Evidence of innocence

[Mark J D]

If you have such a low opinion of ‘enthusiasts’, why are you wasting your time here?

As an additional response, I'd like to offer the thought that career professionals in criminology and medicine sometimes commit howlers in regard to this case that a mere buff never would. I've genuinely read one paper that actually got the victims mixed up. (A reminder there that 'peer review' isn't all it's cracked up to be.)

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The clock was very far removed from where Paul was, and there would have been other clocks much closer. But of course, one can always play the "why could there not have been a phantom killer"-game. But you know what I think of it.

Fish, don’t you think that it’s a little disingenuous to say the least to keep using the phrase ‘phantom killer’ in regard to any non-Lechmere suggestion? You are implying that those of us that don’t feel that Lechmere was guilty (which, let’s face it, is the majority of those interested in the subject after all) are suggesting some far fetched almost mythical figure. When in actual fact all that we are suggesting is a killer that we cannot put a name to. A suspect doesn’t become stronger merely because we can name him (and yes I understand that we can place Lechmere at the scene but we cannot show that this is more or less likely than someone else being at the scene)

What I don’t accept, and never will until such time that some positive proof emerges, is that an alternative scenario is any less likely. There isn’t a single fact that we know or a single reasonable assumption that we can make based on what is known, that precludes the simple suggestion that an unknown man (JTR) killed Polly Nichols shortly before Lechmere arrived at the scene. This suggestion eliminates any suggestion of an issue with blood. Indeed it’s entirely possible, as has been suggested numerous times, that the killer might have fled on hearing Lechmere’s approach (this also encompasses your point about the body not being displayed like the other victims)

Therefore there’s no proper evidence against Lechmere that couldn’t apply to an unknown killer. So why do we hold such suspicion against Lechmere? The main point of ‘suspicion’ is the so called gap but we know that this is an obvious fallacy created by moving times, narrowing gaps and suggesting that estimations have to be certain times. Any reasonable person has to conclude (and this is 100% unavoidable) that we cannot assume a gap of time. Saying if he left at x time and if he arrived at y time is an exercise in utter futility. We cannot state a positive from unknowns. How can this be debated. It’s just a fact. Yes Lechmere could have left home earlier but we can’t claim this as a known. Yes he could have lied about when he left home but we can’t claim this as a known. So if we remove the suggestion of a sinister gap which logic and reason tells us that we absolutely have to then what’s left to make us suspicious of him?

He gave the name Charles Allen Cross instead of Charles Allen Lechmere. It wasn’t an invented name but the name of his step father who for all that we know might have been more of a father to him than his real father. And if he was going to give a name as a piece of subterfuge why not Fred Smith or Barrington J Wilberforce? Why did he give his real address? Yes you might suggest an alternative explanation on the address but it’s only speculation. What we know for a fact was that his first names and address were known and we have nothing to show that he himself didn’t provide them.

So that leaves us with next to zero. We have a man in a spot where he had every reason to be at the time that he’d have been expected to have been there. He finds a body. Waits around for a second man to get there. They go and find a Constable. Then he shows up at the Inquest. And no one has yet provided an example of a serial killer butchering a woman 15 or 20 minutes before he was due to be at work and on a direct route to that workplace.

Where’s the suspicious behaviour Fish. I see absolutely none. In fact everything points to the fact that he simply found the body.

[Herlock Sholmes]

and I have an expert who has gone to great lenghts to negate that view by saying there is no definitive answer as to how long a body would take to bleed out which I am motre inclined to belive that an expert who gives a definitive specific time.

Without you reliant on your experts times your theory is blown out of the water, so it is not wrong to suggest she was killed between 3.15am-3.45am or even earlier than that.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Also Trevor, if the killer fled the scene say a minute before Lechmere got there the point about the blood vanishes into thin air.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Incorrect. I’m taking the witness and the coroner at their word. I’m not changing an iota. I don’t have to.

You on the other hand are changing both a key witness statement and the the time the coroner says the body was found.

Person A changes zero.

Person B changes 2 inconvenient data points.



Who is shaping events. A or B ?

You are. 100%. But let’s face it you have no choice but to do so. Constant manipulation and attempts at shoehorning.

Im tired of explaining to you about the concept of an estimation.

Just consult a dictionary Bob please and do us all and yourself a favour.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As an additional response, I'd like to offer the thought that career professionals in criminology and medicine sometimes commit howlers in regard to this case that a mere buff never would. I've genuinely read one paper that actually got the victims mixed up. (A reminder there that 'peer review' isn't all it's cracked up to be.)

M.

Anyone can make an error. Except Robert Paul apparently.

[Abby Normal]

From what I can see Whittington-Egan is just another enthusiast - he doesn't appear to have worked on any actual cases involving tracking down a serial killer. I put more faith in people who might actually know what they are talking about. I can see you have written a book and all that, but has any of that actually been subject to any sort of peer review by people who know what they are talking about?

I set you a challenge for this year if you are so confident in your case - write and submit an article to a leading journal about your Lech torso theory. As you don't rate the Keppel paper why don't you try for the same journal (Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling). I have done this a dozen times (nothing related to crime) and they are all published and I can tell you it is difficult. Your work will be blind peer reviewed and critiqued in some detail. You will then have to come up with satisfactory edits and replies to get it published. It will take the best part of a year. I look forward to reading your work.

On a side note, this whole 'flaps' similarity business is a non starter for me. If someone plonked a torso down in front of you and said remove the internal organs I can imagine cutting away flaps is an entire logical way to go about it. It is not diagnostic enough - anyone could have done the same. Even if they were related, show me one shred of evidence that indicates Lech committed any of these crimes. Oh hang on, he walked past the sites in his magic triangle...

hi wulf
then your well versed on the scientific studies on how rare post mortem type serial killers are, which both torsoman and the ripper definitely were. Add to that they both removed internal organs making them rarer still. add to that they both removed abdominal flesh in flaps(first pointed out by Debs, researcher extroidinaire).
And as fish mentioned, as far as I know, they are so rare that no two post mortem eviscerators have operated unrelated at the same time in the same city.

Pinchin torso was found in(or near the border) the lech triangle, right near where his mother lived, and he used to live. Lech is the only ripper suspect that age wise and proximity could fit the bill as the Torsoripper-which by the way IMHO is part of the signature of the ripper and torsoman. The vertical rip down the abdoman in both series.

[Dickere]

And if I’d said “not far off 6.00” it would easily include both 5.55 and 6.05 and all points in between. And I can say that Fish because I’m not trying to make an estimate into a known.

I'd agree, Herlock. Not far off to me implies close to, and perhaps is more likely to lean towards just after rather than before. Could be a few mins either way though, agree. And of course language changes over time so our interpretation now could be wrong.

Bearing in mind Lech was likely connected to railway times in some way, I think he'd have a good grasp of times.

[JeffHamm]

So if somebody asks me "When did you wake up this morning" and I answer "I don´t know, but it cannot have been far off six o clock", then the one certainty that can be had is that I could not have awoken by six o clock?

Thanks for straightening that out.

PS. Baxter could not say that it was 3.45 since he could not be certain that it was not instead 3.44 or 3.46. Both times, by the way, that are not far off 3.45.

Depends upon the circumstances. If you said "cannot have been far off six o'clock" because you did know that at 6:00 o'clock you were eating your breakfast, and knew you got up, went from your bed room, prepared a simple breakfast, and sat down with it just as the 6 am news came on the radio, then we know it wasn't 6:00 when you got up - 0% chance - because you had to use some time to do the other things. You're just saying those other things didn't take all that long as you recall.

In Buck's Row, Baxter has PC Neil stating that he was at the body at 3:45, and we have PC Mizen, not a great distance away, with the carmen at that time. Baxter also had Paul saying it was no more than 4 minutes for them to see the body and get to PC Mizen - an estimate that suggests it did not take them all that long to get to PC Mizen.

And as those two situations show, your suggestion that 3:45 is the most likely time is based upon flawed logic. It is, in fact, a less likely time than an unknown, but earlier, time.

Glad to clear that up for you.

- Jeff

[SuperShodan]

You are. 100%. But let’s face it you have no choice but to do so. Constant manipulation and attempts at shoehorning.

Im tired of explaining to you about the concept of an estimation.

Just consult a dictionary Bob please and do us all and yourself a favour.

When we look at our Bucks Row timeline there is estimation based on human error, time pieces being not being synchronised, people rounding up and suchlike.

One of the purposes of the inquest is to establish a timeline, like when the body was found, while taking everything above into account. I don’t see any reason not to trust that the coroner has arrived at 03.45 for good reason.

The coroner fixes the time the body was found at 03.45. This is not some woolly abstract. It’s as close as possible to the truth based on all the testimony and evidence he’s heard. If it was nearer 03.40 he would say so. He didn’t.

So to move this time any significant distance from 03.45, say to 03.40, means disputing the coroners findings. If the coroner isn’t sure of the time he would surely qualify his statement - the body was found between 03.40 and 03.45 or such like. He didn’t do this and he went with just one time - our singular 03.45. So we can assume he means it, give it take say a minute or two at most.

Moving on, we have our main witness Robert Paul who says he left home at or just before 03.45. This is not a man popping out for a pint of milk. He’s off to work and would be acutely aware of the time. I would suggest anyone who is obliged to be punctual at his work would have a good awareness of the time. He certainly wouldn’t be 7 minutes out for a 20 minute commute. We move beyond estimation to changing a crucial piece of evidence to suit a personal narrative.

Furthermore, Paul says he leaves at 03.45 or just before both to the press in an interview and later on at the inquest. To dispute this flies in the face of the evidence - most notably that he was in a hurry and rushing to work. Hardly the actions of a man who left early. Why can’t we accept he knows the time, what evidence is there that he’s wrong ? None. And why is he hurrying ? It seems clear that Paul was aware of the time, and was actually behind time and trying to make it up as he went.

The naysayers are only left with estimation, in this case blatantly fudging the times, or in Paul’s case a complete metamorphosis from being late to being early.

There is no good reason to change the inquest findings. Huge errors altering the timeline isn’t estimation. It’s a tacit acceptance that the timing incriminates Lechmere.

It’s not estimation, it’s just a clear bias. It’s having a pre conceived idea that Lechmere is innocent, and changing anything that points to the contrary.

[John Wheat]

I am not a hundred per cent sure, but I think the book you are looking for could be "Mr Atherston leaves the stage", which involves Whittington-Egan commenting on the torso murders. I have not read it myself, but I read a text - and I cannot remember where, sadly - where it was stated that Whittington-Egan was of the meaning that there was one killer only, and I think this book was the source.

Sorry I can´t be more specific.

I think you'll find Whittington-Egan currently believes that William Henry Bury was Jack the Ripper. It's in the preface of McPherson's book about Bury. The Trial of Jack the Ripper. I'm also assuming he currently believes that Jack and the Torso Killer were separate killers.

[Aethelwulf]

hi wulf
then your well versed on the scientific studies on how rare post mortem type serial killers are, which both torsoman and the ripper definitely were. Add to that they both removed internal organs making them rarer still. add to that they both removed abdominal flesh in flaps(first pointed out by Debs, researcher extroidinaire).
And as fish mentioned, as far as I know, they are so rare that no two post mortem eviscerators have operated unrelated at the same time in the same city.

Pinchin torso was found in(or near the border) the lech triangle, right near where his mother lived, and he used to live. Lech is the only ripper suspect that age wise and proximity could fit the bill as the Torsoripper-which by the way IMHO is part of the signature of the ripper and torsoman. The vertical rip down the abdoman in both series.

On the contrary, and as I said, I have no knowledge of anything to do with the scientific study of crime. My view on this is very simple and I think quite logical. Fisherman is saying the torsos and ripper and linked. Fisherman also quotes a fellow crime writer, again, as far as I can, and although probably knowledgeable, has not worked on one of these cases. Keppel, someone who has actually worked on serial killer cases, and says the torso at Pinchin Street is not linked. Perhaps just my background but I put more weight on that. His background looks more promising in answering this question to me. From wiki (something I would never normally advocate for research):

The "Ted Murders" marked the beginning of Robert Keppel's career as a detective. Witnesses from Lake Sammamish State Park provided information regarding a man named "Ted" who had talked to two young women that were declared missing. During the investigation, Keppel narrowed down a large list of suspects until he was left with 25, including Ted Bundy. He confronted Bundy, but Bundy dismissed the conversation'

'Keppel was asked to assist in the Green River Task Force for the investigation of a set of murders in Washington.'

All I am saying is this man has direct (applied) experience of such matters. Not unreasonably, I trust him over an amateur enthusiast with no applied experience. As I said, let us see Fish face the real test of getting his theory past people who can properly evaluate it. I'm not anti enthusiast at all, I'm just saying on this matter Fish is tinkering with trifles. As it happens I would also say the same about Bury. I think Steve Earp is the guy that has linked the Keppel signature analysis to Bury on his website. Good as it is, and I believe correct, it is meaningless as anyone can write anything on their own website. There is also another investigative journalist that has roped in a QC and pathologist to say Bury is guilty beyond question. Again, meaningless until it passes a proper test of those with the proper knowledge critique it.

[rjpalmer]

I think you'll find Whittington-Egan currently believes that William Henry Bury was Jack the Ripper. It's in the preface of McPherson's book about Bury. The Trial of Jack the Ripper. I'm also assuming he currently believes that Jack and the Torso Killer were separate killers.

Sadly, RWE died about five years ago, after writing his last book...which was an overview of various Ripper theories.

He remained non-committal throughout the book but has some positive things to say about several theories, including the Bury theory.

[JeffHamm]

Hi SS,

When we look at our Bucks Row timeline there is estimation based on human error, time pieces being not being synchronised, people rounding up and suchlike.

One of the purposes of the inquest is to establish a timeline, like when the body was found, while taking everything above into account. I don’t see any reason not to trust that the coroner has arrived at 03.45 for good reason.

The coroner fixes the time the body was found at 03.45. This is not some woolly abstract. It’s as close as possible to the truth based on all the testimony and evidence he’s heard. If it was nearer 03.40 he would say so. He didn’t.

So to move this time any significant distance from 03.45, say to 03.40, means disputing the coroners findings. If the coroner isn’t sure of the time he would surely qualify his statement - the body was found between 03.40 and 03.45 or such like. He didn’t do this and he went with just one time - our singular 03.45. So we can assume he means it, give it take say a minute or two at most.

This is the thing, Baxter does not fix the time of discovery at 3:45. At no point does Baxter say the body was discovered at 3:45, he specifically sums up the testimony by saying the discovery "could not be far off 3:45". He has, in evidence, PC Neil stating that he found the body at 3:45, and he has PC Mizen indicating that the carmen were with him at 3:45. He also has Paul giving an inexact estimation of how long it was between their discovery of the body and when they encountered PC Mizen, which was "no more than 4 minutes".

Therefore, Baxter has 3:45 entered into evidence as the point in time when the carmen are with PC Mizen, but he does not have entered into evidence a time for when the carmen were at the body, only Paul's statement that it was "no more than 4 minutes", but one cannot calculate a specific time from that because it's a range estimation.

So Baxter sums up the evidence he has to work with, and it comes out as "not far off 3:45", which is entirely fitting given what is entered into evidence.

We can estimate the time it takes to walk the distance from the crime scene to where PC Mizen was found, and that is indeed less than 4 minutes. Add a small amount of time for the carmen to do their check on Nichols, but not notice she's dead, etc, and we're still around the 4 minute mark (just shy, so still within Paul's testimony). As such, we can estimate the carmen appear to have discovered the body around 3:41, which lo and behold, is not far off 3:45.

3:41 is an approximation of course, but it is one that is based upon calculations we cannot really impose our subjectivity upon. We use an average walking speed, not a speed of our choice. We measure the distance, and there's nothing we can do about the time those two values produce.

The one aspect that is open to fudging would be how long it takes the carmen to examine the body. I've suggested 30 seconds, and even that might be a bit long, but any longer really makes it hard to understand how they didn't realise her head was nearly removed. But it wouldn't take all that long to "feel her hand, and pull her skirts down", with the conversations happening at the same time.

So I cannot agree with the suggestion that "So to move this time any significant distance from 03.45, say to 03.40, means disputing the coroners findings." at all. In fact, I would suggest that to hold to the carmen discovering the body "at 3:45", or even very close to it, is to dispute the coroner's findings.

Moving on, we have our main witness Robert Paul who says he left home at or just before 03.45.

Where does Paul ever say he left home "at 3:45"? The only time Paul I'm aware of that Paul says "at 3:45" is in the Lloyd's article, where he places himself in Bucks Row "at exactly 3:45".

At the inquest he says he left home "about/around 3:45". There may be some newspaper coverage of the same statement that leaves out the qualifier, but I believe the majority all include the qualifier.

This is not a man popping out for a pint of milk. He’s off to work and would be acutely aware of the time. I would suggest anyone who is obliged to be punctual at his work would have a good awareness of the time. He certainly wouldn’t be 7 minutes out for a 20 minute commute. We move beyond estimation to changing a crucial piece of evidence to suit a personal narrative.

Given the distance from his home, it would take him about 2m 25s to get to Buck's Row. So if the discovery was at 3:45, he still had to leave roughly two and a half minutes prior to that (3:42:35 type thing). So suggesting he may have left around 3:38 is hardly a big deal and takes into account his testimony of "not more than 4 minutes", which is also ignored by those arguing he was AT the body at 3:45 or that he left home AT 3:45.

And, based upon the distance from his home to work, leaving around 3:38 gives him roughly 5 minutes to spare, while leaving at 3:45, makes him late. A 5 minute buffer is a bit tight, but having no room to spare would be running late. The most we have are indicates the carmen are "behind time", and that is more consistent with having little room to spare than it is with actually being late.

Furthermore, Paul says he leaves at 03.45 or just before both to the press in an interview and later on at the inquest. To dispute this flies in the face of the evidence - most notably that he was in a hurry and rushing to work. Hardly the actions of a man who left early. Why can’t we accept he knows the time, what evidence is there that he’s wrong ? None. And why is he hurrying ? It seems clear that Paul was aware of the time, and was actually behind time and trying to make it up as he went.

Again, having only 5 minutes of a buffer would be a bit tight, but he's probably not going to be running.

The naysayers are only left with estimation, in this case blatantly fudging the times, or in Paul’s case a complete metamorphosis from being late to being early.

There is no fudging going on, other than the twisting of Baxter's statement to mean something it doesn't.

Moreover, we are all only left with estimations because apart from PC Neil and PC Mizen, nobody states exact times, but qualified times. Curiously, those exact statements are the ones being argued by Christer and yourself to be the very ones that have to be changed, while the qualified times are the ones that need to be turned into specific statements. If we're going to start making accusations of fudging, I would start there.

But, personally, I would prefer if we spoke of these differences as reflecting different interpretations of the evidence and we stop with the accusations, although I will reuse them (as I do here).

There is no good reason to change the inquest findings.

I agree. And twisting Baxter's statement to mean at 3:45 is doing just that.

Huge errors altering the timeline isn’t estimation. It’s a tacit acceptance that the timing incriminates Lechmere.

Where is there any huge error between the estimations and the testimony?

It’s not estimation, it’s just a clear bias. It’s having a pre conceived idea that Lechmere is innocent, and changing anything that points to the contrary.

Again, I would suggest that the timeline presented is not changing anything, but those who are arguing for Cross/Lechmere's guilt are changing everything.

Moreover, what is bizarre, is that there is no need for those arguing for Cross/Lechmere's guilt to change anything at all, other than Cross/Lechmere's stated time of departure. If I'm supposed to be so full of bias, why would I be pointing out the aspect of the timeline and testimony that would be the best point to focus upon? The "weak link" if you will? I'll tell you why, because I'm not determined to find Cross/Lechmere innocent or guilty. I am interested in trying to understand, as best we can, what events have to be explained - what happened.

- Jeff

[John Wheat]

Sadly, RWE died about five years ago, after writing his last book...which was an overview of various Ripper theories.

He remained non-committal throughout the book but has some positive things to say about several theories, including the Bury theory.

I doubt he was advancing the theory that the Ripper and the Torso Killer were one and the same though in his book.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When we look at our Bucks Row timeline there is estimation based on human error, time pieces being not being synchronised, people rounding up and suchlike.

Which you say but in practice completely disregard.

One of the purposes of the inquest is to establish a timeline, like when the body was found, while taking everything above into account. I don’t see any reason not to trust that the coroner has arrived at 03.45 for good reason.

He said that it occurred before 3.45. But of course as a Lechmere proposer you resort to a bit of shifty narrowing down. Par for the course.

The coroner fixes the time the body was found at 03.45. This is not some woolly abstract. It’s as close as possible to the truth based on all the testimony and evidence he’s heard. If it was nearer 03.40 he would say so. He didn’t.

He said it occurred before 3.45. Just to remind you. Maybe one day your default position will be one of honesty? We live in hope.

And no, you can’t apply a quantity of minutes. This is manipulation. As usual.

So to move this time any significant distance from 03.45, say to 03.40, means disputing the coroners findings. If the coroner isn’t sure of the time he would surely qualify his statement - the body was found between 03.40 and 03.45 or such like. He didn’t do this and he went with just one time - our singular 03.45. So we can assume he means it, give it take say a minute or two at most.

5 minutes is not a significant time in this context. To say that it is is a manipulation. Deja vu.

Moving on, we have our main witness Robert Paul who says he left home at or just before 03.45. This is not a man popping out for a pint of milk. He’s off to work and would be acutely aware of the time. I would suggest anyone who is obliged to be punctual at his work would have a good awareness of the time. He certainly wouldn’t be 7 minutes out for a 20 minute commute. We move beyond estimation to changing a crucial piece of evidence to suit a personal narrative.

Dishonest manipulation.

Furthermore, Paul says he leaves at 03.45 or just before both to the press in an interview and later on at the inquest. To dispute this flies in the face of the evidence - most notably that he was in a hurry and rushing to work. Hardly the actions of a man who left early. Why can’t we accept he knows the time, what evidence is there that he’s wrong ? None. And why is he hurrying ? It seems clear that Paul was aware of the time, and was actually behind time and trying to make it up as he went.

But it’s ok to dismiss the times stated by the Constable’s. Manipulation.

The naysayers are only left with estimation, in this case blatantly fudging the times, or in Paul’s case a complete metamorphosis from being late to being early.

There is no good reason to change the inquest findings. Huge errors altering the timeline isn’t estimation. It’s a tacit acceptance that the timing incriminates Lechmere.

It’s not estimation, it’s just a clear bias. It’s having a pre conceived idea that Lechmere is innocent, and changing anything that points to the contrary.

Estimations need at least a + or - of 5 minutes.

You appear to be incapable of taking an honest approach as your article clearly showed.

Stop manipulating the times. Stop talking nonsense.

Oh, and go get that dictionary and check out the definition of estimation.