Evidence of innocence

[Fiver]

Maria Louisa lived in 1 Mary Ann Street. Considering that we alread have all the four Whitechapel murders committed in the exact small area that Lechmere traversed en route to work, how could it NOT be a coincidence if Stride was killed close by his mothers house - unless it was Lechmere who did it?

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.

[Fiver]

And there you join the pityful heap of people who are so desperate that they are willing to question the integrity of an award winning film company like Blink. And that, as everything else, is up to each and every one to make a choice about, just as it is up to me to think what I want to about those who make the choice that Scobie was bribed/lied to/misinformed etcetera.

And I do just that.

Oliver Stone has won plenty of awards. That doesn't change the fact that JFK makes 300 look like a documentary.

Like JFK, the Blink "documentary" was a mix of provably false claims and opinion pretending to be fact in order to "prove" that a man who had no evidence against him was a murderer.

A jury threw out the case against Clay Shaw after less than an hour. there's even less evidence against Charles Lechmere.

[Fiver]

If he left home at 3.30.he should be at the murder site at 3.37. The claim of the police and the coroner was that the body was found at 3.45. That means that going on these figures, he was in Bucks Row around 8 minutes to late.
After that, we can juggle with figures as much as we want to, which is what you do. But there you are.

You're the one juggling figures. PC Neil testified that he found the body at 3:45am, which was about 5 minutes after Paul and Lechmere left it. PC Mizen testified that he met Paul and Lechmere about 3:45am, which was about 5 minutes after Paul and Lechmere left Nichols' body.

[Fiver]

I have proven that serial killers can and will do things that nobody has done before them. That moves the onus of proof to anybody who says that Lechmere could not be the killer on account of this detail.

You have missed the point. The burden of proof is on you. It was claimed that if Lechmere was the killer he would have acted the way he did. That is an assumption on your part and your assumption is supported by speculation, not evidence. Neither you nor anyone else has provided any examples of serial killers acting in the way that Lechmere did, let alone showing they would be a probable actions for a serial killer.

[Fiver]

This has been answered many times before.

You have pointedly ignored these points before. You have not answered them.

* Charles Lechmere made no attempt to hide his identity from the police. He contacted them and gave his real home and work addresses. Use of his stepfather's surname was unusual, but it did nothing to hide his identity from the police.

* Charles Lechmere disagreed with PC Mizen. So did Robert Paul. Your double standard is quite clear - two men do the exact same thing, yet it only "proves" one of them guilty. You assume guilt on Lechmere's part, ignoring the possibilities of PC Mizen lying or being mistaken. You also ignore that according to both PC Mizen and Robert Paul, Paul was a witness to the exchange between Mizen and Paul - if Lechmere was lying, Paul was his accomplice.

* Robert Paul testified he pulled down Nichols clothing. This fact has been pointed out to you repeatedly. You ignoring the fact does not make it go away.

* The timings are not off for Chrales Lechmere's trip to work. The testimonies of Charles Lechmere, PC Mizen, PC Neil, and PC Thain all put Lechmere and Paul at the murder site around 3:40am. But you ignore the Inquest testimony in favor of a lone newspaper article, the 2 September Lloyd's weekly. According to that article, Paul said "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row". The article is full of errors - it gets Paul's work address wrong and falsely claims that Paul left Lechmere with the body. It also claims the body was cold enough that Nichols would have been dead long before Paul or Lechmere found her.

* The timings are off for your theory that Charles Lechmere was murdering on his way to work. Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly were murdered on days that Lechmere had the day off of work. Chapman was murdered after Lechmere started work for the day. The Pinchin Street Torso was deposited after Lechmere started work for the day.

* Your failure to understand the difference between exsanguination and bleeding to death proves nothing. Neither does your failure to understand the meaning of the word "oozing".

* There is no evidence that Lechmere had already touched Nichol's body. Nobody saw him touch the body. Nobody saw fresh bloodstains on on Lechmere's clothes or hands.

* If Lechmere were guilty, the smart thing would have been to help Paul prop up Nichols - it would have provided an innocent excuse for any blood on Lechmere's hands or clothes.

I would only like to help you with your failure to understand the bit about pulling the clothes down. Lechmere said himself that when he first saw Nichols, her clothes were over the knees, not up over the abdomen. Paul did not pull the clothes down from a position where the wounds were on display, therefore. And he was not the first one to pull them down, the killer was.

Feel free to show anywhere that Lechmere or Paul testified that Nichols clothes "were over the knees, not up over the abdomen".

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

Last I checked the stomach was above the groin, not below the knee. Perhaps anatomy is different in your part of the world.

[Harry D]

Was it really that strange that Lechmere didn't want to prop Nichols up?

At that point, the two carmen weren't sure what they were dealing with. She could've just been another 'unfortunate' drunk in the gutter. What if she'd had a blade on her and lashed out at the two men disturbing her? The wisest thing to do was to leave her in situ and find help.

[Harry D]

I´ll tell you a secret: I think Lechmere actually KNEW that she was dead or dying!!

Now, if you are going to ask me more questions like this one, for being "genuinely curious", PLEASE read what I say before you go ahead and do exactly what I warn about.

Fisherman, you have amassed over 20,000 posts on this case. If you're expecting me to memorize your stance on every single minutiae of Lechmere's guilt, you've got another thing coming.

But at least we have made some progress. Apart from Lechmere's reluctance to prop Nichols up, you don't see anything suspicious about his behaviour in Buck's Row. Gotcha! I will try to my best to make a mental note of that for future reference.

The rest of your points are interesting, but I don't find them compelling. And I'm here to be convinced. I don't have any suspect, and I have leanings towards the Ripper & Thames Torso killer sharing the same identity.

Paul & Lechmere both disagreed with Mizen. But let's assume for the sake of argument, Lechmere did mislead the copper. There were perfectly innocent explanations for this. One of them being that Lechmere did not want to be held up any longer from going to work. Why would you immediately jump to MURDERER from that?

I think the "Charles Cross" thing is such a non-event. Had Lechmere given a completely bogus identity and address, slipping back into the shadows, I would definitely back you on that point. Although I don't think the killer would've attended the inquest in the first place. At any rate, Cross was a familial name, one that he likely used before in an official capacity. And as you well know, he did not hide his address or his workplace. I simply don't see how giving the name 'Cross' benefitted the "killer" in any way.

I also think you could make the 'geography' argument for any suspect based in the locality of Whitechapel. Didn't Paul's work route also take him past Hanbury Street? That means we have two carmen in quick succession whose work routes coincided with two of the murder sites? Suddenly Lechmere doesn't seem so special.

[FrankO]

I´ll only say that I think it is a tad entertaining when you say that "Thain must have been sent away by Neil around 3.55 and this is simply too late, or so it seems to me."

It doesn´t seem like that to me at all - Llewellyn said he was waken up by Thain at 4 AM or a few minutes before, depending on which material you look at, and that means that Thain must have set out at around 3.55. It is a very simple and logical matter in my world, and it dovetails precisely with how the coroner and Swanson both arrived at the conclusion that Nichols was found at around 3.45. The coroner says that there are many independent sources fixing this time, and I think Llewellyns being woken up by Thain is one of them.

As you always remind us that - evidence-wise - what we have is what we work with, I have a couple of remarks, Christer.

According to a couple of newspapers Llewellyn did state in an interview he gave on the day of the murder that he “was called to Buck’s Row at about five minutes to four this morning.”, so I have little doubt that he actually said the words “about five minutes to four”. This fits with Neil sending Thain away at around 3.50. There’s nothing difficult or illogical about that. Besides, that Thain must have set out at around 3.55 doesn’t dovetail precisely with how the coroner and Swanson both arrived at the conclusion that Nichols was found at around 3.45 by Lechmere and Paul. Because, if so, then Neil found her at around 3.48 and he sent Thain away at around 3.49 or 3.50, not 3.55.

I agree that in the other end, it would make it hard for Lechmere to arrive in time to the Broad Street terminal, but maybe the simple answer is that he didn´t. The sources (The Echo, The Star) say that he reached the Broad Street terminal at 4 o clock. Not around that time - exactly on it. That seems to me to be a very precise timing. I do not exclude that he said that he arrived there at around four o clock or something such. Or that he was due there at 4 AM.

Like the above, what’s also in evidence is that, according to 2 different versions of Lechmere’s inquest deposition, he stated that he reached/arrived at his work at four o’clock. You say he might have said that he arrived there “around” 4 o’clock or that he “was due there” at 4 am and even suggest that he didn’t arrive there at 4 at all (but later), but, as you say, what we’ve got is what we have to work with and what you suggest is not what we’ve got. Furthermore, the 4 o’clock timing may very well have been so precisely because Lechmere had to clock in/on and would, therefore, have known if he had made it in time or not. Plus, it would have been easy for the police to check if he actually had clocked in or arrived at 4 o’clock and I have no doubt that a guilty Lechmere would have realized this. That’s why I think it’s a fair bet that he actually did arrive when he said he did. Or at least, better than the suggestions you made.

Whichever way we look at these matters, not all details can be brought into sync.

Generally speaking, you’re right. But in this case, I think I’ve succeeded quite well in bringing all details into sync:

• Lechmere and Paul found the body close to 3.44 - 3.45
• The meeting between Mizen and the 2 carmen took place at 3.47 – 3.48
• Neil found the body at around 3.48 - 3.49
• Thain was sent away by Neil at around 3.50 and reached the doctor’s residence at around 3.55, just as the doctor had stated.
• Lechmere made it to work by 4 o’clock, just as he stated.

For good measure, I would say that all the above happened a minute or perhaps 2 earlier, but that’s me.

Hope that you did have the nice Sunday you knew you were going to have!

Vi ses!
Frank

[Fisherman]

Feel free to share the methodology. If it's like your medical methodology, it consists of you giving vague and misleading information to an expert, then interpreting it the way you want.

I have shared it. It is described in detail in my book, and named in this thread.

You are welcome to prove that I have provided misleading material to an expert. To begin with, I could not have done so since I was not the one compiling or serving the material. And to proceed, the idea that Blink Films would do such a thing is stupid from the outset.

Until you provide the evidence asked for, the one person tarnished by this nonsense is you.

[Fisherman]

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.

Try again. Read again.

[Fisherman]

Oliver Stone has won plenty of awards. That doesn't change the fact that JFK makes 300 look like a documentary.

Like JFK, the Blink "documentary" was a mix of provably false claims and opinion pretending to be fact in order to "prove" that a man who had no evidence against him was a murderer.

A jury threw out the case against Clay Shaw after less than an hour. there's even less evidence against Charles Lechmere.

You have claimed that you can prove that James Scobie was misled. That is the exact level of your veracity.

[Fisherman]

You have pointedly ignored these points before. You have not answered them.

* Charles Lechmere made no attempt to hide his identity from the police. He contacted them and gave his real home and work addresses. Use of his stepfather's surname was unusual, but it did nothing to hide his identity from the police.

* Charles Lechmere disagreed with PC Mizen. So did Robert Paul. Your double standard is quite clear - two men do the exact same thing, yet it only "proves" one of them guilty. You assume guilt on Lechmere's part, ignoring the possibilities of PC Mizen lying or being mistaken. You also ignore that according to both PC Mizen and Robert Paul, Paul was a witness to the exchange between Mizen and Paul - if Lechmere was lying, Paul was his accomplice.

* Robert Paul testified he pulled down Nichols clothing. This fact has been pointed out to you repeatedly. You ignoring the fact does not make it go away.

* The timings are not off for Chrales Lechmere's trip to work. The testimonies of Charles Lechmere, PC Mizen, PC Neil, and PC Thain all put Lechmere and Paul at the murder site around 3:40am. But you ignore the Inquest testimony in favor of a lone newspaper article, the 2 September Lloyd's weekly. According to that article, Paul said "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row". The article is full of errors - it gets Paul's work address wrong and falsely claims that Paul left Lechmere with the body. It also claims the body was cold enough that Nichols would have been dead long before Paul or Lechmere found her.

* The timings are off for your theory that Charles Lechmere was murdering on his way to work. Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly were murdered on days that Lechmere had the day off of work. Chapman was murdered after Lechmere started work for the day. The Pinchin Street Torso was deposited after Lechmere started work for the day.

* Your failure to understand the difference between exsanguination and bleeding to death proves nothing. Neither does your failure to understand the meaning of the word "oozing".

* There is no evidence that Lechmere had already touched Nichol's body. Nobody saw him touch the body. Nobody saw fresh bloodstains on on Lechmere's clothes or hands.

* If Lechmere were guilty, the smart thing would have been to help Paul prop up Nichols - it would have provided an innocent excuse for any blood on Lechmere's hands or clothes.



Feel free to show anywhere that Lechmere or Paul testified that Nichols clothes "were over the knees, not up over the abdomen".

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

Last I checked the stomach was above the groin, not below the knee. Perhaps anatomy is different in your part of the world.

I have not avoided a single question throughout my years here. I have, however, abstained from debating with a few really stupid posters. More often than not, it has owed to how they have combined loudmouthed ignorance with an apparent wish to derail any sound debate.

My stance on the issues you have is given in my book.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, you have amassed over 20,000 posts on this case. If you're expecting me to memorize your stance on every single minutiae of Lechmere's guilt, you've got another thing coming.

But at least we have made some progress. Apart from Lechmere's reluctance to prop Nichols up, you don't see anything suspicious about his behaviour in Buck's Row.

I actually do, but I can understand if others do not. Once more, it is about how the collected evidence allows for more than one interpretation. What I am saying is that the prop up matter is the one thing that clearly stands out as odd.

Gotcha! I will try to my best to make a mental note of that for future reference.

Or not.

The rest of your points are interesting, but I don't find them compelling. And I'm here to be convinced. I don't have any suspect, and I have leanings towards the Ripper & Thames Torso killer sharing the same identity.

If you are not sure about it, you are disregarding very obvious evidence. But fair enough.

Paul & Lechmere both disagreed with Mizen. But let's assume for the sake of argument, Lechmere did mislead the copper. There were perfectly innocent explanations for this. One of them being that Lechmere did not want to be held up any longer from going to work. Why would you immediately jump to MURDERER from that?

Please understand that I make NO immediate jump. I only jump after having weighed together ALL the evidence. I know perfectly well that taken in isolation, the differents details can all be provided with alternative innocent explanations. And that is what ALL critics do, instead of loking at the whole case.
Look closer at the scam; it was not only that Mizen assured the inquest that Lechmere had said that there was a PC in Bucks Row. It was also how Mizen was not told about the seriousness of the errand, and told the inquest that the carman had said nothing about murder or suicide. And it was also about how Lechmere avoided admitting that he himself was the finder. Plus it was about how this mixture was the perhaps only mixture that was guaranteed to take Lechmere past Mizen. So this matter alone holds four matters that we need to write off as unlucky coincidences or as lies on Mizens behalf. And this is before we look at a dozen or so other things that are pointers to guilt - unless we decide that they were ALSO coincidences or flukes. All of them.
So forget about the other PC. Look att the whole amassed evidence!

I think the "Charles Cross" thing is such a non-event. Had Lechmere given a completely bogus identity and address, slipping back into the shadows, I would definitely back you on that point. Although I don't think the killer would've attended the inquest in the first place. At any rate, Cross was a familial name, one that he likely used before in an official capacity. And as you well know, he did not hide his address or his workplace. I simply don't see how giving the name 'Cross' benefitted the "killer" in any way.

Then you refuse to understand that a serial killer may want to keep his involvement in a murder case from the public.

I also think you could make the 'geography' argument for any suspect based in the locality of Whitechapel. Didn't Paul's work route also take him past Hanbury Street? That means we have two carmen in quick succession whose work routes coincided with two of the murder sites? Suddenly Lechmere doesn't seem so special.

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?

[Fisherman]

As you always remind us that - evidence-wise - what we have is what we work with, I have a couple of remarks, Christer.

According to a couple of newspapers Llewellyn did state in an interview he gave on the day of the murder that he “was called to Buck’s Row at about five minutes to four this morning.”, so I have little doubt that he actually said the words “about five minutes to four”. This fits with Neil sending Thain away at around 3.50. There’s nothing difficult or illogical about that. Besides, that Thain must have set out at around 3.55 doesn’t dovetail precisely with how the coroner and Swanson both arrived at the conclusion that Nichols was found at around 3.45 by Lechmere and Paul. Because, if so, then Neil found her at around 3.48 and he sent Thain away at around 3.49 or 3.50, not 3.55.

Why would Thain have been sent for Llewellyn at 3.50 if he was called to Neils side at 3.45? He would have arrived at the site at 3.46. Why would he then take four minutes to comprehend Neils ”Run at once for Dr Llewellyn? And if he was that late a starter, why would he not arrive at Llewellyns practice at 3.52-3.53? Llewellyn variously said - or was quoted as sayin - that Thain arrived at his place at five to four or four. Must that mean 3.55 or is a prudent evaluation that he arrived at 3.57 - 3.58? There are many minutes badly adrift in your suggestion, Frank.

Like the above, what’s also in evidence is that, according to 2 different versions of Lechmere’s inquest deposition, he stated that he reached/arrived at his work at four o’clock. You say he might have said that he arrived there “around” 4 o’clock or that he “was due there” at 4 am and even suggest that he didn’t arrive there at 4 at all (but later), but, as you say, what we’ve got is what we have to work with and what you suggest is not what we’ve got. Furthermore, the 4 o’clock timing may very well have been so precisely because Lechmere had to clock in/on and would, therefore, have known if he had made it in time or not. Plus, it would have been easy for the police to check if he actually had clocked in or arrived at 4 o’clock and I have no doubt that a guilty Lechmere would have realized this. That’s why I think it’s a fair bet that he actually did arrive when he said he did. Or at least, better than the suggestions you made.

There are times when what we have is contradictory. Then what we have is what we use too - but we must find a possible explanation for the contradictions.

Generally speaking, you’re right. But in this case, I think I’ve succeeded quite well in bringing all details into sync:

• Lechmere and Paul found the body close to 3.44 - 3.45
• The meeting between Mizen and the 2 carmen took place at 3.47 – 3.48
• Neil found the body at around 3.48 - 3.49
• Thain was sent away by Neil at around 3.50 and reached the doctor’s residence at around 3.55, just as the doctor had stated.
• Lechmere made it to work by 4 o’clock, just as he stated.

For good measure, I would say that all the above happened a minute or perhaps 2 earlier, but that’s me.

Hope that you did have the nice Sunday you knew you were going to have!

Vi ses!
Frank

The above should tell you why and how I disagree, Frank. One matter I have not commented on in all of this is how you say that Lechmere and Paul found the body at 3.44-3.45. To begin with, the two did not find it at the same time, even if we accept that Lechmere was innocent. So maybe we should say that Lechmere found the body at 3.45 and Paul srrived at 3.46. We then are in sync with what Baxter, Swanson and Paul said. I will not say that these timings must be exact, but this is nevertheless the timing that comes closest to honour the three. You then say that the carmen got to Mizen at 3.47. That predisposes that the carmen examined Nichols, decided what to do and did the trek to Mizen, all of this in one or two minutes. And Paul suggested it took around four minutes. And so I find your timings adrift once again.

The Thain business is the Achilles heel in your reasoning. He said he was brought into action at 3.45, and you have him knocking on Llewellyns door at 3.55. It took him a minute to get down to Browns Stable yard and the distance to Llewellyns practice demaned a two or three minute walk. So all in all, Thains role should take 3-4 minutes to accomplish. But you have him spending 10 minutes.

…. But I did have a splendid Sunday!

[FrankO]

Why would Thain have been sent for Llewellyn at 3.50 if he was called to Neils side at 3.45?

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.

And if he was that late a starter, why would he not arrive at Llewellyns practice at 3.52-3.53?

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.

Llewellyn variously said - or was quoted as sayin - that Thain arrived at his place at five to four or four. Must that mean 3.55 or is a prudent evaluation that he arrived at 3.57 - 3.58? There are many minutes badly adrift in your suggestion, Frank.

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.

There are times when what we have is contradictory. Then what we have is what we use too - but we must find a possible explanation for the contradictions.

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.

The above should tell you why and how I disagree, Frank. One matter I have not commented on in all of this is how you say that Lechmere and Paul found the body at 3.44-3.45. To begin with, the two did not find it at the same time, even if we accept that Lechmere was innocent.

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.

We then are in sync with what Baxter, Swanson and Paul said. I will not say that these timings must be exact, but this is nevertheless the timing that comes closest to honour the three.

Just as I said in my previous post, really.

You then say that the carmen got to Mizen at 3.47. That predisposes that the carmen examined Nichols, decided what to do and did the trek to Mizen, all of this in one or two minutes. And Paul suggested it took around four minutes. And so I find your timings adrift once again.

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.

The Thain business is the Achilles heel in your reasoning. He said he was brought into action at 3.45, and you have him knocking on Llewellyns door at 3.55. It took him a minute to get down to Browns Stable yard and the distance to Llewellyns practice demaned a two or three minute walk. So all in all, Thains role should take 3-4 minutes to accomplish. But you have him spending 10 minutes.

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.

... But I did have a splendid Sunday!

I really hope you did (seeing that you seem to have missed or misread a thing or two in my previous post)!