Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    My theory favours the suggestion that Charles Lechmere told Paul to walk on and he would catch up after having spoken to Mizen, simple as.
    Your theory contradicts what PC Mizen and Robert Paul said.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

      Self-evident things are not always perceived as self-evident by some. Logic does not always come across as logic to some. Challenge them and they will tell you that their take on it is as good as yours.

      Donīt believe them.
      The irony in your post is impressive.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        How do you know that his wife and kids were at home of the mornings he killed, Fiver?
        What reason would Charles Lechmere have for kicking his wife and numerous children out of the house at 3am in the morning?

        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        And why would not murdering on the way home take as much time as murdering en route to work would? Besides, looking at it from the killers angle, I donīt think he regarded it as wasting time at all.
        You continue to have reading comprehension problems.

        At no point did I claim that murdering on the way home would take less time than murdering on the way to work. I said:

        "That's going to bed with a premeditated plan to kill, not waking up and impulsively deciding to kill. It's possible, but it would cost half-an-hour of precious sleep every day he tried it and usually give him no opportunity to kill. It would make more sense for a carman to murder on the way home. It would not require premeditation and not waste huge amounts of time."

        Getting up 1/2 an hour early and not finding anyone to murder would definitely be considered a waste of time by the Ripper.

        Yet that would be what happened most mornings - the Ripper would trade a half hour of sleep and gain nothing but frustration.

        Killing on the way home means the Ripper gets an extra half-hour of sleep every day. It means he doesn't act in a way that would make arouses suspicion from his own household. It means he never has to choose between being late for work or missing an opportunity to kill. It gives him more time to find and mutilate victims. It doesn't risk showing up at work with unexplained bloodstains.








        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

          Your theory contradicts what PC Mizen and Robert Paul said.
          And there in lies the problems that we keep festering. The known facts aren't good enough so Christer has twisted them into a alternate theory that has no basis in fact whatsoever. "Mizen said this" turns in this theory to "Cross lied because Mizen didn't agree with him".

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
            While many may go out on patrol, if you will, looking for a victim, that sort of "hunting" takes time and often results in failure. This is because they are relying on that chance encounter, the alignment of the stars, and because the odds are low, they spend a lot of time doing it.
            This is what Fisherman proposes Lechmere did, but he picks the time when Lechmere would have the least time to hunt - his trip to work.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

              This is what Fisherman proposes Lechmere did, but he picks the time when Lechmere would have the least time to hunt - his trip to work.
              Because if He's out 30 minutes earlier he shouldn't have gotten caught, 30 minutes later he couldn't have murdered Nichols.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Columbo View Post

                Hi Jeff,

                What you've written is true and in other circumstances this could possibly have happened between Cross and Nichols. I'm not an expert on serial killers but if Cross just ran into Nichols on his way to work it becomes more of a rage killing, a lot like the Dussledorf Ripper in my mind. But that's not the suggested theory for Cross. He's not or hasn't been portrayed in Christer's theory as an angry sociopath who, like the Dussledorf Ripper, manically went out and committed arson, beat girls over the head at random or stabbed them with scissors. Christer has bent the facts to support the blood flow theory. According to his theory, Cross is a mastermind for the ages, who knows exactly what to do and when to do it. He tricks people into following his every suggestion. He lies to police and to inquest officials at the drop of the hat because he's a super genius and knows he can get away with it simply with a name change.

                Cross very well could've killed Nichols. He obviously was onsite and may have had a slight opportunity. But the rest of this theory is just a snipe hunt for fame at this point. Did he do it? probably not. Does one legalese saying he would look at Cross closely under the circumstances presented to him, make him guilty? Absolutely not. Does the totality of Christers evidence prove Cross' guilt? Absolutely not.

                maybe there's something in his book I'm missing but so far it's just a good yarn that was expertly written and I'm enjoying it. But there's still no real substance.

                Columbo
                Hi Columbo,

                Sure, but given we do not know the events that sparked JtR's attack on any of the victims, how do we know it wasn't a rage induced attack? That the victims said or did something that sparked that private rage? If (and it's a big if), Stride was a victim of JtR, from what Schwartz describes, that could very well have been the case (presuming, of course, that B.S. is JtR). I know that example is highly debatable, but given there are many who would ascribe to that, then that's the closest we have to what immediately preceded the attack. JtR, if he was a frequent user of prostitutes, could easily spend time with the other victims for that purpose, but some event we do not have access to arose and he switched from willing punter to rage killer. We don't know, and shouldn't rule out viable options.

                Now, could the above description of JtR fit Cross/Lechmere? It's now how Fisherman describes him, but what if Fisherman's wrong about that aspect of Cross/Lechmere's personality, does the rest of the evidence allow for it. I agree, the blood flow arguments are not convincing. We have available to us far more advanced technology that allow for more precise measurements from bodies, and yet even now, ToD is considered so unreliable as to be almost meaningless. The variability from body to body makes differentiating the time ranges we're talking about impossible.

                To be fair, Fisherman's main claim is, I think, boils down to "Cross/Lechmere cannot be ruled out as JtR", and he does clearly state a number of times he's not claiming it's proven beyond all doubt. Though his posts do lean towards that end at times, I think that reflects frustration. The combative nature of the discussions tend to push us all to more extreme presentations (myself included at times).

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                  This is what Fisherman proposes Lechmere did, but he picks the time when Lechmere would have the least time to hunt - his trip to work.
                  Hi Fiver,

                  Sure, the time window is narrow, but he does a trip to work frequently, so sooner or later low probability events will occur. Now, does the fairly fast pace of the murders conform to the idea that multiple low frequency events would in such rapid succession? Probably not, but given the density of prostitutes in the area at the time, is the probability that low to begin with in this specific case? I mean, we know the murders happened with relatively short inter-crime intervals after all. How can we be sure he wasn't approached each and every day?

                  What I'm getting at is that I'm not sure these aspects are so problematic. I've chatted with Fisherman a number of times, and while I don't agree with him overall, that doesn't mean everything is problematic. Finding a prostitute in the area wouldn't be a particularly difficult thing, and given JtR killed in the most unsuitable places for a mutilation murder, it's not like he seemed to care where he killed them once he found them.

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                    What I'm getting at is that I'm not sure these aspects are so problematic. I've chatted with Fisherman a number of times, and while I don't agree with him overall, that doesn't mean everything is problematic. Finding a prostitute in the area wouldn't be a particularly difficult thing, and given JtR killed in the most unsuitable places for a mutilation murder, it's not like he seemed to care where he killed them once he found them.

                    - Jeff
                    It's not problematic to find a person to kill theoretically in this case, but that's not the theory put forth. I'm sure he saw plenty of women on his way to work so he chooses to kill one that happens to be on one of his final legs to said work. and then the following activities put forth ad nauseam on this forum are put into motion. It just doesn't add up. Let's keep piling it on and on.
                    Last edited by Columbo; 07-27-2021, 09:28 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Columbo View Post

                      It's not problematic to find a person to kill theoretically in this case,
                      And that's all I'm saying, this, by itself, is not by itself a problem so by itself cannot be presented as such.


                      but that's not the theory put forth.
                      True, but now we're moving into how the theory as presented handles a situation which, in isolation, is not necessarily a problem. It becomes a problem due to other statements within the broader context of the specific theory.

                      When that happens, one might throw the entire theory away because a fundamental premise of the theory gets weakened to the point it can no longer support the rest of it. An example would be the idea that Schwartz was sent to the police by the club in order to deflect suspicions from either a club member specifically, or at least away from a Jewish offender (given the club members were Jewish). However, because Schwartz's statements to the police were presented by him as B.S. shouting the name "Lipski" at pipeman, and Schwartz initially presents pipeman as an accomplice to B.S., his statement implicates a Jewish offender (and we see the police interpreted him that way because they then start looking up all the Lipski families in the area). That so fundamentally contradicts the theory, that the whole thing can be thrown away.

                      Alternatively, the theory may only require some modifications, and much of it may still be recoverable. To do so, one has to consider whether or not Cross/Lechmere, as a sudden rage attacker rather than a cool headed psychopath could be the required modification. It would fit with Stride's murder and B.S. suddenly assaulting Stride, and Fisherman includes Stride as a JtR victim, so in that sense such a modification might work well (but we don't know if B.S. is Cross/Lechmere, or even if Stride is a victim of JtR, so while it works, we're still on shaky grounds). I think, however, once that modification is explored further, it becomes harder to explain his interactions with Paul, and so forth, as those do not correspond to the actions of someone who is in that rage state of mind. So in that sense, yes I agree with you, in the broader context that won't fit (nor does Fisherman propose this rage attacker is the case, so our modification doesn't work).

                      But if he's not a "sudden rage attacker", we come back to the initial problem of the frequency with which JtR appears to find victims despite the fact Cross/Lechmere on many of the murders has very little time to do so. Finding one, Nichols, on his way to work is not a problem (as above), but the rate of murders do not fit easily with the idea that the low frequency victim finding will eventually happen on his way to work - but it still should happen with low frequency and so there should be long delays between crimes relative to serial killers who go out and hunt every night (unless, as could be argued, the rate of potential victims is much higher than I'm suggesting, which could very well be the case - we do note that as fear in the area increased, leaving fewer on the streets, is when we see some "delays" between the crimes, and an eventual shift to them being indoors). Also, the Schwartz episode doesn't appear to be this cool headed psychopath but rather an impulsive rage attack (again, not everyone thinks Stride is a JtR victim, and not everyone thinks Schwartz saw JtR, or even anything at all).


                      I'm sure he saw plenty of women on his way to work so he chooses to kill one that happens to be on one of his final legs to said work. and then the following activities put forth ad nauseam on this forum are put into motion. It just doesn't add up. Let's keep piling it on and on.
                      I get that too. While Fisherman sees things very differently, I think part of the problem (and certainly not unique to Fisherman) is there is often a great reluctance to recognize that some options don't work well. But not every possible option has to work, in fact, even if we were to somehow solve the case, there will be "options" about JtR that don't work because they are incorrect options. Trying to keep every possible line of reasoning on the table is to concede the case isn't solved because only one line of events happened, and many possible options of events did not. There's only one true sequence of events, but there are an infinite number of false sequences. Because of that, I see things along the lines of "if we have the true sequence of events, that will hold up and I can start to discard all the false ones and make more and more specific claims. I can make my theory more at risk of being falsified because I'm going to be more and more specific, but if my theory is true, those specific claims will survive the challenge that research puts to them."

                      I think, though can't speak for him, that Fisherman sees things differently from me, and considers that the more possible options there are, the more likely it is that Cross/Lechmere is JtR, and so he is reluctant to discard possibilities, which in turn means not making specific, easily testable claims.

                      That's not intended as a dig at him, we all have our approaches. Most of the frustration that gets created in discussions on the boards is a result of disagreement about approaches to evidence evaluation and theory presentation. There's an entire field of philosophy centred on that very topic, known as "confirmation theory", but that is a topic for careers, not posts!

                      - Jeff
                      Last edited by JeffHamm; 07-28-2021, 12:08 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                        And that's all I'm saying, this, by itself, is not by itself a problem so by itself cannot be presented as such.



                        True, but now we're moving into how the theory as presented handles a situation which, in isolation, is not necessarily a problem. It becomes a problem due to other statements within the broader context of the specific theory.

                        When that happens, one might throw the entire theory away because a fundamental premise of the theory gets weakened to the point it can no longer support the rest of it. An example would be the idea that Schwartz was sent to the police by the club in order to deflect suspicions from either a club member specifically, or at least away from a Jewish offender (given the club members were Jewish). However, because Schwartz's statements to the police were presented by him as B.S. shouting the name "Lipski" at pipeman, and Schwartz initially presents pipeman as an accomplice to B.S., his statement implicates a Jewish offender (and we see the police interpreted him that way because they then start looking up all the Lipski families in the area). That so fundamentally contradicts the theory, that the whole thing can be thrown away.

                        Alternatively, the theory may only require some modifications, and much of it may still be recoverable. To do so, one has to consider whether or not Cross/Lechmere, as a sudden rage attacker rather than a cool headed psychopath could be the required modification. It would fit with Stride's murder and B.S. suddenly assaulting Stride, and Fisherman includes Stride as a JtR victim, so in that sense such a modification might work well (but we don't know if B.S. is Cross/Lechmere, or even if Stride is a victim of JtR, so while it works, we're still on shaky grounds). I think, however, once that modification is explored further, it becomes harder to explain his interactions with Paul, and so forth, as those do not correspond to the actions of someone who is in that rage state of mind. So in that sense, yes I agree with you, in the broader context that won't fit (nor does Fisherman propose this rage attacker is the case, so our modification doesn't work).

                        But if he's not a "sudden rage attacker", we come back to the initial problem of the frequency with which JtR appears to find victims despite the fact Cross/Lechmere on many of the murders has very little time to do so. Finding one, Nichols, on his way to work is not a problem (as above), but the rate of murders do not fit easily with the idea that the low frequency victim finding will eventually happen on his way to work - but it still should happen with low frequency and so there should be long delays between crimes relative to serial killers who go out and hunt every night (unless, as could be argued, the rate of potential victims is much higher than I'm suggesting, which could very well be the case - we do note that as fear in the area increased, leaving fewer on the streets, is when we see some "delays" between the crimes, and an eventual shift to them being indoors). Also, the Schwartz episode doesn't appear to be this cool headed psychopath but rather an impulsive rage attack (again, not everyone thinks Stride is a JtR victim, and not everyone thinks Schwartz saw JtR, or even anything at all).



                        I get that too. While Fisherman sees things very differently, I think part of the problem (and certainly not unique to Fisherman) is there is often a great reluctance to recognize that some options don't work well. But not every possible option has to work, in fact, even if we were to somehow solve the case, there will be "options" about JtR that don't work because they are incorrect options. Trying to keep every possible line of reasoning on the table is to concede the case isn't solved because only one line of events happened, and many possible options of events did not. There's only one true sequence of events, but there are an infinite number of false sequences. Because of that, I see things along the lines of "if we have the true sequence of events, that will hold up and I can start to discard all the false ones and make more and more specific claims. I can make my theory more at risk of being falsified because I'm going to be more and more specific, but if my theory is true, those specific claims will survive the challenge that research puts to them."

                        I think, though can't speak for him, that Fisherman sees things differently from me, and considers that the more possible options there are, the more likely it is that Cross/Lechmere is JtR, and so he is reluctant to discard possibilities, which in turn means not making specific, easily testable claims.

                        That's not intended as a dig at him, we all have our approaches. Most of the frustration that gets created in discussions on the boards is a result of disagreement about approaches to evidence evaluation and theory presentation. There's an entire field of philosophy centred on that very topic, known as "confirmation theory", but that is a topic for careers, not posts!

                        - Jeff
                        I think we’re missing the point between us. This thread was brought forth by Christer for a “chance of supporting evidence of innocence”, which, while interesting, is also a misnomer as Cross is not guilty of anything. As this thread progressed, I pointed out it was just another p***ing contest. For some reason every time someone, including myself, brought forth an opinion it was immediately countered and sometimes attacked by Christer, Trevor, etc. usually the older dogs in the crowd. The issue that really gets me is the elevated ridiculousness of assumption, opinion, and outright stupidity in the face of the facts before us. I like Christer very much but there comes a time where he needs to realize this whole Cross thing is an opinion. A well informed opinion, but nothing more. And some of these Mizen assumptions, timing, and Cross’ assumed criminal intellect are fantasy. Christer knows this, but he keeps chugging along because he enjoys arguing. So it’s time to put up or shut up. Where’s the proof Cross did anything? I’m reading his book and seeing nothing new yet. Here’s another point of evidence of innocence, you have no proof.

                        Columbo

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Columbo View Post

                          I think we’re missing the point between us. This thread was brought forth by Christer for a “chance of supporting evidence of innocence”, which, while interesting, is also a misnomer as Cross is not guilty of anything. As this thread progressed, I pointed out it was just another p***ing contest. For some reason every time someone, including myself, brought forth an opinion it was immediately countered and sometimes attacked by Christer, Trevor, etc. usually the older dogs in the crowd. The issue that really gets me is the elevated ridiculousness of assumption, opinion, and outright stupidity in the face of the facts before us. I like Christer very much but there comes a time where he needs to realize this whole Cross thing is an opinion. A well informed opinion, but nothing more. And some of these Mizen assumptions, timing, and Cross’ assumed criminal intellect are fantasy. Christer knows this, but he keeps chugging along because he enjoys arguing. So it’s time to put up or shut up. Where’s the proof Cross did anything? I’m reading his book and seeing nothing new yet. Here’s another point of evidence of innocence, you have no proof.

                          Columbo
                          Hi Columbo,

                          Yah, I know what you mean. I've butted heads with both Christer and Trevor in the past as well. I also like them both, I just often don't agree with them. I agree that there's no real evidence against Cross/Lechmere, rather what there is are some pretty neutral behaviors that can be dressed up to look suspicious, but to me, they look far more suitable to the clothes of "innocent witness". I've read Fisherman's explanations many times, but it always strikes me as more complicated, requiring more unsupported assumptions (i.e. the very fact he's supposed to be a psychopath, for example), that just are not required to explain his actions unless you've already decided he's guilty. To me, his behaviors and actions all look like someone who found a woman in the street, didn't realize she was dead but was concerned, called for assistance from another fellow, and then went on to tell the police about her all while he was going to work. And you seem to agree with that view too.

                          Fisherman is not going to change his mind, and he will respond to every post. The thread's title was his way of creating a forum for him to rebut any and all presentations - it was never going to be about a genuine listing of the evidence that weighs against his case where he says "yes, that is a weak spot that I'm looking in to so I can either cross that gap, or prove my theory wrong" - that's never going to happen. Similar with Trevor's presentations, he will rail against anyone who presents an idea that is consistent with the view of the police in 1888 and claim the evidence upon which that is based is "unsafe" (meaning, not conclusive). All the while he will deny that his counter-argument doesn't even have "unsafe evidence", it is just presented in the void he created by refusing to acknowledge the evidence that we have. And if you don't supplicate yourself to him, he brings out the accusation one has an agenda to prop up the "old accepted theories" (which is just a negative way to phrase "long established ideas") and won't admit he has an agenda to prop up his own theory.

                          None of that will change. Personalities are what they are, and while it's at times aggravating, both Trevor and Fisherman do have a wealth of information, and they do think of things differently, and that is a good thing. Where you see holes, or weaknesses, simply present your case, expect a reply that denies you have a point, but evaluate your argument yourself. Have you presented the best case, targeting the important weaknesses, and so forth. Even if you have, there are those who will still be unconvinced, and those who will be unconvincable. For the former, find a way to strengthen your idea if it's possible, for the latter, well, I'll meet you in the pub and we can swap stories.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                            Fisherman is not going to change his mind, and he will respond to every post. The thread's title was his way of creating a forum for him to rebut any and all presentations - it was never going to be about a genuine listing of the evidence that weighs against his case where he says "yes, that is a weak spot that I'm looking in to so I can either cross that gap, or prove my theory wrong" - that's never going to happen.
                            - Jeff
                            To begin with, Jeff, thank you for standing up for a better debating climate and correcting the kind of things that have been posted out here by some of the less discerning naysayers. It is in your best interest, actuallym because you would not want to side with the kind of thinking (for lack of better words) that is presented out here. You are a balanced poster and in that respect, you compare to people like Frank van Oploo, Gary Barnett and Etenguy, all posting on this thread, and none of them supporting the idea of Lechmere as the killer - but each and every one with deep insights and a genuine will to discuss the case in a productive and fair manner. Finding themselves - and yourself - on arguably "the same side" as a number of other posters out here, anyting but read up and looking for a sound debate, is anything but a blessing for you. Itīs all good and well with supporters, but as the Rolling Stones once found out, hiring Hells Angels for keeping the order is never a good idea.

                            To proceed, you are wrong. I did not create the thread to find a reason to stomp on any argument presented, and I am perfectly able to change - and I will change - the moment good and sound evidence speaks for it. So far, it has not - the evidence very clearly suggests that Charles Lechmere was the killer of Polly Nichols and more than likely the Ripper. You say that is not correct, and you are entitled to that view, but you will be aware that many, many others agree with me. Take a look at other net forums and you will see, otherwise. Moreover, a queens counsel and barrister agrees with me as does a retired murder squad leader. The underbelly of ripperology thinks this proves one thing only: that both men were lied to and mislead. You as well as I know that such allegations demand absolute proof. That aside, rest assured that I am quite able to weigh up evidence and if the evidence speaks in favour of innocence on Lechmereīs behalf, I take that into account. If there is enough of it to make him look moe innocent tthan guilty, I take that into account too.
                            Therefore, the picture you present of me is a biased and generalized one and it has very little to do with the truth. And it does not belong to a truly respectful discussion, of course. Which surprises me, since you are otherwise a fair judge of most things.
                            So now it is up to you to decide whether I am too deluded and too far gone from logic to be able to say there things, or whether you have stted sometyhing that should nbot be stated in a respectful discussion.

                            Regardless of what your verdict is, I will not comment on it. I have had quite enough for now, and so I am leaving Casebook for some time. Again.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              To begin with, Jeff, thank you for standing up for a better debating climate and correcting the kind of things that have been posted out here by some of the less discerning naysayers. It is in your best interest, actuallym because you would not want to side with the kind of thinking (for lack of better words) that is presented out here. You are a balanced poster and in that respect, you compare to people like Frank van Oploo, Gary Barnett and Etenguy, all posting on this thread, and none of them supporting the idea of Lechmere as the killer - but each and every one with deep insights and a genuine will to discuss the case in a productive and fair manner. Finding themselves - and yourself - on arguably "the same side" as a number of other posters out here, anyting but read up and looking for a sound debate, is anything but a blessing for you. Itīs all good and well with supporters, but as the Rolling Stones once found out, hiring Hells Angels for keeping the order is never a good idea.

                              To proceed, you are wrong. I did not create the thread to find a reason to stomp on any argument presented, and I am perfectly able to change - and I will change - the moment good and sound evidence speaks for it. So far, it has not - the evidence very clearly suggests that Charles Lechmere was the killer of Polly Nichols and more than likely the Ripper. You say that is not correct, and you are entitled to that view, but you will be aware that many, many others agree with me. Take a look at other net forums and you will see, otherwise. Moreover, a queens counsel and barrister agrees with me as does a retired murder squad leader. The underbelly of ripperology thinks this proves one thing only: that both men were lied to and mislead. You as well as I know that such allegations demand absolute proof. That aside, rest assured that I am quite able to weigh up evidence and if the evidence speaks in favour of innocence on Lechmereīs behalf, I take that into account. If there is enough of it to make him look moe innocent tthan guilty, I take that into account too.
                              Therefore, the picture you present of me is a biased and generalized one and it has very little to do with the truth. And it does not belong to a truly respectful discussion, of course. Which surprises me, since you are otherwise a fair judge of most things.
                              So now it is up to you to decide whether I am too deluded and too far gone from logic to be able to say there things, or whether you have stted sometyhing that should nbot be stated in a respectful discussion.

                              Regardless of what your verdict is, I will not comment on it. I have had quite enough for now, and so I am leaving Casebook for some time. Again.
                              Hi Fisherman,

                              In case you do see this, I wasn't having a go at you, nor did I say you would "stomp on" things, only that in all the years of posting I've never seen you give ground, and you rebut any and all presentations. You have a firm belief in what you put forth, and you don't back down to challenges. We do disagree on the interpretation of the evidence, but that's hardly a rare thing on these boards. Put 2 of us in a room and you'll have 3 opinions at least. It's the nature of things here. But I can't recall you ever saying "Oh, maybe that doesn't work, let me think that over" in response to any post that presented something that countered what you proposed, even things you say you don't really think are the right ones. You can claim you would change your mind if any of the counterpoints were convincing, but that's just word play if it never happens. I've seen some pretty good arguments put forth that do pose serious challenges for the Cross/Lechmere as JtR theory, Annie Chapman's murder has a lot of evidence pointing to a ToD when he would be at work, and while you can point to the doctor's testimony that it may have been earlier, it is well known the basis for his opinion is unreliable, leaving us only with the witness testimonies that place the murder well after Cross/Lechmere started work. But I have yet to see you say, and maybe I've simply missed it, that it is a serious hurdle and if the doctor is wrong and the witnesses right, then the theory would fall down. That's not expecting you to say "the theory has fallen down", it's just acknowledging that there is a possible outcome that would in fact refute the theory. I realize you have a response to the witnesses in that case, but it is only an alternative that is based upon discredited techniques for ToD estimation. That's not the strongest foundation upon which to build a case for dismissing witness testimonies that otherwise have no reason to be dismissed. And that makes for another serious challenge, but again, I have never seen you acknowledge that it is a serious challenge. Instead, you have argued numerous times, and even recently have suggested, that estimating ToD by touch is acceptable and accurate enough that the witnesses could not be right and the doctor just out by an amount expected given the inaccuracy of the method. It's not accurate after all. In fact, it is wildly inaccurate, even though that was not the view in 1888 and the doctors used it. ToD even when estimated by taking proper internal temperature measurements is still too variable from case to case to be considered "accurate" and estimates are given over ranges of many hours, increasing to days. The difference we're talking about is an hour or two, and even more precise measurements than touch cannot differentiate those. That's not an opinion, that's a fact of how it is. Yet none of that has changed your view on the reliability of ToD by touch. It's your right to hold to your views, and to set aside those arguments and choose what evidence you wish to work with, but to date I've not seen you change your mind, nor do I expect you to now. But given that, you shouldn't be surprised if you are described as someone who does not change their mind and rebuts everything put to them - because that is how you approach things, and that's fine, it seems to work for you. As I say, it's fine, I'm stubborn too about some things, everyone is. But everyone whose been on the boards for awhile knew how this thread was going to go when they saw the title of it, and yet, we're all here all the same. I have no problem pointing out where I can see your point, or where I can see how you can argue certain interpretations, and I have no problem with pointing out where I disagree, how and why. I have no problem with people referring to my posts as "long, boring, and tedious" at times - I plead guilty. So embrace your tenacious stubbornness and be proud of it, and don't be surprised if it gets noticed.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                But WHY, Caz? From Mizens point of view, why would he tell Neil something Neil already knew? Lechmere said that there was another PC in Bucks Row, and to Mizen, it must have seemed a sealed deal that this PC was Neil. So why would he say "I heard you sent the two carmen to fetch me"? The one reason I can think of for Mizen saying such a thing would be if he suspected foul play. If he didnīt, he would not want to waste Neils time, and Neil was probably all over himn like a rash when he arrived: "Hereīs a woman who has had her neck cut, get me an ambulance double quick!"

                                Would that make Mizen run for the ambulance or engage in small talk about the carmen - who he already know had been sent for him?
                                The point is, Fish, that a guilty Lechmere could not have known that a policeman would be at the scene when PC Mizen arrived. Arriving to find the woman horribly murdered, with no copper in sight, would immediately have set Mizen's alarm bells ringing and his whistle blasting out. If, by chance, a policeman was there when Mizen arrived, happy days [excuse the fish related pun], but only if there was no carmen related conversation between the two PCs - something Lechmere could not guarantee, even if he shared your reasoning and hoped Mizen would keep it buttoned.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X