Evidence of innocence

[Herlock Sholmes]

Shattered? Not at all, Fish. See the above post. Unless you can show this clock chimed.

Gary can say that all the timings should be taken with a 'pinch of salt,' which is wise enough advice, since it is truly a fool's errand to analyze these small commonplace discrepancies and pretend that it proves there was "missing time," thus pointing to CAL's guilt.

But if one is going to analyze the times endlessly and repetitively, as seems to be the case, then it becomes abundantly clear that Robert Paul is the odd man out. CAL, Mizen, Neil, and Thain all do the Doveton dovetail in perfect sync; it is only Paul's strange '3:45' that throws a spanner onto the dance floor.

And if you look at the Hanbury Street murder, which has probably been most carefully analyzed by David Yost and Phil Sugden, we see the same thing: all the accounts dovetail perfectly, with the exception of Elizabeth Long, who appears to have been late to the party.

So why is it impossible that both Long and Paul may have been misled by a common source, making them both around 5 minutes too early in their timing?

Long directly said she heard the chime of the brewery clock while in Brick Lane. It is assumed this is Truman's up the road.

We don't actually know on what Paul based his estimate, but we do know with relative certainty it wasn't from seeing a clock along his route. Thus, hearing a chime might be a possibility. It's 3.35 a.m. Deadly quiet. Why couldn't he have heard Truman's from a half-mile away? I'm not married to the idea, but is it impossible?

There’s nothing impossible or even unlikely about this suggestion Roger. Paul doesn’t tell us how he arrived at his time but for some this time is taken over the other times given. Why is that I wonder? We just can’t assume that Paul was correct especially, as you’ve said, his time is the one that appears to be the fly in the ointment. The likeliest has to be that it wasn’t 3.45 when Paul arrived. We certain;y can’t use his time to prove the unprovable though which is what’s being attempted here.

So the likeliest is that Lechmere arrived at the body around 3.40-3.41. Paul arrived 3.41-3.42. Neil arrived at 3.45ish and Lech and Paul got to Mizen at 3.45-3.46. The killer fled the scene (as a killer would in those circumstances) just before Lechmere arrived on the scene (possibly disturbed by hearing his approach) No one can disprove this. No one can even call it remotely unlikely. Remind me again why Lechmere is so suspicious Roger.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Didn't it used to be said that a Cockney was someone within six miles of the 'Bow Bells' because, presumably, one could hear the bells from that distance?

But it's ludicrous that Paul could have heard the Truman brewery clock from .5 miles away?

Maybe, I don't know. I do remember that there was some effort to ascertain what sort of chime this particular clock gave out (Westminister, etc) because one theory was that Elizabeth Long mistook 3:15 for 3:30. Somewhere someone must know.

Maybe someone had turned the volume down Roger?

[Abby Normal]

Oh, don´t be shy - why not claim it IS definitive? Otherwise I may just point out that Keppel was a criminal profiler, a profesion that has proven itself unreliable in the extreme. But you should not pit Keppel against me, you should pit him against Whittington-Egan, who spent a lifetime researching the Ripper and Torso cases.
Refresh my memory, please - how much time did Keppel spend on these cases?
You see, that kind of stuff was never going to work in the first place. You could have PM:d me, and I would have told you in advance.

As a very small and humble aside, yes, I am "an enthusiast", and yes, I can be referred to as "an armchair hobbyist", I guess. But I have written numerous articles on the subject, I have writtena a book on it, I have made a documentary about the case, and I am a journalist who writes about old criminal cases over here is Sweden for a magazine with that particular scope. I am entertaining the hope that this has given me some amount of insight about the case, over-ambitious though it may sound.
How about you?

Hi Fish
Good post. Did whittington egan-think the ripper and torso cases were by the same man?

[Fisherman]

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.

As for the timings, here we go again:

1. IF Paul was in Bucks Row at 3.45-3.46, then..

2. ... it took him four minutes to examin the body and reach Mizens platform. 3.49-3.50. And then ...

3. ... it would have taken Mizen another four minutes to briefly discuss with Lechmere, finish his knocking up errand and get to the murder site. 3.53-3.54, at which time...

4. ...Thain would already have disappeared, en route to Llewellyn, 3.52-3.53. And that departure time ...

5. ... would take him to the practice at around 3.55. Which was what Llewellyn initially said was the time Thain arrived.

This is in line with what Baxter said (the time at which the body was found could not be far off 3.45), what Swanson said (3.45. The body is found by Lechmere) and what the Daily News said (the murder was committed between 3.15 and 3.45).

[SuperShodan]

When we are discussing the time Paul left home it’s worth mentioning than in the press reports (18th September) of Pauls inquest testimony, he is hurrying in most reports. The Times, Daily News, Evening Standard, Telegraph et al Paul hurrying along is a common phrase that runs through the articles.

Then we have Lloyd’s interview, just 24 hours after the event, where Paul also describes hurrying along. So it seems safe to assume Paul is indeed in a hurry. And why would anyone hurry to work ? They would do so if they were running late, not if they left early.

So when we are looking at the time Paul leaves, and he says to the press and at the inquests it’s 03.45, then it all fits.

If Paul leaves at 03.38 he has plenty of time, if Paul leaves at 03.45 he has to get a move on.

I would suggest that it’s very unlikely Paul leaves early at 03.38 and yet also has to hurry. I would say these too points are mutually exclusive.

[rjpalmer]

Paul doesn’t tell us how he arrived at his time but for some this time is taken over the other times given. Why is that I wonder?

Abberline flat-out states that CAL and Paul were with Polly Nichols at 3:40.

And if anyone was going to obsessively analyze the timings, it was going to be the Detective Inspector brought in by Scotland Yard.

Time to move on.

[MrBarnett]

But when you posted your image of the wrong clock, you had no idea of what was there previously. And your 14ft wall is only significant if there were no higher structures within the massive complex that might have contained clocks.

It’s rather odd that you seem to challenge my use of ‘massive compex’ and yet provide us with a Goad map that leaves out all of the detail of the complex.

I’ve never really researched the Watneys brewery. When I was younger and a dedicated real ale drinker the word ‘Watneys’ was considered rather offensive.

[Fisherman]

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.

I hope the police would not go on WHO promotes a theory but instead on what the facts used to promote that theory are. So:

A policeman: Hey, there´s a guy who was seen all alone at one of the murder sites by somebody else. And it seems he also walkes right through the area where most of the other murders occurred! Plus, look: that Berner Street victim was killed in a block adjacent to his mother´s place, more or less!

Another policeman: Bollocks. Somebody had to find the body, right? And the area is crammed with people, so many will have walked past the murder sites, you dummy! Now, here´s a man of REAL interest! Look, he was a sailor who may have been in London on those occasions. And his lawyer says he told him that he did for those ladies! And how about this guy - he killed his wife and cut her open in Dundee! Wait, wait! Here´s a man WHO KILLED HIMSELF after the Kelly murder! That does it!

So you don´t think Lechmere had the opportunity to kill Nichols?

I see.

Now thats damning.

[Fisherman]

A ‘possibility’ isn’t nearly good enough because the ‘possibility’ exists that he was wrong. He could have said ‘exactly 3.45’ to 100 different people and it still would come close to meaning that he was correct because we don’t know (we can’t know) how he arrived at that time. It might easily have been a clock that was a very few minutes out. Then of course we have to ask why his time is more reliable than the times of 2 Constable’s? These are simply unknowns.

Paul’s time is no more or less strong than Neil and Mizen’s. We can’t narrow down to suit. The timings don’t point to anything sinister and they certainly don’t prove anything.

The point I made was primarily that you claimed that I treat his "exactly 3.45" as "gospel". What you think about the potential uncertainty of the times does not touch on that.

[Fisherman]

Thanks, Gary. You may have missed my disclaimer in Post #5088:

“Some of the expansion to the Albion Brewery didn't occur until after 1893”

In the print you posted, it shows the older clock in basically same location—facing Whitechapel Road.

Only it's even smaller and lower!




My point remains the same. And what other clock is Paul going to see in this “massive complex”?

The map from 1890 shows "Brick Wall 14’ high" and "15’ pile of coal" all along his route, and it’s pitch black at 3.36 a.m. (my estimate)

Why would Paul need to see the clock at all? Because it may or may not have struck the quarter hour?

[MrBarnett]

The ‘massive complex’:

[Fisherman]

Shattered? Not at all, Fish. See the above post. Unless you can show this clock chimed.

Gary can say that all the timings should be taken with a 'pinch of salt,' which is wise enough advice, since it is truly a fool's errand to analyze these small commonplace discrepancies and pretend that it proves there was "missing time," thus pointing to CAL's guilt.

But if one is going to analyze the times endlessly and repetitively, as seems to be the case, then it becomes abundantly clear that Robert Paul is the odd man out. CAL, Mizen, Neil, and Thain all do the Doveton dovetail in perfect sync; it is only Paul's strange '3:45' that throws a spanner onto the dance floor.

And if you look at the Hanbury Street murder, which has probably been most carefully analyzed by David Yost and Phil Sugden, we see the same thing: all the accounts dovetail perfectly, with the exception of Elizabeth Long, who appears to have been late to the party.

So why is it impossible that both Long and Paul may have been misled by a common source, making them both around 5-7 minutes too late their estimates?

Long directly said she heard the chime of the brewery clock while in Brick Lane. It is assumed this is Truman's up the road.

We don't actually know on what Paul based his estimate, but we do know with relative certainty it wasn't from seeing a clock along his route. Thus, hearing a chime might be a possibility. It's 3.35 a.m. Deadly quiet. Why couldn't he have heard Truman's from a half-mile away? I'm not married to the idea, but is it impossible?

You asked why Long and Paul would not have made the same mistake, consulting the same clock. Here´s what Long had to say about her chosen timepiece:

"The Foreman of the jury: What brewer's clock did you hear strike half-past five? - The brewer's in Brick-lane."

So if Paul consulted the Bricks Lane Brewery clock (hands up, anybody who thinks he may have), it seems he would have heard it. He would certainly not have seen it, anyway. Not from Foster Street and Bucks Row.

[Fisherman]

You are transplanting a meaning that doesn’t exist Fish.

’Not far from 3.45’ simply (and only) means some time close to 3.45. ‘Close’ is not a definite. It means ‘near to’ or ‘not far away from.’ The independent data that he had was PC Neil, PC Mizen and then Llewellyn telling him that she hadn’t been dead long.

There is no ‘likeliest time.’ Any time between 3.40 and 3.45 is a possibility and is equally supported by what information that we have. Deliberately trying to narrow times down won’t work I’m afraid. It just creates the impression that this is a determined effort.

Not a single timing damages Lechmere in any way.

Not far from 3.45 means some way from 3.45 but not far from.

But Baxter did not say "it was not far off 3.45", he said that it "cannot have been far off 3.45", and that means that he favours 3.45 but is willing to accept some little deviation from that time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Abberline flat-out states that CAL and Paul were with Polly Nichols at 3:40.

And if anyone was going to obsessively analyze the timings, it was going to be the Detective Inspector brought in by Scotland Yard.

Time to move on.

Exactly. But of course the inconvenient will be dismissed. It’s glaringly obvious that all we can say is that the body was discovered before Neil arrived…..so before 3.45. Abberline said 3.40 so due to his position in the investigation far more weight should be attached to his opinion. A deliberate attempt at narrowing this time down is a waste of time.

[rjpalmer]

in the press reports (18th September) of Pauls inquest testimony, he is hurrying in most reports.

Have you never, in your long life, told someone that you 'had to run' because you didn't want to stand there talking to them?

Think of the context. Paul and CAL left a woman, who they didn't know for certain was dead, raped, or unconscious, in a dark street and continued off to work.

Now they have to explain their behavior to the world.

Are they going to admit to the inquest and the press 'well, to be honest, I did have another five minutes at my disposal, perhaps I should have stayed,' or are they going to attempt to explain-away their somewhat callous behavior, as they did originally to one another, by saying 'I was behind time'

'You see, Mr. Coroner, I am normally not only a Good Samaritan, but a Great Samaritan, but on this particularly morning I was, alas, running awfully late.'

To each his own, but that's how I tend to read it.