The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[John G]

Just to correct the typo in my post, the first sentence should have read:

On the point John was addressing, if, say, the law on hearsay changed next year and then changed back again the year after that, what possible purpose would be served by knowing that Lechmere could be charged in 2018 but could not be charged in 2019 or vice versa?

Hi David,

But the evidential test carried out by the CPS today is a simple one, i.e. is there "sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge." Surely in 1888, when the police had responsibility for prosecutions, they would have applied the same basic criteria.

[GUT]

I have cross examined hundreds, maybe thousands of expert witnesses.

Doctors
Psychologists
Psychiatrists
Accountants
Valuers
Lawyers
Forensic scientists
Forensic document examiners
Accident reconstructionists
Crime scene experts
Medical examiners
P.I.s
Pretty much every type of expert there is.

First question "what material did you base your opinion on" if it's faulty their opinion is worthless.

[GUT]

Hi David,

But the evidential test carried out by the CPS today is a simple one, i.e. is there "sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge." Surely in 1888, when the police had responsibility for prosecutions, they would have applied the same basic criteria.

But the value (including admissibility) of the evidence may vary with time.

[Fisherman]

Okay, Dust, I now find that you have chosen to ask me to answer your post about time synchronization, and I therefore will do so.

This means that you have made your choice, and that there can be no list from you in the future where I have promised to answer other questions. I will therefore - as foreshadowed - press the point that the mere suggestion that I have no answers was always ridiculous, and I thank for for confirming it by not being able to produce any list. It was smoke and mirrors, nothing else.

Here is the wording from your post 850:

"The question you keep avoiding, and it's not just me asking it, how do you synchronise Paul's timings with Xmere's. Where do either man say they used the same clock? Without that there is no case to answer."

Nobody can synchronize Pauls timings with Lechmeres, for the simple reason that we do not know which clocks were used. We cannot even prove that any clocks were used, although that must be the logical assumption, not least in Pauls case - he gave an exact time in his paper interview (and that time seemingly dovetailed with his inquest evidence), as opposed to Lechmere, who gave an approximation.

As you well know, and as anybody else also knows, it is said nowhere that the two men used the same clock. It remains a possibility, though, since the sound of a church bell can travel long. If the DID hear the same clock, then they heard it at different times, obviously, a quarter of an hour telling them apart.
It may well be that they used different clocks, though. This cannot be definitely established in any way.

You say that there is no case to answer without this knowledge, but that is emphatically wrong. There are other people giving time approximations along the drama, and there are many more anomalies surrounding Lechmere than his time approximation from the murder morning.

Very clearly, the timing mentioned by many sources is 3.45, so it can be safely assumed that this time is not far removed from the actual drama. Equally clearly, Lechmere gave an approximation of 3.30 as to when he left his home. If 3.30 was the actual time, then he should not have been in Bucks Row when he was.
If he was wrong on the time, leaving home at around 3.38-3.39 instead (which is not about 3.30 but instead about 3.40, as approximations go), then he was in place at the murder spot when one would have expected him to be.

What you have managed to do, is to realize that there may be deviances in the timings. Bravi! It is a "discovery" well suited to your detection gifts, easily sorted in under what is normally referred to as "the bleeding obvious".

It is also obvious that I have always said that if Pauls and Lechmeres timings were correct, then we have a conundrum on our hands. And an implication that Lechmere may have been around in Bucks Row longer than he said. This is further supported by how Paul never saw his fellow carman in front of him although the latter must have formed a silhouette against the lamp outside Schneiders cap factory. Paul did not hear Lechmere either, in spite of the small distance telling them apart.

This is met by this flurry of "inventive" thinking:

Maybe Paul never looked up. Maybe both men wore soft-soled shoes. Maybe Paul was hearing disabled. Maybe Paul was in a bubble, not noticing the world around him. Maybe Lechmere stopped to take a piss every three minutes.

People DO take a piss from time to time. Like you, trying to take the piss on me.

It does not work however. Anybody will quickly realize that you are trying to take on the role of a defense lawyer - "maybe this, maybe that", "what if", "perhaps".

Well, Dust, maybe Lechmere was approached by a UFO, beamed up to it, quickly informed about a distant civilization and then returned to Mother Earth. Maybe this was so.

Maybe you want more answers to your, ehrm, "penetrating questions".

Maybe you think you have something of interest to add.

Maybe the kind of "debating" you offer is the future of Ripperology.

Maybe you are nothing but a sad, sad figure, with an overinflated ego, a distorted picture of the case and how it should be debated, coupled with an arrogance that is a round fifty sizes too large for what you have to offer.

One never knows, Dust. Maybe this is actually so. Sometimes the maybes are spot on.

Now Iīm done with you. I reserve myself the right to step in and correct you if I should feel the need to. I donīt want myself to be lied too much about, and you have an ugly tendency to do so. It annoys me, but there is of course always the opportunity to treat you as you deserve, with silence.

You have claimed that I run away from questions, which is now a dissolved suggestion. That, as most of the dung you produce, was untrue. False. Baseless. That is where we leave things, and donīt tell me you didnīt bring it upon yourself, because you did.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

But the evidential test carried out by the CPS today is a simple one, i.e. is there "sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge." Surely in 1888, when the police had responsibility for prosecutions, they would have applied the same basic criteria.

Are we still talking about admissibility here John? If so, then "sufficient evidence" must mean sufficient admissible evidence.

On a point of historical interest, the prosecution would have been the responsibility of the Treasury Solicitor.

[David Orsam]

he gave an exact time in his paper interview (and that time seemingly dovetailed with his inquest evidence)

Here we go again. No, that was what reported by a journalist in a dubious article, responding to a previously reported claim that PC Neil had found the body at 3.45. We don't know what Paul actually said. The comment in the newspaper article only "dovetailed" with his inquest evidence if you completely ignore the very real possibility that he might have meant that he left his house five, six or seven minutes before 3.45, in which case it doesn't "dovetail" at all.

[David Orsam]

Very clearly, the timing mentioned by many sources is 3.45

Yet PC Mizen, whose evidence you rely on for other purposes, stated clearly at the inquest that Cross and Paul approached him "at 3.45". How do you reconcile that with your belief that Paul was walking into Bucks Row at 3.45?

[David Orsam]

clearly, Lechmere gave an approximation of 3.30 as to when he left his home. If 3.30 was the actual time, then he should not have been in Bucks Row when he was.

I love the way you switch from "an approximation of 3.30" to exactly 3.30 in the sentence "If 3.30 was the actual time". So from "about 3.30" we now have a scenario where, as if by magic, Lechmere left his home at precisely 3.30. But he never said that 3.30 was the actual time so you are creating a fantasy in order to support the pre-determined outcome that you seem to like whereby Lechemere was the killer.

[David Orsam]

If he was wrong on the time, leaving home at around 3.38-3.39 instead (which is not about 3.30 but instead about 3.40, as approximations go), then he was in place at the murder spot when one would have expected him to be.

And then, apparently, the only alternative scenario consistent with Lechmere's innocence is that he left his house at 3.38, ignoring the possibility that Paul walked into Bucks Row at, say, 3.42 which is perfectly consistent with his evidence as to his time of departure from his house and perfectly consistent with Lechmere's evidence in that he could have left his house at 3.33 or 3.34 in a walk which could have taken 8, 9 or 10 minutes.

Further, even though Lechmere only gave an approximate time of departure, if he left his house at 3.38, according to Fisherman, then he was "wrong on the time". Well no, he wasn't, because he never gave an exact time.

[David Orsam]

It is also obvious that I have always said that if Pauls and Lechmeres timings were correct, then we have a conundrum on our hands.

Again, this is completely wrong.

Lechmere's timing was that he left his house at "about 3.30". Paul's timing was that he left his house at "about 3.45", alternatively "just before 3.45". Both their timings could easily be correct (as approximations) and we have absolutely no "conundrum" on our hands.

[Fisherman]

Here we go again.

Nope. Here YOU go again. Me, Iīm going nowhere.

[John Wheat]

Nope. Here YOU go again. Me, Iīm going nowhere.

Yeah nowhere useful especially as regards Lechmere.

[Patrick S]

Yeah nowhere useful especially as regards Lechmere.

Like virtually ALL Jack the Ripper "naming the killer" theories this one is certainly destined for the dustbin, simply by virtue of the fact that so much time has gone by, so much has been lost, so much simply wasn't known then, and therefore cannot be known now.

The Cross/Lechmere theory - taken on faith - is intriguing. The idea that the man has been under our noses all these years, mostly unsuspected, is fascinating. Alas, it works best as a work of fiction because one must suspend disbelief, make assumptions, choose which press reports were inaccurate and which were rock solid. We must determine which witnesses publicity seeking police haters spouting lies from the stand (Paul), and which were a pure as Jurassic rain, god fearing, never-tell-a-lie Abe Lincoln types (Mizen). We must make inferences regarding timing at a time when such things were more than a little difficult. We must create blood "evidence" from adjectives that appeared in press reports, and assign the work of torso killers and various random murderers to our man in order to have him continue killing until age forces him to give it up in favor of - as best we can tell - the life of a shopkeeper.

Christer has done an excellent job of supporting and defending the theory. He's got answers for all comers. I - like most, it seems - have not found those answers compelling. In the end, I think the documentary may have served to convince those not all that familiar with the murders that his suspect may be Jack the Ripper. I know that many I've spoken to who are very familiar with the murders - many on these boards - contend that it had the opposite affect. It tries to hard, it sensationalizes, it makes implausible contentions and contrived contentions.

Perhaps Christer knows more than he's letting on. Maybe he's holding a hole card that puts Lechmere in the crosshairs. I have no idea. I just know that to date I've seen nothing that leads me to suspect the man in the slightest.

[Fisherman]

Like virtually ALL Jack the Ripper "naming the killer" theories this one is certainly destined for the dustbin, simply by virtue of the fact that so much time has gone by, so much has been lost, so much simply wasn't known then, and therefore cannot be known now.

The Cross/Lechmere theory - taken on faith - is intriguing. The idea that the man has been under our noses all these years, mostly unsuspected, is fascinating. Alas, it works best as a work of fiction because one must suspend disbelief, make assumptions, choose which press reports were inaccurate and which were rock solid. We must determine which witnesses publicity seeking police haters spouting lies from the stand (Paul), and which were a pure as Jurassic rain, god fearing, never-tell-a-lie Abe Lincoln types (Mizen). We must make inferences regarding timing at a time when such things were more than a little difficult. We must create blood "evidence" from adjectives that appeared in press reports, and assign the work of torso killers and various random murderers to our man in order to have him continue killing until age forces him to give it up in favor of - as best we can tell - the life of a shopkeeper.

Christer has done an excellent job of supporting and defending the theory. He's got answers for all comers. I - like most, it seems - have not found those answers compelling. In the end, I think the documentary may have served to convince those not all that familiar with the murders that his suspect may be Jack the Ripper. I know that many I've spoken to who are very familiar with the murders - many on these boards - contend that it had the opposite affect. It tries to hard, it sensationalizes, it makes implausible contentions and contrived contentions.

Perhaps Christer knows more than he's letting on. Maybe he's holding a hole card that puts Lechmere in the crosshairs. I have no idea. I just know that to date I've seen nothing that leads me to suspect the man in the slightest.

Thereīs another"certainly" from you, Patrick. Have you not yet realized that there are no such certainties to be had?

They disclose those who use them as trying too hard. Thatīs the simple truth.

Plus, for your information, I know a number of VERY seasoned ripperologists who are quite impressed with the theory. A counterweight, therefore, to the ones you mention. My experience is that many people have suspects of their own, and they dislike the idea of being left with their pants down by their ancles by the Lechmere theory.

Do I know more than I am telling, by the way? Actually, I do.

All in good time, Patrick. I may still make a believer of you.

As for tonight, Iīve had a large enough dosis of Casebook.

[Patrick S]

Thereīs another"certainly" from you, Patrick. Have you not yet realized that there are no such certainties to be had?

They disclose those who use them as trying too hard. Thatīs the simple truth.

Plus, for your information, I know a number of VERY seasoned ripperologists who are quite impressed with the theory. A counterweight, therefore, to the ones you mention. My experience is that many people have suspects of their own, and they dislike the idea of being left with their pants down by their ancles by the Lechmere theory.

Do I know more than I am telling, by the way? Actually, I do.

All in good time, Patrick. I may still make a believer of you.

As for tonight, Iīve had a large enough dosis of Casebook.

me too.