Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    Without knowing the relative walking speeds of Lechmere and Paul it's impossible to draw any firm conclusions.
    Indeed, and bear in mind that different forms of ambulation were popular with East Enders at the time. I cite as evidence the fact that Eddowes and John Kelly went hopping to Kent.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
      I would like to see you actually walk at 2.5 meters per second, Fish.
      This might help:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_walking_speed
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        if Scobie saw that TWO departure times were presented, then he would be acutely aware these times could not both be exact.
        No, Fisherman, he's NOT being told that two departure times were presented. He is being told that Lechmere initially gave a time of 3.20 but then changed it to a time of 3.30. It's wrong on two levels. It's no more than speculation that Lechmere initially gave a time of 3.20 and he never gave a time of 3.30, it was "about 3.30".

        So, having been told that Lechmere ended up saying that he left his house at 3.30, how can Scobie possibly be "acutely aware" that this time is not exact?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          But I fear we can discuss this for years on end and get nowhere. As always. And I don´t intend to do that.
          But I think we HAVE got somewhere. We have established that Scobie was misinformed on the facts. Therefore we cannot place any weight on his opinion as to the guilt or innocence of Lechmere.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by harry View Post
            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.
            Quite. Good call, Harry.
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              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.
              But Fisherman, that is exactly my point because it shows how crucial the difference between "at 3.30" and "about 3.30" is. It's the possible difference, easily, between 3.30 and 3.33. Remove the 3 minutes and perhaps the timings now do not "really hurt" Lechmere, in Scobies view. This is why Scobie needed accurate information on timings before forming an opinion.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                We know that he held a paper in his hand where it seems to be stated that Lechmere said he left at 3.30.

                We don´t know what the rest of the material stated. It could be that there was a later passage saying that the timings must be looked upon with less than certainty.
                No that is speculation too far. The place for it to have been mentioned was in the paragraph I quoted. It would make no sense for a caveat to be written in another part of the document.

                And you can remove the words "seems" from the first sentence of your post. It does say in the briefing note that Lechmere was reported to have said he left at 3.30. That is clear for everyone to see on the screen.

                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                Even if Lechmere said "at around 3.30", the timings would nevertheless be hurting him.
                Firstly the quote was "really hurt". Secondly, you are now putting words into Scobie's mouth. We do not know what he would have concluded had he been told that Lechmere said he left his house at about 3.30. That's the whole point. You can only speculate. Perhaps his opinion would have been totally different.

                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                My belief is that Lechmere said that he normally left home at 3.20 but that he was late and left at around 3.30 instead. Not around 3.35 or 3.40.
                But that is different to what Scobie was told in his briefing note. So again, even on your belief, Scobie was not being given incorrect information!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman
                  The cutting could have taken only a minute or two to perform
                  And the picking up of the victim? Or are we to believe that Nichols happened to walk past Cross in the semi-darkness and he pounced on impulse?
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    You base your ruling out of Scobie on a lot of assumptions tied to a very minor detail, and you conveniently brush the rest aside.
                    I haven't brushed anything aside Fisherman. I quoted Scobie's entire statement as broadcast. I repeat it here:

                    "The timings really hurt him because she could have been very very recently fatally killed. You can inflict injuries, as I'm sure a pathologist will tell you, with a knife in seconds and the question is, "where were you?" "what were you doing during that time?" Because actually he has never given a proper answer. He is somebody who seems to be acting in a way, behaving in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like. A jury would not like that. When the coincidences add up, mount up against a defendant, and they mount up in this case, it becomes one coincidence too many. The fact that there is a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, of which he is linked geographically and physically, you add all those points together, piece it all together and the prosecution have the most probative powerful material the courts use against individual suspects. What we would say is that he has got a prima facie case to answer which means there is a case good enough to put before a jury which suggests that he was the killer."

                    So why does Scobie think there is a good case against Lechmere?

                    Point 1 – The timings "really hurt him".

                    Point 2 – Following directly on from point 1, he has never given a proper answer as to where he was or what he was doing.

                    Point 3 - Following directly on from point 2, he was behaving suspiciously.

                    Point 4 – He is linked geographically and physically to a pattern or area of offending.

                    Those are the only reasons given.

                    Point 1 is based on wrong information. Point 2 is not correct. It follows that Point 3 is unsustainable. Point 4 is baffling and, in any case, not something that existed at the time of the Nichols murder.

                    Although Scobie refers to "coincidences" he doesn't identify any of them in the case against Lechmere and it is said in the context of a general statement.

                    So what have I brushed aside?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      Yes, of course we are - and it is likely 11-15 seconds. Paul was not 130 yards away when Lechmere stepped into the street. Lechmere said that this was when he noted Pauls presence, and that he was 30-40 yards away.
                      So was it another mistake in the documentary when the voiceover said:
                      "Robert Paul was in Bucks Row for a full minute before he noticed Lechmere."?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Of course, we don´t know exactly how Paul moved down Bucks Row, but we do know that he said that he was hurrying along.
                        Excuse me, how do we know that Paul was "hurrying along"?

                        Did he say he was hurrying along at the inquest?

                        Or are you relying on what a journalist reported before the inquest? The same journalist who has Paul saying: "I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw."

                        Is that what happened? If not, why should we rely on the word "hurrying" as having come from Paul rather than something invented by the journalist?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                          Point 4 – He is linked geographically and physically to a pattern or area of offending...

                          Point 4 is baffling and, in any case, not something that existed at the time of the Nichols murder.
                          Even if the pattern only became apparent later, there were tens of thousands of others linked to the area to whom the same criterion applied.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                            I timed myself walking at a slightly faster than normal walking pace
                            What is the evidence that Paul was walking at 'slightly faster than normal walking pace'?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              Where does it say that Lechmere was a full 130 yards ahead of Paul, David?
                              Where have I ever claimed that anyone has said that Lechmere was a full 130 yards ahead of Paul?

                              I haven't even mentioned 130 yards.

                              But where, since you ask, is the evidence that he was not?

                              You will have to explain to me what was meant in the documentary by saying that it took "a full minute" before Paul noticed Lechmere.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                                I tend to agree with the upper limit of 20-30 seconds which is why I used a scenario of 30 seconds but also factored into the equation the possibility that Lechmere's estimate of 40 yards is wrong and he actually heard Paul when he was further away in the street. So perhaps he stood looking at the body for 20 seconds and Paul took 40 seconds to walk up to him from first being heard.

                                But also at 1 yard a second - if we take 40 yards as the absolute gospel truth - it might have taken Paul 40 seconds to walk that distance. Is there any evidence about the speed Paul was walking?

                                I certainly don't think there is anything implausible about 20 seconds as being the time it took for Lechmere to slow down, look at the body, think about it, then walk into the middle of the road. But we are on ludicrously fine margins here.

                                Given the uncertainty, surely the first question one has to ask is: are the timings consistent with Lechmere's innocence rather than are they consistent with his guilt.
                                Both scenarios can apply - as always. The closer to Lechmere Paul was, the likelier it would have been that the two should have heard each other. But overall, they should have heard each other from a very long distance too, given the silence and that Neil heard Thain 130 yards off. The idea that Paul would not have heard Lechmere 15-20 seconds in front of him, and vice versa, is not a good one as far as I am concerned. And thre was supposedly a gas lamp burning outside Schneiders cap factory, so a man walking on the northern pavement with another man 30-40 yards in front of him, should have seen this other man in silhouette.

                                But Lechmere seemingly was invisible, or Paul was looking down, and nothing was heard. It´s just another one of those things surrounding Lechmere that does not sit well with me.

                                It also deserves mentioning that if Lechmere said that Paul arrived a minute after himself, then there would have been time to do the deed. Instead, he squeezes Paul into a miniscule alibi window - as close as he could have been without being able to see Lechmere step out into the street (as he claimed he did), and not far enough off to allow enough time for Lechmere to be the killer.
                                Very convenient, regardless if it was true or not.

                                Lechmere is quoted as saying that it was when he stepped out into the road that he heard Paul, from 30 or 40 yards away.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X