Evidence of innocence

[rjpalmer]

Harriet Lilley may of course be correct about the sounds as such, but it was not the murder she heard. And it must be pointed out that she was left out of the inquest proceedings, for some reason. My personal guess is that the reason was a yearn for fame, and that she heard diddley squat.

Andy Warhol is well past due for the lifetime achievement award for Ripperology. The 'fifteen minutes of fame' theorem strikes again.

Packer. Hutchinson. Shwartz. Now Lilley.

The woman described hearing voices down in the street. That's not the sensational account of a publicity hound.

[FISHY1118]

But it doesn’t make it a 3.30 t.o.d. All that he’s saying is that he didn’t believe that she had been killed before 3.30. So he’s saying that she could have been killed at 3.30 at the earliest but possibly after. This in itself is wrong of course because Neil passed at 3.15 and she wasn’t lying there dead.

We all have to accept that the medical knowledge of modern Doctors and Scientists is far greater than that of the Victorians. So why would we question Dr Biggs?

So why should we question Llewellyn ? We have an eye witness that places Nichols on the corner of Osbourne rd and Whitechapel rd at 2.30am alive and well all be a little worse for ware , shes roughly 10 mins walk from bucks row , P.C Neil claims he saw no one as he past through at 3.15 . So kill time has to be from 3.15 to 3.40 , also P.C Neil has to leave bucks row for Nichols and JTR to get to the murder spot, lets say its now 3.20, [even 3.17 makes little difference] which means when Dr Llewellyn say this at [ 4.00am /4.10am] ''Her hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm. I examined her chest and felt the heart. It was dark at the time. I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour.Even if nichols is killed between 3.17am and 3.30 its still an accurate assessment in my opinion. i just dont think dr Llewellyns opinon in direct regards to theT.O.D of Nicols should be taken with a grain of salt. 'We all have to accept that the medical knowledge of modern Doctors and Scientists is far greater than that of the Victorians' Agreed

[FISHY1118]

Neil never denied lifting her arm to check pulse, temperature of hand and arm under the clothing etc which he did check. He said he never moved the body, which is quite different.

Llewellyn may not be one of the experts who you like to quote, but he had one big advantage over your experts - he was there. He saw the body, and the blood evidence, and he was happy to accept a time of death about 30 minutes previously. I never refuted your experts, I merely said experts disagree. As I have made clear several times, I don't consider the blood evidence necessarily relevant.

[FISHY1118]

How do you know Pc Neil was truthful in his testimony? Policemen do sometimes fail to tell the truth

But I guess you are more of an expert on these things than Dr Biggs who is a forensic pathologist !!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Is that it Trevor? is that what your going with? well if thats the case we all might as well close our laptops and go home .Because if p.c neil sometimes fails to tell the truth as in your opinion policeman do, then the same could be said for a humble carpenter like Albert Cadosch or a common housewife like Mrs Elisabeth Long and so on and so on. might not they have failed to tell the truth also ? gee my t.o.d for the Chapman murder is starting to look good again. Heres my point if we use the ''Failed to tell the truth'' in our discussions wed get no where, people could make up any senario they want .

[FISHY1118]

But I guess you are more of an expert on these things than Dr Biggs who is a forensic pathologist !!!!!!! Not at all ,never claimed to be , but i do know who was there on that morning inspecting the Mary Nichols dead body at 4.00AM in morning ....... NOT Dr Biggs

[JeffHamm]

Hi drstrange169,

>>It would be odd if he (Llewelyn) was called to the site at 4.00 <<

Why do you keep using a time of 4:00 when you know him his own words within a few hours of being called his EXACT words were "I was called to Buck's row about five minutes to four this morning"?

Oh, where can I find that quote? I've had a twinge about seeing something like that, but often those turn out to be my stupid brain conflating different bits of information. I really need to start organising the various sources into a proper set of documents, referencing the source where each bit of information, or each version of the testimony, can be found.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

I'd like to assist you Jeff, but despite posting the full list of newspaper quotes about Llewelyn's time in my posts 3506 and 3656, Christer insists these posts don't exist and I'm apparently avoiding the issue, so I can't help you.

[FrankO]

Oh, where can I find that quote?

Hi Jeff,

Since Dusty can't help you, I will. That would be in the Daily News, Evening News and the Pall Mall Gazette of 1 October.

Cheers,
Frank

[Trevor Marriott]

But I guess you are more of an expert on these things than Dr Biggs who is a forensic pathologist !!!!!!! Not at all ,never claimed to be , but i do know who was there on that morning inspecting the Mary Nichols dead body at 4.00AM in morning ....... NOT Dr Biggs

and you have been told that the Victoian doctors method of guessing a time of death based on touch alone is nothing more than guesswork

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Is that it Trevor? is that what your going with? well if thats the case we all might as well close our laptops and go home .Because if p.c neil sometimes fails to tell the truth as in your opinion policeman do, then the same could be said for a humble carpenter like Albert Cadosch or a common housewife like Mrs Elisabeth Long and so on and so on. might not they have failed to tell the truth also ? gee my t.o.d for the Chapman murder is starting to look good again. Heres my point if we use the ''Failed to tell the truth'' in our discussions wed get no where, people could make up any senario they want .

In my opinon from what I have read and assessed much of the witness testimony throughout these murders is questionable as to its accuracy including police officers. You only have to look at the many conflicts that appear throughout all of the inquest testimony, and to top that the newspaper reports also conflict with each other, as do the various inquest testimony reports published in them.

The truth is out there, but researchers seem to want to rely on whatever witness or newspaper report fits their own individual theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Dickere]

Because it’s important to realise that times can’t all be taken as being exact. And to realise that the English language doesn’t allow a statement of ‘about 3.30’ to mean something specific. It simply means that he could have left the house before or after 3.30. Yes, we couldn’t stretch it to 15 minutes but 5 is absolutely nothing and entirely in keeping with the accepted use of language. This is simply a fact Fish. I’ve been speaking English for 56 years so I can say with confidence that I know what ‘about 3.30’ does or doesn’t mean. We can’t manipulate it to fit. 3.35 or 3.36 is an entirely reasonable possibility. Under normal circumstances so would 3.24 or 3.25 be but as he was supposedly running late that later time is more likely.

The whole point is that Lechmere’s time of leaving the house 100% could have been 3.35 or 3.36. Therefore we cannot claim a gap of time without claiming an estimation as an exact time.

Hi Herlock

I've been speaking English as long as you, slightly longer if you're including your first year of life.

Anyhow, I agree with your overall point. However I'd disagree that you'd say you were running late but then give a time that doesn't emphasize that. So you'd say 'about 3.30' to emphasize lateness, meaning you left from 3.20 to 3.30. If you left just after 3.30 you'd similarly emphasize the lateness by saying 'after 3.30' or 'nearly twenty to four'. Or as my old mum might have said (and she was nearer Lechmere's language than us of course) 'five and twenty to four'.

Point is, he said 'about 3.30' which to me means 3.20 onwards, in the circumstances of claiming to be running late.

[Fisherman]

Any of them. Or else he’d have said “I did it at 4.15” and he’d have been able to show why he was so confident. By saying “around 4.15” he’s admitting a lack of confidence.

No, Heröock, any of them is not equally likely. Instread, the further you move away from 4.15, the less likely it becomes. If somebody says "I did it at around 4.15", then you will of course agree that 9.30 is not as likely a time as 4.15. And that begins immediately - any minute added to or detracted from 4.15 is less likely than 4.15 itself, and the further you move away from 4.15, the less likely the suggestion becomes. It is not as if we have a given amount of times that are equally likely, is it? if it was, then that time area must be defined, and how on earth would that be possible? If 4.16 and 4.17 and 4.19 is "around 4.15", is 4.21 also "around 4.15"? 4.29?

[Fisherman]

But it’s not likelier. He wasn’t sure or else he wouldn’t have said ‘about.’ And if we can’t say for certain that he didn’t leave the house at 3.35 or 3.36 how can we claim an unexplained/suspicious gap? It can’t be done.

As I keep trying to convey, he MAY have left at another time than 3.30, but when he says "around 3.30", 3.30 is the likeliest time we have. All other times are less likely, although not impossible. It is even possible that 2.27 could be the time, if Lechmere considered 2.27 to be "around 3.30".

[Fisherman]

Neil never denied lifting her arm to check pulse, temperature of hand and arm under the clothing etc which he did check. He said he never moved the body, which is quite different.

Llewellyn may not be one of the experts who you like to quote, but he had one big advantage over your experts - he was there. He saw the body, and the blood evidence, and he was happy to accept a time of death about 30 minutes previously. I never refuted your experts, I merely said experts disagree. As I have made clear several times, I don't consider the blood evidence necessarily relevant.

Neil denied having dealt with the body in any way that would alter the position of it. I don´t remember the exact wording, but that was the gist of things. He felt one arm for warmth, and he would have done that by placing his fingers on the arm, not by lifting it, becasue that WOULD be altering the position of the body. I don´t quite see what you are getting at here, are you suggesting that Neil pumped her arm up and down a few times to set the blood in motion before he checked for running blood? If so, it should be pointed out that what Neil FIRST mentions is that he shone his lamp on Nichols and saw blood oozing from the neck wound. He also used the term "running" at a later stage in his testimony. So that bleeding seems certain not to have been led on by any tampering with her arm - a tampering that was never there if you ask me.

As for my willingness to accept Llewellyns words, I think I am one of the posters out here who is mst willing to promote the doctor. Most will have it that Nichols had her neck cut first, as proposed by Baxter, whilst I have always said that we should go with what Llewellyn said - tha abdominal wounds came first.

When it comes to his words on when Nichols was cut, he does not suggest, as you seem to believe, that it happened around 30 minutes before he arrived. He instead said "I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour" and that means that he promoted the idea that Nichols gad been dead for between 1-30 minutes. The 30 minute mark was not a mark he saw as the likely time of cutting but instead a time that was an extreme; it could be that she had been cut 30 minutes earlier, but absolutely no more than so. Meaning that it is likelier that he believed that 20 or 25 minutes was a better suggestion than 30.

[Fisherman]

>> Dusty, the material you somehow believed was not there:<<

Finally answers!

???

Of course not, back to status quo, lots of avoidance and no actual serious answers.

Christer spends the bulk of his long awaited "answers" reply on my posts #3504, #3505, #3506 and #3507. The problem is I didn't ask any questions in any of these posts. Feel free to check.

My post 3487 did ask some questions,

"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."

In reply Christer ignored explaining how there were any houses where people were asleep overlooking an escape route. He ignored explaining, even if there were, how they would see in the dark. Instead he offered up the idea that a bugler might have seen something and would have appeared at court to testify against Cross!!!

To this SuperShodan replied,

"Brilliant post. If this was a boxing match the ref would stop it."

He would indeed Bob, he would indeed!

Any mismatch should be stopped before it commences, Dusty.

You are now trying to deny that you have had answeers to your questions, and I will deal with that the way I have done before:

If you have any questions you want answered, then ask those question publically here and now, instead of falsely claining that I cannot answer them.

It does n ot get any easier than that, does it?

Or, at least, it SHOULD be easy. But we all know that you are now going to start your good old "Oh, look how he tries to infer that I have not already given him my questions!-charade" again, so it will not be easy, will it?

Come on, Dusty. Admit that you have never had any other intentions than to try to obfuscate and confuse your way out of the conter you have backed youself into. Ask away and lets be done with it.