Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was he lying?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

    Hi Lewis, absolutely.
    To think he would risk losing his job and the ability to support his kids by being late for work is absurd.
    Killing someone on the same road he travels six days a week.
    To think he would wait around for a passer by to appear then go inform the police.
    To bunk off work to nip into the back of Hanbury Street for his indulgence, leaving an unguarded cart.
    The list goes on....

    I really wish I was at the meeting of the inception of this theory. Would love to have been party to the logic and starting point, but how two 'seemingly educated' men arrived at Lechmere is JtR (and Torsoman) is beyond absurd.
    Hi Geddy,

    I believe that Stow said that if Cross committed the Chapman murder while he was making deliveries, he would have had someone guarding the cart while he was away from it. However, that would mean that when he returned to the cart after committing the murder, someone who could act as a witness would be waiting for him there.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Fiver View Post

      Lawende wasn't lying. You're missing my point. Levender [sic] could have been a transcription error in the 1876 case, but nobody called him Lavender at the Eddowes inquest. It's usually Lawende, occasionally Lewende. but not Lavender.
      For the last time... Lawende is pronounced almost exactly like Lavender. Only people with a rhotic accent would distinguish between them.

      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Lewis C View Post
        I believe that Stow said that if Cross committed the Chapman murder while he was making deliveries, he would have had someone guarding the cart while he was away from it. However, that would mean that when he returned to the cart after committing the murder, someone who could act as a witness would be waiting for him there.
        Yes he has, as has CH, but I mean really. Shame there is no real way of knowing if he had a vanguard.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

          Yes he has, as has CH, but I mean really. Shame there is no real way of knowing if he had a vanguard.
          What does it matter? Lechmere didn't murder anyone.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

            What does it matter? Lechmere didn't murder anyone.
            I completely agree, I do not think he did or rather based on the evidence we have I do not think he did. The point of the vanguard would have been as posted it would have been another witness. The theory gets more and more ridiculous the more you read about it.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

              I don't have a suspect, like in the other thread I'm continually wondering why Lechmere and not Paul. To answer your point it seems Lechmere is suggesting Paul may be afraid of him. Paul also mentions being 'afraid.' I wonder if Lechmere got this idea from Paul after speaking to him or reading the newspaper before giving his testimony.

              I find it funny Paul states he knew the area (Bucks Row) was dangerous and feared being attacked. However still continued to use that road to go to work most days.

              Someone here, awhile back, brought up the why not Paul argument.

              Paul kills Polly Nichols, and then what? Goes once around the block and then trails Lech back to the body?
              Lech and Paul are collaboraters?

              Paul is not a suspect .... Lech exonerated him.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                Let me mention another witness at one of the Ripper cases. The surname on his marriage license was Lavender. The surname in the censuses for him, his wife, and his children, was Lavender. In a 1876 proceeding at the Old Bailey, his surname was given as Levender [sic] and it is clear from the court records that his friends knew his surname as Lavender. He appeared in city directories as Lavender. He was buried as Lavender.

                But at the Eddowes inquest, he used the name Joseph Lawende. He never mentioned the surname Lavender.​ So was he lying about his name at the inquest?

                I have asked Lechemrians this question multiple times. They have never answered.



                This is another example of Lechemerian double standards. They don't check if Robert Paul or any other witness or suspect had any friends, relatives, or connections near the murder sites.

                And Mitre Square is nowhere near his mother's house.



                I have seen Lechmerians argue that him having a beard is suspicious.

                And no one matches Pete Spence for psycho eyes.

                Click image for larger version

Name:	Pete_Spence_%28mugshot%29.jpg
Views:	542
Size:	20.0 KB
ID:	833696
                That fits into the anything is possible category fiver!

                But really, what is there of which to respond? That people can get away with furnishing an incorrect last name in a legal proceeding?
                If he was trying to hide something, go ahead and you consider it suspicious - go ahead and dig it up ...

                Awhile back, it was not uncommon for people to spell names in different variations: Shakespeare for instance signed his name with multiple spellings.
                Don't know when that tradition died out. Was the guy illiterate and did a court clerk write down the name? That's a possibility.

                Lawende or Lavender

                vs. Lechmere or Cross,

                very, very similar!



                BTW, awhile back I came across someone of medical authority, who, by looking at the famous Lechmere photo,
                opined that Lech had a stroke some time back .... he detected a drooping of the left or right side.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                  Someone here, awhile back, brought up the why not Paul argument.
                  Paul kills Polly Nichols, and then what? Goes once around the block and then trails Lech back to the body?
                  I suggested Paul as a candidate a few month ago here https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...de-of-the-coin

                  Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                  Paul is not a suspect .... Lech exonerated him.
                  Did he? Where, sorry I missed it..

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
                    "On Friday morning he left home about half-past-three to go to work, and passing through Buck's Row he saw on the opposite sound something lying against a gateway. In the dark, he could not tell at first what it was. It looked like a tarpaulin sheet, but walking to the middle of the road he saw that it was the figure of a woman.

                    At the same time, he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's Row in the direction that the witness had come from.


                    He stepped back and waited for the new-comer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness was about to knock him down. The witness said to the man, "Come and look over here. There's a woman."
                    - Lechmere's Testimony.
                    Was Lech truthful or lying about moving westward on Buck's Row, spotting Polly Nichols, and then moving towards her across the street?

                    Hypothesis A: Lechmere was walking up ahead of Paul for a certain amount of time, not hearing Paul’s footsteps behind him until he happened to notice Polly Nichols body and began moving towards her across the street ... continuing to visually inspect her as he moves.


                    Alternative hypothesis B: Lechmere was by Polly Nichols body for some unspecified time; then, upon hearing Paul’s footsteps, moves away from her body, towards the middle of the road at some point in time in order to evade suspicion - facing Paul …. and then contrives the only story possible that justifies him being in this position, while maintaining that he just discovered the body


                    Let's follow hypothesis A and see what would be required for it to be a truthful account. And if anyone wants to correct my measurements, please go ahead because they are not exact. I will use all values that favor Lech's story.

                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Logistics
                    A: 22 Doveton st. to Pickfords: 1.8 miles
                    -- > Lech's walking speed if he proceeds at a constant rate (a): 1.8 miles/30 minutes ..... a = 3.6 mph or 1.76 yps.

                    B: corner of Bath/Forster to Brady street - 45 yards
                    C: corner of Bath/Brady to Buck’s Row - 15 yards
                    D: start of Buck’s row to Polly Nichols body - 130 yards
                    E: total distance from corner of Bath/Forster to body - 190 yards

                    F: time for Lech to move towards the center of Buck’s row, stop, look down the street and see Paul approaching - {6 - 12 seconds}
                    G: distance Paul is away from Lech upon being spotted: we'll use 40 yards, although some accounts of Lech's testimony permits for 30 yards.​


                    How far was Lechmere in front of Paul so that Paul doesn't see him as he walks under the lighting of the brewery at the corner of Bath & Brady?
                    Let's say more than 45 yards ... so there is no problem here with Paul not spotting Lechmere initially.

                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Inquest testimony upon which I will focus:

                    Testimony fact A: PC Neil, while occupied in examining Polly Nichol’s body, hears PC Thain along Brady Street, some 130 yards away.

                    The eastern part of Buck's Row, up to Polly Nichols body, was a narrow stone street aligned with continuous 3 - 4 story stone structures.
                    There are very basic physics principles as to why sound travels so well there: waves fronts not dispersing, stone not appreciably absorbing sound wave energy;
                    however, we have PC Neil's incontrovertible testimony, which should suffice.

                    Testimony fact B: Lech estimates that Paul is 40 yards away when he first sees him in some accounts, 30 - 40 yards away in another.
                    • Lechmere does not mention estimating the distance visually ... I'll assume he's not a bat and doesnt' echolocate for such things.
                    • Lechmere does not mention turning towards Paul .... I'll assume that he does.
                    Now, what I wish to is determine how long Paul was walking behind Lech up Buck's row using the constraints:

                    A. starting out 45 + yards in front of Paul when Paul enters Bath street ... so that Paul doesn't see Lech illuminated by the brewery lights
                    B. Lechmere finally seeing Paul when he is 40 yards away, & not 30.
                    C. Lech walking at a speed (a)
                    of 3. 6 mph
                    D. Paul likewise traveling at a constant speed (b)


                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    It's a simple algebra problem involving simultaneous equations where,
                    a = Lech's speed, b = Paul's speed, D = Lech's starting distance in front of Paul,
                    x = distance Paul moves forward between the time of Lech moving across street towards body, and time Lech notices Paul 40 yards away

                    equation #1: a ⨶ t = 190 - D , a = 3.6 mph = 1.76 yps
                    equation #2: b ⨶ t = 190 - ( 40 + x)

                    equation #3: b ⨶ 6 seconds = x or b ⨶ 12 seconds = x

                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    calculations:

                    ​When I input 50, 60 & 70 yards for D, Lech's starting distance ahead of Paul, and vary the time between Lech crossing Buck's row and seeing Paul,
                    I get the following range of values:

                    * distance of Lech ahead of Paul while both are going up Buck's row: 50 - 60 yards
                    * time in which Lech walks ahead of Paul while going up Buck's row: 39 - 45 seconds

                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Neurological principle A: repetitive sensory stimuli that provide no important information to the brain are ignored by the processing part of the brain, or the action potential of nerves that pass along the repetitive stimuli become exhausted and stop firing. Result: people tune out the sound of their own footsteps. It is not important information and would only serve to distract the brain from potentially more important things happening in their environment. This principal extended to footsteps has been verified experimentally on rats .... I am not aware of it being extended to people.

                    * it has a very sound basis in evolutionary theory, most of our evolutionary history being one of prey to stealthy predators.
                    * I once lived next to a major airport, directly below the landing path of planes; every minute a plane would fly overhead that you would at first notice, but after a
                    few days / week you would stop noticing.


                    Neurological principle B: the brain’s sensory system is sensitive to new stimuli: sound, smell, movement, … what is new and novel attracts a more pronounced response in the appropriate cortex and the brain

                    * Novel sound stimuli are not competing with repetitive stimuli … and that point can not be emphasized strongly enough.


                    Neurological principle C: the brain does not easily process different types of sensory stimuli (visual, auditory, Olfactory) simultaneously.​​

                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Final analysis:

                    Testimony fact C: Paul stated in LLoyds that few people come up and down ‘here’ without being on their guard
                    • 'here' might specifically refer to buck’s row, or the general vicinity
                    ​Paul never mentions hearing Lechmere's footsteps: either he never noticed or he simply started his narrative when he saw Lechmere;
                    I strongly tend to think the former, but it doesnt' matter - it being a debatible point, so I'll ignore it.

                    Lechmere, on the other hand, specifically mentions the absolute time in which he was first aware of Paul's footsteps: sometime while crossing the street.
                    He was walking down a dark, dangerous street. One would imagine he was on his guard, as Paul put it (unless you wish to argue he was one of the few), which would mean that his auditory cortex and sensory sytem were revved up to detect & process new sounds.
                    And yet, he was not aware of Paul's footsteps during his commute for the 39 - 45 seconds Paul was following him, trailing Lech by some 50 - 60 yards; but in the few steps it took him to cross to the middle of Buck's row, he suddenly heard them .... while still walking mind you. Paul advanced some 5 yards closer during this time: are we to believe that he suddenly broke thru some threshold at that moment, hearing the foot steps that had evaded him while walking up Buck's row?

                    As I have mentioned, I have used all the input data most favorable to hypothesis A (Lech's version), and yet we run into some unlikely scenarios.

                    Difficulty A: While Lech, not distracted visually in the dim light & most probably on his guard, could not hear Paul trailing behind him,
                    PC Neil, occupied with analyzing Polly Nichols body through sight and touch, could hear immediately PC Mizen's footsteps from more than twice the distance
                    (130 yards away), who still had not set foot on Buck's row.

                    Difficulty B: Some here have proposed that Lech's footsteps drowned out the footsteps of Paul, which means that they do not accept the general consensus among scientists who study perception, that the brain prioritizes the new sounds and ignores repetitive sounds; another here proposed that Lechmere heard Paul only subconsciously, but when asked to produce a paper on the subject he demurred.

                    The chief problem with all this is that Lech's version still has him walking when he finally notices Paul, perhaps at a reduced rate, but still walking; and moreover, his brain was visually processing the recumbent figure of Polly Nichols, realizing that it was a woman - imagine the alarm? Neurological principle C would suggest that this is not the optimum moment for noticing new sounds: Paul is a bit closer, but he is now engaging his visual cortex.

                    Difficulty C: If Lech was only some 5 yards away from a female body whose status he did not know, upon marking that Paul was 40 yards away, why did he not continue on to the body to better assess her condition, and then call out for aid?
                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Conclusion:

                    Just assessing this complete set of evidence, I think it his very unlikely that hypothesis A is the truth: it requires too many leaps of faith. And any line of reasoning to the contrary runs into a contradiction: Lechmere describes himself in motion when he finally hears Paul.

                    Bringing in other ideas, convictions, later or earlier evidence only brings in one's personal biases. .... this set of evidence is complete for the purpose that I stated.

                    If Lech was next to the body when Paul was starting his commute or much further down Buck's row, given the location where Paul spotted him, Lech was constrained to come up with a story that has him standing in the middle of the street.
                    Last edited by Newbie; 06-13-2024, 07:23 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

                      I suggested Paul as a candidate a few month ago here https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...de-of-the-coin



                      Did he? Where, sorry I missed it..
                      For goodness sake Geddy

                      in the testimony that you highlighted to kick off this thread.

                      "At the same time, he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's Row in the direction that the witness had come from."

                      If this isn't a hammer driven into the notion of Paul as a suspect, nothing will suffice.

                      Some here will start accusing fiver of being a suspect, not without warrant.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                        Lawende or Lavender

                        vs. Lechmere or Cross,

                        very, very similar
                        You forget Thomas or Jones, and possibly dozens of others that we don't ​​know about. Or do you think we have reason to believe that they were the only ones to give other names than their birth names without also giving their birth names?
                        "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                        Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Newbie View Post

                          IVE INCLUDED THREE RESPONSES WITHIN THE TEXT - HERLOCK > …

                          Was Lech truthful or lying about moving westward on Buck's Row, spotting Polly Nichols, and then moving towards her across the street?

                          Hypothesis A: Lechmere was walking up ahead of Paul for a certain amount of time, not hearing Paul’s footsteps behind him until he happened to notice Polly Nichols body and began moving towards her across the street ... continuing to visually inspect her as he moves.


                          Alternative hypothesis B: Lechmere was by Polly Nichols body for some unspecified time; then, upon hearing Paul’s footsteps, moves away from her body, towards the middle of the road at some point in time in order to evade suspicion - facing Paul …. and then contrives the only story possible that justifies him being in this position, while maintaining that he just discovered the body


                          Let's follow hypothesis A and see what would be required for it to be a truthful account. And if anyone wants to correct my measurements, please go ahead because they are not exact. I will use all values that favor Lech's story.

                          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Logistics
                          A: 22 Doveton st. to Pickfords: 1.8 miles
                          -- > Lech's walking speed if he proceeds at a constant rate (a): 1.8 miles/30 minutes ..... a = 3.6 mph or 1.76 yps.

                          B: corner of Bath/Forster to Brady street - 45 yards
                          C: corner of Bath/Brady to Buck’s Row - 15 yards
                          D: start of Buck’s row to Polly Nichols body - 130 yards
                          E: total distance from corner of Bath/Forster to body - 190 yards

                          F: time for Lech to move towards the center of Buck’s row, stop, look down the street and see Paul approaching - {6 - 12 seconds}
                          G: distance Paul is away from Lech upon being spotted: we'll use 40 yards, although some accounts of Lech's testimony permits for 30 yards.​


                          How far was Lechmere in front of Paul so that Paul doesn't see him as he walks under the lighting of the brewery at the corner of Bath & Brady?
                          Let's say more than 45 yards ... so there is no problem here with Paul not spotting Lechmere initially.

                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Inquest testimony upon which I will focus:

                          Testimony fact A: PC Neil, while occupied in examining Polly Nichol’s body, hears PC Thain along Brady Street, some 130 yards away.

                          The eastern part of Buck's Row, up to Polly Nichols body, was a narrow stone street aligned with continuous 3 - 4 story stone structures.
                          There are very basic physics principles as to why sound travels so well there: waves fronts not dispersing, stone not appreciably absorbing sound wave energy;
                          however, we have PC Neil's incontrovertible testimony, which should suffice.

                          Testimony fact B: Lech estimates that Paul is 40 yards away when he first sees him in some accounts, 30 - 40 yards away in another.
                          • Lechmere does not mention estimating the distance visually ... I'll assume he's not a bat and doesnt' echolocate for such things.
                          • Lechmere does not mention turning towards Paul .... I'll assume that he does.
                          Now, what I wish to is determine how long Paul was walking behind Lech up Buck's row using the constraints:

                          A. starting out 45 + yards in front of Paul when Paul enters Bath street ... so that Paul doesn't see Lech illuminated by the brewery lights
                          B. Lechmere finally seeing Paul when he is 40 yards away, & not 30.
                          C. Lech walking at a speed (a)
                          of 3. 6 mph
                          D. Paul likewise traveling at a constant speed (b)


                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          It's a simple algebra problem involving simultaneous equations where,
                          a = Lech's speed, b = Paul's speed, D = Lech's starting distance in front of Paul,
                          x = distance Paul moves forward between the time of Lech moving across street towards body, and time Lech notices Paul 40 yards away

                          equation #1: a ⨶ t = 190 - D , a = 3.6 mph = 1.76 yps
                          equation #2: b ⨶ t = 190 - ( 40 + x)

                          equation #3: b ⨶ 6 seconds = x or b ⨶ 12 seconds = x

                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          calculations:

                          ​When I input 50, 60 & 70 yards for D, Lech's starting distance ahead of Paul, and vary the time between Lech crossing Buck's row and seeing Paul,
                          I get the following range of values:

                          * distance of Lech ahead of Paul while both are going up Buck's row: 50 - 60 yards
                          * time in which Lech walks ahead of Paul while going up Buck's row: 39 - 45 seconds

                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Neurological principle A: repetitive sensory stimuli that provide no important information to the brain are ignored by the processing part of the brain, or the action potential of nerves that pass along the repetitive stimuli become exhausted and stop firing. Result: people tune out the sound of their own footsteps. It is not important information and would only serve to distract the brain from potentially more important things happening in their environment. This principal extended to footsteps has been verified experimentally on rats .... I am not aware of it being extended to people.

                          * it has a very sound basis in evolutionary theory, most of our evolutionary history being one of prey to stealthy predators.
                          * I once lived next to a major airport, directly below the landing path of planes; every minute a plane would fly overhead that you would at first notice, but after a
                          few days / week you would stop noticing.


                          Neurological principle B: the brain’s sensory system is sensitive to new stimuli: sound, smell, movement, … what is new and novel attracts a more pronounced response in the appropriate cortex and the brain

                          * Novel sound stimuli are not competing with repetitive stimuli … and that point can not be emphasized strongly enough.


                          Neurological principle C: the brain does not easily process different types of sensory stimuli (visual, auditory, Olfactory) simultaneously.​​

                          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Final analysis:

                          Testimony fact C: Paul stated in LLoyds that few people come up and down ‘here’ without being on their guard
                          • 'here' might specifically refer to buck’s row, or the general vicinity
                          ​Paul never mentions hearing Lechmere's footsteps: either he never noticed or he simply started his narrative when he saw Lechmere;
                          I strongly tend to think the former, but it doesnt' matter - it being a debatible point, so I'll ignore it.

                          Lechmere, on the other hand, specifically mentions the absolute time in which he was first aware of Paul's footsteps: sometime while crossing the street.
                          He was walking down a dark, dangerous street. One would imagine he was on his guard, as Paul put it (unless you wish to argue he was one of the few), which would mean that his auditory cortex and sensory sytem were revved up to detect & process new sounds.
                          And yet, he was not aware of Paul's footsteps during his commute for the 39 - 45 seconds Paul was following him, trailing Lech by some 50 - 60 yards; but in the few steps it took him to cross to the middle of Buck's row, he suddenly heard them .... while still walking mind you. Paul advanced some 5 yards closer during this time: are we to believe that he suddenly broke thru some threshold at that moment, hearing the foot steps that had evaded him while walking up Buck's row?

                          HERLOCK > Please read the Inquest testimony:

                          He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away.”

                          Cross wasn’t moving when he heard Paul. He was standing in the middle of the road. Exactly where he was when Paul saw him.



                          As I have mentioned, I have used all the input data most favorable to hypothesis A (Lech's version), and yet we run into some unlikely scenarios.

                          Difficulty A: While Lech, not distracted visually in the dim light & most probably on his guard, could not hear Paul trailing behind him,
                          PC Neil, occupied with analyzing Polly Nichols body through sight and touch, could hear immediately PC Mizen's footsteps from more than twice the distance
                          (130 yards away), who still had not set foot on Buck's row.

                          HERLOCK > Where they wearing the same kind of boots/shoes? Was Mizen and Cross of a similar size and weight of tread? Did Cross and Neil have the exact same level of hearing?


                          Difficulty B: Some here have proposed that Lech's footsteps drowned out the footsteps of Paul, which means that they do not accept the general consensus among scientists who study perception, that the brain prioritizes the new sounds and ignores repetitive sounds; another here proposed that Lechmere heard Paul only subconsciously, but when asked to produce a paper on the subject he demurred.

                          The chief problem with all this is that Lech's version still has him walking when he finally notices Paul, perhaps at a reduced rate, but still walking; and moreover, his brain was visually processing the recumbent figure of Polly Nichols, realizing that it was a woman - imagine the alarm? Neurological principle C would suggest that this is not the optimum moment for noticing new sounds: Paul is a bit closer, but he is now engaging his visual cortex.

                          HERLOCK > And as I’ve shown from the inquest testimony , your ‘chief problem’ doesn’t exist because Cross was standing still when he heard Paul. So you’ve begun on a false premise.


                          Difficulty C: If Lech was only some 5 yards away from a female body whose status he did not know, upon marking that Paul was 40 yards away, why did he not continue on to the body to better assess her condition, and then call out for aid?

                          > Because he was a normal human being and not a paramedic. Many people would be wary of approaching a body at the best of times, never mind in the dark. And how could he be sure that this wasn’t a drunk who might attack him? Or that it wasn’t a trap to draw some unsuspecting passer-by over to get mugged by some bloke hiding in the shadows? How does he know that this drunken woman might not start screaming ‘rape’ or that he’d attacked her. Caution is entirely normal, especially when you have back up approaching.

                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Conclusion:

                          Just assessing this complete set of evidence, I think it his very unlikely that hypothesis A is the truth: it requires too many leaps of faith. And any line of reasoning to the contrary runs into a contradiction: Lechmere describes himself in motion when he finally hears Paul.

                          Bringing in other ideas, convictions, later or earlier evidence only brings in one's personal biases. .... this set of evidence is complete for the purpose that I stated.

                          If Lech was next to the body when Paul was starting his commute or much further down Buck's row, given the location where Paul spotted him, Lech was constrained to come up with a story that has him standing in the middle of the street.

                          And so you completely ignore the sheer unlikeliness of hypothesis B. The suggestion that a man who has just brutally murdered a woman in the street on the spur-of-the-moment hears footsteps approaching in the dark. There he is, bloodied knife in hand, uncertain of whether he has got blood on his clothing or not, right next to the corpse. Choices, a) flee into the dark or b) stick around for a chat.

                          What could happen if a) were the case? He can’t be sure that the other guy will even go over to the corpse. He might just have passed by. Even if the man checks the body and then stands there shouting for a Constable how long before one actually hears him? How far away would Cross have been? How long before they arrive at the scene? How far away would Cross have been then? And even if a Constable heard him he’d hardly have stopped to pull over some random figure walking in the dark on the way to the scene of an assault yet unknown event…he’d have got to the scene first by which time Cross has probably arrived at work or is close to it. What if the guy decided instead to go looking for a Constable on his way to work after checking out the body? Giving Cross not only a head start but the opportunity to take any turning that he wanted too.

                          What could happen if he stood and waited for Cross? What if Paul yells for a Constable? How suspicious would Cross have looked if he’d said “right, I’m off?” So he has to wait until a Constable arrives, at the scene of a murder, with him having a bloodied knife in his pocket. Same if they go for a Constable together. How could he have even the slightest confidence that he could talk his way past a police officer without Paul’s interference? The answer is that he couldn’t have. And we also have the fact that Paul can now describe Cross to the police and possibly identify him if he’s ever arrested on suspicion at some point in the future.

                          So when we ask what the killer would have done (it was what he actually did do in fact) there is only one answer. He would have scarpered. There’s no ‘might’ or ‘possibly’ about it. It’s what the killer absolutely, undoubtedly would have done. Therefore Cross simply wasn’t the killer.

                          Could Paul have caught him in the act? Clearly not. Cross was in the middle of the road when he saw him.

                          If I was a guilty Cross in that position I’d have said “ yeah I was in the middle of the road when I heard footsteps. I waited around 30 seconds and then I saw a figure around 50 yards away so I waited for him.” Thus showing the police how he could have been streets away by the time Paul had got there. But he doesn’t. Relying on memory of a stressful situation. He said ‘about 40 yards’ so an estimation using memory. It might have been 50 yards. So…

                          Cross arrives at the scene and perhaps stops as he sees the shape. He walks to the middle of the road and peering through the dark (and trying to focus on the shape in the dark) he sees that it’s a body. He actually said that he couldn’t immediately make it out. So how long from ‘stop’ to hearing the footsteps. Maybe 10 seconds? Might have been 20 if he was understandably hesitant about whether to approach it or not.

                          So that’s 10 yards or 20 yards onto the gap between him and Cross.

                          Then there’s even the possibility that he heard Paul and there was a short gap before he actually saw him (transcripts aren’t verbatim)

                          So the gap between the. Could easily have been 70 yards or so. We don’t know how loud Paul’s tread was in comparison with Mizen and we certainly don’t know if Cross’s hearing was a good as Paul’s.


                          Will the time ever come when this ludicrous, manufactured, non-existent case against this obviously innocent man ever end. It was way past silly years ago and it’s only getting worse.







                          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 06-13-2024, 08:44 PM.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Newbie View Post

                            For goodness sake Geddy

                            in the testimony that you highlighted to kick off this thread.

                            "At the same time, he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's Row in the direction that the witness had come from."

                            If this isn't a hammer driven into the notion of Paul as a suspect, nothing will suffice.
                            Lechmere's statement about how far away Paul was when he heard Paul does not exonerate Robert Paul in any way. It doesn't accuse Paul, either. It is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Paul was the Ripper.
                            "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                            "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                              But really, what is there of which to respond? That people can get away with furnishing an incorrect last name in a legal proceeding?
                              If he was trying to hide something, go ahead and you consider it suspicious - go ahead and dig it up ...
                              My point was that the witness used the name Joseph Lavender in his daily life, but Joseph Lawende at the inquest. Yet Lechmerians find nothing suspicious about him doing that. Other threads show dozens of other men who used different names in court than they did in day-to-day life. Lechmerians find nothing suspicious about any of them doing that. It's only suspicious when Charles Lechmere does it.

                              Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                              Awhile back, it was not uncommon for people to spell names in different variations: Shakespeare for instance signed his name with multiple spellings.
                              Don't know when that tradition died out. Was the guy illiterate and did a court clerk write down the name? That's a possibility.
                              It's clearly not a spelling issue. Newspapers at the 1888 inquest mainly listed the name as Lawende. (There is an example of Lawrenceand one of Lewende.)

                              The surname on his marriage license was Lavender. The surname in the censuses for him, his wife, and his children, was Lavender. In a 1876 proceeding at the Old Bailey, his surname was given as Levender [sic] and it is clear from the court records that his friends knew his surname as Lavender. He appeared in city directories as Lavender. He was buried as Lavender.

                              But at the Eddowes inquest, he used the name Joseph Lawende. He never mentioned the surname Lavender.​​
                              "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                              "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Newbie View Post

                                Was Lech truthful or lying about moving westward on Buck's Row, spotting Polly Nichols, and then moving towards her across the street?

                                Hypothesis A: Lechmere was walking up ahead of Paul for a certain amount of time, not hearing Paul’s footsteps behind him until he happened to notice Polly Nichols body and began moving towards her across the street ... continuing to visually inspect her as he moves.


                                Alternative hypothesis B: Lechmere was by Polly Nichols body for some unspecified time; then, upon hearing Paul’s footsteps, moves away from her body, towards the middle of the road at some point in time in order to evade suspicion - facing Paul …. and then contrives the only story possible that justifies him being in this position, while maintaining that he just discovered the body
                                Alternative B is not a correct listing of the Lechmerian hypothesis. It has Lechmere, upon hearing Paul, needs to:
                                * Pull out a piece ofcloth.
                                * Wipe off his knife.
                                * Put away the knife.
                                * Wipe off his hands.
                                * Put away the cloth.
                                * Lift the body one-handed.
                                * Pull Nichols' skirts down with the other hand.
                                * Stand up.
                                * Move 3 to 4 meters into the middle of the street.
                                * Turn to face eastwards to fit his story.

                                And Lechmere has to do all of that without be seen or heard by Paul, without getting any blood on his hands or clothes, and before Paul gets too close. Also, by his own words, Robert Paul is on high alert, looking for anyone and anything suspicious, because he is afraid of getting mugged in Bucks Row.

                                Option B makes no sense.

                                "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                                "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X