Evidence of innocence

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Cheers Kattrup,

So that little contrived mystery is now cleared up

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

Are you disputing the English language Fish? ‘Not far off’ is not a quantifiable amount. 3.40 by any normal usage of the language is ‘not far off’ 3.45. I don’t know if it’s different in Swedish Fish but this is just a fact. You can’t apply a specific time to an approximation. No matter what convoluted explanations you go through it’s very obvious that Baxter was simply hedging at ‘before 3.45.’ Kattrup has explained about Swanson. No need for unnecessary complication.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Christer, trying to debate facts with you is like trying to nail a blancmange to the ceiling!

When the coroner, Abberline and Swanson all say that Paul and Lechmere met Mizen and told him what they had seen, that is what they concluded after studying the evidence. They probably all three had seen detailed statements from the two carmen detailing their versions of events, as was normal practice, I believe. If Paul and Lechmere did not both say they spoke with Mizen together, then that conclusion could not be reached. They did not conclude that Lechmere met Mizen and told him what he had seen, with Paul some distance away, and unable to hear anything!

I fully understand your "entity theory", and sometimes it would apply. Here we have just two people not a group, and all of the evidence is that they spoke to Mizen together.

Now I'll just sweep up that blancmange off the floor, and accept, as I have done previously, that repeating the same facts over and over again is pointless.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

As long as the later times aren’t physical impossibilities or millions to one options the there’s no problem with quoting them as possibles.

If a doctor says something like (and I’m just using random numbers for any opinion as an illustration here) 5-10 is the likelier but 20 is possible but probably much less likely, then we can’t simply dismiss 20. And we certainly can’t use 5-10 to prove anything.

[John Wheat]

Christer, trying to debate facts with you is like trying to nail a blancmange to the ceiling!

When the coroner, Abberline and Swanson all say that Paul and Lechmere met Mizen and told him what they had seen, that is what they concluded after studying the evidence. They probably all three had seen detailed statements from the two carmen detailing their versions of events, as was normal practice, I believe. If Paul and Lechmere did not both say they spoke with Mizen together, then that conclusion could not be reached. They did not conclude that Lechmere met Mizen and told him what he had seen, with Paul some distance away, and unable to hear anything!

I fully understand your "entity theory", and sometimes it would apply. Here we have just two people not a group, and all of the evidence is that they spoke to Mizen together.

Now I'll just sweep up that blancmange off the floor, and accept, as I have done previously, that repeating the same facts over and over again is pointless.

Christer's not interested in facts all he's interested in is trying to frame an innocent man.

[JeffHamm]

Christer's not interested in facts all he's interested in is trying to frame an innocent man.

To be fair to Fisherman, I would suggest that the difference is not best described as being disinterested in facts, rather, the basis for most differences have to do with interpretations of many of the adjectives, or qualifying statements.

In my view, the fundamental differences with regards to the issues arising from examining timings seem to hinge on how one interprets the qualifying statements, like "about" or "not far off", and other indications of inexactness.

Fisherman has stated, for example, that Baxter's summing up statement of "not far off 3:45" with regards to when the carmen discovered the body means, or should be interpreted, as being as close as possible to 3:45. While I do not agree with his interpretation of that phrase, given that is how he interprets it, then his view makes perfect sense. If we use his definition, then effectively the phrase "not far off 3:45" means "at 3:45", with a very small margin of error (say, +-1 minute type thing, though I've not seen Fisherman specifically give that range, I'm using it here only to illustrate the idea).

In contrast, I interpret the phrase "not far off 3:45" to indicate a wider range of times, where Baxter is using a time he deems reliable, and given in evidence, to benchmark the carmen's discovery at an unknown time, and given the sequence of events, this unknown time must be earlier than 3:45. I see his "not far off 3:45" as indicating that he believes the carmen's earlier discovery time as entirely consistent with a discovery time of 3:40 (meaning that I see the results of the analysis I presented as consistent with Baxter's statement). And I see that this is a time that Abberline appears to have come to as well.

In other words, we both agree on the "facts" (Baxter said "not far off 3:45") but we have different interpretations of what that phrase means.

Same thing with regards to things like Cross/Lechmere stating he left home "about 3:30", or Paul saying he left home "about 3:45", and so forth.

If you interpret those facts, meaning statements, as indicating that the proposed explanation should use those times only, and include a narrow range of deviations from those times, then of course one comes to the conclusion Fisherman presents. If, however, you interpret those qualifiers to indicate a wider range of times (and the range I believe they signify is wider than Fisherman's interpretation), then one comes to a different conclusion.

We're not disputing what the facts are, meaning what the words were, rather the dispute is about what inferences one can draw from them based upon how one interprets them.

This is why I am under no illusion that presenting things like the analysis I presented earlier will change Fisherman's view, because of course the analysis I present is based upon the notion that things like "not far off 3:45" accurately applies to an estimated time of discovery by the carmen of 3:40ish, or that leaving home "about 3:30" accurately applies to leaving home to an estimated time of 3:33, or even that Paul's inquest statement of leaving home "about 3:45" accurately applies to Paul leaving home 6 or 7 minutes prior. Because Fisherman does not interpret Baxter's statement the same way, his conclusion from the very same analysis, would be that it supports his conclusion because the analysis results in a discovery time that he would say conflicts with Baxter's summing up. And of course couple that with a narrower range of error than I believe is appropriate for the qualifiers of "about", the differences in our conclusions compound.

The underlying problem is that there we do not have an objective definition of what "about" or "not far off" means in terms of quantity of time. These are subjective descriptions of an interval. I try and outline the basis for my interpretations of these as being fairly wide ranges by pointing to the fact that clocks were not synchronised, and so forth. I that the PC's times should be viewed as more reliable because their job involved noting the time, and of course implied in that is that "noting the time at the time" would occur. We also have to consider the fact that both Cross/Lechmere and Paul would only have their attention drawn to the specific time well after the event, when they eventually hear that the woman they found really was dead, and horribly mutilated as well! They have to reconstruct the time well after the fact. But I'm digressing now.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>> when Llewellyn instead said at the inquest that he was called up at around 4.00, that is NOT a direct quote from the doctor?<<

You're a journalist by profession and you don't understand what a direct quote is? Seriously?

[drstrange169]

>>So it is my POSTS that are stupid, not me. That´s a relief!<<

Precisely, the smartest people are capable of doing and saying stupid things, that doesn't make them "personally stupid".

You're apology accepted.

If you want to read lowest point for personal insults in this thread try Bob's post to me #3946. But I'm more interested in the issues not personal attacks.

[John Wheat]

To be fair to Fisherman, I would suggest that the difference is not best described as being disinterested in facts, rather, the basis for most differences have to do with interpretations of many of the adjectives, or qualifying statements.

In my view, the fundamental differences with regards to the issues arising from examining timings seem to hinge on how one interprets the qualifying statements, like "about" or "not far off", and other indications of inexactness.

Fisherman has stated, for example, that Baxter's summing up statement of "not far off 3:45" with regards to when the carmen discovered the body means, or should be interpreted, as being as close as possible to 3:45. While I do not agree with his interpretation of that phrase, given that is how he interprets it, then his view makes perfect sense. If we use his definition, then effectively the phrase "not far off 3:45" means "at 3:45", with a very small margin of error (say, +-1 minute type thing, though I've not seen Fisherman specifically give that range, I'm using it here only to illustrate the idea).

In contrast, I interpret the phrase "not far off 3:45" to indicate a wider range of times, where Baxter is using a time he deems reliable, and given in evidence, to benchmark the carmen's discovery at an unknown time, and given the sequence of events, this unknown time must be earlier than 3:45. I see his "not far off 3:45" as indicating that he believes the carmen's earlier discovery time as entirely consistent with a discovery time of 3:40 (meaning that I see the results of the analysis I presented as consistent with Baxter's statement). And I see that this is a time that Abberline appears to have come to as well.

In other words, we both agree on the "facts" (Baxter said "not far off 3:45") but we have different interpretations of what that phrase means.

Same thing with regards to things like Cross/Lechmere stating he left home "about 3:30", or Paul saying he left home "about 3:45", and so forth.

If you interpret those facts, meaning statements, as indicating that the proposed explanation should use those times only, and include a narrow range of deviations from those times, then of course one comes to the conclusion Fisherman presents. If, however, you interpret those qualifiers to indicate a wider range of times (and the range I believe they signify is wider than Fisherman's interpretation), then one comes to a different conclusion.

We're not disputing what the facts are, meaning what the words were, rather the dispute is about what inferences one can draw from them based upon how one interprets them.

This is why I am under no illusion that presenting things like the analysis I presented earlier will change Fisherman's view, because of course the analysis I present is based upon the notion that things like "not far off 3:45" accurately applies to an estimated time of discovery by the carmen of 3:40ish, or that leaving home "about 3:30" accurately applies to leaving home to an estimated time of 3:33, or even that Paul's inquest statement of leaving home "about 3:45" accurately applies to Paul leaving home 6 or 7 minutes prior. Because Fisherman does not interpret Baxter's statement the same way, his conclusion from the very same analysis, would be that it supports his conclusion because the analysis results in a discovery time that he would say conflicts with Baxter's summing up. And of course couple that with a narrower range of error than I believe is appropriate for the qualifiers of "about", the differences in our conclusions compound.

The underlying problem is that there we do not have an objective definition of what "about" or "not far off" means in terms of quantity of time. These are subjective descriptions of an interval. I try and outline the basis for my interpretations of these as being fairly wide ranges by pointing to the fact that clocks were not synchronised, and so forth. I that the PC's times should be viewed as more reliable because their job involved noting the time, and of course implied in that is that "noting the time at the time" would occur. We also have to consider the fact that both Cross/Lechmere and Paul would only have their attention drawn to the specific time well after the event, when they eventually hear that the woman they found really was dead, and horribly mutilated as well! They have to reconstruct the time well after the fact. But I'm digressing now.

- Jeff

Even if Christer is interested in the facts and I'm not sure he is. He is still attempting to frame an innocent man.

[drstrange169]

>>This is a very important point which should not be ignored.<<

I agree with one minor quibble...

>>Either Mizen or Lechmere is lying on oath<<

Certainly Mark, Bob and Christer have claimed Mizen could easily have lied under oath, in fact it's essential to their theory, but I think there is a good possibility that Mizen, having been told "you are wanted" simply assumed, on finding a policeman in Buck's Row, that it was a policeman who wanted him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be fair to Fisherman, I would suggest that the difference is not best described as being disinterested in facts, rather, the basis for most differences have to do with interpretations of many of the adjectives, or qualifying statements.

In my view, the fundamental differences with regards to the issues arising from examining timings seem to hinge on how one interprets the qualifying statements, like "about" or "not far off", and other indications of inexactness.

Fisherman has stated, for example, that Baxter's summing up statement of "not far off 3:45" with regards to when the carmen discovered the body means, or should be interpreted, as being as close as possible to 3:45. While I do not agree with his interpretation of that phrase, given that is how he interprets it, then his view makes perfect sense. If we use his definition, then effectively the phrase "not far off 3:45" means "at 3:45", with a very small margin of error (say, +-1 minute type thing, though I've not seen Fisherman specifically give that range, I'm using it here only to illustrate the idea).

In contrast, I interpret the phrase "not far off 3:45" to indicate a wider range of times, where Baxter is using a time he deems reliable, and given in evidence, to benchmark the carmen's discovery at an unknown time, and given the sequence of events, this unknown time must be earlier than 3:45. I see his "not far off 3:45" as indicating that he believes the carmen's earlier discovery time as entirely consistent with a discovery time of 3:40 (meaning that I see the results of the analysis I presented as consistent with Baxter's statement). And I see that this is a time that Abberline appears to have come to as well.

In other words, we both agree on the "facts" (Baxter said "not far off 3:45") but we have different interpretations of what that phrase means.

Same thing with regards to things like Cross/Lechmere stating he left home "about 3:30", or Paul saying he left home "about 3:45", and so forth.

If you interpret those facts, meaning statements, as indicating that the proposed explanation should use those times only, and include a narrow range of deviations from those times, then of course one comes to the conclusion Fisherman presents. If, however, you interpret those qualifiers to indicate a wider range of times (and the range I believe they signify is wider than Fisherman's interpretation), then one comes to a different conclusion.

We're not disputing what the facts are, meaning what the words were, rather the dispute is about what inferences one can draw from them based upon how one interprets them.

This is why I am under no illusion that presenting things like the analysis I presented earlier will change Fisherman's view, because of course the analysis I present is based upon the notion that things like "not far off 3:45" accurately applies to an estimated time of discovery by the carmen of 3:40ish, or that leaving home "about 3:30" accurately applies to leaving home to an estimated time of 3:33, or even that Paul's inquest statement of leaving home "about 3:45" accurately applies to Paul leaving home 6 or 7 minutes prior. Because Fisherman does not interpret Baxter's statement the same way, his conclusion from the very same analysis, would be that it supports his conclusion because the analysis results in a discovery time that he would say conflicts with Baxter's summing up. And of course couple that with a narrower range of error than I believe is appropriate for the qualifiers of "about", the differences in our conclusions compound.


- Jeff

It’s the interpretation of estimates that I struggle with in these debates Jeff. There appears to be a concerted effort to impose a kind of certainty. As if the word ‘about’ is defined as ‘within a minute or two either way.’ And it’s not as if those of us that don’t feel that Lechmere was guilty are moving any goalposts here. I’ve stated clearly that I accept that ‘about’ could just as easily have meant before or after. But it could also just as easily mean 5 minutes. How can this possibility be difficult to accept? How many times throughout our lives have all of us estimated a time or a period of time only to then discover that our estimate was considerably more than 5 minutes out? So why should anyone struggle with accepting the possibility that, for all that we know, Lechmere might have actually left the house at 3.35? How can anyone consider this mundane suggestion as in any way controversial?

Likewise the discovery time. There’s a difference in interpretation. Fine. But no one can claim 100% certainty about the discovery time. Just before 3.45 could have course have meant 3.44. But are we really being serious by trying to exclude 3.43 or 3.42? These discrepancies could occur today even with our technology. How much more likely then?

So basically we are interpreting 2 estimations. Not one of us can be certain of exact times. So my question remains (and I’m sorry but it’s an absolute slam dunk certainty) how can it be stated that there was a sinister gap of time for Lechmere in Bucks Row? There might have been. I certainly can’t disprove it but I know for a fact that no one can prove it either. It’s impossible to do so. As long as other possibilities exist, and they clearly do, we can’t suggest a gap. We cannot state something definite like a gap of time when the parameters are nowhere near definite.

If this very obvious, inarguable point cannot be conceded by some then reasoned debate can’t be had. I’m not claiming any special knowledge. I’m not claiming any brilliant deductions. I’m not claiming infallibility. But I am 100% certain that logic, reason and simple common sense says that this ‘there was a gap’ argument should be abandoned before it becomes too embarrassing to continue.

[JeffHamm]

Here's an example of what I mean in 4116, although not a post by Fisherman obviously, it illustrates the difference of opinion, or the conclusions drawn, are not disputes about the "facts" per se, but about the interpretation of the more subjective terms in those statements.

SuperShodan posts "... In order for the timing to work then Paul leaving home is moved by 6 - 7 minutes. I think this is taking a massive liberty. ...".

This tells us that SuperShodan's interpretation of the qualifier "about" is narrower than my own because I view a 6-7 minute difference as being consistent with a witness who testifies they left "about 3:45". Particularly since the time derived at in the analysis is, in effect, benchmarked to a different clock than the one Paul himself would have viewed. Meaning, the 6-7 minute difference is suggesting "if we compared Paul's clock to the this other clock, Paul's could very well read 3:45 but the other clock to which I'm referring could read 6-7 minutes earlier - the clock's are not synchronized after all. This is something I didn't make very clear in my original post).

Regardless, we're not disputing the "facts" (the statements), nor are we disputing the analysis outcome (the time suggested by the analysis), rather we have a different idea of whether "about 3:45" is consistent with or not consistent with the adjective "about" that is included in Paul's statement. Also, due to my lack of emphasis on pointing out that I'm not suggesting Paul's clock read 6-7 minutes earlier, but that relative to the underlying clock of the analysis, part of that 6-7 minute time difference could be nothing more than clock desync as well.

Once we're down to subjective terms, though, agreement is unlikely to be reached because the subjective terms simply "mean" something different to each person, and we cannot come to an objective way to evaluate them in order to then interpret things like the presented analysis from a common view point.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

>>This is a very important point which should not be ignored.<<

I agree with one minor quibble...

>>Either Mizen or Lechmere is lying on oath<<

Certainly Mark, Bob and Christer have claimed Mizen could easily have lied under oath, in fact it's essential to their theory, but I think there is a good possibility that Mizen, having been told "you are wanted" simply assumed, on finding a policeman in Buck's Row, that it was a policeman who wanted him.

I think that’s the likeliest explanation Dusty. What could be more natural than for someone to tell a Constable “you’re needed in Bucks Row,’ or ‘you’re wanted in Bucks Row,’ meaning ‘a Constable is needed,’ and then, as you say, Neil was there when he arrived and he makes the connection.

Its a very minor point but when asked whether he’d told Mizen that a Constable was calling for a Constable in Bucks Row Lechmere said something like ‘no, I didn’t see a Constable in Bucks Row.’ I think it might have been Caz, a few years ago (apologies to her if it wasn’t )who said that that sentence had a ring of truth about it. I agree.

[drstrange169]

>>In every one Paul is very sure of the time, leaving home at 03.45 <<

First off I'm pleased to see you using Steve's book as an informed guide. You might want to tell Christer just how comprehensive the book is!

But, back to the point.

In none of the reports does it say Paul left home at 3:45 (I'm assuming the leaving at 3:45 was an error on your part).

The best he could manage at the inquest was an approximate time in direct contrast to his Lloyds interview.

As to his notion of time, he would have presumably been in sync with his work place as that is what was important to him. How accurate his work place was with anyone else is unknown. If you read up on the matter, you'll find it was common for some work places to deliberately manipulate times to get more out of their workers.

As DoctoredWhatsit has noted, the fact that Paul was so heavily questioned by police before his testimony means any discrepancies would have been sorted out.

[drstrange169]

>>Exactly, it IS taking massive liberties with Pauls timing, given as "Exactly 3.45" in the Lloyds article, presumably for the reason that he had checked it.<<

If he could prove that time, it is important.

So why, at the inquest under the threat of perjury and after being questioned by police, did he not repeat his claim?

Leaving home ABOUT or JUST BEFORE 3:45 is ambiguous and, as we can see, open to intrepretation.