Lechmere validity

[Elamarna]

With that kind of detailed knowledge Steve you should consider writing a book on the events in Bucks Row.

Now that's an idea, should only take 30 months



Steve

[Patrick S]

The "scam", which is specifically the claim that Lechmere/Cross told PC Mizen a policeman wanted him in Buck's Row, was also entirely unnecessary for purpose. The goal, according to Fisherman, is to get PC Mizen to move on as quickly as possible so he's not searched. But getting searched is more likely as soon as he mentions she might be dead, which he testifies that he did. Now, if his claim that Paul said "I think she's dead", that would mean they're both right there, hearing what each other says to PC Mizen. Cross/Lechmere, to avoid being searched, just needs to downplay the dead part (because the more PC Mizen is made to believe there's a dead woman on the street, the more probable the risk of him also taking names, and doing a quick search), so he would only have to say something like "Maybe, she's probably drunk, but she is certainly near death and needs your assistance". If, we ignore all the coroborating statements that put Lechmere/Cross and Paul both talking to PC Mizen at the same time, and make Paul vanish, then again, all the more reason why all Lechmere/Cross has to do is report a drunk woman, passed out who appears near death is in Buck's Row. This isn't something a cop is going to take names for, or search someone, it's just someone doing their civic duty.

The "scam", as a scam, is both illogical and unwarrented by the overall evidence. It does not logically follow from anything we have, and is specifically designed to remove from consideration a large amount of the limited evidence we have (testimonies that Cross/Lechmere and Paul walked together, were in company as described by PC Mizen, and indications that both Cross/Lechmere and Paul spoke to PC Mizen, some of that coming from newspaper reports, others from the inquest testimony itself). The bits of testimony that become questionable are greatly reduced (PC Mizen saying he was told he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row) are of the sort that occur in spoken testimony (when he got to Buck's Row he was indeed wanted by a policeman, PC Neil sent him off to the ambulance, and there was indeed a dead woman in the street - human memory, being what it is, would easily conflate these two events resulting in PC Mizen simply either misremembering, so not lying per se, or even simply misspeaking.

Comparing the unnecessary complexity of the "scam" hypothesis with the alternative shows that the scam hypothesis is neither evidence based nor necessary, and results in a large scale culling of indpendant bits of data/evidence. It is designed to make disconfirming evidence "go away" in order for a chosen theory to remain in consideration. Therefore, unless new evidence comes to light to corroborate it, it should be considered falsified. Mind you, it's creative, and it would make for good TV.

- Jeff

All correct. I mean, why seek out a PC in order to pull this "scam"? We keep hearing Christer say that the "scam" was meant to "take him past the police".... even though he sought out the police rather than employ any of the myriad, simple alternatives available to him that didn't involved finding a policeman and lying to him while hoping the guy he forced to get involved in this errand in the first place, a complete stranger, went along with it.

[JeffHamm]

All correct. I mean, why seek out a PC in order to pull this "scam"? We keep hearing Christer say that the "scam" was meant to "take him past the police".... even though he sought out the police rather than employ any of the myriad, simple alternatives available to him that didn't involved finding a policeman and lying to him while hoping the guy he forced to get involved in this errand in the first place, a complete stranger, went along with it.

Hi Patrick S,

That's the problem with the Lechmere/Cross as JtR theory. It keeps tripping over the data and requires very convoluted, complex, and unsupported reasoning to get by one hurdle and then, that complex set of arguments results in it tripping over itself on the very next step, so a new set of complicated, convoluted arguments are made to try and get through that tangle, only to get worse and worse as we journey from Buck's Row to Old Montague Street. Compare that to the alternative, that Lechmere/Cross was innocent, and all of the actions and behaviours and testimonies are more or less straight forward to understand, with only a few minor wrinkles here and there that seem to reflect the idiosyncrasies of the situation. Having read the arguments put forth for Cross/Lechmere's guilt, and those against, and also having looked at the evidence and testimonies myself to draw my own inferences, then it's clear, the current evidence only allows one to exonerate Cross/Lechmere. So unless something new is found, changing the evidence we have, I don't see any indication of Cross/Lechmere being anything other than an innocent party trying to do what a decent fellow would do, draw the attention of the police and others to a woman who is in need of assistance that he himself cannot provide.

- Jeff

[GUT]

Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence.

[APerno]

OK so Lechmere is exonerated, where did the Ripper go?

Polly's extremities are still warm enough to be mistaken for life; did the murder simply walk away, off towards Baker's Row and Mizen, or does he walk the other direction, right past Paul unnoticed? From which direction came Lechmere? Was the murder standing in the shadows watching the two examine Polly's body? If not, how did he get by Lechmere unnoticed?

See fooled again, I thought you guys had this figured out, I was all ready to yell 'final solution' yet again, but no, I can't depend on you guys; all that reading and listening to you argue, and nada!

What next?

What if Paul actually doubled back behind Lechmere and then . . .

[Abby Normal]

OK so Lechmere is exonerated, where did the Ripper go?

Polly's extremities are still warm enough to be mistaken for life; did the murder simply walk away, off towards Baker's Row and Mizen, or does he walk the other direction, right past Paul unnoticed? From which direction came Lechmere? Was the murder standing in the shadows watching the two examine Polly's body? If not, how did he get by Lechmere unnoticed?

See fooled again, I thought you guys had this figured out, I was all ready to yell 'final solution' yet again, but no, I can't depend on you guys; all that reading and listening to you argue, and nada!

What next?

What if Paul actually doubled back behind Lechmere and then . . .

lol. either the ripper killed her or just possibly lechmere AP its not that complicated. if it was the ripper he simply left in the opposite direction of lech and slipped past knocking up Mizen.

[JeffHamm]

OK so Lechmere is exonerated, where did the Ripper go?

Polly's extremities are still warm enough to be mistaken for life; did the murder simply walk away, off towards Baker's Row and Mizen, or does he walk the other direction, right past Paul unnoticed? From which direction came Lechmere? Was the murder standing in the shadows watching the two examine Polly's body? If not, how did he get by Lechmere unnoticed?

See fooled again, I thought you guys had this figured out, I was all ready to yell 'final solution' yet again, but no, I can't depend on you guys; all that reading and listening to you argue, and nada!

What next?

What if Paul actually doubled back behind Lechmere and then . . .

Ha ha! If the case was solved simply by ruling one person out then knowing where JtR went would be revealed. But, in all likelihood he headed westward initially, away from Cross/Lechmere. After that, he may have turned north and yes, there's no reason why PC Mizen would stop him. Ppeople are going to work (he's knocking them up for that reason after all) so one more person passing him isn't going to be suspicious as he's unaware of a murder. However, I would think if someone had passed him prior to Cross/Lechmere and Paul showing up he would have noted that after the fact. But, if he went in that direction, PC Mizen would be further back on Old Montague (I think that's the street he was coming along while knocking people up) so he could have continued on Hanbury. Or, he may have turned South towards Whitechapel (if he wasn't noticably bloodied, which he may not have been, hands in pockets and probably nothing to see) and off he goes, or down towards and passed Tabram's murder (particularly if he was responsible for her murder, just to relive things maybe?). There are so many options once he's on the move that he would vanish pretty quick.

- Jeff

[APerno]

Is it possible that he moved through the doors and down the halls of the residential buildings (on the one side of the street)? I read somewhere that some of the housing had street entrances that were never locked (like possibly the case with 29 Hanbury for example) and that one could enter through one street, move down the hallway and out the backdoor on to the next block over. I wonder if that was possible from Buck's Row? I do believe one side of the street were residentials.

[GUT]

I think I once found about 12 different paths he could have easily taken, or just slipped into the shadows till Cross and Paul moved on and went the opposite direction.

[JeffHamm]

Is it possible that he moved through the doors and down the halls of the residential buildings (on the one side of the street)? I read somewhere that some of the housing had street entrances that were never locked (like possibly the case with 29 Hanbury for example) and that one could enter through one street, move down the hallway and out the backdoor on to the next block over. I wonder if that was possible from Buck's Row? I do believe one side of the street were residentials.

Hi APerno,

Possibily. I've heard similar to what you've described, but not for Buck's Row specifically yet it sounds like it was common throughout the area. So it may have been possible pending on the designs of the buildings. He could, of course, just head west, and slip around the school, then head east too. As GUT points out, there are lots of options. My suspicions, and that's all they are, is that he generally headed west simply because we know that's the direction towards most of the murders, and if Stride was killed by JtR, he headed West and towards that area as well, suggesting he had a bolt hole in that general vicinity.

[Fisherman]

How is there an agenda, I accept corroboration from either LECHMERE or MIZEN, not just one!. That is not bias, nor is it agenda driven.
Your argument is, and I repeat this, that you believe Lechmere is the killer, therefore he lies, and because he lies he is the killer.

Basically you reject all Lechmere says, that is AGENDA driven





Where is the dogma?

The Lloyds account is highly problematic, either we apply criteria to it, to see if any sense can be made of it, by looking for corroboration for instance. Or we reject ALL of IT, including his description of what happened in BUCKS ROW and when.
Such would be a poor approach to research, but its better than just accepting what fits our own theories.




Sorry, but I consider the approach taken to be highly bias, that is my honest opinion.


Steve

Wrong. Again. As always.

You are apparently dead set on making me look like somebody who never considers the option that Lechmere could be innocent. In your eyes, it is all about bias and unwarranted aggression against the poor carman.

What I do is to look into the possibility that Lechmere could be the killer. Somebody MUST do that, given the circumstances. He WAS found close by Nichols at a remove in time that is consistent with him being the killer, he DID give another name than the one he usually gave authorities, he DID refuse to help prop Nichgols up, he DID disagree with the police about what was said, the wording Mizen offered DID fit exactly with an attempt to pass the police by and so on.

These are not biased matters, these are case facts. If you want to say that it is biased to claim that these parameters lend themselves quite well to entertaining suspicion against Lechmere, that will have to stand for you.

Over the years, many innocent alternative explanations have been served up, and it is not as if I have not read them. It is not as if I do not listen to those who say that there is an option that Lechmere could have been innocent. I do. And I weigh the material up, over and over again.

The thing is, I don't think that the scales are in any way even. For that to happen, it would take that the alternative innocent explanations carried as much weight as the guilty explanations. And I don't think they do.

To understand fully how it works on my account, you must realize that I do think that there are elements where I find that the innocent and guilty options are not far from each other in terms of weight. If we for example take the name issue, I don't think that it is in any way outlandish to suggest that he could have wanted to keep his name out of the papers. If the choice between guilty and innocent should be made on this issue only, I would say that we would have a pretty evenly poised choice.

The same thing goes for some other elements, while I think that there are inclusions that are much harder to look away from. That relates for example to the "litmus paper", as I call it - once we can see that there is reason to look further into Lechmere, we must try and see if he could have had opportunity. That is t say, we must look at the geography and timings of the other cases. And he does fit the other murders quite well in this respect, meaning that we get a coloration of the litmus paper that speaks of guilt.

It is of course not proven that he WAS in place on the other sites, but anybody can see that it would be perfectly logical if he was. And this is not in any degree diminished in importance of howitzer people could also have had links to the sites, because they are not under scrutiny. He is, on account of it having been proven that he was standing alone close to Nichols at a remove in time that is consistent with him having killed her.

So all of the gabbing about how he may have been so or so many feet away, how Nicholsm may have bled for so and so many minutes, how Paul may have been wrong on the timings and so on, are - generally speaking - of little interest in the context. The pieces of the puzzle fit.

To acknowledge this is not to be biased. It is to look at the case details and draw a conclusion from it - it fits.

And when we look at the details, we do NOT look at them in isolation. We look at them all, and when we do, we can see the the details that all can have useful alternative innocent explanations taken in isolation, are so many that it becomes an exercise in futility to think up such innocent explanations in spades. We all know that when there are too many and to obviously pointers to guilt, we reach a stage when the back of the camel is broken. Which is why Scobie says that the coincidences "mount up in his case" and "it becomes one coincidence too many".

This is where the historical approach seems to come into play - I am told that I cannot reason the way I do on account of how it is not a historically correct approach. All I can say about that is that if I was ordered to put together a team of three that would stand a good chance of solving the riddle, I would not recommend a politician, a bureaucrat and a historian as the best choice.

We do things differently. But that should not result in me being painted out as the villain, the one who is ready to go over corpses to get Lechmere damned, the one who cannot weigh any matter correctly while you represent the good side, the snow-white angel of innocence and justification.

Any angel with any sort of judgment would recommend Saint Peter to have a long hard look at the carman before he let him pass the gates of heaven.

When you start to admit that it does carry suspicion to for example disagree with a PC the way Lechmere did, we can start debating on equal terms. And equal terms are what you claim to wish every soul is awarded in questions like these, so it should not be unsurmountable for you to do, one would think.

I think he was guilty and I follow that lead, you think he was not guilty and you follow that conviction. Personally, I think you are not being fair in assessing the evidence, but then again, you say that you think the exact same thing about me. How does that NOT put us on equal footing?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

You made an absolute statement ""WHAT??? I do not think that Paul spoke to Mizen at all!", there is nothing that in that statement that allows for it to be read as you saying it is only possible that Paul did not speak to Mizen, you put it in no uncertain terms that you do not believe he spoke to Mizen. You stated it as an absolute belief, therefore you stated it as if it were a fact as far as you are concerned. Yet, when I include such indications of probability, like the word "may" you accuse me of stating things as facts and launch into insults and other pejorative language.

You state things as facts, and claim you're stating possibilities, others, like myself, phrase things as possibilities, and you cry that we're stating facts. It is impossible to have a discussion with you because of this. You indicate you believe to some extent that either Cross/Lechmere or Paul made some sort of side-trip between leaving Nichols and before arriving at PC Mizen because you said you could not rule them out - that means you believe these side trips might have occurred. I indicated I believe the data and testimonies we had allow us to rule those out as (to the extent we can rule out anything, meaning they are, in my view, so highly unlikely given what we know that we can be as sure as we can be that they did not occur - even now I'm not stating that as a fact, just that the likelihood ratio is so in favour of them not happening that we shouldn't be wasting time considering highly improbable events). Now, because of our different views on the probabilities of those side trips, I was interested in hearing your thoughts on these side-trips that you believe cannot be ruled out, as to which of the men you thought might have made one, where (as in what street you thought might be likely, how far did they go, why would they go, why would the other wait, etc). You've refused to answer any of those questions, despite I made it clear I wasn't expecting these to be backed up by any sort of evidence because we both know there isn't any, but I was curious as to your thinking since you couldn't rule them out. I can't conceive of answers to those questions because I have a strong belief they probably didn't occur, you apparently have more of a belief in them than I (I'm not even saying you seem to think them likely, but you clearly think they are not as unlikely as I do). I have found that it is by listening to others ideas, even about things I've got a current and opposite opinion on, that is when I might be exposed to ideas that I simply have not conceived of and I am capable of changing my views if the new idea is convincing, plausible, and doesn't violate the data and evidence we have. We can stretch the evidence a bit, but our explanations must, in the end, be constrained by it. If we simply ignore all the evidence, then anything is possible, it is the evidence that limits those possibilities, so one has to have a very good argument (also evidence based) to overturn or ignore the data we do have - and we have precious little.

But I've given up any hope of you doing so because of this sort of thing. You state things as absolutes and claim you mean a probabilistic, you read a probabilistic and scream absolutes have been stated. This isn't a discussion, it isn't an exchange of ideas. I don't know what it is actually, but it's sort of amusing at times, but in the end, it's not very enlightening.

- Jeff

There we are, I say that I never claimed that the carmen entered other streets, and you say that you will not believe it.

There is only so much I can do.

[Fisherman]

hi el
heres the LLoyds article interview with Paul.

"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head. "

according to this Paul took the lead. hes the hero. he belittles the police. its full of boastfulness and untruths. it even has him separating from Lech and talking to Mizen on his own! and polly is long dead in this according to Paul. its obvious the subsequent news papers where they say something along the lines of "the other man said she was dead" were cribbed from this. all the other reports, inquest statements is the we stuff.

I doubt Paul ever spoke to Mizen at all.

And that is where Steve uses his "historical" approach and says that No, Sir, you are not ALLOWED to do that, because if you do, you are engaging in biased thinking and you will NOT be invited into the circle of righteous judges of the matter.

You are in effect joining me, in the unsavoury branch.

Shame on you, Abby.

[JeffHamm]

There we are, I say that I never claimed that the carmen entered other streets, and you say that you will not believe it.

There is only so much I can do.

You introduced side trips. You said you could not rule them out, that means you believe there is some possibility they occurred. You challenged me to prove they didn't make these trips, further suggesting you believed they occurred.

So, you don't believe they occurred, and I didn't believe they occurred. I am baffled by why you then challenged me to rule out what we both agreed was unbelievable. It was distracting from the main discussion ....

ah, never mind. I think I understand now.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

And get this, from the Echo: Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross [my underline]

He "now" knew the man to be named Cross... Mizen only found out Cross's name sometime after the night in question, which almost certainly means that Mizen didn't take down his name or contact details at the time. Which in turn means that Cross came forward separately to volunteer those details. Whether he did so unprompted, in response to an appeal for witnesses, or on Mizen's instruction, he did the right thing, didn't he?

He even did the right thing if he wanted to dupe Mizen into letting him and Paul pass unsearched, Gareth. Not right thing as in "legally commendable thing" but as in "clever thing if you want to escape suspicion".

There are right things and then there are right things.