The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:

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.

How do you conclude anything at all about the speed they walked at, at this stage?

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.

Have you ever walked down an empty, otherwise completely silent street, lined on both sides by houses that form an accoustic tunnel, when there is a woman in the same street, wearing high heels?

If you have, you will know. Itīs not as if you would not hear her from very far away.

Itīs more or less like placing a drummer in that street, telling him to do a solo, and really focus on that solo. If you place another drummer fifty yards away and tell him the same thing, neither man will be able to focus and shut out the other drummer.

Where I live, there are old streets with the type of housing I speak of, forming accoustic walls. There is no way you will not hear other people wearing hard-soled shoes in such a street in the silent night. So yes, I do disagree, and I do urge you to experiment with these factors. Itīs truly illustrative.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna:

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.

How do you conclude anything at all about the speed they walked at, at this stage?

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.

Have you ever walked down an empty, otherwise completely silent street, lined on both sides by houses that form an accoustic tunnel, when there is a woman in the same street, wearing high heels?

If you have, you will know. Itīs not as if you would not hear her from very far away.

Itīs more or less like placing a drummer in that street, telling him to do a solo, and really focus on that solo. If you place another drummer fifty yards away and tell him the same thing, neither man will be able to focus and shut out the other drummer.

Where I live, there are old streets with the type of housing I speak of, forming accoustic walls. There is no way you will not hear other people wearing hard-soled shoes in such a street in the silent night. So yes, I do disagree, and I do urge you to experiment with these factors. Itīs truly illustrative.

Please Fish,

Not again

We are back to perception, it not that people cannot notice sights and sounds, its if they do notice them if they are mentally occupied with other things. The same effect occurs when doing repetitive tasks.


You appear to not accept that people can and do block things out.

The example you quote of two drummers does not really stand up to scrutiny, given that such things are not everyday events or noises, they are I am sure you agree unusually to say the least.

Its the mundane that we block out, the noises and sights we see and hear everyday, people walking along a street for instance.

That is one of the reasons why emergency services have sirens, to alert us to the unusual.


The experiment you suggest is a pointless one from a scientific standpoint: because I will be actively listening and looking for the issues you discuss and that will negate the effects I am talking about.

We have been here before and it appears we cannot agree on this.

have a good weekend


Steve

PS: to go back to your previous reply I am glad you will not gloat, I promise not to gloat too



.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Please Fish,

Not again

Yes, again.

We are back to perception, it not that people cannot notice sights and sounds, its if they do notice them if they are mentally occupied with other things. The same effect occurs when doing repetitive tasks.

Yes, but there will be exceptions. If you are busy reading and in a bubble, I bet uyou will notice if I explode a landmine under your reading chair. There are always reasonable levels in these matters, Steve.

You appear to not accept that people can and do block things out.

Oh, but I do. After this post, I will block you out. It will work, alright.

The example you quote of two drummers does not really stand up to scrutiny, given that such things are not everyday events or noises, they are I am sure you agree unusually to say the least.

Much is unusual. That does not mean it is inadmissible (sound of drumroll and a cymbal finish)

Its the mundane that we block out, the noises and sights we see and hear everyday, people walking along a street for instance.

Itīs all a question of levels, Steve.

That is one of the reasons why emergency services have sirens, to alert us to the unusual.

"Sirens on the rooftops wailing, but thereīs no ship sailing..." Yes, it is true that some things WILL be noticed. That is what I am saying.

The experiment you suggest is a pointless one from a scientific standpoint: because I will be actively listening and looking for the issues you discuss and that will negate the effects I am talking about.

Then send in your wife, and another high-heel wearing woman some time after her, without the Mrs knowing about it. See if she will notice. She may even hear if the shoes are Pradas.

We have been here before and it appears we cannot agree on this.

have a good weekend

I can agree on it, but you seem reluctant...?

PS: to go back to your previous reply I am glad you will not gloat, I promise not to gloat too

I can promise that for you - you wonīt.

Have a good weekend, you too!

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: Please Fish,

Not again

Yes, again.

We are back to perception, it not that people cannot notice sights and sounds, its if they do notice them if they are mentally occupied with other things. The same effect occurs when doing repetitive tasks.

Yes, but there will be exceptions. If you are busy reading and in a bubble, I bet uyou will notice if I explode a landmine under your reading chair. There are always reasonable levels in these matters, Steve.

You appear to not accept that people can and do block things out.

Oh, but I do. After this post, I will block you out. It will work, alright.

The example you quote of two drummers does not really stand up to scrutiny, given that such things are not everyday events or noises, they are I am sure you agree unusually to say the least.

Much is unusual. That does not mean it is inadmissible (sound of drumroll and a cymbal finish)

Its the mundane that we block out, the noises and sights we see and hear everyday, people walking along a street for instance.

Itīs all a question of levels, Steve.

That is one of the reasons why emergency services have sirens, to alert us to the unusual.

"Sirens on the rooftops wailing, but thereīs no ship sailing..." Yes, it is true that some things WILL be noticed. That is what I am saying.

The experiment you suggest is a pointless one from a scientific standpoint: because I will be actively listening and looking for the issues you discuss and that will negate the effects I am talking about.

Then send in your wife, and another high-heel wearing woman some time after her, without the Mrs knowing about it. See if she will notice. She may even hear if the shoes are Pradas.

We have been here before and it appears we cannot agree on this.

have a good weekend

I can agree on it, but you seem reluctant...?

PS: to go back to your previous reply I am glad you will not gloat, I promise not to gloat too

I can promise that for you - you wonīt.

Have a good weekend, you too!

Fish

That reply does not even start to address the particular issue.

The examples you use: for example a landmine exploding under my chair, are completely unrealistic.

One cannot compare footsteps to the sound of drummers and sirens. And yet just such an attempt is made.

Despite what you post, there appears to be a reluctance to accept that people can block out everyday noises, such as the sound of footsteps . No amount of arguing or debating will make footsteps anymore than an everyday sound.

Is it not true, that when the witnesses living in Bucks Row were asked, only one said they heard any sounds, that being possible whispering outside, no one heard any other sounds, or at least not sounds that registered with them and which they reported?

No one heard Lechmere or Paul walking down the street, at the very least the witness claiming to have heard whispers should have heard the sound of footsteps as well, they did not!

This suggests that such everyday sounds were often, not always, ignored.


The experiment you again suggest will only give meaningful results if the participants are not only unaware of the purpose, but are in the zone mentally.. during the entire experiment, I for one am not sure how one achieves that.


cheers


Steve

[Fisherman]

Fish

That reply does not even start to address the particular issue.

The examples you use: for example a landmine exploding under my chair, are completely unrealistic.

One cannot compare footsteps to the sound of drummers and sirens. And yet just such an attempt is made.

Despite what you post, there appears to be a reluctance to accept that people can block out everyday noises, such as the sound of footsteps . No amount of arguing or debating will make footsteps anymore than an everyday sound.

Is it not true, that when the witnesses living in Bucks Row were asked, only one said they heard any sounds, that being possible whispering outside, no one heard any other sounds, or at least not sounds that registered with them and which they reported?

No one heard Lechmere or Paul walking down the street, at the very least the witness claiming to have heard whispers should have heard the sound of footsteps as well, they did not!

This suggests that such everyday sounds were often, not always, ignored.


The experiment you again suggest will only give meaningful results if the participants are not only unaware of the purpose, but are in the zone mentally.. during the entire experiment, I for one am not sure how one achieves that.


cheers


Steve

Sorry. Blocked you out over the weekend. Hopefully back on Monday.

[David Orsam]

The only implication says around 3.30, and one cannot work from an assumption that this meant around anything else than 3.30.

What does this actually mean?

The exact quote, incidentally, was "about 3.30" not "around 3.30" which you keep writing for some reason, and this can easily mean any time between 3.20 and 3.40, which makes it meaningless for our purposes.

Even if he had said "at 3.30" we'd still need to check how he established the time and whether he was using a clock that was running fast or slow. But with "about 3.30" there is such a wide acceptable range that it is literally impossible to draw any conclusions about any missing time, let alone to use it to conclude that there is a case against Lechmere for murder.

It's all very well you now saying "Does it clear Lechmere? No. And that is all that can be said" but that is precisely what Scobie does NOT say! He says that the timings "really hurt" Lechmere. But if all you are saying is that the timings don't clear Lechmere then they don't provide prima facie support for him being the murderer. The opposite of Scobie's opinion!

[Elamarna]

Sorry. Blocked you out over the weekend. Hopefully back on Monday.

Historically he who withdraws first or runs from the battlefied has lost the battle.


Steve

[David Orsam]

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.

What I see in that article, John, is that there is absolutely no way that Paul will have said the words that have been attributed to him in that order without interruption. It would be remarkable if that were the case. Just read it and think about it. It's not how people speak. They are normally all over the place. So there is no way it is a quote.

What I feel sure will have happened is that the reporter asked him a series of questions and Paul gave him some answers. The reporter will obviously not have had a recording device but he would ideally have taken notes in his notebook. The reporter would then have had to write up his notes and put Paul's answers into a coherent form. But, in part, unless he wrote everything down verbatim, he might well have been relying on memory. It depends how good he was at taking notes. When writing up the answers he may well have added some of his own words to make sense of it all.

He may well not have heard everything properly. Given that we know that Paul turned into Cobbets Court, I there is a good chance that Paul did not say he was on his way to work at Covent Garden market as he purportedly says in the article. I believe the reporter might have misheard "Cobbets Court" due to Paul speaking in an accent which the reporter could not decipher.

I find it rather unlikely that Paul was bigging himself up (as Fisherman appears to believe). For me, his reported comment that he left Cross with the body and told him he would send the first policeman he saw is likely to be a misunderstanding by the journalist of what actually happened.

And of course Fisherman entirely discounts Paul's supposed comment "I told him [Mizen] what I had seen, and I asked him to come". He has to because if Paul said it then Lechmere's lie never existed!

But while discounting this he nevertheless relies on the word "hurrying" to the extent that he feels he can literally calculate his speed of walking!! Paul might have said it but he might not. It is not in my view a quote.

And if Paul did say he was "hurrying" how can we be sure he wasn't trying to impress his boss? Perhaps he was really idling along but claimed to be hurrying.

I don't want to try and be difficult because the word "hurrying" is in the article (albeit not a feature of his evidence in court) but I don't think it's very important. For me, the real offence is taking this single word and, in effect, using it to claim that Lechmere murdered Nichols!! It beggar's belief but that's what is being done.

[David Orsam]

Let's assume that Paul was indeed hurrying. Let's say he was walking extremely fast that morning. As fast as he could. What is the consequence of that?

I suggest it only goes to show that he was probably further away from Lechmere than a distance of 40 yards.

So far in this thread not a single person has explained how it would have been possible for Lechmere to accurately estimate Pauls distance away from him from the sounds of his footsteps alone.

The only way I can think it possible is from him estimating the number of seconds it took Paul to reach him and then carrying out some form of rough mental calculation about how much distance he must have covered in that time. As he was unlikely to have given the matter any thought until he was asked about it in the witness box it means he must have done the mental calculation on his feet in court some three days after the event in question.

Now, if Paul was 'hurrying' and walking as fast as Fisherman thinks he was, then perhaps he was walking at double the speed of Lechmere – or double the speed that Lechmere assumed a normal person would walk. In which case, Lechmere might well have underestimated the distance Paul was from him when he heard his footsteps by a factor of 50%. So instead of being 40 yards away he was 80 yards away.

And if he was 80 yards away at the time Lechmere stopped in the street he would probably have been at least 100 yards away when Lechmere first saw the body.

Further, if Paul was walking at twice the speed of Lechmere he would have been even further away than 100 yards when he left his house in Foster Street. Previous calculations seem to assume they walked at the same speed but if this is not so he could have been much further behind in Bath Road then previously estimated.

If that was the case, there is no mystery as to why neither Lechmere nor Paul spotted each other before they walked into Bucks Row. It's just a non point.

[Fisherman]

Historically he who withdraws first or runs from the battlefied has lost the battle.


Steve

That kind of puts me on the spot.

On the one hand, I promised to block you out over the weekend, to show you that I indeed know that things CAN be blocked out.

On the other hand, you claim that you have won the debate if I do - all arguments as such of course unconsidered; the one who keeps nagging is automatically the one with the better arguments, it would seem?

Let me think about it? Ehhhhh ... no. I will leave you to the champagne and cookies, Steve. May they last the whole weekend, and may your celebrations be sprightly and good fun! You do deserve it for being so tenacious!

Monday, however, is another day.

[Patrick S]

I think the basic issue - and Christer mentioned it once more in a recent post on this thread - is using the fact that we cannot "clear" Cross as some valuable metric, when in fact it's completely worthless. Now, if Nichols had been murdered last week, we'd conduct our investigation, speak to witnesses, retrace steps, all that. Alas, we are 128+ years on, and we can rely only upon contemporary media reports. If the police made no attempts to "clear" a suspect in 1888, or if they did and it simply wasn't reported in papers, then we, in 2017, short of discovering evidence demonstrating that said "suspect" was not physically in or around London when Nichols was killed, have no hope of "clearing" ANYONE of having killed Nichols in Bucks Row.

As an exercise let's look at some of the characters who orbited around Bucks Row in August 1888.

Try as I might, I cannot "clear" John Neil. Neil tells us he was down Buck's Row a half-hour previously. Who corroborated that? Maybe he was in Buck's Row the entire time, hiding in the shadows as Cross and Paul fiddled about, eventually running off to find Mizen in Bakers Row. As best I can tell we only have his world that he was where he said he was and did what he said he did.

I cannot "clear" Jonas Mizen. He said he was in Bakers Row knocking people up. I haven't read any accounts of people who had been knocked up by Mizen while Nichols was being killed in Bucks Row. How do we know he didn't kill her, simply walk off to Bakers Row, knock on one door, only to then be stumbled upon by two carmen?

I can't "clear" John Thain, either. He claims he knew nothing of what went on in Bucks Row until he was signaled by Neil. How do we know he didn't kill Nichols, sprint off to where he should have been on his beat, and feign surprise when Neil called to him?

What about Alfred Mushaw? His is a suspicious story indeed! He sat, watching, a mere thirty yards from the spot. He saw nothing? Heard nothing? How long does it take to walk thirty yards? A few seconds? How do we know he didn't stroll over, kill Nichols, hear footsteps, and head back to his post? I can't say for certain he didn't. I cannot "clear" him.

Robert Paul? I cannot "clear" him. How can we know he didn't lie about the time he left his house? How can we know he didn't kill Nichols and then double back to "find" the other carman with the body?

We know we cannot "clear" Robert Mann. I mean, there's a whole book about how he could have done it.

While I'm at it, Thomas Ede's story sounds odd. A man with a knife? A wooden arm? I can't find anything that "clears" this man.

What about Henry Birch and his strange man the night after the murder? Odd tale. Perhaps designed to throw the police off of his scent. Where was he the night before? What was he doing? Can we "clear" him?

[Fisherman]

What do you use for a hat, David? A ten person dome tent?

You are ranting now, and since I know you are not THAT stupid, I can only suppose that it is done in an effort to try to get me into the debate with you. Let me assure you that the effort will miserably fail.

Have a glorious, magnificent and superbly superior weekend.

[Fisherman]

I think the basic issue - and Christer mentioned it once more in a recent post on this thread - is using the fact that we cannot "clear" Cross as some valuable metric, when in fact it's completely worthless. Now, if Nichols had been murdered last week, we'd conduct our investigation, speak to witnesses, retrace steps, all that. Alas, we are 128+ years on, and we can rely only upon contemporary media reports. If the police made no attempts to "clear" a suspect in 1888, or if they did and it simply wasn't reported in papers, then we, in 2017, short of discovering evidence demonstrating that said "suspect" was not physically in or around London when Nichols was killed, have no hope of "clearing" ANYONE of having killed Nichols in Bucks Row.

As an exercise let's look at some of the characters who orbited around Bucks Row in August 1888.

Try as I might, I cannot "clear" John Neil. Neil tells us he was down Buck's Row a half-hour previously. Who corroborated that? Maybe he was in Buck's Row the entire time, hiding in the shadows as Cross and Paul fiddled about, eventually running off to find Mizen in Bakers Row. As best I can tell we only have his world that he was where he said he was and did what he said he did.

I cannot "clear" Jonas Mizen. He said he was in Bakers Row knocking people up. I haven't read any accounts of people who had been knocked up by Mizen while Nichols was being killed in Bucks Row. How do we know he didn't kill her, simply walk off to Bakers Row, knock on one door, only to then be stumbled upon by two carmen?

I can't "clear" John Thain, either. He claims he knew nothing of what went on in Bucks Row until he was signaled by Neil. How do we know he didn't kill Nichols, sprint off to where he should have been on his beat, and feign surprise when Neil called to him?

What about Alfred Mushaw? His is a suspicious story indeed! He sat, watching, a mere thirty yards from the spot. He saw nothing? Heard nothing? How long does it take to walk thirty yards? A few seconds? How do we know he didn't stroll over, kill Nichols, hear footsteps, and head back to his post? I can't say for certain he didn't. I cannot "clear" him.

Robert Paul? I cannot "clear" him. How can we know he didn't lie about the time he left his house? How can we know he didn't kill Nichols and then double back to "find" the other carman with the body?

We know we cannot "clear" Robert Mann. I mean, there's a whole book about how he could have done it.

While I'm at it, Thomas Ede's story sounds odd. A man with a knife? A wooden arm? I can't find anything that "clears" this man.

What about Henry Birch and his strange man the night after the murder? Odd tale. Perhaps designed to throw the police off of his scent. Where was he the night before? What was he doing? Can we "clear" him?

How many of these men do we know used an alternative name at the inquest?

Who was the person found alone with Nichols?

Who disagreed with a PC over what was said and done on the murder night?

Of course we canīt clear Emma Green either - after all, she lived right next to where Nichols was found dead (and I am vaguely disappointed that you forgot her). But the fact of the matter is that we CAN sometimes clear suspects, like for example Ostrog, who was demonstrably not present at the murder sites. So there must always be a striving to do so, even if it will fall short many a time.
After that, we can turn the tables and see who of the suspects has the most things pointing the OTHER way, the way of guilt.

That is an interesting exercise in the same vein - we will not be able to prove it as it stands, but we can look at the evidence just the same and form theories from it.

Or we can just say "sod it" and leave the boards, convinced that we will never see a solution.

I tend to go with the former suggestion.

[David Orsam]

What do you use for a hat, David? A ten person dome tent?

You are ranting now, and since I know you are not THAT stupid, I can only suppose that it is done in an effort to try to get me into the debate with you. Let me assure you that the effort will miserably fail.

Have a glorious, magnificent and superbly superior weekend.

Hi Fisherman, I guess the fact that you have temporarily stopped pretending to ignore me means that you I must have troubled you.

So you feel the need to respond by saying that I am "ranting" without any further explanation.

You really flatter yourself though. I love not debating with you. If you could just continue not responding thus allowing me to make my points that would be most kind.

[David Orsam]

How many of these men do we know used an alternative name at the inquest?

Who was the person found alone with Nichols?

Who disagreed with a PC over what was said and done on the murder night?

I see we are back to Lechmere being "found alone with Nichols" now.

And I thought you were being so careful to avoid that loaded and misleading phrase.

Lechmere was not found alone with Nichols at all.