PC Jonas Mizen

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Three points.

We all know that timings are generally less reliable at that time amongst men that were unlikely to have owned a watch. This doesn’t necessarily point to anything sinister.

If Lechmere had stopped across the street to look over at the tarpaulin/corpse then crossed over then perhaps given Polly a nudge then I’d say that this must have taken up a few seconds (maybe 30?) When this short period is added to the ‘40 yards’ distance that Paul was then it’s very probable that Lechmere and Paul were more like 80+ yards apart which would make it unsurprising that they hadn’t been aware of each other.

Ive always thought that the ‘having a reason to pass the murder sites’ to be a weak one and we’re never going to agree on this point Fish. I’d say that you could have picked hundreds of men in the area who could all have been said to have had reason to head in a certain direction or to possibly take a certain route past or close to the murder sites. I accept of course the point that you will make though “they weren’t all at an actual murder scene.’ But for me the point is weakened when we consider Lechmere potentially being asked to account for why he was at a certain spot having to suggest that he was visiting his mother or some other family member at 2 am.

[Fisherman]

Three points.

We all know that timings are generally less reliable at that time amongst men that were unlikely to have owned a watch. This doesn’t necessarily point to anything sinister.

If Lechmere had stopped across the street to look over at the tarpaulin/corpse then crossed over then perhaps given Polly a nudge then I’d say that this must have taken up a few seconds (maybe 30?) When this short period is added to the ‘40 yards’ distance that Paul was then it’s very probable that Lechmere and Paul were more like 80+ yards apart which would make it unsurprising that they hadn’t been aware of each other.

Ive always thought that the ‘having a reason to pass the murder sites’ to be a weak one and we’re never going to agree on this point Fish. I’d say that you could have picked hundreds of men in the area who could all have been said to have had reason to head in a certain direction or to possibly take a certain route past or close to the murder sites. I accept of course the point that you will make though “they weren’t all at an actual murder scene.’ But for me the point is weakened when we consider Lechmere potentially being asked to account for why he was at a certain spot having to suggest that he was visiting his mother or some other family member at 2 am.

Three answers.

1. We all know that the timings given do not jibe with when Lechmere was in Bucks Row. There is no changing that. I am not saying it must be sinister, but I AM saying that it is perfectly and eminently in line with such a suggestion.

2. Lechmere said that he heard Paul approaching as he stepped out into the street himself. Morning Advertiser: "It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had come, so I waited for him to come up." Half a minute is an ocean of time in the circumstances, Herlock.

3. Having reason to pass all of the murder sites in a series of murders is actually not a weak point. It is a very strong point and the first point any prosecutor would make in a case like this. It proves opportunity, see, and it is therefore absolutely crucial. I know that it is funnier to phantasize about how Druitt may have been there too, but he A/ Had no reason to, and B/ Is not proven to have been anywhere near any of the sites.
Does that mean that you need to grade down the importance of a proven connection to one of the sites and reason to have passed all the others?
You tell me.

[Fisherman]

>>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.

I´ll help out, Dusty. If I had known that you would fail to understand it, I would have worded it more voluminously, but here goes.

It takes seven (7) minutes to walk from 22 Doveton Street down to the murder site.

If Lechmere left home at 3.30 and arrived at 3.40, then he used up 43 per cent MORE time than seven minutes, namely ten minutes. It is the three added minutes that represent 43 per cent out of seven (the time it would take him to walk from 22 Doveton Street to the murder site).

If he left home at 3.30 and arrived at 3.45, then he used up 114 per cent more time than seven minutes, namely fifteen minutes. It is the added eight minutes that represent 114 per cent out of seven (once again the time it would take him to walk from 22 Doveton Street to the murder site. In this case, we can use the colloquialism "twice as much" and add "and more" - it took him twice as much time and more as it should have done if the timings given were correct.

There. Hope that helps. Todays good deed!

[Abby Normal]

I´ll help out, Dusty. If I had known that you would fail to understand it, I would have worded it more voluminously, but here goes.

It takes seven (7) minutes to walk from 22 Doveton Street down to the murder site.

If Lechmere left home at 3.30 and arrived at 3.40, then he used up 43 per cent MORE time than seven minutes, namely ten minutes. It is the three added minutes that represent 43 per cent out of seven (the time it would take him to walk from 22 Doveton Street to the murder site).

If he left home at 3.30 and arrived at 3.45, then he used up 114 per cent more time than seven minutes, namely fifteen minutes. It is the added eight minutes that represent 114 per cent out of seven (once again the time it would take him to walk from 22 Doveton Street to the murder site. In this case, we can use the colloquialism "twice as much"! and add "and more" - it took him twice as much time and more as it should have done if the timings given were correct.

There. Todays good deed!

hi fish
how long would a walk from lechs home to pickfords generally take?

[Patrick S]

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

Do you even understand what's being discussed? The point is NOT the one-sided documentary. The point is how Christer references the statements of those appearing the one-sided documentary. Not that it matters as far as you're concerned. But, I'd be disappointed if Christer found another suspect. Debate - among adults, Baron - is what moves ideas forward. I dare say that many have found mine and others' opposing views about Lechemere untenable... and they're now firmly in the Lechmere camp. That's how these things go. Please let us know when you have something that contributes to the conversation... ANY conversation... aside the type of nonsense we've seen thus far... simplistic criticisms and silly outrage based on your meager understanding.

[Patrick S]

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.

You DO have that advantage over me, Christer. And I do not think Griffiths and Scobie are charlatans.

[Fisherman]

hi fish
how long would a walk from lechs home to pickfords generally take?

Its Edward who has timed that, but google maps has a walk from todays 22 Doveton Street to Liverpool Street Station taking 29-30 minutes. And that jibes well with the timings Lechmere spoke of, 3.20-3.30. Presumably, he would not want to be late, and it is reasonable to suggest that he normally left home at 3.20, but claimed that he was late on the 31:st, leaving home at 3.30.

[Fisherman]

You DO have that advantage over me, Christer. And I do not think Griffiths and Scobie are charlatans.

Actually, nobody does.

[Patrick S]

Actually, nobody does.

I didn't say anyone does. But, we can make an argument of anything, if you like..... Have you TALKED to EVERYONE? If not... how do you know?

[Abby Normal]

Its Edward who has timed that, but google maps has a walk from todays 22 Doveton Street to Liverpool Street Station taking 29-30 minutes. And that jibes well with the timings Lechmere spoke of, 3.20-3.30. Presumably, he would not want to be late, and it is reasonable to suggest that he normally left home at 3.20, but claimed that he was late on the 31:st, leaving home at 3.30.

hi fish
heres my thoughts on this. someone who held a job for many years, presumably a good employee, at a place of which being on time (or early) would have been imperative would be a very punctual person-pre punctual actually. if it took 30 minutes to walk to work, I would imagine his routine would be to leave home by 3:15 at the latest to give himself time and to arrive at work early and or to compensate for any possible delays en route. I mean who leaves work every day thinking OK ill give myself just the amount of time to arrive in the nick of time? not people who hold down a job for twenty years. Im thinking he was usually out the door by 3:15 at the latest.

now his 3:20/3;30 time does jibe with him running late this day, but would it really jibe with his usual leave time? I think not.

Therefor begs the question-He just happens to be running late on the morning he discovers the body? how convenient, and a little odd to me.
another possible discrepancy.

[Sam Flynn]

He just happens to be running late on the morning he discovers the body? how convenient, and a little odd to me.

Not particularly odd given that, if Robert Paul had set out a minute or so earlier, or walked a wee bit faster, he'd have found Polly Nichols first.

[The Baron]

hi fish
heres my thoughts on this. someone who held a job for many years, presumably a good employee, at a place of which being on time (or early) would have been imperative would be a very punctual person-pre punctual actually. if it took 30 minutes to walk to work, I would imagine his routine would be to leave home by 3:15 at the latest to give himself time and to arrive at work early and or to compensate for any possible delays en route. I mean who leaves work every day thinking OK ill give myself just the amount of time to arrive in the nick of time? not people who hold down a job for twenty years. Im thinking he was usually out the door by 3:15 at the latest.

now his 3:20/3;30 time does jibe with him running late this day, but would it really jibe with his usual leave time? I think not.

Therefor begs the question-He just happens to be running late on the morning he discovers the body? how convenient, and a little odd to me.
another possible discrepancy.

Great post and observation Abby, although I don't think Lechmere done it, but this is here yet another coincidence that adds up to his file.


The Baron

[Fisherman]

I didn't say anyone does. But, we can make an argument of anything, if you like..... Have you TALKED to EVERYONE? If not... how do you know?

Because nobody has expressed that view. If they believe so and keep it a secret, its another matter. The view that HAS been expressed is that the film crew were charlatans.

That is the issue here, and it always was.

[Fisherman]

hi fish
heres my thoughts on this. someone who held a job for many years, presumably a good employee, at a place of which being on time (or early) would have been imperative would be a very punctual person-pre punctual actually. if it took 30 minutes to walk to work, I would imagine his routine would be to leave home by 3:15 at the latest to give himself time and to arrive at work early and or to compensate for any possible delays en route. I mean who leaves work every day thinking OK ill give myself just the amount of time to arrive in the nick of time? not people who hold down a job for twenty years. Im thinking he was usually out the door by 3:15 at the latest.

now his 3:20/3;30 time does jibe with him running late this day, but would it really jibe with his usual leave time? I think not.

Therefor begs the question-He just happens to be running late on the morning he discovers the body? how convenient, and a little odd to me.
another possible discrepancy.

I have never believed myself that he left home 3.30, Abby. I always thought he left earlier and with other prospects in mind than going to work. But once he sought out the police, the likely time for him to give would be the time his wife thought he left at.

[Fisherman]

Not particularly odd given that, if Robert Paul had set out a minute or so earlier, or walked a wee bit faster, he'd have found Polly Nichols first.

Not necessarily, no.