Evidence of innocence

[JeffHamm]

Hi Herlock,

I usually leave the numbers to Jeff but I had an hour spare so I just did a bit of simple maths which I’m happy to be corrected on as long as it’s done fairly of course.

All that I did was take every permutation of times from Lechmere leaving his house to when he met up with Paul. I’ve used a + or - 5 minutes, so from an earlier leaving time of 3.25 to a later time of 3.35 and I used 3.40/41/42/43 and 3.44 as the possible meeting up times. I used 7 minutes as the walking time to calculate any gap. I left out the 3 times where it would have meant Lechmere getting there in under 7 minutes. This gave me 52 individual times.

Ive taken 2 mins, 1 min and 0 mins as the ‘no gap’ times because I don’t think that 2 minutes is a fair allowance for Lechmere to first engage with Nichols then to kill and mutilate her.

This left me, from that range of permutations, with 12 times out of 52 where there was no gap. So 23.08% of the time there were no gaps.

But….

If Lechmere left the house at around 3.30 to get to work for 4.00 I’m sure that we can all agree that he wouldn’t have gone looking for a victim only to have brought her back to Bucks Row? So he ran into her in Bucks Row. He engages (obviously realising that he doesn’t have a lot of time for chit-chat) then kills and mutilates her. Even if we allow a probably over-generous 4 minutes I’d say that any gap of 5 minutes or over couldn’t be justified because we would be correct in asking why he would have stood around after killing her and before he became aware of Paul’s presence. So if we then remove the 5 mins or more gaps that leaves us with 22 remaining times. 12 of which are the gaps of 2 minutes or under.

Therefore taking into reasonable consideration all possible permutations and eliminating the obviously too small or non-existent gaps plus the illogically long gaps we are left with 54.55% of the possible permutations where there would have been no suspicious gap.

Even if the figures were far lower this should tell us loud and clear that we can propose that there was definitely a gap.

Interesting analysis. I've redone what you suggested, and get the same thing (3 combinations that produce a "negative gap", meaning he arrives in under 7 minutes).

While I understand your idea that "too large a gap" might be worth questioning (why would he still be there, etc), I think one would have to view this as follows. The larger gaps arise when he actually leaves earlier, therefore he has more time available before he needs to worry about being late for work and that gives him more time to engage with Nichols and determine if "now is a good time".

I'm thinking, though, that because the "Cross/Lechmere departure times" would be based upon his testimony, and therefore his clock, while the meeting up with Paul times come from Paul's testimony (and therefore Paul's clock"), if throwing out those "negative gaps" is necessary?

Rather, it seems to me we could factor in ranges of "gaps" that reflect what we would could reasonably expect to obtain simply due to the fact that two different clocks are being used. From what I've read, and from what others have posted, it would not be considered unusual if two clocks differed by 10 minutes. As such, any calculated gap based upon two different clocks could simply reflect nothing more that clock sync error even if in reality there was no gap at all. I think we would be remiss not to factor in this very real and known aspect with regards to clocks in 1888.

So, with that in mind, I've looked at how many gaps exceed 10 minutes, as these are the gaps that appear unusually large.

Out of the entire set of combinations, only 3 out of the 55 "gaps" exceed 10 minutes, 2 from when Cross/Lechmere leaves at 3:25, and one when he leaves at 3:26.

I've then included a meeting up time of 3:45 as well, resulting in 66 combinations of departures and meeting times, and this adds another 3 combinations (one more each for leaving at 3:25 and 3:26, and now one as well for leaving at 3:27), so only 6 out 66 "gaps" would be considered large enough that they could not be accounted for simply by clock sync error.

It's an interesting approach, thanks for sharing it. I've made a few, sadly unsuccessful, searches to try and find out more specific details with regards to just how out of sync clocks were, but so far all I've found are statements like 10 minutes was common, etc, but no real details on how that was determined. It's a shame. If we had some raw data on that, it would really assist us all in evaluating apparent discrepancies in stated times. Are they nothing more than the fact we know two clocks were likely to read two different times?

- Jeff

[SuperShodan]

There’s been a few good posts on both sides about the timing gap recently which I’ve enjoyed reading.

I agree that we are not necessarily disagreeing on the facts, but on the interpretation of facts. For example, are the timings exact. I don’t think anyone would claim that they are, I certainly don’t.

My issue with some of the times used to defend Lechmere and remove / alter the 03.30 to 03.45 time frame are as follows.

The times are moved by more than I think is reasonable. For example, Robert Paul leaving home is moved from 03.45 to 03.38. Lechmere from 03.30 to 03.35. I have a particular issues with Pauls. Leaving for work is when you have the most accurate idea of the time. I think it very unlikely somebody leaving for work could be so wrong. Does anyone ever leave for work and not check the time ?

Some times are taken as gospel and aren’t moved a second. Mizen, Thain and Neil’s times are all taken to be exact. No margin of error allowed. Why is it a different standard for them ?

The times are always moved to Lechmere’s advantage. 5 data points - Dr Llewellyn, Coroner Baxter, Swanson, Paul and Lechmere himself all need to have their time moved in order for the timing gap to disappear. I think that for so many data points to all have to move in a favourable direction is incriminating for Lechmere in itself.

There doesn’t seem to be an acceptance that if there is a margin of error, it could go against Lechmere. If we have Lechmere leaving at 03.25 then how does it look? Or how about Paul leaves at 03.47 or Mizen meets Paul and Lechmere at 03.50.

If we accept any margin of error it’s 50/50 whether we actually move our time window in the other direction to 20 minutes and beyond. Thus making it look very incriminating for our Pickford’s carman. If there are any discrepancies with 03.30 - 03.45 then it’s a toss of the coin whether the timing gap disappears or gets bigger.

It all starts with 03.30 when which is when Lechmere says he leaves home. This is uncorroborated. We only have Lechmere’s word for this. If he did kill Nichols then the actual time he left home is something he would likely conceal. We have a crucial data point unchallenged and being set by the suspect himself.

[JeffHamm]

Hi SuperShodan,

There’s been a few good posts on both sides about the timing gap recently which I’ve enjoyed reading.

I agree that we are not necessarily disagreeing on the facts, but on the interpretation of facts. For example, are the timings exact. I don’t think anyone would claim that they are, I certainly don’t.

My issue with some of the times used to defend Lechmere and remove / alter the 03.30 to 03.45 time frame are as follows.

The times are moved by more than I think is reasonable. For example, Robert Paul leaving home is moved from 03.45 to 03.38. Lechmere from 03.30 to 03.35. I have a particular issues with Pauls. Leaving for work is when you have the most accurate idea of the time. I think it very unlikely somebody leaving for work could be so wrong. Does anyone ever leave for work and not check the time ?

Some times are taken as gospel and aren’t moved a second. Mizen, Thain and Neil’s times are all taken to be exact. No margin of error allowed. Why is it a different standard for them ?

The times are always moved to Lechmere’s advantage. 5 data points - Dr Llewellyn, Coroner Baxter, Swanson, Paul and Lechmere himself all need to have their time moved in order for the timing gap to disappear. I think that for so many data points to all have to move in a favourable direction is incriminating for Lechmere in itself.

There doesn’t seem to be an acceptance that if there is a margin of error, it could go against Lechmere. If we have Lechmere leaving at 03.25 then how does it look? Or how about Paul leaves at 03.47 or Mizen meets Paul and Lechmere at 03.50.

If we accept any margin of error it’s 50/50 whether we actually move our time window in the other direction to 20 minutes and beyond. Thus making it look very incriminating for our Pickford’s carman. If there are any discrepancies with 03.30 - 03.45 then it’s a toss of the coin whether the timing gap disappears or gets bigger.

It all starts with 03.30 when which is when Lechmere says he leaves home. This is uncorroborated. We only have Lechmere’s word for this. If he did kill Nichols then the actual time he left home is something he would likely conceal. We have a crucial data point unchallenged and being set by the suspect himself.

Yes, margins of error could "go the other way" of course. Cross's statement that he left "about 3:30" would be consistent with him leaving at 3:28, or even 3:25. And of course, if that's the case, as you say, things could start to look bad for him.

But as you say at the end of your post, he might have just lied too. But we have nothing in evidence where his departure time is drawn into suspicion, so while we can speculate he might have lied, we can also speculate that he didn't, and really, that's about as far as that discussion could proceed as a debate. It's part of the "unknown" that we cannot see into.

While not wishing to speak for anyone but myself here, what I've been doing is analysing the statements to see if they cannot be true. I'm looking for "holes in his story", so to speak. What that means is one has to examine the range of possible times that their statements could fit and if within those ranges holes are not necessary, then we cannot conclude it cannot be true. As such, I admit, the emphasis tends to be on showing how the statements are consistent with each other, where the overlap is. Showing one can make them inconsistent despite there being ranges of overlap that indicate otherwise isn't how one determines the story is "false". One has to show that there isn't overlap, that the story cannot be true. As such, considering the side of the error that "goes against him" is not focused upon so much.

That being said, Herlock did just that, and in the end, there are very few "gaps" that exceed what we would expect due to the fact clocks are not in sync with each other.

it's not, and I'm sure I've said this, proof it is true. Again, we have lots of "unknown territory", like the "what if he lied", etc. Well, if he lied, that appears to have been missed by the police at the time - but of course we don't know what they did. If they checked out his story, and found it could be confirmed, then he didn't lie, but if they didn't check it out, or did only a cursory check, maybe he did lie. We don't know, there's nothing to debate, though, because it's all just story telling, and both of us could come up with all sorts of stories, none of which have any basis. Now, should a police note book turn up one day that contains details related to Cross/Lechmere and what the police did, that could very easily change my mind if it contained new information. I hope you would agree that it could also change your mind too, if the information were of a different sort.

Also, I don't think Baxter's time is being shifted at all. He states the discovery was not far off 3:45, not that it was at 3:45. While I accept you feel 5 minutes is more than what would be covered by "not far off", in my view that is well within the limits. Hence, we differ in our conclusion on that.

As for which times to consider more reliable, I do think it is defendable to suggest the PC's are going to have a more reliable time than either Cross/Lechmere and/or Paul. My reasons for that belief are fairly simple. The police were required to keep track of the time. Moreover, upon a critical incident, like discovery of a murder, they would be required by their job to note the time at the time. Presumably they record these things on paper, so it's preserved and not dependent upon their memory. PC Mizen, as well, was knocking up people, a task that was very time critical. Cross/Lechmere and Paul, however, had no particular reason to consider the time when they found the body, or spoke to PC Mizen. They have no particular reason to "make a mental note of when I left for work" either. Rather, this detail will only become important when they go to report to the police, at which point they will be asked to recall this information. Hence, they will be more susceptible to the vagaries of memory, making their statements about time less reliable. We see this as well in their testimonies, as both use qualifying terms like "about".


And you are correct, we don't know for sure that PC Mizen and PC Neil's clocks are in sync with each other, of course, but we do know the activities that have to be accounted for.
1) Cross/Lechmere and Paul have to travel far enough such that PC Neil does not see them upon his approach where he finds the body.
2) We know it takes in the order of 3.5 minutes to walk between the crime scene and PC Mizen's location
3) We know PC Thain has to be called to the crime scene, and depart before PC Mizen arrives (PC Mizen testifes that PC Neil was alone, so Thain has been and gone).
4) We know PC Mizen arrives before Dr. L. (same reason).
5) PC Mizen, even if he did knock up one or two more houses, would also require 3.5 minutes to get to the crime scene from where he is.
6) Based upon what we know about the interactions between the carmen and PC Mizen, that encounter does not appear to have been much more than them stopping, saying they found a drunk, or maybe dead, women in Buck's Row, and indicating that PC Mizen should go there.
So really, we're looking at something like 7 minutes between the carmen leaving and PC Mizen arriving, with some additional, but probably small, extra time for the encounter and possible additional knocking ups.

When one tries to fit all of those requirements into things, there isn't a lot of room for PC Mizen's clock to be much different from PC Neil's, but yes, it might be possible to include some wiggle room in there. But even if we did, it's not going to change the overall gist.

The other thing, and perhaps this doesn't always come across, the times as I've presented them in that analysis are in effect sort of standardizing all the times to PC Neil. So the 6-7 minute "shift" for Paul's departure might simply mean there's a 6-7 minute difference in their clock settings, and the PC Mizen, although it is what he testified to, is really just saying "about the time PC Neil finds the body, it appears the carment are talking to PC Mizen". so had PC Mizen testified that the time was 3:50, then such a thing would suggest that PC Neil and PC Mizen are basing their times on clocks that are showing different times. This appears to be the case with PC Smith in the Stride case - his clock seems to be out of sync with other PC's clocks by about 5 or 6 minutes I think it was.

Anyway, it's trivially easy to make the times "not work" for Cross/Lechmere because one just has to assert "he lied" or "if he left at 3:20", and so forth. The thing is, if he did lie, lies usually produce holes in stories - they don't line up with more objective ways of examining the statements. In this case, however, the statements we have do line up with the estimated times for the various activities that are suppose to happen. There are no obvious "holes".

Now, obviously my conclusions as I'm presenting to them reflect the fact that I think there are much wider ranges of error associated with a witness' statement of the time, and that "about" and "not far off" cover much larger ranges of times than you do. That's fine, there's no number associated with "about", hence, you won't agree with my conclusion, but I hope you understand the basis for my reasoning given that I have a different opinion as to the size of the variation than you yourself do.

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

So, with that in mind, I've looked at how many gaps exceed 10 minutes, as these are the gaps that appear unusually large.

Here's what I don't get.

Why is it so difficult for some people to grasp that the odd man out isn't Charles Lechmere....it's Robert Paul?

People are so fixated on Lechmere and analyzing HIS movements that they can't see that it is Robert Paul's testimony that is the only thing that is truly problematic.

If you leave Paul out of it, all timing of events as described by Abberline, Lechmere, Neil, Mizen, Baxter, etc., when correctly interpreted, are all pretty much in perfect alignment.

Lechmere leaves home around 3:30--call it 3:31 or so--he takes 7 minutes or so to get to Buck's Row, he sees & examines the body for 2 or 3 minutes--(Abberline put's this at about 3: 40) he then walks to where he meets Mizen in another 3 minutes or so...it's now about 3:45...it all jives. And it ALSO agrees with the other witnesses and contemporary commentators, such as Baxter & Abberline.



The only one throwing a spanner in the clockworks is Robert Paul and his lame estimate of leaving home at 3:45 which is obviously impossible and flies directly in the face of all other witness testimony. It is Paul's stupid account--and Paul's only--- that doesn't 'jive' with anyone else's.

The Times: "Robert Baul [Paul], a carman, of 30, Foster-street, Whitechapel, stated he went to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields. He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning"

This is patently ridiculous. Paul has a 2 1/2 or 3 minute walk to Buck's Row. He then lingers at the crime scene for X amount of minutes. He then has another 3 or 3 1/2 minute walk before he meets Mizen. Yet he's claiming that he left home at the same time everyone else knows he was actually already half-way to work, at the same moment he and Lechmere meet up with Mizen and when Neil was rediscovering the body.

Yet, bizarrely, some people still want to blame this discrepancy...not on Paul..but Lechmere!

In effect, the Lechmere theorists are blaming the 'missing time' and the allegedly screwy chronology on Lechmere, when in fact it is Paul --and Paul only--who has made everything seem fishy and pair shaped.

Do I think Robert Paul is Jack the Ripper? No, probably not.

Do I think he is a lousy witness? Yes.

The world is full of lousy witnesses.

Robert Paul was one of them.

That's how I see it.

RP

[drstrange169]

>>Leaving for work is when you have the most accurate idea of the time. I think it very unlikely somebody leaving for work could be so wrong. Does anyone ever leave for work and not check the time ?<<

We don't know, but it is entirely possible that Paul had no idea of the time. He may well have been knocked up, by people doing the same job as Mizen. That would explain why under oath he only gave an approximate time for leaving home and none for entering Buck's Row.

>>Some times are taken as gospel and aren’t moved a second. Mizen, Thain and Neil’s times are all taken to be exact. No margin of error allowed. Why is it a different standard for them ?<<

Mizen's specific job was to tell people the time, if you believe knocker uppers were unreliable where does that leave Paul's time if he was knocked up?

Neil was subjected to a check by Sgt Kirby. Presumably Kirby would have checked on Thain to, so while their times are not set in stone they are the most corroborated of all the witnesses.

>> 5 data points - Dr Llewellyn, Coroner Baxter, Swanson, Paul and Lechmere himself all need to have their time moved in order for the timing gap to disappear. <<

But that's the point, apart from Paul's highly dubious Lloyds time, everything else fits within the acceptable parameters.

Move Cross's time the other side of 3:30 too much and his wife becomes a problem. Move it slightly, and we have to factor in the possibility that because he was early for work so he walked slower or as Scott suggested took a leak in the Cambridge Heath Road urinals.

>>It all starts with 03.30 when which is when Lechmere says he leaves home. This is uncorroborated. <<

Not only is Paul's 3:45 uncorroborated it is not repeated under oath. Even if someone corroborated Cross's time you wouldn't believe it because the police corroborate each other and you don't believe them.

[JeffHamm]

Hi rj,

Here's what I don't get.

Why is it so difficult for some people to grasp that the odd man out isn't Charles Lechmere....it's Robert Paul?

People are so fixated on Lechmere and analyzing HIS movements that they can't see that it is Robert Paul's testimony that is the only thing that is truly problematic.

If you leave Paul out of it, all timing of events as described by Abberline, Lechmere, Neil, Mizen, Baxter, etc., when correctly interpreted, are all pretty much in perfect alignment.

Lechmere leaves home around 3:30--call it 3:31 or so--he takes 7 minutes or so to get to Buck's Row, he sees & examines the body for 2 or 3 minutes--(Abberline put's this at about 3: 40) he then walks to where he meets Mizen in another 3 minutes or so...it's now about 3:45...it all jives. And it ALSO agrees with the other witnesses and contemporary commentators, such as Baxter & Abberline.



The only one throwing a spanner in the clockworks is Robert Paul and his lame estimate of leaving home at 3:45 which is obviously impossible and flies directly in the face of all other witness testimony. It is Paul's stupid account--and Paul's only--- that doesn't 'jive' with anyone else's.

The Times: "Robert Baul [Paul], a carman, of 30, Foster-street, Whitechapel, stated he went to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields. He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning"

This is patently ridiculous. Paul has a 2 1/2 or 3 minute walk to Buck's Row. He then lingers at the crime scene for X amount of minutes. He then has another 3 or 3 1/2 minute walk before he meets Mizen. Yet he's claiming that he left home at the same time everyone else knows he was actually already half-way to work, at the same moment he and Lechmere meet up with Mizen and when Neil was rediscovering the body.

Yet, bizarrely, some people still want to blame this discrepancy...not on Paul..but Lechmere!

In effect, the Lechmere theorists are blaming the 'missing time' and the allegedly screwy chronology on Lechmere, when in fact it is Paul --and Paul only--who has made everything seem fishy and pair shaped.

Do I think Robert Paul is Jack the Ripper? No, probably not.

Do I think he is a lousy witness? Yes.

The world is full of lousy witnesses.

Robert Paul was one of them.

That's how I see it.

RP

And that's the same thing one could conclude based upon the analysis I presented as well. The largest deviation from the time included in their testimony, qualified or not, is that of Paul's (he testifies he left home "about 3:45", and based upon the recreation analysis it is suggested that he probably left home closer to 3:38-3:39, so 6-7 minutes before 3:45. To me, that's still acceptably described as "about 3:45", particularly once one considers he has no reason to think about what time he actually left until well after everything has occurred, including his day at work, and possibly not until after the next day at work as well as he may not have heard of the murder until after it comes out in the press and word gets around.

The rest of the testimonies more or less line up pretty well, with just two or three minutes to be considered, and really, given we're dealing with reconstructed times anyway (which will of course have margins of errors as well), we're no where near a magnitude of discrepancy where it looks problematic even by today's standards; and we don't have to concern ourselves with clock sync to the same degree. Although, interestingly, in 1994 when the Bain family was found murdered in New Zealand, the one surviving member (David Bain, who was out doing his paper route) was arrested and convicted for the murders. The alternative explanation was a murder /suicide committed by the father. David Bain's case eventually was sent the Privy Council (in the UK due to how NZ law worked at the time) and it was eventually declared a miscarriage of justice and they quashed his conviction and ordered a retrial (this was in 2007; he was retried in 2009 and found not guilty). Part of the evidence used to convict him the first time had to do with comparing the time a computer was turned on, and this was benchmarked to a policeman's watch. The officer was told to get the time on his watch "verified", meaning make sure it is reading the correct time. Turns out his watch was out by a few minutes, but this wasn't divulged to the defence. And those few minutes were critical, because at the time the computer was turned on and a note written that said "sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay", David was seen delivering papers! The police presented it as the computer being turned on after David had come home, and so it was him trying to deflect suspicion. Of course, back in the 90s clocks still weren't automatically syncronized, as the clocks on most computers and phones are now due to their connection to the internet (unless one turns that setting off, of course).

Even today, though, clocks not connected to the internet can read all sorts of times. My digital clock and wrist watch both read 7:17, my phone and computer both read 7:18. I'm not a great example, though, because we had a power outtage not long ago so I set all my clocks to the same time once power was restored, and I used the computer/phone to do so. The 1 minute difference would just reflect errors in the seconds (I'm not that anal retentive!).

Anyway, after that little side trip, I think you're spot on. The one statement that tends to create all the friction is Paul's, and his is a qualified time. Given his statement warns us that the time he states is not "the actual time", it boils down to how much error is indicated in the word "about". A 6-7 minute window is nothing, really, particularly if that error is a combination of his having to estimate combined with his clock being 2 or 3 minutes ahead. The focus on Cross/Lechmere, of course, is because he is the one put forth as the "suspect", but his guilt cannot be determined by Paul's error.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

So givin that logic Phillips Brown and Lewellyn by their calculation guessing , we can conclude that they werent far wrong and reasonble accurate were they not , ? and just in regards to Chapman again if i may , all of Cadoush and Longs testermonies what t do you make of them given your stance on chapmans t.o.d.

Unsafe !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Cheers Kattrup,

So that little contrived mystery is now cleared up

Yes, if you believe that writing 3.40 in the September report and 3.45 in the October ditto is NOT altering the point of time, it is.

[Fisherman]

Christer, trying to debate facts with you is like trying to nail a blancmange to the ceiling!

When the coroner, Abberline and Swanson all say that Paul and Lechmere met Mizen and told him what they had seen, that is what they concluded after studying the evidence. They probably all three had seen detailed statements from the two carmen detailing their versions of events, as was normal practice, I believe. If Paul and Lechmere did not both say they spoke with Mizen together, then that conclusion could not be reached. They did not conclude that Lechmere met Mizen and told him what he had seen, with Paul some distance away, and unable to hear anything!

I fully understand your "entity theory", and sometimes it would apply. Here we have just two people not a group, and all of the evidence is that they spoke to Mizen together.

Now I'll just sweep up that blancmange off the floor, and accept, as I have done previously, that repeating the same facts over and over again is pointless.

So two people can not be an entity? Thats strange, because I always thought that ANY number of people over the single number IS an entity. Letīs try my medal example again and see.

"We (an entity of two people, John and Clare) saw the queen and gave her a medal".

Now, since two people cannot be an antity in your world, I suppose that means that both John and Clare must have handed the medal over together? It could not possibly be that John did it himself, while Clare stood by the side?

Blancmange indeed. What does that make you? Custard?

[Fisherman]

>> when Llewellyn instead said at the inquest that he was called up at around 4.00, that is NOT a direct quote from the doctor?<<

You're a journalist by profession and you don't understand what a direct quote is? Seriously?

A direct quotation is a report of the exact words of an author or speaker and is placed inside quotation marks in a written work. For example, Dr. King said, "I have a dream."
Direct quotations are commonly introduced by a signal phrase (also called a quotative frame), such as Dr. King said or Abigail Adams wrote, and are used in written and audio or visual media, especially if an anchor or reporter is giving someone's exact words without having a recording of the person actually saying it. For example, a newscaster would say, "Dr. King said, and I quote, 'I have a dream' unquote."
By contrast, indirect quotations may also have signal phrases leading into them, but the words are not what the person said or wrote word for word, just a paraphrase or a summary of what the words were, such as, At the March on Washington, Dr. King spoke of the dreams that he had for the nation.
A mixed quotation is an indirect quotation that includes a directly quoted expression (in many cases just a single word or brief phrase): King melodiously praised the "veterans of creative suffering," urging them to continue the struggle.

[Fisherman]

>>So it is my POSTS that are stupid, not me. Thatīs a relief!<<

Precisely, the smartest people are capable of doing and saying stupid things, that doesn't make them "personally stupid".

You're apology accepted.

If you want to read lowest point for personal insults in this thread try Bob's post to me #3946. But I'm more interested in the issues not personal attacks.

And is that why you compared Lechmerians to cockroaches?

A minor correction: I did not apologize, and have no intention to do so. It would be in direct conflict with any sound take on moral values.

There we are, lesson over.

[Doctored Whatsit]

So two people can not be an entity? Thats strange, because I always thought that ANY number of people over the single number IS an entity. Letīs try my medal example again and see.

"We (an entity of two people, John and Clare) saw the queen and gave her a medal".

Now, since two people cannot be an antity in your world, I suppose that means that both John and Clare must have handed the medal over together? It could not possibly be that John did it himself, while Clare stood by the side?

Blancmange indeed. What does that make you? Custard?

I clearly did not say that two people could not be an "entity". Please stop inventing quotes which never existed. I clearly said that in this case the evidence demonstrated that the two carmen spoke to Mizen. The coroner, Swanson and Abberline decided this after considering the evidence WHICH WE DON'T HAVE!

[drstrange169]

>>A direct quotation is a report of the exact words of an author or speaker and is placed inside quotation marks in a written work. For example, Dr. King said, "I have a dream."<<

Precisely.
,
Dr. Llewellyn has made the following statement:- “I was called to Buck's row about five minutes to four this morning ..."


>>By contrast, indirect quotations may also have signal phrases leading into them, but the words are not what the person said or wrote word for word, just a paraphrase or a summary of what the words were <<

Precisely again,

"Mr. Henry Llewellyn, surgeon, of 152, Whitechapel-road, stated that at 4 o'clock on Friday morning he was called by the last witness to Buck's-row. The officer told him what he was wanted for. On reaching Buck's row he found deceased lying flat on her back on the pathway, her legs being extended."

So, I'm right, what's the problem?

[drstrange169]

>>I did not apologize, and have no intention to do so.<<

and we are supposed to be surprised by that? Do want to talk about the issues or do you want to talk about me?

[drstrange169]

>>Yes, if you believe that writing 3.40 in the September report and 3.45 in the October ditto is NOT altering the point of time, it is.<<

And all the other Swanson errors? Perhaps you could explain to us exactly how Goldstein presented to police as the body was being discovered, for example?

And why did you edit out the fact Abberline wrote the first report from your book?