Lechmere validity

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 get this, from the Echo: Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross [my underline]

He "now" knew the man to be named Cross... Mizen only found out Cross's name sometime after the night in question, which almost certainly means that Mizen didn't take down his name or contact details at the time. Which in turn means that Cross came forward separately to volunteer those details. Whether he did so unprompted, in response to an appeal for witnesses, or on Mizen's instruction, he did the right thing, didn't he?

He even did the right thing if he wanted to dupe Mizen into letting him and Paul pass unsearched, Gareth. Not right thing as in "legally commendable thing" but as in "clever thing if you want to escape suspicion".

There are right things and then there are right things.

[JeffHamm]

There we are, I say that I never claimed that the carmen entered other streets, and you say that you will not believe it.

There is only so much I can do.

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

[Fisherman]

hi el
heres the LLoyds article interview with Paul.

"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head. "

according to this Paul took the lead. hes the hero. he belittles the police. its full of boastfulness and untruths. it even has him separating from Lech and talking to Mizen on his own! and polly is long dead in this according to Paul. its obvious the subsequent news papers where they say something along the lines of "the other man said she was dead" were cribbed from this. all the other reports, inquest statements is the we stuff.

I doubt Paul ever spoke to Mizen at all.

And that is where Steve uses his "historical" approach and says that No, Sir, you are not ALLOWED to do that, because if you do, you are engaging in biased thinking and you will NOT be invited into the circle of righteous judges of the matter.

You are in effect joining me, in the unsavoury branch.

Shame on you, Abby.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

You made an absolute statement ""WHAT??? I do not think that Paul spoke to Mizen at all!", there is nothing that in that statement that allows for it to be read as you saying it is only possible that Paul did not speak to Mizen, you put it in no uncertain terms that you do not believe he spoke to Mizen. You stated it as an absolute belief, therefore you stated it as if it were a fact as far as you are concerned. Yet, when I include such indications of probability, like the word "may" you accuse me of stating things as facts and launch into insults and other pejorative language.

You state things as facts, and claim you're stating possibilities, others, like myself, phrase things as possibilities, and you cry that we're stating facts. It is impossible to have a discussion with you because of this. You indicate you believe to some extent that either Cross/Lechmere or Paul made some sort of side-trip between leaving Nichols and before arriving at PC Mizen because you said you could not rule them out - that means you believe these side trips might have occurred. I indicated I believe the data and testimonies we had allow us to rule those out as (to the extent we can rule out anything, meaning they are, in my view, so highly unlikely given what we know that we can be as sure as we can be that they did not occur - even now I'm not stating that as a fact, just that the likelihood ratio is so in favour of them not happening that we shouldn't be wasting time considering highly improbable events). Now, because of our different views on the probabilities of those side trips, I was interested in hearing your thoughts on these side-trips that you believe cannot be ruled out, as to which of the men you thought might have made one, where (as in what street you thought might be likely, how far did they go, why would they go, why would the other wait, etc). You've refused to answer any of those questions, despite I made it clear I wasn't expecting these to be backed up by any sort of evidence because we both know there isn't any, but I was curious as to your thinking since you couldn't rule them out. I can't conceive of answers to those questions because I have a strong belief they probably didn't occur, you apparently have more of a belief in them than I (I'm not even saying you seem to think them likely, but you clearly think they are not as unlikely as I do). I have found that it is by listening to others ideas, even about things I've got a current and opposite opinion on, that is when I might be exposed to ideas that I simply have not conceived of and I am capable of changing my views if the new idea is convincing, plausible, and doesn't violate the data and evidence we have. We can stretch the evidence a bit, but our explanations must, in the end, be constrained by it. If we simply ignore all the evidence, then anything is possible, it is the evidence that limits those possibilities, so one has to have a very good argument (also evidence based) to overturn or ignore the data we do have - and we have precious little.

But I've given up any hope of you doing so because of this sort of thing. You state things as absolutes and claim you mean a probabilistic, you read a probabilistic and scream absolutes have been stated. This isn't a discussion, it isn't an exchange of ideas. I don't know what it is actually, but it's sort of amusing at times, but in the end, it's not very enlightening.

- Jeff

There we are, I say that I never claimed that the carmen entered other streets, and you say that you will not believe it.

There is only so much I can do.

[Fisherman]

How is there an agenda, I accept corroboration from either LECHMERE or MIZEN, not just one!. That is not bias, nor is it agenda driven.
Your argument is, and I repeat this, that you believe Lechmere is the killer, therefore he lies, and because he lies he is the killer.

Basically you reject all Lechmere says, that is AGENDA driven





Where is the dogma?

The Lloyds account is highly problematic, either we apply criteria to it, to see if any sense can be made of it, by looking for corroboration for instance. Or we reject ALL of IT, including his description of what happened in BUCKS ROW and when.
Such would be a poor approach to research, but its better than just accepting what fits our own theories.




Sorry, but I consider the approach taken to be highly bias, that is my honest opinion.


Steve

Wrong. Again. As always.

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.

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.

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.

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 guilt.

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

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?

[JeffHamm]

Is it possible that he moved through the doors and down the halls of the residential buildings (on the one side of the street)? I read somewhere that some of the housing had street entrances that were never locked (like possibly the case with 29 Hanbury for example) and that one could enter through one street, move down the hallway and out the backdoor on to the next block over. I wonder if that was possible from Buck's Row? I do believe one side of the street were residentials.

Hi APerno,

Possibily. I've heard similar to what you've described, but not for Buck's Row specifically yet it sounds like it was common throughout the area. So it may have been possible pending on the designs of the buildings. He could, of course, just head west, and slip around the school, then head east too. As GUT points out, there are lots of options. My suspicions, and that's all they are, is that he generally headed west simply because we know that's the direction towards most of the murders, and if Stride was killed by JtR, he headed West and towards that area as well, suggesting he had a bolt hole in that general vicinity.