Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by GUT View Post

    I just checked some time pieces in my house, three watches (all modern) two clocks, one analogue, one digital, and an iPad, total time span, 4 minutes. That’s in 2022 with modern relatively accurate time keeping devices, but I don’t sit down and synchronise them. No idea how anyone can rely on ant times given in 1888 as being dead accurate.
    Who is it you find does so?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

      So why should we question Llewellyn ? We have an eye witness that places Nichols on the corner of Osbourne rd and Whitechapel rd at 2.30am alive and well all be a little worse for ware , shes roughly 10 mins walk from bucks row , P.C Neil claims he saw no one as he past through at 3.15 . So kill time has to be from 3.15 to 3.40 , also P.C Neil has to leave bucks row for Nichols and JTR to get to the murder spot, lets say its now 3.20, [even 3.17 makes little difference] which means when Dr Llewellyn say this at [ 4.00am /4.10am] ''Her hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm. I examined her chest and felt the heart. It was dark at the time. I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour.Even if nichols is killed between 3.17am and 3.30 its still an accurate assessment in my opinion. i just dont think dr Llewellyns opinon in direct regards to theT.O.D of Nicols should be taken with a grain of salt. 'We all have to accept that the medical knowledge of modern Doctors and Scientists is far greater than that of the Victorians' Agreed
      We know that she was killed between 3.15 and 3.45 but modern scientific knowledge (Dr Biggs for example) tells us that a Victorian Doctor could not have stated the time of death with any great degree of accuracy. So why should we, as laymen dispute his assessment?
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      Comment


      • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
        So what were my questions and why is Christer trying to avoid them and did he really have answers waiting or has he quickly cobbled together some distractions to avoid them yet again?

        Christer wrote in post #3463,

        The idea that Cross and Paul did not give a time for when they were in Bucks Row is also bonkers”
        (My emphasis)

        Which promoted me to write, (#3486)

        Can anyone point to where Cross says what time he was in Buck's Row?”

        Rather than simply accepting he made a mistake and apologise, Christer chose to lie,

        Dusty claims that I would have said that Paul and Lechmere gave a time for being in Bucks Row. ... I never quoted Lechmere giving such a time…“
        (my emphasis)


        So is this one of your "questions"? Combined with a claim of me being a liar? I see! Thank you ever so much, how nice of you.

        Answer: We all know that Lechmere gave no time for his presence in Bucks Row. What I have pointed out is that he was there in comboi woith Paul, and so if Paul was on the money, then there were there at around 3.45.

        Is this very hard to understand? Then just say so, and I will explain it again. Even if it somehow makes me a liar in your mind.


        Same post I asked,

        “If he (Paul) wasn't lying about entering Buck's Row at "exactly 3:45" why didn't he repeat his claim under oath? What time is "just before 3:45"? 3:42? 3:40? 3:35? When?
        How, in any unbaised terms, is this not dubious?”


        It is not dubious at all on account of how being in Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 was a very logical thing if Paul left his home, situated a minutes walk or two from Bucks Row, just before 3.45. I see nothing "dubious" at all in how he conveyed that to the inquest, just as I would have expected the same inquest to be able to underestand that leaving his home just before 3.45 would see him in Bucks Row at 3.45.

        There, two of your very hard question answered, and I have only been called a liar once. We are on a roll, Dusty.



        #3489

        “If anyone can name a book with more detail about Buck's Row than Steve's book feel free to name it. Until then let's stick with, "the most comprehensive book on Buck's Row", as being correct.”

        I have already answered that by saying that if the many details involve factually wrong sequences, then the book is poerhaps not as comprehensive as you seem to think it is. If you want me to name any book with more detail, I must add that since I never read Inside Bucks Row, I cant tell. Its only of you read a book that you know how detail there is in it.
        Does that disqualify me? Since I cannot answer the question, I mean? Or does it mnake me a liar? Pray tell me, Dusty!


        #3509

        “Where in his summing up does Baxter quote a time from Paul? Why does he say the murder happened before 3:45? Why does he say Llewelyn was in Buck's Row around 4:00 a.m.? Where does Baxter's "fixed by so many independent data" come from? "So many" is more than one, it's more than two, so what other independent data was he referencing?”

        #3510

        Letīs divide those ones up:

        “Where in his summing up does Baxter quote a time from Paul?

        He does not, but he was aware that Paul said that he left home at just before 3.45, and he was likely also aware of the Lloyds article.

        Why does he say the murder happened before 3:45?

        He would actually contradict himself if he did, since he also says that the time she was found could not have been far off 3.45. That effectively means that she was found at either exactly 3.45 or shortly before or after that time, so it may be that she was cut after 3.45 in his view. The fact that he allows for 3.44.59 but not 3.45.00 in your interpretation, going on how he said that she was found dead before the one hour and fifteen minutes after she mert Holland had elapsed says more of your way of treating evidence than it says about any embargo on the second of 3.45.00. That, at least, is how I see it.

        Why does he say Llewelyn was in Buck's Row around 4:00 a.m.?

        He does not do that, Iīm afraid. He says that Llewellyn arrived fifteen minutes after Neil felt the warmth of her arm, and to make your suggestion. true, that would require that Neil did that feeling at 3.45 exactly. However, Baxter said that the body was found at 3.45, meaning that snce Lechmere was the one who did the finding, Neil could not have been in place before around 3.51. And so that shows us that LLewellyn would have been in Bucks Row at around 4.06, not 4.00. My counterquestion would be "Why do you say that Baxter claimed that Llewellyn arrived in Bucks Row at 4.00?. He never used those words at all, and so that brings us to your claim that I am a liar for saying that Llechmere was in Bucks Row at the same time as Paul. You see, what goes around comes around, Dusty.

        Where does Baxter's "
        fixed by so many independent data" come from? "So many" is more than one, it's more than two, so what other independent data was he referencing?”

        Of course, I cannot know what Baxter talked about when wording himself in this way. I can only make an educated guess. And that educated guess involves how he will have weighed together the testimony of Roberty Paul Henry Tomkins and John Thain, for example, all of these witnesses giving times that touched on the matter. Whether he used other information or not, I - or you - can of course not tell. But when aq coroner says that there is many independent data that go to show something, I am not sure that the relevant rection to that should be shouting "Liar!" or something such. I find the alternative - that Baxter knew what he was talking about - the more likely solution.

        “If they (the 3 policemen) colluded, why did Neil know nothing about Mizen meeting the two men?

        A simple answer to that would be that collusion can be many things. It may be that Mizen himself thought that he ought to give a time that didnīt make Neil look bad. It can also be that the three made a quick decision based on a one point agenda: "Hey, guys, lets all agree that we were drawn into this matter at 3.45". There is also the time factor to consider. Neil testified on the 1st and Mizen on the 3rd, so that also could have a bearing if Neil did not know about the men on the 1st. At any rate, it cannot be ruled out that there was a collusion, just as it cannot be proven that there was. What there IS, is a matter where three PCs all seems to have been wrong on the timings, and so some sort of explanation would be nice to have. Maybe it is as easy as how Paul consulted a timepiece of his own that he knew and could rely on, and then the PC:s all could have heard a clock chine that was five minutes late.
        There is always an explanation for things, although it is not always possible to identify it.


        Finally in #3515 Christer wrote,

        “I should perhaps warn you, Dusty, not to try the "Fisherman avoids my very difficult questions" angle again; 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…”

        Well, we are still waiting for some actual answers let alone any torching.
        You have had your answers to each and every point. I also took the time to point to how you seem eager to call me a liar on very poor grounds, whereas you allow for youself to make very strange claims based on quotations that were never there, without ME calling YOU a liar. That is how I want it, you see. And it is also what I call a torching.

        So, are we done now, or do you have more questions for me, Dusty? If so, shoot, by all means!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
          But I guess you are more of an expert on these things than Dr Biggs who is a forensic pathologist !!!!!!! Not at all ,never claimed to be , but i do know who was there on that morning inspecting the Mary Nichols dead body at 4.00AM in morning ....... NOT Dr Biggs
          And there wasn’t a modern day Doctor around when Henry VIII was ill but we would still trust one’s opinion when he tells us that the application of leeches was a waste of time.

          A modern Doctor is aware of the level of knowledge at the time. Llewelyn was no doubt a competent Doctor but he was limited by what was accepted at the time.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          Comment


          • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
            >>It would be odd if he (Llewelyn) was called to the site at 4.00 <<

            Why do you keep using a time of 4:00 when you know him his own words within a few hours of being called his EXACT words were "I was called to Buck's row about five minutes to four this morning"?
            Mainly because he swore to the 4.00 time at the inquest, Dusty. And I actually say that Llewellyn said he was called to Bucks Row at 3.55-4.00. Search my posts and you will see it. The poi t I was making above was that it would be odd if he arrived in Bucks Row at the same time as he, according to his sworn testimony, wascalled there by Thain.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
              Sorry I forgot to mention another question Christer claims to have answered, but keeps avioding,

              "I'm also still waiting for the "scientific" explanation of how serious researchers can deduce a time gasp between two unrelated times."
              Please specify the exact "gasp" you are talking about.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                Apologies for the delay, but because of the sheer stupidity of Christers posts it's sometimes hard for a sane person to grasp what he's claiming when he writes,

                "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."

                So to clarify, if there WAS someone around the corner, rather than disproving a killer Lechmere's claims, Christer completely fails to unstand that it would PROVE his claim and that "passerby or "piss taker" would become everybody's prime suspect!!!

                The is the quality of arguement SuperShodan apparently thinks is "brilliant"!?!

                And that's what we are dealing with here. I had hoped the New Year would bring a better approach to debate, but it seems we are destined for a year were it will sink to new unthought of lows.
                There is a remedy in sight, though - stop posting, and the quality will immediately go through the roof out here!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  An important point Dusty. As he uses the word ‘about’ we know that he’s accepting that a margin for error however slight is required. There seems to be a determination in some quarters not to accept what is meant by an estimate. It purely and simply means that the person stating it is not suggesting an exact time. That’s all. It doesn’t mean one minute or two minutes before or after. There are no implied times. So if he said “about 3.55” it’s entirely reasonable to suggest some time between 3.50 and 4.00.
                  Not if you are Wynne Baxter, it isnīt. He said that the time the body was found could not be far off 3.45, and so Neil arrival at the site could not be far off 3.51. Meaning that it would be decidedly odd if Thain ran ahead and woke up Llewellyn a minute before that time.

                  Some wriggle room? Yes.

                  All you want? No.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                    Andy Warhol is well past due for the lifetime achievement award for Ripperology. The 'fifteen minutes of fame' theorem strikes again.

                    Packer. Hutchinson. Shwartz. Now Lilley.

                    The woman described hearing voices down in the street. That's not the sensational account of a publicity hound.
                    Very true, R J. So, so true!

                    But - there is always a but, is there not? - this was how it came out in the Echo:

                    Mrs. Lilley added that as soon as she heard of the murder she came to the conclusion that the voices she heard were in some way connected with it. The cries were very different from those of an ordinary street brawl.

                    It has been ascertained that on the morning of the date of the murder a goods train passed on the East London Railway at about half-past three - the 3.7 out from New-cross - which was probably the time when Mary Ann Nicholls was either killed or placed in Buck's-row.


                    So your voices in the street seem to have been a tad more than so. And as you may - or may not, what do I know? - realize, the snippet posted above is VERY much in line with "publicity hounding".

                    Why is it that some posters out here fail to give the whole and true picture?


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                      As I keep trying to convey, he MAY have left at another time than 3.30, but when he says "around 3.30", 3.30 is the likeliest time we have. All other times are less likely, although not impossible. It is even possible that 2.27 could be the time, if Lechmere considered 2.27 to be "around 3.30".
                      3.30 is no more likely or unlikely than 3.33 Fish.

                      In fact I have a personal example of estimating the time. My brother visited yesterday and I thought that he’d arrived at 12.30 because I hadn’t long arrived back home. As soon as he arrived he gave me a piece of information which I immediately had to text to a friend. I just checked my phone and I sent that text at 12.46. So within 24 hours, in a room with 5 clocks, I was 15 minutes out in my estimation. I’m sure that everyone can think of occasions when they’ve misjudged a time or the length of a period of time. There are no hard a fast rules. If someone say ‘around 3.30’ then 3.35 isn’t even approaching unlikely.

                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                        I'd like to assist you Jeff, but despite posting the full list of newspaper quotes about Llewelyn's time in my posts 3506 and 3656, Christer insists these posts don't exist and I'm apparently avoiding the issue, so I can't help you.
                        Hi Frank. Could you please post the material you are referring to so I may see if we are talking about the same thing or not? What I am saying is that Baxter did not say that Llewellyn was in place in Buycks Row at 4.00, but instead that he arrived there a quarter of an hour after Neil had felt Nichols arm for warmth. Are we speaking about the same thing or not?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          Not if you are Wynne Baxter, it isnīt. He said that the time the body was found could not be far off 3.45, and so Neil arrival at the site could not be far off 3.51. Meaning that it would be decidedly odd if Thain ran ahead and woke up Llewellyn a minute before that time.

                          Some wriggle room? Yes.

                          All you want? No.
                          Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you but if Neil got to the body at 3.51 and Thain arrived at 3.52. How is that an issue if Thain got to Llewellyn at 3.55?
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            We know that she was killed between 3.15 and 3.45 but modern scientific knowledge (Dr Biggs for example) tells us that a Victorian Doctor could not have stated the time of death with any great degree of accuracy. So why should we, as laymen dispute his assessment?
                            We should not refute that assessment at all. The doctors back then could not determine the TOD with any real accuracy. But two eminent and very senior forensic physicians concur that Nichols bleeding time would most likely be over after 3-5 minutes or so, and that means that since she still bled as Mizen saw her, we are pointes to Lechmere as the probale cutter. For another cutter to have preceded him, it would take a very unexpected bleeding time.
                            Again, Arne Thiblin did not call a bleeding time of ten to fifteen minues impossible, but he did point it out as extreme an very unexpected.

                            So Lechmere is and remains the probable cutter.
                            Last edited by Fisherman; 01-03-2022, 10:27 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              3.30 is no more likely or unlikely than 3.33 Fish.

                              In fact I have a personal example of estimating the time. My brother visited yesterday and I thought that he’d arrived at 12.30 because I hadn’t long arrived back home. As soon as he arrived he gave me a piece of information which I immediately had to text to a friend. I just checked my phone and I sent that text at 12.46. So within 24 hours, in a room with 5 clocks, I was 15 minutes out in my estimation. I’m sure that everyone can think of occasions when they’ve misjudged a time or the length of a period of time. There are no hard a fast rules. If someone say ‘around 3.30’ then 3.35 isn’t even approaching unlikely.
                              When you say "around 3.30", the likeliest time IS 3.30. 3.31 is slighlty less likely. 3.32 is slightly less lilely than 3.31. 3.33 is slightly less likely than 3.32.

                              That is how it works. Iīm sure you know that too.

                              So 3.30 is and remains more likely than 3.33.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                As I keep trying to convey, he MAY have left at another time than 3.30, but when he says "around 3.30", 3.30 is the likeliest time we have. All other times are less likely, although not impossible. It is even possible that 2.27 could be the time, if Lechmere considered 2.27 to be "around 3.30".
                                And as I keep trying to convey Fish, 3.30 was an estimation. This cannot be questioned. It’s a fact. We don’t know what time that he left the house. He could even have lied and left the house at 2.30 for all that we know. But we simply can’t reduce any margin for error simply because we want to make a point.

                                Even the possibility that he left the house at 3.35/3.36 renders the point about there being a suspicious amount of time that Lechmere was in Bucks Row with the body is rendered null and void. You can’t use an unknown to prove something.

                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X