PC Jonas Mizen

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
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.

You made this point about Lechmere “- “...who have not been seen or heard by witness walking 30-40 yards behind them.”” I was just making the point that the approximate distance that Paul was from Lechmere when Lechmere first heard his footsteps would have been less than the distance between them when they were walking to work. And so if Lechmere was, say 60 yards ahead of Lechmere it’s not particularly strange or suspicious that he wasn’t aware of his presence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I disagree. The issue that I and others have raised in the past is a very simple one and it doesn’t require any accusations of dishonesty. I’d simply suggest that for anyone, on any subject, to form a balanced and fully informed viewpoint they would need to hear both sides of an argument. Yes I realise that this was a documentary proposing Lechmere as a potential Ripper and not a court of law so again I’m not suggesting charlatanry but we have to view Scobie’s opinion from the standpoint of a man who had only heard the case for the prosecution. He felt that there was a case to answer. How can we know if he would have come to the same conclusion if he’d also been presented with an equally carefully prepared case for the defence?
He may still have done or he may not have.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

The killer didn’t need any other reason to be in the area other than to kill. He didn’t visit his mother and decide “do you know, while I’m here I think I’ll murder a woman” All it proves is that at some point Lechmere might have passed very close to the murder sites like hundreds of thousands of others. What good would this have done him in the wee small hours covered in blood and with a knife on him. What kind of alibi might it have given him? That he was visiting a relative at 2 am? We e had this argument before Fish and were never going to agree of course but I think that this particular point is completely and utterly irrelevant.

[Fisherman]

I know you disagree, Herlock. Its just that I think you are wrong. For reasons I have given a zillion times. For example, it matters little if Paul was 30, 40 or 60 yards behind Lechmere. The street was around 120 yards long and it would have functioned like an acoustic tunnel, so they should have heard each other. I won't go into your other arguments again.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know you disagree, Herlock. Its just that I think you are wrong. For reasons I have given a zillion times. For example, it matters little if Paul was 30, 40 or 60 yards behind Lechmere. The street was around 120 yards long and it would have functioned like an acoustic tunnel, so they should have heard each other. I won't go into your other arguments again.

But Lechmere only heard Paul approach when he was 30-40 yards away so it follows that he didn’t hear him when he was more than 30-40 yards away. It can’t get much simpler.

Therefore if Lech was say 50 or 60 yards in front of Paul they wouldn’t have heard each other.

[Fisherman]

But Lechmere only heard Paul approach when he was 30-40 yards away so it follows that he didn’t hear him when he was more than 30-40 yards away. It can’t get much simpler.

Therefore if Lech was say 50 or 60 yards in front of Paul they wouldn’t have heard each other.

Ehrm - Lechmere SAID he didn't notice Paul until he was 30-40 yards away.

He also said that he was nowhere near Nichols before Paul arrived.

If he was the killer, he may just have lied about both matters. Surely you can see how that works? You are in a spot, so you lie.

Imagine being alone in a closed and silent hangar building with a woman who then walks briskly over its concrete floor in high heels. That's what we are looking at, more or less. And NEITHER man professes to have noticed the other.

It was very, very, very convenient for Lechmere that Paul arrived so close in time as to provide an alibi for him, don't you think? Or wait a sec - could he have made it all up...?

Nah. Not Lechmere. Not him.

[drstrange169]

>>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...<<

Ah, thank you, much better, I'm a simple man.

So it's a simple case of you getting your maths wrong. If it was a 7 minute journey he would arrived at 3:37 not 3:40 as I've already pointed out.


>>If he left home at 3.30 and arrived at 3.45...<<

But we know with a large degree of certainty that he didn't, because if he did he would have run into Thain and Neil, he would have missed Mizen in Bakers Row and would have been late for work.

Egro, the reasonable and logical time for him to arrive in Bucks Row was around 3:37

As I said debate over.

[drstrange169]

>>how long would a walk from lechs home to pickfords generally take?<<

That is largely an unanswerable question Abby.

It depends on how fast his walking pace was and exactly where he entered the Broad Street station. Neither answers are something we know. Those you've tried have done it in as little as 24 minutes and as long as 30.

The key thing here is, if he was in Buck's Row at 3:45 he couldn't get to work on time, he would have encountered Neil and Thain and he would have missed Mizen. So we know his testimony conforms to the known timings. Of course, he could still be the killer and lied about when he left, but this story about arriving in Buck's Row at 3:45 is just a modern make up.

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

Except, Baron, the "coincidence doesn't exist. As there is no evidence that he said he was late when he left home.

[drstrange169]

>Ehrm - Lechmere SAID he didn't notice Paul until he was 30-40 yards away. He also said that he was nowhere near Nichols before Paul arrived ...Imagine being alone in a closed and silent hangar building with a woman who then walks briskly over its concrete floor in high heels. That's what we are looking at, more or less. And NEITHER man professes to have noticed the other.<<

I'm afraid the logic of your post doesn't work out. If Buck's Row was an "acoustic tunnel" then Paul would have heard Xmere moving away from the body. If it's good for Paul's boots then it's good for Xmere's boots.

[Fisherman]

>>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...<<

Ah, thank you, much better, I'm a simple man.

So it's a simple case of you getting your maths wrong. If it was a 7 minute journey he would arrived at 3:37 not 3:40 as I've already pointed out.


>>If he left home at 3.30 and arrived at 3.45...<<

But we know with a large degree of certainty that he didn't, because if he did he would have run into Thain and Neil, he would have missed Mizen in Bakers Row and would have been late for work.

Egro, the reasonable and logical time for him to arrive in Bucks Row was around 3:37

As I said debate over.

Yes, debate over. That's as it should be - everybody has had an opportunity to take in my point and see that Lechmere´s things are off by a whole lot.

[Fisherman]

Yes, debate over. That's as it should be - everybody has had an opportunity to take in my point and see that Lechmere´s things are off by a whole lot.

It is interesting, however, how you allow for Lechmeres timings to be way off, while you need the PC:s timings (who we are certain must be wrong in some way) to be spot on. But such is the standard of your Ripperology! "With a large degree of certainty" - bollocks.

[Fisherman]

>>how long would a walk from lechs home to pickfords generally take?<<

That is largely an unanswerable question Abby.

It depends on how fast his walking pace was and exactly where he entered the Broad Street station. Neither answers are something we know. Those you've tried have done it in as little as 24 minutes and as long as 30.

The key thing here is, if he was in Buck's Row at 3:45 he couldn't get to work on time, he would have encountered Neil and Thain and he would have missed Mizen. So we know his testimony conforms to the known timings. Of course, he could still be the killer and lied about when he left, but this story about arriving in Buck's Row at 3:45 is just a modern make up.

Its not THAT modern. Swanson had that exact timing in his report of October 1888, the last and presumably conclusive report we have to go on.

The only person claiming to know the exact time is Robert Paul who says that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he passed down Bucks Row. Presumably he managed to fool Swanson?

There is also the issue of how close Llewellyn lived, and the time it would have taken Thain to reach his home. If Thain set off at 3.40, he seems to have had a nice cuppa on his way, and I find that less credible.

As you can see, there are many factors to weigh in. "Forgetting" about half of them is not helpful if we want to find a Solomonic solution to the scenario.

[Fisherman]

>Ehrm - Lechmere SAID he didn't notice Paul until he was 30-40 yards away. He also said that he was nowhere near Nichols before Paul arrived ...Imagine being alone in a closed and silent hangar building with a woman who then walks briskly over its concrete floor in high heels. That's what we are looking at, more or less. And NEITHER man professes to have noticed the other.<<

I'm afraid the logic of your post doesn't work out. If Buck's Row was an "acoustic tunnel" then Paul would have heard Xmere moving away from the body. If it's good for Paul's boots then it's good for Xmere's boots.

Here´s an exercise in logical thinking for you:

Make the assumption that Robert Paul was hurrying and not aware of what lay ahead in Bucks Row. How would he walk? Slowly or quickly? What impact would that have on the sound of his steps? Think about it, and we will come back to the issue.

Now, make the assumption that Lechmere was the killer and heard the approaching Paul. If he then decided that he wanted to try and bluff it out, how would he move away three steps or five from the body? Quickly or slowly? Would he or would he not take care to step softly? Any ideas?

Now, let's return to Paul. If he was - as I am brazenly suggesting - speeding as best as he could, his hobnailed boots tapping away loudly as he went, would that in any way impact his ability to hear somebody stepping slowly and softly three or five steps into the street fifty, sixty, seventy yards away?

Take out a coin, Dusty, and sit down at your kitchen table. Then knock the coin against the surface of the table with gusto, tick, tick, tick!

Now, take the coin and touch the surface of the table with it as softly as you can.

Here´s the ten thousand dollar question: Can you hear any difference whatsoever? No?

You see, this is the kind of point that should be disallowed out here. It is in itself so worthless as to disqualify it from being used as an argument at all. But as I keep saying, keep it coming. People will read it and understand the implications. So once again, thank you!

An addition: If Lechmere had really been walking 40 yards or so in front of Paul hurrying on account of being late for work, THEN I merrily agree that Paul should have heard him - but he never said he did. My conclusion is that Lechmere was therefore NOT 40 yards or so in front of Paul, hurrying down Bucks Row, but instead immobile, kneeling at the side of Nichols as Paul arrived in Bucks Row.

Can you see how my argument works on all levels, while yours ...well, y' a know ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

.It was very, very, very convenient for Lechmere that Paul arrived so close in time as to provide an alibi for him, don't you think? Or wait a sec - could he have made it all up...?

It would have been even more convenient for Lechmere if he’d simply walked away and not had any contact with Paul at all.