The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[harry]

If the paper reports he(Cross) was hurrying,that is information,not evidence.

[Barnaby]

[QUOTE=drstrange169;407975]Hello Barnaby,

>>According to Cross's testimony, he got close enough to see her face. <<

I've read Xmere's testimony many, many, times and I've never come across one where he claimed he saw her face, could you tell us where that was written?

Too much wine cause me to read "figure" as "face." I stand corrected!

[drstrange169]

>Too much wine cause me to read "figure" as "face." I stand corrected!<<

Now that's an acceptable excuse;-)

[Jon Guy]

Did he NOT say that he was hurrying along, Jon? ?

Yes, I`ll concede this point.

Cross may have been walking briskly, but nothing to suggest he was late for work (would he have stopped to investigate a tarpaulin if late?).

And was not Lechmere seemingly a lot later in Bucks Row than he should have been?

The times given in the press are so varied it`s too tenuous to make firm observations about Cross`s timings IMHO !!

[Jon Guy]

and more important, IMHO, even if they didn't think they were late before-someone walking to get to work (and not wanting to be late even if they didn't think they were late) in a dark and deserted city, with the possibility of being robbed in the back of your mind, I would think that they would walk at faster than usual pace, don't you??

Hi Abby

Paul only mentioned the thing about the gangs in the area when he saw Cross waiting ahead for him.
If the possibility of been mugged was high, would Paul have walked down Bucks Row ? He could have stuck to the main roads.
Paul and any mugger would know that a carman walking to work wouldn`t have great pickings on him.

[Elamarna]

.Fish

David has pointed out that this is not what Paul actually is reported to have said, in addition the comments you are replying on are from an article less than 100% acurate.


However if you wish to accept this it actually fits rather well with him being in a world of his own, rushing and probably not noticing much as is common in human behaviour.

steve

[Fisherman]

Yes, I`ll concede this point.

Cross may have been walking briskly, but nothing to suggest he was late for work (would he have stopped to investigate a tarpaulin if late?).



The times given in the press are so varied it`s too tenuous to make firm observations about Cross`s timings IMHO !!

No firm observations, agreed. Given the overall uncertainty of timings from this period, Iīd say that the best one can hope for is that they could somehow clear a suspect, but they do not do so in Lechmereīs case at all.
As anybody will realize, if Lechmeres timing of 3.30 was anywhere near correct, he would have had time to do the deed.
As anybody will realize, we have no corroboration at all for his departure time, meaning that he may have left at 2.30 instead of 3.30. He could have had all the time in the world.
The exact time remains hidden to us. The only implication says around 3.30, and one cannot work from an assumption that this meant around anything else than 3.30. Therefore, the implication is that he was quite late in arriving in Bucks Row. If the timings were slightly off, he was still late in Bucks Row. If they were significantly off, he may have been in Bucks Row when he should have been.

It seems - as always - that people entertain the idea that I think that 3.30 is a fixed, undisputable time. I donīt. I observe that the time given seems to have allowed for many minutes of murder in Bucks Row, while I agree that there is a possibility that this was not so.

Does it clear Lechmere? No. And that is all that can be said.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169;408478]
>>You are lying, Dusty, as always.<<

Excellent, so you are finally going to give examples of "always" lying.

Okay. You lied about how I had refused to answer your questions - I have offered to do so, under controlled forms. Accept these forms or not, but donīt say I will not answer.
You lied about me being on the run.
And you lied about me lying - I donīt.

>>I have not broken any promise at all.You are welcome to produce a list of questions, as I said - you have so far not done that<<

So far about six unanswered questions and still counting since your "I'll answer everything" post.

I have promised to answer a list of questions - if you produce it. So far, you have not. When - and more pertinently, IF - it ever arrives, I will answer any questions on it you have posed on this thread, that I have not answered before.

If you do not produce that list, I will point to how you failed to do so, implicating that you had nothing at all to say when push came to shove. And silly statements about me thinking that I "can order people around" are ludicrous - YOU are the one given the opportunity to order ME around. YOU are the one ordering ME to answer questions.

Letīs not lie about that too, shall we? Produce the list, and take the consequences. Or fail to do so, and take the consequences.

[Fisherman]

If the paper reports he(Cross) was hurrying,that is information,not evidence.

It was Paul, not Lechmere. Do keep up. Plus of course it is evidence.

[Fisherman]

.Fish

David has pointed out that this is not what Paul actually is reported to have said, in addition the comments you are replying on are from an article less than 100% acurate.


However if you wish to accept this it actually fits rather well with him being in a world of his own, rushing and probably not noticing much as is common in human behaviour.

steve

Or instead of walking along, thinking about anything but work, he concentrated totally on the route.

The article is factually flawed, obviously. It seems that Paul - or the reporter - bigged up Pauls role.

How does hurrying big up his role?

One has to look at the details in isolation. Wjat may have been changed, and why? In that context, hurrying seems to be the act of a man who allows his work to decide for him how to do his walking. Not very superman-like, is it?

When a term like that is included, it matters little how we look upon it - if we cannot produce evidence pointing to another reality, it will stand as an implication of what happened.
In a sense, it is like Long and the rag business - there IS evidence that it was not in place at 2.20, there is NO evidence that it was there at the time. That mens that the weight of the evidence is in favour of it NOT having been there.

After that, all that can be done to contest the idea, is to add pure conjecture.

Itīs always anybodyīs choice how to treat the evidence.

[Jon Guy]

No firm observations, agreed. Given the overall uncertainty of timings from this period, Iīd say that the best one can hope for is that they could somehow clear a suspect, but they do not do so in Lechmereīs case at all.
As anybody will realize, if Lechmeres timing of 3.30 was anywhere near correct, he would have had time to do the deed.
As anybody will realize, we have no corroboration at all for his departure time, meaning that he may have left at 2.30 instead of 3.30. He could have had all the time in the world.
The exact time remains hidden to us. The only implication says around 3.30, and one cannot work from an assumption that this meant around anything else than 3.30. Therefore, the implication is that he was quite late in arriving in Bucks Row. If the timings were slightly off, he was still late in Bucks Row. If they were significantly off, he may have been in Bucks Row when he should have been.

It seems - as always - that people entertain the idea that I think that 3.30 is a fixed, undisputable time. I donīt. I observe that the time given seems to have allowed for many minutes of murder in Bucks Row, while I agree that there is a possibility that this was not so.

Does it clear Lechmere? No. And that is all that can be said.

I`m not attacking your theory, Christer.
I`m only interested in the details, and I wouldn`t even consider timings based on what we have.
Did Cross leave his house at 3.20or 3.30 ? How would he have known what time it was ?
Did Paul leave his house at 3.45 ? How did know what time it was ?
If we had a Dr Blackwell situation where he states he checked his watch that would be different.

So, from the information on hand all we can state confidently is that Paul was hurrying to work as he had to be punctual.

[Elamarna]

Or instead of walking along, thinking about anything but work, he concentrated totally on the route.

Why would he think about a route he apparently took everyday?


That is a truly astounding statement

The article is factually flawed, obviously. It seems that Paul - or the reporter - bigged up Pauls role.

How does hurrying big up his role?

It is your view that it is purely about bigging up his role, and not just inaccurate reporting.

One has to look at the details in isolation. Wjat may have been changed, and why? In that context, hurrying seems to be the act of a man who allows his work to decide for him how to do his walking. Not very superman-like, is it?

Again your view, you may not be correct!

When a term like that is included, it matters little how we look upon it - if we cannot produce evidence pointing to another reality, it will stand as an implication of what happened.



In a sense, it is like Long and the rag business - there IS evidence that it was not in place at 2.20, there is NO evidence that it was there at the time. That mens that the weight of the evidence is in favour of it NOT having been there.

The two instances are not alike at all, in the case of Long we have his own statements, about what he believes he saw.
In the case of Paul, we have one phrase in a paper, in an article that is unreliable.


That phrase does not specifically state he was walking faster than normal. It is your interpretation of what it means and how reliable it is.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: I`m not attacking your theory, Christer.

You are welcome to, if you want to. I am not paranoid, you know...

I`m only interested in the details, and I wouldn`t even consider timings based on what we have.

There are many people in the drama giving timings, and scenarios can be formed accordingly. What matters to me is that the overall picture seems to allow very much for Lechmere being the killer. That is as far as it can be taken, and it is far enough.

Did Cross leave his house at 3.20or 3.30 ? How would he have known what time it was ?

Obviously, we donīt know how he fixed the time. But we know that he believed that he was able to do so. If he had absolutely no idea about the time, it would be odd to say that he left home at about 3.30.
He could have heard a church bell, he could have had his own clock, he could have been knocked up regularly at the same hour, we just donīt know.

Did Paul leave his house at 3.45 ?

No, he left slightly before, according to the two sources we have, the <lloyds interview and the inquest recordings in the papers. He said he was in Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 in Lloyds, and he said in the inquest reports by the papers that he left home shortly before that time, meaning that it tallies with what he told Lloyds.

How did know what time it was ?

Same answer as for Lechmere, only that Paul claimed that 3.45 was an exact timing. To me, the best suggestion is perhaps that he heard a bell strike the quarter hour as he walked down Bucks Row.

If we had a Dr Blackwell situation where he states he checked his watch that would be different.

In Pauls case not very much so, I think - if you claim that you know the exact time, you are either lying or you have checked. And we donīt know how exact Blackwells clock was, do we?
I will concede that Blackwell seems the more reliable bet, but as I said...

So, from the information on hand all we can state confidently is that Paul was hurrying to work as he had to be punctual.

Not really, no. It is nowhere stated that he hurried after finding the body. That has to be a (logical) assumption on our behalf. But there is the possibility that he had already lost the possibility to get to work in time and thought that one or two minutes more would not matter much.
To me, the safer assumption is that he hurried BEFORE finding Lechmere, because we DO have that on record as somthing he stated in the Lloyds interview.

The one thing that seems certain is that ripperologists will spend endless amounts of time arguing cases that cannot be proven. Both of us are equally guilty in that respect, Iīd say.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna;408492]Why would he think about a route he apparently took everyday?

That is a truly astounding statement

No, it is not. The faster you walk, the more necessary it will become to concentrate on the walking and where it is taking place. Anybody can drive a car very slowly, thinking about other matters, but when you must drive at a very high speed, the race as such will demand your full attention.

But I hope this is the last word on a topic that is becoming truly sillly, and where none of us will be able to prova anything at all.

It is your view that it is purely about bigging up his role, and not just inaccurate reporting.

Yes, and my view dovetails with what Pauls supposedly said, or was claimed to have said by the reporter.

Again your view, you may not be correct!

WHAT???? I "MAY NOT BE CORRECT??? Shame on me!!! So here I am, boldly suggvesting things that cannot be taken as gospel and truth?

Now, WHO would have thought that?

Can we be for real?

The two instances are not alike at all, in the case of Long we have his own statements, about what he believes he saw.
In the case of Paul, we have one phrase in a paper, in an article that is unreliable.

The two cases are perfect parallels in one way: they present evidence that is not gainsaid by any other evidence at all - but are nevertheless questioned as if the questioning itself makes for a perfectly balanced counterweight. It does not, in neither case.

That phrase does not specifically state he was walking faster than normal. It is your interpretation of what it means and how reliable it is.

If he was used to hurrying, the same thing applies - he walked fast. Perhaps not faster than always, but he hurried nevertheless, and that DOES mean to move quickly in all universes I have visited so far.

[Jon Guy]

The one thing that seems certain is that ripperologists will spend endless amounts of time arguing cases that cannot be proven. Both of us are equally guilty in that respect, Iīd say. [/B]

I will reply to the rest of your post, but where have I been guilty of the above?