Lechmere validity

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;n710477]

Hi All,

Just trying to update a map of the locations involved, as it helps, I think, when discussing the "to'ing and from'ing" of those involved to have an idea where they were "to'ing and from'ing". The red dot indicates the crime scene location, the blue dot around where PC Mizen was located when Cross/Lechmere and Paul spoke with him, the dark Green dot is roughly Cross/Lechmere's home location, and the light green dot is roughly Paul's home location. I hope I've got those all correct now.

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? The only other location of interest would be where the ambulance was located that PC Mizen was sent to fetch. I can't seem to recall anything indicating where he went to get it (the mortuary perhaps? Or would it have been the hospital? a police station?).

Anyway, would greatly appreciate any input and/or corrections to what I've indicated.

- Jeff

Jeff,

the Dr's home was to the west of the junction with Brady strret, about 3 buildings along. the blue Dot.



The Ambulance came from Bethnal Green Police Station, off your map to the north. Gold dot is murder site, blue dot Police St.

Fantastic! Much appreciated. Google located the address where I marked it, but I was pretty sure there's been renumbering since 1888. Will update what I've got to locate those properly. Will have to expand the map to get the station in, but that's easy enough to do.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

...and which point is it that you are going to claim I am "avoiding" now? Or cannot you think of any? Or are you going to say that we all know which point it is and that you don't feel like telling me?

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.

Let's ask YOU a question or two:

Do you or do you not agree that murders are generally committed by one person only?

Do you or do you not agree that hooking up with somebody after having committed a murder makes sense if you want to stay undetected?

I know that Mizen knew of no murder (or suicide, he tells us that at the inquest, and he is seemingly flabbergasted, which is understandable), but that is beside the point I am making.

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.

Steve

[Elamarna]

No, it is not. Once a poster produces posts of very low quality, it is to be expected that the ones subjected to those posts will doubt the value of any forthcoming posts by the same poster.

It is anything BUT breath taking.

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


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

If hooking up is such a great idea, why didn’t he do it in any other of the murders?

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

[GUT]

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.




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.

Steve

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

[Elamarna]

Only, I don't ignore anything. I am, however, saying - as you would have known if you read my post - that it is disingenuous to point out that there were alternative routes if he wanted to avoid Bucks Row after the murder. Of course there was, there always is in a city like London.

This, you do not acknowledge. Which is...., hmmm, what is the term for it....ahh, I know: diverting.

I am quite happy to agree about how the exchange is pointless, though. And was from the beginning. I don't disagree with you there!

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

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n710485]

Fantastic! Much appreciated. Google located the address where I marked it, but I was pretty sure there's been renumbering since 1888. Will update what I've got to locate those properly. Will have to expand the map to get the station in, but that's easy enough to do.

- Jeff

My Pleasure

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


Steve

[GUT]

My Pleasure

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


Steve

Wasn’t that Tom’s book (joking)

[JeffHamm]

Trying to make a meal out of this will not hide the fact that you were wrong when you said that there could hav e been no time for any of the carmen to duck into a side street, just as you were wrong when you claimed that I would have siad that they would have.

There is no need to lay out the text in spades. It is all very simple.

We don´t have the timings, and so we must accept that there may have been time to do it.

I never said that they WOULD have done it, I in fact said that I don't think they did, but that I am careful not to exclude what I can not exclude.

You are not that careful. Not at all.

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

[Elamarna]

Wasn’t that Tom’s book (joking)

Indeed, it was

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]

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]

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

[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.

[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.