Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[David Orsam]

But in such a case, we need to accept that Neil was in place at 3.40, and he should have spoken to Thain at around 3.41-3.42, sending him to fetch Llewellyn. And if this was what happened, then Thain spent up towards 18-19 minutes on a walk that should have occupied around two minutes of brisk walking.

This is so wrong. If the body was discovered by Cross and Paul at about 3.40, allowing them a few minutes to examine the body and go off to look for Mizen (who said they found him at about 3.45), Neil would have discovered the body at about 3.45. It might have taken a few minutes for Thain to appear while he was working out what to do. He and Thain might have had a chat about the situation so that Thain didn't go off to find the doctor until after 3:50. You seem to assume that the doctor leapt out of bed once Thain rang the doorbell. Thain might have first had to get the servant or housemaid out of bed, who needed a few minutes to get dressed then wake up the doctor who needed to get dressed and perhaps have something to eat and drink before noting that it was "about five minutes to four" (as he said in a statement issued to the press on 31 August).

[David Orsam]

If we instead accept that Paul was correct when he said that he walked down Bucks Row at EXACTLY 3.45.

We've been over this so many times; Paul didn't say this in his testimony at the inquest. Nor do we know if he ever said it. It comes from a newspaper report which contains definite inaccuracies and might well have been a reporter's poorly recollected summary of what he had been told by Paul rather than a verbatim account. At the inquest, Paul simply said that he left home at "about a quarter to four" (alternatively, in some reports "just before"). It doesn't matter though because Paul's timing could have easily been wrong by five minutes

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

I have to agree with you on this. I would hope that Swanson would include at least a range and not make his own judgement and set a time he doesn't know is accurate or not.

But even given a 5 minute discrepancy, Fisherman is right in that Cross should not have been there in Buck's Row at 3:45 or 3:40.

Columbo

Hi Columbo,

Why is Fisherman right that Cross should not have been in Bucks Row at 3.45 or 3.40? He does not know what time Cross left his house. The best we can do, based on Cross's evidence, is say that it was "about 3.30". That could easily be plus or minus 5 minutes or even 10 minutes. It was about a 7-10 minute walk from Cross's house to the spot in Bucks Row where the body was found depending on the pace Cross walked. On his own account, Cross could easily have been there at 3.40, which is no doubt why Abberline put that time in his report.

Just to add regarding the discussion about Cross being late for work, this was after he stopped to look at the body with Paul, chat with Paul and go off to search for Mizen. After that of course he was running late but we don't know if he was running late when he left his house, hence we can't say whether he was walking fast or slow at that time.

[David Orsam]

Why you should find it "disappointing", I fail to see - I am stating that it is my belief that this was what happened, not that it is a fact.

As for comparisons with other cases, I remain at the stance you seem to dislike: I donīt judge the Nichols case by the Chapman case time handling. It is interesting per se, but not applicable as such.

The fact that Swanson's timings are not accurate in the Chapman case must provide a strong indication that they are not accurate in the Nichols case either. My disappointment is based on the fact that you fail even to consider the point and affect to treat it as of no significance, continuing to maintain that Swanson must have re-investigated the issue, and corrected Abberline's timeline of events by five minutes, when this would appear to be unlikely in the extreme.

[Patrick S]

Well you do seem to have a vendetta against this guy. you challenge him to a debate on another thread, you mock that he had a documentary, and you continue to insult those who think this is plausible. I would call that rude and childish, but even that's not important.

I'll tell you what I've posted elsewhere. Lechmere is not an airtight suspect. He has problems as a suspect. I think we can all agree to that. I don't know if he killed Nichols anymore than you, or Fisherman or anyone on this board. I simply suggest that it's a solid theory backed up with great research. that's all.

I am in agreement with you that JTR was lost to history and probably was never in the police files or even on their radar. He was a nobody who probably got away with murder.

But I don't know that as a fact, which is why we have websites and forums such as this. The theories I think are plausible I agree with. the ones I disagree with I don't even bother arguing about. Look how offended and how much time you spent on this thread being defensive, offensive, condescending and obnoxious. But when you say something worthwhile you'll see that I agreed with you. I suggest having more fun and have an open mind.

Fisherman has been nothing but polite to me. I can see where he also has been belittling to others but I kinda chalk that up to the European/Swedish sense of dry humor, along with frustration. All of us do that, except I'm American and when we fight we're ruthless and not as nice as you or fisherman are to each other.

I like joking back and forth, but getting nasty with me will get you nowhere.

Now bring on the facts!!

Columbo

I'm an American, too, Columbo. And I'm not really interested in your thoughts on Jack the Ripper, European/Swedish senses of humor, or much of anything else for that matter. I don't recall asking for them. You may have more fun in "Pub Talk". You asked why I was dismissive of "Fisherman's" Lechmere theory, I told you.

[Fisherman]

Upon comparing the two carmen, however, it's interesting to note that Paul exaggerated his role in the discovery of the body, while Lechmere downplayed his role.

Yes, indeed - and guess why I think that is...!

[Fisherman]

"...to make sure we do not conclude things as facts when we cannot be sure that they are."

With respect, Fisherman, I think you do just this with the Lechmere as JTR theory. I've read all the threads about him here at Casebook, and I saw the television documentary. There is a good deal of supposition and may haves in your list of evidence against him-- in my opinion.

Iīve heard it before. But take some time, draw you breath, and then tell me what it is I claim as a fact without it being a fact.

I will answer as best as I can.

[CertainSum1]

In the end, my own best guess is that Paul exagerrated his own role in the drama. But when it comes to the question I was discussing in my former post, itīs kind of moot since I was comparing Mizen to Lechmere, I was not comparing the two carmen.

Upon comparing the two carmen, however, it's interesting to note that Paul exaggerated his role in the discovery of the body, while Lechmere downplayed his role.

[Columbo]

Let me understand this. You ask ME why I disagree with the Lechmere theory. I respond. I tell you why, at length repeating much of what I've posted on these pages over the years. And that makes me childish and jealous? Very good. Welcome to the board, Columbo.

You asked ME about 'ruling out'. I told you my metrics. Others have theirs. Take that up with them. Someone not meeting a physical description does not - for me - "rule" someone out in that I do not put my full faith in any one witness. That is to say that cannot say definitively that any one witness actually saw "Jack the Ripper" (although if anyone may have, it likely was Joseph Lewende, in my view). The rest of your post is simply a restatement of what others - and yourself - accept as enough "evidence" to "rule" someone out. They and you are welcome to that.

I'll repeat this for you: I do not think any name appearing on this site or elsewhere is the "true" name of "Jack the Ripper" (if he ever existed). But, most of them cannot be "ruled out", as I define it. Essentially, I take "the field". "Jack" was likely a name lost to history. Someone who died quietly without much note, some short time after the killings stopped. This does NOT mean that I would not accept ANY of the suspects that have been presented, including Lechmere, if I felt that a compelling case had been made. TO ME, the Lechmere "theory" is far from compelling, for reasons I've listed for you at length, only be to be called jealous and childish. I might call you a sycophant. But I wont, as I am happy that "Fisherman" has a friend. For now. We'll see where this goes if you decide to disagree with some aspect of this rock solid case.

Well you do seem to have a vendetta against this guy. you challenge him to a debate on another thread, you mock that he had a documentary, and you continue to insult those who think this is plausible. I would call that rude and childish, but even that's not important.

I'll tell you what I've posted elsewhere. Lechmere is not an airtight suspect. He has problems as a suspect. I think we can all agree to that. I don't know if he killed Nichols anymore than you, or Fisherman or anyone on this board. I simply suggest that it's a solid theory backed up with great research. that's all.

I am in agreement with you that JTR was lost to history and probably was never in the police files or even on their radar. He was a nobody who probably got away with murder.

But I don't know that as a fact, which is why we have websites and forums such as this. The theories I think are plausible I agree with. the ones I disagree with I don't even bother arguing about. Look how offended and how much time you spent on this thread being defensive, offensive, condescending and obnoxious. But when you say something worthwhile you'll see that I agreed with you. I suggest having more fun and have an open mind.

Fisherman has been nothing but polite to me. I can see where he also has been belittling to others but I kinda chalk that up to the European/Swedish sense of dry humor, along with frustration. All of us do that, except I'm American and when we fight we're ruthless and not as nice as you or fisherman are to each other.

I like joking back and forth, but getting nasty with me will get you nowhere.

Now bring on the facts!!

Columbo

[Joshua Rogan]

For those who haven't seen the documentary, it is at this very moment being shown in the UK on Spike.

[Pcdunn]

"...to make sure we do not conclude things as facts when we cannot be sure that they are."

With respect, Fisherman, I think you do just this with the Lechmere as JTR theory. I've read all the threads about him here at Casebook, and I saw the television documentary. There is a good deal of supposition and may haves in your list of evidence against him-- in my opinion.

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick,

Well, let me expound on this a little.

You can't rule out Lechmere because he was found with the body. That in itself prevents anyone from completely ruling him out. I agree with you, he seems an unlikely murderer but so do a lot of killers so we should continue to look into him.

Donald Rumbelow is one of the modern researchers that did an excellent job ruling out the "Royal 3" in his wonderful "The Complete Jack the Ripper".
(by the way, Gull being in his 70's, in-firmed and stroke ridden effectively rules him out, Eddie had iron clad, provable alibis for all the murders, that rules him out).

Mr. Rumbelow, in my opinion, also ruled out Walter Sickert in his updated version as well. He did a very detailed investigation. Also recent research shows he was mostly likely in France.

Martin Fido, with the help of other researchers like Paul Begg also effectively ruled out James Maybrick and destroyed the JTR diary.

Phillip Sudgen's research, again my opinion, ruled out Druitt. Not on his own, but he did add to the conclusions.

Joseph Merrick, The Elephant Man, was brought up as a suspect. I think we can pretty much cancel his upcoming page in the suspects section.

Tumblety has been discarded as a suspect by almost all researchers and experts on the subject. Why? because he was in his 50's, 6ft or better and homosexual. No witness described such a man, he was never seen with a victim and most likely he was in jail during one of the murders. This rules him out.

That doesn't mean all suspects can be ruled out. I pick on Feighanbaum but I can't rule him out. I can't rule out James Kelly, George Hutchinson, Joe Barnett and others. The way things are going Mizen might not be ruled out!

Police then and now rule out suspects all the time based on a variety of factors based on the details of the crime they're being suspected of committing. I can say without regret that OJ killed two people. The evidence shows it. If I use your reasoning, Ronald Goldman's father can't be ruled out of that murder if he's even slightly accused of it.

You've brought up a lot of good points in your posts and have given this thread some punch, but the rudeness and anger is doing nothing but make you look a little childish and I say even a little jealous of Fisherman and his ideas. I really hope we can get back to a civilized debate with some witty quips thrown in.

Columbo

Let me understand this. You ask ME why I disagree with the Lechmere theory. I respond. I tell you why, at length repeating much of what I've posted on these pages over the years. And that makes me childish and jealous? Very good. Welcome to the board, Columbo.

You asked ME about 'ruling out'. I told you my metrics. Others have theirs. Take that up with them. Someone not meeting a physical description does not - for me - "rule" someone out in that I do not put my full faith in any one witness. That is to say that cannot say definitively that any one witness actually saw "Jack the Ripper" (although if anyone may have, it likely was Joseph Lewende, in my view). The rest of your post is simply a restatement of what others - and yourself - accept as enough "evidence" to "rule" someone out. They and you are welcome to that.

I'll repeat this for you: I do not think any name appearing on this site or elsewhere is the "true" name of "Jack the Ripper" (if he ever existed). But, most of them cannot be "ruled out", as I define it. Essentially, I take "the field". "Jack" was likely a name lost to history. Someone who died quietly without much note, some short time after the killings stopped. This does NOT mean that I would not accept ANY of the suspects that have been presented, including Lechmere, if I felt that a compelling case had been made. TO ME, the Lechmere "theory" is far from compelling, for reasons I've listed for you at length, only be to be called jealous and childish. I might call you a sycophant. But I wont, as I am happy that "Fisherman" has a friend. For now. We'll see where this goes if you decide to disagree with some aspect of this rock solid case.

[harry]

Colombo,
Fine,if we also as a person of interest,consider the points that suggest Cross's innocence,and understand the rules necessary to distinguish between the two.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:


(See what happens when you excited about finding how to use the quote button;-)

Yes, oops! The really sad thing about this mistake of yours is that you were being sarcastic when presenting it. I think that touches on what some posters are saying out here - there is so much bad blood when Lechmere is discussed that any true progress is effectively hindered by it.
This time it was you, but I know that I can be sarcastic too. Of course, like most people, I like to think that I am justified in being so, when it happens. But we are not the best judges of such things ourselves, so I will leave that question open.


... and Paul was also the only man known to have given unreliable evidence, versus four independent witnesses whose evidence confirmed each other's accounts.

You trust Paul even though we KNOW he told untruths, I'll go with the verifiable evidence.

No, I donīt trust Paul, as you should be aware. I think he may have been boasting in his report, trying to take on the lead role. Itīs either that or the reporter spiced things up.
But how can you boast about the time being 3.45? How would saying 3.40 make Paul look less of a hero?
That is the clincher for me in this case. There was nothing to gain by lying about the time, but there was a lot to gain in terms of looking quite the he-man by lying about the other parameters.
Plus the story works a lot better if the time was 3.45 than if it was 3.40. And, like I keep saying, Swanson altered the time in his final report. When you do so, you do so for a reason.

Again, according to Xmere and three independent witnesses and possibly the time clock at Broad Street Station, he was.

You trust the man we KNOW told untruths, I'll go with the verifiable evidence.

See a pattern forming here?

I see you trying to be sarcastic again. Can you really afford that? Would a slightly humbler attitude not be more becoming, considering how your last sarcasm payed off? If you make the effort, I will.
No matter if it was 3.40 or 3.45, Lechmere should have cleared Bucks Row. If it was 3.37, it would be in line with the time Lechmere left home. But in such a case, we need to accept that Neil was in place at 3.40, and he should have spoken to Thain at around 3.41-3.42, sending him to fetch Llewellyn. And if this was what happened, then Thain spent up towards 18-19 minutes on a walk that should have occupied around two minutes of brisk walking.

If we instead accept that Paul was correct when he said that he walked down Bucks Row at EXACTLY 3.45. then he should have arrived at the body at 3.46.and then he spen some little time examining the body, whereupon he walked with Lechmere to find Mizen. This took four minutes, no more, according to Paul, so we will be looking at Neil arriving at the body at around 3.50 instead of 3.45. Then Neil examined the body (perhaps for a minute, taking us to 3.51), heard Thain and summoned him (it took around a minute for Thain to walk down Bucks Row, so we arrive at 3.52) spoke to him and instructed him to go for Llewellyn (one more minute passes, and Thain takes off at 3.53, making im arrive at Llewllns practice at around 3.55). And Llewellyn says he was called up at 4 or slightly before.
In all of this, Mizen acts like a kind of lock, since when he arrived at the scene, Thain had already walked off for Llewellyn. And that means that the examination Neil made before he summoned Thain could not have been a longish one - Mizen will have taken about two minutes to walk to Bucks Row, and so he will have been in place around five minutes after the carmen left the body.
This scenario would have Mizen saying "about 3.45", but in reality the time would have been, say, 3.48. Nothing strange there. And Neil who said that he found the body at around 3.45 would have done so at 3.50. And Thain would have been waved down at 3.51.
Of course, these are approximations, but they make sense of the whole matter.
If neither PC carried a timepiece, they may have heard a nearby clock strike the quarter hour, just before the unfolding of the drama. That may have been what made them remember the time as around 3.45.
If so, then Paul would have relied on another timepiece. But this seems to be clear anyway, since he apparently knew BEFORE 3.45 that he was late.

?

We all KNOW Paul was a man who told untruths. It's verifiable by the available information.

I was comparing Lechmere to Mizen, not to Paul.

We know Xmere's claimed timing fits in with three other witnesses.

Could you expand on this before I comment on it?

We know when Paul said Mrs Stride had been dead for a longtime, she wasn't.

It was Mrs Nichols, Mrs Stride was alive and kicking at the time. And we donīt know that Paul lied about this, since it could equally have been the reporter who embellished. Paul may have said that the hands were cold, so she may well have been dead some time, and then the reporter spiced it up. We canīt be sure either way, and if we canīt, then we cannot claim Paul must have lied.

We Know when Paul said he went alone to find Mizen, he didn't.

Same problem - did he say that, or did the reporter create that picture?

We know when Paul said he was the only man to speak to Mizen, he wasn't.

Same problem.

Itīs not that I donīt agree that it seems that Paul told a story that was not true on all counts. I just wanīt to make sure that we do not conclude things as facts when we cannot be sure that they are.
In the end, my own best guess is that Paul exagerrated his own role in the drama. But when it comes to the question I was discussing in my former post, itīs kind of moot since I was comparing Mizen to Lechmere, I was not comparing the two carmen.

[drstrange169]

From the Daily Telegraph, September 4 1888:

(See what happens when you excited about finding how to use the quote button;-)

... but according to the only man who gave an exact time.

... and Paul was also the only man known to have given unreliable evidence, versus four independent witnesses whose evidence confirmed each other's accounts.

You trust Paul even though we KNOW he told untruths, I'll go with the verifiable evidence.

... we know that regardless of he left 3.20 or 3.30, he should have been way past Bucks Row at 3.45.

Again, according to Xmere and three independent witnesses and possibly the time clock at Broad Street Station, he was.

You trust the man we KNOW told untruths, I'll go with the verifiable evidence.

See a pattern forming here?

He seems the by far more likely man to have been economic with the truth.

???

We all KNOW Paul was a man who told untruths. It's verifiable by the available information.

We know Xmere's claimed timing fits in with three other witnesses.

We know when Paul said Mrs Stride had been dead for a longtime, she wasn't.

We Know when Paul said he went alone to find Mizen, he didn't.

We know when Paul said he was the only man to speak to Mizen, he wasn't.