The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Fisherman]

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

Basically every time you have suggested something that can be suggested but not proven - surely, that has happened every now and then? Like when you suggest that the lateness was something that only surfaced after the carmen looking at the body. It can be suggested, but it cannot be proven. Maybe I should have written "matters" instead of "cases", I realize that now.

Then again, maybe as a suspectologist, I suggest more than you do. Sorry if you were somehow offended.

These discussions would have entertained Kafka, I believe...

[Elamarna]

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.

The same does not apply when comparing a walking route to that in a car. In addition, its a known route, one assumes he walked at least twice everyday.

Actually to compare walking to driving is truly unrealistic and just a little desperate

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.

That is the crux of the matter: what a reporter claimed.

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?

I see the normal response when someone challenges a view of yours, sarcasm, so be it.

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.

The view given in the newspaper article is not in anyway comparable to the evidence from Long.

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.

If.... and if again

Of course you insisted that he hurried, and you NEED to push that to bolster your theory.

The shame is the argument is not convincing to most without a predisposed bias towards Lechmere.

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.

At last something we can agree on.


Steve

[Fisherman]

The two instances are not alike at all, in the case of Long we have his own statements, about what he believes he saw

Steve

Just a small point, Steve, about how things are presented out here:

If you go to the window and see a dog standing right outside - do you afterwards reason that you "believe" that you saw a dog, but that you may have been mistaken - or do you quite simply and bluntly say that you DID see a dog?

And what happens if somebody who was not even there comes along and says that he or she thinks you got that wrong? That there will not have been any dog outside your window?

Philosophically, you may be both right and wrong. But practically...?

Interesting, is it not?

[Fisherman]

The shame is the argument is not convincing to most without a predisposed bias towards Lechmere.

Steve

Then take Lechmere out of the equation and ask yourself whether people who read a newspaper article where somebody is quoted as having said that he hurried along, will afterwards divide themselves into two equally large groups, one thinking that this somebody did hurry, just as he was quoted to have said, and another group where it would be reasoned that the information was probably faulty. Or will just about all of them accept that the quotation was correct and establishing what happened?

That, Steve, is what you need to give some afterthought - "after" meaning "after you got it all wrong".

[Jon Guy]

Basically every time you have suggested something that can be suggested but not proven - surely, that has happened every now and then? Like when you suggest that the lateness was something that only surfaced after the carmen looking at the body.

I still stand by the statement that lateness was something that only surfaced after the carmen looking at the body.

There is nothing to suggest either were late for work until they stopped by the body, and we have statements from the 2 carmen to show this.

It can be suggested, but it cannot be proven. Maybe I should have written "matters" instead of "cases", I realize that now

Again, I hope I only try to maintain facts or details when we have the
corresponding sources.

Then again, maybe as a suspectologist, I suggest more than you do. Sorry if you were somehow offended.

Not offended at all, Christer.
I understand theories go hand in hand with the Ripper case. I wouldn`t rubbish anyone`s theory, as much as I don`t think any theory has yet to take us any closer to the truth, but we still learn a lot by putting the details under the microscope, which is where I may chirp in, rightly or wrongly.

In the case of Cross, we cannot deny that from what facts we have, that when Paul walked down Bucks Row he saw Cross standing a few yards away from the body - fact !!

These discussions would have entertained Kafka, I believe

Indeed, which is why it`s fun.
I see it like a kind of chess game, where someone makes a move (or proposal) and then someone else will challenge it with a fact. These challenges are what strengthen a theory and should be welcomed

[Fisherman]

I still stand by the statement that lateness was something that only surfaced after the carmen looking at the body.

There is nothing to suggest either were late for work until they stopped by the body, and we have statements from the 2 carmen to show this.



Again, I hope I only try to maintain facts or details when we have the
corresponding sources.



Not offended at all, Christer.
I understand theories go hand in hand with the Ripper case. I wouldn`t rubbish anyone`s theory, as much as I don`t think any theory has yet to take us any closer to the truth, but we still learn a lot by putting the details under the microscope, which is where I may chirp in, rightly or wrongly.

In the case of Cross, we cannot deny that from what facts we have, that when Paul walked down Bucks Row he saw Cross standing a few yards away from the body - fact !!



Indeed, which is why it`s fun.
I see it like a kind of chess game, where someone makes a move (or proposal) and then someone else will challenge it with a fact. These challenges are what strengthen a theory and should be welcomed

I dunno´, Jon - if everybody had a similar approach to yours, I would probably agree totally with you.

But not all people play chess with the same gentle hand that you use. And some cheat when playing. That does not make for a relaxing, informative and rewarding game.

Anyway, thanks for your post. I do not agree that there are no signs of the carmen being late before they saw the body, but you have already seen my arguments for this take, so I will not reiterate them.

Have a nice weekend!

[Elamarna]

Then take Lechmere out of the equation and ask yourself whether people who read a newspaper article where somebody is quoted as having said that he hurried along, will afterwards divide themselves into two equally large groups, one thinking that this somebody did hurry, just as he was quoted to have said, and another group where it would be reasoned that the information was probably faulty. Or will just about all of them accept that the quotation was correct and establishing what happened?

That, Steve, is what you need to give some afterthought - "after" meaning "after you got it all wrong".

It depends on the paper. If we are going to be talking in generalities, some are known for being less than honest and reliable. and so one needs to asses the source.

One cannot just accept something because it fits our view! To do so is to be intellectually dishonest.

Am I wrong on this issue?
Time will undoubtedly show which of us, if either , is correct.

As you said in a previous post pointless when none can prove anything


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: It depends on the paper. If we are going to be talking in generalities, some are known for being less than honest and reliable. and so one needs to asses the source.

Lloyds Weekly, Steve. Was it a 50/50 risk they would lie about a thing like this?

One cannot just accept something because it fits our view! To do so is to be intellectually dishonest.

And did I say that you should? Did I not instead say that generally, people will believe what is stated as a quotation in a paper? And why? Because generally it is true, not least if it is completely uncontroversial. That has nothing at all to do with "fitting my view".

Am I wrong on this issue?
Time will undoubtedly show which of us, if either , is correct.

Let´s hope so. I promise not to gloat.

As you said in a previous post pointless when none can prove anything

Utterly so. But when one CAN prove something, like for example how papers will not generally quote people wrongfully on totally uncontroversial matters, there is nevertheless a need to disclose that.

Of course, you can now tell me to produce statistics about this, and I won´t be able to. That, however, does not change what I am saying. The research that has been done, has been done to reveal how people who speak to newspapers, such as politicians, for example, will lie from time to time. There is no real research about whether the papers as such will produce lies in democracies, and that is because it is accepted that in the normal case, they won´t.

In dictatures and in situations where papers have owners pushing an agenda, that may/will differ. But what paper would push the agenda that carmen hurry on their way to work? And why?

You tell me, Steve.

[Jon Guy]

It depends on the paper. If we are going to be talking in generalities, some are known for being less than honest and reliable. and so one needs to asses the source.

Hi Steve

I have always thought of Lloyds as a reliable newspaper, and though I note that wise men such as David and yourself see the "hurrying" bit in the Lloyds interview as possibly journalistic license, the whole interview does appear to me to be almost directly quoting Paul.

But, if so, the same interview states that the body was cold and must have been lying there for the last half hour.

[Fisherman]

Hi Steve

I have always thought of Lloyds as a reliable newspaper, and though I note that wise men such as David and yourself see the "hurrying" bit in the Lloyds interview as possibly journalistic license, the whole interview does appear to me to be almost directly quoting Paul.

But, if so, the same interview states that the body was cold and must have been lying there for the last half hour.

True - but not necessarily damning in the least for the paper, since Paul may well have been very adverse to the police and likely to say something like that.

Another possibility - and my, is it tempting! - is that Lechmere said this to Paul, who later on echoed it to the paper. If Lechmere was the killer, he would perhaps try to give the impression that Nichols was long gone. Then again, he may have been aware that the doctor´s examination would say something else. Lechmere would not be able to tell for how long she would bleed, however, and may have thought (perhaps from experience) that it would be very quickly over.

Now, this is just a suggestion, and one that cannot be in any way substantiated. I know, I know!

On the whole, although we can see that there are passages in the article that are in conflict with what was said at the inquest, there cannot be any certainty that they would be inventions from the reporter. It may well be that everything Paul said and claimed was faithfully reproduced in the article.

[Jon Guy]

Now, this is just a suggestion, and one that cannot be in any way substantiated. I know, I know! .

;-)

On the whole, although we can see that there are passages in the article that are in conflict with what was said at the inquest, there cannot be any certainty that they would be inventions from the reporter..

The interesting thing about the veracity of the Lloyds article is that it was given the same day, whereas, Paul`s inquest appearance was on Sept 17th.

[Fisherman]

The interesting thing about the veracity of the Lloyds article is that it was given the same day, whereas, Paul`s inquest appearance was on Sept 17th.

...meaning that...?

[Jon Guy]

...meaning that...?

Meaning that ... talking to a news reporter about an incident that occurred 12hours earlier that day is different to talking to Wynne Baxter 3 weeks later.
So we would expect Paul to have better recollection and to be more relaxed with the Lloyds interview.

But, is there much conflict between his inquest testimony and his Lloyds interview ?

The only thing I can think of is the inquest bit about him detecting some movement about breathing.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve

I have always thought of Lloyds as a reliable newspaper, and though I note that wise men such as David and yourself see the "hurrying" bit in the Lloyds interview as possibly journalistic license, the whole interview does appear to me to be almost directly quoting Paul.

But, if so, the same interview states that the body was cold and must have been lying there for the last half hour.

And Jon that is the major issue with the article,

It has some discrepancies with his later inquest testimony, and some major ones against the assumed facts, such as time of death.

The paper may be reliable in itself, that does not preclude either a bad article, or just dishonesty from either the reporter or witness.

The thing I note, in regards to what degree of rushing was taking place that morning, is that after leaving the body, neither Paul or Lechmere appear to be moving at a truly great rate, given that they are now even later than before finding the body.

However the major issue for me in the whole "why didn't Paul see Lechmere earlier?" debate is that he may simply not have been actively looking and taking notice of things not directly in front of him.

This to me seems to be backed by what actually happens when repeats a walk day in day out.


Others will disagree, so be it. That’s what makes true debate interesting.

Hope you have a good weekend


Steve

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: Meaning that ... talking to a news reporter about an incident that occurred 12hours earlier that day is different to talking to Wynne Baxter 3 weeks later.
So we would expect Paul to have better recollection and to be more relaxed with the Lloyds interview.

Or vice versa - Paul had been led by Lechmere to say that the body was very cold and must have been lying around for quite some time, but had realized when reading the papers that this was emphatically not the case, and so he was more cautious at the inquest,
However, we know that he supposedly told LLoyds that he was in Bucks Row EXACTLY 3.45, and he told the inquest that he left home shortly before 3.45, so this seems to dovetail.

But, is there much conflict between his inquest testimony and his Lloyds interview ?

The only thing I can think of is the inquest bit about him detecting some movement about breathing.

The article leads on that Paul alone walked up to Mizen and spoke to him. The inquest does not support that take. Nor does it support the idea that Mizen proceeded to knock people up for the longest after he had been told about the woman in Bucks Row.
Otherwise, there is not much difference inbetween the versions.