Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

In response to the many posts by Dusty, I would simply point out that the matter I asked about before I left, was why anyone would listen to a poster who suggests that what Dr Llewelyn meant when he said that he was called to Bucks Row at 4 AM, he likely meant that he left home at this time. Although there is a variety of topics represented in Dustys many posts, he seems to have forgotten about this one.

Me, I believe that once the debate takes this kind of a turn, the time has come to point it out. When somebody is so dead set on not accepting the possible guilt of the carman so as to dabble with the evidence in this manner, there is really no actual need for any further debate. It´s game over.

As for my having intermittently left the debate (and intending to do so again), it seems Dusty has his verdict clear about what that implies:

" ...when the cracks appear in the Lechmerian theory, Lechmerians disappear, like cockroaches in a torch beam."

So what happened was apparently not, as I thought myself, that I grew tired of the embarrasing standards of Dustys (and a few other posters) arguments. No, it seems I instead realized how superior Dustys arguments actually were, and subsequently fled like a cockroach exposed to light, no less...!?

By the way, the guy who is comparing the ones who have another view than he himself has to cockroaches, is the same man who writes:

"To dwell on Mark J D's quote about method and ethics, clearly you don't have and have never seen the "100 or so" signatures.

Given that why do you think it's ok to denigrate people who question where these signatures are?"

So here we have a poster to whom "method and ethics" are of vital importance, just as he points out how we should not denigrate others. And he is a top entomologist too.
We should congratulate ourselves on having such an eminent guide to show us the way forward!

Before I retreat under the baseboard again, I may just as well point out that the signatures spoken about are in the hands of Edward Stow - as has been pointed out many, many times. They are a collection of documents like school documents, voting documents, census documents, social status documents and so on, some of them signed by Lechmere´s own hand, others signed for him by other people. The reason Edward is not willing to put all of them out there publically is likely because he intends to publish on the Lechmere theory in the future, and he is likely concerned that the material would get spread without his consent, the way the Lechmere photo once was.
It is therefore all very mundane and not nefarious in any way. The character of the documents has been explained, the number of them has been explained and the fact that they were sometimes signed by Lechmere himself and on other occasions by somebody else has been explained. But Dusty seemingly enjoys his claiming that the main driving force for the cockroaches representing the Lechmere theory is to lie, hide away and misrepresent. As if claiming that Llewellyn could have meant that he left his house at 4 AM on the murder morning, instead of being called to Bucks Row at this time would NOT be misrepresenting the material handed down to us...

A Merry Christmas to all of you if I do not return to Casebook until after Santa Claus has payed us his yearly visit!

[FrankO]

I will of course defer to Fisherman when it come to such matters.

My opinion, based on press reports quoting Lechmere himself, is that Nichols dress was pulled down to either around her knees or her thighs. The important part for me is that even at this initial stage, the abdominal wounds have been deliberately concealed. For me this shows that JTR never left Bucks Row, he disguised that a murder had taken place, and was therefore still in situ as Robert Paul arrived.

Furthermore, looking at the picture below of Nichols wounds, for these wounds to be concealed, I would suggest that Lechmere’s statements about the dress being pulled down to thighs / knees is accurate. I would add that this wouldn’t happen naturally from the lying down position. JTR tidied up the crime scene - he never left Bucks Row.

Okay SuperShodan, I'm going to ask you a direct question in the hope that, this time, you will respond.

How would you pull down a dress in a situation with a woman lying on her back? Would you just sort of blindly grab the dress at whatever point and take it form there or would you go for the hem of the dress? Which seems the more natural thing to you?

[drstrange169]

Hopefully everyone had a good Christmas (substitute the word “Christmas” for the relevant festive occasion you may have celebrated)!

This year two journalists won the Nobel peace prize. Although they spoke of loftier matters than that being discussed here, what they said still resonates with the posts in this thread.

“… our mission is clear – to distinguish between facts and fiction.”
Dmitry Muratov, Nobel Peace prize acceptance speech

“Without facts, you can’t have truth. Without truth, you can’t have trust. Without trust, we have no shared reality …”
Maria Ressa, Nobel Peace prize acceptance speech.

Why Christer constantly avoids answering the questions he promised he would, I don’t know, but a I can say with authority that he doesn’t write the “truth” in his last post and in accord with Maria Ressa’s assessment we can’t “trust” what he writes and in turn there is no “shared reality”.

So, when he writes in post #3691,

“ I would simply point out that the matter I asked about before I left... Although there is a variety of topics represented in Dustys many posts, he seems to have forgotten about this one.”

We know he is just inventing yet another fake excuse to avoid dealing with his promises, as I wrote 171 words on the subject in post #3656. As with all Christer’s posts, readers are strongly advised to check to see if what he is claiming is actually true.

If the case against Lechmere is so strong, why is it some Lechmerians feel the need to fabricate so much?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just read Bob Mills ‘All Roads Lead To Lechmere’ article in the latest Ripperologist which made me think about the issue with the gap of time between Lechmere leaving home and his meeting with Paul (which he of course said occurred just after he’d spotted the body after first thinking that it might have been a tarpaulin.)

Lechmere said that he left home about 3.30 and that he was running late as 3.20 was his usual departure time. The issue of course is that reconstructions show that if he’d left the house at 3.30 then he should have arrived significantly before his 3.45 meeting with Paul which would have allowed him time to have killed Nichols.

Of course, a guilty Lechmere might indeed have left the house earlier. A guilty Lechmere ‘might’ have left the house at 3.00. For me though, the point is that Lechmere said that he left the house about 3.30. Very obviously this shows that he was estimating. On the Berner Street threads Jeff Hamm has shown us, using published research, how witnesses can regularly out by very significant amounts when estimating times. Therefore it was entirely possible that he actually left the house after 3.30 arriving at Bucks Row at, say 3.43. This proves nothing except that we can’t read anything into a reconstruction of the time that it took for Lechmere to walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row when we can’t possibly know the exact starting time. It only works if Lechmere left the house at exactly 3.30 but that’s not what he said.

Another point of course is the thinking of a guilty man. It is suggested that on the spur-of-the-moment Lechmere came up with that piece of self-preservation The Mizen Scam in order not to be detained by Jonas Mizen. If he possessed the cunning required to do that without any significant chance to think about it then shouldn’t we ask why, after a period when he certainly did have time to think (up until the Inquest) he didn’t think to say “I left the house at just after 3.35,” eliminating any gap. Surely the person that came up with the scam on the spot would have realised that a police officer might have thought “hold on, it doesn’t take 15 minutes to walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row…what was he doing?”

Of course even if Lechmere arrived in Bucks Row at say 3.37 then we still have to ask ourselves how likely it would have been for him to have murdered and mutilated Nichols knowing that he had to be at work (still a distance away) in 20 minutes time and, for all that he’d have known beforehand, potentially covered in blood (possibly even on his face or in his hair.)

Mills also raises the point, as Christer has, about the body not being ‘posed.’ Might we not suggest that as this was very possibly the first murder of the series then the killer might not have come up with the idea of posing yet? Or might the killer have been disturbed by the arrival of Lechmere and he simply dropped her clothing after having held it up with one hand? Leaving the skirt slightly raised?

I must say that I find Mills thinking on this subject quite strange. As if he’s started from the point that Lechmere must have been guilty. There’s more to question in that article but I’ll leave it at that.

[Fisherman]

Hopefully everyone had a good Christmas (substitute the word “Christmas” for the relevant festive occasion you may have celebrated)!

This year two journalists won the Nobel peace prize. Although they spoke of loftier matters than that being discussed here, what they said still resonates with the posts in this thread.

“… our mission is clear – to distinguish between facts and fiction.”
Dmitry Muratov, Nobel Peace prize acceptance speech

“Without facts, you can’t have truth. Without truth, you can’t have trust. Without trust, we have no shared reality …”
Maria Ressa, Nobel Peace prize acceptance speech.

Why Christer constantly avoids answering the questions he promised he would, I don’t know, but a I can say with authority that he doesn’t write the “truth” in his last post and in accord with Maria Ressa’s assessment we can’t “trust” what he writes and in turn there is no “shared reality”.

So, when he writes in post #3691,

“ I would simply point out that the matter I asked about before I left... Although there is a variety of topics represented in Dustys many posts, he seems to have forgotten about this one.”

We know he is just inventing yet another fake excuse to avoid dealing with his promises, as I wrote 171 words on the subject in post #3656. As with all Christer’s posts, readers are strongly advised to check to see if what he is claiming is actually true.

If the case against Lechmere is so strong, why is it some Lechmerians feel the need to fabricate so much?

The case against Lechmere is not altered in any way by anybody fabricating anything, regardless if the fabrications represent the pro Lechmerians or the naysayers. It remains the same, born out by the facts.

Anybody with no fabrication interests knows this. Then again …

As for the claims that I do not have answers for your questions, that is as untrue as it is ridiculous. I sometimes have problems motivating myself to answer the more frivolous and exotic questions you ask, but that does not mean that I cannot do so. It only means that I don’ t find much of what you claim worth any answer in the first place.

As always, if you have any intelligible question to ask, then ask away, and if I find that you have accidentally stumbled over something noteworthy, I will of course answer it.

If you feel you can prove that I cannot answer your questions, then just ask any question you like to and we will soon enough find out if you are telling the truth or not.

[Fisherman]

I just read Bob Mills ‘All Roads Lead To Lechmere’ article in the latest Ripperologist which made me think about the issue with the gap of time between Lechmere leaving home and his meeting with Paul (which he of course said occurred just after he’d spotted the body after first thinking that it might have been a tarpaulin.)

Lechmere said that he left home about 3.30 and that he was running late as 3.20 was his usual departure time. The issue of course is that reconstructions show that if he’d left the house at 3.30 then he should have arrived significantly before his 3.45 meeting with Paul which would have allowed him time to have killed Nichols.

Of course, a guilty Lechmere might indeed have left the house earlier. A guilty Lechmere ‘might’ have left the house at 3.00. For me though, the point is that Lechmere said that he left the house about 3.30. Very obviously this shows that he was estimating. On the Berner Street threads Jeff Hamm has shown us, using published research, how witnesses can regularly out by very significant amounts when estimating times. Therefore it was entirely possible that he actually left the house after 3.30 arriving at Bucks Row at, say 3.43. This proves nothing except that we can’t read anything into a reconstruction of the time that it took for Lechmere to walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row when we can’t possibly know the exact starting time. It only works if Lechmere left the house at exactly 3.30 but that’s not what he said.

Another point of course is the thinking of a guilty man. It is suggested that on the spur-of-the-moment Lechmere came up with that piece of self-preservation The Mizen Scam in order not to be detained by Jonas Mizen. If he possessed the cunning required to do that without any significant chance to think about it then shouldn’t we ask why, after a period when he certainly did have time to think (up until the Inquest) he didn’t think to say “I left the house at just after 3.35,” eliminating any gap. Surely the person that came up with the scam on the spot would have realised that a police officer might have thought “hold on, it doesn’t take 15 minutes to walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row…what was he doing?”

Of course even if Lechmere arrived in Bucks Row at say 3.37 then we still have to ask ourselves how likely it would have been for him to have murdered and mutilated Nichols knowing that he had to be at work (still a distance away) in 20 minutes time and, for all that he’d have known beforehand, potentially covered in blood (possibly even on his face or in his hair.)

Mills also raises the point, as Christer has, about the body not being ‘posed.’ Might we not suggest that as this was very possibly the first murder of the series then the killer might not have come up with the idea of posing yet? Or might the killer have been disturbed by the arrival of Lechmere and he simply dropped her clothing after having held it up with one hand? Leaving the skirt slightly raised?

I must say that I find Mills thinking on this subject quite strange. As if he’s started from the point that Lechmere must have been guilty. There’s more to question in that article but I’ll leave it at that.

Hi Herlock!

It is a very good question you ask: why did not Lechmere adjust his departure time from Doveton Street to fit the evidence?

It deserves an equally good answer, and here it is: He did.

When Lechmere took the stand, the prevailing ”truth” was that the body was found at around 3.40, not at 3.45. So if Lechmere said he left home at around 3.30, then he should have been in place at around 3.37, and that would be close in time to 3.40! ”Around” 3.30 could well be 3.32 or thereabouts, and that would be a near perfect fit!

It is only when Baxter concludes that the body was NOT found at around 3.40 but instead at a time not far off the 3.45 mark that Lechmere is thrown under the bus. And this, he could not foresee! He would have banked on how the three PC:s would have been given credence, but that was not to be.

This is if course why the naysayers are now trying to minimise the damage by saying that when Baxter said not far off 3.45, 3.40 is not far off that mark. And it is also why they are willing to call anybody idiotic who does not accept the three PC:s evidence as unbreakable! But as the Lechmere testimony reveals, the importance is absolutely massive. It may well be that it helps disclose a killer!

[JeffHamm]

I just read Bob Mills ‘All Roads Lead To Lechmere’ article in the latest Ripperologist which made me think about the issue with the gap of time between Lechmere leaving home and his meeting with Paul (which he of course said occurred just after he’d spotted the body after first thinking that it might have been a tarpaulin.)

Lechmere said that he left home about 3.30 and that he was running late as 3.20 was his usual departure time. The issue of course is that reconstructions show that if he’d left the house at 3.30 then he should have arrived significantly before his 3.45 meeting with Paul which would have allowed him time to have killed Nichols.

Of course, a guilty Lechmere might indeed have left the house earlier. A guilty Lechmere ‘might’ have left the house at 3.00. For me though, the point is that Lechmere said that he left the house about 3.30. Very obviously this shows that he was estimating. On the Berner Street threads Jeff Hamm has shown us, using published research, how witnesses can regularly out by very significant amounts when estimating times. Therefore it was entirely possible that he actually left the house after 3.30 arriving at Bucks Row at, say 3.43. This proves nothing except that we can’t read anything into a reconstruction of the time that it took for Lechmere to walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row when we can’t possibly know the exact starting time. It only works if Lechmere left the house at exactly 3.30 but that’s not what he said.

Another point of course is the thinking of a guilty man. It is suggested that on the spur-of-the-moment Lechmere came up with that piece of self-preservation The Mizen Scam in order not to be detained by Jonas Mizen. If he possessed the cunning required to do that without any significant chance to think about it then shouldn’t we ask why, after a period when he certainly did have time to think (up until the Inquest) he didn’t think to say “I left the house at just after 3.35,” eliminating any gap. Surely the person that came up with the scam on the spot would have realised that a police officer might have thought “hold on, it doesn’t take 15 minutes to walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row…what was he doing?”

Of course even if Lechmere arrived in Bucks Row at say 3.37 then we still have to ask ourselves how likely it would have been for him to have murdered and mutilated Nichols knowing that he had to be at work (still a distance away) in 20 minutes time and, for all that he’d have known beforehand, potentially covered in blood (possibly even on his face or in his hair.)

Mills also raises the point, as Christer has, about the body not being ‘posed.’ Might we not suggest that as this was very possibly the first murder of the series then the killer might not have come up with the idea of posing yet? Or might the killer have been disturbed by the arrival of Lechmere and he simply dropped her clothing after having held it up with one hand? Leaving the skirt slightly raised?

I must say that I find Mills thinking on this subject quite strange. As if he’s started from the point that Lechmere must have been guilty. There’s more to question in that article but I’ll leave it at that.

Hi Herlock,

The thing is, at 3:45, Cross/Lechmere and Paul are talking to PC Mizen and PC Neil is independently finding Nichols. PC Mizen was roughly 925 feet from the crime scene, which, at an average walking pace of 3.1 mph, would require about 3 minutes and 23 seconds (which fits with Paul's suggestion of no more than 4 minutes, though it's a bit ambiguous if his 4 minutes starts when they leave the crime scene or from when he first is approached by Cross/Lechmere).

In either case, though, we're looking at Cross/Lechmere and Paul meeting up at an estimated time of somewhere between 3:39-3:41 type thing, depending upon how one interprets Paul's "4 minutes" and how long one their time at the crime scene (including Cross/Lechmere waiting for Paul to get close enough for him to start their interactions). If Cross/Lechmere leaves home around 3:30, he would be expected to arrive at the scene in the vicinity of 3:37. And really, at this point, the time estimations are all fitting together pretty well, given how inexact this sort of information is.

Baxter refers to the discovery time based upon when the police found her body, which is PC Neil's discovery time of 3:45. But by that time, Cross/Lechmere and Paul had already been there and moved on and were now reporting their find to PC Mizen.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Hi Herlock,

The thing is, at 3:45, Cross/Lechmere and Paul are talking to PC Mizen and PC Neil is independently finding Nichols. PC Mizen was roughly 925 feet from the crime scene, which, at an average walking pace of 3.1 mph, would require about 3 minutes and 23 seconds (which fits with Paul's suggestion of no more than 4 minutes, though it's a bit ambiguous if his 4 minutes starts when they leave the crime scene or from when he first is approached by Cross/Lechmere).

In either case, though, we're looking at Cross/Lechmere and Paul meeting up at an estimated time of somewhere between 3:39-3:41 type thing, depending upon how one interprets Paul's "4 minutes" and how long one their time at the crime scene (including Cross/Lechmere waiting for Paul to get close enough for him to start their interactions). If Cross/Lechmere leaves home around 3:30, he would be expected to arrive at the scene in the vicinity of 3:37. And really, at this point, the time estimations are all fitting together pretty well, given how inexact this sort of information is.

Baxter refers to the discovery time based upon when the police found her body, which is PC Neil's discovery time of 3:45. But by that time, Cross/Lechmere and Paul had already been there and moved on and were now reporting their find to PC Mizen.

- Jeff

That is what desperation does - now Jeff wants us to believe that Baxter meant the time when Neil arrived at the site when speaking of the time the body was found, as if the coroner had forgotten who actually found her. But PC Neil was never the finder, Lechmere was.
Did Baxter know this?
Not according to Jeff.

If there was one person on planet Earth who was painfully aware about who found the dead body of Polly Nichols, then that person was Wynne Baxter.

Here is how the coroners summing up was described in the Morning Advertiser:

”The deceased was first discovered by a carman on his way to work, who passed down Bucks Row on the opposite side of the road. Immediately after he had ascertained that the dark object in the gateway was the figure of a woman, he heard footsteps approaching. This proved to be Paul, another carman. Together they went to the woman. The condition of her clothing suggested to them that she had been outraged and had fainted. Neither appear to have realized the real condition of the woman and no injuries were noticed by them; but this, no doubt, is accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45, as it is fixed by so many independent data.”

Now, hands up anybody who read anything about P C Neil in this snippet, unaltered and quoted in extenso and ad verbatim?

Give it up, Jeff. Don’ t obfuscate and tamper with the evidence. Nothing good comes from such things.

[JeffHamm]

That is what desperation does - now Jeff wants us to believe that Baxter meant the time when Neil arrived at the site when speaking of the time the body was found, as if the coroner had forgotten who actually found her. But PC Neil was never the finder, Lechmere was.
Did Baxter know this?
Not according to Jeff.

If there was one person on planet Earth who was painfully aware about who found the dead body of Polly Nichols, then that person was Wynne Baxter.

Here is how the coroners summing up was described in the Morning Advertiser:

”The deceased was first discovered by a carman on his way to work, who passed down Bucks Row on the opposite side of the road. Immediately after he had ascertained that the dark object in the gateway was the figure of a woman, he heard footsteps approaching. This proved to be Paul, another carman. Together they went to the woman. The condition of her clothing suggested to them that she had been outraged and had fainted. Neither appear to have realized the real condition of the woman and no injuries were noticed by them; but this, no doubt, is accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45, as it is fixed by so many independent data.”

Now, hands up anybody who read anything about P C Neil in this snippet, unaltered and quoted in extenso and ad verbatim?

Give it up, Jeff. Don’ t obfuscate and tamper with the evidence. Nothing good comes from such things.

Hi Fisherman,

Baxter was also aware that Cross/Lechmere and Paul were talking to PC Mizen, well away from the crime scene, at 3:45. And, as he indicates, "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3:45...", which is not the same thing as you're interpreting it as to to mean "at 3:45". Like us, the time for Cross/Lechmere and Paul's discovery has to be estimated based upon their movements and activities, but PC Neil records his discovery at 3:45 (and PC Mizen records his interaction with the two men at 3:45). We know that PC Neil finds the body after Cross/Lechmere and Paul, therefore Cross/Lechmere and Paul must have found the body before 3:45. This isn't difficult, nor is it desperation, a term that is more appropriately applied to those trying to shift Cross/Lechmere and Paul to be at the body at the same time as PC Neil's discovery.

Given Cross/Lechmere and Paul's discovery appears to be in the order of 4 minutes prior to PC Neil, that would entirely fit with Baxter's description of the time of their discovery as not far off 3:45. His description, that you quote, does not tally with a discovery time of "at 3:45", because 3:45 is not "off" of 3:45, it "is" 3:45.

The only conclusion one can come to that fits the actual statement is that he's referring to the recorded time of PC Neil's discovery because that time is testified to, but he indicates the carmen found the body shortly before, as indicated when he says it "cannot be far off 3:45". And a discovery by the carmen within 5 minutes of PC Neil is accurately covered by what he actually says.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

But surely the important point is that Lechmere was estimating the time that he’d left home so how can we make deductions when we don’t have a solid starting point? How can it be said that there is a suspicious gap of time between point A - Lechmere leaving his home and point B - Lechmere meeting Paul, which would have allowed for the murder, when we can’t know when point A actually was. So it certainly can’t be proven that Lechmere hadn’t just arrived at the body when Paul showed up.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Baxter was also aware that Cross/Lechmere and Paul were talking to PC Mizen, well away from the crime scene, at 3:45. And, as he indicates, "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3:45...", which is not the same thing as you're interpreting it as to to mean "at 3:45". Like us, the time for Cross/Lechmere and Paul's discovery has to be estimated based upon their movements and activities, but PC Neil records his discovery at 3:45 (and PC Mizen records his interaction with the two men at 3:45). We know that PC Neil finds the body after Cross/Lechmere and Paul, therefore Cross/Lechmere and Paul must have found the body before 3:45. This isn't difficult, nor is it desperation, a term that is more appropriately applied to those trying to shift Cross/Lechmere and Paul to be at the body at the same time as PC Neil's discovery.

Given Cross/Lechmere and Paul's discovery appears to be in the order of 4 minutes prior to PC Neil, that would entirely fit with Baxter's description of the time of their discovery as not far off 3:45. His description, that you quote, does not tally with a discovery time of "at 3:45", because 3:45 is not "off" of 3:45, it "is" 3:45.

The only conclusion one can come to that fits the actual statement is that he's referring to the recorded time of PC Neil's discovery because that time is testified to, but he indicates the carmen found the body shortly before, as indicated when he says it "cannot be far off 3:45". And a discovery by the carmen within 5 minutes of PC Neil is accurately covered by what he actually says.

- Jeff

Since Baxter laid down that Lechmere found the body of Polly Nichols, he could not conclude that the carman spoke to Neil simultaneously, I’ m afraid. It is not possible.

The estimation of ”not far from 3.45” means as close as possible to that time.

I have said many times - although you seem to have missed it? - that the timings are not exact. The suggestion on Baxters behalf, based on many independant factors, is nevertheless massively important since it rules out the three PC:s timings in favor of the timing suggested by Robert Paul. Much as it hurts you, that is the simple fact. If Baxter had supported the PC:s, he would have given the time for the finding of the body as not far off 3.40.

It is all very simple. And I know it is a hard pill to swallow. But there is no way around it.

The notion that your conjured up suggestion of Baxter suddenly speaking of Neil when concluding a long story of the carmen would be ”the only conclusion that fits” is as bonkers as it is untruthful. So you can stop that line of desinformation. It has been found out and sawed off along the knees. Anybody can see that there is another conclusion that fits far better with the facts, and absolves Baxter of clouding his own message beyond recognition.

It is of course fascinating, the lenghts you naysayers are ready to go to. I could never have done it and slept soundly myself. Has it occurred to you, for example, that Thain gives 3.45 as the time he was signalled by Neil? It then took him a minute to reach his colleague: 3.46. Then Neil informed him and sent him to fetch Llewellyn ASAP: 3.47. And after that, Thain reached the practice at 3.55-4.00, 8-13 minutes afterwards? He took that time to cover a two or three minute trek? Really?

Once we know that, you have to employ your imaginative gifts again, dabble with the evidence, change the timings and so on. Same, same, but different. Just as bad.

Me, I do not have that problem. My theory is in sync with the facts, so I can sit back and enjoy your posts, twisting knickers a plenty.

There is a time to fight and a time to give in. You need to see the implications of that.

I have nothing further to add. If you are able to read, then maybe you should limit the damage and stop insisting on twisting the facts.

[Fisherman]

But surely the important point is that Lechmere was estimating the time that he’d left home so how can we make deductions when we don’t have a solid starting point? How can it be said that there is a suspicious gap of time between point A - Lechmere leaving his home and point B - Lechmere meeting Paul, which would have allowed for the murder, when we can’t know when point A actually was. So it certainly can’t be proven that Lechmere hadn’t just arrived at the body when Paul showed up.

Around 3.30 is in line with arriving not far from 3.40. It is much less so when using the time 3.45. And so, the timing suggested by Lechmere fit the bill - until Baxter altered the time the body was found. This stands although we have no certain timings: Lechmeres suggestion went from good to bad.

[JeffHamm]

But surely the important point is that Lechmere was estimating the time that he’d left home so how can we make deductions when we don’t have a solid starting point? How can it be said that there is a suspicious gap of time between point A - Lechmere leaving his home and point B - Lechmere meeting Paul, which would have allowed for the murder, when we can’t know when point A actually was. So it certainly can’t be proven that Lechmere hadn’t just arrived at the body when Paul showed up.

Hi Herlock,

We can't be sure, obviously. All we can do is evaluate what we have to see if it is internally consistent. Lies can be detected because they describe a false reality, and therefore can end up being detected because the statement conflicts with known events.

Sadly, we don't have enough solid "known" events to work with, but from the statements we have, and the various analyses performed, no real conflicts emerge to demonstrate that testimonies are false. For example, when PC Neil's beat was being analysed in detail, one of the findings was that he was likely up some of the northern side streets at the time Cross/Lechmere and Paul were finding the body and then moving on to locate PC Mizen. PC Neil would not have seen them walk past, and they would not have seen him, hence they didn't locate PC Neil to alert him, but eventually come across PC Mizen. Again, that set of analyses placed Cross/Lechmere and Paul at the body somewhere around 3:40ish (give or take a bit, I don't recall the exact values). And estimating Cross/Lechmere's journey time from home to the body, gets him there at 3:37 if we have him leave at 3:30, but of course, that starting time is not exact, so there's a margin of error there too. Given the error and variation associated with what we have to work with, there is nothing in the statements that raise a red flag sufficient to support the conclusion the testimony is false.

That doesn't prove it is true, of course, it just means there is no evidence to support the claim that it IS false. And if we cannot say it IS false, we have to accept the possibility it IS true (note the use of possibility in that last bit).

When the evidence is examined, and one acknowledges the inexactness of witness statements and press reports, we end up with nothing that leads to the conclusion that Cross/Lechmere was anything other than a carmen going to work who found her body. The theory that he killed her is just that, a theory, but there is nothing in the evidence itself that indicates he was. The testimony, and events, as we know them to be, are entirely consistent with him being not involved. The alternative is just story telling that relies on reality being different from the testimonies which are based upon innocence despite the testimonies being consistent with the events.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I clicked post before seeing the above 2 posts.

I’m very rusty on all things Bucks Row but I just don’t get this point. How can it be insisted that Baxter felt that the body was discovered by the 2 at ‘not far off 3.45’ and yet this discounts 3.41? And that it must have meant almost dead on 3.45? How can Baxter’s estimation be tied down? This makes no sense to me I’m afraid.

At the very least it appears that we have a collection of estimated times.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Around 3.30 is in line with arriving not far from 3.40. It is much less so when using the time 3.45. And so, the timing suggested by Lechmere fit the bill - until Baxter altered the time the body was found. This stands although we have no certain timings: Lechmeres suggestion went from good to bad.

I don’t see a massive difference to be honest Fish. When someone says ‘around 3.30,’ then it could easily have 3.35 or 3.36 or 3.37.