The liar paradox of Lechmere

[Pierre]

The time when Lechmere left home is believed to be crucial for hypothesizing that Lechmere killed Polly Nichols and therefore was Jack the Ripper.

Lechmere has been described as a liar. He lied about seeing a policeman in Buck´s Row and he lied about his name.

In a thread about Lechmere leaving his home and arriving at the murder site in Buck´s Row, Fisherman is writing:

Even on the basis of this modern timing, if he left home on that morning about 3.30 then he would have been in Buck’s Row about 3.36.

The time when Lechmere left home is, as I said, crucial for the hypothesis that Lechmere was the killer.

But there is a time paradox in this hypothesis, and thereby in the whole theory. The paradox has to do with Lechmere being a liar:

If it is true that Lechmere was a liar, how could the statement he gave about the time when he left home have been true, given that his statement allows for an interpretation of Lechmere being the killer?

If it is true that Lechmere was a liar and indeed the killer, why should he have given a statement about the time when he left home, that allowed for this interpretation?

Fisherman has based the whole theory on Lechmere telling the truth although he has postulated that Lechmere was a liar.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

In a thread about Lechmere leaving his home and arriving at the murder site in Buck´s Row, Fisherman is writing:

Even on the basis of this modern timing, if he left home on that morning about 3.30 then he would have been in Buck’s Row about 3.36.

Those weren't Fisherman's words. He was quoting a Michael Connor.

[Abby Normal]

also, I think Fish has said even if he did lie about when he left, it still needed to be at least pretty close to when he did leave, if the police were to question his wife.

[John G]

Would he have expected the police to reconstruct his journey to determine if he was telling the truth, especially when there was no obvious reason to disbelieve his evidence and he was never treated as anything other than a witness?

I don't think anyone has suggested Lechmere was a pathological liar.

[Columbo]

Would he have expected the police to reconstruct his journey to determine if he was telling the truth, especially when there was no obvious reason to disbelieve his evidence and he was never treated as anything other than a witness?

I don't think anyone has suggested Lechmere was a pathological liar.

No one has. this is another way to carry on the same argument on the Lechmere Bye,Bye thread.

Columbo

[John G]

No one has. this is another way to carry on the same argument on the Lechmere Bye,Bye thread.

Columbo

Yes, I agree. This thread is therefore redundant in my opinion.

[Columbo]

The time when Lechmere left home is believed to be crucial for hypothesizing that Lechmere killed Polly Nichols and therefore was Jack the Ripper.

Lechmere has been described as a liar. He lied about seeing a policeman in Buck´s Row and he lied about his name.

In a thread about Lechmere leaving his home and arriving at the murder site in Buck´s Row, Fisherman is writing:

Even on the basis of this modern timing, if he left home on that morning about 3.30 then he would have been in Buck’s Row about 3.36.

The time when Lechmere left home is, as I said, crucial for the hypothesis that Lechmere was the killer.

But there is a time paradox in this hypothesis, and thereby in the whole theory. The paradox has to do with Lechmere being a liar:

If it is true that Lechmere was a liar, how could the statement he gave about the time when he left home have been true, given that his statement allows for an interpretation of Lechmere being the killer?

If it is true that Lechmere was a liar and indeed the killer, why should he have given a statement about the time when he left home, that allowed for this interpretation?

Fisherman has based the whole theory on Lechmere telling the truth although he has postulated that Lechmere was a liar.

Regards, Pierre

And away we go! There is no paradox. This whole subject of JTR is based on interpretation.

So Lechmere tells one lie to Mizen. And after giving this some thought, he didn't lie about his name, he just didn't give his legal name (so to speak). That's open to interpretation.

If he lied about the time so what? He was never considered a contemporary suspect. And most likely he didn't have to lie because his timing fitted nicely with Paul's.

What's not being understood in my opinion, is that the mutilations show he was interrupted. If he wasn't, Nichols would've been torn open and Lechmere would've been gone.

Again, my interpretation, which is probably wrong as heck.

We're covering old ground because you didn't like the answers Fishman provided on the other thread.

Columbo

[Elamarna]

Actually I believe Pierre wishes to exonerate Lechmere and show he is not a liar.
To do this he will post a new thread every so often. and start the argument all over again.
Pierre has said on another thread he considers Llechmere the most reliable witness.
This is obviously because he wishes to believe and promote the possability that Lechmere did see a police officer at the site in Bucks Row, which backs his theory of the murderer.

Steve

[Ausgirl]

1. There is "no paradox" because human beings don't adhere to absolutes. So, this is very much nothing like a paradox.

2. For goodness sake, he didn't "lie" about his name. Because, like, it was actually his name. Entire foundation of primary argument is flawed. Therefore counter-argument is ...

3. The choice Xmere madeto give one name rather than the other may indeed have been an act of misdirection, but for reasons other than "he was the killer". One sound reason being -- there was a killer on the loose! Among a wide variety of possible alternatives.

What irritates me about this theory and a couple of others being prolifically posted about here this past year or so is, it isn't enough to point out perfectly and plainly logical reasons for a person to be regarded as a suspect -- there has to all this blinking grandiose posturing with added arrogant snark, and the re-working of extremely tenuous details into concrete facts for the sake of the argument, which makes the whole lot less legitimate in the most obvious of ways, but does this stop them? hell no, it's argued emphatically and constantly to the point of making me want to learn to drive a forklift just so I might run people over with one.

Sorry, was just reading the Thompson entry in suspects. I'll go twitch quietly in a corner now.

[Fisherman]

also, I think Fish has said even if he did lie about when he left, it still needed to be at least pretty close to when he did leave, if the police were to question his wife.

I have pointed to how Lechmere - if he was the killer - may have been in a situation where he knew that hios wife was aware about when he left, and that he therefore would reasonably not take the risk to lie about it.
But that is just a suggestion.

I agree that the thread is redundant. I´m out.

[Pierre]

I have pointed to how Lechmere - if he was the killer - may have been in a situation where he knew that hios wife was aware about when he left, and that he therefore would reasonably not take the risk to lie about it.
But that is just a suggestion.

I agree that the thread is redundant. I´m out.

Was his wife also aware that the name of her husband was Lechmere?

You are using ad hocs.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

I have pointed to how Lechmere - if he was the killer - may have been in a situation where he knew that hios wife was aware about when he left, and that he therefore would reasonably not take the risk to lie about it.

So it follows that he knew that giving the name "Cross" at the inquest wouldn't protect him from his wife finding out (presumably from the newspapers) that he had found the body and what time he claimed to have left home.

Yet he wasn't worried that his wife might wonder why he gave his name as "Cross" to the inquest?

Nor was he worried that she would know how long it took to walk from their house to Bucks Row?

[Pierre]

I have pointed to how Lechmere - if he was the killer - may have been in a situation where he knew that hios wife was aware about when he left, and that he therefore would reasonably not take the risk to lie about it.
But that is just a suggestion.

I agree that the thread is redundant. I´m out.

Why do you think a liar was telling the truth?

Regards, Pierre