Evidence of innocence

[John Wheat]

I donīt think he believes anything currently, John. Richard Whittington-Egan is dead.

The point is that if Richard Whittington-Egan did at one point believed that Jack and the Torso Killer were one and the same. He didn't believe it for long and by the end of his life certainly didn't believe it.

[Trevor Marriott]

What about replying to this bit...?

Biggs gave his view BEFORE Payne James and Thiblin, and so it could not have been given to negate them.

Thanks.

M.

Yet again Christer has been misleading, Dr Biggs was contacted after Christer published his theory which included the medical evidence he seeks to rely on. In any event does it matter, the blood flow evidence which he seeks to rely on cannot be definitively answered. So his time stated is unsafe.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

Thatīs it, Iīve had it for now.

You started the stupid thread.

[JeffHamm]

The circumstances I am referring to is a man who woke up at a time he believed was at or very close to 6.00, although he had no conclusive proof for it. If he said "It could not have been far off 6.00", he would mean that his best guess was 6.00, but he was willing to accept that it could have been befoe or after that time too.

I am glad to see that you now admit that it takes special circumstances for Baxter not to have meant what I suggest he meant, instead of claiming that I do not copmprehend the English language. You also inadvertenly admit that for Baxter to have known that it could not have been 3.45, but must instead have been before or after that time, he would need to be able to exclude the 3.45 timing by proving it impossible.

The truth will out! And so we now know that what I suggest; that when Baxter said "The body could not have been found far off the 3.45 mark", he may have meant that Charles Lechmere will likely have been there spot on 3.45 or in close proximity to it.

Me, I think that it is more or less the only working suggestion, since Baxter knew that Lechmere was the only true finder, since Swanson joined ranks with him and since the Daily News supported the take.

But that is secondary in this post. This post only celebrated that you now admit that Baxter must not have meant that the time was close to but not exactly 3.45 as the body was found. 3.45 is instead the benchmark he uses, but were he allows for some little discrepancy.

Wow. You're ability to misinterpret things is truly incredible. I wasn't agreeing with you, I was illustrating how you were wrong.

Let's see if I can make this more simple.

See, the man eating his breakfast who hears the 6:00 o'clock news is like PC Neil finding the body at 3:45.

Just like Baxter knows the man had to get up, get dressed, and make his breakfast before he could eat it, Baxter knows that the carmen had to find the body, examine it, and walk to PC Mizen. And just like the man having breakfast, Baxter doesn't have an exact time for the start of those things, but he does know they didn't take all that much time. So just like the man in my example, he might say he "woke up not far off 6:00" because he doesn't know the exact time, but does know the time for a later event that was close in time, Baxter's statement of "not far off 3:45" is referring to an event for which there is a known time, and indicating the carmen's discovery was close to that.

And that tells us that 3:45 is not a likely time, and is in fact being excluded by Baxter.


- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wow. You're ability to misinterpret things is truly incredible. I wasn't agreeing with you, I was illustrating how you were wrong.

Let's see if I can make this more simple.

See, the man eating his breakfast who hears the 6:00 o'clock news is like PC Neil finding the body at 3:45.

Just like Baxter knows the man had to get up, get dressed, and make his breakfast before he could eat it, Baxter knows that the carmen had to find the body, examine it, and walk to PC Mizen. And just like the man having breakfast, Baxter doesn't have an exact time for the start of those things, but he does know they didn't take all that much time. So just like the man in my example, he might say he "woke up not far off 6:00" because he doesn't know the exact time, but does know the time for a later event that was close in time, Baxter's statement of "not far off 3:45" is referring to an event for which there is a known time, and indicating the carmen's discovery was close to that.

And that tells us that 3:45 is not a likely time, and is in fact being excluded by Baxter.


- Jeff

Ahh, you’re trying the old “using the English language correctly” tactic Jeff. This appears to be “not the done thing” when it comes to interpreting words related to Bucks Row. I have to say that this point about Baxter is one of the most desperate attempts that I’ve ever heard in my entire life at getting a time to fit a theory.

And that tells us that 3:45 is not a likely time, and is in fact being excluded by Baxter

Its little short of staggering that anyone could disagree with this point.

[Mark J D]

... Dr Biggs was contacted after Christer published his theory which included the medical evidence...

That doesn't quite address the question. Ya wanna try again?

Biggs gave his view BEFORE Payne James and Thiblin, and so it could not have been given to negate them.

Thanks.

M.

[MrBarnett]

Ahh, you’re trying the old “using the English language correctly” tactic Jeff. This appears to be “not the done thing” when it comes to interpreting words related to Bucks Row. I have to say that this point about Baxter is one of the most desperate attempts that I’ve ever heard in my entire life at getting a time to fit a theory.



Its little short of staggering that anyone could disagree with this point.

Now, I get it! Neil had a transistor radio on him and he heard the 3.45 time signal.

[MrBarnett]

So he used a false name that nobody knew, or could trace him by ?

Regards Darryl

Such an absurd question doesn’t warrant and answer.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Such an absurd question doesn’t warrant and answer.

In other words Cross was not a false name and you could argue was his real name or at least one he wasn't breaking the law by using [ in fact any law ]

[JeffHamm]

What is the "adequate" explanation you want? Do you want me to produe his timepiece? He said in Lloyds that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he passed down Bucks Row. When doing so, he had just passed a brewery where we know there were clocks. If that clock struck the quarter hour as he walked dwon the street, it would neatly explain why he said "exactly". It sould also be that he had a timepice of his own. Either way, he said he walked down Bucks Row at exactly 3.45, and he claimed at the inquest to have left his home "just before" or "around" 3.45.
Inceidentally, he did not use BOTH these wordings, so we need to establish which was the likely one.
Did he say "around 3.45" whereupon some papers wrote "just before"?
Or dis he say "just before" whereupon some papers wrote "around"?

Take your time!

Sigh, the Lloyd's article, where he is the main speaker to PC Mizen (which you deny he even did), where he states Polly was long dead (which you ignore), and where it's clear he's overstating everything. And yet, you again show a preference for it (because you're making a big deal of the most unreliable source of information here, but of course, only for the unreliable bits that suit you - juggle juggle) where the reporter writes Paul says "exactly" (which, given he's not transcribing Paul, we can't even be sure Paul used that word himself). Moreover, Paul does not repeat this exactness in his sworn testimony, and what he does say in the Lloyd's article conflicts with every other witness who does state times at the inquest that directly (PC Mizen) and indirectly refer to Paul's location at 3:45 (PC Neil, and PC Thain). Moreover, Baxter's summation acknowledges that the carmen found the body "not far off 3:45", which points to a time other than 3:45 (as shown either by how I've explained this to you a few times, or by RJ's suggestion, which offers a different take on how one comes to that conclusion as well). Your arguments do not hold up to scrutiny when all of the evidence is examined.

As you say, at the inquest, he just states he left home around/about 3:45. Which exact wording is unknown, of course, but both are inexact. One might be used in more articles than others, but as I've not got access to as many different news reports of the inquest as others, I let those with better data to assess such things. You're notion that these terms are associated with very small ranges is inexplicable because that is not how people use them. And finally, nowhere, not even Lloyd's, does Paul ever indicate how it was he knew the time, or when he last updated it by reference to this "time marker" - by time marker, I'm just allowing for Paul to have based his knowledge of what time it was by being knocked up. But, for example, if it was based upon a clock, and the last time he looked at it (or heard it if it was a chime) was 3:30, indicating he had to get going soon, then he has to estimate the amount of time that passed since 3:30 until he left.

In short, whenever if was that Paul found out that the woman they saw was in fact murdered, Paul has to recall what time he left for work on some previous day. There is no reason until he hears about the murder though that he is going to explicitly concern himself with noting that day's particular departure time. He has to rely upon his memory, which will be highly error prone (particularly as he will most likely have heard about the murder in the news, where PC Neil's 3:45 will be stated).

Considering all of that, compared with three PC's, whose job requires them to keep track of the time, and to explicitly note the time of events related to their duties, and one (PC Mizen) whose duty at the time was to knock people up (and so explicitly is about what time it was), Paul's reliability as to the time pales in comparison. And yet, inexplicably, Paul's your clock man.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

In other words Cross was not a false name and you could argue was his real name or at least one he wasn't breaking the law by using [ in fact any law ]

There’s nothing to argue. The man deliberately withheld his real name and thereby concealed a significant aspect of his identity.

Do you imagine that the concept of a ‘real’ name, clearly understood by George Gould/Frost (and countless others), was unknown to Charles Allen Lechmere?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Herlock,

Ahh, you’re trying the old “using the English language correctly” tactic Jeff. This appears to be “not the done thing” when it comes to interpreting words related to Bucks Row. I have to say that this point about Baxter is one of the most desperate attempts that I’ve ever heard in my entire life at getting a time to fit a theory.

Its little short of staggering that anyone could disagree with this point.

It's baffling really, because really, none of the testimony, from the point of Paul meeting Cross/Lechmere onwards, makes a difference with regards to Cross/Lechmere's potential guilt. The only testimony that needs to be false is when Cross/Lechmere states he left home about 3:30. And yet, Christer is focused on arguing that all of the people who have no reason to lie, and those with every reason to be aware of the time at the time, are wrong. Cross/Lechmere is argued to have left at 3:30 (rather than about), but regardless, the one person Christer is arguing has a motive to lie is treated as if he's telling the truth, and all the people who have no reason to lie are the ones that are wrong?

However, I suppose if it were accepted that the statements are reasonably consistent, then it would mean the Cross/Lechmere theory hinges on one specific key point - did Cross/Lechmere leave home earlier than he said? At that point, debate would focus on the probability of Nichols being in Bucks Row when C/L meets her, or whether he had to find her on Whitechapel (or somewhere else) first. If the former, C/L wouldn't need to have left home much earlier, really, and 3:25ish would probably work. But it appears there are a fair number of people who believe that to be the least likely option, C/L would have to have left home much earlier than 3:30 in order to have enough time to find her and get her back to Bucks Row. Obviously, as we have no information (evidence) on any of these events, or how Nichols came to be in Bucks Row, it would demonstrate that the C/L theory hinges upon making some set of assumptions, which greatly diminishes how strongly one can state the case against him is. As such, if one can create confusion elsewhere, it avoids recognizing that the theory hinges on a key set of assumptions for which there is no evidence and prevents the discussion from focusing on that weakness. It's juggling to use Christer's term.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi rj,

Hi Fish. But what complicates matters, as you must know, is that Polly Nichols was not found once, but found twice, and that Baxter specifically referred to PC Neil's discovery before making this observation. Thus, his meaning is not as clear as you suggest it is.

You won't care for this, nor will it convince you, but here is what I think Baxter was saying in summation. My words, not his.

"The two carmen found Polly Nichols (note, that I don't say they found the body) in Buck's Row. They then left, but shortly afterwards Polly Nichols was rediscovered by a PC, who, having a lantern, now noticed that her eyes were glassy, and her throat was cut. He deposed that this was at 3.45.

"It therefore must be that Polly Nichols was already dead when the two carmen originally found her, though technically, this isn't absolutely proven. By all logic, it must have been the case, but since the two carmen didn't have a lantern, and it was very dark, they couldn't have verified her injuries or death. We know they saw Polly Nichols, but did they see a dead body?

"She must have been already dead, but, either way, the PC was not far behind them, so, for our purposes, the body could not have been found far off from the 3.45 mark. (ie., the time given by PC Neil)."

In short, and to split hairs, it wasn't absolutely proven that Polly Nichols was 'the body' until PC Neil showed up with a lantern.

That's what I think Baxter's thought process indicates during his summation.

That's a really nice post, and presents some well thought out ideas I've not seen before by focusing on exploring a different aspect of Baxter's summing up statement.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

Hi Fish. But what complicates matters, as you must know, is that Polly Nichols was not found once, but found twice, and that Baxter specifically referred to PC Neil's discovery before making this observation. Thus, his meaning is not as clear as you suggest it is.

You won't care for this, nor will it convince you, but here is what I think Baxter was saying in summation. My words, not his.

"The two carmen found Polly Nichols (note, that I don't say they found the body) in Buck's Row. They then left, but shortly afterwards Polly Nichols was rediscovered by a PC, who, having a lantern, now noticed that her eyes were glassy, and her throat was cut. He deposed that this was at 3.45.

"It therefore must be that Polly Nichols was already dead when the two carmen originally found her, though technically, this isn't absolutely proven. By all logic, it must have been the case, but since the two carmen didn't have a lantern, and it was very dark, they couldn't have verified her injuries or death. We know they saw Polly Nichols, but did they see a dead body?

"She must have been already dead, but, either way, the PC was not far behind them, so, for our purposes, the body could not have been found far off from the 3.45 mark. (ie., the time given by PC Neil)."

In short, and to split hairs, it wasn't absolutely proven that Polly Nichols was 'the body' until PC Neil showed up with a lantern.

That's what I think Baxter's thought process indicates during his summation.

And how was Neil certain that Polly was dead when he shone his lantern on her?

[MrBarnett]

Not particularly well worded by me Gary. What I meant was that they had the opportunity of talking to him face to face and of asking him questions and to try and unearth more details. For example they might have looked closer at the time he left by asking him how he arrived at his estimation or they might have spoken to a neighbour who might have seen him leaving the house. We can’t assume anything of course but it’s not impossible that they might have known something that we don’t.

Thanks, Mike.