Evidence of innocence

[JeffHamm]

‘Fantasy’? ‘Story telling’? ‘Fiction’

Describing possible alternative scenarios in those terms shows how thin a veneer of objectivity you employ in these matters.

You stated that in this version of events Paul’s and Neil’s ‘would not change’. What’s that in your terminology, an ascertained fact?

Ah, ok, fair enough, I should have said "would not necessarily have changed". But sure, if you want the story to be told otherwise and they do change their behaviours in this version that never happened, I'm fine with that. As I say, it is about a scenerio that did not happen, so how can you be sure what I suggested would not happen? We're making stuff up by this point. I'm not sure where that gets us other than talking about a fictional situation. I'm happy for you to make up anything you want, though, as you explore this alternative reality. I just thought you really were interested in seeing how the simulation would play out (particularly as it suggests that PC Neil wouldn't have spotted our fictionally fleeing Cross/Lechmere as you suggested - but I think you were thinking of my speculative (i.e. also could be viewed as fictional) JtR coming out at an even earlier time.

Anyway, feel free to create whatever stories you want in this fantasy version (it is a fantasy; Cross/Lechmere did not flee upon Paul's approach after all, so we're not speculating about something that we try to fit in with what we know, but we're altering what we know to be something different - the latter is fantasy because we already know it didn't happen, the former is exploring an idea that could fit with what we know - a possible reality, or speculation).

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>> What newspaper does that come from?<<

It doesn't, floating goalpost.

[drstrange169]

>>Just a note-and it seems odd to me that he discovers a body on a day he just happens to also be running late.<<

Keep in mind Abby that we don't know that. He definitely didn't say he was late when he left home. He only mentions "being behind time" after they examine the body.

[drstrange169]

>>And I’d be interested to see Jeff’s animation with Lech having legged it from the scene and arriving puffing and panting in the Whitechapel Road in full view of Neil at about the time Paul reached the body. <<

Why would Neil be in Whitechapel Road when Paul reached the body Gary? He was nowhere near it.

[drstrange169]

>>can somebody explain to me how we would favor other peoples testimony about when Paul was in Bucks row, other than the man himself? <<

Easily, a policeman who had the specific job of telling people the time says Paul was with him at 3:45. Couldn't come with a better counter to Paul's time if we invented one.

To reverse your question, could you explain who better than Mizen to tell us Paul and Cross were with him at 3:45.

On the credibility of the two men, we have indisputable evidence that Paul told an untrue story about Mrs Nichols being long dead etc. Mizen had witnesses to what he was doing and when he was doing it, the people he knocked up.

It's not like the the evidence is a close call, it's overwhelmingly in favour of Mizen's version being true.

[drstrange169]

>>There’s been some detailed answers to posts recently so here’s one that has always struck me as odd about events in Bucks Row. Why Paul doesn’t have sight of Lechmere sooner ? They seem to be walking 40 or 50m apart for a good period of time, even before they turn into Bucks Row and yet are unaware of each others presence (at these types of distances they might even see each other in Brady Street).<<

This has been specifically explained to you numerous times, Jeff's animation shows now shows an moving version of how. It is extremely disingenuous to pretend you have not had it shown to you.

[Abby Normal]

>>Just a note-and it seems odd to me that he discovers a body on a day he just happens to also be running late.<<

Keep in mind Abby that we don't know that. He definitely didn't say he was late when he left home. He only mentions "being behind time" after they examine the body.

thanks Dusty. then if true, dosnt that point to lech leaving on time at 3:30 or even 3:20? (didnt lech say he usually left for work at 3:20?)

[drstrange169]

>>Surely, if Lechmere’s activity had changed dramatically that might have changed both Paul’s and Neil’s activities. He hares off from the body, drawing Paul’s attention to it.<<

That's assuming Paul would see a killer Cross, which is by no means a given.



>>And finding an unconscious or dead body from which a man has left at speed is a different kettle of fish from finding a woman who might be unconscious from drunkenness or illness. It’s almost certainly a crime scene. And one very normal response to coming across such a situation would be for the finder to start screaming, ‘Help! Murder! Police!’ <<

Of course we can't say for certain, but given Paul's various comments, he seems more likely to be more concerned about getting to work, than being involved.

But let's go with your scenario. Paul yells for help, the greens and the Purkiss come down a chat ensues about what to do and eventually people are dispatched for Neil and Thain.

How does any of this affect killer Cross escape?

[Abby Normal]

>>can somebody explain to me how we would favor other peoples testimony about when Paul was in Bucks row, other than the man himself? <<

Easily, a policeman who had the specific job of telling people the time says Paul was with him at 3:45. Couldn't come with a better counter to Paul's time if we invented one.

To reverse your question, could you explain who better than Mizen to tell us Pauland Cross were with him at 3:45.

On the credibility of the two men, with have indisputable evidence that Paul told an untrue story about Mrs Nichols being long dead etc. Mizen had witnesses too what he was doing and when he was doing it, the people he knocked up.

It's not like the the evidence is a close call, it's overwhelmingly in favour of Mizen's version being true.

I see your point but I dont neccesarily agree. I lean toward the man himself who was there, who just left home and who would have had close watch on the time himself seeing as he needs to be to work on time. As for his news article interview-again point taken. but could be a mistake by the paper or deliberate jab at police or spruce up the story? but i have found his long dead statement incredibly odd and incongruous.

re mizen-so if hes gospel on the time then hes gospel that Lech told him he was wanted by another copper in Bucks row? which means Lech lied about that, no?

[drstrange169]

>>then if true, dosnt that point to lech leaving on time at 3:30 <<

By his time source, yes.


>>(didnt lech say he usually left for work at 3:20?)<<

Definitely not, that was a story invented by Christer. No newspaper states that.

[drstrange169]

>>re mizen-so if hes gospel on the time then hes gospel that Lech told him he was wanted by another copper in Bucks row? which means Lech lied about that, no?<<

Yes and no.

Mizen is likely to be "gospel" on the time, because it was his specific job and there would be numerous witnesses who could corroborate his story. Those witnesses, like your point about Paul, needed to be at work on time.

When it comes to the "policeman there" claim, it's open to interpretation. If Mizen lied there was no witness other Cross to dispute it (Paul was avoiding coming forward at that stage), it was a 50/50 call.

For me and most people, Mizen simply made an easy and understandable mistake. On being told "you are wanted" he arrived in Buck's and found a policeman there. The natural assumption would be that a policeman wanted him.

You could argue that Cross was deliberately vague by saying "you're wanted", but the "by a Policeman" doesn't pass the pub test.

Paul was present too, after being questions all night, if Mizen's claim was true the police files and Paul's inquest testimony would reflect that.

What we know is the police records show they endorsed Cross and Paul's version. So no real problem with the "policeman wants you" story.

Lechmerians have been very successful in blowing this story out of all proportion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

thanks Dusty. then if true, dosnt that point to lech leaving on time at 3:30 or even 3:20? (didnt lech say he usually left for work at 3:20?)

Hi Abby,

David O checked all of the reporters at the Inquest and according to his research there were 19 there. Two of them said that Lech had said that he’d left the house at 3.20. Six said that he’d said that he’d left at 3.30 whilst eleven said that he’d said “about 3.30.”

So the majority said “about 3.30.” Then we would have to ask which is the likelier, a) that six reporters either didn’t hear the word “about” or left it out for some reason when writing up their notes, or b) eleven reporters imagined the word “about” or that 17 reporters misheard 3.20 for 3.30?

So it has to have been overwhelmingly the likeliest that Lechmere had said that he’d left the house “about 3.30.” He absolutely could have been lying of course. But equally it’s entirely reasonable and plausible that he actually could have left the house at 3.35 which would have gotten him to the crime scene at 3.42 or 3.43 with no gap.

[Abby Normal]

>>re mizen-so if hes gospel on the time then hes gospel that Lech told him he was wanted by another copper in Bucks row? which means Lech lied about that, no?<<

Yes and no.

Mizen is likely to be "gospel" on the time, because it was his specific job and there would be numerous witnesses who could corroborate his story. Those witnesses, like your point about Paul, needed to be at work on time.

When it comes to the "policeman there" claim, it's open to interpretation. If Mizen lied there was no witness other Cross to dispute it (Paul was avoiding coming forward at that stage), it was a 50/50 call.

For me and most people, Mizen simply made an easy and understandable mistake. On being told "you are wanted" he arrived in Buck's and found a policeman there. The natural assumption would be that a policeman wanted him.

You could argue that Cross was deliberately vague by saying "you're wanted", but the "by a Policeman" doesn't pass the pub test.

Paul was present too, after being questions all night, if Mizen's claim was true the police files and Paul's inquest testimony would reflect that.

What we know is the police records show they endorsed Cross and Paul's version. So no real problem with the "policeman wants you" story.

Lechmerians have been very successful in blowing this story out of all proportion.

hi dusty
thanks. i basically agree with you on the mizen scam thing, most likely he misrembered, because as you say, there was already a copper there when he arrived so yeah. but it is a discrepency thay needs to be explained away, and for me theres enough of them in lechs case to make him an individual worthy of consideration. but thats just me.

[JeffHamm]

>>can somebody explain to me how we would favor other peoples testimony about when Paul was in Bucks row, other than the man himself? <<

Easily, a policeman who had the specific job of telling people the time says Paul was with him at 3:45. Couldn't come with a better counter to Paul's time if we invented one.

To reverse your question, could you explain who better than Mizen to tell us Paul and Cross were with him at 3:45.

On the credibility of the two men, we have indisputable evidence that Paul told an untrue story about Mrs Nichols being long dead etc. Mizen had witnesses to what he was doing and when he was doing it, the people he knocked up.

It's not like the the evidence is a close call, it's overwhelmingly in favour of Mizen's version being true.

-------------------------------------------

In addition, Paul never testifies as to the time he was in Buck's Row, he only testifies that he left for work "about 3:45", giving an inexact statement as to the time he left. The only place where we have a statement from Paul where he gives an exact time of 3:45 for being in Buck's Row is in the Lloyd's article, where he says Polly was long dead. While the Lloyd's article in a broad sense still describes him meeting another carman, examining the body, and heading off to find a policeman, etc, the specific details of the Lloyd's article do not correspond with any other version. Rather, this article is viewed as reflecting some bravado, and his testimony given under oath is considered the more reliable. While that may be considered an assumption, the recreations I've presented show that his inquest testimony version creates no conflicts with other witnesses' testimony, while relying upon the Lloyd's article requires all other witness testimonies to be considered false. Therefore, it is the Lloyd's article that is deemed to be the source of the conflict. That is how analysis works. And it is how one detects "falsehoods", because false stories will conflict with the true versions. Notably, the analysis also shows no signs of conflict arising from Cross/Lechmere's testimony, again leading to the conclusion that his testimony is consistent with being true, and therefore innocent. Of course, if he lied about his departure time, then he calculated the time he would have needed to leave. So far, however, no evidence has been presented to indicate he has lied.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

David O checked all of the reporters at the Inquest and according to his research there were 19 there. Two of them said that Lech had said that he’d left the house at 3.20. Six said that he’d said that he’d left at 3.30 whilst eleven said that he’d said “about 3.30.”

So the majority said “about 3.30.” Then we would have to ask which is the likelier, a) that six reporters either didn’t hear the word “about” or left it out for some reason when writing up their notes, or b) eleven reporters imagined the word “about” or that 17 reporters misheard 3.20 for 3.30?

So it has to have been overwhelmingly the likeliest that Lechmere had said that he’d left the house “about 3.30.” He absolutely could have been lying of course. But equally it’s entirely reasonable and plausible that he actually could have left the house at 3.35 which would have gotten him to the crime scene at 3.42 or 3.43 with no gap.

thanks herl
no problem there! more than likely he said about 3:30. but imho looking at the big picture heres a man who held down a job for twenty years which means he was probably very seldom late and i imagine he was accustomed to getting out the door no later than 3:30, and probably usually left a little earlier. so to me it seems like he probably left closer to 3:30. no big wup.