Lechmere's Behavior in Buck's Row

[FrankO]

I think, Frank, that it is a very hard call to make. Make, for example, the assumption that you can be more or less of a psychopath, that you may be more or less inside a bubble, that you may hear more or less well, that you may ...

What I was getting at, Fish, is that, in order to make an estimation of this ‘point of no return’, we need to focus only on the physical/biological possibilities, the cool figures if you will, and see where we would get at, before adding ingredients like psychopaths, bubbles, hearing or not listening, etc.

If we would do that, we might come to this simple exercise:
The distance from the crime spot to Whitechapel Rd. through Wood’s Buildings was some 135 m. If Lechmere would have run at an average speed of 16 km/hour (which is physically quite possible and a feasible speed), he would have reached Whitechapel Rd. in 31 seconds.

What distance would Paul have travelled in 31 seconds? He was late for work, so let’s suppose he walked at a brisk pace of 6 km/hour. Walking at that speed he would cover some 51 meters in 31 seconds . Thus, if Lechmere would have started to run when Paul was about 51 meters away from him, he would have reached Whitechapel Rd. the moment that Paul reached the body.

Depending on what one finds feasible speeds one might get to a point of no return between 40 and 65 meters.

All the best,
Frank

[Sam Flynn]

It is an established fact that Lechmere was close to the body

Define "close"... on second thoughts, Fish, perhaps not

whether he was one, two or ten feet from it is immaterial.

Compare and contrast:

"He was found 10 inches away from a smoking gun"

"He was found 10 feet away from a smoking gun"

(and, as a reminder, contrast both with "He found a smoking gun")

[Fisherman]

I'm good with a few feet. Anything riding on it?

Cheers.
LC

Nothing at all, no. It is an established fact that Lechmere was close to the body, and whether he was one, two or ten feet from it is immaterial.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

consistent

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"In the exact middle?"

Umm, I'll let you and Rob hash that out. I'm good with a few feet. Anything riding on it?

"You never disappoint, Lynn - one can always predict what you are going to say."

Now THAT'S one of the nicest things anyone has ever said. Really!

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Fish,

That was funny!

I've argued the same thing Fish. Exactly as you have. You may recall that I even argued that testimony that can be proven false isn't in fact evidence...which you disputed and said giving testimony is evidence and since it is the only record then it is so.

If you could just share how you are able to determine what is and what isn't true in testimony, I might be able to follow the Lech threads and posts easier.

Thanks Bud!

Cheers
DRoy

I can only say - as I just said - that Lechmere´s testimony IS evidence. But since it is uncorroborated it may well be false evidence.

I take it you are referring to Long now? It´s the same with him - what he said is evidence too.
It applies that it may be false evidence, since it is as uncorroborated as Lechmere´s evidence.
It equally applies that it may be good, useful evidence.
It is a lot less controversial in it´s nature, since it does not involve any possible culpability in a murder.

Whether it is true or not is something that is up to anybody to decide. To my mind, the certainty with which it was given makes for a very good case that it IS true. That, however, does not mean that it MUST be true. But since there is no contradicting evidence or any evidence to implicate that it was not true, it is a hard task for those who oppose it to make a case against it. It all has to rely on conjecture.

In the Lechmere case, there is evidence potentially pointing to him being the killer (the false name, the Mizen scam, the covered up wounds, the routes to work etcetera). There are good reasons to doubt his veracity. Therefore, the two issues are not fully comparable.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Well, if I had just killed Polly, I would have kept my ears wide open. It's easy to hear footsteps at night in a desert street (unless Paul had borrowed Macnaghten's shoes).

[Lechmere]

DRoy
I'm not privy to the incident when Fisherman was apparently insistent on sticking to a piece of evidence.
However, if we are in the role of judging Lechmere's actions on that night to determine whether or not he was or could be guilty, it clearly makes no sense to rely on his testimony.

FrankO
With respect to Lechmere turning and talking to Paul, the 'Lechmere is innocent' posters are determined that his action in turning - as opposed to running or walking swiftly off - make him innocent. They countenance no other option.
I would suggest that situations such as that are more nuanced, and as you point out we don't know many of the distances and speeds.

[DRoy]

Fish,

That was funny!

I've argued the same thing Fish. Exactly as you have. You may recall that I even argued that testimony that can be proven false isn't in fact evidence...which you disputed and said giving testimony is evidence and since it is the only record then it is so.

If you could just share how you are able to determine what is and what isn't true in testimony, I might be able to follow the Lech threads and posts easier.

Thanks Bud!

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

FrankO:

Indeed plenty of time to do either that or get out of there, Fish. And, obviously, the closer Paul came, the less time Lechmere would have to either prepare himself for his arrival or get away. There would be a point of no return. Until that point he could (regardless of whether he would) still have run and reached Whitechapel Road before Paul would have been able to ascertain the situation and sound the alarm.

You are quite correct, Frank: If Lechmere picked up on Pauls footfalls the moment he turned the corner up on Brady Street, there would arguably have been time to leave the street before Paul arrived at the body.

But let´s keep in mind that Lechmere said that he would have noticed if anybody was in the street as he turned into it. And we just can´t tell whether Lechmere would have taken the opportunity to leg it even if he could - that´s where I feel that people are not grasping the full implications of what a psychopath is.
Most people think that Lechmere would have thopught: "Alarm! Danger! Run!" in such a case.
But in actuality, he may just as well have thought: "Bugger - the nuisance! Well, let´s deal with this" or "Interesting - let´s play a little game".
It always remains a possibility that this was the only evisceration case where somebody happened upon the killer. I think that is an interesting possibility, at least.

Apart from this, we are always faced with the possibility that Lechmere was in that bubble you seemingly dislike so much, and did not hear Paul until he was some (unestablishable) way down the street.

Where that point lay exactly, we cannot know, as we don’t know how quickly Paul walked and how quickly Lechmere would have been able to run, but it’s an objective point and as such also part of the practical implications, Fish. We can play a little with the variables and see where it gets us, so that we have some idea of where that point of no return lay. Because, to me, it seems that some people don’t have much idea. Which is why I asked Barnaby a question.

I think, Frank, that it is a very hard call to make. Make, for example, the assumption that you can be more or less of a psychopath, that you may be more or less inside a bubble, that you may hear more or less well, that you may ...

That point is impossible to find. That does not mean that we cannot ask about it, but to the best of my understanding it is a question that cannot find an overall applicable answer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=DRoy;297722]Fish,

Actually based on the evidence we have (his testimony) he found the body. Whether 10 people found it before him or not, he is in evidence as finding the body.

It may be wise to admit that "the evidence" in this case is uncorroborated. What killers lie about to a jury and a judge is - by your reasoning - evidence just the same. And it is! But it is FALSE evidence nevertheless.

Good point! The evidence is he found the body so he couldn't be the killer.

It may be wise to admit that "the evidence" in this case is uncorroborated. What killers lie about to a jury and a judge is - by your reasoning - evidence just the same. And it is! But it is FALSE evidence nevertheless.

He testified to it and is thus entered in the evidence as that. Madness for following the evidence?

It may be wise to admit that "the evidence" in this case is uncorroborated. What killers lie about to a jury and a judge is - by your reasoning - evidence just the same. And it is! But it is FALSE evidence nevertheless.

Bias only if our bias is the evidence.

It may be wise to admit that "the evidence" in this case is uncorroborated. What killers lie about to a jury and a judge is - by your reasoning - evidence just the same. And it is! But it is FALSE evidence nevertheless.

Yes we do, if we accept the evidence.

It may be wise to admit that "the evidence" in this case is uncorroborated. What killers lie about to a jury and a judge is - by your reasoning - evidence just the same. And it is! But it is FALSE evidence nevertheless.

I've brought it up before Fish, you pick and choose when to accept evidence and when it doesn't suit you. You are one of the best at quoting evidence in any thread not related to Lech, yet when discussing Lech, you pick some and discount other evidence to suit the suspect. I'm not purposely attacking, I just get confused when you jump back and forth on Lech posts yet set the burden of proof impossibly high for any other suspect/topic to even be considered.

It may be wise to admit that "the evidence" in this case is uncorroborated. What killers lie about to a jury and a judge is - by your reasoning - evidence just the same. And it is! But it is FALSE evidence nevertheless.

All the best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

What we need to focus on here is that we have an overall stretch for Paul from the Brady Street corner down to Browns stable yards that would have taken him significantly more than a minute to cover.
That´s plenty of time for Lechmere to have discovered him, stashed his knife, arranged the clothing over the wounds and stepped out in to the street. Two or three steps would take him to the middle of the road, since it was not much more than five yards wide.

These are the practical implications. At what stage Lechmere first heard Paul is open to conjecture and suggestions, as is the question whether he would have run or not if he was the killer.

Indeed plenty of time to do either that or get out of there, Fish. And, obviously, the closer Paul came, the less time Lechmere would have to either prepare himself for his arrival or get away. There would be a point of no return. Until that point he could (regardless of whether he would) still have run and reached Whitechapel Road before Paul would have been able to ascertain the situation and sound the alarm.

Where that point lay exactly, we cannot know, as we don’t know how quickly Paul walked and how quickly Lechmere would have been able to run, but it’s an objective point and as such also part of the practical implications, Fish. We can play a little with the variables and see where it gets us, so that we have some idea of where that point of no return lay. Because, to me, it seems that some people don’t have much idea. Which is why I asked Barnaby a question.

All the best,
Frank

[DRoy]

This may seem to be fair and wise at first glance, Gareth. But it is in fact no such thing at all.
Saying that he "was found by a body" is factually established, whereas saying that he "found a body" tries to make a fact out of something we cannot check.

Fish,

Actually based on the evidence we have (his testimony) he found the body. Whether 10 people found it before him or not, he is in evidence as finding the body.

If he "found" the body, he could not be the killer. People do not first kill somebody, only to thereafter discover the body of the person they just killed, do they?

Good point! The evidence is he found the body so he couldn't be the killer.

This issue belongs very much to what has had Lechmere shielded from a critical examination for more than 120 years. All Ripper books invariably begin by telling the story of how "Cross" on an early morning "found" a body on his way to job. It is laid down and treated as fact by author after author.
Which is sheer madness - Lechmeres story was uncorroborated up til the moment that Paul got on the scene.

He testified to it and is thus entered in the evidence as that. Madness for following the evidence?

To claim that Lechmere found the body is to readily accept working from a bias.
To claim that he was found by the body is to accept that we should never work from such a bias, bit instead prioritize corroborated evidence over uncorroborated ditto.

Bias only if our bias is the evidence.

Did Lechmere find the body? We don´t know.

Yes we do, if we accept the evidence.

I've brought it up before Fish, you pick and choose when to accept evidence and when it doesn't suit you. You are one of the best at quoting evidence in any thread not related to Lech, yet when discussing Lech, you pick some and discount other evidence to suit the suspect. I'm not purposely attacking, I just get confused when you jump back and forth on Lech posts yet set the burden of proof impossibly high for any other suspect/topic to even be considered.

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Sorry to disappoint, but Cross was in the middle of the road. And please, no more measurements with Rob.

Cheers.
LC

In the exact middle?

You never disappoint, Lynn - one can always predict what you are going to say.

Fisherman

[lynn cates]

Ah!

Hello Edward.

"Lechmere was certainly seen close to the body."

Now you're talking.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

via media

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Sorry to disappoint, but Cross was in the middle of the road. And please, no more measurements with Rob.

Cheers.
LC