Lechmere validity

[Fisherman]

And of course Patrick, there was a route to work Lechmere could have taken which is hardly any difference in distance and goes well clear of Bucks Row.

That route is: across the Cambridge Heath Road and North to Three Colts Lane, west via London St, Cheshire St, Hare St, Slater St, then south to Norton Folgate
and onto Broad St.

Distance 3280 yards Approx.

The other routes via Bucks Row average out at about 3000 yards so that's an additional 300 yards, about 3 minutes extra walking at most.

steve

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.

[Fisherman]

And to restate the obvious, we have the complications of the Scam, like the fact that Lechmere couldn’t have known that he’d have been able to somehow speak to Mizen out of Paul’s hearing. And the fact that, in the darkness of the murder site, he couldn’t have known for anything like certain that he didn’t have blood on him when he came face to face with Mizen. We might even add that how could Lechmere have known that Paul wouldn’t have panicked and started accusing him of murder in Buck’s Row? Then we have to weigh all of this against the undoubted fact that Lechmere could have simply walked away to safety and avoided it all.

Could Paul have panicked and accused Lechmere of the murder?

Yes.

Can killers prevent such things, and clear a path where they cannot be found out?

No.

Does that make your argument bad?

A tad, yes.

[Fisherman]

I’ve mentioned this before but why didn’t Lechmere simply say to Paul as they walked away from the body “to increase our chances of finding a Constable you go that way and I’ll go this way”? Then Lechmere would have just had to avoid a Constable and any chance of being searched.

I've mentioned this before too. Numerous times.

Two carmen in company would not have been what the police looked for, they would likely look for ONE man.

Walking with Paul would have given Lechmere the opportunity to find out exactly what he had seen and/or heard, who he was, where he worked etcetera.

Ups.

And downs.

[Fisherman]

Or better yet, why didn't he just take off the moment he saw someone in the distance coming down Buck's Row and avoid all the complications of having someone see his face in the first place? Or let Paul pass when it was clear he was going to?

Nothing in Lechmere/Cross's behaviour is at all consistent with the conclusion of guilt.

- Jeff

Like disagreeing with a PC in a manner that would allow to pass the PC by, for example - that is not consistent with the suggestion (not conclusion) of guilt. And changing your name, that is not consistent with guilt either. To refuse to help prop Nichols up wasn't consistent with guilt either. And to be found alone with a still bleeding murder victim is directly non-consistent with any suggestion of guilt, of course.

The proposal you make is not consistent with having employed any beforehand thinking. THAT is the problem.

[Fisherman]

Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence.

With POSSIBLE innocence, you mean? Being found alone with a still bleeding murder victim is not the most innocent looking thing I can think of, nor is disagreeing with a PC in a manner that looks like an attempt to pass him by. For example.

These things - and more - are not "consistent with innocence" at all. They ARE though, consistent with guilt. So that is how it works.

[Fisherman]

OK so Lechmere is exonerated, where did the Ripper go?

Polly's extremities are still warm enough to be mistaken for life; did the murder simply walk away, off towards Baker's Row and Mizen, or does he walk the other direction, right past Paul unnoticed? From which direction came Lechmere? Was the murder standing in the shadows watching the two examine Polly's body? If not, how did he get by Lechmere unnoticed?

See fooled again, I thought you guys had this figured out, I was all ready to yell 'final solution' yet again, but no, I can't depend on you guys; all that reading and listening to you argue, and nada!

What next?

What if Paul actually doubled back behind Lechmere and then . . .

Aaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

Fresh air.

Thank you.

[Fisherman]

lol. either the ripper killed her or just possibly lechmere AP its not that complicated. if it was the ripper he simply left in the opposite direction of lech and slipped past knocking up Mizen.

It is my favorite funny part of the whole drama, to envisage Kosminski, Druitt, Chapman, Sickert, Maybrick, Levy, Le Grand ... three hundred guys and the odd girl, all rounding the schoolyard building together, all carrying a bloody knife and all disappearing back home to their respective haunts after the strike, whereupon the innocent family father Lechmere walks down Bucks and says "Han on! Is that a tarp?" the way ALL innocent men mistake dead bodies for tarps.

[Fisherman]

I think I once found about 12 different paths he could have easily taken, or just slipped into the shadows till Cross and Paul moved on and went the opposite direction.

And which path would be guaranteed to not be trodden by a PC?

[Fisherman]

You introduced side trips. You said you could not rule them out, that means you believe there is some possibility they occurred. You challenged me to prove they didn't make these trips, further suggesting you believed they occurred.

So, you don't believe they occurred, and I didn't believe they occurred. I am baffled by why you then challenged me to rule out what we both agreed was unbelievable. It was distracting from the main discussion ....

ah, never mind. I think I understand now.

- Jeff

I can only help you along when you mistakenly say that there could not possibly have been time to duck into another street by saying that we don't know and when we don't know, it could have happened.

I can lead you to water, but I cannot make you drink.

That proverb, by the way, is supposed to be about horses. Not... well, you know.

[JeffHamm]

I can only help you along when you mistakenly say that there could not possibly have been time to duck into another street by saying that we don't know and when we don't know, it could have happened.

I can lead you to water, but I cannot make you drink.

That proverb, by the way, is supposed to be about horses. Not... well, you know.

Hi Fisherman,

You have the most interesting trains of thought. Suggesting someone consider something that all evidence indicates is impossible, telling them you do not believe something in one post, yet now, above, telling me it could have happened, is just facinating. Your thinking is very creative, unconstrained by data or evidence, you are free to explore all possibilities no matter how unconnected to the evidence or previous statements. Indeed, I think I'll pass on that drink for there seems to be something in the water.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

I see Steve once again complaining about how I quote Scobie, saying that it must be accepted that he can only voice his opinion, and implicating that other, opposing opinions may be just as likely to be true.

I would warn against this simplistic take on things. James Scobie was used in the docu as an expert. he is extremely well versed in all things legal, and if he says that there is a case for Lechmere´s guilt, then that view will reasonably be grounded in that expertise of his.

Let´s pit Scobie against another man with legal insights, the poster GUT.

Now, what GUT says is that everything Lechmere does is consistent with innocence. Everything. All of it.

Isn't it strange then, that Scobie says that the facts of the case tells him that there is a prima face case that suggests that Lechmere was the killer?

I ask myself this: If GUT is correct and everything Lechmere said and did is entirely consistent with innocence, then why would a QC with years and tons of experience claim that there is a legal case to be had? Why would he say that a jury would not like Lechmere? Why does he say that he acts suspiciously? Why would he point to the timings and the geography of the case as an important factor when building a case against Lechmere? Why would he even build such a case at all - people who act in a way that is 100 per cent consistent with innocence should not be plucked from the streets and put before a jury with a death penalty hanging over them, one would have thought.

So that is the pertinent question here: who is right? And once such questions need to be settled, it is always useful to draw on the expertise of experts who know their fields of work inside out and who are able to point us in the right direction. What will not serve us is when posters claim that such experts are only voicing a personal opinion as if that opinion was of no more value than the of the average layman on the street.

We can prove that GUT is wrong. It is easy. What he hopefully meant was that everything that Lechmere said and did MAY have innocent explanations. Scobie certainly allowed for that too, since he acknowledged that whatever the carman said in reply to the points that Scobie found suspicious could go to exonerate him, or something such. Andy Griffiths voiced the exact same thing: "Then he would have some real questions to answer" was how he put it.

And that is where it lies: There are numerous matters that do not look right in the carman case, and they must be answered in order to exonerate him.

Of course, we cannot know how he would have answered the questions himself, and so he cannot be exonerated.

The possibility that he could have provided innocent answers for each and every one of the suspicious factors must be regarded as an option.

Equally, it must be accepted that when Scobie say that a jury would not have liked Lechmere, then he builds that on his expertise grounded opinion that there ARE suspicious elements, elements that are NOT consistent with innocence present in the case.

So this is why I refer to Scobie and Griffiths - because if I did not, then somebody would be likely to step in and say that there is not a single suspicious thing about Lechmere, and chances are that many of the so called naysayers would approve of the take and support it. And it would be my word against that of a handful of vociferous posters, ready and willing to claim that my suggestion of how there are many elements that are deeply suspicious about Lechmere was simply something that I have made up.

I´ll see to it that such a thing never is allowed to pass, you can all count on that.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

You have the most interesting trains of thought. Suggesting someone consider something that all evidence indicates is impossible, telling them you do not believe something in one post, yet now, above, telling me it could have happened, is just facinating. Your thinking is very creative, unconstrained by data or evidence, you are free to explore all possibilities no matter how unconnected to the evidence or previous statements. Indeed, I think I'll pass on that drink for there seems to be something in the water.

- Jeff

Is it really that creative to say that although I do not think that the carmen did veer off into adjacent streets to look for a PC, the evidence does not allow for me - or you - to rule it out?

I find it a whole lot more creative - and exotic, to be truthful - to suggest that we have absolute proof that they could not have done so.

I suggest we let people decide by themselves which applies. You can start by asking other posters if they are ready to rule out as impossible that it could have happened.

[Fisherman]

I would also like to point out how many of the naysayers speak about how they find the Mizen scam "complicated" and apparently believe that complication in any degree militates against the possibility of Lechmere having employed it.
It will be interesting to see how many of the same posters will claim that Steves upcoming suggestion of how Mizen would have concocted the scam is too complicated to be true.

Different matters, I'm sure.

[JeffHamm]

Is it really that creative to say that although I do not think that the carmen did veer off into adjacent streets to look for a PC, the evidence does not allow for me - or you - to rule it out?

I find it a whole lot more creative - and exotic, to be truthful - to suggest that we have absolute proof that they could not have done so.

I suggest we let people decide by themselves which applies. You can start by asking other posters if they are ready to rule out as impossible that it could have happened.

Hi Fisherman,

Sigh, I did not say we had absolute proof, stop putting words in my mouth, to use your phrase. I said the evidence we have does not support them and indicates they are so highly improbable we can safely rule them out. You think the evidence does not allow us to rule them out. So I ask you again, even though you don't believe they did veer off, tell me a story where they do that does not violate the data and evidence we have. I cannot conceive of one, as I said before. So, I realize you do not believe this happened, but tell me a story that includes a side trip that you think does not violate the data and evidence. I suspect you can't, but then, that's because I can't conceive of one.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Like disagreeing with a PC in a manner that would allow to pass the PC by, for example - that is not consistent with the suggestion (not conclusion) of guilt. And changing your name, that is not consistent with guilt either. To refuse to help prop Nichols up wasn't consistent with guilt either. And to be found alone with a still bleeding murder victim is directly non-consistent with any suggestion of guilt, of course.

The proposal you make is not consistent with having employed any beforehand thinking. THAT is the problem.

The disagreement with PC Mizen is not inconsistent with innocence.

The name Cross is one that is associated with him (his step-father's name), and he gave his proper first and middle name, and his proper address, and his place of work. All inconsistent with the notion that he was trying to hide his identity, which is what you suggest makes it consistent with guilt. Ego, he used Cross because it is a name he used, and therefore he was not changing his name.

Refusing to prop up Nichols is entirely consistent with someone who is late for work and perhaps a bit nervous and unsure of whether or not the woman is alive or dead. Arguing this is because he doesn't want Paul to realize her throat has been cut to the point her head is nearly off is inconsistent with the fact he waited for Paul, called Paul over to examine the body even though Paul tried to avoid him, and allowed Paul to examine the body for other signs. Therefore, all of these behaviours in total are inconsistent with the idea that Cross/Lechmere refused to prop up the body because he was trying to prevent Paul from working out her throat was cut. It is consistent with someone who might be nervous about what he found, which is also consistent with waiting for someone else who's coming down the road and wanting them to examine her with you.

He found the body shortly after she was killed. This I agree with, and only this, does make him of interest and worthy of considering. Once all of the evidence is considered, however, it is clear he was not JtR but simply an innocent fellow who found her body. It does, however, indicate that JtR was not far ahead of him.

- Jeff