Lechmere validity

[JeffHamm]

Look at all those possible escape routes for the killer.

Yes, there are quite a few to choose from. We know PC Neil signals PC Thain as he passed the far end of Buck's Row, so it is not unreasonable to presume that if JtR were at the body when Cross/Lechmere entered Buck's Row from that same end, he would be aware of that. Then it's just a matter of choosing your exit of preference.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

The point Lechmere/Cross and Paul leave the body and get to PC Mizen takes about 3 minutes for them to travel, and that would place PC Neil at the red arrow heading west into Cross. Again, this affords the opportunity for Lechmere/Cross and Paul to pass through Buck's Row and towards PC Mizen without PC Neil seeing them (and vice versa).

Great job again, Jeff. However, I'm not sure that Neil "heading west into Cross Street" would work. Cross Street was about 25-26 yards (23-24 meters) long and the stretch from Queen Ann Street to Thomas Street via Buck's Row about 47-49 yards (43-45 meters). Neil, walking at a speed of 2.5 miles/hr (4 km/hr), would cover Cross Street in some 21-22 seconds, while for the carmen to cover the stretch between Queen Ann St. & Thomas St. in a maximum of 21 seconds they would need to "walk" at a speed of 4.5 miles/hr (7.2 km/hr). While not impossible, I don't think that would be realistic. Also because Cross Street was only 43 to 53 yards (40 to 50 meters) away from Buck's Row, where the carmen walked. All well within hearing distance, I'd say. I think a (more) realistic scenario would be if Neil was just inside Elizabeth's Place (on his way out) or a little north of it on Queen Ann Street.

All the best,
Frank

[JeffHamm]

Hi Frank,

Yah, I've got the arrow a bit high I think (I just remeasured), he would be about 2 houses south, returning up Queen Anne Street, and after a minute he's not quite out into Buck's Row (just starting to come to the last property, the Smithy). Cross and Paul would only make it to Queen Anne Street, so they would have bumped into each other at that point. I guess I was thinking "that works within measurement error range". However, if Cross/Lechmere and Paul leave say a minute earlier, and PC Neil is up around Elizabeth where you were suggesting. (This is based on PC Neil walking at 2.8, which completes his route in 30 minutes. At 2.5 at T-3 minutes he would be mid-way on Cross Street and exit into Buck's Row at T-2 minutes, well before Cross/Lechmere and Paul get passed him. But again, if they leave towards PC Mizen around T-4, it's good, though tight as he's passing heading up Queen Anne towards Cross Street as they go by Queen Anne (but it's angle would mean they might not see him), and they pass him as he traverses Cross Street. PI agreen, how the sound carries through those streets would be important to know.

I'm keen on finding the cut off (the minimum), which upon this closer analysis (thanks) for this beat looks about T-4 rather than T-3.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

Great job again, Jeff. However, I'm not sure that Neil "heading west into Cross Street" would work. Cross Street was about 25-26 yards (23-24 meters) long and the stretch from Queen Ann Street to Thomas Street via Buck's Row about 47-49 yards (43-45 meters). Neil, walking at a speed of 2.5 miles/hr (4 km/hr), would cover Cross Street in some 21-22 seconds, while for the carmen to cover the stretch between Queen Ann St. & Thomas St. in a maximum of 21 seconds they would need to "walk" at a speed of 4.5 miles/hr (7.2 km/hr). While not impossible, I don't think that would be realistic. Also because Cross Street was only 43 to 53 yards (40 to 50 meters) away from Buck's Row, where the carmen walked. All well within hearing distance, I'd say. I think a (more) realistic scenario would be if Neil was just inside Elizabeth's Place (on his way out) or a little north of it on Queen Ann Street.

All the best,
Frank

The Issue here is frank, where we measure from, i see you say 47-49 yards between queen Ann and Thomas, and so it is from the middle of the road, but if you are closer to the buildings its 37-39. i have that distance being covered at 3.5mph in about 23 seconds.
its interesting how little changes make such big differences in speed.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

Why would the police notice Abby?

let's assume that the killer did not go back East, or else he may have been seen by not just Lechmere but Paul too.

Mizen is probably either in Hanbury street or Old Montague, some comments by Lech and Paul suggest, no more, that he may have come from Old Montague, its not certain, but is actually unimportant for this specific discussion. The killer if not Lech, he would need to walk right past him, taking the same route Mizen is on for him to be seen. In addition, mizen does not state he had seen on one else on his beat that morning.

In Neil's case, he would need to again be at the precise location the killer took, when the killer passed.


Every 30 minutes the junction of Bakers Row/Whites Row is cover for only a minute or so as Neil and Mizen approach it.

Brady street is the same with Thain and Neil.

The 3 exits onto Whitechapel Road, 4 if you count Nelson Ct, are covered only by Neil, his attention will be on each for only a few seconds, and indeed he does say that while in the Whitechapel road he did see people, the killer could have been one of these, Not suggesting it was, but it cannot be conclusively ruled out.

Contrary to what is claimed the police presence was not heavy. it would be highly coincidental, and unlikely for the killer to have passed one of the 3 police officers for the limited time they were in the area.



Steve

hi el, strange and hamm

and yet the fact remains no other potential suspects at the stride scene:

tabram: soldiers from pearly poll and cop

chapman: man seen talking to chapman from long

Stride: a veritable plethora of potential suspects-marsalls man, smiths man, BS man, pipeman, Leon Goldstein etc

Eddowes: sailor man seen by lawende and co

Kelly: Barnett, blotchy, hutch, aman, Bethanl Green Botherer

Nichols-nada. except lech. and phantom ripper. just saying.

[Elamarna]

hi el, strange and hamm

and yet the fact remains no other potential suspects at the stride scene:

tabram: soldiers from pearly poll and cop

chapman: man seen talking to chapman from long

Stride: a veritable plethora of potential suspects-marsalls man, smiths man, BS man, pipeman, Leon Goldstein etc

Eddowes: sailor man seen by lawende and co

Kelly: Barnett, blotchy, hutch, aman, Bethanl Green Botherer

Nichols-nada. except lech. and phantom ripper. just saying.

Very little to say that many of those were actually related to the murders, the best two would seem to be Cadosch and Schwartz.

Of course if you recall Pierre claimed that Lechmere saw the killer dressed as a policeman, sorry Abby


Steve

[APerno]

Has anyone tried to put PC Mizen in the frame?

On why he hesitated to "return" to the murder scene.

Going with the title of this thread and giving Lechmere as much credibility as Paul, Mizen's behavior that night, and at inquest becomes odd if not disturbing. His slowness to react in particular, as if he didn't want to be the first PC on the scene and knew PC Neil would be passing by shortly.)

I know, it's all speculation, I concede, but it's mine. I'm continuing anyway . . . he had the opportunity to drift into PC Neil's bordering patrol route at his leisure, most often knowing the whereabouts of PC Neil at any given moment.

He hits a target and walks away, back to work. Found over the body, no problem really; found with a knife, so long as fresh blood isn't dripping from it, no cop will question another cop about carry protection.

He is just the right distance from the scene when Cross and Paul catch up to him; he gives off an odd indifference to the news (especially if either of the two (now credible) men actually did use the word 'dead.'

Of course he does have a serious blood problem; he better be damn good at avoiding the spray; he would actually have blood on his hands; then again did anyone note if Polly Nichols apron was intact?

What we need to know, step one: Did Mizen have an patrol route bordering PC Barrett the night of Martha Tabram? Step two: Where was Mizen's patrol assignment the night of Kate?

He has to be on a possible bordering patrol route for both nights for it to get interesting. I wonder if such information exists?

Anyway, Mizen is strong on opportunity, but weak on means.

That doesn't make him a ripper . . . but Lechmere's validity does make him a really bad PC.

[JeffHamm]

hi el, strange and hamm

and yet the fact remains no other potential suspects at the stride scene:

tabram: soldiers from pearly poll and cop

chapman: man seen talking to chapman from long

Stride: a veritable plethora of potential suspects-marsalls man, smiths man, BS man, pipeman, Leon Goldstein etc

Eddowes: sailor man seen by lawende and co

Kelly: Barnett, blotchy, hutch, aman, Bethanl Green Botherer

Nichols-nada. except lech. and phantom ripper. just saying.

True, but Tabram was out with Pearly Poll (auto -witness) while Nichols was alone. The others, as indicated, were in much more crowded areas, with more activity, so greater probability of there being a witness. Nichols, on the other hand, was alone, in a relatively quiet area, and all the potential witnesses seem accounted for. And, from the examinations, it looks fairly easy to understand how he might not have been seen in the Nichols case.

Now, even then, there were people who came forward suggesting they saw Nichols earlier with a man, however, those appear to have been discounted (i.e. it wasn't Nichols they saw). That is the argument that goes on today with many of the sightings from the other murders, and there are some who would discount all the sightings as erroneous and so to them there's nothing different with Nichols.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

The Issue here is frank, where we measure from, i see you say 47-49 yards between queen Ann and Thomas, and so it is from the middle of the road, but if you are closer to the buildings its 37-39. i have that distance being covered at 3.5mph in about 23 seconds.
its interesting how little changes make such big differences in speed.


Steve

Hi Steve,

I didn't measure from the middle of the road, but from the most easterlly point of Q. Ann Street to the most westerly point of Thomas Street, as the carmen had to pass both streets without being steen by Neil. In other words, my measurement includes the width of both streets.

All the best,
Frank

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I didn't measure from the middle of the road, but from the most easterlly point of Q. Ann Street to the most westerly point of Thomas Street, as the carmen had to pass both streets without being steen by Neil. In other words, my measurement includes the width of both streets.

All the best,
Frank

Explains it, I have measured from eastern side of queen Ann to eastern side of Thomas, and western side of QA to Thomas. I agree it's more problematic to argue they pass while he is in cross street, but not impossible.
I still prefer that he is north of the bend in QA, coming south. If he is in Elizabeth Place or still going north, it means he arrives so long after the carmen leave, Mizen should be there first, and his not.

Just finished the last draft of the book in the last 30 mins, just a bit of tiding up, and checking of all the hyperlinks to do.


Steve

[JeffHamm]

Explains it, I have measured from eastern side of queen Ann to eastern side of Thomas, and western side of QA to Thomas. I agree it's more problematic to argue they pass while he is in cross street, but not impossible.
I still prefer that he is north of the bend in QA, coming south. If he is in Elizabeth Place or still going north, it means he arrives so long after the carmen leave, Mizen should be there first, and his not.

Just finished the last draft of the book in the last 30 mins, just a bit of tiding up, and checking of all the hyperlinks to do.


Steve

Hi all,

Also, Queen Anne from Buck's Row to Cross is not perpendicular, but on an angle. That means the view from Buck's Row won't extend to Cross Street in all likelihood, so PC Neil could be roughly only half way to Cross Street and the Car Men, if they just glance up to see, could miss him. And they will then pass Thomas before PC Neil rounds the corner from Cross onto Thomas, and they proceed west (on the assumption that's the beat of course). It's awfully tight I know, but looking for the limit here.

And we've estimated around 3 minutes for the carmen to get to PC Mizen at an above average walking speed. They don't really sound like they conveyed an emergency, so at best PC Mizen will proceed at an average walking speed I would think, meaning he takes more than that to get there (say 3:30). Add a bit of time for the conversation, and possibly for him to knock up the last few houses, and PC Mizen's journey easily could be more in the 5 minute range (that's only an extra 1 min 30 sec after the car men first meet him after all). That gives PC Neil a bit more time to be in a more easily missed part of his northern beat.

While the exact details can only be guessed at, it's these northern bits of Thomas, Cross, and Queen Anne that make missing PC Neil less mysterious. Prior to this, I thought he was just coming up from Whitechappel, into Buck's Row, and straight to Nichols, which meant Cross/Lechmere and Paul had to pretty much get to PC Mizen before PC Neil rounds the corner from Whitechappel. With him in those upper streets, that relieves a lot of the "how could that happen" feel about it.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

On this thread it has (among other things) been stated that:

- the theory about how the carman may have lied to Mizen is something that I have personally "made up". (Patrick S)

- experts in a documentary will always adjust to what the ones presenting a theory in that documentary claims or suggests. (same source)

- when a theory involves layers of speculation, that promotes/invites dishonesty. (Steve)

- disagreeing with a PC the way Lechmere did is consistent with innocence. (Gut)

- it is a proven thing that Jonas Mizen was either a liar or a misleader. (Dr Strange)

The reason I mention this is because I intend to avoid debating with people who express these kinds of things in the future. Not because they need no correction but because correcting them is a waste of time.

This is not to say that I am not going to partake in the debate forthwith. I will, arguably beginning with the upcoming book by Drew Gray, since it makes a case I believe must be made - the one of a common originator in the two murder series of the Ripper and the Torso killer. I bank upon how many debaters of an entirely different ilk than the ones mentioned above will participate, mainly because no other issue at hand has such an importance for our overall understanding of the events in victorian London.

I hope Mr Gray is anticipating that it will be claimed that his theory is something he quite simply has made up, and that whatever experts he may or may not have employed are of no interest at all since they will all have been told to agree with himself about whatever he may say in the book. Equally, I hope he is prepared for having his honesty questioned if he presents a thinking that involved more than one layer of speculation, that it will be claimed that whatever detail he chooses to point to that cannot be conclusively proven to point to guilt will instead be described out here as being "consistent with innocence" and that he is prepared for having it claimed that those he believe are the good guys of the drama will all be pointed out was liars and/or misleaders if they have - accidentally, unimportantly or not - left something out of their respective testimonies.

My prediction is that he is not likely to become a frequent poster on these boards. The fewest are, when it comes to Charles Lechmere. It is as if those who do not produce the kind of breakthrough thinking elucidated above avoid the company offered on many - or most - of the Lechmere threads.

Myself, I will not avoid the threads. Whenever I find it of importance to parttake, I will. But I will be choosy when it comes to who I find it worthwhile discussing with. My favorite opponents would be those who disagree with me and who are able to intelligibly express logically based criticism in a friendly manner.

I look forward to that.

[John G]

I don't think Drew Gray will make anything up but, although I reserve judgment, I fear that it maybe another horse before cart book, i.e instead of looking at the facts and seeing where they lead, you start with a theory and then attempt to mould the facts around the theory.

Dr Rubenhold is another social historian who's written a "Ripper" book, and I note that it has faced significant criticism.

As I say, I reserve judgment.

[Fisherman]

I don't think Drew Gray will make anything up but, although I reserve judgment, I fear that it maybe another horse before cart book, i.e instead of looking at the facts and seeing where they lead, you start with a theory and then attempt to mould the facts around the theory.

Dr Rubenhold is another social historian who's written a "Ripper" book, and I note that it has faced significant criticism.

As I say, I reserve judgment.

Nobody who presents a theory based on the evidence should be described as "making things up", John - it is indecent to do so. Whether it is a horse before the cart book or not is something we will find out soon, but I would point out that bolstering a theory you have with facts is not putting the horse before the cart - it is exactly what it seems, bolstering a theory you have by facts. I find that totally uncontroversial and as it should be.

[John G]

Nobody who presents a theory based on the evidence should be described as "making things up", John - it is indecent to do so. Whether it is a horse before the cart book or not is something we will find out soon, but I would point out that bolstering a theory you have with facts is not putting the horse before the cart - it is exactly what it seems, bolstering a theory you have by facts. I find that totally uncontroversial and as it should be.

Of course, I should have said, "cart before horse". Getting my idiom mixed up! For the record, Christer, we often disagree but I don't think you're dishonest. Passions are clearly running high on this thread, but any suggestion to the contrary are clearly unfortunate.