Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
    Well, Christer, the simple answer is that, according to what I’ve written in my previous post – and I’ve assured myself that I didn’t write in Dutch or Italian, Neil can’t have called Thain to his side at 3.45, he found Nichols at 3.48 or 3.49.

    If Thain knocked at the doctor’s door at about four, then he must have been sent away by Neil at 3.57-3.58, which would mean that Neil found the body at about 3.55 and that simply doesn’t fit with Paul arriving at the scene at 3.46 and the carmen arriving at Mizen at 3.50. If this would be correct, then Mizen would have arrived at around 3.54 before Neil did. Furthermore, it seems too far away from the timings of not one, not two but 3 beat officers.

    Well, you use the “the other man, who went down to Hanbury Street” to support your suggestion that Paul was sent on by Lechmere while the latter spoke to Mizen. Even while there are 2 other, independent versions of that phrase, one saying “Both went down Hanbury-street.” and t’other saying “and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street.”

    So, for what reason shouldn’t I put more stock in the “about 5 minutes to 4”, according to you? Also, seeing that it fits better with the rest of the timings, I can’t see why we should chose a time between 3.55 and 4.

    But, OK, let’s see where 3.57-3.58 would lead us. This would mean that, according to you, Thain left Neil at 3.55 or 3.56, which would mean that Neil found Nichols at 3.54 or 3.55, which must mean that Mizen walked not too far behind Neil along Buck’s Row just before Neil found her (if you assume Paul arrived at the scene at 3.46), which must mean that there wasn’t enough time for Thain to arrive at the scene and disappear out of earshot, at least.

    So, there are only minutes adrift if you put more stock in the latter of Llewyllyn’s timings or even a middle path between the 2 he gave. But certainly the latter, in my view, is precisely the one that fits less, if at all, with the rest of the timings.

    Could you tell me what contradictions are you alluding to here, Christer? I want to react, but, honestly, I don’t understand what I’m supposed to react to.

    That’s just as using the term “C5”, because I don’t see why I should be saying that "an innocent Lechmere found the body at 3:44:30 and Paul joined him at 3:44:55 (or some similar timings) and that Paul saw a guilty Lechmere standing 3:46:12 or thereabouts". Or something similarly elaborated. I, as well as any next guy or girl, know that you think he’s guilty and that, therefore, he must have been there for some unknown amount of time already before Paul came along. So, it’s really just a short-cut. I thought that would be obvious.

    Just as I said in my previous post, really.

    If Paul arrived at the scene at, say, 3:44:00, then the examination took, say, 45 seconds and the time would be 3:44:45 when they left the body and went looking for a PC, which they would have found then at 3:47:45. There, see - perfectly in line with Paul’s “Up to that time not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he saw the body.” AND with what I wrote. Nothing adrift.

    Nope. What I wrote is that Neil arrived at the crime scene at around 3.48-3.49, that he sent Thain away at about 3.50 and that Thain then arrived at the doctor’s residence around 3.55. That’s 5 minutes, not 10.

    I really hope you did (seeing that you seem to have missed or misread a thing or two in my previous post)!
    I donīt think we are going to get much further on the timings, Frank - whichever way we cut things, we must both admit that we canot be certain of how and when the minutes passed in Bucks Row. There are things I still dislike about your timekeeping, but I donīt think it would be productive to dwell any more on it, unless you feel so inclined. I would preferto wait until you read my take on things in the book, and then we can pick up where we left off now.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by caz View Post

      Yes, Fiver. Robert Paul has to be a liar, and a foolish one at that, for Christer to maintain that Lechmere did all the talking to Mizen out of Paul's earshot.

      Caz
      X
      No, Caz, Robert Paul need not be a liar at all. That is your very own invention, and one that has been debunked numerous times by now. Paul claimed in Lloyds Weekly to have been the one who spoke to Mizen, but we both know that the article cannot be relied upon (but we donīt know who is to blame, Paul or the reporter), and so we must turn to the inquest reports if we want to establish that Robert Paul spoke to Mizen. In the reports, the closest you come to being right is that Paul says that "we" informed Mizen about the woman.

      As I have pointed out before, if a pupil from a school class says "we went to the church and lit a candle", that does not mean that the pupils all held the match.

      Back to the drawing board!

      PS. I always liked this drawing: https://www.jack-the-ripper.org/charles-cross.htm

      It is of course no evidence as such, but ... where IS Paul?
      Last edited by Fisherman; 08-24-2021, 02:51 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        As I have pointed out before, if a pupil from a school class says "we went to the church and lit a candle", that does not mean that the pupils all held the match.


        Wrong, weak and terrible example.

        The pupil wouldn't say we lit a candle if he even didn't see that.

        Paul wouldn't say we talked to Mizen if he even didn't hear that.


        But that is becoming the norm in all Lechmere saga.



        The Baron

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



          Wrong, weak and terrible example.

          The pupil wouldn't say we lit a candle if he even didn't see that.

          Paul wouldn't say we talked to Mizen if he even didn't hear that.


          But that is becoming the norm in all Lechmere saga.



          The Baron
          ...and a football fan would not say "We won" even if he was never on the pitch? A fisher would not say "We caught ten cod today" even if he only caught one himself and his friends the other nine? Or even if the friends caught ALL ten cod? A person would not say "We asked him to move his car" if he was in a party of five but did not ask himself, whereas a friend of his did?

          Maybe you need to think before you post or WE will never get it right.

          PS. Please show me where Paul said "We talked to Mizen". I think what he said was "We told him....", and I think that offers a very real possibility that he spoke as one of an entity and not about himself. As such, if Lechmere said "there is a woman in Bucks Row who may be dead", why on earth would Paul go "Yes, there is a woman in Bucks Row who may be dead"? The message was already delivered afgterf Lechmeres effort, right? Barnett was the guy with echolalia, not Paul.

          Dear me, I just answered a post by "The Baron". I should not waste time like that, really.
          Last edited by Fisherman; 08-24-2021, 05:30 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

            Four?

            Tabram was killed near Lechmere's route to work. It was also near Robert Paul's route to work.

            Nichols was killed on Lechmere's route to work. It was also on Robert Paul's route to work.

            Chapman was killed on Lechmere's route to work. It was also on Robert Paul's route to work. And it was after both men were at work.

            So where is your fourth?

            Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly were not killed on Lechmere's route to work and were not killed on days that he worked. Just like Robert Paul.

            And Robert Paul shows your 1-in-5 million odds are bunk. Just like Charles Lechmere, three of the victims were killed on or near his route to work.

            So you know that Lechmere didn’t work on a Saturday, and you know where his work route proceeded from Commercial Street - and it went nowhere near Dorset Street?

            You are either the best researcher in the history of Ripperology, or…













            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              The geography aspect is looked at to check whether or not it can be confirmed that the circumstantial evidence pointing to Lechmere is in line with him being the killer. And it is. The fact that other people lived in the area or passed through it is neither here nor there in that discussion. Lechmere is and remains special since he was in place alone with Nichols at the approximate time she died AND he fits the geography. Returning to the nonsense how Paul is as likely is beyond useless, so I’d appreciate if it could stop here and now. That’ s not tosay that I think it will happen, only that it would be nice and sane if it did.
              If I may remind you, Paul arrived AFTER Lechmere to the murder site. In a sense, that sort of implies that he cannot be regarded as an equally viable suspect as Lechmere. But maybe we should not get hanged up on such trifles - he DID live not far from the murder site, so surely that makes him - and any ******* person who lived in Whitechapel - exactly as likely a killer of Polly Nichols?

              It is hilarious how people are so eager to tell me that finding a dead body is always totally innocent - but living in Whitechapel is enough to put anybody on par with Lechmere in terms of suspect viability…?

              How am I supposed to stay sane out here, Harry?
              What if Paul had been interrupted by Lechmere? He took off and lapped around, hoping Lechmere would ignore the body and he could finish the job. He wouldn't be the only serial killer to return to the victim. Only a psychopath would engage in such risky behaviour.

              We know that there are inconsistencies in Paul's inquest testimony and his quotes to the press, and his attempts to frame himself as the good samaritan and Lechmere as a confrontational stranger could be seen as a deflection tactic. He also had to be tracked down by the police and summoned to the inquest.

              Paul was a local carman, who would've been familiar with the geography of the area, and two of his work routes coincided with the murder sites.

              To the gallows with him!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                What if Paul had been interrupted by Lechmere? He took off and lapped around, hoping Lechmere would ignore the body and he could finish the job. He wouldn't be the only serial killer to return to the victim. Only a psychopath would engage in such risky behaviour.

                We know that there are inconsistencies in Paul's inquest testimony and his quotes to the press, and his attempts to frame himself as the good samaritan and Lechmere as a confrontational stranger could be seen as a deflection tactic. He also had to be tracked down by the police and summoned to the inquest.

                Paul was a local carman, who would've been familiar with the geography of the area, and two of his work routes coincided with the murder sites.

                To the gallows with him!
                Exactly. The supposed 5 million-to-1 odds about where the victims were killed applies to Robert Paul's route to work exactly as much as it applies to Charles Lechmere's route it work. They might apply to some of Paul's co-workers. They probably apply to some of Lechmere's co-workers at Broadstreet Station. They almost certainly apply to several of the hundreds of people who worked in or near near Spitalfield's Market. Not counting the Market, an 1891 map shows a Cocoa Manufactory, the National telephone Works, a Chenniles Manufactory, Boot & Shoe Factory, a Tobacco Manufactory, and the Black Eagle Brewery.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                  Exactly. The supposed 5 million-to-1 odds about where the victims were killed applies to Robert Paul's route to work exactly as much as it applies to Charles Lechmere's route it work. They might apply to some of Paul's co-workers. They probably apply to some of Lechmere's co-workers at Broadstreet Station. They almost certainly apply to several of the hundreds of people who worked in or near near Spitalfield's Market. Not counting the Market, an 1891 map shows a Cocoa Manufactory, the National telephone Works, a Chenniles Manufactory, Boot & Shoe Factory, a Tobacco Manufactory, and the Black Eagle Brewery.
                  Consult your map again and check out whether Old Montague Street was a credible route for Paul to take to Corbett’s Court/Place.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                    What if Paul had been interrupted by Lechmere? He took off and lapped around, hoping Lechmere would ignore the body and he could finish the job. He wouldn't be the only serial killer to return to the victim. Only a psychopath would engage in such risky behaviour.

                    We know that there are inconsistencies in Paul's inquest testimony and his quotes to the press, and his attempts to frame himself as the good samaritan and Lechmere as a confrontational stranger could be seen as a deflection tactic. He also had to be tracked down by the police and summoned to the inquest.

                    Paul was a local carman, who would've been familiar with the geography of the area, and two of his work routes coincided with the murder sites.

                    To the gallows with him!
                    nice try harry but if paul did that he wouldnt then come sauntering down tje street while lech was still there. and tjem wander off with him.

                    btw i know youre open to torsoman and the ripper being the same man, guess who the only ripper suspect is that age wise fits that bill?
                    Last edited by Abby Normal; 08-24-2021, 11:04 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                      Exactly. The supposed 5 million-to-1 odds about where the victims were killed applies to Robert Paul's route to work exactly as much as it applies to Charles Lechmere's route it work. They might apply to some of Paul's co-workers. They probably apply to some of Lechmere's co-workers at Broadstreet Station. They almost certainly apply to several of the hundreds of people who worked in or near near Spitalfield's Market. Not counting the Market, an 1891 map shows a Cocoa Manufactory, the National telephone Works, a Chenniles Manufactory, Boot & Shoe Factory, a Tobacco Manufactory, and the Black Eagle Brewery.
                      and how many of them were seen standing near a freshly killed victim alone. good grief

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                        What if Paul had been interrupted by Lechmere? He took off and lapped around, hoping Lechmere would ignore the body and he could finish the job. He wouldn't be the only serial killer to return to the victim. Only a psychopath would engage in such risky behaviour.

                        Where would have "lapped around" in order to come up behind Lechmere, if he himself was disturbed by his fellow carman entering Bucks Row up at Brady Street? How does that "lap" look? Maybe he would not be the first serial killer to return to a victim, but if he "lapped around", he would certainly be the fastest one! Usain Bolt could not have done it.
                        And of course, even if this was possible, Harry, I donīt think it would be very probable.


                        We know that there are inconsistencies in Paul's inquest testimony and his quotes to the press, and his attempts to frame himself as the good samaritan and Lechmere as a confrontational stranger could be seen as a deflection tactic. He also had to be tracked down by the police and summoned to the inquest.

                        None of which points to any murderous intentions per se.

                        Paul was a local carman, who would've been familiar with the geography of the area, and two of his work routes coincided with the murder sites.

                        To the gallows with him!
                        Thatīs a tad insensitive, isnīt it? He was supposedly second on the site, no matter how we cut it. And I do think you would agree he is therefore the second one that requires investigation, AFTER Lechmere - who, in contrast to Paul, was actually ALONE with the body as per the evidence given.
                        After this, it applies that Lechmere had reason to pass ALL the four Whitechapel murder sites, whereas Paul had reason to pass 50 per cent of them.
                        Lechmere had his mother living in 1 Mary Ann Street, whereas we do not know of any connection between Paul and somebody living close to Berner Street.
                        Lechmereīs old working route from James Street to Broad Street would have taken him close to Mitre Square, whereas we know of no such experience on Pauls behalf.
                        Lechmere gave another name than his registered on at the inquest, whereas Paul did not.
                        Lechmere disagreed on important points with Mizen, whereas Paul did not.
                        Lechmere refused to help prop Nichols up, whereas Paul actually suggested it.

                        Und so weiter. You know how it all looks when added together. It looks like something a jury would not like, to quote Scobie. I agree wholeheartedly with him; why WOULD they like a namechanging man who was present alone with a murder victim at the approximate time of her death and subsequently lied to a PC, if we may believe that PC, a man who was given a very good grade as he left the service?
                        It is not really the kind of things jurys DO like, is it? But maybe Scobie was tricked into saying that.

                        Why not suggest that Neil should have been hanged, by the way? He had a better opportunity than Paul, did he not? Then again, we donīt know. Maybe Paul left home at 3.00 and killed Nichols, pulled her clothing over the wounds, went back home for a cuppa and then went back out at 3.43, 3.44 and found Lechmere on the spot? It would require 40 minutes of bleeding on Nichols' behalf, but such a trifle has never discouraged the naysayers out here, has it?

                        I say go for it! And when you are ready to discuss this in a less exotic manner, please give me a hint.
                        Last edited by Fisherman; 08-25-2021, 08:46 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          Lechmere gave another name than his registered on at the inquest, whereas Paul did not.
                          Lechmere disagreed on important points with Mizen, whereas Paul did not.
                          Lechmere refused to help prop Nichols up, whereas Paul actually suggested it.
                          Lechmere gave his home and work addresses at the Inquest. He was not attempting to hide his identity from the police, his coworkers, his neighbors, or his family. His public use of the name Cross in conjunction with those addresses strongly implies that he was known as Charles Cross by his coworkers and neighbors.

                          Paul disagreed with Mizen about whether Mizen continued knocking up and whether Mizen was told the woman was dead. Those would be very important points and they were both accusations by Paul of Mizen failing to do his duty.

                          The refusal is a point in favor of Lechmere's innocence. If Lechmere was guilty, he would have agreed to prop Nichols up since it would provide an innocent excuse for any bloodstains on his hands and clothes.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            Why not suggest that Neil should have been hanged, by the way? He had a better opportunity than Paul, did he not? Then again, we donīt know. Maybe Paul left home at 3.00 and killed Nichols, pulled her clothing over the wounds, went back home for a cuppa and then went back out at 3.43, 3.44 and found Lechmere on the spot? It would require 40 minutes of bleeding on Nichols' behalf, but such a trifle has never discouraged the naysayers out here, has it?
                            If bodies stop bleeding as fast as you claim, PC Neil is a better suspect than Lechmere.

                            And unless you think Robert Paul was the killer, the killer did not pull down Polly Nichol's clothing.

                            "Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway. Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." - Robert Paul

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                              and how many of them were seen standing near a freshly killed victim alone. good grief
                              You're missing the point. The supposed 5 million-to-1 odds are based solely on the route Charles Lechemre took to work. The discovery of the body would make Lechmere a person of interest, just like the people who discovered the rest of the Ripper's victims.

                              But the 5 million-to-1 odds about where the victims were killed are clearly nonsense. They apply to Robert Paul's route to work exactly as much as they apply to Charles Lechmere's route it work. They might apply to some of Paul's co-workers. They probably apply to some of Lechmere's co-workers at Broadstreet Station. They almost certainly apply to several of the hundreds of people who worked in or near near Spitalfield's Market. Not counting the Market, an 1891 map shows a Cocoa Manufactory, the National telephone Works, a Chenniles Manufactory, Boot & Shoe Factory, a Tobacco Manufactory, and the Black Eagle Brewery.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                PS. Please show me where Paul said "We talked to Mizen". I think what he said was "We told him....", and I think that offers a very real possibility that he spoke as one of an entity and not about himself.
                                "We talked to...." and "We told him...." mean the same thing. Paul did not give Mizen's name and his accounts contradict each other.

                                "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." - Robert Paul, September 2, 1888 Lloyds Weekly

                                "Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen." - Robert Paul, September 18, 1888 Times

                                In Lloyds, Paul said "I told him.." In the Times he said ""Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him..."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X