Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Herlock Sholmes]

<*boggle*...>




In other words, it took you literally one step to get from pointing the finger at Lechmere to the undermining of our entire legal system.

How does Lechmere do this to people? My question now seems even more urgently in need of an answer than it did an hour ago.

M.

Because the ‘case’ for his guilt is provably created by dishonest means. There is no case. It’s over. The fact that people continue is due to bias, self-interest and wilful gullibility.

[Fiver]

So Cross is opposite Polly's body about 12 feet away, in the middle of the road, when he realises the shape is the body of a woman, and stops walking. His footfalls are no longer echoing, and he is able to hear the footfalls of Paul following behind him, and waits for him to appear.

When someone is focused on one sensory task, the brain tends to tune out other stimuli. Once Cross determined that the shape was a woman, his sensory load dropped, making it easier for him to hear Robert Paul approaching.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the subject of how close Cross was to the body when he recognised that it was a body…

The problem is that, just as the ‘Gap’ was created by Christer we are in a similar position only we aren’t doing it deliberately…it’s simply a matter of differing interpretations.

Cross saw an indistinct shape when he was at the gateway of the Wool Warehouse and the reports suggest that he immediately stepped into the road. He then advanced until he was at such a point that he could distinguish that it was a body; and that point was in the middle of the road. This might not have been the literal middle though of course but it wouldn’t have much out either way. The problem is that we can’t know that he walked ‘as the crow flies’ toward the body. He was, after all, still walking to work. So the ‘middle of the road’ point could have been any point between the Wool Warehouse and the corpse. It’s only if we assume that he walked in a direct line between the two points that we can calculate the distance to the middle of the road.

Its an unknown.

[Mark J D]

... verbally lynched...

<*boggle*...>

... Stow is training his YouTube audience (all potential jurors) to think uncritically about what is and what is [sic] legitimate evidence...

In other words, it took you literally one step to get from pointing the finger at Lechmere to the undermining of our entire legal system.

How does Lechmere -- and he alone! -- do this to people? My question now seems even more urgently in need of an answer than it did an hour ago.

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can someone suggest a reason why Lechmere Denialist commentary should reach so readily for language that suggests a man dead since 1920 needs to be protected from the hangman? What is going on in people's minds that makes it appear reasonable to type stuff like the above -- or like 'putting a noose round the neck of an innocent man!' (to take another actual example from a couple of years ago)? Something about Lechmere's candidacy really does appear uniquely destabilising: I've never seen any row over, say, a deceased Zodiac suspect that includes someone shrieking about 'sending an innocent man to the chair!' or 'electrocuting a man on a slightly better than 50/50 guess'. Can anyone tell me what is going on here? Clearly, more is happening than simple recourse to convenient figures of speech: on some psychological level, Lechmere is being saved...

M.

I was just sitting here listening to my favourite album, Led Zeppelin’s masterful Physical Graffiti, turned up loud when all of a sudden the classic roar of Messrs Plant, Page, Jones and Bonham was drowned out by a deafeningly loud wailing noise. After a few seconds I realised that the Extreme Irony Alert was going off after your post where you criticise Roger for employing a well known phrase to describe an unwillingness to ‘convict’ a man of murder whilst, at the same time, you compare those that don’t accept that man’s guilt with those that deny the deliberate extermination of 6,000,000 human beings. Lechmere Denialist!? You couldn’t make it up.

I’ll treasure your post for a long time.

[Fiver]

But see here's the thing about the Ripper case. There is not enough information available to us for anyone's theory to even pass reasonable doubt, much less existential certainty. Most of the police files are gone (and would have been of dubious quality anyway), and most of what we have to work with is largely inconsistent newspaper reports (also of dubious quality). As I saw someone else on here say, it's a jigsaw puzzle with most of the pieces missing.

That's what's wrong with someone like Cornwell—not her theory per se, which is admittedly weak, but so are many others. It's her claim of absolute certainty that discredits her.

I'd love to be the one to solve this mystery, but it's not going to happen. It's not the reason for my interest in this case; I'm into this because it's fascinating, and entertainingly frustrating. It's basically an exercise in archaeology and philology, both topics I love. But nobody is going to solve it, because it's insoluble.

Promote any theory you like. Believe in the theory if you want. But claiming absolute certainly is a mistake.

Excellent summary.

A lot of people subconsciously treat the case as a whodunnit. In a whodunnit we have a definite list of suspects. In the Ripper case we don't even have a definite list of victims. In a whodunni all timings are accurate unless deliberate deception is involved. In the real world times are estimations based in unsynchronized time pieces of unknown accuracy, and usually rounded off. In a whodunnit doctor's estimates of time of death are accurate. In the real world, Victorian doctors had no accurate techniques and even today time of death estimates can be wildly off. In a whodunnit anything found is clue or a red herring. In the real world the found thing may just be a random bit of garbage or graffitti. In a whodunnit contradictory statements are a clue. In the real world, contradictions are usually the result of fallible human perception and memory. And if there are lies, they are more often to hide personal failings or exaggerate their own importance, rather than proof of guilt.

[rjpalmer]

Can someone suggest a reason why Lechmere Denialist commentary should reach so readily for language that suggests a man dead since 1920 needs to be protected from the hangman? What is going on in people's minds that makes it appear reasonable to type stuff like the above -- or like 'putting a noose round the neck of an innocent man!' (to take another actual example from a couple of years ago)? Something about Lechmere's candidacy really does appear uniquely destabilising: I've never seen any row over, say, a deceased Zodiac suspect that includes someone shrieking about 'sending an innocent man to the chair!' or 'electrocuting a man on a slightly better than 50/50 guess'. Can anyone tell me what is going on here? Clearly, more is happening than simple recourse to convenient figures of speech: on some psychological level, Lechmere is being saved...

M.

It's a metaphor, Mark. What should I have said?

"I wouldn't want an innocent man, now dead and thus far away from any harm, to be verbally lynched by Stow's supporters based on what was a 50/50 proposition"?

Considering that Stow is training his YouTube audience (all potential jurors) to think uncritically about what is and what is not legitimate evidence, I think a more visceral metaphor was entirely appropriate and that's why I used one with Great Aunt.

Perhaps the stakes are higher than you appreciate.

[Mark J D]

... I’m not going to hang a man on a slightly better than 50/50 guess.

Can someone suggest a reason why Lechmere Denialist commentary should reach so readily for language that suggests a man dead since 1920 needs to be protected from the hangman? What is going on in people's minds that makes it appear reasonable to type stuff like the above -- or like 'putting a noose round the neck of an innocent man!' (to take another actual example from a couple of years ago)? Something about Lechmere's candidacy really does appear uniquely destabilising: I've never seen any row over, say, a deceased Zodiac suspect that includes someone shrieking about 'sending an innocent man to the chair!' or 'electrocuting a man on a slightly better than 50/50 guess'. Can anyone tell me what is going on here? Clearly, more is happening than simple recourse to convenient figures of speech: on some psychological level, Lechmere is being saved...

M.

[Abby Normal]

How do you know? Do you know how good Cross' eyesight was or 100% what the lighting was like near the body? 'I would imagine...' <--- speculation your Honour!

hi geddy
yes it is. but the witnesses say it was very dark. he thought it was a tarp at first, that should tell you something and neither could see the wound to her neck. plus paul saying he was standing where the woman was indicates he was pretty close.
but youre right it is all speculation.

[rjpalmer]

to tell it was the body of a woman on a darkened street lech had to be at most 20 feet away .

Based on what?

The exact lighting conditions are not known. It's guesswork.

[GBinOz]

How do you know? Do you know how good Cross' eyesight was or 100% what the lighting was like near the body? 'I would imagine...' <--- speculation your Honour!

Hi Geddy,

I appreciate that you have committed to an opinion and now feel the need to defend it. Please indulge my comments on your comments.

How do you know? I know because I have done a re-enactment in a bright Australian sky, brighter than would have existed in Buck's Row. My eyesight is 20/20 according to doctors - a night vision comparison is unavailable, but could only be incremental. I urge you to conduct your own re-creation and come back to tell us what you could see at a distance of 60 feet.

The lighting conditions near the body are only a matter of your speculation. Neil was there on the night in question and testified under oath that there was only one street lamp working, and that was at the "end of the row". Can you present a refutation of this sworn testimony based on your own observations? He, and both carman testified that it was very dark. How do propose to refute this testimony as speculation.

There is an effort to use the testimony to show that Cross moved to the centre of the road as soon as he noticed a shape in the distance, 60 feet away. This doesn't pass the Pub test. He moved to the centre of the road when he was opposite the shape and at that point realised it was the body of a woman.

I don't wish to be seen as being unduly critical of you theory, but I find myself unable to reconcile the evidence with your distances.

Cheers, George

[Geddy2112]

to tell it was the body of a woman on a darkened street lech had to be at most 20 feet away . although by pauls description of " he was standing were tje woman was" i would imagine he was probably closer.

How do you know? Do you know how good Cross' eyesight was or 100% what the lighting was like near the body? 'I would imagine...' <--- speculation your Honour!

[Geddy2112]

How would he KNOW it was a woman from that distance .. in the dark.?.. men wore long coats and hats in those days too.

That is something you would have to ask Cross not me. I'm just using basic maths to put him where he said he was.

[Abby Normal]

to tell it was the body of a woman on a darkened street lech had to be at most 20 feet away . although by pauls description of " he was standing were tje woman was" i would imagine he was probably closer.

[GBinOz]

Hi George.

Let me expand. If understand Great Aunt, she doubts Lechmere could discern the body's gender from the middle of the street.

Lechmere does say 'come look at this woman' to Paul, but couldn't it still have been an assumption or his best guess?

And when he and Paul approached, and the body was indeed a woman (as opposed to seeing that it was a man) would he later recall that his assumption was just an assumption? Or would it have left his mind?

I think we are holding the witness too precisely to the English language just because he said "I saw it was a woman" at the inquest.

And as far as I know, the lighting conditions allowed him to make that determination.

Cheers.

Hi RJ,

I read Great Aunt as saying that she doubts Cross could determine the body's gender at a distance of 60 feet on a night describes as very dark, and I agree. The PC's and a Police Sergeant were not asked if it would have been possible to discern a gender at a range of 60 feet, and I suggest that they would not be thinking of that as a possibility for what happened.

What I think happened: Cross stated he was running late in his walk to work. He reaches a point in the vicinity of the wool house gate and notices a shape in the distance. When I did my re-enactment I first discerned the shape at a distance of 15 metres, but it was just a shape, not the outline of a body of either sex. As he is trying to make out what the shape may be, he is still walking. He wonders if it is a tarpaulin, while still walking. At some point he realises that the shape is the body of a woman. In my re-enactment, that point was two metres from the body replica if I walked directly towards the body from the 15 metre mark (I was then "where the woman was"), and four metres if I walked straight ahead and crossed opposite the body, that being approximately in the centre of the road. IMO, the latter better fits the evidence, with Cross just neglecting to say that he was still walking on the northern pavement while pondering what the shape may have been. So Cross is opposite Polly's body about 12 feet away, in the middle of the road, when he realises the shape is the body of a woman, and stops walking. His footfalls are no longer echoing, and he is able to hear the footfalls of Paul following behind him, and waits for him to appear. What puzzles me is that Cross chose to advance towards a man that was clearly trying to avoid him, reach out and touch him on the shoulder. I'm surprised that Paul didn't respond with a punch to the nose and a quick escape. Why didn't Cross just talk to him from a distance? Anyway, that is my current interpretation of the evidence.

Cheers, George