Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Fisherman]

There is a report of what Thain said at the Inquest which, to me, would seem to reflect what Neil actually said to Thain:
The Illustrated Police News reported [that Thain stated] that Neil said "For God's sake, Jack, go and fetch the doctor."
This, to me, has a ring of truth about it. I believe these are the words that Neil actually said to Thain.

Thatīs fully possible. The implications remain the same: Thain and Neil only exchanged the fewest of words, and it was a very quick affair.

[Fisherman]

rent claim to a newspaper reporter that he entered Buck's Row at "exactly" 3.Just to add for those new to this discussion who are impressed by Paul's appa45, there can be little doubt that this was a response (either by Paul himself or the reporter spicing up the story) to the official police claim that PC Neil had found the body at 3.45. The scoop of the story in Lloyds Weekly Newspaper was that this was the first time it had been revealed, over 24 hours after news of the discovery of the murder, that the body had been found by civilians. Paul's (or the reporter's) emphasis on 3.45 was to make the point that PC Neil could not possibly have found the body because Paul was in Bucks Row with the victim at that time.
e
From th above timeline I have posted, that could well have been absolutely correct. And, of course, Paul was right that he and Cross, not Neil were the first to find the body.

Two things here:

1. You write that "there can be little doubt" that the 3.45 time was given to embarrass the police.
I disagree. There can be A LOT of doubt about that. It is a possibility, but by no means something that is a near certainty.

2. Paul and Lechmere were not the first to find the body. It was never a joint venture. Lechmere himself was the first finder, and Paul joined him afterwards. How long afterwards cannot be established.

[Fisherman]

You see Fisherman, you have missed the whole point. It is YOU who is claiming that on the evidence there is a massive timing gap. Not me. You! The reason you are doing it (of course) is to establish that Cross had plenty of time to murder Nichols. What I am saying is that this is not necessarily the case and that the timings - on the evidence - can be made perfectly consistent with innocence because if it happened the way I've set it out there is no timing gap at all. None.

Of course, if you want to, you can create a huge gap by having Cross leave his house at 3.25 or 3.20 in the way you've already created one by having him leave at dead on 3.30. Heck, if he was the murderer we don't have to believe a word he says and he might have left at 3.00 or been out all night. So what I'm saying is that, sure, you can construct a 17 minute gap if you want to but please don't say that this gap actually needs to be explained or that it is suspicious or proves anything because you've just created it yourself in exactly the same way that I've created a timeline which fits with the evidence.

I hope you are understanding this. Basically it would be equally nonsense if I said that there is absolutely no way that Cross could have had the time to murder Nichols because on the evidence there is no gap there. You could then adjust the timings in the evidence (because they are all approximate) to show me that there could have been a gap for him to do the murder. Then you would be right and I would be talking nonsense.

Do you see this Fisherman? Do you follow me and understand me?

Why the upset tone? It cannot be good for the blood pressure, David.

I have no problems whatsoever to understand what you are saying. I think the problem we are mutually experiencing lies elsewhere. And that problem is one you share with many posters out here.
I will show you what I mean. Hereīs a quotation from one of your posts:
I remind you that this discussion began as a result of your claim that "Thain spent up towards 18-19 minutes on a walk that should have occupied around two minutes of brisk walking".

Here, you say that I claim that Thains walk took him 18-19 minutes. But that predisposed that the schedule I spoke of was in place. It was an "if-so" reasoning. It took itīs start from, if I remember correctly, how I said that IF Lechmere left home at 3.30, then he SHOULD have been in Bucks Row at 3.37, and the developments afterwards would in such a case point to a large gap of time on behalf of Thain where there should only be a two minute walk. I think the scenario involved Thain arriving at Llewellyns place at 4 AM, as is said in reports.
Other reports say five to four. Meaning that the gap would be cut to 13-14 minutes. Which would still be totally unreasonable.

The object of the scenario was to show how it seems more likely for Paul to have been in place at 3.45 to 3.40.

After that, you have stepped in and added time here and there, changing departure times to what you think is reasonable to allow for, putting Lechmere standing still in the middle of the road for a full minute, waiting for Paul, although it seems clear from the reports that Lechmere says that he heard Pauls footsteps immediately he stepped ut into the road. And Paul was hurrying along, meaning that he came upon Lechmere quickly.

Basically, you are saying that we can, with a little work and some generously added minutes, dissolve the picture that Paul was correct on the time Nichols was found. And you have showed that we can do that.

What I am saying is that much as we can do this (and we can stretch it even further than you do, all that takes is that we say "there is nothing strange with this"), the evidence given points to another picture than the one you propose.

At the end of the day, what I need to do when presenting Lechmere as a suspect is to show how he functions in the killerīs role, and that there are no obstacles to the suggestion. I am very aware that innocent alternative explanations can be used for all the elements involved. What I am saying is that it is the number of elements that is a problem for the carman. So it all boils down to the quality of the respective guilty and innocent explanations.
In this case, if we go by the timings given as if they were exact timings, we end up with a picture that fits Pauls suggestion of a finding time of 3.45 like a glove.
If we add a few more fingers to the creation, we end up with your kind of glove. Itīs still a glove, but it has got a number of additions. You need to say "but if it was not 3.30, if it was 3.33?", "but if they took longer to do the trek than Paul thought?", "but if Paul lied to get Neil in trouble?", "but if Llewellyn meant 3.52 when he said four or 3.55?", "but if, but if, but if...?"

Yes, obviously, if "if" applies all over the line, then we may need to accept that Paul could have been there at 3.40. I cannot dispell all the "ifs", of course.

But there is one "if" that I would like you to drop: the "if" I understand part. I have no problems whatsoever to follow your reasoning. I donīt think I am lagging behind you intellectually to such a degree so as to be disenabled to understand your reasoning. But that does not mean that I have to agree with you that a scenario where we push all factors in the same direction to reach a time we want to reach is as valid as one where no pushing is done.

Clever as you are, I bank on you understading that. And that was no irony, by the way.

[harry]

Seems that senior police did give considerable thought to the Nichols murder,as would be expexted.Timings and so forth.
Yet not a mention of guilt being placed on Cross.Nothing that suggests he w as considered other than just a witness.The press too,and there is nothing that suggests this view altered over time.Why would that be?My opinion is they considered the circumstances carefully,and that the evidence didn't indicate guilt.They were in attendance,on the scene,in contact with the participants.A big advantage.

[Billiou]

Nor do I see any time being wasted by Thain. Neil says that he called his colleague, and it seems it involved very little conversation:
Without disturbing the body he called a constable who was passing along Brady street. He came, and the witness said to him, "Here's a woman has cut her throat. Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn."
Why would he tell Thain to "run at once" for the doctor, only to then engage in a lenghty discussion with him about the aspects of the case, hidden from the inquest?
It makes no sense to me.

There is a report of what Thain said at the Inquest which, to me, would seem to reflect what Neil actually said to Thain:
The Illustrated Police News reported [that Thain stated] that Neil said "For God's sake, Jack, go and fetch the doctor."
This, to me, has a ring of truth about it. I believe these are the words that Neil actually said to Thain.

[Columbo]

He lived about 60 seconds away from Bucks Row.

I'm suggesting that Paul was no more than a minute behind Cross. In fact, as Cross was turning into Buck's Row, Paul was probably leaving his house. By the time Cross has worked out that the bundle on the floor is a body he can hear Paul entering Buck's Row.

60 seconds? I didn't know he was that close.

You're suggestion is, of course, extremely possible. It would explain why they didn't see one another.

I appreciate the info.

Columbo.

[Hercule Poirot]

Hi Hercule,

Einstein was not an historian. But thanks anyway!

Kind regards, Pierre

I simply offered an example in the science domain which history is part of. Anyway, regardless of my example, the point I made remains.

Respectfully,
Hercule Poirot

[David Orsam]

It is made through the problems of validity of giving a timeline based on minutes from various newspapers. And why spend years on minutes?

That's not the problem Pierre. It is the problem of validity of giving a timeline based on witness approximations of the times they did something without any explanations provided of how they fixed the (approximate) timings that they offered in their evidence. It's got nothing to do with newspapers and would be the exact same problem if we had copies of the official witness depositions.

[David Orsam]

So explain to me before I go to bed, David; when you concoct your tailormade timeline, pushing things to reach your goal, it becomes every bit as viable as my timeline is.
But when I use the times that were actually given, I end up with nonsense.

How does that work?

You see Fisherman, you have missed the whole point. It is YOU who is claiming that on the evidence there is a massive timing gap. Not me. You! The reason you are doing it (of course) is to establish that Cross had plenty of time to murder Nichols. What I am saying is that this is not necessarily the case and that the timings - on the evidence - can be made perfectly consistent with innocence because if it happened the way I've set it out there is no timing gap at all. None.

Of course, if you want to, you can create a huge gap by having Cross leave his house at 3.25 or 3.20 in the way you've already created one by having him leave at dead on 3.30. Heck, if he was the murderer we don't have to believe a word he says and he might have left at 3.00 or been out all night. So what I'm saying is that, sure, you can construct a 17 minute gap if you want to but please don't say that this gap actually needs to be explained or that it is suspicious or proves anything because you've just created it yourself in exactly the same way that I've created a timeline which fits with the evidence.

I hope you are understanding this. Basically it would be equally nonsense if I said that there is absolutely no way that Cross could have had the time to murder Nichols because on the evidence there is no gap there. You could then adjust the timings in the evidence (because they are all approximate) to show me that there could have been a gap for him to do the murder. Then you would be right and I would be talking nonsense.

Do you see this Fisherman? Do you follow me and understand me?

[Pierre]

Interpretation and validity are two different paths. An interpretation can often deem to be true or false regardless of the validity of the sources. It's what happened to Einstein's theory when he came out with E=MC square!!

Respectfully,
Hercule Poirot

Hi Hercule,

Einstein was not an historian. But thanks anyway!

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

So explain to me before I go to bed, David; when you concoct your tailormade timeline, pushing things to reach your goal, it becomes every bit as viable as my timeline is.
But when I use the times that were actually given, I end up with nonsense.

How does that work?

It is made through the problems of validity of giving a timeline based on minutes from various newspapers. And why spend years on minutes?

[Hercule Poirot]

Hi Fisherman,
...And the minutes described in statements in newspapers differ and must be interpreted. This means low validity.
Kind regards, Pierre

Interpretation and validity are two different paths. An interpretation can often deem to be true or false regardless of the validity of the sources. It's what happened to Einstein's theory when he came out with E=MC square!!

Respectfully,
Hercule Poirot

[Fisherman]

There are other papers that say "about" 3.30 Fisherman. And don't forget that The Morning Advertiser, Morning Post and Evening Standard all carried the exact same report so they only count as one.

You have totally overlooked the central point I made which is that it would be strange for a newspaper reporter to add the word "about" to his report of the evidence whereas it is perfectly understandable that it would be removed because, apart from anything else, it makes the report shorter and provides clarity for the reader (albeit on a false basis). I can't think of a single reason for so many reporters to have added in the word "about" to their respective reports if Cross hadn't used it. The conclusion is obvious that Cross said "about".

In any event, given that so many newspapers used the word "about", it's perfectly acceptable for me to work on the basis that Cross said that he left his house at "about" 3.30 and thus your allegation that I have changed the evidence and altered the timings not only fails miserably but your belief that there is somehow a 16 or 17 minute gap in the evidence is exposed as nonsense too.

So explain to me before I go to bed, David; when you concoct your tailormade timeline, pushing things to reach your goal, it becomes every bit as viable as my timeline is.
But when I use the times that were actually given, I end up with nonsense.

How does that work?

[Pierre]

Well, we canīt have that, can we?

Lechmere said he left home at 3.30. We have the wording in for example the Morning Advertiser: "On Friday morning I left home at half past three." He did not say that it was an approximation. Other papers say "about", but they don+t work from the assumption that we must add or detract time. Nor do I. If I would, it could equally have been 3.27 instead of 3.33, but the gist of the matter is that when the evidence says 3.30 and we take it upon ourselves to add or detract time, we will move away from what the evidence says.
Just like you say, we may in fact move away to the exact point in time that applied, but we will nevertheless move away from it. And the more consequent we are by pushing all the evidence in the same direction throughout, the more likely we will be to get it wrong.

That is what I meant, and I am sorry if I offended you. Now, may I bow out of the discussion?

Hi Fisherman,

It seems very important to establish a high substantial significance for data based on interpretations of minutes in newspaper articles - but there is not one single source indicating that Lechmere killed one of the other victims.

In this context, the minutes become unimportant and the substantial significance for data underlying the hypothesis that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper become very weak.

And the minutes described in statements in newspapers differ and must be interpreted. This means low validity.

Grand theory, very sparse and weak data.

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

So Paul leaves home a little before a quarter to 4, or shall we say a few minutes before he discovered Cross with the body.

Are you suggesting that Cross spent 3 or more minutes with the body before Paul showed up? They obviously didn't find it together and Cross and Paul never saw each other on the way to work. If they were only 40 yards away, Paul should've heard or seen him which would exonerate Cross, since he had not discovered the body yet.

So with your timeline when Paul left home, Cross was already with the body.

Was it 3 minutes, 4 minutes, 2 minutes,? Has anyone ever timed Paul's walk to Buck's Row?

He lived about 60 seconds away from Bucks Row.

I'm suggesting that Paul was no more than a minute behind Cross. In fact, as Cross was turning into Buck's Row, Paul was probably leaving his house. By the time Cross has worked out that the bundle on the floor is a body he can hear Paul entering Buck's Row.