Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Phil Carter]

Actually you make a valid point Phil,

We should take this at night beat pace of 3 1/2 mph.

Either way, we are talking minutes difference. Hardly something to be concerned with.

Monty

Thanks Monty,

So @3.1/2mph it would take 180secs to walk 311.68 yards (off the top of my head). That's 3 full minutes.

In order for any person to walk 311.68 yards in 60 secs..They would have to walk at 10.1/2 mph.

311.68 ũ 60 is a rate of 5.1946 yards per second.
That's 15.5838 feet per second.

The world record 10,000 metre road walking time is 37 min 11secs ..that's 294metres per minute. Some Russian chap I believe.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Now the most interesting bit comes here.
WHERE on his route, would said policeman be if it takes him 3 mins to get to the destination @3.1/2mph? (311.68 yards away) **see next post**

What is the exact distance from the destination backwards along his route?

Is it as Frank Oploo stated?


Just wondering. Don't have a map to measure it exactly in front of me. Sorry.



Phil

[Phil Carter]

** I notice you have edited the the night pace time to 2.1/2 mph Monty.

This changes the time radically.

For @4mph the time is 159 secs
For @3mph the time is 239 secs
For @2mph the time is 318 secs

@ 2.1/2 mph it becomes 279 secs. .which means said policeman was 4mins 39 secs away from his destination.


Phil

[FrankO]

Is it as Frank Oploo stated?

Hi Phil,

This is what I posted: the distance from the crime spot to where Cross & Paul approximately met Mizen. Not having read the earlier posts well, I have a feeling that Monty wasn't talking about this (whole) distance.

'Night,
Frank

[RockySullivan]

Hi,

I turn to Fisherman and to anyone interested with this.

I have no time to go through the sources on Charles Lechmere and so I depend on others - like Fisherman.

Not that Iīm particularly interested in Lechmere but Iīm interested in how people do their research, i.e. research methods within the fields of social science and history. These are my main fields of research.

So I briefly read a bit of Fishermanīs so called research. Well, I guess he wants to call it that, since his aim is to find Jack the Ripper and doing that means doing research.

According to Fisherman, Charles Lechmere used a false name in the inquest (Source:http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9056).

Well, now I found this:

“Charles Cross and Charles Lechmere were indeed one and the same person. And he wasn't deliberately lying or using a false name. Cross was his stepfather's name which was adopted in one census and after he married and set up his own household he reverted to the name Lechmere in the census records.” (Source: http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-6917.html)

Charles was only about nine years old when his mother married Cross. (Ibid).

For research about the killer this means that we have no reason to keep Lechmere-Cross as a suspect.

He did not lie and so there is no reason to believe either that he was the killer or a witness to the killer.

The fact - if it is a fact - that Lechmere-Cross waited until Paul was beside him most probably means that he didnīt know what he was seeing on the ground, just as he indicated, and didnīt think he had any reason for shouting and waking up the neighbourhood for nothing.

What do say about this, Fisherman?

I find that misinterpretation is a big problem within ripperology.

First of all because the substancial siginificance of the subject is so high – while the substancial significance of the sources usually is very low.

If you try to use common and rather meaningless sources as very significant sources, thereby adding to them a meaning they donīt contain, you are doing bad research.

I have this problem as well, we all do, and I therefore work only critically with the sources. And that is why I say I think I have found him and that finding him is one thing – prooving it is another.

Regards Pierre

Is this the same logistics you applied to your sources in order determine the significance of probability that the sources are good research data?

[Pierre]

Is this the same logistics you applied to your sources in order determine the significance of probability that the sources are good research data?

Hi there,

Well, Iīm surprised you even bother to put a question mark after your own sentence.

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Still doing the James Brown impressions I see Christer....just one more tune huh?

I meant exactly what I stated, Bakers Street Junction. As that is PC Neils turn, and therefore most relevant.

We are taliking minutes, this does not put Neil way off his beat at all.

Monty

James Brown? Havent got the body for that. You?

Yes, we are of course talking minutes. But we are also talking differences of a hundred per cent plus. And in the context of the bloodflow and coagulation scheme, any little difference will play a role.

If the carmen and Mizen had managed the whole stretch back and forth in a minute and a half, it would be a whole different ballpark.

Instead, we are looking at a combined time of four minutes or more.

[Fisherman]

Monty: I sometimes wonder if your attempts to twist words in a fallout from your need to show your theory sound at all costs, or a subconscious reaction.

You will have to figure that out on your own.

As Cross and Paul were unsure if Nichols was deceased, whereas Neil applied Code procedure to establish death (and sort medical confirmation), the PC was the first to find the body. Thee terminology is exact and correct.

Aha - so if she had not been dead, and if she had remained alive, not even Neil would have found her...?
Just pulling your leg, Monty. It nevertheless applies that the police had not yet, at the time of the paper interview, accepted that Paul and Lechmere got to the body before Neil did.

As for Bruce, you may get moist for a 'rock n roll' writer, however it takes a little more than mere opinion of a man whose contribution to the field has been nothing but to bitch n moan whilst doing nowt of worth to turn my head.

I get moist about very little these days.

When he comes out with evidence, rather than opinion, then I may, stress may, raise and eyebrow....nothing more.

I donīt think you need to worry all that much, Monty. Being the cynic that I am, I dont invest much in Robinson myself. Mind you, his status will carry with itself a degree of general acceptance with the public, if I am not very much wrong. The papers are less of "Has Bruce found the Ripper" and more of "Finally, the Ripperīs been nailed".
Thereīs rock nīroll for you.

[caz]

Fisherman -

I note that you haven't responded to Patrick's offer of an open debate in post #124 - did you miss it perhaps?

I think this would be a great opportunity for you to showcase your [or Ed's, whichever you prefer] theory in a public forum - you've backed Crossmere all the way; you're obviously entirely convinced of his candidacy as the Ripper, so why not?

So - will you be debating Crossmere in Baltimore in April? Doubtless many who've been following the Crossmere debate will be waiting for your confirmation.

Hi Sally,

If Fish has Patrick on his 'ignore' list, I'm not sure he can read his posts, unless of course some kind soul quotes them.

Alternatively, Fish may have the self discipline to ignore Patrick without assistance from technology, and either way he has a perfect right to do so.

The problem is that ignoring Patrick could give a cynical reader the impression that Fish can dish it out but can't take it, or worse, that he has given up trying to defend indefensible arguments in the face of Patrick's robust demolition.

If Fish has since responded to Patrick, I hope everyone will forgive my intrusion.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hi Sally,

If Fish has Patrick on his 'ignore' list, I'm not sure he can read his posts, unless of course some kind soul quotes them.

Alternatively, Fish may have the self discipline to ignore Patrick without assistance from technology, and either way he has a perfect right to do so.

The problem is that ignoring Patrick could give a cynical reader the impression that Fish can dish it out but can't take it, or worse, that he has given up trying to defend indefensible arguments in the face of Patrick's robust demolition.

If Fish has since responded to Patrick, I hope everyone will forgive my intrusion.

Love,

Caz
X

All very fascinating, isnīt it?

[caz]

1. Lechmere and Paul approach Mizen, and Lechmere speaks to him about the woman in Bucks Row. This ensures that all three men will be able to identify each other.

You reckon? How? If Lechmere killed Nichols and deliberately gave no identifying details to either man, you think he would have made it remotely easy for them to recognise him again? Lengthy eye contact, perhaps, under a street lamp? Blotches and a ginger moustache (letting Mrs Cox see them too, that November)? Showing off his distinctive "I heart Mum" tattoo?

3. Mizen does not go to his superiors and tell them that two carmen had spoken to him.

I don't blame him, considering his response. If Lechmere killed Nichols and manipulated Mizen with his "policeman in Buck's Row" claim, Mizen would be feeling distinctly uncomfortable upon learning the woman's fate, especially when Neil denied seeing any carmen and Mizen realised his informant had lied to him. I doubt he would have robustly challenged Cross's flat denial at the inquest, because he either accepted it was a misunderstanding or he didn't want to make a song and dance over the fact he had been lied to by the man who had 'found' the victim, and had let him go without searching him or taking any details.

If Lechmere took his decision to go to the police in this interval, it makes perfect sense for him to be proactive.

But why would he go to the police when he had already successfully wound Paul and Mizen round his little finger? If either suspected him of anything, Paul wasn't talking and Mizen would be damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Without one or both of these men having the will or the means of finding this grey 'other man' again, and giving him up to the authorities for questioning, how the devil do you suppose he would ever have been positively identified? Once he had been proactive and identified himself as the finder, he'd have been snookered if he ever became associated with a subsequent murder.

It follows that he would realize that he was at great risk to become the prime suspect, and that he stood to gain from being proactive: If he could persuade the police that he had not had the time to do the murder on account of Paul being on his heels, he would stand a chance to get out of the dilemma. Paul, having arrived in nigh on total darkness, would not have been able to corroborate or deny the distance Lechmere suggested was there between them.

Nigh on total darkness? So what 'dilemma'? He was a good deal more anonymous than Blotchy ever was, but the latter was never identified. Again, if he did become the prime suspect, Paul and Mizen were the only two men in the world who might just be able to help - if Paul suddenly became co-operative with the police and Mizen didn't mind risking the sack for having let him go in the first place.

A/ Paul would tell the real story

B/ Mizen would be called upon to ID the carman - which would let the cat out of the box.

You mean the black cat in the coal hole, who didn't have a label round its neck, with its name, address or workplace?

And it's bag by the way, not box. You're no doubt thinking of Jack in the Box.

It would have been a question of guessing the development on Lechmereīs behalf. If he sensed that he would be outed, he needed to be proactive.

If. But why would he think that, having set in motion and succeeded with his cunning plan to leave Paul and Mizen clueless, and the latter in an awkward position if he admits he let this suspected killer just walk away?

What Lechmere told him, if Mizen was not lying, was that a woman "had been found" on the broad of her back in Bucks Row, and that another PC was in place, requesting his presence.
If Mizen was not lying, then the gravity of the case was played down, and the help at hand was played up.

A PC who sends a civilian for assistance from another PC would play the case up if anything, to explain in no uncertain terms the urgency, and why the fellow officer has been authorised to leave his post and must attend without delay. Yet neither carman seems to know if the woman is dead or could merely be drunk. How would that have made any sense to Mizen, as an official appeal for help, either at the time or later, when he found PC Neil at the scene with the woman who had almost been decapitated?

Mizen did nothing wrong. He could be sure that his colleague had taken the names, and it was never hinted at that it could be a case of murder or suicide.
What Mizen needed to do in such a case was to go to Bucks Row and that was exactly what he did.

Yes, but in your scenario he soon finds out he has been conned, because Neil never did send the carmen and wasn't at the scene until after they left. He was also obliged to admit, probably thanks to Paul, that he had not gone straight to the scene, but had done a bit more knocking up first. He could not have set off for Buck's Row while either man was still around to see him. Do you seriously imagine he'd have been chuffed to bits at the prospect of either carman being sought as the suspected murderer?

But I hope, at any rate, that you can accept that there is a logical explanation involving Lechmere as the killer.

I wish I could, Fish. It would save me a deal of time and trouble. I just don't see it though. Sorry.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You are completely correct, Caz - people rehashing things are not engaging in circular reasoning!

Bravo!

However, I never meant that they did. That is why I say that a paraphrase would be to let the discussion go round and round and round in circles, the way you do. And I, when I answer the same old questions over and over and over again.

From the net, defining "paraphrase:

To adapt or alter (a text or quotation) to serve a different purpose from that of the original.

Check things first next time. Please?

As I say, your choice of paraphrasing the recognised term 'circular reasoning' as 'letting a discussion go round and round in circles', will inevitably have the effect of making you look ignorant of its original meaning.

Up to you, of course, but there it is.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz: You reckon? How? If Lechmere killed Nichols and deliberately gave no identifying details to either man, you think he would have made it remotely easy for them to recognise him again? Lengthy eye contact, perhaps, under a street lamp? Blotches and a ginger moustache (letting Mrs Cox see them too, that November)? Showing off his distinctive "I heart Mum" tattoo?

Funny, Caz, as always!

Remember Mizen? When "Cross" was brought in to the inquest room, Mizen identified him as the man he had spoken to.
Thatīs how dark it was. Once we come close to each other, we can see a whole lot. Paul dived out of the darkness and was seen by Mizen.

I don't blame him, considering his response.

If had suspected foul play, I would have blamed him. If not, I wouldnīt.

If Lechmere killed Nichols and manipulated Mizen with his "policeman in Buck's Row" claim, Mizen would be feeling distinctly uncomfortable upon learning the woman's fate, especially when Neil denied seeing any carmen and Mizen realised his informant had lied to him.

No, no and no again. He would NOT blame himself, since he did nothing wrong at all. It was unfortunate with the woman, but if you have only been told that she was lying in the street and that a colleague had the situation in hand, then there was nothing to feel bad about.

I doubt he would have robustly challenged Cross's flat denial at the inquest, because he either accepted it was a misunderstanding or he didn't want to make a song and dance over the fact he had been lied to by the man who had 'found' the victim, and had let him go without searching him or taking any details.

He had stepped down from the stand, Caz. It is not for the audience to participate.
How he reacted is written in the stars. He could have gone to his superiors and said "Iīm sure the man lies". They could have answered "You must have mnisunderstood". We are left to speculate only. It is moot, therefore.

But why would he go to the police when he had already successfully wound Paul and Mizen round his little finger? If either suspected him of anything, Paul wasn't talking and Mizen would be damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Without one or both of these men having the will or the means of finding this grey 'other man' again, and giving him up to the authorities for questioning, how the devil do you suppose he would ever have been positively identified? Once he had been proactive and identified himself as the finder, he'd have been snookered if he ever became associated with a subsequent murder.

How "the devil" - Wow, some strong language there, Caz!
How would Lechmere know that Mizen suspected him of nothing if Neil told his colleague that he had never seen any carmen? Eh?

Nigh on total darkness? So what 'dilemma'? He was a good deal more anonymous than Blotchy ever was, but the latter was never identified. Again, if he did become the prime suspect, Paul and Mizen were the only two men in the world who might just be able to help - if Paul suddenly became co-operative with the police and Mizen didn't mind risking the sack for having let him go in the first place.

The darkness would have sufficed to disenable Paul to establish a distance. But it would not be enough to hide Lechmere. We know that since Mizen ID:d him.
Make the experiment to place yourself forty yards from another person on a dark night out in the woods. Ask what he sees. Then walk up at close distance. Ask what he sees.
Donīt get surprised if there is a difference!

You mean the black cat in the coal hole, who didn't have a label round its neck, with its name, address or workplace?

See the above. All of it. Four years of it.

And it's bag by the way, not box. You're no doubt thinking of Jack in the Box.

No, for some reason I was thinking of Pandoras box...

If. But why would he think that, having set in motion and succeeded with his cunning plan to leave Paul and Mizen clueless, and the latter in an awkward position if he admits he let this suspected killer just walk away?

See the above. All of it. Four years of it.

A PC who sends a civilian for assistance from another PC would play the case up if anything, to explain in no uncertain terms the urgency, and why the fellow officer has been authorised to leave his post and must attend without delay. Yet neither carman seems to know if the woman is dead or could merely be drunk. How would that have made any sense to Mizen, as an official appeal for help, either at the time or later, when he found PC Neil at the scene with the woman who had almost been decapitated?

It wouldnīt. He said at the inquest that the carman had not spoken of any murder or suicide. But at the murder site, he would not have had much time to discuss the carmen. He was sure that Neil had sent them, and that would have been enough to stop him from a number of questions.

Yes, but in your scenario he soon finds out he has been conned, because Neil never did send the carmen and wasn't at the scene until after they left. He was also obliged to admit, probably thanks to Paul, that he had not gone straight to the scene, but had done a bit more knocking up first. He could not have set off for Buck's Row while either man was still around to see him. Do you seriously imagine he'd have been chuffed to bits at the prospect of either carman being sought as the suspected murderer?

I do not understand half of what you are saying. I donīt think he quickly understood that he had been conned at all, for instance.

I wish I could, Fish. It would save me a deal of time and trouble. I just don't see it though. Sorry.

Be that as it may, it is now MY turn to ask a question. You have asked a thousand and I have answered them all.

To your mind, of all the things you have suggested as being an argument AGAINST Lechmere having been the killer, which do you regard as the best argument on your behalf? Has any issue been raised that disenables - or comes close to disenabling - the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer of Polly Nichols?

Thanking you in advance,

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

As I say, your choice of paraphrasing the recognised term 'circular reasoning' as 'letting a discussion go round and round in circles', will inevitably have the effect of making you look ignorant of its original meaning.

Up to you, of course, but there it is.

Love,

Caz
X

I will not comment on that. It would be going round and round in circles, and I appreciate that you donīt like such circular reasoning.

[caz]

(This was supposed to answer Caz, not Fish, pressed the wrong button)


Circular reasoning is providing evidence for the validity of an assertion, which assumes the validity of the assertion.

General forms include "A is true because A is true" or "A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true".

Often used as a mechanism to prevent an assertion from being challenged or questioned, or to "win" a debate by sending it round and round in circles.

I think Fisherman was quite correct in his usage in the context. This thread is rapidly deteriorating into "Fisherman-bashing", whether one agrees with him or not. And since when has it been ok to pick on someone's usage of a language not their mother tongue (even if Fisherman's English is a good deal better than your Swedish, Caz - and even your English at times).

Best wishes
C4

Fish's use of English is quite exceptional, C4. I have few problems with it unless he starts claiming to know more of the nuances than he actually demonstrates. I have never felt the need to learn Swedish as they all seem to be so good at English.

If my cat was Jack the Ripper, reincarnation must be real.

If reincarnation is real, my cat could have been Jack the Ripper in a previous life.

This is broadly how Fish's default 'psychopath' argument works - or rather, doesn't work:

If Lechmere was a psychopath, he was probably the killer.

If Lechmere was the killer, he was arguably a psychopath.

Can you see how meaningless Fish's repetition of this really is, without any evidence that this man had a psychopathic bone in his body?

With 'if so-and-so was the killer, such-and-such would/could/must have been the case' you can make pretty much anything happen.

Anyway, I'm sure Fish is more than capable of fighting his own corner on the language front - or he would be ignoring me by now as well as Patrick.

Love,

Caz
X