Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

    We don't know what time Lechmere left home though, only what time he said he left. If he was late for work as he said, would he really be likely to stop for what was probably a drunk woman laying in the street ?
    Hi Dickere,

    Technically, we only know about what time he left (around 3:30). In his testimony he indicates that at first he thought it was a bit of tarpaulin. While he might be late for work, stopping to pick up a piece of tarp wouldn't have taken him all that long if it was deemed to be of value to him. Upon seeing it was a woman on the ground, and noticing Paul approaching, he describes what would be considered a "good Samaritan". As for being late for work, I think his words were more along the line that he was running late, meaning behind schedule, but not to the point that he was late for work. So, pressed for time, but not extraordinarily so, at least that's what it means to me when I hear the phase "running late." Again, that is open to interpretation, so there will not be agreement upon that unless we have a linguistics expert with knowledge of Victorian usage; and even then there won't be a consensus - this is JtR after all.

    - Jeff

    Comment


    • Originally posted by AlanG View Post
      What is it with 3:45am in this particular murder?
      i dont know but my digital clock mysteriously goes off every morning at 3:45am to I Got You Babe by sonny and cher

      Comment


      • Here's the Lloyd's article.

        The Underlined is where Paul states the time as being 3:45 when he entered Buck's Row.

        In italics are comments that express his opinion as to the "safety of the location", and while I have no reason to doubt his opinion on that, or it's accuracy, these are not statements that I recall being confirmed or denied in the inquest.

        The bolded statements are ones that are considered false by the Cross/Lechmere theory (note, the ones indicating Paul thought she was dead must be considered false given we even have a thread devoted to how Paul thought she might having been breathing, etc). Also, Paul's stating that she was so cold she must have been dead for some time, must be considered false because, of course, in the Cross/Lechmere = JtR, she's only just been killed - and also in the same theory, touch is considered an accurate way to estimate ToD. While Paul isn't a trained medical person, he can tell if hands are cold and that's supposed to be the key point - cold = dead for long time.

        Paul goes into great lengths about talking with PC Mizen, which the Cross/Lechmere theory says did not happen.

        Paul indicates he went on alone to find PC Mizen, so Cross/Lechmere isn't even there to pull off the Mizen Scam (so again, that's false in the Cross/Lechmere theory).

        Basically, the entire article is either further unexplored statements about the character of the area, or statements of fact, the vast majority of which the Cross/Lechmere theory believes are false. Except, the one statement of fact that allows the theory to claim Cross/Lechmere has missing minutes. And with testimony under oath from multiple sources all suggesting that fact too is erroneous, I find it difficult to understand why this is the one nugget of truth in a statement otherwise almost rejected in its entirety by the Cross/Lechmere theory.

        In my opinion, the entire story appears to be unreliable, and we have testimony under oath that clarifies things for us. But for those who wish to believe, you are free to believe.


        "On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."


        - Jeff

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
          Here's the Lloyd's article.

          The Underlined is where Paul states the time as being 3:45 when he entered Buck's Row.

          In italics are comments that express his opinion as to the "safety of the location", and while I have no reason to doubt his opinion on that, or it's accuracy, these are not statements that I recall being confirmed or denied in the inquest.

          The bolded statements are ones that are considered false by the Cross/Lechmere theory (note, the ones indicating Paul thought she was dead must be considered false given we even have a thread devoted to how Paul thought she might having been breathing, etc). Also, Paul's stating that she was so cold she must have been dead for some time, must be considered false because, of course, in the Cross/Lechmere = JtR, she's only just been killed - and also in the same theory, touch is considered an accurate way to estimate ToD. While Paul isn't a trained medical person, he can tell if hands are cold and that's supposed to be the key point - cold = dead for long time.

          Paul goes into great lengths about talking with PC Mizen, which the Cross/Lechmere theory says did not happen.

          Paul indicates he went on alone to find PC Mizen, so Cross/Lechmere isn't even there to pull off the Mizen Scam (so again, that's false in the Cross/Lechmere theory).

          Basically, the entire article is either further unexplored statements about the character of the area, or statements of fact, the vast majority of which the Cross/Lechmere theory believes are false. Except, the one statement of fact that allows the theory to claim Cross/Lechmere has missing minutes. And with testimony under oath from multiple sources all suggesting that fact too is erroneous, I find it difficult to understand why this is the one nugget of truth in a statement otherwise almost rejected in its entirety by the Cross/Lechmere theory.

          In my opinion, the entire story appears to be unreliable, and we have testimony under oath that clarifies things for us. But for those who wish to believe, you are free to believe.


          "On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."


          - Jeff
          Hi Jeff,

          Reading the Lloyd's interview with Paul, it's as though Paul gave no thought to the possibility that Lechmere may ever come forward to give his version of the story, either to a journalist or to the inquest, which is ironic as it is likely that the Lloyd's interview is the only reason Lechmere came forward. According to the interview, Paul left Lechmere with the body so Lechmere wasn't even there to say anything to Mizen. In my view, Paul is an unreliable witness.

          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


          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

            Hi Jeff,

            Reading the Lloyd's interview with Paul, it's as though Paul gave no thought to the possibility that Lechmere may ever come forward to give his version of the story, either to a journalist or to the inquest, which is ironic as it is likely that the Lloyd's interview is the only reason Lechmere came forward. According to the interview, Paul left Lechmere with the body so Lechmere wasn't even there to say anything to Mizen. In my view, Paul is an unreliable witness.

            Cheers, George
            Hi George,

            I think it's fair to say his Lloyd's interview is unreliable. People can behave very differently in different circumstances. His inquest testimony shows far less, shall we say, self promotion, than the newspaper interview. And, to be fair, we can't even be sure that the dramatics, if you will, were really from Paul or due to the presentation choices of the reporter writing up from his notes. For example, let's say Paul just said "I felt her to see if she was alive, and I thought she might be dead. She was a bit cold too", and that gets presented as a much more specific checking for a pulse, and so forth. If he made any comments about how PC Mizen appeared slow to get going, many of the other inaccuracies could arise. Meaning, the errors may reflect assumptions by the journalist rather than direct statements from Paul himself.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
              Christer, I didn't mention Blink Films, so stop pretending that I did. What on earth could possibly be controversial about wondering what evidence Scobie had? We don't know whether he is an enthusiastic knowledgeable ripperologist, or whether he just expressed an opinion after reading selected information. We all know that the quality of decision making depends on the quality of the known information considered
              You did not need to mention Blink Films, since we all know that they supplied the material Scobie decided from.

              If you had no idea about that, itīs another matter. But it remains that you are very apparently questioning whether or not James Scobie made his decision on fair/sufficient grounds. Why not just accept that you need to work from the presumption that he did, until you can prove he didnīt? Why lead on that he perhaps was underinformed or misinformed?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                Not true. Psychopaths fear their own death. There is no evidence that suggests they do not. The risk in Victorian times would be getting hung for murder. The sensation of avoiding that is worth something. Look at how Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy kept up their acts as long as they could, still trying to convince those around them they were innocent up until the end. They do fear being caught otherwise every psychopathic killer would be easily found and incarcerated. Why bother to bury victims? Why bother cleaning up crime scenes? They are not catatonic robots. Their addiction is to feel some form of sensation. That is why they kill in the first place. That is why they rape. That is why they engage in necrophilia. It is why they do what they do. That is why they want to live and not die. These things break through the general numbness of life. They take huge risks to increase that sensation and thrill. It is why Jack escalated.

                Nobody wants to die - or get caught, psychopaths or not. That does not necessarily mean that they sense fear in the same way or volume we do, Iīm afraid.
                You provide a very interesting link, with material that is new to me. What is said in the link does not preclude that I am correct, though - it speaks of how those who are BORN psychopaths (primary psychopaths) react with the same kinds of fear as "normal" people, whereas those who BECOME psychopaths (secondary psychopaths) due to some sort of
                trauma, physical or psychological, become the fearless persosn that are so often written about in literature on psychopathy. Here is what your link tells us:

                "Results showed that the brain and body response was different based on whether the participant was a primary or secondary psychopath. Interestingly, primary psychopaths exhibited the same fear responses as the control group–increased activity in the amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) as well as increased skin response. Secondary psychopaths exhibited the opposite reaction–inhibited amygdala and ACC activity–which is more typical of how psychopaths have been generally viewed.

                “These results contradict the low-fear model of psychopathy and suggest that the low fear observed for psychopaths in previous studies may be specific to secondary psychopaths,” said Schultz."


                So it is not as if the type of psychopath I describe is a figment of imagination - they are very real, even according to your link.



                In the case of Shipman, he did harbour a superioty complex based on intelligence and "playing God" was something that gave him an overwhelming sense of power. That in turn led to carelessness with the typewriter.
                Carelessness, yes. Or as I put it, sloppiness. It is the exact thing I point to, if you read what I say. It is the psychopaths sense of being totally superior that leads him to make mistakes like this. So I think we are pointing to the exact same thing.

                PS. Just came to think about how it is perhaps possible that a primary psychopath can suffer traumas in his or her life that results in added secondary psychopathy? Sounds a likely enough thing to me.
                Last edited by Fisherman; 08-18-2021, 07:07 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                  The body was found by PC Neil at 3:45, not Cross/Lechmere. PC Mizen was talking to Cross/Lechmere and Paul at that time. Paul estimated it was 4 minutes from the time he saw the body until they met PC Mizen, and the distance from the crime scene to PC Mizen, as you can see, would take approx. 3 minutes, allowing for about a minute to examine the body. That means, Cross/Lechmere is at the body around 3:40, minus the time for Paul to catch up, so he gets there around 3:39:30ish. And leaving home around 3:30 for a 7 minute walk, basically eats up all the time.

                  Once one places Cross/Lechere in the correct location at 3:45, there's no missing minutes.

                  It's not juggling Christer, it's not my opinion, it's math.

                  - Jeff
                  A slight problem here is that the police and the coroner alike said that Lechmere found Nichgols at 3.45, not at 3.40. And I base my observation on what I find is the likely time, being in agreement with the police and coroner. It is also a time that fits better with when Llewellyn was woken up by Thain.

                  there is also another thing to consider: The Times, for example, said that Lechmere claimed to have left home at 3.20, not 3.30, and so the "around 3.30" that so many wish to adjust to a later time, should - if we use the reprots we have - more likely be adjustes to an EARLIER time instead.

                  That said, this parameter cannot be regarded as a strong pointer towards Lechmere, there are too many uncertainties involved and timekeeping is not an exact science. I only point to it to make the picture of the case complete.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                    We don't know what time Lechmere left home though, only what time he said he left. If he was late for work as he said, would he really be likely to stop for what was probably a drunk woman laying in the street ?
                    That is a very good question that I have asked before. The general answer has been that he did not stop for what he thought was a drunk woman, he stopped for what he thought was a tarpaulin, and so there was an economical reason to stop.

                    Nobody, however, has explained to me why he did not just walk on when he subsequently found out that it probably WAS a drunk woman he was looking at.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                      hi jeff
                      dosnt Paul say he entered bucks row at 3:45. so its not strictly the math but choosing who you want to believe was correct about their time, no?
                      Exactly so, Abby.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                        But, if people want to choose that time as being the one sane anchor in a raging sea of false belief, nothing I, or multiple independent testimonies, suggest to the contrary will shift them.

                        - Jeff
                        What if people are not hellbent on choosing 3.45 as some sort of personal mantra. What if they simply find that it is the more logical timing, supported by coroner and police alike? Maybe people do not disagree with you on this on account of a dogmatic wish never to agree with you. Maybe they are being logical and cool enough instead?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                          i dont know but my digital clock mysteriously goes off every morning at 3:45am to I Got You Babe by sonny and cher
                          WE HAVE THE SAME CLOCK!!!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                            Hi Jeff,

                            Reading the Lloyd's interview with Paul, it's as though Paul gave no thought to the possibility that Lechmere may ever come forward to give his version of the story, either to a journalist or to the inquest, which is ironic as it is likely that the Lloyd's interview is the only reason Lechmere came forward. According to the interview, Paul left Lechmere with the body so Lechmere wasn't even there to say anything to Mizen. In my view, Paul is an unreliable witness.

                            Cheers, George
                            If we consider that the police did not believe what Paul said in the interview until Lechmere came forward, it becomes even more ironic!

                            I agree that Paul comes across as an unreliable witness, but we must leave some learoom for how the many anomalies in the article may be the reporters doing.

                            Do I think that this was so myself? No, I think Paul was anti-police and that this is why we have the kind of article that we do. When Paul arrived at the inquest, though, I believe we have a much meeker and more truthful Paul testifying, much the same as Albert Cadosch went through a metamorphosis from a loud-mouthed witness who had heard it all and knew it all in detail, to a shy and evasive witness who had heard nothing conclusive at all.

                            Two peas in a pod!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              That is a very good question that I have asked before. The general answer has been that he did not stop for what he thought was a drunk woman, he stopped for what he thought was a tarpaulin, and so there was an economical reason to stop.

                              Nobody, however, has explained to me why he did not just walk on when he subsequently found out that it probably WAS a drunk woman he was looking at.
                              That's a good point too. I guess the answer would be that almost immediately he heard Paul approaching so would be a 'bad Samaritan' if he walked away from a person laying there. If he was the killer it was a bit too late to nonchalantly walk away too.

                              I still feel that stopping in the first place is strange. London must have been full of all sorts of stuff laying around, this item on this late for work day wouldn't have been anything special.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                I agree that Paul comes across as an unreliable witness, but we must leave some learoom for how the many anomalies in the article may be the reporters doing.
                                Hi Christer,

                                So do you feel that Paul telling the Lloyd's reporter that he left Lechmere with the body and found Mizen on his own was a mis-interpretation by the reporter? That's a fairly substantial anomaly.

                                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

                                Working...
                                X