Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

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

... and that does not need to be dramatic at all - up until the time that the complete altering of the time frame is served up as a likelier version than a time fram that fits the facts like a glove. Thatīs where the problem lies - there is nothing wrong with saying "we must add and detract a large number of minutes here" unless it is apparent that we must do no such thing at all.

It should be noted that the ONLY parameter causing the joint decision of how we must accept the PC:s timing is that the PC:s said so. That, and that only, is what causes all the hard labour on behalf of the naysayers. Yes, the facts fit precisely with Thain having left the murder site at around 3.53, but no, that version of events cannot be correct although it is the only timeline that works. We must instead champion the timeline that does NOT work. Because the PC:s said so.
And keep in mnd that Llewellyn said 4.00 at the inquest, meaning that anybody who wants to back him down past 3.55 even, ending up at 3.48 will have some real problems. But then again, if people can keep a straight face when suggesting that Swanson could not tell 3.40 from 3.45, who is to say what will make their faces come apart?

It is a sad, sad state of affairs. The one and only use that can come from it is to highlight the lenghts to which people are ready to go in order to promote an unanchored scenario over an anchored one. It is a textbook example of historical revisionism and disregard for the sources.

[Fisherman]

I agree. And just to point out, 3:30 leaving gets him there on time.

- Jeff

It has him arriving in Bucks Row at circa 3.37.

The naysayers: "So WHAT? 3.37 is frickinīclose to 3.40, innit? What you are going on about, we donīt understand. And Pauls clock? You donīt even know he HAD a clock, do you? You donīt even know that he SAID exactly 3.45, that could just have been the Lloyds journalist spicing things up, since 3.45 is a sexier point in time than 3.40. And when Paul said at the inquest the he left home at around or just after 3.45, he uses the word AROUND!!! How many times do we have to tell you what that word means? It means that Paul could have left home at 3.29, thatīs what it means!
You are trying to make facts out of uncertainties, and the only reason is to have an innocent man hanged! You abominable man, you!"

This is where my reasoning supposedly comes apart, where the naysayers have somehow proven me wrong and when I sometimes feel so defeated that I leave the discussion for a while. Or so Iīm told.

I see it differently, to put it economically.

[Aethelwulf]

It has him arriving in Bucks Row at circa 3.37.

The naysayers: "So WHAT? 3.37 is frickinīclose to 3.40, innit? What you are going on about, we donīt understand. And Pauls clock? You donīt even know he HAD a clock, do you? You donīt even know that he SAID exactly 3.45, that could just have been the Lloyds journalist spicing things up, since 3.45 is a sexier point in time than 3.40. And when Paul said at the inquest the he left home at around or just after 3.45, he uses the word AROUND!!! How many times do we have to tell you what that word means? It means that Paul could have left home at 3.29, thatīs what it means!
You are trying to make facts out of uncertainties, and the only reason is to have an innocent man hanged! You abominable man, you!"

This is where my reasoning supposedly comes apart, where the naysayers have somehow proven me wrong and when I sometimes feel so defeated that I leave the discussion for a while. Or so Iīm told.

I see it differently, to put it economically.

Groundhog day again. This thread is going to turn into another version of that appalling diary thread where the same old arguments go around and around and we'll still be going over the same old ground in 10 years.

Out of interest Fishermen, is there any new information you think you can realistically unearth? It seems that neither side has the ammo to settle the argument.

[Trevor Marriott]

Groundhog day again. This thread is going to turn into another version of that appalling diary thread where the same old arguments go around and around and we'll still be going over the same old ground in 10 years.

Out of interest Fishermen, is there any new information you think you can realistically unearth? It seems that neither side has the ammo to settle the argument.

There is more ammo to destroy Fish`s theory than there is to prove it, and all the wasted years spent trying to make him see sense has also been wasted, so you are right and I ask is there any further need to keep flogging the dead horse?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aethelwulf]

There is more ammo to destroy Fish`s theory than there is to prove it, and all the wasted years spent trying to make him see sense has also been wasted, so you are right and I ask is there any further need to keep flogging the dead horse?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I would agree with you there. The time gap just doesn't exist, the 'blood evidence' is ambiguous at best and the name issue is a non-event.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It has him arriving in Bucks Row at circa 3.37.

The naysayers: "So WHAT? 3.37 is frickinīclose to 3.40, innit? What you are going on about, we donīt understand. And Pauls clock? You donīt even know he HAD a clock, do you? You donīt even know that he SAID exactly 3.45, that could just have been the Lloyds journalist spicing things up, since 3.45 is a sexier point in time than 3.40. And when Paul said at the inquest the he left home at around or just after 3.45, he uses the word AROUND!!! How many times do we have to tell you what that word means? It means that Paul could have left home at 3.29, thatīs what it means!
You are trying to make facts out of uncertainties, and the only reason is to have an innocent man hanged! You abominable man, you!"

This is where my reasoning supposedly comes apart, where the naysayers have somehow proven me wrong and when I sometimes feel so defeated that I leave the discussion for a while. Or so Iīm told.

I see it differently, to put it economically.

What it means is that neither those that don’t think that Lechmere was guilty or those that do can tie these estimates down to exact times. This is vital because basically the case for ‘guilty’ comes down to ‘if’ he left x time and ‘if’ he arrived at y time then he was guilty. How can we build on ‘ifs?’

[FrankO]

You’re hard to follow sometimes, Christer. One moment you’re serving me needlessly splitting hairs accompanied by a spoonful of condescension and the next you say you wave respect in my direction. After your last post (#4098), I really didn’t feel like replying to any of your posts any longer, so this may be well the last one.

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.

OK, let’s see where Paul’s 3:45 leads us, and, in order to do so, let’s assume for a moment that Lechmere was innocent and that:

• he found the body at 0:00
• Paul laid eyes on Nichols’s body for the first time at 0:45
• the carmen left the body at 1:30
• they met with Mizen at 4:45
• Mizen arrived at the crime spot at 8:45

Neil, who was, presumably, in the part of Thomas Street north of Buck’s Row or in Queen Ann Street when the carmen passed Buck’s Row and they would have at least been past the bend in the northern part of Buck’s Row just west of Thomas Street when Neil entered Buck’s Row. That way, they wouldn’t have seen each other. At that point, they would have covered some 170 meters since leaving the crime spot. Walking at a speed of 6 km per hour, they would have arrived at that point at 3:12.

Let’s say that Neil at that same moment (at 3:12) entered Buck’s Row from Thomas Street. If so, he would have had to cover some 130 meters to arrive at the crime spot. Walking at a speed of 2.5 mph or 4 km per hour, it would have taken him 118 seconds to cover this distance, so let’s say 2 minutes. The time would then be at 5:12.

So, now let’s put Neil’s arrival in the right place and then insert Paul’s timing into this. We then get this:

1. Lechmere found the body at 3:44:25
2. Paul laid eyes on Nichols’s body for the first time at 3.45:00
3. the carmen left the body at 3.45:45
4. they met with Mizen at 3.49:00
5. Neil saw the body at 3.49:37
6. Thain arrived at the crime scene at 3:51:19
7. Thain leaves for the doctor at 3:51:30
8. Mizen arrived at the crime spot at 3.53:00

I’ve inserted Thain’s arrival in the middle between numbers 5 and 8, which would be at about 1:42 from both 3:49:37 and 3:53:00.

Then, Llewellyn’s residence was about 240 meters from the crime spot, so running at a speed of 10.8 km per hour (which is a jogging speed, not dashing), Thain would have reached Llewellyn’s in 80 seconds at 3:52:50. If he would have “jogged” at an even slower speed of 7.2 km per hour, the trip would have taken 2 minutes, so he would have reached the doctor’s at 3:53:30.

Note that numbers 2, 4 and 8 are more or less fixed by Paul’s testimony that it didn’t take longer than 4 between seeing the woman for the first time and meeting up with Mizen. And we also have to remember that Mizen didn’t state seeing Thain when he arrived at the crime spot, which means that Thain at the latest leaves at 3:52 for the doctor, or 3:52:30 if we think that Thain left for the doctor running at a speed of 14.4 km per hour (or 8.95 miles per hour). Adding 2 minutes at most for the trip to Llewelyn’s would have him arrive there at 3:54:20.

This would fit with Llewellyn’s first timing of “about five minutes to four”, but not with his subsequent timing of “about 4 o’clock (or with a timing in the middle like 3.57-3.58 ). Just as Llewellyn's "about 4 o'clock" timing doesn't fit with Neil's statement that the doctor arrived after about 10 minutes, which would make it about 4 o'clock, not somewhere between 4:05 & 4:10).

Sometimes simple explanations offer themselves up readily, donīt they?

The simple explanation I see itself offered is that not 3 but only 2 men were off: Paul & Llewellyn, especially given the fact that Llewellyn doesn’t particularly give the impression of having actually consulted a time piece at any point between waking up and arriving at the crime scene, or else he would have given that time and at what point during that interval he saw it.

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.

What you don’t seem to take into account here is the fact that all the reporters heard Baxter say the very same thing and seeing that “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" was carried by at least 5 different newspaper versions and the “In fact, Constable Neil must independently have found the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen" was only reported by the Times, it seems plausible that the latter quote was simply the way in which the Times reporter ‘translated’ the first quote. If that’s correct, then the 3.45 in that first quote remains a reference to when Neil, “in the meantime”, came upon the body.

All the best Christer,
Frank

[SuperShodan]

I would agree with you there. The time gap just doesn't exist, the 'blood evidence' is ambiguous at best and the name issue is a non-event.

Actually the time gap was established by the coroner at the inquest. Lechmere leaves Doveton Street at 03.30 and found in Bucks Row at 03.45 = time gap. You have to cut this from 15 minutes to 7 minutes for a time gap to disappear.

[SuperShodan]

It’s worth double underlining that the various variables were have discussed - witnesses estimating times, lack of synchronisation of timepieces, human error, time pieces being set to the wrong time and such like can all just as easily INCREASE the time gap as well as decrease it.

It’s a straight coin toss whether everything we have discussed actually makes it worse for Lechmere.

The defence of Lechmere boils down to this - the times could be wrong, wrong enough so there is no window of opportunity for Lechmere to be the killer. Of course the times could just as easily be wrong enough to make his being in Bucks Row completely indefensible.

The timing issue is at best 50/50.

[rjpalmer]

The small differences in time that are used to suggest a window of opportunity...

I realize you know this, but it is worth bearing in mind that this theoretical 'window of opportunity' is only relevant if Polly Nichols was already standing in Buck's Row--alone--waiting for CAL's arrival, neck thrust out, ready to be strangled and stabbed within a few moments of his approach.

The victim's pre-existing presence at the crime scene also has to be part of the 'window of opportunity.'

Otherwise, CAL needs to hoof it down to the Whitechapel Road where women solicit, pick her up, and by sheer coincidence, she then leads him back to the very spot--and within the same 'window'--that he would have been in Buck's Row anyway, had he been just an innocent carman on his way to work.

Seen in this light, any analysis of the 'timings' becomes something of an absurdity. If CAL was the actual murderer, then he is lying about everything.

And if he is lying about everything, all anyone can hope to show by an analysis of the timings is that there is a glaring discrepancy in his deposition.

But there isn't. There's not enough information and not enough certainty to show that there IS a glaring discrepancy.

The jury didn't see one. Neither did Baxter. Neither did the police.

Those who believe otherwise are attempting to conduct something akin to splitting the atom using a wet noodle in the dark.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s worth double underlining that the various variables were have discussed - witnesses estimating times, lack of synchronisation of timepieces, human error, time pieces being set to the wrong time and such like can all just as easily INCREASE the time gap as well as decrease it.

It’s a straight coin toss whether everything we have discussed actually makes it worse for Lechmere.

The defence of Lechmere boils down to this - the times could be wrong, wrong enough so there is no window of opportunity for Lechmere to be the killer. Of course the times could just as easily be wrong enough to make his being in Bucks Row completely indefensible.

The timing issue is at best 50/50.

Which means that definite statements cannot be made. So why the continued talk of a gap?

[SuperShodan]

I realize you know this, but it is worth bearing in mind that this theoretical 'window of opportunity' is only relevant if Polly Nichols was already standing in Buck's Row--alone--waiting for CAL's arrival, neck thrust out, ready to be strangled and stabbed within a few moments of his approach.

The victim's pre-existing presence at the crime scene also has to be part of the 'window of opportunity.'

Otherwise, CAL needs to hoof it down to the Whitechapel Road where women solicit, pick her up, and by sheer coincidence, she then leads him back to the very spot--and within the same 'window'--that he would have been in Buck's Row anyway, had he been just an innocent carman on his way to work.

Seen in this light, any analysis of the 'timings' becomes something of an absurdity. If CAL was the actual murderer, then he is lying about everything.

And if he is lying about everything, all anyone can hope to show by an analysis of the timings is that there is a glaring discrepancy in his deposition.

But there isn't. There's not enough information and not enough certainty to show that there IS a glaring discrepancy.

The jury didn't see one. Neither did Baxter. Neither did the police.

Those who believe otherwise are attempting to conduct something akin to splitting the atom using a wet noodle in the dark.

My belief is that Lechmere was a blitz killer. It would all happen quickly and the window of opportunity need only be a single minute. I think it could all happen that fast.

He might not have planned to kill that morning. However, he see’s a woman in Bucks Row, a street he knows intimately, one that’s always deserted, and he decides to strike. Nichols is soliciting by the gateway, Lechmere has a quick check in both directions, the street is empty as always, and he kills her. He starts his mutilations then all of a sudden there’s footsteps coming from the direction of the Brady Street entrance. He’s in total darkness, he’s concealed for now, but the footsteps are getting louder. What to do ? He quickly hides the mutilations and steps back, the man approaching is now 50 metres away. Now our pantomime in Bucks Row begins.

I think everything happened in a very small time frame. For me a couple of minutes alone in Bucks Row is more than enough. I don’t think he would be walking around with Nichols. I don’t think he met her elsewhere, say Whitechapel High Street, and then walked to Bucks Row. Too jailbait and not his MO.

[rjpalmer]

a street he knows intimately, one that’s always deserted, and he decides to strike. Nichols is soliciting by the gateway

Hold the phone.

The street is 'always' deserted, and yet Nichols is patiently soliciting at the gateway?

You don't see a flaw in your reasoning?

Why would she solicit in a deserted street at 3.30 a.m. when the heavily traveled Whitechapel Road--known for prostitution--is immediately to her south?

Is a man selling ice cream going to drive his ice cream truck on the boardwalk and through the city park, where people can be found, or is he going to try and sell it in an empty back street, hoping someone will accidently pass by?

Your theory should at least take into account how street prostitution worked and still works. The women solicit in well-known and well-lighted areas where they can be easily found by the punters.

They then lead them back to quiet dark corners. In your scenario, you've placed the cart before the horse.

And why would Nichols solicit in front of the gate, unless the gate was unlocked?

The unlikeliness of this scenario is why Fisherman once theorized that Nichols was led into Buck's Row by another punter, who just happened to leave the scene before CAL's arrival.

But this is exactly what most of the critics also believe. Only the punter was 'Jack the Ripper' and he left Nichols dead on the pavement.

[John Wheat]

My belief is that Lechmere was a blitz killer. It would all happen quickly and the window of opportunity need only be a single minute. I think it could all happen that fast.

He might not have planned to kill that morning. However, he see’s a woman in Bucks Row, a street he knows intimately, one that’s always deserted, and he decides to strike. Nichols is soliciting by the gateway, Lechmere has a quick check in both directions, the street is empty as always, and he kills her. He starts his mutilations then all of a sudden there’s footsteps coming from the direction of the Brady Street entrance. He’s in total darkness, he’s concealed for now, but the footsteps are getting louder. What to do ? He quickly hides the mutilations and steps back, the man approaching is now 50 metres away. Now our pantomime in Bucks Row begins.

I think everything happened in a very small time frame. For me a couple of minutes alone in Bucks Row is more than enough. I don’t think he would be walking around with Nichols. I don’t think he met her elsewhere, say Whitechapel High Street, and then walked to Bucks Row. Too jailbait and not his MO.

If Lechmere was the killer of Nichols why wasn't he covered in blood and where was his blood stained knife?

[rjpalmer]

If Lechmere was the killer of Nichols why wasn't he covered in blood and where was his blood stained knife?

If he had blood on his hands, or was afraid that he might have blood on his hands, why would he touch the shoulder of the first passing pedestrian, risking transferring blood onto the witness's clothing?