Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

It was apparently established at the time by contact with the railway company, presumably.

Have you any information to share with us about why Harriet Lilley was not participating at the inquest to share her revelations with the coroner and jury? If she could not deliver her information in situ, then why was it that the police were not able to see what you so quickly saw yourself - and pointed it out at the inquest? Why was this crucial information left with no mentioning at all?

Any ideas? Thoughts? Anything? No?

[Harry D]

If a person is found alone with a murder victim at a time that is consistent with that victims TOD

I'd have to pull you on this, Fisherman. It's slightly disingenous.

Lechmere was not found doing anything.

HE approached the next person on the scene.

The police would not even know this man's identity if he hadn't approached Paul AND voluntarily attended the inquest.

Again, not the actions of a guilty man.

[Fisherman]

I'd have to pull you on this, Fisherman. It's slightly disingenous.

Lechmere was not found doing anything.

I did not say that he was found "doing anything", Harry. I said he was found alone at the site of the murder. Paul found him standing there. For some reason, naysayers want to remove the term "found" from the equation, but if he was not found by Paul, then what was he? Observed? Joined? Noticed? Discovered? Overlooked?

HE approached the next person on the scene.

I never said anything else. It would be extremely odd if Paul did the approaching, not least since he had not noticed the body until Lechmere directed his attention to it. But the approaching and the finding are two different matters.

The police would not even know this man's identity if he hadn't approached Paul AND voluntarily attended the inquest.

Again, not the actions of a guilty man.

Again, the actions of a guilty Lechmere who wanted to look innocent would be actions that were in line with innocence - once he was joined by Paul. The last time I said so, you were very upset and said that in my view, Lechmere was damned regardless of what he did. But it still applies that killers who want to feign innocence WILL behave innocently once they are observed by other people. What is a tad flummoxing is if you cannot see how this works.

Speaking about disingenuous, I mean...

[Abby Normal]

What baffles me is how certain people think they have a better understanding of the case than the police back in 1888.
Yes, the psychology of serial killers may be better understood. But as for bobbies on the ground etc, come on . They had no DNA etc, no forensics etc . What they did have however was instinct, witness statements, local knowledge etc.
Of course this didn't account for everything. But you are telling me that 130 years later people have a better understanding than say PC Thain, Mizen etc And of course Swanson , Abberline higher up etc of who was a suspect etc and what leads to follow and what alibi's to check out, well !
So when someone discovered a freshly killed body and the police would have no suspicions against the guy, and we have, even if it was just a follow up, check up on this person, and they were there and we were not. And they did not exonerate him ?
Sorry but I do not concur
Regards Darryl

the ole lechmere couldnt have done it because the police were infallable argument. weak. look at all the mistakes that were made, misinterpretations, prejudices. the amount of mistakes in remembering the events, people and places that MM, anderson, swanson dew etc made.warren having the gsg removed. on and on. and oh, the case went unsolved. lol

no the police werent idiots, they did the best with what they had, but they were far from perfect.

[Mark J D]

It was apparently established at the time by contact with the railway company, presumably.

'... apparently ... presumably...'

In short, it's a made-up time. We have a train with no passengers, running in the middle of the night, and we place its timing at whatever point on the clock looks like it might be of greatest use -- in this case, as a hopeful cause of embarrassment to the current most-unwanted theory. Garbage data for a garbage purpose.

And, of course, if the moment ever comes that this train starts looking like something that a favoured suspect needed to hop onto -- say, on his race to or from a cricket match -- we could see the 'estimated time of passing' jump from 03:30 to 03:45 without the slightest blush from anyone...

M.

[Mark J D]

... I had a telephone call with him discussuing the full facts with him...

Sorry, folks; but as I'm so new hereabouts, can I just quietly check what 'full facts' we might be talking about here? Trevor Marriott *is* the 'why do you think that was Eddowes' apron?'; 'the organs were removed at the mortuary'; 'Mary Kelly was murdered by Fenian copycats' guy, isn't he...?

M.

[Dickere]

Sorry, folks; but as I'm so new hereabouts, can I just quietly check what 'full facts' we might be talking about here? Trevor Marriott *is* the 'why do you think that was Eddowes' apron?', 'the organs were removed at the mortuary', 'Mary Kelly was murdered by Fenian copycats' guy, isn't he...?

M.

QAnon have quite a history then

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

Did you discuss the name issue with him?

Gary

Of course I did, as this was an important part of Fisherman theory, and would turn out to be one of the main reasons which formed parts of Scobie`s comments which Fisherman seeks to rely on to prop up his theory.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

I did not say that he was found "doing anything", Harry. I said he was found alone at the site of the murder.

That's my point. Lechmere wasn't "found" at all. He made contact with Paul and brought Nichols to his attention. You might think it's semantics, but language is important here, as it can mislead those not au fait with the case. In much the same way that "Lechmere used a fake name" is misleading because he gave a familial surname that he had assumed before in an official capacity, but on paper it sounds sketchier than it actually is.

Again, the actions of a guilty Lechmere who wanted to look innocent would be actions that were in line with innocence - once he was joined by Paul.

Your presumption of guilt is a confirmation bias. Perhaps the most logical explanation is that Lechmere acted innocent because he was innocent?

[Great Aunt]

Hi George,
Jeff's 40 seconds is at the upper end of the possible walking speeds

It's 130 yards from the junction to the murder site.

At the possible walking speeds that's as follows

3mph( 88 yards per minute) 1min 29 seconds

3.5 mph (102.5 ypm) 1 min 16 sec

4mph (117 ypm) 1min 07 secs

5 mph (146 ypm) 53 seconds

6mph (176 ypm) 44 seconds

I suggest 6mph is unrealistic, I come to this conclusion by looking at the distances both he had Lechmere had to walk to work, and seeing what pave is neccessary.
With Paul it's approx 1364 yards from home to work.

At 3 mph that's about 15.5 min.

3.5 just over 13

4mph 11.5 min

5mph just over 9

6mph it's under 8 minutes.

So Lechmere probably had far more time than you imagine.
Indeed if he just got up and walked west, turned out at Board School and taken any of the available exits to Whitechapel Road, he would be out of sight in under 30 seconds at only 3.5 mph

At 4mph its about 25 seconds

At 5mph it's under 20 seconds.

He would have been gone before Paul probably even sees the body. Let alone examine it.


All these distances and walking speeds are covered in great depth in Inside Bucks Row.

Steve

Hi - my knowledge is infinitely smaller than anyone else on this site but my interest is huge! Just wondering whether the women on the streets wore hobnailed boots too - if Lech had just murdered Nicholls then he might have thought another woman was on her way up the street and that's why he didn't hurry away? Best wishes.

[MrBarnett]

Of course I did, as this was an important part of Fisherman theory, and would turn out to be one of the main reasons which formed parts of Scobie`s comments which Fisherman seeks to rely on to prop up his theory.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And in giving him the ‘full facts’ you provided him with the biographies of Lechmere’s parents?

[Doctored Whatsit]

'... apparently ... presumably...'

In short, it's a made-up time. We have a train with no passengers, running in the middle of the night, and we place its timing at whatever point on the clock looks like it might be of greatest use -- in this case, as a hopeful cause of embarrassment to the current most-unwanted theory. Garbage data for a garbage purpose.

And, of course, if the moment ever comes that this train starts looking like something that a favoured suspect needed to hop onto -- say, on his race to or from a cricket match -- we could see the 'estimated time of passing' jump from 03:30 to 03:45 without the slightest blush from anyone...

M.

Yes, it was sorted in September 1888. It isn't a made up time. The train started a relatively short time before, and a short distance away. The timing was established to the satisfaction of whoever checked it out at the proper time. Any suggestion that it is a guess or some inconvenient gesture to thwart a theory has no factual basis.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Have you any information to share with us about why Harriet Lilley was not participating at the inquest to share her revelations with the coroner and jury? If she could not deliver her information in situ, then why was it that the police were not able to see what you so quickly saw yourself - and pointed it out at the inquest? Why was this crucial information left with no mentioning at all?

Any ideas? Thoughts? Anything? No?

The police admitted that they didn't do their job properly. Inspector Spratling was forced to concede at the inquest on 17th September, that they had still not spoken to all of the residents prior to the inquest. Any statement the police eventually gathered from Mrs Lilley came too late for the inquest.

[Trevor Marriott]

And in giving him the ‘full facts’ you provided him with the biographies of Lechmere’s parents?

No there was no need,what I provided him was sufficient

He had been told Lechmere gave a false name which in reality was not the real truth and another part of how he came to make the statements that he made about there was enough evidence to put before a court

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Mark J D]

Yes, it was sorted in September 1888. It isn't a made up time. The train started a relatively short time before, and a short distance away. The timing was established to the satisfaction of whoever checked it out at the proper time. Any suggestion that it is a guess or some inconvenient gesture to thwart a theory has no factual basis.

I've never seen this stood up in any way that stops it looking like layers of wishful thinking.

M.