Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Columbo]

Well if we do that, it means Swanson must be wrong in saying that Cross and Paul discovered the body at 3.45 because Neil arrived after Cross and Paul had left.



Well if you give or take a few minutes it could place Cross at the murder scene at 3.40 which is exactly when Abberline said he was there.




I don't know on what basis you make that statement. We don't know what time the murder was committed. It could easily have been 2 minutes before Cross walked into Bucks Row.




How can a time containing the word "about" be accurate?



Given that Cross said he left his house at "about" 3.30 he could have left at 3.25 or 3.20. Or, being the murderer, he could have been lying and actually left at 3.00am or earlier. Either way, he could have had plenty of time to murder Nichols. What we can't say, however, is that there is a "missing" period of 7-10 minutes in the evidence. The reason for that is that we don't know what time Cross actually left his house.

I did say it was an amateurish shot at it

The point I was trying to make was it doesn't matter what time Cross says he left work.

It matters what time Paul left work.

Why? because Paul found Cross with the body.

That's important because if Paul didn't see Cross enter Bucks Row, or even hear him walking or saw him on his way to work then Cross was further ahead of Paul then anyone thought.

And you're absolutely right that the murder could have happened a few minutes before Cross appeared, but based on the physical evidence of Nichols body it appears to have happened closer to when Paul was approaching Buck's Row.

Complete conjecture, I have no proof.

I do think it wouldn't take more than 1 or two minutes to kill Nichols so even if Paul was 3 minutes behind Cross that's plenty of time.

A good parallel to consider is that Jack Ruby walked into the Dallas Police garage about 20 seconds before Lee Harvey Oswald came out the door. Oswald was supposed to be gone an hour earlier. Ruby didn't know that. It was a happenstance of history. This could be the case here.

I used 3:45a as Neil's time for finding the body but I concede it's probably off either way by a few minutes. Either way that doesn't matter because Cross and Paul were gone.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Columbo

[David Orsam]

(where you change the evidence, using other timings than the ones given)

No Fisherman. That's the whole point. I haven't changed any timings. All the timings in the evidence are approximate, hence they are "about". That's what you keep failing to understand when you say things like "Cross left his house at 3.30". He didn't. Or at least he didn't say that. He said he left "about 3.30" so that my suggestion of 3.33 is perfectly valid.

You say to me that "Paul claimed that the examination of the body and the trek to Mizen did not take more than four minutes." Well in my timeline he doesn't take more than four minutes. He takes four minutes. So no evidence changed there.

I insist that my whole timeline is in line with the evidence and I have changed no evidence at all. If you can show me what evidence I've changed I'll amend the timeline to fit the evidence.

I know you that say (for the second time) that you are not going to reply and that's entirely up to you but you have just accused me of changing the evidence and that is an unfortunate false allegation on which to bow out on.

[Columbo]

I will try!

As for retreating footsteps, there was no such thing. The whole affair stems from this passage in the Daily Telegraph inquest report:

Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming.

So the steps were approaching, not retreating. And the passage is only involved in the Daily Telegraph. The general consensus about it is that it is a misreporting for that very reason. If they DID hear a policeman coming, then why would they jointly decide to go looking for another one...?

The light! Now that has been the object for many hot debates. Neil says that the street lay in darkness, but that there was a lamp shining at the end of the row.
Since Neil found Nichols at the beginning of the row, he seems to be talking about a lamp at the Brady Street intersection.

But! It seems that Rob Clack was able to show that he may instead have been talking about a lamp that was behind Neil, a lamp that he had already passed, outside Schneiders Cap factory, very roughly speaking opposite where the school building commenced to the west, on the same pavement that both Lechmere and Paul claimed to have walked down.

Of course, depending on where you thought the beginning of the row was, this could also be said to be at the end of the row.

The thing is, if there WAS a lamp shining outside Schneiders, then from Pauls point of view, walking behind Lechmere, that lamp should have produced the shape of Charles Lechmere in silhouette before Pauls eyes, and he should have seen when the carman veered off into the street and stopped.

But he does not say that he saw Lechmere at any time, until he came upon him, standing still out in the street.

Thanks Fisherman.

This adds a lot to what I was thinking as well.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

That's important because if Paul didn't see Cross enter Bucks Row, or even hear him walking or saw him on his way to work then Cross was further ahead of Paul then anyone thought.

Who is "anyone"?

And you say it doesn't matter when Cross left home, only when Paul left home but we don't know exactly when Paul left home either. In my timeline he leaves home a few minutes before 3.45 which is basically what he said in his evidence.

I don't see the problem.

[Fisherman]

No Fisherman. That's the whole point. I haven't changed any timings. All the timings in the evidence are approximate, hence they are "about". That's what you keep failing to understand when you say things like "Cross left his house at 3.30". He didn't. Or at least he didn't say that. He said he left "about 3.30" so that my suggestion of 3.33 is perfectly valid.

You say to me that "Paul claimed that the examination of the body and the trek to Mizen did not take more than four minutes." Well in my timeline he doesn't take more than four minutes. He takes four minutes. So no evidence changed there.

I insist that my whole timeline is in line with the evidence and I have changed no evidence at all. If you can show me what evidence I've changed I'll amend the timeline to fit the evidence.

I know you that say (for the second time) that you are not going to reply and that's entirely up to you but you have just accused me of changing the evidence and that is an unfortunate false allegation on which to bow out on.

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. If it was, 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 what was claimed. And the more consequent we are by pushing the evidence in the same direction throughout, the more likely we will be to get it wrong. The more exactly we stick with what was said, the more likely we are to get it right.
If ten thousand people say that they have around a hundred pounds in their pockets. it stands to reason that they will not all have exactly a hundred pounds. But if they all estimate it like this, then why would we make the assumption that they all likely had a hundred and three pounds?

We can always make assumptions that bolster what we ourselves think in cases like these, by adding when we want to add and subtracting when we want to subtract. Itīs not rocket science, and it is also why I think the discussion is moot.

So that is what I meant, and I am sorry if I offended you. Now, may I bow out of the discussion? Itīs going absolutely nowhere.

[Fisherman]

No Fisherman. That's the whole point. I haven't changed any timings. All the timings in the evidence are approximate, hence they are "about". That's what you keep failing to understand when you say things like "Cross left his house at 3.30". He didn't. Or at least he didn't say that. He said he left "about 3.30" so that my suggestion of 3.33 is perfectly valid.

You say to me that "Paul claimed that the examination of the body and the trek to Mizen did not take more than four minutes." Well in my timeline he doesn't take more than four minutes. He takes four minutes. So no evidence changed there.

I insist that my whole timeline is in line with the evidence and I have changed no evidence at all. If you can show me what evidence I've changed I'll amend the timeline to fit the evidence.

I know you that say (for the second time) that you are not going to reply and that's entirely up to you but you have just accused me of changing the evidence and that is an unfortunate false allegation on which to bow out on.

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?

[David Orsam]

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. in the same direction throughout, the more likely we will be to get it wrong.

If that's the case Fisherman, why did the Daily Telegraph report: "About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work"?

And why did the Evening Post report: "On Friday morning he left home about half-past three"?

And why did the London Daily News report: "On Friday morning he left home about half past three to go to work"?

I could go on but isn't the obvious answer that the reporter for the Morning Advertiser has, understandably, left out the word "about" rather than the others were, bizarrely, adding it in?

And if that's the best you can do then perhaps it is indeed time, finally, for you to retire from this discussion.

[Fisherman]

If that's the case Fisherman, why did the Daily Telegraph report: "About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work"?

And why did the Evening Post report: "On Friday morning he left home about half-past three"?

And why did the London Daily News report: "On Friday morning he left home about half past three to go to work"?

I could go on but isn't the obvious answer that the reporter for the Morning Advertiser has, understandably, left out the word "about" rather than the others were, bizarrely, adding it in?

And if that's the best you can do then perhaps it is indeed time, finally, for you to retire from this discussion.

There are other papers that say 3.30, and not "about" 3.30. So what you think is obvious is nothing of the kind. The Morning Advertiser is interesting since they have it ad verbatim.
If you had taken the time to read the rest of my answer(s) you would see that I am making the point that when we push all estimations (if we assume that they are all just that) in the direction we want to, we will end up in a bad spot.

I wonīt, though, since I am bidding you good night now. And this time itīs for real.

[Columbo]

Who is "anyone"?

And you say it doesn't matter when Cross left home, only when Paul left home but we don't know exactly when Paul left home either. In my timeline he leaves home a few minutes before 3.45 which is basically what he said in his evidence.

I don't see the problem.

Sorry, I mean anyone that believes they were only 40 or so yards away from each other.

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?

Columbo

[David Orsam]

There are other papers that say 3.30, and not "about" 3.30. So what you think is obvious is nothing of the kind.

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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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

[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?