be bothered to program in "and now we don't know where they are, but they reappear here x minutes later", not because it was hard, but because I had other things to do. I'm behind where the current knowledge is, and clearly, my skepticism meter needs re-calibrating. A shame, that was something that was quite impressive, but I suppose, that should have raised that flag.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

jeff, i made it 1023 yard, which is close enough, but there is a route which is only 957 yards, have walked these routes myself, quickly, and both under ten minutes, however i can happily live with around 10minutes, so around 20 at least for the return, and possibly longer .



Steve

Yah, the route people choose, and the shortest possible route, are not always the same. Every "turn" makes a route "seem" longer (quotes for emphasis), and it is what the distance "seems to be" rather than what it actually "is" that often guides behavior and choices. I picked a route that "seemed to me" to be ok. Of course, I also don't know what individual streets might "seem like". In the end, though, all routes will probably boil down to "around 10 minutes", with the absolute minimum distance devolving into arguments over speed to get time, etc. But what we have to work with is a range, and for an estimate that minimizes how wrong we are, it looks like in the vicinity of 10 minutes. All the evidence we have to work with is "as rough as guts", so if we're within pedantic range of each other, I think that's about as best as we can do.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

>> I really liked the presentation of the beats and and journeys between Nichols and PC Mizen (but I like that sort of thing).<<

Yes, as I commented at the time, it was technically really well done.
Shame though that the beats and the journey were wrong.

Neil's beat has shown does not even match his own testimony. of course a shorter beat reinforces the impression of a heavy police presence.


Steve

[drstrange169]

>> I really liked the presentation of the beats and and journeys between Nichols and PC Mizen (but I like that sort of thing).<<

Yes, as I commented at the time, it was technically really well done.
Shame though that the beats and the journey were wrong.

[Elamarna]

Hi,

I've done a quick calculation of the distance from Polly's murder location to the police station (using one of the high detail maps that labels it specifically) and ended up with a distance of 1034 yards. At the walking pace that I've been using (104 yards/min) that's about a 10 minute trip at an above average walking speed. Assuming the return trip with the ambulance would be a bit slower due to having to push it, we're probably looking at PC Mizen being away from the scene for a minimum of 20 minutes, and say up to 25 minutes (as I'm assuming it wouldn't take him long to get the ambulance and start the return journey). Now, if we have a good idea of when Polly was loaded on to the ambulance and removed to the mortuary, we can use that to put some limits on when PC Mizen had to have returned to the scene with the ambulance, and start getting some estimates about his arrival time at the scene. Obviously, there will be quite a bit of play around these estimates as he could have returned well before they decided to move her, but at least we can start trying to estimate the latest he could have returned, etc. I have some memory about reading she was removed from the scene at 4:15, but I'm not sure where I get that from and it also feels a bit like it could be a false memory.

- Jeff

jeff, i made it 1023 yard, which is close enough, but there is a route which is only 957 yards, have walked these routes myself, quickly, and both under ten minutes, however i can happily live with around 10minutes, so around 20 at least for the return, and possibly longer .



Steve

[drstrange169]

>>And how would he NOT have misled them by committing that perjury? Do you EVER think before typing?<<

Yet again, you've taken a portion of what I wrote, edited out the rest and taken it out of context.

Here's what I wrote and I've underlined the point of my post which you chose not to mention.

"No, he would have committed perjury. A sackable offense and a possible custodial offense, for a lie that would almost certainly be exposed. Massive difference."



>>I really cannot keep this up, I am feeling nauseated. Maybe tomorrow. But maybe not you.<<

More "foul addressing", particularly obnoxious in this case as you chose to edit what I wrote to create a controversy that wasn't there.

That apology is well and truly due.

[Elamarna]

Still falsely claiming that I am ignoring a question.

I never have to ignore any question at all. You do, and brag about how seasoned a politician you are in doing it.

That's how we differ.

Unfortunately it is habitual in your case, I did answer your questions, I just did not give the answers you were hoping for.

So you want me to repeat my answer for the - let's see - third time, is it? Okay:

Anybody knows that anyone who does not want to walk a street on account of not wanting to be found in that street can choose ANOTHER street.

See?

That is is, plain and simple.

That was not your original reply, in post 241 you said

"Which means that if we accept that the carman wanted to get to work along the quickest routes possible, he would use Bucks Row.

There will probably be scenic routes too, but the gist of the matter is that Bucks Row was, is and remains the logical choice, and not only that - the only time we can check which route he took, we KNOW that he took Bucks Row.

Is that proof that he always did? No, it is only proof that it is the obvious choice.

I am all for looking at innocent alternatives. And all against presenting them as equally matched bids when they are not."

That appears to be claiming that although there are other routes he would probably still have taken the Bucks Row route even if he was guilty and had not come forward.
That is fair enough, however it was in response to the question was there away he could have avoided Bucks Row if he wanted?
Such of course is very different.

Does that automatically mean that this anybody can easily avoid the police if he chooses to employ another street than his usual one, and that this would have safeguarded Lechmere if he did just that?

Well, the long and the short of it is that we simply do not know. We do not know, for example, if Lechmere had any distinguishing physical traits that would have been noticed by Paul and/or Mizen. If he DID have such a trait or traits, then if the police decided to search for him, then logically, they would have used that trait/s to pick him up: "We are looking for a man with two noses", sort of.

That is one thing that needs to be weighed in.

The question was NOT WOULD he? But COULD HE?

The next thing that needs to be taken into account is how there was - so far as I can tell - never any law stipulating that Robert Paul and/or Jonaas Mizen could not walk whatever streets they wanted to, meaning that regardless if Lechmere chose another working route, he could STILL run into either of these men by accident.

That is another thing that needs to be weighed in.

Ah I see, because it is possible that Paul or Mizen may have seen him on the other route(a possibility, yes) that he would not have considered that route if he wanted to avoid detection in Bucks Row.
We are back in the realms of anything is possible, in which case serious research is excluded in favour of fantasy.

Finally, there is also the option that Lechmere may actually have liked the idea to go to the inquest and fool the police and the jury and coroner, just for fun.

That is a Thord thing that needs to be weighed in.

Pure Speculation, possible I agree, but its not fact, and unprovable.


None of those points address or exclude the possibility that he COULD have taken the northern route if he wanted. Which, was all the original post was about.

Then again, all of these three things are speculation on my part, and if I then suggest that Lechmere may have acted along any of them, that is perhaps basing speculation on more speculation, and that is - as somebody has wisely told us - not something that is going to result in an honest outcome.

It cannot, just as the speculation that he could walk a northern route does not give an honest, true outcome, just a possibility.

Gee, it IS hard to promote a suspect out here.

Anyways, I think that I have answered your question (again) now.

You see, if Lechmere was the killer, and if he did not want a full scale murder hunt for his person to get launched - and yes, I speculate that this could well have happened if he stayed away - then he may have chosen to report into the cop shop and try to dissolve that picture before it had been fully formed.

Then again, here I go again, basing one speculation on another speculation, and being all dishonest again.

Can you help me, Steve? How should I go about arguing any case? You have made it so hard...!

Its perfectly OK to speculate, so long as it is not proposed as fact, and one accepts it is only a possibility, not all possibilities are equal.

Nah, just kidding. I even speculate that you didn't know what you were talking about and that this was what led you to get all tangled up about all that speculation stuff, misguided by a burning wish to be able to dismiss the Lechmere theory. And yes, that is basing speculation on speculation again. You should try it sometime - oh, but you already have: you speculate that I am dishonest and that this is what drives me to defend the theory about Lechmere.

So you are partly correct - speculation based on speculation may lead horribly wrong. But it is nevertheless something that must be employed. Its all about being able to distinguish between when it is called for and when it is not.

The big problem with the last section is that I have no desire to dismiss Lechmere, only to have a fair case made, not one that is loaded, by half-truths and imagination.


Steve

[drstrange169]

>>Where is it stated that truthful witnesses cannot be confused?<<

So was Mizen was confused about the time, even though his specific job was to tell the time?
Is that your claim?



>>If Mizen was lied to by Lechmere, how could he NOT be confused by the developments at the inquest?<<

First and importantly, I would emphasize that we have no evidence that Cross lied to the inquest. Second, you have yet to show that he needed to lie to Mizen to get passed him.



>>Now explain to us how being honest and getting confused are incompatible!<<

confused

/kənˈfjuːzd/
adjective adjective: confused

• 1.
  (of a person) unable to think clearly; bewildered.
  "she was utterly confused about what had happened"

  synonyms:

  demented, bewildered, muddled, addled, befuddled, disoriented, disorientated, (all) at sea, unbalanced, unhinged, senile, with Alzheimer's disease

If Mizen was confused as you are now suggesting then we DEFINITELY should approach his testimony with extreme caution.



>>And since you are so dead set on nitpicking yourself, please show me EXACTLY where I say that Mizen "had no idea of the time"!!!<<

Off hand? Every time you've claimed there was a nine (or what ever length) minute gap in Cross's timing.

If Paul, as you constantly claim, knew the exact time he entered Buck's Row, Mizen could not have met the two men at 3:45.

And if Mizen didn't know the time all his customers would have been late for work, something I'm sure that they would have been vocal about.



>>Of course he had an idea of the time, generally speaking. Whether it was second or minute perfect and correct - isn't that another matter?<<

But your previous posts on the matter have not been about a second or a minute have they? You say Paul entered Bucks Row at EXACTLY 3:45, The two men could not have possibly met, checked the body and walked to Mizen in one second! Nor could they have done it in one minute.



>>So first you imply that a truthful person cannot be confused.<<

No, I've implied no such thing, those are your words.

I would suggest a confused person would be unlikely to be accurate, a very different thing.

[Elamarna]

What?

We are dealing with theoretical discussions about the identity of a killer, and of course speculation based on speculation SHOULD be employed in such a discussion, otherwise we will not be able to see the possibilities.

That is why the results are weak and meaningless, what ifs based on other what ifs are not reasoned debate, they are not the way to advance the truth, although they may be an acceptable method in some forms of journalism

For example, if I speculate that the killer was a psychopath ( a very reasonable speculation, given the ratio of psychopaths within the serial killer ranks and the character of the Ripper deeds), then of course further speculation about how a psychopath could act in a given situation is something that is extremely useful to explore different paths that our man could have chosen.

But this you look upon as dishonest....? The plain truth is that it is nothing of the sort at all - it is exploring the case from an angle that must be explored.

I said it would not achieve an honest outcome, which it cannot has it is not based on fact, it is therefore unproductive in the search for the truth.
Its very much like "Alternative History", enjoyable to read, but not actually true, or helpful from the perspective of studying past events.

Can you provide a single example where I have been dishonest when speculating about the case? If you are going to call me dishonest, I think that is something that you must do. Or perhaps you never meant to call me dishonest, you just wanted to say that you were pondering these matters while visiting the toilet and it suddenly hit you that speculation based on speculation may lead you wrong?

Which is it?

Insults again, how tedious, but predictable

With regard to being Dishonest, one could mention the thread "Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed" where inaccurate information about some Press reports was posted. But i won't, sorry i just did


Steve

[drstrange169]

>>You speak of Mizen misleading. But your own posts are masterpieces of misleading, propaganda, cherry picking and obfuscation. It is the underbelly of Ripperology, it is twisting and distorting the evidence into something that does not even remotely look like it did before you mishandled it. It should make any truthful debater shiver, I'm afraid.<<

Is this the type of "foul addressing" you were talking out?

Just apologize to the readers and attempt to lift your game a bit.