Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

    So why didn't the police question him about it ? Surely time discrepancies would be of the upmost importance


    Just like in many modern investigations, such as the Yorkshire Ripper, the police messed up. In my view Bucks Row was a total fiasco. The police didn’t even establish who found the body.

    Lechmere only spoke to one Policeman, briefly to PC Mizen, and Mizen didn’t take any details. When Lechmere left Mizen and walked up Hanbury Street he walked into the darkness as an anonymous workman.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
      Can anyone point me to where Paul said he was late for work when left home?

      None of the inquest reports on Paul mention lateness of any kind.

      The Lloyds interview claims,

      "I was anxious to be punctual at my work"

      If he believed he could still get to work on time, how could he be late?


      Cross told the inquest,

      "Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself."

      This could mean both men were worried about being late because they stopped to view the body.

      So where does the story that Paul was late for work when he left the house come from?
      I donīt see how it affects the possibility of Lechmere being the killer, if that is a point you are trying to make. The gist of the matter is that Lechmere testified to Paul having said that he was behind time, and as I pointed out in an earlier post, since the examination of the body would have taken very little time, the reasonable thing is that Paul was behind time before he was halted by Lechmere. The fact that he said that he was hurrying in Lloyds Weekly points in the same direction - if you are not behind time, then why hurry?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post



        Just like in many modern investigations, such as the Yorkshire Ripper, the police messed up. In my view Bucks Row was a total fiasco. The police didn’t even establish who found the body.

        Lechmere only spoke to one Policeman, briefly to PC Mizen, and Mizen didn’t take any details. When Lechmere left Mizen and walked up Hanbury Street he walked into the darkness as an anonymous workman.
        I am talking about after Baxter's summing up when according to Fish , Lech had become less credible .

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          The Coroner said before 3.45. Not 3.45.

          You keep altering times and accusing others of doing the same.
          No, the coroner did not say "before 3.45". He said that the time could not have been far off 3.45. The least far off 3.45 you can get (to the earlier side) is 3.44.59. Are yo suggesting that Baxter was able to tell that this was the absolute maximum of time? Did he say that the time could not have been far off the 3.45 mark - and then he disallowed for 3.45...?

          Would that not be an extremely odd suggestion? Is the likely thing not that Baxter thought that the finding took place at 3.44-3.46?
          Last edited by Fisherman; 01-02-2022, 04:00 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

            So why didn't the police question him about it ? Surely time discrepancies would be of the upmost importance
            When Lechmere testified, the generally accepted idea what that the body was found at 3.40, and so there would at that stage have been no discrepancy to ask about. Once the time was altered to 3.45, twenty days had passed since the carman took the stand, and Annie Chapman had been slain in Hanbury Street. The resources were therefore stretched. Arguably, nobody stepped back in time and gave the testimony a second viewing, although we do of course know what was said and done, and so we cannot conclusively rule out that the question was asked in late September. It ought to have been, anybody should be able to see that.

            But to be fair, if the police did not see the relevance of how long Nichols bled and how she even reportedly stirred at Pauls touch, they would be much less inclined to see the relevance of the five added minutes in this respect.
            Last edited by Fisherman; 01-02-2022, 04:02 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

              I am talking about after Baxter's summing up when according to Fish , Lech had become less credible .
              Apologies, my bad. I wonder that too.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                No, the coroner did not say "before 3.45". He said that the time could not have been far off 3.45. The least far off 3.45 you can get (to the earlier side) is 3.44.59. Are yo suggesting that Baxter was able to tell that this was the absolute maximum of time? Did he say that the time could not have been far off the 3.45 mark - and then he disallowed for 3.45...?

                Would that not be an extremely odd suggestion? Is the likely thing not that Baxter thought that the finding took place at 3.44-3.46?
                “Cannot have been far from,” means ‘before.’ Obviously he wasn’t suggesting that the body was discovered after the time that he believed that Neil came across it. It doesn’t imply how long before in any way. 3.40 isn’t far from 3.45. We shouldn’t read something into what Baxter said. This would be claiming to know what he was intending without him ever saying so.
                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 Fisherman View Post

                  I have nothing much against the suggestion that Lechmere found the body at approximately 3.43. it cannot be ruled out, so letīs 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 letīs 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 donīt 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!
                  How can we be certain that Mizen’s time was correct? In The Telegraph’s version Llewelyn said ‘about 4.00.’

                  How can we be certain that Thain went straight away for the doctor? How do we know that how long it was before Llewelyn or someone in the house answered the door?
                  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 Fisherman View Post

                    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!
                    But you’re trying to tie everything down within a minute or 2 when it’s almost impossible to do so. Look at events in Berner Street. I know that you don’t believe in a cover up but the times there don’t match up. But there’s nothing sinister about it. We have to do some + or - work. We have to make allowances for errors of judgment, incorrect clocks, unsynchronised clocks, things taking longer or less long than estimated, people making errors and the attempting to cover their own a***s. If we try and micro manage every aspect of this case it’s easy to weave in mysteries.
                    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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      “Cannot have been far from,” means ‘before.’ Obviously he wasn’t suggesting that the body was discovered after the time that he believed that Neil came across it. It doesn’t imply how long before in any way. 3.40 isn’t far from 3.45. We shouldn’t read something into what Baxter said. This would be claiming to know what he was intending without him ever saying so.
                      What a strange thing to say! You claim that Baxter knew that Neil found the body at 3.45, and so it must have been found at that time - or before…?
                      ”Not far off 3.45” always meant ”close to”. And Baxter spoke of Lechmere as the 3.45 finder. Not Neil.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        How can we be certain that Mizen’s time was correct? In The Telegraph’s version Llewelyn said ‘about 4.00.’

                        What time are you talking about here? Can you clarify?

                        How can we be certain that Thain went straight away for the doctor? How do we know that how long it was before Llewelyn or someone in the house answered the door?
                        We know that Thain said he was sent for Llewellyn, and we have no reason to think he did not do so straight away. ”For Gods sake, run for Dr Llewellyn” was what Neil conveyed, or something such. We can always speculate that Thain rounded St James’ park first, but why would we? Isn’ t the by far likeliest thing that he did was he was ordered to pronto? We dont know how long it took For the door to be answered, but since we have no testimony hintingbatban eternity or anything odd, isn’ t the likely thing that it was a quick affair?
                        I’ m all for versatility, but lets not make things harder than they are.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          But you’re trying to tie everything down within a minute or 2 when it’s almost impossible to do so. Look at events in Berner Street. I know that you don’t believe in a cover up but the times there don’t match up. But there’s nothing sinister about it. We have to do some + or - work. We have to make allowances for errors of judgment, incorrect clocks, unsynchronised clocks, things taking longer or less long than estimated, people making errors and the attempting to cover their own a***s. If we try and micro manage every aspect of this case it’s easy to weave in mysteries.
                          Eh? What I am saying is that we can NOT know when Llewellyn arrived. We only know when he said he was called to Bucks Row, and that was at a time that corresponds much, much better with Lechmeres finding time of the body at 3.45 than 3.40.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                            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.
                            and the rest of #3805

                            I don't wish to quibble about minor details, but when PC Neil said that he passed about 30 minutes previously and the body was not there then, he was in effect saying that the murder must have taken place between approximately 3. 15 am and 3. 45 am. Let us not argue about a minute or two either way.

                            We have been clearly advised several times that the victorian doctor's time of death was at best nothing more than an educated guess, so a few minutes here or there means nothing.

                            I have no wish to discuss bleeding times with you, because a) experts disagree, and b) as Lechmere and Paul interfered with the body a couple of minutes before Neil found it, raising the hands etc, we can be pretty sure their attentions would cause some blood to ooze from the wound.

                            As for your comments about Harriet Lilley, you cannot honestly say that "it was not the murder she heard", merely that you don't think or want it to have been the murder. You certainly don't know anything, so you should not pretend that you do. You are of course welcome to your personal guesses. I will try to stick to the known facts. We know that at the inquest the coroner was asking the police about missing witnesses, and the police admitted that they had not interviewed all of the local residents. It is reasonable to suppose that both the police and the coroner were aware of Harriet Lilley's potentially important evidence, and that might have been what inspired the coroner's questions. We have no evidence whatever to discredit Harriet Lilley.
                            Last edited by Doctored Whatsit; 01-02-2022, 05:14 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              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 Morrisīopen door as Eddowes was cut to pieces.

                              Maybe, just maybe, the killer did not wait for trains passing in order to kill?
                              Absolutely no-one has said that JtR waited for trains to pass before killing his victims. I did suggest that he might have been fortunate that a train was passing Buck's Row, and he grabbed the opportunity for the noise of the train to mask the sound of his activities. That is completely different.

                              As for no-one hearing Tabram being killed inside George Yard buildings, we know that they were used to vagrants sleeping rough there, so I suspect they turned a deaf ear to sounds on the stairwell. Maybe they thought it was a prostitute and a client, and didn't want to get involved. As always, we don't know, and can only guess.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                What a strange thing to say! You claim that Baxter knew that Neil found the body at 3.45, and so it must have been found at that time - or before…?
                                ”Not far off 3.45” always meant ”close to”. And Baxter spoke of Lechmere as the 3.45 finder. Not Neil.
                                No, just that Baxter knew that the body had been killed before Neil came upon it which he took as occurring at 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