Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

Letīs just, humbly and clearly, point out that we are speaking of a man who was observed all alone in close proximity to a freshly killer murder victim, who would go on to bleed for many minutes after Lechmere left her.

We are also speaking of a case where no other suspect was identified as the likely killer. In fact, there was never any sign at all of anybody at all having preceded Lechmere at the site.

Add to this that the man we are looking at had a proven geography that closely matches the bulk of the victims.

In what universe is this NOT a very good suspect? And how would that work, precisely?

That is a question none of the naysayers can answer for the simple reason that factors like these are exactly what makes for warranted suspicion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If he left home at 3.35, he should have been outside Browns at 3.42. Then Neil would have arrived at circa 3.48 and sent Thain to Llewellyn at circa 3.50, in which case he does not fit with the approximations of 3.55 and 4.00 as given per Llewellyn. He is not all that far off, but he is off. We can do better, as I have shown before.

No. If he left at 3.35 he arrives at 3.42 then Paul arrives then there’s a gap until they find Mizen which he said was at 3.45 and meanwhile Paul said that he’d arrived at 3.45. Therefore Lechmere found the body at some point prior to 3.45.

Any gaps are purely hypothetical ones. Yes a gap might have existed but also there might have been no gap. So we can’t claim one. We can’t use a ‘what if there was a sinister gap’ as a point for his guilt or you might as well say “what if we knew that Paul habitually carried a knife?”

[JeffHamm]

The question I asked you is where I have claimed that the Lloyds article is to be preferred, Jeff. You have given no answer to that specific question yet, and as you will be aware, the claim you made portrays me as cherry-picking. So letīs hear it now, please?

As for Paul claiming that he left home "about 3.45", that is not the whole story, is it? We know that he was quoted in the Daily News as having said "just before 3.45", and we can therefore see that this time fits perfdectly with having passed down Bucks Row at 3.45 precisely. And Paul was quoted in the Lloyds as having said this very thing.

Of course, if we sweep that statement under the carpet and only opt for "about 3.45", then we may feel more at ease to claim that Paul could well have been five minutes wrong or more. So itīs not that I cannot see where you are coming from, itīs more a question of me not wanting to be misrepresented and not accepting you cherrypicking a quotation that suits your desires.

I always found that looking at the whole picture and representing ALL the evidence was the best guarantee for a fair weighing. I hope you agree.

You continue to state that Paul was in Bucks Row at 3:45, which is only ever stated in the Lloyd's article. Just because you don't say "I prefer the Lloyd's article" doesn't mean you're not showing a preference for it.

You do realise that "about 3:45" and "just before 3:45" are different versions of more or less the same idea - not at 3:45 by some unspecified amount. About, of course, could also mean "just after 3:45", but in either case, neither is a statement claiming he was in Bucks Row at 3:45.

And if one does look at the whole of the evidence, it is clear that the Lloyd's article is the odd one out, and full of all sorts of errors. And therefore, if one wants to represent the "whole of the evidence", then one cannot pluck the cherry from the Lloyd's article and ignore the rest, particularly his sworn inquest testimony.

So again, if you're not relying on (showing a preference for) the Lloyd's article, then where do you get this notion that Paul is in Bucks Row at 3:45. That's not stated anywhere, other than in Lloyd's of course.



- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fish is in no way certain that Richardson DID sit on the step. In actual fact, nor was Richardson himself, as per Chandlers testimony. But Fish HAS checked and found out that the body could have been out of Richardsons sight even if he DID sit there - which he, according to Chandler, did not.

It is only if we leave out part of the information that it looks simple.

We disagree of course but the point that I was making is the same. If Phillips was correct in his Tod estimate (debated we know)….

A man alone with a corpse in the early hours.
A difficult to believe story about not seeing it.
Time and opportunity to commit murder.
Awareness of prostitutes at that location.
In possession of a knife.
Disputed statements to the police.

There’s actually more against Richardson than Lechmere. I wonder, if researched, he had links to places near to the murder sites. To be honest it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

[Fisherman]

No. If he left at 3.35 he arrives at 3.42 then Paul arrives then there’s a gap until they find Mizen which he said was at 3.45 and meanwhile Paul said that he’d arrived at 3.45. Therefore Lechmere found the body at some point prior to 3.45.

Any gaps are purely hypothetical ones. Yes a gap might have existed but also there might have been no gap. So we can’t claim one. We can’t use a ‘what if there was a sinister gap’ as a point for his guilt or you might as well say “what if we knew that Paul habitually carried a knife?”

Therefore? Surely you mean "if this and if that"?

If I knew that Paul habitually carried a knife, that would put him on par with lots and lots of Eastenders, nothing more. He arrived at the site AFTER Lechmere, and to suggest he was the killer takes even more fantasy that it does to deny that Lechmere is a very good suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You continue to state that Paul was in Bucks Row at 3:45, which is only ever stated in the Lloyd's article. Just because you don't say "I prefer the Lloyd's article" doesn't mean you're not showing a preference for it.

You do realise that "about 3:45" and "just before 3:45" are different versions of more or less the same idea - not at 3:45 by some unspecified amount. About, of course, could also mean "just after 3:45", but in either case, neither is a statement claiming he was in Bucks Row at 3:45.

So again, if you're not relying on (showing a preference for) the Lloyd's article, then where do you get this notion that Paul is in Bucks Row at 3:45. That's not stated anywhere, other than in Lloyd's of course.

- Jeff

I was intended to double check this but you’ve saved me the job. This suggestion of ‘exactly 3.45’ is only from one source yet it’s being treated as gospel.

[JeffHamm]

I was intended to double check this but you’ve saved me the job. This suggestion of ‘exactly 3.45’ is only from one source yet it’s being treated as gospel.

Unless Christer has another source, of course.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Letīs just, humbly and clearly, point out that we are speaking of a man who was observed all alone in close proximity to a freshly killer murder victim, who would go on to bleed for many minutes after Lechmere left her.

We are also speaking of a case where no other suspect was identified as the likely killer. In fact, there was never any sign at all of anybody at all having preceded Lechmere at the site.

Add to this that the man we are looking at had a proven geography that closely matches the bulk of the victims.

In what universe is this NOT a very good suspect? And how would that work, precisely?

That is a question none of the naysayers can answer for the simple reason that factors like these are exactly what makes for warranted suspicion.

Millions of people have found bodies Fish. The only difference here is that Paul turned up. The bleeding point has been dealt with by David Orsam and others and is a non-point. The geography thing is irrelevant. I bet if we looked hard enough we would find that Paul had some kind of ‘connection’ close to the murder sites.

And we’re describing a man who acts like an innocent man by staying at the body when he could easily have fled to safety. Everything shouts ‘man who found a body.’

[Fisherman]

You continue to state that Paul was in Bucks Row at 3:45, which is only ever stated in the Lloyd's article. Just because you don't say "I prefer the Lloyd's article" doesn't mean you're not showing a preference for it.

You do realise that "about 3:45" and "just before 3:45" are different versions of more or less the same idea - not at 3:45 by some unspecified amount. About, of course, could also mean "just after 3:45", but in either case, neither is a statement claiming he was in Bucks Row at 3:45.

So again, if you're not relying on (showing a preference for) the Lloyd's article, then where do you get this notion that Paul is in Bucks Row at 3:45. That's not stated anywhere, other than in Lloyd's of course.

- Jeff

Again you are claiming things on my behalf that are not true. I am NOT stating that Lechmere was in Bucks Row at 3.45, I am saying that it is the time that Baxter, Swanson and the Daily News promoted as representing the time Lechmere was there.

And then you go on to say "Just because you don't say "I prefer the Lloyd's article" doesn't mean you're not showing a preference for it", which is plain silly. I have no preferences for anything but the truth and the facts, and they cannot always be established. I beleive, as I have pointed out, that the ONLY anchoring there was, was the one represented by Llewellyns timings, and I think that this is the likeliest solution to the matter. Which mean that I thinbk that the likely thing is that Lechmere was the one who was in place at approximately 3.45, not Neil.
Of course, if you can make it look as if I made my choices with the sole intention of promoting Lechmere as the killer, it seems you are very motivated to do so, so I am in no way surprised by these shenanigans.

Do I realize that "about 3.45" is inexact? Indeed I do! Do I couple Pauls "just before 3.45" to the fact that he is in Lloyds quoted as sying "exactly 3.45" as he passed down Bucks Row? Indeed I do? Do YOU do the same? No, you drop the "exactly 3.45" quotation like a bag of dogs hit and choose to widen the possible gap offered by the wording "just before 3.45" as much as you can. No surprise there either.

I have explained many times - although not with colorful crayons - how the 3.45 timing dovetails very well with a departure of Thain at around 3.52 - 3.53, arriving at Llewellyns place at circa 3.55. That IS an anchoring, whereas the three 3.45:s given by the PCs LACK such an anchoring. My scenario is in line with the times given, whereas you scenario is in time with the times given if you are allowed to tweak, stretch and change things. That difference is not uninteresting in my world.

[MrBarnett]

You continue to state that Paul was in Bucks Row at 3:45, which is only ever stated in the Lloyd's article. Just because you don't say "I prefer the Lloyd's article" doesn't mean you're not showing a preference for it.

You do realise that "about 3:45" and "just before 3:45" are different versions of more or less the same idea - not at 3:45 by some unspecified amount. About, of course, could also mean "just after 3:45", but in either case, neither is a statement claiming he was in Bucks Row at 3:45.

And if one does look at the whole of the evidence, it is clear that the Lloyd's article is the odd one out, and full of all sorts of errors. And therefore, if one wants to represent the "whole of the evidence", then one cannot pluck the cherry from the Lloyd's article and ignore the rest, particularly his sworn inquest testimony.

So again, if you're not relying on (showing a preference for) the Lloyd's article, then where do you get this notion that Paul is in Bucks Row at 3:45. That's not stated anywhere, other than in Lloyd's of course.



- Jeff

Jeff,

I wouldn’t say that ‘about’ 3.45 excludes the possibility of exactly 3.45. Not that it matters too much.

[rjpalmer]

If Mrs Long can hear a brewery clock (accurate enough for running a large business), why can't Paul?

The irony here is that even before the CAL theory reared its thickly-bearded head, various well-informed members of the cognoscenti suggested that Elizabeth Long must have been wrong about when she passed through Hanbury Street and witnessed Annie talking to a man near No. 29. Long--like Paul---appears to have overestimated the time by five minutes or so. Either the brewery clock was off, or she misinterpreted the chime--that has been the general argument.

And if the clock was off on August 31st and may have been still wrong on Sept 8th.

Indeed, it might well explain why both Long and Paul seem to have thought they were running later than they actually were.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

Long estimated her sighting of Annie Chapman as 5.30, but it must have been closer to 5.25, because Annie was already in the backyard per Albert Cadoche, and he took a visual of the clock a short time later.

Similarly, Paul thought he saw the body in Buck's Row at 3.45, but it must have been closer to 3.40, as per Abberline, et al.

It works.

[Fisherman]

Millions of people have found bodies Fish. The only difference here is that Paul turned up. The bleeding point has been dealt with by David Orsam and others and is a non-point. The geography thing is irrelevant. I bet if we looked hard enough we would find that Paul had some kind of ‘connection’ close to the murder sites.

And we’re describing a man who acts like an innocent man by staying at the body when he could easily have fled to safety. Everything shouts ‘man who found a body.’

No, that is not true at all. EVERY discovery of a dead body is unique. In Lechmeres case, we have a "finder" who does his "finding" ALONE, which separates him from very many people. To boot, it is not just "a body", it is a murder victim! Furthermore, he "finds" the body at a remove in time that is entirely consistent with him being the killer and even suggests that this was so according to Jason Payne James and Arne Thiblin. So there are lots of differences that lend themselves extremely very well to suspicion.

There is also the fact that in many cases of people finding murder victims, the real killer is subsequently identified, exonerating the finder - if the killer was somebody else. But that phantom killer of yours remain smoke and mirrors only.

So we do not have just an ordinary case of someone finding a dead body, do we? We have a man observed alone by the side of a murder victim at a point in time that is consistent with him being the killer, and we have no trace whatsoever of another killer, nor will such a man be identified.

In this kind of case, the finder will, unless there is reason to think he could not have committed the murder, become a suspect. on VERY good grounds! And that means that his person will be checked for geography, with the stance of the police that if he does not fit the geographical profile, he will be graded down in terms of the suspicions that rest on him, whereas if he DOES fit the geography, the suspicions will be greatly reinforced.

The argument "somebody had to find her" has suffered badly from dementia for years now, Herlock, and we really should not even try to reintroduce it on a scene where it never belonged in the first place.

"Head and shoulders" above the other suspects does not cover it - he is above them from the kneecaps up!

Now I have had enough of nonsense for a day, so goodnight to you, Herlock!

[Fisherman]

Jeff,

I wouldn’t say that ‘about’ 3.45 excludes the possibility of exactly 3.45. Not that it matters too much.

There is actually a school of "thinkers" that suggest that it cannot have been AT or AFTER 3.45, Gary, believe it or not. The warped thinking they represent cannot rule out 3.44.59, though ...

Dear, dear me.

And off I go!

[rjpalmer]

I was intended to double check this but you’ve saved me the job. This suggestion of ‘exactly 3.45’ is only from one source yet it’s being treated as gospel.

Hi Herlock -- You've been in these parts for many years. Please take a look at my above post. Do you recall all those arguments about Elizabeth Long being off with her time estimate in Hanbury Street? What do you think? Could moving Truman's Brewery clock five minutes ahead of the actual time explain BOTH Long and Paul's testimonies not agreeing with anyone else's?

[MrBarnett]

I’ve just found Thomas Allen Lechmere on the 1921 census. His occupation was Carter/Carman for Mr Hart, a horseflesh dealer of Railway Place, Cambridge Road. I would imagine Mr Stow got to the record before me and is quite chuffed with it.