Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[FrankO]

To Frank, You think I didn't answer your question but I did, according to Lechmere and Paul's timings there is a gap,...

I’m sorry, but you haven’t answered my questions, Baron. You didn’t tell me why it is that we should believe that both their timings were based on synchronized clocks, nor why we should believe Lechmere left his home at 3:20-3:30.

Again just claiming that according to Lechmere’s and Paul’s timing there is a gap, isn’t answering my questions. It’s just taking the hour that they mentioned – 3:20 or 3:30 and 3:45 – at face value and saying there’s a gap between them (after having subtracted Lechmere’s travel time from it). But 3:30 might just as well have been 3:33 and the Paul’s clock may very well have off 5 minutes, meaning that he, compared to Lechmere’s clock, left his house just before 3:40. If so, then there was no gap to speak of. Only in 'if-world' a gap may exist, but in reality we don't & can't know for the reasons I've already given.

but you don't have to believe it, and no conviction can be built upon it, equally you cannot throw this remark out of the window either, this is a concept that supports their theory, and it is a fair one at that, I'll give them that.

So, it has nothing to do with believing any timings per se, as I’ve now explained again. Timings can only be used as (very) rough beacons, not to make the point you and Christer are trying to make.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

I find this whole situation to be very strange. I would have expected Cross to have spoken to Paul when he first saw him saying something like " there's a woman lying in the road, come and see".

Hi George,

In the post you're reacting to I was only reacting to the 'allowing a man emerging from the darkness to approach and touch him on the shoulder without the customary fight or flight response'. I agree with what you write here now, that it's a bit odd that Cross didn't say anything to Paul any earlier.

But instead, after Paul deliberately tries to avoid him, Cross follows him and reaches out to...what? From Paul's perspective it could only be to commence an assault. I find it curious that Cross employed this tactic, and even more curious that Paul calmly allowed Cross to reach out at him. I can only suppose that fear caused Paul to freeze.

I don't read it like you do. I see Cross waiting for Paul and as the latter comes closer, Cross walks back to the footway where Paul is walking. Paul then steps from the kerb to walk passed Cross and while he's doing so Cross lays his hand on Paul's shoulder, to stop him, and tells him about the woman. I certainly don't see Cross following Paul and then reach out to... what?

If Paul did see it as a possible beginning of an assault, which I admit he might have, he may well have freezed, but he certainly never said so.

Cheers,
Frank

[The Baron]

Only in 'if-world' a gap may exist, but in reality we don't & can't know

And yet you open the if-world here:

But 3:30 might just as well have been 3:33 and the Paul’s clock may very well have off 5 minutes, meaning that he, compared to Lechmere’s clock, left his house just before 3:40

You don't notice the contradiction in your post but it is there, shifting the timings here and there to eliminate the gap works both ways, it can make the gap even bigger.

Yes, we take the timings at the face value because there is no way now to validate it, and we don't want to swim in the if-water.



The Baron

[The Baron]

I want to clarify 3 points I don't accept in Fisherman and Co. theory and I've always criticised him for them:

-The Mizen scam saga
-A guilty Lechmere keeping the murder weapon on himself
-The Torsoripper heresy


The Baron

[rjpalmer]

He may have been aware that he needed a time that would be compatible with his arrival at work at 4:00AM, which was very likely recorded by his employer.

Hi George. Happy New Year.

To each his own, but I don't see it that way.

Lechmere claiming that he left home at 3:40 a.m. would be pushing the envelope too far, perhaps, but I deliberately used that late departure time as an example of what a dishonest, improbable statement by Lechmere would actually look like. Saying that he left at "about 3.30" has the appearance of old-fashioned honesty.

Recall that Ed Stow thinks that Lechmere was a cunning psychopath who only a few days later would plan an 'organized' murder near Corbett's Court in order to implicate Robert Cross. How lucky he was to find a compliant Annie Chapman lingering in Hanbury Street at the correct hour.

Yet here Stow has Lechmere forewarned that Paul is going to claim that he was spotted in Buck's Row at 3.45, yet Lechmere nonetheless robotically sticks to his own 3.30 time of departure. That's not very cunning for a psychopath.

There would have been nothing odd in claiming that he left for work at, say, 3.35 and this would have gone a long way to defuse Paul. As the stopwatch timings conducted by David Barrat and Steve Blomer demonstrate, an adult walking at a hurried pace could have gone from Doveton Street to Broadstreet in 25 minutes, so it would have been "compatible" with this schedule. Nor would there be anything at all unusual in a man claiming he was running a bit behind schedule. It's common to be behind schedule, particularly in the early morning.

Cheers.

[Paddy Goose]

Good morning The Baron,

...Fisherman and Co. theory...

It's acually Ed's theory. He was posting here about Lechmere while Fish was still spending all those years and thousands of posts arguing with Ben on the Hutch threads. Actually Fish had no interest in Hutch until after he and Ben got locked in an interminable dispute on a Stride thread. Over a cutaway jacket of all things. Neither would back down an inch.

So one day Fish shows up on the Hutch suspect threads. Arguing against, you guessed it, Ben. This is where Fish learned the ins and outs of the ingrown toenail suspect mechanisms. How to pluck a name from the case files and fit the guy up as the Ripper. I read Bob Hinton's book which contained the Hutch part. Bob is very knowledgeable and also used to post here.

So anyway, after all those years arguing against the Hutch ingrown toenail suspect theory, Fish got the idea to come up with his own. He fitted up Joseph Fleming and wrote an article in Ripperologist. It was a pretty good article as ingrown toenail suspects go. Fleming was later certified mad if you recall.

But in the meantime, Ed was here on Casebook pushing his Lechmere theory. So Fish jumped ship from the Hutch threads, the Fleming thing and all that and went full over to Lechmere. He made the video, which I saw and wrote a book, which I haven't read. I've watched half a minute of one of Ed's U-Tubes.

So Baron, I understand Kosminski is your suspect, right?

It's OK to say yes. And of course it's OK to be here arguing the fine points of this one too. After all this is where we all gather now. Right here on the top line discussing Lechmere. The timings, the sight lines. The psychology of Cross and Paul's encounter. And to think Fish doesn't even post here anymore, Ed hasn't been here in donkey years and yet here we all are.

But yeah, it's pretty much been this way ever since the video came out ten years ago. There is something about an ingrown toenail suspect that draws people back, over and over. Go figure.

Again, welcome to Casebook.

[The Baron]

Yes, but if I remember correctly, Fisherman was the one who first promoted the Mizen scam and Lechmere the Torsoripper.

All that has led to deep discussions and elevated our understanding of the case, I believe Fisherman is an exceptionally geed researcher.


The Baron

[Fiver]

I find myself unpersuaded by the "gap" theory. However, I do find it curious that Paul was supposed to have walked about 60 yards down Bucks Row without hearing the footfalls, or seeing a moving silhouette, of a man in walking in front of him.

We don't know when Paul first heard or saw Lechmere, nor at what distance. No one asked Robert Paul, nor did he volunteer the information. It's quite possible that Paul heard Lechmere before he saw him, but didn't mention it.

I also find it curious that in a neighbourhood that Paul described as having a reputation for violence, he should allow a man emerging from the darkness to approach and touch him on the shoulder without the customary fight or flight response.

There is a third possible customary response - freeze. Robert Paul did initially try to avoid Lechmere, then may have frozen for a moment.

The whole bit does point strongly to Lechmere's innocence. Rippermere would have no idea what Paul had seen, so if he approached Paul, it would be to determine if Paul needed to be silenced. Paul "tried to give him a wide berth", which to any murderer smarter than a cobblestone would be evidence that Paul had seen too much and must be silenced.

If Cross was close enough to touch Paul on the shoulder, he was close enough for Rippermere to slit Paul's throat.

There's also the abject folly of Rippermere even touching Paul on the shoulder. For all Rippermere knows, he's just left a bloody handprint on Paul's clothing in a location where any constable could easily see with their lantern and where Paul will almost certainly notice the next time he changes clothes. Unless Rippermere is stunningly stupid, this would give another reason he should immediately murder Paul.

[rjpalmer]

Recall that Ed Stow thinks that Lechmere was a cunning psychopath who only a few days later would plan an 'organized' murder near Corbett's Court in order to implicate Robert Cross.

Obviously, I meant Robert Paul--the true 'problem child' in the alleged time gap.

[Paddy Goose]

Hi Frank,

I haven't locked the door to the possibility that Lechmere was guilty ...

I locked the door and threw away the key when Rob Clack singlehandedly demolished the theory here ten years ago.

[FrankO]

And yet you open the if-world here:

You don't notice the contradiction in your post but it is there, shifting the timings here and there to eliminate the gap works both ways, it can make the gap even bigger.

I actually did notice it and put it there for a purpose. You claim that "according to Lechmere and Paul's timings there is a gap". The purpose of my 'if' was to counterbalance your claim, making you see that such a claim only goes so far, or, in my opinion, not far at all.

Yes, we take the timings at the face value because there is no way now to validate it, and we don't want to swim in the if-water.

That's been my point all along, Baron.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

I locked the door and threw away the key when Rob Clack singlehandedly demolished the theory here ten years ago.

Hi Paddy,

Even though I was here when Rob did that, I sadly must have missed that. Do you remember on what thread it happened?

Cheers,
Frank

[Geddy2112]

There is something about an ingrown toenail suspect that draws people back, over and over. Go figure.

I bet you a shiny new 50p piece that that phrase will be used in a future HoL production...

[Paddy Goose]

Hi Paddy,

Even though I was here when Rob did that, I sadly must have missed that. Do you remember on what thread it happened?

Cheers,
Frank

Yes, I do remember, Frank. This thread, 'Missing Evidence,' prolly others too. Clacky tore it up limb by limb.

[Paddy Goose]

I bet you a shiny new 50p piece that that phrase will be used in a future HoL production...

The bet is on Geds! And I raise by adding a fish and chips from Ed's homeboys - Happy Days on Goulston.

https://happydays-restaurant.co.uk/