Lechmere validity

[APerno]

Rubbing shoulders with Arbie La Bruckman and Charles Le Grand - whoever tf they are?

A PI or something like that, La Grand is an interesting cat worth checking out; not because he is the Ripper but because some historians have fun trying to associate him with the Dear Boss letter. It is a pretty stupid theory but fun.

[Patrick S]

I only have to point out how Patrick begins his post - he claims it is "absolutely ridiculous and arrogant" of me to point out that I do not think that it is a good idea to scrutinize my person instead of discussing the value of the Lechmere theory.
Personally, I disagree. Discussing posters instead of what they post is an intellectual low-wear mark, regardless if it is about that posters care about his children or about how it is perceived that he only can discuss amiably with people who fully agree with his views and avoid to criticize him in any way - which is a picture that Patrick enjoys painting.

I will not go much further into the rest of his post, but for one thing: we can all see that he actually insists that it is laughable to regard the Mizen scam as suspicious. And he motivates that take on things like this: "Absolutely. Yes. It is laughable. It did not happen." To cement how he cannot be wrong, he for example insists on knowing where Robert Paul was during the meeting with Mizen.

So maybe he is right to point out how deeply he has studied the case, not least since he has been able to find facts that have eluded the rest - or perhaps I should say the more discerning - of us.

I have two kinds of discussions out on Casebook. One is the kind that Patrick and a few others offer. The other type is conducted in the company of serious and discerning posters like, say, Cris Malone, Gary Barnett, Debra Arif, Jon Smythe and Frank van Oploo (who do not agree with me about Lechmere, any of them, but who are amazingly able to partake in amiable discussions with me nevertheless). To imagine them descending into discussing whether I am a caring father or not instead of commenting on the aspects of the case I am discussing, and into calling the Mizen scam laughable, is something I find very hard to do.

That is, I would suggest, because they are out here on account of a genuine interest in the case and not in me - and much less in themselves.

That, I believe, covers all I want to say.

All I can say is that you see things in your own unique way. Thanks for your response.

[JeffHamm]

Right, Jeff! I first note that you - of course - cannot rule out that one of the carmen DID duck into an adjacent street. You just find it unlikely. Good! We agree. On both counts.

No, you didn't understand my closing statement where I clearly said it is safe to conclude they did not take any undocumented side trips. However, we do not have to agree on that. However, you clearly believe they did. You also clearly stated that Lechmere/Cross arrive at PC Mizen together, so please clarify your belief. It doesn't matter that I don't think this side trip happened, what matters here is that you do, and I'm interested in hearing what you believe on this.

So, I'll list my questions on separate lines to make it easier for you to respond to them because I'm genuinely curious as to your thinking on this:
1) which of the two (Lechmere/Cross or Paul) do you think took the side trip?
2) Why did the other wait for them (as you believe they arrive at PC Mizen together, the other must have waited since you also believe they left the body together)?
3) How long was this delay (a range of times would be fine since, as we know, it's not documented anywhere so we don't have testimony to point to but I just want to get an idea of what you believe the duration of this side trip by one of them lasted)?
4) Do you have an idea as to what street or area this side trip went along?

Next: You claim that in company means in close company. It does not. They are different things and it is not proven that the two were in close company. Sorry.

No, that's what it means. I'm afraid you're interpretation of that is against the semantics of the sentence. When people say they left together to find a PC, it means they walked together in company. Arguing they were not in close proximity given that testimony is to argue against the testimony. Sorry.

Next: You confess to thinking that once you find something unlikely, it will not have happened. Which is interesting. But bonkers. You claim that the carmen simply MUST have walked and arrived in close company, and thereby you make yourself guilty of mishandling the evidence and stretching it way beyond its breaking point.

No, I'm saying that their testimony is that they walked together, which means they walked together, that is describing two people in close proximity. You are trying to argue that when they say A that not A is the reasonable interpretation, and it is not. It is possible only in the same sense that it is possible that Lechmere/Cross was, in fact, a 3 foot dyed purple retired circus clown, and all descriptions of him to the contrary are intended to mean that he was just that. Sorry Fisherman, walking together means just that, walking in close proximity together.

And no, when I say something is unlikely to have happened, I mean exactly that, it was unlikely to have happened. I wasn't there, so of course I cannot be 100% positive, nor can you. But from all the evidence we have, the evidence clearly indicates that Lechmere/Cross and Paul were in close proximity to each other, and barring both of them and PC Mizen mis-stating that fact (which is so unlikely that in this case yes, I would conclude the probability of it being anything other than what they stated, which is they were "together", which means in close proximity, as having such a low probability that it is effectively 0, even if in the strictest sense it is not exactly 0%. If you wish to take that as agreeing with you, so be it, but my intention is to convey I do not agree with your interpretation. My intention is not, however, to accuse you of telling a lie, because I believe you believe your interpretation. I just don't agree with it.

Do you have any good explanation for why Mizen says that "a" man spoke to him? Why is it that he never says that "two men" spoke to him?
You claim that my view that the two were possibly out of earshot of each other is a complete flight of fancy, but isn't it true that when we say that "a" person has spoken to us, then one person, not two, has done so? And isn't this consistent with how Paul may not have been in close company with Lechmere at all at that stage? Keep in mind that Baxter had to ask Mizen if there was not another man present in the street as Lechmere spoke to him. If the two HAD jointly approached Mizen and jointly told him that they had found a woman in Bucks Row, then why is it that Mizen speaks of one man only?

So are you saying only Lechmere/Cross spoke to PC Mizen? That Paul never spoke to him because PC Mizen indicates that after he spoke to the man, who was in the company of another man, the two left together. My interpretation is that Lechmere/Cross probably initiated the conversation with PC Mizen and Paul agreed, that there was a woman laying in the road and he too thought she might be dead. But ok, I see you are arguing that only Cross/Lechmere spoke to PC Mizen, and you are claiming he did so out of earshot of Paul, who did not interact with PC Mizen, since PC Mizen testifies the two left together and he went off to Buck's Row. Is that what you're saying?

Do you have a coin in your pocket? Take it out and look at it. How many sides does it have, Jeff?

Three

An aside: Why do you say that I claim that everything Paul said in his interview was false? Don't do it Steves way, please. Don't put words in my mouth that I have never uttered. We all know that Pauls entire interview and the testimony given at the inquest does not jibe on many points. Which means that we must make sense of it as best as we could.

The geography of Lechmere is and remains very compelling. Many people lived in the area, but one only was found standing close to it while it still bled.

Ummm, Diemshutz is a bit off topic here. The only possible reference to bleeding is PC Neil's description of blood "oozing", which isn't really bleeding, but rather describing a fresh wound, but his patrol was only 30 minutes, so even if she was killed immediately after he passed the previous time, the wound could still be "fresh and oozing". Bleeding would be used to describe a more "active" blood flow, which there is some aspects of Stride's crime scene that could fit that description (but let's not get side tracked there).

It is THAT person we must scrutinize, and he could have had reason to walk east, west, north or south from Bucks Row, meaning that many routes would not jibe with the murder sites in Spitalfields. There were innumerable such possibilities, but instead his logical trek took him right past the killing fields AND he had ties to the two other sites too. Any police force would be extremely interested in that combination - being found by one victims side and having a geography that offers connections to all the other sites. If you think that is not so, then you must think again. It is TNT information to any investigator. And that is BEFORE we addd the name, the times, how Paul did not hear Lechmere and - not least - how he disagreed with the police about what was said, and the version of the police paints a picture of a tailor-made excuse to pass by the police!

Again, you think it remarkable that a local individual has connections with the local area. I don't see that as incriminating. I suspect, if one were to pick any of the local suspects, say Hutchinson for example, and were to examine his life over the previous 20 years, one could also find connections to many or all of the areas too. I'm not suspect oriented, so no, I'm not going to do that, but I've presented it as a testable hypothesis. Anyone who has a local named suspect (I'm thinking Kosminski, Hutchinson, Barnett, for example), could, and should, present such information. Those would be the experts to compare notes with. But as an argument used to suggest that a suspect is a good one because they were local and had local connections, well, sorry, that's not going to convince me of anything because it's hardly surprising whether they are guilty or not.

Paul did not know that Lechmere had been there for a longer time than he suggested, no. He had absolutely no idea what Lechmere had been up to in the minutes preceding his arrival at Browns. I agree with that. But it is not a point for Lechmere´s innocence, I'm afraid. It is one that allows him opportunity to have killed Nichols.

How do you know Paul couldn't see Lechmere walking ahead of him in Buck's Row and saw him stop? He never says "I didn't see him until out of nowhere he appeared ...", he just claims he saw him "standing in the middle of the street" (or something like that), but I have never seen anything where he categorically rules out having seen him earlier walking ahead of him. Can you show me the quote where he does that?

"That's not how I see it", you say, and that is fine. Just don't go claiming that your version is factually more likely to be correct on grounds of treating it as a fact that the carmen were in close company throughout, because that is fabricating evidence that we do not have.

I'm simply not dismissing what they described them as doing, and what PC Mizen describes them as being. You are ignoring the meaning of the words by claiming they were not in close proximity, becuase to make that claim is to go against the meaning of the words. Leaving and walking together means, as a pair of people. And that is two people in close proximity to each other. They said that, PC Mizen describes them as being in company with each other, so they were, by all accounts, in close proximity.

Now, you have said above that you believe that PC Mizen may have spoken with Lechmere/Cross alone, and that Paul did not speak with him. So you are claiming that PC Mizen took Cross/Lechmere aside and spoke only with him, is that what you mean? Is that the point at which you are saying they are not longer in close proximity?

This spills over onto your claim that you have explanations for Lechmere´s behavior that are more likely to be true than my explanations. Nope. That is again fabricating things that are not established. I think that it is more likely that Mizen heard Lechmere correctly than not, and I base it on how the overwhelming majority of spoke messages are heard and interpreted correctly. If we accept that Mizen did hear what he said he heard, I think it is more likely than not that Lechmere killed Nichols. Saying that most people are not killers is a lame defense in that context.
I'm happy to hear, though, that you want it taken to the protocol that you did NOT mean that it is a fact that Lechmere´s words were innocent. Good!

Of course I can't say they must have been innocent, the case hasn't been solved. I just think the weight of evidence leans strongly in favour of that. You seem to misinterpret the notion that my saying one explanation is more likely than the other to either mean I'm stating it as a 100% fact, which I'm not, or that I'm somehow saying it's 50/50, which it doesn't mean either. We look at evidence, and we look at the explanations for that evidence, and we evaluate the "fit", if you will. Something that is proven impossible gets a 0% exactly, but if something is not entirely impossible, that means it has some possibility of being right (even extremely low probability events do occur sometimes). Trying to assign exact probabilities to complicated theories, like JtR, would be a nightmare. But one still can speak in terms of probabilities to give an idea of how strongly one believes option A relative to option B or C or D. Basically, having read the various presentations, and having looked at what evidence I have available, and the time, to go over, I see the probability of innocence for Lechmere/Cross to be much higher than the probability for his guilt. You see it the other way. Hardly surprising given you believe very different things than I do, despite us looking at and going over the same basic evidence. You believe in side trips (and I do want to know what you believe about that, because I can't imagine any, so I'm curious to hear your views above). But again, back to what I'm saying, because the case hasn't been solved, that means JtR could be anyone who was in the area, and Lechmere/Cross and Paul were both in the area, so it could, I suppose, be either one, but I think we both would agree that the probability of it being Paul is lower than the probability of it being Lechmere/Cross though neither of us can say for certain it couldn't have been Paul (he slipped behind Cross, through the shadows, or went around, or whatever it takes to get him behind Cross/Lechmere, so that he could set up the perfect alibi of having someone find the body ahead of him, he's willing to move the body just to cover the possiblity he's still got blood on his hands, he's dropped the knife during his circling back to the top of Buck's Row - I can make anything up - and no, I don't believe any of this nonsense cause I'm making it up as I type it, I'm just showing what one can do if one simply ignores the data. There's nothing but Paul's word, after all, that he left the house shortly before 3:45. He could have left at 3:00 and was waiting for a victim, then waiting for someone to set up. He worked right next to 29 Hanbury street too, and ...

I am less happy about how you finish off by saying, for example, that I claim that "walking together doesn't mean what it says". That is not a very clever way to argue, is it? It should be quite apparent that what I am saying is not that walking together does not mean walking together, but that walking together should not be looked upon as an assertion of the two parts always being close together.
I would have very much liked if you stayed away from putting words in my mouth that have never been there. It is about common decency. But before I leave, I´d like to go over this particular issue once more.

I will if you will. I did not agree with you above, yet you present my clear disagreement as if I'm agreeing with you. You present my presentation of "more likely" as if I'm stating certainty and facts at times, and at other times you use it to claim I'm in agreement with you despite your conclusion being the one I label the less likely.

And, I listed the testimony of them leaving together, walking together, etc, as the evidence for them being in close proximity, and you keep saying they weren't. Apparently, above, you finally present what I think you mean, that they were separated after they met PC Mizen, and that only Cross/Lechmere spoke to PC Mizen. You buried that so that it was unrecognizable in your previous posts as you spent all your time focusing on saying that leaving and walking together don't mean in close proximity, when all you had to say was "yes, of course they were in close proximity when travelling, but given this evidence (the testimony of PC Mizen that "a man spoke to hime", evidence that you have only just mentioned as the reference point to what you were working from, which makes all the hubbub about whether walking together means in close proximity or not a complete distraction and made it impossible to know what you're getting at)

So no, I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was arguing based upon what you presented, and you presented an argument against close proximity and walking together. You didn't, until now, clarify what you meant. As the presenter of a line of reasoning, you are responsible for making it clear what you intend. And if someone misunderstands you, you are responsible for clarifying. I am asking you here, to clarify that for the third time in this post (because it's been an important point up to now),

When you are saying they were not in close proximity, do you mean they were when they left the body, walked together, found PC Mizen was when they were in close proximity to each other, but once they met PC Mizen, then they separated, with Cross/Lechmere only speaking with PC Mizen (because PC Mizen's testimony is that "a man spoke to him", and then the two of them left together (as PC Mizen's testimony concludes with the two mean walking off together down Hanbury Street)? Are you only saying they were not in close proximity during that discussion?

What do we have? We have a number of papers reporting what happened. They all vary do a smaller or less degree, unless they drew on the same press agency reports. So they will not all the the truth in detail. But let's look at a number of examples!
Daily News: Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said...

This tells us that Mizen was of the meaning that the two men were trekking in company with each other. It does not specify how close they were. Mizen could have grounded his take on how he noticed the men speaking to each other, whereafter Lechmere veered off to speak to him (which is why he always says "a" man spoke to him)

Further, Lechmere´s testimony: He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's row they saw the last witness whom they told that a woman was lying in Buck's row.

Where does it say that they left in close company? Does that go without saying? Personally, I think they left together, be that a yard, three yards or five yards apart, but together nevertheless. But no distance can be given, no certainty had.

This is the archetypical version, more or less. But there are other versions that call upon us to be VERY cautious about trying to determine that the two were always close together. The ad verbatim reporting Morning Advertiser has the meeting between Mizen and Lechmere like this, Mizen testifying:

On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman.

Now, WHERE IS PAUL? Gone with the wind! And regardless if you don't find this interesting, I sure do - there WILL be a reason why Mizen did not say that two carmen spoke to him. Let's look at the whole exchange, though, before we move on:

Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question). I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?

The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman.

Now, let's make the assumption that this is what was said at the inquest. I don't think it can be questioned whether Baxter asked that question. or not - when it is explicitly pointed out, then he WILL have pout this question to Mizen. Note, though, that the other papers do NOT mention Baxters question! What we can learn from the exchange is that it was not Mizen who suggested the wording "in company with" - it was Baxter. Ergo, it seems that all the papers speaking about "a carman passing by in company with another man - like The Daily News - constructed that meaning from the exchange where THE CORONER suggested this wordin. Apparently, Mizen never said such a thing - but it nevertheless looks that way in paper after paper.
Now, if Mizen had not seen any sign of the two being acquainted, and if Paul had not arrived in the street at the approximate same time as Lechmere but instead half a minute later, passing by without commenting in any way, then Mizen would have had no reason to conclude that the two were in each others company. So it is apparent that there was reason to believe they were. But that does not equate to the two necessarily being in close company throughout, and if they HAD been, then Mizen would not have said that he was approached by a man, looking like a carman, who spoke to him. He would reasonably have said that TWO men came up to him, and spoke to him if that ever happened. But-he-never-does-do-that!!!
Imagine that the two turned the Bakers Row corner jointly. Imagine that they were talking as they did. Imagine that Mizen noticed them: "There's two guys walking to work together and chatting as they go". Imagine that Lechmere veered off as the only person to speak to Mizen (extremely well reinforced by how Mizen says that one man, not two men, spoke to him). Imagine that Mizen was at the northern side of the corner of Hanbury Street and Bakers Row, and that Paul rounded that corner on the southern side while Lechmere went up to Mizen and spoke to him. Further imagine that the conversation took all of ten seconds , and that Lechmere then joined up with Paul again.
If that was so, why would not Mizen answer the question "there was another man in company with Cross?" with a "Yes"...? What were his alternatives? To say that they were not in company at the very instance when Lechmere spoke to him?

The information given by Mizen is vital in how it points out that he considers the conversation that was had was one of two men interacting. Not three. Paul is excluded, and the coroner has to bring his presence up, which is where he uses the term "in company with".

Can you NOW see how elevating that suggestion on the coroners behalf into ironclad proof that the two carmen were always in very close company, not least when Mizen was spoken to, is something that the evidence does in no way allow for?

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

Just a small matter - you don't get to call me intellectually dishonest. To be able to do that, you must prove that "together" involves a distinction that factually establishes a distance. Otherwise, you are wrong. Nota bene, I am not saying that you are a rotten liar, only that you are wrong. If you can extend me the same decency, that would be great.

And if you think that I would in any way be disinclined to have "last years debate" again, then think again; the more often you misrepresent the facts, the better. These ARE public boards, you know.

It is the argument that is intellectually dishonest, the semantic argument over "together" is secondary, but still an attempt at misrepresenting and misleading, to the point that Paul says He spoke to Mizen, Lechmere also says Paul spoke to Mizen.

The argument that you cannot prove they were within earshot, despite the fact that both Carmen claimed to speak to Mizen, therefore it is possible they were not.
It is a very similar argument to, that because we cannot prove the exact method for the construction of the pyramids; nor can we Prove that advanced aliens did not build them, it remains possible that they did. Which of course, ignores the evidence we do have.

That is intellectual dishonesty, just like the argument used to say Paul was not within earshot, which ignores the claims of BOTH Carmen that they BOTH spoke to Mizen.

I am more than happy to repeat the debate, once again exposing the illegitimacy of the argument.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

Back here again I see.

Sorry, but I believe the boards ARE public.

Indeed they are, and i was within my rights to say we are having the same old debates,

The argument that Paul did not hear the conversation is one of speculation, not backed by the sources, which say the men were together.

The argument that Paul must have been able to hear what Lechmere said is ALSO one of speculation, given that we do not know where Pul was and that the term "together" is no specification of it. When we shot the docu, Edward and I were in place at the shooting sites TOGETHER - but we were many times a hundred yards apart nevertheless. And still, I was in company with him.
Its bummer that you cannot prove where Paul was or that he was within earshot of Mizen, but its bummer you must learn to live with.

I care not for the anecdotal stories of you and Mr "Stow". What I do care for is the historical sources, which say, more than once, that both Carmen spoke to Mizen, therefore they are within earshot of each other, that is not Speculation that is information from historical sources. it must be so hard to have to accept this sort of thing.

Two of the 3 individuals involved strongly suggest that not only was Paul within hearing distance, but partook of the conversation.
The 3rd Mizen, does not say Paul was not within earshot, only that Mizen did not engage in conversation with him.

A bit wrongly worded - I take ot the last "Mizen" should be a "Paul"?

No worded correctly, that (he) Mizen, did not engage with him (Paul).

Regardless, no, Mizen does not say that Paul was out of earshot, very, very, very, VERY true! Bravo!
Next question: does Mizen say that Paul was WITHIN earshot? Oops!


You see, that kind of argument is amber waste of space, and you should know that. Really! We cannot tell whee Paul was and we cannot tell whether he was within earshot. If we accept that "together" denotes a distance of no more than 4 feet, you would be right. But since when has that been a fact? Never!

Paul and Lechmere both say they spoke to Mizen, they are therefore both within earshot, to argue that is incorrect requires proving that not one, but both lied. It is your argument that is sadly still a waste of space.

Once again, together speaks of a connection, not of a distance. Once it speaks of a distance (albeit not a factually measured one), we have terms like "very close together" and so on. But once those terms are not used, its adios to any suggestion of a close distance. It is possible, but any other distance, be that 3,13,26 or 40 yards, is ALSO possible as long as we accept that Mizen had identified the men as being connected to each other, or, in other words, as being together.

It is not about connections or speculated distance or semantics; It is simply down to the Sources. That you ignore these ,where both Carmen claimed they spoke to Mizen is the telling point in your reply. Mizen never says Paul did not speak, that is he did not affirmatively state such, he simply does not mention talking to Paul, that is very different.

Now just on a year back we had the same debate, the issue remains the same, the onus of proof that Paul did not hear, is squarely on those who propose it.
The evidence/sources, despite weak semantic arguments to say the opposite, do not back that view up.

And the onus of proof that Paul heard is on those who aim THAT! We are on equal footing on this, full stop. And I WILL hammer that point home the next year too, until you get it.

Sorry, it's not, learn how research works. Hammer home till the cows come home, it makes no difference, The onus of proof is Always on those arguing against the established facts.

In this case those are sources which say both Carmen spoke to Mizen, therefore they are within earshot.
To successfully argue that they are not within earshot, one must first disprove the accounts of BOTH Carmen.
There is Nothing to suggest such can be accomplished, and certainly it has not been yet.

Speculation contrary to evidence, with no counter evidence other than arguing what "together" means, is not even reasoned speculation, it is fantasy, fuelled by a need to invent evidence, BECAUSE that which actually exists is in no way incriminating.

Then again, who says it is incriminating? I say it is deeply suspicious. But of course, you are more interested in moving the goalposts and putting words in my mouth than in getting this factually correct. And I need no other "counter evidence" to dismiss your claim than the very clear fact that "together" does n ot denote distance but connection. Why would I look for any other evidence (like how the Echo speaks of Paul as "the other man, who went down the street), when I don't need it?

A semantic argument, used when all else fail, as it does by ignoring the statements saying both men spoke to Mizen.
Go ahead quote the Echo, it also said :

"The other man then said, "I believe she is dead.""

Raising your voice was never a clever thing to do if you have nothing useful to say. The papers wrote "together", and you like that a lot. But the fact that Mizen NEVER says that Paul spoke to him, the fact that he says that "a carman", not "two carmen" informed him, and the fact that the coroner had to ask about Paul before Mizen verified his presence in Bakers Row are all parameters that you are much less inclined to mention.
And my, how I wonder why.
Not.

Because, we have Two saying they Both spoke to Mizen rather than Mizen simply not mentioning Paul, which is not the same has saying he did not speak.
While one can argue reasons for Both Lechmere and Mizen to lie in some circumstances, as I explore fully in "Inside Bucks Row"; there is far less to support that Paul would tell a deliberate lie, rather than simply exaggerating and taking the lead, as he does in the Lloyds account.

I do not fail to take into account that Baxter had to ask Mizen about Paul
Baxter had to ask, because Mizen was excising Paul from the account, the whole incident as related by Mizen on the 3rd is in direct consequence of The Lloyds account of the 2nd, and Neil's evidence on the 1st. The tail is damage limitation.

This really won't do, Steve. There is a semantic possibility (our certainty that "together" does not establish any given distance at all) to explain how Lechmere could have gotten away with murder - and you have the bad taste to try and flat out deny this fact. Well, let me tell you that you will not have Lechmere´s luck - you just got nailed.

It will do very well, because it is based on the sources, not on endless speculation, which has to ignore or discount those sources, without argument for such being made.

It is you who are nailed, nailed to the Lechmere theory, by denying the joint accounts of Lechmere andPaul,

[Harry D]

Have a look in the suspects section on these boards Harry, under "L". Guess who is very rightfully there?

Rubbing shoulders with Arbie La Bruckman and Charles Le Grand - whoever tf they are?

[Fisherman]

When the information that Cross was found in the vicinity of Nichol's body,came to the attention of the police,he (Cross) would have,as Fisherman stated,been a person of interest.The police would then assess any information given by Cross as to his (Cross)reasons for being there.Only if sufficient cause for suspicion against Cross had ensued,would the police consider him suspect.This doesn't seem to have happened.He was never a suspect then,there is no cause to consider him suspect now,no matter how many guesses Fisherman,or others ,make.

And the police would of course - had they really scrutinized him - found out that Lechmere, not Cross, was his real name. And that would have gone into their protocols. But it never did.

Have a look in the suspects section on these boards Harry, under "L". Guess who is very rightfully there?

The 1888 police was not up to the kind of standards todays police is. Today, Lechmere would have been a person of interest for having been found by the victims side, and he would have become a prime suspect when further information was added.

And that remains, regardless of how many uniformed posts you, or others, make. Thank you for your time.

[harry]

When the information that Cross was found in the vicinity of Nichol's body,came to the attention of the police,he (Cross) would have,as Fisherman stated,been a person of interest.The police would then assess any information given by Cross as to his (Cross)reasons for being there.Only if sufficient cause for suspicion against Cross had ensued,would the police consider him suspect.This doesn't seem to have happened.He was never a suspect then,there is no cause to consider him suspect now,no matter how many guesses Fisherman,or others ,make.

[Fisherman]

Right, Jeff! I first note that you - of course - cannot rule out that one of the carmen DID duck into an adjacent street. You just find it unlikely. Good! We agree. On both counts.

Next: You claim that in company means in close company. It does not. They are different things and it is not proven that the two were in close company. Sorry.

Next: You confess to thinking that once you find something unlikely, it will not have happened. Which is interesting. But bonkers. You claim that the carmen simply MUST have walked and arrived in close company, and thereby you make yourself guilty of mishandling the evidence and stretching it way beyond its breaking point. Do you have any good explanation for why Mizen says that "a" man spoke to him? Why is it that he never says that "two men" spoke to him? You claim that my view that the two were possibly out of earshot of each other is a complete flight of fancy, but isn't it true that when we say that "a" person has spoken to us, then one person, not two, has done so? And isn't this consistent with how Paul may not have been in close company with Lechmere at all at that stage? Keep in mind that Baxter had to ask Mizen if there was not another man present in the street as Lechmere spoke to him. If the two HAD jointly approached Mizen and jointly told him that they had found a woman in Bucks Row, then why is it that Mizen speaks of one man only?
Do you have a coin in your pocket? Take it out and look at it. How many sides does it have, Jeff?
An aside: Why do you say that I claim that everything Paul said in his interview was false? Don't do it Steves way, please. Don't put words in my mouth that I have never uttered. We all know that Pauls entire interview and the testimony given at the inquest does not jibe on many points. Which means that we must make sense of it as best as we could.

The geography of Lechmere is and remains very compelling. Many people lived in the area, but one only was found standing close to it while it still bled. It is THAT person we must scrutinize, and he could have had reason to walk east, west, north or south from Bucks Row, meaning that many routes would not jibe with the murder sites in Spitalfields. There were innumerable such possibilities, but instead his logical trek took him right past the killing fields AND he had ties to the two other sites too. Any police force would be extremely interested in that combination - being found by one victims side and having a geography that offers connections to all the other sites. If you think that is not so, then you must think again. It is TNT information to any investigator. And that is BEFORE we addd the name, the times, how Paul did not hear Lechmere and - not least - how he disagreed with the police about what was said, and the version of the police paints a picture of a tailor-made excuse to pass by the police!

Paul did not know that Lechmere had been there for a longer time than he suggested, no. He had absolutely no idea what Lechmere had been up to in the minutes preceding his arrival at Browns. I agree with that. But it is not a point for Lechmere´s innocence, I'm afraid. It is one that allows him opportunity to have killed Nichols.

"That's not how I see it", you say, and that is fine. Just don't go claiming that your version is factually more likely to be correct on grounds of treating it as a fact that the carmen were in close company throughout, because that is fabricating evidence that we do not have.

This spills over onto your claim that you have explanations for Lechmere´s behavior that are more likely to be true than my explanations. Nope. That is again fabricating things that are not established. I think that it is more likely that Mizen heard Lechmere correctly than not, and I base it on how the overwhelming majority of spoke messages are heard and interpreted correctly. If we accept that Mizen did hear what he said he heard, I think it is more likely than not that Lechmere killed Nichols. Saying that most people are not killers is a lame defense in that context.
I'm happy to hear, though, that you want it taken to the protocol that you did NOT mean that it is a fact that Lechmere´s words were innocent. Good!

I am less happy about how you finish off by saying, for example, that I claim that "walking together doesn't mean what it says". That is not a very clever way to argue, is it? It should be quite apparent that what I am saying is not that walking together does not mean walking together, but that walking together should not be looked upon as an assertion of the two parts always being close together.
I would have very much liked if you stayed away from putting words in my mouth that have never been there. It is about common decency. But before I leave, I´d like to go over this particular issue once more.
What do we have? We have a number of papers reporting what happened. They all vary do a smaller or less degree, unless they drew on the same press agency reports. So they will not all the the truth in detail. But let's look at a number of examples!
Daily News: Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said...

This tells us that Mizen was of the meaning that the two men were trekking in company with each other. It does not specify how close they were. Mizen could have grounded his take on how he noticed the men speaking to each other, whereafter Lechmere veered off to speak to him (which is why he always says "a" man spoke to him)

Further, Lechmere´s testimony: He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's row they saw the last witness whom they told that a woman was lying in Buck's row.

Where does it say that they left in close company? Does that go without saying? Personally, I think they left together, be that a yard, three yards or five yards apart, but together nevertheless. But no distance can be given, no certainty had.

This is the archetypical version, more or less. But there are other versions that call upon us to be VERY cautious about trying to determine that the two were always close together. The ad verbatim reporting Morning Advertiser has the meeting between Mizen and Lechmere like this, Mizen testifying:

On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman.

Now, WHERE IS PAUL? Gone with the wind! And regardless if you don't find this interesting, I sure do - there WILL be a reason why Mizen did not say that two carmen spoke to him. Let's look at the whole exchange, though, before we move on:

Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question). I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?

The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman.

Now, let's make the assumption that this is what was said at the inquest. I don't think it can be questioned whether Baxter asked that question. or not - when it is explicitly pointed out, then he WILL have pout this question to Mizen. Note, though, that the other papers do NOT mention Baxters question! What we can learn from the exchange is that it was not Mizen who suggested the wording "in company with" - it was Baxter. Ergo, it seems that all the papers speaking about "a carman passing by in company with another man - like The Daily News - constructed that meaning from the exchange where THE CORONER suggested this wordin. Apparently, Mizen never said such a thing - but it nevertheless looks that way in paper after paper.
Now, if Mizen had not seen any sign of the two being acquainted, and if Paul had not arrived in the street at the approximate same time as Lechmere but instead half a minute later, passing by without commenting in any way, then Mizen would have had no reason to conclude that the two were in each others company. So it is apparent that there was reason to believe they were. But that does not equate to the two necessarily being in close company throughout, and if they HAD been, then Mizen would not have said that he was approached by a man, looking like a carman, who spoke to him. He would reasonably have said that TWO men came up to him, and spoke to him if that ever happened. But-he-never-does-do-that!!!
Imagine that the two turned the Bakers Row corner jointly. Imagine that they were talking as they did. Imagine that Mizen noticed them: "There's two guys walking to work together and chatting as they go". Imagine that Lechmere veered off as the only person to speak to Mizen (extremely well reinforced by how Mizen says that one man, not two men, spoke to him). Imagine that Mizen was at the northern side of the corner of Hanbury Street and Bakers Row, and that Paul rounded that corner on the southern side while Lechmere went up to Mizen and spoke to him. Further imagine that the conversation took all of ten seconds , and that Lechmere then joined up with Paul again.
If that was so, why would not Mizen answer the question "there was another man in company with Cross?" with a "Yes"...? What were his alternatives? To say that they were not in company at the very instance when Lechmere spoke to him?

The information given by Mizen is vital in how it points out that he considers the conversation that was had was one of two men interacting. Not three. Paul is excluded, and the coroner has to bring his presence up, which is where he uses the term "in company with".

Can you NOW see how elevating that suggestion on the coroners behalf into ironclad proof that the two carmen were always in very close company, not least when Mizen was spoken to, is something that the evidence does in no way allow for?

[Fisherman]

Give me seven hours and I will have read that post, Jeff. My real problem is what to use then - ordinary, bold and underlined text has been taken already. Red? Green and italic? We´ll see.

[JeffHamm]

Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
Well, yes, if they went separate ways then they weren't together. However, as the testimony was that they traveled together until they found PC Mizen and they parted company after that, we know they didn't go separate ways. There's little point in considering hypotheses that are the direct opposite of what the testimony is unless there is other evidence to directly challenge it. And a theory isn't evidence, it's an explanation for evidence.

Do we really know that neither man swiftly ducked into an adjacent street to check for a PC, Jeff?

We have their testimony that they went off together to look for a PC, and that they arrived together when they found PC Mizen. If one "ducked off" down a side road, that would delay their arrival at PC Mizen, which as you acknowledge below, was such that PC Mizen had the impression they were together (so you can't argue they arrived one after the other). How much extra time are you willing to allocate to this delay, remembering it is going to eat into the testified time between finding the body and arriving at PC Mizen. Earlier in this thread it has been estimated that the stated time (actually stated maximum time) of 4 minutes seems about right, and those calculations do not allow for any side trips like this. As such, all evidence indicates that they went straight from Buck's Row to where PC Mizen was found. So, yes, I think we can safely conclude no side trips were taken, hence none were mentioned, and hence the testimony fitting the estimated travel times for the distance covered sans side trip. To argue against this will require link to evidence that indicates the contrary.

Is that really so? Does the testimony tell us that the two carmen always were in close company between the murder site and finding Mizen? I fail to see any such guarantee. All I see is that the two - generally speaking - say that they went in search for a PC and that this PC got the impression that they were together.

You seem to have answered your 2nd question immediately afterwards, so I'm assuming the question must be rhetorical. The two testify they left together to find a PC (that means in close company) and when they arrived at the PC they were viewed as travelling together (so were walking in close proximity as two people traveling as a pair do).

We should not stretch this into saying that it is a fact that they were always in close company. Now, its not that I am saying that they would not have ben - my best guess is that they did walk down Bucks Row together, but it remains that this is a guess only.

It requires no stretch, it is what the words mean. The only thing that qualifies as a guess would be to suggest anything other than they were in close proximity and travelling together, since that is exactly what the words mean.

To me, a likely scenario is that the two turned the corner to Bakers Street in more or less close company, that Lechmere said to Paul "There´s a PC, now you just walk on and I will go and tell him about that woman", and that Mizen saw them turning the corner, discussing with each other, which made him conclude that they were walking together. Then Paul proceeds around the bend into Hanbury Street ("the other man, who walked down Hanbury Street" as the Echo puts it), making a tighter curve than Lechmere who veers off and speaks to Mizen.

So you are now saying everything Paul says in the Lloyd's article is completely false, since in the Lloyd's article Paul claims to be the only one to speak to PC Mizen. Also, are you saying it is likely that PC Mizen said nothing about Paul making up his testimony at the inquest where he indicates he spoke to PC Mizen? Personally, I find all of that to be so unlikely that it is clearly not what could have happened. Moreover, none of the testimony even remotely resembles what you've just described, so I'm unable to see how you've even imagined it, let alone how you find it to be likely? Sorry Fisherman, I truly don't follow you on that one. The general impression from the combination of the testimonies of Cross/Lechmere, Paul, and PC Mizen is that the two men approached PC Mizen together, both indicating that there was a woman laying in Buck's Row, both indicating they thought she was either drunk or possibly dead, and both thought he should go investigate. After having done that, both then went on to get to their jobs. Nowhere does it say they were anything but "together", which in the context of two people walking together, literally means they were in close proximity, and nothing in any of the testimonies of any of the parties concerning the interaction with PC Mizen hints at any change in that proximity. There is no evidence they were not speaking to PC Mizen as a pair of individuals together, and there is direct testimony that describes them as a pair. Therefore, to suggest they were not a pair contradicts the testimony and requires evidence.

Regardless if this is true or not, it cannot be excluded by Eans of claiming that we know that the carmen were always close together. We don't, simple as that.

See above, we have testimony from 3 individuals, Lechmere/Cross, Paul, and PC Mizen, all of which mutually confirms each other than Lechmere/Cross and Paul were travelling together, which by definition means they were in close proximity.

We also have the intellectual duty to consider if the wording could come about without including a scam, which is what I've put forward.

That question has been answered years ago. The outcome was that IF Lechmere said that another PC was in Bucks Row, then there WAS a scam - but it could have been a much less sinister one than one of murder. The carman may have lied to get to work in time.

He appears to have discovered Nichols about maybe 30 seconds before Paul is on the scene, so I would suggest that 30 seconds is not enough time for him to be the killer.

And on what do you ground this time? On testimony given by whom? Exactly: The one person clearing Lechmere is Lechmere himself. Ask yourself, Jeff: If he was the killer, would he say "I was there with that woman for ten minutes before Paul arrived"?

This has been the topic of quite a few posts earlier. I recognize you do not agree with the analyses and arguments put forth, however, in my view the above is what the evidence shows. We are not going to change each other's beliefs, and that's fine. If he were the killer, he would have left rather than wait for and engage with Paul. I know you believe otherwise, but I disagree with your belief, just as you disagree with mine.

He gave a name he apparently used (connected to his step-father), and his correct address and place of work. He also came voluntarily. He made no efforts to make himself hard to find.

And the explanation for that is - in my eyes - that he needed to dissolve a picture that would have made him the prime suspect. Paul certainly would not have said that Lechmere had only been in place for thirty seconds as he arrived.

Why not? He was willing to contradict PC Mizen when PC Mizen said they told him he was wanted by a polieman. Paul categorically said he did not see a policeman in Buck's Row. If Paul heard Lechmere/Cross testify that he had just spotted the body, and Paul had reason to suspect Lechmere/Cross had been there for any length of time, it seems he would be willing to correct that. I'm not sure I understand why you are now certain of what Paul would do since he never said "I would never contradict Lechemere/Cross", so shouldn't we be considering as a very real possibility that he would do just that? Sort of like considering as a very real and likely possibilities of the never mentioned anywhere in testimony side-trips, spatial separations, and the lone Lechmere/Cross with PC Mizen interview that you listed above? Why can't we now include as very real and likely possibility of Paul correcting Lechmere/Cross but rather must be certain he would not do that?

Well, he was on Buck's Row to find the body, if that's what you mean. Polly was last seen heading in this direction, but from the opposite end of Buck's Row, so he couldn't have met her elsewhere and been brought to this location. His route to work might have taken him towards Hanbury Street, though not as close as Paul's work was to that location. I've seen some posts suggesting his Mother was close to or on Berner Street. Nothing, however, to connect him to Eddowes or Kelly. And, while Tabram may or may not have been part of the series, I'm not sure your view on that one, I don't think there's any connection to that location.

The two logical routes through the killing fields from Bucks Row are Hanbury Street (Nichols, Chapman) and Old Montague Street (Tabram). Dorset Street (Kelly) is a short cut from Banbury Street to Broad Street. Lechmere´s mother lived in 1 Mary Ann Street, a stone's throw from Berner Street (Stride). For many years, Lechmere´s old working route went from James Street (close on Berner Street, where he found himself if he killed Stride) to Broad Street, passing right by Mitre Square (Eddowes).

Well, we're now describing things as being close to, and covering quite a few years. All of the murders are in close proximity to each other, and anyone who lived in the general area for an extended period of time will have some sort of association with something near each of them. Saying a local had local connections isn't really all that compelling. The victims have even more compelling interconnections, with Dorest Street and Flower and Dean showing up between a few of them. Eddowes giving her name as Mary Ann Kelly is also spooky, and yet an apparent coincidence, and that makes a local being shown to be near local areas at some point in their life, well, not so spooky or sinister.

Paul is dead, so no, he can't. He had, however, opportunity to contradict Cross/Lechmere's testimony and if his interpretation differed that would have been the opportunity to do so, as he did with PC Mizen's testimony when they differed. As such, I would say we have no evidence that Paul had reason to dispute Cross/Lechmere's description of events, though there was opportunity for such a dispute to occur.

The problem lies in how Paul was never asked about the pertinent matters at the inquest. And the fewest will start speaking about things they are not asked about unless they believe it is vital information. Claiming that Paul in any way supports Lechmere´s innocence cannot be done.

If Paul knew Lechmere/Cross had been there longer than he testified, it would be immediately suspicious to him to hear Lechmere/Cross claim he only just arrived. Paul, would definitely have raised his concerns, if not in public than to the police later, particularly as the number of murders escalated. Regardless, to claim Paul contradicts Lechmere/Cross's version cannot be done.

Nobody's timings are spot on. However, as has been discussed in depth, the testified times given tend to produce a coherent description of the events of the night.

And as you have been shown, there is a good case for my perspective being the one closest to the truth.

That's not how I see it. I know you believe what you are arguing for, but I do not find the evidence leads to the conclusion that you have drawn. Our beliefs on this differ.

I'm not sure what you feel needs to be pitied about it? Eyewitness testimony, which is what we're dealing with, is notoriously contaminated with memory errors. Presenting things as "may" etc, is simply ensuring the wording conveys the fact that we cannot be absolute in our claims. Also, by use of "may" it means it also "may not" is being allowed. All I've done is considered things if your admission that it MUST not have been a lie is true, can a consistent interpretation be presented, and it can. So you are right, it need not have been a lie. We're simply presenting both sides of the possibilities here, so I'm not sure why you feel any pity is required.

I told you what was pitiful - to claim as a fact that the wording was innocent. And as I say, no matter how many points of accusation that are brought against a suspect, as long as these points are not proven, they WILL all have alternative innocent explanations. But the more points there are, the more futile such an exercise becomes. Like in this case, for example.

But again, I didn't claim it as a fact, I put it out as a possibility, which I again emphasized by pointing to my use of the word "may". You misinterpreted my presentation as being presented as fact, when in fact, it was presented as a possible alternative interpretation (that's what the word may does in this context). So your pity is misplaced. And no, having lots of pointers that are more easily and readily explained by the innocent explanation than the guilty one, as in this case, in fact tends to diminish the validity of the guilty alternative.

I'm not sure what you consider "get real about all of this" to mean? If it means not considering or presenting the flip side of things that even you have the guts to admit might not be true (i.e. it MUST not have been a lie), then I think getting real would be a bad thing. If, however, it means putting those forward, then I think we're doing that now.

If you think that presenting alternative innocent explanations is equal to exonerating Lechmere, then I´d say that is where you should seek the answer to what "get real" means in this case.

Again, I have no idea how you have lept to exonerating Lechmere from what I had posted before other than to conclude that you felt, that if the alternatives I presented were chosen as the interpretation, that would lead to an exoneration of Lechmere. And, well, since I was arguing from the alternative side, then yes, that's the side I was supporting to contrast your presentation. I was wanting to see if it was difficult, or required a lot of convoluted thinking to put together innocent based explanations for the data we have, and it wasn't. In my opinion, and one I know you will not share, it is the assumption of guilt based explanations that require more complex reasoning, things like "walking together doesn't mean what it says" and "side track solo journeys that nobody mentioned" and "people guilty of murder trying to disguise their identity by giving a name associated with them, their place of residence, and place of work", and so forth. I don't buy any of that because, well, the explanations are just, well, so simple and straight forward and mundane when it's all viewed as "Lechermere/Cross was just some bloke going to work who found Nichols in Buck's Row". There's nothing at all unusual about his behaviour. Start by assuming he's guilty, and none of his behaviour makes any sense (and no, I'm not going to rehash the entire set of arguments that this thread has gone over - we've all read it, you don't believe the counter arguments, which is fine, but I find them more than convincing, which is also fine. That's how much of this case is, put 2 people in a room and you'll end up with about 3 opinions.

- Jeff

See above bold/italiced/underlined.

[Fisherman]

Anyone found standing close to a murder victim is automatically a suspect, and that is never dumb. Lechmere has to be considered, maybe eventually put aside, but first he needs to be closely examined. I believe the discussion is worth having.

I of course agree (although I think that the circumstances as such rule whether the finder should be regarded a suspect or not). And I hope that you agree that what one must do when such a character surfaces is to look into the evidence to see if there is anything that does not seem right with the finder, something that deviates from what one should expect or that reinforces the idea that he could be the killer.

And that is why I say that Charles Lechmere is a red hot suspect in the murder of Nichols, just as he automatically becomes a red hot suspect for the Ripper´s role as well as for the Torso killers. A long chain of circumstantial evidence certifies this.

[Fisherman]

Yes, I think everyone agrees on that.

- Jeff

I´d wish! In fact, some examples of replies to how he was found standing close to a murder victim go like this:

Somebody had to find her. (an extremely common "point")

No, he was not "found" at the site. (!)

He was nowhere near her. (!)

In a perfect world, everybody with an interest to research the case, should have said - like you and A Perno do - yes, a person who is found standing close to a murder victim is immediately of interest in the case, unless we have evidence that tells us unequivocally that this person cannot have been the killer.

Sadly, many posters will not accept this.

[Fisherman]

Yes, I think everyone agrees on that, and in my view, that's what all of this discussion is about, looking at Cross/Lechmere from the point of view he's guilty and from the point of view that he's not. One tries to come up with how those two mutually exclusive options could fit to the evidence, and then one compares the two explanations to see which seems to be the more natural fit. Sometimes both options result in fairly good fits, in which case one is at a point where no decision can be made. Other times, one explanation is more plausible than the other, though neither is impossible, in which case one has a stronger (more likely) explanation and a weaker (less likely) explanation. And yet still other times, one side ends up being unable to account for the evidence without resorting to what are known as "add on statements" (add on statements are parts of a theory that only exist to over-ride existing data that otherwise refutes it - for example, if we had evidence that JtR was 5' 6', and my suspect was 6' 2", I add in something like "my suspect was able to hunch to make it look like they were shorter" - there's no reason for that part of the theory except to explain why sightings of a 5' 6" offender still point to my 6' 2" favorite suspect. Add on statements like that are signs of a theory suffering the pangs of disconfirmation. Note, I'm deliberately using an example here that has not been part of the recent discussions because I am not intending this post to be directed at either side of the discussions, rather, I'm now talking about the general "theory of rational explanations", which goes into areas of philosophy of science known as confirmation theory, and so forth.

- Jeff

I´d be interested to hear if you believe that there are "add-on-statements" present in the Lechmere theory. And I´d be interested to hear if you think that claiming that it is proven that the two carmen always were in close company with each other is NOT an add-on-statement. To me, that is EXACTLY the kind of argument that should never be allowed in a discussion like this.
As an aside, we don't have unequivocal evidence that JtR was 5 ft 6. We have evidence that tells us that he may have been, but that predisposes that the sightings involved were of the killer, and we simply don't know that.

[Fisherman]

Well, yes, if they went separate ways then they weren't together. However, as the testimony was that they traveled together until they found PC Mizen and they parted company after that, we know they didn't go separate ways. There's little point in considering hypotheses that are the direct opposite of what the testimony is unless there is other evidence to directly challenge it. And a theory isn't evidence, it's an explanation for evidence.

Do we really know that neither man swiftly ducked into an adjacent street to check for a PC, Jeff? Is that really so? Does the testimony tell us that the two carmen always were in close company between the murder site and finding Mizen? I fail to see any such guarantee. All I see is that the two - generally speaking - say that they went in search for a PC and that this PC got the impression that they were together.
We should not stretch this into saying that it is a fact that they were always in close company. Now, its not that I am saying that they would not have ben - my best guess is that they did walk down Bucks Row together, but it remains that this is a guess only.

To me, a likely scenario is that the two turned the corner to Bakers Street in more or less close company, that Lechmere said to Paul "There´s a PC, now you just walk on and I will go and tell him about that woman", and that Mizen saw them turning the corner, discussing with each other, which made him conclude that they were walking together. Then Paul proceeds around the bend into Hanbury Street ("the other man, who walked down Hanbury Street" as the Echo puts it), making a tighter curve than Lechmere who veers off and speaks to Mizen.

Regardless if this is true or not, it cannot be excluded by Eans of claiming that we know that the carmen were always close together. We don't, simple as that.



We also have the intellectual duty to consider if the wording could come about without including a scam, which is what I've put forward.

That question has been answered years ago. The outcome was that IF Lechmere said that another PC was in Bucks Row, then there WAS a scam - but it could have been a much less sinister one than one of murder. The carman may have lied to get to work in time.

He appears to have discovered Nichols about maybe 30 seconds before Paul is on the scene, so I would suggest that 30 seconds is not enough time for him to be the killer.

And on what do you ground this time? On testimony given by whom? Exactly: The one person clearing Lechmere is Lechmere himself. Ask yourself, Jeff: If he was the killer, would he say "I was there with that woman for ten minutes before Paul arrived"?

He gave a name he apparently used (connected to his step-father), and his correct address and place of work. He also came voluntarily. He made no efforts to make himself hard to find.

And the explanation for that is - in my eyes - that he needed to dissolve a picture that would have made him the prime suspect. Paul certainly would not have said that Lechmere had only been in place for thirty seconds as he arrived.

Well, he was on Buck's Row to find the body, if that's what you mean. Polly was last seen heading in this direction, but from the opposite end of Buck's Row, so he couldn't have met her elsewhere and been brought to this location. His route to work might have taken him towards Hanbury Street, though not as close as Paul's work was to that location. I've seen some posts suggesting his Mother was close to or on Berner Street. Nothing, however, to connect him to Eddowes or Kelly. And, while Tabram may or may not have been part of the series, I'm not sure your view on that one, I don't think there's any connection to that location.

The two logical routes through the killing fields from Bucks Row are Hanbury Street (Nichols, Chapman) and Old Montague Street (Tabram). Dorset Street (Kelly) is a short cut from Banbury Street to Broad Street. Lechmere´s mother lived in 1 Mary Ann Street, a stone's throw from Berner Street (Stride). For many years, Lechmere´s old working route went from James Street (close on Berner Street, where he found himself if he killed Stride) to Broad Street, passing close by Mitre Square (Eddowes). What the suspect comes even close to this fit, Jeff? Anywhere near it? Or almost near it?

Paul is dead, so no, he can't. He had, however, opportunity to contradict Cross/Lechmere's testimony and if his interpretation differed that would have been the opportunity to do so, as he did with PC Mizen's testimony when they differed. As such, I would say we have no evidence that Paul had reason to dispute Cross/Lechmere's description of events, though there was opportunity for such a dispute to occur.

The problem lies in how Paul was never asked about the pertinent matters at the inquest. And the fewest will start speaking about things they are not asked about unless they believe it is vital information. Claiming that Paul in any way supports Lechmere´s innocence cannot be done.

Nobody's timings are spot on. However, as has been discussed in depth, the testified times given tend to produce a coherent description of the events of the night.

And as you have been shown, there is a good case for my perspective being the one closest to the truth.

I'm not sure what you feel needs to be pitied about it? Eyewitness testimony, which is what we're dealing with, is notoriously contaminated with memory errors. Presenting things as "may" etc, is simply ensuring the wording conveys the fact that we cannot be absolute in our claims. Also, by use of "may" it means it also "may not" is being allowed. All I've done is considered things if your admission that it MUST not have been a lie is true, can a consistent interpretation be presented, and it can. So you are right, it need not have been a lie. We're simply presenting both sides of the possibilities here, so I'm not sure why you feel any pity is required.

I told you what was pitiful - to claim as a fact that the wording was innocent. And as I say, no matter how many points of accusation that are brought against a suspect, as long as these points are not proven, they WILL all have alternative innocent explanations. But the more points there are, the more futile such an exercise becomes. Like in this case, for example.

I'm not sure what you consider "get real about all of this" to mean? If it means not considering or presenting the flip side of things that even you have the guts to admit might not be true (i.e. it MUST not have been a lie), then I think getting real would be a bad thing. If, however, it means putting those forward, then I think we're doing that now.

If you think that presenting alternative innocent explanations is equal to exonerating Lechmere, then I´d say that is where you should seek the answer to what "get real" means in this case.

- Jeff

See the above in bold.