Evidence of innocence

[rjpalmer]

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?

Good morning, Herlock. Okay, I am more than willing to stand corrected by anyone with better information, but here's what I see.

Image 1 shows the frontage of the Albion Brewery in the late 19th Century. Notice that the clock faces Whitechapel Road. It looks one-sided to me, but I'm not yet finding a clearer image from another angle. Note also that it is inset off the street.

Image 2 shows the same thing from the vantage point of the corner of Cambridge Heath Road. The building in the foreground is the Blind Begger Pub, 176 Whitechapel Road in 1888. This is marked in yellow in the map below; the clock tower will be marked with a red horseshoe. You can't actually see the clock tower in this particular photo because it is inset, as above in Image 1, and the surrounding buildings block it from view.

Image 3 shows the aerial view in 1888, with Robert Paul's route from Forster Street to Buck's Row. The tiny captions on the side of the brewery lists 14' brick walls all along the west side.

How is Paul going to see the clock? And if the clock doesn't chime (we don't know that it does--or at least I don't know) how is the Albion Brewery going to tell him it is 3:45?

This is probably old news to some, but there it is.

Cheers.

[MrBarnett]

Paul definitely wasn’t going to see that clock in 1888.

[Mark J D]

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?

What mattered to Paul was what time his employer thought it was when he arrived. A systematic error in a clock on his way there is something he'd learn to be pretty clear about, wouldn't you say?

M.

[Mark J D]

Paul definitely wasn’t going to see that clock in 1888.

To be honest, I was thinking more in terms of chimes: employers' clocks are largely a means of regulating the workforce and site activities, and hearing is better than vision for signalling quarter-hours to people around (and walking past) a site.

It's also worth remembering that there's a pub on the corner of Brady Street, and large warehouses all up the north side of Buck's Row.

While people with mischievous agendas are doing all they can to make Paul an out-and-out liar whose every word can be ignored, it seems to me that not only did he have no reason at all to lie about being late or about what time/s he saw/heard as he walked, but of all the people involved that night, he had the best reason to be keeping acutely touch with what the time was.

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good morning, Herlock. Okay, I am more than willing to stand corrected by anyone with better information, but here's what I see.

Image 1 shows the frontage of the Albion Brewery in the late 19th Century. Notice that the clock faces Whitechapel Road. It looks one-sided to me, but I'm not yet finding a clearer image from another angle. Note also that it is inset off the street.

Image 2 shows the same thing from the vantage point of the corner of Cambridge Heath Road. The building in the foreground is the Blind Begger Pub, 176 Whitechapel Road in 1888. This is marked in yellow in the map below; the clock tower will be marked with a red horseshoe. You can't actually see the clock tower in this particular photo because it is inset, as above in Image 1, and the surrounding buildings block it from view.

Image 3 shows the aerial view in 1888, with Robert Paul's route from Forster Street to Buck's Row. The tiny captions on the side of the brewery lists 14' brick walls all along the west side.

How is Paul going to see the clock? And if the clock doesn't chime (we don't know that it does--or at least I don't know) how is the Albion Brewery going to tell him it is 3:45?

This is probably old news to some, but there it is.

Cheers.

Makes perfect sense to me Roger

[Herlock Sholmes]

What mattered to Paul was what time his employer thought it was when he arrived. A systematic error in a clock on his way there is something he'd learn to be pretty clear about, wouldn't you say?

M.

Why? If he heard the clock every day and believed that a 3.45 chime was accurate (when it might have been slightly out) and he still got to work in good time what would it matter?

The point is though that even though Paul appears to mention this time in one source only we also have Mizen and Neil to consider. So how can we consider his time more reliable than theirs?

The overriding question should be - do the estimated timings that we have point, unavoidably, to a guilty or Lechmere or to anything suspicious? To claim this we would need know definite times. This is why I just can’t see why this gap idea is persisted with. Lechmere tells us that he left home at “about 3.30” and we just can’t be sure what time Paul actually arrived. So Lechmere leaves home at an approximate time and Paul arrived at an approximate time. Yes, this could have left a gap but it’s also entirely possible that there wasn’t.

Therefore we cannot claim a gap no matter how much we talk about it or suggest different combinations of times. The ‘gap’ should simply be scratched from any list of points in favour of Lechmere’s guilt. As long as estimates are involved (and they always will be) the suggestion is dead.

[MrBarnett]

Makes perfect sense to me Roger

As I say, the clock RJ presented us with wasn’t there in 1888. The brewery was a massive complex, there may have been more than one clock in it. More research required, perhaps.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I say, the clock RJ presented us with wasn’t there in 1888. The brewery was a massive complex, there may have been more than one clock in it. More research required, perhaps.

No problem Gary. We don’t know how Paul arrived at his time of course but isn’t it possible that he heard another clock chime but the clock was fast by 2 or 3 minutes? Or was it possible that he walked past a clock that was similarly out?

[Mark J D]

... The point is though that even though Paul appears to mention this time in one source only...

'Appears to'?

And: two sources.

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be honest, I was thinking more in terms of chimes: employers' clocks are largely a means of regulating the workforce and site activities, and hearing is better than vision for signalling quarter-hours to people around (and walking past) a site.

It's also worth remembering that there's a pub on the corner of Brady Street, and large warehouses all up the north side of Buck's Row.

While people with mischievous agendas are doing all they can to make Paul an out-and-out liar whose every word can be ignored, it seems to me that not only did he have no reason at all to lie about being late or about what time/s he saw/heard as he walked, but of all the people involved that night, he had the best reason to be keeping acutely touch with what the time was.

M.

There’s no agenda Mark, any less than an intent to see everything that occurred in Bucks Row and it’s environs in a sinister light. The fact is that we have no way of knowing how Robert Paul came by that time. He had no reason to lie as far as we know of course but we know for a fact that clocks weren’t synchronised and we know for a fact that any individual clock or watch can be slow or fast. How can you deny this very obvious and uncontroversial fact? So it’s entirely possible that he could have derived his time from a clock that was slightly wrong. I’m not claiming at a fact but just that it’s a plausible possibility.

Why was Paul correct but Mizen and Neil were wrong? How does that work? And this is the whole problem with this debate. Those that don’t believe Lechmere to have been the killer are simply being open about the fact that these times are estimates. We have to allow for a reasonable margin for error (both ways of course) Some of those on the pro-Lechmere side however show a marked tendency to claim as facts what cannot be known for certain. Also to try and narrow down estimates to arrive at a more convenient conclusion. So when we say “Lechmere said that he left the house at ‘about 3.30,’ yes, this might have been 3.25 but equally it might have been 3.35,” the pro-Lechmere side jump up and down saying that ‘about 3.30’ could have been no later that 3.32 or other such blatant nonsense.

I don’t see how anyone can accuse someone who is simply making reasonable, plausible allowances for margins for error as biased when they themselves are constantly claiming omniscience. The fact remains, and it’s an absolutely cast iron fact, that we don’t know what time Lechmere left home. We don’t know what time Paul arrived in Bucks Row. We don’t know what time Lechmere arrived at the crime scene. We don’t know the time that the two got to Mizen. We don’t know what time Neil arrived. We can estimate them all and I might be wrong and you might be right but equally the other way around.

Why is this very simple, very obvious truth annoying to those that believe Lechmere guilty. I can only assume that we all know why.

[Herlock Sholmes]

'Appears to'?

And: two sources.

M.

Fine if there were two sources. I was going on an earlier post when it was said that it was only in Lloyd’s. If that’s wrong fair enough I won’t argue with facts. We still can’t judge the accuracy of his claim though.

[MrBarnett]

No problem Gary. We don’t know how Paul arrived at his time of course but isn’t it possible that he heard another clock chime but the clock was fast by 2 or 3 minutes? Or was it possible that he walked past a clock that was similarly out?

Of course it is, Mike. All the timings should be taken with a pinch of salt I would say.

One thing to point out - it may have been already - is that time was of the essence in the railway business. It was the arrival of the railways that lead to the standardisation of time in Britain.

[Aethelwulf]

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.

I do take the profiles with a grain of salt, whereas I take the opinions all people on here (including myself) with a cement mixer of salt. The fact is, if this case was reopened, whose opinion would the police seek? Someone who has actually worked on relevant cases and has the relevant skills and experience, or a bunch of nobodies using a public forum? I hate to say this, but they wouldn't be beating a path to your or fisherman's door. Anyone can write anything on a forum - there is no review or check. At least the Keppel paper as been subjected to independent peer review prior to publishing. So yes, I think that signature of JtR paper is more worthy of consideration than Fisherman's Fantasy.

Are you not also pushing your own 'profile' with the 'triangle'?

The truth is, there is absolutely nothing incriminating, either in Buck's Row or his wider life, about Lechmere. Also, I just don't see how he can have killed Chapman, ditto Kelly. Jeff and others have explained on numerous occasions, very well I think, that he also did not have the opportunity to kill Nicholls.

[Fisherman]

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.

It is not treated as gospel at all. What I say and have always said is that since we do not know the sources of the given times, some cuation must be exercised. That stands.

However - and that is a very important however - since we do have the "exactly 3.45" statement, that belongs to the overall picture. Just as we cannot "treat it as gospel", we cannot treat it as non existant either. And the fact of the matter is that it fits perfectly with what Paul said at the inquest, so there is no much wriggle room offered in that respect. Of course, we can always suggest that the source for the timing would have been way wrong, but since there is also Llewellyns timing to weigh in, and since that timing must also have been wrong - in the same exact manner! - the proposition that Pauls timings was more or less correct must remain a strong one.

[Fisherman]

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?

Are you suggesting that LLewellyn made his call based on the brewery clock too, R J?

Elizabeth Longs story was - wisely - not prioritized over Phillips estimation in the eyes of the police and Donald Swanson. Consequently, ALL of her story is in doubt, the brewery clock included.