Lechmere validity

[Elamarna]

Wrong. Again. As always.

The arrogance of that must be obvious to all .

You are apparently dead set on making me look like somebody who never considers the option that Lechmere could be innocent. In your eyes, it is all about bias and unwarranted aggression against the poor carman.

What I do is to look into the possibility that Lechmere could be the killer. Somebody MUST do that, given the circumstances. He WAS found close by Nichols at a remove in time that is consistent with him being the killer, he DID give another name than the one he usually gave authorities, he DID refuse to help prop Nichgols up, he DID disagree with the police about what was said, the wording Mizen offered DID fit exactly with an attempt to pass the police by and so on.

If only that were so.

These are not biased matters, these are case facts. If you want to say that it is biased to claim that these parameters lend themselves quite well to entertaining suspicion against Lechmere, that will have to stand for you.

Over the years, many innocent alternative explanations have been served up, and it is not as if I have not read them. It is not as if I do not listen to those who say that there is an option that Lechmere could have been innocent. I do. And I weigh the material up, over and over again.

If only you did.

The thing is, I don't think that the scales are in any way even. For that to happen, it would take that the alternative innocent explanations carried as much weight as the guilty explanations. And I don't think they do.

A minority view

To understand fully how it works on my account, you must realize that I do think that there are elements where I find that the innocent and guilty options are not far from each other in terms of weight. If we for example take the name issue, I don't think that it is in any way outlandish to suggest that he could have wanted to keep his name out of the papers. If the choice between guilty and innocent should be made on this issue only, I would say that we would have a pretty evenly poised choice.

The same thing goes for some other elements, while I think that there are inclusions that are much harder to look away from. That relates for example to the "litmus paper", as I call it - once we can see that there is reason to look further into Lechmere, we must try and see if he could have had opportunity. That is t say, we must look at the geography and timings of the other cases. And he does fit the other murders quite well in this respect, meaning that we get a coloration of the litmus paper that speaks of and not suited touilt.

You would be better to use another test, one more refined, one which see not just in black and white.( or Red and Blue, or Blue and White).
The nuances of this case require a rather more discerning testing regime.

It is of course not proven that he WAS in place on the other sites, but anybody can see that it would be perfectly logical if he was. And this is not in any degree diminished in importance of howitzer people could also have had links to the sites, because they are not under scrutiny. He is, on account of it having been proven that he was standing alone close to Nichols at a remove in time that is consistent with him having killed her.

It has not be proven he was standing alone, far from it. He cannot be called ALONE, if Paul is only around 50 yards behind him(30-40 yards plus allowing Lechmere to slow and stop). That he is any further behind has not been proven, to say it has, is to misrepresent the truth.

So all of the gabbing about how he may have been so or so many feet away, how Nicholsm may have bled for so and so many minutes, how Paul may have been wrong on the timings and so on, are - generally speaking - of little interest in the context. The pieces of the puzzle fit.

Really? One wonders why then, at various times these have been central pillars of the theory proposed, --" the blood theory", "the 9-minute gap", need I go on? i think not.

That comment merely exposes the argument has being belief based, rather than fact based.
No wonder The arguments are so weak if one does not consider Facts of interest and inferior to speculation.

To acknowledge this is not to be biased. It is to look at the case details and draw a conclusion from it - it fits.

Wrong to ignore the details, bleeding times, issues with witness statement, the information supplied by the sources and to prefer "if" and"maybe", is speculation, such precludes a true conclusion and is the worst type of bias in research.

And when we look at the details, we do NOT look at them in isolation. We look at them all, and when we do, we can see the the details that all can have useful alternative innocent explanations taken in isolation, are so many that it becomes an exercise in futility to think up such innocent explanations in spades. We all know that when there are too many and to obviously pointers to guilt, we reach a stage when the back of the camel is broken. Which is why Scobie says that the coincidences "mount up in his case" and "it becomes one coincidence too many".

That you believe that you do take a holistic approach speaks volumes.
What one Queens Council say is of no matter, it is the view of one man, and that view is based on the information presented to him, which has been questioned more than once.

This is where the historical approach seems to come into play - I am told that I cannot reason the way I do on account of how it is not a historically correct approach. All I can say about that is that if I was ordered to put together a team of three that would stand a good chance of solving the riddle, I would not recommend a politician, a bureaucrat and a historian as the best choice.


We do things differently. But that should not result in me being painted out as the villain, the one who is ready to go over corpses to get Lechmere damned, the one who cannot weigh any matter correctly while you represent the good side, the snow-white angel of innocence and justification.

Any angel with any sort of judgment would recommend Saint Peter to have a long hard look at the carman before he let him pass the gates of heaven.

The Victim approach again, painting YOU as a villain, delusions of grandeur I fear, your theories are really not that good or convincing.

The suggestion that those who do not agree have not taken a long hard look at the Lechmere is laughable, we have, we do not find there to be a case to answer on the available evidence.

When you start to admit that it does carry suspicion to for example disagree with a PC the way Lechmere did, we can start debating on equal terms. And equal terms are what you claim to wish every soul is awarded in questions like these, so it should not be unsurmountable for you to do, one would think.

I think he was guilty and I follow that lead, you think he was not guilty and you follow that conviction. Personally, I think you are not being fair in assessing the evidence, but then again, you say that you think the exact same thing about me. How does that NOT put us on equal footing?

So to disagree with a policeman is suspicious? Even when the account is backed by a second person? That shows an inordinate degree of bias.

Wrong I do not think he is not guilty, I simply see no evidence that points towards that conclusion, that is a different thing different to starting from the viewpoint that he is not guilty.

I love the puerile comments about an equal footing BTW, it demonstrates much of the issues here.


Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

Which was not the point under discussion, which was if he wanted to avoid Bucks row, could he.

Yet you shameful try to divert the issue, to one which was not being discussed.

No one said he used these routes, only that he Could have if he wanted. you know Speculation, that which you are most comfortable with.



Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

So let me get this correct, the Police are looking for a single man, even before they know a murder has been committed?

Emma Smith had claimed a gang, so Why a single man?


Steve

[Fisherman]

So let me get this correct, the Police are looking for a single man, even before they know a murder has been committed?

Emma Smith had claimed a gang, so Why a single man?


Steve

Because murders are normally committed by one person only.

[Fisherman]

Which was not the point under discussion, which was if he wanted to avoid Bucks row, could he.

Yet you shameful try to divert the issue, to one which was not being discussed.

No one said he used these routes, only that he Could have if he wanted. you know Speculation, that which you are most comfortable with.



Steve

Shamefullly? Really? And where do I say that you think this suggestion of yours isn as likely or likelier than Bucks Row?

If I had claimed that on your behalf, it would not be nice.

Then again, I am not the one resorting to such antics. I am accused of it, like now, but the plain and simple truth bis that you have no basis for the accusation.

Watt I said and what I stand by is that Bucks Row is and remains the one logical choice of route on behalf of Lechmere, whereas your suggestion adds on a number of minutes to his trek, something that normally makes people avoid that kind of route.

[Fisherman]

I see that you have added a whopper of a long post too. Can you tell me, is it along the same line of false accusations and failing understanding as the two I have answered? Oh, well, IŽll find that out at some later time, I have better things to do now.

[Fisherman]

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

Why do you tell me to stop putting words in your mouth - after having said that I have claimed that then carmen searched adjacent streets? How does that work? And you HAVE said that you consider it impossible that the carmen did veer off, and you HAVE said that you think it proven that they were always in close company, have you not?

Or is that putting words in your mouth too?

I am quite fine with having it acknowledged that the carmen MAY have veered off, for the simple reason that we do not have the exact timings. If you had only agreed about that self-explanatory matter from the outset, we would have been good - but no, you had to protest, and you decided to add that I had claimed this for a certainty!

Nothing militates against how they could have, and we canŽt tell whether they did or not. Full stop. How hard can it be? Th story you ask for is one where Paul says "Hang on, IŽll just pop in here to see if... nope, no PC in that street", and that would have taken all of five or ten seconds.

Is it beginning to dawn on you now why I said "get real" in a former post? Just accept and move on, Jeff, that's what we do when we are proven wrong.

[Fisherman]

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

Yes, the disagreement with Mizen IS inconsistent with innocence and consistent with guilt. It is however not INCOMPATIBLE with innocence.

And no, it is not only the finding of the body that makes him worthy of considering for the exact same reason, amongst others. People who disagree with the police the way Lechmere did automatically become of heightened interest when that happens. Surely you are not too blind to see that? It is a wording that is absolutely tailor-made to allow a person to pass the police, it is in total conflivŽct with what Lechmere himself claimed to have said, and that's it - once that happens, it must carry suspicion with itself until resolved.

PS. Saying that it was maybe innocent after all is not resolving the matter. I case you wondered.

[Elamarna]

Because murders are normally committed by one person only.

Missing the point that there had been no murder reported when they reached Mizen and that Emma smith said a gang had attacked her.

Must do Better Christer

Steve

[Elamarna]

Shamefullly? Really? And where do I say that you think this suggestion of yours isn as likely or likelier than Bucks Row?

If I had claimed that on your behalf, it would not be nice.

Yes it is shameful, for we were not talking about which route was fastest, and you attempt to divert the discussion.

We were not discussing which route was more likely, nor have I accused you of saying a particular route is, that is the issue under debate.

Then again, I am not the one resorting to such antics. I am accused of it, like now, but the plain and simple truth bis that you have no basis for the accusation.

Watt I said and what I stand by is that Bucks Row is and remains the one logical choice of route on behalf of Lechmere, whereas your suggestion adds on a number of minutes to his trek, something that normally makes people avoid that kind of route.

Again, missing or maybe not actually understanding what we were talking about.

It was not which route he took? Or even why? The question was if he wanted to avoid Bucks Row, for a reason, which ROUTE could he have taken?

This is getting beyond a joke, and is actually very sad.


Steve

[Elamarna]

I see that you have added a whopper of a long post too. Can you tell me, is it along the same line of false accusations and failing understanding as the two I have answered? Oh, well, IŽll find that out at some later time, I have better things to do now.

Why not actually read it? Maybe you would see that my reply is fairly short, it's your comments which are verbose and take up the space.
The only person, clearly failing to understand the debate is you.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Yes, the disagreement with Mizen IS inconsistent with innocence and consistent with guilt. It is however not INCOMPATIBLE with innocence.

In a world where one has decided come what may, that Mizen is telling the truth and Lechmere and Paul are not that may hold true; unfortunately for the Lechmere theory in the real world that is not the case.


Steve

[JeffHamm]

Yes, the disagreement with Mizen IS inconsistent with innocence and consistent with guilt. It is however not INCOMPATIBLE with innocence.

No it is not. Mizen's testimony is the one that appears to be a factually incorrect recall of what he was told, so disagreeing with PC Mizen is more consistent with innocence.

And no, it is not only the finding of the body that makes him worthy of considering for the exact same reason, amongst others. People who disagree with the police the way Lechmere did automatically become of heightened interest when that happens. Surely you are not too blind to see that? It is a wording that is absolutely tailor-made to allow a person to pass the police, it is in total conflivŽct with what Lechmere himself claimed to have said, and that's it - once that happens, it must carry suspicion with itself until resolved.

PS. Saying that it was maybe innocent after all is not resolving the matter. I case you wondered.

There are far better and simpler ways for him to avoided the police in the first place. The focus on this is nothing more than to create confusion by ignoring the totality of the evidence and to find something that can be blown out of proportion. Each moment in time is not independent of the previous or the following, and as soon as one looks at the entire sequence of events, it is clear that all of the convoluted and improbable events and motives in the Lechmere/Cross as JtR theory are shown to be entirely disconfirmed by the rest of the evidence.

-Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Why do you tell me to stop putting words in your mouth - after having said that I have claimed that then carmen searched adjacent streets? How does that work? And you HAVE said that you consider it impossible that the carmen did veer off, and you HAVE said that you think it proven that they were always in close company, have you not?

Or is that putting words in your mouth too?

I am quite fine with having it acknowledged that the carmen MAY have veered off, for the simple reason that we do not have the exact timings. If you had only agreed about that self-explanatory matter from the outset, we would have been good - but no, you had to protest, and you decided to add that I had claimed this for a certainty!

Nothing militates against how they could have, and we canŽt tell whether they did or not. Full stop. How hard can it be? Th story you ask for is one where Paul says "Hang on, IŽll just pop in here to see if... nope, no PC in that street", and that would have taken all of five or ten seconds.

Is it beginning to dawn on you now why I said "get real" in a former post? Just accept and move on, Jeff, that's what we do when we are proven wrong.

Again, where's the story? Describe how these side trips could have happened without resorting to discarding large bullks of evidence we have. We know estimates of time are error prone, no worries about questioning them, but I have always said that the evidence indicates these side trips are so improbable that we can safely conclude they did not happen. "So improbable" does not mean absolute proof, it does mean I''m drawing a conclusion, but it also means I'm accepting that conclusion could be wrong but only with a very small probability. You convert that to absolute proof, which is an entirely different thing.

So yes, you are putting words in my mouth.

And once again, you are fine with saying the carmen may have veered off. Great, so you evaluate those probabilities very differently than I do. So, put your money where your mouth is and tell me a story that includes a side trip that you think fits the evidence. I am not saying you believe they took this side trip, as you have clearly indicated before you don't, but you are claiming that, in your view, the evidence does not constrain us to the degree that I think it does. So fine, I'm willing, still, to reconsider how I evaluate those probabilities if you can present a story that includes a side trip that is not disconfirmed by the evidence we have - you do not need evidence that it happened, only show how it could have and not be exceedingly improbable based upon what we already know.

See, I think you can't do that because, .... the evidence we have is strong enough to discount those side trips. It constrains us so much there isn't room for them. But You think there is room within the evidence, so prove it.

- Jeff

[Patrick S]

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.

Ah. Now the idea that he mistook Nichols for a tarpaulin is indicative of guilt. I must say, this things is getting more entertaining. Obviously, you're required to add and make-up new bits. It's a bad look for theories, mind you. But, it is entertaining.