Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper so often discarded?

[JeffHamm]

its all well and good to speculate on what paul may have said, eventhough there is no evidence he ever said he heard or saw lech ahead of him --but what was that word you used when others were also speculating about lechs and pauls actions, although it was to his guilt? I beleive the word you used was fantasy.

therefore by your own standards and actual words, your above post is fantasy. dosnt feel good does it jeff?

Hi Abby,

At the risk of unintentionally insulting others by getting back into this, fantasy, as I used it, referred to the situation where we overturn something we know happened and replace it with something that we know didn't, and then proceed to argue about what we think would have happened in that situation, which is now a fantasy situation as I see it - it's an imaginary situation, or a fictional one, though I referred to them as fantasy situations because we're fantasizing about events in an alternative reality. For example, if we overturn the known fact that Cross/Lechmere remained in the middle of the road until Paul approached, and then say "well, if he had fled then Paul would have ...." - that is now entering a fantasy situation because we're now embarking upon overturning reality (a known fact) to substitute something that we know didn't happen in order to debate the plausibility of other events that didn't happen.

I used speculation to refer to when we try and fill in missing information when we have none to begin with. For example, we know Mary Kelly had eaten fish and potatoes, but we don't know where she obtained them. We could speculate on where she got them though. If we had it recorded that she was seen eating them at a pub, but I then said "But had Barnett brought her fish from the market because he got a few hours work that day", and went on to show how that might make Barnett look like a liar when he says he hadn't worked for some time, I then would be arguing about a fantasy - a situation I substitute over top of known events to create a situation that I then argue/debate about.

With regards to Paul's interview with the police, we don't know what Paul actually said, so we can't overturn a known point and so by my definition that's not fantasy but rather speculation. I'm speculating on what could have been said without overturning anything we know was said. And that's the important difference with regards to how I was using the words speculation and fantasy. Speculation is filling in an unknown with plausible events, while fantasy is overwriting a known event with an event known not to have occurred (even if the new event might be a plausible for that situation). The important difference is that speculation has a chance, however small, of being true (we might guess right) while fantasy has already left the building (it inserts as a starting point something that is known to be false, therefore nothing that follows is true because the debated subsequent events requires reality to have diverged on some other path).

Using my example of Cross/Lechmere fleeing the scene, we can, of course, speculate on what C/L might have thought the risks were (if he were guilty), because of course we don't know what he thought, all we know is what he decided to do, which was to remain and draw Paul's attention to Polly despite Paul appearing to want to avoid interacting and get by him and continue on. When we move to the situation where we say "had he fled then xyz would have happened", we're now into a fantasy, or fictional, scenario.

But regardless of my idiosyncratic use of the word fantasy to describe those lines of debate about a fictional course of events, it doesn't bother me if you want to use that word despite your using it differently from myself, although it might cause some communication difficulties if we can't come to an agreement on the underlying concept we're trying to convey. I don't mind discussing fantasy scenarios, but I don't see them as productive as discussing speculations (because fantasy isn't reality, but speculations might be).

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

At the risk of unintentionally insulting others by getting back into this, fantasy, as I used it, referred to the situation where we overturn something we know happened and replace it with something that we know didn't, and then proceed to argue about what we think would have happened in that situation, which is now a fantasy situation as I see it - it's an imaginary situation, or a fictional one, though I referred to them as fantasy situations because we're fantasizing about events in an alternative reality. For example, if we overturn the known fact that Cross/Lechmere remained in the middle of the road until Paul approached, and then say "well, if he had fled then Paul would have ...." - that is now entering a fantasy situation because we're now embarking upon overturning reality (a known fact) to substitute something that we know didn't happen in order to debate the plausibility of other events that didn't happen.

I used speculation to refer to when we try and fill in missing information when we have none to begin with. For example, we know Mary Kelly had eaten fish and potatoes, but we don't know where she obtained them. We could speculate on where she got them though. If we had it recorded that she was seen eating them at a pub, but I then said "But had Barnett brought her fish from the market because he got a few hours work that day", and went on to show how that might make Barnett look like a liar when he says he hadn't worked for some time, I then would be arguing about a fantasy - a situation I substitute over top of known events to create a situation that I then argue/debate about.

With regards to Paul's interview with the police, we don't know what Paul actually said, so we can't overturn a known point and so by my definition that's not fantasy but rather speculation. I'm speculating on what could have been said without overturning anything we know was said. And that's the important difference with regards to how I was using the words speculation and fantasy. Speculation is filling in an unknown with plausible events, while fantasy is overwriting a known event with an event known not to have occurred (even if the new event might be a plausible for that situation). The important difference is that speculation has a chance, however small, of being true (we might guess right) while fantasy has already left the building (it inserts as a starting point something that is known to be false, therefore nothing that follows is true because the debated subsequent events requires reality to have diverged on some other path).

Using my example of Cross/Lechmere fleeing the scene, we can, of course, speculate on what C/L might have thought the risks were (if he were guilty), because of course we don't know what he thought, all we know is what he decided to do, which was to remain and draw Paul's attention to Polly despite Paul appearing to want to avoid interacting and get by him and continue on. When we move to the situation where we say "had he fled then xyz would have happened", we're now into a fantasy, or fictional, scenario.

But regardless of my idiosyncratic use of the word fantasy to describe those lines of debate about a fictional course of events, it doesn't bother me if you want to use that word despite your using it differently from myself, although it might cause some communication difficulties if we can't come to an agreement on the underlying concept we're trying to convey. I don't mind discussing fantasy scenarios, but I don't see them as productive as discussing speculations (because fantasy isn't reality, but speculations might be).

- Jeff

jeff
despite your typical wordiness your still quite wrong.both scenarios are mere hypotheticals/speculation. lech might have fled, paul might have said he heard lech in front of him. neither are fantasy. fantasy is something that could never happen, like the ripper escaping on a unicorn.
it was a poor choice of words you used then and it was derogatory to the other side.

instead of trying to bludgeon your way out of it with a thousand words just admit you are wrong and someone else is right for a change my friend. its not that hard, and your a better man for it.

your usually right and i usually agree with you, but not here. sorry. and i dont do semantic rabbit holes ad nauseum so im done here.

btw i gave you kudos on the other post, i guess you missed that one lol

[JeffHamm]

jeff
despite your typical wordiness your still quite wrong.both scenarios are mere hypotheticals/speculation. lech might have fled, paul might have said he heard lech in front of him. neither are fantasy. fantasy is something that could never happen, like the ripper escaping on a unicorn.
it was a poor choice of words you used then and it was derogatory to the other side.

instead of trying to bludgeon your way out of it with a thousand words just admit you are wrong and someone else is right for a change my friend. its not that hard, and your a better man for it.

your usually right and i usually agree with you, but not here. sorry. and i dont do semantic rabbit holes ad nauseum so im done here.

btw i gave you kudos on the other post, i guess you missed that one lol

I have accepted that others view the word fantasy as derogatory, and in that sense I admit I was wrong. I'm giving you, however, my intended use of the word, and so you telling me I'm wrong about my intended meaning is, I'm afraid wrong. As I said, I use the word fantasy to describe, as you say, situations that could not happen - and once we change a known fact to be something else, creating a world that did not happen, everything that follows "could not have happened" because it starts on the basis of something that didn't. It's an "imaginary" scenario, which fits the general definition of fantasy; it need not be unicorns and such. However, as it was pointed out that the word is taken as derogatory, I no longer use it, and tend to refer to such fact-changed lines of discussion as fictional situations. Sure, Cross/Lechmere could have fled, but he didn't, so to change reality to where he opted to flee creates a fictional situation - and everything that follows is fictional. Paul said something at his interview, but we don't know what, so we have to speculate if we dare, but we've not changed reality, we're only discussing what missing bits of reality there might be. You may be fine with using the word speculation for both, but I think that leads to confusion as it becomes easy to misconstrue discussions about a fictional situation with one that doesn't change facts in the first place. This is why I separate the two forms of "speculation", and use fictional to discuss alternate realities, and speculation to refer to possible realities.

I get it that you see fantasy to carry derogatory overtones, and I've acknowledge that before, and again above when I started my post with "At the risk of unintentionally insulting others...". I included that because I wanted to make it clear that I do not share that view, but for the sake of conversation, I'm happy to use a different word and I believe since then I have. Regardless, given I'm just explaining my definition of how I used the word fantasy you really aren't in a position to say I'm wrong, only in a position to say you have a different definition, which you clearly do; and that's why I've stopped using it here, because it creates confusion unnecessarily.

- Jeff

[Harry D]

and the use of the word lurking isnt a poor choice, merely loaded lol. but seriously, its actually pretty acurate, even paul said he was concerned and tried to give the man he saw standing in the road wide berth.

I doubt you want to get drawn into another semantics debate, but "lurking" suggests someone is hiding with ill-intent. Lechmere was bang in the middle of the street and made himself known to Paul for the right reasons.

[Mark J D]

... it certainly would have behooved lech if guilty to say he heard or saw someone leving the scene, but sometimes criminals will mix the truth into their lies...

Mate, you have absolutely no talent for crime. What Lechmere the murderer needed at that point was a simple answer that led nowhere -- and, inevitably, Lechmere the former stepson of a copper produced precisely that...

Bests, as ever,

Mark D.

[Abby Normal]

Mate, you have absolutely no talent for crime. What Lechmere the murderer needed at that point was a simple answer that led nowhere -- and, inevitably, Lechmere the former stepson of a copper produced precisely that...

Bests, as ever,

Mark D.

well there ya go! i hadnt thought of that angle before

[John Wheat]

Mate, you have absolutely no talent for crime. What Lechmere the murderer needed at that point was a simple answer that led nowhere -- and, inevitably, Lechmere the former stepson of a copper produced precisely that...

Bests, as ever,

Mark D.

You might want to stop from presuming Lechmere was the killer in every post. It's tiresome and your wrong.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Mate, you have absolutely no talent for crime. What Lechmere the murderer needed at that point was a simple answer that led nowhere -- and, inevitably, Lechmere the former stepson of a copper produced precisely that...

Bests, as ever,

Mark D.

On the contrary, what "Lechmere the murderer" would have needed was to shift potential suspicion away from himself. He was discovered next to a freshly murdered corpse, so a guilty former stepson of a copper would have known he needed to steer suspicion away from himself, and not to be certain that if anyone else had been in front of him he must have heard him! It was so simple and so obvious for a guilty man to say, "well you know how it is, you are walking to work and you hear footsteps in front and behind, and you think they are just blokes on the way to work..."

[FrankO]

and paul didnt see or hear anyone ahead of him as he approached, nor anyone fleeing, or leaving the scene. only lech lurking about when he got there.

Hi Abby,

OK, so you think Paul must have paid attention to his surroundings in Buck’s Row and that, therefore, he should have heard an innocent Lechmere walking some distance ahead of him. But why do you think he wouldn’t have heard (or seen) a guilty Lechmere moving about the body whilst he was arranging it as he needed and then away to the middle of the road? Of course, the arranging of the body and moving away from it wouldn't have taken much longer than, perhaps, 10-15 seconds, but why shouldn’t/couldn’t/wouldn’t he have heard that in your opinion?

Cheers,
Frank

[Mark J D]

On the contrary, what "Lechmere the murderer" would have needed was to shift potential suspicion away from himself. He was discovered next to a freshly murdered corpse, so a guilty former stepson of a copper would have known he needed to steer suspicion away from himself, and not to be certain that if anyone else had been in front of him he must have heard him! It was so simple and so obvious for a guilty man to say, "well you know how it is, you are walking to work and you hear footsteps in front and behind, and you think they are just blokes on the way to work..."

Anyone who wants to believe such manipulative nonsense is entirely welcome to: their error is not my problem -- though it may very well be theirs next time they try to 'shift suspicion away from themselves' by setting a hare running that the police, having nothing else to go on, never ever let go of.

Far more interesting to me is to see yet again how the slyest anti-Lechmerianism works: to try and make it seem like a guilty Lech should have told a lie he didn't, the usual shout of 'He's just a man who discovered a body!' gets sneakily replaced by the sinister 'He was discovered next to a freshly murdered corpse'.

All rather distasteful.

M.

[John Wheat]

Anyone who wants to believe such manipulative nonsense is entirely welcome to: their error is not my problem -- though it may very well be theirs next time they try to 'shift suspicion away from themselves' by setting a hare running that the police, having nothing else to go on, never ever let go of.

Far more interesting to me is to see yet again how the slyest anti-Lechmerianism works: to try and make it seem like a guilty Lech should have told a lie he didn't, the usual shout of 'He's just a man who discovered a body!' gets sneakily replaced by the sinister 'He was discovered next to a freshly murdered corpse'.

All rather distasteful.

M.

This is bullshit.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Anyone who wants to believe such manipulative nonsense is entirely welcome to: their error is not my problem -- though it may very well be theirs next time they try to 'shift suspicion away from themselves' by setting a hare running that the police, having nothing else to go on, never ever let go of.

Far more interesting to me is to see yet again how the slyest anti-Lechmerianism works: to try and make it seem like a guilty Lech should have told a lie he didn't, the usual shout of 'He's just a man who discovered a body!' gets sneakily replaced by the sinister 'He was discovered next to a freshly murdered corpse'.

All rather distasteful.

M.

Mark, as far as I am concerned, we are just two people with different opinions. I have no problem with that. I have made it clear on several occasions that I consider Lechmere to be a person of interest, but that the evidence quoted against him is not as strong as others claim.

There was nothing nasty or illogical about my expressed opinions, and I do not consider they deserve comments like "manipulative nonsense", "error", "slyest anti-Lechmerianism", "sneakily", "sinister" and "very distasteful".

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

OK, so you think Paul must have paid attention to his surroundings in Buck’s Row and that, therefore, he should have heard an innocent Lechmere walking some distance ahead of him. But why do you think he wouldn’t have heard (or seen) a guilty Lechmere moving about the body whilst he was arranging it as he needed and then away to the middle of the road? Of course, the arranging of the body and moving away from it wouldn't have taken much longer than, perhaps, 10-15 seconds, but why shouldn’t/couldn’t/wouldn’t he have heard that in your opinion?

Cheers,
Frank

hi Frank
a fair question. so-lech is over the body cutting away at the midsection. He suddenly hears pauls approach-pulls the skirt down and steps back. literally 1-2 seconds. Paul dosnt see it-simple as that. My whole point, and main point, is No one hears or sees any one leaving, or being around the immediate scene, paul dosnt see or hear anyone in front of him or also leaving, except lech. but jeff gave a solid account on why its perfectly possible that paul wouldnt have seen or heard an innocent lech in front of him-Im cool with that. of course it also still means he might not of because a guilty lech is already way ahead of him mutilating her body.

But still my main point-only one person is seen around her body at the time and immediate vicinity-Lech. a man who is totally in the frame for her murder and also has a few other dodgy circs.

[Aethelwulf]

hi Frank
a fair question. so-lech is over the body cutting away at the midsection. He suddenly hears pauls approach-pulls the skirt down and steps back. literally 1-2 seconds. Paul dosnt see it-simple as that. My whole point, and main point, is No one hears or sees any one leaving, or being around the immediate scene, paul dosnt see or hear anyone in front of him or also leaving, except lech. but jeff gave a solid account on why its perfectly possible that paul wouldnt have seen or heard an innocent lech in front of him-Im cool with that. of course it also still means he might not of because a guilty lech is already way ahead of him mutilating her body.

But still my main point-only one person is seen around her body at the time and immediate vicinity-Lech. a man who is totally in the frame for her murder and also has a few other dodgy circs.

out of interest why is Harriet Lilley given so little notice, sounds very plausibly like she heard something important?

She said to the press on the afternoon of 6th September 1888 that:

I slept in front of the house, and could hear everything that occured in the street. On that Thursday night I was somehow very restless. Well, I heard something I mentioned to my husband in the morning. It was a painful moan - two or three faint gasps - and then it passed away. It was quite dark at the time, but a luggage went by as I heard the sounds. There was, too, a sound as of whispers underneath the window. I distincly heard voices, but cannot say what was said - it was too faint. I then woke my husband, and said to him, "I don't know what possesses me, but I cannot sleep to-night."

She also added that as soon as she heard of the murder she came to the conclusion that the voices she heard were in some way connected with it and that the cries were very different from those of an ordinary street brawl.^[2]
References

1. ↑ Census reports 1891
2. ↑ The Echo, 6th September 1888

[Abby Normal]

out of interest why is Harriet Lilley given so little notice, sounds very plausibly like she heard something important?

She said to the press on the afternoon of 6th September 1888 that:

I slept in front of the house, and could hear everything that occured in the street. On that Thursday night I was somehow very restless. Well, I heard something I mentioned to my husband in the morning. It was a painful moan - two or three faint gasps - and then it passed away. It was quite dark at the time, but a luggage went by as I heard the sounds. There was, too, a sound as of whispers underneath the window. I distincly heard voices, but cannot say what was said - it was too faint. I then woke my husband, and said to him, "I don't know what possesses me, but I cannot sleep to-night."

She also added that as soon as she heard of the murder she came to the conclusion that the voices she heard were in some way connected with it and that the cries were very different from those of an ordinary street brawl.^[2]
References

1. ↑ Census reports 1891
2. ↑ The Echo, 6th September 1888

because she sure might have heard polly but it does nothing to establish a suspect? unless she gives a specific time?