Tweet
Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
Letīs cut to the chase now, and take a look at a few overlooked matters. Amongst the ones who debate the matter of 3.40 or 3.45 out here is Frank van Oploo, a man for whom I harbour a lot of respect. He has made the point that when Baxter said that the body was found not far off 3.45, he would have been speaking about John Neil, not Charles Lechmere, putting Lechmeres finding the body at around 3.40.
The origin of this debate hails from the report in the Morning Advertiser, depicting the matter like this:
The deceased was first discovered by a carman on his way to work, who passed down Buck's row on the opposite side of the road. Immediately after he had ascertained that the dark object in the gateway was the figure of a woman, he heard footsteps approaching. This proved to be Paul, another carman. Together they went to the woman. The condition of her clothing suggested to them that she had been outraged and had fainted. Neither appear to have realised the real condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but this, no doubt, is accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data. The condition in which the body was found appears to prove conclusively that the deceased was killed on the exact spot in which she was found. There is not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying.
As far as I understand, Frank accepted that this passage seemed to establish Lechmere as the finder of the body, and therefore, the 3.45 timing would point to his finding, not Neils.
What Frank then did was to present another report, this time from the coverage in the Times. It goes like this:
"The deceased was first discovered by a carman on his way to work, who passed down Buck's-row, on the opposite side of the road. Immediately after he had ascertained that the dark object in the gateway was the figure of a woman he heard the approaching footsteps of a man. This proved to be Paul, another carman. Together they went to the woman. The condition of her clothing suggested to them that she had been outraged and had fainted. She was only just dead, if life were really extinct. Paul says he felt a slight movement of her breast, and thought she was breathing. Neither of the carmen appeared to have realized the condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but that, no doubt, was accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot. The carmen reported the circumstances to a constable at the corner of Hanbury-street, 300 yards distant, but although he appeared to have started without delay, he found another constable was already there. In fact, Constable Neil must independently have found the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen."
Frank made this observation:
The last sentence - which is notably absent in the version carried by the Morning Advertiser referred to by Christer - before turning to his "not far from a quarter to four" remark, is about Neil finding the body. Since we know Neil'd stated he'd found the body at about 3.45, there's indeed nothing incoguous about the 3.45 in "not far from a quarter to four" being a reference to Neil's finding of the body. In the Times, as we can see, the "not far from a quarter to four" is even represented as Neil finding "the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen." Whether this is just another way of saying the same created by the reporter in question or the actual words that Baxter spoke, we don't and can't know, but it doesn't change the point that the 3.45 mark is a reference to Neil's timing rather than anything else.
I was not convinced at all by the suggestion, but I had no problem seeing the underlying reasoning. Having looked further into the matter, there are a number of things that should be pointed out.
First of all, if Frank is correct and if the Morning Advertiser left out the part about Neil, then the sentence they left in: "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data" must have been part of a reasoning based on John Neils experience, not on Lechmeres. Which has to make you wonder why the Morning Advertiser would cut away the important part, mentioning Neil and his claimed 3.45 finding of the body. It makes very little sense. As everybody can see, as long as Neil is NOT mentioned in the Morning Advertisers article, it misleads the readership very badly into thinking that the 3.45 finding time would relate to Lechmere!
There is a solution to the perceived problem, however, and it is a number of lines further down in the Morning Advertiser article:
The deceased was first discovered by a carman on his way to work, who passed down Buck's row on the opposite side of the road. Immediately after he had ascertained that the dark object in the gateway was the figure of a woman, he heard footsteps approaching. This proved to be Paul, another carman. Together they went to the woman. The condition of her clothing suggested to them that she had been outraged and had fainted. Neither appear to have realised the real condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but this, no doubt, is accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data. The condition in which the body was found appears to prove conclusively that the deceased was killed on the exact spot in which she was found. There is not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying. This appears to me sufficient to justify the assumption that the injuries to the throat were committed when the woman was on the ground, while the state of here clothing and the absence of any blood about her legs equally proves that the abdominal injuries were inflicted whilst she was still in the same position. Nor does there appear any ground for doubt that if the deceased was killed where she was found that she met her death without a cry of any kind. Not a sound was heard, nor is there any evidence of any struggle. The clothes do not appear to have been injured, nor the ground disturbed. On the contrary, there is everything that the injuries were committed while the deceased was on the ground. Again, the deceased could not have been killed long before she was found. Police constable Neil is positive that he was at the spot half an hour before, and then neither the body was there nor was anyone about.
Here we have P C Neil and his role presented! And it is NOT tied to the 3.45 timing. And as we can see, there are inclusions reported about AFTER the 3.45 timing is mentioned that cannot relate to Neils appearance. For example, it says that not a sound was heard, and that was not something that anybody would link to Neils "finding" - since Lechmere did the real and only finding five minutes before, any sound that Neil could have heard would emphatically not be linked to the murder.
The Daily News has the same type of report with only minor changes as the Morning Advertiser:
She was first discovered by a carman named Cross on his way to his work. Paul, another carman, came up, and together they went to the woman. She was only just dead, if life was really extinct. Paul says he felt a slight movement of her breast, and thought she was breathing. Cross says her hand was cold, but her face was warm. Neither appears to have realised the real condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but this, no doubt, is accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot. Cross and Paul reported the circumstance to a constable at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, about 300 yards distant, but in the meantime Police constable Neil discovered the body. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from a quarter to four a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data. The condition of the body appears to prove conclusively that deceased was killed on the spot where she was found. She met her death without a cry of any kind. Many people were within a short distance, but heard not a sound. Nor is there evidence of any struggle. On the contrary, there is everything suggesting that both the injuries to the throat and the abdomen were committed while the deceased was on her back in a passive attitude. This might have arisen from her intoxication, or from being stunned by a blow, or from being induced to place herself in that position. Again, the deceased could not have been killed long before she was found. Police constable Neil is positive that he was at the spot half an hour before, and neither the body was there nor was anyone about.
If these two papers heard Baxter speaking of Neil as the finder at 3.45, they apparently decided to keep it from their readers, instead falsely inferring that it was Lechmere who found the body at this stage. Both would have left out vital information, and I donīt think they did.
There is also another consideration to be made. The 3.45 timing given by the three PC:s cannot be fixed. It is left floating. The claim on Pauls behalf that the body was found at circa 3.45 CAN be fixed, however, by the testimony of Thain and Llewellyn. Ergo, the coroner could not have been speaking of the three PC:s timing as the one that was "fixed by many independent data". There is absolutely no data fixing this time, instead there are many data gainsaying it. The only infornmation gainsaying Robert Pauls suggestion is the timings of the three PC:s, and that is a timing that cannot be anchored in any other existing information.
The one question that remains is why the PC:s timings would be off. Well, if we look at how Neil claimed to have found the body at 3.45, we can see that this must be around five minutes or more off - if Robert Paul, coroner Baxter and Donald Swanson were correct. If this was so, then Neil was on the spot at around 3.51 instead of 3.45. Meaning that he was late.
Sometimes simple explanations offer themselves up readily, donīt they?
Since the Times report does not say in any way that Neil was the man who found the body at 3.45, the rest of the press coverage clinches the deal - it was Lechmere who did, and at least two papers make that exact claim. What the Times says in itīs ending sentences is this:
"The carmen reported the circumstances to a constable at the corner of Hanbury-street, 300 yards distant, but although he appeared to have started without delay, he found another constable was already there. In fact, Constable Neil must independently have found the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen."
This does not in any way conclude that Neil was the 3.45 finder. What it does is instead to explain how Neil could be in place at the site when Mizen arrived - because he had come across the body "within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen". Meaning that he was there AFTER the finding, not that he WAS the 3.45 finder.
So there is news for all those who have mistakenly for years believed that the three PC:s could not have been wrong - the body was found by Charles Lechmere not far off the 3.45 mark. This is why Thain - who would have been sent to LLewellyn at around 3.52-3-53 - arrived at the practice at circa 3.55-3.56 or thereabouts. Meaning that there is independent data proving the approximate 3.45 finding time for Lechmere. And it is also why there is a large gap of time to account for in Lechmeres case, who was in Bucks Row at a time that does in no way correspond with the approximation he gave for his departure. Instead, it took him more than twice as long to get to the murder site as it should have, leaving him with a handy eight minute gap to search out Nichols, follow her to Browns and set about killing and cutting her. And we know that there can be no much slack in the departure time he gave, since he was able to tell that he was behind time after having examined Nichols. If you are not aware of what the time is, then you cannot know that you are behind it.
It is truly amazing that we can track his lies and movements so many years after his deeds, thanks to the newspaper reports. We should all rejoice!
Anybody taking me up on that by now? Or are we still at the stage where Donald Swanson did not alter the times inbetween his September and October reports?
Anybody with a genuine interest in the case: Please make the effort to try and think that Lechmere was the killer, and then check out the surrounding facts. It is a very rewarding exercise - for those who dare to make the leap.
As for me, I think I can do nothing much more to prove my point, and so I will be disinclined to re-engage in the debate about 3.40 or 3.45. It tends to be very circular, with the same "but the PC:s said..." reoccuring time after time, making people tweak the timings given, allowing for just about everything as long as it gets them where they want to be.
If we accept Baxters bid, Swansons alteration and Robert Pauls exactitude, then ALL of the other timings fit like a glove. If we donīt, we have to gnaw away five minutes here, eight minutes there, and infer that "The carmen reported the circumstances to a constable at the corner of Hanbury-street, 300 yards distant, but although he appeared to have started without delay, he found another constable was already there. In fact, Constable Neil must independently have found the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen" can only bear witness to how John Neil was the 3.45 finder, something I have effectively disproven by now. Among other factual wrestling manouvres.
I will be fascinated regardless of which choice people make. It will either represent people defying the facts or people accepting that they were actually wrong.
Both are mind-blowing suggestions.
The origin of this debate hails from the report in the Morning Advertiser, depicting the matter like this:
The deceased was first discovered by a carman on his way to work, who passed down Buck's row on the opposite side of the road. Immediately after he had ascertained that the dark object in the gateway was the figure of a woman, he heard footsteps approaching. This proved to be Paul, another carman. Together they went to the woman. The condition of her clothing suggested to them that she had been outraged and had fainted. Neither appear to have realised the real condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but this, no doubt, is accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data. The condition in which the body was found appears to prove conclusively that the deceased was killed on the exact spot in which she was found. There is not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying.
As far as I understand, Frank accepted that this passage seemed to establish Lechmere as the finder of the body, and therefore, the 3.45 timing would point to his finding, not Neils.
What Frank then did was to present another report, this time from the coverage in the Times. It goes like this:
"The deceased was first discovered by a carman on his way to work, who passed down Buck's-row, on the opposite side of the road. Immediately after he had ascertained that the dark object in the gateway was the figure of a woman he heard the approaching footsteps of a man. This proved to be Paul, another carman. Together they went to the woman. The condition of her clothing suggested to them that she had been outraged and had fainted. She was only just dead, if life were really extinct. Paul says he felt a slight movement of her breast, and thought she was breathing. Neither of the carmen appeared to have realized the condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but that, no doubt, was accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot. The carmen reported the circumstances to a constable at the corner of Hanbury-street, 300 yards distant, but although he appeared to have started without delay, he found another constable was already there. In fact, Constable Neil must independently have found the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen."
Frank made this observation:
The last sentence - which is notably absent in the version carried by the Morning Advertiser referred to by Christer - before turning to his "not far from a quarter to four" remark, is about Neil finding the body. Since we know Neil'd stated he'd found the body at about 3.45, there's indeed nothing incoguous about the 3.45 in "not far from a quarter to four" being a reference to Neil's finding of the body. In the Times, as we can see, the "not far from a quarter to four" is even represented as Neil finding "the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen." Whether this is just another way of saying the same created by the reporter in question or the actual words that Baxter spoke, we don't and can't know, but it doesn't change the point that the 3.45 mark is a reference to Neil's timing rather than anything else.
I was not convinced at all by the suggestion, but I had no problem seeing the underlying reasoning. Having looked further into the matter, there are a number of things that should be pointed out.
First of all, if Frank is correct and if the Morning Advertiser left out the part about Neil, then the sentence they left in: "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data" must have been part of a reasoning based on John Neils experience, not on Lechmeres. Which has to make you wonder why the Morning Advertiser would cut away the important part, mentioning Neil and his claimed 3.45 finding of the body. It makes very little sense. As everybody can see, as long as Neil is NOT mentioned in the Morning Advertisers article, it misleads the readership very badly into thinking that the 3.45 finding time would relate to Lechmere!
There is a solution to the perceived problem, however, and it is a number of lines further down in the Morning Advertiser article:
The deceased was first discovered by a carman on his way to work, who passed down Buck's row on the opposite side of the road. Immediately after he had ascertained that the dark object in the gateway was the figure of a woman, he heard footsteps approaching. This proved to be Paul, another carman. Together they went to the woman. The condition of her clothing suggested to them that she had been outraged and had fainted. Neither appear to have realised the real condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but this, no doubt, is accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data. The condition in which the body was found appears to prove conclusively that the deceased was killed on the exact spot in which she was found. There is not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying. This appears to me sufficient to justify the assumption that the injuries to the throat were committed when the woman was on the ground, while the state of here clothing and the absence of any blood about her legs equally proves that the abdominal injuries were inflicted whilst she was still in the same position. Nor does there appear any ground for doubt that if the deceased was killed where she was found that she met her death without a cry of any kind. Not a sound was heard, nor is there any evidence of any struggle. The clothes do not appear to have been injured, nor the ground disturbed. On the contrary, there is everything that the injuries were committed while the deceased was on the ground. Again, the deceased could not have been killed long before she was found. Police constable Neil is positive that he was at the spot half an hour before, and then neither the body was there nor was anyone about.
Here we have P C Neil and his role presented! And it is NOT tied to the 3.45 timing. And as we can see, there are inclusions reported about AFTER the 3.45 timing is mentioned that cannot relate to Neils appearance. For example, it says that not a sound was heard, and that was not something that anybody would link to Neils "finding" - since Lechmere did the real and only finding five minutes before, any sound that Neil could have heard would emphatically not be linked to the murder.
The Daily News has the same type of report with only minor changes as the Morning Advertiser:
She was first discovered by a carman named Cross on his way to his work. Paul, another carman, came up, and together they went to the woman. She was only just dead, if life was really extinct. Paul says he felt a slight movement of her breast, and thought she was breathing. Cross says her hand was cold, but her face was warm. Neither appears to have realised the real condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but this, no doubt, is accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot. Cross and Paul reported the circumstance to a constable at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, about 300 yards distant, but in the meantime Police constable Neil discovered the body. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from a quarter to four a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data. The condition of the body appears to prove conclusively that deceased was killed on the spot where she was found. She met her death without a cry of any kind. Many people were within a short distance, but heard not a sound. Nor is there evidence of any struggle. On the contrary, there is everything suggesting that both the injuries to the throat and the abdomen were committed while the deceased was on her back in a passive attitude. This might have arisen from her intoxication, or from being stunned by a blow, or from being induced to place herself in that position. Again, the deceased could not have been killed long before she was found. Police constable Neil is positive that he was at the spot half an hour before, and neither the body was there nor was anyone about.
If these two papers heard Baxter speaking of Neil as the finder at 3.45, they apparently decided to keep it from their readers, instead falsely inferring that it was Lechmere who found the body at this stage. Both would have left out vital information, and I donīt think they did.
There is also another consideration to be made. The 3.45 timing given by the three PC:s cannot be fixed. It is left floating. The claim on Pauls behalf that the body was found at circa 3.45 CAN be fixed, however, by the testimony of Thain and Llewellyn. Ergo, the coroner could not have been speaking of the three PC:s timing as the one that was "fixed by many independent data". There is absolutely no data fixing this time, instead there are many data gainsaying it. The only infornmation gainsaying Robert Pauls suggestion is the timings of the three PC:s, and that is a timing that cannot be anchored in any other existing information.
The one question that remains is why the PC:s timings would be off. Well, if we look at how Neil claimed to have found the body at 3.45, we can see that this must be around five minutes or more off - if Robert Paul, coroner Baxter and Donald Swanson were correct. If this was so, then Neil was on the spot at around 3.51 instead of 3.45. Meaning that he was late.
Sometimes simple explanations offer themselves up readily, donīt they?
Since the Times report does not say in any way that Neil was the man who found the body at 3.45, the rest of the press coverage clinches the deal - it was Lechmere who did, and at least two papers make that exact claim. What the Times says in itīs ending sentences is this:
"The carmen reported the circumstances to a constable at the corner of Hanbury-street, 300 yards distant, but although he appeared to have started without delay, he found another constable was already there. In fact, Constable Neil must independently have found the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen."
This does not in any way conclude that Neil was the 3.45 finder. What it does is instead to explain how Neil could be in place at the site when Mizen arrived - because he had come across the body "within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen". Meaning that he was there AFTER the finding, not that he WAS the 3.45 finder.
So there is news for all those who have mistakenly for years believed that the three PC:s could not have been wrong - the body was found by Charles Lechmere not far off the 3.45 mark. This is why Thain - who would have been sent to LLewellyn at around 3.52-3-53 - arrived at the practice at circa 3.55-3.56 or thereabouts. Meaning that there is independent data proving the approximate 3.45 finding time for Lechmere. And it is also why there is a large gap of time to account for in Lechmeres case, who was in Bucks Row at a time that does in no way correspond with the approximation he gave for his departure. Instead, it took him more than twice as long to get to the murder site as it should have, leaving him with a handy eight minute gap to search out Nichols, follow her to Browns and set about killing and cutting her. And we know that there can be no much slack in the departure time he gave, since he was able to tell that he was behind time after having examined Nichols. If you are not aware of what the time is, then you cannot know that you are behind it.
It is truly amazing that we can track his lies and movements so many years after his deeds, thanks to the newspaper reports. We should all rejoice!
Anybody taking me up on that by now? Or are we still at the stage where Donald Swanson did not alter the times inbetween his September and October reports?
Anybody with a genuine interest in the case: Please make the effort to try and think that Lechmere was the killer, and then check out the surrounding facts. It is a very rewarding exercise - for those who dare to make the leap.
As for me, I think I can do nothing much more to prove my point, and so I will be disinclined to re-engage in the debate about 3.40 or 3.45. It tends to be very circular, with the same "but the PC:s said..." reoccuring time after time, making people tweak the timings given, allowing for just about everything as long as it gets them where they want to be.
If we accept Baxters bid, Swansons alteration and Robert Pauls exactitude, then ALL of the other timings fit like a glove. If we donīt, we have to gnaw away five minutes here, eight minutes there, and infer that "The carmen reported the circumstances to a constable at the corner of Hanbury-street, 300 yards distant, but although he appeared to have started without delay, he found another constable was already there. In fact, Constable Neil must independently have found the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen" can only bear witness to how John Neil was the 3.45 finder, something I have effectively disproven by now. Among other factual wrestling manouvres.
I will be fascinated regardless of which choice people make. It will either represent people defying the facts or people accepting that they were actually wrong.
Both are mind-blowing suggestions.
Comment