Evidence of innocence

[Darryl Kenyon]

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,

So nobody as ever found a body alone ?

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 every time someone has found a recently killed person alone and the killer is not found that person is guilty of the murder. Diemschultz killed Liz then and P.C. Ernest Thompson killed Francis for instance

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.

He wasn't at the side of Polly he was in the middle of the road.

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.

Yes this is true but the same could be said about Paul having ties to Whitechapel

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.

So that theory should not be looked at ? The jails would be full of innocent people

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

The police at the time don't seem to think so, and as for the argument that they wouldn't have at least questioned lech . Well it is just my opinion but i find that virtually zero on a scale of one to a hundred

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

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!

When we talk of nonsense Fish don’t you think it’s nonsense to keep branding an unnamed killer as a ‘phantom killer in an attempt to ridicule the suggestion?” Ted Bundy was a phantom killer until he was caught and named. There isn’t a solitary piece of evidence that precludes a killer fleeing the scene just before Lechmere got there. He might even have heard Lechmere approach. Again isn’t it ‘strange’ that some are quite willing to suggest that Paul disturbed Lechmere but are quite unwilling to countenance the suggestion that Lechmere might have disturbed someone. This, though inconvenient, is 100% plausible and renders any blood evidence completely null and void. The only difference is that we can put a name to Lechmere and we can’t put a name to our unknown killer. Unknown killers exist.

And no, he wasn’t found by ‘the side of a murder victim’ he was in the middle of the road. And no he wasn’t there at a time ‘consistent with him being the murder’ because a) we don’t know what time he actually left the house, and b) we don’t know exactly what time he arrived in Bucks Row, and c) we don’t know exactly what time Robert Paul arrived. So we have 3 unknowns from which we can only derive estimates. Yes, if you skew them a certain way a gap will appear but if you allow for a reasonable margin for error there are many combinations (the majority if I recall correctly) which result in no gap. I’m not saying that there couldn’t have been one (I’ve never said that) just that there’s no evidence that there was one. It can’t help but be noticeable to an outsider looking in that only one side of this debate appears to understand what an estimate is and to make reasonable allowances for it whilst the other side seems rather keen to tie these down to closer (and more favourable) times.

What has suffered from ‘dementia’ Fish is this gap distortion. And distortion is certainly what it is. It’s the wilful stating of an unknown as a know to achieve a favourable outcome. It’s a non-point that should be dropped. And without this sinister gap we have no real reason for suspicion. The gap was and had been the opening gambit that sets the tactics in the debate. It’s been categorically refuted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

Hello Roger,

I remember the arguments quite well. Dissertations were written I seem to recall. I don’t see why the clock point couldn’t be very valid. We have no way of knowing how Paul got his time. We often hear people assuming that people owned clocks but we know that many in that area and at that time wouldn’t have. Jeff has pointed out many times how clocks weren’t synchronised and how there could be considerable difference from clock to clock or clock to watch. Paul might have heard the clock and the clock might have been out by 5 minutes. Even if it was out by less this could still be relevant. If he heard the clock strike 3.45 as he entered Bucks Row it might only have been a couple of minutes out, say 3.43 with Lechmere finding the body at 3.42 (which is entirely reasonable if his ‘about 3.30’ was actually 3.35.)

It’s only when some assume that unknowns are knowns or estimates can be narrowed nearer to exacts that suspicions are created.

[Mark J D]

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.

Can someone help me here? I'm way out of my depth.

Can anyone see a reason why this guy thinks the brewery which, on my 1890s map, is located between the bottom of Robert Paul's road and the start of Buck's Row should be the same brewery with the same clock that Mrs Long heard three quarters of a mile away near the far end of Hanbury Street...?

Is he simply posting some kind of piss-taking word-salad? I can't tell, anymore. Genuinely.

M.

[Aethelwulf]

Philips actually said that there were great similarities in how Kelly and the Pinchin Street torso were cut. So I don´t know about the cherries. Hebert did speak about how the two were not one and the same, and since I rely on him when he tells us that the 1887-1889 victims were all cut by the same hand, but do NOT rely on him when he says that the two series displayed different levels of skill, you may want to try your luck on that instead? Of course, I do have an answer for that too, but since you want to make me look as a cherrypicker, why not take your chances?

I find the torso links a little bit desperate to be honest. I believe you are so infatuated with Lechmere that you have to have his fictional career of terror covering the entire final quarter of the 19th century. Despite no evidence, whatsoever, for anything sinister. From what I've read on here, most of your followers have succumbed to gullibility and swallowed a map.

What does a modern day expert say about the pinchin street torso: 'However, the killer’s signature characteristics did not change, and the evidence demonstrates that the same person murdered Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly. The murders of Smith, Mylett, McKenzie, the unidentified victim (this is the Pinchin Street torso), and Coles could not be linked through signature analysis to other cases.'

The above is from the Keppel paper. I'm not saying this is definitive, but who should we trust on this subject? An armchair hobbyist or someone who helped track down Bundy and was asked to assist on the Green River case? Someone who had the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to know what he is talking about, or an enthusiast?

[Abby Normal]

I find the torso links a little bit desperate to be honest. I believe you are so infatuated with Lechmere that you have to have his fictional career of terror covering the entire final quarter of the 19th century. Despite no evidence, whatsoever, for anything sinister. From what I've read on here, most of your followers have succumbed to gullibility and swallowed a map.

What does a modern day expert say about the pinchin street torso: 'However, the killer’s signature characteristics did not change, and the evidence demonstrates that the same person murdered Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly. The murders of Smith, Mylett, McKenzie, the unidentified victim (this is the Pinchin Street torso), and Coles could not be linked through signature analysis to other cases.'

The above is from the Keppel paper. I'm not saying this is definitive, but who should we trust on this subject? An armchair hobbyist or someone who helped track down Bundy and was asked to assist on the Green River case? Someone who had the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to know what he is talking about, or an enthusiast?

hi wulfy
first of all, take the fbi profilers with a grain of salt. there profiles have never directly led to the capture of a single serial killer. i lived through the beltway sniper serial killer murders and they couldnt have been more off on their profile. ive read keppel, douglas, etc. and they also seem to have a bloated self importance of themselves. profiling can be useful in helping to narrow down a list of suspects in a case and give a general idea of the type of person to look for but thats about it. theyll even admit its more art than science.

just from the blurb you presented you can see the possible mistake...mckenzie not a fit for signature and tabram or stride is?!?! pfft.

and i would say the average casebooker knows more about the ripper case than these guys.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can someone help me here? I'm way out of my depth.

Can anyone see a reason why this guy thinks the brewery which, on my 1890s map, is located between the bottom of Robert Paul's road and the start of Buck's Row should be the same brewery with the same clock that Mrs Long heard three quarters of a mile away near the far end of Hanbury Street...?

Is he simply posting some kind of piss-taking word-salad? I can't tell, anymore. Genuinely.

M.

You don’t think that the chimes of a church can be heard three quarters of a mile away? Did sound work differently in those days?

[Mark J D]

hi wulfy
first of all, take the fbi profilers with a grain of salt. there profiles have never directly led to the capture of a single serial killer. i lived through the beltway sniper serial killer murders and they couldnt have been more off on their profile. ive read keppel, douglas, etc. and they also seem to have a bloated self importance of themselves. profiling can be useful in helping to narrow down a list of suspects in a case and give a general idea of the type of person to look for but thats about it. theyll even admit its more art than science.

just from the blurb you presented you can see the possible mistake...mckenzie not a fit for signature and tabram is?!?! pfft.

and i would say the average casebooker knows more about the ripper case than these guys.

A good case study of the damage done by a pompous, bloviating pseudo-expert in a shockingly under-regulated and un-scientific field is that of Paul 'Cracker' Britton...

Look it up. The man makes me puke. As do the police he conspired with.

M.

[Mark J D]

You don’t think that the chimes of a church can be heard three quarters of a mile away? Did sound work differently in those days?

He doesn't know about the other breweries, does he, folks?

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He doesn't know about the other breweries, does he, folks?

M.

I freely admit that I’m not an expert in Victorian breweries (their locations or whether or not that had clocks that chimed) but whatever clock we might consider wouldn’t you admit that it’s possible that Paul might have heard a clock chime 3.45 but it was actually 2, 3, 4 minutes earlier?

[JeffHamm]

Jeff,

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

It doesn't preclude it, but it is not specifically 3:45 and takes in a range of times. I don't believe weights and measures standards have defined what that range is though. But it is used by people to cover ranges of the order that the recreation gives for the estimates.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

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.

You really don't comprehend how I did that recreation do you? It's clear you don't understand what it shows because what it shows it that your reason for shifting PC Neil, PC Thain, and PC Mizen's testified times (which now appears to be to anchor to Dr. L's time) is unfounded. Dr. L's testimony is also similar to the recreation's estimations, and the recreation doesn't change the evidence. It provies approximations for the terms "about" and "not far off".

Because you are still touting the idea that when Baxter says the body was discovered "not far off 3:45" that means he meant "at 3:45", which is not what he says. He's saying the carmen found the body at a time different from, but not by a large amount, from 3:45. The recreation suggests around 3:41, and by any reasonable and objective standard, that is "not far off 3:45".

If you are interested in truth, then you should stop changing Baxter's statement to try and make it sound like he's saying something that he's not.


- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

He doesn't know about the other breweries, does he, folks?

M.

GBinOZ 7/7/2021:

"I have done some research and have found that there was a clock tower in the Albion Brewery. I haven't been able to determine if it was multi-faced or if it chimed. Apparently some Brewery clocks did chime, some only the hour and others every quarter."


If you have more precise information, by all means post it.

Some of the expansion to the Albion Brewery didn't occur until after 1893, but it is unclear what all was involved. We know Truman's brewery chimed in 1888, do you know for a fact that Albion's did?

By the way, the distance from the Buck's Row murder site to Truman's was about .5 miles as the crow flies, but the point is somewhat moot, since nowhere does Paul say how he determined the time; we only know that his estimation conflicts with that of every other witness, when properly evaluated.

[rjpalmer]

He's fascinated by the streetwalkers he hates -- so different from his saint of a mother, who keeps a clean and tidy house whatever the neighbourhood. And then come the Jews, moving in everywhere around him, making him listen to their jabber, running their own businesses, getting ahead, looking after each other, respecting extended family ties. So he goes to Doveton Street as an act of, as it were, Christian 'white flight' that means a smaller house in a less respectable area, but with fewer Jews.
M.

As for piss-taking, it sounds like you're channeling John Douglas on steroids.

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

Given some of the claims that times are being shifted from the testimony, I just thought I would present the estimated times (to minutes, dropping the seconds as obviously that's a degree of precision we don't need to argue over) and the testimony that these estimations would correspond to:

Estimated Time - Event – Testified time (witness)
3:33 : – Cross/Lechmere leaves home – “about 3:30” (Cross/Lechmere)
3:39 – Paul leaves home (2m 25s walk based upon distance and 3.2 mph walking speed) – “left home about 3:45” (Paul; 6m interval corresponding to “about”)
3:41 – Paul and Cross/Lechmere meet & discover the body – “not more than 4 minutes” – (Paul) referring to how long before they meet PC Mizen, estimated interval 3m 48s and "not far off 3:45" Baxter's summing up
3:45 – PC Mizen with Paul and Cross/Lechmere – 3:45 (PC Mizen)

• PC Neil discovers Nichols – 3:45 (PC Neil)
• PC Thain is called to crime scene – “about 3:45” (PC Thain)

3:46 – PC Thain is on his way to the doctors
3:46 – PC Mizen heads to crime scene (the encounter appears short, so I’ve used 1 minute for the carmen to alert PC Mizen to the woman they’ve seen, etc)
3:49 – PC Mizeen arrives at crime scene 3m 18s later (calculated from distance and 3.2 mph walking speed)
3:47/3:48 – PC Thain arrives at doctors
3:55/3:56: - Dr. Llewellyn leaves (previous interval based upon Dr. Blackwell’s “time to get ready” from the Stride case)
3:58/4:00 – Dr. Llewellyn arrives at the crime scene.

Note, I've got 2 sets of times for Dr. Llewellyn as I considered two possible routes for PC Thain to have travelled to the doctors, and of course, the same 2 options are open for the Dr's trip to the crime scene.

Estimating times, like Paul's leaving home, is not chosen at random, it's based upon measuring the distance and using the average walking speed for an adult. I can't "fudge" those aspects of how these times come out.

There are 3 points, though, where I do have to estimate things, how long the carmen examine the body (I went with 30 seconds as they really didn't seem to do much), how long PC Thain might have stayed at the crime scene (or the possibility of an interval between PC Neil finding the body and then summoning PC Thain - I've set those at 0, so this is a version that works in favour of Christer as it means PC Thain cannot get to the doctor's any sooner than what I've set these at), and how long it takes Dr. L. to "get up, get dressed, etc". That is the trickiest one. In my time line for the Stride case, though, I worked out how long Dr. Blackwell appears to have required, so I'm using that as my best estimate for "doctor prep time" - it's not arbitrary to make it fit, it's a value I estimated from another case which I'm reusing here.

And that ends up with the Doctor leaving home at 3:55 or 3:56, and arriving at the crime scene at 3:58/4:00 (the differences reflect the shorter vs longer travel routes available), and those correspond to Dr. L's testimony.

None of the estimations are "shifting" anything, nor am I fudging anything or misrepresenting any statements. Almost everything falls within a couple minutes of the "about X" times. The largest discrepancy is Paul's "about 3:45" for his departure time. The estimation of 3:39 is a 6 minute difference, which I would suggest is acceptable given his qualified time statement.

Christer has presented his notions above, and he's got all of the police times in the 3:50s, and claims he has to do this to make Dr. L's testimony fit. I suggest that it is not necessary to shift the sworn testimonies of the police, whose job required them to be aware of the time (PC Mizen was knocking people up after all), it simply requires the assumption that Dr. L. didn't sleep in his boots.

- Jeff