Another nail in the Lechmere coffin?

[Elamarna]

I have no idea, not sure which ones you claim to have put in place; however the thread is about "another nail", and I do not see any evidence enough to justify a previous one.

Then how could they be pulled out if they were never there...?

Pardon?

Confused?

I certainly am by that reply!



You have named this thread: "Another nail in the Letchmere Coffin."

The use of the word Another implies there are some already in place.

Placed there I assume by yourself.



However it is a question, my reply to which is no, it is not.

I added to this suggesting that I could see no evidence for those nails you suggest by the question are already in place.

You then asked which Nails, to which I replied i had no idea which ones you had already placed there; but that I could see no evidence to support the idea that any should be there in the first place.



steve

[MysterySinger]

I do not know if Thomas Cross, Charles's stepfather was alive in 1888 but if he was it might have been him who encouraged Charles's to come forward, being a Policeman.

No - Thomas Cross died in 1869. Lechmere's mother, Maria Louisa, married again in 1872. Her husband was then Joseph Forsdike (he died in 1889).

[MysterySinger]

I'm putting up two posts which show reporting from the Bury Free Press on 8th September 1888. These might add to the thinking on this thread.

The first here is on the inquest account of Mizen. I've highlighted the fact that a man passing him was "named Cross". As I understand it, Mizen didn't take the name down so may'be learnt it from the inquest (although Cross was actually to be the next witness).

Mizen also said that Cross was accompanied by another man and that both of them afterwards went down Hanbury Street.

[MysterySinger]

Here we see the statements of Cross (George?).

From this, the implication is that Cross and Paul walked together from the body of Nichols to the corner of Corbett's Court.

It also raises a question in my mind since I understood that Mizen didn't take down the names of either Cross or Paul. Mizen possibly learnt Cross's name at the inquest. I'm wondering whether the witnesses were asked at the inquest whether they were known by any other names and that is why our man gave the name Cross.

I say this because in various reports we see the name of either Nelly Holland or Jane Oran (or Oram) whereas, according to Casebook this was one and the same person. Why would both names get reported at the inquest?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;399439]

I agree wholeheartedy: If Lechmere was innocent, then it is just a coincidence that:

OK! Let´s see how many points you get. 0=low validity, 1=medium high validity, 2=high validity.

Validity in this case means valid source indicating that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

1. he was found with the body.

He was found standing in the street. 0 points.

2. he was in place when the body would still bleed a number of minutes.

He was at the murder site when the killer was there according to Mizen, since there was no other time for the sighting of the policeman given that Paul came along. 0 points.

3. Paul did not see or her him before he arrived up at Browns.

Does not make Lechmere a suspect or killer. Not a valid indication. 0 points.

4. Lechmere did not hear Paul until he was very close.

How does that make Lechmere a murderer? 0 points.

5. the carman used a name with the authorities that he otherwise never used.

Afraid that the killer would visit his wife and kids? Not wanting to have his name in the papers? 0 points.

6. the serving PC to whom he had spoken in the murder night disagreed with him over what was said and who said it.

Lechmere took back his statement about having seen a policeman at the murder site. When you analyse this in relation to the dress having been pulled down and his use of the name Cross and in relation to the fact that there is not one piece of evidence from any other murder site you must givie it 0 points.

7. his logical working routes covered four of the murder sites.

And therefore he found Polly Nichols at the murder site closest to his home. So 0 point for the murder indication validity.

8. those who died on working days seems to have done so at the approximate time he would have been en route to work.

And a lot of people was. 0 points.

9. he had geographical ties to both Berner Street and Mitre Square.

And a lot of people had. 0 points.

10. Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly, the ones who died on working days, were not the ones to die at around 1-2 AM.

0 points, since that is no valid indication for being Jack the Ripper.

11. Stride and Eddowes, the ones who died on a non-working day, did not die at around 3-4 AM.

0 points.

12. Lechmere did not go to the police until after Pauls interview was published.

You know nothing of the reason he was at the inquest that particular date. 0 points.

13. Lechmere, while having called out to Paul to supply help to Nichols, refused to help prop her up.

Since he had spoken to the policeman at the murder site? 0 points.

14. the carman took a lot longer to reach Bucks Row than he should have.

Your assumption is built on guesswork. No objective data for the time exists. Trying to interpret minutes in the past is therefore meaningless. 0 validity.

15. Jason Payne-James says that another killer would stretch the bleeding schedule beyond what he would have expected.

Who? 0 points.

These, and a number of other points (I listed 31 of them on another occasion), are simply coincidental if Lechmere was not the killer.

It is not a coincidence that Lechmere found Polly Nichols. The murderer was certainly not worried about being seen.

So in the end, it boils down to how many coincidences we are willing to swallow. I´ve been full for the longest time, but there are people with a voracious appetite out here ...

It is not difficult to digest 0 points. It is nothing.

It is much harder to digest that you overinterpret important sources.

Regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

I agree wholeheartedy: If Lechmere was innocent, then it is just a coincidence that:
1. he was found with the body.

If a third person had subsequently found Lechmere and Paul together with the body would you be claiming they had both killed her?

2. he was in place when the body would still bleed a number of minutes.

This evidence is doubtful, based on a few technically vague phrases or words. An alternative account of events was that the body was cold and had been dead some time. Let's be clear: if the body WAS cold and dead, that's your case gone. That is the single foundation on which your entire house of cards is built. There is nothing else in the theory that doesn't have a potentially innocent explanation. This is the only 'smoking gun' you have. (But if it's true, it's a damned good one!)

3. Paul did not see or her him before he arrived up at Browns.

Hardly damning. Bucks Row is not long, I've walked it hundreds of times, literally, cutting through from Cambridge Heath Rd to the old art supply store Atlantis on Hanbury St nr Brick Lane. If Paul was hurrying for work he might have arrived there as little as 20 seconds after Lech.

4. Lechmere did not hear Paul until he was very close.

No big deal.

5. the carman used a name with the authorities that he otherwise never used.

And yet made himself thoroughly and easily traceable.

6. the serving PC to whom he had spoken in the murder night disagreed with him over what was said and who said it.

And according to Paul the serving PC was slow to react and had more reason to lie to cover his ass than Lechmere did.

7. his logical working routes covered four of the murder sites.

You're guessing. And besides, how many other men could say the same?

8. those who died on working days seems to have done so at the approximate time he would have been en route to work.

You don't really know that, do you? I appreciate the honesty of "seems". We don't know his precise working hours or the precise times of death.

9. he had geographical ties to both Berner Street and Mitre Square.

Most of us will have read sentences almost identical to that one about suspect after suspect, Fish. Spitalfields and Whitechapel were and are still very compact areas heavily built up and densely populated so that is no surprise.

10. Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly, the ones who died on working days, were not the ones to die at around 1-2 AM.

There may be something in that. And whatever it is, it applies to hundreds of men from the area.

11. Stride and Eddowes, the ones who died on a non-working day, did not die at around 3-4 AM.

As above.

12. Lechmere did not go to the police until after Pauls interview was published.

On the contrary, you claim he went to the first police officer he found and told him there was a woman lying on the ground in Bucks Row. How much later did Paul's interview appear? It wasn't long, and reading it may have been the first time Lechmere understood the seriousness of what he had found. If he was guilty, I agree with others who say there is nothing in Paul's interview that could have persuaded Lechmere he was at risk of being found out unless he presented himself.

13. Lechmere, while having called out to Paul to supply help to Nichols, refused to help prop her up.

Did he ask Paul to supply help? I missed that. I thought he was merely asking him to look. If he was innocent, and had the feeling she was dead, why would he want to prop her up anyway?

14. the carman took a lot longer to reach Bucks Row than he should have.

I watched you walk it with your colleague so I'll take your word for that. There could be a hundred innocent explanations, but given that he was found with a murder victim I'd have to agree, it needs explaining. If it wasn't investigated it should've been.

15. Jason Payne-James says that another killer would stretch the bleeding schedule beyond what he would have expected.

I don't think the evidence we have on the blood is as solid as you would like it to be. For me it comes down what Neil meant by "oozing". If that body was still bleeding a fair amount when Paul or Neil saw it, Lechmere's window of innocence gets very narrow indeed. If "oozing" meant a few minor residual trickles from emptying veins, it is far less meaningful

These, and a number of other points (I listed 31 of them on another occasion), are simply coincidental if Lechmere was not the killer. So in the end, it boils down to how many coincidences we are willing to swallow. I´ve been full for the longest time, but there are people with a voracious appetite out here ...

Thanks for the reply Fish, and for keeping it civil. I think he is either a very strong candidate for Nichols, or one of the unlikeliest. I can't quite decide. Maybe that means he is both...

It all comes down to that "oozing". Part of me wants to attach great significance to it. Part of me is profoundly unconvinced. I appreciate your tenacity in any case.

[Henry Flower]

Pierre, I can't wait for that mythical day when you finally grow the balls to actually name a suspect and have your idea scrutinised as Fisherman's is. And if that day ever comes we will be sure to remember this insulting "0 points" approach.

By the way, several of your points were outright logical fallacies. Not quite as smart as you think you are.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: I'll let others digest this and decide what they'd like to believe.

As do I.

For me this is all seems a construct of selective reliability. Not only do you place credence in witnesses that aid you theory (while assuming or inventing motivations: Paul is the braggart or the reporter is "big upping" Paul's story) but you also allow that witnesses like Paul are truthful when their statements can be (however tenuously) interpreted as supporting your theory and lying when they don't.

I fail to see how it could apply that Paul was not a braggart OR that the reporter bigged his role up.

For instance, Paul is reliable when he states that Lechmere was in the road "where the woman was".

Actually, I take some care to point out that if Lechmere was the killer and a bit smart, then he would be best adviced to move as far away from the body as possible. Standing directly over the body would not look good.
The key thing to remember is that Lechmere had the opportunity to be the killer, regardless of he was two feet or ten yards away from Nichols.
The relevance of Pauls wording "standing where the woman was lies in how that would be a powerful incentive for Lechmere to try and exonerate himself. If Paul had said "I saw this other man step out into the street where the body was", Lechmere would be cleared. If Paul had said "There was this other man who stood on the pavement opposite the body when I arrived", it would sound not too bad. But "standing where the body was" is a wording that potentially carries sinister implications with itself. So THAT is where this wording becomes of interest. My personal belief is that Lechmere had distanced himself as best as he could from the body, and thus he stood not where the body was in a strict meaning.

He's reliable in some portions of his inquest testimony (the portions which - in your mind indicate that Lechmere said and did things that might cast suspicion on him) and unreliable when he's telling us the he spoke with Mizen, describing Mizen's reaction, and unreliable in that he never tells us that it was Lechmere feeding him these lines, something that he never tells us in his testimony.

There are different implications in these cases to a smaller or lesser degree. I think you are going to have to be more specific in describing what you identify as a bias on my behalf, and then I will ne happy to answer. Of course, I am working from an assumption that Lechmere was the killer, and so I will always have a need to look at whether the carman fits the bill or not.
When doing so, it must be understood that the reason that people did not go "It cannot be any other person than Lechmere, it is easy to see that he did it" 128 years ago and forward, is that it is NOT all that easy to see. If the Ripper is in the material, it goes without saying that he has been more or less well hidden by conflicting statements, uncertain pointers, hazy sentences, unlucky coincidences, halfbaked reports etcetera, etcetera.
What I do, is to check if A/ there are any obstacles to Lechmere having been the killer, and B/ any signs that he was the killer that have been overlooked. Of course, this will to some come across as cherry-picking. But when you are looking at a person as a suspect and trying to confirm his guilt, then if you have two statements, one that says that Lechmere did A and one that says that Lechmere did B, and only one is compatible with him being the killer, then there IS a possible solution that allows for this.

Take, for instance, the matter at hand. Before yesterday, what spoke for Lechmere having been alone when speaking to Mizen, was Mizens testimony, Pauls not very decisive wording at the inquest that allows for it and the wording in the Echo that says "The other man, who walked down Hanbury Street".
Then I found that what the Morning Advertiser wrote, something I have before looked upon as a misunderstanding, goes very well to describe how Paul launched Lechmere to speak to Mizen.
It may STILL be a miswording on account of the Morning Advertiser. And if so, it does not support Lechmere as the killer. But it neverthless opens up for my theory and gives it potential support.
That is how I work. My role is that of the police investigator, who feel sure that I am onto the right man and who is willing do work very hard to prove it.
Some may think it is unethical and that a policeman should never work like that. But the truth of the matter is that many policemen have worked exactly like this. Take the policemen who felt sure that Ridgway was their man and never gave up. In the end they got him. Take the detective that led the hunt for Gacy - he got him in the end.
It does not mean that I am unable to take in and process suggestions of innocence on behalf of Lechmere. But I have so far not seen a single thing that is very damaging to the theory, so I stay on the track. And every now and then, I find a nugget.

Of course, we are to believe Mizen at all times, even though he seems to have told no one at the Met about his having spoken to and released two men (and not collecting their names) who claimed to have found Nichols, even as Neil testified that he'd found her body. It seems likely that Mizen was compelled to testify as a direct result of Paul's testimony.

Paul had not offered any testimony when Mizen testified. And I am not saying that anybody must believe Mizen - I am saying that I do, and I am presenting the reasons. As I have said before, if Mizen wrote in his report that he was called to the scene by Neil, then he would have thought that he was correct - if he had been lied to.
It´s up to each and everyone to draw their own conclusions from the material. I´ve drawn mine.

Finally, I think I will never agree that there was anything in Paul's statement that drove Lechmere to testify at the inquest. We're talking about London, a city - at that time - of approximately 4 million people. No television. No radio. No description of Lechmere appeared in Lloyd's.

But Lechmere KNEW that he had been seen by both Paul and Mizen, plus he knew under what lighting conditions. In retrospect, we know that it enabled Mizen to recognize the carman. If Lechmere realized that risk, then he stood to gain a lot from testifying at the inquest. It´s immaterial that Lloyds said nothing about a description in that respect.

The risk he would have been taking cannot be justified.

I view it differently. I think he avoided a larger risk by appearing.

Thus, I think it's apparent there was no risk in that he was - simply - an innocent man who was simply doing his duty as he saw it.

As you know, that is anything but apparent to me.

Altering his appearance (shaving or growing a mustache) would have been a reasonable response.

Mizen had him down as a carman, and correctly so. It would not be all that hard to check which carmen had a reason to pass through Bucks Row at around 3.40 in the morning.

Taking an circuitous route to work to avoid the area around the murder would have been a reasonable response.

If he reasoned along your lines, yes. But how would he know that Mizen would not change his beat? For example?

I believe that Lechmere went to the police to be proactive and try to quench any idea that he could be the killer BEFORE the man found with the victim was elevated to the prime suspect.

Not appearing would mean that this could well happen. And then he would have to try and stay away as best as he could from the police, with no guarantees at all that he would be able to pull it off. Consider this: The police accept that the man who was found with the victim is the probable killer, since he refuses to come forward and since the blod evidence points to it. They therefore contact the press, who write extensively about how a man who seemed to be a carman and who walked to work through Bucks Row at around 3.40, is the probale killer. Mizen and Paul describe the man, a sketch is made and is published in all papers, height, approximate age, looks and all.

How long do you think it would take his fellow workers at Pickfords to tell the police that they had a suggestion about who the man was?


Quitting his job and/or moving his family would have been more reasonable as he was not submitting himself to the police after he'd escaped the scene after committing murder.

With the police looking for a carman, if Lechmere quit job and moved, he would more or less tell the police that they needed to come after him.

Only one path led to the gallows, the end of his life. And that's the path you ask us to believe he chose....because of what he read in Lloyd's.

I think his going to the police may well have saved him from the gallows.

I see things completely differently, obviously. But, again, I'll let others post their thoughts. Thanks again.

Thank you, Patrick.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for the reply Fish, and for keeping it civil. I think he is either a very strong candidate for Nichols, or one of the unlikeliest. I can't quite decide. Maybe that means he is both...

It all comes down to that "oozing". Part of me wants to attach great significance to it. Part of me is profoundly unconvinced. I appreciate your tenacity in any case.

Thanks, Henry. As I said before, the initial reports speak about Neil having found a profusely bleeding body, at the inquest Neil uses BOTH oozing and running, and if you google "oozed profusely" you will get thousands of hits.

I remain at the suggestion that "oozing" was a description of blood welling out with no underlying pressure.

And the blood was still "running" and appearing fresh when Mizen saw her, minutes after.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;399475]

My role is that of the police investigator, who feel sure that I am onto the right man and who is willing do work very hard to prove it.

You should try to disprove your hypothesis but instead you follow your own bias.

You are doing everything the wrong way.

And you can not speak about having the role of a "police investigator" when it is not a judicial case. We are exclusively dealing with an historical problem and NOTHING ELSE.

[Columbo]

Pierre, I can't wait for that mythical day when you finally grow the balls to actually name a suspect and have your idea scrutinised as Fisherman's is. And if that day ever comes we will be sure to remember this insulting "0 points" approach.

By the way, several of your points were outright logical fallacies. Not quite as smart as you think you are.

I agree, we don't need the insults. You can usually tell when a threads coming to an end when it starts getting real nasty.

Columbo

[Elamarna]

I agree wholeheartedy: If Lechmere was innocent, then it is just a coincidence that:

1. he was found with the body.

Not with, but in the street near to. but certainly not over.



2. he was in place when the body would still bleed a number of minutes.

As I have said before I view this as a strong indicator that he is at the murder site very close to the murder. not that he is the murder.

My only qualifying concern is that Payne-James is relying on the descriptions provided by the various witnesses which are not precise medical descriptions.,

However on balance I tend to accept the view of Payne-James.

However that does not make Lechmere the killer!




3. Paul did not see or her him before he arrived up at Browns.
,

Why should he?

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



4. Lechmere did not hear Paul until he was very close.

Again why should he?

Having had a debate about comprehension and applying norms I hope we are not about to have a another over perception and senses



5. the carman used a name with the authorities that he otherwise never used.


I would suggest that you cannot in all honesty say he used a name "he otherwise never used", you can say a name you have found no record of him using, that is all.
There is a very significant difference




6. the serving PC to whom he had spoken in the murder night disagreed with him over what was said and who said it.



There is also a difference with Paul, which you ignore in this particular instance.

All your point proves is that either one of them was mistaken or one, if not both did not tell the full truth. which it is impossible to be conclusive about!


7. his logical working routes covered four of the murder sites.



As did the routes of many others.
It is not evidence of murder, however it explains why he found Nichols, she was on his way to work.


8. those who died on working days seems to have done so at the approximate time he would have been en route to work.

Certainly questionable in the case of Chapman, and possibly of Kelly too.


9. he had geographical ties to both Berner Street and Mitre Square.

So did others, some stronger, proves nothing at all.


10. Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly, the ones who died on working days, were not the ones to die at around 1-2 AM.

The TOD of Kelly has been debated much, some have indeed made it very early and some very late.
Inconclusive!

11. Stride and Eddowes, the ones who died on a non-working day, did not die at around 3-4 AM.

Which again proves nothing,


12. Lechmere did not go to the police until after Pauls interview was published.


Actually you have spent the last two days telling me that Lechmere went and sort the police out.

Was the publication pf Pauls story involved in Lechmere appearing at the inquest?
We cannot know that Lechmere was even aware of the story, let alone he read it.

The truth is we have no idea why he attended.



13. Lechmere, while having called out to Paul to supply help to Nichols, refused to help prop her up.


He didn’t ask for help, he asked Paul to have a look.
He was running late so he claimed, probably he did not want to get that involved and slow himself up anymore than necessary.



14. the carman took a lot longer to reach Bucks Row than he should have.

That depends on how you regard the time keeping of both Lechmere and Paul,

Lechmere says he left between 3.20 and 3.30, but he may have been a minutes of two out.

Paul says 3.45, but he too may have been a few minutes out

I am certain more research is needed on this particular issue.



15. Jason Payne-James says that another killer would stretch the bleeding schedule beyond what he would have expected.

Not exactly, he says the time frame is tight, he does not, from what you said before, specifically exclude the possibility of a another killer within the time frame he expected.



These, and a number of other points (I listed 31 of them on another occasion), are simply coincidental if Lechmere was not the killer. So in the end, it boils down to how many coincidences we are willing to swallow. I´ve been full for the longest time, but there are people with a voracious appetite out here ...

Many of your so called coincidences are very weak ones, some are coincidences due to how you interpret the data and with some it is arguably if there is any link at all involved .


Steve

[Henry Flower]

[QUOTE=Pierre;399477]

You should try to disprove your hypothesis but instead you follow your own bias.

You are doing everything the wrong way.

And you can not speak about having the role of a "police investigator" when it is not a judicial case. We are exclusively dealing with an historical problem and NOTHING ELSE.

Pierre as usual you are wrong. You may not have noticed this but Fisherman has many people trying to disprove his theory, testing his every word to destruction, yourself included. He does not therefore need to try to disprove it himself. If he were the type of spineless ass who was afraid to share his suspect or his theory with a famously aggressive debating forum then you'd have a point. By presenting it here he invites others to do the disproving for him, which is probably a more rigourous process than trying to overcome his own natural confirmation bias. We'll see how well YOU do that if you ever dare take the mask off and put your cards on the table.

[Dane_F]

If they ever need a screenplay written about Lechmere then you should be the first called Fisher. I'm happy you have convinced yourself even further. Sadly, I remain unmoved.

Hope all is well,
Dane

[Fisherman]

1. he was found with the body.

Not with, but in the street near to. but certainly not over.

As I stated in my post to Patrick, I think that Lechmere had a very good reason to distance himself from the body if he was the killer and wanted to bluff Paul. I have never said that he stood with the body in his arms. I´m saying that he was close to the body. And since he was in a sense interacting with the body (I´m sure that can be misunderstood too), I feel very free to say that he was found with the body.
I have exemplified before how a man found inside a room with a body, would be with that body no matter where the man and the body were placed. So "with" is not a question of physical proximity only.
Maybe this is very hard for you to take in, and you are welcome to keep saying "Fisherman is trying to fool us!"
It won´t change a thing - Lechmere was found with the body.



2. he was in place when the body would still bleed a number of minutes.

As I have said before I view this as a strong indicator that he is at the murder site very close to the murder. not that he is the murder.

It is a strong indicator that he was at a murder site very close to the time of the murder, and it therefore is also a strong indicator that he may have been the killer.
You are welcome to say "Fisherman is trying to fool us all!", and it won´t change a thing. It would be a straw man argument only, since I am not saying that it proves he killed Nichols. I am saying that if we look at Lechmere as a potential suspect, then he seems to have been in place when Nichols was cut, going by what Jason Payne-James suggests.

My only qualifying concern is that Payne-James is relying on the descriptions provided by the various witnesses which are not precise medical descriptions.,

However on balance I tend to accept the view of Payne-James.

However that does not make Lechmere the killer!

No, it is only another factor that is totally in line with him being the killer. Nothing else.


3. Paul did not see or her him before he arrived up at Browns.

Why should he?

He should do so because Lechmere walked 30-40 yards in front of him down Bucks Row, on the same pavement, where a lamp was burning BEHIND Lechmere, from Pauls vantage point. Plus he should have heard him.

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

Exactly how much of a distance did Lechmere create? How many steps did he take? One? Two? Three? How much time did he have to do so? Is there a possibility that he moved extremely slowly, and extremely carefully, thus making no sound? Can you put a stone on a wooden table soundlessly, if you do it carefully?

There goes that argument of yours.

4. Lechmere did not hear Paul until he was very close.

Again why should he?

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.

Having had a debate about comprehension and applying norms I hope we are not about to have a another over perception and senses

I find it usually ends up in senselessness when you try your hand at it.

5. the carman used a name with the authorities that he otherwise never used.


I would suggest that you cannot in all honesty say he used a name "he otherwise never used", you can say a name you have found no record of him using, that is all.
There is a very significant difference

All onehundred plus examples that have been found look the same. They are all signed Lechmere.

You are welcome to say "Fisherman is misleading and trying to fool us!", and it won´t change a thing. There is a very large set of examples and they are all in tune with each other. I am not the one having a problem on the point, those who say that he could have called himself Cross ON NO EVIDENCE AT ALL are the ones who are at an utter loss. There is no "very significant difference" before any examples to the contrary is produced.


6. the serving PC to whom he had spoken in the murder night disagreed with him over what was said and who said it.


There is also a difference with Paul, which you ignore in this particular instance.

I have never ignored anything. I have discussed each and every item. You are probably referring to the LLoyds article, where we all know that it is wrong on a number of points.

All your point proves is that either one of them was mistaken or one, if not both did not tell the full truth. which it is impossible to be conclusive about!

The ensuing actions clearly indicate - not prove, "indicate" - that Mizen was lied to.

7. his logical working routes covered four of the murder sites.

As did the routes of many others.

None of whom was found WITH the body of Nichols at the approximate time of her death.

It is not evidence of murder, however it explains why he found Nichols, she was on his way to work.

She was at work. He was en route. And what we have is a man who was found WITH the body of a woman at the approximate time of her death and who THEN can be shown to have had working routes that seemingly covered these four murders.
Before he was found WITH the body of Nichols, it was not a very sinister looking thing that he walked this route. Once he becomes a suspect, that changes totally.
Can you see how this works? Are you aware of what the police look at when they have a suspect? DO you think that the police will look at the routes of any person who is found alone WITH a freshly killed woman, saying "Thatb was not me!"? Can you guess WHY they do so?
If the routes coincide with other murder spots, how do you think the police will reason? I will tell you: They will reason "Oh-oh! Although this does not conclusively prove that we have found the murderer, this is a very powerful indcator that it is so".
That´s why Scobie says what he says, by the way. It is not because he wants to tarnish what he believes to be an innocent man, and not because he is not able to correctly weigh up evidence.
Other´s can´t, that is painfully apparent, but that was to be expected. It goes hand in hand with that "obviously" you produced. When we have an agenda and try to hide it, we will step in it. Better then to honestly lay our cards on the table, Steve.

8. those who died on working days seems to have done so at the approximate time he would have been en route to work.

Certainly questionable in the case of Chapman, and possibly of Kelly too.

But fully possible. All of them are. We are not looking for an answer to the question "Could they have ben killed when he was not there?", since that is a stupid question. We are looking for an answer to the question "Is it reasonable to think that he may have been at each and every murder site at the times of the murders?".

Not because it is proof, but because it is one more thing where he fits rather a slim bill. After all, the man we are looking at is the guy who was found alone WITH one of the victims at the approximate time of her death.


9. he had geographical ties to both Berner Street and Mitre Square.

So did others, some stronger, proves nothing at all.

On the contrary - it proves that he had ties to the very areas where Stride and Eddowes were killed.
I find it utterly odd to say "that proves nothing". It does not prove that he killed Stride and Eddowes, far from it. But as I said before, the police will try and map the paths of this type of suspect, and they will work extremely hard on this very point: Can we PROVE that this man had ties to the murder spots. And in this case, yes we CAN prove that. He fits the bill perfectly.

It is not a process of trying to find how many people had reason to visit the area, it is a process of trying to prove that the man under suspicion had reason to do so.

10. Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly, the ones who died on working days, were not the ones to die at around 1-2 AM.

The TOD of Kelly has been debated much, some have indeed made it very early and some very late.
Inconclusive!

ALL of it is inconclusive, every single bit. But circumstantial evidence works like this - we collect piece after piece after piece and at some stage, there will be enough pieces to convict. Different people will demand different numbers of these pieces. I myself say that there is not enough to convict yet - but we are not far away. And when new bits are added, like the Morning Advertiser thing, we are closing in, sometimes millimeters, other times yards.

Once more, the police will check for this type of thing, and they do so to be able to clear people. If that cannot be done, they will keep at it. And with every point where the suspect cannot be cleared, and where it is instead found that he fits the bil, the police will grow more and more confident that they have their man.
As do I.

11. Stride and Eddowes, the ones who died on a non-working day, did not die at around 3-4 AM.

Which again proves nothing,

How sad. Is that all you have to say? Not a word about the potential implications, just a "no proof" squeal? If there had been proof, we would not have this discussion. It is not a discussion about whether there is proof or not, it is a discussion about the value of the circumstantial evidence pointing to the carman.

12. Lechmere did not go to the police until after Pauls interview was published.


Actually you have spent the last two days telling me that Lechmere went and sort the police out.

Was the publication pf Pauls story involved in Lechmere appearing at the inquest?
We cannot know that Lechmere was even aware of the story, let alone he read it.

The truth is we have no idea why he attended.

...and that it can be argued that he didn´t come forward before the ground under him started to become really hot.

13. Lechmere, while having called out to Paul to supply help to Nichols, refused to help prop her up.


He didn’t ask for help, he asked Paul to have a look.

And you do not think that was in order to help Nichols? I see.

He was running late so he claimed, probably he did not want to get that involved and slow himself up anymore than necessary.

Then why did he stop? Why did he engage Paul? Why did he take Paul to the body? Why did he feel it for warmth?

14. the carman took a lot longer to reach Bucks Row than he should have.

That depends on how you regard the time keeping of both Lechmere and Paul,

Lechmere says he left between 3.20 and 3.30, but he may have been a minutes of two out.

Yes, if we reason that he was out on the time, he may have been in Bucks Row when he should have. But since when do we NOT accept the times given by the people involved as the logical starting point?

Paul says 3.45, but he too may have been a few minutes out

I am certain more research is needed on this particular issue.

And I am certain that AS IT STANDS, Lechmere was too late in arriving in Bucks Row.

15. Jason Payne-James says that another killer would stretch the bleeding schedule beyond what he would have expected.

Not exactly, he says the time frame is tight, he does not, from what you said before, specifically exclude the possibility of a another killer within the time frame he expected.

He does not exclude another killer, no. But he does say that the tree and five minute suggestions are better than the seven minute suggestion the way he sees things. And if that is in line with the reality, then either Lechmere cut Nichols or stood by and looked on as somebody else did.
It does not need to BE in line with reality, but it is Payne-James´ best guess.

These, and a number of other points (I listed 31 of them on another occasion), are simply coincidental if Lechmere was not the killer. So in the end, it boils down to how many coincidences we are willing to swallow. I´ve been full for the longest time, but there are people with a voracious appetite out here ...

Many of your so called coincidences are very weak ones, some are coincidences due to how you interpret the data and with some it is arguably if there is any link at all involved .

So not all coincidences are equally strong? I´m amazed.