Lechmere's Behavior in Buck's Row

[Lechmere]

Sally
Just so you know, as soon I sense the concern etched upon your visage, the 'over the body' quotes you like to refer to are invariably from the pen of the reporter covering the story. As I am sure you are aware, as in 1888 journos like to spice things up a bit - Fisherman bring the exception that proves the rule of course.

[Sally]

You ARE funny, Sally; and not only when you try to mock me for spelling things wrong, following that up with ... well ... spelling wrong yourself!

Yes, that was funny - I agree. I wasn't mocking you Fish, it was funny, as typos often are - that's all. If you have taken offence, I apologise.

Any quibbling of yours over the odd inch or two is therefore totally immaterial and has nothing to do with any productive discussion about the issue whatsoever. It is a total waste of time and a clear indication about what incentive lies behind: to try and nullify the potential implications of Lechmere´s standing by the body.

You have misunderstood, Fish. It has nothing to do with proximity, no: it has everything to do with the words that are used to describe the scene. Paul's words do not imply a relationship between Crossmere and the corpse; yours do - just as 'standing over' 'leaning over' and even 'crouching over' the body - which have all been written in recent times in support of your cause - also do. I'm surprised that Crossmere hasn't yet got a knife in his hand, but there's time yet.

Such implication - that Cross had anything to do with the murder he discovered - was not made at the time by anybody, Paul included. It is entirely your own [you in the collective here] latter-day creation.

[Sally]

Oh how the words twist and turn.
Lechmere was certainly seen close to the body. That's all that's needed

Sally you just can't stay away - just when you thought you were out, we pulled you back in.

Ah, Ed - who could resist your glossy prose?

[Fisherman]

The two are not alike, Fish.

The first - Paul's recounting of what he saw - is without any implication of causality.

The second, your interpretation of what Paul saw, is not.

It clearly implies a relationship between Crossmere and the corpse which is not present in Paul's account.

You ARE funny, Sally; and not only when you try to mock me for spelling things wrong, following that up with ... well ... spelling wrong yourself!

"Implication of causality", eh? How touching!

Robert Paul places Lechmere "where the body was". That means that he saw Lechmere standing by the body. That in it´s turn points out that Lechmere was close to the body. End of story.

If you think Lechmere was instead on Regent Street, fine.

Lechmere was not standing ON the body of Nichols. But he was a very short distance from it. And it matters not a iot whether that miniscule distance was a yard or three yards, since both descriptions are equivalent with a verdict of standing by the body, and since both descriptions allow perfectly for the scenario that has been proposed for Lechmere in the killer´s role.

Any quibbling of yours over the odd inch or two is therefore totally immaterial and has nothing to do with any productive discussion about the issue whatsoever. It is a total waste of time and a clear indication about what incentive lies behind: to try and nullify the potential implications of Lechmere´s standing by the body.

It has not worked so far. It won´t work the next time either.

But I´ll tell you what: you can always look for misspellings in my post instead! That may bring you a little catch every now and then.

The very best,
Fisherfan

Pssst! Look at the signature!

[Lechmere]

Oh how the words twist and turn.
Lechmere was certainly seen close to the body. That's all that's needed

Sally you just can't stay away - just when you thought you were out, we pulled you back in.

[Sally]

My interpretation? No. It was Robert Paul who said that the man he encountered in Buck´s Row was "standing where the body was". And if you are standing where the body is, you are standing by the body.

The two are not alike, Fish.

The first - Paul's recounting of what he saw - is without any implication of causality.

The second, your interpretation of what Paul saw, is not.

It clearly implies a relationship between Crossmere and the corpse which is not present in Paul's account.

[Fisherman]

Hi Barnaby,

What would you consider 'within seconds close'?

If Paul walked at a fairly brisk pace of 6 km or 3.7 miles per hour, then 10 seconds close would mean that he was 17 meters/18 yards from Cross, 20 seconds would mean 34 m/36 y, 30 seconds would mean 51 m/54 y and so on.

All the best,
Frank

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.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"Why do we need another way to express what we all know to be the truth - Lechmere was found standing by the body."

We know no such thing. That is your interpretation.

"Why the crusade to free Lechmere from something that does not even carry any accusation with it?"

Some of us desire accuracy--and truth. And our taste in puddings calls for fewer eggs.

Cheers.
LC

My interpretation? No. It was Robert Paul who said that the man he encountered in Buck´s Row was "standing where the body was". And if you are standing where the body is, you are standing by the body.

Some of us desire accuracy, yes. Like me, for example.

Others will have it that Lechmere found the body, something that we cannot bolster evidencewise other than by accepting Lechmere´s own words. There is no corroboration for it at all.

So stay a long way away from claiming that there is any overegging on my behalf. I am exactly on the mark - Lechmere was found by Robert Paul, standing where the body was.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

truth

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"Why do we need another way to express what we all know to be the truth - Lechmere was found standing by the body."

We know no such thing. That is your interpretation.

"Why the crusade to free Lechmere from something that does not even carry any accusation with it?"

Some of us desire accuracy--and truth. And our taste in puddings calls for fewer eggs.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Well, if he killed her, then he was better-placed than anyone to be the first to find her body

Seriously, though, the problem with "he was found by the body" definitely implies a sinister conclusion. "He found the body" adheres to the principle of "presumed innocent until proven guilty".

Starting off an argument with the equivalent of "he was found with a smoking gun" is loading the dice. If you're going to present a good argument, then it pays to present - and evaluate - the facts as dispassionately as possible.

How about as accurately as possible, Gareth - what´s wrong with that...?

Lechmere was found by the body. Or do you disagree?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Alright. "Near vicinity"? "A few feet away"?

Cheers.
LC

Why would we need to change the facts? Why do we need another way to express what we all know to be the truth - Lechmere was found standing by the body.
Why the crusade to free Lechmere from something that does not even carry any accusation with it?

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

If we knew Paul's shoe size, we could be even more precise.

[FrankO]

I think that there is a scenario. Cross is engaging in the mutilations and isn't aware of Paul's approach until Paul is very close. Within seconds close.

Hi Barnaby,

What would you consider 'within seconds close'?

If Paul walked at a fairly brisk pace of 6 km or 3.7 miles per hour, then 10 seconds close would mean that he was 17 meters/18 yards from Cross, 20 seconds would mean 34 m/36 y, 30 seconds would mean 51 m/54 y and so on.

All the best,
Frank

[lynn cates]

sort of

Hello Gareth.

"Hang 'em all."

And shall we let the good Lord sort them out? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

linguistics

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"The point I want to press is that we cannot treat it as an overall truth that he actually found the body."

Very well. And that may be true no matter WHOM killed her--for one may have, like the Pharisee, passed by on the other side.

""Found in the vicinity of a body" is better than "found the body", but being found on Batty Street on the night of September last would be being found in the vicinity of Stride´s body, so it is a bit inexact.""

Alright. "Near vicinity"? "A few feet away"?

Cheers.
LC