Evidence of innocence

[drstrange169]

>>I think we may have reached a time when we are not making the best of the matter, so I respectfully bow out for today.<<

Hopefully we'll get some answers when you turn up again, but I can't hold my breath that long.

[Trevor Marriott]

Your interuptation of what long said staggers me , ill take it for what i really means, I am "sure" the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased.richardson just also decides he will just let this bum sleep if off the night of chapmans murder after he said he often had to turn them out , bordering near impossible ,i think the reality check needs to be a bit closer in another direction, how herlock can sit by and not comment on your post also staggers me, but thats up to him i guess.

Its a shame you dont or wont accept what has been said but the reality is that what I have posted from the inquest testimony is correct, and my interpretration of that evidence is also correct. If a witness states that he or she is not sure then that is not classed as a positive ID so Mrs Longs so called ID of the person she belived to be Chapman talking to a man near to 29 Hanbury Street is unsafe to rely on, as must be the subsequent ID she made of the body at the mortuary several days later

I would suggest you go back and read the inquest testimony of Richardson because what i have quoted was said by him in evidence and therefore also makes his testimony unsafe.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

He didn't. Indeed, the most obvious assumption would have been a beat constable was walking towards him, and he just stood there, waiting.

It's another weakness of the Lechmere theory.

As fate will have it, though, we know that Robert Paul was alte and, I quote, "hurrying along" as he proceeded down Bucks Row. And that, R J, means that Lechmere would be able to tell that whoever the oncomer was, it was NOT a PC, because the PC:s walked their beats at a slow pace.

By the way, there ARE no weaknesses in the Lechmere theory. Therea ae strong points and less strong points, but no weak ones, if you ask me. And you really should.

[Fisherman]

In all shortness, I notice that Dusty is playing his "Fisherman is silent becasue I ask so very clever and challenging questions"-game again, and so I must advice him to list any questions he has if he wants them answered, so that I do not have to read through all of his posts. It may be just me, but I think Dusty produces more garbage than any other poster out here, and so I would be extremely grateful if he could provide me with lists of questions only when he feels the need to have answers from my side.

Thank you in advance, Dusty!

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

I've set up the recreation in another program of mine, where I enter paths and beats, scale all the routes to a known distance, set the individual's speeds and so forth, so it plays the recreation out for me.

There has been some suggestions that the murder may have occurred around 3:30, about the time a train went past, due to some news reports of some sounds that could have been from the attack. Out of curiosity, I thought it might be interesting to see if that could be worked into the scenario. While there could be many variations, since the last known sighting of Nichols was to the west on Whitechapel Road and heading towards where she is later found, I've gone with the idea that she heads up off Whitechapel and then into Buck's Row and so that's what I've shown here. However, that shouldn't be misinterpreted as if I'm suggesting no other options are available. There are many alternatives, but I think once you see the estimated positions of others it will become apparent that the alternatives would be trivially easy to work in (effectively, this tells us what we already know - namely, we have no way to know for sure how she travelled to get to the crime scene).

Also, because the reports of the blood at the crime scene do not appear to show any evidence of arterial spray as far as I can see, that would suggest she was strangled to death before her throat was cut. Strangling to the point the heart stops requires 2-3 minutes of pressure to be applied (though unconsciousness will occur in the order of 20 seconds), so I've split that to be 2m 30s. I'm then allowing a relatively short period for the throat cutting and the cuts to the abdomen, in the vicinity of 30 seconds or so, which means JtR remains at the crime scene for 3 minutes after they arrive. He then leaves at a walking pace (3.2 mph). I show two of the many possible exits, one heading west then south out through Court Street, and the other where he heads east up Buck's Row then south the Whitechapel. Again, there are others, but I think these tend to show that most of the others would work too.

Given Cross/Lechmere and Paul do not notice her throat has been cut, nor the blood, etc, it seems to me that their examination is very cursory, and involves little more than touching her hand, then pulling her skirt down, and moving on, so they only pause for 30 seconds. I've allowed for 1 minute between when they talk to PC Mizen at 3:45 until PC Mizen starts heading to the scene. Again, from the descriptions, it does not appear this was a lengthy interaction, and there are some (disputed) accounts that PC Mizen may have continued to knock up at least one other house.

I've kept a 0 seconds at the scene for PC Thain, who runs down Buck's Row and is told to immediately go fetch the Doctor. I then split PC Thain into two options, the "short" version, where he heads back east on Buck's Row then south the doctor's (as that is the shortest route), but also a version where he heads west, then south through Court Street, and finally east on Whitechapel to the doctor's. I keep the 7m 41s for the doctor to get ready from the point PC Thain arrives. I also have the doctor return by the same route of each version of PC Thain (so if PC Thain went the short way, the doctor goes the short way, but if PC Thain goes the long way, then the doctor goes the long way; other combinations will fall in between). The doctor, however, walks to the scene.

So, here we go:

This image just shows PC Neil's beat. A while back we had quite a few discussions about PC Neil's exact beat, and there are a number of variations. As I recall from those discussions, the different variations on his exact route did not make a lot of difference. However, with respect to the entirely speculative movements of Nichols and JtR, it is possible that there would be an impact. Again, this aspect is only included as a curiosity.



So, at 3:15 am, PC Neil is at what will be the crime scene.



At 3:24, Nichols (and presumably JtR) head from Whitechapel towards Buck's Row. PC Neil is now entering Whitechapel at the far eastern end of his beat:

At 3:27:15, Nichols and JtR reach the crime scene, at which point JtR attacks her, PC Neil is on Whitechapel:

At 3:30:17, the murder is complete, and JtR leaves either east or west:

the following two images for 3:31:17 and 3:32:17 show JtR's position (presumed walking speed to avoid drawing attention to himself). The easterly route is clear so no problems with that. The westerly route shows that he might have gone that way too and still not be seen by PC Neil. Cross/Lechmere leaves home at 3:32:00.





3:38:00 Robert Paul leaves home. What is interesting to note, is that Robert Paul will not see Cross/Lechmere as once Paul comes out of Foster and turns towards Buck's Row, Cross/Lechmere will have also rounded a corner and remain out of sight. The earliest point in their journeys where they could see each other is in fact in Buck's Row. Also note PC Neil's position.


At 3:39:40, Cross/Lechmere has paused in the middle of the street, and Paul is about 40 yards behind him in Buck's Row.
Paul will close the gap, the two will then examine the body for 30 seconds, and then move on.


At 3:41:05 they have completed their cursory check, and start moving on to find eventually find PC Mizen. Again, note PC Neil's position at 3:42, just as the carmen are about to pass the end of the street he's on. There's a bend in the road, though, and PC Neil and the carmen will not be visible to each other.

And as the carmen exit Buck's Row, PC Neil enters into the area, but again, given the layout, and their respective directions of travel, they do not see each other.



At 3:45, the carmen meet PC Mizen, PC Neil finds Nichols, and summons PC Thain, who is at the eastern end of Buck's Row. PC Thain then runs to PC Neil, so at 3:45:15 we have this scene (PC Neil's name is hidden by Nichols; and PC Mizen is covered by the carmen):

PC Thain reaches PC Neil at 3:45:45 and is told to immediately go get the doctor (so no delay).

either he turns around and heads east then south to Whitechapel and the doctor's, or he continues west, then south out through Court Street, then east up Whitechapel. I'll show both (S is for short route, to the east, and L for the long route, west), because I was interested to see if it turns out PC Mizen should have seen PC Thain if he went "the long way" (the western route). Note, at this point in time, PC Mizen is 15 seconds away from starting to head to the crime scene.

At 3:47:23, PC Mizen is now approaching the area of interest and it is clear that PC Thain could have gone either way and PC Mizen would still not have seen him (as he testifies PC Neil was alone when he arrived - as he would be here).


Short route PC Thain reaches the doctor's at 3:47:23 and Long route PC Thain reaches the doctor's at 3:48:03.

With 7m and 41s being our estimated time for the doctor to be ready to leave, this means "short route" Dr L. departs at 3:55:04 and "long route Dr. L" departs at 3:55:45. At some point PC Mizen is sent off to fetch the ambulance (he heads north towards the police station off the map).

As such, Short Route Dr. L arrives at the crime scene at 3:58:13


and "long route Dr. L." would arrive at 4:00:13.



I've not gone through and matched up the times exactly with the previous analysis, they are, after all, estimations, but they are pretty much the same (for example, the doctor arrives about 4:00, and leaves about 3:55, in both the short and long versions).

Anyway, while much of this has been presented already, what I found most interesting was how it suggests a murder at 3:30ish, as suggested by one news report (dodgy as that may be), is plausible.

- Jeff

Hmmm, not sure why there's an attached file at the end here, but I can't work out how to remove it. I guess it's just a bonus.

[Fisherman]

My take on the prolonged debate about whether a killer would take the risk of engaging anybody on a dark night when there was a risk that there could be an undefined amount of blood on his hands, is that it will get us nowhere. I therefore recommend that we leave it as it is instead of wasting space on it out here.

[Trevor Marriott]

As fate will have it, though, we know that Robert Paul was alte and, I quote, "hurrying along" as he proceeded down Bucks Row. And that, R J, means that Lechmere would be able to tell that whoever the oncomer was, it was NOT a PC, because the PC:s walked their beats at a slow pace.

Thats not correct if a constable hade been delayed on his beat for some reason and knew he had a fixed point to be at for a certain time then he would have needed to hurry. Constables on the beat without radios were still required to be at fixed points on their beats into the early 1970`s

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Its a shame you dont or wont accept what has been said but the reality is that what I have posted from the inquest testimony is correct, and my interpretration of that evidence is also correct. If a witness states that he or she is not sure then that is not classed as a positive ID so Mrs Longs so called ID of the person she belived to be Chapman talking to a man near to 29 Hanbury Street is unsafe to rely on, as must be the subsequent ID she made of the body at the mortuary several days later

I would suggest you go back and read the inquest testimony of Richardson because what i have quoted was said by him in evidence and therefore also makes his testimony unsafe.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

. ''I saw the woman's face. Have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I am sure the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased''... please point out the part where shes says she wasnt sure ? , what you quoted with richardson was his testimony but you made up the part about him thinking a hobo was somehow sleeping where chapmans body was, and he decided not to do anything about it . [Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - [Richardson] I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then richardson theres only one way it take this , richardson did not see anybody. i think you need to interpret the actual inquest testimony better.Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.. again only one way to interprut this, nothing was there , so if you disagree your effectivly calling richardson a liar. So again did he lie ? or were all three long cadoush , richardson mistaken in what they saw and heard ?

[Fisherman]

Hello there! Just as I intend to make a post on the timing matter, I find that Jeff Hamm makes a VERY long and beautifully colourful post on the same topic. I really hope that people will not spend all of their time digesting Jeffs post, because I think that what I have to say today is very important when it comes to the exact issue of the timings.

Here it is:

I will begin by establishing that after Charles Lechmere had taken the stand on the 3:rd of September and explained to the inquest that he was the finder of the body of Polly Nichols, it was universally accepted that he told the truth. Therefore, as coroner Baxter summed up the inquest a couple of weeks later, nobody would any longer suggest that PC Neil was the true finder. I hope we may agree about that?

However, although Baxter said that "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 so called naysayers out here will have it that Baxter spoke of NEIL finding the body in this instance, not Lechmere. So the naysayers say "Yes, Lechmere was the finder, but no, he did not find the body at 3.45". I predispose that this may be agreed about too?

Now, if we were to define the scope of time in which Nichols was cut to death, accepting that she was attacked and killed on the spot where she was subsequently found, we have two factors that jointly fix that scope.

The first factor is John Neils passing through Bucks Row at 3.15, a stage at which the body was not there. If she was killed at the spot where she was found, then she lived at 3.15.

The second factor is of course Charles Lechmeres finding the body. She was not attacked and killed AFTER that, it was before (or, of course, it was always Lechmere who did it).

Now, much as we can provide Neils earlier passage through Bucks Row with a time, 3.15, the question of when Lechmere found the body has been the matter of contention. Robert Paul suggested that it was 3.45, but three PC:s gave a joint timing that suggested that it was instead 3.40. Of course, these timings are not on the dot times, but I will refer to them as 3.40 and 3.45 for simplicity´s sake.

Of course, the naysayers out here prefer the 3.40 timing, presumably because it tends to go a bit longer to bolster the idea that Lechmere was innocent. If he arrived at the body at 3.40, it would jibe tolerably with his claim of having left home at "around 3.30".

If he instead reached the body at 3.45, there would seem to be an inexplicable gap of time between his leaving home and his arrival at the murder site, meaning that he could have spent that time finding and cutting Nichols.

We all know how this works, I believe?

Now, let´s take a look at an excerpt from the Daily News of the 24:rd of September. The excerpt was published in a comment preceding the report from the last day of the inquest, where Baxter said that "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". It reads like this:

Nicholls was murdered in the early hours of Friday, the 31st August - in all probability between a quarter past three and a quarter to four.

Let us begin by changing the letters for numbers:

Nicholls was murdered in the early hours of Friday, the 31st August - in all probability between 3.15 and a 3.45.

The first given time is - as we can all see - identical with the time Neil gave as being representative of the time when he made his earlier visit to Bucks Row and the body was not there.

The second time is the one given by the naysayers as the one when John Neil "found" the body of Polly Nichols.

Here is the problem: It was known and accepted by everybody that Charles Lechmere was the true finder of the body of Polly Nichols. So if, as the naysayers suggest, it is perfectly obvious that Wynne Baxter spoke of John Neils "finding" the body when he said that "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", why is it that the Daily News claims that Nichols could have been murdered during the five minute period after Charles Lechmere found her? Which would have been at 3.40, if the naysayers are correct.

I am looking forward to many interesting and presumably quite colourful explanations about how the Daily News misworded themselves and got things wrong, and I can identify no squad of people more apt for the purpose than the naysayers out here.

The alternative, unpalatable though it may seem, is of course to simply accept that I was right all along: Baxter spoke of LECHMERE and NOT Neil as he said that the body was found not far off the 3.45 mark, and we therefore have a situation where Lechmere has a formidable time gap to explain away.

PS. Sorry, Jeff. All that work you did!

[Fisherman]

Thats not correct if a constable hade been delayed on his beat for some reason and knew he had a fixed point to be at for a certain time then he would have needed to hurry. Constables on the beat without radios were still required to be at fixed points on their beats into the early 1970`s

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, Trevor. It also applies that if a PC needed to take a dump and knew that there was a loo ahead, he could ALSO rise his speed, perhaps to astounding heights. However, what R J said was that the most credible thing for Lechmere to do was to reason that it was a PC approaching, and we both know that NORMALLY, PC:s did not hurry along the streets. Which is why the most credible thing was that a hurrying oncomer was NOT a PC.

The devil is in the details, sometimes. Or on the loo.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fisherman,

Hello there! Just as I intend to make a post on the timing matter, I find that Jeff Hamm makes a VERY long and beautifully colourful post on the same topic. I really hope that people will not spend all of their time digesting Jeffs post, because I think that what I have to say today is very important when it comes to the exact issue of the timings.

Here it is:

I will begin by establishing that after Charles Lechmere had taken the stand on the 3:rd of September and explained to the inquest that he was the finder of the body of Polly Nichols, it was universally accepted that he told the truth. Therefore, as coroner Baxter summed up the inquest a couple of weeks later, nobody would any longer suggest that PC Neil was the true finder. I hope we may agree about that?

However, although Baxter said that "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 so called naysayers out here will have it that Baxter spoke of NEIL finding the body in this instance, not Lechmere. So the naysayers say "Yes, Lechmere was the finder, but no, he did not find the body at 3.45". I predispose that this may be agreed about too?

Now, if we were to define the scope of time in which Nichols was cut to death, accepting that she was attacked and killed on the spot where she was subsequently found, we have two factors that jointly fix that scope.

The first factor is John Neils passing through Bucks Row at 3.15, a stage at which the body was not there. If she was killed at the spot where she was found, then she lived at 3.15.

The second factor is of course Charles Lechmeres finding the body. She was not attacked and killed AFTER that, it was before (or, of course, it was always Lechmere who did it).

Now, much as we can provide Neils earlier passage through Bucks Row with a time, 3.15, the question of when Lechmere found the body has been the matter of contention. Robert Paul suggested that it was 3.45, but three PC:s gave a joint timing that suggested that it was instead 3.40. Of course, these timings are not on the dot times, but I will refer to them as 3.40 and 3.45 for simplicity´s sake.

Of course, the naysayers out here prefer the 3.40 timing, presumably because it tends to go a bit longer to bolster the idea that Lechmere was innocent. If he arrived at the body at 3.40, it would jibe tolerably with his claim of having left home at "around 3.30".

If he instead reached the body at 3.45, there would seem to be an inexplicable gap of time between his leaving home and his arrival at the murder site, meaning that he could have spent that time finding and cutting Nichols.

We all know how this works, I believe?

Now, let´s take a look at an excerpt from the Daily News of the 24:rd of September. The excerpt was published in a comment preceding the report from the last day of the inquest, where Baxter said that "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". It reads like this:

Nicholls was murdered in the early hours of Friday, the 31st August - in all probability between a quarter past three and a quarter to four.

Let us begin by changing the letters for numbers:

Nicholls was murdered in the early hours of Friday, the 31st August - in all probability between 3.15 and a 3.45.

The first given time is - as we can all see - identical with the time Neil gave as being representative of the time when he made his earlier visit to Bucks Row and the body was not there.

The second time is the one given by the naysayers as the one when John Neil "found" the body of Polly Nichols.

Here is the problem: It was known and accepted by everybody that Charles Lechmere was the true finder of the body of Polly Nichols. So if, as the naysayers suggest, it is perfectly obvious that Wynne Baxter spoke of John Neils "finding" the body when he said that "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", why is it that the Daily News claims that Nichols could have been murdered during the five minute period after Charles Lechmere found her? Which would have been at 3.40, if the naysayers are correct.

I am looking forward to many interesting and presumably quite colourful explanations about how the Daily News misworded themselves and got things wrong, and I can identify no squad of people more apt for the purpose than the naysayers out here.

The alternative, unpalatable though it may seem, is of course to simply accept that I was right all along: Baxter spoke of LECHMERE and NOT Neil as he said that the body was found not far off the 3.45 mark, and we therefore have a situation where Lechmere has a formidable time gap to explain away.

PS. Sorry, Jeff. All that work you did!

No need to apologise since 3:40 is not far off 3:45. What isn't "not far off 3:45" is 3:45 itself, that would be "at 3:45", which is not what he says. Anyway, I've explained how I've come to the time for their discovery, so there's no need to go through that again.

I'm sorry if the results of the analysis don't support your theory, but that's how it goes sometimes.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your interuptation of what long said staggers me , ill take it for what i really means, I am "sure" the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased.richardson just also decides he will just let this bum sleep if off the night of chapmans murder after he said he often had to turn them out , bordering near impossible ,i think the reality check needs to be a bit closer in another direction, how herlock can sit by and not comment on your post also staggers me, but thats up to him i guess.

The reason that I haven’t commented is because I haven’t been following this Hanbury Street stuff. Trevor knows that I disagree with him about how safe or unsafe witnesses were. All witnesses have to be taken with caution of cause but the problem comes in how individuals interpret their reliability. I think that most witnesses in the case might be deemed unsafe to some extent (by Trevor’s interpretation) but we still shouldn’t dismiss them imo. And as we know Doctor’s TOD estimations were largely inaccurate I’d apply the same to Phillips as I would to all Doctors in all cases (Fish for example strongly disagrees in the Hanbury Street case) Was Long ‘unsafe?’ There are certainly questions to be considered in regard to the other witnesses. It’s down to how we as individuals interpret them and sometimes we just won’t agree.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,



No need to apologise since 3:40 is not far off 3:45. What isn't "not far off 3:45" is 3:45 itself, that would be "at 3:45", which is not what he says. Anyway, I've explained how I've come to the time for their discovery, so there's no need to go through that again.

I'm sorry if the results of the analysis don't support your theory, but that's how it goes sometimes.

- Jeff

And there we have the first naysaying effort! Of course, what the Daily News says is that Nichols was killed in the 3.15-3.45 scope, and that effectively establishes that the paper has Charles Lechmere at the murder site at 3.45. This owes to Baxters schedule, and we can comfortably rule out Neil as arriving at 3.45. Again, sorry Jeff. Its game over.
Of course , the timings cannot be looked upon as ecsct, but we DO know now that Lechmere was the one who was supposedly in place at 3.45.
Its always a relief to have such things cleared up, is it not?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And there we have the first naysaying effort! Of course, what the Daily News says is that Nichols was killed in the 3.15-3.45 scope, and that effectively establishes that the paper has Charles Lechmere at the murder site at 3.45. This owes to Baxters schedule, and we can comfortably rule out Neil as arriving at 3.45. Again, sorry Jeff. Its game over.
Of course , the timings cannot be looked upon as ecsct, but we DO know now that Lechmere was the one who was supposedly in place at 3.45.
Its always a relief to have such things cleared up, is it not?

I may be accused of all manner of stupidity here or of being slow on the uptake but are you saying because the period 3.15-3.45 includes a 5 minute period after 3.40 then this shows that Baxter must have meant that he thought that the body wa discovered at 3.45? Surely that’s not what you’re saying Fish?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fisherman,

And there we have the first naysaying effort! Of course, what the Daily News says is that Nichols was killed in the 3.15-3.45 scope, and that effectively establishes that the paper has Charles Lechmere at the murder site at 3.45. This owes to Baxters schedule, and we can comfortably rule out Neil as arriving at 3.45. Again, sorry Jeff. Its game over.
Of course , the timings cannot be looked upon as ecsct, but we DO know now that Lechmere was the one who was supposedly in place at 3.45.
Its always a relief to have such things cleared up, is it not?

Sorry, but your interpretation of Baxter's statement is incorrect. If Baxter thought the carmen discovered the body at 3:45, then that is how it would be phrased in English. He would have said "the body was discovered at 3:45", that's simply how one conveys that idea in words. So when he chooses a different phrase, and says it "cannot have been far off 3:45", he's indicating the discovery time was close to, but not actually, 3:45. That is what that phrase means in English. So your insistence that Baxter is meaning the former when he says the latter phrase is incorrect. If he meant "at 3:45" that is what he would have said.

Now because we know the carmen were talking to Mizen at 3:45, and we know they discovered the body shortly before that, we can understand why Baxter says they discovered it not far off 3:45. And because we can estimate the distance they walked between the two locations, and make an estimation of how long they examined the body (and given how little they noticed, that cannot have been long) we can therefore estimate the time they first discovered it. And that results in an estimated time that, surprise surprise, is "not far off 3:45". And it appears Abberline did something similar when in his report he indicates the carmen discovered the body at 3:40. A time that is very similar to what I've presented.

But I do agree with your in that it is a relief to have it cleared up.

- Jeff