Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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



  • So the time Lechmere leaves home is moved from 03.30 to 03.35 or later. The time Paul meets Lechmere is moved from 03.45 (the time the coroner favours) to 03.40 but the time Neil finds the body and Lechmere and Paul meet Mizen is taken as exact. I notice that the time PC Neil finds the body, or the time our protagonists meet Mizen, is never changed by 5 or 6 minutes. Once again the defence of Lechmere involves adjusting inconvenient times. If any of these times are left alone, or moved in the opposite direction, it all falls apart.

    Moving on, Paul and Lechmere are close enough together that Lechmere stopping for a few seconds in Bucks Row is enough for Paul to catch up. So they must be 40 or 50 yards apart walking up Bucks Row. Yet Nichols body is 130 - 140m up Bucks Row so we are expected to believe neither man is aware of the other until Lechmere is found “standing where the woman was”. Did Paul forget his glasses and have his headphones in ?

    There is clearly a time when Paul is walking up Bucks Row that he has no awareness of anyone else being there. It takes a good minute and half to walk from the Brady Street entrance to the body. And all that time Paul can’t see anyone walking ahead. It’s just not credible.

    Furthermore, if Paul leaves home at 03.45 then how does he catch up with Lechmere anyway ? If Lechmere leaves home around 03.30, then he is walking up Bucks Row before Paul has even got his boots on and left the house.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

      So the time Lechmere leaves home is moved from 03.30 to 03.35 or later. The time Paul meets Lechmere is moved from 03.45 (the time the coroner favours) to 03.40 but the time Neil finds the body and Lechmere and Paul meet Mizen is taken as exact. I notice that the time PC Neil finds the body, or the time our protagonists meet Mizen, is never changed by 5 or 6 minutes. Once again the defence of Lechmere involves adjusting inconvenient times. If any of these times are left alone, or moved in the opposite direction, it all falls apart.

      Moving on, Paul and Lechmere are close enough together that Lechmere stopping for a few seconds in Bucks Row is enough for Paul to catch up. So they must be 40 or 50 yards apart walking up Bucks Row. Yet Nichols body is 130 - 140m up Bucks Row so we are expected to believe neither man is aware of the other until Lechmere is found “standing where the woman was”. Did Paul forget his glasses and have his headphones in ?

      There is clearly a time when Paul is walking up Bucks Row that he has no awareness of anyone else being there. It takes a good minute and half to walk from the Brady Street entrance to the body. And all that time Paul can’t see anyone walking ahead. It’s just not credible.

      Furthermore, if Paul leaves home at 03.45 then how does he catch up with Lechmere anyway ? If Lechmere leaves home around 03.30, then he is walking up Bucks Row before Paul has even got his boots on and left the house.
      Again…..Lechmere’s time for leaving his house has not been moved!

      There is no such time as ‘about 3.30.’

      Why is this an issue for you?

      He might have left at 3.25, he might have left at 3.30, he might have left at 3.35. We have no way of knowing.

      So as we have no way of knowing we cannot make a definite point by basing a leaving time of exactly 3.30.

      I just can’t see why you would question this black and white fact or why you keep insisting that the time has been moved.
      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 SuperShodan View Post

        So the time Lechmere leaves home is moved from 03.30 to 03.35 or later. The time Paul meets Lechmere is moved from 03.45 (the time the coroner favours).
        The Coroner said before 3.45. Not 3.45.

        You keep altering times and accusing others of doing the same.
        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 SuperShodan View Post

          Moving on, Paul and Lechmere are close enough together that Lechmere stopping for a few seconds in Bucks Row is enough for Paul to catch up. So they must be 40 or 50 yards apart walking up Bucks Row. Yet Nichols body is 130 - 140m up Bucks Row so we are expected to believe neither man is aware of the other until Lechmere is found “standing where the woman was”. Did Paul forget his glasses and have his headphones in ?

          There is clearly a time when Paul is walking up Bucks Row that he has no awareness of anyone else being there. It takes a good minute and half to walk from the Brady Street entrance to the body. And all that time Paul can’t see anyone walking ahead. It’s just not credible.
          .
          Again there’s so much that we can’t know that we have to fill in the gaps.

          What exactly was the level of lighting?
          How good, bad or indifferent was Lechmere’s hearing?
          How many seconds passed between Lechmere finding the body and then hearing Paul?
          How quickly Lechmere walked?
          How quickly Paul walked?
          How loud were Lechmere’s footsteps?
          How loud were Paul’s footsteps?
          How did sound carry in Bucks Row?
          How accurate or inaccurate was Lechmere’s judgment of distance?

          So how can any of us know exactly what happened?

          So why couldn’t Lechmere arrive at the body, stop look across, walk across and see that it was a body, stand for 10 or 20 seconds or so taken aback by what he’d found wondering what to do? Maybe he thought “if I call for the police I may be late for work so shall I just ignore it and move on?” Then he hears Paul so the decision was made for him. So by the time that he got to the body there might have been 30 seconds before he heard Paul? That’s an extra 30 seconds of walking by Paul. So what if he was 60 or 70 yards away instead of 40 or 50? How can we know that wasn’t the case?

          Im not claiming any of these are facts but just that these possibilities exist. We can ignore them in order to see everything in a sinister way but would that be fair or reasonable?
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

          Comment


          • So! I am home again, and I hasten to post the document I had on my computer desk, saved for Dusty under the document name "Dusty Crap". Here you go, Dusty, the material you somehow believed was not there:



            Post 3504:

            Are you or are you not claiming that I would have suggested that Baxter meant that the body was found at EXACTLY 3.45? Do you or do you not believe that I am aware that Baxter said ”not far off 3.45”? Have you or have you not noticed that I have used that exact wording in a number of posts, commenting on the matter.

            If so, what does it matter that I wrote that Baxter meant that the body was found at 3.45? After all, it was an estimation he made, and his best guess was that 3.45 was the time the body was found. So how do I disqualify myself by saying that Baxters belief was that the body was found at 3.45.

            To me, you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. It reeks of desperation to try and elevate this into some sort of mistake on my behalf.


            Post 3505:

            Here, you tarnish me for saying that neither Baxter, nor you or me can establish the exact second or minute the body was found. And you do so because I have quoted that Paul said that he walked down Bucks Row at EXACTLY 3.45. Presumably, you want me to say that Paul could not have known exactly when he as there, but that is wrong - it may well be that he KNEW the exact time, if he was relying on a timepiece he knew was correct.

            Pointing this out, I really hope you are not going to use it to say that I should have said ”But for Paul, nobody knows the exact time the body was found”.

            The simple truth is that although Paul MAY have known the exact time, today we cannot know that he did. And so, we MUST say that nobody knows the exact time the body was found.

            This is the kind of verbal soup you enjoy serving up, and my view of it is that it is a mockery of what a debate should involve, a shame for ripperology and an indecent way of avoiding to answer the truly important matters.


            Post 3506:

            Here you do the same thing as you did in post 3504; although I have numerous times said that Llewellyn spoke of AROUND 3.55 or AROUND 4.00, you pick one instance where I wrote that LLewellyn said 4 o clock, as if I would have tried to say that it was 4.00.00 exactly. It is not sound, Dusty, and it does not paint you in any favorable light. Besides, you actually posted a quote from the Times where they DID say ”at 4 o clock”, so I think there are various options to look at.

            At the end of the day we BOTH know that there must be a span of time allowed for. But the true time is reasonably most likely to be found in between 3.55 and 4.00, since these two timings were the ones mentioned by Llewellyn. Does it mean that it MUST have been 3-55 - 4.00? No. But it is and remains the best suggestion we have.

            You then say that Baxter suggested that Llewellyn was at the site at around 4.00, by quoting this passage from the summary: ”Dr LLewellyn, who saw the body about a quarter of an hour afterwards”.

            Nice try and truly cheeky! But! Baxter does not say that Llewellyn saw the body about a quarter of an hour after 3.45, does he? He instead says that Lewellyn saw the body about a quarter of an hour after ”Neil found her right arm still warm”. And keep in mind that Baxter ALSO says in the summary that the body was found not far off 3.45. And that alludes to when the carmen found the body. Ergo, when Neil felt her arm, it was not 3.45, it was around 3.50.

            Then what happens? Yes, exactly - we have Baxter giving a time that puts Llewellyn at the site at 4.05 or thereabouts. NOT 4.00.

            Now, Dusty, guess what this does to your claim about ”following Baxter´s lead”? Hmm?


            Post 3507:

            More semantic drivel; you quote me saying that ”the idea that Lechmere and Paul did not give a time for when they were in Bucks Row is bonkers”. And then you point to how Lechmnere didn’t. However, you yourself instigated the bonkers section by claiming that Paul and Lechmere did not give a time for when they were in Bucks Row - which of course made me reply that Paul did give a very clear timing for when he - and of course also Lechmere - were there. And then the ”Dusty trap” slams shut - BOTH men did not give any time, and THAT was what you meant.

            Its telling that you should have to stoop to these tactics. If you wanted to make this point in a fair way, you should have said that Lechmere and Paul did not BOTH give a timing for Bucks Row.

            You know quite well that nobody on these boards would say that Lechmere gave a time for Bucks Row, since we all KNOW that he didn’t. To write that Lechmere and Paul did not give a time for Bucks Row, purely with the intention of setting up a verbal ambush is not what these boards should be about. But is seems it is what YOU are all about.


            Post 3508:

            The window thing. You are ”still waiting” for me to show which windows people could potentially have seen Lechmere through. The answer is, of course, ANY window overlooking the scene, provided that there was somebody behind it, dwellers, night watchmen, burglars… anybody. The REAL point I was making from the outset was of course that claiming that he heard somebody fleeing the scene would put Lechmere in danger of having somebody refuting that there was anybody moving along the lines the carman suggested. And that need not have been somebody looking out a window - that was just a suggestion to clarify what I meant - but it could also have been passers by. Or somebody doing what you like to do - take a piss.


            Post 3509:

            Yes, the inquest was likely to believe the PC:s - from the outset. Not later, as we know from Baxters and Swansons reports.

            You then reiterate the falsehood about Llewellyn being in Bucks Row at 4.00, and I have already disclosed why that was never the truth. And you ask me to list Baxters independent data. However, I don’t have to do that - all I have to do is to point out that Baxter DID state that there were many independent data that told the story that the body was actually found not far off the 3.45 mark. The only one who needs to prove a point here is you, if you refute Baxters words. Me, I am going with the facts and evidence. You are the one suggesting it could be wrong, so put up or shut up, Dusty.

            If you want a little help, here’s a beginning:

            Data 1: Thain arrived at Llewellyns practice at 3.55-4.00.

            Data 2: The trek from Browns Stable Yard to Llewellyns practice took around two minutes to cover.

            These are the kinds of data Baxter will have been referring to, and it is very likely that more material was brought to the table by checking with other participants in the drama. The exact number of data Baxter worked from will remain hidden to us, but the clever thing to do when a coroner says that he relies on many independent data to conclude something is that he has access to…well, you know: many independent data.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              [ 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
              I have nothing much against the suggestion that Lechmere found the body at approximately 3.43. it cannot be ruled out, so let´s try it!

              Paul arrives at 3.44 - sounds like a viable follow up suggestion.

              Lechmere and Paul get to Mizen at 3.47. That sounds a bit tight. The carmen first examined the body and then made their way to Mizen, and that would not be accomplished in three minutes only. But maybe an added half minute would seal the deal, and so let´s not quarrel about it.

              Neil arrives at 3.50. What we must ensure is that there is room for Lechmere and Paul to have turned the corner up at Bakers Row before Neil entered Bucks Row. If the carmen reached Mizen at 3.47, the schedule would work, but I think 3.47.30 is the earliest possibility - but that too is in the clear with Neil arriving at 3.51, since he wuld have turned into Bucks Row at around 3.49.30 in that case.

              So, we then have Neil examining the body and signalling down Thain, who arrives at 3.51. Tight, but possible. And then he is sent to Llewellyn.

              All in all, not bad and not impossible. There are a few minor quibbles on my behalf:

              If Thain got to the body at 3.51 and ran for Llewellyn immediately, he would reach the practice before 3.55. And at the inquest, LLewellyn said 4.00, so the obvious best guess would be in between 3.55 and 4.00, in which case Thain is a few minutes off the mark, and a few. inutes is a lot here, because it only took around two minutes to cover the distance. Another matter is Paul: you need his "exactly 3.45" to be off. I don´t have that problem.

              Anyhow, what you accomplish if we disallow my quibbling is a scenario where Lechmere gets to the body at 3.43. And 3.43 is not far off 3.45. However, if yoou try to move it to 3.40, you will stretch the schedule so much that it bursts. And THAT is what I am saying. Around 3.45 is fine. Around 3.40 is not. We have too many independent data to allow for that!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                So! I am home again, and I hasten to post the document I had on my computer desk, saved for Dusty under the document name "Dusty Crap". Here you go, Dusty, the material you somehow believed was not there:



                Post 3504:

                Are you or are you not claiming that I would have suggested that Baxter meant that the body was found at EXACTLY 3.45? Do you or do you not believe that I am aware that Baxter said ”not far off 3.45”? Have you or have you not noticed that I have used that exact wording in a number of posts, commenting on the matter.

                If so, what does it matter that I wrote that Baxter meant that the body was found at 3.45? After all, it was an estimation he made, and his best guess was that 3.45 was the time the body was found. So how do I disqualify myself by saying that Baxters belief was that the body was found at 3.45.

                To me, you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. It reeks of desperation to try and elevate this into some sort of mistake on my behalf.


                Post 3505:

                Here, you tarnish me for saying that neither Baxter, nor you or me can establish the exact second or minute the body was found. And you do so because I have quoted that Paul said that he walked down Bucks Row at EXACTLY 3.45. Presumably, you want me to say that Paul could not have known exactly when he as there, but that is wrong - it may well be that he KNEW the exact time, if he was relying on a timepiece he knew was correct.

                Pointing this out, I really hope you are not going to use it to say that I should have said ”But for Paul, nobody knows the exact time the body was found”.

                The simple truth is that although Paul MAY have known the exact time, today we cannot know that he did. And so, we MUST say that nobody knows the exact time the body was found.

                This is the kind of verbal soup you enjoy serving up, and my view of it is that it is a mockery of what a debate should involve, a shame for ripperology and an indecent way of avoiding to answer the truly important matters.


                Post 3506:

                Here you do the same thing as you did in post 3504; although I have numerous times said that Llewellyn spoke of AROUND 3.55 or AROUND 4.00, you pick one instance where I wrote that LLewellyn said 4 o clock, as if I would have tried to say that it was 4.00.00 exactly. It is not sound, Dusty, and it does not paint you in any favorable light. Besides, you actually posted a quote from the Times where they DID say ”at 4 o clock”, so I think there are various options to look at.

                At the end of the day we BOTH know that there must be a span of time allowed for. But the true time is reasonably most likely to be found in between 3.55 and 4.00, since these two timings were the ones mentioned by Llewellyn. Does it mean that it MUST have been 3-55 - 4.00? No. But it is and remains the best suggestion we have.

                You then say that Baxter suggested that Llewellyn was at the site at around 4.00, by quoting this passage from the summary: ”Dr LLewellyn, who saw the body about a quarter of an hour afterwards”.

                Nice try and truly cheeky! But! Baxter does not say that Llewellyn saw the body about a quarter of an hour after 3.45, does he? He instead says that Lewellyn saw the body about a quarter of an hour after ”Neil found her right arm still warm”. And keep in mind that Baxter ALSO says in the summary that the body was found not far off 3.45. And that alludes to when the carmen found the body. Ergo, when Neil felt her arm, it was not 3.45, it was around 3.50.

                Then what happens? Yes, exactly - we have Baxter giving a time that puts Llewellyn at the site at 4.05 or thereabouts. NOT 4.00.

                Now, Dusty, guess what this does to your claim about ”following Baxter´s lead”? Hmm?


                Post 3507:

                More semantic drivel; you quote me saying that ”the idea that Lechmere and Paul did not give a time for when they were in Bucks Row is bonkers”. And then you point to how Lechmnere didn’t. However, you yourself instigated the bonkers section by claiming that Paul and Lechmere did not give a time for when they were in Bucks Row - which of course made me reply that Paul did give a very clear timing for when he - and of course also Lechmere - were there. And then the ”Dusty trap” slams shut - BOTH men did not give any time, and THAT was what you meant.

                Its telling that you should have to stoop to these tactics. If you wanted to make this point in a fair way, you should have said that Lechmere and Paul did not BOTH give a timing for Bucks Row.

                You know quite well that nobody on these boards would say that Lechmere gave a time for Bucks Row, since we all KNOW that he didn’t. To write that Lechmere and Paul did not give a time for Bucks Row, purely with the intention of setting up a verbal ambush is not what these boards should be about. But is seems it is what YOU are all about.


                Post 3508:

                The window thing. You are ”still waiting” for me to show which windows people could potentially have seen Lechmere through. The answer is, of course, ANY window overlooking the scene, provided that there was somebody behind it, dwellers, night watchmen, burglars… anybody. The REAL point I was making from the outset was of course that claiming that he heard somebody fleeing the scene would put Lechmere in danger of having somebody refuting that there was anybody moving along the lines the carman suggested. And that need not have been somebody looking out a window - that was just a suggestion to clarify what I meant - but it could also have been passers by. Or somebody doing what you like to do - take a piss.


                Post 3509:

                Yes, the inquest was likely to believe the PC:s - from the outset. Not later, as we know from Baxters and Swansons reports.

                You then reiterate the falsehood about Llewellyn being in Bucks Row at 4.00, and I have already disclosed why that was never the truth. And you ask me to list Baxters independent data. However, I don’t have to do that - all I have to do is to point out that Baxter DID state that there were many independent data that told the story that the body was actually found not far off the 3.45 mark. The only one who needs to prove a point here is you, if you refute Baxters words. Me, I am going with the facts and evidence. You are the one suggesting it could be wrong, so put up or shut up, Dusty.

                If you want a little help, here’s a beginning:

                Data 1: Thain arrived at Llewellyns practice at 3.55-4.00.

                Data 2: The trek from Browns Stable Yard to Llewellyns practice took around two minutes to cover.

                These are the kinds of data Baxter will have been referring to, and it is very likely that more material was brought to the table by checking with other participants in the drama. The exact number of data Baxter worked from will remain hidden to us, but the clever thing to do when a coroner says that he relies on many independent data to conclude something is that he has access to…well, you know: many independent data.
                Brilliant post. If this was a boxing match the ref would stop it.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  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.
                  He is also saying that the body could not have been found far off the 3.45 mark. If he thinks it could have been 3.40, then why does he not say so? When using the 3.45 approximation, he throws the three PC:s under the bus.

                  What he effectively says is that Nichols was found dead in the time space between 2.31 and 3.44. How on earth would he be able to make that kind of an exact suggestion? And why would he exclude 3.45? But not 3.44?

                  The statement is a sweeping one, never intended to disqualify the very time he suggests as the likeliest one in his next sentence, Herlock.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    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?

                    Llewellyn never says that the woman had been dead for at the most thirty minutes at 4.00. We do not know the exact time when Llewellyn arrived at the site (although it would be odd if he was called to the site at 4.00 and arrived there simultaneously, one must say), and so we cannot fix the beginning of that 30 minute period. And even if we could, we are not speaking of any exact science here!

                    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,

                      No, Neil never offered any suggestion as to when the murder took place. He only gave his approximate passing times. And it seems he gave the wron time, as per Baxter.

                      and a doctor giving, shall we say, a best guess that the time of death was about 3. 30 am.

                      Again, no - his guess was one of a maximum of 30 minutes having passed as he examined Nichols. If that took place at, say, 4.10, then 3.40 would be the very earliest time Llewellyn would be willing to accept as the TOD.

                      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.

                      It makes no sense at all, since that would mean that Nichols bled for nigh on half an hour after she was cut, and we have a man like Arne Thiblin saying that 10-25 minutes would be possible, but extreme.

                      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.
                      Harriet Lilley may of course be correct about the sounds as such, but it was not the murder she heard. And it must be pointed out that she was left out of the inquest proceedings, for some reason. My personal guess is that the reason was a yearn for fame, and that she heard diddley squat.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                        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.
                        No-one heard Tabram being killed in the stairwell of George Yard buildings. With 38 stabs and a cut. As far as I can tell, there was n o train passign through the building as it happened. Nor was there any train pulling into the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street as Chapman met her demise, under a number of open windows with tenants behind them. And the Mitre Square express did not pass by outside George Morris´open door as Eddowes was cut to pieces.

                        Maybe, just maybe, the killer did not wait for trains passing in order to kill?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          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.
                          Around 3.30 is nevertheless a time that fits well with a finding of the body at 3.40.

                          But it is also a time that fits badly with a finding of the body at 3.45.

                          Which is why it can be suggested that Lechmere may have adjusted his departure time to fi´t with what was the common parception as he took the stand: that the body was found at 3.40.

                          Once Baxter said 3.45, the rug was pulled out under Lechmere´s feet. That cannot be disputed. There can be damage minimizing by stretching the "around" to entail as much a possible. But there can be no doubt that he went from credible to much less credible on the 23rd of September, as Baxter summed things up.

                          Comment




                          • I’m just thinking out loud with this one but it seems to me that PC Thain was neglecting his duties and appears to have been chatting with slaughtermen in Winthrop Street instead of being out on his patrol. It was dereliction of duty and in my view a possible sackable offence, especially considering a murder took place nearby.

                            Similarly PC Mizen doesn’t take the name, address or employer of either Lechmere or Paul. He continues with his knocking up duties before ambling down to Bucks Row in what turns out to be a JTR murder. Neither of our policemen have covered themselves in glory.

                            This is just a suggestion, but both our policemen would perhaps be keen to improve their response time. Arriving promptly with due diligence, instead of chatting with their pals or knocking up workies.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                              Hi Dickere. Perhaps it would be useful for you or for Mr. Mills to give your source for the claim that Lechmere 'normally' left for work at 3.20.

                              This keeps being repeated, but what is the source?

                              Isn't this just a theory that was suggested by Christer Holmgren, who speculated that since two or three newspapers reported that CAL had left home at 3.20 that morning, that this must mean that it was his usual time, when, in fact, the majority of newspapers reported that the departure time was actually 'about' 3.30?

                              Is there a source for this 'normal' time other than Christer?

                              If I recall David Barrat's study correctly, who actually traveled to the East End and timed a couple of the proposed routes, the travel time from Doveton Street to Pickford's came out at around 25-30 minutes.

                              Thus, if Lechmere left home at 'about' 3:30, he wouldn't have been running late. He could have made to work on time, presuming that he didn't stop along the way, and if his work started at 4.00, which seems reasonable.

                              Further, Lechmere never said he was running late when he left home that morning; he said he was 'behind time' AFTER he stopped in Buck's Row to investigate Polly Nichols' body. Why couldn't it simply have been a case of Lechmere having stopped for a few minutes in Buck Row and that this is what led him to being 'behind time'?
                              To clarify: What I say is that IF the 3.20 timing was named at the inquest, then a likely explanation is that this was his usual departure time. So yes, it was something I suggested, not something I laid down as a fact. It would explain tow things:
                              1. Why the timing was mentioned in more than one source, and
                              2. Why Lechmere was late that morning.

                              The idea that he became late by way of stopping to examine the body is a tad odd to me. It would have taken very little time, perhaps a minute only and at the most two, and so if, as you say, he had a 25-30 minute trek to do, then he would not be very late on account of sacrificing a minute in Bucks Row would he?

                              The more credible thing - at least in my confined world - is that he said that he started out at 3.20 normally, but had done so at 3.30 on this occasion, and so he would know that there was a full ten minutes missing as he left Doveton Street.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                Once Baxter said 3.45, the rug was pulled out under Lechmere´s feet. That cannot be disputed. There can be damage minimizing by stretching the "around" to entail as much a possible. But there can be no doubt that he went from credible to much less credible on the 23rd of September, as Baxter summed things up.
                                So why didn't the police question him about it ? Surely time discrepancies would be of the upmost importance

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X