Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Columbo]

My opinion is that it is very interesting, indeed. I asked about the possibility that Lechmere had not refused to "prop her up", but get the feeling that this account is the odd report out, as most other newspapers accounts of his witness testimony indicate Paul suggested it, and Cross/Lechmere declined.

I'm wondering if this bit comes from Paul's interview, in which he gave himself a grander role as the "finder" of the poor woman. For all we know, maybe the Daily Telegraph reporter went to the inquest and recorded the account faithfully, instead of borrowing info from other sources.
(That is, of course, merely my speculation.)

Unfortunately, with neither the inquest papers, nor any police notes about Cross/Lechmere, we'll never know. Frustrating...

So food for thought, what would people think if we found two more articles that state Lechmere wanted to prop Nichols up and Paul said no? Would we be more inclined to suggest it may have happened or discount it becuase it doesn't match as many articles that say he didn't want to?

Or maybe the newspaper is right and the others got it wrong?

This is really the problem with taking any newspaper accounts as fact. If we have to rely on them for basic info that may work, but for crucial details they're all suspect. Of course in this case we don't have official inquest documentation and it may be wiser not to try to use anything from the press since it's not really verifiable.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

drstrange169: With over thirty years experience in dealing with police about major crimes, I can positively attest that the police do NOT divulge all their information to the media.

Thirty years! My - you are quite the expert, then. However, it takes a lot less than thirty years´ experience to realize this, Dusty. I think everybody out here knows this.

We know from Sir Charles Warren's memos that this was the case back then during the crimes.

Ease off, Dusty. Nobody is saying that the police told it all to the press.

We also do not know exactly when PC Neil's refute was actually made.

Yes, it was made on the evening of the 2:nd. That is why it says "at an interview yesterday evening" in the Daily News. The Times has it "Up to a late hour last evening", and they too write about what Neil said at the occasion.
What you suggest - on no factual ground whatsoever - is that both of these papers decided to fit what you claim would be a comment of Neils from Saturday into an article clearly described as commenting on an interview on Sunday evening.
That´s not gonna work.

There is no indication that Inspector Helson denied the "two men" story. It seems to have come directly from a comment by PC Neil.

So you think that Helson would have known about both carmen, but for some reason he would keep it under wraps.
Could you please explain why he would do that? How could it help the investigation? And why would he allow the police to look like idiots, claiming to have found the body, if he knew that the carmen had done that? Plus why would he - or any other police officer - not explain afterwards that they were just pulling the press´ legs, and knew all along that the carmen had been the finders? And why would nobody of the police memoir writers comment on this sly scheming of theirs (to whatever avail...?)

There is an awful lot of explaining for you to do here, Dusty. Mostly because the suggestion you make is more than a tad ridiculous.

When Neil made that comment is unknown.

No-it-is-not-since-the-papers-were-very-clear-on-it.

There is some indication that PC Neil's claim may stem from the Saturday, after the inquest, and before Paul's story was published.

Yes - you think so. That is the only "indication" I see.

Earlier in the Lloyds Sunday edition was this paragraph,

"Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police ..."
(My emphasis)

The "last night" the newspaper was referring to, was the Saturday night.

Therefore PC Neil's might well have claimed,

"It is not true ... that he was called to the body by two men."

prior to the Sunday's publication of Paul's story.

No, because the police stated unequivocally on Sunday night that Neil was the finder of the body. And Neil himself had testified to the exact same effect on Saturday, on the first inquest day.

Once again we are faced with the distinct possibility that Xmere went to the police prior to Robert Paul's story and possibly on Saturday afternoon.

No, we are instead once again faced with one of your ill pondered suggestions. It is eerily reminiscent of when you tried to place the entrance to Pickfords anywhere but where it always was.

[Fisherman]

Of course in this case we don't have official inquest documentation and it may be wiser not to try to use anything from the press since it's not really verifiable.

Columbo

Jesus´ existence is considered proven because there are numerous sources that would not have been in contact with each other but who all mention him, thus verifying his existence, Columbo.
When we have a dozen reporters who sit through an inquest and all come up with the idea that person A refused to help person B prop a body up, whereas one single paper reports that the issue was raised but has it the other way around - person B refused to help person A prop a body up - then we must regard that single paper as mistaken, unless we have any real reason to believe that particular paper was correct while all the others were wrong.

Saying that we should not use the papers would hinder us to access the inquest material on the whole, and that would be a very sad thing. A sound weighing - admittedly sometimes harder and sometimes easier to make - is what is left to us, and I firmly believe that this is what we must do.

Caligo Umbrator - I hope this serves as an answer to you too.

[Columbo]

Jesus´ existence is considered proven because there are numerous sources that would not have been in contact with each other but who all mention him, thus verifying his existence, Columbo.
When we have a dozen reporters who sit through an inquest and all come up with the idea that person A refused to help person B prop a body up, whereas one single paper reports that the issue was raised but has it the other way around - person B refused to help person A prop a body up - then we must regard that single paper as mistaken, unless we have any real reason to believe that particular paper was correct while all the others were wrong.

Saying that we should not use the papers would hinder us to access the inquest material on the whole, and that would be a very sad thing. A sound weighing - admittedly sometimes harder and sometimes easier to make - is what is left to us, and I firmly believe that this is what we must do.

Caligo Umbrator - I hope this serves as an answer to you too.

Valid point. The interest for me is not which version is true as I'm sure that it was Lechmere who didn't want to touch the body, but the fact that, as pointed out before, a few of the newspapers seem to have gotten their information from the same source as a lot of the information is verbatim across them. It does make me wonder if a news agency was involved.

I think it would be beneficial (if it hasn't been done already) to compare the surviving inquest reports from the other murders and compare them to the newspapers of the day and see which one got it right.

To continue with Lechmere: With Paul's reluctance to want to even get close to Lechmere in Buck's Row shows me that he was a very careful man (as they had to be given the violence in that area) so although he checked the body for warmth and such, it's not out of the theoretical realm that he also may not have wanted to move the body given his cautious nature. So I can see someone using that article as a basis of argument against that aspect of the Lechmere hypothesis.

I will also point out you could lose the entire inquest/name portion of the theory and it still doesn't discount Lechmere as a viable suspect. It's just a small connector but not a necessary one.

Columbo

[drstrange169]

Hello Caligo,


>>… these press reports are in argument with each other in what may be important areas. As these appear to be the main documents we are to rely on for information relating to the inquest, what method of filter do you suggest we utilise so as to better clarify and comprehend the circumstances being discussed?<<

A combination of methods are needed to build a picture that is as accurate as is possible.


Discrepancies in names can be cross-checked against the existing official files, Mizen, Charles, Paul and Thain are all popular press misspelling errors that can be verified via other sources.


Timing differences like Mizen encountering the duo “at 20 minutes past four” are down to common-sense.


The rest are subject to personal opinions and interpretations that lead to endless circular debates, I’m afraid.

[drstrange169]

>>... the police stated unequivocally on Sunday night that Neil was the finder of the body. And Neil himself had testified to the exact same effect on Saturday, on the first inquest day.<<

Which is perfectly true.

It would seem you don’t understand what you are reading. PC Neil did “find” the body; he just wasn’t the first to find it. And nowhere, in the evidence we have, do the “police” or Neil claim “unequivocally” that Neil was the first.
It is clear that there was confusion over exactly who the two men spoke to. With Neil denying seeing them, it’s not surprising that police would be skeptical of Xmere claim. But when Paul's story was published it would have added enough weight to Xmere's claims to warrant further investigation.

The confusion would not be resolved until Mizen could identify them and verify their stories, which, of course, seems to have happened at the inquest.


>>No, we are instead once again faced with one of your ill pondered suggestions. It is eerily reminiscent of when you tried to place the entrance to Pickfords anywhere but where it always was.<<

How many do you think there were and where were they?

I’ve got pictures of five entrances so far and another two possible's I’m still looking to confirm.

Could you share your knowledge of the entrances with us?

[Columbo]

>>... the police stated unequivocally on Sunday night that Neil was the finder of the body. And Neil himself had testified to the exact same effect on Saturday, on the first inquest day.<<

Which is perfectly true.

It would seem you don’t understand what you are reading. PC Neil did “find” the body; he just wasn’t the first to find it. And nowhere, in the evidence we have, do the “police” or Neil claim “unequivocally” that Neil was the first.
It is clear that there was confusion over exactly who the two men spoke to. With Neil denying seeing them, it’s not surprising that police would be skeptical of Xmere claim. But when Paul's story was published it would have added enough weight to Xmere's claims to warrant further investigation.

The confusion would not be resolved until Mizen could identify them and verify their stories, which, of course, seems to have happened at the inquest.


>>No, we are instead once again faced with one of your ill pondered suggestions. It is eerily reminiscent of when you tried to place the entrance to Pickfords anywhere but where it always was.<<

How many do you think there were and where were they?

I’ve got pictures of five entrances so far and another two possible's I’m still looking to confirm.

Could you share your knowledge of the entrances with us?

I was just reading through that thread. Kudos on the pics and work put into it. I have no idea what I was looking at but it was good work.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:

... the police stated unequivocally on Sunday night that Neil was the finder of the body. And Neil himself had testified to the exact same effect on Saturday, on the first inquest day.

Which is perfectly true.

It would seem you don’t understand what you are reading.

Would it now? I don´t think so, Dusty. I find the comprehension problem lies elsewhere.

PC Neil did “find” the body; he just wasn’t the first to find it. And nowhere, in the evidence we have, do the “police” or Neil claim “unequivocally” that Neil was the first.

Since Neil and the police had to accept that there was a period of time when Nichols was dead and Neil was not there, there must of course always be a possibility that somebody else finds the body and leaves it without leaving any trace behind him- or herself.
But since the police unequivocally denied that there had been any two men who led Neil to the body, it is clear that they worked from the presumption that he was the original finder of the body. Will that do for you?


It is clear that there was confusion over exactly who the two men spoke to. With Neil denying seeing them, it’s not surprising that police would be skeptical of Xmere claim. But when Paul's story was published it would have added enough weight to Xmere's claims to warrant further investigation.

The confusion would not be resolved until Mizen could identify them and verify their stories, which, of course, seems to have happened at the inquest.

But why wait until the inquest,if the police actually knew that the two carmen corroborated each other? They stated very clearly that they had met the PC they spoke to up at the intersection of Bakers Row and Hanbury Street, and the police knew exactly which PC had that beat, so they would have absolutely no problems letting Mizen ID them both before the inquest and then there would not need to be any confusion at all, Dusty.

Do you think that is how it works? The police have two men corroborating each others stories about finding a dead body, they knew who the men had spoken to, they can get their own man to confirm it - but they prefer to take a chance and they wait three days before seeking confirmation...?


[No, we are instead once again faced with one of your ill pondered suggestions. It is eerily reminiscent of when you tried to place the entrance to Pickfords anywhere but where it always was.

How many do you think there were and where were they?

I’ve got pictures of five entrances so far and another two possible's I’m still looking to confirm.

Could you share your knowledge of the entrances with us?

Haha! No, I won´t delve into that again. There is a perfectly good thread on it already, with a guide to where the main entrance was - and where it was emphatically NOT.
So we will not revisit that point.
Or the one about how Lechmere stood twenty yards away from the body - according to you.
Or the one about how Lechmere´s sister would perhaps give him away - according to you.

What´s been cleared up has been cleared up, and I prefer to concentrate on clearing up the rest of the mess you seem to leave behind whenever you enter the Lechmere debate.

Currently, that is the notion that the press would have misled their readers by adding old material into articles about fresh information, and how the police would have decided to keep the information about Lechmere under wraps.

But you seem less willing to discuss and explain that?

[Fisherman]

The rest are subject to personal opinions and interpretations...

VERY personal opinions and "interpretations" at times, one hastens to add.

[drstrange169]

>>I won´t delve into that again. <<

But you brought it up?

Anyway, I'm more than happy to chat about it when you are ready.

>>Or the one about how Lechmere stood twenty yards away from the body - according to you.<<

Not according to me, I wasn't there. According to a Charles Allen Cross at the inquest.

>>... you seem less willing to discuss and explain that?<<

I'm happy to discuss anything. It seems to be you who is leaving an ever-lengthening list of subjects you won't discuss openly.

When you are ready.

This thread has been polite and informative, the only person thus far to take an aggressive tone is yourself. If you want to continue to be rude and abusive feel free to fill my p.m.'s with abuse, otherwise, please adhere to the civil tone the rest of us are contributing in.

It's not a big ask and I'm sure the others would appreciate it.

[drstrange169]

Sorry I forgot the mention this one,

>>They stated very clearly that they had met the PC they spoke to up at the intersection of Bakers Row and Hanbury Street, and the police knew exactly which PC had that beat, so they would have absolutely no problems letting Mizen ID them both before the inquest and then there would not need to be any confusion at all, Dusty.<<

Perhaps you missed the thread,

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=379430

Neil's beat could well have taken him passed the spot where the trio met, as he walked up Baker's Row and down Thomas Street, so, yes the confusion could have been genuine. And don't forget the sentence you edited out of your Daily News quote in post #23 (referring to Mizen),

"These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete."

If that is what the police truly believed, and that seems to be your contention, then there was huge confusion, heck, nearly a century and a half later everyone is still confused;-)

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, drstrange169.

The shortcomings exhibited by the press in respect to the spelling of known individuals names and the variation in the manner of describing the times of particular occurrences are factors that we might hope can sensibly be dealt with by most persons upon this forum.
With regards to the other information, it is to be hoped that we might avoid the 'endless circular debates' that plagues some threads and with which we are already too familiar.
Perhaps, should such a thread not already exist, one could be started with a view to establishing a mode of analysis upon which the interpretation of these uncertain factors can be agreed upon.
Or at the very least a discussion regarding the sources upon which the newspapers may have based their reports.
What do you think?

[Columbo]

Hi, drstrange169.

The shortcomings exhibited by the press in respect to the spelling of known individuals names and the variation in the manner of describing the times of particular occurrences are factors that we might hope can sensibly be dealt with by most persons upon this forum.
With regards to the other information, it is to be hoped that we might avoid the 'endless circular debates' that plagues some threads and with which we are already too familiar.
Perhaps, should such a thread not already exist, one could be started with a view to establishing a mode of analysis upon which the interpretation of these uncertain factors can be agreed upon.
Or at the very least a discussion regarding the sources upon which the newspapers may have based their reports.
What do you think?

I think that would be a very useful discussion.

Columbo

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;387301]

Jesus´ existence is considered proven because there are numerous sources that would not have been in contact with each other but who all mention him, thus verifying his existence, Columbo.

Wrong, Fisherman. There are no contemporary sources, the sources differ enormously and they are copies of copies of copies. The sources do NOT prove the existence of Jesus and they are very bad sources. Actually, they are worthless.

[drstrange169]

Excellent idea, I'm off out now, but if someone hasn't already started one by tonight, I'll set one up.