Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • A body is always found by someone (A) but in this case just as it was found another person (B) was heard arriving on the scene. This might be unusual but there’s nothing freakish or inherently incriminating about it. But yes it does introduce the question of whether (A) was actually the killer. The Police at the time clearly didn’t suspect Lechmere but it’s not impossible for the Police to have been mistaken of course and we have no record of any interview that might have taken place. We are left with what we have via The Press so we have to accept the possibility of errors of wording and transcription and, as clocks and watches weren’t so common place, we also have to make a reasonable allowance for estimations. Then we have variables in how people remember what was said or done and in what order (especially during stressful periods) This leaves us with a minefield ripe for shaping a theory. This is why I think that extreme caution is required before stating possibilities as facts.

    I’ll mention it again (apologies) but a perfect example of this is the ‘gap of time’ point that appears to have been the starting point for Lechmere being considered a suspect (indeed I spoke to someone a few months ago who has a passing interest in the case who said “surely it was the bloke that discovered the body as timings show that he’d have been at the scene longer than he’d claimed?” In fact I’ve spoken to 3 or 4 similar people who were all convinced of Lechmere’s guilt on this point alone.) Of course this point is based on Lechmere leaving the house at 3.30 but that isn’t what he claimed. He said ‘about’ 3.30. So it was an estimation made during a time when he was probably a bit stressed or annoyed at being late for work. So this introduces the possibility that he’d actually left the house at 3.34 or 3.35 or 3.36 or 3.37. Add to this that we have no way of knowing the exact time that he arrived in Bucks Row then the question screams out - how can any definite point be made under these circumstances? We can’t say “if he left at x time then he would have had y time at the body,” when we don’t know either x or y. So for me this point is invalid. It has to be because reason tells us this.
    Regards

    Herlock Sholmes

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      All these issues surrounding the timings are somewhat academic, as the exact time of death cannot be firmly established, so in effect Nichols could have been murdered long before Lechmere even got out of bed to go to work.

      All that Fish seeks to rely on has now been negated by what Dr Biggss tell us about the Victorian doctors methods of suggesting times of death, especially in the case of Nichols, and that is where his whole theory falls flat.

      Dr Biggs
      Being ‘cold to the touch’ really isn’t helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn’t start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or ‘lag’ phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead for a couple of hours but still have an essentially ‘normal’ body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold.

      In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ‘time of death’ based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays, we recognize that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn’t attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature, you couldn’t estimate a time since death to within less than a few hours. Suggesting that death happened 30 minutes previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said.

      It is possible that death could have occurred even a few hours before the time of body discovery, and the observations made by the doctor would have been the same. Clothing state can affect the time of death calculations, but in reality, it would make very little difference in the scenario you describe. I think the doctor’s estimation of the time of death should be taken with a pinch of salt, and in fact, it could have been far earlier. This is not a criticism: back then that was the sort of thing that was said and done. We just know more now and therefore, can’t be so ‘certain’.


      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      I don’t see how this could be disagreed with Trevor. It’s simply a fact.
      Regards

      Herlock Sholmes

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
        Trevor can i suggest something? Does not John Neil opening statement at the inquest confirm Llewellyns time of death to be accurate? that is of course we agree Nichols was killed on the spot she laid. Neil claims he past the spot 30 mins before [3.15am] and found no one ,yet at 3.45 he see her body. Llewellyns states at four oclock Nichols had ''not been dead more than 30 mins'' making it 3.30 t.o.d. Now granted ,Llewellyn himself said he was called to bucks row around 4.00 and upon arrival [which could mean a time delay] he gave his t.o d , how long could we suggest the delay 5,10 mins? , even at 10 it still makes his t.o.d reasonably accurate does it not ? id be interested in your thoughts . i just think when it comes to Drs from 1888 im not sure their opinions regarding t.o.d should be taken with a pinch of salt. Regards Fishy
        But it doesn’t make it a 3.30 t.o.d. All that he’s saying is that he didn’t believe that she had been killed before 3.30. So he’s saying that she could have been killed at 3.30 at the earliest but possibly after. This in itself is wrong of course because Neil passed at 3.15 and she wasn’t lying there dead.

        We all have to accept that the medical knowledge of modern Doctors and Scientists is far greater than that of the Victorians. So why would we question Dr Biggs?


        Regards

        Herlock Sholmes

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
          Trevor can i suggest something? Does not John Neil opening statement at the inquest confirm Llewellyns time of death to be accurate? that is of course we agree Nichols was killed on the spot she laid. Neil claims he past the spot 30 mins before [3.15am] and found no one ,yet at 3.45 he see her body. Llewellyns states at four oclock Nichols had ''not been dead more than 30 mins'' making it 3.30 t.o.d. Now granted ,Llewellyn himself said he was called to bucks row around 4.00 and upon arrival [which could mean a time delay] he gave his t.o d , how long could we suggest the delay 5,10 mins? , even at 10 it still makes his t.o.d reasonably accurate does it not ? id be interested in your thoughts . i just think when it comes to Drs from 1888 im not sure their opinions regarding t.o.d should be taken with a pinch of salt. Regards Fishy
          How do you know Pc Neil was truthful in his testimony? Policemen do sometimes fail to tell the truth

          But I guess you are more of an expert on these things than Dr Biggs who is a forensic pathologist !!!!!!!

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • We have a PC claiming that the murder took place between 3. 15 am and 3. 45 am, and a doctor giving, shall we say, a best guess that the time of death was about 3. 30 am. Then we have Harriet Lilley of 7 Buck's Row saying that she heard whispers under her window, "a painfull moan - two or three faint gasps..." and then silence, as a goods train passed by. That was confirmed to be within a minute or two of 3. 30 am. It makes perfect sense that JtR used the noise of the passing train to conceal his attack, and this also explains why no-one else heard anything. As I have written previously, this seems to be a very likely scenario. It doesn't totally exonerate Lechmere, but if Harriet Lilley is correct, it would be odd that he was still standing near the body some ten minutes or more after the murder.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
              We have a PC claiming that the murder took place between 3. 15 am and 3. 45 am, and a doctor giving, shall we say, a best guess that the time of death was about 3. 30 am. Then we have Harriet Lilley of 7 Buck's Row saying that she heard whispers under her window, "a painfull moan - two or three faint gasps..." and then silence, as a goods train passed by. That was confirmed to be within a minute or two of 3. 30 am. It makes perfect sense that JtR used the noise of the passing train to conceal his attack, and this also explains why no-one else heard anything. As I have written previously, this seems to be a very likely scenario. It doesn't totally exonerate Lechmere, but if Harriet Lilley is correct, it would be odd that he was still standing near the body some ten minutes or more after the murder.
              So he waited for a train to pass before murdering her, perhaps he was in possession of a train timetable

              www.trevormarriotyt.co.uk

              Comment




              • I think Lechmere killed Polly Nichols and was caught unawares, but I agree that any timings are estimated and that there could be leeway in either direction. However, I don’t think the timings will be massively wrong either. For example Paul is late and rushing to work, so I’d say it’s reasonable to assume he has a decent idea of the time. I would add that once again in the previous posts the timing is still always being adjusted in Lechmere’s favour - about 03.30 becomes 03.35 or 03.36 and never goes in the other direction to say 03.25 or 03.24 which I’m sure you would agree is incriminating for Lechmere.

                Of course it could all be academic anyway because Lechmere leaving at 03.30 is uncorroborated, we only get this from Lechmere himself, and if he was the killer he would be aware the timing is bad optics. We are taking our suspect at his word he left about 03.30, I don’t think this is a good basis for any analysis.

                Moving on, the fact remains that Doveton Street is a short walk from Bucks Row and any defence of Lechmere still relies on slashing the time in his favour to account for this. The minute we move the time in the other direction, if we move leaving Doveton Street from 03.30 to say 03.25, it all falls apart.

                Similarly, if we leave the time alone, if we assume the times mentioned at the inquest are reasonably accurate, and go with leaving at 03.30 and being found in Bucks Row at 03.45, then Lechmere doesn’t have a leg to stand on.




                Comment


                • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                  I think Lechmere killed Polly Nichols and was caught unawares, but I agree that any timings are estimated and that there could be leeway in either direction. However, I don’t think the timings will be massively wrong either. For example Paul is late and rushing to work, so I’d say it’s reasonable to assume he has a decent idea of the time. I would add that once again in the previous posts the timing is still always being adjusted in Lechmere’s favour - about 03.30 becomes 03.35 or 03.36 and never goes in the other direction to say 03.25 or 03.24 which I’m sure you would agree is incriminating for Lechmere.

                  Of course it could all be academic anyway because Lechmere leaving at 03.30 is uncorroborated, we only get this from Lechmere himself, and if he was the killer he would be aware the timing is bad optics. We are taking our suspect at his word he left about 03.30, I don’t think this is a good basis for any analysis.

                  Moving on, the fact remains that Doveton Street is a short walk from Bucks Row and any defence of Lechmere still relies on slashing the time in his favour to account for this. The minute we move the time in the other direction, if we move leaving Doveton Street from 03.30 to say 03.25, it all falls apart.

                  Similarly, if we leave the time alone, if we assume the times mentioned at the inquest are reasonably accurate, and go with leaving at 03.30 and being found in Bucks Row at 03.45, then Lechmere doesn’t have a leg to stand on.



                  I don’t get why you keep saying that times are being adjusted. No times are being ‘adjusted.’ Lechmere said that he left the house about 3.30. So saying that this could have been 3.35 or 3.36 is not an adjustment it’s a statement of fact.

                  Yes, as I’ve said, of course he could have left the house earlier. He could have been out all night for all that we know but this isn’t the point. The point is, and this is very important, that this alleged ‘gap of time’ is a huge part of the case against Lechmere and its starting point has to have Lechmere leaving the house at 3.30. But as he’d only said about 3.30 it introduces the very reasonable possibility that he’d actually left the house a bit later than 3.30. The existence of this possibility alone should negate the point entirely because it cannot be said that ‘if A occurred then B must have occurred’ if we cannot be certain of A.

                  Leaving Lechmere’s time of leaving the house at 3.30 as you suggest would not be an honest approach. We have to accept that he was making an estimate. This allows a plus or a minus. And that possibility is important.
                  Regards

                  Herlock Sholmes

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    So he waited for a train to pass before murdering her, perhaps he was in possession of a train timetable

                    www.trevormarriotyt.co.uk
                    No, I think he was fortunate, and grabbed the opportunity. My point being that the sound of the goods train explained how it was that no-one else heard anything.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                      I think Lechmere killed Polly Nichols and was caught unawares, but I agree that any timings are estimated and that there could be leeway in either direction. However, I don’t think the timings will be massively wrong either. For example Paul is late and rushing to work, so I’d say it’s reasonable to assume he has a decent idea of the time. I would add that once again in the previous posts the timing is still always being adjusted in Lechmere’s favour - about 03.30 becomes 03.35 or 03.36 and never goes in the other direction to say 03.25 or 03.24 which I’m sure you would agree is incriminating for Lechmere.

                      Of course it could all be academic anyway because Lechmere leaving at 03.30 is uncorroborated, we only get this from Lechmere himself, and if he was the killer he would be aware the timing is bad optics. We are taking our suspect at his word he left about 03.30, I don’t think this is a good basis for any analysis.

                      Moving on, the fact remains that Doveton Street is a short walk from Bucks Row and any defence of Lechmere still relies on slashing the time in his favour to account for this. The minute we move the time in the other direction, if we move leaving Doveton Street from 03.30 to say 03.25, it all falls apart.

                      Similarly, if we leave the time alone, if we assume the times mentioned at the inquest are reasonably accurate, and go with leaving at 03.30 and being found in Bucks Row at 03.45, then Lechmere doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
                      If Nichols had been murdered earlier it doesnt matter what time he left his home

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        I don’t get why you keep saying that times are being adjusted. No times are being ‘adjusted.’ Lechmere said that he left the house about 3.30. So saying that this could have been 3.35 or 3.36 is not an adjustment it’s a statement of fact.

                        Yes, as I’ve said, of course he could have left the house earlier. He could have been out all night for all that we know but this isn’t the point. The point is, and this is very important, that this alleged ‘gap of time’ is a huge part of the case against Lechmere and its starting point has to have Lechmere leaving the house at 3.30. But as he’d only said about 3.30 it introduces the very reasonable possibility that he’d actually left the house a bit later than 3.30. The existence of this possibility alone should negate the point entirely because it cannot be said that ‘if A occurred then B must have occurred’ if we cannot be certain of A.

                        Leaving Lechmere’s time of leaving the house at 3.30 as you suggest would not be an honest approach. We have to accept that he was making an estimate. This allows a plus or a minus. And that possibility is important.
                        The times are being adjusted though. Moving 03.30 to 03.35 or 03.36 is really taking a liberty. A couple of minutes either way no probs, but a full 6 minutes seems unduly generous.

                        However, even if we use 03.36 as the time he left home Lechmere would still have enough of a time window to kill Nichols. You still have to move the time on the other side too. 03.45 would need to go to 03.43 for Lechmere to have no time alone in Bucks Row.

                        The fact remains the timing really hurts Lechmere. And for a guy found standing near a dead body this is a red flag.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                          The fact remains the timing really hurts Lechmere. And for a guy found standing near a dead body this is a red flag.
                          Someone had to find the body !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            Someone had to find the body !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Finding the body is not the same as being found by the body by a witness.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                              ... ive always found it quite peculiar that lech waited for paul to get so close before he approached him and tapped him on the shoulder. isnt that odd to you? its a very aggressive maneuver given the circumstances. its almost like he cant let paul pass until hes ascertained what hes seen. but maybe its just me...
                              The whole walking over and blocking and tapping thing has always staggered me. I genuinely cannot make it seem normal...

                              M.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                                The times are being adjusted though. Moving 03.30 to 03.35 or 03.36 is really taking a liberty. A couple of minutes either way no probs, but a full 6 minutes seems unduly generous.

                                However, even if we use 03.36 as the time he left home Lechmere would still have enough of a time window to kill Nichols. You still have to move the time on the other side too. 03.45 would need to go to 03.43 for Lechmere to have no time alone in Bucks Row.

                                The fact remains the timing really hurts Lechmere. And for a guy found standing near a dead body this is a red flag.
                                Im sorry SS but you simply aren’t getting this very obvious point.

                                3.30 is not a set in stone time. It was an estimation. He said ‘about 3.30.’ How can you adjust an unknown? It’s impossible. I’m not adjusting I’m allowing for a very reasonable margin for error.

                                A variation of 5 or 6 minutes is entirely reasonable as you can see from he research posted by Jeff Hamm on another thread that I’ve provided a link to below.

                                https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...843#post774843

                                Whether we like it or not these errors in estimation do occur. 5 or 6 minutes is nothing. Therefore it cannot be claimed that there was a gap of time. This is straightforward logic.
                                Regards

                                Herlock Sholmes

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X