Lechmere validity

[GUT]

That’s my understanding too

Chris Scott I think.

[Fisherman]

Firstly why can you not be bothered to use the quote facility, it makes responding so time-consuming.






I see still ignoring what we are debating and going off on a generalised divert, one to fit the theory, poor research is all i can say!






The charade is by you and no other, fanciful theories all to fitup the man.




The Insults when you are caught out, how predictable.


Steve

Here we go again, you claim that I ignored what is debated and instead divert.

And then you take pride in being so clever an ex-politician as not to fall into the "journalistic traps" I set for you. That is to say, you will not answer questions put to you.

The funny thing is how you cannot see how hypocritical that is. You celebrate it as wisdom.

[JeffHamm]

>>The problem is that Fisherman starts out looking at things in isolation and forms a hypothesis that, when viewed in isolation, is perfectly reasonable. <<

It's called cherrypicking.

It results in cherry picking when one refuses to acknowledge the disconfirming evidence. But, when you approach the goal of discussions as being won when you win over more people's beliefs rather than when you've uncovered how things really are, it's a rhetorical device. It's also why Fisherman often tries to get people to agree, or claims people agree with him, because those are the "points" that keep score. Even the resorting to insults, and the over-sensitivity to perceived insults, are rhetorical devices because by denigrating the other you have the chance of lowering the probability that others will take them seriously and you try and inflame the other so they make mistakes, and by presenting yourself as the victim, you try and win over by generating sympathy. Rhetorical argument is about convincing others, not about discovery and understanding.

>>He's done some good stuff though. He identified the connection between Cross and Lechmere as being the same person, for example.<<

Absolutely not!!!

That was the hard work of people totally unrelated to the "Lechmere was jtr" theory.

I'm not being unkind here, just stating what I believe to be a fact, but I can't think of anything Christer has discovered, I apologise in advance if I'm wrong on that.

Oh, I may have misunderstood or misremembered how it was presented in the documentary, but I thought he was involved in tracing those links down.

- Jeff

[GUT]

>>The problem is that Fisherman starts out looking at things in isolation and forms a hypothesis that, when viewed in isolation, is perfectly reasonable. <<

It's called cherrypicking.


>>He's done some good stuff though. He identified the connection between Cross and Lechmere as being the same person, for example.<<

Absolutely not!!!

That was the hard work of people totally unrelated to the "Lechmere was jtr" theory.

I'm not being unkind here, just stating what I believe to be a fact, but I can't think of anything Christer has discovered, I apologise in advance if I'm wrong on that.

That’s my understanding too

[drstrange169]

>>The problem is that Fisherman starts out looking at things in isolation and forms a hypothesis that, when viewed in isolation, is perfectly reasonable. <<

It's called cherrypicking.


>>He's done some good stuff though. He identified the connection between Cross and Lechmere as being the same person, for example.<<

Absolutely not!!!

That was the hard work of people totally unrelated to the "Lechmere was jtr" theory.

I'm not being unkind here, just stating what I believe to be a fact, but I can't think of anything Christer has discovered, I apologise in advance if I'm wrong on that.

[drstrange169]

>> If he had answered Baxters question with a "no", he would have misled them.<<

No, he would have committed perjury. A sackable offense and a possible custodial offense, for a lie that would almost certainly be exposed. Massive difference.

[JeffHamm]

The problem for Christer is, he's tripped up by his own theories.

Mizen is a paragon of truth and accuracy when it suits him in one argument, but Mizen's a confused witness when Christer argues a different point.

According to Christer, Mizen had no idea of the time, despite the fact he was actually engaged in knocking people up and giving them the time when Cross and Paul met him. In that case, unreliable Mizen is trumped by the highly reliable Lloyd's article.

And so, we have an example of the quality of of Christer thoeries and research acumen.

The problem is that Fisherman starts out looking at things in isolation and forms a hypothesis that, when viewed in isolation, is perfectly reasonable. Yes, if someone's testimony conflicts with a police officer, that could in isolation not look good for them. When one looks at isolated bits of the evidence, the number of possible explanations are near infinite because one bit of evidence provides so few constraints. What Fisherman does not seem to do, however, is then look at the rest of the evidence we do have as a way of testing those hypotheses, to rule out the ones that don't fit the rest of the data. The argument that Cross/Lechmere refuses to help prop up Polly is an indication that he knew her throat was cut and didn't want Paul to discover this, would be a valid thing to consider if that was the only information we had, so when he isolates the data that way, it looks fine. But as everyone keeps pointing out, all the rest of Cross/Lechmere's behaviors rule out that explanation. Just because something isn't "impossible" in the sense that it doesn't defy the laws of physics doesn't mean it's possible given all the information that is know. It's not possible that Cross/Lechmere was tying to prevent Paul from discovering Nichol's wounds because every other aspect of his behavior indicates he wasn't - therefore that explanation is not possible. But Fisherman doesn't accept that data and evidence can rule out things that are "within the realm of physics and human behavior capability" and thinks that no matter what the evidence is, all explanations remain possible.

He's done some good stuff though. He identified the connection between Cross and Lechmere as being the same person, for example. And yes, once that was noted, by itself it would spark a "wait a minute" moment, where it looks suspicious. But then, he made that connection by looking at the very address that "Cross" gave as his home address. That alone should have ruled out the viability of thinking he's trying to hide his identity, and that too should have further been diminished once he uncovered that Cross was his step-father's name, and that he's even listed on some documents (at least when a child I believe) as being "Charles Cross"). That should have answered the "name confusion" as simply being a case where this fellow obviously uses his step-father's last name at times.

But instead, he looks for bits that, again, in isolation, he can argue point to guilt, and because he doesn't recognize that physically possible things can be ruled "impossible" (meaning the evidence shows they did not happen as explained; we could use the word implausible as a more technically correct word I suppose), then he acts as if that guilty hypothesis should be treated as viable.

It's a form of rhetorical argument rather than one of logical reasoning, and debates like this have raged since the sophists and Plato. And rhetorical arguments are always focused around rephrasing things to get the rhetorical upper hand, and not about getting to the truth of the matter. It's not going to change now.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

The problem for Christer is, he's tripped up by his own theories.

Mizen is a paragon of truth and accuracy when it suits him in one argument, but Mizen's a confused witness when Christer argues a different point.

According to Christer, Mizen had no idea of the time, despite the fact he was actually engaged in knocking people up and giving them the time when Cross and Paul met him. In that case, unreliable Mizen is trumped by the highly reliable Lloyd's article.

And so, we have an example of the quality of of Christer thoeries and research acumen.

[drstrange169]

>>Disagreeing PCs who are telling the truth isn't an indicator of anything, GENERALLY speaking, other than the fact that one is disagreeing with the other, of course. Disagreeing with a PC who's clearly not being honest is an indicator of something else, though.<<

And, of course, disagreeing with a policeman in the presence of another witness who also disagrees with that policeman tends to help clarify matters some what.

And when said policeman just happens to forget mentioning that the other person was there doesn't bode too well for the PC's cause either!

[drstrange169]

>>I've updated the map with that information. I think I've got the station about right (hard to translate between the two, due to the different levels of detail, but let me know if that looks about right to you.<<

Hello Jeff,

You might find this thread useful,

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/scene-of-the-crimes/8895-buck-s-row-timings

[JeffHamm]

Hi,

I've done a quick calculation of the distance from Polly's murder location to the police station (using one of the high detail maps that labels it specifically) and ended up with a distance of 1034 yards. At the walking pace that I've been using (104 yards/min) that's about a 10 minute trip at an above average walking speed. Assuming the return trip with the ambulance would be a bit slower due to having to push it, we're probably looking at PC Mizen being away from the scene for a minimum of 20 minutes, and say up to 25 minutes (as I'm assuming it wouldn't take him long to get the ambulance and start the return journey). Now, if we have a good idea of when Polly was loaded on to the ambulance and removed to the mortuary, we can use that to put some limits on when PC Mizen had to have returned to the scene with the ambulance, and start getting some estimates about his arrival time at the scene. Obviously, there will be quite a bit of play around these estimates as he could have returned well before they decided to move her, but at least we can start trying to estimate the latest he could have returned, etc. I have some memory about reading she was removed from the scene at 4:15, but I'm not sure where I get that from and it also feels a bit like it could be a false memory.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>No, it is not a fact that Mizen misled the jury. If he had answered Baxters question with a "no", he would have misled them.<<

If he had not misled the jury up to that point, why did Baxter ask the question?

It is self evident that Baxter felt the jury did not know relevant information, that Mizen, as a experienced policeman, should have told the jury. Ergo, there is doubt over Mizen's testimony. When you add in the other discrepancies in his testimony, we don't know whether Mizen was careless or crafty, but either way an unbiased researcher approaches his claims with caution.



>>It as not as if not mentioning all the details involved is the same thing as misleading.<<

It is, if your testimony is different from another witness and you conveniently forget to mention someone who can confirm or deny the dispute.



>>Therefore, claiming that Mizen misled is the one and only misleading there is around.<<

No, the only misleading thing around here is you altering what people say.

Now how about showing us where I claimed the newspapers proved Mizen lied?

[drstrange169]

>>No, the newspaper reports do not confirm that Mizen lied at all, I'm afraid.<<

Could you quote the post number and exact wording, in context, where I claimed the newspaper reports "confirm that Mizen lied"?

Sadly, you have this well recognized habit of either inventing comments from people or, as in this case, editing out relevant parts to alter the meaning.

So, tell where was it written?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,
I see Steve has already pointed out the location of Llewellyn's address. But just for extra info, the 1899 Goad map (Vol XI sheet 328) shows both the old and new numbers for the Whitechapel Road, showing the number change took place between 1888 and 1899. The surgery is numbered 152 crossed out (old number) and 313 (new number).

Thanks! That's useful to know.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,
Yes i Settled on 3.5 mph as my prefered speed, above average but reasonable I think. Also easier to work with than 3.6
I actually use data for 2.5 up to 5mph.
The point has you rightly say is that he could get to work before 4am.

Yes the measuring tool is very delicate and a ml out will give a different reading.

There are also a couple of short cuts, which shave a minute or so off the time.

Steve


Steve

Hi Steve,

Yah, I set up all the calculations in Excel, so the values that get calculated from one source (like yards/min from Lechmere's walk to Nichols) just get carried over into other calculations. And yes, there are multiple routes between Lechmere's residence and his work even being constrained by the fact we know he headed off down Hanbury Street with Paul after they spoke to PC Mizen. I just eye-balled the map and looked for what appeared to be the most direct route and haven't yet done a systematic exploration of the range of possibilities. I seem to recall there being some statement that includes where the two of them parted ways, but I haven't tracked that down again yet, but that would at least help constrain the options a wee bit. At some point, I'm going to use the more detailed maps that include house numbers, etc, and measure the various distances a few times in order to try and average out the error that can be introduced by the imprecision of the tool. I doubt it will make any real practical difference, given the margin of error associated with trying to remember how long something took (which is what we get from testimony, not actual times but estimations of recollected time). Still, trying to minimize the error where we can can't hurt. What I'm impressed by, actually, is how well the testimony times tend to fit with the calculated estimates. But I suppose, when people weren't wearing/carrying watches all the time, they would probably have developed more expertise than we have now with respect to keeping track of time as their day to day living required them to do so.

- Jeff