Evidence of innocence

[John Wheat]

I don’t want to go over old ground again but Lechmere leaving at 03.30 means he is Jack the Ripper. He arrives in Bucks Row at 03.37.

Ridiculous

[SuperShodan]

Except he was 3 house lengths away from the body when Paul saw him. How and why would he be there if he was the killer?

Unlike the other murders, the fact that Mrs Nichols had been murdered was not apparent, so why would Cross raise an alarm? The figure, at that stage, was a curiosity nothing else.

Not true. Lechmere asks Paul to come and look at this woman. Lechmere had clearly identified Nichols as a human female before he interacts with Paul. He couldn’t do this from 3 house lengths away with the body lying in the darkness. He’s clearly been close enough to see it’s a woman lying there.
Furthermore, Lechmere is standing “where the woman was” when Paul first sights him, which is generally accepted to be a few metres away. Which in my view is the middle of the road adjacent to the body.
After a series of pretty decent posts we are now back on planet Dusty

[drstrange169]

>>if somebody asked me when I left for work I’d give them an almost exact time.<<

That's because you have access to "exact time" working people in the East End living in the Victorian period had no such access. You are trying to compare a castle with a shed.

For all we know Paul and Cross may not have even had clocks. If a knockerer up called, what time would they have called? They certainly wouldn't have called at 3:30 or 3:45 as that would give Cross and Paul no time to dress eat. Ergo they would have to guess the intervening time.



>>My point being that a working man, especially a man who works the same shift year in year out. Will know the time with precision. <<

Unless someone had a link to Greenwich, NOBODY knew the time with precision. You don't seem to grasp the concept of what life was like l.v.p.



>>Moving on to Swanson and Baxter. They are looking at all this in a professional capacity. <<

It's clear to ANY unbiased mind that Baxter used the police timings, despite all the verbiage nobody has shown that he disbelieved the police. He indisputably did not tell the jury to dismiss the police times.

As for Swanson, read his reports and explain why there are so many errors in them. Do you seriously believe Goldstein went to the police before the body was discovered? Do you seriously believe all the other errors in his timings? Explain them and perhaps you might have a case.


>>Fixing the time as close as possible is their job and it’s an inquest into a murder no less. After hearing everything from everyone, days and days of testimony and witnesses, Baxter has the time at 03.45 (if it was closer to 03.40 he would say so). He will be a close as humanly possible to the correct time.<<

Have you actually read his summation? He clearly states the body was found BEFORE 3:45. Why can't you understand what he wrote?

"In less than an hour and a quarter after this she was found dead at a spot rather under three-quarters or a mile distant."


>>So there’s and acceptable margin of error, then there’s completely altering the time frame.<<

I'm sorry, but based solely on the evidence, it's you that is altering the time frame.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t want to go over old ground again but Lechmere leaving at 03.30 means he is Jack the Ripper. He arrives in Bucks Row at 03.37.

To quote John McEnroe “You cannot be serious.”

1. He could have arrived at 3.37 and disturbed the killer who fled when he heard Lechmere approach.

2. We can’t claim that he left home at 3.30 as ‘about 3.30’ doesn’t mean exactly 3.30.

Times only favour a guilty Lechmere when false claims are made. Is that a fair basis?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If somebody asked me when I walked the dog last night it would be a rough estimation. Easily an hour either side. I do accept a margin of error when people are asked the time. But of course when I walked the dog isn’t important. I wasn’t even thinking about it.

However, if somebody asked me when I left for work I’d give them an almost exact time. I keep an eye on the time as I’m preparing to leave. It’s a fixed data point in my life. It’s surely the same for Paul and Lechmere. They leave for work at the same time every morning for months and even years. They would have an acute awareness if they were late, early or on time. Example - I’m a couple minutes late today, better get a move on, 5 minutes late I really have to shift, 7 minutes early (would never happen) I can take a leisurely stroll today.

My point being that a working man, especially a man who works the same shift year in year out. Will know the time with precision. Lechmere and Paul will not be out by 5 or 7 minutes or they’ll know it.

Moving on to Swanson and Baxter. They are looking at all this in a professional capacity. Fixing the time as close as possible is their job and it’s an inquest into a murder no less. After hearing everything from everyone, days and days of testimony and witnesses, Baxter has the time at 03.45 (if it was closer to 03.40 he would say so). He will be a close as humanly possible to the correct time.

Same with Swanson who is collating everything, assessing everything, and writing up a report for his bosses. He’s a top detective, he will have every iota of information in front of him, and again he will get as close as humanly possible to the correct time. He goes with 03.45 too.

So there’s and acceptable margin of error, then there’s completely altering the time frame.

There is no acceptable margin of error. It’s not quantifiable.

By acceptable I take it that you mean “keeps Lechmere in the game?”

As I’ve said before Bob, ask anyone who knows anything about the era if being 5 minutes out in an estimation would be ‘stretching it.’ I doubt if you’ll find a single person that would agree with your viewpoint. You’ve ignored every point that I made in a previous post on all of the factors that come into play. I’ll post them again.

How do you know that Lechmere owned a clock?
How do you know that he wasn’t ‘knocked up’ by a Constable at around the same time every morning?
How do you know that the Constable who knocked him up every day didn’t usually do this at around 3.00 for eg?
How do you know that Lechmere didn’t simply judge around 30 minutes after being knocked up as the time that he usually left the house?
How do you know that the Constable wasn’t late that particular day?
How do you know that the Constable missed knocking him up for some reason?
How do you know that the clock that the Constable last checked his time by wasn’t wrong?
How do you know how accurate a clock might have been if Lechmere actually owned one?
How can you equate him saying ‘about 3.30’ if he’d owned a clock?

Despite of these unknown and in the face of so many doubts why are you so confident that know for a fact what happened?

[JeffHamm]

Hi SuperShodan,

I don’t want to go over old ground again but Lechmere leaving at 03.30 means he is Jack the Ripper. He arrives in Bucks Row at 03.37.

By his clock, yes. His clock would read 3:37ish. But by Paul's clock that could be around 3:45, and by PC Neil and Mizen's around 3:38. The small differences in time that are used to suggest a window of opportunity require accepting the unfounded assumption that despite the known large variation between clocks in 1888 those three clocks just happened to all be in sync. The differences in those testified times, drawn from different clocks, are entirely what we would expect due to the known variation in clocks in 1888. That means there is no evidence to suggest he had any window of opportunity.

Now, if we had more information then the assessment might change (i.e. if we knew that Cross/Lechmere's clock and Paul's clock, and PC Neil's clock were actually in sync then we would know that despite the fact clocks often differed, in this case by some stroke of luck they didn't and so he would have a window of opportunity. Of course if that were the case, it then becomes difficult to work out how Cross/Lechmere and Paul are talking to PC Mizen at 3:45 while also in Buck's Row at 3:45 and apparently invisible to PC Neil. So again we come back to Paul's testimony creating all the havock, leading again to the conclusion that Paul's "about 3:45" employs a wider range than you are giving him.

- Jeff

[SuperShodan]

To quote John McEnroe “You cannot be serious.”

1. He could have arrived at 3.37 and disturbed the killer who fled when he heard Lechmere approach.

2. We can’t claim that he left home at 3.30 as ‘about 3.30’ doesn’t mean exactly 3.30.

Times only favour a guilty Lechmere when false claims are made. Is that a fair basis?

I was just pointing out that if Lechmere leaves at 03.30 then he’s guilty. I accept that there could be leeway in either direction. I am only referring to that specific time and not too any potential deviations.
It goes without saying that leaving Doveton Street any time before 03.30 also makes him guilty. So on the timing evidence alone we’re in a position where it’s 50/50 whether he’s JTR.

[JeffHamm]

I was just pointing out that if Lechmere leaves at 03.30 then he’s guilty. I accept that there could be leeway in either direction. I am only referring to that specific time and not too any potential deviations.
It goes without saying that leaving Doveton Street any time before 03.30 also makes him guilty. So on the timing evidence alone we’re in a position where it’s 50/50 whether he’s JTR.

Well, not really. To be guilty he has to have a window of opportunity, of course, but having a window of opportunity doesn't mean he is guilty, it would only indicate he could be. However, to risk sounding like a broken record, given the known variation in clock readings, if we go with Cross/Lechmere leaving his house by 3:30 on his clock, the small window of opportunity that might be apparent is entirely what we could expect to find simply due to misaligned clocks. Therefore, we do not have evidence that he has that window of opportunity if he leaves at 3:30 based upon his clock. And without that window of opportunity, he cannot be concluded to be guilty.

- Jeff

[SuperShodan]

Well, not really. To be guilty he has to have a window of opportunity, of course, but having a window of opportunity doesn't mean he is guilty, it would only indicate he could be. However, to risk sounding like a broken record, given the known variation in clock readings, if we go with Cross/Lechmere leaving his house by 3:30 on his clock, the small window of opportunity that might be apparent is entirely what we could expect to find simply due to misaligned clocks. Therefore, we do not have evidence that he has that window of opportunity if he leaves at 3:30 based upon his clock. And without that window of opportunity, he cannot be concluded to be guilty.

- Jeff

Let’s assume no deviations whatsoever. It’s exactly 03.30 GMT to the second Lechmere leaves Doveton Street. And let’s assume it’s exactly 03.45 GMT to the second he is found in Bucks Row. I would say he’s guilty. There’s 8 or 9 minutes missing.

And let’s say that there are deviations, but they go to before 03.30 to say 03.25 then he’s guilty. There is now a completely inexplicable amount of time missing in what should be a short walk 6 or 7 minute walk.

My point being that the time can move in either direction. If we accept a margin of error, and I think we all do, then it’s 50/50 whether the time frame gets better or worse for Lechmere.

Once we start moving the time backwards from 03.30 to 03.29 and 03.28 etc it starts to look really, really bad for Lech.

[drstrange169]

>>He couldn’t do this from 3 house lengths away with the body lying in the darkness. <<

You know this how? How far away was Neil when he saw the body?

>>Furthermore, Lechmere is standing “where the woman was” when Paul first sights him<<

She was also dead for ages according to the same report, meaning she was murdered before Cross left home. Pretty good albii Paul gave him wasn't it?

But lets never mention that, eh?

>>After a series of pretty decent posts we are now back on planet Dusty<<

These are not my opinions, they are the evidence that exists on the case. The stuff you guys try to constantly suppress or alter.

I notice you've fallen into Christer's trick of avoiding explanations.

How did working men in the East End have access to the precise time you claim they had?
Why didn't Baxter tell the jury to disregard the police evidence if he believed they lied?
How did Paul know the time that morning?
How do you explain all the errors in Swanson's report?
How do you explain the accuracy of Abberline's report?
Why do you keep adjusting times to make Cross look guilty?
Why did you fake Baxter's comment about how easy it was for the killer it get away, to make it seem he said the opposite, in your article?
Are you proud of that? I notice you have issue a correction.
Where did you get the evidence that Paul started work at 4:00 from?
And if you believe he did, why do you claim he was late?
Why did you write the fake claim that Cross was standing over the body when Paul saw him in your article?
Why would Cross's usual time for leaving be 3:20, when his work was only 15 to 20 mins away?
Why did you call The Times article reliable when it had so many errors in it?
Why do you claim the wounds were well hidden when the neck wound was clearly on view?
Why do you keep saying nobody has given reasons, when people constantly give you reasons?
Why did you call Christer's post brilliant, then desperately try to separate yourself from it's contents when you were shown just how ridiculous they were?

Two people in these thread are living on a separate planet, but I'm not one of them.

[drstrange169]

>>Let’s assume no deviations whatsoever. It’s exactly 03.30 GMT to the second Lechmere leaves Doveton Street. And let’s assume it’s exactly 03.45 GMT to the second he is found in Bucks Row.<<

Let's just assume he's guilty, make up a load of stories and ignore the actual evidence.

[JeffHamm]

Hi SuperShodan,

Let’s assume no deviations whatsoever. It’s exactly 03.30 GMT to the second Lechmere leaves Doveton Street. And let’s assume it’s exactly 03.45 GMT to the second he is found in Bucks Row. I would say he’s guilty. There’s 8 or 9 minutes missing.

And let’s say that there are deviations, but they go to before 03.30 to say 03.25 then he’s guilty. There is now a completely inexplicable amount of time missing in what should be a short walk 6 or 7 minute walk.

My point being that the time can move in either direction. If we accept a margin of error, and I think we all do, then it’s 50/50 whether the time frame gets better or worse for Lechmere.

Once we start moving the time backwards from 03.30 to 03.29 and 03.28 etc it starts to look really, really bad for Lech.

Well, ok, in our hypothetical "no variation" universe, we would establish that there is time unaccounted for. We have not ruled out Cross/Lechmere being delayed elsewhere, for example, so as I suggested before, determining that a window of opportunity might exist is not sufficient on its own to conclude guilt, but I agree, it would be suggestive.

However, in the actual world there is variation. And only one series of events actually happened. And given the variation we know exists, and the statements as given, including their qualified nature indicating estimates, show that the statements from all the independent witnesses effectively corroborate each other because they do not create obvious conflict. And that is what truthful statements do look like, and generally not false ones (because false ones tend to create holes and conflict with other witnesses). So I wouldn't call that 50/50, but to each their own.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

>>Let’s assume no deviations whatsoever. It’s exactly 03.30 GMT to the second Lechmere leaves Doveton Street. And let’s assume it’s exactly 03.45 GMT to the second he is found in Bucks Row.<<

Let's just assume he's guilty, make up a load of stories and ignore the actual evidence.

Lets assume this topics nearly over .

[drstrange169]

Amen!

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,



So if I may ask, what, in your opinion, is it tied to?

- Jeff

Nothing. There is no anchoring of Neils 3.45 suggestion at all. Neither is there any such anchoring of Mizens and Thains suggestions of 3.45. They are nothing but that: suggestions.

The same applies for Robert Pauls suggestion that HE was in Bucks Row at 3.45. Even if he says it was EXACTLY 3.45, it remains nothing but a suggestion.

What we must do is to try and verify the timings, if it is possible. It goes without saying that the PC:s OR Robert Paul must be wrong.

When looking for verification, the one and only anchor point that is offered is the one linked to Llewellyns timing. He said that he was called to Bucks Row by Thain at around 4.00 on the murder morning.

It would have taken Thain around two minutes. to cover the trek frm the murder spot to Llewellyns practice. So if he arrived there at circa 4.00, then he must have left the murder spot at circa 3.58.

We can all see how that dovetails with the suggestion that Neil sent him for the doctor at around 3.47, as would have been the case if he himself found the body at 3.45. In that case, he would have arrived at LLewellyns place at 3.49, thirteen minutes before Llewellyn said he was there.

As we all know, in the pre-inquest interviews, Llewellyn spoke of a time that was represented as circa 3.55 instead. If that was the true time, then Thain would only have arrived some six minutes before Llewellyn said he got there.

This is why I am saying that the three PC:s timings cannot be anchored to the developments as described by Llewellyn. The 3.45 time claimed by Neil as the time at which he "found" Nichols is way off.

If we instead look at Robert Pauls timing, saying that it was exactly 3.45 as he walked down Bucks Row, that would mean that he arrived at the body at circa 3.46. The carmen then did their examination of the body, had a discussion and then left the site, walking westwards along Bucks Row. It is not before they left the street that Neil may have entered it, walking eastwards. Therefore, a sensible estimation is that he could nbot have arrived at the body until at circa 3.51.

If we then replay the scenario with Thain, then Neil would have sent him for LLewellyn at around 3.53 instead of 3.47, meaning that we would have Thain arriving at the practice at around 3.55 - which was the time stated by Llewellyn in the pre-inquest reports as the time Thain DID arrive.

What the naysayers typically do when faced with this is to claim that "Oh, timings are sooooo inexact, and if there was two or three minutes added here and four detracted there, it all fits like a glove - nothing dramatical at all!"

However, what Baxter proclaimed at the inquest was that a timeline COULD be formed, and that timeline was good enough to ensure that the body could not have been found far off the 3.45 mark. And as we know, Donald Swanson also opted for that time as the one when the carmen found the body. This in itīs turn is treated by the naysayers as either case of Swanson not having altered the 3.40 timing from the September report at all - nothing to see here!, or as an instance of Swanson having either misunderstood the matter or not having cared about timings on a general level.

It is a forest fire that requires some real quenching, and there is a large bunch of firefighters trying to do the work.

Those few who care about the facts and who are unwilling to tamper with them, see it differently. We see, for example, how Thain was hauled over the coals for wasting precious time at the knackers, instead of going directly to Llewellyn, and we realize why this accusation was presented - becasue there was a large gap of time that needed an explanation if the three PC:s were to be believed. As the inquest proceeded, it became obvious that the PC:s timings were untrue and Wynne Baxter pronounced that the 3.45 timing was one that entailed Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul in Bucks Row, not John Neil.

When every little bit in a timeline fits and produces a logical sequence of events, the time has come to try and dissolve that picture. Obviously.

I know full well that the ones debating for the naysayers side are more than me. What I am doing is to defend the rights of those who only read this exchange to get the real picture. I know full well that you and the rest of the naysayers are prepared to do anything to claim that an unachored timing is more likely to be correct than an unanchored one, and so somebody has to stand up for the facts. It sounds ambitious, I know, but the truth of the matter is that it is a grinding and unthankful business.

Anyway, there you are, thats the long answerto your short question: The timing of the three PC:s has nothing going for it.