Lechmere misinterpreted

[Columbo]

Hi,

I have analysed the narrative given by Lechmere at the Nichols inquest and I believe that Lechmere has been misinterpreted.

The misinterpretation has lead to the hypothesis of the so called "Mizen scam", and it has also given the wrong idea of what happened on the night when Polly Nichols was murdered.

I will now give my interpretation of the narrative, as it was written down in The Daily Telegraph, September 3, 1888.

I quote the text and make comments on it directly:



No comments.



This is the reason why Charles Lechmere tells Mizen that Mizen is wanted by another policeman.



There is nothing indicating that Lechmere or Paul had decided to go and look actively for a policeman. There is nothing in this narrative that suggests an active search was intended or indeed made. On the contrary, the narrative contain the words "they met", which means that it was a random event. The consequence of that random event was, very obviously, that Lechmere and Paul ("they"!) had to tell the police what they had seen. And heard. So this is what they did.



The sentence about not seeing a policeman in Buck´s Row is no lie. They did not see a policeman in Buck´s Row. They "heard a policeman coming". And that is what they told Mizen.

Mizen got it a bit wrong when he interpreted the narrative on the night of the murder. So Mizen did not lie at the inquest. And he did not have to be in a great hurry to get to the murder site either. The reason why he did not run to the murder site in a hurry, was that the carmen had heard a policeman coming. That was Neil.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

I can't say I agree with you but I will be forthright and tell you its definitely an interesting hypothesis and I applaud the thought and effort
put into it.

Columbo

[Columbo]

G'Day GUT,

It happens here all the time too - a celebrity will get some degree for his achievements (as a sports hero, movie star, television star, rarely for something academic or involving some type of improvement for the human race). They usually make a speech at the spring graduation ceremonies regarding their views or what the graduating class should aim at bringing to the future society. Real uplift (yeah, really!).

I have only come across one American who actually demonstrated some really sensible humility about this kind of crap! Of all people Millard Fillmore. Fillmore had been our 13th President from 1850 to 1853, and had done a mostly forgettable job at it, but by pushing the Compromise of 1850 through he did delay the American Civil War by 11 years (and he did send Commodore Perry to "open" Japan to western trade). To put his ratings (usually low among U.S. historians) as President, he is probably the best President who served in the 1850s. However, that means little. His alternatives are the two inept successors Pierce and Buchanan, and his predecessor (General Zachary Taylor) actually might have been the best President of the decade had he lived because he was an unswerving nationalist who would have crushed any secession attempts - but he died in 1850 during the debates over the Compromise. Unlike Taylor's committment to keep the Union in tact (come hell or high water) Fillmore was more maleable. He also did not mind really enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act because he had little use for the rights of African-Americans.

Fillmore failed to be nominated in 1852 to run for the Presidency by his Whig Party. In 1856 he ran for President as the candidate of the anti-Catholic, anti-Immigrant "Know Nothing" Party, and while defeated, he had actually got the electoral votes of the state of Maryland - an achievement for a 19th Century "third party" actually. But he was a realist about himself, and knew his limitations.

In 1858 he and his second wife were vacationing in Great Britain, when he was offered a doctorate by Oxford University. Did he eagerly seize the opportunity and accept it? No. For a change, Millard did the right thing - he thanked them for the offer, but said he didn't deserve such an honor because he never had any achievement that merited it. That, to me, is possibly the most honest assessment on these honorary gifts anyone has ever given for them.

Jeff

Didn't Fillmore cut up some whores?

Columbo

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

I can't say I agree with you but I will be forthright and tell you its definitely an interesting hypothesis and I applaud the thought and effort
put into it.

Columbo

Hi Columbo,

thanks. Even if it did not take much of an effort. And another thing. Which is the most probable hypothesis (in statistical terms) that Lechmere was a serial killer who had killed a woman on his way to work or that he found a dead woman on a street on the way to work?

Fisherman thinks it is the first hypothesis and therefore he is unable to explain why Mizen thought that Lechmere had said that there was a policeman waiting for Mizen in Buck´s Row.

But the second hypothesis gives support to the hypothesis that Mizen misinterpreted Lechmere whereas the first hypothesis DEMANDS that you interpret everything you find in favour to the hypothesis that Lechmere was a killer.

And then there is a giant leap - from killer to "serial killer" with no evidence at all.

So the first hypothesis which says that Lechmere was a serial killer is firstly not taking the relevant evidence into considerations - no source criticism - and then it takes this giant leap into a theory with NO support at all. So what Fisherman does is A) Ignoring the relevant sources in the case of Polly Nichols and B) Ignoring the rest of the sources, since they do not give any indications of Lechmere being connected to the rest of the murders.

Very often, small and seemingly innocent things in the sources reveal the most interesting things.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

And by the way, this is from the thread "The Mizen Scam" by Fisherman:

"My suggestion is that Lechmere was very much aware of PC Neil´s beat as he killed Nichols. When Paul turned up, he had a limited time window to come up with a way to leave the spot, and he did so by claiming that he was ALSO late for work, just like Paul. And when the carmen reached Mizen in Hanbury street, Lechmere either chanced that Neil would have had the time to come up via Baker´s Row, turn right into Buck´s Row and find Nichols, or he was actually sure that this would be the case; the distance inbetween the little group Mizen/Lechmere/Paul and Neil, coming up Baker´s Row, would perhaps be a mere 50-60 yards or so, and therefore Lechmere may very well have heard Neil walking his beat, and thus he may actually have known that Neil would find the body."

1. We know nothing about the idea that Lechmere "was very much aware". Nothing. There are no sources at all for that statement. But there are sources stating that the carmen heard a policeman coming. The sources thus give a very simple and realistic explanation, where there is NO NEED to elaborate on extensive ideas of Lechmere having been aware of the beat of a certain policeman while killing a woman in the street.

2. We know nothing about the idea that "Lechmere either chanced that Neil would have had the time to come up via Baker´s Row, turn right into Buck´s Row and find Nichols, or he was actually sure that this would be the case". There are NO sources for that idea. It is all in the head of Fisherman.

And so the statement that they heard a policeman coming, together with the earlier unexplained statement by Mizen that Lechmere told him he was wanted by another PC, makes it clear that a hypothesis about Lechmere being misinterpreted by Mizen is the most probable hypothesis.

It explains why Mizen said what he said, it explains why Lechmere said what he said and why Paul accepted it - and no one was a liar.

[David Orsam]

Pierre, have you considered answering the three questions I asked you in #5?

Doing so will surely test whether your theory makes sense or not.

[Henry Flower]

Which is the most probable hypothesis (in statistical terms) that Lechmere was a serial killer who had killed a woman on his way to work or that he found a dead woman on a street on the way to work?

In statistical terms? Are you actually joking now? In statistical terms?

Someone who most likely had employment and/or lived in or near the Spitalfields area killed those women. That is the statistical likelihood. But ask the same question of any individual in an unsolved case, and the statistical probability is that they were not the killer.

That. Means. Nothing.

If we are dealing with questions as meaningless as that, ask another one:

In an unsolved case, does the fact of a man being found standing over the freshly killed victim, telling several semi-truths to a police officer (or at least making statements so vague as to have been misinterpreted by a police officer) become statistically more likely or less likely to have been the perpetrator of the crime than he was before he was found standing over a bleeding corpse?

Many would say, more likely. Others would say not. It's a meaningless question, this question of statistical probability. Statistical probability has literally no bearing on this, as you would know, if you were a historian /scientist / whatever you claim to be this week.

[David Orsam]

Statistical probability has literally no bearing on this, as you would know, if you were a historian /scientist / whatever you claim to be this week.

Perhaps he's claiming to be a statistician this week.

[Henry Flower]

Perhaps he's claiming to be a statistician this week.

David, I have analysed the Pierre sources, and I believe they do display such a tendency.

[David Orsam]

David, I have analysed the Pierre sources, and I believe they do display such a tendency.

Internal and external source analysis?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;387704]

So let's see what's going on here in Pierre World.

As so very often you write belittling comments, David. Why can´t you manage to discuss with people without attacking them? You are not helping the case. But I will answer your questions here, so others can see the answers.

Q1. What do you make of the fact that where the Daily Telegraph reporter says:

"Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming".

the Star reporter says:

"He suggested they should shift her - set her up against the wall - but witness said, "I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him."

And the Echo reporter says:

"I'm not going to touch her. You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him."

And the Morning Advertiser reporter says:

"He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman."

The only article with an explanatory value is the article in The Daily Telegraph, since this article explains the problem that Mizen, a sworn policeman, believed that he had been told that there was a policeman waiting for him in Buck´s Row whereas Lechmere stated that he did not see a policeman in Buck´s Row.

Do you think Cross was trying to draw a distinction between seeing and hearing a policeman here?

More questions here. Q1a, b and so on. Lechmere was just telling the truth. They did hear a policeman and therefore left the site for work since they were late.

Did he only want to speak to a policeman he could see and not one he could only hear?

Both stated they were late for work. This statement is connected to the historical fact that they did not stay in Buck´s Row to wait for a policeman, since they knew that the policeman would take care of the case when he arrived. That is what the police does.

Or were the Star, Echo and Morning Advertiser reporters engaged in a cover-up do you think?

Of course not. But they were sloppy. They interpreted Lechmere as they wanted, and that is the reason for the theory about Lechmere being a killer and Fisherman constructing a Mizen Scam.

Tendencies here maybe? Or did the Daily Telegraph reporter mishear what Cross said about the policeman at this point in his evidence?

No, The Daily Telegraph, with very high probability, gave the correct details about what happened that night, since it throws light on the problem and solves it.

Q2. What do you make of the fact that Paul said in his evidence: "They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met". With the sound of an approaching officer's footsteps why not just tell that policeman?

It is easy. They left when they heard a policeman since they were both late for work and knew that the policeman would take care of the case.

Q3. What do you make of the fact that the Daily Telegraph reporter also said in a bit of his report that you omitted (which is actually in the 4 September 1888 issue, not 3 September as you posted):

"Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left."

Yes, I assume that is quite correct. That corroborates my conclusion that they left Buck´s Row when they heard a policeman since they were both late for work and understood that the policeman would take care of the case.

If the Daily Telegraph reporter was so accurate should we accept that Cross used the words "There was nobody there" in Bucks Row? In which case, what about those footsteps of the policeman?

THIS is exactly the indication, together with the statement of Mizen, of the misinterpretation. The misinterpretation of Mizen is that he was told there was another policeman there and this was simply confirmed when he saw Neal. When he gave his testimony at the inquest, he just referred to what he had heard (i.e. what he thought he had heard) and what he then saw - Neil. Lechmere and Paul, on the other hand, just happened to meet Mizen on their way to work, and told Mizen that they had heard another policeman coming. That is the testimony. But they did NOT SEE a policeman in Buck´s Row, and therefore Lechmere would not lie about that - why would he? - in court.

Misinterpretations happen a lot in daily life. When this daily life comes to court to be examined, interesting sources are created. The Daily Telegraph throws light on such an event and it therefore has a high explanatory value.

Regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

From scientist to historian to statistician to professional cherry-picker.

[David Orsam]

I'm going to suggest to you Pierre that what you are describing is not normal behaviour.

It's not simply that they "just happened to meet Mizen on their way to work" as you describe it. The evidence is that they decided to tell a policeman. So it was a deliberate intention to tell a policeman about Nichols, even though there was, if you are right, a policeman approaching the body who was about to discover it.

Given that, according to you, they knew there was a policeman approaching, there was no need for them to discuss with each other that they would tell the first policeman they met because the situation was already in hand.

If they knew that there was a policeman approaching the body of Nichols then there was no need to even speak to Mizen when they met him, and force him to stop his job of knocking-up, because they would have believed that there was a policeman on scene who would deal with the situation.

If, on the other hand, they did not believe that the policeman they heard was going to find the body then there was no reason to mention his existence to Mizen.

And in that case, the only thing that Cross could have said to Mizen would be "We've found a woman in Bucks Row, there may or may not be another policeman there who wants you".

Ultimately, the clincher is that when asked during the inquest if he had told Mizen that a policeman wanted him in Bucks Row, the normal answer would be "No, what I said was that there might be a policeman there because of the one I heard walking towards Bucks Row". I appreciate that in Pierre World, the literal answer of "No, because I didn't see a policeman" is a truthful answer (even though it's not quite literal because the question being asked is whether he spoke to a policeman) but it's really not a normal answer that a normal person, who had in fact mentioned a policeman to Mizen, would have given.

[GUT]

From scientist to historian to statistician to professional cherry-picker.

Found his pip now, picking cherries.

[Henry Flower]

I'm going to suggest to you Pierre that what you are describing is not normal behaviour.

Quite normal behaviour - for a robot.

Or for someone who is dissembling for some reason.