Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[David Orsam]

Do you have your data posted somewhere? I'm seriously asking, not joking around. I'd like to see a comparison.

Yes, the thread is here Columbo:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8558

You need to read both #1 and #16 because I did two separate exercises having initially been misled by the TV documentary which said "the street layout is the same now as it was over a century ago". It turns out it isn't!

[Abby Normal]

I'm sure Fish will ask! He has to...

Well it dosnt look like he will, according to the last few posts.

so please pray tell!!!

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Cross running late for work comes from the inquest evidence of Cross reported in the Daily Telegraph when the coroner asked him if the other man (Paul) told him who he was, to which Cross replied:

"No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself."

So this is certainly referring to a point in time after stopping to examine the body and possibly referring to a conversation between the two of them as they continued to walk for work and were discussing who should go and look for the policeman. The very fact of stopping to look at the body could have knocked Cross off his timetable and now made him late for work.

Consequences? Well if he had left reasonably on time, say shortly after 3.30, it would mean he would not necessarily have been walking quickly. He might have been strolling to work but the delay caused by finding the body made him late. In other words, the 7 minutes that Fisherman has timed the walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row might have been 8 or 9 minutes.

It should be noted incidentally that, contrary to what was stated in the TV documentary, the route from Doveton Street to Bucks Row is not the same today as it was in 1888 so timings cannot be made with any degree of certainty. And it would only have needed Cross to be delayed by something like having to tie his shoelace or waiting to cross the road until some carriages had passed down the street and a whole minute or two could easily have got swallowed up.

Thank you David

[Columbo]

Has anyone else collected data onsite like Fisherman and David?

Columbo

[Columbo]

Oh very good Pierre, your put downs are absolutely sensational.



That just shows what little you know Pierre because I have collected data on this issue, having timed the walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row at a number of different walking speeds.



Are you incapable of asking me these stupid and meaningless questions yourself then?

Do you have your data posted somewhere? I'm seriously asking, not joking around. I'd like to see a comparison.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Are we gonna get back to the other murders soon?

Columbo

[David Orsam]

Thanks for the advice, but the lesser time I spend on David, the better.

The better for you, for sure. Very revealing Fisherman: because I am asking you questions which are too difficult for you to answer honestly, no doubt.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

The procedure you are discussing with David, or trying to discuss, since David is unclear, is a normal scientific procedure and there are real words for it.

What you have done, researching Lechmere, is:

1. Data collecting (data for Lechmere and for the murders)
2. Using explicit and systematic methods for data analysis (I hope)
3. Interpretation(s) of the data

David has done no data collecting for Lechmere as far as I know.

And he is trying to give everyone here the impression that he is offering another interpretation - which he is not, since he has not used any explicit and systematic method(s) for analysis of your data.

So ask him what his methods are.

Has David performed an internal and external source criticism?
Has David analysed all the sources systematically?
What sorts of perspectives, classifications and operationalisations of concepts from the sources is David using for his analysis?

And so on and so forth.

He must have used those to get to his "results".

I do not believe that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper but I believe that academic thinking can help us find Jack the Ripper.

Regards, Pierre

Thanks for the advice, but the lesser time I spend on David, the better.

[Fisherman]

You seem to me to be rambling now Fisherman, in a pretty incomprehensible way. Just thought you should know.

Yeah, just run - donīt face the issue. Wait - where have I heard that before...?

[David Orsam]

The procedure you are discussing with David, or trying to discuss, since David is unclear

Oh very good Pierre, your put downs are absolutely sensational.

David has done no data collecting for Lechmere as far as I know.

That just shows what little you know Pierre because I have collected data on this issue, having timed the walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row at a number of different walking speeds.

So ask him what his methods are.

Has David performed an internal and external source criticism?
Has David analysed all the sources systematically?
What sorts of perspectives, classifications and operationalisations of concepts from the sources is David using for his analysis?

Are you incapable of asking me these stupid and meaningless questions yourself then?

[David Orsam]

I'm not sure if Fish will, but I will ask-what is it?

I'm sure Fish will ask! He has to...

[David Orsam]

Hi David
I have also in the past been intrigued by the possible time gap argument, but in your debating you made me realize something I had not thought of before-that if lech had only stated he was late for work AFTER he dallied around in Bucks row, then that may be the reason he said he was late and not because he left home late. Subtle point but well taken.

I'm still undecided on the issue, but if someone can show at what point he said it in his travels then it would be a substantial argument.

Hi Abby,

Cross running late for work comes from the inquest evidence of Cross reported in the Daily Telegraph when the coroner asked him if the other man (Paul) told him who he was, to which Cross replied:

"No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself."

So this is certainly referring to a point in time after stopping to examine the body and possibly referring to a conversation between the two of them as they continued to walk for work and were discussing who should go and look for the policeman. The very fact of stopping to look at the body could have knocked Cross off his timetable and now made him late for work.

Consequences? Well if he had left reasonably on time, say shortly after 3.30, it would mean he would not necessarily have been walking quickly. He might have been strolling to work but the delay caused by finding the body made him late. In other words, the 7 minutes that Fisherman has timed the walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row might have been 8 or 9 minutes.

It should be noted incidentally that, contrary to what was stated in the TV documentary, the route from Doveton Street to Bucks Row is not the same today as it was in 1888 so timings cannot be made with any degree of certainty. And it would only have needed Cross to be delayed by something like having to tie his shoelace or waiting to cross the road until some carriages had passed down the street and a whole minute or two could easily have got swallowed up.

[David Orsam]

No, you wonīt. You are merely making the assumption that this is so. You think it "seems" to be so.
But it can be the other way around. And according to the exact reasoning you employ, you are therefore now making an argument that is indefensible.

Karmaīs a bitch, David.

You seem to me to be rambling now Fisherman, in a pretty incomprehensible way. Just thought you should know.

[Pierre]

That you cannot make yourself any clearer. So far, you have utterly failed to impress upon me that you have any sort of viable point. Unless that point is that we sometimes get timings wrong. In which case it is not exactly any revolutionary thinking you bring to the table.

And you "want to go forward in the discussion"...? Thanks, but no thanks. Enough is enough.

Hi Fisherman,

The procedure you are discussing with David, or trying to discuss, since David is unclear, is a normal scientific procedure and there are real words for it.

What you have done, researching Lechmere, is:

1. Data collecting (data for Lechmere and for the murders)
2. Using explicit and systematic methods for data analysis (I hope)
3. Interpretation(s) of the data

David has done no data collecting for Lechmere as far as I know.

And he is trying to give everyone here the impression that he is offering another interpretation - which he is not, since he has not used any explicit and systematic method(s) for analysis of your data.

So ask him what his methods are.

Has David performed an internal and external source criticism?
Has David analysed all the sources systematically?
What sorts of perspectives, classifications and operationalisations of concepts from the sources is David using for his analysis?

And so on and so forth.

He must have used those to get to his "results".

I do not believe that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper but I believe that academic thinking can help us find Jack the Ripper.

Regards, Pierre

[Columbo]

You did not "imply" that David didn't have new ideas, Columbo. You flatly stated it. And you now you apologize for any perceived "dis-respect" and say that there was "none intended"?

I don't intentionally disrespect anyone, I simply stated, I guess rather poorly, that I didn't think you, David and others brought any new ideas to this thread. I didn't mean for that to imply you or David didn't have new ideas. There was just this tedious going around about timing that really should've ended several pages back and nothing fresh was coming out of that tedium.

Columbo