Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Where did Lechmere say that he was late leaving home? He didn’t.

    Where did Lechmere say that he usually left home at 3.20? He didn’t.
    He said he was behind time, as did Paul. Neither of them said it was due to finding the body.

    Comment


    • Last edited by SuperShodan; 01-03-2022, 04:44 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        Where did Lechmere say that he was late leaving home? He didn’t.

        Where did Lechmere say that he usually left home at 3.20? He didn’t.
        Lechmere is reported the The Star (3rd Sept) and The Times (4th Sept) as leaving at 03.20.
        Last edited by SuperShodan; 01-03-2022, 05:06 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

          Lechmere is reported the The Star (3rd Sept) and The Times (4th Sept) as leaving at 03.20.
          According to David Orsam’s research there were 19 newspapers reporting on the Inquest on the 3rd September (he’s listed them all). 11 of them said that Lechmere said “about 3.30,” which is around 58% of them. 2 wrongly gave a time of 3.20 so if we dismissed those as we should then it’s 64%. So the majority said that Lechmere had said “about 3.30.”

          Again…..therefore we cannot say that there is an unaccounted for gap of time. It’s a simple, inarguable fact.
          Regards

          Herlock Sholmes

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

            He said he was behind time, as did Paul. Neither of them said it was due to finding the body.
            The Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was?
            Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself.

            This doesn’t mean that he was late when he was leaving the house. He’d lost time by stopping to look at a tarpaulin which turned out to have been a body, then waiting for Paul to get there, then any examination of the body and short discussion on what they should do.

            Nowhere does Lechmere say that he was late leaving the house for work so why should we assume something that wasn’t true?

            Regards

            Herlock Sholmes

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              According to David Orsam’s research there were 19 newspapers reporting on the Inquest on the 3rd September (he’s listed them all). 11 of them said that Lechmere said “about 3.30,” which is around 58% of them. 2 wrongly gave a time of 3.20 so if we dismissed those as we should then it’s 64%. So the majority said that Lechmere had said “about 3.30.”

              Again…..therefore we cannot say that there is an unaccounted for gap of time. It’s a simple, inarguable fact.



              I had a mix up with a previous post there and I can’t figure out how to delete it.

              Anyway, moving on, I agree that Lechmere would have told the inquest he left about 03.30. Saying he left at 03.20 would make his presence in Bucks Row inexplicable.

              However, leaving at 03.30 still leaves us with missing time as we know that Doveton Street is a short 6 or 7 minute walk to Bucks Row. So there very clearly is “an unaccounted for gap of time”.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                The Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was?
                Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself.

                This doesn’t mean that he was late when he was leaving the house. He’d lost time by stopping to look at a tarpaulin which turned out to have been a body, then waiting for Paul to get there, then any examination of the body and short discussion on what they should do.

                Nowhere does Lechmere say that he was late leaving the house for work so why should we assume something that wasn’t true?
                It isn't explicit either way, I agree.

                So we're both interpreting. You're assuming time was lost when he found the body onwards, and not before. To me, it is telling that he isn't explicit.

                You could explain to work that you were late due to this but he doesn't mention why at all, which implies he was already behind time. And if he was, he wouldn't be stopping to probe tarpaulins.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post




                  I had a mix up with a previous post there and I can’t figure out how to delete it.

                  Anyway, moving on, I agree that Lechmere would have told the inquest he left about 03.30. Saying he left at 03.20 would make his presence in Bucks Row inexplicable.

                  However, leaving at 03.30 still leaves us with missing time as we know that Doveton Street is a short 6 or 7 minute walk to Bucks Row. So there very clearly is “an unaccounted for gap of time”.
                  Are you being serious? Come on SS please.

                  ‘About 3.30’ doesn’t mean 3.30. It could mean 3.35 or 3.36 or 3.25 or 3.26. We just don’t know. So how can we say that there was definitely a gap of time when we don’t know for anything approaching certainty that he left at 3.30.

                  If he left at 3.35 or 3.36 that would have gotten him to Bucks Row at 3.42 or 3.43. Where’s this ‘gap?’

                  This is a black and white issue. You cannot postulate a definite fact using an estimate. It’s impossible. Even if you say that there was a chance that he might have left at 3.30 it’s nowhere near enough.

                  Anyone taking a reasonable view has to say that the gap point is null and void.
                  Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 01-03-2022, 05:56 PM.
                  Regards

                  Herlock Sholmes

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                    It isn't explicit either way, I agree.

                    So we're both interpreting. You're assuming time was lost when he found the body onwards, and not before. To me, it is telling that he isn't explicit.

                    You could explain to work that you were late due to this but he doesn't mention why at all, which implies he was already behind time. And if he was, he wouldn't be stopping to probe tarpaulins.
                    The bottom line is that we just can’t assume that he was late when he left home. Just as we can’t assume that he left at 3.30 when he said that he left ‘about 3.30.’

                    And on the ‘about’ point. I’d also suggest that it’s far, far more likely that a reporter in court might have failed to hear the word ‘about’ than it would have been for a reporter to have imagined the word ‘about’ if it hadn’t been used.

                    There really is nothing suspicious about Lechmere’s walk to work.
                    Regards

                    Herlock Sholmes

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      The bottom line is that we just can’t assume that he was late when he left home. Just as we can’t assume that he left at 3.30 when he said that he left ‘about 3.30.’

                      And on the ‘about’ point. I’d also suggest that it’s far, far more likely that a reporter in court might have failed to hear the word ‘about’ than it would have been for a reporter to have imagined the word ‘about’ if it hadn’t been used.

                      There really is nothing suspicious about Lechmere’s walk to work.
                      Ok, thanks for your thoughts. Agree to disagree here though.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                        Hi Herlock,

                        I fully agree. 3:41 is "not far off" 3:45. Fisherman has misinterpreted "not far off" to mean "as close as possible to 3:45", which isn't what the phrase means at all.

                        - Jeff
                        I also agree, Jeff. In fact, here are the important parts of the 2 most elaborate versions of Baxter's summing:

                        From the Daily News of 24 September:
                        "She was first discovered by a carman named Cross on his way to his work. Paul, another carman, came up, and together they went to the woman. She was only just dead, if life was really extinct. Paul says he felt a slight movement of her breast, and thought she was breathing. Cross says her hand was cold, but her face was warm. Neither appears to have realised the real condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but this, no doubt, is accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot. Cross and Paul reported the circumstance to a constable at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, about 300 yards distant, but in the meantime Police constable Neil discovered the body. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from a quarter to four a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data."

                        From the Times of 24 September:
                        "The deceased was first discovered by a carman on his way to work, who passed down Buck's-row, on the opposite side of the road. Immediately after he had ascertained that the dark object in the gateway was the figure of a woman he heard the approaching footsteps of a man. This proved to be Paul, another carman. Together they went to the woman. The condition of her clothing suggested to them that she had been outraged and had fainted. She was only just dead, if life were really extinct. Paul says he felt a slight movement of her breast, and thought she was breathing. Neither of the carmen appeared to have realized the condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but that, no doubt, was accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot. The carmen reported the circumstances to a constable at the corner of Hanbury-street, 300 yards distant, but although he appeared to have started without delay, he found another constable was already there. In fact, Constable Neil must independently have found the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen."

                        The last sentence - which is notably absent in the version carried by the Morning Advertiser referred to by Christer - before turning to his "not far from a quarter to four" remark, is about Neil finding the body. Since we know Neil'd stated he'd found the body at about 3.45, there's indeed nothing incoguous about the 3.45 in "not far from a quarter to four" being a reference to Neil's finding of the body. In the Times, as we can see, the "not far from a quarter to four" is even represented as Neil finding "the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen." Whether this is just another way of saying the same created by the reporter in question or the actual words that Baxter spoke, we don't and can't know, but it doesn't change the point that the 3.45 mark is a reference to Neil's timing rather than anything else.

                        Cheers,
                        Frank
                        "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                        Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                        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.
                          Thanks! I'll see if I can independently verify their existence.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                            Hi Jeff,

                            Since Dusty can't help you, I will. That would be in the Daily News, Evening News and the Pall Mall Gazette of 1 October.

                            Cheers,
                            Frank
                            Thanks! Time to try again at organising things, not always my strong suit.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Are you being serious? Come on SS please.

                              ‘About 3.30’ doesn’t mean 3.30. It could mean 3.35 or 3.36 or 3.25 or 3.26. We just don’t know. So how can we say that there was definitely a gap of time when we don’t know for anything approaching certainty that he left at 3.30.

                              If he left at 3.35 or 3.36 that would have gotten him to Bucks Row at 3.42 or 3.43. Where’s this ‘gap?’

                              This is a black and white issue. You cannot postulate a definite fact using an estimate. It’s impossible. Even if you say that there was a chance that he might have left at 3.30 it’s nowhere near enough.

                              Anyone taking a reasonable view has to say that the gap point is null and void.



                              I do understand your position Herlock, the times aren’t exact, we are basing our timings on ‘about 03.30’ and not an exact 03.30. I also understand about the synchronisation between all our protagonists. For example my iPhone and my watch are currently 90 seconds apart.

                              However, I do feel that taking ‘about 03.30’ and moving this to 03.35 or 03.36 is being very generous to Lechmere and is on the outer limits of what ‘about 03.30’ could be taken to mean.

                              Nevertheless, even if we have Lechmere leaving at 03.36 he would still potentially have a couple of minutes in Bucks Row alone before Paul meets him. So on the other side the time the body is found has to move to an earlier time of 03.43, to ensure that Lechmere has no time alone with the body.

                              My point being that the roughly 15 minute time frame we have of have of Lechmere leaving home and being found in Bucks Row becomes 6 or 7 minutes. This is more than a lack of synchronisation, or giving some leeway to what ‘about 03.30’ means. It’s completely slashing the timeframe to suit. And as I’ve said before it requires every discrepancy to always go in Lechmere’s favour.

                              Comment


                              • Hi FrankO,

                                Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                                I also agree, Jeff. In fact, here are the important parts of the 2 most elaborate versions of Baxter's summing:

                                From the Daily News of 24 September:
                                "She was first discovered by a carman named Cross on his way to his work. Paul, another carman, came up, and together they went to the woman. She was only just dead, if life was really extinct. Paul says he felt a slight movement of her breast, and thought she was breathing. Cross says her hand was cold, but her face was warm. Neither appears to have realised the real condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but this, no doubt, is accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot. Cross and Paul reported the circumstance to a constable at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, about 300 yards distant, but in the meantime Police constable Neil discovered the body. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from a quarter to four a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data."

                                From the Times of 24 September:
                                "The deceased was first discovered by a carman on his way to work, who passed down Buck's-row, on the opposite side of the road. Immediately after he had ascertained that the dark object in the gateway was the figure of a woman he heard the approaching footsteps of a man. This proved to be Paul, another carman. Together they went to the woman. The condition of her clothing suggested to them that she had been outraged and had fainted. She was only just dead, if life were really extinct. Paul says he felt a slight movement of her breast, and thought she was breathing. Neither of the carmen appeared to have realized the condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but that, no doubt, was accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot. The carmen reported the circumstances to a constable at the corner of Hanbury-street, 300 yards distant, but although he appeared to have started without delay, he found another constable was already there. In fact, Constable Neil must independently have found the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen."

                                The last sentence - which is notably absent in the version carried by the Morning Advertiser referred to by Christer - before turning to his "not far from a quarter to four" remark, is about Neil finding the body. Since we know Neil'd stated he'd found the body at about 3.45, there's indeed nothing incoguous about the 3.45 in "not far from a quarter to four" being a reference to Neil's finding of the body. In the Times, as we can see, the "not far from a quarter to four" is even represented as Neil finding "the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen." Whether this is just another way of saying the same created by the reporter in question or the actual words that Baxter spoke, we don't and can't know, but it doesn't change the point that the 3.45 mark is a reference to Neil's timing rather than anything else.

                                Cheers,
                                Frank
                                Yes, we're entirely in agreement on this. The 3:45 is used by Baxter as a reference point because that time is given in testimony by PC Neil, so it is a time given in evidence. His statement at the end of the two reports you include references the carmen's discovery of the body relative to PC Neil's, and indicates the time they must have found it "cannot have been far from a quarter to four a.m." (Daily News). The Times phrases this as PC Neil's subsequent and independent discovery at 3:45 was "within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen.", indicating clearly that Baxter believed the carmen discovered the body prior to 3:45. That, of course, is the only logical conclusion one could come to given that it is also testified that at 3:45 the carmen are reporting their find to PC Mizen.

                                And, the suggested time being put forth for the carmen's discovery is somewhere around 3:41ish, based upon Paul's suggestion that they were at PC Mizen no more than 4 minutes later, and also based upon the estimated time it would take them to walk from the crime scene to where PC Mizen was found (estimated to be around 3 minutes 25 seconds). These, of course, are estimations (both Paul's estimate of the time interval and the time to travel), and not to be miscontrued as "established fact", as such we need to view them with a margin of error. There isn't a lot of room for it to be shorter, partly because if it were much shorter they would have encountered PC Neil, which they didn't, and it really can't be too much longer because then PC Mizen would have arrived before PC Thain had time to come to PC Neil and then head off for Dr. L. So, it seems reasonably safe to suggest the carmen found Nichols between 3:40 and 3:41.

                                That time fit's Baxter's summing up (it's accurately described as within a few minutes of 3:45 and also as not far off 3:45), it fits with estimations of their travel time and Paul's statement (well, it has to do those, as that's how we come to it, so this isn't really confirmation of that time, it's how that time gets derived), and it fits with Cross/Lechmere's testimony of leaving home "about 3:30", as a departure time of 3:30 would place him at that location around 3:37, but his inexact time (about 3:30) coupled with the fact that Cross/Lechmere's "clock" won't be syncronized with PC Neil's, means that 3 minute difference is entirely within the range of error one would expect.

                                PC Thain's arrival at the scene just after 3:45, would involve some interaction with PC Neil, and then he heads off to fetch the doctor, whose a few minutes away. The doctor has to be roused, and then get dressed, and get his things, etc, all of which requires time. We know Dr. Blackwell check's his watch to document his arrival time at the scene in the Stride case, and this seems like a reasonable thing to do as part of "protocol." Dr. L's testimony is that he's called to the scene.

                                From Dusty's post 3506 (page 234) we have Dr. L stating “I was called to Buck's row about five minutes to four this morning” Daily News/Evening News Sept 1, while other reports are less specific and just say "about 4:00" (which 3:55 is, 3:55 is "about 4:00"). And we have Baxter summing up with “Dr. Llewellyn, who saw the body about a quarter of an hour afterwards” (about a quarter hour after 3:45; so again about 4:00 - which could be why some papers report Dr. L. being called "about 4:00"), suggests that Dr. L's time of about 3:55 is when he saw the body, meaning when he was at the scene.

                                To get to the scene at about 3:55, PC Thain has to leave the scene not long after 3:45, as he has to get to Dr. L's, rouse him, and the Dr. has to get dressed, get his things, and then get to the scene. Ten to 15 minutes for all of that activity is entirely reasonable, and would mean it looks like Dr. L. arrives at the scene somewhere between 3:55 and 4:00. And of course, Dr. L's times will be based on yet another clock, increasing the margins of errors we have to consider being in play.

                                In short, given the inexactness of the times, coupled with the multiple clocks involved, there is nothing in the times given in testimonies starting from Cross/Lechmere's departure from home, up until the arrival of Dr. L. at the scene, that raise any red flags.

                                - Jeff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X