Evidence of innocence

[Kattrup]

This naysayer looks at it this way, Christer (and, perhaps, I speak for all us naysayer folk, I don't know): Baxter said the body couldn't have been found far from 3.45, which to us folk would mean a few minutes before 3.45, but not necessarily 3.40. So, if we'd say 3.41, 3.42 or 3.43 (which are all perfectly in line with "not far from 3.45"), saying that Nichols was in all probability murdered between 3.15 and 3.45 the latter time is perfectly fitting - and 3.40 isn't.

Cheers,
Frank

Hello Frank

I would like to mention, that accepting the premise that there was only one true finder, is probably not helping to clear the issue.
The body was found twice, independently, and the idea that Baxter must necessarily have referred to only one of these findings is a red herring.

He is speaking in general terms about “the time at which the body was found” as shorthand for “the time when the events outlined in the testimony regarding the carmen and PC Neil finding the body took place”.

That said, the issue is impossible to clear up any further, as the timings are so imprecise. We know the sequence of events and we know the people involved perceived it to happen around 3.40-3.45.

[Abby Normal]

I have recently tried to upgrade the graphic we all know from the Blink Films documentary. It seemed worth putting his mother's 1888 address in to clarify the Berner Street issue...



M.

thanks Mark
this quite literally graphically shows what i think is one of the strongest points for lechs validity as a suspect. hes literally rubbing elbows with the victims. and the two not on his route to work are near his mums, on a non work day. and goulston st is on a route from mitre square back to lechs home. no other suspect even comes close in this regard.

[JeffHamm]

I am saying that IF John Neils claim to have arrived at the murdersite had been accepted, then the Daily News would not have written that "Nicholls was murdered in the early hours of Friday, the 31st August - in all probability between a quarter past three and a quarter to four." That is because IF Neils timing had been accepted as correct, then there would have been no probability at all that Nichols was murdered at 3.45. It would have been impossible by a long shot.

And yet, that applies to 3:15 as well, but they include that impossible time. It makes for a more consistent interpretation if one simply accepts that in the newspaper, the DN is reporting that PC Neil was in that location at 3:15, again at 3:45, and since Nichols wasn't there at 3:15 but was there at 3:45, she must have been killed between those two times. Note, between, as they say, doesn't mean at either of the two markers. Also note, the DN is talking about when she was murdered, so they're not talking about when she was first discovered.

Ergo, the question about who Baxter alluded to as the 3.45 finder of the body must have been Lechmere and not Neil. If it had been concluded that Neil was the finder, then Lechmere would have been at the site at 3.40, and the Daily News article should have read "Nicholls was murdered in the early hours of Friday, the 31st August - in all probability between a quarter past three and twenty minutes to four."

I cannot follow your logic here. The DN is talking about the time of the murder itself, and Baxter is talking about the time of the discovery by Cross/Lechmere. They're not talking about the same event yet you are treating the two as if both are talking about the discovery time.

Moreover, nobody is arguing that Baxter isn't talking about Cross/Lechmere and Paul's discovery of the body. He's clearly referring to them in his statement. But nowhere in the inquest do they testify to a time at which that event happened. PC Mizen testifies he spoke to the carmen at 3:45, which we know occurs after they discovered the body. Paul testifies that this meeting with PC Mizen was no more than 4 minutes after he first sees the body, a short, but still unspecified time prior to 3:45. PC Neil testifies he comes across the body at 3:45 (and the carmen are not there) and PC Thain indicates he was summond by PC Neil at 3:45 as well.

So when Baxter says the carmen find the body "not far off 3:45", we know he means earlier, and he's summarising the above information that is directly stated within the evidence. He has no specific time entered into evidence for the carmen's discovery, but he does have their location at 3:45 and a statement by Paul that this interaction was not long after (no more than 4 minutes) he first saw the body, which in Baxter's summary statement about the carmen's discovery time is presented as "not far off 3:45", because that's what the summary of the evidence indicates.

This is all very basic and simple, and since I happen to be aware that you are not stupid at all, I am confident that you will see what I am talking about. To this, we must add our knowledge that Baxter said that he had been able to fix the timeline, and if you can fix a timeline, you are not dealing with times that can be either way. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, much as there ARE many independent data involved in the Llewellyn end of the drama that could have helped Baxter fix the time, there is no such data at all that could help fix the suggested 3.45 time from the PC:s. Not a iot of it.

There are 3 PC's all testifying that the carmen are not in Buck's Row at 3:45. The only information we have about Dr. L. is his statement that he was called to the crime at 3:55 (in some statements) or about 4:00 (in others). That hardly makes for many independent data at that end of the drama.

All in all, there can be no doubt that Baxter alluded to Lechmere when he spoke of the body being found at 3.45.

Nobody is disputing that Baxter is referring to Cross/Lechmere's time of discovery. I think everyone agrees on that point.

Rather, they are pointing out that Baxter's statement "not far off 3:45" does not mean he is saying Cross/Lechmere discovered the body "at 3:45", as you stated. Rather, Baxter is indicating that Cross/Lechmere discovered the body a short time before 3:45.

What CAN be suggested is that the timings would possibly - and even likely - have been inexact to a degree, but NOT to a degree where Baxter needed to accept that a timeline could not be fixed.

And yet, you're talking about the times as if the only variability allowed is in the manner of seconds.

This ends a many year long controversy that should never have been there and that has unneccessarily taken up eons of time as far as I´m concerned. I am fully aware that others may not (should perhaps read "never" ...) want to agree with me, but since I have the evidence on my side, that means very little to me. It would take evidence to the contrary to dissolve the picture that has now emerged, solid evidence that Baxter spoke of Neils arrival, not Lechmeres, when he mentioned the 3.45 timing. And so far, all I have seen is assertions that people "feel" or "sense" that ths was the case. That is not evidence, I´m afraid.

The analysis I conducted, and have presented, and fully described how I went about it, chose routes and travel speeds that should work in favour of your theory. I chose the upper end of the estimated walking speeds, the shortest routes, all to ensure that the recreation would give Cross/Lechmere the best chance of producing a window of opportunity that your theory requires.

Even with the cards stacked in his favour, the recreation demonstrates that the information entered into evidence does not indicate there has been deception. I didn't know that is how it would turn out, and had the calculations turned out such that he did have time, then the analysis would have supported your idea and I would have interpreted it as such. It's not about me wanting or not wanting to agree with you, it's the fact that the recreation does not indicate the testimony, as given, contradicts itself.

If you want to continue to argue against Cross/Lechmere, then you only weaken your case by trying to argue that the testimony is against him because it starts to look like no matter what the evidence is, you'll argue it has to be viewed as against Cross/Lechmere. But the testimony is not against him, it's entirely consistent with him simply discovering the body on his way to work.

But, there's nothing to prevent you from simply arguing that Cross/Lechmere may not be telling the truth when he says he left for work at about 3:30. If he left earlier, then estimating his arrival at the scene based upon a false departure time will, of course, mean his estimated time of arrival is wrong. Everything else, though, could then proceed as described, and shows from the point Paul enters the scene, the testimony seems fine. It's just a coincidence that Cross/Lechmere chooses a time that also happens to fit the data as if it is consistent, but you could argue since it's his walk to work he would know roughly how long it would take for him to get from his home to Buck's Row, so could easily work that out. Of course, you will still have the problem that suggesting he lied about his departure time (which ends up being consistent with him being innocent), will be based upon speculation because we have no information to suggest he lied. But, we also do not know how, or if, the police verified his statement. It could be argued that it seems likely they did verify things like when he left, but as we know, that is not universally accepted. So his departure time could be argued to be "unsubstantiated", which just means "it might be true and might be false". Innocence would be based upon arguing his departure time is true, and guilt is based upon his departure time is false.

But for some reason you seem insistent on insisting that "not far off 3:45" must mean "at 3:45", and that the Daily News, talking about the time of the murder, somehow means Baxter's statements about the time of the discovery must also mean at 3:45. You're focusing on, and presenting strained interpretations of, evidence that comes from people with no motivation to tell falsehoods, even in your "Cross/Lechmere is guilty" theory.

Anyway, I stand by the analysis I've presented, and I've fully explained both the methods by which it was conducted and the reasoning for the various choices I've made. There is nothing in the statements entered into testimony about the times and movements of the various people that is inconsistent with Cross/Lechmere simply discovering the body after she had been murdered. Therefore, either he is innocent of the murder, or he's lied about the time he left home. We do not know how, or even if, the police interviewed anyone else with regards to Cross/Lechmere's departure time. While it seems reasonable to suggest they did, at this time we do not have it recorded that they did, nor what they found.

Therefore, it seems to me that with regards to the various testimonies about times and movements, the Cross/Lechmere is guilty theory hinges upon whether or not Cross/Lechmere's time of departure for work, as entered into testimony, was truthful. And yet, you're arguments are all focused on insisting that those with every reason to be truthful, and in the case of the PC's accurate with respect to their times, are the ones who are wrong. Everyone other than the one person you are arguing with a motive to lie are the ones you are arguing to be false. I'm sorry, but that comes across as unconvincing, and the optics of such lines of argument are not in your favour.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have to say that I couldn’t agree more with post #4368.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Therefore, it seems to me that with regards to the various testimonies about times and movements, the Cross/Lechmere is guilty theory hinges upon whether or not Cross/Lechmere's time of departure for work, as entered into testimony, was truthful. And yet, you're arguments are all focused on insisting that those with every reason to be truthful, and in the case of the PC's accurate with respect to their times, are the ones who are wrong. Everyone other than the one person you are arguing with a motive to lie are the ones you are arguing to be false. I'm sorry, but that comes across as unconvincing, and the optics of such lines of argument are not in your favour.

- Jeff

Just thought that point was worth repeating.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I have to say that I couldn’t agree more with post #4368.

Ditto
Regards Darryl

[drstrange169]

>>... we know that Robert Paul was alte and, I quote, "hurrying along" as he proceeded down Bucks Row. And that, R J, means that Lechmere would be able to tell that whoever the oncomer was, it was NOT a PC, because the PC:s walked their beats at a slow pace.<<

Good news for murders, knowing policemen would never "hurry" after them whilst they are committing the crime!

I strongly suggest you take a deep breath and think before you post these little gems.


>>By the way, there ARE no weaknesses in the Lechmere theory. <<

Like this post?

[drstrange169]

>>I notice that Dusty is playing his "Fisherman is silent becasue I ask so very clever and challenging questions"-game again, and so I must advice him to list any questions he has if he wants them answered<<

The problem is you've already pulled this stunt and it resulted lots of avoidance, lots of response to posts that didn't have questions in them and no answers, see your post #3800.

So, lists don't work, because you just use the opportunity to dodge answering.

So lets' go through them one at a time. Start with a simple short one, say post #4315.

[drstrange169]

>>I've set up the recreation in another program of mine, where I enter paths and beats, scale all the routes to a known distance, set the individual's speeds and so forth, so it plays the recreation out for me.<<

Really enjoying these posts Jeff. Some thing to take away and think about.

[drstrange169]

>>My take on the prolonged debate about whether a killer would take the risk of engaging anybody on a dark night when there was a risk that there could be an undefined amount of blood on his hands, is that it will get us nowhere. I therefore recommend that we leave it as it is instead of wasting space on it out here.<<

Finally something we can agree on. But, remember it was you, way back, that introduced the debate as a pointer to Lechmere's guilt and now your acolytes like Bob have spread the story as gospel across multiple platforms.

[drstrange169]

>>NORMALLY, PC:s did not hurry along the streets. Which is why the most credible thing was that a hurrying oncomer was NOT a PC.<<

If Lechmere was the murderer he was committing a crime, why would assume a policemen would not hurry towards him?

[drstrange169]

>>Surely that’s not what you’re saying Fish?<<

Never doubt the bizarre excuses Christer will invent Herlock.

[drstrange169]

>>This is mischief-making.<<

Couldn't agree more, anyone using Paul's Lloyds interview as the basis of a theory is mischief making.

[JeffHamm]

Hi dusty,

>>I've set up the recreation in another program of mine, where I enter paths and beats, scale all the routes to a known distance, set the individual's speeds and so forth, so it plays the recreation out for me.<<

Really enjoying these posts Jeff. Some thing to take away and think about.

Thanks. They are fun to work on, in part because I find they are very helpful to me in seeing roughly where people should be at the times they state they were there. Given the inaccuracy of witness statements, this process can be very helpful in assessing their estimations. Generally, the recreated estimated times I've come up with for the Eddowes case, Stride case, and the Nichols case all tend to show very good correspondence to what is given in evidence, particularly when one starts to take into account the qualified nature of what most witnesses say (about, around, etc).

I would like to figure out how I can get a video, showing the simulations play out in real time, but I've not come up with a way to do that at present though.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>I see you have also made the point that needed to be made, Super. Good on you. When the debate becomes blindsided, like this, something must be done.<<

Hang on!

Didn't you just write,

"My take on the prolonged debate about whether a killer would take the risk of engaging anybody on a dark night when there was a risk that there could be an undefined amount of blood on his hands, is that it will get us nowhere. I therefore recommend that we leave it as it is instead of wasting space on it out here."

""Here we go round in circles to nowhere" Spencer Davis Group