Evidence of innocence

[FISHY1118]

But we know for an absolute indisputable fact that scientific knowledge at the time meant that a doctor simply couldn’t predict a TOD with the kind of accuracy that you appear to be claiming Fishy. This really isn’t a controversial statement. Surely you can see the position? Every modern forensic expert will, without exception, tell you this but your response appears to be “well I don’t believe them.” It’s the equivalent of me claiming that Stephen Hawking was clueless on the subject of Black Holes.

What we do know is Nichols was killed betwwen 3.15 and 3.40 [unless, according to trevor, p.c neil might have lied during his testermony ] dr lewellyn gave his opinion that she had not been dead for more than half an hour . Now with out going back over my previous post as to why this is the case i will just say this, he was accurate in his opinion , and in this perticular murder one would be very harse to claim that it should be taken with a grain of salt .

[Herlock Sholmes]

What we do know is Nichols was killed betwwen 3.15 and 3.40 [unless, according to trevor, p.c neil might have lied during his testermony ] dr lewellyn gave his opinion that she had not been dead for more than half an hour . Now with out going back over my previous post as to why this is the case i will just say this, he was accurate in his opinion , and in this perticular murder one would be very harse to claim that it should be taken with a grain of salt .

Yes but if you or I had been there we could both have told them the same thing. It was hardly a great piece of medical deduction and it neither strengthens or weakens the case against Lechmere. The point about Victorian doctors remains a fact.

[FISHY1118]

With regards to the officer who said he passed by at 3.15am.Could he have passed by as suggested and like Lechmere thought that the body was nothing more than a tarpaulin and took no notice, or was he not where he should have been on his beat at that time and therefore had to lie and say he passed by and the body wasnt there..

If Lechmere is to be believed then a question mark hangs over the officer, and then we have to ask which one is lying and what was their reason for lying? Lechmere because he was the killer or the police officer?

I firmly believe that she was murdered much earlier in line with the times of death of the other victims.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Iim curious Trevor ''firmly believe much earlier'' . how much ? givin she was killed 3.17 -3.40 in line with other deaths, again im curious ?.

[drstrange169]

>>What Dusty says is that we should put more trust in the 3.55 tining because it was information given closer in time to the deed. <<

What Dusty actually wrote was we should put more trust in the "about 3:55" timing because it is a direct quote from Llewelyn, whereas all the inquests reports are journalists or editors interpretations of what Llewelyn said. The fact that it was within a few scant hours of the incident itself is just other bonus.

>>That may sound like a good idea up until the time we start discussing how Neil was quoted as saying that the neck wound bled profusely as he first saw it in the early reports.<<

Could you please cite where PC Neil was specifically "quoted" as saying "the neck wound bled profusely"?


>>That´s where things get a tad awkward for many people. The term for the process is cherry-picking, I believe.<<

It certainly is awkward isn't it?

[FISHY1118]

Yes but if you or I had been there we could both have told them the same thing. It was hardly a great piece of medical deduction and it neither strengthens or weakens the case against Lechmere. The point about Victorian doctors remains a fact.

Well im not sure about that seeings i dont have a medical background, so id say i would not . i never said it proves lech the killer one way or the other. You may quote victorian drs remaining a fact, that fine , just as i can quote this one dr being accurate on this one accasion .

[drstrange169]

>>If you do not get the answers you want to your questions, then you will not accept them.<<

No, I just want answers to the questions I ask and that's what you seem frightened of doing, because as yet they are still unanswered.

Just out of curiosity, if you do not get the answers you want to your questions, do you accept them?

[drstrange169]

>>This is what Dusty took and remolded into some sort of mumbo-jumbo on acid. The way he always tends to do, as you have correctly noted.<<

Since I quoted your exact words, any drug addled mumbo jumbo was authored by you. As I told Bob, I can certainly see why you would to distance yourself from it now.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well im not sure about that seeings i dont have a medical background, so id say i would not . i never said it proves lech the killer one way or the other. You may quote victorian drs remaining a fact, that fine , just as i can quote this one dr being accurate on this one accasion .

You don’t need a medical background though. If she wasn’t there at 3.15 but was there at 3.45 then she had to have been killed between those 2 times.

[drstrange169]

>>The problem is that we cannot ligtheartedly treat any such claim as fact, though. It would be jolly if we could, of course, but that´s not to be. In fact, I much dread what would come from posters "reading between the lines"...<<

The bulk of the case against Lechmere comes from "reading between the lines":

Usually leaving at 3:20
There being a synchronised time gap
Cross found standing/kneeling over the body
The so called "blood evidence"
Paul not talking to Mizen
Cross lying about his name
Baxter not accepting the police times
The route to work took him past the murder sites.

I'm sure I've forgotten a few

Sense of "much dread" noted. I seems it's case of "do what I say not what I do" when it comes to your approach.

[Trevor Marriott]

Iim curious Trevor ''firmly believe much earlier'' . how much ? givin she was killed 3.17 -3.40 in line with other deaths, again im curious ?.

Stride 1am
Kelly 2am approx
Eddowes 1.30am approx
Chapman Between 1.45am-3.45am
Mckenzie 12.45am
Coles 2.15am

The only evidence to support that belief comes from the police officer who as i have stated may have been less than liberal with the truth, or he could have genuinely missed the body when he supposedly passed by at 3.15am.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I also believe that when we look at the blood evidence we should take into consideration whether Polly was alive or dead when her throat was cut. As, again from what I believe blood will seep out far more slowly without circulation. Even if Polly was alive for only a few seconds after her throat was cut the initial spurt would empty most of the blood from the carotid artery and surrounding area a lot quicker.
Regards Darryl

You need to look at #4004

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[drstrange169]

>>And from my ”moral high ground”, I am saying it in a post to a man who has called me personally stupid...<<

I just did a word search for the word stupid on this thread, the hit I got was you replying to Trevor (post #3689).

Could you quote the exact post where you claim I called you "personally stupid" on this thread?

If not I'll take your "sorry" as a given.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Stride 1am
Kelly 2am approx
Eddowes 1.30am approx
Chapman Between 1.45am-3.45am
Mckenzie 12.45am
Coles 2.15am

The only evidence to support that belief comes from the police officer who as i have stated may have been less than liberal with the truth, or he could have genuinely missed the body when he supposedly passed by at 3.15am.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’d question Chapman of course as I don’t think that Richardson could have missed the body.

[drstrange169]

>>The "almost up to the stomach" reference needs to be pitted against a large number of OTHER references, like how it was claimed that the clothing was "over the knees" for example.<<

Could you cite ANY newspaper or police report that says the dress was "over the knees" when they found her?

Here's what I have:

Cross
"The woman’s clothes were above her knees" Evening Post
"The other man pulled her clothes down before he left" Echo
"The woman's legs were uncovered." ELO
"Before they left the body the other man tried to pull the clothes over the woman's knees" Star
"The woman's legs were uncovered." Daily News
"When I found her clothes were up above her knees" Morning Advertiser
"The other man tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down." Police News

Paul
"Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." Times

So where does the "large number of OTHER references, like how it was claimed that the clothing was "over the knees" for example" come from? Nothing here is inconsistent with Paul's claim of "almost to her stomach".

[drstrange169]

>>I don’t see anything crooked about this line of thinking, but that may just be me.<<

It's not you. Baxter said nothing to the jury about disbelieving the policemen's timings, therefore he CANNOT have been disputing them.