Lechmere validity

[JeffHamm]

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.

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

[APerno]

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.

[John Wheat]

Do I bite? Let's see... nah, too dumb.

No anyone who thinks Lechmere is a viable suspect is dumb.

[JeffHamm]

No, Jeff, all of the recorded testimony does not say that that the carmen were together when they searched for a PC. But that aside, can YOU provide a measurement that establishes what "together" means? If Paul veered off into a side street to see if there was a PC, while Lechmere proceeded down Bucks Row, would that denote that there was an instance when they were NOT together? If so, when did they stop being together and when was the togetherness resurrected in terms of feet and yards?

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.

Don´t tell me that I regard what Mizen said he was told as evidence of a confidence game. I see it as POSSIBLE evidence of such a thing, and it would be very strange if I did not, given the wording Mizen speaks of - it is the EXACT kind of thing that would allow a killer to pass the police by. And once we have such a wording, we have an intellectual duty to ask ourselves how this came about, and whether it COULD point to a scam.

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.

Once we ask ourselves this, we take into account if there were OTHER strange things involved:
Did Lechmere happen to be alone with the victim, giving him opportunity its to be the killer?

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.

Did he give his correct name at the inquest?

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.

Did he have paths that seems consistent with him being the killer? Was he connected to the murder sites and -areas?

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.

Can Paul verify Lechmere´s story about how he only had seconds alone with the body?

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.

Is Lechmere´s timings spot on?

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.

Such things, you know. The kind of things that made Scobie say "a jury would not like him!"

Simply claiming as a fact that the communication was not a lie is a pitiful way to address the issue.Just as I have the guts to admit that it MUST not have been a lie, I expect my opponents to muster the same courage and admit that it MAY have been a lie, told by a killer. Spouting out alternative innocent explanations will not do the trick.

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.

We need to get real about all of this, the sooner the better.

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.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Thank you Fish,

Of course, I've learned many things reading you in the last couple of years.

That doesn't mean I agree though.


The Baron

You don´t have to, Baron. I am happy to give my view and explain why I hold it.

[The Baron]

See the above in bold.

Thank you Fish,

Of course, I've learned many things reading you in the last couple of years.

That doesn't mean I agree though.


The Baron

[Fisherman]

Lechmeres validity is non existent.

Do I bite? Let's see... nah, too dumb.

[Fisherman]

So Lechmere told the coroner that he didn't tell Mizen that another Policeman wanted him in Bucks Row, ok so far ?!

Yes, absolutely - a member of the jury put the question to him and he replied in the negative.


Now tell me Fisherman, did he think after contradicting a policeman through a Murder inquest, that the coroner and the jury will like that (sounds familiar?!) and are going to believe him ?!

I think he banked on how he would be able to persuade the jury that Mizen was mistaken, yes. Not that it would mean that the jury would necessarily love him, but if going back to the body in company with Mizen and being frisked was the alternative, then the choice would be an easy one. I think it is a mistake to reason that Lechmere made some strange choices on account of liking to make such choices - the developments would have governed and restricted his options.

Hadn't he thought for a second that the police after the inquest may start watching him?! After all he was spotted alone by the victim, and he contradicted no less than a policeman, right ?!

And there were other factors that pointed in his direction, yes. But killing always comes with risks. If he was unwilling to take any risks, he should not have killed in the first place. And maybe he should have considered how he could have been spotted through the windows in Bucks Row, in Hanbury Street etc - but that didn't stop him, did it?
It is always easy to say "No, he would not have done that, it would be far too risky". Look at the history of serial killings and note how some of these characters take HUGE risks. Ted Bundy chose a victim at Lake Sammamish, chatted her up while being seen by numerous people, took her to his car, subdued her and drove off and killed her. And what did he do afterwards? Yes, exactly, HE DROVE BACK AND GOT HIMSELF A NEW VICTIM and did the exact same thing to her! That is how some of these men work. They are extremely reckless risktakers. We can either reason along those lines, or we can think that the Ripper was a cautious man, just like us. I know what my money is on.

Are he going to strike again within 6 days only?!

See the above - there were all of three hours or so between Bundys Sammamish strikes.

I am not trying to change your view of the events, but here it is.

Maybe you thought you would change my views, but that does not come about on this kind of material. Did I change yours?



The Baron

See the above in bold.

[The Baron]

Wordplay? To a degree, yes - and led on by how Dr Strange - and a few other characters, guess who? - out here say that we know that Paul was in close proximity to Lechmere as the latter spoke to Mizen. Of course, we have no such knowledge at all, but since the wording "in company with" is used to try and set in stone that Paul was always within earshot of Lechmere, then Dr Stranges joy in finding out that Lechmere can be said not to have been alone with Nichols (supposedly because Mrs Green and the Purkisses were "there" :dunce"), I thought I may just as well show him - and a few others - that such a game can be played by more than one poster.
Regardless of whether we lookout it as wordplay or not, it nevertheless applies that we don't know that Paul was close to Lechmere as the latter informed Mizen. The "undeniable wealth of evidence" you claim has been posted to make sure that Paul was within earshot never existed. That "undeniable wealth" is nothing but an undeniable wealth of echoing how the papers (not all of them, though) say that the carmen were together. But Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were together on the moon - were they always within earshot of each other? We can be together and nevertheless be a long way apart. "Together" is not a word that signals any given distance, it is a term that tells us that two or more people are connected. We are all together on this planet. Once we use it the way it was used in the papers "A man who passed in company with another man", the same thing applies with the difference that we now get a confined space (they walked the same street at the same time and were apparently connected). But they can nevertheless have been five, ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty yards apart.
Who are you to say that you know which distance applied? We simply cannot, Herlock. Sit yourself comfortably down, read the paper reports and try to place Paul at any exact spot. It cannot be done.

So Lechmere told the coroner that he didn't tell Mizen that another Policeman wanted him in Bucks Row, ok so far ?!


Now tell me Fisherman, did he think after contradicting a policeman through a Murder inquest, that the coroner and the jury will like that (sounds familiar?!) and are going to believe him ?!

Hadn't he thought for a second that the police after the inquest may start watching him?! After all he was spotted alone by the victim, and he contradicted no less than a policeman, right ?!

Are he going to strike again within 6 days only?!

I am not trying to change your view of the events, but here it is.



The Baron

[John Wheat]

Lechmeres validity is non existent.

[Fisherman]

Once more, from the web about what "together REALLY means:

1. with or in proximity to another person or people.
   "together they climbed the dark stairs"

   synonyms:

   with each other, in conjunction, jointly, conjointly, in cooperation, cooperatively, in collaboration, in partnership, in combination, as one, in unison, in concert, concertedly, with one accord, in league, in alliance, in collusion, side by side, hand in hand, hand in glove, shoulder to shoulder, cheek by jowl; informalin cahoots "friends who work together"
2. into companionship or close association.
   "the experience has brought us together"

With OR in proximity to another person! WHAT proximity? It does not say. And it CAN`T be established other than by measuring whatever specific case you are looking at. Did any of the papers or the involved parties establish any such distance?

Look at the phrase offered: "Together they climbed the dark stairs". If there were a hundred steps and if one person was at the top and another at the bottom - would they not have been climbing the stairs together in such a case? And - as always - if you disagree, then exactly how many steps do we allow inbetween the climbers?
The whole idea of an establishable distance is futile in the extreme!

It is an unshakeable FACT that NO distance was given. Accordingly, we can NOT tell whether Paul was within earshot of Lechmere and Mizen or not, just as we cannot say how loud the conversation between the two was and whether there was any ambient sound disenabling Paul to hear what was said. These are totally unknown factors, and that is effectively the end to the discussion.

Since people out here are so keen to say that there is not evidence enough to convict Lechmere, try the same methodology on this issue - if it had been a capital crime to be within earshot of Lechmere and Mizen, would any half decent defense lawyer have a walk in the park freeing Paul of any such proven guilt?

Indeed he would.

[Fisherman]

All of recorded testimony indicates Cross/Lecmere and Paul were walking together looking for a PC when they found PC Mizen. They both indicated they spoke with PC Mizen, indicating there was a woman laying in Buck's Row, and both indicated she may be dead. Everything recorded indicates they were together, and there is nothing to indicate they whispered, or had any reason to talk to PC Mizen without wanting the other to hear (theory is not an indication - it's an explanation offered when there is an evidenced indication). PC Mizen testifies that he was told he was wanted by a PC in Buck's Row. However, both Paul and Cross/Lechmere testify they only told him there was a woman, who may be dead, in Buck's Row. You see this as evidence of an elaborate confidence game on Cross/Lechmere's part. However, from the testimony the far more likely explanation is something far more common, and far less exciting. Two men, looking for a PC, find one. They think a woman is either passed out drunk, or possibily dead. They could easily have said something like "you're needed in Buck's Row, there's a woman laying there, we think she's dead". And when he gets there, low and behold, there's PC Neil there already, who sends him for the ambulance. He then, when recalling the meeting with the two men, remembers he was told something like "He was needed there", which he naturally presumes means "they meant I was needed there by PC Neil", because of course when he got there he was. However, Cross/Lechmere and Paul would have just been indicating that the police were needed there because of the situation.

His testimony isn't a lie, he wasn't told a lie, it looks far more like a simple miscommunication and, and even you don't like that because it's based upon presuming how Paul and Cross/Lechmere spoke to PC Mizen, it could also be nothing more than very typical memory error of the sort that happens all the time. He was told to go to Buck's Row, when he gets there PC Neil needed him to do things, and he misremembers being told to go there in order to help PC Neil rather than in order to deal with Nichols.

- Jeff

No, Jeff, all of the recorded testimony does not say that that the carmen were together when they searched for a PC. But that aside, can YOU provide a measurement that establishes what "together" means? If Paul veered off into a side street to see if there was a PC, while Lechmere proceeded down Bucks Row, would that denote that there was an instance when they were NOT together? If so, when did they stop being together and when was the togetherness resurrected in terms of feet and yards?

Don´t tell me that I regard what Mizen said he was told as evidence of a confidence game. I see it as POSSIBLE evidence of such a thing, and it would be very strange if I did not, given the wording Mizen speaks of - it is the EXACT kind of thing that would allow a killer to pass the police by. And once we have such a wording, we have an intellectual duty to ask ourselves how this came about, and whether it COULD point to a scam. Once we ask ourselves this, we take into account if there were OTHER strange things involved:
Did Lechmere happen to be alone with the victim, giving him opportunity its to be the killer?
Did he give his correct name at the inquest?
Did he have paths that seems consistent with him being the killer? Was he connected to the murder sites and -areas?
Can Paul verify Lechmere´s story about how he only had seconds alone with the body?
Is Lechmere´s timings spot on?
Such things, you know. The kind of things that made Scobie say "a jury would not like him!"

Simply claiming as a fact that the communication was not a lie is a pitiful way to address the issue.Just as I have the guts to admit that it MUST not have been a lie, I expect my opponents to muster the same courage and admit that it MAY have been a lie, told by a killer. Spouting out alternative innocent explanations will not do the trick.

We need to get real about all of this, the sooner the better.

[Fisherman]

That Christer is not the case, because you have not proved he may not hear.
For the argument to be possible, you must show that the existing sources which say he was together and indeed spoke to Mizen are untrue.

Without that, to argue it is possible is intellectually dishonest.

If you want we can have last year's debate all over again, that will be fun will it not?

Steve

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.

[Fisherman]

Back here again I see.

Sorry, but I believe the boards ARE public.

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.


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"?
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!
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.

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.

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?
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.




Steve

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.

[Fisherman]

No no Fish.

This is wordplay. As Steve said we’ve been over this many times and it’s far from end of story. Dusty, like Steve and Pat before him, has just posted an undeniable wealth of evidence that Mizen and Paul we’re together when they spoke to Mizen. Together doesn’t mean - in a house next to the person or twenty feet away. They walked to find a Constable together. Which means side by side. They found a Constable together. They both had the same intention - to inform about Nichols. The Mizen Scam is a leap of faith to make a point. It’s not supported by the overwhelming bulk of the evidence.

Wordplay? To a degree, yes - and led on by how Dr Strange - and a few other characters, guess who? - out here say that we know that Paul was in close proximity to Lechmere as the latter spoke to Mizen. Of course, we have no such knowledge at all, but since the wording "in company with" is used to try and set in stone that Paul was always within earshot of Lechmere, then Dr Stranges joy in finding out that Lechmere can be said not to have been alone with Nichols (supposedly because Mrs Green and the Purkisses were "there" :dunce"), I thought I may just as well show him - and a few others - that such a game can be played by more than one poster.
Regardless of whether we lookout it as wordplay or not, it nevertheless applies that we don't know that Paul was close to Lechmere as the latter informed Mizen. The "undeniable wealth of evidence" you claim has been posted to make sure that Paul was within earshot never existed. That "undeniable wealth" is nothing but an undeniable wealth of echoing how the papers (not all of them, though) say that the carmen were together. But Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were together on the moon - were they always within earshot of each other? We can be together and nevertheless be a long way apart. "Together" is not a word that signals any given distance, it is a term that tells us that two or more people are connected. We are all together on this planet. Once we use it the way it was used in the papers "A man who passed in company with another man", the same thing applies with the difference that we now get a confined space (they walked the same street at the same time and were apparently connected). But they can nevertheless have been five, ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty yards apart.
Who are you to say that you know which distance applied? We simply cannot, Herlock. Sit yourself comfortably down, read the paper reports and try to place Paul at any exact spot. It cannot be done.