Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

This thread dealing with the 3.45am issue is becoming boring and repetetive

If Pc Neil is to be belived that the body was not there at 3.15am, then she could equally have been killed between 3.15am and 3.45am so trying to pin the time of death to fit Lecmheres movements is a pointless excercise which you have to support to fit your theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have two forensic pathologists saying that she would be likely to bleed out in 3.5 minutes, so I have a lot more than you seem to think. But hey, maybe you should contact them? And if they refuse to speak to you, then you can lead on that it is because they were disgusted by my misrepresenting them!

But wait. Payne James correspondence with me makes that impossible.

Bugger. At least I tried to help out.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish
Good post. Did whittington egan-think the ripper and torso cases were by the same man?

Yes, he was convinced that this was so.

And why wouldnīt he be?

[Fisherman]

Abberline flat-out states that CAL and Paul were with Polly Nichols at 3:40.

And if anyone was going to obsessively analyze the timings, it was going to be the Detective Inspector brought in by Scotland Yard.

Time to move on.

No, because if we move on we will miss out on Swansons October report, where he changed the time from the report he signed with Abberline in September and instead concluded that Lechmere found the body at 3.45.

After that, there are no more reports, so then it becomes sound and honest to move on. If we cherrypick the reports we like and disregard the ensuing reports, where much more had been revealed and the information sifted, we run the risk of being called less than honest.

And nobody wants that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not far from 3.45 means some way from 3.45 but not far from.

But Baxter did not say "it was not far off 3.45", he said that it "cannot have been far off 3.45", and that means that he favours 3.45 but is willing to accept some little deviation from that time.

No it doesn’t Fish. I’m sorry but did you go to some kind of alternate language school in Sweden? Your definition is a strange one because your English is obviously excellent so why in this case are you stretching it?

“Cannot be far off” means, believe it or not, that it cannot have been a considerable gap of time from 3.45. If he’d thought that 3.45 was likeliest why didn’t he just say that? And how is it that you can know what he was thinking Fish? How can you know what measure of deviation he would have accepted. Im afraid that you’re projecting.

”cannot have been far off” includes anytime between 3.40 and 3.45. That should be an end of this. Im sorry but one side here is deliberately claiming to know what they cannot possibly know because it’s convenient to a theory.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, he was convinced that this was so.

And why wouldnīt he be?

Thanks Fish
As you know, I also think they were probably by the same hand, and have thought so for some time. can you provide any links/ info etc to point me in the right direction where I can read some of his stuff on the two series being linked?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You asked why Long and Paul would not have made the same mistake, consulting the same clock. Hereīs what Long had to say about her chosen timepiece:

"The Foreman of the jury: What brewer's clock did you hear strike half-past five? - The brewer's in Brick-lane."

So if Paul consulted the Bricks Lane Brewery clock (hands up, anybody who thinks he may have), it seems he would have heard it. He would certainly not have seen it, anyway. Not from Foster Street and Bucks Row.

It doesn’t matter which clock Paul might or might not have seen or heard Fish because two things are known facts.

1) We don’t know how Paul arrived at his 3.45 time, and

2) We don’t know how accurate or inaccurate it was.

we can even add

3) He might have seen a clock earlier that morning and was simply over confident in his ability to estimate and gap of time.

So Paul could have been right and the time was right. Or right and the time was wrong.

Nothing can be proved by times. They certainly don’t favour a guilty Lechmere. Unless we deliberately narrow them down of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When we are discussing the time Paul left home it’s worth mentioning than in the press reports (18th September) of Pauls inquest testimony, he is hurrying in most reports. The Times, Daily News, Evening Standard, Telegraph et al Paul hurrying along is a common phrase that runs through the articles.

Then we have Lloyd’s interview, just 24 hours after the event, where Paul also describes hurrying along. So it seems safe to assume Paul is indeed in a hurry. And why would anyone hurry to work ? They would do so if they were running late, not if they left early.

So when we are looking at the time Paul leaves, and he says to the press and at the inquests it’s 03.45, then it all fits.

If Paul leaves at 03.38 he has plenty of time, if Paul leaves at 03.45 he has to get a move on.

I would suggest that it’s very unlikely Paul leaves early at 03.38 and yet also has to hurry. I would say these too points are mutually exclusive.

You continue to shape events to suit by trying to mould unknowns into knowns. This tactic is glaringly obvious Bob. It’s time that it was dropped.

[MrBarnett]

Shattered? Not at all, Fish. See the above post. Unless you can show this clock chimed.

Gary can say that all the timings should be taken with a 'pinch of salt,' which is wise enough advice, since it is truly a fool's errand to analyze these small commonplace discrepancies and pretend that it proves there was "missing time," thus pointing to CAL's guilt.

But if one is going to analyze the times endlessly and repetitively, as seems to be the case, then it becomes abundantly clear that Robert Paul is the odd man out. CAL, Mizen, Neil, and Thain all do the Doveton dovetail in perfect sync; it is only Paul's strange '3:45' that throws a spanner onto the dance floor.

And if you look at the Hanbury Street murder, which has probably been most carefully analyzed by David Yost and Phil Sugden, we see the same thing: all the accounts dovetail perfectly, with the exception of Elizabeth Long, who appears to have been late to the party.

So why is it impossible that both Long and Paul may have been misled by a common source, making them both around 5-7 minutes too late their estimates?

Long directly said she heard the chime of the brewery clock while in Brick Lane. It is assumed this is Truman's up the road.

We don't actually know on what Paul based his estimate, but we do know with relative certainty it wasn't from seeing a clock along his route. Thus, hearing a chime might be a possibility. It's 3.35 a.m. Deadly quiet. Why couldn't he have heard Truman's from a half-mile away? I'm not married to the idea, but is it impossible?

Yes, why shouldn’t Mrs Long have heard chimes from half a mile away and recognised them as being those of the Albion brewery (as she was coincidentally in close proximity to the Truman’s brewery whose clock maybe didn’t chime)?

Maybe the Albion clock had chimes and the Black Eagle one didn’t, maybe they were loud enough to be heard in Spitalfields and maybe Mrs Long was familiar with them.

There’s a lot of maybes there - I’m guessing RJ didn’t get the memo.

[Fisherman]

Exactly. But of course the inconvenient will be dismissed.

Inconvenient? I am saying that in the later report Swanson had access to much more information than the September one profited from. How cpould that NOT be correct? Why would we not accept that the change Swanson made was because it had been established that Lechmere was in place at 3.45? Because, perhaps, THAT is "inconvenient"? For you? You should not leave yourself open to such simle knock out blows, Herlock! Suggesting that we should choose to believe older reports over newer ones is not a sound thing to do, is it?

It’s glaringly obvious that all we can say is that the body was discovered before Neil arrived…..so before 3.45.

NO! We can NOT say that the murder happened before 3.45, because we donīt KNOW when Neil arrived. I would have thought that was so basic that noone could possibly miss out on it. It DID happen before Neil arrived, but we cannot pinpoint when, although it seems that 3.45 is the likely time for Lechmereīs finding the body.

Abberline said 3.40 so due to his position in the investigation far more weight should be attached to his opinion. A deliberate attempt at narrowing this time down is a waste of time.

Swanson had the overall responsibility of handling the case, and he was Abberlines superior, so you are sunk well and truly on that point. Moreover, Swanson co-signed the September report, so he would knbow all there was to know about it. And I do think that when the two signed, they both beleived that Neil was in place at 3.45 - but when Swanson signed the October report, new information ahd come to light that altered his stance.
So itīs a question not of which policeman you conveniently choose to like, but instead of what we prioritize as likeliest to be correct - new reports based on more evidence or old ones based on less.

And you choose old ones based on less evidence. And you have the gall to speak of Lechmereians as the ones who dabble with and cherrypick evidence.

[Fisherman]

Thanks Fish
As you know, I also think they were probably by the same hand, and have thought so for some time. can you provide any links/ info etc to point me in the right direction where I can read some of his stuff on the two series being linked?

He wrote about it in a late book of his as I recall it, but I cannot remember the name right now. Let me look into it.

[MrBarnett]

I can’t get a sharper image of the brewery than this, I’m afraid. Does anyone else have an issue with my description of it as a ‘massive complex’?

Note: This Goad is from 1899.

[Fisherman]

It doesn’t matter which clock Paul might or might not have seen or heard Fish because two things are known facts.

1) We don’t know how Paul arrived at his 3.45 time, and

2) We don’t know how accurate or inaccurate it was.

we can even add

3) He might have seen a clock earlier that morning and was simply over confident in his ability to estimate and gap of time.

So Paul could have been right and the time was right. Or right and the time was wrong.

Nothing can be proved by times. They certainly don’t favour a guilty Lechmere. Unless we deliberately narrow them down of course.

What R J wrote was that Long and Paul could have been led wrong by the same clock. I see no realistic possibility for that. That was what my post was about.

[Fisherman]

No it doesn’t Fish. I’m sorry but did you go to some kind of alternate language school in Sweden? Your definition is a strange one because your English is obviously excellent so why in this case are you stretching it?

“Cannot be far off” means, believe it or not, that it cannot have been a considerable gap of time from 3.45. If he’d thought that 3.45 was likeliest why didn’t he just say that? And how is it that you can know what he was thinking Fish? How can you know what measure of deviation he would have accepted. Im afraid that you’re projecting.

”cannot have been far off” includes anytime between 3.40 and 3.45. That should be an end of this. Im sorry but one side here is deliberately claiming to know what they cannot possibly know because it’s convenient to a theory.

So if somebody asks me "When did you wake up this morning" and I answer "I donīt know, but it cannot have been far off six o clock", then the one certainty that can be had is that I could not have awoken by six o clock?

Thanks for straightening that out.

PS. Baxter could not say that it was 3.45 since he could not be certain that it was not instead 3.44 or 3.46. Both times, by the way, that are not far off 3.45.

[rjpalmer]

But when you posted your image of the wrong clock, you had no idea of what was there previously. And your 14ft wall is only significant if there were no higher structures within the massive complex that might have contained clocks.

True enough; I was speculating based on the later clock, so I do appreciate that you posted a contemporary image that shows a smaller and lower clock in the same position, facing Whitechapel Road.

Excellent.

I assume that most Breweries are going to place their clocks facing the main flow of traffic, as a sort of advertisement as well as service to the public. I don't think a business is going to care too much about the view afforded to the poor schmucks living in the back streets behind the factory.

It’s rather odd that you seem to challenge my use of ‘massive compex’ and yet provide us with a Goad map that leaves out all of the detail of the complex.

Odd? Nothing odd about it. I already showed the massive complex in the original post, #5086.

The point of the enlargement was to show Paul's route, which would have only taken him past only one small corner of the complex. I made the image large enough to read the walls as described as 14' high.

At 3:35-3:40 a.m., what clock was he going to see?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Swanson had the overall responsibility of handling the case, and he was Abberlines superior, so you are sunk well and truly on that point. Moreover, Swanson co-signed the September report, so he would knbow all there was to know about it. And I do think that when the two signed, they both beleived that Neil was in place at 3.45 - but when Swanson signed the October report, new information ahd come to light that altered his stance.
So itīs a question not of which policeman you conveniently choose to like, but instead of what we prioritize as likeliest to be correct - new reports based on more evidence or old ones based on less.

And you choose old ones based on less evidence. And you have the gall to speak of Lechmereians as the ones who dabble with and cherrypick evidence.

There we’re no facts available that would have allowed anyone to state that Lechmere found the body at 3.45. They had Paul saying that he arrived at 3.45 and Mizen saying that the two were with him at 3.45 and Paul said that it took 4 minutes for them to get there.

Lechmere discovered the body sometime before 3.45.

Times cannot be used to point to Lechmere’s guilt. This is a fact.