Lechmere validity

[JeffHamm]

Trying to make a meal out of this will not hide the fact that you were wrong when you said that there could hav e been no time for any of the carmen to duck into a side street, just as you were wrong when you claimed that I would have siad that they would have.

There is no need to lay out the text in spades. It is all very simple.

We don´t have the timings, and so we must accept that there may have been time to do it.

I never said that they WOULD have done it, I in fact said that I don't think they did, but that I am careful not to exclude what I can not exclude.

You are not that careful. Not at all.

No, the data we have constrains the possible events to the point where I cannot see how a side trip could be possible. The difference is that you are not constrained by the evidence, and are willing to set great portions of it aside to fit in your explanations to make it possible for Lechmere/Cross to be guilty. You ignore all evidence that directly contradicts your presentation. That's why you still claim side-trips cannot be excluded, despite the evidence allowing no room for them. Oh, I can see how they're possible if we ignore the evidence, that's easy, anything is possible then. But I won't do that unless there is other evidence that indicates something is an error but I won't set something aside simply because it can't be explained - you will, and do throughout your Lechmere/Cross is JtR presentation. It's why you can't tell me story that includes a side trip that fits within the evidence and why you think they are still possible - because you do not constrain what you think is possible by the evidence, only by the limits of your creativity, which are impressively vast. But that approach, I'm afraid, is what not being careful looks like, you just cannot see it.

- Jeff

[GUT]

My Pleasure

It's all in the book Jeff, maps, photos the lot. Should be out Bank holiday weekend.


Steve

Wasn’t that Tom’s book (joking)

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n710485]

Fantastic! Much appreciated. Google located the address where I marked it, but I was pretty sure there's been renumbering since 1888. Will update what I've got to locate those properly. Will have to expand the map to get the station in, but that's easy enough to do.

- Jeff

My Pleasure

It's all in the book Jeff, maps, photos the lot. Should be out Bank holiday weekend.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Only, I don't ignore anything. I am, however, saying - as you would have known if you read my post - that it is disingenuous to point out that there were alternative routes if he wanted to avoid Bucks Row after the murder. Of course there was, there always is in a city like London.

This, you do not acknowledge. Which is...., hmmm, what is the term for it....ahh, I know: diverting.

I am quite happy to agree about how the exchange is pointless, though. And was from the beginning. I don't disagree with you there!

Fortunately you have not achieved your aim of diverting.

The original question by Patrick was, if Lechmere wished to avoid Bucks Row in the days following the murder, could he?


The answer is of course yes he could, one which took him far from Browns Yard, yet is only about 3 minutes longer.


To reply that he would not use a longer route, in the circumstances outlined, is totally irrelevant.



Steve

[GUT]

Not at all, the point being that it was believed that smith had been attacked by a gang, so the idea of more than one was prevalent at the time.
This has been said several times and you have not addressed such.
Far more important, when the Carmen approached Mizen, he was not looking for a murder, he did not know a murder had occurred , so approaching as a pair is irrelevant.




Journalistic questions, attempting to get the response you want, sorry Am a trained political operator.

So you may not like the replies.

1. At the time a murder had occurred in the area a few months before, that was said to have been perpetrated by more than one, so the question in this instance is irrelevant and misleading, if the police knew a murder had occurred two would therefore be as likely to be stopped as 1.


2. Mizen was not aware a murder had been committed so again irrelevant.

3. No it is not, if he had no knowledge of a death, then one or two people approaching him makes no difference.


The point you are attempting to make is an old journalist trick Christer, I am too long in the tooth to fall for such.

Steve

At that time, one attack by a gang, two may well be more likely to be stopped than one.

[Sam Flynn]

If hooking up is such a great idea, why didn’t he do it in any other of the murders?

Firstly, I really don't think it's a great idea - far better to slip away than draw attention to yourself. Secondly, it's a trick that would surely only work once - do it again and you'd become associated with more than one murder, which would look very suspicious.

Unless I've completely misunderstood

[Elamarna]

No, it is not. Once a poster produces posts of very low quality, it is to be expected that the ones subjected to those posts will doubt the value of any forthcoming posts by the same poster.

It is anything BUT breath taking.

Low quality, in your Bias view. its so funny.


Steve

[Elamarna]

...and which point is it that you are going to claim I am "avoiding" now? Or cannot you think of any? Or are you going to say that we all know which point it is and that you don't feel like telling me?

Not at all, the point being that it was believed that smith had been attacked by a gang, so the idea of more than one was prevalent at the time.
This has been said several times and you have not addressed such.
Far more important, when the Carmen approached Mizen, he was not looking for a murder, he did not know a murder had occurred , so approaching as a pair is irrelevant.

Let's ask YOU a question or two:

Do you or do you not agree that murders are generally committed by one person only?

Do you or do you not agree that hooking up with somebody after having committed a murder makes sense if you want to stay undetected?

I know that Mizen knew of no murder (or suicide, he tells us that at the inquest, and he is seemingly flabbergasted, which is understandable), but that is beside the point I am making.

Journalistic questions, attempting to get the response you want, sorry Am a trained political operator.

So you may not like the replies.

1. At the time a murder had occurred in the area a few months before, that was said to have been perpetrated by more than one, so the question in this instance is irrelevant and misleading, if the police knew a murder had occurred two would therefore be as likely to be stopped as 1.


2. Mizen was not aware a murder had been committed so again irrelevant.

3. No it is not, if he had no knowledge of a death, then one or two people approaching him makes no difference.


The point you are attempting to make is an old journalist trick Christer, I am too long in the tooth to fall for such.

Steve

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;n710477]

Hi All,

Just trying to update a map of the locations involved, as it helps, I think, when discussing the "to'ing and from'ing" of those involved to have an idea where they were "to'ing and from'ing". The red dot indicates the crime scene location, the blue dot around where PC Mizen was located when Cross/Lechmere and Paul spoke with him, the dark Green dot is roughly Cross/Lechmere's home location, and the light green dot is roughly Paul's home location. I hope I've got those all correct now.

What I've been trying to locate is Dr. Llewellyn's home location. I think I've found it based upon the address, but I'm not sure if the numbering has changed since 1888 (in which case I'm wrong - hardly a novel event). I've marked it as the question mark to the lower left. Can anyone confirm if that is the correct location? The only other location of interest would be where the ambulance was located that PC Mizen was sent to fetch. I can't seem to recall anything indicating where he went to get it (the mortuary perhaps? Or would it have been the hospital? a police station?).

Anyway, would greatly appreciate any input and/or corrections to what I've indicated.

- Jeff

Jeff,

the Dr's home was to the west of the junction with Brady strret, about 3 buildings along. the blue Dot.



The Ambulance came from Bethnal Green Police Station, off your map to the north. Gold dot is murder site, blue dot Police St.

Fantastic! Much appreciated. Google located the address where I marked it, but I was pretty sure there's been renumbering since 1888. Will update what I've got to locate those properly. Will have to expand the map to get the station in, but that's easy enough to do.

- Jeff

[GUT]

...and which point is it that you are going to claim I am "avoiding" now? Or cannot you think of any? Or are you going to say that we all know which point it is and that you don't feel like telling me?

Let's ask YOU a question or two:

Do you or do you not agree that murders are generally committed by one person only?

Do you or do you not agree that hooking up with somebody after having committed a murder makes sense if you want to stay undetected?

I know that Mizen knew of no murder (or suicide, he tells us that at the inquest, and he is seemingly flabbergasted, which is understandable), but that is beside the point I am making.

If hooking up is such a great idea, why didn’t he do it in any other of the murders?

[JeffHamm]

See the above in bold.

You can excise out tiny bits of the evidence and make complicated and improbable explanations seem ok for those little bits of data in isolation, but once those ideas get evaluated by the rest of the data, they are shown to be contradicted by the evidence.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

And it still applies that the matters under discussion are not consistent with innocence, they are only not incompatible with it. Unless you claim that disagreeing with the police IS consistent with innocence? I would not rule out that you could do that.

I see we start from a position that the police are paragons of virtue, and to disagree with them is not allowed if you are innocent!
That alone shows the incredible level of BIAS constantly displayed in this theory.

Disagreeing with the police MAY be consistent with innocence, each case needs to be assessed on its individual merits, not by sweeping generalization. anyone who does rule out the possibility is demonstrating a closed way of thinking.

I am very sorry to tell you that the view you have is your opinion, not shared by a great many others.



Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n710438]Hi All,

Just trying to update a map of the locations involved, as it helps, I think, when discussing the "to'ing and from'ing" of those involved to have an idea where they were "to'ing and from'ing". The red dot indicates the crime scene location, the blue dot around where PC Mizen was located when Cross/Lechmere and Paul spoke with him, the dark Green dot is roughly Cross/Lechmere's home location, and the light green dot is roughly Paul's home location. I hope I've got those all correct now.

What I've been trying to locate is Dr. Llewellyn's home location. I think I've found it based upon the address, but I'm not sure if the numbering has changed since 1888 (in which case I'm wrong - hardly a novel event). I've marked it as the question mark to the lower left. Can anyone confirm if that is the correct location? The only other location of interest would be where the ambulance was located that PC Mizen was sent to fetch. I can't seem to recall anything indicating where he went to get it (the mortuary perhaps? Or would it have been the hospital? a police station?).

Anyway, would greatly appreciate any input and/or corrections to what I've indicated.

- Jeff

Jeff,

the Dr's home was to the west of the junction with Brady strret, about 3 buildings along. the blue Dot.



The Ambulance came from Bethnal Green Police Station, off your map to the north. Gold dot is murder site, blue dot Police St.

[Fisherman]

Are you actually reading the posts?
The question was not would he have used any other route, BUT if he wanted to avoid Bucks Row, point you are strenuously ignoring, were there routes he could have used.

That you do not grasp this point or rather as i suspect are simply trying to divert, is most enlightening[/B]



It was never suggested these were an everyday alternative, if you had read the OP which lead to the posting of this route you would understand.
However, that is not in question, the whole point of this POINTLESS exchange is to divert.


Steve

Only, I don't ignore anything. I am, however, saying - as you would have known if you read my post - that it is disingenuous to point out that there were alternative routes if he wanted to avoid Bucks Row after the murder. Of course there was, there always is in a city like London.

This, you do not acknowledge. Which is...., hmmm, what is the term for it....ahh, I know: diverting.

I am quite happy to agree about how the exchange is pointless, though. And was from the beginning. I don't disagree with you there!

[Fisherman]

The arrogance of that post is breath taking.


Steve

No, it is not. Once a poster produces posts of very low quality, it is to be expected that the ones subjected to those posts will doubt the value of any forthcoming posts by the same poster.

It is anything BUT breath taking.