The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Fisherman]

The line of sight would have improved if Neil stepped to the north side of the row.

Monty

Yes it would. But we all know that Mizen spoke to Lechmere at the corner of Bakers Row and Hanbury Street, and AS A RESULT OF THAT CONVERSATION set off for Buckīs Row. And he had a significant strech of ground to cover before he could become visible to Neil.
When Mizen approached the opening into Bucks Row, he therefore already acted upon the information that Lechmere had given him.
Consequentially, Neil was not the person that brought Mizen to Bucks Row - Lechmere was.
Consequentially, much as Neil may have stepped further to the north and seen Mizen, he only THOUGHT that he himself was the one to call Mizen into action.
He may equally have stayed on the south side, because sooner or later, he would be able to see Mizen anyway.
But he would never be the man that attracted Mizenīs interest to the case.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

So he lied and he was found with the body, eh?

You must expand on that so I understand who "he" is - and what you are thinking. Maybe my answer to Monty will work for you too, though?

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

You must expand on that so I understand who "he" is ...

Really?

[Monty]

Yes it would. But we all know that Mizen spoke to Lechmere at the corner of Bakers Row and Hanbury Street, and AS A RESULT OF THAT CONVERSATION set off for Buckīs Row. And he had a significant strech of ground to cover before he could become visible to Neil.
When Mizen approached the opening into Bucks Row, he therefore already acted upon the information that Lechmere had given him.
Consequentially, Neil was not the person that brought Mizen to Bucks Row - Lechmere was.
Consequentially, much as Neil may have stepped further to the north and seen Mizen, he only THOUGHT that he himself was the one to call Mizen into action.
He may equally have stayed on the south side, because sooner or later, he would be able to see Mizen anyway.
But he would never be the man that attracted Mizenīs interest to the case.

The best,
Fisherman

I agree

Monty

[Fisherman]

Really?

Yes, really. The one explanation I can see is that you are implying that I would think that everybody who finds a dead victim must be a liar, but that is an explanation that does not pan out, since we cannot compare Neil and Lechmere in any respect.

So I was kind of hoping that you did better than that.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

The one explanation I can see is that you are implying that I would think that everybody who finds a dead victim must be a liar ...

Eh? Where on earth do you get that from?

[The Good Michael]

It could be accounted for by Cross/Lechmere having stopped walking 9 seconds rather than 5 seconds before he became aware of Paul. Or Paul having walked 1/6 mile per hour faster than Cross/Lechmere. Is anyone going to say that either of those is impossible?

Actually, Paul said he was hurrying, and as he was much younger than Cross, my guess is he was on pace to pass him regardless.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Eh? Where on earth do you get that from?

Well, Chris, since you wonīt explain yourself, I have no choice but to guess. Maybe the time has come to lay your cards on the table? Otherwise I may get it all wrong, and Iīm not used to that.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Given that even Edward Stow acknowledged that the distance between them could have been 50 yards in Buck's Row before Cross/Lechmere stopped, the remaining difference - 8 yards - really is tiny. It could be accounted for by Cross/Lechmere having stopped walking 9 seconds rather than 5 seconds before he became aware of Paul. Or Paul having walked 1/6 mile per hour faster than Cross/Lechmere. Is anyone going to say that either of those is impossible?

Yes, if there never was any stop time before he became aware of Paul, then itīs impossible. And as I posted earlier, Lechmere says that "on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had come", so it would seem it all happened in an unbroken sequence - or so Lechmere will have us believe.
It was not only the Morning Advertiser that had it worded like this. The East London Observer wrote: "It looked like a tarpaulin sheet, but walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's-row in the direction witness had himself come", The Star had it "When he got nearer he found it was a woman. At that time he heard a man coming up the street behind him; he was about 40 yards behind" and the Echo wrote "I walked into the centre of the road, and saw that it was a woman. At the same time I heard a man come up behind, in the same direction as I was going."

Please note how Lechmere apparently pressed the timing point - it all happened in an unbroken sequence of events (At the same time...), something that was vital to the picture he needed to impose upon the inquest if he was the killer.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Yes, if there never was any stop time before he became aware of Paul, then itīs impossible.

Oh dear. Apparently you didn't read what I wrote:
It could be accounted for by Cross/Lechmere having stopped walking 9 seconds rather than 5 seconds before he became aware of Paul. Or Paul having walked 1/6 mile per hour faster than Cross/Lechmere. Is anyone going to say that either of those is impossible?

[Fisherman]

Oh dear. Apparently you didn't read what I wrote:
It could be accounted for by Cross/Lechmere having stopped walking 9 seconds rather than 5 seconds before he became aware of Paul. Or Paul having walked 1/6 mile per hour faster than Cross/Lechmere. Is anyone going to say that either of those is impossible?

Yes, I read what you suggested. And if the paper reports from the inquest are wrong, THEN you have a case. Otherwise you donīt. And you actually asked if anybody regarded EITHER suggestion as impossible.

As for Paul rushing, it is not something that is gainsaid in the paper reports. But I think we need to work from a presumption that both men walked at equal paces. And no matter how we look at things, Paul would have been in Bucks Row as Lechmere was at Browns, and a man that claims that he would have noticed anything stirring by the murder site immediately he entered Bucks Row, should arguably have noticed anything stirring in the other end of the road too.

But itīs nice of you to call me dear either way.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Fisherman

You're saying it's impossible that Paul was walking 1/6 mph faster than Cross/Lechmere?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

You're saying it's impossible that Paul was walking 1/6 mph faster than Cross/Lechmere?

I find it interesting how those who dislike our theory unceasingly suggest that we find different matters impossible.

This time itīs Pauls walking speed visavi Lechmeres.

How these ideas arise, Iīm at a loss to understand.

No, I donīt find it impossible that Paul walked faster than Lechmere.

I donīt find it impossible that Lechmere walked faster than Paul either.

But I do think that since both men were late, we should work from an assumption that they walked at the approximate same speeds.

I also think that what you are suggesting - that Paul may have gained 8 yards on Lechmere - still puts Paul walking down Buckīs Row for a looong period of time while Lechmere was in the street. And I pointed out that Charles Lechmere said that he would have noticed if somebody moved down Browns Stable Yard the moment he got into Buckīs Row.

Please observe that he would arguably not have SEEN anybody moving, for it was very dark. What Lechmere is saying is that he would have HEARD that somebody, if there had been someone there.

I therefore think that it is odd that Lechmere tells us that he would hear a man moving from 130 yards away (which we KNOW Neil did visavi Thain!), approximately, in an east-westernly direction, in spite of the fact that he would have had to tell that sound from the sound of himself walking, while he was totally unable to discern Paul behind him, although he was only around 40 yards away.

I find that this does not pan out.

Nor does it pan out that Paul neither heard nor saw Lechmere walking a short distance in front of him.

However, if Lechmere was NOT in the process of walking down Bucks Row ashort stretch ahead of Paul, but instead kneeling by Nichols body, THEN it suddenly makes sense. For in that case, it stands to reson that Paul would never hear a step, but instead just see Lechmere as he drew very close to him.

And it stands to reason that Lechmere, if he was the killer, would want to speak of as short a distance as possible inbetween him and Paul when he claimed to have walked out into the middle of the street.

That does not amount to me saying that it was impossible for Paul to walk faster than Lechmere, mind you. It only points out that the recorded evidence points to a lie on Lechmereīs behalf here.
Just as it points to a lie about the name.
Just as it point to him lying to Mizen.

Are you saying, Chris, that Lechmere could not have lied...?

I really donīt think you are.

Are you saying that it is more common that serving PC:s with good records lie than carmen?

I donīt think you do that either.

We both know our respective stances. Letīs save some time and stop asking questions we know the answers to, what do you say?

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Fisherman

So - if we could stick to the point for just a moment - you agree that it's not impossible Cross/Lechmere could have been 58 yards ahead of Paul in Bath Street, but only 40 yards ahead in Buck's Row after he had stopped to look at the body?

[Rob Clack]

I've measured the three main large distances between Paul's home and Bucks Row.
All distances are approximate.