The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[David Orsam]

Thanks David.
But they noticed each other when they were about 30 yards away on bucks row. So aren't we back to the 20-30 seconds Paul behind lech? Isn't that distance/time one would expect they would have noticed each other before bucks row?

Well firstly are you able to give me some evidence to support that distance?

But secondly what is the significance of the time when they first noticed each other?

Isn't the only relevant factor the distance between them when Paul first entered Bucks Row? As to that, Lechmere had obviously stopped for a short period of time along Bucks Row to see what was lying in the road. Then Paul appeared at the eastern end of Bucks Row.

What I'm saying is that if it took Paul 60 seconds to walk up to the point where Lechmere was standing then surely he was (at least) 60 seconds behind him.

And if he was 60 seconds behind him then do you agree that there is no mystery as to why he never saw him in the period between leaving his house and his arrival at the end of Bucks Row.

[Abby Normal]

Well firstly are you able to give me some evidence to support that distance?

But secondly what is the significance of the time when they first noticed each other?

Isn't the only relevant factor the distance between them when Paul first entered Bucks Row? As to that, Lechmere had obviously stopped for a short period of time along Bucks Row to see what was lying in the road. Then Paul appeared at the eastern end of Bucks Row.

What I'm saying is that if it took Paul 60 seconds to walk up to the point where Lechmere was standing then surely he was (at least) 60 seconds behind him.

And if he was 60 seconds behind him then do you agree that there is no mystery as to why he never saw him in the period between leaving his house and his arrival at the end of Bucks Row.

Thanks David.
I believe the 30 yards away on bucks row when lech first noticed Paul was from his inquest testimony.

Forget about the time it took Paul to walk to the point where lech and the body was. I'm going from the distance they noticed each other. And if they noticed each other from 30 yards away on bucks row wouldn't they notice each other from 30 yards away previous to bucks row?

[Sam Flynn]

if they noticed each other from 30 yards away on bucks row wouldn't they notice each other from 30 yards away previous to bucks row?

Perhaps Paul did, but didn't make the connection; after all, it was early in the morning and, like Cross, he was bent on getting from A to B. In which context, there may have been other pedestrians - including the killer, perhaps - who likewise went unremarked.

In addition, we're likely only talking about approximate timings in the case of both witnesses, so there's a fair margin for error from either - or both - party's perspective.

[David Orsam]

A quick walking pace is around 2,5 meters per second, and a yard is 91, 44 centimeter, meaning that we are looking at a distance of about 2,7 yards per second, roughly speaking.

30 yards will be covered in a little more than eleven seconds at this speed, whereas 40 yards will demand fifteen seconds.

Do we know that Paul was walking at a fast speed? "I was hurrying along" was what he said.

No certainties,of course - but 20 seconds sounds a bit rich to me.

Before I respond to Abby's post, I note that articles on the internet suggest that anywhere between 1 and 1.68 metres per second is quite fast. i.e.

"Those who walked 1 meter per second (about 2.25 mph) or faster consistently lived longer than others of their age and sex who walked more slowly, the study showed."

http://www.livescience.com/10406-fast-walk-predict-long-youll-live.html

AND

"Londoners in the morning had a study-high walking speed of 1.68 meters per second"

http://www.citylab.com/work/2012/03/why-people-cities-walk-fast/1550/

At 1 metre a second this is the equivalent of 1.09 yards a second meaning that a distance of 40 yards would be covered in just over 36 seconds. At 1.68 metres a second it would be covered in 25 seconds.

[David Orsam]

Thanks David.
I believe the 30 yards away on bucks row when lech first noticed Paul was from his inquest testimony.

Forget about the time it took Paul to walk to the point where lech and the body was. I'm going from the distance they noticed each other. And if they noticed each other from 30 yards away on bucks row wouldn't they notice each other from 30 yards away previous to bucks row?

I'm afraid I can't see the distance of 30 yards mentioned anywhere in Lechmere's evidence. Can you provide a quote?

I do see this in the Telegraph: "He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from." Is that what you mean?

Okay, this is how his evidence was reported in the Globe:

"He went through Brady-street into Buck’s-row, and as he was walking on the right hand side of Buck’s-row he saw something lying on the other side of the road. It seemed to him like a dark figure. He walked out to the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. At the same time he heard a man coming up the street, in the same direction, and on the same side of the road as himself."

So he sees something on the ground, pauses, tries to work out what it is, walks to the middle of the road, then he hears a man coming up the street.

I don't really know how it's even possible to take his estimate of about 40 yards too seriously because he's not a bat with radar like hearing giving him the ability to estimate distance from sound, and he doesn't see or notice Paul from that distance, so I think there are two possibilities:

Firstly, while Lechmere is staring at the lump in the road (perhaps for 30 seconds) trying to work out if it is a tarpaulin or a body, Paul silently enters Bucks Row and, by the time Lechmere walks into the street he is now sufficiently close (about 30 seconds away) for Lechmere to hear him.

Alternatively, Lechmere actually hears Paul as soon as he enters Bucks Row and, if it takes Paul 60 seconds to reach Lechmere, then QED Lechmere was 60 seconds ahead of Paul.

Either way, each possibility could easily encompass Paul being a full minute behind Lechmere.

[David Orsam]

And I do want to repeat the quote from the documentary, as stated by the voiceover:

"Robert Paul was in Bucks Row for a full minute before he noticed Lechmere."

That must mean that he was a full minute behind Lechmere at least.

Or does Fisherman want to say that this is another thing that the documentary got wrong?

[Abby Normal]

Perhaps Paul did, but didn't make the connection; after all, it was early in the morning and, like Cross, he was bent on getting from A to B. In which context, there may have been other pedestrians - including the killer, perhaps - who likewise went unremarked.

In addition, we're likely only talking about approximate timings in the case of both witnesses, so there's a fair margin for error from either - or both - party's perspective.

Thanks Sam
I see what your saying but according to Paul he seems to indicate a certain fear and perceptiveness about the people in the area possibly being thugs, so perhaps the opposite- he's on alert when he's walking to work on a daily basis and would be noting who's around?

But yes I agree with you on it all only being approximations, of course.

[Abby Normal]

I'm afraid I can't see the distance of 30 yards mentioned anywhere in Lechmere's evidence. Can you provide a quote?

I do see this in the Telegraph: "He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from." Is that what you mean?

Okay, this is how his evidence was reported in the Globe:

"He went through Brady-street into Buck’s-row, and as he was walking on the right hand side of Buck’s-row he saw something lying on the other side of the road. It seemed to him like a dark figure. He walked out to the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. At the same time he heard a man coming up the street, in the same direction, and on the same side of the road as himself."

So he sees something on the ground, pauses, tries to work out what it is, walks to the middle of the road, then he hears a man coming up the street.

I don't really know how it's even possible to take his estimate of about 40 yards too seriously because he's not a bat with radar like hearing giving him the ability to estimate distance from sound, and he doesn't see or notice Paul from that distance, so I think there are two possibilities:

Firstly, while Lechmere is staring at the lump in the road (perhaps for 30 seconds) trying to work out if it is a tarpaulin or a body, Paul silently enters Bucks Row and, by the time Lechmere walks into the street he is now sufficiently close (about 30 seconds away) for Lechmere to hear him.

Alternatively, Lechmere actually hears Paul as soon as he enters Bucks Row and, if it takes Paul 60 seconds to reach Lechmere, then QED Lechmere was 60 seconds ahead of Paul.

Either way, each possibility could easily encompass Paul being a full minute behind Lechmere.

Hi David
Yes it was probably the telegraph quote I was thinking of. Thanks.
Yes I do think 60 seconds behind lech is probably the upper end of the limit with the lower limit being 30 seconds behind.

When I think about how long lech was stopped because of the lump in the road, I think the upper limit is 20-30 seconds, but I think it could also have been as low as 5-10 seconds. He's walking, sees the lump, stops, looks, takes a few steps toward and recognizes the figure as a woman, here's Paul. That description could IMHO also happen very quickly, seconds.

I also think it would be a bout 2 yards a second a man covers walking briskly give or take.

So 30-60 seconds or 15-30 yards behind. Still seems that its close enough that they should have noticed each other sooner than just at bucks row.

However, with approximations, not knowing if Paul varied his walking speed, or simply that they did see or hear each other sooner and simply didn't register and or mention it, of course could render this all moot. But just going by what they said seems they were pretty close.

[harry]

A person hurrying along, is more likely to have his gaze fixed on the road/pathway about 20-30 feet ahead.Especially on dark ill lit streets.
If Paul was already one minute inside Bucks Row before he saw Cross,and he was fearful of the person standing there,he would naturally slow,my opinion.So a minute plus before reaching Cross.And if the Killer was aware of Cross approaching,and was 50 yards away when Cross stopped,and Cross's attention was then on the body,and then on Paul,and Paul's attention on Cross,the killer would be about eighty + yards ahead of both.No wonder he wasn't noticed.Plus both Cross and Paul were unaware a murder had been committed,so they would not have been looking for anyone.
Beats me why Cross,if he had just committed murder,and faced with a person who didn't show much interest,didn't just comment it was a drunk sleeping it off,and suggest they both carry on to work.

[Fisherman]

No, I'm sorry Fisherman, it IS wrong. Lechmere was not reported as saying he left his house "at 3.30". He was reported as saying he left his house "at about 3.30".

In the context of an argument that Lechmere could have killed Nichols in only a few minutes, it is absolutely critical.

If you can prove that he did not have the time, it becomes critical. If you can not, it becomes a pointing out of the fact that we do not have the exact timings - and that has been pointed out hundreds of times before.

[Fisherman]

The reason it's not a molehill is because it was upon these facts that Scobie based his opinion upon which you rely so much. If the facts were wrongly reported to him, where does that leave his much vaunted opinion?

In another place than where we would end up with the facts having been presented to him in a decent way - which is what I think happened. If you are correct, and if Scobie saw that TWO departure times were presented, then he would be acutely aware these times could not both be exact. And Iīd like to think that it was not claimed on the side - as you will have things - that the later time had been proven correct. How could it be? How would Scobie think it could be?
But I fear we can discuss this for years on end and get nowhere. As always. And I donīt intend to do that.

[Fisherman]

No, the most one can say is that on one version of the timings he had the opportunity to commit murder. But on another, very plausible version of the timings he had no time to do so. Consequently, the timings cannot "really hurt" Lechmere, and Scobie goes too far (based on what he has been inaccurately told of course).

The cutting could have taken only a minute or two to perform. That is what matters. If it had been a matter of a longer period of time, you would have had a better point.

[Fisherman]

>>List the question you claim I am avoiding, and I will answer each and every one of them. Donīt forget any of them, bring them all.<<

Not sure why need me to repeat them, all you have to do is do some research and see what questions you haven't answered for yourself ... sorry I was forgetting you're not big on research are you?

Obvious place to start is the last I asked from my last batch of posts yesterday

"... are claiming the fact the newspapers didn't include Pitman's address is a delusion?

And presumably you are also claiming the fact that Pitman DID give his name to the court is also a delusion?

Here we are again, you make very unspecified allegations, whilst all around you are citing clear and verifiable factual information."


>>As for adding grown up material, the very reason I am avoiding YOU (not any questions, though) is that you are a mockery to that aim.<<

If you are not avoiding my questions why wasn't your post to me today an answer to the questioned I asked yesterday?


>>Now bring me that list of questions you claim to have asked and gotten no answers to, and letīs get that particular part of your delusions cleared away.<<

By definition, the fact that you did not answer yesterdays questions means there is no "delusions" on my part. It is simply a fact that you did not answer.


>>I could have added that YOU avoid to answer MY questions, but I wonīt.<<


Of course you won't, that's the problem, you tend to avoid details when you accuse people. That simple fact is I don't "avoid" answering questions, because exchange of views is what I'm here for.



Fot the record: Any post from you stating that you are not going to list the questions for one reason or another will go down the way it deserves. Make no mistake about it.


I don't understand what you are trying to say in the above quote, why on earth would I not want you answer questions? Surely the whole point of asking questions is to get an answer, unless they are rhetorical questions.

>>So post the list and do so now, preferably pointing me to the posts where you originally asked these so called unanswered questions.<<

Isn't that exactly what I've just done?

So Pitman was "the list"?. I see.

First: You need to produce the relevant clippings from the papers, to prove your point. How many papers did you check? How many did you leave out?

This is of course another case than the Nichols case, so that has to be weighed in too.

It also applies that Pitmanīs mother testified and gave the address, stating that Pitman was her 14-year old son who lived with her. Is the address given in her case? Have you checked all the papers for that? If so, the papers DID give young Pitmanīs address, although in an indorect way. Pitman himself said he was 16. Is it possible that childrenīs addresses were not given in the same extent as other addresses? I donīt know, but a check would be interesting.

At the end of the day, what should be done is an overall counting of a thousand randomly chosen unprofessional witnesses in court cases from the era. Then they should be checked against the papers, to see how many of these witnesses who had been recorded as giving their adresses, were also represented as such in the papers.

To me, that would be a much more thorough and representative way of approaching the underlying truth.

Thomas Eade is an interesting example. You seem to think that he is a good way to show that sometimes the papers omitted to mention the address collectively. Not one or two papers - all of them.
While they simultaneously all or next to all of them took down the addresses of the rest of the unproffesional witnesses that day.

If there was a tendency to let the odd address or two stay unrecorded, and if there were 20 newspapers, then that should have resulted in varying degrees of the addresses being given, some in 2 papers, some in 5, some in 9, 13 or 17. But this is not what happens. The papers go out of their way to get jst about every address - but they ALL loose interest when Thomas Eade gives his?
What happened? Did the reporters all blink to each other? Wink, wink, letīs not write his address down?
That is just not credible at all, Iīm afraid. Either he did not give it at all, or there was a reason for the papers not to take it down - like, for example the idea that a railway man was a city servant (and yes, I still know he had private employers).

Before a very large weighing of this is made, based on a large number of cases and how they were reflected in the papers, I think we can only say that there may well be exceptions to the overall rule.

Thatīs the answer you thought I dared not give on account of being soooo afraid.

[Fisherman]

They would quite probably have seen each other if Lechmere told the truth; Pauls doorstep was around 40 yards from Bath Street, and the junction of Foster and Bath was well lit by the brewery lamps there.


Point one: What evidence do you have that proves Xmere walked along Bath St.?

Point Two: You can put this on the list of questions you haven't answered because I've asked this on several threads and not recieved a proper answer, where is the evidence that Bath Street was well lit near Foster?


>>This is one of the matters that give Lechmere away. Of course, we can say that if this was so, then Nichols should have bled for many a minute after the carmen left her, if ... oh, wait - she did<<

Yet another unanswered question from you, where is the forensic evidence that Mrs. Nichols was "bleeding" as opposed to simply leaking due to being moved slightly by either Paul or Mizen?

>>Well then, if the guily scenario should be considered, then why did not Lechmere cover the ... oh, wait - the wounds to the abdomen WERE covered.<<

Go back and check the questions I asked about this, I'm getting tired of endless repeating my questions.

>>Well then, the carman would not have had the time to ... oh, wait, Lechmere said he left around 3.20 or 3.30.<<

Oh dear, yet more unanswered questions, this one about synchronisation.


>>Anyway, as I said, nothing at all to be seen here. And those who speak for potential guilt of the carman are soon enough dissolved by the insightful and wise criticism offered by Dust. Oh, wait ... Dusty!<<

What was i saying about being grown up?

Dusty (Dr Strange 169) has made it a habit to call me a liar. He has also made it a habit not to answer my posts, instead opting for delivering answers to questions I have never asked, apparently in an effort to muddle things.
He repeatedly claims that I cannot answer his questions and that I run away from debate with him.
I have, however, answered all his questions numerous times, and he is simply rehashing them and claiming that they have not been answered.
This is an intolerable situation, and one that I will not honor other by than producing this prewritten text, over and over again, as many times as it takes.

I am not opposed to the idea that Dusty may better his ways, and become a useful debating partner, and I will therefore read his posts to see if there is something in them I feel has gone unanswered, in which case I will answer it. Likewise, if I feel the need to make any point on account of Dustys posting, I will do so.
However, if the old state of things prevails, with false allegations and rehashing of questions that have been answered, then this post is all I will offer.

[Fisherman]

>>The timings are hurtful for Lechmere. There is seemingly an overall pattern that is not flattering at all for him.<<

Without synchronisation, the timings are irrelevant to any serious study of the case. But that's just one of your unanswered questions isn't it. Why? Because suddenly the case against Charles Lechmere starts to weaken if we have to start accepting actual facts like this.

Dusty (Dr Strange 169) has made it a habit to call me a liar. He has also made it a habit not to answer my posts, instead opting for delivering answers to questions I have never asked, apparently in an effort to muddle things.
He repeatedly claims that I cannot answer his questions and that I run away from debate with him.
I have, however, answered all his questions numerous times, and he is simply rehashing them and claiming that they have not been answered.
This is an intolerable situation, and one that I will not honor other by than producing this prewritten text, over and over again, as many times as it takes.

I am not opposed to the idea that Dusty may better his ways, and become a useful debating partner, and I will therefore read his posts to see if there is something in them I feel has gone unanswered, in which case I will answer it. Likewise, if I feel the need to make any point on account of Dustys posting, I will do so.
However, if the old state of things prevails, with false allegations and rehashing of questions that have been answered, then this post is all I will offer.