Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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?
    I am saying that IF John Neils claim to have arrived at the murdersite had been accepted, then the Daily News would not have written that "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." That is because IF Neils timing had been accepted as correct, then there would have been no probability at all that Nichols was murdered at 3.45. It would have been impossible by a long shot.

    Ergo, the question about who Baxter alluded to as the 3.45 finder of the body must have been Lechmere and not Neil. If it had been concluded that Neil was the finder, then Lechmere would have been at the site at 3.40, and the Daily News article should have read "Nicholls was murdered in the early hours of Friday, the 31st August - in all probability between a quarter past three and twenty minutes to four."

    This is all very basic and simple, and since I happen to be aware that you are not stupid at all, I am confident that you will see what I am talking about. To this, we must add our knowledge that Baxter said that he had been able to fix the timeline, and if you can fix a timeline, you are not dealing with times that can be either way. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, much as there ARE many independent data involved in the Llewellyn end of the drama that could have helped Baxter fix the time, there is no such data at all that could help fix the suggested 3.45 time from the PC:s. Not a iot of it.

    All in all, there can be no doubt that Baxter alluded to Lechmere when he spoke of the body being found at 3.45. What CAN be suggested is that the timings would possibly - and even likely - have been inexact to a degree, but NOT to a degree where Baxter needed to accept that a timeline could not be fixed.

    This ends a many year long controversy that should never have been there and that has unneccessarily taken up eons of time as far as Iīm concerned. I am fully aware that others may not (should perhaps read "never" ...) want to agree with me, but since I have the evidence on my side, that means very little to me. It would take evidence to the contrary to dissolve the picture that has now emerged, solid evidence that Baxter spoke of Neils arrival, not Lechmeres, when he mentioned the 3.45 timing. And so far, all I have seen is assertions that people "feel" or "sense" that ths was the case. That is not evidence, Iīm afraid.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 01-09-2022, 10:52 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
      Hi Fisherman,



      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.

      As I have pointed out, it would be unrealistic to make the claim that the body was found at 3.45.00.00. We all know that, Jeff. However, what he said was not that it could NOT be 3.45.00.00, but that it must be another time close to it. If you say "the time could not have been far off X.XX.XX, you are actually saying that X.XX.XX is your best bet, but it could be slightly before or after. And that is true regardless what language you use, Swedish, Rheto-Romanian, Latin, Mongolian, and, I feel I should add, English.

      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
      We do not know that the carmen talked to Mizen at 3.45. Letīs not try and falsify things here. We know that Paul said he was in Bucks Row at 3.45, but since BOTH claims are suggestions only, what we must do is to anchor them as best as we can. And we can now anchor how Baxter meant that Lechmere found the body not far off 3.45, meaning that he was certainly not speaking to Mizen at that stage.
      That Abberline should have gotten it wrong in his report is almost axiomatic, since for the longest time time the prevailing idea was that the PC:s were correct. That all changed later on, as the inquest added new knowledge. And why would we treat Abberline as naturally faultless in the first place? He could make errors just like anybody else. And as you are quite well aware, Swanson erased the 3.40 suggestion in his next report, laying down that Lechmere arrived at 3.45.

      However, the all important point here is that you are trying to treat the carmens arrival at Mizen at 3.45 as a fact. It is not. There is nothing to fix the idea by, whereas there is plenty to fix the suggestion that Thain left Neil at around 3.53.
      By the way, it not an established truth that the carmen (plural) spoke to Mizen either.
      Again, do not treat suggestions and possibilities as facts, please.
      Last edited by Fisherman; 01-09-2022, 10:50 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        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 PC is "taking a dump," as you so eloquently put it.

        And you're taking the piss, Fish.

        At his core, the wildly inadequate person who is bending over Polly Nichol's dying body is a coward. That's why he's doing what he is doing. He is killing tired, often sickly middle-aged drunken women out on the streets at night. He is a loathsome coward.

        So when he hears the approaching male walking towards him, he's not going to pull out his pocket-watch and calculate whether the male is treading 2.5 miles per hour, or 3.5 miles per hour, or--mein Gott!--the man is hurrying towards him.

        He is a coward. By the time you finish reading this post he is already half-way to Baker's Row or down one of the side streets.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

          The PC is "taking a dump," as you so eloquently put it.

          And you're taking the piss, Fish.

          At his core, the wildly inadequate person who is bending over Polly Nichol's dying body is a coward. That's why he's doing what he is doing. He is killing tired, often sickly middle-aged drunken women out on the streets at night. He is a loathsome coward.

          So when he hears the approaching male walking towards him, he's not going to pull out his pocket-watch and calculate whether the male is treading 2.5 miles per hour, or 3.5 miles per hour, or--mein Gott!--the man is hurrying towards him.

          He is a coward. By the time you finish reading this post he is already half-way to Baker's Row or down one of the side streets.
          I completely agree with you about JTR being loathsome. Killing these poor, vulnerable woman was disgraceful.

          However, I think it’s clear that JTR was a psychopath, and psychopaths can be suicidally brave. Psychopaths can be the exact opposite of cowardly. When faced with the most incredible danger they will often stand and face it.

          99% of us would run away in circumstances like Bucks Row. It’s not necessarily the case that a Psychopath would. Psychopaths can be manipulative and controlling and would like feel they could take ownership. A psychopath would be confident he could completely dominate and control any witness or situation.

          This issue has been discussed before, we can’t get inside the mind of a serial killer. We can’t assume that he would run off.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
            >>>Nice to see Robert Paul's expertise in forensic pathology being properly acknowledged. Frankly, I'm staggered the police didn't seek out his estimates concerning all the other killings.<<

            Precisely my point!

            And yet his Lloyds interview is not just taken seriously, it is at the core of the case against Lechmere.
            This is mischief-making.

            M.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

              The PC is "taking a dump," as you so eloquently put it.

              And you're taking the piss, Fish.

              At his core, the wildly inadequate person who is bending over Polly Nichol's dying body is a coward. That's why he's doing what he is doing. He is killing tired, often sickly middle-aged drunken women out on the streets at night. He is a loathsome coward.

              Perhaps. And perhaps not. There are serial killers who are cowards and there are serial killers who are not cowards. If you look at a man like Carl Panzram, you may see what I am talking about in the latter case. So in my case, I do not need to narrow down the serial killer community in order for it to fit my thinking. I wish I could say the same for you, but it seems I canīt. But letīs see!

              So when he hears the approaching male walking towards him, he's not going to pull out his pocket-watch and calculate whether the male is treading 2.5 miles per hour, or 3.5 miles per hour, or--mein Gott!--the man is hurrying towards him.

              As I suspected - you needed to narrow down the serial killer community to the cowards and panicking types. But I have already pointed out many times that panicking is not part of the typical psychopathic mind, and we are with great certainty dealing with a psychopath here. Psychopaths sometimes become war heroes for walking into a rain of bullets unperturbed, for the simple reason that they can not panick.
              Is that the squeamish kind of coward you are talking about - or are you the one taking the piss here?


              He is a coward. By the time you finish reading this post he is already half-way to Baker's Row or down one of the side streets.
              To me, cowardness is more like denying the existence of a very prolific group of killers in order to try and get the better of a debating opponent. But we are all different, are we not?
              Last edited by Fisherman; 01-09-2022, 01:29 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                I completely agree with you about JTR being loathsome. Killing these poor, vulnerable woman was disgraceful.

                However, I think it’s clear that JTR was a psychopath, and psychopaths can be suicidally brave. Psychopaths can be the exact opposite of cowardly. When faced with the most incredible danger they will often stand and face it.

                99% of us would run away in circumstances like Bucks Row. It’s not necessarily the case that a Psychopath would. Psychopaths can be manipulative and controlling and would like feel they could take ownership. A psychopath would be confident he could completely dominate and control any witness or situation.

                This issue has been discussed before, we can’t get inside the mind of a serial killer. We can’t assume that he would run off.
                I see you have also made the point that needed to be made, Super. Good on you. When the debate becomes blindsided, like this, something must be done.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                  I completely agree with you about JTR being loathsome. Killing these poor, vulnerable woman was disgraceful.

                  However, I think it’s clear that JTR was a psychopath, and psychopaths can be suicidally brave. Psychopaths can be the exact opposite of cowardly. When faced with the most incredible danger they will often stand and face it.

                  99% of us would run away in circumstances like Bucks Row. It’s not necessarily the case that a Psychopath would. Psychopaths can be manipulative and controlling and would like feel they could take ownership. A psychopath would be confident he could completely dominate and control any witness or situation.

                  This issue has been discussed before, we can’t get inside the mind of a serial killer. We can’t assume that he would run off.
                  My concern with Lechmere as killer has nothing to do with Bucks Row, I can accept him doing that and not running off etc. I know and appreciate why this killing has been dissected at such length though of course, he was there.

                  But the other cases, in particular Stride and Eddowes are more difficult for me. Fish's case seems to be that he may have visited his mum where he used to live and then leave and carry these out on his way home or to a pub. Trouble is, these really aren't on his way home, quite the opposite really. Even if he fancied a pub before home he would go in the homeward direction, yet the suggestion is that he didn't. That feels highly unlikely to me.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                    My concern with Lechmere as killer has nothing to do with Bucks Row, I can accept him doing that and not running off etc. I know and appreciate why this killing has been dissected at such length though of course, he was there.

                    But the other cases, in particular Stride and Eddowes are more difficult for me. Fish's case seems to be that he may have visited his mum where he used to live and then leave and carry these out on his way home or to a pub. Trouble is, these really aren't on his way home, quite the opposite really. Even if he fancied a pub before home he would go in the homeward direction, yet the suggestion is that he didn't. That feels highly unlikely to me.
                    If I may? I have certainly pointed out that Maria Louisa, Lechmeres mother lived very close to the Berner Street murder site (at 1 Mary Ann Street, to be exact). But I am not saying that this must have been what drew him there. He had grown up in these very streets and lived there up until June of 1888 (in James Street), and so most of his aquaintances and friends would have stayed in this area. Therefore I would suggest that if he was to do a pub round, this would quite likely be where he did it. Or visit friends. Or visit his own daughter, who was staying with his mother. He had all sorts of reasons to visit the area.
                    The claim that it was not on his way home does not belong here, I think. Stride was killed at 1 AM on a Sunday morning, and most likely, Lechmere was not working that day. He would have gone off work on the preceding day, and I am suggesting that he may afterwards have gone home to Doveton Street to wash and dress up on the Saturday evening, knowing that had the next day off. Then he would have made his way to his stomping ground in St Georges, for an evening out or for a visit to his mothers and daugthers place. Of course, the two can be combined if he first visited his mother and then went out pubbing after it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                      I am saying that IF John Neils claim to have arrived at the murdersite had been accepted, then the Daily News would not have written that "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." That is because IF Neils timing had been accepted as correct, then there would have been no probability at all that Nichols was murdered at 3.45. It would have been impossible by a long shot.

                      Ergo, the question about who Baxter alluded to as the 3.45 finder of the body must have been Lechmere and not Neil. If it had been concluded that Neil was the finder, then Lechmere would have been at the site at 3.40, and the Daily News article should have read "Nicholls was murdered in the early hours of Friday, the 31st August - in all probability between a quarter past three and twenty minutes to four."

                      This is all very basic and simple, and since I happen to be aware that you are not stupid at all, I am confident that you will see what I am talking about. To this, we must add our knowledge that Baxter said that he had been able to fix the timeline, and if you can fix a timeline, you are not dealing with times that can be either way. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, much as there ARE many independent data involved in the Llewellyn end of the drama that could have helped Baxter fix the time, there is no such data at all that could help fix the suggested 3.45 time from the PC:s. Not a iot of it.

                      All in all, there can be no doubt that Baxter alluded to Lechmere when he spoke of the body being found at 3.45. What CAN be suggested is that the timings would possibly - and even likely - have been inexact to a degree, but NOT to a degree where Baxter needed to accept that a timeline could not be fixed.

                      This ends a many year long controversy that should never have been there and that has unneccessarily taken up eons of time as far as Iīm concerned. I am fully aware that others may not (should perhaps read "never" ...) want to agree with me, but since I have the evidence on my side, that means very little to me. It would take evidence to the contrary to dissolve the picture that has now emerged, solid evidence that Baxter spoke of Neils arrival, not Lechmeres, when he mentioned the 3.45 timing. And so far, all I have seen is assertions that people "feel" or "sense" that ths was the case. That is not evidence, Iīm afraid.
                      Unless your claiming that Baxter wrote for the Daily News then it’s difficult to see how you can consider this significant Fish. Baxter said just before 3.45 which the Press knew. They also knew that Neil had said that he’d previously passed the spot at 3.15. So the Daily News is clearly echoing this time period between the two visits by Neil.
                      Regards

                      Herlock Sholmes

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                        I completely agree with you about JTR being loathsome. Killing these poor, vulnerable woman was disgraceful.

                        However, I think it’s clear that JTR was a psychopath, and psychopaths can be suicidally brave. Psychopaths can be the exact opposite of cowardly. When faced with the most incredible danger they will often stand and face it.

                        99% of us would run away in circumstances like Bucks Row. It’s not necessarily the case that a Psychopath would. Psychopaths can be manipulative and controlling and would like feel they could take ownership. A psychopath would be confident he could completely dominate and control any witness or situation.

                        This issue has been discussed before, we can’t get inside the mind of a serial killer. We can’t assume that he would run off.
                        Can we name another example where a serial killer murdered a victim and then hung around at the scene to call someone over to the body of his victim?
                        Regards

                        Herlock Sholmes

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Unless your claiming that Baxter wrote for the Daily News then it’s difficult to see how you can consider this significant Fish.

                          Because a paper who has sat through the summary of the case, writes that the murder took place at 3-15 - 3.45, effectively discounting any possibility that Neil was the 3.45 finder.

                          Baxter said just before 3.45 which the Press knew.

                          He did not say just before 3.45 at all. He said that "in less than an hour and a quarter her dead body was discovered at a spot rather under three-quarters of a mile distant". This would effectively mean that he suggested that she could have been killed at 3.44.59 - but not 3.45.00, if we were to draw things to an edge!! But I donīt think we should. I think he was simply meaning that Nichols was found around an hour and a quarter after she was last seen.

                          They also knew that Neil had said that he’d previously passed the spot at 3.15. So the Daily News is clearly echoing this time period between the two visits by Neil.
                          Yes, they are echoing his FIRST time. But if they echoed his second, they would be idiots, because his 3.45 timing can never be the time at which Nichols died. Regardless of which time Neil had mentioned, we know that he was at the murder spot five minutes after Lechmere.
                          So when they say between 3.15 and 3.45, they can only mean that Lechmere was at the spot at 3.45 - or, to be fair, around 3.46, since they thought that there was another killer and we must give him time to escape. Again, if they had meant that Neil was there at that stage, then Lechmere would have been there at 3.40 - and then the time gap that covered her murder would be 3.15 - 3.40, not 3.15 - 3.45. And so it would be idiotic to make the claim that Nichols could have been murdered after Lechmere left and before Neil arrived - which is EXACTLY what they are saying in such a case.

                          There is absolutely no way around this, Herlock, unless we employ the "They did not know what they were talking about" or "They mistakenly got the time wrong" approach. And I advice against that, since what they are writing makes perfect sense in combination with what Baxter said and Swanson wrote.

                          This former issue is now a non-issue for me, as I said. The evidence is there, and that is when issues become
                          non-issues.
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 01-09-2022, 02:17 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Can we name another example where a serial killer murdered a victim and then hung around at the scene to call someone over to the body of his victim?
                            Do we have to? A question for you: Can we exclude the possibility that a number of killers did it - and got away with it? Abby has provided us with an example of a criminal who did this exact same thing, if that helps.

                            At any rate, this is a parallell matter to the one about the potential blood on the hands. It is a cul-de-sac that will prove nothing and therefore a waste of time and space if you ask me.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                              ''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 ?
                              If I may: the real problem with Long's identification is that, if you keep reading, her testimony proves to be self-undermining...

                              ---
                              Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.

                              At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.
                              ---

                              https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../dt880920.html

                              Terrific. She is 'sure' the victim is a woman she didn't take much notice of.

                              M.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                                My concern with Lechmere as killer has nothing to do with Bucks Row, I can accept him doing that and not running off etc. I know and appreciate why this killing has been dissected at such length though of course, he was there.

                                But the other cases, in particular Stride and Eddowes are more difficult for me. Fish's case seems to be that he may have visited his mum where he used to live and then leave and carry these out on his way home or to a pub. Trouble is, these really aren't on his way home, quite the opposite really. Even if he fancied a pub before home he would go in the homeward direction, yet the suggestion is that he didn't. That feels highly unlikely to me.

                                I think by Eddowes and Stride that Lechmere was a clearly a confirmed serial killer. I Tabram may have been his first directly fatal attack but I think he attacked plenty more, likely Emma Smith and Annie Millwood (just my opinion). The point being that attacking and killing women was something he was now doing on a regular basis.

                                I feel there would likely have been other women who had lucky escapes, perhaps a witness or a policeman turning up just at the right time saved them. I think every time he was out in the evening, or early morning, he would he looking for an opportunity to kill. Anytime he is out on his own he is dangerous.

                                So when Lechmere is visiting his mother and daughter, if indeed that’s what he was doing. Then we have a serial killer in the area around the time both women were killed. I do think the location of his mothers house, where he grew up and his old walk to work (pre Doveton Street) all tie in with both murders.

                                Its like Ted Bundy, everywhere we know he goes the dead bodies turn up. Same with Lechmere. Every victim is contained with a triangle - where he worked, where he lives and his mothers house, a house where he used to live and where his daughter still lives.

                                We can draw a direct line between all 3 points and find that EVERY victim falls close to that line. For example, we can draw a line between Eddowes, her discarded apron (giving us the direction the killer headed after the murder) and Doveton Street.

                                It’s circumstantial, it’s just my opinion, but once again Lechmere being JTR fits like a glove.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X