Lechmere validity

[Elamarna]

hi el
these are the reports you provided below. lech isn't saying paul said "I think shes dead". the reporter is.

IPN 8th September

"and in Baker's-row they saw Police-constable Mizen. They told him that a

woman was lying in Buck's-row, witness adding, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk." The other

man observed, "I think she's dead.""

Star 3rd September

"They went up Baker's-row, and saw the last witness. Witness said to him, "There's a woman lying down in Buck'srow

on the broad of her back. I think she's dead or drunk." The other man said, "I believe she's dead."

The Times 4th September

"They went to Baker's-row, saw the last witness, and

told him there was a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back. Witness also said he

believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead"

Afraid not Abby, those comments are all in internal quotation marks within the inquest reports. They should be interpreted as being direct quotes from Lechmere, The IPN and Star may come from a common source. The times generally reported in the 3rd person.

The one you left out is in the 1st person throughout. With conversation given additional quotation marks
Echo 3rd September

""There's a woman lying in Buck's-row. She looks to me as though she was dead, or drunk." The other
man then said, "I believe she is dead." I don't know who this man was; he was a stranger, but appeared
to me to be a carman. From the time I left my home I did not see anyone until I saw the man who
overtook me in Buck's-row."


They are all quotes from Lechmere's testimony on the 3rd, it is Lechmere saying Paul said it, NOT the Reporter.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

Sorry I fundamentally disagree Abby.

Yes the account needs to be treated with a great deal of caution, which is why I say only accept that which can be corroborated. Either that or REJECT it in TOTAL, so NO man standing in the road, NO 4 minutes to reach Mizen and certainly NO 3.45 exactly.

The reports which say the "other man" are from Lechmere at the inquest on the 3rd, it is he saying "other man".
So you are saying that you do not believe Lechmere, that he is inventing it. What evidence is it that leads you to this conclusion can I ask? Other than Lechmere is a liar, I mean?

If Paul really did say something similar to that Lechmere presents, what else would you expect Lechmere to say.? It appears that you do not wish to accept Paul may have spoken.

Or are you suggesting that the press are inventing those comments?

Are you seriously suggesting that the reporters at the inquest are not reporting what is said at the inquest ?

If so, then we might as well just throw all the inquest reports out of the window.

I am confused what you mean by cribbing, who is cribbing The Press or Lechmere?

I am genuinely flummoxed as to why you chose to disbelieve both of the Carmen, I can see no evidence which leads one to that conclusion.

Really sorry that we disagree on this, but such is life



Steve

.

hi el
these are the reports you provided below. lech isn't saying paul said "I think shes dead". the reporter is.

IPN 8th September

"and in Baker's-row they saw Police-constable Mizen. They told him that a

woman was lying in Buck's-row, witness adding, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk." The other

man observed, "I think she's dead.""

Star 3rd September

"They went up Baker's-row, and saw the last witness. Witness said to him, "There's a woman lying down in Buck'srow

on the broad of her back. I think she's dead or drunk." The other man said, "I believe she's dead."

The Times 4th September

"They went to Baker's-row, saw the last witness, and

told him there was a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back. Witness also said he

believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead"

[Elamarna]

-Ones innocuous-the time he entered bucks row(who cares?)-and the other is not-his "im the man" interview with Lloyds. and I find no other compelling reason why he must be off on his time in Bucks row.

That's the problem Abby, its not innocuous.
The whole idea of Lechmere being alone with the body comes from this time.

I have tried to explain so many times, if the 3.45 exactly is not correct, that supposed gap when Lech is alone with Nichols, claimed to be up to 9 minutes, simply disappears.

You don't see 3 police officers giving contrary evidence as a compelling reason for his time being off? Not to mention the synchronization issue.?

Steve

[Abby Normal]

Hi, Abby. In your view, is Paul to believed when it comes to his "exact" time of "a quarter to four" for his "pass(ing) up Buck's Row"? I'm not quite prepared to say that Paul's statement is full of untruths and may stop short of saying he "belittles" the police (as opposed to being critical of their actions the night of Nichols' murder). However, I'm open to the possibility that his statement is boastful and inaccurate. But, If we concede that it was "full of untruths", how should we view, then, his "exact" timing for passing up Buck's Row?

hi Patrick
I knew this was coming LOL. and Mizen is lying (or mistaken) yet gets his timings right?

but ill try to answer-Im not necessarily saying Paul is lying or mistaken in this article-it could be BS from the reporter or paper. Im just stating that this Lloyds report seems to be highly innacurate and has paul stating that he thinks shes dead (and not only that-long dead) and that the subsequent papers take this and add to their reports-all seemingly implying that Paull spoke directly to mizen (ie.-"the other man said I think shes dead"). everything else has Paul saying we.

and yes-even if the Lloyds article is accurate with what Paul said to them (which is questionable in its own right)and he lied out his face to them, he can still be accurate with his timing on entering Bucks Row-its two separate things-done at two different times-for two different reasons-told to two different audiences. he could be lying about one and telling the truth about the other. and anyway-Ones innocuous-the time he entered bucks row(who cares?)-and the other is not-his "im the man" interview with Lloyds. and I find no other compelling reason why he must be off on his time in Bucks row.

[Elamarna]

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.

Sorry I fundamentally disagree Abby.

Yes the account needs to be treated with a great deal of caution, which is why I say only accept that which can be corroborated. Either that or REJECT it in TOTAL, so NO man standing in the road, NO 4 minutes to reach Mizen and certainly NO 3.45 exactly.

The reports which say the "other man" are from Lechmere at the inquest on the 3rd, it is he saying "other man".
So you are saying that you do not believe Lechmere, that he is inventing it. What evidence is it that leads you to this conclusion can I ask? Other than Lechmere is a liar, I mean?

If Paul really did say something similar to that Lechmere presents, what else would you expect Lechmere to say.? It appears that you do not wish to accept Paul may have spoken.

Or are you suggesting that the press are inventing those comments?

Are you seriously suggesting that the reporters at the inquest are not reporting what is said at the inquest ?

If so, then we might as well just throw all the inquest reports out of the window.

I am confused what you mean by cribbing, who is cribbing The Press or Lechmere?

I am genuinely flummoxed as to why you chose to disbelieve both of the Carmen, I can see no evidence which leads one to that conclusion.

Really sorry that we disagree on this, but such is life



Steve

.

[Patrick S]

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.

Hi, Abby. In your view, is Paul to believed when it comes to his "exact" time of "a quarter to four" for his "pass(ing) up Buck's Row"? I'm not quite prepared to say that Paul's statement is full of untruths and may stop short of saying he "belittles" the police (as opposed to being critical of their actions the night of Nichols' murder). However, I'm open to the possibility that his statement is boastful and inaccurate. But, If we concede that it was "full of untruths", how should we view, then, his "exact" timing for passing up Buck's Row?

[Patrick S]

Again no, suggesting a theory is not being biased. There is no bias whatsoever in pointing to how Paul MAY have been out of earshot and how that means that the theory MAY be correct in this respect. It is the plain and simple truth that this may have been so. Claiming that pointing that out is biased is professing to not understanding the processes involved.

There IS bias, however, when one espouses that all these made-up "mays" and "maybes", inventions, that make no logical sense to unbiased observers but lead you to a to profess a certainty of the "carman's: guilt of, what number did you give, 75%? 85%? This goes beyond "suggestion". You mentioned propaganda earlier. An appropriate term, I think.

[Abby Normal]

Yes it is Abby

Maybe we are confusing each other.

The later reports are either the inquest reports of Lech, which say Paul spoke; or the later still reports of Paul, which are not detailed and do not tell us what was said. Words used I mean.

I see no reason to think the press cribbed these from Lloyds.


Steve

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.

[JeffHamm]

Once again, I do not state that as a fact at all, I state it as something I believe is a likely thing. But of course, if it feels better to misrepresent what I say, go ahead. Itīs not the first time and it will not be the last.

Being able to see these not very subtle differences is something that tells a useful poster apart from one that will get things wrong - and brag about it.

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

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;n709966]

The problem of course is that you start from suspecting him, and follow with somewhat circular argument, you do not trust him because you think he is the killer, and because he is the killer he cannot be trusted.

You see I do not just look at what Lechmere says, I compare it to the known evidence, rather than speculation, and see if it can be corroborated. Following that method I see No reason not to trust the majority of what Lechmere says.




Wrong again. I do NOT start from suspecting him, I start from finding that there is REASON to suspect him, and then I work from there. It is not, it has never been and it will never be a case of him having been plucked out of thin air for no reason at all. There are numerous elements that do not seem right, and THAT is what lies behind the suspicions I entertain. Once more, "he is somebody a jury would not like". And why is that? Scobie explains that too: "he is someone who is acting in a suspicious way".

Please, do try to not be so disingenuous, and please stop quoting one QC as if their view is final.

You personally have managed to persuade yourself that there is nothing at all suspicious about him, and that is something I cannot alter, it would seem. But I CAN point out that it is a lie to say that I begin with suspecting Lechmere and then go looking for a reason to do so.

No I have looked at the evidence and concluded that although he remains a viable suspect, he is not strong and much of the arguments used against him are based on speculation and a misreading or misinterpretation of the evidence. the term over enthusiastic comes to mind.

Your cozy little world is one where a person under suspicion of being a killer is allowed to free himself by saying that he is not. You choose to uncritically believe him, and that is the end of that.

Not so I am afraid, , it has been said very clearly that I do not just accept, but compare and contrast, using the available evidence to reach a conclusion, on what to accept or what not to.

Claiming that this is some sort of discerning approach to solving a murder case may tickle your own ego, but since it is useless in terms of investigative work and more likely than not an obstacle to understanding matters I really donīt buy into it at all. I of course realize that you will argue that I am ready and willing to remove anything that looks like an obstacle to my theory, but that was always to be expected. That is how you argue.

Me, Iīm done arguing for today.

And One says it because it is the truth,




Steve

[Elamarna]

"The Timing issue has already mentioned, shows a tendency to pick from Lloyds, that which fits the Lechmere theory; and before I am accused of doing the same, I will state again that I only accept that statement, where it is corroborated by one or both of the other participants."

This is an example of how you point out that you are working to an agenda where you are ready to accept what Paul says if it is corroborated by Charles Lechmere - who is the person scrutinized for quite possibly being the killer of Nichols and who may quite well have read the Lloyds article. If you say that it is a "historically correct" way of going about finding out who may have been guilty in a murder case, I would like to take the opportunity to point out that it could well be the exact opposite - a surefire way not to be able to find out what really happened.

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

To me, this is a classic example of square thinking, a ridiculous approach to a problem that needs to be looked at with an open eye for all possibilities. Locking oneself to a dogmatic rule thinking was never a good thing, and in my view, it can achieve one thing only: a certainty that the case will never be solved.

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.

I am quite fine with you exploring this route to wisdom, Steve, but that is not in any way going to stop me from using other paths. And I do NOT appreciate being called biased for it, so I would very much like if you could accept that and let us both move on. In the end, I say let the results decide which is the better way. Results are hard to argue with.

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


Steve

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;n709961]

The problem of course is that you start from suspecting him, and follow with somewhat circular argument, you do not trust him because you think he is the killer, and because he is the killer he cannot be trusted.

You see I do not just look at what Lechmere says, I compare it to the known evidence, rather than speculation, and see if it can be corroborated. Following that method I see No reason not to trust the majority of what Lechmere says.

I can understand if it does not sit well with a more academic approach, based on the belief that nobody should be treated as a suspect at any stage; it is only when a case is proven that we may look in the mirror and see how the new outcome fits the old thinking.

It is a very nice way to treat people, generally speaking, and a comfortable working ethic since if dissolves the idea that suspects exist.

On a more realistic level, though, I think that it is absolutely useless when it comes to trying to establish the validity of a suspicion.


My cosy world? You mean the one where theories have to be tested, and seen to stand or fall.

I believe there is ample non circumstantial evidence to suggest that Mizen is not telling a truthful account of what occurs from the moment he meets the Carmen until he meets Neil.


Steve

Wrong again. I do NOT start from suspecting him, I start from finding that there is REASON to suspect him, and then I work from there. It is not, it has never been and it will never be a case of him having been plucked out of thin air for no reason at all. There are numerous elements that do not seem right, and THAT is what lies behind the suspicions I entertain. Once more, "he is somebody a jury would not like". And why is that? Scobie explains that too: "he is someone who is acting in a suspicious way".

You personally have managed to persuade yourself that there is nothing at all suspicious about him, and that is something I cannot alter, it would seem. But I CAN point out that it is a lie to say that I begin with suspecting Lechmere and then go looking for a reason to do so.

Your cozy little world is one where a person under suspicion of being a killer is allowed to free himself by saying that he is not. You choose to uncritically believe him, and that is the end of that.

Claiming that this is some sort of discerning approach to solving a murder case may tickle your own ego, but since it is useless in terms of investigative work and more likely than not an obstacle to understanding matters I really donīt buy into it at all. I of course realize that you will argue that I am ready and willing to remove anything that looks like an obstacle to my theory, but that was always to be expected. That is how you argue.

Me, Iīm done arguing for today.

[Elamarna]

Again no, suggesting a theory is not being biased. There is no bias whatsoever in pointing to how Paul MAY have been out of earshot and how that means that the theory MAY be correct in this respect. It is the plain and simple truth that this may have been so. Claiming that pointing that out is biased is professing to not understanding the processes involved.

It is indeed bias when one ignores the sources, here that both Carmen claim they spoke to Mizen, in favour of the speculation and invention of Paul MAY have been out of earshot.

The problem is there is NO source to back this suggestion up, therefore it is based on belief, not fact, and is bias.


steve

[Elamarna]

What you see is how I say that it must be accepted that the PC in case may have told the truth. But you prefer to word it as if I am saying that we MUST believe the PC over the carman.
It is called misleading and it is closely linked to propaganda.

So are you then not saying that any of the 3 participants could be telling the truth?

If so why would you accept the word of 1 over the other two, particularly when you have rejected that persons view over one of the other two on a related issue?

That you now suggest propaganda is being deployed is utterly astonishing, it speaks volumes about the mindset.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Yup, it's an exercise in futility. When Lechmere does anything remotely suspicious, it's because he's the killer. When he does anything perfectly innocent, it's because he's the killer. You simply can't have a rational debate with a suspect-based theorist. They are blinded by confirmation bias.

What do we think? That Fisherman is going to turnaround and proclaim "Damn, you've provided some strong and cogent arguments, perhaps I need to re-evaluate my convictions" or do we think he'll just double-down on the Lechmere as Ripper stuff?

I would once again like to point out that it is grossly unfair (and more than a tad dumb) to claim that my thinking goes along the axis "Lechmere is the killer, therefore this is suspicious". It goes along the line "This is suspicious, therefore it adds to the idea that Lechmere could be the killer". After all, that IS how a good case is built, and this is a good enough case to take to court, remember? If, that is, Scobie was able to produce some strong and cogent thinking.

If you like to point me to any of the "strong and cogent" arguments you seem to see for the carmans innocence, I would be happy to scrutinize them. Is it the "he would have run" argument again that you see as strong and cogent? If so, yes, he could have run but he must not have is my answer. Again.
Maybe that is not strong and cogent, though?

Do expand, Harry.