Evidence of innocence

[SuperShodan]

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.

That’s very true Herlock but I would say the above posts prove my point. Any defence of Lechmere involves adjusting the times in his favour. In your post 03.30 becomes 03.35 or 03.36. The timing is always adjusted to Lechmere’s benefit. If we accept 03.30 as being an estimation then why not say 03.25 or 03.24 ?

Moving on, those of us proposing Lechmere as a suspect base this on the facts as established by the inquest. We don’t have to change a thing. For example, Coroner Baxter fixes the time the body was found at 03.45. The standard defence of Lechmere has to ignore this and invent a new, more favourable time for Lechmere being in Bucks Row, with 03.40 being the most common. Similarly, leaving at 03.30 is no problem for me, but this has to be changed to defend Lechmere.

I haven’t seen one defence of Lechmere that didn’t do this.

[Fisherman]

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.

There was sufficient material for Baxter to move the time the body was found to not far off 3.45. And the thing is, when we weigh up the evidence, numerous timings are involved that speak of 3.45-ish. For the time to have been 3.40, it would take that these timings were all off in the exact same manner. And that is stretching things too far.

For example, Llewellyn said he was called to Bucks Row at 3.55-4.00. That means that Thain cannot have set out from the murder site at around 3.47, unless Llewellyns clock was around five minutes ahead of the actual time. And if it was, then Pauls timing: ”exactly at 3.45”, as per Lloyds Weekly, must ALSO have been derived from a clock that was around five minutes ahead of the real timing. Once we have a need for a number of time pieces to have been off in the exact same way, we need to accept that they were much likelier not to have been off at all.

Again, we are not dealing in exact timings, but they ARE exact enough to rule ”around 3.40” out in favor of ”around 3.45”. Which was exactly what Baxter and Swanson alike did. And when a coroner and a police inspector both agree that the correct timing in a murder case rules out the joint testimony of three PC:s, we need to consider that a vital piece of information.

Once we use a finding time of 3.40, we run into trouble, not least with the Thain/Llewellyn connection. When we instead try 3.45, everything falls into place.
There is a reason for that.

[Fisherman]

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?’

Read post 3697 and you will se whether Baxter speaks of Neil or Lechmere as the finder at close to 3.45! And no, for reasons given above, 3.40 does not work, while 3.45 does. Check it out yourself and see, then come back to me with a viable suggestion where 3.40 works,

[Abby Normal]

wow gone three months and this thread is still going on. amazing

happy new year everyone!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

That’s very true Herlock but I would say the above posts prove my point. Any defence of Lechmere involves adjusting the times in his favour. In your post 03.30 becomes 03.35 or 03.36. The timing is always adjusted to Lechmere’s benefit. If we accept 03.30 as being an estimation then why not say 03.25 or 03.24 ?

Moving on, those of us proposing Lechmere as a suspect base this on the facts as established by the inquest. We don’t have to change a thing. For example, Coroner Baxter fixes the time the body was found at 03.45. The standard defence of Lechmere has to ignore this and invent a new, more favourable time for Lechmere being in Bucks Row, with 03.40 being the most common. Similarly, leaving at 03.30 is no problem for me, but this has to be changed to defend Lechmere.

I haven’t seen one defence of Lechmere that didn’t do this.

We could easily suggest 3.24 or 3.25 SS. The only point I’d make though is that didn’t Lechmere say that he usually left the house at 3.20 but this morning he was late? Would he have cut it so fine to get to work that being 4 minutes late would have been an issue?

The overall point is that we can’t say ‘Lechmere left the house at 3.30 and so should have got to Bucks Row at 3.36 or 3.37’ if we can’t be certain about the starting point for this assumption. The language he uses clearly shows that he was estimating so of course this could have meant that he’d left the house either before or after 3.30. As we can’t know which is correct we can’t say what time he arrived at the body. So I’m not adjusting anything.

[Herlock Sholmes]

wow gone three months and this thread is still going on. amazing

happy new year everyone!!

Welcome back Abby

Happy New Year

[Herlock Sholmes]

Read post 3697 and you will se whether Baxter speaks of Neil or Lechmere as the finder at close to 3.45! And no, for reasons given above, 3.40 does not work, while 3.45 does. Check it out yourself and see, then come back to me with a viable suggestion where 3.40 works,

I’ve seen nothing that shows that 3.40 doesn’t work.

“The Coroner then summed up. Having reviewed the career of the deceased from the time she left her husband, and reminded the jury of the irregular life she had led for the last two years, Mr. Baxter proceeded to point out that the unfortunate woman was last seen alive at half-past two o'clock on Saturday morning, Sept 1, by Mrs. Holland, who knew her well. Deceased was at that time much the worse for drink, and was endeavouring to walk eastward down Whitechapel. What her exact movements were after this it was impossible to say; but in less than an hour and a quarter her dead body was discovered at a spot rather under three-quarters of a mile distant. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.”

As Baxter said less than an hour and a quarter after she was last seen by Holland at 2.30 are we really expected to believe that he specifically meant 1 minute before? Surely not?

[rjpalmer]

That’s very true Herlock but I would say the above posts prove my point. Any defence of Lechmere involves adjusting the times in his favour.

Your use of the word 'adjust' makes it sound nefarious.

But the critics are not 'adjusting' the times from a 'correct' or proven chronology.

Rather, their analysis of the times favors Lechmere's innocence. There is no attempt at deception.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When we are faced with an approximation it would be equally wrong to suggest a definite time either way. Therefore we can’t prove a point by claiming an exact time. I can’t see why this should be an issue.

[Fisherman]

Your use of the word 'adjust' makes it sound nefarious.

Serial killing is a nefarious business.

But the critics are not 'adjusting' the times from a 'correct' or proven chronology.

The chronology strongly suggests thst the body was found at 3.45. It could not have been far from that mark, as Baxter rightly points out.

Rather, their analysis of the times favors Lechmere's innocence. There is no attempt at deception.

The timings do nothing to favor Lechmeres innocence. That would take him stating that he left home a few minutes before 3.45.

[Fisherman]

When we are faced with an approximation it would be equally wrong to suggest a definite time either way. Therefore we can’t prove a point by claiming an exact time. I can’t see why this should be an issue.

Nor should it be an issue that Baxter established that the time the body was found COULD NOT be far off 3.45, thereby choosing Robert Pauls timing over that of the three PC:s, Herlock. There were multiple independently established data to conclude this from. It is not as we can say ” It is all uncertain”, because it is not. What is unestablished is whether it was just a minute or two before or after 3.45 or if it was on the dot, but strictly speaking, if we move the time to around 3.43, then Thain would have set off for Llewellyn at around 3.51-3.52 and then he should have reached the practice at 3.53-3.55 whereas Llewellyn said 3.55-4.00. In that respect, we have stretched it to the breaking point.

What you and anybody must do before we can discuss 3.40 as a possible time is to present a scenario that covers the many points involved in a feasible manner, and that simply cannot be done. That is why i dispute the idea that it’ s all the same what time Nichols was found.

[Fisherman]

I’ve seen nothing that shows that 3.40 doesn’t work.

“The Coroner then summed up. Having reviewed the career of the deceased from the time she left her husband, and reminded the jury of the irregular life she had led for the last two years, Mr. Baxter proceeded to point out that the unfortunate woman was last seen alive at half-past two o'clock on Saturday morning, Sept 1, by Mrs. Holland, who knew her well. Deceased was at that time much the worse for drink, and was endeavouring to walk eastward down Whitechapel. What her exact movements were after this it was impossible to say; but in less than an hour and a quarter her dead body was discovered at a spot rather under three-quarters of a mile distant. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.”

As Baxter said less than an hour and a quarter after she was last seen by Holland at 2.30 are we really expected to believe that he specifically meant 1 minute before? Surely not?

You will get into trouble with Dusty for that. He claims that the finding cannot have taken place after 3.44, based on those exact figures. My own take is that Baxter simply points out that Nichols went from drunk to dead in around an hour and a quarter. His true approximation is that Lechmere found the body at a remove in time that will have been as close as possible to 3.45, and at any rate, not far from it.

[Fisherman]

wow gone three months and this thread is still going on. amazing

happy new year everyone!!

The same to you, Abby!

As long as people claim that Baxter referred to Neils appearance on the scene instead of Lechmeres finding Nichols in his summation (see post 3697), I will stick around to dissolve that kind of history revisionism.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nor should it be an issue that Baxter established that the time the body was found COULD NOT be far off 3.45, thereby choosing Robert Pauls timing over that of the three PC:s, Herlock. There were multiple independently established data to conclude this from. It is not as we can say ” It is all uncertain”, because it is not. What is unestablished is whether it was just a minute or two before or after 3.45 or if it was on the dot, but strictly speaking, if we move the time to around 3.43, then Thain would have set off for Llewellyn at around 3.51-3.52 and then he should have reached the practice at 3.53-3.55 whereas Llewellyn said 3.55-4.00. In that respect, we have stretched it to the breaking point.

What you and anybody must do before we can discuss 3.40 as a possible time is to present a scenario that covers the many points involved in a feasible manner, and that simply cannot be done. That is why i dispute the idea that it’ s all the same what time Nichols was found.

[ Constable John Phail [sic – Thain], 96J, said he was not brought any closer to Buck’s-row in his beat than Brady-street, but he passed the end of it. He passed the end of Buck’s-row every 30 minutes. Nothing attracted his attention until about 3.45 a.m., when he was signalled by a brother constable flashing his lamp some way down Buck’s-row.]

So this was another approximation.

In The Telegraph version Llewelyn said that he’d been called by Thain at about 4.00, whilst in The Times version he said at 4.00.

How do we know that PC Neil didn’t discover the body after 3.45 and that it wasn’t 3.50 or 3.51 when Thain arrived at the scene. Thain appears to have been estimating the time after all.

……

Then we have Paul saying…

[He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning,]

I can’t see where these assumptions of definite times are coming from Fish when it appears that everyone is approximating?

…..

So why not…

Lechmere discovers the body at approx 3.43

Paul arrives at approx 3.44

Lechmere and Paul get to Mizen at approx 3.47

Neil arrives at approx 3.50

Thain arrives at approx 3.51

Thain calls on Llewelyn around 3.55

[Herlock Sholmes]

You will get into trouble with Dusty for that. He claims that the finding cannot have taken place after 3.44, based on those exact figures. My own take is that Baxter simply points out that Nichols went from drunk to dead in around an hour and a quarter. His true approximation is that Lechmere found the body at a remove in time that will have been as close as possible to 3.45, and at any rate, not far from it.

I don’t see how that can be the case Fish.

[In less than an hour and a quarter after this she was found dead at a spot rather under three-quarters or a mile distant.]

So he’s stating quite plainly that she was found dead before 3.45 and nothing more. He is in no way suggesting that this could only have been a minute before or 2 minutes before. He’s just saying ‘before’ 3.45. 3.40 is before 3.45. I see no issue.