Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    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.
    Ill await other comments Fish but I see absolutely no relevance in the slightest. Did Baxter arrive at timings by trawling through newspaper reports? I have not the slightest solitary shred of doubt that when Baxter was saying that the body was found just before 3.45 he was talking about when Neil got there at 3.45. It’s as clear as day.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 01-06-2022, 12:40 PM. Reason: Re-worded.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

    Comment


    • Hi Fisherman,

      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      ... [/I]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. ...
      So if I may ask, what, in your opinion, is it tied to?

      - Jeff

      Comment


      • Hi Jeff,

        I've just read and bookmarked your post #4040. Excellent work Jeff, well done.

        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 Jeff,

          I've just read and bookmarked your post #4040. Excellent work Jeff, well done.

          Cheers, George
          <blush> Thanks George. It was fun to work on. Obviously I present it from the point of view of how I interpret the qualifiers "about" and "not far off", so for those who associate those terms with narrower margins of error, my conclusions will not be agreed with. But, the subjective aside, I do hope it will be viewed as objectively correct; meaning that people will agree (more or less) that yes those are the times that would have to be the case. After that, it's just a matter of "this time is too discrepant to be referred to as "about" or "not far off"." That, in my view, is really where the divergence of opinions appears to be.

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            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.


            If somebody asked me when I walked the dog last night it would be a rough estimation. Easily an hour either side. I do accept a margin of error when people are asked the time. But of course when I walked the dog isn’t important. I wasn’t even thinking about it.

            However, if somebody asked me when I left for work I’d give them an almost exact time. I keep an eye on the time as I’m preparing to leave. It’s a fixed data point in my life. It’s surely the same for Paul and Lechmere. They leave for work at the same time every morning for months and even years. They would have an acute awareness if they were late, early or on time. Example - I’m a couple minutes late today, better get a move on, 5 minutes late I really have to shift, 7 minutes early (would never happen) I can take a leisurely stroll today.

            My point being that a working man, especially a man who works the same shift year in year out. Will know the time with precision. Lechmere and Paul will not be out by 5 or 7 minutes or they’ll know it.

            Moving on to Swanson and Baxter. They are looking at all this in a professional capacity. Fixing the time as close as possible is their job and it’s an inquest into a murder no less. After hearing everything from everyone, days and days of testimony and witnesses, Baxter has the time at 03.45 (if it was closer to 03.40 he would say so). He will be a close as humanly possible to the correct time.

            Same with Swanson who is collating everything, assessing everything, and writing up a report for his bosses. He’s a top detective, he will have every iota of information in front of him, and again he will get as close as humanly possible to the correct time. He goes with 03.45 too.

            So there’s and acceptable margin of error, then there’s completely altering the time frame.








            Last edited by SuperShodan; 01-06-2022, 01:48 PM.

            Comment


            • Hi SuperShodan,

              Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

              ,,, Lechmere and Paul will not be out by 5 or 7 minutes or they’ll know it.....
              We have to remember, though, that they could be spot on with regards to the clock they are basing their times on. But their clock could be fast/slow relative to someone elses's clock (i.e. PC Neil's).

              For example, let's say, you and I live in the same city. We work at the same place. We arrive and greet each other. We both look at our watches to ensure we're not late.

              You go "Sigh, great, 2 minutes to spare", but I go "****, 3 minutes late again!"

              We are both expected to arrive at the same time.

              Why does this happen?

              Clock desync. See, if I were later asked what time I got to work, I might say "9:03", but you would say "8:58" - But we both testify we met each other. So, is there actually a 5 minute "gap" between our arrivals? Did you, therefore, hang around until my arrival? Or is this just the result that our times, as we understood them, are based upon different clocks?

              Clock desync could easily explain why Paul reports he leaves home "about 3:45" despite the fact that would be impossible if PC Neil is at the body at 3:45 (unless, of course, you change your mind and agree that 6-7 minutes before 3:45 is accurately described as being "about 3:45"). Don't forget, the 6-7 minute difference from PC Neil's time just means Paul's time and PC Neil's time could differ due to clock error.

              You asked before about why not be concerned about PC Mizen's 3:45, and to reiterate (in short form), mostly because his stated time doesn't create conflict that needs explaining. I highly doubt his clock's time is exactly the same as PC Neil's, but they appear to be close enough that they don't create a "disturbance in the force" so to speak - there's not noticable error that needs to be considered. So I don't know if PC Mizen's clock is likely to be a bit fast or slow relative the PC Neil's. I just know it appears to be close enough that I don't need to worry about it.

              What I'm getting at here is if I were asked (and sadly I haven't been), for tips about evidence gathering procedures, one of the areas I would suggest should become "standard procedure" when a witness gives a time is to ask the following question(s):
              1) how do you know that was the time?
              if they say anything like "I checked my watch" (or phone, or the post office clock, etc) then step 2 should be
              - check that clock and compare the time to a standard time (generally easy now, given phones keep time sync'd to GMT).
              2) other answers, that don't indicate they viewed a clock should be followed up for clarification until they either say something like "well, my alarm was set for x:xx and it was about 30 minutes later; so now you check that alarm clock, and have to deal with the horrible reliability of duration estimation; or they say something that indicates they were just basing it on what time they thought it was (and for that, I still haven't found a good study to give us an idea of how good, or probably how bad, people are at doing that).

              - Jeff
              Last edited by JeffHamm; 01-06-2022, 02:37 PM.

              Comment


              • and where are we after all this? at best 50/50 he left at 3:35 or 3:25. : )

                which puts us smack dab in the middle of him leaving at 3:30!
                "Is all that we see or seem
                but a dream within a dream?"

                -Edgar Allan Poe


                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                -Frederick G. Abberline

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                  and where are we after all this? at best 50/50 he left at 3:35 or 3:25. : )

                  which puts us smack dab in the middle of him leaving at 3:30!
                  And 3:30 would fit the innocent explanation, so I guess we're done then.

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Id just add on last little tid bit. someone able to hold down a job for twenty years is probably going to be in the habit of leaving a little early or at least on time.
                    "Is all that we see or seem
                    but a dream within a dream?"

                    -Edgar Allan Poe


                    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                    -Frederick G. Abberline

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                      And 3:30 would fit the innocent explanation, so I guess we're done then.

                      - Jeff
                      or a guilty one so yup,we should be. at least on this issue.
                      "Is all that we see or seem
                      but a dream within a dream?"

                      -Edgar Allan Poe


                      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                      -Frederick G. Abberline

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                        Id just add on last little tid bit. someone able to hold down a job for twenty years is probably going to be in the habit of leaving a little early or at least on time.
                        I agree. And just to point out, 3:30 leaving gets him there on time.

                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                          or a guilty one so yup,we should be. at least on this issue.
                          No, a guilty one requires showing his statements, as given, cannot be true. From what we have, that conclusion is not warranted.

                          Now, if we find new information, that provides new facts, maybe that will change. But right now, the evidence favours innocence (and that is so much more than reasonable doubt that it hardly should require a mention).

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                            I agree. And just to point out, 3:30 leaving gets him there on time.

                            - Jeff
                            agree. and allows him to murder nichols in bucks row and to get (somewhat) caught in the act.
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post



                              If somebody asked me when I walked the dog last night it would be a rough estimation. Easily an hour either side. I do accept a margin of error when people are asked the time. But of course when I walked the dog isn’t important. I wasn’t even thinking about it.

                              However, if somebody asked me when I left for work I’d give them an almost exact time. I keep an eye on the time as I’m preparing to leave. It’s a fixed data point in my life. It’s surely the same for Paul and Lechmere. They leave for work at the same time every morning for months and even years. They would have an acute awareness if they were late, early or on time. Example - I’m a couple minutes late today, better get a move on, 5 minutes late I really have to shift, 7 minutes early (would never happen) I can take a leisurely stroll today.

                              My point being that a working man, especially a man who works the same shift year in year out. Will know the time with precision. Lechmere and Paul will not be out by 5 or 7 minutes or they’ll know it.

                              Moving on to Swanson and Baxter. They are looking at all this in a professional capacity. Fixing the time as close as possible is their job and it’s an inquest into a murder no less. After hearing everything from everyone, days and days of testimony and witnesses, Baxter has the time at 03.45 (if it was closer to 03.40 he would say so). He will be a close as humanly possible to the correct time.

                              Same with Swanson who is collating everything, assessing everything, and writing up a report for his bosses. He’s a top detective, he will have every iota of information in front of him, and again he will get as close as humanly possible to the correct time. He goes with 03.45 too.

                              So there’s and acceptable margin of error, then there’s completely altering the time frame.

                              Questions.

                              How do you know that Lechmere owned a clock?
                              How do you know that he wasn’t ‘knocked up’ by a Constable at around the same time every morning?
                              How do you know that the Constable who knocked him up every day didn’t usually do this at around 3.00 for eg?
                              How do you know that Lechmere didn’t simply judge around 30 minutes after being knocked up as the time that he usually left the house?
                              How do you know that the Constable wasn’t late that particular day?
                              How do you know that the Constable missed knocking him up for some reason?
                              How do you know that the clock that the Constable last checked his time by wasn’t wrong?
                              How do you know how accurate a clock might have been if Lechmere actually owned one?
                              How can you equate him saying ‘about 3.30’ if he’d owned a clock?

                              Then we can ditto all of those questions for Robert Paul too.
                              And Neil.
                              And Mizen.
                              And Thain.

                              To say that 5 minutes isn’t a reasonable margin for error is a remarkable statement to be honest. 10 minutes wouldn’t be out of the question. Jeff and others have gone over this so many times but you appear to keep making assumptions that aren’t the case - that everyone had clocks and watches - that they were all accurate - that they were all synchronised - that everyone had perfect recall - that everyone had perfect judgment of time.

                              This isn’t the case and it absolutely certainly wasn’t the case in the LVP East End.

                              To eliminate this suggestion of a gap all that reason tells us that we need is reasonable doubt. That’s all. And we have ample doubt. The only ones that don’t have doubt I’m afraid are those that try to state the utterly illogical. That ‘about 3.30’ can’t mean 3.34 or 3.35 or 3.36. Frankly it’s a bizarre claim. If you ask anyone if they’ve ever made a time estimate and been 5 minutes out and you’ll be hard pressed to find a single person who hasn’t and if you did I’d be tempted to call them a liar. We’ve all done it. To maintain honest debate it’s very difficult when faced with this. Sorry again Bob but it reeks of bias. I’ve accepted that Lechmere could have left the house at 3.00 or 2.30 or at exactly 3.30. I haven’t moved a single time or refused the possibility of a single time. Only Lechmere proponents are trying to change estimates into definites to make an entirely invalid point.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes

                              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                              Comment


                              • so all this and IMHO the timings minutia back and forth is basically secondary consideration. nothing can be proven on timings either way.

                                what timings are very important to me are this:

                                PC Thain walks down bucks row around 3:15 and shes not there. until about 3:45 as far as we know--No one is except polly nichols and her killer. But no one else is known to be in Bucks row in the intervening time. and its only about a half hour. Except Lech of course whos seen by a witness near the freshly killed victim before trying to raise any kind of alarm.

                                if thats not suspicious I dont know what is.



                                "Is all that we see or seem
                                but a dream within a dream?"

                                -Edgar Allan Poe


                                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                                -Frederick G. Abberline

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X