Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Geddy2112]

The same Paul whose acute hearing would have noticed the sound of footsteps in the night above the sound of his own footsteps as he walked down the street. Deaf as a post when it comes to two people talking a few feet away.
Or at we already at the point where the argument has reached the inevitable point where; "No one said he DIDN'T lead Mizen off down a sidestreet to talk in private, so you need to prove hat he DIDN'T do that!"

The theory is rather incredible when you actually sit back and think about it. The cherry picking of evidence and manipulation of the evidence is remarkable. One coincidence too many eh?

[Geddy2112]

Then again, it was never on in the first place because Christer was absolutely, 100% correct…when he said:

“No, Cross is not a very good suggestion as the Ripper. To begin with, at the inquest Cross stated that he heard the approaching footsteps of Paul from around forty yards away - but still waited for him to come up to the spot where Nichols lay. It was pitch dark - so dark that the two men did not see the blood running from her neck - and there must have been every chance to leave the scene unseen had he been the Ripper.

Also, if he WAS the Ripper, it would be a very strange thing to go looking for a policeman carrying the knife that killed Nichols on his person - for it was not found at the murder site.”

I think that we can safely write off Cross as a contender.

We certainly can.

That is the issue. I think it's admirable someone can change their mind when new evidence comes along, great. However the reasons Holmgren gave for Cross NOT being the Ripper are exactly then are they are today. So it begs the question why did he change his mind? *cough* book sales... *cough*

[Fiver]

So yes, they walked the same road, but that doesn’t mean they were marching in perfect sync like a victorian era marching band.

Congrats. You've committed the Straw Man and Excluded Middle Fallacies in a single sentence.

Back in the real world, lets look at what was actually said.

"Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-Street." - PC Mizen

"We left together, and went up Baker's row, where we met a constable." - Charles Cross

"The other man left witness at the corner of Hanbury-Street and turned into Corbett's court." - Charles Cross

"He and the man discussed what was best to be done, and they decided that they ought to acquaint the first policeman they met with what they had discovered." - Robert Paul

"Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-Street, and told him what they had seen." - Robert Paul

"They then left together and met a constable near Hanbury Street. Witness said to him, " There is a woman or lying down Buck's Bow on her back, and she looks to me he as though she were dead" '1he other man said, "I believe she is dead." The policeman said, " All right," and proceeded to the spot, and witness and the other man' walked together to the top of Hanbury Street. The other man went down Corbets Court." - Coroner Baxter, summarizing.

"On arriving at the corner of Hanbury St. and Old Montague St. they met P.C. 55 .H Mizen and acquainted him of what they had seen." - Inspector Abberline

Your scenario is contradicted by PC Mizen, Cross, Paul, Baxter, and Abberline.

People move differently, especially in stressful situations. And in this case, that small difference in pacing might have given Lechmere the perfect opening to say something Paul never even heard.

The Baron

Your version of the Mizen Scam makes even less sense than Fisherman's.

Paul probably blurted out the basics "There’s a woman in Buck’s Row, better check it out!" and then got frustrated when Mizen didn’t seem to care “a great shame.” Meanwhile, Mizen was busy calling people up, probably thinking, “Great, another interruption before my shift is over.”

This would be everything that Rippermere could dream of - Paul takes the lead in talking and PC Mizen could care less. Mizen doesn't ask for names or details. Mizen doesn't insist they take him back to the body. Rippermere just has to say nothing and keep walking and he's gotten away with it.

Instead, your version of Rippermer deliberately draws the attention of the constable and tells the constable that another PC wants him, implying it is urgent. The only way your Rippermere could be any stupider is if he started waving a bloody knife around.

[Geddy2112]

How anyone can fall for the Mizen Scam is beyond me. Even if you look at it logically you can see it never panned out that way. Ridiculous.

[The Baron]

The Cheese, the Mouse, and the Anti-Lechmere Delusion

Alright, let’s talk about basic logic. Imagine you open a box. Inside, you find a piece of cheese. That cheese has been nibbled. Next to the cheese, there’s a mouse sitting there, licking its whiskers, looking guilty as sin. What do you think?

You suspect the mouse, obviously. You don’t need Hercule Poirot to swoop in and solve this mystery, it’s right in front of your face. The cheese is eaten. The mouse is in the box. Case closed.

But then… enter the anti-Lechmere brigade. These people are like the ones who open the box, see the mouse, see the eaten cheese, and go:

“Hmm… you know what? I think another mouse snuck in here, ate the cheese, and then left without a trace. This mouse? No, no, it’s just an innocent bystander. Poor little guy. Don’t be so quick to blame him!”

Here’s the thing, nobody likes to admit they’re wrong. The anti-Lechmere crowd has spent so long defending this guy, they’ve convinced themselves he’s just a poor, misunderstood Victorian bloke who happened to bumble into a crime scene. But denying the obvious doesn’t make it any less true.

Lechmere isn’t just a mouse in the box. He’s the mouse with crumbs on his face, cheese stuck in his teeth, and a diary that says “Today I ate some cheese.” If you’re still looking for a second mouse, you might want to check basic logic first.



The Baron

[JeffHamm]

I probably would argue is someone said 'about 3:30am' then 3:30am is the least likely time they meant or they would have said '3:30am' or am I wrong?
...

Well, I suppose it depends upon how one views "...the time they meant" because 3:30 might be the most probable individual time even though the actual time is probably not 3:30!

A simple example is that if you roll two dice, the most probable total is 7, occurring on 1 in 6 throws. Other totals, like 6 or 8, etc, are individually less likely than 7. However, even though 7 is the most probable individual total, it is far more likely that any given throw won't total 7 (5 out of 6 times).

So if saying "about 3:30" is them "meaning" but probably not actually 3:30 (like the die total is most likely not going to be a 7), then it's correct. But if saying "about 3:30" is them "meaning" some other specific time is more likely than 3:30, I suspect that could be wrong. Unlike dice, of course, it depends upon knowing the distribution of "actual times" associated with someone saying "about 3:30".

For quite some time I've been trying to find some research on how accurate witness testimony is with regards to their statements of "the time". So when someone says a time, like 3:30, what is the range of actual times one should consider as the "true time"? I would want to separate testimony that's qualified (i.e. about/around 3:30) from when people given a single time (at 3:30), in case the ranges are different. Sadly, what seems to me to be a pretty important question, I've yet to find any studies on this. I might try and collect some pilot data on this question at some point.

- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

The Cheese, the Mouse, and the Anti-Lechmere Delusion

Alright, let’s talk about basic logic. Imagine you open a box. Inside, you find a piece of cheese. That cheese has been nibbled. Next to the cheese, there’s a mouse sitting there, licking its whiskers, looking guilty as sin. What do you think?

You suspect the mouse, obviously. You don’t need Hercule Poirot to swoop in and solve this mystery, it’s right in front of your face. The cheese is eaten. The mouse is in the box. Case closed.

But then… enter the anti-Lechmere brigade. These people are like the ones who open the box, see the mouse, see the eaten cheese, and go:

“Hmm… you know what? I think another mouse snuck in here, ate the cheese, and then left without a trace. This mouse? No, no, it’s just an innocent bystander. Poor little guy. Don’t be so quick to blame him!”

Here’s the thing, nobody likes to admit they’re wrong. The anti-Lechmere crowd has spent so long defending this guy, they’ve convinced themselves he’s just a poor, misunderstood Victorian bloke who happened to bumble into a crime scene. But denying the obvious doesn’t make it any less true.

Lechmere isn’t just a mouse in the box. He’s the mouse with crumbs on his face, cheese stuck in his teeth, and a diary that says “Today I ate some cheese.” If you’re still looking for a second mouse, you might want to check basic logic first.



The Baron

I'll have a pint of whatever you just had!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, I suppose it depends upon how one views "...the time they meant" because 3:30 might be the most probable individual time even though the actual time is probably not 3:30!

A simple example is that if you roll two dice, the most probable total is 7, occurring on 1 in 6 throws. Other totals, like 6 or 8, etc, are individually less likely than 7. However, even though 7 is the most probable individual total, it is far more likely that any given throw won't total 7 (5 out of 6 times).

So if saying "about 3:30" is them "meaning" but probably not actually 3:30 (like the die total is most likely not going to be a 7), then it's correct. But if saying "about 3:30" is them "meaning" some other specific time is more likely than 3:30, I suspect that could be wrong. Unlike dice, of course, it depends upon knowing the distribution of "actual times" associated with someone saying "about 3:30".

For quite some time I've been trying to find some research on how accurate witness testimony is with regards to their statements of "the time". So when someone says a time, like 3:30, what is the range of actual times one should consider as the "true time"? I would want to separate testimony that's qualified (i.e. about/around 3:30) from when people given a single time (at 3:30), in case the ranges are different. Sadly, what seems to me to be a pretty important question, I've yet to find any studies on this. I might try and collect some pilot data on this question at some point.

- Jeff

Christer tried to claim on here that if someone estimates a time then that time is the likeliest of all to have been correct. Par for the course I’m afraid.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Talking about an entire absence of logic and reason (due to bias) most of us will remember Christer’s classic ‘The Phantom Killer’ - oh what fun we had discussing this childish nonsense. This is his genius suggestion that if we have two suggestions: a named suspect and an unnamed one then the named one has to be the likeliest because we know who he was. Now some of you might say - “surely not, no one could come up with such drivel?” But yes, that’s the level of thinking when it comes to trying to shoehorn an obviously innocent witness into the position of a killer. You couldn’t make it up…well, actually that’s exactly what they have to do to promote Cross…make things up, and they do it all of the time on every aspect of the case. They even had to ‘make it up’ to con a QC into thinking that Cross had a case to answer (which anyone could see that he doesn’t)

We’ve already seen the stuff about Robert Paul in Christer’s humorous article. Paul said he ‘fancied’ that he felt movement. So what? We have PROVED how the word ‘fancied’ was used. He just got an impression. Nothing more. Are we expected to believe that Nichols was strangled, had her throat cut twice and back to her backbone, followed by some horrific abdominal mutilations and yet, a minute later she’s still alive. Perhaps she sat up and asked them the time but they neglected to mention it. I know that chicken’s can run around with their heads cut off but I didn’t think that anyone would stoop to applying it to humans.

Ahh, but then we have ‘agonal breathing’ which, when we read the description, sounds nothing like what Paul imagined that he felt. And we know that ‘agonal breathing’ can occur minutes, even hours after death. So how does that ‘incriminate Cross’? Well, it doesn’t of course but it doesn’t stop this silliness still being mentioned. The medical evidence in no way whatsoever favours Cross being guilty.

It’s like this lie that Cross was ‘caught next to a freshly killed woman.’ Obviously this isn’t just a lie it’s actually three lies in one which is quite an achievement even for Cross zealots. ‘Caught’ - he wasn’t caught unless it’s being suggested by the faithful that Paul tippytoed along Bucks Row in a pair of house slippers and arrived on the spot without Cross knowing (and despite the fact that he was seen in the middle of the road). Then ‘next to’ - clearly he wasn’t ’next to’ the body because Robert Paul tells us where he was, unless he was in on it. He was in the middle of the road which isn’t ’next to.’ ‘Next to’ is a lie told to make people who know nothing about the case suspicious of Cross. It’s a ploy. A con job. Then ‘freshly killed’ - another deception. We don’t know when Polly Nichols was killed. It could have been minutes earlier. The medical evidence doesn’t suggest that she’d only been dead seconds as the apostles try to claim. Christer’s Dr. Thiblin doesn’t even claim this. She could have been killed 5 or 10 minutes before Cross got there. We don’t know. So that’s 3 untruths in one regularly used phrase. A politician would have been proud of that effort.

So how does Cross appear to us. Was he lurking around hunting for victims? No, he was going to work as he did every day. Taking the same route (people don’t usually vary their routes unless forced to) at the right time. So…he looks like a man going to work - which is what he was.

Then does he do what the ripper did in all of the other murders, did he do what serial killers do unfailingly….scarper…escape. No. He stayed where he was waiting for the arrival of a complete stranger that he had no control over. So what does this make Cross ‘look like’? It makes him look like a man who has just found d a body. Which is what he was. On the decision not remain alone…we can dismiss Cross. This is proof of innocence.

They have a brief look at the body and go looking for a PC. How does this ‘look’? Well, it looks like 2 working blokes who came across a body and did the normal thing in trying to inform the authorities. Deeply suspicious….not.

They inform a Constable but there’s a bit of an unimportant difference of opinion on what was said. However we know that Cross and Paul were both with Mizen at the same time so for any lie to have been told Paul would have had to have been in on it…which is more nonsense. And we can’t help noticing. Christer believes that Paul found Cross at something like 3.44. So with a 4 minute walk they would have found Mizen at 3.48 but Mizen said 3.45. So he can’t believe that Mizen was correct. But when it comes to what was said then Mizen becomes Pope-like in his infallibility. The truth is that Mizen, like all human beings likely either misheard or misunderstood what was said. The two men were undoubtedly together so a deliberate lie can’t have occurred. So Christer, losing the argument as usual, out of thin air invents the Mizen Scam. If only life was that easy. If I’m asked ‘why didn’t you bring bread from your shopping trip” I reply “well, just before I got to the shop there was a bread robbery!” Making things up gets us nowhere.

But that what happens when you have no case. Inventions are required and, make no mistake, their ‘case’ is more full of inventions than The Lord of the Rings. The most famous, 100% proven-in-black-and-white example of course is in book and a documentary the word ‘about’ was deliberately omitted to create a misleading impression. Something that some people still fall for today.

This case is infected with Charles Cross. Absolutely innocent. You don’t need to make things up to build a case against a guilty man. The fact that so much is made up in the Holmgren/Stow roadshow proves my point.

[John Wheat]

The Cheese, the Mouse, and the Anti-Lechmere Delusion

Alright, let’s talk about basic logic. Imagine you open a box. Inside, you find a piece of cheese. That cheese has been nibbled. Next to the cheese, there’s a mouse sitting there, licking its whiskers, looking guilty as sin. What do you think?

You suspect the mouse, obviously. You don’t need Hercule Poirot to swoop in and solve this mystery, it’s right in front of your face. The cheese is eaten. The mouse is in the box. Case closed.

But then… enter the anti-Lechmere brigade. These people are like the ones who open the box, see the mouse, see the eaten cheese, and go:

“Hmm… you know what? I think another mouse snuck in here, ate the cheese, and then left without a trace. This mouse? No, no, it’s just an innocent bystander. Poor little guy. Don’t be so quick to blame him!”

Here’s the thing, nobody likes to admit they’re wrong. The anti-Lechmere crowd has spent so long defending this guy, they’ve convinced themselves he’s just a poor, misunderstood Victorian bloke who happened to bumble into a crime scene. But denying the obvious doesn’t make it any less true.

Lechmere isn’t just a mouse in the box. He’s the mouse with crumbs on his face, cheese stuck in his teeth, and a diary that says “Today I ate some cheese.” If you’re still looking for a second mouse, you might want to check basic logic first.



The Baron

This is complete rubbish.

[Fiver]

The Cheese, the Mouse, and the Anti-Lechmere Delusion

Alright, let’s talk about basic logic. Imagine you open a box. Inside, you find a piece of cheese. That cheese has been nibbled. Next to the cheese, there’s a mouse sitting there, licking its whiskers, looking guilty as sin. What do you think?

You suspect the mouse, obviously. You don’t need Hercule Poirot to swoop in and solve this mystery, it’s right in front of your face. The cheese is eaten. The mouse is in the box. Case closed.

But then… enter the anti-Lechmere brigade. These people are like the ones who open the box, see the mouse, see the eaten cheese, and go:

“Hmm… you know what? I think another mouse snuck in here, ate the cheese, and then left without a trace. This mouse? No, no, it’s just an innocent bystander. Poor little guy. Don’t be so quick to blame him!”

Here’s the thing, nobody likes to admit they’re wrong. The anti-Lechmere crowd has spent so long defending this guy, they’ve convinced themselves he’s just a poor, misunderstood Victorian bloke who happened to bumble into a crime scene. But denying the obvious doesn’t make it any less true.

Lechmere isn’t just a mouse in the box. He’s the mouse with crumbs on his face, cheese stuck in his teeth, and a diary that says “Today I ate some cheese.” If you’re still looking for a second mouse, you might want to check basic logic first.



The Baron

Thank you for the laugh. Your example is such a wonderfully over the top parody of the Lechmerian position. Anyone even slightly familiar with the Bucks Row murder will know that nothing in your intensely humorous post bears even a faint resemblance to reality.

[Fiver]

We’ve already seen the stuff about Robert Paul in Christer’s humorous article. Paul said he ‘fancied’ that he felt movement. So what? We have PROVED how the word ‘fancied’ was used. He just got an impression. Nothing more. Are we expected to believe that Nichols was strangled, had her throat cut twice and back to her backbone, followed by some horrific abdominal mutilations and yet, a minute later she’s still alive. Perhaps she sat up and asked them the time but they neglected to mention it. I know that chicken’s can run around with their heads cut off but I didn’t think that anyone would stoop to applying it to humans.

Ahh, but then we have ‘agonal breathing’ which, when we read the description, sounds nothing like what Paul imagined that he felt. And we know that ‘agonal breathing’ can occur minutes, even hours after death. So how does that ‘incriminate Cross’? Well, it doesn’t of course but it doesn’t stop this silliness still being mentioned. The medical evidence in no way whatsoever favours Cross being guilty.

If Nichols was still gasping for breath, then PC Neil is the most likely killer. If bodies bled out as fast as Holmgren claims, then PC Neil is the most likely killer.

Their own theorizing makes it impossible fr Cross to have killed Nichols.

[Geddy2112]

Has your account been hacked? Your posts seem rather different since you changed your avatar. Hope you are okay...

Here’s the thing, nobody likes to admit they’re wrong. The anti-Lechmere crowd has spent so long defending this guy, they’ve convinced themselves he’s just a poor, misunderstood Victorian bloke who happened to bumble into a crime scene. But denying the obvious doesn’t make it any less true.

OK, if you have to make stuff up to make a theory work then you do not have a theory.

Time Gap - made up
False name - made up
The Prop - it's fifty fifty on that one
Mizen Scam - made up
Blood evidence - made up
Routes to work - impossible to know

That is just a tiny piece of the Lechmere Theory and it's all been shot to bits.

Ask yourself ONE question if Robert Paul did not exist then would you ever even consider Charles Cross as the Ripper?

[Geddy2112]

Their own theorizing makes it impossible fr Cross to have killed Nichols.

Absolutely correct, on the video they invent a 9 min gap. They tell us it took 2 mins to kill poor Polly that would give Cross, according to their times enough time to get back home, but no he waits around for Paul. Ok sounds legit...

[John Wheat]

The idea that Cross was the Ripper is laughable and the continued quest to frame Cross is in bad taste.