Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

    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.
    You have my answer so I don’t want to try again

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

      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?



      At the inquest Lech gave details about his employment but not his home life, apart from the fact he was on his way to work from home. It is possible then that Lech thought it prudent that he used the surname he was known as at work, IE Cross. Of course I have no proof of that the name on his work ledger was Cross, but since he gave his surname as Cross for the work accident in his employment at Pickford's it might be a reasonable suggestion.

      Regards Darryl
      Last edited by Darryl Kenyon; 01-19-2022, 08:18 PM.

      Comment


      • Hi,

        I thought I would have another look at things with regards to trying to work out roughly where C/L was standing in the middle of the street.

        As he indicates seeing "something" and references the wool warehouse (some news reports say "tool warehouse", but that appears to be a typo), then crossing towards it until he reached the middle of the street and realised it was woman. Paul testifies he saw a man in the middle of the street.

        In previous versions, what I've done is measured from the body's location to the edge of the gate next to the wool warehouse. The idea is that he starts walking along that line (diagonally crossing towards the object) until he gets to the middle of the road. His distance at that point would be half the distance to where the line is measured to.

        This time, to account for the fact that he's not going to be walking with his shoulder rubbing the edge of the building, I've just shifted his location out a tad. That would result in him being about 34/35 feet away from the body at the point he realises it is a woman (about 10.5 m).

        George has conducted some tests about seeing an inverted wheel barrow in the dark, etc, and he figures the viewing distance would have to be closer. While obviously translating his findings to Bucks Row requires us to know if the lighting conditions under which he conducted his tests accurately recreate the lighting conditions on the night in question (which we can't know, given those aren't recorded), it is a test result. His post about it is here:

        So, I also measured the distance from the body to the other end of the gate. And that gives a total distance of 44.8 feet (13.5m), so a mid-way distance of 22.4 feet (or roughly 6.8 m). If I measure the width of the street on the map, it's about 7.2 m, so even if C/L is directly opposite the body when he first sees it, and accounting for neither he nor the body being right up at the edge of the street, he's probably still around 6m away at that point, so middle of the street would be 3m.

        Given the rather non-specific information we're working from, I would suggest we could view these as the range of locations to be considered, and that C/L was located somewhere between, and including, the two green dots below. And that would suggest he was somewhere between 22.4 feet and 34.5 feet from the body when he was spotted by Paul to be standing in the middle of the street.

        I would like to point out, however, that in George's recreation, 6 m is about the distance he felt he could discern a shape, so if is recreation is similar to the lighting at the time, then the location would be straight out from the crime scene (roughly in the middle of the vertical line in first E of STREET). However, that does put him well past the wool warehouse, and given the lighting conditions are more than probably different, I think we might want to hold off a bit. The correspondence in distances, though (which I've only worked out as I'm typing this post), does mean we should not dismiss this entirely. If George is so inclined, he might want to see if changing his set up slightly (particularly to ensure there is no light source in front of him when viewing towards the barrow - and giving himself enough time for his eyes to dark adapt a bit) results in any notable differences. Or to approach the question from a different angle (see what I did there? ), how much does he have to change things to recognize the barrow at around 7m, or at 10.5m? We'll never be able to know which of those conditions comes closest to those of the night of the murder, but it would at least give us an idea of how variable those viewing distances can be.

        - Jeff


        Click image for larger version

Name:	RangeOfCL_Locations.jpg
Views:	112
Size:	68.3 KB
ID:	779295

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post



          Now, I get it! Neil had a transistor radio on him and he heard the 3.45 time signal.
          I haven’t a clue how he arrived at his time Gary but the fact remains that 3 Constable’s all gave a time so what reason or evidence would Baxter have had for saying that they were wrong? It just seems so clear cut I can’t see what the issue could possibly be. Baxter was simply saying that the body was found by Lechmere pre-3.45
          Regards

          Herlock Sholmes

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
            Hi Herlock,



            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
            Hello Jeff,

            Nicely summed up. It’s all about assumptions as you’ve said. It appears that if, when discussing the ‘about 3.30,’ you agree that it would include 3.25 as a possibility then that’s fine; totally acceptable to the pro-Lechmere side, andbut when you suggest that if you allow 5 minutes one way you have to allow for 5 the other way to be equally possible then you’re greeted with the same level of derision as if you’d claimed that Polly Nichols never existed! No no, “about 3.30” couldn’t have meant any more than 3.32 but exactly 3.30 was the likeliest. It’s logic entering surreal territory. And then the palpable nonsense about Baxter (that I’m still staggered that anyone would try so hard to misinterpret the obvious) So at the end of the day Lechmere left Doveton Street at an unknown time, arrived at Bucks Row at an unknown time then met up with Paul at an unknown time. And from that, in books, documentaries and articles we get “ahh but how do we explain why Lechmere was in Bucks Row for x unexplained minutes.” If Scobie was told that Lechmere left the house at 3.30 and discovered the body at 3.45 then no wonder he felt that Lechmere had a case to answer. If he’d have been told about the unknowns, estimates and interpretations he’d have backtracked faster the Usain Bolt. Without this manufactured gap how many people would have still thought that Lechmere was such a great suspect. How strong would convictions be?
            Regards

            Herlock Sholmes

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              Hello Jeff,

              Nicely summed up. It’s all about assumptions as you’ve said. It appears that if, when discussing the ‘about 3.30,’ you agree that it would include 3.25 as a possibility then that’s fine; totally acceptable to the pro-Lechmere side, andbut when you suggest that if you allow 5 minutes one way you have to allow for 5 the other way to be equally possible then you’re greeted with the same level of derision as if you’d claimed that Polly Nichols never existed! No no, “about 3.30” couldn’t have meant any more than 3.32 but exactly 3.30 was the likeliest. It’s logic entering surreal territory. And then the palpable nonsense about Baxter (that I’m still staggered that anyone would try so hard to misinterpret the obvious) So at the end of the day Lechmere left Doveton Street at an unknown time, arrived at Bucks Row at an unknown time then met up with Paul at an unknown time. And from that, in books, documentaries and articles we get “ahh but how do we explain why Lechmere was in Bucks Row for x unexplained minutes.” If Scobie was told that Lechmere left the house at 3.30 and discovered the body at 3.45 then no wonder he felt that Lechmere had a case to answer. If he’d have been told about the unknowns, estimates and interpretations he’d have backtracked faster the Usain Bolt. Without this manufactured gap how many people would have still thought that Lechmere was such a great suspect. How strong would convictions be?


              Okay. Let’s forget that’s there’s a time gap. Paul see’s Lechmere standing in the middle of the street adjacent to or at least close to Polly Nichols body. Nichols body is lying in the gateway which is 130 - 140m up Bucks Row from the Brady Street entrance.

              Here are a few questions that I think are relevant.
              1. How far up Bucks Row is Paul when he first sights Lechmere?
              2. Why has Paul no prior awareness of Lechmere until Paul see’s him standing in the middle of the road ?
              3. What is the estimated distance between Paul and Lechmere as Paul turns into Bucks Row ?
              4. Has Lechmere been alone in Bucks Row prior to Paul seeing him, and if so for how long ?
              5. Lechmere say’s “come and look at this woman”. How close would Lechmere need to be to identify Nichols body ?
              6. Does Lechmere know it’s a female body prior to approaching the body with Paul ? If he does, how has he arrived at this conclusion ?

              Comment


              • >>If you don’t mention before or after you are providing a possible range that includes the exact time mentioned.<<

                But in this case Baxter DID mention a before,

                "In less than an hour and a quarter after this"

                ​​​​​​​so why the constant semantics?
                dustymiller
                aka drstrange

                Comment


                • >>Charles Lechmere - aka Mr ‘About’.<<

                  "He reached Messrs. Pickford's yard at Broad-street, City, at four o'clock."
                  "got to Pickford's yard at Broad-street at four o'clock."
                  "and he arrived at his work, at Broad-street, at 4 o'clock."


                  Which railway time "about" are you referring to Gary?
                  dustymiller
                  aka drstrange

                  Comment


                  • Hi Herlock,

                    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Hello Jeff,

                    Nicely summed up. It’s all about assumptions as you’ve said. It appears that if, when discussing the ‘about 3.30,’ you agree that it would include 3.25 as a possibility then that’s fine; totally acceptable to the pro-Lechmere side, andbut when you suggest that if you allow 5 minutes one way you have to allow for 5 the other way to be equally possible then you’re greeted with the same level of derision as if you’d claimed that Polly Nichols never existed! No no, “about 3.30” couldn’t have meant any more than 3.32 but exactly 3.30 was the likeliest. It’s logic entering surreal territory. And then the palpable nonsense about Baxter (that I’m still staggered that anyone would try so hard to misinterpret the obvious) So at the end of the day Lechmere left Doveton Street at an unknown time, arrived at Bucks Row at an unknown time then met up with Paul at an unknown time. And from that, in books, documentaries and articles we get “ahh but how do we explain why Lechmere was in Bucks Row for x unexplained minutes.” If Scobie was told that Lechmere left the house at 3.30 and discovered the body at 3.45 then no wonder he felt that Lechmere had a case to answer. If he’d have been told about the unknowns, estimates and interpretations he’d have backtracked faster the Usain Bolt. Without this manufactured gap how many people would have still thought that Lechmere was such a great suspect. How strong would convictions be?
                    Yes, 3:25 would adequately be described as "about 3:30", and that would be getting into a time range where he would have enough time to commit the murder, provided Polly was already in Bucks Row. But 3:25 is further away from 3:30 than 3:33 is (which is the recreation's approximated time), and to use Christer's logic, the time closer to 3:30 is the more likely, but I doubt he would agree to that reasoning in this situation.

                    Now I'm sure some will complain that the recreation is assuming innocence. Well, to assert guilt one has to prove that innocence doesn't work. What I've always said, or at least try to ensure I say, is that the recreation shows no evidence for conflict within the statements. I've never said the recreation "proves" he's innocent, only that it does not reveal any indication that he's lying and so is entirely consistent with innocence (consistent with, is not proof of, something I think gets overlooked at times).

                    To show there are times consistent with guilt is less informative in some ways because one has to prove guilt, not just be consistent with it when innocent is also consistent too. In that case, like we have, one could compare the two theories. And as I say, Christer's arguments are always that the closer time is the more likely time, so if we compare those, the innocent version still becomes the more likely. So it fails that test as well (but I'm looking forward to Christer's explanation of why that rule doesn't apply in this particular instance). Remember, we have to factor in that Cross/Lechmere and the PC's times are based upon different clocks too. The 3:33 and 3:25 I'm talking about are referenced to PC Neil and PC Mizen - Cross's clock may have 3:30 at the time PC Mizen's clock read 3:33! Which would make the 3:25 by PC Mizen's clock 3:22 by Cross's clock (again, just using these to illustrate a point, not claiming these values were actually the case).

                    And it shifts the debate to the question of how likely was it Polly was in Bucks Row in the first place, and as I say, it also leaves the theory with only one point to argue about. And if that point cannot be proved to be as the guilty theory requires, such as it ends up unanswerable, then the whole theory cannot be viewed as being as strong as Christer describes it - it hinges upon an unknown. Having multiple points to raise dust and dart about is a way of keeping the discussion chaotic and confused, preventing a focused examination of the evidence and the adequacy of the different possibilities to account for them.

                    Now, coming back to the 3:25 issue. One argument open to Christer arises against the suggestion the police may have asked C/L's family about his departure time for work that day. We don't know if they did, but the possibility has been raised. The innocent theory would argue that she confirmed his claim to have left home "about 3:30". And if he left at 3:25, and since that is "about 3:30", she could very well have confirmed that he did leave "about 3:30" and be entirely truthful in doing so. In otherwords, if the police did try to verify his statements, even if guilty his statement might receive verification.

                    Of course, if it is considered far more likely that Polly met her killer in Whitechapel, then C/L has to leave earlier than even 3:25, and we start moving further and further away from "about 3:30", well beyond the very small ranges that Christer argues for. And that reduces the probability of him receiving verification (unless, of course, we then speculate she lied for him - not an unheard of thing though).

                    And of course, all of those arguments are into presenting different speculations, they are not recorded anywhere for us to examine. And that then demonstrates the theory hinges upon guessing correctly - and saying I'm the one guessing correctly is not usually considered a conclusive argument. Rather, once one gets to that "debating about the unknown", then one focuses on all the other evidence. And as we've seen, all the other evidence tends to be far more consistent with innocence, making it the preferred explanation. So unless that unknown area changes, and some new information arises, and it somehow shows that C/L left at home at 3:15 let's say, then we're left with two potential explanations, with the innocent one being better able to account for the evidence than the guilty one.

                    We have to remember that Christer's "blood evidence" is a "forensic measurement" that he just made up. This "bleeding time" is not a measure used, examined, or tested. Moreover, the testimony also describes the blood as "oozing", and that's very different from "bleeding", which involves the heart pumping. I cannot see Polly's heart pumping for the many minutes required for PC Mizen to arrive, given she was all but decapitated. And given the lack of arterial blood spray noted at the scene, it looks more like she was strangled to death before she was cut at all, which means she will not have had that initial rapid loss of blood, and all the blood flow will be due to simply the change between internal and external pressure, not due to the heart pumping it out. We know just how inexact real measures used to estimate the time of death are even when precise measures are taken under the proper procedures, so the idea that Christer has stumbled upon something capable of dealing with the order of minutes based upon a non-medical person's observations is not really a strong leg to stand upon. But he likes it, and despite his experts even saying they know of no data on this point (a good sign that we should just stop there), we'll hear of it again.

                    - Jeff
                    Last edited by JeffHamm; 01-19-2022, 10:52 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post



                      Okay. Let’s forget that’s there’s a time gap. Paul see’s Lechmere standing in the middle of the street adjacent to or at least close to Polly Nichols body. Nichols body is lying in the gateway which is 130 - 140m up Bucks Row from the Brady Street entrance.

                      Here are a few questions that I think are relevant.[*]How far up Bucks Row is Paul when he first sights Lechmere?
                      There is record of this information, so it's unknown.

                      [*]Why has Paul no prior awareness of Lechmere until Paul see’s him standing in the middle of the road ?
                      We don't know he had no prior awareness (see above).
                      [*]What is the estimated distance between Paul and Lechmere as Paul turns into Bucks Row ?
                      That depends on a few things we don't know. But, if C/L and Paul are walking roughly the same speed, then the minimum would be about 40 yards (to the degree C/L's estimation of that distance is correct). That would require, of course, that C/L
                      1) did not slow his pace once he noticed a "shape" on the far side of the road, which at some point he thinks is a tarpaulin. If at that point C/L starts to slow down, then Paul will close the distance, meaning they were more than 40 yards apart before C/L changed speed.
                      [*]Has Lechmere been alone in Bucks Row prior to Paul seeing him, and if so for how long ?
                      Well, if JtR were still at the body when C/L enters Bucks Row, then not at that point. If JtR flees and is out of Bucks Row before Paul enters, then it appears there would be some period where he is alone.

                      If JtR has fled before C/L arrives at the east end of Bucks Row, then again, it depends upon their initial distance of separation, which we cannot be sure of (see above).

                      [*]Lechmere say’s “come and look at this woman”. How close would Lechmere need to be to identify Nichols body ?
                      That depends upon the lighting conditions at the time. We're still working on trying to locate roughly where he was standing. Based upon George's work, he suggests 3 m away, based upon trying to approximation his location relative to the wool warehouse, maybe 7-10m. Without being able to determine the exact conditions though, we don't know, but I suppose we could view the range 3-10m as our limits.
                      [*]Does Lechmere know it’s a female body prior to approaching the body with Paul ? If he does, how has he arrived at this conclusion ?
                      Presumably because once he was able to realise it was a human, and not a tarpaulin, he assumed a man would not be wearing a dress.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • Is it just me, but the format of that last post of mine is really weird on my screen.

                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post



                          Okay. Let’s forget that’s there’s a time gap. Paul see’s Lechmere standing in the middle of the street adjacent to or at least close to Polly Nichols body. Nichols body is lying in the gateway which is 130 - 140m up Bucks Row from the Brady Street entrance.

                          Here are a few questions that I think are relevant.
                          1. How far up Bucks Row is Paul when he first sights Lechmere?

                            We have no way of knowing.
                          2. Why has Paul no prior awareness of Lechmere until Paul see’s him standing in the middle of the road ?

                            Because it’s dark and there was an unknown distance between them.
                          3. What is the estimated distance between Paul and Lechmere as Paul turns into Bucks Row ?

                            We have no way of knowing.
                          4. Has Lechmere been alone in Bucks Row prior to Paul seeing him, and if so for how long ?

                            We have no way of knowing.
                          5. Lechmere say’s “come and look at this woman”. How close would Lechmere need to be to identify Nichols body ?

                            We have no way of knowing.
                          6. Does Lechmere know it’s a female body prior to approaching the body with Paul ? If he does, how has he arrived at this conclusion ?

                            At first he thought it was a tarpaulin, then he moved closer and saw that it was a woman.
                          Unknown distances, estimated times, light levels that we are in no position to judge, sound carrying levels that we are in no position to judge, individuals hearing levels which we are in no position to judge, the accuracy or inaccuracy of clocks which we are in no position to judge, the reliability of witnesses which we are in no position to judge.

                          So many unknowns that I fail to see why there appears to be a level of confidence (from some) in Lechmere’s guilt. As if it’s somehow obvious.

                          If we can’t assume a sinister gap or the so called blood evidence (that certainly doesn’t preclude an unknown killer fleeing the scene just before Lechmere’s arrival) then what’s left to give us valid suspicions about Lechmere? He used his step-fathers surname but his own forenames and address and what was said between Mizen and Lechmere is disputed. Oh, and Lechmere has some ‘links’ close to the crime scenes. Is that really a basis for suspicion? We will no doubt continue to disagree. Some will think that he’s a decent suspect but I’m guessing that the majority won’t. Nothing about Lechmere gives me cause for suspicion. We can’t categorically exonerate him but you can say that about most suspects. He was there. That’s all imo.
                          Regards

                          Herlock Sholmes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                            Is it just me, but the format of that last post of mine is really weird on my screen.

                            - Jeff
                            It’s not you Jeff. I’ve never seen that before.
                            Regards

                            Herlock Sholmes

                            Comment


                            • Hmmm, I seem to have done something, perhaps had a typo where I tried to turn on and off the quote (i.e. /quote and quote commands).

                              Now I can't seem to either edit that post to see if I can fix it, nor will it let me quote another post (I'm in the doghouse it appears).

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Another day and another excuse from Christer for not answering the questions.

                                But, this, of course is how Christer works. It's becoming clearer and clear he knows he's wrong.

                                In one post he claims more than 95% of Swanson's reports are accurate,

                                "I would say that he got way more than ninety-five per cent of his factual information correct in his reports."

                                Faced with explaining himself Christer runs away again, leaving us with the revelation,

                                "it would be something of a lifetime achievement to go through Swansosn all reports."

                                So what exactly was the "more than ninety-five per cent of his factual information correct in his reports" was Christer referring to and why is he claiming this notion was my idea?

                                >> this idiocy and timewasting in itīs worst shape<<

                                It is indeed Christer, it is indeed!

                                So will you give us some straight answers or is your game going to continue ad nauseam?
                                dustymiller
                                aka drstrange

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X