Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PC Jonas Mizen

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

    How dare you. Communism!

    And if all serial killers understood the risks and plotted courses through them as you have Cross doing, every potential serial killer would become an actual serial killer, everyone would be killed, and no one would even be suspected of having killed them.

    The point is not whether or not Cross did or did not realize the risks. But, rather that he seems to have anticipated the solutions to risks he himself took for reasons that make no sense IF one assumes he killed Nichols and that his objective was to get away with killing her. In my view, his actions presented no risks and are more understandable if one considers that he did NOT kill Nichols, but did find body lying in Bucks Row.

    To be clear, I certainly don't expect you to agree! And I know you don't expect me to agree. But, I enjoy the debate and I don't begrudge you your opinion or disparage your work around Lechmere. I appreciate your willingness to engage, as well.


    Only I DON´T have Lechmere plotting any courses at all. I have him killing Nichols and then trying as best as he can to get away with it. Everything that happened after the strike was by and large beyond his control, as is inevitably the case. All that can be done is to try and influence the proceedings as they arrive at your doorstep. No beforehand plotting can foresee what is going to happen, least of all if you kill in the open street.

    So your reasoning is working from faulty assumptions. Surely, the more clever and bold a serial killer is, the better chances he will stand to get away with things, but we can all see that if Lechmere was the killer, then he had a lot of luck too. Intelligence, boldness and a quick mind will only take you so far, and after that it is up to chance. Which is why some serial killers who really are not very clever (like Chase and West, for example) manage to get away with things for a long time, while others, clever as they come, have their cars stopped and searched for no reason at all, and they go down.

    Where you get it from that Lechmere seems to have anticipated things, I don't know. To me, it is the other way around. If he HAD anticipated Paul coming along, he would not kill Nichols. If he HAD anticipated that Paul would opt for searching out a PC, he would perhaps not have stayed at the site.
    It is a game that involves chance taking, rather than anticipation. It is not about being proactive, it is about getting your act together as best as you can when things that cannot be foreseen happen.

    It is always likelier that a person will not be a serial killer than the opposite. That goes without saying. But when a serial killer is claiming prey, and a person who has been at a murder site has many points that do not look good at all, then the time may well have come to reconsider. Putting it the Scobie way, "When the coincidences add up - mount up, and they do in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many." Which is exactly what rules how the police think - or SHOULD think - in a case like this.

    You are perfectly correct in you supposition that I don't agree with you, at least not when it comes to the question of whether it is likely or not that the carman killed Nichols. I'm sure that there are other things we may agree on in the case, though. My "willingness to engage" is kind of waning, I'm afraid, but not my passion about the topic. Hopefully, that will keep me afloat.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 04-11-2019, 02:45 PM.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

      Only I DON´T have Lechmere plotting any courses at all. I have him killing Nichols and then trying as best as he can to get away with it. Everything that happened after the strike was by and large beyond his control, as is inevitably the case. All that can be done is to try and influence the proceedings as they arrive at your doorstep. No beforehand plotting can foresee what is going to happen, least of all if you kill in the open street.

      So your reasoning is working from faulty assumptions. Surely, the more clever and bold a serial killer is, the better chances he will stand to get away with things, but we can all see that if Lechmere was the killer, then he had a lot of luck too. Intelligence, boldness and a quick mind will only take you so far, and after that it is up to chance. Which is why some serial killers who really are not very clever (like Chase and West, for example) manage to get away with things for a long time, while others, clever as they come, have their cars stopped and searched for no reason at all, and they go down.

      Where you get it from that Lechmere seems to have anticipated things, I don't know. To me, it is the other way around. If he HAD anticipated Paul coming along, he would not kill Nichols. If he HAD anticipated that Paul would opt for searching out a PC, he would perhaps not have stayed at the site.
      It is a game that involves chance taking, rather than anticipation. It is not about being proactive, it is about getting your act together as best as you can when things that cannot be foreseen happen.

      It is always likelier that a person will not be a serial killer than the opposite. That goes without saying. But when a serial killer is claiming prey, and a person who has been at a murder site has many points that do not look good at all, then the time may well have come to reconsider. Putting it the Scobie way, "When the coincidences add up - mount up, and they do in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many." Which is exactly what rules how the police think - or SHOULD think - in a case like this.

      You are perfectly correct in you supposition that I don't agree with you, at least not when it comes to the question of whether it is likely or not that the carman killed Nichols. I'm sure that there are other things we may agree on in the case, though. My "willingness to engage" is kind of waning, I'm afraid, but not my passion about the topic. Hopefully, that will keep me afloat.
      You don't have him plotting courses? The "Mizen Scam" isn't a course of action? Recruiting Paul as his unwitting dupe and/or police-hating partner in crime isn't a course of action? Refusing to "give her a prop" because that would reveal her wounds? Going with Paul to find a PC? Showing up at the inquest to lie after escaping the scene without so much as being asked his name? These are not courses of action? He may be been reacting to events in real time in some instances. But now you're saying events were beyond his CONTROL? I have to pause on this "beyond his control" idea. Because you've said for years that this man was a psychopath and that he deftly defied the risks by controlling events because that was part of the thrill for him. Willfully courting danger, you said. Is that not a "course of action", as well? Now things were OUT of his control? Is this a change in direction? Are you no longer saying he was a psychopath? I thought quoting your friends to support your position was poor form... this may top it.

      I think what's clear is that you view everything from a perspective that BEGINS with Cross not only being the killer of Nichols but being Jack the Ripper, the Torso Killer, et al. Thus you see every action that occurred through that lens, even if it defies logic. It's not credible to argue otherwise and it's common among those who promote their "suspect" to the exclusion of any other more rational possibility. I saw Scobie's remarks in the documentary. I've said before, as have others, I'd be interested to know the extent of the information he had with respect to your "suspect". I suspect he knew what you told him. He and Griffiths appeared on a television show with the objective of presenting Lechmere as Jack the Ripper and they did a job. I don't think it would have done had one or both of them said, "I don't think this quite works, does it?"

      The documentary was well done and had I been uneducated with respect to these crimes, I'd likely be signing up for message boards, calling my friends, filling social media with the idea that "It was Lechmere what done it". Unfortunately, many of us knew a great deal about Nichols and Cross/Lechmere before your bit of entertainment premiered. Thus, where others may have swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, we noticed that it was presented in a way that was quite one sided and not wholly accurate, if I'm honest.
      Last edited by Patrick S; 04-11-2019, 03:33 PM.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

        You don't have him plotting courses? The "Mizen Scam" isn't a course of action? Recruiting Paul as his unwitting dupe and/or police-hating partner in crime isn't a course of action? Refusing to "give her a prop" because that would reveal her wounds? Going with Paul to find a PC? Showing up at the inquest to lie after escaping the scene without so much as being asked his name? These are not courses of action? He may be been reacting to events in real time in some instances. But now you're saying events were beyond his CONTROL? I have to pause on this "beyond his control" idea. Because you've said for years that this man was a psychopath and that he deftly defied the risks by controlling events because that was part of the thrill for him. Willfully courting danger, you said. Is that not a "course of action", as well? Now things were OUT of his control? Is this a change in direction? Are you no longer saying he was a psychopath? I thought quoting your friends to support your position was poor form... this may top it.

        I think what's clear is that you view everything from a perspective that BEGINS with Cross not only being the killer of Nichols but being Jack the Ripper, the Torso Killer, et al. Thus you see every action that occurred through that lens, even if it defies logic. It's not credible to argue otherwise and it's common among those who promote their "suspect" to the exclusion of any other more rational possibility. I saw Scobie's remarks in the documentary. I've said before, as have others, I'd be interested to know the extent of the information he had with respect to your "suspect". I suspect he knew what you told him. He and Griffiths appeared on a television show with the objective of presenting Lechmere as Jack the Ripper and they did a job. I don't think it would have done had one or both of them said, "I don't think this quite works, does it?"

        The documentary was well done and had I been uneducated with respect to these crimes, I'd likely be signing up for message boards, calling my friends, filling social media with the idea that "It was Lechmere what done it". Unfortunately, many of us knew a great deal about Nichols and Cross/Lechmere before your bit of entertainment premiered. Thus, where others may have swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, we noticed that it was presented in a way that was quite one sided and not wholly accurate, if I'm honest.
        Sod it! There is no fooling clever Ripper scholars like you, is there? I guess I will have to settle for the gullible only, then.

        And yes, I don´t have Lechmere plotting courses. I have him making the best of what comes along. For example, I don´t think he went out that night thinking "And after I killed the lady I will find in Bucks Row, I will wait for a passer-by to arrive, and take him along to fool the nearest PC".
        There is no such plotting, and there never could be.
        Once something unforeseen happened, Lechmere would process it and ponder what to make of it, something a normal person would probably have had great difficulty doing for reasons of lacking nerve, whereas a cool and calculating man could well pull off (and yes, that is me implying that he probably was a psychopath again).
        If that is what you insist on calling plotting, then Lechmere - and the rest of the world - was a plotter.

        The docu was onesided, and that is what to expect from a docu that targets somebody as a murder suspect. It was plotted, sort of. With your superior insight, I would have thought you´d understand that.

        It´s a brilliant docu, by the way. Or so I´m told by many people who have not seen through it the way you have. Actually, since I believe in Lechmere as the killer myself, I am every bit as daft and gullible as they are. Long live ignorance!
        Last edited by Fisherman; 04-11-2019, 04:26 PM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

          I see. Your "evidence" that Robert Paul was anti-Police is to quote your partner in all things Lechmere, Edward Stow (who used to post here under name "Lechmere", coincidentally enough)... and a statement by Paul the he was annoyed at the inconvenience the Nichols matter caused him. Rather than conclude that Robert Paul wasn't a rich man and that losing a days wages may have impacted and rightly annoyed the man, you contend that some pre-existing police hatred (for which you have not one shred of evidence to suggest existed) compelled him to make anti-police statements and offer false testimony at a murder inquest. Further, he allowed Cross to lie under oath. He failed to be truthful and agree with Mizen when he testified that Cross had told him (Mizen) he was wanted by a PC, when Cross had in fact done just that.... just to stick it to the police (?). Either that or Paul watched like an imbecile as Cross pulled Mizen aside and whispered to him in Baker's Row, and never felt compelled to mention it to anyone, even as Mizen's claim of having been told of a PC in Bucks Row became a point of emphasis during testimony.

          Alas, let's say you have convinced me with all this. I'd be left to say simply this: What a stroke of luck for Cross! He kills Nichols. Opts to stay on the spot and await the arrival of the unknown man he hears walking toward him down Bucks Row... and, eureka! The man happens to be Robert Paul! A man whose HATRED of the police will allow Cross to perform his "Mizen Scam", lie under oath, and hang poor Mizen out to dry. I've said this before: The only way this chain of events works for Cross, had he killed Nichols, is if he knew the future:

          - He kills and mutilates Nichols
          - He hears footsteps
          - Rather than walk on in the blackness he stays on the spot because he knows this man isn't a PC, former PC, off-duty PC, or ANYONE who may take charge of the scene
          - The man arrives and tries to walk past but he will not allow him to do so because he knows its better to recruit this man because he knows he will abet his lies and allow him to get away with murder
          - He tells the man there's a woman lying on the ground, touching his shoulder to get his attention because he knows that there is no blood on his hands even though he's just killed and dissected a woman and stowed the bloody knife on his person
          - He and the man go to inspect Nichols and he knows the man will not begin shouting, raise the alarm, knock on doors, begin shouting for a PC and blow the whole plan before it begins
          -
          Her wounds are not visible because of the darkness but he knows that Paul doesn't have a match with which to light the scene
          -
          Paul wants to give her a prop but he refuses because he knows there's no blood on his person that may have to be explained at any point in this bluff he's undertaken that he knows will not end in a police station or, at the very least, under a PC's lantern
          - Rather than tell Paul he works in the other direction (the direction he knew from which Paul had come) he agrees to continue on with Paul to find a PC because he knows the PC will not subject him to his lantern, search him and find the knife
          - He finds Mizen in Baker's Row and tells him there's a woman lying in Buck's Row and that she's likely dead and that he's wanted by a PC because he knows Mizen will simply accept that information rather than say "show me" or "take me there", he knows also that Paul will not contradict him (or that he'll give him the privacy he needs to tell his lie privately to Mizen) because he knew before all this began that Paul hated the police, he also knew that Mizen would allow him to simply walk away without so much as asking his name
          -
          After committing murder and getting away from the scene, he shows up voluntarily at the inquest in spite of the fact that Paul's Lloyd's statement relegates him to bit player status, he's described only as a "a man", and Paul doesn't even say that he (Cross) was a part of the interaction with Mizen but he testifies because he knows that he's in no danger of facing scrutiny of any kind that may lead to suspicion that he killed Nichols
          - He contradicts the testimony of Mizen under oath because he knew that Paul will not disagree (if he heard the exchange) or volunteer Cross conspicuously had a conversation with Mizen (that he was happy to ignore while standing alone in the dark) that he could not hear because he knew that Paul so hated the police that he would allow all of his lies and master manipulation in a murder investigation.

          And he does all of this on the spur of the moment because he’s on his way to work and has to be there in 15 minutes. The innocent explanation works far better than the guilty one.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            The docu was onesided, and that is what to expect from a docu that targets somebody as a murder suspect. It was plotted, sort of. With your superior insight, I would have thought you´d understand that.
            I do understand that. Again, you missed the point. We're all well aware that the documentary was one sided and that it targeted Lechmere as a murder suspect. The point, which you missed, again, is that you continue trotting out what Scobie and Giffiths said within this one sided documentary as if it WERE NOT offered within the confines of said one sided documentary which targeted someone, your someone, as a murder suspect.

            Comment


            • #96
              I posted this (below) some three and half years ago. I think it bears a re-post here as we again examine Lechmere's conduct in Buck's Row and beyond.



              John Henry Wigmore was twenty-five years old in 1888. One wonders what he would have made of an accusation made against Charles Lechmere as "Jack the Ripper".

              Wigmore, as many of you likely know, was an American legal scholar, widely considered a pioneer in the field of evidentiary law. In 1904 he published his 'Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law'. In it he writes:

              "Flight from justice, and its analogous conduct, have always been deemed indication of a consciousness of guilt. The wicked flee, even when no man pursueth; and the righteous are as bold as a lion."

              We should note, with respect to Lechmere, that he did not attempt flight. He waited for and spoke to a man (Robert Paul) whose approach he heard, in the dark, from forty yards off.

              Flight is as important today as it was in Old Testament times.

              After asking Mr. Paul to "come and see" the woman (Polly Nichols) lying on the pavement in Buck's Row he did not attemt to go in any direction other than direction in which Paul himself was going. Again, he does not attempt to flee. Instead he and Paul resolve to continue on together, on an errand: To find a police officer.

              A criminal act leaves usually on the mind a deep trace, in the shape of a consciousness of guilt, and from this consciousness of guilt we may argue to the doing of the deed by the bearer of the trace."

              Lechmere remained in Paul's company until they'd found a policeman (Jonas Mizen). They informed him that a woman was lying in Buck's Row. They parted company and continued on to work.


              Again....

              "Flight from justice, and its analogous conduct, have always been deemed indication of a consciousness of guilt. The wicked flee, even when no man pursueth; and the righteous are as bold as a lion."

              Seventy-two hours after he found Nichols' body, the heretofore unknown, unnamed, unidentified Mr. Lechmere appeared, uncompelled and voluntarily at the inquest into her death.

              Mr. Lechmere's "flight from justice" has him waiting for a man approaching in the distance, asking him to come and see a woman lying on the pavement, going with that man in search of police officer to inform, and appearing voluntarily to testify at her inquest. His "flight" from justice has him submitting himself to its prosects no less than three times.



              Of course, Christer has told us that Lechmere behaved as he did because he was a psychopath, bold and daring, taking risks. And when one asks what evidence he has that Lechmere was a psychopath, he replies, "Because IF he was Jack the Ripper, he was a psychopath." And since he believes so "passionately" that Lechemere was Jack the Ripper, then he believes, equally as passionately, that Lechmere was a psychopath, thus explaining his lack of flight, engagement of Paul, Mizen, his appearance at the inquest. All of it. I'm not inventing this. And I'm not exaggerating. What's even more astounding, to me at least, is that Christer finds this line of reasoning perfectly correct, and is incredulous when anyone would see it another way.

              Comment


              • #97
                .
                Of course, Christer has told us that Lechmere behaved as he did because he was a psychopath, bold and daring, taking risks. And when one asks what evidence he has that Lechmere was a psychopath, he replies, "Because IF he was Jack the Ripper, he was a psychopath." And since he believes so "passionately" that Lechemere was Jack the Ripper, then he believes, equally as passionately, that Lechmere was a psychopath, thus explaining his lack of flight, engagement of Paul, Mizen, his appearance at the inquest. All of it. I'm not inventing this. And I'm not exaggerating. What's even more astounding, to me at least, is that Christer finds this line of reasoning perfectly correct, and is incredulous when anyone would see it another way.
                We understand the thrill of he hunt for a killer. We can also understand the idea that a killer can think that he’s clever enough to fool people. But for a guilty Lechmere to have acted as he did it was so unnecessarily risky to be bordering on suicidal. He hears Paul before he sees him. He has a choice (and I would say that a guilty persons first instinct is always to get away) flee or stay. There is simply nothing more advantageous about the option of staying. The risks were obvious, enormous and immediate so we can’t say that he didn’t have time to weigh up a complex series of options. His risked being found alone in the dark with the freshly murdered women, undoubtedly with blood on him and undoubtedly in possession of the knife that killed her. And yet he brought another person into the scenario about whom he knew absolutely nothing. For all that he knew he might have immediately suspected Lechmere. At the very least Lechmere would have thought it possible that he’d want to check for signs of life. Possibly go in search of a Constable. These are massive and pointless risks for someone whose aim was to continue killing.

                On the other hand what were the risks of fleeing? He had a 40 yard head start. By the time Paul had arrived, in the dark and on the opposite side of the road, Lechmere would have been 40 or 50 yards away. If Paul didn’t look toward the gateway (which would have been eminently possible) he simply walks past. He might have looked across and thought, like Lechmere, that the body was just a piece of tarpaulin. He simply walks on. He might have thought that it was just a drunken woman sleeping it off. On he walks. All reasonable possibilities. Of course he might have decided to investigate. He walks over, gives her a nudge with his foot to see if she stirs. Nothing. He bends down to check and discovers that she’s dead. By this time Lechmere is over the hills and far away just keeping out of sight of any policemen on the way.

                This isn’t ‘’”brazening it out”’’ as the saying goes. That implies that, given a difficult choice, he thought staying a better option. How could anyone choose to subject themselves to a situation that they had almost no control over (Paul’s reaction and actions) with such a massive risk of the evenings events ending at the gallows. Compare this to the exact opposite. Pretty much guaranteed escape to kill again another day. I’m sorry but just because one ex-Detective weirdly believes that the first option would be the one chosen it doesn’t work for me and many others. Lechmere’s actions on that night speak of an innocent man that found a body on the way to work and did everything that could reasonably have been expected of him.
                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 04-11-2019, 07:16 PM.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  We understand the thrill of he hunt for a killer. We can also understand the idea that a killer can think that he’s clever enough to fool people. But for a guilty Lechmere to have acted as he did it was so unnecessarily risky to be bordering on suicidal. He hears Paul before he sees him. He has a choice (and I would say that a guilty persons first instinct is always to get away) flee or stay. There is simply nothing more advantageous about the option of staying. The risks were obvious, enormous and immediate so we can’t say that he didn’t have time to weigh up a complex series of options. His risked being found alone in the dark with the freshly murdered women, undoubtedly with blood on him and undoubtedly in possession of the knife that killed her. And yet he brought another person into the scenario about whom he knew absolutely nothing. For all that he knew he might have immediately suspected Lechmere. At the very least Lechmere would have thought it possible that he’d want to check for signs of life. Possibly go in search of a Constable. These are massive and pointless risks for someone whose aim was to continue killing.

                  On the other hand what were the risks of fleeing? He had a 40 yard head start. By the time Paul had arrived, in the dark and on the opposite side of the road, Lechmere would have been 40 or 50 yards away. If Paul didn’t look toward the gateway (which would have been eminently possible) he simply walks past. He might have looked across and thought, like Lechmere, that the body was just a piece of tarpaulin. He simply walks on. He might have thought that it was just a drunken woman sleeping it off. On he walks. All reasonable possibilities. Of course he might have decided to investigate. He walks over, gives her a nudge with his foot to see if she stirs. Nothing. He bends down to check and discovers that she’s dead. By this time Lechmere is over the hills and far away just keeping out of sight of any policemen on the way.

                  This isn’t ‘’”brazening it out”’’ as the saying goes. That implies that, given a difficult choice, he thought staying a better option. How could anyone choose to subject themselves to a situation that they had almost no control over (Paul’s reaction and actions) with such a massive risk of the evenings events ending at the gallows. Compare this to the exact opposite. Pretty much guaranteed escape to kill again another day. I’m sorry but just because one ex-Detective weirdly believes that the first option would be the one chosen it doesn’t work for me and many others. Lechmere’s actions on that night speak of an innocent man that found a body on the way to work and did everything that could reasonably have been expected of him.
                  I agree on all points, obviously.

                  I think Christer himself addressed the point you made about "one ex-Detective weirdly believes that (staying and "bluffing") would be the (better option)": "The docu was onesided, and that is what to expect from a docu that targets somebody as a murder suspect." I'd contend that if Christer is conceding this is the case, then he perhaps ought not to continue quoting Griffiths' and Scobie's remarks from this "one sided" docu produced to "target" Lechmere as a murder suspect as if they were offered in some other, less biased, forum.
                  Last edited by Patrick S; 04-11-2019, 07:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

                    he perhaps ought not to continue quoting Griffiths' and Scobie's remarks from this "one sided" docu produced to "target" Lechmere as a murder suspect as if they were offered in some other, less biased, forum.
                    Do you even know what one sided docu means ?!

                    That is the weakest argument I've read at this thread.

                    As if he was quoting liars and charlatans!

                    Next you will ask him to find another suspect.


                    The Baron

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                      Do you even know what one sided docu means ?!

                      That is the weakest argument I've read at this thread.

                      As if he was quoting liars and charlatans!

                      Next you will ask him to find another suspect.


                      The Baron
                      As ever you’ve posted without bothering to find out the background details.

                      The lawyer involved, Scobie, was given the case for Lechmere’s guilt. We’re not suggesting that he was a liar or a charlatan (he’s a well respected man) or that he was given dishonest information. What we are saying is that to get to a fair appraisal of anything you need to hear both sides of the argument. The points for and against so that they can be weighed up. If a jury in court only heard the prosecution side what verdict do you think they would arrive at. If you find that a difficult concept then there’s nothing to be done.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                      Comment



                      • >>I stated yesterday that the timings cannot be established with any exactitude, but that the timings we HAVE on account of Lechmere are not logical in relation to his whereabouts.<<

                        Really? Lets test it out.

                        Charles Cross is reported as leaving home at either 3:20 or 3:30a.m. Christer is on record preferring the 3:30 time so we’ll go with that.

                        He started work at 4:00 a.m. The one place we can expect a correct time in Victorian England in 1888 is a railway station, as they had standardised times some decades before. We know that Pickfords recorded the times their employees started work because if they were late their was docked pay or they were denied work that day, instead Pickfords employed casual labour in their place. Since Cross had to arrive at work on time every working day it is reasonable to assume he had some method of synchronising his time at home with the time at Pickfords as his job relied on it.

                        All in all, the best time authenticatable we have in the whole episode, is Cross's arrival at 4:00 a.m. So lets trace his steps logically.

                        (All times are approximate)


                        1. He leaves home at 3:30.

                        2. It takes about 7 mins to get to the place where he sees Mrs Nichols body 3:37.

                        3. He hears Paul enter Bucks Row and waits for his arrival 3:38.

                        4. They go over to the body and examine it 3:40.

                        5. They go to Mizen in Bakers Row 3:43.

                        6. Cross has 17 mins to get to work. The journey can be done in 17 mins ergo he arrives at work at 4:00 a.m.


                        He timings are correct all through.

                        Now how do his timing fit in with all the other witnesses timings.


                        1.PC Neil has to enter Bucks Row after the pair leave, 3:42 onwards.

                        2. Neil walks up to the the murder site 3:45.

                        3. He checks the body and looks around.He hears PC Thain and signals him.3:46

                        4.Thain arrives at the murder site 3:47.

                        5.They talk and Thain goes for Dr.Llewellyn, he arrives at the doctors door at 3:51.

                        Llewellyn gave two times; “"about five minutes to four”", which, allowing for being woken up and answering the door, fits in with Cross and Llewellyn's timing.

                        The other time he gave was; “"at four o’clock”". Coroner Baxter, who would have access to Llewellyn’'s written statement, said the doctor arrived “"about a quarter of an hour later" at the murder site (referring to Neil finding the body at 3:45). In which case the doctor arrived at the scene at 4:00 a.m. which again fits perfectly with Cross and Llewellyn's timeline.

                        One other possibility is that Thain collected his cape from Harrison and Barbers, before he went to the doctor, again that would fit perfectly Cross’s and Llewellyn's timeline, if Thain did arrive at Llewellyn's door at 4:00. Both options are covered.


                        So we have a logical timeline which dovetails Cross’'s testimony with Neil, Thain, Mizen and Llewellyn.



                        Now let’s look at the Lechmerites version of events.


                        Ingoring ALL the logic and sworn evidence above, they choose to take a stated time from Robert Paul’'s Lloyds interview. An interview that is known to be full of errors. An interview that we know for a fact that Paul changed substantially when he testified under oath.

                        Let’s test his timing out against the known facts.


                        In Paul’s dubious interview, he claimed he arrived at Buck’s Row at “"exactly a quarter to four”". If this were true he must have been standing next PC Thain or, at the very least, seen him walking up to Buck’s Row.

                        If this were true he must have seen PC Neil flashing his light.

                        But, none of these things happened.

                        1. Instead, he says he walked down to where Cross was: 3:46

                        2. Looked over the body: 3:48.

                        3. Walked round to where Mizen was: 3:51.

                        4. This would leave Cross 9 minutes to cover the 17 to 20 minute journey to Broad Street, where he arrived on time. Perhaps if he was a fast runner he might be able to make it in time, but we know he didn’t run, he walked with Paul as far as Cobetts Court a journey of about 10 minutes:4:01

                        5. When Cross left Paul, according to Paul's timing, Cross would already be late for work, but he has another 10 minute journey ahead of him: 4:11

                        Late enough for him, at worst be sent home, at best have his pay docked. Yet Cross tells the inquest, which PIckfords can read, that he arrived at work on time that day.

                        (Just reiterate this times are approximates.)


                        So we have a choice, Cross’'s statement which fits in with all the other witness or Paul’'s, known to be dodgy, interview which clashes with all the known evidence. On top of all this, we have the three questions I posed in my previous post which Christer avoided answering.

                        Even if you ignore, at your peril, all the logic of above. The defining question still destroys Christer’s argument, where is the evidence that Paul And Cross'’s sources of time were synchronised? With out this, the supposed gap in Cross’s time cannot exist.



                        >>Lechmere said 3.20 or 3.30, and both times will have him in Bucks Row too early. <<

                        ONLY if Paul and Cross’'s time source were synchronised. And only if Paul's Lloyds interview is more accurate than all the other witnesses.



                        >>It has nothing at all to do with any modern-day manufacture,... …<<

                        It had EVERYTHING to do with modern manufacture, Cross’s times work. Where is the synchronisation between Cross and Paul, it has to exist for your story to work?

                        End of debate.
                        Last edited by drstrange169; 04-12-2019, 06:14 AM.
                        dustymiller
                        aka drstrange

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                          >>I stated yesterday that the timings cannot be established with any exactitude, but that the timings we HAVE on account of Lechmere are not logical in relation to his whereabouts.<<

                          Really? Lets test it out.

                          Charles Cross is reported as leaving home at either 3:20 or 3:30a.m. Christer is on record preferring the 3:30 time so we’ll go with that.

                          He started work at 4:00 a.m. The one place we can expect a correct time in Victorian England in 1888 is a railway station, as they had standardised times some decades before. We know that Pickfords recorded the times their employees started work because if they were late their was docked pay or they were denied work that day, instead Pickfords employed casual labour in their place. Since Cross had to arrive at work on time every working day it is reasonable to assume he had some method of synchronising his time at home with the time at Pickfords as his job relied on it.

                          All in all, the best time authenticatable we have in the whole episode, is Cross's arrival at 4:00 a.m. So lets trace his steps logically.

                          (All times are approximate)


                          1. He leaves home at 3:30.

                          2. It takes about 7 mins to get to the place where he sees Mrs Nichols body 3:37.

                          3. He hears Paul enter Bucks Row and waits for his arrival 3:38.

                          4. They go over to the body and examine it 3:40.

                          5. They go to Mizen in Bakers Row 3:43.

                          6. Cross has 17 mins to get to work. The journey can be done in 17 mins ergo he arrives at work at 4:00 a.m.


                          He timings are correct all through.

                          Now how do his timing fit in with all the other witnesses timings.


                          1.PC Neil has to enter Bucks Row after the pair leave, 3:42 onwards.

                          2. Neil walks up to the the murder site 3:45.

                          3. He checks the body and looks around.He hears PC Thain and signals him.3:46

                          4.Thain arrives at the murder site 3:47.

                          5.They talk and Thain goes for Dr.Llewellyn, he arrives at the doctors door at 3:51.

                          Llewellyn gave two times; “"about five minutes to four”", which, allowing for being woken up and answering the door, fits in with Cross and Llewellyn's timing.

                          The other time he gave was; “"at four o’clock”". Coroner Baxter, who would have access to Llewellyn’'s written statement, said the doctor arrived “"about a quarter of an hour later" at the murder site (referring to Neil finding the body at 3:45). In which case the doctor arrived at the scene at 4:00 a.m. which again fits perfectly with Cross and Llewellyn's timeline.

                          One other possibility is that Thain collected his cape from Harrison and Barbers, before he went to the doctor, again that would fit perfectly Cross’s and Llewellyn's timeline, if Thain did arrive at Llewellyn's door at 4:00. Both options are covered.


                          So we have a logical timeline which dovetails Cross’'s testimony with Neil, Thain, Mizen and Llewellyn.



                          Now let’s look at the Lechmerites version of events.


                          Ingoring ALL the logic and sworn evidence above, they choose to take a stated time from Robert Paul’'s Lloyds interview. An interview that is known to be full of errors. An interview that we know for a fact that Paul changed substantially when he testified under oath.

                          Let’s test his timing out against the known facts.


                          In Paul’s dubious interview, he claimed he arrived at Buck’s Row at “"exactly a quarter to four”". If this were true he must have been standing next PC Thain or, at the very least, seen him walking up to Buck’s Row.

                          If this were true he must have seen PC Neil flashing his light.

                          But, none of these things happened.

                          1. Instead, he says he walked down to where Cross was: 3:46

                          2. Looked over the body: 3:48.

                          3. Walked round to where Mizen was: 3:51.

                          4. This would leave Cross 9 minutes to cover the 17 to 20 minute journey to Broad Street, where he arrived on time. Perhaps if he was a fast runner he might be able to make it in time, but we know he didn’t run, he walked with Paul as far as Cobetts Court a journey of about 10 minutes:4:01

                          5. When Cross left Paul, according to Paul's timing, Cross would already be late for work, but he has another 10 minute journey ahead of him: 4:11

                          Late enough for him, at worst be sent home, at best have his pay docked. Yet Cross tells the inquest, which PIckfords can read, that he arrived at work on time that day.

                          (Just reiterate this times are approximates.)


                          So we have a choice, Cross’'s statement which fits in with all the other witness or Paul’'s, known to be dodgy, interview which clashes with all the known evidence. On top of all this, we have the three questions I posed in my previous post which Christer avoided answering.

                          Even if you ignore, at your peril, all the logic of above. The defining question still destroys Christer’s argument, where is the evidence that Paul And Cross'’s sources of time were synchronised? With out this, the supposed gap in Cross’s time cannot exist.



                          >>Lechmere said 3.20 or 3.30, and both times will have him in Bucks Row too early. <<

                          ONLY if Paul and Cross’'s time source were synchronised. And only if Paul's Lloyds interview is more accurate than all the other witnesses.



                          >>It has nothing at all to do with any modern-day manufacture,... …<<

                          It had EVERYTHING to do with modern manufacture, Cross’s times work. Where is the synchronisation between Cross and Paul, it has to exist for your story to work?

                          End of debate.
                          No, not really. A little something needs to be added.

                          The carman said that he left home at 3.20 or 3.30.

                          Walking down to Bucks Row from Doveton Street takes seven minutes.

                          If he started out 3.30, he added 43 per cent to that time. If, that is, he arrived outside Browns at 3.40. If he instead arrived there at 3.45 - and in my world, that's the more likely thing - he added 114 per cent, meaning that he took more than twice as long as he ought to to get there.

                          This all presupposes that the timings are correct. But we have no other times to work with that the ones Lechmere himself gave. And so the issue remains one that needs to be added to the many points that do not look kosher about the carman.

                          I know it infuriates you, but I'm afraid it is the only way of doing it. If Lechmere had said that he left home 3.35, we would not have any implicit guilt baked into the timings, since that time would fit well with the distance, not least since we know he hurried. Or so he said.

                          THAT is the end of the story. Whether it is the end of the debate or not is up to you. If you wish to continue, be my guest. It won't change the facts of the case, though, so it would be futile on your behalf.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post

                            I do understand that. Again, you missed the point. We're all well aware that the documentary was one sided and that it targeted Lechmere as a murder suspect. The point, which you missed, again, is that you continue trotting out what Scobie and Giffiths said within this one sided documentary as if it WERE NOT offered within the confines of said one sided documentary which targeted someone, your someone, as a murder suspect.
                            You forget that I have an advantage over you on that score, Patrick. I spoke to Griffiths a whole deal, and so I know that he was quite enthusiastic about the suggestion of Lechmere as the killer. He told me that he was of the meaning that we could well be correct, and that his own take was that Lechmere was the probable killer.

                            So in his case, there can be no accusations of having misinterpreted his stance, nor of having overstated what he thought about it all.

                            Furthermore, what Scobie said must be regarded as what Scobie meant. Of course, he could have said "No, it could not have been Lechmere, and no, I would never take a case like this to court" off the camera, but if he DID, I find it odd in the extreme that he said the polar opposite when filmed. I tend to think he was much impressed with the suggestion of Lechmere as the killer, and that this was why he said what he did.
                            I have seen clips of what Scobie said that I find MORE damning for Lechmere than the snippets used in the docu, so I have little doubt that Scobie was represented in a fair manner, just like I KNOW that Griffiths was.

                            There have been posters out here saying that Griffiths will have been misinformed, that Scobie and Griffiths were mislead, that what they said was tampered with and so on. Personally, although I have come to expect it nowadays, I still haven't distanced myself long enough from my upbringing not to say that I find such things despicable and disqualifying in terms of trust. It is the underbelly of Ripperology, and those who partake in such things instead of choosing a fair debate are people I brand rotten eggs.

                            There is also the fact that none of these two specialists were responsible for making the docu. They therefore had no personal reason/s to lie or misinform. It was instead made by Blink Films, a BAFTA award winning company with a very good reputation. You are welcome to make a search about them on the net, and see what you can dig up in terms of accusations of being a lowly company bent on lying - that is something we owe it to ourselves to do when we entertain suspicions about unsavoury methods.

                            Please observe that I am not saying that yo DO entertain such suspicions, maybe you share my mindset: That they are a highly skilled company, very well suited to do this kind of a docu and extremely able when it comes to presenting a case in a manner that can make their audience agree with the conclusions they present. One-sided, remember - you DO understand it, you said so yourself.

                            That, however, is not deception and fraud or anything like that. It is instead known as competent filmmaking.

                            I believe you have by now realized where this post of mine is going? Correct: it is ending up in me telling you that what Griffiths and Scobie said is vital and important information about the case, and I will therefore name them and their statements forthwith too. And if there is any bad conscience to bee had about that, it is on behalf of those who try to suppress the information on shady and unsavoury grounds.

                            There, I think that covers my view neatly.
                            Last edited by Fisherman; 04-12-2019, 07:03 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              And he does all of this on the spur of the moment because he’s on his way to work and has to be there in 15 minutes. The innocent explanation works far better than the guilty one.
                              It is always likelier that a man en route to work will not be a serial killer than the idea that he will be such a creature.

                              In that regard, you are correct.

                              But men en route to work who give timings that are out, who seemingly lie to PC:s, who have reason to pass all murder sites in a murder series at the vital times, who have spent unestablishable amounts of time alone with the victim, who leaves the victim at a remove in time where it is still bleeding, who have not been seen or heard by witnesses walking 30-40 yards behind them etcetera, etcetera, are more likely to be killers than the ones who have their timings right, who have no recorded instances of possible lies to PC:s, who have no reason at all to pass the rest of the murder sites, who have not been alone with the victim for unknown amounts of time, who have been seen and heard by witnesses walking 30-40 yards behind them and who are not at the scene of a murder at a remove in time that is consistent with them being the killer are infinitely more likely to be the bad guy just the same.

                              What we do mirrors who we are, like it or not.

                              Comment


                              • >>If he started out 3.30, he added 43 per cent to that time. If, that is, he arrived outside Browns at 3.40. If he instead arrived there at 3.45 - and in my world, that's the more likely thing - he added 114 per cent, meaning that he took more than twice as long as he ought to to get there.<<

                                Sorry, but I've absolutely no idea what that post means. Did anyone else understand it, could they please explain it to me?

                                I'm assuming Christer has no answer to what I wrote but wanted offer some sort of reply, so he sent a coded message. We love codes ... sweed looc ev.
                                dustymiller
                                aka drstrange

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X