Evidence of innocence

[rjpalmer]

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.

Context is everything and your suggestion is at immediately risk of dying irrelevantly on the vine.

What innocent person are these bent coppers fitting up in the current case?

It’s not a trial, it’s an inquest, and there is no defendant nor even a suspect. What is their motive for being ‘bent’??? To draw attention away from someone you tell us they didn’t suspect???

[Fisherman]

Context is everything and your suggestion is at immediately risk of dying irrelevantly on the vine.

What innocent person are these bent coppers fitting up in the current case?

It’s not a trial, it’s an inquest, and there is no defendant nor even a suspect. What is their motive for being ‘bent’??? To draw attention away from someone you tell us they didn’t suspect???

Mark made a generalistic point, R J: He said that "Coppers meeting up on the quiet to get their story straight is an omnipresent fact of bent constabulary life". That is not the same as saying that Neil, Thain and Mizen were bent, it is saying that Mark is aware that coppers on occasion have met up and unified their stories before appearing in court. I think we may need to accept that this is true. And once we know this, it may be that we need to be wary of how "our" three coppers may have agreed to do so too. Not to make somebody look bad, but instead to avoid looking bad themselves.

The suggestion has general merit, simple as that.

My own take on things is that when Thain saw that Neil claimed to have found the body at 3.45, if Thain was not a hundred per cent sure that he himself had been flagged down by Neil at 3.50 or later, it would be an easy enough thing to accept Neils bid and go with the flow, so to speak. Likewise, Mizen may have come to the same conclusion. And if this was so, then there is nothing bent about the affair, it would be a trivial mistake in combination with some collegiality only.

At the end of the day, it is less interesting WHY the PC:s gave the wrong timings and more interesting that we have the evidence to show that they did - in the shape of the ensuing Thain/Llewellyn timings.

[SuperShodan]

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.

That makes sense. I’ve always though that leaving at 03.30 doesn’t really improve the timings for Lechmere as the body is found around 03.45. It looks like Lechmere was adjusting his departure time to fit the original consensus, then gets caught out when 03.40 becomes 03.45.

[rjpalmer]

Mark made a generalistic point, R J: He said that "Coppers meeting up on the quiet to get their story straight is an omnipresent fact of bent constabulary life". That is not the same as saying that Neil, Thain and Mizen were bent, it is saying that Mark is aware that coppers on occasion have met up and unified their stories before appearing in court. I think we may need to accept that this is true. And once we know this, it may be that we need to be wary of how "our" three coppers may have agreed to do so too. Not to make somebody look bad, but instead to avoid looking bad themselves.

The suggestion has general merit, simple as that.

General merit? Again, Fish, what would their motive be? The suggestion either has merit or it doesn't. In the current case, we have an inquest and no suspect.

Mark should perhaps tread carefully, for the cynics who have concluded that the 'case' against CAL is weak and unwarranted, could easily turn the tables, and rather unkindly suggest that it is the Lechmere accusers who are playing the role of the 'bent coppers,' putting their heads together and getting their 'story straight' in order to fit-up a carman who was simply on his way to work.

It's rather rare for the police to bend the evidence in order to leave themselves without any suspect, isn't it?!?

Or am I wrong about that?

Best wishes.

[SuperShodan]

General merit? Again, Fish, what would their motive be? The suggestion either has merit or it doesn't. In the current case, we have an inquest and no suspect.

Mark should perhaps tread carefully, for the cynics who have concluded that the 'case' against CAL is weak and unwarranted, could easily turn the tables, and rather unkindly suggest that it is the Lechmere accusers who are playing the role of the 'bent coppers,' putting their heads together and getting their 'story straight' in order to fit-up a carman who was simply on his way to work.

It's rather rare for the police to bend the evidence in order to leave themselves without any suspect, isn't it?!?

Or am I wrong about that?

Best wishes.

Actually nobody is suggesting bent coppers or fits ups or anything of the sort. You are asking and answering your own questions.
it’s just suggested that that the police likely synchronised their timings and put their ‘ducks in a row’ before going in front of the coroner. Which I’m sure is commonplace and unremarkable.
In Thains case he hadn’t covered himself in glory as while Nichols was being murdered he appears to be neglecting his duties and chatting to workmen in Winthrop Street. In Mizens case he appears to have continued his knocking up duties instead of heading off to what turned out to be a brutal JTR murder. Both may have had good cause to paint themselves in a more favourable light.

[Fisherman]

General merit? Again, Fish, what would their motive be? The suggestion either has merit or it doesn't. In the current case, we have an inquest and no suspect.

I thought I was clear on that point? My suggestion - and it is a suggesztiuon only - is that Thain and Mizen may have felt that they needed to follow suit in order to get a timing that was consistent. That in itself would be the "motive".

Mark should perhaps tread carefully, for the cynics who have concluded that the 'case' against CAL is weak and unwarranted, could easily turn the tables, and rather unkindly suggest that it is the Lechmere accusers who are playing the role of the 'bent coppers,' putting their heads together and getting their 'story straight' in order to fit-up a carman who was simply on his way to work.

That is for Mark to worry about. But I see no reason for him to be too worried. As I said, the point he made was a generalistic one: coppers have been known to agree on testimony. What you immediately did was to jump to the conclusion that he was saying that "our" three coppers were bent. I thought that was jumping the gun, that´s all.
As for your unfortunate remarks about Lechmere accusers "getting their story straight", it must be pointed out that getting the story straight is what is demanded of anybody presenting a suspect. That demands the ability to present a coherent story that is in line with guilt, and - apparently much to your dislike - this is the exact thing that has been done. Implying that facts have been twisted along the way requires evidence, I´m afraid. In that context, I am perfectly ready and willing to defend my own take on things, so whenever you feel like it, R J!

It's rather rare for the police to bend the evidence in order to leave themselves without any suspect, isn't it?!?

The general feeling seems to have been that Lechmere found the body after the real culprit had scarpered off, R J. The PC:s certainly did not leave themselves without that phantom suspect option, did they?

Or am I wrong about that?

Only if you are proposing that they first suspected Lechmere only to then let him off the hook. But there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they did.

Best wishes.

Yeah, you too.

[Fisherman]

That makes sense. I’ve always though that leaving at 03.30 doesn’t really improve the timings for Lechmere as the body is found around 03.45. It looks like Lechmere was adjusting his departure time to fit the original consensus, then gets caught out when 03.40 becomes 03.45.

That is what it looks like to me, yes.

[Mark J D]

In Thains case he hadn’t covered himself in glory as while Nichols was being murdered he appears to be neglecting his duties and chatting to workmen in Winthrop Street. In Mizens case he appears to have continued his knocking up duties instead of heading off to what turned out to be a brutal JTR murder. Both may have had good cause to paint themselves in a more favourable light.

Exactly right -- though I'd put it in stronger terms. These coppers, and countless others besides, were out in the dark, in the middle of a very quiet night, unsupervised, and with -- as far as they knew -- nothing going down. They will have been goofing off like nobody's business -- and then, in the morning, running round like cockroaches to put together a tale of how they were all doing their duty and everything fitted together nicely. As we have reason to believe elsewhere in this case, it's not 'bending the evidence to leave themselves without any suspect', it's bending the evidence to save their idle, incompetent necks, and nothing else matters. (Take a look at how it works today: layer after layer of dishonesty and incompetence, all the way up the tree, and the smirking killer goes free at the end: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10728685)

M.

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<


You have to wonder why Lechmerians don’t favour Charles Dodson instead. They seem to live in world akin to Wonderland.

Apparently responding to what Christer has written and quoting his exact words, in his Mad Hatter’s world, is called avoidance.

The explanation offered for this is that we should not believe Christer when he writes something that’s it’s what he actually meant!

Well, given the posts he’s been writing here have confused even himself, like posts 3451 and 3452, I guess nobody should be surprised by that revelation;-)

[drstrange169]

>>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. <<

When the Mad Hatter says “nobody” he is course excluding Robert Paul, who, apparently, alone in the world, the only person who knows things “exactly”.

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

Let’s uncheck that one straight away.

“I was called to Buck's row about five minutes to four this morning”
Daily News/Evening News Sept 1

“On Friday morning I was called by the last witness to Buck's-row at about four o'clock.”
Lloyds Sept 2

“Dr. Llewellyn, 152 Whitechapel road, deposed that on Friday morning about four o'clock”
Daily News Sept 3

“On Friday morning I was called to Buck's-row about four o'clock.”
Daily Telegraph/Morning Advertiser Sept 3

Mr. Henry Llewellyn, surgeon, of 152, Whitechapel-road, stated that at 4 o'clock on Friday morning he was called by the last witness to Buck's-row.
The Times Sept 3

"He deposed that on Friday morning about four o'clock"
ELO Sept 8

True to form, Christer alters the inquest testimony.

Llewelyn said at the inquest, and I quote him exactly,

“On Friday morning I was called to Buck's-row about four o'clock.”

Baxter tells us, Llewelyn was at the murder site around 4:00 a.m.

“Dr. Llewellyn, who saw the body about a quarter of an hour afterwards”

Christer has claimed Llewelyn didn't get there until around 4:10! So where do these mystical times come from?

If we follow Baxter's lead, at the inquest Llewelyn is naming the time he got to Buck's row.

[drstrange169]

>>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 never quoted Lechmere giving such a time for the simple reason that we all know that he never did. <<


Oh dear, oh dear.

Christer’s Post 3463,

“The idea that Cross and Paul did not give a time for when they were in Bucks Row is also bonkers”.

The Mad Hatter now thinks his own posts are “bonkers”.

[drstrange169]

I'm still waiting for Christer to shows on the map, where those fictions houses are that somboulists could see out os their window people fleeing the scene.
I'm also still waiting for the "scientific" explanation of how serious researchers can deduce a time gasp between two unrelated times.

But I we see, when serious questions are asked the subject get changed.

I also love the way, the faultless interview Paul gave Lloyds is so much more believable than those three bent policemen! Back to the circular self defeating arguments. Mizen isn't to be trusted, so ok let's call Mizen an untrustworthy witness from now on.

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

Gosh there's a thought, the inquest would believe the policemen.



>>But that all changed when Baxter did the math<<

Where in his summing up does Baxter quote a time from Paul? Why does he say the murder happened before 3:45? Why does he say Llewelyn was in Buck's Row around 4:00 a.m.? Where does Baxter's "fixed by so many independent data" come from? "So many" is more than one, it's more than two, so what other independent data was he referencing?

[drstrange169]

>>it’s just suggested that that the police likely synchronised their timings and put their ‘ducks in a row’ before going in front of the coroner. <<

If they colluded, why did Neil know nothing about Mizen meeting the two men?

More circles.