Evidence of innocence

[Mark J D]

... 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...

"... wrongly..."

-- And the other six...?

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"... wrongly..."

-- And the other six...?

M.

?

The other 6 just said 3.30.

So 11 had Lechmere saying ‘about 3.30.’
6 had him saying 3.30
2 had him saying 3.20

So we have a majority of reporters at the Inquest saying that Lechmere had said that he left his house at ‘about 3.30.’

Of the 6, what would be most likely?

a) Lechmere said ‘about 3.30’ but they didn’t here the ‘about’ or they just transcribed their notes incorrectly.

or

b) Lechmere said ‘3.30’ and they imagined an ‘about?’

I know what I think is overwhelmingly the likelier.

[Mark J D]

?

"... wrongly..."

I can see you don't get it.

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"... wrongly..."

I can see you don't get it.

M.

I don’t.

Perhaps if you told me?

[drstrange169]

>>If you have any questions you want answered, then ask those question publically here and now, instead of falsely claining that I cannot answer them.<<

It's remarkable how you statements to posts you deny exist! Since everyone else can see my questions I really don't see why you keep persisting with your charade.
But as everyone can see, written evidence is considered by Lechmerians as an optional extra.

>>It does n ot get any easier than that, does it?<<

You'd think so, but I guess you hope by mudding the waters with a barrage of nonsense is better alternative for you. It certainly worked with Bob, who thought your burglar and piss-taker ideas were brilliant suggestions. Doesn't that sum it all up?

The questions are there everybody can see them, it's your choice as to whether you answer them are not.

[drstrange169]

>>You have had your answers to each and every point. <<

The only answer you have offered to my actual questions is about the aforementioned Burglar and piss-taker, hardly you best moment. As everyone can see the bulk of your alleged "answers" were replies to post were I never asked any questions, and you wonder why nobody trusts you.


>> 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<<

I've cited confirmation for every claim I've made, perhaps you could give us the same courtesy and list the "quotations that were never made". You have a habit of abusing most listers, but seldom backing your claims up with proof.

[drstrange169]

>>Mainly because he swore to the 4.00 time at the inquest<<

Had you read my posts that everyone else did, but you claimer don't exist, you'd know that ALL the nesters, but one said "about 4:00". only the error filled Times claimed an exact time. And since we know Llewellyn's actual words in his statement said about 3:55, we know the Times was wrong. Strangely we don't see Bob accusing you of "adjusting" the time, funny that.

>>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.<<

If you didn't insist on claiming my post #3870 doesn't exist, you'd know the answer to that.

[drstrange169]

>>Or the person that fled the scene a minute or less before Lechmere found the body?<<

No Herlock, you are wrong, they didn't flee the scene they were taking a piss around the corner or were burglarising a house whilst looking out the window. All serious suggestions from Christer and Bob.

[drstrange169]

>>Being found in Bucks Row at 03.45 means there is time missing. <<

Talking to a policeman at 3:45 means there isn't time missing.

Arriving at Broad Street at 4:00 means there isn't time missing.

Neil finding the body at 3:45 means there isn't time missing.

Thain arriving as Neil is looking at the body means there isn't time missing.

Paul not repeating, under oath, his claim of being in Buck's Row at EXCATLY 3:45 means there isn't time missing.

Paul changing his whole story under oath means there isn't time missing.

Baxter telling the jury that he believes the policemen's timings means there isn't time missing.

Not being able to show Paul's clock was telling the exact same time as Cross's means the whole missing time story is fabricated to make Lechmere appear guilty.

Whilst one person's word against another's is a matter for debate, when the entirety of the evidence suggests the general timings fit, the matter for debate is considerably weakened.

Plus, since we now know, thanks to you and Christer, that it is perfectly reasonable for someone to be around the corner taking a piss, Lechmere's pretty much off the hook isn't he?.

[FISHY1118]

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.

Competent enough to give his estimate of Nichols t.o.d and be pretty accurate ,just saying that the pinch of salt comment by some is a bit harse on the good Dr

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

If we are to believe the Lloyds interview, Paul wasn't late, he believed he could arrive on time. So we only have Cross's story of being behind time. Since Lechmerians believe Lechmere was an accomplished liar, and the Lloyds interview is gospel, why do they keep making this claim everyone was late?

My feelings are, that neither man was late, but by claiming they were gave them a handy excuse to leave. You have to understand that if they stayed, or returned with Mizen, they would have lost a day's pay. That was a BIG deal in the Victorian period. Paul complained about pay loss in his second interview with Lloyds.

[drstrange169]

Apologises for the various grammatical errors in my posts, I'm posting from a phone and I'm not to good at it!!

[FISHY1118]

and you have been told that the Victoian doctors method of guessing a time of death based on touch alone is nothing more than guesswork

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And im advising you that the estimate on dr llewellyn t.o.d. was correct . Now he could an estimate on 100 more senarios and all be wrong ,but on that one time i believe he wasnt.i really dont know whys that so hard to accept . But anyway each to his own as they say.

[SuperShodan]

>>Or the person that fled the scene a minute or less before Lechmere found the body?<<

No Herlock, you are wrong, they didn't flee the scene they were taking a piss around the corner or were burglarising a house whilst looking out the window. All serious suggestions from Christer and Bob.

This is a complete and utter fabrication. I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. At no point have I ever suggested anywhere a third party was “taking a piss” or “committing burglary” or anything remotely like it.

[drstrange169]

>>This is a complete and utter fabrication.<<

Yet, in your post #3802 in response to Christer's post #3800 you wrote,

"Brilliant post."

Here is are the exact words you were claiming were "brilliant".

"... 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."

What's the problem, how is that a fabrication and why do Lechmerians keep denying what they have written?