Another nail in the Lechmere coffin?

[Elamarna]

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. Iīm saying that he was close to the body. And since he was in a sense interacting with the body (Iīm 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 wonīt change a thing - Lechmere was found with the body.

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

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.

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 wonīt 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.

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!

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 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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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

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?

We do not know.
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 moved why did Paul not see or hear him, it works both ways you see.

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.

How much time did he have to do so?

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

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?

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.


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?

There goes that argument of yours.

Not at all.
You strengthen my point yourself, if Paul is meant to have heard and SEEN Lechmere walking down the street, he should have heard and seen him move from the body.

Of course the truth is, it is not, was any sound made? Or movement seen?, but was it noticed?

Its about how we actually perceive the sounds and sights going on around us.

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.

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.

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.

Again resorting to insults I see.

That really does say so much.

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

Otherwise the old adage perhaps should be considered:

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

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.

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.



Are you claiming that there are not other possible documents not yet found?
If not that does not preclude the possibility that he did use it.
And of course you are talking about written documents, not what he may have used verbally?
Of which there is no possible way of knowing of course.


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 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 are welcome to say "Fisherman is misleading and trying to fool us!", and it wonīt 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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.
[/B]

In your interpretation yes.

Others believe they indicate the opposite.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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

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".

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

Thatīs 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.

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.

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.

Otherīs canīt, 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.

What agenda?

Go on tell me?

This should be interesting?

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.

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

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.

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.

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?".

Possible just means it is not impossible.
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?

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.

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


Yes the guy the police appear not to have suspected.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Ties to an area do not make one a criminal.

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.

Being a visitor to a particular area at some stage, is not proof of a visit on a particular date.
Find some data to show that he did, or even may have on the dates concerned.

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.

With all due respect you are miles away from having such.
Much of what you cite is with all due respect, not circumstantial evidence, but suggestions of what was not impossible, what could have happened!

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.

The problem is, this is not a police investigation.

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

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

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.

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

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 didnīt come forward before the ground under him started to become really hot.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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?

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.,

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.

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

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-Jamesī best guess.

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.

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. Iīve 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? Iīm amazed.

and of course you miss the real point.


Steve

[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.

[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.

[John Wheat]

How is there even a Lechmere coffin?

[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°

[DJA]

What would Lechmere say,if he was alive today?


LET ME OUTA HERE!

[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

[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.

[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...!

[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]

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!

[MysterySinger]

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

[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.

[Fisherman]

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

Yes. Very much agreed.

[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