Evidence of innocence

[drstrange169]

>>No explanation for this has ever been offered up. <<

This site is littered with explanations for this , even now Jeff, R.J and Herlock have just done so.

On Facebook you have been given the same explanations, so why would you write this?

I get you may not like the explanations, but that is NOT the same as claiming nobody has given them.

[drstrange169]

>>You will get into trouble with Dusty for that. <<

Why would he, when he is saying exactly what I said? You really are struggling aren't you.

[drstrange169]

>>As long as people claim that Baxter referred to Neils appearance on the scene instead of Lechmeres finding Nichols in his summation <<

Ah! I get it now. You don't understand what a coroner's summation is!

That explains a lot.

Baxter's summation was an address to the jury about the evidence, so they can make a decision. If he believed the policeman were wrong in their timings it was his duty to tell them specifically that. Nowhere does he do that. Do you have information we don't?

Nowhere in the inquest was the issue of the policemen being wrong raised. No where in the reports of Paul's testimony does he claim to be in Buck's Row at "exactly 3:45". Therefore the time of 3:45 Baxter referred to was fixed by so many independent data from the three most trusted sources, 3 policemen. He concluded, rightly, that Cross and Paul must have found the body at an unknown time that was not far from the policemens time.

How exactly are you claiming the jury was told the policemens testimony was wrong and if Baxter did how does that affect the creditability of P.C. Mizen's testimony?

We know from this and other inquests that Baxter was not shy in attacking the police if he thought them wrong.

We are back to the Lechmerian circle argument, you take the bits you like from various sources, ignore the circular nature of the argument it that brings up and turn a Nelson's blind eye to the bulk of the evidence.

[drstrange169]

>>In The Telegraph version Llewelyn said that he’d been called by Thain at about 4.00, whilst in The Times version he said at 4.00.<<

I've already explained that to Christer, but his response was to pretend I didn't write the post then avoided mentiong his error again.

What is key here is that none of the inquest reports quote Llewelyn directly, they are the reporters version of what he said.

We do have, however is a statement from the good doctor made just a few scant hours after he was called to the body.

"Dr. Llewellyn yesterday made the following statement:- I was called to Buck's row about five minutes to four this morning ..."

The two things we learn from this is,
1: Llewelyn didn't seem to know an exact time.
2: He thought the time was definitely prior to 4:00.

[Herlock Sholmes]

>>In The Telegraph version Llewelyn said that he’d been called by Thain at about 4.00, whilst in The Times version he said at 4.00.<<

I've already explained that to Christer, but his response was to pretend I didn't write the post then avoided mentiong his error again.

What is key here is that none of the inquest reports quote Llewelyn directly, they are the reporters version of what he said.

We do have, however is a statement from the good doctor made just a few scant hours after he was called to the body.

"Dr. Llewellyn yesterday made the following statement:- I was called to Buck's row about five minutes to four this morning ..."

The two things we learn from this is,
1: Llewelyn didn't seem to know an exact time.
2: He thought the time was definitely prior to 4:00.

It’s an issue that Jeff and I have experienced on the Berner Street threads Dusty. This idea of estimation versus exact times. We have to allow a reasonable plus or minus on times especially when a) not everyone had watches or clocks, and b) when we don’t know when those who might have access to a clock last checked it. I’ve never understood why anyone would have an issue with this?

Also, if someone says ‘it was before 10pm’ or even ‘it was just before 10pm’ this one’s the equate to a specific time like one or two minutes before. This is another thing I don’t really get.

……

The point about the ‘gap’ has always been that if Lechmere left his house at 3.30 then he should have arrived at the scene earlier, giving him time to have killed Nichols before Paul arrived. Much has been made of this point but the fact is that Lechmere said that he left the house ‘about 3.30.’ Not ‘exactly’ 3.30. Of course if he was guilty he might have left the house at 3.00 but we can’t state this as a fact. As we can’t say that he left the house after 3.30 as a fact. But the fact that he said ‘about’ means that that he could easily have left the house at 3.35. Or 3.36. Therefore the ‘gap of time’ suggestion means nothing.


Happy New Year all by the way.

[drstrange169]

Yes, it's my assumption, that everyone LVP knew time was not synchronised and "about" was an accepted standard, even when people gave on exact time.

Given the world we now live in, I can understand how people cannot grasp the concept of unsynchronised time.

[Abby Normal]

all this talk of the minutia of timing is quite fascinating isnt it? i can swipe it all away with one fact. paul saw lech hovering near the dead or dying body of polly nichols before raising any alarm. therefore, he could have been her killer.

ive always found it quite peculiar that lech waited for paul to get so close before he approached him and tapped him on the shoulder. isnt that odd to you?

its a very aggressive maneuver given the circumstances. its almost like he cant let paul pass until hes ascertained what hes seen. but maybe its just me.

[drstrange169]

>>i can swipe it all away with one fact.<<

Except it not a fact, in sense of the meaning, "a thing that is known or proved to be true".

It is information that comes from the only person proven to have lied, in an interview that has been discredited. It never ceases to amaze me that people will except tainted evidence without ever questioning it, but ignore sounder evidence.

And there's the rub.

[Abby Normal]

>>i can swipe it all away with one fact.<<

Except it not a fact, in sense of the meaning, "a thing that is known or proved to be true".

It is information that comes from the only person proven to have lied, in an interview that has been discredited. It never ceases to amaze me that people will except tainted evidence without ever questioning it, but ignore sounder evidence.

And there's the rub.

lol. paul said he saw lech standing near her dead body. its a fact unless you think paul was lying. sorry but you are quite wrong.

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s an issue that Jeff and I have experienced on the Berner Street threads Dusty. This idea of estimation versus exact times. We have to allow a reasonable plus or minus on times especially when a) not everyone had watches or clocks, and b) when we don’t know when those who might have access to a clock last checked it. I’ve never understood why anyone would have an issue with this?

Also, if someone says ‘it was before 10pm’ or even ‘it was just before 10pm’ this one’s the equate to a specific time like one or two minutes before. This is another thing I don’t really get.

……

The point about the ‘gap’ has always been that if Lechmere left his house at 3.30 then he should have arrived at the scene earlier, giving him time to have killed Nichols before Paul arrived. Much has been made of this point but the fact is that Lechmere said that he left the house ‘about 3.30.’ Not ‘exactly’ 3.30. Of course if he was guilty he might have left the house at 3.00 but we can’t state this as a fact. As we can’t say that he left the house after 3.30 as a fact. But the fact that he said ‘about’ means that that he could easily have left the house at 3.35. Or 3.36. Therefore the ‘gap of time’ suggestion means nothing.


Happy New Year all by the way.

All these issues surrounding the timings are somewhat academic, as the exact time of death cannot be firmly established, so in effect Nichols could have been murdered long before Lechmere even got out of bed to go to work.

All that Fish seeks to rely on has now been negated by what Dr Biggss tell us about the Victorian doctors methods of suggesting times of death, especially in the case of Nichols, and that is where his whole theory falls flat.

Dr Biggs
Being ‘cold to the touch’ really isn’t helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn’t start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or ‘lag’ phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead for a couple of hours but still have an essentially ‘normal’ body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold.

In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ‘time of death’ based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays, we recognize that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn’t attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature, you couldn’t estimate a time since death to within less than a few hours. Suggesting that death happened 30 minutes previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said.

It is possible that death could have occurred even a few hours before the time of body discovery, and the observations made by the doctor would have been the same. Clothing state can affect the time of death calculations, but in reality, it would make very little difference in the scenario you describe. I think the doctor’s estimation of the time of death should be taken with a pinch of salt, and in fact, it could have been far earlier. This is not a criticism: back then that was the sort of thing that was said and done. We just know more now and therefore, can’t be so ‘certain’.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fisherman,

You are welcome to explain why Baxter would first have spoken of Lechmere as the finder of the body, whereafter he expanded on what Lechmere and Paul did, what they were able to see and so on, before he added that the finding as such would have come about close to 3.45 - and then Baxter would suddenly be speaking of Neil! Without mentioning his name!! The Morning Advertiser quotation can be found in post 3697, and it demonstrates the full measure of desperation on your behalf.
You seem to think that you are at liberty to change what Baxter said in order to fit hour own delusions. You are not.

It has been explained to you. Your pretending to not understand it is unlikely to change simply because I repeat it. But, just in case miracles happen, Baxter is referring to the time, given in evidence, of PC Neil because that is the time they have in evidence. He indicates the carmen found it shortly before that stated time (as he says "not far off"), in other words, he is saying the carmen were not at the body at 3:45, but were not far off that time; so not 2 am type thing, but within 5 minutes. See, he doesn't have their exact discovery time stated, but he knows it was not long before PC Neil finds the body at 3:45. And we know that the carmen are talking to PC Mizen at 3:45.

And yet, oddly, you continue to say that Cross/Lechmere and Paul are not talking to PC Mizen at 3:45, but are with PC Neil, at the body, at 3:45, but refuse to explain why PC Neil doesn't not mention them, or why they say they didn't see a police man at the body, or even why they have to go off to see PC Mizen to report the body since PC Neil must be right there with them because you have everyone at the body at 3:45.

No, there's no need to respond. I already know the substance of what your reply will be. A series of insults, a twisting of the words, and cherry picking from amongst the collection of news reports. Because, as you've said, even if the evidence makes Cross/Lechmere appear innocent, to you that is just a guilty person pretending. Your view is safely walled away from the influence of evidence, and you've stated it many times before, it's not really required again.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hi Fisherman,



It has been explained to you. Your pretending to not understand it is unlikely to change simply because I repeat it. But, just in case miracles happen, Baxter is referring to the time, given in evidence, of PC Neil because that is the time they have in evidence. He indicates the carmen found it shortly before that stated time (as he says "not far off"), in other words, he is saying the carmen were not at the body at 3:45, but were not far off that time; so not 2 am type thing, but within 5 minutes. See, he doesn't have their exact discovery time stated, but he knows it was not long before PC Neil finds the body at 3:45. And we know that the carmen are talking to PC Mizen at 3:45.

And yet, oddly, you continue to say that Cross/Lechmere and Paul are not talking to PC Mizen at 3:45, but are with PC Neil, at the body, at 3:45, but refuse to explain why PC Neil doesn't not mention them, or why they say they didn't see a police man at the body, or even why they have to go off to see PC Mizen to report the body since PC Neil must be right there with them because you have everyone at the body at 3:45.

No, there's no need to respond. I already know the substance of what your reply will be. A series of insults, a twisting of the words, and cherry picking from amongst the collection of news reports. Because, as you've said, even if the evidence makes Cross/Lechmere appear innocent, to you that is just a guilty person pretending. Your view is safely walled away from the influence of evidence, and you've stated it many times before, it's not really required again.

- Jeff

hi jeff
happy new year. we can quibble about a minute here or there till the cows come home, but what do we make of the FACT that paul saw lech standing near the poor dead womans body before raising any alarm? in your vast true crime experience, have you ever heard of an innocent witness in such a situation? tis odd to say the least, is it not?

[Trevor Marriott]

hi jeff
happy new year. we can quibble about a minute here or there till the cows come home, but what do we make of the FACT that paul saw lech standing near the poor dead womans body before raising any alarm? in your vast true crime experience, have you ever heard of an innocent witness in such a situation? tis odd to say the least, is it not?

But he gave his explantion for his actions, can you Fish or anyone else disprove what he said without banging on about the timings and sh said what and who did what?

All that can be given are peoples own personal assessments on then conflciting witness testimon of those who were called to give evidence at the inquest. All the various newspaper reports resrechers have sought to rely on cannot be relied on its as simple as that.

Nichols could have been killed long before Lechmere came along

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Trevor can i suggest something? Does not John Neil opening statement at the inquest confirm Llewellyns time of death to be accurate? that is of course we agree Nichols was killed on the spot she laid. Neil claims he past the spot 30 mins before [3.15am] and found no one ,yet at 3.45 he see her body. Llewellyns states at four oclock Nichols had ''not been dead more than 30 mins'' making it 3.30 t.o.d. Now granted ,Llewellyn himself said he was called to bucks row around 4.00 and upon arrival [which could mean a time delay] he gave his t.o d , how long could we suggest the delay 5,10 mins? , even at 10 it still makes his t.o.d reasonably accurate does it not ? id be interested in your thoughts . i just think when it comes to Drs from 1888 im not sure their opinions regarding t.o.d should be taken with a pinch of salt. Regards Fishy

[FISHY1118]

Nichols could have been killed long before Lechmere came along

. I would be very keen to get your just how 'long befor' as i would have to disagree