Evidence of innocence

[John Wheat]

Exactly, so hanging round to wait for Paul to arrive, when he couldn’t fail to have known that a search for a Constable would follow, would have been a pretty suicidal thing to have done. How could he possibly have explained having blood on his hands simply from walking from home to Bucks Row?

He wouldn't be able to which is one of the many flaws of the theory that Lechmere was Jack.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Since the victim before, Martha, and the victim after, Annie, more than likely led the killer to a quiet spot for soliciting. In my opinion it is by no means beyond the bounds of possibility that Polly picked Jack up off the Whitechapel Rd and led him to what she believed to be a quiet spot.
Regards Darryl

Seems logical to me Darryl and more likely than a desperate for cash Polly going to a deserted backstreet at some time around 3am hoping for luck. I’m unsure how far exactly that Bucks Row was from where she was last sighted by Emily Holland but I’m guessing at 10 minutes or so? I’m certain that someone will know. So is it likely that she’d have stood around in a deserted backstreet for around an hour without finding a client before Lechmere shows up on his way to work? We can’t prove it of course but it has to be far more likely that she tried for a customer somewhere else where there was a greater chance of there being people around whilst keeping an eye open for a Constable. She then took him, or he took her, to the quieter Bucks Row. Avoiding Constable’s was par for the course for these women especially with so many on the beat.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wonder what Lechmere would have done if they had, for whatever reason, questioned him about Chapman? Perhaps if his cart had been seen nearby for example? What would he have said when they found that Bucks Row was on his route to work from Doveton Street and that the murder had occurred at around the time that he would have been passing? Not a great spot to commit a murder to say the least.

[JeffHamm]

Hi rj,

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.

Yes, that's definitely worth pointing out. The "window of opportunity" idea for his guilt or innocence that I've been comparing between are, of course, the innocent version (where he doesn't have a window of opportunity) while in the guilty version he does and he encounters Polly who is already in Bukck's Row. If she was on Whitechapel, though, then he has to first go there, then return to the crime scene with her, and that to and fro journey requires a few minutes. I've put a couple possible locations just to illustrate, and as we can see, if he locates her on Whitechapel, the journey from the crime scene to WC is going to be between 546 to 900 feet one way, for a round trip of between 1092 and 1800 ft. At 3.2 mph (and I accept that I could be accused of having a very drunk Polly motoring along like she's fresh as a daisy here) that requires between 3m 52s and 6m 23s, plus any negotiation time. For any scenerio where Polly is not at the crime scene already, such journey times have to be added to the required window of opportunity time. Given the examination I presented earlier shows that even at the fastest walking speed along the shortest path, with Polly at the crime scene (every condition that favours the guilty possibility), the testifimony is consistent with the innocent, or truthful, explanation. Differences in the timing are in the ranges we would expect simply due to the unreliability of the type of data we have (couple with, of course, the recreated timings themselves are just estimates too, so like any analysis, they too have margins of error one must consider). So given the testimony is consistent with Cross/Lechmere simply finding Polly at the crime scene without any "window of opportunity", there is clearly no room for any guilty scenerio that requires even longer windows of opportunity. Rather, the analysis is consistent with Cross/Lechmere arrving at the crime scene while Polly is already there, and without a window of opportunity to kill her, that would suggest she's already dead.





- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

It was late, she was desperate, she couldn’t use a main thoroughfare like Whitechapel High Street so she was taking a chance on the next street up.

It was quiet, it was 03.30, but it was still her best bet to hang around and proposition anyone who walked along.

Hi SS -

First off, we are talking about the Whitechapel Road. Whitechapel High Street is actually a good distance to the west, by Aldgate.

Secondly, I'm not guessing. There are contemporary accounts of women soliciting on the Whitechapel Road. Yes, we are theorizing that this is what Polly Nichols did that particular morning, but we are not theorizing that this was a reality of East End life on any given night. It is well-established.

Third, prostitution wasn't technically illegal. I'm not sure you grasp this point. Soliciting was illegal, and owning a brothel was illegal, but a woman could be 'picked up' by a man as long as he was the one initiating the contact. The police are not going to bother the dozens of women out on the streets unless they are being a nuisance or open soliciting or sleeping rough without visible means of support, etc. This technicality is what allowed the sex trade to flourish in East London.

Fourth, I can appreciate that you don't like hearing any of this from the anti-Lechmere crowd--you probably think we are simply b.s.ing you-- so perhaps you would prefer to hear it from Ed Stowe, who, along with Fisherman, is the chief advocate for the Lechmere theory.

As he mentions in the following video (I think this is the right one) he also believes the murderer picked up Polly on the Whitechapel Road. Why wouldn't he? It's the most obvious solution, and it aligns with what we know of East End prostitution.

Lechmere at Buck's Row. A practical investigation. - YouTube

Enjoy.

RP

[JeffHamm]

I see that the interval between PC Thain's arrival at the scene, and Dr. L's arrival is of interest now. PC Thain was patrolling his beat which has him passing at the east end of Buck's Row when he is signalled by PC Neil for assistance. This occurs very shortly after PC Neil discovers the body at 3:45. Though there would have to be some short interval for PC Neil to realise what he's dealing with, then note PC Thain, etc, this all could be in the matter of a few seconds, which would easily get absorbed in our error margins so I'm not going to fuss about that.

PC Thain has to come down Buck's Row, meet with PC Neil, then head off and call the Doctor to the scene. The testimony suggests that he was sent very quickly upon his arrival, and that fits with the fact we know that when PC Mizen arrives PC Neil is alone. Since PC Mizen is talking with the carmen at 3:45, and if he heads straight to Buck's Row, there's only about 3.5 minutes within which PC Thain has to arrive and then leave. This all fits together nicely.

As has been posted a few times now, Dr. L has stated he was called to the scene about 4:00, though we have the more specific 3:55 stated as well.

We don't have on record what route PC Thain took when he went to fetch Dr. L. Either he went back east up Buck's Row then south on Brady, for a journey of roughly 804.716 feet, or he may have gone west out of Buck's Row, then south through Court Street, then east along Whitechappel to the Dr.'s, which would be a longer route of 1207.135 feet.

The Dr. then has to be woken, get ready, and himself come to the scene.

What is also missing from our knowledge is, of course, exactly when Dr. L checks the time. Meaning, does his 3:55-about 4:00 statements tell us when PC Thain first woke him? When he left to go to the scene? Or when he arrived at the scene? The problem is that "being called to the scene" is ambiguous with respect to exactly where he is at the point he checks his watch. And of course, this now introduces yet another clock, which we have no reason to suggest is going to be syncronized with PC Neil and PC Thain's idea of the time.

For comparison purposes, though. let's consider what we know from the Stride Case. There, Dr. Blackwell specifically tells us he checked his watch upon arrival at the scene, which I would suggest constitutes "best practice". It's certainly beneficial to us.

Anyway, in the Stride case, it appears to take about 10 minutes from the point PC Lamb first arrives at the scene and when Dr. Blackwell arrives and checks his watch. The distance between the scene of the crime and Dr. Blackwell's residence is only 430.714 feet. It would require the officer 48 seconds to run that distance (6.1 mph is what I use to estimate running speeds), and Dr. Blackwell's walk to the crime scene would require 1 m 31s. That uses up 2m 19 s of the 10 minutes interval, giving us 7m 41 s between the time Dr. Blackwell's door was first knocked upon and his exiting the door.

So, if PC Thain takes the shorter of the two routes, and runs the whole way (6.1 mph), it would require him 1 m 29s to get to and first knock upon Dr. L's door (so at 1:46:29). If we take Dr. Blackwell's "time to get ready" as our estimate for Dr. L, then Dr. L is leaving for the crime scene at 3:54:10, and would arrive at the scene 2m 51s later (presuming he too takes the short route back), and so arrive at the scene at 3:57:01.

Note, I've given 0s as the interval between PC Neil arriving at the scene and signalling PC Thain, and I've given 0s for PC Thain to be at the crime scene (i.e. there's no brief discussion between the two police officers, PC Thain does not inspect the body in any way, he is just called to PC Neil and continues straight on to get the doctor. If there was any delay between PC Neil's discovery and his signalling of PC Thain, or any period of time where PC Thain examines the scene/discusses options with PC Neil, Dr. L's time moves a bit later. But, we know those unknowns have to be pretty short since PC Mizen has to arrive with PC Neil being alone.

But, basically, there really isn't anything odd about Dr. L's times. He's not going to "record the time" when someone wakes him up. And he's not going check his watch until he's ready to go and in "job mode". And he might not even check his watch until he gets to the crime scene and starts recording "work". Both the "ready to go" and the "arrive at the crime scene" times could be argued for given his statements. One is within a minute of 3:55, which he does state in some cases, and the other is "about 4:00".

And, obviously, if any of those journeys use the longer route, those times increase a bit, but I've chosen the ones that would maximally work against Cross/Lechmere. And even those ones do not raise suspicion.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>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 defence of Lechmere boils down to this:

If we believe Paul's Lloyds interview, Lechmere is innocent because Paul claims Mrs Nichols died before Lechmere left home.
If we believe the inquest testimony Lechmere is innocent because his timing fits with three policemen's testimonies.

The prosecution of Lechmere boils down to this - taking Paul's Lloyds interview out of context and avoiding mentioning what he actually claimed in the interview to create a cherry-picked story that is not supported by any evidence anywhere, let alone the article itself.

One is based on the available evidence, the other is constructed by cherry-picking and invention.

Debate on the subject is limited because one side constantly avoids difficult questions and frequently refuses to acknowledge when they have made proven errors.

[drstrange169]

>>Nichols is soliciting by the gateway<<

Soliciting?

I take you are in strong disagreement with the author of the article in Ripperologist 170 who claimed,

"Now to set the scene. Buck’s Row is deserted. There’s nobody else there. Interestingly, Lechmere sees or hears nobody. PC Neil had walked down Buck’s Row at 03.15 and saw nothing. When Paul first arrived in Buck’s Row he saw nobody. Local night shift workers in Winthrop Street, a night watchman at Browne & Eagle, and another in Schneider’s Cap Factory the same. Local resident Mrs. Green, a light sleeper who lived in the first house next to the stable gate, heard nothing. Mr. Purkiss, who lived opposite, heard nothing either."

[drstrange169]

>>This very point was discussed in the documentary Jack The Ripper : The Missing Evidence.<<

Is that the TV show that had Lechmere kneel over the body when Paul saw him?

Who was the script writer, Donald Swanson?

[JeffHamm]

Oh, and I just realised, in my post of 4251, unlike my post of 4040, I have not set the starting time of 3:45 to be 3:45:30 (as 3:45 covers anything from 3:45:00 to 3:45:59, I typically start midway to split this unknown aspect). None of the intervals would change, of course, since Dr.L's stated times of 3:55 and about 4:00 also get set to 3:55:30 and 4:00:30, but the times I state above would all shift later by that 30 seconds. That doesn't make any real difference in the conclusions, but I just thought I should mention it because I realised I overlooked factoring in that correction factor which I should have included for tidiness. Sorry about that.

Anyway, from the combination of the recreation analysis I presented in post 4040, and the above examination in post 4251, there is agreement between the recreation and the testimony. Out of all the witnesses, the largest difference from the recreation is 6-7 minutes associated with Paul's testimony of leaving home "about 3:45". All of the other witness statements, tend to be within a couple minutes of the estimated recreated times. Therefore, based upon the correspondence between what was stated, and what results when recreated, there is no objective evidence against Cross/Lechmere based upon the timing of events, which is, by definition, evidence of innocence (the whole point of this thread).

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>It was late, she was desperate, she couldn’t use a main thoroughfare like Whitechapel High Street so she was taking a chance on the next street up.<<

So you're now claiming she was in Winthrop Street?


>>There were of course a few night shift workers around and who knows she might get some business.<<

So the Rip article was wrong?

And one of those "few night shift workers" could have killed Mrs Nichols and have been interrupted by Cross. Or maybe you really do think there was a burglar or a piss-taker just around the corner after all?


>>Perhaps she was walking a circuit and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. <<

A circuit that passed the slaughters who didn't see her perhaps?

Can you not see how badly you are doing here?

[drstrange169]

>>The answer is very obviously Police attention. If you are soliciting you cant do it on Main Street. She would need to stick to back streets.<<

I take it you haven't done the research into the Cass case and its aftermath, in which Warren specifically ordered constables not to arrest women for suspicion of prostitution.

[drstrange169]

I think any reasonable person accepts the notion that Baxter was using the the three policeman's as his reference time, but it's worth considering this.

As I've already pointed out, the summation was presented to the jury as a summary of the evidence presented. If Baxter disagreed with anybodys evidence he had to tell the jury what the evidence was and his reason for disagreeing with it. At no stage did he suggest to the jury that the policemen's evidence should not be believed.

In fact, he only disagreed with one witness and, as was his job, he explained why he disagreed.

"Dr. Llewellyn seemed to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were inflicted first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seemed difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it came about there was so little bleeding from the several arteries that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained and the legs not soiled, and there was very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck."

[SuperShodan]

Hi SS -

First off, we are talking about the Whitechapel Road. Whitechapel High Street is actually a good distance to the west, by Aldgate.

Secondly, I'm not guessing. There are contemporary accounts of women soliciting on the Whitechapel Road. Yes, we are theorizing that this is what Polly Nichols did that particular morning, but we are not theorizing that this was a reality of East End life on any given night. It is well-established.

Third, prostitution wasn't technically illegal. I'm not sure you grasp this point. Soliciting was illegal, and owning a brothel was illegal, but a woman could be 'picked up' by a man as long as he was the one initiating the contact. The police are not going to bother the dozens of women out on the streets unless they are being a nuisance or open soliciting or sleeping rough without visible means of support, etc. This technicality is what allowed the sex trade to flourish in East London.

Fourth, I can appreciate that you don't like hearing any of this from the anti-Lechmere crowd--you probably think we are simply b.s.ing you-- so perhaps you would prefer to hear it from Ed Stowe, who, along with Fisherman, is the chief advocate for the Lechmere theory.

As he mentions in the following video (I think this is the right one) he also believes the murderer picked up Polly on the Whitechapel Road. Why wouldn't he? It's the most obvious solution, and it aligns with what we know of East End prostitution.

Lechmere at Buck's Row. A practical investigation. - YouTube

Enjoy.

RP

Hi rj

Ed Stow is fantastic and I love his YouTube channel. That being said I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says.

My hypothesis is that Lechmere was a blitz killer who didn’t plan ahead or put much thought into it. If somebody was in the wrong place at the wrong time he would attack. I suspect most victims were killed very close to where he met them, and that each murder was over incredibly quickly. Just my opinion, I’m happy to be corrected or hear other theories.

That’s partly why he never got caught. He was with the victims such a short period of time, and he met them in secluded places. No witnesses, no exposure and all over in a minute or two.

I don’t think he would walk around with victims any distance and risk being seen. I further don’t think he would pick victims up from a main thorough or busy street. For me meeting Nichols in Whitechapel Road and walking to Bucks Row is too much exposure. Too much chance for a witness to see them together. In Nichols case I believe he met her very close to where she died.

[SuperShodan]

So you're now claiming she was in Winthrop Street?


Here we have the latest transmission from planet Dusty.

I am clearly not talking about Winthrop Street. I am clearly talking about Bucks Row - you know the place where the murder took place. Yes I am aware Winthrop street is the next street up on the map, but surely anyone can see that I mean Bucks Row. Its disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Once again we have the Dusty technique of asking and answering his own questions, altering the meaning of others statements and attributing a position to somebody that they don’t hold.

There are so many really interesting posts on this thread, it’s such a pity you spam it up with nonsense.