Lechmere validity

[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

[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.

[Fisherman]

Lechmeres validity is non existent.

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

[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]

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.

[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

[John Wheat]

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

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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.