Was he lying?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, I got no nibbles?

I'll truncate what I just wrote; I'll probably just start a new thread and place it at the lead.


truncated version:

1. Lechmere walked up Buck's row with Paul trailing him by some 40 - 60 yards behind, over a time of 40 - 45 seconds.

2. It was dim along Buck's row and a dangerous neighborhood: any one walking it at that time should have been on their guard:
which would mean in particular, anticipating new sounds.

3. PC Neil, while occupied with investigating the body by feel & sight, immediately heard the footsteps of PC Thain from 130 yards away.
PC Thain had not even entered Buck's row, but sounds travelled exceptionally well down that narrow stone street aligned with stone buildings, with no gaps.

4. Lechmere, on his guard walking up the dark street, should have noticed that new sounds were isuing behind him:
- modern theories on sensory perception dictate that novel sounds are prioritized in the auditory system
- repetitive sounds are de-emphasized / ignored by somatic nerves and the auditory cortex.

5. Lechmere says that he never heard Paul's footsteps until he was crossing to the middle of the street, towards Polly Nichols body.
- Lech's defenders, who employ the antiquated footsteps drown out the other footsteps theory,
would need to explain why Lech finally heard these footsteps at this point: he was not only still walking,
but his brain was occupied visually with analyzing the recumbent body of Polly Nichols .... downgrading auditory cortical impulses.

6. Paul never mentions seeing or hearing Lechmere, until nearby the body of Polly Nichols

7. Lechmere, after marking Paul from around 40 yards away, immediately discontinues his movement to the body: a body only a few steps away. Most here at this point, one would imagine, would make a quick check to ascertain the woman's condition before addressing the stranger.

Finding a woman collapsed on the edge of a street being an urgent situatin ..... life was cheap back then?

8. However, if Lechmere had actually come from the body, he would need to make some excuse for not only just encountering the body,
but standing in the street and waiting for Paul .... hence, the just happened to hear footsteps in the middle of the street testimony.

Sherlock earlier made big hand waving gestures about his belief that something highly improbable negates any argument: for instance, the improbabliity of Lechmere encountering and murdering Polly Nichols, so close to his time of work.

CAL's own description of events fits perfectly what one would expect from one coming from the body,
but fits very poorly the notion that he was just in front of Paull all that time.

So, does highly improbable apply the other way? Or, will the argument shift to he's innocent after all, so what ever improbable series of events happened from point A to point B, had to happen.

Firstly, it’s Herlock not Sherlock.

Secondly, Cross walked that route 6 days a week so there is no suggestion that he should have been on any kind of heightened awareness. You are adding a criteria to make your theory fit better.

Thirdly, despite the fact that I quoted from the inquest testimony you persist in stating that Cross was moving when he heard Paul approach. Why are you doing this if not to, again, shape events to fit your theory. I’ll post the quote again:

”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,”

He walked to the middle of the road…..then (ie when he got to the middle of the road)….he heard Paul.

Fourthly, what PC Neil heard compared to what Cross heard can only be entirely relevant if you assume that all people have the same level of hearing. Or that Paul’s footsteps made the same level of noise that Thain’s boots did.

And finally, that’s the second time that you’ve used the phrase ‘hand waving gestures.’ I’ve made no gestures. I’ve pointed out what those that support the clearly innocent Cross deliberately ignore….the evidence. We are seeing increasingly bizarre and pointless efforts to try and shoehorn this man into place as the killer when the evidence is so obviously against it. A ten minute read through of the evidence should be enough for anyone to see that the case against Cross is a fabrication. Nothing is suspicious about him. The only thing that’s suspicious are the levels that people go to to manufacture a case.

[Geddy2112]

No Geddy,

but I did mention that killing someone and then taking a walk around the block theory as being so remote that it could be ruled out.

Maybe Paul killed Polly Nichols, and then went back to his flat to take a piss, and then headed out to go to work?

It's actually not that barmy as you suggest if you 'd actually read the thread. Words like 'exactly 3:45' in Paul's story because he knew the time Neil would be in Bucks Row to give him an alibi. Believe me it's not as far fetched as the Lechmere theory and no I'm not suggesting Paul is JTR although he has links to two murder sites does he not.

He did say that he was running late .... killing someone to start out the morning will do that to a guy.

So you agree Lechmere is not a strong candidate then? See this is another Christerism, in his book he states 'on a morning he was running late' that is not actually true. He was not running late when he left the house he was only 'behind time' after the finding of the body and talking to Mizen etc.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That doesn't fit the data Herlock, unless Paul was running down the street.
Lech, leaving around 3:30 am (it doesn't really matter his starting time),
walking from Doveton to Broad street, would need to go 3.6 mph (1.8 miles in 30 minutes),
to get to work at 4 am.

Paul, 70 yards away at some point on Buck's row, would need to go into a full sprint, to gain 30 yards.
Lech would have gone down Buck's row some 60 - 70 yards with Paul trailing him.

Are you sure you want him running down the street?

If both are traveling at a constant rate, its a simple zeroth order simultaneous equations with very specific boundary values.
I placed the equation in my long thread ..... go crunch the numbers.

There are three aspects of these events that you aren’t considering. First, how good was Cross’ hearing. And second, that we have only a truncated version of events. Neither Cross nor Paul broke events down into exact timings. And third, the fallibility of human memory. We see this all through the case. So.. if Cross was 70 yards in front of Paul…

Cross slows down a little before stopping as he sees the shape across the road. He tries to make out what it was from his position. So that’s 10 seconds - Paul is now 60 yards away.

Cross moves to the middle of the road and peers through the darkness and thinks ‘that might not be a tarpaulin after all…it could be a body.” He’s wary of approaching what could be a figure so he hesitates whilst still looking to see if it really is a body or is his imagination just turning a random shape into a body? Another 15 or 20 seconds has passed - Paul is now 40-45 yards away.

Cross hears the footsteps and waits for the man to arrive.

We don’t need equations. We need the application of common sense and the acceptance of the circumstances and the realisation of human behaviour.

[FrankO]

While not refuting the content of your post, I'd like to add some comments of my own.

I find it very odd that in an area that Paul nominated as being dangerous, Lechmere chose to approach a man that was, reportedly, trying to evade him, and touch him on the shoulder before offering a word of explanation. Was Lechmere trying to see if Paul would run? Why would Paul allow a stranger in a dark dangerous location to approach so close rather than running away? Didn't Lechmere run the risk of Paul thinking he was about to be attacked and robbed and reacting with a right cross to Lechmere's chin? What assessment might the police have made had Neil found, not only a woman's dead body, but also a unconscious man lying a few yards from her body?

Hi George,

I wouldn't call it very odd, but I admit that it seems a bit odd. The odd thing being that Lechmere didn't speak before he Paul had reached him, but maybe he just didn't want to speak before, because he didn't want to scare him (any more than necessary) or scare him off altogether. Of course, if he was guilty, then it might have been because he was trying to see how Paul would react to him, to get an idea if Paul had seen or heard something suspicious. On the other hand, indeed, he might have run the risk of Paul thinking he was about to be attacked & robbed and receiving one or a couple of unexpected blows on the chin.

After Lechmere and Paul's encounter with Mizen, Lechmere chose to accompany Paul along Hanbury St rather than take the slightly shorter (?) route along Old Montague St. We cannot know what, if anything, was said on that journey, but Lechmere did gain the opportunity to find out a little more about what Paul may have seen, or heard, and possibly Paul's impressions of what had happened.[/QUOTE]
We don't know if Lechmere chose to accompany Paul. It would all depend on whether Lechmere was guilty or not. So, yes, a guilty Lechmere might have chosen to accompany Paul to find out more, but, at the same time, an innocent Lechmere may very well not have chosen to accompany Paul, and Hanbury Street was just part of his normal route.

All the best,
Frank

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I wouldn't call it very odd, but I admit that it seems a bit odd. The odd thing being that Lechmere didn't speak before he Paul had reached him, but maybe he just didn't want to speak before, because he didn't want to scare him (any more than necessary) or scare him off altogether. Of course, if he was guilty, then it might have been because he was trying to see how Paul would react to him, to get an idea if Paul had seen or heard something suspicious. On the other hand, indeed, he might have run the risk of Paul thinking he was about to be attacked & robbed and receiving one or a couple of unexpected blows on the chin.

After Lechmere and Paul's encounter with Mizen, Lechmere chose to accompany Paul along Hanbury St rather than take the slightly shorter (?) route along Old Montague St. We cannot know what, if anything, was said on that journey, but Lechmere did gain the opportunity to find out a little more about what Paul may have seen, or heard, and possibly Paul's impressions of what had happened.

We don't know if Lechmere chose to accompany Paul. It would all depend on whether Lechmere was guilty or not. So, yes, a guilty Lechmere might have chosen to accompany Paul to find out more, but, at the same time, an innocent Lechmere may very well not have chosen to accompany Paul, and Hanbury Street was just part of his normal route.

All the best,
Frank[/QUOTE]

Hi Frank,

If I try to put myself in Paul's situation. I would feel far more comfortable with Lechmere asking me, from a distance, to come and look at a body, rather than approaching and touching me on the shoulder, while I am trying to avoid him, before saying a word. I find myself surprised that the fight or flight instinct didn't kick in with Paul. Putting myself in Lechmere's innocent shoes, I would have informed Paul of the situation from a distance.

I agree that Lechmere may have chosen to accompany Paul down Hanbury St, either as part of his routine or as part of a post trauma desire to have company. However, I think that the fact remains that it did present an opportunity to Lechmere for a fact trawling exercise.

Best regards, George

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

If I try to put myself in Paul's situation. I would feel far more comfortable with Lechmere asking me, from a distance, to come and look at a body, rather than approaching and touching me on the shoulder, while I am trying to avoid him, before saying a word. I find myself surprised that the fight or flight instinct didn't kick in with Paul. Putting myself in Lechmere's innocent shoes, I would have informed Paul of the situation from a distance.

I agree that Lechmere may have chosen to accompany Paul down Hanbury St, either as part of his routine or as part of a post trauma desire to have company. However, I think that the fact remains that it did present an opportunity to Lechmere for a fact trawling exercise.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I'm not going to argue with anything you say here.

I probably would have preferred, if I were in Paul's shoes, that Lechmere spoke before reaching him, as you do. As to why Lechmere, innocent or guilty, only spoke after Paul had arrived, I don't know. The only thing I can think of is that he didn't want to scare him away. And perhaps, seeing that Paul continued on his way towards him, he just waited until he was close.

And, yes, of course, accompanying Paul down Hanbury Street would have provided the opportunity to learn more about what Paul might or might not think about what he'd seen.

All the best,
Frank

[The Baron]

Deleted

[The Baron]

Wrong thread, sorry

[Fiver]

2. It was dim along Buck's row and a dangerous neighborhood: any one walking it at that time should have been on their guard:
which would mean in particular, anticipating new sounds.

Robert Paul thought it was dangerous. Charles Lechmere had grown up in Tiger Bay, which Lechmerians love to proclaim was one of the most dangerous parts of the East End.

3. PC Neil, while occupied with investigating the body by feel & sight, immediately heard the footsteps of PC Thain from 130 yards away.
PC Thain had not even entered Buck's row, but sounds travelled exceptionally well down that narrow stone street aligned with stone buildings, with no gaps.

Period pictures show brick, not stone buildings. Bucks Row was not the echo chamber that some people make it out to be.

There are a lot perception variables that we don't have here. We don't know how good Lechmere's hearing was compared to PC Neil's. We don't know how loudly Robert Paul walked compared to PC Thain. Also, PC Neil would have been facing west, making it easier to hear PC Thain in front of him. Paul was behind Lechmere, making Paul harder to hear.

[Fiver]

4. Lechmere, on his guard walking up the dark street, should have noticed that new sounds were isuing behind him:
- modern theories on sensory perception dictate that novel sounds are prioritized in the auditory system
- repetitive sounds are de-emphasized / ignored by somatic nerves and the auditory cortex.

This supports Lechmere's account. 30 seconds after Lechmere entered Bucks Row, there would have been the repetitive, non-alarming sounds of some else walking into and down Bucks Row behind him. Not running, like they were trying to overtake Lechmere. Not mere seconds behind, like they were stalking him. The perfectly ordinary, repetitive trudge of someone walking well behind him. Just the kind of thing the auditory cortex would ignore.

Robert Paul was nervous about walking down Buck's Row, but not so nervous that he changed his route to work. But there's no evidence that Lechmere was even slightly nervous about walking down Bucks Row.

[Fiver]

6. Paul never mentions seeing or hearing Lechmere, until nearby the body of Polly Nichols

That's an inaccurate summary. Paul mentions seeing Lechmere in the middle of the street, which would be 3 to 4 yards from the body at a minimum. And we have no idea what the distance was between Paul and Lechmere - no one ever asked Paul. Paul did not state that he didn't hear Lechmere until he saw him. No one asked Paul when he first heard Lechmere.

7. Lechmere, after marking Paul from around 40 yards away, immediately discontinues his movement to the body: a body only a few steps away. Most here at this point, one would imagine, would make a quick check to ascertain the woman's condition before addressing the stranger.

Finding a woman collapsed on the edge of a street being an urgent situatin ..... life was cheap back then?

This wasn't a struggling victim, crying for help. It was a prone, unmoving, body - clearly not an urgent situation. Neither Lechmere or Paul ever treated the situation as urgent.

[Newbie]

Math analysis of the movement of Lechmere/Paul down Buck’s row

1. First, I will start off with my findings and then conclusions that can be derived from the findings.
2. Second, I will go over the analysis that produced these findings.

Findings:

1. Comparative speeds, distance of separation, times….

Yards Lechmere was ahead of Paul when Paul entered Bath street	Time for Lechmere to begin crossing to middle of street, hear Paul, and then see Paul for the 1rst time	Distance Lech walked up Buck’s row with Paul trailing	Time Paul was trailing Lechmere up Buck’s row w/o Lechmere knowing	Distance of separation with Paul trailing Lechmere up Buck’s row	Speed up Buck’s row Lech Paul
60 yards	6 seconds	70 yards	42 seconds	53 - 51 yards	3.6 mph	3.8 mph
60 yards	12 seconds	66 yards	40 seconds	60 - 61 yards	3.6 mph	3.56 mph
70 yards	6 seconds	69 yards	39 seconds	63 - 51 yards	3.6 mph	4.1 mph
70 yards	12 seconds	64 yards	36 seconds	66 - 62 yards	3.6 mph	3.83 mph

II. Time Lechmere waits for Paul, once footsteps heard, while standing a few steps from body of Polly Nichols:

60 yards	6 seconds	time between hearing/ seeing Paul 2 seconds	time of approach after being Paul is seen 21.5 seconds	total time that Lechmere waits 23.5 seconds
60 yards	12 seconds	8 seconds	23 seconds	31 seconds
70 yards	6 seconds	2 seconds	20 seconds	22 seconds
70 yards	12 seconds	8 seconds	21.5 seconds	29.5 seconds

Conclusion


A: “In general, the average jogging speed is 4 to 6 mph.”

https://www.healthline.com/health/average-jogging-speed


Option #1: Paul, who has walked this route for 10 + years, is going faster

than the speed we would expect him to proceed to make it to work at 4 am

…. he either is close to or exceeds the speed of jogging, while closing the gap to about 50 yards, right before Lech moves across the street, towards the body.


Note: 50 yards is 38 % of the distance over which PC Neil heard PC Thain


Option #2: Paul goes at an acceptable speed, and is 60 + yards away from Lechmere at all times, while going up Buck’s road. However, in this case we would have to believe that Lechmere waits 30 seconds for Paul to arrive, once he hears Paul’s footsteps, all the while standing a few steps away from Polly Nichols’ body.


Logistics:

A: corner of Bath/Forster to Brady street - 55 yards

B: corner of Bath/Brady to Buck’s Row - 15 yards

C: Buck’s row to Polly Nichols body - 130 yards

D: Total distance from corner of Bath/Forster to body - 190 yards

E: Distance of Paul from Lechmere once spotted on Buck’s row:

30 - 40 yards


Assumptions:

1. Both Lechmere and Paul both walk at constant rates of speed
2. Lechmere is 55 + yards ahead of Paul, once Paul enters Bath street

• this ensures that Paul does not see Lechmere under the lights of the Albion brewery 3. We will consider Paul as 40 yards away from Lechmere once spotted

on Buck’s row.

1. Lechmere’s daily rate of speed to Pickfords to arrive at 4 am:

1.8 miles/30 minutes = 3.6 mph
2. Paul’s expected rate of speed to arrive at corbett’s court - Spitafields by 4 am that day:

1600 yards /900 seconds = 1.78 y/s

= 3.64 mph

• from the entrance of Buck’s row, Paul believes he has 15 minutes to go 1600 yards

Additional assumptions:

1. Lechmere does not stop until standing in the middle of Buck’s row
2. It takes Lechmere 4 seconds to leave curb, walk to middle of street, hear sound and look back down Buck’s row
3. An additional time will be added to this for Lechmere to see Paul enter his field of vision from the darkness:

total time between leaving street and seeing Paul:


t = 6 to 12 seconds


Equations employed:


t = time from start to when Lechmere sees body

Total distance to body from Forster entrance: d = 200 yards

Lech

1. A ⨶ t = 200 - D : D = starting distance from Bath street entrance
2. A = 3.6 mph = 1.76 yards/second

Paul

1. B ⨶ t = 200 - ( 40 + x) :

x = distance Paul walks between Lech leaving curb & seeing Paul
2. B ⨶ 6 = x


Boundary conditions:

At start: Lechmere has a 55 + yard lead {60 & 70 yards}

At end: Lechmere is 40 yards ahead, when Paul is spotted.

[Newbie]

That's an inaccurate summary. Paul mentions seeing Lechmere in the middle of the street, which would be 3 to 4 yards from the body at a minimum. And we have no idea what the distance was between Paul and Lechmere - no one ever asked Paul. Paul did not state that he didn't hear Lechmere until he saw him. No one asked Paul when he first heard Lechmere.



This wasn't a struggling victim, crying for help. It was a prone, unmoving, body - clearly not an urgent situation. Neither Lechmere or Paul ever treated the situation as urgent.

You mean dead?

Than I agree,
absolutely no urgency required if it was a dead woman.

Are you arguing that Lechmere knew the woman was dead?

Again, I agree.

Good point!

[Newbie]

So, under the assumption of innocence we either have, in order to satisfy the 40 yard distance Paul was away when Lech spotted him:
* and I could have used 30 yards away, which would increase Paul's speed and decrease the distance of separation.

#I. Lechmere starting out less than 55 yards away, when Paul enters Bath Street,
where Paul should have seen Lech just ahead, and makes a critical ommision in his testimony.

#2. Lechmere starting out 60 yards away, when Paul enters Bath street, and you get either
Paul approaching the pace of a slow jog - closing the gap by some 50 yards (35 % of the distance PC Neil was able to hear Thain),
or you get Lech waiting by the body for 30 seconds, when adding 8 seconds between hearing and seeing that are not suggested in testimony


# 3. Lechmere starting out 70 yards away, when Paul enters Bath Street, and you get either
Paul jogging down Buck's row, or you get Lech waiting by the body for 30 seconds, when adding 8 seconds between hearing and seeing that are not suggested in
testimony
.

Why did Lech not hear Paul for so long?
Why is Paul's speed near to or exceeding the threshold of jogging while moving down Buck's row?
Why did Lech stand like a toad by the body, only a few steps away, for 30 seconds without checking it's condition?
Why did Lech finally hear the footsteps while walking?

Pick your poison!

[FrankO]

Why did Lech not hear Paul for so long?

Why did a guilty Lechmere not hear Paul for so long? Unlike the innocent Lechmere, he would have had every reason to listen for sounds and if he would have listened, we know from Neil's testimony that he then should have heard Paul even just before he turned into Buck's Row. And he would then have known how much distance (in the sense of approximate time and/or distance) he had to get away. Or at least, he would have known that he would have been able to get away before Paul would reach the body, and even further away before he could have raised any alarm, and even further away before anybody would react to the alarm.