Lechmere validity

[drstrange169]

>> I really liked the presentation of the beats and and journeys between Nichols and PC Mizen (but I like that sort of thing).<<

Yes, as I commented at the time, it was technically really well done.
Shame though that the beats and the journey were wrong.

[Elamarna]

>> I really liked the presentation of the beats and and journeys between Nichols and PC Mizen (but I like that sort of thing).<<

Yes, as I commented at the time, it was technically really well done.
Shame though that the beats and the journey were wrong.

Neil's beat has shown does not even match his own testimony. of course a shorter beat reinforces the impression of a heavy police presence.


Steve

[JeffHamm]

jeff, i made it 1023 yard, which is close enough, but there is a route which is only 957 yards, have walked these routes myself, quickly, and both under ten minutes, however i can happily live with around 10minutes, so around 20 at least for the return, and possibly longer .



Steve

Yah, the route people choose, and the shortest possible route, are not always the same. Every "turn" makes a route "seem" longer (quotes for emphasis), and it is what the distance "seems to be" rather than what it actually "is" that often guides behavior and choices. I picked a route that "seemed to me" to be ok. Of course, I also don't know what individual streets might "seem like". In the end, though, all routes will probably boil down to "around 10 minutes", with the absolute minimum distance devolving into arguments over speed to get time, etc. But what we have to work with is a range, and for an estimate that minimizes how wrong we are, it looks like in the vicinity of 10 minutes. All the evidence we have to work with is "as rough as guts", so if we're within pedantic range of each other, I think that's about as best as we can do.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Neil's beat has shown does not even match his own testimony. of course a shorter beat reinforces the impression of a heavy police presence.


Steve

Oh. I had wanted to avoid that line. I recall about 15 or more years ago talking about the beats around Nichol's murder and at the time they weren't known (or people were saying they weren't). I had taken the presentation as indicating that something justified them (I was thinking about creating them, but couldn't be bothered to program in "and now we don't know where they are, but they reappear here x minutes later", not because it was hard, but because I had other things to do. I'm behind where the current knowledge is, and clearly, my skepticism meter needs re-calibrating. A shame, that was something that was quite impressive, but I suppose, that should have raised that flag.

- Jeff

[Patrick S]

The problem for Christer is, he's tripped up by his own theories.

Mizen is a paragon of truth and accuracy when it suits him in one argument, but Mizen's a confused witness when Christer argues a different point.

This is the theme throughout. The same applies to Paul. Dead-balls accurate when he says "exactly 345am", a "big-upping police-hater" when he's not useful to the silly "dupes" and "scams" and "theories"...

According to Christer, Mizen had no idea of the time, despite the fact he was actually engaged in knocking people up and giving them the time when Cross and Paul met him. In that case, unreliable Mizen is trumped by the highly reliable Lloyd's article.

We're also told to the Lloyd's article is highly UN-reliable as it pertains to Paul's description of Nichols' being "cold" and postulating that she was left on the pavement for some time and his marginalizing Cross to a great extent... BUT!... it contains the ONLY time worth trusting of the whole lot... simply because Paul's comments do not aid his blood "evidence" (point of fact: there IS NO blood evidence in this case) but his timings do - in Christer's view - aid his attempt to put Cross in Buck's Row when he wants him in Buck's Row.

And so, we have an example of the quality of of Christer thoeries and research acumen.

To be fair to Christer, all the research acumen in the world couldn't keep this thing afloat.

Above bold.

[Patrick S]

It results in cherry picking when one refuses to acknowledge the disconfirming evidence. But, when you approach the goal of discussions as being won when you win over more people's beliefs rather than when you've uncovered how things really are, it's a rhetorical device. It's also why Fisherman often tries to get people to agree, or claims people agree with him, because those are the "points" that keep score. Even the resorting to insults, and the over-sensitivity to perceived insults, are rhetorical devices because by denigrating the other you have the chance of lowering the probability that others will take them seriously and you try and inflame the other so they make mistakes, and by presenting yourself as the victim, you try and win over by generating sympathy. Rhetorical argument is about convincing others, not about discovery and understanding.



Oh, I may have misunderstood or misremembered how it was presented in the documentary, but I thought he was involved in tracing those links down.

- Jeff

The documentary does lead one to the conclusion that Christer made the "name discovery". He didn't. He gladly accepted my compliments for his having done so over the years, though. I've since learned that, as Dr. Strange pointed out, all Christer has done is aid in crafting the scams and dupes, hypothoses based on nothing that Cross was a psychopath, a life-long serial killer, on and on. I suppose that deserves credit, for inventiveness and originality of nothing else.

[Elamarna]

Oh. I had wanted to avoid that line. I recall about 15 or more years ago talking about the beats around Nichol's murder and at the time they weren't known (or people were saying they weren't). I had taken the presentation as indicating that something justified them (I was thinking about creating them, but couldn't be bothered to program in "and now we don't know where they are, but they reappear here x minutes later", not because it was hard, but because I had other things to do. I'm behind where the current knowledge is, and clearly, my skepticism meter needs re-calibrating. A shame, that was something that was quite impressive, but I suppose, that should have raised that flag.

- Jeff

Jeff

Yes the graphics are very impressive.
And while we can still not be 100% certain of the beats in J Division we have the testimony of Neil himself , which includes Bakers Row, and a press article, The echo 21st Sept which seems too detailed to be completely invention.

On the distances we are close enough to each other to make little difference.


Steve

[Patrick S]

For example, if I speculate that the killer was a psychopath ( a very reasonable speculation, given the ratio of psychopaths within the serial killer ranks and the character of the Ripper deeds), then of course further speculation about how a psychopath could act in a given situation is something that is extremely useful to explore different paths that our man could have chosen.

If one cannot see the issues with this approach, there's no real argument to be had.

This scenario BEGINS with the idea that Cross killed Nichols (and virtually everyone else in the East End between between 1870 and 1900), then makes him a psychopath in order to explain behavior that otherwise is perfectly consistent with his being perfectly sane and having found a woman lying on the pavement, alerting a passer-by, telling the police, appearing the inquest.

You invent scenario upon scenario, nonsensical explanation upon another... to explain the premise you BEGIN with. What is KNOWN doesn't lead to the idea that Cross was Jack the Ripper. For that, we must ASSUME he was, thus he was a psychopath as well, and then view everything known through that lens. I'm afraid this isn't laughable... but there are other words. I won't use them here.

[Patrick S]

You see, if Lechmere was the killer, and if he did not want a full scale murder hunt for his person to get launched - and yes, I speculate that this could well have happened if he stayed away - then he may have chosen to report into the cop shop and try to dissolve that picture before it had been fully formed.

What on Earth would lead anyone to the idea that a "full scale murder hunt" would be launched to find "Charles Cross"? What was known then is what is known now: He stopped Paul, alerted him to Nichols on the pavement, reported what he found to the police. We're asked to believe that Cross was flushed from hiding to the inquest because Paul mentioned him, "a man". Clearly, Paul's statement in Lloyd's should have had him turning cartwheels, were he a killer. He's nearly removed from the narrative and he is - most importantly - COMPLETELY un-described. And he feared a "murder hunt"? Absurd.

[Patrick S]

Anything that is consistent with innocence is a good indicator of innocence. That was the exact thing you were trying to lead on, remember?

And no, it was not and could never be consistent with innocence to disagree with a PC the way Lechmere did.

So.. if a PC is mistaken or not truthful and one disagrees with him - even if that disagreement is corroborated by a complete stranger - then, what, one is likely guilty of some crime in that this behavior is "never consistent with innocence"? Well, then Robert Paul must be closely looked at. His "exact time" disagrees with Mizen's. And, as we now know "it was not and could never be consistent with innocence to disagree with a PC".

[Patrick S]

That would be in post 287, where you quoted me and replied like this:

(my words) >> ... Dr Strange must prove that Mizen lied and/or misled for his view to be considered?<<

(your answer) The newspaper reports prove that that was the case, I don't need to prove anything, it's there for all to read.

I now realize that you said lied or MISLED, and so you have sort of a point for once.

Not that it means anything much. Because the newspaper reports do not prove that Mizen either lied or misled at all.

They prove that he did not mention Paul before Baxter asked about him, that's all. And if Paul did not partake in the discussion at all, and if he was not even close at it took place, then why should Mizen mention him? More pertinently, how do we know that he would not mention hem later in his testimony? We will never find out, since Baxter got ahead of any such measure.

The REAL focus should not lie on any speculative idea that Mizen must have lied or misled about it, it should lie ion exactly WHY he did not mention Paul before he was asked about him. And on that score, my suggestion that Paul was not partaking verbally or physically in the discussion becomes a very useful bid.

Now DO try and employ a less foul way of addressing your opponents - it will make for a better atmosphere and maybe somebody will actually listen to you. If you don't shape up, I won't be one of them, though.

Shape up or you'll be put on the naughty list. Thus, you won't be treated to Christer's insults and abuse... as he demands respect, deference, and hero worship. Take it from me... it ain't half bad.

[Patrick S]

And how would he NOT have misled them by committing that perjury?

Do you EVER think before typing?

I really cannot keep this up, I am feeling nauseated. Maybe tomorrow. But maybe not you.

I'd feel nauseated too if I preached a thing as if it were simple and plain, easily understood, logical and sound... and NO ONE else looking at the same information felt likewise. Not even remotely. This should tell you something.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff

Yes the graphics are very impressive.
And while we can still not be 100% certain of the beats in J Division we have the testimony of Neil himself , which includes Bakers Row, and a press article, The echo 21st Sept which seems too detailed to be completely invention.

Ah, while I know the press is not the best source, if it's all we have, I might just have a play with that. Sigh, looking at old code puts the lie to the belief that "code is self explanatory and does not require comments." I don't know if I should thank you with a pint, or pour it over you! ha ha. Much obliged, he says knowing the answer.

On the distances we are close enough to each other to make little difference.

Steve

Yah, well, objective things are easy to agree upon (or at least, should be!). I think, though, in all seriousness, that in an area with few facts to work with, the more that can be put together the better. It's the data that constrains our unbounded creativity.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

Just reading PC Neil's testimony (as reported in The Times, Sept 3, 1888), where it states " ... Witness then heard a constable passing Brady-street, and he called to him. Witness said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn." Seeing another constable in Baker's-row, witness despatched him for the ambulance. ...", the first being PC Thain, the 2nd being PC Mizen.

It just occurred to me, we know PC Neil became aware of PC Thain at the end of Brady Street as he passed, so JtR, who would also be on alert, should likewise have been aware of Cross/Lechmere when he entered Brady Street (on the assumption that JtR was even still there of course), and so easily leave the scene. Cross/Lechmere isn't on alert, so would have no reason to take notice of someone down the street in the dark heading away from him.

Of course, that also suggests that if Cross/Lechmere were JtR he decided to hang around when Paul entered from Brady street as well (and not just when he was 30 =- 40 yards away), which negates any argument that Cross/Lechmere as JtR didn't have an option to flee (neither does 30-40 yards prevent that option, but still).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Ok, based on a story in The Echo (Sept 21, 1888; Thanks for the pointer Steve!), I've traced out what appears to be PC Neil's beat. It's described like this:

...the third constable would commence at Brady street, cover Whitechapel road, Baker's row, Thomas street, Queen Anne street, and Buck's row, to Brady street, and all the interior, this consisting of about ten streets, courts, passage, &c....

So, I've traced around those streets and up and back down "all the interior" streets and passages. I've made one or two judgement calls, such as only the N-S bit of Thomas Street, as another PC in Baker's Row I'm assuming would do the E-W portion, and I'm assuming he doesn't go all the way back down Thomas but cuts over to Queen Anne Street, does that, then back to Buck's Row. His patrol would be in a clockwise direction.

The total distance (in yards) is 2,297.4 (2100.735 metres), which works out to about 2.6 miles per hour (76.7 y/min) patrol speed if it takes him 30 minutes as testified. That's a bit slower than the average walking speed, which to me makes sense. If PC Neil finds Nichols at about the same time that Cross/Paul meet PC Mizen (as per the testimonies I believe), and given it appears to take about 3 minutes for Cross/Paul to cover the distance from Nichols to PC Mizen (they're estimated walking speed is 3.6 mph, a bit faster than average walking speed, which makes sense as they are late for work), then if we backtrack PC Neil 3 minutes from finding Nichols he would be around the red line, going towards Buck's Row.

Cross/Lechmere and Paul would be passed Queen Anne Street before he makes the bend, so neither would see the other, and when Neil makes it to Buck's Row and turns east, Cross/Lechmere and Paul would be turning north on Baker's Row. This starts to make more sense to me as it seemed almost impossible for Cross/Lechmere and Paul to have come from Nichols to PC Mizen and not cross paths with PC Neil, if he just came up Baker's Row and turned into Buck's Row and just went east. Those northern streets put him "out of the way" while Lechmere/Cross pass through.

It also means, that JtR could have seen PC Neil come up and turn up Thomas Street, long before either Cross/Lechmere or Paul enter Buck's Row. JtR then might have fled east, rather than west if that were the case. Mind you, knowing PC Neil has just gone north, he might dash passed heading west figuring he's got time before PC Neil's return. Hard to say as anything is possible.

Oh, and remember, this is all assuming the newspaper report of the beat is accurate, that I've not missed anything, and all other such cautions.

- Jeff