Evidence of innocence

[Herlock Sholmes]

Eh? What I am saying is that we can NOT know when Llewellyn arrived. We only know when he said he was called to Bucks Row, and that was at a time that corresponds much, much better with Lechmeres finding time of the body at 3.45 than 3.40.

But does anything categorically prove that Lechmere couldn’t have discovered the body at 3.40 or 3.41 or 3.42?

[Fisherman]

and the rest of #3805

I don't wish to quibble about minor details, but when PC Neil said that he passed about 30 minutes previously and the body was not there then, he was in effect saying that the murder must have taken place between approximately 3. 15 am and 3. 45 am. Let us not argue about a minute or two either way.

Whether or not Neil had an idea about when the likely time of death was, we dont know. All we can say is that it must have taken place in the gap given, circa 3.15-3.45. However Neil knew that the body was warm, and so he would have been disinclined to invest in 3.15 methinks. But who knows?

We have been clearly advised several times that the victorian doctor's time of death was at best nothing more than an educated guess, so a few minutes her or there means nothing.

The difficulties grow with growing time spans. But we should not overinvest in the value of palpating for warmth. Nevertheless, the time we should work from when discussing the matter is not 4 am, sine that was when Llewellyn was woken up, not the time he examined the body.

I have no wish to discuss bleeding times with you, because a) experts disagree, and b) as Lechmere and Paul interfered with the body a couple of minuters before Neil found it, raising the hands etc, we can be pretty sure their attentions would cause some blood to ooze from the wound.

Find me an expert who disagrees with the suggestion that the bleeding out from a body with the damage Nichols had would normally be a quick affair, not reaching into double figures of minutes. I think you will find it hard. It is a lot easier to deny how things all fit a suggestion of Lechmere as the killer. Piling up the ”what ifs” neatly does that.

As for your comments about Harriet Lilley, you cannot honestly say that "it was not the murder she heard", merely that you don't think or want it to have been the murder. You certainly don't know anything, so you should not pretend that you do. You are of course welcome to your personal guesses. I will try to stick to the known facts. We know that at the inquest the coroner was asking the police about missing witnesses, and the police admitted that they had not interviewed all of the local residents. It is reasonable to suppose that both the police and the coroner were aware of Harriet Lilley's potentially important evidence, and that might have been what inspired the coroner's questions. We have no evidence whatever to discredit Harriet Lilley.

I have two eminent and very senior experts saying that HALF the bleeding time you suggest would be weird in the extreme, so I have no problems saying that Harriet Lilley did not overhear the murder. If it makes you froth at the mouth, then that is your problem. And I am not discrediting Lilley. She never said she heard the murder. She may have heard something else, or dreamt itor anything. But at 3.30, she did not overhear the murder.

[Fisherman]

No, just that Baxter knew that the body had been killed before Neil came upon it which he took as occurring at 3.45.

But he didnt. He took Lechmere to have found the body not far off 3.45. That meant that Neil only came across her at around 3.51. I have posted (post 3697) how the coroner worded himself, as per the Morning Advertiser, where he says that a carman ( and we know who, dont we? ), NOT Neil, found the body, called another carman to the spot, examined the body and left it. And he adds that the time it was fiund would not have been far off 3.45. If he had spoken of Neils arrival, then he should have said so. He didn’ t.
You are predisposing a faulty scenario, effectively gainsaid by the evidence, Herlock.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We know that Thain said he was sent for Llewellyn, and we have no reason to think he did not do so straight away. ”For Gods sake, run for Dr Llewellyn” was what Neil conveyed, or something such. We can always speculate that Thain rounded St James’ park first, but why would we? Isn’ t the by far likeliest thing that he did was he was ordered to pronto? We dont know how long it took For the door to be answered, but since we have no testimony hintingbatban eternity or anything odd, isn’ t the likely thing that it was a quick affair?
I’ m all for versatility, but lets not make things harder than they are.

How accurate was Neil’s time? We know from Berner Street for example that PC Lamb didn’t have a watch and neither did Smith. What if Neil arrived at 3.52. Checked the body. Then waited for Thain to appear (as he knew that he would) before signalling. Thain could have arrived at the scene at say 3.54.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But he didnt. He took Lechmere to have found the body not far off 3.45. That meant that Neil only came across her at around 3.51. I have posted (post 3697) how the coroner worded himself, as per the Morning Advertiser, where he says that a carman ( and we know who, dont we? ), NOT Neil, found the body, called another carman to the spot, examined the body and left it. And he adds that the time it was fiund would not have been far off 3.45. If he had spoken of Neils arrival, then he should have said so. He didn’ t.
You are predisposing a faulty scenario, effectively gainsaid by the evidence, Herlock.

“Witness had previously seen the men at work. That would be a quarter past 3, or half an hour before he found the body.”

So here’s Neil himself, at the Inquest, saying that he came across the body at 3.45. (3.15 is 30 minutes before 3.45)

So Baxter has a police officer saying that came across the body at 3.45.

Therefore the body must have been discovered by Lechmere sometime before 3.45 (as per Neil) but he gives no specific length of time before that.

[Fisherman]

But does anything categorically prove that Lechmere couldn’t have discovered the body at 3.40 or 3.41 or 3.42?

Yes, absolutely. If it was not so, then Baxter could not have fixed the time at not far off 3.45. And we have Llewellyn in the other end of the chain, stating that he was called to the site by Thain at 3.55-4.00. Even if we use the early extreme, we must subtract 2-3 minutes from 3.55, and we then get 3.52-3.53 as the time when Thain set out from Bucks Row. That means that the likely time Neil signalled down Thain ends up at 3.51.
If Neil did this and if the body was found at 3.40, then eleven minutes would have passed between the finding of the body and Neils sending Thain for Llewellyn. And Paul said that no more than four minutes passed from the time he arrived at Browns and the time he and Lechmere found Mizen, meaning that if the body was found at 3.40, then Lechmere contacted Mizen at 3.44, at the latest.
So why did it take Mizen around ten minutes to reach Browns Stable Yard? He got there after Thain had run off for Llewellyn, and that happened at 3.52-3.53, remember!

Of course, if we use 4.00 instead of 3.55, it brings us further ahead in time!

These timings do not fit a finding time of 3.40. It is plainly and simply impossible. Equally, it is perfectly obvious that they DO fit a 3.45 finding time. And Baxter SAID the body was found not far from that time. Plus Swanson ALSO said, in his October report, that the carman found the body at 3.45.

So there is a perfect fit with 3.45. And then there is an unwillingness on many hands to accept this, and it is suggested that if we just give the timings a good shake, we may get another picture.

But we don’ t. Amazingly, what we have effectively locks the time in place at 3.45. And that is what makes Lechmeres suggested time of departure so much more dubious. If he was the killer, he rolled the dice and banked on how the 3.40 time suggested by the three PC:s information would be the prevailing time, and accordingly said he left home at 3.30-ish and that he was running late, meaning that his timing corresponded with the evidence on the 3rd. On the 23rd, however, Baxter threw him under the bus - but at that stage, the investigations were moving along other paths.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I have two eminent and very senior experts saying that HALF the bleeding time you suggest would be weird in the extreme, so I have no problems saying that Harriet Lilley did not overhear the murder. If it makes you froth at the mouth, then that is your problem. And I am not discrediting Lilley. She never said she heard the murder. She may have heard something else, or dreamt itor anything. But at 3.30, she did not overhear the murder.

You are ignoring my comment, and inventing one I didn't make! No bleeding time was suggested by me. The point I made was that Paul and Lechmere were attending to Nichol's body, checking for pulse, temperature, and, believing her to be drunk or unconscious, probably trying to rouse her. Just raising one of her hands off the ground a few inches would have re-started the flow of blood if it had stopped, and that was just a couple of minutes before Neil arrived. I am not "frothing at the mouth" or experiencing any other problems, thank you. We are just two adults disagreeing. I have no problem with that.

And you've done it again - "at 3. 30, she did not overhear the murder" - we do not know that. Once again you state your opinion as a fact.

[Fisherman]

How accurate was Neil’s time? We know from Berner Street for example that PC Lamb didn’t have a watch and neither did Smith. What if Neil arrived at 3.52. Checked the body. Then waited for Thain to appear (as he knew that he would) before signalling. Thain could have arrived at the scene at say 3.54.

None of the PCs had the accurate time. Only Paul did, going on Baxter and Swanson. But since Neil said that he found the body at 3.45 and Thain said that he also was called into action at that exact same minute, Neil must have known that his colleague would have been much off if he signalled Thain down many minutes after arriving himself. He would have made that clear. The whole picture is clear on how the PCs were very close to one another in time at the scene.

[Fisherman]

“Witness had previously seen the men at work. That would be a quarter past 3, or half an hour before he found the body.”

So here’s Neil himself, at the Inquest, saying that he came across the body at 3.45. (3.15 is 30 minutes before 3.45)

So Baxter has a police officer saying that came across the body at 3.45.

Therefore the body must have been discovered by Lechmere sometime before 3.45 (as per Neil) but he gives no specific length of time before that.

Yes, Neil said that it was 3.45. He was very clear on it from the outset; the pre-inquest articles fix it at 3.45.

And yes, if Neil got there at 3.45, then Lechmere would have preceded him by around six minutes.

But the gist of the matter is that although Neils (and Thains and Mizens) timings were originally accepted, this was to change when the facts were looked at. Once Baxter had done this, he altered the time when Lechmere found the body to not far off 3.45 and Swanson followed suit; after having said in his September report that Lechmere found Nichols at around 3.40, he changed himself in his October report and gave the time 3.45 for Lechmere.

Ergo, originally the PC:s were believed over Paul, but when the case had bern dissected, it was the other way around.

[Fisherman]

You are ignoring my comment, and inventing one I didn't make! No bleeding time was suuggested by me. The point I made was that Paul and Lechmere were attending to Nichol's body, checking for pulse, temperature, and, believing her to be drunk or unconscious, probably trying to rouse her. Just raising one of her hands off the ground a few inches would have re-started the flow of blood if it had stopped, and that was just a couple of minutes before Neil arrived. I am not "frothing at the mouth" or experiencing any other problems, thank you. We are just two adults disagreeing. I have no problem with that.

And you've done it again - "at 3. 30, she did not overhear the murder" - we do not know that. Once again you state your opinion as a fact.

It needs to be treated as a fact. You seem to labour under the misapprehension that you are guarding the truth, but the truth is that nobody with the kind of damage Nichols had is likely to bleed for as long a time as she would have if she was cut at 3.30. Your idea that Lechmere and Paul pumped her arms so as to set in motion a bleeding that kept running for the around six minutes it took for Neil to arrive and the around nine minutes it took for Mizen to look at the body is not in any way realistic.

You say that experts disagree about the bleeding time. In my book, I point out that bleeding times can never be established with exactitude. We will never know the maximum amount of minutes somebody with Nichols’ damage can bleed. But we CAN listen to what experts say is LIKELY, and then work from the assumption that Nichols would not deviate wildly from these suggestions. If we believe that Nichols was cut at 3.30, we do just that - believe in the wildly deviating.

So which are the experts you speak of - and do they dispute that Nichols should be expected to bleed for less than ten minutes? Its not about how long she COULD possibly have bled, but about how long she was LIKELY to bleed. Let me know - as an adult.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Why are we wasting so much time arguing about the time of events, as if we can possibly ever know the truth?

Lechmere left home, he thought about 3.30 am, believing he was late, probably estimating the time from his last glance at his grandfather clock as best he can remember. Paul did something similar perhaps ten minutes later. Neil and Mizen, if they didn't have watches, were probably estimating their times from their last passing of different nearby clocks, and Llewellyn was relating his times to his clock and or watch. The chances of these various timepieces all agreeing with each other is absolutely zero. We, and Baxter, only estimate or guess.

In London in 1888, time was an approximation, not a fact.

[Doctored Whatsit]

It needs to be treated as a fact. You seem to labour under the misapprehension that you are guarding the truth, but the truth is that nobody with the kind of damage Nichols had is likely to bleed for as long a time as she would have if she was cut at 3.30. Your idea that Lechmere and Paul pumped her arms so as to set in motion a bleeding that kept running for the around six minutes it took for Neil to arrive and the around nine minutes it took for Mizen to look at the body is not in any way realistic.

You say that experts disagree about the bleeding time. In my book, I point out that bleeding times can never be established with exactitude. We will never know the maximum amount of minutes somebody with Nichols’ damage can bleed. But we CAN listen to what experts say is LIKELY, and then work from the assumption that Nichols would not deviate wildly from these suggestions. If we believe that Nichols was cut at 3.30, we do just that - believe in the wildly deviating.

So which are the experts you speak of - and do they dispute that Nichols should be expected to bleed for less than ten minutes? Its not about how long she COULD possibly have bled, but about how long she was LIKELY to bleed. Let me know - as an adult.

OK, as far as you are concerned your expressed opinions need to be treated as facts. I did not suggest that I was "guarding the truth". You keep going on about bleeding times, when I have made it quite clear that I am not even considering this issue. Blood will ooze from a wound such as Nicols suffered whenever someone lifts an arm, for instance. Paul and Lechmere did this, and I wouldn't be surprised if Neil also did it in order to be able to say that her hands were cold but she was still warm under her clothing.

[Fisherman]

Why are we wasting so much time arguing about the time of events, as if we can possibly ever know the truth?

Lechmere left home, he thought about 3.30 am, believing he was late, probably estimating the time from his last glance at his grandfather clock as best he can remember. Paul did something similar perhaps ten minutes later. Neil and Mizen, if they didn't have watches, were probably estimating their times from their last passing of different nearby clocks, and Llewellyn was relating his times to his clock and or watch. The chances of these various timepieces all agreeing with each other is absolutely zero. We, and Baxter, only estimate or guess.

In London in 1888, time was an approximation, not a fact.

The discrepancy between the 3.40 and the 3.45 suggestions is too big to be dosmissable by saying that clocks were inexact.
For 3.40 to apply, it would require for Pauls and Llewellyns timings being out in the same way, five minutes ahead. The suggestion is very improbable.
Checking the veracity of for example Llewellyns timepiece would be easy enough, the fewest of days after the murder.

No, trying the ”its all impossible to gauge” angle does not work. Of course Baxter estimated, it was his task to do so, but estimations can be made on very safe and reliable grounds. And Baxter had what anybody with aspirations to be believed needs: ”many independent data”.

[Fisherman]

OK, as far as you are concerned your expressed opinions need to be treated as facts.

No. But I consider the views of two seasoned experts as factually reliable. Its not about me, and never was.

I did not suggest that I was "guarding the truth".

No, it was I who suggested that you may think yourself suited for the role.

You keep going on about bleeding times, when I have made it quite clear that I am not even considering this issue. Blood will ooze from a wound such as Nicols suffered whenever someone lifts an arm, for instance. Paul and Lechmere did this, and I wouldn't be surprised if Neil also did it in order to be able to say that her hands were cold but she was still warm under her clothing.

He effectively denied it at the inquest, as has been pointed out before. And as I said before, Neil arrived many minutes after Lechmere left. Are you really suggesting that the carmen pumped her arm vigorously enough to set a six minute bleeding in motion …?
Also, would you now please state which experts you are referring to when saying that they refute Payne-James and Thiblin?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, absolutely. If it was not so, then Baxter could not have fixed the time at not far off 3.45. And we have Llewellyn in the other end of the chain, stating that he was called to the site by Thain at 3.55-4.00. Even if we use the early extreme, we must subtract 2-3 minutes from 3.55, and we then get 3.52-3.53 as the time when Thain set out from Bucks Row. That means that the likely time Neil signalled down Thain ends up at 3.51.
If Neil did this and if the body was found at 3.40, then eleven minutes would have passed between the finding of the body and Neils sending Thain for Llewellyn. And Paul said that no more than four minutes passed from the time he arrived at Browns and the time he and Lechmere found Mizen, meaning that if the body was found at 3.40, then Lechmere contacted Mizen at 3.44, at the latest.
So why did it take Mizen around ten minutes to reach Browns Stable Yard? He got there after Thain had run off for Llewellyn, and that happened at 3.52-3.53, remember!

Of course, if we use 4.00 instead of 3.55, it brings us further ahead in time!

These timings do not fit a finding time of 3.40. It is plainly and simply impossible. Equally, it is perfectly obvious that they DO fit a 3.45 finding time. And Baxter SAID the body was found not far from that time. Plus Swanson ALSO said, in his October report, that the carman found the body at 3.45.

So there is a perfect fit with 3.45. And then there is an unwillingness on many hands to accept this, and it is suggested that if we just give the timings a good shake, we may get another picture.

But we don’ t. Amazingly, what we have effectively locks the time in place at 3.45. And that is what makes Lechmeres suggested time of departure so much more dubious. If he was the killer, he rolled the dice and banked on how the 3.40 time suggested by the three PC:s information would be the prevailing time, and accordingly said he left home at 3.30-ish and that he was running late, meaning that his timing corresponded with the evidence on the 3rd. On the 23rd, however, Baxter threw him under the bus - but at that stage, the investigations were moving along other paths.

I still don’t see the significance in terms of Lechmere’s proposed guilt, even if he did discover the body at 3.43, because we don’t know what time Lechmere left his house. He said ‘about 3.30.’ So if he’d left the house at 3.35 or 3.36 where is the issue? How can a definite point be made by using an unknown?