Lechmere validity

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n710502]

Cool. Looking forward to it. 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.

Red = Nichols
Solid Blue = PC Mizen
Blue Ring with light blue centre = Station for ambulance
Purple = Dr. L.
Green = Lechmere/Cross residence
Brown = Paul residence

If these all look about right, I'll work on distances to each location from the crime scene.

- Jeff

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.

[Fisherman]

No, the data we have constrains the possible events to the point where I cannot see how a side trip could be possible. The difference is that you are not constrained by the evidence, and are willing to set great portions of it aside to fit in your explanations to make it possible for Lechmere/Cross to be guilty. You ignore all evidence that directly contradicts your presentation. That's why you still claim side-trips cannot be excluded, despite the evidence allowing no room for them. Oh, I can see how they're possible if we ignore the evidence, that's easy, anything is possible then. But I won't do that unless there is other evidence that indicates something is an error but I won't set something aside simply because it can't be explained - you will, and do throughout your Lechmere/Cross is JtR presentation. It's why you can't tell me story that includes a side trip that fits within the evidence and why you think they are still possible - because you do not constrain what you think is possible by the evidence, only by the limits of your creativity, which are impressively vast. But that approach, I'm afraid, is what not being careful looks like, you just cannot see it.

- Jeff

I can´t 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.

[Fisherman]

Fortunately you have not achieved your aim of diverting.

The original question by Patrick was, if Lechmere wished to avoid Bucks Row in the days following the murder, could he?


The answer is of course yes he could, one which took him far from Browns Yard, yet is only about 3 minutes longer.


To reply that he would not use a longer route, in the circumstances outlined, is totally irrelevant.



Steve

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, I´m 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. It´s 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.

[Fisherman]

At that time, one attack by a gang, two may well be more likely to be stopped than one.

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...?

[Fisherman]

Firstly, I really don't think it's a great idea - far better to slip away than draw attention to yourself. Secondly, it's a trick that would surely only work once - do it again and you'd become associated with more than one murder, which would look very suspicious.

Unless I've completely misunderstood

If you think roaming the streets alone is a better thing to do for a killer than travelling in company, the yes, I fear you ARE completely misunderstood.

And "do it again"? ANY man who appears on two murder sites, regardless if in company or not, will draw suspicion and rightly so.

[Fisherman]

Low quality, in your Bias view. its so funny.


Steve

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...?

[Fisherman]

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 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, I´m afraid.

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

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 don´t 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.

Steve

Above in bold.

[Joshua Rogan]

What I've been trying to locate is Dr. Llewellyn's home location. I think I've found it based upon the address, but I'm not sure if the numbering has changed since 1888 (in which case I'm wrong - hardly a novel event). I've marked it as the question mark to the lower left. Can anyone confirm if that is the correct location?

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).

[Patrick S]

Fortunately you have not achieved your aim of diverting.

The original question by Patrick was, if Lechmere wished to avoid Bucks Row in the days following the murder, could he?


The answer is of course yes he could, one which took him far from Browns Yard, yet is only about 3 minutes longer.


To reply that he would not use a longer route, in the circumstances outlined, is totally irrelevant.



Steve

Christer's idea is that Cross appeared at the inquest voluntarily because the police would have found him knowing what time he passed through Buck's Row. He'd have been identified, stopped, brought under suspicion after Paul's Lloyd's statement. Like all of it, Steve, it's a hard sell. Mainly because it makes no sense.

Let's put aside the fact Paul says nothing to indict Cross' behavior in his statement. He related that the man asked him to come see, they checked on Nichols together, and then went and told PC Mizen what they'd found (even better Paul makes himself the prime actor and speaker, which could only have helped Cross' cause of "lying his way past the police").

Leaving aside the fact that the Whitechapel murders are littered with characters who were reported to the police and described in the press (added bonus: Paul didn't describe Cross AT ALL in his Lloyd's "bombshell") who were never found, identified, interviewed, etc. So it's absurd to think that Cross would have feared being picked up based on what appeared in Lloyd's), in the first place.

It's more absurd to think that the he'd submit himself to the inquest with a plan - which he executes - of lying about a PC, risking detection, arrest, and execution, all to avoid walking a few minutes out of his way for a few weeks. In the end we're asked to believe that he'd successfully "bluffed" the "big-upping" "police hating" Paul. He'd performed successfully this "Mizen Scam" foolishness, taking advantage of our hero, super cop Jonas Mizen... and it's all gone to plan, "taking him past the police"... with the murder weapon on his person, I might add. And then, having done ALL THAT, he appears at the inquest to avoid the inconvenience of detouring a few blocks around Buck's Row in order to avoid risking being revealed as a murderer and being executed.

[Patrick S]

The arrogance of that post is breath taking.


Steve

And rather insulting, I'd say. But, don't you dare respond in kind, Steve. Christer demands your deference and respect... while remaining incapable of either... unless you're wearing your "It was Lechmere what done it!" t-shirt. Then he's plenty of both.

[Patrick S]

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

"Data" is not something that can prove a case. You may be unaware of this? The "data" you suggest we use is how papers reported about the case, but no paper pointed out Mizen as having done anything wrong, no jury and no coroner did that either. Your personal interpretation says he did, but personal interpretations carry no more weight that what is afforded by the overall credit slitty the originator of that interpretation has amassed over the years.

So... in your view Mizen remains unimpeachable because he wasn't pilloried in print or castigated on the stand by jury or coroner. And the papers said But, you don't apply absurd standard to Cross, of whom the same can be said. The papers make no accusations... or the coroner... or the jury. The coroner and jury seem to have accepted his testimony, even though it disagreed with with your good, honest, Christian, sainted Mizen. As in nearly all things associated with your little theory and this absurd little "scam" you're peddling, there are two standards: the one you apply to support your made-up assumptions, and the one you apply to refute the myriad, obvious factors that make this entire scheme so laughable. Neither is a standard with an ounce of integrity.

The "data" - and this time we are dealing with a fact - that Lechmere was found standing alone, close by a still bleeding murder victim, is quite enough to allow for an interpretation of him having lied his way past the police.

Hilarious. So in your view because he alerted Paul to Nichols (he certainly wasn't "found" next to her body in that he STOPPED Paul and essentially insisted on his involvement) everything he said subsequently leads to this "interpretation". One wonders if it's a lack of honesty or intellect that prevents you from understanding that this is exactly the problem with what you're selling, and it always has been. You draw your conclusion and then interpret events to support it, despite howls of laughter from anyone with any knowledge who's exposed to it.

In reality we must look at what we know. And what we know is that it would seem that Cross did everything a good citizen might do, and more: He told the first man who came along in Paul, went and found a PC and alerted him, appeared at the inquest voluntarily (odd for someone lying his way past the police to, you know, return to them once he's past them). Again, it just doesn't work.

As an aside, I am quite content speaking about how this is my interpretation, and not something that is proven. Only really unreliable and untrustworthy posters would claim such a thing.

It's silly to add such qualifiers. You speak of it as if it IS a proven thing, insult anyone who refutes it, regardless of the data they might present to support their position, proffer absurd percentages such as 80% likely he was Jack the Ripper and Torso Killer, and then make absurd, insulting comments like this one.

Above bold. I'd say this thread is one of the most damaging to this Lechmere foolishness, thanks to Steve, Dusty, Jeff, Gut, and others. Maybe the Youtubers who loved your internationally sent documentary so well should peruse it.

[JeffHamm]

Not quite Jeff, I prefer to use the 93-95 OS, on the drop down if using the National library of Scotland site, more detail.

it's about 2 streets to the west of where you have it



the rest looks good


Steve

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

[Elamarna]

Not quite Jeff, I prefer to use the 93-95 OS, on the drop down if using the National library of Scotland site, more detail.

it's about 2 streets to the west of where you have it



the rest looks good


Steve

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;n710493]

My Pleasure

It's all in the book Jeff, maps, photos the lot. Should be out Bank holiday weekend.


Steve

Cool. Looking forward to it. 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.

Red = Nichols
Solid Blue = PC Mizen
Blue Ring with light blue centre = Station for ambulance
Purple = Dr. L.
Green = Lechmere/Cross residence
Brown = Paul residence

If these all look about right, I'll work on distances to each location from the crime scene.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

Wasn’t that Tom’s book (joking)

Indeed, it was

Steve