Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
    >>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?
    I really wonder about you Dusty. You have a wafer thin grip on reality. I honestly think you’re on some kind of spectrum.
    I’ve rarely seen such complete gibberish, it’s like you’re on planet Dusty and anything you make up in your head is reality.
    I can’t believe I’m even replying to you, but for the record I have never mentioned burglars, and liking or commenting on somebody’s else’s post is clearly not the same thing as suggesting it myself.
    Last edited by SuperShodan; 01-04-2022, 01:50 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

      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.
      We’ve been here before Fishy. You want to believe that Victorian doctors knew more than they actually did because it suits you. The FACTS that come from experts say that they didn’t. Just as Victorian Botanists didn’t know as much as modern ones. And Victorian biologists didn’t know as much as modern ones. This is simply a fact of life. Knowledge increases over time. Victorian doctors t.o.d estimates cannot be relied upon. Fact.
      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 FISHY1118 View Post

        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
        How could he have been far off? She wasn’t there at 3.15 and she was there at 3.40/3.45. TOD had to come between those 2 times. I’m not a doctor but I could have deduced that.
        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

          We’ve been here before Fishy. You want to believe that Victorian doctors knew more than they actually did because it suits you. The FACTS that come from experts say that they didn’t. Just as Victorian Botanists didn’t know as much as modern ones. And Victorian biologists didn’t know as much as modern ones. This is simply a fact of life. Knowledge increases over time. Victorian doctors t.o.d estimates cannot be relied upon. Fact.
          Yes Herlock we have , and im trying to be nice about it this time around , i dont believe they do because it suits me ,i believe that on that perticular morning based on the times that were given that his estimate of t.o.d. was acurate thats all, i really dont think thats to much of an opinion to have in my case .

          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            How could he have been far off? She wasn’t there at 3.15 and she was there at 3.40/3.45. TOD had to come between those 2 times. I’m not a doctor but I could have deduced that.
            Well if i could see proof where dr llewellyn asked p.c neil what time he last passed through bucks row , and or if he was informed what time the body was discovered, you might have something, we have the luxury of knowing that information, its my opinion he did not , so did he guess ? yer maybe, was he right ? yer i would say accurate enough.
            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

            Comment


            • >> commenting on somebody’s else’s post is clearly not the same thing as suggesting it myself.<<

              True, but praising someones post is suggesting their content is correct.

              "praise: the expression of approval or admiration for someone or something."

              Although, I can see why you would want to be disassociated with the idea now it's dawned on you how silly Christer's claim was.
              Last edited by drstrange169; 01-04-2022, 03:23 AM.
              dustymiller
              aka drstrange

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                Well if i could see proof where dr llewellyn asked p.c neil what time he last passed through bucks row , and or if he was informed what time the body was discovered, you might have something, we have the luxury of knowing that information, its my opinion he did not , so did he guess ? yer maybe, was he right ? yer i would say accurate enough.
                Hi Fishy,

                This doesn't happen very often, but I have to agree with Herlock. Llewellyn appeared at the inquest immediately after PC Neil, and the last piece of testimony Neil gave was "That would be about a quarter-past three, or half an hour before I found the body.", so Llewellyn was certainly privy to that knowledge. And, as Herlock said, Llewellyn wasn't quoting a TOD. He testified "I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour." - a range limit, not a TOD.

                Cheers, George
                “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  Hi Fishy,

                  This doesn't happen very often, but I have to agree with Herlock. Llewellyn appeared at the inquest immediately after PC Neil, and the last piece of testimony Neil gave was "That would be about a quarter-past three, or half an hour before I found the body.", so Llewellyn was certainly privy to that knowledge. And, as Herlock said, Llewellyn wasn't quoting a TOD. He testified "I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour." - a range limit, not a TOD.

                  Cheers, George
                  Hi George , i interepret llewellyns quote of ''not being dead for more than half an hour'' was him telling the inquest that was his opinion at the time he was inspecting the body . His range limit then is 3.30 to 3.40 and as before his opinion regarding t.o.d was accurate . cheers fishy
                  'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                  Comment


                  • As Bob and Christer’s claims are becoming more and more bizarre, I think it’s worth taking stock of the actual evidence, as opposed to the tales designed to make Charles allen Lechmere look guilty.

                    He left home on or about 3:30 by his reckoning. Could he be lying? Of course, he could, but there is no credible evidence to suggest he lied. There is no mention in any report of him being late for work when he left home. Lechmerians have invented a theory, often referred to as fact, that he normally left home at 3:20. There is no report that supports this claim. The distance to the Pickfords office at Broad St. station can be comfortably reached within 30 mins.

                    The route he took to Bucks Row is unknown and the speed he walked and whether he stopped on the way is unknown.
                    The theory has been put forward that he walked down Cambridge, Darling and Bath to get to Buck's Row. It’s not an unreasonable suggestion. Christer claimed in his book that stepping out his front door,

                    “Paul would have been around 40 yards from the bright lights shining outside the brewery in Bath St, situated where Foster St. spilled out into Bath St.”
                    Page 94 Cutting Point

                    Since this is stated as a fact, Christer was asked for his source that Bath/Foster intersection was well lit. Sadly he moved into one of his avoidance modes and wouldn’t supply a source. Looking at the map and the light for the area, it seems clear that, in fact that section would have been in shadow. And so another myth was spread to imply some kind of guilt that cannot be supported.

                    A claim has been made that the two men must have seen each other, but it has been clearly shown it was possible for the two to have been in reasonably close proximity without being in sight of each other.

                    Entering Bucks Row Cross told the inquest he got as far as the wool warehouse gates when he saw something on the opposite side of the road in the distance that looked like a tarpaulin. On moving to the centre of the road to get a closer look he saw that it was a woman.

                    At this point Paul arrived. Paul gave two versions of what happened that night. One version was unsworn and deviated from the known facts considerably. The other was at the inquest after, according to Paul, he was taken out of bed by the police and questioned for a period of time. That version is supported by the other witnesses that interacted with him.

                    His Lloyds interview was extremely hostile towards the police. It is significant that he claimed enter Bucks Row at exactly the same time P.C. Neil had previously claimed to see the body. However, in the inquest reports he gives no precise time for enter Bucks Row, nor does he give an exact time for leaving home.

                    Did Paul make up the 3:45 time to spite the police? We can’t say, but it seems credible. Did he actually believe it was the correct time? Possibly, but his time is contradicted by all the other main players.

                    There is no known connection between how accurate any alleged clock of his might have been to Cross’s. Therefore nobody can credibly connect Paul’s time with Cross’s. Paul’s unsworn time is disputed by the evidence given by ALL the other main witnesses, Cross, Neil, Mizen and Thain.


                    Leaving the scene Cross and Paul found Mizen at the corners of Hanbury/ Montague/Bakers.
                    Mizen whose specific job at the time was telling the people the time places the encounter at 3:45.

                    There is a dispute as to what was said between the three men, but given the police records show Cross and Paul’s account to be the official one, theirs is likely to be the more correct version. Lechmerians veer between Mizen being a liar involved in a cover up conspiracy to being a paragon of honesty, the two claims are, of course, incompatible.

                    At no time does Llewelyn give an exact time for when he was called to the body, but we do have a statement from him claiming it was before 4:00 and Baxter places him as arriving in Buck's Row 15 minutes after Neil's discovery of the body.


                    On hearing all the evidence Baxter summed up the case for the jury. He used the police times as the only reliable point to judge when the body was found. He makes it very clear that it was at a time close to BUT before 3:45, how close before he could not say.

                    The claim has been made that he didn’t believe the police times, but there is NO evidence to support this. In fact, Baxter mentions that Neil was questioned closely about his time-claim and forms the opinion it was correct. If Baxter truly believed the police wrong he would have to had explained to the jury that the police evidence was not sound and explained to why. There is no evidence that this happened and there is no evidence that at the inquest Paul claimed to have entered Buck’s Row at exactly 3:45.

                    Stripped of the spin Cross does nothing suspicious and there is no credible evidence to support the notion he lied.
                    Last edited by drstrange169; 01-04-2022, 05:13 AM.
                    dustymiller
                    aka drstrange

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                      My feelings are, that neither man was late, but by claiming they were gave them a handy excuse to leave.
                      Yes, it helps to read between the lines. It's nothing more than the old, 'Well, I'd love to stay and help, but unfortunately I've got an errand to run..."

                      One sees it at every roadside accident.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        How could he have been far off? She wasn’t there at 3.15 and she was there at 3.40/3.45. TOD had to come between those 2 times. I’m not a doctor but I could have deduced that.
                        With regards to the officer who said he passed by at 3.15am.Could he have passed by as suggested and like Lechmere thought that the body was nothing more than a tarpaulin and took no notice, or was he not where he should have been on his beat at that time and therefore had to lie and say he passed by and the body wasnt there..

                        If Lechmere is to be believed then a question mark hangs over the officer, and then we have to ask which one is lying and what was their reason for lying? Lechmere because he was the killer or the police officer?

                        I firmly believe that she was murdered much earlier in line with the times of death of the other victims.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 01-04-2022, 08:13 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          Another point of course is the thinking of a guilty man. It is suggested that on the spur-of-the-moment Lechmere came up with that piece of self-preservation The Mizen Scam in order not to be detained by Jonas Mizen. If he possessed the cunning required to do that without any significant chance to think about it then shouldn’t we ask why, after a period when he certainly did have time to think (up until the Inquest) he didn’t think to say “I left the house at just after 3.35,” eliminating any gap. Surely the person that came up with the scam on the spot would have realised that a police officer might have thought “hold on, it doesn’t take 15 minutes to walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row…what was he doing?”
                          I entirely agree, Mike. When Lechmere took the stand, what he knew was that Neil had found the body at around 3.45, that Mizen had just stated he saw the two carmen at around 3.45, that Paul had claimed it had been exactly 3.45 when he traversed Buck’s Row just before seeing Lechmere and that Lechmere knew at what time he had reached his work, which according to himself was at 4 am (and checkable). That was the truth as Lechmere would or, at least, could have known it. As both Neil and Paul gave a 3.45 timing, it would have been all the smarter for a guilty Lechmere to say that he left home around 3.35, just as you say, because that way he would be safe if Neil's timing was given credence over Paul's and he was safe if Paul was given some credence as well.

                          Mills also raises the point, as Christer has, about the body not being ‘posed.’ Might we not suggest that as this was very possibly the first murder of the series then the killer might not have come up with the idea of posing yet? Or might the killer have been disturbed by the arrival of Lechmere and he simply dropped her clothing after having held it up with one hand? Leaving the skirt slightly raised?
                          What might be telling to me, Mike, is the fact that Paul’s testimony paints a picture of him touching the breast (and then feeling a slight movement) while he was pulling the clothes down (Times of 18 September). That raises the question: where would he take hold of the dress to pull it down? What would be the most efficient way to pull a dress down?

                          I don’t know about you, or anybody else for that matter, but my answer would be that he would go for the hem of the dress. Which, if correct, would mean that the hem of the dress was on the chest area and would raise another question: if the killer is supposed to have covered the wounds, why would the hem of the dress be left so relatively far away from the hip area, on the chest? Because, wouldn’t the killer also go for the hem of the dress to pull it down? And why wouldn’t he have pulled the clothes down all the way over the legs, or at least, quite a bit over the legs, making it look even more like a woman who had just gone off in a swoon (i.e. without first being outraged or something alike)?

                          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



                          • What might be telling to me, Mike, is the fact that Paul’s testimony paints a picture of him touching the breast (and then feeling a slight movement) while he was pulling the clothes down (Times of 18 September). That raises the question: where would he take hold of the dress to pull it down? What would be the most efficient way to pull a dress down?

                            I don’t know about you, or anybody else for that matter, but my answer would be that he would go for the hem of the dress. Which, if correct, would mean that the hem of the dress was on the chest area and would raise another question: if the killer is supposed to have covered the wounds, why would the hem of the dress be left so relatively far away from the hip area, on the chest? Because, wouldn’t the killer also go for the hem of the dress to pull it down? And why wouldn’t he have pulled the clothes down all the way over the legs, or at least, quite a bit over the legs, making it look even more like a woman who had just gone off in a swoon (i.e. without first being outraged or something alike)?

                            Cheers,
                            Frank
                            [/QUOTE] (Oooops, I messed up that quote!!!!)



                            Absolutely correct, Frank. The only way he could have touched the breast while pulling her dress down, is if that was where the hem was placed. It would be quite possible for an ankle length dress to be pulled upwards so that the hem was at chest level, but the body of the dress still covered the abdominal wounds when allowed to fall onto the body. I think that her clothing was just dropped and left to fall into place, possibly, but not definitely, because the killer was disturbed. Whether this was due, for example, to the arrival of Lechmere, or maybe Paul, is open to debate.
                            Last edited by Doctored Whatsit; 01-04-2022, 09:48 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                              Hi George , i interepret llewellyns quote of ''not being dead for more than half an hour'' was him telling the inquest that was his opinion at the time he was inspecting the body . His range limit then is 3.30 to 3.40 and as before his opinion regarding t.o.d was accurate . cheers fishy
                              But we know for an absolute indisputable fact that scientific knowledge at the time meant that a doctor simply couldn’t predict a TOD with the kind of accuracy that you appear to be claiming Fishy. This really isn’t a controversial statement. Surely you can see the position? Every modern forensic expert will, without exception, tell you this but your response appears to be “well I don’t believe them.” It’s the equivalent of me claiming that Stephen Hawking was clueless on the subject of Black Holes.
                              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 Trevor Marriott View Post

                                With regards to the officer who said he passed by at 3.15am.Could he have passed by as suggested and like Lechmere thought that the body was nothing more than a tarpaulin and took no notice, or was he not where he should have been on his beat at that time and therefore had to lie and say he passed by and the body wasnt there..

                                If Lechmere is to be believed then a question mark hangs over the officer, and then we have to ask which one is lying and what was their reason for lying? Lechmere because he was the killer or the police officer?

                                I firmly believe that she was murdered much earlier in line with the times of death of the other victims.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                I’d say that it can’t be considered impossible that Neil might have missed the body on his previous round. I haven’t checked Steve’s book so I don’t know if there’s any level of certainty as to what side of the road he’d have been on? If he was on the opposite side, and with the area where the body was found being very dark, maybe he didn’t notice it or maybe he he just wasn’t being conscientious enough to go over and have a look? I don't know.
                                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