Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[David Orsam]

David, you may take it from me that I am understanding you perfectly. And you may also take it from me that I nevertheless regard your effort to dispell the timings of my theory as of little more than academic interest; we can all produce alternative scenarios. And that is what you have done, nothing more, nothing less.

I told you so yesterday, adding that the only outcome will be our going round in endless circles.

And look what happened - I was right!

If we are going round in circles Fisherman it's only because you stubbornly refuse to correctly understand what I have been doing. The scenario that I have produced is not of "academic interest" only. It is fundamental to your claim that there is a timing gap in the evidence. If we can all produce alternative scenarios, as you claim, then that gap is not there.

And I remind you of what was said in the TV documentary:

You: (after walking from Doveton Street to Bucks Row and checking the stopwatch): "And it says 7 minutes, seven seconds. That would have meant that if Lechmere left his home as he said at 3.30 he should have been here at 3.37". Andy Griffiths: "Well that’s very interesting because Paul says he came into the street at 3.45". v/o "Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere’s timings."

So my timeline is no way of academic interest only. It demolishes the point made above. The reason for this is that Lechmere did not say he left his home "at 3.30" as stated by you.

[Columbo]

There's always one more question with you Columbo.....

I liked that one. Very nice

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: If we are going round in circles Fisherman it's only because you stubbornly refuse to correctly understand what I have been doing. The scenario that I have produced is not of "academic interest" only. It is fundamental to your claim that there is a timing gap in the evidence. If we can all produce alternative scenarios, as you claim, then that gap is not there.

The gap, and if it was there or not, was never any product of any latter-day scenario building on our behalf.

So my timeline is no way of academic interest only.

"Little more than academic interest" was what I said, to be fair, David. You should not feel that I am in any way underestimating your efforts. Or your sense of humour! To think, here YOU are, calling ME stubborn!

Goodnight.

[David Orsam]

"The gap, and if it was there or not, was never any product of any latter-day scenario building on our behalf."

What on earth do you mean by that? Of course it was. You built into the scenario that Cross left his house "at 3.30". And you built into it that Paul arrived at Bucks Row "at 3.45". Neither of them said this at the inquest and even if they had you would need to know how they could have been certain of the exact time before you could even begin to build that scenario of a "major gap".

"You should not feel that I am in any way underestimating your efforts."

I couldn't care less whether you are underestimating my efforts. I do care that you don't seem to understand what I am saying which is why I have continued to respond in the hope of explaining it to you.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: "The gap, and if it was there or not, was never any product of any latter-day scenario building on our behalf."

What on earth do you mean by that? Of course it was. You built into the scenario that Cross left his house "at 3.30". And you built into it that Paul arrived at Bucks Row "at 3.45". Neither of them said this at the inquest and even if they had you would need to know how they could have been certain of the exact time before you could even begin to build that scenario of a "major gap".

I mean that our efforts will never change the history. You see, we are both theorizing. I am saying that there is seemingly a gap in the timings, and I am grounding that on the timings given by the participants in the drama. You are saying that there may not have been a gap.
Whether or not there WAS in fact a gap, will not be affected by what we think or theorize today. What happened, happened.

"You should not feel that I am in any way underestimating your efforts."

I couldn't care less whether you are underestimating my efforts. I do care that you don't seem to understand what I am saying which is why I have continued to respond in the hope of explaining it to you.

Really? It seems to me that you are not so much bent on being able to explain things to me, as you are to push the point that you are right. And of course you ARE right that a scenario built on uncertain timings can always be wrong. The thing is, however, that nobody has ever challenged that.
This, however, should not be confused with any notion that your scenario is as viable as mine is. It is not, on account of your persistence to push all factors involved in the same direction to gain a maximum of time to use for your purposes.
It may be that you have ended up with the exactly correct estimation. But the odds for it are not as good as they are for somebody who does no pushing at all.

Have you noticed a thing about all of this? We are back at the exact same spot we were yesterday. And earlier this evening.

That tells me that your next move will be to tell me that I don´t understand you. And then we can start all over again.

I can´t say that I am looking forward to it. But if you promise to brighten it up with more statements about how I am the stubborn one of us, it should perhaps enable me to do the rounds once more.

We´ll see tomorrow!

[David Orsam]

This, however, should not be confused with any notion that your scenario is as viable as mine is. It is not, on account of your persistence to push all factors involved in the same direction to gain a maximum of time to use for your purposes.

Well Fisherman you are right about one thing. You have still failed to understand me. As shown by the above quote.

It's amazing that you seem to attribute to me a belief that my scenario is "as viable" as yours. You don't seem to understand that I am not actually pushing a scenario. Mine is a counter-scenario which exists only to invalidate yours. All I need to do is show that yours is not the ONLY scenario and I win!

Do you see? I am not saying that my scenario is what happened. Only that it is what could have happened. You, on the other hand, are trying to say that your scenario was what happened. If you are only saying it "could" have happened that is no good to you. For your purposes, Lechmere must have left his house at 3.30 and Paul must have entered Bucks Row at 3.45 for there to be any kind of timing gap.

If you can ever acknowledge what I am saying, rather than getting it wrong in a variety of different ways each time you post, then perhaps we can end this lengthy discussion, considering that your previous promises not to respond further have not been kept.

[Pcdunn]

Hi David,

I might be wrong but the timing of Cross leaving the house is important because of the wounds found on Nichols.

Correct if I'm wrong Fisherman, but part of the Lechmere theory is that Nichols would've been drastically more mutilated if Lechmere wasn't interrupted. As soon as he heard Paul he stopped, covered the abdominal wounds and pretended he just found her.

If Lechmere had left the house earlier, Nichols would've been in a similar state as Eddowes (my guess) and Lechmere wouldn't have even been there when she was found.

Columbo

I would think Lechmere would have had to leave earlier than that, in order to find a likely victim, lure her to Buck's Row, murder her on his route to work, etc. This means, if we accept his role was murderer, not witness, he lied about the three-thirty am departure time, which makes that timing meaningless, in my opinion.

Also, Columbo, why kill Polly on his regular route to work? Any thoughts about this?

[CertainSum1]

We don't know anything about the interaction between the murderer and his victim and I wouldn't like to say how easy it would have been for Jack the Ripper to manoeuvre Mary Ann Nichols to where he wanted her to go.

Come on, some things can be assumed, such as the idea that Nichols didn't go kicking and screaming.

[Hercule Poirot]

A quick moment of freshness

[Columbo]

I would think Lechmere would have had to leave earlier than that, in order to find a likely victim, lure her to Buck's Row, murder her on his route to work, etc. This means, if we accept his role was murderer, not witness, he lied about the three-thirty am departure time, which makes that timing meaningless, in my opinion.

Also, Columbo, why kill Polly on his regular route to work? Any thoughts about this?

Hello Pcdunn,

The timing itself may not mean a thing except it would explain why Nichols wasn't ripped up as bad as she should've been because Cross would've been disturbed. I'm not as near knowledgeable about this, but I believe (and fisherman, please correct me if I make a mistake) this is one of the reasons for the timing being important in Fisherman's theory.

If this theory is correct, Cross didn't go out and look for a prostitute, she would've been an opportunistic victim. She just happened to be in Buck's Row, Maybe after serving a client, or just walking through when she and Cross met. She may have solicited him and he killed her. Why I don't know of course, but it would only take a minute or two for the who thing to take place, and then Cross starts his mutilations. He's interrupted by Paul and fakes finding her.

I may be incorrect, but that's how I'm interpreting this in Fisherman's theory and it's quite plausible.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Outstanding!

[harry]

Colombo,
Cross is reported as declaring he never said a policeman wanted him(Mizzen)
and no, we cannot prove Cross did say it.
Why is the emphasis on Cross being guilty so evident in your posts.I believe you indicated on joining the discussion,you were unbiased,and you believed in consideration of innocence.Please show it.

[Columbo]

Colombo,
Cross is reported as declaring he never said a policeman wanted him(Mizzen)
and no, we cannot prove Cross did say it.
Why is the emphasis on Cross being guilty so evident in your posts.I believe you indicated on joining the discussion,you were unbiased,and you believed in consideration of innocence.Please show it.

Hi Harry,

I just answered Pcdunns question. I'm asked questions about the theory Fisherman put forth. I've already expressed that I don't know if it's true in several of my responses.

There are holes in this theory that have been acknowledged which I agreed with when they came up.

But so many posts are totally biased against Fisherman being wrong that they don't see the possibility of it being right. Sure it may seem far fetched to some but barring some nitpicking it's possible.

I'm not going to say if it's right or wrong. We'll never know. But I will say it's plausible. That's all I've ever said.

Let's put it this way. Put aside all the discussions about time and who said what etc. On the face of it, do you or don't you think you could consider that Cross, no matter how small the possibility, could've killed Nichols?

Columbo

[Columbo]

Colombo,
Cross is reported as declaring he never said a policeman wanted him(Mizzen)
and no, we cannot prove Cross did say it.
Why is the emphasis on Cross being guilty so evident in your posts.I believe you indicated on joining the discussion,you were unbiased,and you believed in consideration of innocence.Please show it.

So who would you consider honest in this scenario, the potential killer or the UN-suspecting police constable?

Mizen had no reason that I could see to make that up.

On the flip side it would be a ridiculous thing for Cross to say in earshot of Paul if he knew it wasn't true.

Another discrepancy that basically needs more research.

Columbo

[GUT]

So who would you consider honest in this scenario, the potential killer or the UN-suspecting police constable?

Mizen had no reason that I could see to make that up.

On the flip side it would be a ridiculous thing for Cross to say in earshot of Paul if he knew it wasn't true.

Another discrepancy that basically needs more research.

Columbo

This is the problem, who is honest "The suspected killer" it is a circular argument, if Cross is innocent who would you consider the honest witness or the policeman who stood accused of knocking up rather than going to the woman's aid.