Evidence of innocence

[FISHY1118]

thanks herl
no problem there! more than likely he said about 3:30. but imho looking at the big picture heres a man who held down a job for twenty years which means he was probably very seldom late and i imagine he was accustomed to getting out the door no later than 3:30, and probably usually left a little earlier. so to me it seems like he probably left closer to 3:30. no big wup.

And lived for a another 32 more .

[SuperShodan]

>>There’s been some detailed answers to posts recently so here’s one that has always struck me as odd about events in Bucks Row. Why Paul doesn’t have sight of Lechmere sooner ? They seem to be walking 40 or 50m apart for a good period of time, even before they turn into Bucks Row and yet are unaware of each others presence (at these types of distances they might even see each other in Brady Street).<<

This has been specifically explained to you numerous times, Jeff's animation shows now shows an moving version of how. It is extremely disingenuous to pretend you have not had it shown to you.

Actually nobody’s answered this anytime I’ve asked. Ever. Not once. This thread being another example. The only answer I’ve ever got was that it would be too dark.

[rjpalmer]

There’s been some detailed answers to posts recently so here’s one that has always struck me as odd about events in Bucks Row. Why Paul doesn’t have sight of Lechmere sooner ? They seem to be walking 40 or 50m apart for a good period of time, even before they turn into Bucks Row and yet are unaware of each others presence (at these types of distances they might even see each other in Brady Street).


These are the facts as I understand them.


Paul is apparently some distance up Bucks Row before he sights Lechmere. He appears to first see Lechmere when Lechmere is “standing where the woman was” which is 130 - 140m up Bucks Row. Prior to this both men are unaware of each other’s presence. How is this possible ?

My take is when sighted Lechmere is in the middle of the road, 3m away or so from the body (he can’t be too far away as even in the darkness of the gateway he has identified that’s it’s a woman). He also says to Paul “come and look at this woman”. He wouldn’t know this unless he had a close look - Nichols is lying in a darkened gateway.

In Lechmere’s version he finds Nichols body just as he becomes aware of Paul approaching. These 2 events happen almost simultaneously. This suggests that Paul isn’t too far behind, maybe 10 or 20 seconds at most, and certainly not the full length of Bucks Row or any such distance.

Some have suggested it was dark in Bucks Row but this doesn’t wash. It was dark in the gateway, but I doubt the entire street was pitch black.

Lechmere’s version of finding the body just as he becomes aware of Paul doesn’t seem credible. It would require Paul to be both close behind, and yet be unable to see him walking ahead the whole way up Bucks Row.

You might run this question by Jeff.

I'm trying to be fair-minded, and as I study the simulation again, does it look like Paul is more than forty yards behind Lechmere? It's difficult to tell, but it looks like he is about 50 seconds behind him, which would be more than forty yards if I'm looking at it correctly.

[drstrange169]

>>As for his news article interview-again point taken. but could be a mistake by the paper or deliberate jab at police or spruce up the story?<<

Absolutely!

All of which strengthens my point.

If we can't prove it wasn't a journo beat up, it's unsound evidence and we can't believe the "exactly 3:45" and "standing where the body was" as reliable evidence.

So any fair minded person must view the Lloyds article as untrustworthy.

[drstrange169]

>>In addition, Paul never testifies as to the time he was in Buck's Row, he only testifies that he left for work "about 3:45", giving an inexact statement as to the time he left.<<

Yes, that's the point I keep making, therefore it is not data Baxter can base a corroborated time on.

>>The only place where we have a statement from Paul where he gives an exact time of 3:45 for being in Buck's Row is in the Lloyd's article, <<

Which we've established, beyond all reasonable doubt, as unreliable evidence.

>>That is how analysis works. And it is how one detects "falsehoods", because false stories will conflict with the true versions. Notably, the analysis also shows no signs of conflict arising from Cross/Lechmere's testimony, again leading to the conclusion that his testimony is consistent with being true, and therefore innocent. Of course, if he lied about his departure time, then he calculated the time he would have needed to leave. So far, however, no evidence has been presented to indicate he has lied.<<

"There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know."

[JeffHamm]

You might run this question by Jeff.

I'm trying to be fair-minded, and as I study the simulation again, does it look like Paul is more than forty yards behind Lechmere? It's difficult to tell, but it looks like he is about 50 seconds behind him, which would be more than forty yards if I'm looking at it correctly.

Hi,

I'll double check on that. It could be that the estimated positions are further apart than 40 yards.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>Actually nobody’s answered this anytime I’ve asked. Ever. Not once. This thread being another example. The only answer I’ve ever got was that it would be too dark.<<

Post #4503 Yesterday, 05:48 PM

[MrBarnett]

thanks herl
no problem there! more than likely he said about 3:30. but imho looking at the big picture heres a man who held down a job for twenty years which means he was probably very seldom late and i imagine he was accustomed to getting out the door no later than 3:30, and probably usually left a little earlier. so to me it seems like he probably left closer to 3:30. no big wup.

And not just any job, a job at a railway station where timeliness was of the essence. It was the coming of railways that lead to standardisation of time in Britain, for obvious reasons.

[SuperShodan]

You might run this question by Jeff.

I'm trying to be fair-minded, and as I study the simulation again, does it look like Paul is more than forty yards behind Lechmere? It's difficult to tell, but it looks like he is about 50 seconds behind him, which would be more than forty yards if I'm looking at it correctly.

It’s interesting work from Jeff but it doesn’t answer the question even 1%. In fact the graphic seems to confirm the 40 - 50m distance.
Its also Jeff’s simulation based on Jeff’s data. It’s totally subjective. You could run 20 such simulations with 20 different times.

[drstrange169]

>>I'll double check on that. It could be that the estimated positions are further apart than 40 yards. <<

Fact: Paul never claims to be 40 yards behind Cross.
Fact: Paul never gives a distance.
Fact: Cross doesn't give any distance for how for Paul was when he turned into Bucks Row. He only gives an estimated distance for when he became AWARE of Paul.

The notion that there is any claim from either man that the two walked 40 yards apart is completely untrue.

[SuperShodan]

>>Actually nobody’s answered this anytime I’ve asked. Ever. Not once. This thread being another example. The only answer I’ve ever got was that it would be too dark.<<

Post #4503 Yesterday, 05:48 PM

Doesn’t answer the question even 1%. If our protagonists are 40 - 50m apart then why doesn’t Paul sight him sooner ?
Its hard for you because you actually have to think for yourself, think in the abstract, analyse and understand and come up with a possible solution. It involves more than just criticising someone’s else post which is the limit of your contributions.
Having you own idea, hypothesis, explanation or theory is hard, because you can’t just copy and paste one.

[JeffHamm]

>>I'll double check on that. It could be that the estimated positions are further apart than 40 yards. <<

Fact: Paul never claims to be 40 yards behind Cross.
Fact: Paul never gives a distance.
Fact: Cross doesn't give any distance for how for Paul was when he turned into Bucks Row. He only gives an estimated distance for when he became AWARE of Paul.

The notion that there is any claim from either man that the two walked 40 yards apart is completely untrue.

No, I realise that. But the very closest Paul could be to Cross/Lechmere (presuming the 40 yards is accurate of course) is 40 yards. It might have been more during the journey, particularly if Cross/Lechmere slows when he first spots the "tarpaulin" and then stops for say 5 seconds when he realises it's a woman, and then notices that Paul is now about 40 yards behind. Those actions would mean prior to that Paul was more than 40 yards.

But, that's speculation, it's not in the testimony. We can look at things at their "testified limit", and see what that's like.

And rj (thanks) is correct, they are at 220 feet, not 120 feet! My error.

I've corrected it now, and will post the updated version (without an extended commentary). It's was a matter of just adjusting Cross/Lechmere's departure by 21 seconds.

I'll run this one at the slowest speed, so it will be easier to spot any other potential issues.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

Doesn’t answer the question even 1%. If our protagonists are 40 - 50m apart then why doesn’t Paul sight him sooner ?
Its hard for you because you actually have to think for yourself, think in the abstract, analyse and understand and come up with a possible solution. It involves more than just criticising someone’s else post which is the limit of your contributions.
Having you own idea, hypothesis, explanation or theory is hard, because you can’t just copy and paste one.

It was Lechmere who estimated the 40 yards (not metres thank you very much!) distance wasn’t it? He’d moved close enough to identify what he first thought might be a tarpaulin as a woman.

[MrBarnett]

It was Lechmere who estimated the 40 yards (not metres thank you very much!) distance wasn’t it? He’d moved close enough to identify what he first thought might be a tarpaulin as a woman.

So the question is, how long did his curiosity curtail his journey before he became aware of Paul.

[FISHY1118]

Dr Biggs has previoulsy reviewed all the medical evidence in relation to all the murders so he is fully aware of the injuries to the victims. For those interested his full review of all the murders and the Thames Torsos can be found in my book "Jack the Ripper-The real Truth"

On another note the abdominal injuries to Nichols were not as severe as they were to some of the other victims so i belive minor abdominal wounds is the correct terminolgy.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It doesnt matter what biggs knew or didnt know , i dont perticularly care , the phase ''minor injuries is misleading to anyone who reads it, in the context of the rippper murders . Yes but in your question you werent compariing the nichols injuries to the others victims were you ?, so incorrect. [i believe].