Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post



    You seem to have PC Thain and PC Neil mixed up. Thain doesn’t appear to be doing any patrols at all and was chatting with workmen in Winthrop Street. Since he had taken off his cape I’d suggest more than just a quick word. Thain then turned up at the murder site without his cape and had to return for it. If you are suggesting it was Neil who was chatting and Neil who left his cape you are very much mistaken.

    Furthermore, PC Neil appears to have done his duties diligently - going down Bucks Row around 03.15 and 03.45 as was his duty.

    It’s worth pointing out if PC Neil’s patrol had been interrupted or his beat was out of sync then it calls into question what time he found the body.

    However, there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest so. I think the TOD between 03.15 and 03.45 is solid and that’s what we should work with. After all it’s based on a policeman’s testimony.
    No no mix up, Pc Neils answer to a jurymans question "The first to arrive on the scene after I had discovered the body were two men who work at a slaughterhouse opposite. They said they knew nothing of the affair, and that they had not heard any screams. I had previously seen the men at work. That would be about a quarter-past three, or half an hour before I found the body.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      No no mix up, Pc Neils answer to a jurymans question "The first to arrive on the scene after I had discovered the body were two men who work at a slaughterhouse opposite. They said they knew nothing of the affair, and that they had not heard any screams. I had previously seen the men at work. That would be about a quarter-past three, or half an hour before I found the body.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      PC Neil has SEEN the workmen while he was out on his patrol. It doesn’t suggest at all he had stopped to chat nor that he had removed his cape.
      It still looks to me like Neil is out on his beat, and that there is no reason to suggest he didn’t walk down Bucks Row at 03.15.
      The cape stuff very clearly refers to Thain and Thain alone. There is absolutely nothing concrete that would call into question Neil patrolling Bucks Row at the times he said he did. Zero.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

        PC Neil has SEEN the workmen while he was out on his patrol. It doesn’t suggest at all he had stopped to chat nor that he had removed his cape.
        It still looks to me like Neil is out on his beat, and that there is no reason to suggest he didn’t walk down Bucks Row at 03.15.
        The cape stuff very clearly refers to Thain and Thain alone. There is absolutely nothing concrete that would call into question Neil patrolling Bucks Row at the times he said he did. Zero.
        But Pc Neil could not have been at the crime scene at 3.15am if he was passing by the slaughterhouse in the next street. at the same time

        This is what Thain said "When I went to the horse-slaughterer's for my cape I did not say that I was going to fetch a doctor, as a murder had been committed. Another constable had taken my cape there"

        Who was the other constable and how did that constable come to take Thains cape to the slaughterhouse? so we know that at least one police officer had gone to the slaughterhouse but for what purpose?

        If you are going to pin Lechmere down to a time that suggests he was the killer you have to be sure of the other witness timings are safe to rely on.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • 'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • Of our 2 policemen the one I'm unsure about is Thain. PC Neil can easily be walking up Brady Street, see the workmen in Winthrop Street (I’m sure he’d have a look along as he passed by) and turn into Bucks Row all at 03.15. The entrance to Bucks Row being just seconds away from the entrance to Bucks Row.
            PC Thains cape is a mystery in itself. It would be interesting to know who had his cape, why they handed it in to Winthrop Street and why Thain would thus be walking around without it.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
              Of our 2 policemen the one I'm unsure about is Thain. PC Neil can easily be walking up Brady Street, see the workmen in Winthrop Street (I’m sure he’d have a look along as he passed by) and turn into Bucks Row all at 03.15. The entrance to Bucks Row being just seconds away from the entrance to Bucks Row.
              PC Thains cape is a mystery in itself. It would be interesting to know who had his cape, why they handed it in to Winthrop Street and why Thain would thus be walking around without it.
              At last you are applying some logic to the testimony

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                Hi George,

                It's clear that it wasn't clear to the reporters what Lechmere was saying. This was quite possibly due to the fact that they didn't know the location well or at all. But they, apparently, heard him say something about the north side, about the wool warehouse and about the opposite side. As the wool warehouse was situated on the north side and the gateway where Nichols was lying was on the south side and belonged to Brown's Stables (so, no wool or any kind of warehouse), I think it's still very much worth considering that he was actually saying that he was passing through Buck's Row on the north side and when passing the entrance/gateway to the wool warehouse, he first noticed something lying by the gateway on the opposite side of the street.

                If we assume for a moment this was so, then if he walked obliquely to the middle of the road towards the figure he saw and he stopped there, we can also see how Paul would get to see him with Nichols lying, from where he was at the time he spotted Lechmere, just left of the latter. At that point Nichols and Lechmere would have been more or less in a straight line of vistion. I hope you see what I'm getting at.

                Cheers,
                Frank
                Hi Frank,

                I believe that I see the point you are making. However, Jeff measured the distance from the body to the gateway of the wool warehouse and found it to be 12 metres. I thought this to be an inordinate distance to be seeing a shape in the dark. I have just done a re-enactment on a paved area at the rear of my home by placing a large red builder's barrow, turned over, at a distance of 12 metres. Time was shortly before midnight. I left on the light in the upstairs bathroom which provided some illumination through the window. At 12 metres I could not make out the barrow at all. At six metres I could make out a shape, but I was looking for it where as Lechmere would not have been doing so, and I was unable to identify it as a barrow. At about 3 metres I could see it was a turned over barrow. I am unable to accept that Lechmere would have been able to discern any form of tarpaulin at a distance of 12 metres. I seem to recall that Buck's Row was about 20 feet wide, i.e. about 6 metres, so I consider it reasonable that Lechmere may have discerned a shape from directly opposite on the other side of the road, and clarified that it was a woman at a distance of about 3 metres, i.e. from the centre of the road. This is important because Lechmere drew Paul's attention to a woman lying in the street, and I have satisfied myself that it was not possible for him to know that it was a woman from a distance of 12, or even 6, metres. Neil Bell said he was was "just approaching Essex Wharf when, across the road he saw "something lying in front of the gateway like a tarpaulin". He wandered across to the centre of the road and saw it was a woman." He cites his references as the Times account of the inquest and Home Office File Ref HO 144/221/A49301C, f. 8. I find this to be more reasonable and reliable than confused press accounts relating that the body was located in the gateway of the wool warehouse.

                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.”

                Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  Hi Frank,

                  I believe that I see the point you are making. However, Jeff measured the distance from the body to the gateway of the wool warehouse and found it to be 12 metres. I thought this to be an inordinate distance to be seeing a shape in the dark. I have just done a re-enactment on a paved area at the rear of my home by placing a large red builder's barrow, turned over, at a distance of 12 metres. Time was shortly before midnight. I left on the light in the upstairs bathroom which provided some illumination through the window. At 12 metres I could not make out the barrow at all. At six metres I could make out a shape, but I was looking for it where as Lechmere would not have been doing so, and I was unable to identify it as a barrow. At about 3 metres I could see it was a turned over barrow. I am unable to accept that Lechmere would have been able to discern any form of tarpaulin at a distance of 12 metres. I seem to recall that Buck's Row was about 20 feet wide, i.e. about 6 metres, so I consider it reasonable that Lechmere may have discerned a shape from directly opposite on the other side of the road, and clarified that it was a woman at a distance of about 3 metres, i.e. from the centre of the road. This is important because Lechmere drew Paul's attention to a woman lying in the street, and I have satisfied myself that it was not possible for him to know that it was a woman from a distance of 12, or even 6, metres. Neil Bell said he was was "just approaching Essex Wharf when, across the road he saw "something lying in front of the gateway like a tarpaulin". He wandered across to the centre of the road and saw it was a woman." He cites his references as the Times account of the inquest and Home Office File Ref HO 144/221/A49301C, f. 8. I find this to be more reasonable and reliable than confused press accounts relating that the body was located in the gateway of the wool warehouse.

                  Cheers, George
                  Hey george
                  Im pretty much with you on this one. But for lech to be able to ascertain it was a woman, as opposed to a man, I think he would need to be VERY close. at least several feet and that he may even need to be closer than that. and to my mind getting right next to her and stooping down to be able to make that determination wouldnt be out of the question.
                  "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


                  • According to Paul Begg, JtR the Facts page 46, Neil passed the slaughterhouse at 3:15am and saw Tomkins and Mumford at work. He then walked into and down Buck's Row. He did not see anything suspicious or unusual. At the same time Sgt Kirby also passed down Buck's Row. He too did not see anything to arouse his suspicions.

                    Had Neil been skiving one would imagine that Kirby might have noticed?

                    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.”

                    Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                      Hey george
                      Im pretty much with you on this one. But for lech to be able to ascertain it was a woman, as opposed to a man, I think he would need to be VERY close. at least several feet and that he may even need to be closer than that. and to my mind getting right next to her and stooping down to be able to make that determination wouldnt be out of the question.
                      Hi Abby,

                      From my re-enactment I would be confident that Lechmere could have seen the dress and bonnet from the centre of the road - about 3 metres.

                      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.”

                      Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
                        Of our 2 policemen the one I'm unsure about is Thain. PC Neil can easily be walking up Brady Street, see the workmen in Winthrop Street (I’m sure he’d have a look along as he passed by) and turn into Bucks Row all at 03.15. The entrance to Bucks Row being just seconds away from the entrance to Bucks Row.
                        PC Thains cape is a mystery in itself. It would be interesting to know who had his cape, why they handed it in to Winthrop Street and why Thain would thus be walking around without it.
                        I think whose ever it was left where it was found very quickly

                        other discrepancies _______________

                        Pc Neil "I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle" he had good hearing then !!!!!!!!!!!!

                        Pc Thain "[Thain] stated that the nearest point on his beat to Buck's- row was Brady-street. He passed the end every thirty minutes on the Thursday night, and nothing attracted his attention until 3.45 a.m., when he was signalled by the flash of the lantern of another constable (Neale).

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                          No offence intended Abby, just a genuine question.

                          Using Christer's claimed entrance Mitre Sq is well out of the triangle. 29 Hanbury is too, but we know Cross and Paul passed it, so that's ok.


                          Click image for larger version  Name:	Screen Shot 2022-01-13 at 11.52.04 am copy 2.png Views:	0 Size:	19.5 KB ID:	778151
                          except your comparison to the nonsense ideas of symbols etc. wasnt even a question-it was a statement and an obvious dig on me (and an erroneous comparison at that). and if you think a couple minutes walk from the border of the Lechmere triangle is "well outside the triangle" then all I can say is whatever. especially when I said inside or just near the border. And of course all the while you missing or ignoring the main gist of the idea. But with alot of your responses on this thread its par for the course. and sadly, expected.
                          Ill leave you to it.
                          Last edited by Abby Normal; 01-13-2022, 02:12 PM.
                          "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 GBinOz View Post

                            Hi Abby,

                            From my re-enactment I would be confident that Lechmere could have seen the dress and bonnet from the centre of the road - about 3 metres.

                            Cheers, George
                            thanks George. Your probably right. I forgot about the bonnet. I just did a quick re enactment in my basement and three meters does seem close enough, but I guess it would be dependent on the exact lighting at the time/location which of course we can never know for sure.
                            "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 GBinOz View Post

                              Hi Frank,

                              I believe that I see the point you are making. However, Jeff measured the distance from the body to the gateway of the wool warehouse and found it to be 12 metres. I thought this to be an inordinate distance to be seeing a shape in the dark. I have just done a re-enactment on a paved area at the rear of my home by placing a large red builder's barrow, turned over, at a distance of 12 metres. Time was shortly before midnight. I left on the light in the upstairs bathroom which provided some illumination through the window. At 12 metres I could not make out the barrow at all. At six metres I could make out a shape, but I was looking for it where as Lechmere would not have been doing so, and I was unable to identify it as a barrow. At about 3 metres I could see it was a turned over barrow. I am unable to accept that Lechmere would have been able to discern any form of tarpaulin at a distance of 12 metres. I seem to recall that Buck's Row was about 20 feet wide, i.e. about 6 metres, so I consider it reasonable that Lechmere may have discerned a shape from directly opposite on the other side of the road, and clarified that it was a woman at a distance of about 3 metres, i.e. from the centre of the road. This is important because Lechmere drew Paul's attention to a woman lying in the street, and I have satisfied myself that it was not possible for him to know that it was a woman from a distance of 12, or even 6, metres. Neil Bell said he was was "just approaching Essex Wharf when, across the road he saw "something lying in front of the gateway like a tarpaulin". He wandered across to the centre of the road and saw it was a woman." He cites his references as the Times account of the inquest and Home Office File Ref HO 144/221/A49301C, f. 8. I find this to be more reasonable and reliable than confused press accounts relating that the body was located in the gateway of the wool warehouse.

                              Cheers, George
                              Hi George,

                              Thanks for your reply. I see what you mean now, going by Jeff's 12 metres. I have a couple of remarks.

                              First, here I measured it to be around 17.5 metres or 57 feet from the pavement in front of the gateway of the wool warehouse to where Nichols lay, not 12.

                              Secondly, good that you did this re-enactment, it's always good to try things to see if something was realistic/might work or not. The obvious difficulty with this is, as Abby said, that we don't know how the actual ligthing conditions were (where was/were the light source(s), and how much ligth did it/they give?). While I accept your results, I think it might be interesting, too, to try and see how much light you need for the 'he noticed something as he was passing the gateway to the wool warehouse' to work. If that would be clearly too much light, then we might exclude it without scruples.

                              Thirdly, I don't want to nitpick, but Neil Bell's "approaching Essex Wharf" means that he wouldn't have reached Essex Wharf yet, and Essex Wharf was directly opposite where she lay.

                              Cheers,
                              Frank
                              Last edited by FrankO; 01-13-2022, 02:29 PM.
                              "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                              Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                              Comment


                              • Let’s not forget the layout of Harrison Barber’s premises. There were two open yards surrounded by a number of buildings - the office, stables, boiler room etc plus the sheds where the slaughtering would have taken place. The killing and butchering of horses did not place in open view of the public.

                                Unless all three men just happened to be out in the open yard taking a breather during the few seconds it took Neil to pass the open gates, it seems likely he went inside the premises. And which other J Div PC that we know of was more likely to have dropped his colleague’s cape off at the yard - unless, of course, Thain told a blatant lie under oath.
                                Attached Files

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X