Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

Thank you, I couldn't find any reference to them meeting so it comes down to either Paul and Cross were telling fibs, or Mizen was.

The references are there. And if we check them before we post, much confusion will dissolve.

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

The references are there. And if we check them before we post, much confusion will dissolve.

All the best,
Fisherman

Last time I bother to thank you.

Pity you haven't bothered to check what Paul says about talking to Mizen.

Or what Cross says about not telling Mizen a policeman wanted hm.

Or what time the ear wtness says the murder went down [BTW 3:30]

[Trevor Marriott]

No. Nine minutes - and keep in mind that this is not any proven time! - would have been quite enough to walk Brady Street down, pick Nichols up in Whitechapel Road, get her to Buckīs Row and kill her. The distances are small ones, it is around 100 yards or so from the corner Brady Street/Buckīs Row down to Whitechapel Road, so that extra trek would have been covered in a minute. Add another minute to go back, and you still have seven minutes to spend.

And, once again - we do not know the exact time at which he left. But what we have is what we must work with, and as he said 3.30 or 3.20, we have either 9 or 19 minutes surplus time to deal with.

All the best,
Fisherman

Why take her to Bucks Row plenty of other killing locations en route I would imagine that on most roads people would have been moving about that time of the morning. So he would have been taking unnecessary risks by being seen walking with her and being found killing her, of course thee latter fits you theory, and that all it is a wild speculative theory

Much of all of this hangs on the timings and in particular the movements of the police officers coupled with the doctors timings. It only needs for one or more of these to be wrong and the suggestion that the victim when found was freshly killed is out the window.

To much emphasis has been placed on these timings. With regards to Chapman you seem to want to accept that she was killed as daylight was breaking to fit Cross movements but the doctor an expert witness, puts her time of death 2 hours earlier. So if he is right then your theory cant be right so who do we believe an expert witness or you,

Are you not seeking to rely on expert witness testimony to prop up your theory? Expert testimony can work both ways can it not?

Personally I cannot see a killer talking unnecessary risks and killing victims that late in the mornings.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

[harry]

So are we to believe that Cross intentionally left home early,with intent to murder,giving himself time to find and mutilate a victim?

I see nothing sinister in Myzen,when giving evidence,mentions one name only.As the two Carmen were together,the information given,might have appeared to him as coming from both.A common misconception.

[Fisherman]

Last time I bother to thank you.

Pity you haven't bothered to check what Paul says about talking to Mizen.

Or what Cross says about not telling Mizen a policeman wanted hm.

Or what time the ear wtness says the murder went down [BTW 3:30]

Thereīs a difference, Gut - I am aware of these matters, whereas you were unaware of the reference we discussed here.

Just because there are references, you donīt have to believe them. Sometimes there are contradicting references, even. But it nevertheless helps immensely if you are familiar with them.

Now I really have MUCH better things to do!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Fish, I am quite happy to accept Mizen's record as an exemplary PC as far as we know, but you too should accept Crossmere's record as an exemplary citizen as far as we know. Naturally these 'as far as we know' arguments prove nothing - they are just small points to be thrown in the overall mix.

What you are doing, though, is to throw Mizen's record into the mix, while refusing to throw Crossmere's.

As for Long, I don't think I have ever said that Long was lying about the apron. The most I may have said, is that both Long and Harvey were dismissed from the police in the same month of the same year (Harvey for reasons unspecified) and I feel there might be something behind it - but what, if anything, that something might be, we will probably never know.

[GUT]

Thereīs a difference, Gut - I am aware of these matters, whereas you were unaware of the reference we discussed here.

Just because there are references, you donīt have to believe them. Sometimes there are contradicting references, even. But it nevertheless helps immensely if you are familiar with them.

Now I really have MUCH better things to do!

All the best,
Fisherman

And that's why I asked and when you answered I said thank you, but you thought you had to have a shot at me not knowing the reference.

[Fisherman]

Fish, I am quite happy to accept Mizen's record as an exemplary PC as far as we know, but you too should accept Crossmere's record as an exemplary citizen as far as we know. Naturally these 'as far as we know' arguments prove nothing - they are just small points to be thrown in the overall mix.

What you are doing, though, is to throw Mizen's record into the mix, while refusing to throw Crossmere's.

Iīm afraid you are very wrong here. You postulate that we have it on record that Lechmere was an exemplary citizen.

We donīt.

Hereīs what you have to play with, Robert:

In what capacities are we looking at Lechmere and Mizen, respectively?

Lechmere - citizen.
Mizen - police.

So Lechmere was a citizen, either a good or a bad one.
And Mizen was a police, either a good or a bad one.

Do we have anything to tell us whether these men were good or bad in the capacities we are looking at?

Yes, we do - but only in once case: Mizen WAS a good policeman. It is on record, he was graded. He was weighed by his superiors, and they said that he was a good policeman.

How about Lechmere, then? Was HE weighed as a citizen? Was HE graded?

No he was not. And that is where the two differ, Robert. And that is why we cannot say that Lechmere was an examplary citizen "as far as we know". That makes it sound as if we DID know something, but we know nothing. Being married is not a merit. Siring children isnīt either. And being a citizen is something that is neutral.

As for policemen, it can be suggested that they take responsibility for the community they live in, and that they guard the good guys from the bad ones. As such, few occupations are more loaded with perceptions of a useful citizen than the policemanīs.

All in all, the two are not on equal terms at all, as you may appreciate.

The best,
Fisherman

[David Andersen]

Iīm afraid you are very wrong here. You postulate that we have it on record that Lechmere was an exemplary citizen.

We donīt.

Hereīs what you have to play with, Robert:

In what capacities are we looking at Lechmere and Mizen, respectively?

Lechmere - citizen.
Mizen - police.

So Lechmere was a citizen, either a good or a bad one.
And Mizen was a police, either a good or a bad one.

Do we have anything to tell us whether these men were good or bad in the capacities we are looking at?

Yes, we do - but only in once case: Mizen WAS a good policeman. It is on record, he was graded. He was weighed by his superiors, and they said that he was a good policeman.

How about Lechmere, then? Was HE weighed as a citizen? Was HE graded?

No he was not. And that is where the two differ, Robert. And that is why we cannot say that Lechmere was an examplary citizen "as far as we know". That makes it sound as if we DID know something, but we know nothing. Being married is not a merit. Siring children isnīt either. And being a citizen is something that is neutral.

As for policemen, it can be suggested that they take responsibility for the community they live in, and that they guard the good guys from the bad ones. As such, few occupations are more loaded with perceptions of a useful citizen than the policemanīs.

All in all, the two are not on equal terms at all, as you may appreciate.

The best,
Fisherman

Surely in the absence of evidence to the contrary we must assume that Lechmere led a law abiding, honest and exemplary life.

[Chris]

Surely in the absence of evidence to the contrary we must assume that Lechmere led a law abiding, honest and exemplary life.

In the absence of evidence we assume whatever will support our theory.

[GUT]

In the absence of evidence we assume whatever will support our theory.

Though to be fair, this isn't the only idea where that applies, it seems that anyone can say they solved it by simply ignoring the evidence.

[Robert]

Fish, let me explain something to you : when I say that Crossmere was an exemplary citizen as far as we know, I mean just that. It might be that he wasn't an exemplary citizen : but I don't know that.

Likewise, Fish, you are a decent citizen as far as I know. For all I know, you might regularly annoy your neighbours by playing videos of Bjorn Borg's tennis triumphs through their walls at top volume. But I don't know that.

Mizen was a good policeman as far as I know. Maybe he cut corners and never got found out. But I don't know that.

I was not praising Crossmere for getting married and having children. I was praising him for sticking around to look after them. Likewise being in regular employment seems to me praiseworthy. And taking time off work to go to an inquest.

I am assuming that you and Ed have searched high and low to find something in Crossmere's pre-1888 or post-1888 life involving criminality. You have obviously failed to find anything. That too is a point in favour of Crossmere.

In fact as far as I know, the only thing you have found that you don't like about Crossmere post-1888, is that he looked a bit defiant in front of a camera. Maybe he had a premonition that one day someone would call him JTR.

[Fisherman]

Fish, let me explain something to you : when I say that Crossmere was an exemplary citizen as far as we know, I mean just that. It might be that he wasn't an exemplary citizen : but I don't know that.

Likewise, Fish, you are a decent citizen as far as I know. For all I know, you might regularly annoy your neighbours by playing videos of Bjorn Borg's tennis triumphs through their walls at top volume. But I don't know that.

Mizen was a good policeman as far as I know. Maybe he cut corners and never got found out. But I don't know that.

I was not praising Crossmere for getting married and having children. I was praising him for sticking around to look after them. Likewise being in regular employment seems to me praiseworthy. And taking time off work to go to an inquest.

I am assuming that you and Ed have searched high and low to find something in Crossmere's pre-1888 or post-1888 life involving criminality. You have obviously failed to find anything. That too is a point in favour of Crossmere.

In fact as far as I know, the only thing you have found that you don't like about Crossmere post-1888, is that he looked a bit defiant in front of a camera. Maybe he had a premonition that one day someone would call him JTR.

What I am saying is that we have Mizen graded - we donīt have Lechmere graded.

When it is said that we must accept that Lechmere was probably a good citizen until we find evidence to the contrary, I disagree.

We should regard him as innocent until proven guilty, but that is another thing.

He could have been good and he could have been bad. Until we know what applies, we should not go with either choice.

As for Mizen, the exact same thing applied up til the moment his grading was found. Up til then, why would we regard him as a good copper, when we did not know? Or as a good one?

Now we DO know, however.

So itīs yes, Mizen was a good copper.

And itīs no, we cant tell whether Lechmere was good or bad, and so we donīt work from either suggestion.

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

And itīs no, we cant tell whether Lechmere was good or bad, and so we donīt work from either suggestion.

Yes you do.

You work from the suggestion that he was a liar, when there is a perfect explanation for the name.

You work from the assumption that he lied to Mizen, when Paul's version supports Cross more than it supports Mizen.

You work from the assumption lied about what time he left home.

You work from the assumption that he was a murderer.

[Robert]

(sigh) Fish, you talk as if Lechmere is a complete mystery. He is not. We know that he raised a large family, was industrious, and no shred of criminality attaches to him. This must be thrown in the pot, along with Mizen's police record, his stable marriage and his do-gooderism, whatever that amounted to.

Now, if you think that we should side with Mizen against Crossmere regarding what was said between the two of them early that morning, purely because Mizen was a good policeman, then as far as I am concerned you will be disappointed. It might be different if Crossmere was proved to be, say, an habitual liar. But he has not been so proved.

The clincher, of course, is that Paul backs up Crossmere's account, but you have an eccentric theory that he and Crossmere formed an 'entity' which meant that they could be together and yet be in different places. I have already said that I find this bizarre.