Lechmere validity

[JeffHamm]

I canīt tell you a story that fits with the evidence and involve ducking into another street? I already have, Jeff. And to rub salt into your wounds, here it is again:

None of us knows how long time was used by the carmen to walk to Mizen. None of us knows which speed was employed. Therefore, none of us knows if there was time to duck into a side street for a quick check for a PC - after all, they DID look for one.

You can of course say that you consider it proven that they could not have done it. The drawback of that is, however, that it will prove that you are misrepresenting the evidence.

Ok, we're working on different definitions of story then. I was meaning something specific, who went up a side street, one of them or both of them, if one why does the other wait for them? I can't see either of them taking side trips since both are in a hurry to get to work on time and given PC's on beats were not uncommon, their route to work would (and did) provide a PC for them to find. So a side trip conflicts with that evidence we have, it postulates behaviors inconsistent with their known situations. If only one of them went on a side trip, why would the other wait and not continue on to work, for the same reason. We also have the testimony that from the time of seeing the body until finding PC Mizen was no more than 4 minutes. Time estimation is error prone, of course, so some variation in this could be included and not "break" the evidence (let's say we allow for that to be up to 6 minutes, a 1 minute side trip and 1 minute back) to make temporal room for this side trip. But, we know the distance from Nichols to where PC Mizen was spotted, and based upon your estimation of walking speed to cover the distance from Cross/Lechmere's residence to Nichols (which, by the way, I think sounds perfectly reasonable) we know that from Nichols to PC Mizen would take about 3 minutes, or shortly less. The interactions at the body between Cross/Lechmere and Paul have been argued to require 1 to 1.5 minutes, and so that ends up with our 4 minutes between Paul seeing the body and arriving at PC Mizen. Now, if we expand that time to 6 minutes, allowing for errors in estimation, and we know that PC Mizen testifies that he met Cross/Lechmere at 3:45, that means they left the body at 3:39, and Paul arrived and saw the body at 3:38, and since Lechmere had to wait for Paul to cover the 30-40 yards, that would mean Cross/Lechmere arrived at the scene at 3:37 and change, and now everything does still fit with the time evidence, but it still conflicts with the choices people would make when their late for work and know they will find a PC on route. And I know you're not going to like how the times work there.

So, the evidence, combined, means there's no time left available for them to make a side trip unless we take an extreme value for the Nichols-PC Mizen journey time to give us room, and we need for Cross/Lechmere to get to work by 4:00, and we know they're both running late which means they have a strong motivation not to make a side trips since we know PC can be found on their regular route and finally, there is nothing in the testimony to suggest a side trip, the whole side trip notion is just a hypothesis plucked from thin air. That's the evidence, and the evidence constrains us with regards to the time available for a side trip and whether or not the two of them have a motivation to make one and the testimony of what they did indicates they went direct from Nichols to PC Mizen.

So, if you think side trips are still possible, you're ignoring the constraints put on what is possible by the evidence we have.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Yah, I've noticed when using the measurement tools that measuring the same distance a few times can give different results for the distances. I measured 3 possible routes for Cross/Lechmere from home to Nichols (just slightly different side streets) and in Fisherman's documentary they timed the walk at 7 minutes 7 seconds, so I used that and got a range of speeds from 103.4 to 104.3 type thing, with the average of the 3 of them being 104 y/s or 3.6 miles/hour, which is a bit above the modern average walking speed of 3.1 (according to Google, the source of all truth and knowledge ). While Cross/Lechmere was probably shorter than Fishmerman, I did a bit of digging into research relating walkitng speeds and height, and from the couple of articles found, height influences maximum walking speed, but apparently has less impact on the "comfortable walking speed" (the longer stride length of taller people gets countered by the increased energy required to move the limb, so normal walking speeds tend to converge over a wider range of heights). Given people would walk much more in 1888 than today, and given Cross/Lechmere is behind schedule, Fisherman's estimated time seems perfectly logical. Either way, all of these sorts of things will have a range of error associated with them, but the important overall trend is that Cross/Lechmere can get to work on time, which he apparently did, provided he's not much later than 3:37 at the crime scene.

- Jeff

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

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;n710537]

Of course, I am not to be trusted, but you may want to correct the brown dot. If you want it all to be correct, that is. Others have informed you about the Llewellyn part, I see.

Thanks for that Fisherman. I redid the map, correcting the police station and had tidied up the Paul location (it's now a dark red/maroon dot as the brown didn't show up as well). I think I've got it on it on the right street now and a bit tidier, as yes, the previous one did blob out a bit as a smaller brown dot was hard to see.

- Jeff

[GUT]

I disagree very much. the one exception I can see is if the people travelling in company were of a rough appearance - an obvious street gang or so. Otherwise, it would benefit any person to trek together with another man. Sorry, but that was always the rule.

Do you still think that disagreeing with a PC is a good indicator of innocence, by the way...?

I didn’t say it was a good indicator of innocence, I said it was consistent wth innocence,

[JeffHamm]

Well i worked on 102.5 yards per min, and have a slightly different distance to work, but its only yards.

i think those timings are good.

Hi Steve,

Yah, I've noticed when using the measurement tools that measuring the same distance a few times can give different results for the distances. I measured 3 possible routes for Cross/Lechmere from home to Nichols (just slightly different side streets) and in Fisherman's documentary they timed the walk at 7 minutes 7 seconds, so I used that and got a range of speeds from 103.4 to 104.3 type thing, with the average of the 3 of them being 104 y/s or 3.6 miles/hour, which is a bit above the modern average walking speed of 3.1 (according to Google, the source of all truth and knowledge ). While Cross/Lechmere was probably shorter than Fishmerman, I did a bit of digging into research relating walking speeds and height, and from the couple of articles found, height influences maximum walking speed, but apparently has less impact on the "comfortable walking speed" (the longer stride length of taller people gets countered by the increased energy required to move the limb, so normal walking speeds tend to converge over a wider range of heights). Given people would walk much more in 1888 than today, and given Cross/Lechmere is behind schedule, Fisherman's estimated time seems perfectly logical. Either way, all of these sorts of things will have a range of error associated with them, but the important overall trend is that Cross/Lechmere can get to work on time, which he apparently did, provided he's not much later than 3:37 at the crime scene.

- Jeff

[Patrick S]

Still ignoring the question Patrick asked, and arguing something completely different.

Why?

Well that's simplythat you cannot countenance the possibility that Lechmere could have just disappeared after the 31st if he had wanted.
No one knew his name, home address or work place, and if he had taken the route i speculated on, it is highly unlikely he would have been found.


And that cannot be allowed to stand, as it shoots serious holes in the idea that he was forced to appear at the inquest.


It is not Proven Mizen lied, it never can be just as it can never be proven Lechmere lied. However, the weight of evidence in my opinion strongly suggests that mizen told an untruth.


Steve

We know that none of the answers make sense. We're asked to believe a man trying to get away with murder, and with the option to simply walk away, would stay. We're asked to believe that he'd ask a stranger to "come see" his victim. We're asked to believe he would then willingly go with that man to find a policeman. We're asked to believe that he lied to the policeman in the presence of the man he'd just met four minutes earlier (or that he managed a private conversation, somehow out of his hearing, without that seeming strange enough for that man to remark upon). We're asked to believe he did these things with the murder weapon on his person. Now, we're asked to believe that, having made it through this self-imposed, nonsensical maze of danger, he then appeared at the inquest, voluntarily, lied about what he told the PC again... because he didn't want to go out of his way to get to work. Even though he often must have gone out of his way to work in that he, you know, trolled for prostitutes to kill along his route each day. And Christer somehow thinks applying the word "laughable" to all this is somehow out of bounds.....

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;n710537]

Of course, I am not to be trusted, but you may want to correct the brown dot. If you want it all to be correct, that is. Others have informed you about the Llewellyn part, I see.

Yes, its creeping into Pereira Street, and so could be a touch further East and north. Well spotted, praise where its due.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Once again, we all know quite well that the London streets were not closed to Lechmere at any stage - he was allowed to go to work via Brighton, even. It is not rocket science, Iīm afraid, and nobody is saying it is - much less "diverting" anything at all.

I do think that the only person out here with no need of any diversions whatsoever is me. Itīs the rest who are stating one formidable whopper after the other, disagreeing with the police is consistent with innocence, it was less conspicious to be alone on the streets than to trek together, it is proven that Mizen lied or misled etcetera.

That, my fine friend, is what diversions look like - rather like certified balderdash.

Still ignoring the question Patrick asked, and arguing something completely different.

Why?

Well that's simplythat you cannot countenance the possibility that Lechmere could have just disappeared after the 31st if he had wanted.
No one knew his name, home address or work place, and if he had taken the route i speculated on, it is highly unlikely he would have been found.


And that cannot be allowed to stand, as it shoots serious holes in the idea that he was forced to appear at the inquest.


It is not Proven Mizen lied, it never can be just as it can never be proven Lechmere lied. However, the weight of evidence in my opinion strongly suggests that mizen told an untruth.


Steve

[Elamarna]

You rarely seem amused, though. Strange, that. You know, shouting "bias" is not the way to go about an honest debate. Then again, who said you wanted that in the first place...?

Well that could be fixed by dropping the Bias and working based on the evidence, not on assumption and speculation.

Basing speculation on other speculation is no way to achieve an honest outcome.


Steve

[Elamarna]

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

Originally posted by Elamarna View Post



Not at all, the point being that it was believed that smith had been attacked by a gang, so the idea of more than one was prevalent at the time.
This has been said several times and you have not addressed such.
Far more important, when the Carmen approached Mizen, he was not looking for a murder, he did not know a murder had occurred , so approaching as a pair is irrelevant.

"You have not addressed such"?

What is it I should address? You are making a not very good point. We all know thatmSmith spoke of a gang. We even know that the two weapons involved in the Tabram murder (the one denied by so many out here for no good reason at all), and that this could point to two killers. This, however, does not detract from how ONE killer only was always the norm.

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!

I am not saying that Smith was killed by one killer only, am I? No, I am arguing that trekking in a pair will GENERALLY (as in "usually" or "as a rule" be a clever thing for a killer to do. And that holds true regardless of how many PC:s have heard about a murder or not, Iīm afraid.

I really could not be much clearer than that, could I? So please donīt keep up that "you have not addressed it charade.

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

Journalistic questions, attempting to get the response you want, sorry Am a trained political operator.

So you may not like the replies.

1. At the time a murder had occurred in the area a few months before, that was said to have been perpetrated by more than one, so the question in this instance is irrelevant and misleading, if the police knew a murder had occurred two would therefore be as likely to be stopped as 1.


2. Mizen was not aware a murder had been committed so again irrelevant.

3. No it is not, if he had no knowledge of a death, then one or two people approaching him makes no difference.


The point you are attempting to make is an old journalist trick Christer, I am too long in the tooth to fall for such.

Is that why you answer like a politician? Meaning that you donīt answer the questions at all? Then I would like to point out that this is because you cannot deny what I am saying on a general level.

I know that you answer like a politician. You approach the case like one too. With the expected result.


Above in bold.

The Insults when you are caught out, how predictable.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Ah, yes, that labels the police station too. I just find it a bit faint, but have it now. See, even monkey's can learn! ha ha

I took the time to measure Cross/Lechmere's journey to work (roughly) using the measurement tools on the maps, and it came to 2,872 yards. Translating the 7min 7 second journey from his home to the crime scene (based on Fisherman's walking of the route) into a yards/min, that's about 104 yards/min, which would make his travel time about 28 minutes. So, if he left home about 3:30, as he testified, that walking speed gets him to the crime scene at 3:37, and would just get him to work on time at 4:00 with only a couple minutes to spare. If the interaction with Paul at the crime scene was, as some have suggested, only a minute or two, and the chat with PC Mizen also relatively brief, he can get to work on time without having to run, though he does have to hurry a bit more, but it is doable. I think he says somewhere he normally left at 3:20, which would make sense as that would give him lots of time to make it to work on time. At 7 min 7 seconds, that's about 3.6 miles per hour, a bit above the average walking speed, but given he's left late, that actually makes sense too.

Anyway, here's the map now. His work place is to the west quite a ways so I've not included that.


So, working left to right this time:

Blue : PC Mizen
Red : Nichols
Purple: Dr. Llewellyn
Dark red: Paul's residence
Light Blue(blue edge): Police Station/ambulance
Green: Cross/Lechmere's residence

- Jeff

Well i worked on 102.5 yards per min, and have a slightly different distance to work, but its only yards.

i think those timings are good.

[Patrick S]

None of us knows how long time was used by the carmen to walk to Mizen. None of us knows which speed was employed. Therefore, none of us knows if there was time to duck into a side street for a quick check for a PC - after all, they DID look for one.

I see. So we must choose to believe Robert Paul's time estimate that it was EXACTLY 3:45am when he entered Buck's Row but disregard his statement that when he saw Mizen in Montague Street "not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman".

You're at it again, aren't you? Believe a source when you perceive (however tenuously)that it aids your scams and theories, ignore or impeach when they don't. Thus, when Paul gives 3:45am, he's solid, reliable. When he says he found Mizen only four minutes after he saw Nichols... he's back to big-upping police hating blowhard.

[Patrick S]

Once again, we all know quite well that the London streets were not closed to Lechmere at any stage - he was allowed to go to work via Brighton, even. It is not rocket science, Iīm afraid, and nobody is saying it is - much less "diverting" anything at all.

I do think that the only person out here with no need of any diversions whatsoever is me. Itīs the rest who are stating one formidable whopper after the other, disagreeing with the police is consistent with innocence,

What was mentioned earlier about HALF TRUTHS? Of course, the documentary is full of them. And here's another. Of course, Cross didn't disagree with "the police". He disagreed with Mizen, a policeman. The police, it would seem, likely felt Mizen was the one telling "formidable whoppers", in that nothing at all was made of Cross' "disagreement" or Paul's failure to corroborate Mizen's "whopper".

it was less conspicious to be alone on the streets than to trek together, it is proven that Mizen lied or misled etcetera.

Wait. Was it not you who suggested the slings and arrows that so unfairly target you are unfair because you've never said your theory was a "proven thing"? You then went on to describe how nasty and unfair those who would suggest otherwise are, of course. Now you're saying posters here have said that Mizen's lying is a PROVEN thing? Nothing, of course, can be proven. What we know suggests it is highly likely Mizen lied. Taking a page from your book... I'll say it's 85% probable that Mizen lied. Good. We're all playing by the same rules now, Christer. So no more outrage.

That, my fine friend, is what diversions look like - rather like certified balderdash.

Balderdash... good word. Applicable in that we're discussing this "Mizen Scam".. in all it's hilarity....

[Patrick S]

I disagree very much. the one exception I can see is if the people travelling in company were of a rough appearance - an obvious street gang or so. Otherwise, it would benefit any person to trek together with another man. Sorry, but that was always the rule.

Do you still think that disagreeing with a PC is a good indicator of innocence, by the way...?

That's the RULE? Even when two soldiers were suspected for killing Tabram and Smith claimed to have been attacked by a gang. BUT! Better to travel "in company"... after all... that's the rule!

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.

Unintentional comedy is often the best comedy, I think.

[Fisherman]

Thatīs all the lying and misleading I had to offer for today. Now I must run and hide so I donīt have to answer Steves tricky questions. Itīs a tough life.