Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Letīs cut to the chase now, and take a look at a few overlooked matters. Amongst the ones who debate the matter of 3.40 or 3.45 out here is Frank van Oploo, a man for whom I harbour a lot of respect. He has made the point that when Baxter said that the body was found not far off 3.45, he would have been speaking about John Neil, not Charles Lechmere, putting Lechmeres finding the body at around 3.40.

    The origin of this debate hails from the report in the Morning Advertiser, depicting the matter like this:

    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 footsteps approaching. 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. Neither appear 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. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data. The condition in which the body was found appears to prove conclusively that the deceased was killed on the exact spot in which she was found. There is not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying.

    As far as I understand, Frank accepted that this passage seemed to establish Lechmere as the finder of the body, and therefore, the 3.45 timing would point to his finding, not Neils.

    What Frank then did was to present another report, this time from the coverage in the Times. It goes like this:

    "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."

    Frank made this observation:

    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.

    I was not convinced at all by the suggestion, but I had no problem seeing the underlying reasoning. Having looked further into the matter, there are a number of things that should be pointed out.

    First of all, if Frank is correct and if the Morning Advertiser left out the part about Neil, then the sentence they left in: "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data" must have been part of a reasoning based on John Neils experience, not on Lechmeres. Which has to make you wonder why the Morning Advertiser would cut away the important part, mentioning Neil and his claimed 3.45 finding of the body. It makes very little sense. As everybody can see, as long as Neil is NOT mentioned in the Morning Advertisers article, it misleads the readership very badly into thinking that the 3.45 finding time would relate to Lechmere!

    There is a solution to the perceived problem, however, and it is a number of lines further down in the Morning Advertiser article:

    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 footsteps approaching. 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. Neither appear 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. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data. The condition in which the body was found appears to prove conclusively that the deceased was killed on the exact spot in which she was found. There is not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying. This appears to me sufficient to justify the assumption that the injuries to the throat were committed when the woman was on the ground, while the state of here clothing and the absence of any blood about her legs equally proves that the abdominal injuries were inflicted whilst she was still in the same position. Nor does there appear any ground for doubt that if the deceased was killed where she was found that she met her death without a cry of any kind. Not a sound was heard, nor is there any evidence of any struggle. The clothes do not appear to have been injured, nor the ground disturbed. On the contrary, there is everything that the injuries were committed while the deceased was on the ground. Again, the deceased could not have been killed long before she was found. Police constable Neil is positive that he was at the spot half an hour before, and then neither the body was there nor was anyone about.

    Here we have P C Neil and his role presented! And it is NOT tied to the 3.45 timing. And as we can see, there are inclusions reported about AFTER the 3.45 timing is mentioned that cannot relate to Neils appearance. For example, it says that not a sound was heard, and that was not something that anybody would link to Neils "finding" - since Lechmere did the real and only finding five minutes before, any sound that Neil could have heard would emphatically not be linked to the murder.

    The Daily News has the same type of report with only minor changes as the Morning Advertiser:

    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. The condition of the body appears to prove conclusively that deceased was killed on the spot where she was found. She met her death without a cry of any kind. Many people were within a short distance, but heard not a sound. Nor is there evidence of any struggle. On the contrary, there is everything suggesting that both the injuries to the throat and the abdomen were committed while the deceased was on her back in a passive attitude. This might have arisen from her intoxication, or from being stunned by a blow, or from being induced to place herself in that position. Again, the deceased could not have been killed long before she was found. Police constable Neil is positive that he was at the spot half an hour before, and neither the body was there nor was anyone about.

    If these two papers heard Baxter speaking of Neil as the finder at 3.45, they apparently decided to keep it from their readers, instead falsely inferring that it was Lechmere who found the body at this stage. Both would have left out vital information, and I donīt think they did.

    There is also another consideration to be made. The 3.45 timing given by the three PC:s cannot be fixed. It is left floating. The claim on Pauls behalf that the body was found at circa 3.45 CAN be fixed, however, by the testimony of Thain and Llewellyn. Ergo, the coroner could not have been speaking of the three PC:s timing as the one that was "fixed by many independent data". There is absolutely no data fixing this time, instead there are many data gainsaying it. The only infornmation gainsaying Robert Pauls suggestion is the timings of the three PC:s, and that is a timing that cannot be anchored in any other existing information.

    The one question that remains is why the PC:s timings would be off. Well, if we look at how Neil claimed to have found the body at 3.45, we can see that this must be around five minutes or more off - if Robert Paul, coroner Baxter and Donald Swanson were correct. If this was so, then Neil was on the spot at around 3.51 instead of 3.45. Meaning that he was late.

    Sometimes simple explanations offer themselves up readily, donīt they?

    Since the Times report does not say in any way that Neil was the man who found the body at 3.45, the rest of the press coverage clinches the deal - it was Lechmere who did, and at least two papers make that exact claim. What the Times says in itīs ending sentences is this:

    "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."

    This does not in any way conclude that Neil was the 3.45 finder. What it does is instead to explain how Neil could be in place at the site when Mizen arrived - because he had come across the body "within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen". Meaning that he was there AFTER the finding, not that he WAS the 3.45 finder.

    So there is news for all those who have mistakenly for years believed that the three PC:s could not have been wrong - the body was found by Charles Lechmere not far off the 3.45 mark. This is why Thain - who would have been sent to LLewellyn at around 3.52-3-53 - arrived at the practice at circa 3.55-3.56 or thereabouts. Meaning that there is independent data proving the approximate 3.45 finding time for Lechmere. And it is also why there is a large gap of time to account for in Lechmeres case, who was in Bucks Row at a time that does in no way correspond with the approximation he gave for his departure. Instead, it took him more than twice as long to get to the murder site as it should have, leaving him with a handy eight minute gap to search out Nichols, follow her to Browns and set about killing and cutting her. And we know that there can be no much slack in the departure time he gave, since he was able to tell that he was behind time after having examined Nichols. If you are not aware of what the time is, then you cannot know that you are behind it.

    It is truly amazing that we can track his lies and movements so many years after his deeds, thanks to the newspaper reports. We should all rejoice!

    Anybody taking me up on that by now? Or are we still at the stage where Donald Swanson did not alter the times inbetween his September and October reports?

    Anybody with a genuine interest in the case: Please make the effort to try and think that Lechmere was the killer, and then check out the surrounding facts. It is a very rewarding exercise - for those who dare to make the leap.

    As for me, I think I can do nothing much more to prove my point, and so I will be disinclined to re-engage in the debate about 3.40 or 3.45. It tends to be very circular, with the same "but the PC:s said..." reoccuring time after time, making people tweak the timings given, allowing for just about everything as long as it gets them where they want to be.

    If we accept Baxters bid, Swansons alteration and Robert Pauls exactitude, then ALL of the other timings fit like a glove. If we donīt, we have to gnaw away five minutes here, eight minutes there, and infer that "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" can only bear witness to how John Neil was the 3.45 finder, something I have effectively disproven by now. Among other factual wrestling manouvres.

    I will be fascinated regardless of which choice people make. It will either represent people defying the facts or people accepting that they were actually wrong.

    Both are mind-blowing suggestions.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
      >>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?
      The issues, ALWAYS the issues, NEVER about you. Or at least as little as possible about you. Preferably not at all, if it can be achieved. Oh, the relief!!

      However, when you call me a liar and compare Lechmereians to cockroaches, it becomes kind of hard to discuss the case only. If you had kept away from such exercises, nobody would be happier than me, becasue that would allow for me to focus on the case issues only.

      Does that answer your question?
      Last edited by Fisherman; 01-06-2022, 09:53 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
        >>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?
        I think everybody can make errors. You are quite the example yourself, if I may be so bold. That, however, does not mean that I work from the presumption that the top police coordinator of the Ripper case is more likely to get things wrong than right! In this case, we are dealing with a matter where Swanson, if he was a bumbling idiot and got it wrong, would tarnish his own very badly.
        He made the alteration and it is in line with coroner Baxters take on things. I have outlined very clearly how Baxter would have been chronologically supplied with information that made the scales tip over in favor of Robert Pauls timings as the inquest days passed, and so we have a very logical and fact-based agreement on behalf of these two in-the-know bigwigs.

        I never edited out that "Abberline wrote the first report" in my book, by the way. To edit something out, it must first have been in, see. Swanson had the overall responsibility for the reports, simple as that. And regardless of who penned 3.40, Swanson DID alter that to 3.45, right?

        We can all find things that we would have wanted in a book but that is not there. Your chum Steve Blomer wanted my book to involve the claim that Robert Paul informed Mizen that Nichols was probably dead. He even described me as "dodgy" for not catering to his personal beliefs. Although I did point the matter out not once but twice - he must have missed it, which is to lament since he reviewed the book in Ripperologist.

        That is how it goes. People are prepared to do the strangest things to try and tarnish authoes and posters alike. Itīs called Ripperology.
        Last edited by Fisherman; 01-06-2022, 09:54 AM.

        Comment


        • Now I really canīt be bothered any more. Have a nice - and informative - day.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            Now I really canīt be bothered any more. Have a nice - and informative - day.
            You can't be bothered? You started this stupid thread.

            Comment


            • Is it just me who thinks that the phrase "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m." by definition means the body was not actually found at 3:45, but at some time interval away from 3:45 that would not be considered long?

              To me, the phrasing "cannot have been far from" sounds a bit antiquated, but that may be a difference between UK and Canadian English rather than Victorian and current usage, so if I were to rephrase it I would say something like "The time at which the body was found was not long before 3:45..." (I've used before here since there is nothing in the inquest testimony that would support the idea that the "not far off" refers to a later time, recognizing that in other contexts it could also mean a later time).

              So to me the phrase "not long before 3:45" is specifically stating the time was not actually 3:45, despite the fact it fails to to be specific in just how "far off" that time the discovery happened. So yes, Baxter is referring to the carmen's discovery, but he's benchmarking the "clock" to that of PC Neli because that's the time he has in evidence that isn't a qualified statement (Cross/Lechmere doesn't give a time for his arrivial, and Paul gives only a qualified time for his leaving home, and does not state a time for his arrival. He does, however, have Paul's testimony that it was no more than 4 minutes when they found PC Mizen, and PC Mizen testifies that happened at 3:45. As such, all Baxter has are inexact statements about when the body was found by the carmen, both relative to 3:45. Pauls "not more than 4 minutes" in turn suggests that their time must therefore not be "far off" 3:45 - but it is not actually 3:45).

              Honestly, this isn't a wind up, I do accept different people could have different ideas about how big an interval constitutes "not far off", but can we even agree that when Baxter says "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m." that he is at least saying the body was not actually found at 3:45? My view is that, given Baxter has Paul's "not more than 4 minutes" means that Baxter must view 4 minutes as not far off - the issue is how much longer than 4 minutes would it take before he would no longer consider that phrase appropriate? In my opinion, obviously, 6-7 minutes would still be ok, but I have no way of proving that. Next time Baxter's over, I'll ask him. If you don't believe me, ask him yourself.

              - Jeff
              Last edited by JeffHamm; 01-06-2022, 11:15 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                Hi Herlock,



                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
                Cheers Jeff,

                Im glad that I didn’t make any mathematical howlers (I was worried that I might have missed something obvious) It’s like getting my homework ticked by the teacher.
                Regards

                Herlock Sholmes

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Cheers Jeff,

                  Im glad that I didn’t make any mathematical howlers (I was worried that I might have missed something obvious) It’s like getting my homework ticked by the teacher.
                  If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!?

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Cheers Jeff,

                    Im glad that I didn’t make any mathematical howlers (I was worried that I might have missed something obvious) It’s like getting my homework ticked by the teacher.
                    Seriously though, I thought it a nice, straight forward, and clever approach. I'm sure that there would be some technical details one would want to consider (data analysis really storms head first into the kingdom of Geek after all), but it targeted the idea of interest really well. I prefer that sort of straight forward approach, particularly in situations where we don't have established methods. It's a good starting point, after that, it can be tweaked (and by tweaked, I just mean people find better ways to address the question - but better is relative, you have to start somewhere, I don't mean "tweaked" in the sense of "getting what you want as an outcome", unless getting at the best estimate of what really happened is what you mean by "want", and not a particular outcome per se). And the tweaking tends to be in the next step, which is really where I butted in, relating to the idea of "how big a gap is 'too big' to be true?". I used 10 minutes in my hijack of your idea, but as I indicated, I really would want some better information about clock sync differences. If we had that, well, we could actually indicate the probabilities of obtaining those gaps simply due to clock errors. And that would be really cool. (see, told you, Geek's rule! ha ha).

                    - Jeff
                    Last edited by JeffHamm; 01-06-2022, 11:51 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                      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.



                      But the point is that he didn’t say 3.30 Bob. He said ‘about 3.30’ which clearly meant that he was estimating the time. Now we don’t know if he owned a clock or not but if he did then he didn’t check it before he left home. As we know, many working men relied on being knocked up by a passing Constable. I’d also always assumed that this was a case of a backhander for the Constable but it wasn’t case. It was an accepted duty for a Constable on his round. Obviously they couldn’t guarantee an exact time for every ‘client’ as many things could occur to delay an officer on his rounds. None of this is conducive to accurate timekeeping.

                      When I did my bit of maths I did include Lechmere leaving the house at 9.25 too. So I have including times that go against Lechmere. Of course if Lechmere was guilty then he could, for all that we know, have left the house at 2.30. That said, all that we have to go on is his ‘about 3.30’ estimation. Now surely you can’t think that someone being out by 5 minutes on an estimation is somehow outlandish? This is the part of the argument that I don’t get Bob and it’s the point that makes it appear that those proposing Lechmere will not accept a very reasonable possibility if it in any way speaks against a guilty Lechmere. If you said that you’d done something yesterday at around 9.30 then you later found that it was actually 9.35 surely you wouldn’t be surprised? Even with todays tech? So why can’t you accept that it’s entirely plausible that he could have left later than 3.30. To be honest Bob I don’t think that 10 minutes later would be inconsistent with the times. Then, as Jeff has said, clocks/watches weren’t synchronised so we have to considered that some of those involved were working from different times. These are just very real possibilities and they’re not a case of us imagining things just to exonerate Lechmere.

                      So as long as there is doubt about the time that he left his house (and there certainly is) and the time that Paul met up with him (and there certainly is) then we simply cannot make the positive point that there was a gap. We can say if x was definitely the case and if y was definitely the case then z was definitely the case, but we just can’t.
                      Regards

                      Herlock Sholmes

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                        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
                        Exactly Roger

                        The worst possible witness to hang a theory on. He was very obvious wrong. Remove him and everything ties up.
                        Regards

                        Herlock Sholmes

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          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.
                          I accept David Orsam’s explanation Fish.

                          Regards

                          Herlock Sholmes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                            Is it just me who thinks that the phrase "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m." by definition means the body was not actually found at 3:45, but at some time interval away from 3:45 that would not be considered long?

                            To me, the phrasing "cannot have been far from" sounds a bit antiquated, but that may be a difference between UK and Canadian English rather than Victorian and current usage, so if I were to rephrase it I would say something like "The time at which the body was found was not long before 3:45..." (I've used before here since there is nothing in the inquest testimony that would support the idea that the "not far off" refers to a later time, recognizing that in other contexts it could also mean a later time).

                            So to me the phrase "not long before 3:45" is specifically stating the time was not actually 3:45, despite the fact it fails to to be specific in just how "far off" that time the discovery happened. So yes, Baxter is referring to the carmen's discovery, but he's benchmarking the "clock" to that of PC Neli because that's the time he has in evidence that isn't a qualified statement (Cross/Lechmere doesn't give a time for his arrivial, and Paul gives only a qualified time for his leaving home, and does not state a time for his arrival. He does, however, have Paul's testimony that it was no more than 4 minutes when they found PC Mizen, and PC Mizen testifies that happened at 3:45. As such, all Baxter has are inexact statements about when the body was found by the carmen, both relative to 3:45. Pauls "not more than 4 minutes" in turn suggests that their time must therefore not be "far off" 3:45 - but it is not actually 3:45).

                            Honestly, this isn't a wind up, I do accept different people could have different ideas about how big an interval constitutes "not far off", but can we even agree that when Baxter says "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m." that he is at least saying the body was not actually found at 3:45? My view is that, given Baxter has Paul's "not more than 4 minutes" means that Baxter must view 4 minutes as not far off - the issue is how much longer than 4 minutes would it take before he would no longer consider that phrase appropriate? In my opinion, obviously, 6-7 minutes would still be ok, but I have no way of proving that. Next time Baxter's over, I'll ask him. If you don't believe me, ask him yourself.

                            - Jeff
                            Absolutely 100% Jeff.


                            Regards

                            Herlock Sholmes

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                              If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!?

                              - Jeff
                              Thank you Mr Floyd
                              Regards

                              Herlock Sholmes

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Exactly Roger

                                The worst possible witness to hang a theory on. He was very obvious wrong. Remove him and everything ties up.
                                He's not really a bad witness. Seriously, if we go with the reconstruction analysis he's only out by 6-7 minutes. If you asked me what time I got up this morning, and I did look at the clock, the chance of me getting the time right within +- 7 minutes is not something I would recommend you bet apon (and that covers almost 25% of the possible times!). And just beause he had to go to work, even if he had a clock, why would he check it just before he left? When I have to get to work, or work related things (like a lecture let's say), I set an alarm well in advance, to give me a 5-10 minute "buffer" to finish up what I'm doing and then head off. I don't "recheck" just before I leave, which could explain why I'm a bit close to the wire sometimes, but that aside, there's no reason to presume that Paul checked the time just as he exited the door. He might have simply noted he had to leave within the next 15 minutes, (i.e. noted the time was 3:30) and after that it's all estimations. If he's just woken up, and getting the "fog" out of his head, he could easily misestimate his time of departure. Honestly, a 7 minute error in the time you left for work? That's not a bad witness. He just looks "bad" because he happens to be the one who appears the most "out", but he's still not out by much in the absolute sense. We should consider ourselves lucky we generally have people who give testimony and appear to have pretty good sense of time. Probably more important in 1888 than 2022.

                                - Jeff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X