Another nail in the Lechmere coffin?

[Fisherman]

Henry Flower: Never mind 'such a street', I tried it at about 3.00am with a friend in the very street, which has not changed a great deal since the 88. What struck me was that even though I asked my friend to walk normally (in relatively hard-soled shoes) without attempting to be quiet, she was actually not obviously audible until quite close by. Now granted, I wasn't standing frozen still listening hard for her approach; I did shuffle about, went through my pockets, thought about things - because we know that Lechmere's attention, for one reason or another, was focused on something quite important, he was not stood listening for Paul's approach. Reconstructions can get us only so far. We can't know exactly what was audible that night, we don't know for sure what Paul wore on his feet, we don't know whether the act of cutting a throat, lying a body down, rifling through its clothes and ripping at its abdomen would've been sufficiently noisy to have masked the sound of either Lechmere's or (if Lech is our man) Paul's approach. Rest assured I have no intention of staging a more detailed reconstruction!

I have been to Bucks Row several times (or Durward Street, to be more exact). I have never, though, done any sound experiment in the street, mostly because it is never calm and quiet there - it is a street in a large metropolis, and the ambient soundlevel is always very apparent. The last years, there has been a lot of construction work going on too.

I donīt think it is possible to come anywhere close to the conditions of the murder night today - not in Durward Street.
But I live in the quaint town of Helsingborg, where there are a number of old accoustic tunnel streets, and I have tested them a good many times, in the dead of night when it is relatively silent. Not as silent as I imagine Bucks Row would have been, admittedly, but nevertheless relatively quiet.
I am normally quite amazed by how any sound seems to grow in such conditions - footfalls you would not notice in the busy daytime become very obvious at night.
This is my experience, but I bet that a thousand people may have a thousand views of it. The thing to do would be to simply record the soundlevels.



Nobody says the routes are conclusive, but I don't think we can dismiss this point (even though I nearly did earlier on this thread!). I find it impossible to believe that if a modern day police investigation into a series of murders found that a man who had discovered / been discovered with one of the just-killed victims had probable routes to and from work that coincided with other murders, that wouldn't be a huge red flag. Obviously it's not proof of anything, but it can't just be dismissed, surely. It is a link, and the fact that many others might share that same link doesn't negate the fact that it applies to Lechmere.

EXACTLY so, Henry. No matter who is found alone with a freshly killed body, that somebody WILL be checked out. The police will say that they need to clear the person, but it of course also applies that they are eager to find out if the person in question may be the killer. A high percentage of people found alone with freshly killed bodies will be killers, it is that simple and the police are quite aware of it.
So if there are a string of murders that seemingly have the same originator, then the person found with the body will be checked for this parameter; can he or she be shown to have been at the other murder sites at the relevant hours, or can it be shown that the person in question at least would have had a logical reason to be there?
There were thousands of streets in the East End. The odds that Lechmereīs logical work routes would have all of the sites corresponding timewise to his morning work trek pinned down must be very, very high. Why does not one single of these murders take place north, south, northeast, southwest, east or west of his logical working routes?
If it is a coincidence that they ALL match, then it is an almighty coincidence.

Likewise, if we work from the assumption that the killer was a Mr X about whom we know nothning, then the distribution of killing times for the six strikes could have been any way around.
But for some reason, the only two who do not die at a time that seems to be compatible with Lechmeres working trek, are the ones who were killed much earlier ON WHAT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN HIS NIGHT OFF!

So in this way too, the killings fit what we know about the carman. The conclusion must be that either the six women were killed by Lechmere, or they were killed by somebody else who had a reason to walk these exact routes, or they were perpetrated by somebody who could just as well have killed in any other street at any other time, but who - for whatever reason - managed to do it in a way that seemingly fits exactly with the logical movements of the man who was found alone with one of the victims at a time that was very close to when she was cut.


If we apply that logic to the entire series then you are obliged to accept that at least one man seen with each victim was the killer.

Not really, no - it is a question of no matter who was seen alone with any victim at a time that corresponded roughly with the time of death, that person must be a better suggestion for the killerīs role than a phantom killer who was not seen or heard, and whose existence is a mere suggestion.

I think it is entirely possible that a man could very quickly cut a throat, lift some clothes, and rip away at the abdomen for 30 seconds or less and accomplish everything the killer accomplished before slipping away from the body onto Whitechapel High St entirely unseen.

So do I! I agree fully.

That doesn't make him a phantom or a phantasy, and neither does it mean that we must accept Lechmere as the only explanation grounded in facts.

Well, as long as we have no evidence at all of the existence of such a man, he remains a phantom in my eyes. We can call him an invention instead of course. Or conjectural. That is not to say that he cannot have existed, but instead to say that he is nothing but a phantasy with no underlying evidence at all. It is not until we can discard Lechmere as the killer, that this man becomes an apparent reality.

What Jason Payne-James has done is to provide the forensic backdrop. It tells us that if Payne-James is right, then another killer is on purely forensic grounds less likely than Lechmere. And the further we move him away timewise, the less likely he gets. So he will range from unlikely, over very unlikely to incredibly unlikely. Whereas Lechmere is a VERY likely killer, going on the timings and the bleeding only.

To apply your own favourite reasoning, Fish, if we assume Lechmere was innocent, then it is a fact that the killer was not seen.

Yes, that is completely true. Itīs either/or, no exceptions, no detractions, no addings.
But the way I see it, another killer can never be as good a suggestion, since there is not a trace of another killer around. And he would be slightly or massively at odds with the forensic evidence, if he ever existed.

It seems to be slightly disingenuous for you to be arguing that a serial murderer striking very quickly in a dimly-lit, likely empty street at 3.40am must have been seen, and that therefore Lech must be our man.

Thereīs that straw man argument again! I am not arguing such a thing at all. I am saying that even though it is at odds with what Payne-James says is the normal bleeding outcome, it still applies that Jason is a seasoned enough forensic specialist to know quite well that rules without exceptions are the rarest of things in the medical world. Which is why he says that Nichols MAY have bled for a longer time than five minutes. He also says that he has learnt from clever legal men that if he says that he finds seven minutes unexpected but possible, then they will ask if eight minutes is impossible. Or nine. Or ten. Or eleven. Or twelve.
And all the while, he can only say that it is very hard to write something off as totally impossible. All he can do is to offer what he THINKS is the reasonable time span. And in this case, he opts for three or five minutes sounding more plausibel than seven. Thatīs as far as he is willing to go, and I think that shows just how discerning he is.

So, Henry, in conclusion I think that a man may easily cut a woman quickly and lethally, and that he may then take off down a road that takes him out of dangers way.
Itīs just that Jason Payne-Jamesī estimation tells me that such a killer is less likely than Lechmere, going on the times and the bleeding only. Plus there are a lot of anomalies attaching to the carman, making him very worthy of a closer look - and that closer look tells us that his routes seems to be in perfect alignment with the killings. When we notice this, we should not ask ourselves how many other men may have walked these routes - we should ask ourselves how much of a chance there was for this alignment. Given the many streets there were to choose from, we may well be looking at a one in a hundred chance.

Accepting that, how can a suggested/phantom/phantasy/invented killer be as good a bid as Lechmere?

He cannot be ruled out, but in my universe he plays second fiddle until we can conclude that he ever existed.

[Pierre]

Unless of course if you think he is still alive!

which, after reading some of the posts and possibilities that have been presented to clear Lechmere, I find possible too...

Rainbow°

The coffin everyone is looking for is not in Great Britain. And it was not in Great Britain then.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Had to be well over 5 minutes between Nichol's injuries and Mizen arriving.

Yes. Very much agreed.

[Henry Flower]

A street like Bucks Row, with rows of houses on both sides IS an accoustic tunnel. I engaged an expert in a debate about whether Hutchinson could have heard Kelly and Astrakhan man from the corner at the entrance to Dorset Street, and he said that a street like Bucks Row functions like an accoustic tunnel. I knew it before - anybody who has been in such a street knows this.

Never mind 'such a street', I tried it at about 3.00am with a friend in the very street, which has not changed a great deal since the 88. What struck me was that even though I asked my friend to walk normally (in relatively hard-soled shoes) without attempting to be quiet, she was actually not obviously audible until quite close by. Now granted, I wasn't standing frozen still listening hard for her approach; I did shuffle about, went through my pockets, thought about things - because we know that Lechmere's attention, for one reason or another, was focused on something quite important, he was not stood listening for Paul's approach. Reconstructions can get us only so far. We can't know exactly what was audible that night, we don't know for sure what Paul wore on his feet, we don't know whether the act of cutting a throat, lying a body down, rifling through its clothes and ripping at its abdomen would've been sufficiently noisy to have masked the sound of either Lechmere's or (if Lech is our man) Paul's approach. Rest assured I have no intention of staging a more detailed reconstruction!

Next: You say that I argue that Lechmere can be linked to the other murder sites. He can, by way of the logical routes to his job. It is not a definitive or absolute link, but it is a link. Scobie uses, I believe, the exact same wording - he is linked.

Nobody says the routes are conclusive, but I don't think we can dismiss this point (even though I nearly did earlier on this thread!). I find it impossible to believe that if a modern day police investigation into a series of murders found that a man who had discovered / been discovered with one of the just-killed victims had probable routes to and from work that coincided with other murders, that wouldn't be a huge red flag. Obviously it's not proof of anything, but it can't just be dismissed, surely. It is a link, and the fact that many others might share that same link doesn't negate the fact that it applies to Lechmere.

Personally, I think it odd in the extreme to favour a killer nobody ever saw or heard, a phantom killer, when we KNOW that there was a suspect in place who was alone with the body for an unknown amount of time.

How can anybody FAVOUR a figment of phantasy over the proven existence of Lechmere? To me, it is impossible. Until any evidence of this elusive character can be produced, Lechmere remains the only bid anchored in the facts.

If we apply that logic to the entire series then you are obliged to accept that at least one man seen with each victim was the killer. I think it is entirely possible that a man could very quickly cut a throat, lift some clothes, and rip away at the abdomen for 30 seconds or less and accomplish everything the killer accomplished before slipping away from the body onto Whitechapel High St entirely unseen. That doesn't make him a phantom or a phantasy, and neither does it mean that we must accept Lechmere as the only explanation grounded in facts. To apply your own favourite reasoning, Fish, if we assume Lechmere was innocent, then it is a fact that the killer was not seen. It seems to be slightly disingenuous for you to be arguing that a serial murderer striking very quickly in a dimly-lit, likely empty street at 3.40am must have been seen, and that therefore Lech must be our man.

[MysterySinger]

Had to be well over 5 minutes between Nichol's injuries and Mizen arriving.

[Fisherman]

I have given some consideration to how to frame this reply and will limit it to a few points(ok its relative), this is really getting too heated, insults, unneeded are coming in both directions, and few facts are being discussed, just opinions exchanged which achieve nothing.




I do not think I have accused you of deliberately serially misleading at all, if I have, point me in its way and if need be I will apologise,

I have said many times that I think you passionately believe what you post, I see no attempt to deliberately mislead or be dishonest, I am not sure how much clearer I can make that.

However it is my view that your work is coloured by your belief in lechmere’s guilt, and if it is that you are referring to I am sorry, I do not see it as a conscious act to deliberately mislead.




Again its about how you view the statements of highly qualified experts on what are largely subjective matters.




At last some facts.
So how do we know what could be seen?
Have any realistic reconstructions been tried?

If not it would certainly help to get a clearer impression.



That is a nice example, but then you are actively listen for it, which is my point,



You appear to be saying the above statement is a fact as far as I can see.
I see no “maybe” or “if” or “could” to qualify it

And while you may be right, that is not a fact, it is an opinion.





I think there is a misunderstand here, when I say it is background noise, I mean it is background in his mind, he is not consciously considering it, not that it is “actual” background noise.







interest in certainly, but there is no more than that, the data to link him to the murders is not there,
you of course argue it is.




First point I do not see that is a straw man argument at all, it does seem to be a favoured phrase of yours today, but as I am attempting to cool things lets let it like so much else in these posts just go.


That is his belief, it does not mean the CPS would agree, and that is my point.
This is very subjective, look at how heated it gets, you need more than one independent opinion in my view, and then the case you argue is far stronger, what ever that case may be.





Certainly not, and if a suspectologists (honestly never used that term before) can back an argument with data, one only as to accept that one may be wrong.
Its opinion not backed by any data at all which drags down the view of suspectologists in some eyes.

As I have said many times I greatly admire the amount of work you have put in, the sheer number of hours.
The same applies to several others who have proposed suspects and authored books, this includes one where the author was arguing the case against the suspect.



I am talking in general terms not specifically about one poster. But I did point out an apparent example earlier in the reply




It is not a straw man argument, please read what is actually written.
I am not saying that you do, just that the evidence does not exclude the possibility of another killer.



As a rough guide sure, as an exact time I just do not agree, even more so in 1888.



When you say the later suggestion are you referring to the unseen killer ?

If so while I see your argument, it is still possible in my view, just.
But I have to agree it is getting to the point where it is unreasonable.



I view it slightly different, I believe there is enough variation available to say that he does not need to actually be there on site, but certainly very close to, less than a minute would be a good guess

6.5 is not way past to me, but it depends on how we each view it.
Stretching by a small amount is reasonable, there is a point where it is no longer reasonable. I would not like to go to more than 7-8minutes.



I have argued that he is a viable suspect for the Nichols murder and only that one, personally “red-hot “ is far too far for me.

You see when we have hard facts I am perfectly ok with it, I don’t even give the alternative arguments that movement may have restarted bleeding or the reports that she was cold.

While the first is possible it is I think less likely, given the medical facts. Although that does cause some issues with the other evidence of her being cold.

You may wonder why I am prepared to accept Payne-James as a single expert when I do not do so with other experts.

We are working with medicine, its more objective than say law, which is often subjective.

Even then I would normal like a second expert, however having worked in natural sciences etc for 35 years, I see nothing controversial in what he says from my own, obviously less expert, knowledge.


The problem is there are so few facts to work with, due to the very nature of the case, much of the work is based on supposition.


Steve

Right - cutting it short!

I agree that there is too much useless blabbering and too little fact discussion. It is a common trait on Lechmere threads, where I often find myself a personal target for all sorts of criticism, instead of having a factbased discussion about the case.

You introduce the phrase "serially misleading". I never said that you accused me of that. I said that you DO accuse me of misleading at times.

You ask what could be seen of Lechmere in the street. We donīt know the power of the light, we donīt know the frame of Lechmere, we dont know the grade of darkness, we donīt know the exact position of Paul and Lechmere or the exact distance between them. We know they said that they walked down the very narrow northern pavement, we have Lechmere fixing the distance between them to around 35 yards. So roughly speaking, Lechmere will arguably have been visible as a silhouette against the backdrop of light.

Asking for more exactitude is an exercise in futility.

The debate about me presenting things as facts when they cannot be. Your example:
Because Paul hurried down the street, and made no effort at all to be silent. The street was an accoustic tunnel. Paul should have been audible all the way.

I donīt know what exact part/s you ar referring to, but:
-Pauls WAS hurrying along the street - he said so himself.
-Since he hurried down the street, he did not make any effort to be silent.
-A street like Bucks Row, with rows of houses on both sides IS an accoustic tunnel. I engaged an expert in a debate about whether Hutchinson could have heard Kelly and Astrakhan man from the corner at the entrance to Dorset Street, and he said that a street like Bucks Row functions like an accoustic tunnel. I knew it before - anybody who has been in such a street knows this.
-A number of people testified to how the night was a totally silent one.
-Accordingly, there is no way Paul could have emitted no sound as he hurried down the street. To anybody listening, and equipped with a normal sense of hearing, he should be audible. Which is what I say - I donīt say that he WAS audible.
-We also know that Neil had no problems hearing Thain as the latter passed up at Brady Street.

Next: You say that I argue that Lechmere can be linked to the other murder sites. He can, by way of the logical routes to his job. It is not a definitive or absolute link, but it is a link. Scobie uses, I believe, the exact same wording - he is linked.

You argue that the alternative killer you envisage would have been less than a minute away when Lechmere arrived. In that case, he will have been in the street as Lechmere entered it.
Personally, I think it odd in the extreme to favour a killer nobody ever saw or heard, a phantom killer, when we KNOW that there was a suspect in place who was alone with the body for an unknown amount of time.

How can anybody FAVOUR a figment of phantasy over the proven existence of Lechmere? To me, it is impossible. Until any evidence of this elusive character can be produced, Lechmere remains the only bid anchored in the facts.

Last: Please try and produce a schedule in which Mizen arrives no later than five minutes after when Lechmere would have cut the neck of Nichols if he was the killer!

[Fisherman]

I have given some consideration to how to frame this reply and will limit it to a few points(ok its relative), this is really getting too heated, insults, unneeded are coming in both directions, and few facts are being discussed, just opinions exchanged which achieve nothing.




I do not think I have accused you of deliberately serially misleading at all, if I have, point me in its way and if need be I will apologise,

I have said many times that I think you passionately believe what you post, I see no attempt to deliberately mislead or be dishonest, I am not sure how much clearer I can make that.

However it is my view that your work is coloured by your belief in lechmere’s guilt, and if it is that you are referring to I am sorry, I do not see it as a conscious act to deliberately mislead.




Again its about how you view the statements of highly qualified experts on what are largely subjective matters.




At last some facts.
So how do we know what could be seen?
Have any realistic reconstructions been tried?

If not it would certainly help to get a clearer impression.



That is a nice example, but then you are actively listen for it, which is my point,



You appear to be saying the above statement is a fact as far as I can see.
I see no “maybe” or “if” or “could” to qualify it

And while you may be right, that is not a fact, it is an opinion.





I think there is a misunderstand here, when I say it is background noise, I mean it is background in his mind, he is not consciously considering it, not that it is “actual” background noise.







interest in certainly, but there is no more than that, the data to link him to the murders is not there,
you of course argue it is.




First point I do not see that is a straw man argument at all, it does seem to be a favoured phrase of yours today, but as I am attempting to cool things lets let it like so much else in these posts just go.


That is his belief, it does not mean the CPS would agree, and that is my point.
This is very subjective, look at how heated it gets, you need more than one independent opinion in my view, and then the case you argue is far stronger, what ever that case may be.





Certainly not, and if a suspectologists (honestly never used that term before) can back an argument with data, one only as to accept that one may be wrong.
Its opinion not backed by any data at all which drags down the view of suspectologists in some eyes.

As I have said many times I greatly admire the amount of work you have put in, the sheer number of hours.
The same applies to several others who have proposed suspects and authored books, this includes one where the author was arguing the case against the suspect.



I am talking in general terms not specifically about one poster. But I did point out an apparent example earlier in the reply




It is not a straw man argument, please read what is actually written.
I am not saying that you do, just that the evidence does not exclude the possibility of another killer.



As a rough guide sure, as an exact time I just do not agree, even more so in 1888.



When you say the later suggestion are you referring to the unseen killer ?

If so while I see your argument, it is still possible in my view, just.
But I have to agree it is getting to the point where it is unreasonable.



I view it slightly different, I believe there is enough variation available to say that he does not need to actually be there on site, but certainly very close to, less than a minute would be a good guess

6.5 is not way past to me, but it depends on how we each view it.
Stretching by a small amount is reasonable, there is a point where it is no longer reasonable. I would not like to go to more than 7-8minutes.



I have argued that he is a viable suspect for the Nichols murder and only that one, personally “red-hot “ is far too far for me.

You see when we have hard facts I am perfectly ok with it, I don’t even give the alternative arguments that movement may have restarted bleeding or the reports that she was cold.

While the first is possible it is I think less likely, given the medical facts. Although that does cause some issues with the other evidence of her being cold.

You may wonder why I am prepared to accept Payne-James as a single expert when I do not do so with other experts.

We are working with medicine, its more objective than say law, which is often subjective.

Even then I would normal like a second expert, however having worked in natural sciences etc for 35 years, I see nothing controversial in what he says from my own, obviously less expert, knowledge.


The problem is there are so few facts to work with, due to the very nature of the case, much of the work is based on supposition.


Steve

Steve, we need to produce shorter posts. Not marginally shorter: SHORTER!!

I will give your post some afterthought, and then I will pick out the more pertinent points and give you a short answer, sometime later today. Then - hopefully - we can keep it shorter than what has been the case in this exchange.

[Fisherman]

Unless of course if you think he is still alive!

which, after reading some of the posts and possibilities that have been presented to clear Lechmere, I find possible too...

Rainbow°

Thatīs good fun, Rainbow...!

[John Wheat]

Unless of course if you think he is still alive!

which, after reading some of the posts and possibilities that have been presented to clear Lechmere, I find possible too...



Rainbow°

I think you know what I meant. That's ridiculous Lechmere doesn't need to be cleared it should be proven he's guilty. Which frankly there is nothing to suggest he is.

[Elamarna]

I have given some consideration to how to frame this reply and will limit it to a few points(ok its relative), this is really getting too heated, insults, unneeded are coming in both directions, and few facts are being discussed, just opinions exchanged which achieve nothing.

Well, you have written that I "mislead", so it really comed from there.


Again why resort to this "Fisherman is trying to fool us all!" response, to fool us, one has to start from the premise that you are deliberately being dishonest, I DO NOT THINK THAT FOR ONE MINUTE!

So you only think I am misleading, apparently. Thanks for that!

I do not think I have accused you of deliberately serially misleading at all, if I have, point me in its way and if need be I will apologise,

I have said many times that I think you passionately believe what you post, I see no attempt to deliberately mislead or be dishonest, I am not sure how much clearer I can make that.

However it is my view that your work is coloured by your belief in lechmere’s guilt, and if it is that you are referring to I am sorry, I do not see it as a conscious act to deliberately mislead.

Iīm sure you are right. Thatīs why I refer to the evidence instead. There is a lot of it, circumstantial such, surrounding Lechmere. Once again, it was enough for a barrister like James Scobie - but not for a legal bigwig like you, apparently.

Again its about how you view the statements of highly qualified experts on what are largely subjective matters.

but you alsoi have the fact that as they walked on the northern pavement, there was a light behind Lechmere, whereas that light was not there to uwhen Lechmere was on the southern pavement.
Context is everything. Everything, Steve. Details, facts, knowledge, when we bake it together we get the full picture, when we donīt, we ask the kind of questions you ask.
[/B]

He should not have see Lechmere if the latter was on the southern side, killing Nichols, since the lamp was fixed to the NORTHERN side of the street. Thus Lechmere would have formed no silhouette.

Can you see how that works?

At last some facts.
So how do we know what could be seen?
Have any realistic reconstructions been tried?

If not it would certainly help to get a clearer impression.

What you need to do is what I have done - seek out a street with rows of houses on each side, go there when it is night and dark, stand at one corner and listen to the sounds people make when walking down the street in sneakers, high-heel shoes, boots....
Itīs revealing.

That is a nice example, but then you are actively listen for it, which is my point,

Because Paul hurried down the street, and made no effort at all to be silent. The street was an accoustic tunnel. Paul should have been audible all the way.

A guess on your part , very possible correct, but still a guess.

Again you present an idea as an established fact .

You appear to be saying the above statement is a fact as far as I can see.
I see no “maybe” or “if” or “could” to qualify it

And while you may be right, that is not a fact, it is an opinion.

He is only audible if Lechmere is actively listening, otherwise it is background noise and often it may not register.

There should BE no background sound. The people involved all said that it was a totally quiet night, eerily so, and therefore Lechmere should have heard Paul. And once again, you are making a straw man argument, since I am not saying that this is a fact. It is what you say, a very possibly correct thing.

I think there is a misunderstand here, when I say it is background noise, I mean it is background in his mind, he is not consciously considering it, not that it is “actual” background noise.

One assumes the police were not completely deficient in their work at the time, they it appears found no link.

I am speaking of TODAYS police. But both they and their victorian predecessors make incredibly stupid mistakes at times. Not as a rule, but it happens.


This is a historic cold case, this is not a police investigation, was he considered a suspect, serious or otherwise at the time?

Must he have been to be viable as a suspect today? Iīll answer that one for you: Nope.


Agreed but he was one they could not miss, surely they looked at him and dismissed him.

Logically underbuilt hypothetical routes and links. And that is quite enough to allow for a very much raised interest in the carman who was found WITH the body.

interest in certainly, but there is no more than that, the data to link him to the murders is not there,
you of course argue it is.

There you go with that "It proves nothing" straw man argument again, Steve. You really step in it whenever you can, donīt you? It PROVES that a very qualified barrister says that there is enough in it to allow for a trial against Lechmere. It does not prove that he would be convicted, but the mere fact that Scobie says what he says should have you realizing that Lechmere is twenty-three and a half country miles ahead of any other suspect when it comes to an evidence-based weighing of the case.
But by all means, put your hands over your ears and chant Waah-waah-waah until I stop saying it, and you will be fine, Iīm sure.

First point I do not see that is a straw man argument at all, it does seem to be a favoured phrase of yours today, but as I am attempting to cool things lets let it like so much else in these posts just go.


That is his belief, it does not mean the CPS would agree, and that is my point.
This is very subjective, look at how heated it gets, you need more than one independent opinion in my view, and then the case you argue is far stronger, what ever that case may be.

It is all very comfortable to work from the presumption that are morally inferior to those with AN OPEN MIND (sigh). Its just that as far as Iīm concerend, that "openmindedness" is a pretense for trying to have your views accepted as being of greater weight.
[/B]

Certainly not, and if a suspectologists (honestly never used that term before) can back an argument with data, one only as to accept that one may be wrong.
Its opinion not backed by any data at all which drags down the view of suspectologists in some eyes.

As I have said many times I greatly admire the amount of work you have put in, the sheer number of hours.
The same applies to several others who have proposed suspects and authored books, this includes one where the author was arguing the case against the suspect.

My only issue with Opinion is that it is not presented as fact.

Can you show me one single case where I have done so? Please? Can you?

I am talking in general terms not specifically about one poster. But I did point out an apparent example earlier in the reply

You have done that in my opinion on the blood-flow timing issues, but even then it fails to exclude the possibility that someone other than Lechmere was the killer.

Straw man argument. I donīt claim that the possibility is excluded, only that it is less credible than Lechmere as the killer, going on Payne-Jamesī estimation.

It is not a straw man argument, please read what is actually written.
I am not saying that you do, just that the evidence does not exclude the possibility of another killer.

We are talking about a minute or twos difference no more.

At this exact moment I have a laptop telling me its 12.57, two Samsung phones giving 12.56 and 12.57, a watch showing 12.58 and a clock showing 1.01.
And that is with today’s timekeeping equipment.
That is an honest statement not just invented.,

I believe you, Steve - itīs sometimes the same here. I am not saying that there may not be discrepancies, I am saying that when somebody gives a point of time to the police, they had better work from that time as the probably correct one.

As a rough guide sure, as an exact time I just do not agree, even more so in 1888.

And I have no issue with what you have posted Three and Five minutes is plenty of time for Lechmere to either see another killer (Pierre’s theory) of for another killer to have struck and have just gone so lechmere did not see him.

No, the latter suggestion does not work. Lechmere must have cut her before Paul arrived, so we must add half a minute there. Then it took around four minutes from the time Paul arrived til the carmen found Mizen = 4,5 minutes passed. Then it took MIzen around two minutes to get to Browns = 6,5 minutes gone.

When you say the later suggestion are you referring to the unseen killer ?

If so while I see your argument, it is still possible in my view, just.
But I have to agree it is getting to the point where it is unreasonable.

Some second or seconds can be altered, but overall, we are way past the five minues, meaning that if Payne-James is correct and if Nichols followed the suggested pattern, then Lechmere was in place as she was cut..

But Payne-James allowed for seven minutes too. And perhaps eight. Perhaps nine or ten, who knows?

I view it slightly different, I believe there is enough variation available to say that he does not need to actually be there on site, but certainly very close to, less than a minute would be a good guess

6.5 is not way past to me, but it depends on how we each view it.
Stretching by a small amount is reasonable, there is a point where it is no longer reasonable. I would not like to go to more than 7-8minutes.

It is a question of probabilities. Maybe there WAS time for another killer, we donīt know.
But, and that is what matters, even if this was so, Lechmere MUST be regarded as a red-hot suspect!

I have argued that he is a viable suspect for the Nichols murder and only that one, personally “red-hot “ is far too far for me.

You see when we have hard facts I am perfectly ok with it, I don’t even give the alternative arguments that movement may have restarted bleeding or the reports that she was cold.

While the first is possible it is I think less likely, given the medical facts. Although that does cause some issues with the other evidence of her being cold.

You may wonder why I am prepared to accept Payne-James as a single expert when I do not do so with other experts.

We are working with medicine, its more objective than say law, which is often subjective.

Even then I would normal like a second expert, however having worked in natural sciences etc for 35 years, I see nothing controversial in what he says from my own, obviously less expert, knowledge.


The problem is there are so few facts to work with, due to the very nature of the case, much of the work is based on supposition.


Steve

[DJA]

What would Lechmere say,if he was alive today?


LET ME OUTA HERE!

[Rainbow]

How is there even a Lechmere coffin?

Unless of course if you think he is still alive!

which, after reading some of the posts and possibilities that have been presented to clear Lechmere, I find possible too...



Rainbow°

[John Wheat]

How is there even a Lechmere coffin?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;399605]

But itīs Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere , Lechmere , Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere all the tine nevertheless.
That was just 79 Lechmereīs by the way - there are a hundred and ten.

Oh, dear.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Why would you think, others would think you are trying to fool them, you very clearly believe what you write.

Well, you have written that I "mislead", so it really comes from there.

However saying the same thing over and over with no evidence, just lots of ideas and suggestions will probably struggle to convince many of those with more than a little knowledge of the case.

Iīm sure you are right. Thatīs why I refer to the evidence instead. There is a lot of it, circumstantial such, surrounding Lechmere. Once again, it was enough for a barrister like James Scobie - but not for a legal bigwig like you, apparently.


Again why resort to this "Fisherman is trying to fool us all!" response, to fool us, one has to start from the premise that you are deliberately being dishonest, I DO NOT THINK THAT FOR ONE MINUTE!

So you only think I am misleading, apparently. Thanks for that!

The comment is even more odd looking at the issue under discussion, when on this point I agree with much of what you argue regarding the blood and the effect that must have on timings.

I ws referring to how you led on that I somwhow would have said that the blood evidence tells us that Lechmere was the killer, while whay I do is to say that he is the PROBABLE killer.

I disagree it does not seem that he was present when Nichols was cut, it seems according to Payne-James that he was there very close to the time it of the cut.

Payne-James favours a shorter time than seven minutes. That puts Lechmere on the spot, pretty much.


I am very sorry but that is not what is shows at all, that is how you WISH to interpret it, and despite your protestations all you views are driven by you overriding need to prove Lechmere as the killer..

Balderdash. Of course Payne-James suggestion is totally in line with Lechmere being the killer. He says that three to five minutes is a likelier time span than seven. And that IS totally in line with Lechmere being with the body when it was cut. My "overriding needs" have nothing to do with it. Itīs more like how your inability to acknowledge simple facts stands in the way of your comprehension powers.


Not if Paul is not concentrating on what he is doing and is on autopilot, as many are when doing routine activity, walking to work for instance.

Or if he had a paper bag over his head and winegums stuffed in his ears. You asked me why Paul should have noticed Lechmere, and I told you. Nonsense about "autopilot" does not belong in that discussion.

It is all about what we consciously perceive going on around us

Eh ... yes? Surely it must be?

If Lechmere was over the body, committing the crime, then Paul did not hear him move away from the body either did he?

As I said, you can do it almost without any sound at all if you have time to do so and if you move slowly. Now Iīve told you twice, must I do it three times?


We do not know.

No, we do not know. So maybe we should not predispose that moving away from the body was a very timeconsuming and loud act.

However the killer must have been either kneeling of squatting over the body to inflict the injuries, however it is clear Lechmere was not kneeling or squatting over the body when seen, and so he must have moved.

If he heard Paul when the latter entered the street, he had a full minute to do it. That allows very much for moving slowly, silently and cautiously.

If he moved why did Paul not see or hear him, it works both ways you see.

Now I am going to try an experiment on you, Steve. It is complicated and takes a lot of thinking. Nevertheless, I have some little hope that it may work.
Compare these things:
1. A man hurrying down a street, with no intention at all to stay silent, walking for a full minute at high speed.
2. Another man, slowly and carefull getting up to standing beside a body, then using ten seconds to stealthily move two yards away from that body, all the shile doing his very best to stay as silent as possible.
Here comes the ten-thousand pound question. Concentrate, think, donīt let anything disturb you and draw upon all that experience we grown men have:
Which man is likely to be more loud and which is likely to be more silent? Drumwhirl, DRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR...!

If Paul should have heard or seen him walking down Bucks Row as you suggest, then he should have equally seen or heard him move from his position of attacking Nichols.

No. Not only is there the elaborate experiment above to consider, but you alsoi have the fact that as they walked on the northern pavement, there was a light behind Lechmere, whereas that light was not there to uwhen Lechmere was on the southern pavement.
Context is everything. Everything, Steve. Details, facts, knowledge, when we bake it together we get the full picture, when we donīt, we ask the kind of questions you ask.


Unknown it could be anything from a few seconds to tens of seconds, you cannot deduce.

I can deduce that he MAY have had a full minute, since that is what it would have taken Paul to reach Browns. And that is working from the presumtion that Lechmere did not hear Pauls footfalls before he turned into Bucks Row - which he may have done.


Of course it is possible, very little is actually impossible, just as it is possible that Lechmere was walking down Bucks Row and making little noise.

And being invisible.
What you need to do is what I have done - seek out a street with rows of houses on each side, go there when it is night and dark, stand at one corner and listen to the sounds people make when walking down the street in sneakers, high-heel shoes, boots....
Itīs revealing.


However what is interesting and thank you for reminding me, as there was “ A lamp was burning BEHIND Lechmere, from Pauls vantage point.”

Should not Paul therefore have seen him move according to your reasoning?

If not why not?

He should have seen Lechmere if the latter walked in front of him on the northern pavement, since Lechmereīs body would have formed a silhouette before him.

He should not have see Lechmere if the latter was on the southern side, killing Nichols, since the lamp was fixed to the NORTHERN side of the street. Thus Lechmere would have formed no silhouette.

Can you see how that works?


A guess on your part , very possible correct, but still a guess.

Again you present an idea as an established fact .

He is only audible if Lechmere is actively listening, otherwise it is background noise and often it may not register.

There should BE no background sound. The people involved all said that it was a totally quiet night, eerily so, and therefore Lechmere should have heard Paul. And once again, you are making a straw man argument, since I am not saying that this is a fact. It is what you say, a very possibly correct thing.


Again resorting to insults I see.

Maybe so. But I am not insulting logical thinking and sense, at any rate. Your idea that we will not normally hear and understand more than half of what we are told is bizarre.


If what I post is indeed senseless than the answer is simply, don’t reply.

So much the more need to correct it!

Otherwise the old adage perhaps should be considered:

“if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen”

When have you ever had any reason at all to think I canīt take the heat? Any heat, as it were?

Accepted that you have over 100 signed documents, very suggestive about how he signed himself, but not conclusive ruling out the possibility of using another name.

I think that a jury would not buy that. It is more of a philosphical truth than a legal one, Iīm afraid. When somebody has produced the same name over a spectre of many decades whenever speaking to the authorities, and then tries to tell a judge and jury that this is just an unlucky coincidence and he sometimes uses another name, then he will NOT be believed and may well get convicted on account of such a thing. Scobie again: A jury would not like him.
By the way, it should be pointed out that Lechmere has not signed all the documents himself - he has EITHER signed them or given his name when asked, and then had the name signed for him.
But itīs Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere , Lechmere , Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere all the tine nevertheless.
That was just 79 Lechmereīs by the way - there are a hundred and ten.

Are you claiming that there are not other possible documents not yet found?

Yes, I firmly believe that the 110 documents found are all the documents that ever existed.

Can we be a bit more serious, Steve? Please? Ask smarter questions and all that?

If not that does not preclude the possibility that he did use it.

Tell that to the jury.

And of course you are talking about written documents, not what he may have used verbally?

I donīt think he went to the authorities, said "My name is Cross" and then signed "Lechmere".

I think it even more incredible that he went to the authorities, said "My name is Cross" and then THEY signed "Lechmere".

Of which there is no possible way of knowing of course.

No existing evidence, you mean.

However given that his step father had been a police officer, it is probably that Lechmere had been know to some of the colleagues of his stepfather and it cannot be discounted that he was know to those person as Charles Cross.

It cannot be discounted that he took a shine to a walrus at the London Zoo named Wilson Picket, and used THAT name with friends.
Itīs not about what cannot be discounted, Steve, itīs about how we know full well that he signed himself Lechmere with the authorities.

It is entirely possible that he used this name when dealing with the Police, it giving him a perceived “in” with the them in his mind.

You know, Steve, it is often said that I make up things, that my theory is fiction, that I make things up out of thin air.
I thought Iīd just mention that in this context.


Again this same type of reply, no one is accusing you of deliberately misleading anyone.

Nobody? Try again.

There is a difference and you are not misleading us by refusing to see it, you are misleading yourself.

I donīt think I will let you be the judge of that (and of a few other bits and bobs, to be frank. You are too fond of yourself and your perceived role for me to feel comfortable with the suggestion.


Well you did as you did not mention Paul - fact.

It is not possible to carry out a full analyses of what was said to Mizen, without including any possible input from Paul.

We do not know it is wrong, it is different certainly.

To be wrong you must have a established base to compare to?
what is yours?

Mizen?

I am comparing the Lloyds article to what was said at the inquest, and I am concluding from this that either lloyds got it wrong or the inquest did. And as Paul does not repeat the nonsense from the article, the solution is reasonably that Lloyds can be discarded in a number of instances.
Maybe you are getting philosophical again, Steve?


In your interpretation yes.

Others believe they indicate the opposite.

But cannot explain how that would work, sadly.


These are purely hypothetical routes, and there is no data to back up which route he may or may not have used have used on any single day.

Additionally he was found with or seen with none of the others, it is a futile argument.

No, it is not. It is the kind of material the police are looking for to close in on a suspect. Or, to be a little less dramatic, the kind of material the police will check for, and act upon if the outcome suggests that they should. I can cite any number of examples.


No you suggest working routes, you have not shown or proved.

Tabram died along the Old Montague route. The other three died along the Hanbury Street route, and I donīt have to prove that he used that one. He did that himself, remember?
And donīt be so tedious as to suggest tht it may have been an exception to the rule. That would be more philosphy.


One assumes the police were not completely deficient in their work at the time, they it appears found no link.

I am speaking of TODAYS police. But both they and their victorian predecessors make incredibly stupid mistakes at times. Not as a rule, but it happens.

This is a historic cold case, this is not a police investigation, was he considered a suspect, serious or otherwise at the time?

Must he have been to be viable as a suspect today? Iīll answer that one for you: Nope.


They are hypothetical routes and links to the sites, NO more.

Logically underbuilt hypothetical routes and links. And that is quite enough to allow for a very much raised interest in the carman who was found WITH the body.


This insistence on quoting Scobie as you have done often over the years proves nothing either way, it is the view of one man, agreed a qualified man, indeed an expert; but only one opinion nevertheless.

There you go with that "It proves nothing" straw man argument again, Steve. You really step in it whenever you can, donīt you? It PROVES that a very qualified barrister says that there is enough in it to allow for a trial against Lechmere. It does not prove that he would be convicted, but the mere fact that Scobie says what he says should have you realizing that Lechmere is twenty-three and a half country miles ahead of any other suspect when it comes to an evidence-based weighing of the case.
But by all means, put your hands over your ears and chant Waah-waah-waah until I stop saying it, and you will be fine, Iīm sure.


How many times does one need to say one view is often not significant enough when we are dealing with objective assessments, let alone subjective ones such as this.

How many times do I have to say that Scobies view carries tremendeous weight, generally speaking?


What agenda?

The naysaying agenda. The save the carman-agenda. I know that you will say that you are soooo free of prejudice and that I am the one suffering from one-eyedness and a huge bias, but I view it differently. As I have pointed out, that "obviously" you used earlier is a great example of this. Maybe you cannot see it yourself, but that is how it looks to me.

This should be interesting?

Was it?

My only “agenda”, if it can be termed such, to any thread on here is that they be honest with the facts as far as possible and that people do not intentionally mislead.
If I think someone is doing that I am very clear about it in my posts.

And there we are. The very clear, very able, very truthful Steve strikes again. So you cannot see it yourself, I take it.
It is far easier to commend you on your aim than the outcome of your efforts. I see the same thing all over, and you are far from the worst example (take comfort in that!).
It is all very comfortable to work from the presumption that suspectologists are morally inferior to those with AN OPEN MIND (sigh). Its just that as far as Iīm concerend, that "openmindedness" is a pretense for trying to have your views accepted as being of greater weight.

But this is a topic for a whole new thread, so I will leave it there. If ou can try to lecture me on intentional misleading, I can do so with you when it comes to hypocrisy.

I would prefer to discuss the case details ONLY, without dragging on personal criticism. If you canīt manage that, I can play the game both ways. Just saying.

My only issue with Opinion is that it is not presented as fact.

Can you show me one single case where I have done so? Please? Can you?

Unlike some who debate with you, pushing their own suspect or theory, I never do this, and while I have a short-list, none of them are probably rather than possible at present.

Well, to be frank, youīd lose the battle 24-7. Itīs a matter of material.

Because I do not agree with you, you feel I must have an hidden agenda, it seems you cannot understand people honestly not agreeing with you.

Hidden? No, itīs not hidden, itīs quite plain to me. Maybe not to you, though. But on the whole, I donīt care if you are Mother Teresa in disguise, Steve - I STILL will argue that Lechmere is the only really good candidate and the probale Ripper, and I will still be correct on that score.
And I am not even deluded!


Possible just means it is not impossible.

More straw man arguments. I never said anything else.

I would argue that if Chapman was killed at the later time, as suggest by Cadosch and others and we assume Lechmere is is working, as the evidence suggests he was, it becomes to use your terms unreasonable to think that he may have been at that murder site at the right time?

But not that Lechmere may have called himself Cross? I see.

The same often repeated line I see, dealt with so many times by so many.

Dealt with? As in disproven? No? Good!

Yes the guy the police appear not to have suspected.

And who is therefore..? Yes?


Having ties to an area does not prove:

1. A person is in that area at the time.
2. It does not show how often a person was in that area
3. It is not any type of proof, not even circumstantial, that he may have committed a crime

More straw man arguments. Iīve claimed neither.

The weakness of some of these argument made is astounding, much of what is quoted as circumstantial evidence is wishful thinking no more.

Like?

Yes you have some interesting hypotheses; now show some real data to support them.

Hypothesis: Lechmere killed Nichols. He was therefore in all probabulity the Ripper.
Support: His road to work reasonably took him through the killing zone at the approximate times of the murders.

Whoops, Steve.

You have done that in my opinion on the blood-flow timing issues, but even then it fails to exclude the possibility that someone other than Lechmere was the killer.

Straw man argument. I donīt claim that the possibility is excluded, only that it is less credible than Lechmere as the killer, going on Payne-Jamesī estimation.


Ties to an area do not make one a criminal.

Guess what? Yep, a straw man argument. Why do you keep producing them?


Being a visitor to a particular area at some stage, is not proof of a visit on a particular date.

Sigh. Straw man argument. Again.

Why should I take any interest in it? Itīs just dumb, is it not?

Find some data to show that he did, or even may have on the dates concerned.

It would be nice, but it is not called for to allow for me to conclude that his working routes and times seemingly fit the killerīs pattern. Of course, if I could give you the knife with fingerprints on it and Lechmereīs mummified hands, it would be useful, but I prefer to live and work in the real world. And it is a slighlty more meager world, evidencewise.


With all due respect you are miles away from having such.

A straw man argument again. I never said I did.

Much of what you cite is with all due respect, not circumstantial evidence, but suggestions of what was not impossible, what could have happened!

Itīs called a "theory" for that very reason.

The problem is, this is not a police investigation.

How does that nullify the value of comparing to one?

It is an historic problem, it can only be solved by examining historical data.

Pierre? Is that you...? Pierre! Come out, come out, whereever you are!

I am using historical data, Steve. We all are. Differently.

yes we can speculate and form hypothesis, but to prove them we need the data.

Oh, I didnīt know THAT! Does that mean that I have not proven my case...?


But it is not circumstantial evidence, it is a possibility that they are linkable, no more.

There is circumstantial evidence involved, donīt fool yourself.


And you have not addressed the points I raised, or even attempted to; rather we just get a repeat of the some much repeated opinion.

Come again? I hate having it said that I "donīt address the points", "cannot answer", "am running scared" and so on.
Spit it out, and I will address your points.

Different people view things in different ways, personally it is not how I would behaviour, but that is not the issue.

How pathetic. You cannot even admit that the it was about helping when they approached Nichols!


Initial curiosity perhaps,
Looking is one thing, getting deeply involved is another.

But they GOT deeply involved. They felt her for warmth, tried to see if she was still breating, etcetera.


Seriously?
We are talking about a minute or twos difference no more.

At this exact moment I have a laptop telling me its 12.57, two Samsung phones giving 12.56 and 12.57, a watch showing 12.58 and a clock showing 1.01.
And that is with today’s timekeeping equipment.
That is an honest statement not just invented.,

I believe you, Steve - itīs sometimes the same here. I am not saying that there may not be discrepancies, I am saying that when somebody gives a point of time to the police, they had better work from that time as the probably correct one.

No problem, it is your right to believe it. You may be right.

Plus the evidence speaks for it being so, yes.


And I have no issue with what you have posted Three and Five minutes is plenty of time for Lechmere to either see another killer (Pierre’s theory) of for another killer to have struck and have just gone so lechmere did not see him.

No, the latter suggestion does not work. Lechmere must have cut her before Paul arrived, so we must add half a minute there. Then it took around four minutes from the time Paul arrived til the carmen found Mizen = 4,5 minutes passed. Then it took MIzen around two minutes to get to Browns = 6,5 minutes gone.
Some second or seconds can be altered, but overall, we are way past the five minues, meaning that if Payne-James is correct and if Nichols followed the suggested pattern, then Lechmere was in place as she was cut.
But Payne-James allowed for seven minutes too. And perhaps eight. Perhaps nine or ten, who knows?
It is a question of probabilitites. Maybe there WAS time for another killer, we donīt know.
But, and that is what matters, even if this was so, Lechmere MUST be regarded as a red-hot suspect!


and of course you miss the real point.

Thatīs condescending and insulting. I think YOU are missing the point I am making.


If you can manage a shorter post next time, Iīd be very thankful. Leave out the straw man arguments - that should halve it.