Evidence of innocence

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agreed. My hypothesis is that killing Nichols and starting the mutilations would have taken about a minute at the most.

I further believe that Paul interrupted him. In my opinion it was a blitz attack and would have all happened very quickly. So the time window Lechmere needs is a small one. If Lechmere is alone in Bucks Row a couple of minutes then that’s time enough for me.

However, there is one or two other issues that could effect the time. Was Nichols in situ when she was killed, did Lechmere meet her at another point in Bucks Row and they walked together to the darkest spot, were they walking in opposite directions and she propositioned him, did he meet her past the board school and walk back ?

Theres lots we don’t know, but I do believe that when Lechmere attacked it was all over and done with in a minute or two.

Then why was he still there when Paul arrived?

[FrankO]

... so clearly he could be her killer.

He could, Abby, and we don't need any of the timings to know this. The timings leave leeway in some places and so, the yeasayers look for or see room to expand their support for guilt and the naysayers look in the other the direction, away from a guilty supposition. In the end, all we can do is expain as best as we can why we believe there is or isn't room in a certain direction, so that the 'opposite party' can at least understand where the other is coming from. After that, it's up to one's own sense of logic, experience, knowledge, image of the murderer and so on to change your opinion or not.

[Fisherman]

I hadn’t expected anything else from you, Christer.

Nor should you, Frank.

I did NOT claim or say that he did.

That´s very good, because there can be one instance of finding a body only. What Neil did was to appear at the spot where Lechmere found the body. Baxter was very much aware who was the finder too, and he puts the time of the finding as not far off 3.45.

He didn’t suddenly change who he spoke of. He presented the sequence of events in chronological order, beginning with Lechmere finding the body and ending with Neil finding it before Mizen, who had been sent to the scene by Lechmere and Paul, arrived at the crime scene. All logical and easy to follow. So, I don’t see any need why he needed to make anything any clearer. It was clear that he ended with Neil, in the meantime, finding the body and that meantime, as Neil had deposed, was ‘at about 3.45’.

Eh, no - we both agree that LECHMERE, not Neil found the body. Ergo, Neil did not find t before Mizen, he arrived at the site. The sequence of events was indeed in chronological order and it ended with Baxter presenting the time the finding of the body (which was what Lechmere did) took place not far off 3.45. He THEN goews on to say that after that, not many minutes could have passed before Neil arrived at the spot, and that is as we all know quite true. How you can claim that the sequence can only be interpreted as how Baxter speak of Neil is way beyond me. I will return to the errand at the end of this post and try to show you the true sequence of events and it´s repercussions. But let´s first look at what more you have to say!

It’s like you’re watching some kind of Escher-like version of the evidence I’m looking at, Christer. Baxter doesn’t lay down that Lechmere found the body at 3.45. I don’t see how you can see it like that. Where comes the 3.45 in “cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m” from? What 3.45 is he referencing? And why?

Not least, why does Swanson reference the exact same time in his October report? Did he misread Baxters summary the way you propose I am doing? Did he suddenly start to dislike the three PC:s? Was he a bumblig idiot? Or was he the overall puppet master, through whom all information was sieved and taken down in reports? More on this later, as promised.

I’m not disputing your knowledge of and experience with the work of a journalist (you are one and I’m not), but it was not the journalist who presented the sequence of events, it was Baxter and as far as I’m concerned, he couldn’t have done a better job presenting the sequence of events beginning with Lechmere finding the body and ending with Neil doing so a short time afterwards.

Only, he never did that job, Frabnk. I think you may be the victim of wishful thinking here, seeing a possibility to bolster your own take on things, and jumping on it, in all probability actually believing what you say. I can only ask you to look at how the sequence can be looked upon from the other angle: Baxter presents how the body was found and lays down who found it. He goes on to describe what was done in the context, and he ends with doing the one thing he has so far NOT done: he gives the time for the finding. He THEN moves on to say that as Neil later arrived - which is the NEXT thing in the sequence, logic, logic! - a few minutes only would have passed.
Why would that NOT be a logical thing to say...? In what universe is that impossible? Rather than probable, since we all know that Baxter was quite aware who found the body?
Because, as you say, Neil himself had deposed that the time was 3.45 when he arrived at the site? But that is the exact thing that Baxter DISPUTES. Not to be able to accept that would be to turn it into a play by Kafka:

- Look.Baxter says that the body was found at 3.45, not 3.40.
-No, he doesnt.
- Yes, he does!
- But he could not do that since Neil said that HE was there at 3.45.

End of story. Of course, Paul said HE was there at 3.45.
But Neil said he was there at 3.45 too, so Paul must be wrong. Not Neil. And no checking of the data can alter that.
It´s not the kind of discussion that has the ability to be very fruitful, is it?
More to come, as promised!

And, seeing that the carmen met Mizen about 300 yards (or less than 4 minutes) distant from the crime scene and Mizen finding Neil already there makes the final sentence a perfectly logical ending to the summing up of the aforementioned sequence of events: the time at which the body was found (by Lechmere) cannot have been far from a quarter to four a.m. (the time that Neil independently discovered it).

Independently discovered it? The way I independently discovered the Caribbean in 1980?

That, of course, is your own call, Christer.

And I will stick to it, rest assured, Frank!

Since I don't see Baxter changing the timing, I don't agree with it and don't know why Swanson altered his timing. It would be interesting to know why he did do that.

You don´t know why Swanson altered his timing? No idea at all? And aren´t you curious? In Swanson case, he luckily SAYS that Lechmere found the body at 3.45, otherwise I would probably have people saying that he too meant Neil! And that is no cheeky joke at all, because I am being subjected to that exact claim right now on behalf of Wynne Baxter.

So what reasons could Swanson have had to disown the three PC:s? That, you must agree, would have hurt a whole lot for a top dog policeman. And he nevertheless did!! It does require an explanation, not a "no idea". Luckily, I have one to offer, as I have hinted at.

At the summary, Baxter said that many independent data laid down that the body could not have been found far off the 3.45 mark. I am certain that he thereby spoke of how Lechmere found the body at this stage, and this is how I think Baxter reasoned:

Day 1 of the inquest:

John Neil testifies to the effect that he was the finder of the body. He mentioned 3.45 as the time this happened. He also said that he signalled down John Thain, his colleague, although he did not give any exact time for when this happened, nor did he say how long time Thain took to arrive at the site or how long the exchange of information between himself and Thain took, although he DID remark that he said "Run at once for Dr Lewellyn", and "at once" means pronto.
Now.
Directly.
Therefore, the cards were on the table early on: Thain was sent for Dr Llewellyn at a remove in time that was close to 3.46, since it would first have taken Thain a minute to reach Neil.

The same day, Henry Llewellyn also testified. He said that he was called to Bucks Row at 4.00 by John Thain.This would have presented a conundrum, since if Thain left at 3.46, he should have alerted Llewellyn at around 3.48, not at 4.00.

Day 2 of the inquest:

Henry Tomkins says that John Thain came into the knackers´s place where he worked at around 4.15, fetching his cape and telling the knackers that there was a murder being investigated in Bucks Row.

The same day, Charles Lechmere tells the inquest that he left home at around 3.30 on the murder morning, and that he was the person who found the body. Lechmere´s information pointed to himself arriving at the murder site a few minutes before 3.40 or thereabouts.

Another witness, PC Mizen, said that he had been called into action at 3.45, and so what Lechmere had said seemed to fit nicely with Mizens and Neils testimony; a five or so minute gap inbetween Lechmeres finding the body and his arriving at Mizen seemed to be on the point.

There was only one problem: Why had it taken Thain around twelve minutes to get to Dr Llewellyn? All the rest of the pieces fit the puzzle, but not that detail. It was therefore apparent that Thain himself needed to be heard, which occurred on ...

Day 3 of the inquest:

John Thain is heard and he says that he was flagged down by John Neil at 3.45. So far, so good. But what about the marathon trip to Llewellyn? Well, the coroner is at this stage quite aware that there must be a reason for the long time elapsed. And there is one thing that readily offers itself up: although Henry Tomkins had already said on day 2 of the inquest that Thain fetched his cape at 4.15, the coroner suspects that this may not be true, and so Thain is more or less accused of having fetched the cape en route to Llewellyn. Adding a conversation with the knackers and a cuppa, that could be the explanation for the tardiness of Thain.
But Thain denies this fervently as we can see in the Times:
"When he was sent for the doctor he did not first go to the horse-slaughterers and say that as a murder had been committed he had better fetch his cape."
Now Baxter was faced with two options. Either Thain lied about the matter, in which case there would be an explanation for the long trek to Llewellyn. Or he was truthful, in which case the 3.45 timing given by the PC:s must be off.

And now, another witness is added into the mix, Robert Paul. And he is adamant that he had left home just before 3.45 on the murder morning. And he has earlier stated in the Lloyds interview that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he passed up Bucks Row.

Now, the information tips the scales in favor of a 3.45 timing for Lechmere´s finding the body. The one thing there is to hold against it, is the three PC:s joint timing of 3.45. But that timing cannot be hinged on any factual matter. Nothing anchors this timing, the way Robert Pauls timing is anchored by Llewellyns claim that Thain only arrived at 4.00, albeit he SHOULD have arrived at 3.48 or thereabouts if Neil found the body at 3.45. And so Baxter goes for Lechmere finding the body not far off 3.45, and this is the exact same reason that Swanson does the same: the facts - or data - are in line with that time, whereas the 3.45 timing of the PC:s is not.

Day 4 of the inquest:

Baxter tells the world that the body, formerly believed - for good reasons - to have been found at 3.40 was actually only found at 3.45.

So there you have it, Frank.

[SuperShodan]

Then why was he still there when Paul arrived?

I mentioned this in my post. I believe Paul interrupted him.

[SuperShodan]

So the 3 Constables were all wrong and Baxter had some kind of second sight which enabled him to dismiss them with confidence to say that the body must have been discovered at 3.45? It doesn’t add up Fish. Not even close to adding up. Lechmere discovering the body closer to 3.40 certainly does though.

Let’s look at our 3 constables. PC Neil seems on the ball, out doing his patrol and finds the body. He walked down Bucks Row earlier too. He done well and his earlier patrol let’s us narrow time frame in which Nichols was murdered.

However, PC Thain is skiving off and is chatting to workmen in Winthrop Street. When Nichols is killed close by he’s probably having a coffee with his pals. He apparently even turns up at the murder scene minus his cape and has to go back for it. He’s been very negligent in his duties. In my view considering a murder took place so close by, it’s potentially a disciplinary issue.

Moving on to PC Mizen. He doesn’t take any details from Lechmere or Paul and continues his knocking up duties. I believe that this wasn’t an official police duty and was an extra cash in hand type arrangement. Mizen finishes this before he walks (not runs) to Bucks Row. When he gets there it turns out to be a murder, and not just any murder. It becomes apparent another Whitechapel woman has been subject to a horrific attack. An attack he was painfully slow getting too.

So out of 3 policemen, 2 of them have really dropped the ball and performed poorly.

I would suggest when they get their heads together they might want to improve their response times.

[Fisherman]

And how many other men who worked in that area would have been within walking distance of such close together murder sites? Lechmere is simply 1 among 1000’s but the importance of this is inflated because he found a body.

So we have 2 parts….

1. Lechmere was within walking distance of the murder sites along with an untold number of other men.

2. Lechmere discovered the body of Nichols and so was placed on the spot.

Neither, in themselves, are suspicious facts. Loads of men were in the vicinity and people discover bodies every day. It’s only if you assume point 2. to have been suspicious can you then assign significance to point 1.

Id find it more suspicious if Lechmere had had no reason to have been in the area but he had.

The simple thing I pointed out is that what seems insignificant may take on another hue when combined with added information. As for speaking of how Lechmeres being found alone with a freshly killed victim as ”inflated”, I wont even go there. Phew!

[Kattrup]

[FONT=Calibri][FONT=Verdana]
Since I don't see Baxter changing the timing, I don't agree with it and don't know why Swanson altered his timing. It would be interesting to know why he did do that.

Actually, Swanson did not alter any timing, he merely prepared a report with approximate times, not exact times. As he usually did when briefing Home Office. It's probably best to consult this page, about half-way down, for a thorough description of how Swanson's timings are well-known to not adhere to the precise times given by witnesses, but to be rounded off.

The idea that Swanson's report attests to a change in when the police considered the body to have been found is completely wrong.

In fact, as David Barrat points out, Abberline's report speaks of 3.40 as the finding time - a time no witness had at any time mentioned, implying that Abberline had actually analysed the incoming information and deduced the most likely time for the carmen to have found the body. The idea that Swanson later changed this understanding to 3.45 is unfounded.

[Fisherman]

But Paul did refute that only one person approached Mizen! At the inquest he said "they mey a policeman ... and told him what they had seen". In the newspaper article he said that he told Mizen that Nichols was dead. After Paul was interviewed by the police, Swanson and Abberline reported that the two men spoke to Mizen.

Again: Having "met" somebody is not the same as having interacted with that somebody in any other way than having passed each other in the street. "On the way, I met a few people" - not the same. You say that Swanson and Abberline both reported tafter Pauls interview with the police that Lechmere and Paul alike spoke to the police. I sincerely hope that this is not grounded on the 19:th of September report, where it was said that "they met P. C. 55.H Mizen and aquainted him with what they had seen", becasue that is NOT proof that Paul spoke to the PC at all, it is just evidence that the ENTITY of Lechmere and Paul told Mizen about the discovery. And we already know that! I have pointed it out a million times, "our school class met the Queen and gave her a medal" does NOT mean that everybidy in the class handed her the medal, does it?

Christer, it is really so very simple. The police, after interviewing Lechmere and Paul, must have accepted that their stories corroborated each other, otherwise they would not have accepted them. Fact. If there was doubt, such as Paul not being close enough to hear what was said, and therefore not saying to Mizen that he thought Nichols was dead, then Lechmere would have been lying. The police were satisfied with the facts. When Swanson and Abberline refer to Paul and Lechmere as "they", that is plural, and can only mean they were together. The English is clear. No cherry-picking, here, and no sarcasm as a substitute for hard facts.

The English in my example above about the Queens medal is just as clear, I´m afraid. That should be simple enough to understand too, and you like simplicity - YOUR simplicity at least. As I pointed out to you before, seemingly to deaf ears, is that if I am correct (away the foul notion!), then Paul may NOT have heard what Lechmere told Mizen, and if he did not, hiow in the world would the police be able to tell that Lechmere was a liar? Can you please explain that in clear and simple English to me? Jonas Mizen very clearly said that ONE man approachhed and talked to him, and that counts for a whole deal. In fact, the ONLY way that we can see our way through to absolving the PC from being a liar is if Paul was NOT there in close connection as Lechmere informed Mizen. That too counts for something in my book. Not in yours, though, in that book, simplicity rules. Ehrm!

You have the mysterious idea that when the coroner ignored Mizen's allegation, this was not "equal to refuting it".

Of course it was not. Mizen said A, Lechmere said B, how could he refure ANY of the information? How is that a mystery?

In his summing up, the coroner stated "the carmen reported the circumstances to a constable...". Given the choice of accepting either Lechmere and Paul's account or Mizen's, he chose the former, and expressed no reservations or doubts which one would expect if he didn't totally believe them.

Again, the ENTITY of the carmen informed Mizen., If Baxter wanted to refute Mizen, he would need to say that Lechmere and Paul ALIKE informed the PC, but he never did. I do not know if he himself believed they did, but that is another matter. What counts is that there is no proof that they both did, but instead clear evidence on Mizens behalf that they did not.

He had a choice and he decided to accept the Paul/Lechmere version and not even mention Mizen's allegation. He could have accepted either version, or indicated that there was a dispute, but no, he chose to totally ignore Mizen's account. He rejected it as not even worth mentioning.

In your universe, perhaps. Not in mine. It was clear that information had been given to Mizen, and Baxter may not have realized the option I am speaking of. That does not alter its value, however. The coroner threw Llewellyn under the bus when implying that Nichols had her neck cut before the belly, and so all we hear from coroners may not be the one and only truth out there. Even if we find it delightfully simple.

Nowhere did I say that "Lechmere would never have dared to lie in case Paul would refute him".

You indicated that this was the case, the way I remember it. If I´m wrong about it, fine. Let´s just keep in mind that Lechmere and Mizen alike stood risks to be found out if they lied, but neither seems to have been mistrusted. Unless we live by the rules of absolute simplicity, that is.

I don't think that the 3. 45 am timing of the finding of the body is particularly important.

I think it is vastly so.

It was originally reported as 3. 45 am when it was found by PC Neil, and doesn't seem to have been changed.

Swanson DID change it, and Baxters summary seems to have been the case. The inference is simple, you have to admit that.

Precise timing did not exist frankly in 1888.

No, but coroners establishing timelines did.

Clocks around the East End showed different times, were not synchronized in any way, and times were calculated or estimated on a best guess basis. If anyone does not understand this, then they should read the first few entries in the "A question of time" thread. The police understood this, which is why they didn't see time anomolies which might not have existed.

But Baxter DID see the anomaly of how Thain should have arrived at Llewellyns at 3.48 if the body was found by Neil at 3.45. Why else would he confront Thain with the proposition that he had visited the knackers en route to Llewellyn?

Saying that we cannot rely on a single time is all very .. what´s the word, hmmm ... ah yes, easy.

But incorrect.

[Fisherman]

There is no definitive answere to that question

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That is the gist of the matter. And that is also the EXACT reason I ask about it. You see, although the answers may vary, we can always weigh together what medicos say on the matter. If one says 1-3 minutes, another 2-5 minutes and a third 3-7 minutes, we will nevertheless get a clear picture of how 15-25 minutes is way off the beaten track.

I would very much like to know if there is an experienced and senior physician worth his salt who is ready to refute the joint estimation of Payne James and Thiblin. Is there?

[Fisherman]

It’s the fact that there are unknowns that make it impossible to claim any sinister gap of course. To create this ‘gap’ things that can’t be known exactly have to be stated as definites. Amongst all the unknowns the one thing that we can say for absolute certain is that a ‘gap’ can’t be assumed. It’s a myth that keeps persisting though.

There is no myth. Baxter said that the time the body was found could not be far off 3.45, Swanson said that Lechmere did the finding at 3.45, no "around" added. Are you saying that your personal misgivings should take precedence over the official line offered by those who arguably knew best how exact or inexact the timings were?

[Fisherman]

So the 3 Constables were all wrong and Baxter had some kind of second sight which enabled him to dismiss them with confidence to say that the body must have been discovered at 3.45? It doesn’t add up Fish. Not even close to adding up. Lechmere discovering the body closer to 3.40 certainly does though.

Second sight? How do you know that Baxter did not have reliable enough infdormation to go on, Herlock? Where did you check and establish that information? As I said before, how do we know that Dr Llewellyn did not have a very expansive and exact timepiece, and was able to refure the possibility that it would be off? Very exact timepieces were available in 1888 too. And it would be very irresponsible for Baxter to rely on information that he could not verify, would it not? But instead he says that there is a lot of independent data that supports a time not far off 3.45, and Swanson says 3.45, no resercvations given

Who do we trust? Them? Who were there? Who knew what had been used to establish the timings?

Or you?

[Fisherman]

If he’d left at 3.20 then why was he still there when Paul arrived? Why, when he’d had time to think about this before the Inquest, would Lechmere have stupidly landed himself with a huge unexplained gap?

Theories have to stand up to criticism. To facts.

The fact is that on the day that Lechmere testified, the general idea was that Neil found the body at 3.45. Lechmere therefore did NOT "land himself with a huge unexplained gap".

That gap only opened up at the last day of the inquest, when Baxter, followed by Swanson, both agreed that the data involved anchored the time at around 3.45, not 3.40, as Lechmere found the body.

Therefore the theory stands up to criticism as well as to the facts quite well. The development is in line with Lechmere giving a time that he believed would fit the overall picture, only to then have that advantage taken away from him.

[Fisherman]

Actually, Swanson did not alter any timing, he merely prepared a report with approximate times, not exact times.

Hahahaha!!

That is really funny!

Okay, Kattrup, so tell us why he "approximated" 3.45 instead of 3.40...?

I am truly amazed to see how you also claim that Swanson did not alter the times. In the September report, it says 3.40. In the October report, it says 3.45.

But the time has not been altered? Can you explain just how that works? If you think you already did that, believe me, you failed miserably.

Anybody out there, regardless of who - just HOW on earth do these posts come about? It is beyond surreal. I earlier spoke of mumbo-jumbo on acid, but that does not fully cover what we have here.

Please, some little sense!!!

[Fisherman]

In fact, as David Barrat points out, Abberline's report speaks of 3.40 as the finding time - a time no witness had at any time mentioned, implying that Abberline had actually analysed the incoming information and deduced the most likely time for the carmen to have found the body. The idea that Swanson later changed this understanding to 3.45 is unfounded.

Yes, and WHAT an analysis! Abberline was able to conclude that Neil will have been around five minutes after Lechmere and Paul. Astounding!

In Sweden, we have a saying that goes like this: "I could have worked that out with my behind and a crooked twig". It signifies simplicity, but I like it on behalf of how colourful it is.

[Fisherman]

Since I am not absolutely sure that I am not having a bad nightmare, I will send off for now. But you can bet on me returning - there is too much fun to miss!