Evidence of innocence

[rjpalmer]

At the end of the day, when speaking of heavy hitters in the brain department, we should also consider that the Ridgway - Police bout seems to have been a mismatch. But not one that disfavoured Ridgway.

Now you're just codding me, Dear Boss.

Ridgway's I.Q. was listed at 82. Do you think it may have been the nature his anonymous crimes, rather than his innate intelligence, that thwarted detection for so long? Why generously give to the Devil what is not his due?

Indeed, it could just as easily have been Ridgway's stupidity, rather than his brilliance, that disarmed the policeman who interviewed him.

Which could suggests that this particular angle of debate is not worth our time, Fish.

A suspect could say that he 'saw nothing and heard nothing' because he was dim-witted and unimaginative.

Or he could say that he 'saw nothing and heard nothing' because he was a brilliant psychopath who was playing three-dimensional chess.

Or he could say that he 'saw nothing and heard nothing' because...well...he saw nothing and heard nothing, which wouldn't be particularly unusual at 3.30 in the morning.

This is the burden you carry.

[FrankO]

Henry Tomkins cleared that up: Thain came for his cape at around 4.15. He then returned to the murder spot. It would have been a matter of the fewest of minutes.
From the Daily News' coverage of the matter (4th of September):
They went to see the dead woman because Police constable Thain had passed the slaughter house about quarter past four and told them that a woman had been murdered in Buck's row.

Of course, you're right, Christer. I knew about Tomkins, but was so focussed on reading as many of the statement versions of Thain and Spratling I could find and on the whole sequence of comings and goings, that I forgot about him. One additional nugget I've found just now is that Thain went to fetch his cape because he did not know where he would be sent by his inspector (Illustrated Police News of 23 September). So, it was logical that he went for it shortly after he was ordered to stay on the spot to wait for Spratling and after Neil, Kirby and Mizen had left for the mortuary.

What does still remain a bit of a mystery, though, is: who were the 2 unknown workman that Thain saw with Neil when he returned with Llewellyn and who Tomkins also seems to have seen when he arrived at the scene of the crime? Oddly enough, they weren't mentioned by Neil.

[Fisherman]

Of course, you're right, Christer. I knew about Tomkins, but was so focussed on reading as many of the statement versions of Thain and Spratling I could find and on the whole sequence of comings and goings, that I forgot about him. One additional nugget I've found just now is that Thain went to fetch his cape because he did not know where he would be sent by his inspector (Illustrated Police News of 23 September). So, it was logical that he went for it shortly after he was ordered to stay on the spot to wait for Spratling and after Neil, Kirby and Mizen had left for the mortuary.

What does still remain a bit of a mystery, though, is: who were the 2 unknown workman that Thain saw with Neil when he returned with Llewellyn and who Tomkins also seems to have seen when he arrived at the scene of the crime? Oddly enough, they weren't mentioned by Neil.

The bit about the inspector is a very revealing thing; it settles the business and tells the story in a very clear manner. Myself, I am particularly fond of another quotation, from another paper, namely the Daily Telegraph. It has a wording that seems odd up until we realize how Thain was put under pressure from the coroner, who - if I am correct - firmly believed that Thain had payed his visit to the butchers BEFORE running for Dr Llewellyn. This, the coroner would have done in order to be able to save the 3.45 timing given by the three PC:s, if I´m not mistaken, a prospect that was abandoned in the end.
Once we understand this, it all becomes a lot easier to understand what message Thain is trying to get across:
"When I went to the horse-slaughterer's for my cape I did not say that I was going to fetch a doctor, as a murder had been committed."
To me, this denial was led on by how Baxter suggested that Thain went to Winthrop Street before getting the doctor, telling the butchers that he was on his way to fetch Llewellyn, something that Thain refuted; he did not tell the butchers that he was en route to Llewellyn, because he only payed them a visit AFTER having delivered Llewellyn to the murder site.

As for the two workmen, I have no answer to give you. Ships in the night, by the looks of things, passers-by before the butchers arrived. We know that they were not the Winthrop Street butchers, since Thain laid down that he did not know the two men:

On his return with the doctor, Neil and two workmen were standing by the body. He did not know the workmen. (The Times, 18th of September)

Henry Tomkins also mentioned these two men in his testimony:

When he arrived at Buck's-row the doctor and two or three policemen were there. He believed that two other men, whom he did not know, were also there. (Daily Telegraph, 4th of September)

We also know that LLewellyn remarked about how he decided to abort his examination on account of how the place was getting crowded, and ordered the body to be taken to the mortuary. This would likely have taken place somewhere around 4.16 - 4.20, since the butchers were alerted to the site by Thain at around 4.15. Reasonably, that in it´s turn point to how Llewellyn would not have been in place until at the earliest around 4.10, spending around five to ten minutes examining the body of Polly Nichols.

[Fisherman]

Now you're just codding me, Dear Boss.

Ridgway's I.Q. was listed at 82. Do you think it may have been the nature his anonymous crimes, rather than his innate intelligence, that thwarted detection for so long? Why generously give to the Devil what is not his due?

Indeed, it could just as easily have been Ridgway's stupidity, rather than his brilliance, that disarmed the policeman who interviewed him.

Which could suggests that this particular angle of debate is not worth our time, Fish.

A suspect could say that he 'saw nothing and heard nothing' because he was dim-witted and unimaginative.

Or he could say that he 'saw nothing and heard nothing' because he was a brilliant psychopath who was playing three-dimensional chess.

Or he could say that he 'saw nothing and heard nothing' because...well...he saw nothing and heard nothing, which wouldn't be particularly unusual at 3.30 in the morning.

This is the burden you carry.

I was saying that regardless of how dumb a criminal is, he can always entertain a hope that the police are even dumber.

As for the Bucks Row comparison, I carry no burden at all. If you want to prove that the killer was dumb, I’ m afraid that burden rests on you, not me.

[drstrange169]

The key to the Lechmerian theory, when someone points out the flaws in it, is to muddy the waters as much as possible to confuse people and deflect as much as possible from the actual evidence available and, of course, throw in the odd invented story.

Case in point;

Fisherman, post 3443

"Baxter - who knew quite well about the timings the three PC:s had given - established in his inquest summary that 3.45 was the time when the body of Polly Nichols was discovered."

Baxter categorically did NOT claim Mrs. Nichols body was found at 3:45. This fabrication or to call it Christer's preferred term, a mistake, is easily proven false.

Baxter said,

“The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from a quarter to four a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.”

He clearly, although not, apparently clearly enough for Christer, states the body was found at an unknown time close to 3:45, NOT at 3:45 as Christer constantly claims.


In his summation, Baxter makes it abundantly clear that although the time was close to 3:45, it was before 3:45!

In referring to Holland's testimony he said,

“… she was seen by Mrs. Holland … It was then half past two. … In less than an hour and a quarter she was found dead"

An hour and a quarter on from 2:30 is 3:45 and Baxter states that Mrs Nichols body was found BEFORE that time. Christer is entitled to disagree with Baxter, but he is not entitled to alter what Baxter actually said. This not not opinion or debate, it is a matter of being factually correct.

Baxter goes on to say,

“Constable Neil must independently have found the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen.”

Neil's stated time of discovery was 3:45. Baxter is stating that the carmen found the body before 3:45 as noted above in his summation of Holland's testimony. He then confirmed this by adding,

“Constable Neil was positive that he was at the spot half an hour before”
(the time of his previous round confirmed as 3:15)

It was noted previously by the police that Neil was "questioned closely" about this, so there is no doubt Neil was adamant about the accuracy of his times.

Finally, Baxter noted what time Llewellyn arrived at the crime scene,

“Neil found her right arm still warm, and even Dr. Llewellyn, who saw the body about a quarter of an hour afterwards”

So Baxter, who heard the full evidence and had the written reports in front of him, placed Doctor Llewelyn at the crime scene "about a quarter of an hour" after Neil's 3:45 discovery of the body.

Abberline, who was the officer in charge of the investigation and attended the inquest, heard the evidence first hand and quite possibly interviewed the people in involved, wrote in his report,

"... about 3.40 am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross ... noticed a woman ..."

The silly story about Swanson has been debunked so many times here I can't be bothered repeating it all again but if you go here:

https://www.orsam.co.uk/breakingpoint.htm

and scroll half way down, you'll see the whole sorry saga explained away in realistic terms.

[drstrange169]

To use computer terminology, Q.I.Q.O. and G.I.G.O. .

Quality in, quality out, garbage in, garbage out.

Nowhere in his summing up does Baxter mention a time given by Cross or Paul. And with good reason, despite Christer claiming in post 3463 that Cross and Paul gave a time for being in Buck's Row, neither actually did. That is not my opinion it is a verifiable fact.

Can anyone point to where Cross says what time he was in Buck's Row? So Christer has fabricat ... sorry ... made yet another "mistake".

Lechmerians would have you believe Paul’s interview in the Lloyds Weekly, which is indisputably known to contain lies by either Paul or the reporter is more accurate than four independent witnesses that swore to their times under oath.

Even Paul who avoided the police and had to be dragged out of bed and questioned all night, seemed very reluctant to repeat his claim entering Buck's Row at "exactly 3:45". Instead acknowledging he didn't even know the exact time he left home:

"I am a carman, and on the morning of the murder I left home just before a quarter to four".

If he wasn't lying about entering Buck's Row at "exactly 3:45" why didn't he repeat his claim under oath?

What time is "just before 3:45"? 3:42? 3:40? 3:35? When?

How, in any unbaised terms, is this not dubious?

However,

P.C. Neil, had a sergeant check that he was sticking to his beat time just prior to the murder. Later under close questioning he insisted his times were correct.

P.C. Mizen’s specific job that morning was to knock on peoples doors and tell people the time.

P.C. Thain passed the Brewery clock within a minute of being called by Neil. (see map below)

Yet Christer would have us bizarrely believe these sworn, matching statements, made under penalty of prosecution are false and a shonky interview time that Paul would not repeat under oath is somehow far more credible.

I wonder which a jury would believe


? Mizen's route passed the clock.

[drstrange169]

>>The obvious inference would then be that Lechmere had heard the killer. So far so good. But what if it emerged that somebody had been awake and looking out of his window at the time Lechmere claimed somebody ran past it? And was able to convince the police that the information was false?<<

More twaddle. Let's stop the fabrication and look at the facts.



Where on this map is the this fictitious window that somebody woke and was looked out of?

There are no houses!

And even if there were, how would these fictitious sombolists see on the very dark night?

Wasn't Lechmere supposed to have spent months casing the joint? Gee talk about self defeating stories.

[drstrange169]

>>Why it would be unscientific to point out that a trek that takes around seven minutes in this case seems to have taken fifteen minutes instead is something Dusty gives us no real answer to.<<

Because for it to "seem to have taken fifteen minutes", you need, if you are being "scientific", to establish that the two times you are using are connected. Anything that is not connected is useless.

Given the things you've been writing here, it's hardly surprising that you can't grasp the concept of verifiability.

[drstrange169]

>>Dusty further says that his idea that Inside Bucks Row is the most comprehensive book on the Nichols murder must not be challenged ...<<


If anyone can name a book with more detail about Buck's Row than Steve's book feel free to name it. Until then let's stick with, "the most comprehensive book on Buck's Row", as being correct.


>> ... there is every reason to point out that it helps very little to write a thick book - if the information in it is wrong, skewed or biased.<<

The bulk of the book is simply facts, figures, timings, newspaper reports, full inquest quotes, links to various online sites, all of which are updated constantly when new or disputed information arises. It matters not what theory Steve espouses in the book, because he gives opposing views for the reader to chose for themselves unlike a recent book book on Lechmere that does not canvas in detail the possible alternatives. Hence the reason that Inside Buck's Row is the most comprehensive book on the subject available. Simple really. But, of course, you can only guess, because you won't read it. A strange thing for someone who claims to be interested in the subject matter and wants to engage with the author. It's not even as if price is a barrier, it's one of the cheapest books in ripperology.

[harry]

Something to digest.

[Fisherman]

As always, a long list of posts by Dusty. And, as always, with the aim of pointing me out as ignorant, dishonest and misleading.

Well, I am quite happy to allow Dusty to be the tough wrong guy with an attitude, as long as I am the one who is correct. Be my guest!

Now, let´s celebrate this Sunday by pulling down Dusty´s debating pants, shall we?

First, he says that:

"Baxter categorically did NOT claim Mrs. Nichols body was found at 3:45. This fabrication or to call it Christer's preferred term, a mistake, is easily proven false."

So the tactic chosen here is that I must be wrong since I claim that the body was found at 3.45.00, exactly, and there can be no such certainty.

What Dusty carefull avoids to do, is to acknowledge that I have repeatedly quoted that Baxters claim was that the body could not have been found far from 3.45 - no, he chooses a wording where he can claim that I am only allowing for 3.45.00 exactly.

It is very obvious that nobody, not Baxter, not Dusty and certainly not me, can establish the exact second or minute the body was found. But that, I´m afraid, is not the important thing here. The important thing is that what Baxter did was to point out as close a time as he was possible to when it comes to when the body was found. And to lead on that Baxter was "categorical" about not promoting 3.45 as that time is ... well, there is probably a word for it, but I cannot find it right now.

The initial take on things was guided by the timings given by the three PC:s, who all said that they were called into action at around 3.45.

This in it´s turn would point to how the carmen would have found the body at around 3.40.

So what Baxter effectively does when saying that the time could not have been far off 3.45 is NOT to say that the body was likely found at around 3.40, verifying the PC:s timings, but instead that the body likely found around 3.45, denying the PC.s timings.

I have seen Dustys argument before, and not surprisingly, it was forwarded by Steve Blomer, who made the remark that 3.40 is not far off 3.45. And true, it is not. But to claim that Baxter would be likely to word an acceptance of the body possibly being found at 3.40 as representing a time not far off 3.45 is snake oil ripperology. Of course, what the coroner did was to try and establish as closely as possible the time at which the body was found. And his best guess was that it was found at 3.45. After that, there would have been some wriggle room, but that wriggle room would not involve 3.40, because what Baxter called "independent data" laid down that 3.40 was not compatible with the known facts.

It is all very easy, but I am happy to present it again!

Dr LLewellyn said that he was called to Bucks Row by PC Thain. He said in the pre-inquest interviews that this took place at around 3.55. At the inquest, he said it took place at 4.00. Check.

The trek from the murder site to Dr Llewellyns practice took around two minutes to cover. Check.

So if Thain called on Llewellyn at 3.55, he would have left Browns Stable Yard at around 3.53. Check.

If he called on LLewellyn at 4.00, he would have left at around 3.58. Check.

None of these departure times jibe with Thain having been flagged down by PC Neil at 3.45, as Thain stated. Check.

If he was flagged down at 3.45, he would have gotten to the site at 3.46, and then he would have been immediately sent to Llewellyn. Check.

And it would have taken him nine minutes (3.46 - 3.55) to reach the practice if he got there at 3.55. Check.

If he got there at 4.00, it would have taken him 14 minutes (3.46 - 4.00) to get to Llewellyn. Check.

And all the while, we know that it was a two minute trek.

So let´s look at when he SHOULD have left Browns Stable Yard in order to get to LLewellyns practice at 3.55. Well that is of course a very simple exercise.

We detract two minutes from 3.55 and get 3.53. Check.

And if Thain was sent for Llewellyn at 3.53, then he would have been flagged down by Neil at around 3.51-3.52, meaning that Neil himself would have been in place not at 3.45 but instead at around 3.51. Check.

And what does that tell us about the carmen? Correct, it tells us that they found the body at a time "not far off 3.45". Check.

This is the long and the short of things, and it is also why claiming that Baxters "not far off 3.45" would have entailed 3.40 is snake oil ripperology. As we can all see (with the possible exception of Messrs Strange/Blomer), if anything, we may perhaps need to ADD five minutes, not detract them, because Llewellyn said 3.55 - 4.00!

But these matters are not where Dusty puts his shovel in the ground and digs. Nope, not at all. He instead tries another angle:

In his summation, Baxter makes it abundantly clear that although the time was close to 3:45, it was before 3:45!

In referring to Holland's testimony he said,

“… she was seen by Mrs. Holland … It was then half past two. … In less than an hour and a quarter she was found dead"

An hour and a quarter on from 2:30 is 3:45 and Baxter states that Mrs Nichols body was found BEFORE that time.

Here, Dusty makes another approach to timings than the one he recommends when it comes to Baxters "not far off 3.45". In that case, he finds it likely that although Baxter SAID not far off 3.45, he MEANT not far off 3.40. And he tells me that I am misleading people by claiming that it was EXACTLY 3.45 - which is a pretty dumb thing to say, since it is abundantly clear that no exact timing can be given.

But when it comes to the Holland testimony, we can suddenly be certain that Baxter was able to allow for 3.44 but NOT for 3.45! NOW we may use exact timings!! Snake oil ripperology - if it had not been so very sad, it would be funny.

If Dusty´s point is valid, then we must accept that when Baxter said that the body was found "not far off 3.45", he actually meant that it could not have been found at 3.45! If anybody (but for dusty, of course) actually believes in this, they need to reconsider it - pronto.

There are many more sad example of the same approach, like when Dusty claims that I would have said that Paul and Lechmere gave a time for being in Bucks Row. I very clearly quoted Paul only, and he DOES give a time for being in Bucks Row as "exactly 3.45". I never quoted Lechmere giving such a time for the simple reason that we all know that he never did. Each and every one of us. But sure enough, Dusty has thought up a way to accuse me of having done so, in all probability by way of using some quotation without looking at the context; snake oil ripperology.

I will not waste much more time on the many accusations he makes - they are par for the course when it comes to Dusty. I will only point out that the reason that I have not read Steve Blomers book lies in how I find that Blomer does not treat the facts in a way that is consistent with making me want to take part of it. Dusty says that "Inside Bucks Row" is "simply facts", and that is not a bad thing under normal circumstances. What I fear is that there are a number too many "facts" in the book. After having been accused of having been "dodgy" in my own book for not speaking up clearly enough about how Robert Paul told PC Mizen that he thought that the woman in Bucks Row was dead, I am anything but impressed by the underlying research and knowledge behind that accusation. Blomer treated an idea of his own as a fact, a "fact" he KNOWS I dispute seven days in the week - and then he scorned me in his review for not mentioning it as a fact! However, it was never a fact - and to boot, I DID mention the matter and how I look upon it not once but twice in my book. However, I did not bring it up as an established fact and Blomer found this "dodgy". It is an approach to facts that make me shudder.

That alone should tell the story about why I have not read the book - I find the authors approach to the case facts less than satisfactory.

Now, I anticipate a large number of more posts from Dustys hand, all of them outlining me as misrepresenting the facts and misleading to feed my huge bias. I would appreciate if he could instead shortly and succinctly explain how it would have taken John Thain 9-14 minutes to do the trek to Dr LLewellyns practice, becasue that is what he needs to do.

Not that it is going to happen - but it would be nice if at least tried! And being the generous man that I am, I will even offer an alterantive approach to the matter, one that I was served by a poster on a Facebook thread, a poster who - just like Dusty - refused to accept that the PC:s could be wrong. His congenial solution to the dilemma was that when Llewellyn said that he was called to Bucks Row at 3.55-4.00, he actually meant that he ARRIVED there at that time.

Christmas is coming up, Dusty. You may regard this tip of mine as an early gift from me to you. Merry X-mas!

[Mark J D]

... a poster who ... refused to accept that the PCs could be wrong...

You know, old bean, literally every time I find an anti-Lechmerian bouncing on the furniture over 'Three policemen! Under oath! Sworn, matching statements! Risk of sacking and prosecution!', the thought passes through my mind that the critic concerned either doesn't know enough coppers or actually is one. Coppers meeting up on the quiet to get their story straight is an onimpresent fact of bent constabulary life -- and innocent people have been sentenced to jail and worse because of it.

M.

[Fisherman]

You know, old bean, literally every time I find an anti-Lechmerian bouncing on the furniture over 'Three policemen! Under oath! Sworn, matching statements! Risk of sacking and prosecution!', the thought passes through my mind that the critic concerned either doesn't know enough coppers or actually is one. Coppers meeting up on the quiet to get their story straight is an onimpresent fact of bent constabulary life -- and innocent people have been sentenced to jail and worse because of it.

M.

Yes, it is remarkable, is it not, how much trust is put in these three PC:s - and by the same people who claim that Mizen was either mistaken about being told of a phantom PC, or lying about it.

Flexible minds, flexible truths.

[SuperShodan]

ALL times from ALL our protagonists are likely to be rough times give or take a minute or two. In particular we don’t know when Lechmere left home. It was reported as 03.30 but even if this is true, this could still easily enough be 03.28 or 03.32 if we accept a margin of error.

However, the general point about timing is this. Lechmere usually leaves at 03.20 (the various press reports concerning this are in the appendix of Steven Blomers Inside Bucks Row). On this fateful morning he is in Bucks Row around 03.45 so he is very, very late compared to his usual routine. On the night he happens to be found near the body he is nearly 20 minutes later at that location than he would be on his normal commute. This is the big timing issue for me.

Furthermore, Lechmere leaving around 03.30 is uncorroborated, we only have his word for it, and if he killed Nichols then the first thing he would need to do was change his departure time. Leaving at 03.20 makes his presence in Bucks Row at anywhere near 03.45 inexplicable. So any timings based on Lechmere leaving home around 03.30 are likely to be pointless anyway. If Lechmere is JTR then when he left home would be the first thing he has to adjust.

Moving on to PC Thain. He wouldn’t be the first night shift worker not to fully complete his duties or his rounds. It appears to me he had been chatting to the slaughter men in Winthrop Street and had even got comfortable enough to remove his cape. I suspect he wasn’t paid to sit around and chat, especially as somebody was being murdered nearby.

Look at it from Thains perspective - he’s slacking on the job as a woman is murdered. Just yards away as the crow flies. When we look at the timings given by the policemen we should ask where was PC Thain when Nichols was murdered and what was he doing. And how would this impact on his version, and his colleagues version of events ? I would suggest Thain would keen to say he was there sharpish and did everything efficiently, and to gloss over the fact he was skiving.

[Fisherman]

...any timings based on Lechmere leaving home around 03.30 are likely to be pointless anyway. If Lechmere is JTR then when he left home would be the first thing he has to adjust.

Not necessarily, no. I wrote about this in an earlier post. Here it is again:

When Charles Lechmere testified at the inquest, there were two possible scenarios for the timings.

- There was the Robert Paul scenario, claiming that the carmen met by the body at around 3.45.

- There was the police scenario where PC Neil had said that he found the body at 3.45.

So if Lechmere was the killer and wanted to present a departure time from home, he would need to bet on the right horse. Who would the inquest endorse? Robert Paul, who disappeared from the scene and had to be sought for? Or PC Neil, who before Lechmere gave his evidence had gotten support for his view from Mizen, testifying before Lechmere did, and reasonably also from John Thain?

I´d say that it would be logical for Lechmere to go with the idea that the inquest would put their trust in the PC:s, in which case it would be concluded that the body was found by the carmen at around 3.40. So stating that he had left home at around 3.30 would jibe quite well with that information.

And originally, the three PC:s WERE believed over Paul, it would seem. But that all changed when Baxter did the math, and so Lechmere ended up out in the cold.