Lechmere The Psychopath

[Pierre]

I am not going to play this game of pure guess work. One cannot give a figure as you well know, there is no data available.
However I am quite prepared to give a reasoned estimate that is not an actual figure.
That is close enough together to allow normal conversation and close enough to allow Paul to hear the conversation with Mizen and to possibly join in himself.
Such a conclusion is drawn from the contents of the witness data sources and is fully in keeping with all 3.

And you have still not provided any data (which is not asking for guess work; but rather research ) to support your idea they were not in close proximity.

I hoped for better.


Steve

All this is very easy to agree with for an historian.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Herlock Sholmes: Surely Fisherman this is a very logical conclusion to arrive at.

Yes! And therein lies the rub. It is logical - but is it correct?

From the DTs transcript:

Mizen: '...carman who passed in company with another man.'

Cross: 'in Bakers Row they met the last witness (Mizen).'

Paul : 'The man walked with him.'

We need to look separately at these three excerpts:

"In company" only tells us that the two were on a joint mission. It says nothing about the distance between the two. They arrived up at Bakers Row more or less together, so much so that Mizen recognized (and perhaps heard) that they were doing the trek jointly. After that, there can be no knowing how close they were when Lechmere spoke to Mizen. It could have been two yards and it could have been twenty.

"They" met the last witness - well, obviously both men had to pass the PC! Ergo both of them met him. But how close to a person does your meeting him put you...?

The last one, "the man walked with him" depicts how Lechmere walked with Paul TO BAKERS ROW, and not what happened up there. Plus "walking with" does not mean that we are dealing with a fixed distance. I do think the two walked close together up to Bakers Row, and that this was how Mizen knew they were "in company" with each other. But as I keep saying, it seems that Lechmere broke free from the companionship distancewise at that stage and approached Mizen alone - which is reflected in how Mizen says that ONE man came up to him and spoke about the woman in Bucks Row.

I have no problems realizing that the obvious implication is that they were close together, Herlock. And I think that may have helped to shield Lechmere. Before he was under suspicion, there was no logical reason not to read it the way it seems to read. But once we put him under scrutiny, all the little bits and pieces must be looked at from all angles, and suddenly we can see that there is an opening here. It may be that the less obvious solution is the correct one.

They left the body together. Surely it's reasonable to believe that they walked together and therefore arrived together. I can't see what we have to lead us to believe then that Paul, for some reason, stood apart and out of earshot?

[B]It IS reasonable to beleive they walked in tandem throughout, yes - but it is in no way any certainty. What speaks against it? Well, partly the wording from one paper: "The other man, who went down Hanbury Street", but mainly how Mizen does not say anything at all about Paul approaching him or speaking to him. And in his inquest testimony, Paul only says that they told a PC about what had happened. I have no problems accepting that he may be recounting how Lechmere spoke to Mizen - it would to Pauls mind be a result of the carmens joint decision to tell a PC. Itīs like saying "we won the game" when Man U wins, or like a couple withdrawing money, obviously just the one does that, but both can say afterwards "we withdrew money".

On this issue, I am not claiming that my suggestion is the more obvious one or the "better one" - I am saying that on account of there being a more obvious and simple solution, we may have missed out on the fact that there is another solution available which is in no way unviable as such.

Surely Fisherman if you can pick apart circumstances such as this one then absolute every aspect of the case would require constant re-interpretation.

Generally speaking, we would do well to establish all possible interpretations of every aspect of the case. We owe it to ourselves not to leave any stone unturned. It is not until we look from all angles that we can see all the possible solutions. I hope you follow me on that?
Of course, we should not resort to impossible interpretations, but as I have said before, I am looking at Lechmere as a suspect, and I am researching how he fits the bill. If there are alternative interpretations that keep him in the game in a sensible manner, then those interpretations must be listened to. In a sense, the interpretation that he used the name Cross because he used it at work is the exact same thing - all the information we have speak for him always calling himself Lechmere with the authorities, so believing that he called himself Cross with the police because it was his working name is not as likely as the suggestion hat he did not. But it is nevertheless viable and belongs to the discussion.

If Paul walked on then that would have been pretty strange behaviour seeing as they arrived together with one purpose. Wouldn't Mizen have said 'don't go yet,' or some such words. Then he would have let them both walk on.

If mizen was informed that another PC had the errand in hand, he woul have to suspect that this was a lie before he had any reason at all to detain either man or to try and stop Paul. As long as he accepted that another PC was in place and had sent the carmen to fetch help, he could only work from the assumption that they had done their part and should be allowed to go to work.

I can't think any other interpretation logical?

Well, I can. I can see a very clear opening, and I think it is much supported by how Mizen stated that he spoke to one man. If both men came up to him and spoke to him, why on earth would he not say so? Donīt you find such a suggestion illogical? I know I do. If you and Steve came up to me and if you said "I think you are wrong" and Steve said "I think that we must be correct on this", would I then relate that as if only you spoke to me? Would I have to be reminded that tehre was another man who ALSO spoke to me? That is not logical. I really should say "Two men came up to me and spoke to me. The first one said.... and then the second guy went.... "

Is that not true? And if you agree, what happens? Where does that put Paul? If Mizen did not speak to him, and if Mizen said "one man" spoke to him, what about Paul? Why wouod this be? What coud be the underlying explanation?

Well, one such explanation would be that Paul never walked up to Mizen and never spoke to him. Surely you must agree that this seems a logical enough explanation to Mizens testimony?

We need to command ourselves on our new, less aggressive take on debating techniques at any rate!

And now itīs lawnmowing time, BEFORE the missus returns home!

Great for a debate in the pub. And great as the starting point for any theory. However at some point one needs facts. Not arguments based on semantics and "what ifs".
That is an entire post and indeed theory devoid of any factual data.


Steve

[Pierre]

Elamarna: I am not going to play this game of pure guess work. One cannot give a figure as you well know, there is no data available.

Yes, I know that quite well. I have known it for years and I have always pointed it out: it cannot be established where Paul was, and the semantic implications cannot be taken as any guarantee that he was within earshot.

This is why I am having no trouble at all understanding that you will not offer any suggestion about the distance. How could you? You realize this too, and instead opt for calling it "playing games" - thatīs the one little damage you can do, you can point to me as somebody who suggest playing games instead of doing factbased ripperology.
But it is no game. It is a surefire way to prove that no distance can be established and that Paul as a consequence may have been way out of earshot.

However I am quite prepared to give a reasoned estimate that is not an actual figure.

Give it a try, and weīll see!

That is close enough together to allow normal conversation and close enough to allow Paul to hear the conversation with Mizen and to possibly join in himself.

No, it is not. There can be no distance established, as you well know, and that means that we cannot say that he was within audible distance.
Hereīs what you get for trying this angle: Answer me these questions:

Is there any chance that Paul can have been more than a yard away from Mizen?

Is there any chance that he could have been more than three yards away?

Five yards?

Ten?

Fifteen?

Each and every one of these suggestions are not only viable, but also EQUALLY viable. And that owes to how the two terms "together" and "in company with" are not, and have never been, any exact terms. They acknowledge one thing only and that thing is a companionship between two parts. That is why one man can call from Buenos Aires to Stockholm and say "we are together in this", "we are in each others company on this deal".

Of course, that was not what Mizen meant - but it is totally viable to suggest that he simply meant that he had accepted that the two men did their trek that morning in companionship, meaning solely that they had joined up. That does not mean that there was an established distance inbetween them where their being together or in company with each other seized to be a fact. But letīs introduce such a distance anyway, and letīs make it three yards.
Are we to think that if they were at times three yards and an inch from each other, they were no longer in company? Did they float in and out of being in company with each other if the three-yard limit was overstepped at times?

No, the one and only thing that could stop them being together would be if one of them left the other with no intention to join up again directly. Then, and only then, does the togetherness seize to be.

What you are trying to do here is crystal clear: You are trying to say that since they were claimed to have been together, Paul must have been within earshot of Mizen. Regardless of the accousic properties and surrounding, ambient sounds, and regardless of the volume of speech used by Lechmere, he must have been close enough to enable you to claim that you are correct in saying that Paul would have heard what was said.

That is it, is it not? It is all that matters to you, you soooo want it to be a proven thing. But you cannot get there, try as you might.

Not gonna work in a million years, Steve. And to think this suggestion comes from somebody who has the nerve to call my statement that it was the coroner who introduced the phrase "in company" laughable...?

Itīs quite a rot.

Now, answer my questions above, please! If Paul was fifteen yards away, he would likely not have heard what was said. If he was one yard away, he arguably must have heard. So you are looking for a distance inbetween the two when you look for the maximum distance you are prepared to allow for. Or do you deny that? Just tell me which distance we are looking at, Steve. What is it you know that I donīt know about the placement of Paul, and how can you prove it?

Such a conclusion is drawn from the contents of the witness data sources and is fully in keeping with all 3.

The idea that they were too far away to hear each other is also in keeping with the given evidence, Steve. And there goes your certainty. Poof! Swosh! Gone with the wind! There was a backside to the medal you tried to pin to your now very deflated chest.

And you have still not provided any data (which is not asking for guess work; but rather research ) to support your idea they were not in close proximity.

I donīt have to provide any data at all in that respect. Not a iot. Since it cannot be established what "together" and "in company with" means in terms of any established distance, I am freed of any demands to put any of the persons on any spot at all. Whatever may have been out of earshot is good enough, be that ten, twelve or twenty yards. Neither distance is excluded from possibility by what was said.

YOU on the other hand, Steve - you MUST provide data telling us that Paul was at a place where he would have heard what Lechmere said to Mizen. You MUST provide a given maximal distance that ensures that Paul must have heard the discussion, otherwise you are just wasting peopleīs time out here. If you cannot prove your point, you are toast, gone, wasted ... you name it.
And that just happened, did it not? Or CAN you provide conclusive proof that Paul must have heard?

Well, can you? Or is it just a case of how you "think" that the parts involved must have spoken of a very close proximity?

You see itīs either an acknowledgement of that or conclusive proof that is called for. You are on that spot now, Steve, I put you there and I am not letting you off.

How silly. It is not a matter of distance. It is a matter of defining ongoing social interaction in the past.

The sources define their interaction as being together and in company.

Not as (example):

"being perhaps in company, although there may have been some uncertainty as to wether they were in company, since one of the men was 49 yards 0.64 feet away and not at the most 4 yards away, which would have meant that they were in company."

That type of discussion is nowhere in the sources. They are very simple. The men were in company.

This was certainly not a problem for the police in 1888. And no problem now.

If you canīt think like them, try to apply your usual binary thinking on it.

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: No my Dear Fish, that is not how it works.
Surely you realise that by now?

I know quite well that any attempt of an answer on your behalf will settle the errand in my favour, yes.

I stick by the statements given at the time which say Paul heard and took part in the conversation.

I stick with the statements given at the time that say that one man only spoke to Mizen and that Paul walked down Hanbury Street as that happened.

You see, much as you are trying to pull the wool over peopleīs eyes, I wonīt let you.

If you do not accept those statements please explain why? And provide the data which leads you to that view.

YOU are the one lacking data. YOU are the one who cannot substantiate your view. There is absolutely nothing definitively placing Paul in close proximity to Mizen.

I can go on defending the statements all day unless you provide an alternative source to counter them. It's no problem.

I know. And all the while, you look rather silly. That always happens when people champion lost causes. Mind you, I am not saying that Paul could not have been close to Mizen. Nor am I saying that my take is more likely or better grounded in the sources.

I am saying that it is viable, and the silly appearance on your behalf only emerges if you deny that.

Do you?

[Fisherman]

Great for a debate in the pub. And great as the starting point for any theory. However at some point one needs facts. Not arguments based on semantics and "what ifs".
That is an entire post and indeed theory devoid of any factual data.


Steve

That post was directed to Herlock Sholmes and not to you. It is part of a discussion he and I are having. Youīre welcome to comment of course, but I am not debating the issue with you.

[Patrick S]

Great for a debate in the pub. And great as the starting point for any theory. However at some point one needs facts. Not arguments based on semantics and "what ifs".
That is an entire post and indeed theory devoid of any factual data.


Steve

I'm up for an in person debate. I THINK I suggested it once......

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: No my Dear Fish, that is not how it works.
Surely you realise that by now?

I know quite well that any attempt of an answer on your behalf will settle the errand in my favour, yes.

I have answered. The fact the answer is something you do not want is not my problem.

I stick by the statements given at the time which say Paul heard and took part in the conversation.

I stick with the statements given at the time that say that one man only spoke to Mizen and that Paul walked down Hanbury Street as that happened.

You see, much as you are trying to pull the wool over peopleīs eyes, I wonīt let you.

No I am presenting the facts of the witness statements, there is no attempt to mislead. You are presenting a theory based on your own views and it seems mainly on semantics, not on the sources.

If you do not accept those statements please explain why? And provide the data which leads you to that view.

YOU are the one lacking data. YOU are the one who cannot substantiate your view. There is absolutely nothing definitively placing Paul in close proximity to Mizen.

Thats very strange; I am the one who is using the witness statements and what they contain. It is you who is not using the data sources and presenting ideas which are not supported.

I can go on defending the statements all day unless you provide an alternative source to counter them. It's no problem.

I know. And all the while, you look rather silly. That always happens when people champion lost causes. Mind you, I am not saying that Paul could not have been close to Mizen. Nor am I saying that my take is more likely or better grounded in the sources.

So now you as well as having the ability to know what Mizen meant in his testimony you now know what all the members of this forum think. You truly are blessed.

I have not lost the debate as I can present witness statements which say Paul heard the conversation. You however have not offered any evidence that those statements are wrong.
This post is a classic example of the style you use. Say that the other side of the debate has failed but offer no evidence to support your view.

I am saying that it is viable, and the silly appearance on your behalf only emerges if you deny that.

Do you?

I am saying can you provide any data which renders the statements of Lechmere And Paul as being faulty. Do that and we will see what developers.

Steve

[Elamarna]

That post was directed to Herlock Sholmes and not to you. It is part of a discussion he and I are having. Youīre welcome to comment of course, but I am not debating the issue with you.

If I am welcome to comment therecis no issue is there? And if I am not the discussion should be by PM.


STEVE

[Elamarna]

I'm up for an in person debate. I THINK I suggested it once......

Me too Patrick.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Is the binary option the only option for you?

No, it is not. But it seems that half of it will do for you?

The plain and simple truth is that when I say that your posts are ignorant, worthless, lazy, moronic and a disgrace for Casebook, believe it or not, that judgment will spill over on you as a person. And optimistic though you may be, Iīd advice against hoping that those who hold your posts very low in esteem are in fact very positive about you as a person.

Now, Pierre, you have had todays recognition from my side, and there is no more to have.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: I have answered. The fact the answer is something you do not want is not my problem.

But the answer is exactly what I want, Steve - a recognition that you are unable to fix a distance. Itīs totally in line with what I am saying: "together" and "in company" do not carry any sort of fixed distance implications.

No I am presenting the facts of the witness statements, there is no attempt to mislead. You are presenting a theory based on your own views and it seems mainly on semantics, not on the sources.

The fewest present theories based on other peopleīs views, Steve. Didnīt you know? Ann in my case it is very firmly based on the sources, since they tell me that Mizen did not meet and discuss with two men but instead just the one.
It is a question of which sources we use. And I am pointing to how there are sources that support my view, making it a viable one.
Donīt lie about that, if you please.

Thats very strange; I am the one who is using the witness statements and what they contain. It is you who is not using the data sources and presenting ideas which are not supported.

You are falsely inferring that what was said must mean that Paul heard what Lechmere told Mizen. That is twisting the facts into something that was never there.
I am using the sources - it is not me who is suggesting what Mizen said, we have it on record. There is therefore support for my take, although I am quite aware that mine is not the common interpretation of the sources - then again, that is the very idea; I believe the sources have been misinterpreted, and I present an alternative take on it. Which, like I said, is the same as you presenting the alternative take that Lechmere called himself Cross at work.
Where are the sources for THAT, Steve?

So now you as well as having the ability to know what Mizen meant in his testimony you now know what all the members of this forum think. You truly are blessed.

A total misfiring; two misunderstandings baked into one.
I am SUGGESTING what I think Mizen meant. I am stating that I think you look silly. Me. Not "all the members of the forum.
You really need to read a bit more comprehensivel if you are to discuss interpretations. I wil put it down to ignorance instead of lying, but Iīm not sure thatīs a better thing ...

I have not lost the debate as I can present witness statements which say Paul heard the conversation. You however have not offered any evidence that those statements are wrong.
This post is a classic example of the style you use. Say that the other side of the debate has failed but offer no evidence to support your view.

You may have missed out on it, but you have lost the debate. You - for some exotic reason - said that I was the one who needed data to support my view. And all the while, you were clinging on to the demonstrably faulty thesis that "together" and "in company" must mean "in close proximity".
Itīs a beginners mistake and a beginnerīs reaction to being exposed. And if you think saying that is typical for my "style" too, you may want to consider that I may just be correct. In fact, I am.

I am saying can you provide any data which renders the statements of Lechmere And Paul as being faulty. Do that and we will see what developers.

But I have never claimed that I can do that, Steve. I have claimed that I can present a viable scenario in which it applies.

As a small aside, it is common knowledge that all Paul said CAN NOT be true, so we can laeve hom unconsidered in this respect. Lechmere is another thing, and I am saying that i THINK he lied, which is just as good a suggestion as any idea that he told the truth.

I am not going to get on the Kindergarten train and ask you to provide proof that renders Lechmere and Paul correct.
We all, all of the posters, all of the world, everybody KNOWS that it canīt be proven either way. So letīs not get too childish about it.

The one pertinent question - and so far you have avoided it - is this: Can you prove that Paul was not out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen? Once that question has itīs answer, this debate will be over.

[Fisherman]

If I am welcome to comment therecis no issue is there? And if I am not the discussion should be by PM.


STEVE

The problem is that you ar speaking of a lack of evidence in a post that was never intended to provide evidence. You are therefore making a contribution to the discussion that is completely irrelevant and worthless.

[Fisherman]

Me too Patrick.


Steve

Well, then you can have such a debate together, canīt you? In person and all.

[Harry D]

It's incredible that all a man has to do to be diagnosed a psychopath is give his stepfather's surname at an inquest. Only in Ripperology!

[Patrick S]

It's incredible that all a man has to do to be diagnosed a psychopath is give his stepfather's surname at an inquest. Only in Ripperology!

Harry! You're not viewing things with "an eye on Lechmere being guilty!" Obviously, Lechmere was a psychopath because he was Jack the Ripper. And Jack the Ripper was clearly a psychopath because....well.....all that killing and ripping stuff. And since Jack was a psychopath since Lechmere was Jack then his actions make TOTAL sense! He was a psychopath! Oh, yeah. And stop being so RUDE!