Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hi Fisherman,

    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    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.
    Yes, glad you agree with me on that. And since PC Neil states 3:45 as his discovery time, that means Baxter knows that Cross/Lechmere and Paul must have discovered the body before 3:45.


    The estimation of ”not far from 3.45” means as close as possible to that time.
    No, it does not mean as close as possible, it means "not far off" that time. And within 5 minutes is "not far off".


    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.
    Baxter's statement supports the stated time of PC Neil's discovery (3:45) and acknowledges that the carmen found the body not long before that. You're conclusion that if Baxter supported the PC's as being not far off 3:40 would require Baxter to state a time not given in evidence, but one, like we have, that is estimated. Your assumption that you know what Baxter would have said is, therefore, not defendable.


    It is all very simple. And I know it is a hard pill to swallow. But there is no way around it.
    And yet oddly, you are finding ways 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.
    Sigh, the reliance on insults and such, really is tiring. Setting aside such tactics, I'll simply restate that Baxter is quoting a time, testified by PC Neil, in which he also acknowledges that the body appears to have been discovered by the carmen (though he doesn't specifically state that) slightly earlier.


    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?
    Again, we can't be sure that PC Neil and PC Thain didn't spend more time at the scene together before PC Thain set off to fetch the doctor. In addition, as Dr. L's testimony is that 4:00 is when he was called to Buck's Row, considering Dr. Blackwell (Stride case) is known to record his time of arrival at the scene, leaves open the possibility 4:00 is when the Dr. arrived at Buck's Row. But while such ideas could be tossed around, we also would have the issue of times based upon different clocks complicating things.


    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.
    We do not agree on that conclusion.


    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.
    Having a different interpretation of the facts is not twisting them Fisherman. I really don't understand why you immediately resort to insults, they add nothing of quality to your posts.

    - Jeff

    Comment


    • Hi Herlock,

      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      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.
      I fully agree. 3:41 is "not far off" 3:45. Fisherman has misinterpreted "not far off" to mean "as close as possible to 3:45", which isn't what the phrase means at all.

      - Jeff

      Comment


      • An example of where we have to make an allowance on timing is with Paul.

        Robert Baul [sic – Paul], a carman of 30, Foster-street, Whitechapel, stated he went to work at Cobbett’s-court, Spitalfields. He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning,

        We can’t hold these times as exact. We have to allow a plus or minus and if we do this it’s impossible to tie down events to exact times.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
          Hi Fisherman,



          Yes, glad you agree with me on that. And since PC Neil states 3:45 as his discovery time, that means Baxter knows that Cross/Lechmere and Paul must have discovered the body before 3:45.



          No, it does not mean as close as possible, it means "not far off" that time. And within 5 minutes is "not far off".



          Baxter's statement supports the stated time of PC Neil's discovery (3:45) and acknowledges that the carmen found the body not long before that. You're conclusion that if Baxter supported the PC's as being not far off 3:40 would require Baxter to state a time not given in evidence, but one, like we have, that is estimated. Your assumption that you know what Baxter would have said is, therefore, not defendable.



          And yet oddly, you are finding ways around it.



          Sigh, the reliance on insults and such, really is tiring. Setting aside such tactics, I'll simply restate that Baxter is quoting a time, testified by PC Neil, in which he also acknowledges that the body appears to have been discovered by the carmen (though he doesn't specifically state that) slightly earlier.



          Again, we can't be sure that PC Neil and PC Thain didn't spend more time at the scene together before PC Thain set off to fetch the doctor. In addition, as Dr. L's testimony is that 4:00 is when he was called to Buck's Row, considering Dr. Blackwell (Stride case) is known to record his time of arrival at the scene, leaves open the possibility 4:00 is when the Dr. arrived at Buck's Row. But while such ideas could be tossed around, we also would have the issue of times based upon different clocks complicating things.



          We do not agree on that conclusion.



          Having a different interpretation of the facts is not twisting them Fisherman. I really don't understand why you immediately resort to insults, they add nothing of quality to your posts.

          - Jeff
          Why would I need any quality in posts I exchange with somebody who claims that Wynne Baxter spoke about P C Neil finding the body at a time close to 3.45 when it is fully apparent that he instead spoke of Lechmere doing so? Did you not read the excerpt from the Morning Advertiser? Why would anybody subjected to that kind of clownery accept to discuss the matter any further at all? It is actually and only your suggestion that is an insult, to the facts, to my intention to discuss honorably and to our joint duty to do so.

          If you find that insulting, rest assured that you have not only earned it - you led it on.

          I leave you to your dabbling, I have had quite enough of it.
          Last edited by Fisherman; 12-30-2021, 09:53 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            An example of where we have to make an allowance on timing is with Paul.

            Robert Baul [sic – Paul], a carman of 30, Foster-street, Whitechapel, stated he went to work at Cobbett’s-court, Spitalfields. He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning,

            We can’t hold these times as exact. We have to allow a plus or minus and if we do this it’s impossible to tie down events to exact times.
            Of course learoom must be allowed for. In Pauls case, we have two bits of information - and they dovetail perfectly. He said in Lloyds that he walked down Bucks Row at exactly 3.45, and that fits perfectly with him having left home at just before 3.45. His saying that it was exactly 3.45 indicates that he used a time keeping device, unless he was psychic. And Baxter concluded that the body was found not far off the 3.45 mark ( by the way, regardless of what Jeff says, that DOES mean that the coroners best guess was 3.45). In essence, all of this is in a perfectly straight line.

            Now, regardless of the insistance of Paul that the timing was exactly 3.45 as he went into Bucks Row, regardless of how this fits with him having left home just before 3.45 and regardless of how Baxter said that 3.45 or close to it when the body was found, it may still be that the timings are off to a degree. Clocks can go wrong.

            But to speculate that the body could have been found at 3.40 is taking it too far; there were many independent facts that fixed the time at close to 3.45, reasonably Llewellyns timings were part of the data, as was Thains info about his fetching Llewellyn and the cape, together with Tompkins timings.

            So in my world, it is not as if it could just as well have been 3.40 as 3.45. It could not. Maybe it was 3.44. Or 3.46. But it was not 3.39, 3.40 or 3.41, and the coroner found it vital to point this out. And Swanson followed suit in his October report! And in doing so, they pulled the rug out from under Lechmeres feet to a significant extent. Suddenly, there were many more minutes unaccounted for on his behalf. We cant say exactly how many minutes they were, but we CAN say they existed.

            Comment


            • I still just don’t see how it can be said just before 3.45 could only have been 3.44 and not 3.40 or 3.41? How can we hope to be so exact when discussing estimations?

              And as Lechmere said that he’d left the house at about 3.30 we have another estimation. So why couldn’t he have left the house at 3.36 found the body around 3.43 with Paul arriving at 3.44. Then Neill at 3.45.

              Even if Paul had said he’d arrived at exactly 3.45 we know that we can’t expect all clocks and watches to have been synchronised. And so there’s no way of proving that Lechmere spent any time with the body. It’s not impossible of course but it’s not provable.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • Hi Fisherman,

                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                Why would I need any quality in posts I exchange with somebody who claims that Wynne Baxter spoke about P C Neil finding the body at a time close to 3.45 when it is fully apparent that he instead spoke of Lechmere doing so? Did you not read the excerpt from the Morning Advertiser? Why would anybody subjected to that kind of clownery accept to discuss the matter any further at all? It is actually and only your suggestion that is an insult, to the facts, to my intention to discuss honorably and to our joint duty to do so.

                If you find that insulting, rest assured that you have not only earned it - you led it on.

                I leave you to your dabbling, I have had quite enough of it.
                It's quite clear you do not need quality in your posts, as the above demonstrates. Nice to see we agree on that too.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • >>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.<<

                  Sadly, yet more porky pies. You've already claimed, variously,

                  "I have already prepared an answer for your various "points", listing and torching your claims as I went along. Itīs on my computer desk. So you can have that, if you want to"

                  "I have answer for every "point" Dusty tries to make, and I would be more than happy to give them here and now."


                  "I may need to add that if I were you, I would not want to read the answers I have instore for you, since they caontain proof that you have misrepresented the material."

                  Again you don't grasp the concept that this is a written forum and each time you fabricate something, all anyone has to do is look at your previous posts.
                  Last edited by drstrange169; 12-31-2021, 06:31 AM.
                  dustymiller
                  aka drstrange

                  Comment




                  • I notice that whenever the timing of Bucks Row is discussed any movement always goes in Lechmere’s favour. Leaving at 03.30 is moved towards 03.32 or 03.35 and so on. Of course any discrepancies can just as easily go the other way, leaving at 03.30 could just as easily be 03.28 or 03.25. Which of course looks even worse for Lechmere.

                    The fact is that leaving at 03.30 is very incriminating for Lechmere and there’s no way past that. We all know that it doesn’t take 15 minutes to walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row. No explanation for this has ever been offered up. The only defence ever offered is slashing the timing in Lechmere’s favour.

                    Its a tacit admission that the timing really hurts Lechmere. It’s an admission that to defend Lechmere the facts must be altered in his favour. 03.30 must be 03.35 and 03.45 must be changed to 03.40. Leaving the timings as established by the inquest leave us with only one conclusion. There is missing time Lechmere can’t account for, and what has he being doing in that time ?

                    Moving on, any timing based on Lechmere leaving at 03.30 is pretty dodgy anyway. This is uncorroborated and we only have Lechmere’s word thats when he left home. His usual time to leave is 03.20 so when he is found in Bucks Row at 03.45 “standing where the woman was” he is very, very late compared to his normal commute. For me this is the crucial fact, this is the red flag, and this is often what’s forgotten in any discussion of the timings in Bucks Row.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                      I notice that whenever the timing of Bucks Row is discussed any movement always goes in Lechmere’s favour. Leaving at 03.30 is moved towards 03.32 or 03.35 and so on. Of course any discrepancies can just as easily go the other way, leaving at 03.30 could just as easily be 03.28 or 03.25. Which of course looks even worse for Lechmere.

                      The fact is that leaving at 03.30 is very incriminating for Lechmere and there’s no way past that. We all know that it doesn’t take 15 minutes to walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row. No explanation for this has ever been offered up. The only defence ever offered is slashing the timing in Lechmere’s favour.

                      Its a tacit admission that the timing really hurts Lechmere. It’s an admission that to defend Lechmere the facts must be altered in his favour. 03.30 must be 03.35 and 03.45 must be changed to 03.40. Leaving the timings as established by the inquest leave us with only one conclusion. There is missing time Lechmere can’t account for, and what has he being doing in that time ?

                      Moving on, any timing based on Lechmere leaving at 03.30 is pretty dodgy anyway. This is uncorroborated and we only have Lechmere’s word thats when he left home. His usual time to leave is 03.20 so when he is found in Bucks Row at 03.45 “standing where the woman was” he is very, very late compared to his normal commute. For me this is the crucial fact, this is the red flag, and this is often what’s forgotten in any discussion of the timings in Bucks Row.
                      Well, why didn't Lech say he left at exactly 3 35 thus providing himself with an alibi
                      Regards Darryl

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                        ...
                        Moving on, any timing based on Lechmere leaving at 03.30 is pretty dodgy anyway. This is uncorroborated and we only have Lechmere’s word thats when he left home. His usual time to leave is 03.20 so when he is found in Bucks Row at 03.45 “standing where the woman was” he is very, very late compared to his normal commute. For me this is the crucial fact, this is the red flag, and this is often what’s forgotten in any discussion of the timings in Bucks Row.
                        Well, he wasn't found in Buck's Row at 3:45 ... at 3:45 he was talking with PC Mizen and PC Neil was standing where the woman was. Given the distance from the crime scene to PC Mizen requires about 3min and 25 seconds to traverse, plus a bit of time for him and Paul to interact and examine the body, it looks like he was found in Buck's Row around 3:40 ish, at which point, his leaving home around 3:30ish creates no problem to solve.

                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                          I notice that whenever the timing of Bucks Row is discussed any movement always goes in Lechmere’s favour. Leaving at 03.30 is moved towards 03.32 or 03.35 and so on. Of course any discrepancies can just as easily go the other way, leaving at 03.30 could just as easily be 03.28 or 03.25. Which of course looks even worse for Lechmere.

                          The fact is that leaving at 03.30 is very incriminating for Lechmere and there’s no way past that. We all know that it doesn’t take 15 minutes to walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row. No explanation for this has ever been offered up. The only defence ever offered is slashing the timing in Lechmere’s favour.

                          Its a tacit admission that the timing really hurts Lechmere. It’s an admission that to defend Lechmere the facts must be altered in his favour. 03.30 must be 03.35 and 03.45 must be changed to 03.40. Leaving the timings as established by the inquest leave us with only one conclusion. There is missing time Lechmere can’t account for, and what has he being doing in that time ?

                          Moving on, any timing based on Lechmere leaving at 03.30 is pretty dodgy anyway. This is uncorroborated and we only have Lechmere’s word thats when he left home. His usual time to leave is 03.20 so when he is found in Bucks Row at 03.45 “standing where the woman was” he is very, very late compared to his normal commute. For me this is the crucial fact, this is the red flag, and this is often what’s forgotten in any discussion of the timings in Bucks Row.
                          The problem is that it’s impossible to make a definite statement using an indefinite starting point. Lechmere said that he left the house at about 3.30. So from the language we can see that he was estimating the time and we all know that estimations can be and often are wrong. So it’s reasonable to allow for a + or - when dealing with estimated times. If we assume that he was guilty then of course he could have left the house at 3.00 but we can’t assume that but only suggest the possibility. So if he left the house about 3.30 this might easily have been 3.35 or 3.36 for example. Therefore the timing question doesn’t really get us anywhere. It would only be an issue if we knew for a fact that Lechmere had left the house at exactly 3.00 which would leave us the unexplained gap.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                            Hi Fisherman,



                            It's quite clear you do not need quality in your posts, as the above demonstrates. Nice to see we agree on that too.

                            - Jeff
                            You are welcome to explain why Baxter would first have spoken of Lechmere as the finder of the body, whereafter he expanded on what Lechmere and Paul did, what they were able to see and so on, before he added that the finding as such would have come about close to 3.45 - and then Baxter would suddenly be speaking of Neil! Without mentioning his name!! The Morning Advertiser quotation can be found in post 3697, and it demonstrates the full measure of desperation on your behalf.
                            You seem to think that you are at liberty to change what Baxter said in order to fit hour own delusions. You are not.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                              >>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.<<

                              Sadly, yet more porky pies. You've already claimed, variously,

                              "I have already prepared an answer for your various "points", listing and torching your claims as I went along. Itīs on my computer desk. So you can have that, if you want to"

                              "I have answer for every "point" Dusty tries to make, and I would be more than happy to give them here and now."


                              "I may need to add that if I were you, I would not want to read the answers I have instore for you, since they caontain proof that you have misrepresented the material."

                              Again you don't grasp the concept that this is a written forum and each time you fabricate something, all anyone has to do is look at your previous posts.
                              So there was no question, was there, that I could not answer. Thank you for proving my point.

                              The answer to you is still on my computer desk, but I am currently not at home. Once I return, I will gladly post it. Parts of it has already been posted, but I am always happy to reveal you for the questionable poster you are, so who am I to complaint when you ask for it?

                              A happy and more truthful new year, Dusty!

                              Comment


                              • But isn’t this simply a case of Baxter going on 3.45 as a time that Neil came across the body which allowed him to state that the body was initially found by Lechmere just before that time? Baxter couldn’t tie the time of discovery to an exact time so the best that he could do was to say that this occurred at some point before Neil’s arrival? Surely we have to accept that 3.40/3.41/3.42/3.43 and 3.44 are all ‘close to 3.45?’
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X