Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • >>I doubt they did more than took his statement and kept him hanging around so that he lost a day’s work. <<

    ... and that is in which police record?
    dustymiller
    aka drstrange

    Comment


    • >> Did you miss the ‘went on’ in my second point, meaning that Lechmere continued to work for Pickfords after 1888? Where’s your evidence for that?<<

      No I didn't, but you obviously missed the fact that I have now twice pointed out that I wasn't referring to everything you wrote in that post or everything that Herlock wrote in his.

      Quote:
      "Herlock's post was largely based on the known evidence yours was largely based on pure conjecture.
      dustymiller
      aka drstrange

      Comment


      • >>I did actually answer Herlock’s about the time gap, although he did the same as you - answered my question with his own question.<<

        But you didn't, did you? Herlock asked you to prove the time gap. He even wrote prove in capital letters. In order to PROVE it you must first establish that all clocks involved were in sync. Yes?
        Last edited by drstrange169; 01-15-2022, 02:56 AM.
        dustymiller
        aka drstrange

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

          We really must learn just to ignore all postings that reduce to "The police would surely have..."

          M.
          So you don't think the police questioned Lech at all, before or after the Inquest ?
          Last edited by Darryl Kenyon; 01-15-2022, 04:00 AM.

          Comment


          • Sorry Gary, I missed this one.

            >>But some things are so overwhelmingly likely that we can accept them as facts.<<

            Bingo!
            dustymiller
            aka drstrange

            Comment


            • Re-readings these posts I now realise where I got the "must have" from.

              Abby's post, #4815,

              "except most of the anti lechers claim he must have been investigated and cleared."

              Doesn't alter the fact that I made a mistake, but can anyone point to posts where numerous people have stated Lechmere," must have been investigated and cleared
              or do semantic word games only work one way?






              dustymiller
              aka drstrange

              Comment


              • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                Copy and paste Dusty grabbing some stuff off Google that’s 130 years out of date. Researchers like Ed Stow and others have looked into this issue in great depth and established the protocol. You could actually present yourself. However, the coroner had no obligation to take your testimony.
                Lechmere’s appearance at the inquest can’t be taken as evidence of police questioning.
                I would add that on the first day of the inquest the police version was Neil finding the body, so it’s plainly obvious Lechmere HAD NOT been questioned by the time the inquest started. I would be interested in your explanation for that.
                So I’m still waiting. Evidence that the police questioned Lechmere pls.
                Whether he was questioned or whether he was not, if his account was checked or not, it doesnt change the fact that there is no evidence to suggest he killed Nicholls and no evidence from the police at the time or in years later that he could have been the killer, he simply found a body as did others throughout these murders.

                As to the timings I am the first to challenge the times given by the police officers and the accuracy of some of the officers testimony. The fact is that Nicholls must have been killed between 2.30am-3.45am that is an irrefutable fact. The medical evidence which showed she must have been killed with 30 mins of the doctor examining the body also cannot be relied upon and that has been one half of this belief that Lechmere was the killer, because he was at the crime scene around that time.

                The evidence of Pc Neil when closely scrutinized cannot be relied on when says he passed by the murder scene at 3.15am and the body was not there. Without this officer testimony the time of death is again dismissed.

                Some on here are manipulating the facts to fit their own theories which consist of nothing more than "what if`s" "maybes" "could have" and "I think" this whole excercise has been started long ago by Fish`s wild speculative theory which has no foundation and what he relies upon to support that theory has been shown to be unsafe.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                  Easy. We have the timings from the inquest. Our suspect himself says he leaves about 03.30 and the Coroner himself sets the time the body was found as being close to 03.45. So we have around a 15 minute gap. Its worth noting if you play around with the inquest times and witness statements it can actually make this gap even bigger. 15 minutes could actually be an under estimate, especially as a couple of news papers have Lechmere leaving at 03.20.
                  Now it’s your turn. Evidence of the police contacting Lechmere pls.
                  Firstly, I’ve never claimed that there is any evidence of the Police contacting Lechmere. Has anyone? The most that I’ve said is that it’s a possibility. As we have no written evidence this is an unknown.

                  Secondly, you continue to use guesswork as proof. To prove something you have to show that there is no alternative explanation or interpretation. How many times can you keep claiming that you’re taking a fair approach when you continually ignore this. “About 3.30” is an estimate. You cannot simply assume that an estimation is exact. Neither can you assume what any margin for error could be. So Lechmere could very easily have left the house at 3.33 or 3.34 or 3.45. Yes, he could also have left at 3.25 (so unlike you I’m not simply skewing the times one way) The time that he met up with Paul is also an unknown but an estimation is before 3.45 (pre Neil and Mizen)

                  Bob, we are going around in circles on this particular issue. The problem is that whilst I certainly admit that I don’t think that Lechmere was guilty, all of the points that I raise are either facts or the result of an acceptance of the meaning of the word estimation. If during the writing of a post I write of something as if it’s a fact when it’s an opinion then it will be unintentional and I’m quite happy for this to be pointed out to me and I’ll hold my hands up to it. It’s easily done. But on this particular issue I am simply accepting the possible.

                  You cannot claim something as a fact if there is an alternative explanation or interpretation. And that is 100% the case with the Gap Fallacy.

                  So please ask yourself why you persist in claiming this Bob?
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes



                  “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                  “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    Whether he was questioned or whether he was not, if his account was checked or not, it doesnt change the fact that there is no evidence to suggest he killed Nicholls and no evidence from the police at the time or in years later that he could have been the killer, he simply found a body as did others throughout these murders.

                    As to the timings I am the first to challenge the times given by the police officers and the accuracy of some of the officers testimony. The fact is that Nicholls must have been killed between 2.30am-3.45am that is an irrefutable fact. The medical evidence which showed she must have been killed with 30 mins of the doctor examining the body also cannot be relied upon and that has been one half of this belief that Lechmere was the killer, because he was at the crime scene around that time.

                    The evidence of Pc Neil when closely scrutinized cannot be relied on when says he passed by the murder scene at 3.15am and the body was not there. Without this officer testimony the time of death is again dismissed.

                    Some on here are manipulating the facts to fit their own theories which consist of nothing more than "what if`s" "maybes" "could have" and "I think" this whole excercise has been started long ago by Fish`s wild speculative theory which has no foundation and what he relies upon to support that theory has been shown to be unsafe.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                    Again, pure inventivness on your behalf , and now other posters have explain it in cleary detail the series of events. .P.C neil passed through bucks row at 3.15am and saw no one, and Nichols was discovered at 3.45am . She was murdered between these two times, and whats abundantly clear to me is your the only one that cant see it . [or wont]

                    Ok lets work on that shall we , Nicoles last seen alive at 2.30am , 15 mins to gets to murder, spot dead at 2.50 am . option 1 , Nobody sees the body till paul and lech at 3.45am , [ if neil is wrong or lied ] lets take him out of the picture for a 1 min . Nichols now lays dead for 55mins with out discovery, is that what you think ?. Because thats an awful long time laying dead with all them police walking the beat that morning to believe this would be the case . Or option 2, P.C NEIL walks through bucks row at 3.15am ,see nothing , body found at 3.45am , doctor says at roughly at 4.00am ''death not more than 30 mins'' . t.o.d 3.30 am . Option 2 is for obvious reasons is far and away the better of the two . . out of 100 people how many would say 1 ?:

                    I guess ill just keep re posting these post, saves me from repeating myself . There is no reason to doubt p.c neil , you keep making up different narratives to suit your agenda and most very unlikely theory .

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                      The reason I keep this in mind is that the near-fatal illness I hypothesize as keeping him off the streets for all those weeks before he butchered Kelly


                      M.
                      Please tell me this has some basis in fact and isn't something you've just made up. I fear the word 'hypothesize' is all I need to know..

                      Comment


                      • I’d just like to ask everyone a very simple question. Which one of the following is the one taking an honest, open approach and which one isn’t?

                        Poster A admits that it’s possible that Lechmere could have left he house earlier than stated and or could have met up with Paul slightly later and that this could have left a gap of time but it could just has possibly lef no gap.

                        or

                        Poster B who says that Lechmere could only have left the house within a minute or 2 of 3.30 and that he met up with Paul at the later end of the estimate (and possibly whilst Mizen said that he was with him)

                        Honest answers to this just might do the subject a service.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



                        “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                        “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                        Comment


                        • [QUOTE=FISHY1118;n778450]
                          Again, pure inventivness on your behalf , and now other posters have explain it in cleary detail the series of events. .P.C neil passed through bucks row at 3.15am and saw no one, and Nichols was discovered at 3.45am . She was murdered between these two times, and whats abundantly clear to me is your the only one that cant see it . [or wont]

                          There is no corrobration to show Pc Neil passed by the murder spot at 3.15am, on the contrary there is clear evidence that he might not have done which i have posted previoulsy and dont intend to keep re posting the same stuff over and over again because poster like you totall ignore what is posted

                          Ok lets work on that shall we , Nicoles last seen alive at 2.30am , 15 mins to gets to murder, spot dead at 2.50 am . option 1 , Nobody sees the body till paul and lech at 3.45am , [ if neil is wrong or lied ] lets take him out of the picture for a 1 min . Nichols now lays dead for 55mins with out discovery, is that what you think ?. Because thats an awful long time laying dead with all them police walking the beat that morning to believe this would be the case . Or option 2, P.C NEIL walks through bucks row at 3.15am ,see nothing , body found at 3.45am , doctor says at roughly at 4.00am ''death not more than 30 mins'' . t.o.d 3.30 am . Option 2 is for obvious reasons is far and away the better of the two . . out of 100 people how many would say 1 ?:/QUOTE]

                          But taking Pc Neil out of the equation does not allow Nichols to lay dead for 55 mins she was last seen alive at 2.30am and found dead at 3.45am she could have been killed as late as 3.30am just before Lechmere foudn the body for all we know he could have disturbed the killer.

                          and do we believe his account as to how his cape came to be left at the slaughterhouse because if you do I certainly dont !!!!!!!

                          I can speak from exeperience that in my early days as a beat officer on nights I would always call in to premises where I knew people were working overnight, sometimes to get out of the cold and to get a hot cuppa. sometimes just for a chat sometime staying for long periods !!!!!!!!!!!!


                          www.trevormarriott,co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                            You are fantasizing stuff to fit your tantrum. My graphic does not place Mitre Square on a route between Broad St and Doveton St; nor did the TV original.
                            The bottom left hand corner of your map is clearly in the area of Mitre Square. Now, either it was on his way to work (to make the idea that the victims were all on his way to work) or it wasn't on his way to work (and, therefore, the argument that the victims were all on his way to work is total fabrication). You can't have both. No tantrum - just facts and not invention.


                            I'm totally fine with the idea of people producing equivalent diagrams for other victims and suspects. Just the other day I saw an old posting showing one suspect's logical path from Mitre Square, via Goulston Street, to his doss house in Wentworth Street. It looked exactly like a bit of the Lechmere diagram, needless to say.
                            And you kindly prove my point for me that you can draw lines from anywhere to anywhere and that in doing so you are merely constructing a falsehood to support a discredited theory.

                            If you assume (as your map does) that the first 2 victims were on Cross's way to work why isn't there a similar theory that says that Paul was the killer - as a map from his house to his place of work would show that both victims were on that route? I would think that it's easily possible to find other places connected with Paul that look equally as fatuous as the imaginatively constructed 'routes to work' for Cross. And, of course, when 'routes to work' is shown not to apply speculation is then applied to suggest that another victim was near Cross's mother's house.

                            The map is pure desperation to shore up a theory that has more holes than a sieve.

                            Comment


                            • Here, from memory, is my brief timeline FWIW.

                              The Murder took place in the early hours of Friday 31 Aug 1888.
                              On that afternoon a journalist from Lloyds Weekly intercepted Robert Paul on his way home.

                              The first day of the Inquest was Saturday 1 Sep 1888.
                              Testimony was given by the victim's father, PC Neil and Dr Llewellyn.
                              PC Neil testified that he found the body. He made no mention of Cross or Paul.

                              Sunday 2 Sep 1888. Lloyds publish account of Paul's interview disputing Neil being the finder of the body and effectively exposing Cross to the attention of the police. - https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18880902.html

                              Monday 3 Sep 1888. Second day of Inquest. Testimony from Spratling, Tomkins, Helson and then Mizen and then Cross.
                              From Evening News Sep 3 1888:
                              Police-constable Mizen, of the H Division, said on Friday last, about a quarter to four, he was in Baker's-row, at the end of Campbell-street. A man who had the appearance of a carman passed him and said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row."

                              A man named Cross was here brought into the room and identified by witness as the man to whom he referred.


                              According to a report that I cannot locate, Cross turned up at the inquest dressed in a hessian apron.

                              Sometime between the second and third days of the inquest Robert Paul was taken from his home in the early hours of the morning and questioned extensively.

                              Monday 17 Sep 1888. Third day of Inquest..
                              Testimony by Robert Paul.

                              My opinion, not presented as fact, is that Cross just turned up at the inquest. Had he been to the police before that they would have already had Mizen identify him (jmo). If the report of the raid on Paul's home is correct, then I would venture to say that both men were extensively questioned. Paul certainly changed his story.

                              To answer a question to me raised previously by Herlock, I don't think JtR was a maniac. I don't think he could have evaded detection and capture for multiple murders without a high level of calm and cunning. Had not Paul blathered to the journalist from Lloyds, Cross and Paul may have escaped the notice of history. IF Cross was guilty he would have been demonstrating a level of cunning to voluntarily turn up to the inquest to discredit Paul's interview with Lloyds and then further divert attention to Paul by planning his next murder near Paul's workplace, all the while appearing to be good citizen cooperating with police. IF he was innocent then he was just a good citizen.

                              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.”

                              Comment


                              • [QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n778453]
                                Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                                Again, pure inventivness on your behalf , and now other posters have explain it in cleary detail the series of events. .P.C neil passed through bucks row at 3.15am and saw no one, and Nichols was discovered at 3.45am . She was murdered between these two times, and whats abundantly clear to me is your the only one that cant see it . [or wont]

                                There is no corrobration to show Pc Neil passed by the murder spot at 3.15am, on the contrary there is clear evidence that he might not have done which i have posted previoulsy and dont intend to keep re posting the same stuff over and over again because poster like you totall ignore what is posted

                                Ok lets work on that shall we , Nicoles last seen alive at 2.30am , 15 mins to gets to murder, spot dead at 2.50 am . option 1 , Nobody sees the body till paul and lech at 3.45am , [ if neil is wrong or lied ] lets take him out of the picture for a 1 min . Nichols now lays dead for 55mins with out discovery, is that what you think ?. Because thats an awful long time laying dead with all them police walking the beat that morning to believe this would be the case . Or option 2, P.C NEIL walks through bucks row at 3.15am ,see nothing , body found at 3.45am , doctor says at roughly at 4.00am ''death not more than 30 mins'' . t.o.d 3.30 am . Option 2 is for obvious reasons is far and away the better of the two . . out of 100 people how many would say 1 ?:/QUOTE]

                                But taking Pc Neil out of the equation does not allow Nichols to lay dead for 55 mins she was last seen alive at 2.30am and found dead at 3.45am she could have been killed as late as 3.30am just before Lechmere foudn the body for all we know he could have disturbed the killer.

                                and do we believe his account as to how his cape came to be left at the slaughterhouse because if you do I certainly dont !!!!!!!

                                I can speak from exeperience that in my early days as a beat officer on nights I would always call in to premises where I knew people were working overnight, sometimes to get out of the cold and to get a hot cuppa. sometimes just for a chat sometime staying for long periods !!!!!!!!!!!!


                                www.trevormarriott,co.uk
                                Just a query but do we know which side of Bucks Row Neil passed along on his route? You can probably guess where I’m going on this point.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                                “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                                “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X