Evidence of innocence

[rjpalmer]

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

No; he barely mentions the Pinchin Street case in passing. Ditto the Whitehall case. It's basically just an extensive overview of other people's theories.

It's a pity one can't obtain his first book on the Whitechapel Murders without shelling out $200-$300--if one can even find it.

[JeffHamm]

I just want to make it clear, in my post #5173, where I say

"Again, I would suggest that the timeline presented is not changing anything,..."

I should have included something like "what the timeline provides are approximations/estimations for the qualifiers by using the distances, and estimated speeds, to objectively obtain a time (i.e. do maths using those values). We can then compare those estimated values and see if the qualifiers we have in testimony are appropriate, and they are. Therefore, we have nothing to suggest there is conflict within the entire collection of the testimonies regarding to the times and locations, as stated." That is what I mean by "not changing anything", obviously by providing an estimated time that's not restating the testimony exactly, and given the tendency for people to focus upon phrasings rather than underlying meaning and intent, I thought it best to clarify that statement. I admit, it's sometimes difficult to predict what tangent may arise though.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just want to make it clear, in my post #5173, where I say

"Again, I would suggest that the timeline presented is not changing anything,..."

I should have included something like "what the timeline provides are approximations/estimations for the qualifiers by using the distances, and estimated speeds, to objectively obtain a time (i.e. do maths using those values). We can then compare those estimated values and see if the qualifiers we have in testimony are appropriate, and they are. Therefore, we have nothing to suggest there is conflict within the entire collection of the testimonies regarding to the times and locations, as stated." That is what I mean by "not changing anything", obviously by providing an estimated time that's not restating the testimony exactly, and given the tendency for people to focus upon phrasings rather than underlying meaning and intent, I thought it best to clarify that statement. I admit, it's sometimes difficult to predict what tangent may arise though.

- Jeff

Some people get very queasy when the word ‘estimate’ is mentioned Jeff. They start suggesting things like “about 3.30 can’t have been any later that 3.32.” Or “close to 3.45 can only mean 3.44 or 3.45.” You know, the kind of tosh we get from posters who claim that the ones that are biased are the posters who a) allow a reasonable margin for error, and b) don’t claim to know what can’t be known. Frankly, logic and reason is wasted on some obsessive.

[rjpalmer]

An 1880 case tossed out of court because the copper relied on a Brewery Clock. "Every policeman ought to own his own watch!

[JeffHamm]

Hi Herlock,

Some people get very queasy when the word ‘estimate’ is mentioned Jeff. They start suggesting things like “about 3.30 can’t have been any later that 3.32.” Or “close to 3.45 can only mean 3.44 or 3.45.” You know, the kind of tosh we get from posters who claim that the ones that are biased are the posters who a) allow a reasonable margin for error, and b) don’t claim to know what can’t be known. Frankly, logic and reason is wasted on some obsessive.

I don't have a problem if people want to debate about whether or not X o'clock is reasonable if testimony says "about Y o'clock". The difference between the estimated value for X compared to the stated value of Y boils down to how large a margin the qualifier "about" refers to. That's a difference of opinion unless someone can produce a study where there's data on the matter (not anecdotes). At that point, it's best to just agree to disagree.

In my opinion, knowing that people are really very bad at estimating durations, and the margins of error are huge, I have no problem with "about", and "around" or "just before" or "not far off" being viewed as easily encompassing an approximation that results in a 10 minute error. What actually surprises me is how small the differences between the approximated times and the stated qualified reference time. To me, that does tend to suggest the idea that PC Neil, PC Mizen, PC Thain, and Paul, all who state times either at, or qualified around, 3:45 could indeed be referencing a common clock. The only way that could be would be if they all heard a common chime (the alternative, of course, is that they are referencing different clocks, but they happen to be fairly well in sync, which of course could also occur). Both of those are entirely speculative, of course, as nowhere in the testimony does anyone state what they based their time on, so I'm just trying to cover the various possibilities (if not cover every possible variation). While there is a clock in the vicinity that might have chimed, we don't know if it did sound the quarter hour, so it's something worth pursuing. If it could be proven it (or some other nearby clock) did chime, and that it was known to sound the quarter hour, that this would be useful knowledge for us to have. Until then, it's just another one of the possible realities and to build upon speculation starts moving into unstable ground.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi rj,

An 1880 case tossed out of court because the copper relied on a Brewery Clock. "Every policeman ought to own his own watch!

Interesting. And people should take note, the dispute between the "clock times" and "actual times" was 35 minutes in the extreme (the clock inside read 11:35, but the defendant claimed the clock's were wrong and it was only 11:00!. If this range of descrepancy was sufficient to have a case thrown out, it is clear that the courts recognized the problem of clock's being "out of sync". We should take note of that, particularly given most of the discrepancies we're talking about are in the order of roughly 5 minutes, and so easily accounted for if witnesses are basing their statement as to the hour on different clocks. And also, while the dispute is about 30 minutes, the difference between the recorded times of the brewery clock and the one in the bar was indeed actually 5 minutes.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

Hi rj,



Interesting. And people should take note, the dispute between the "clock times" and "actual times" was 35 minutes in the extreme (the clock inside read 11:35, but the defendant claimed the clock's were wrong and it was only 11:00!. If this range of descrepancy was sufficient to have a case thrown out, it is clear that the courts recognized the problem of clock's being "out of sync". We should take note of that, particularly given most of the discrepancies we're talking about are in the order of roughly 5 minutes, and so easily accounted for if witnesses are basing their statement as to the hour on different clocks. And also, while the dispute is about 30 minutes, the difference between the recorded times of the brewery clock and the one in the bar was indeed actually 5 minutes.

- Jeff

Sounds like the pub clock was set fast - a very common procedure.

People should also take note that the constable stressed the point that he got back to the station at 12.40. Presumably it was only 5/10 mins away from the pub.

The fact that the pub door had been closed suggests it was past closing time.

[MrBarnett]

Sounds like the pub clock was set fast - a very common procedure.

People should also take note that the constable stressed the point that he got back to the station at 12.40. Presumably it was only 5/10 mins away from the pub.

The fact that the pub door had been closed suggests it was past closing time.

People should also take note that the PC had warned the Mrs Cormack that she was keeping late hours the previous night. Why didn’t she mention then that she co-ordinated her clock with the brewery clock which was half an hour fast. And do we really imagine this PC walked his beat with no clear idea of what the time was?

[JeffHamm]

Hi MrBarnett,

Sounds like the pub clock was set fast - a very common procedure.

People should also take note that the constable stressed the point that he got back to the station at 12.40. Presumably it was only 5/10 mins away from the pub.

The fact that the pub door had been closed suggests it was past closing time.

That maybe so, but the court accepted and dismissed the case based upon a dispute of up to 35 minutes. They wouldn't do that if it was accepted that all clocks were generally "in sync". And pubs also may shut their doors early on slow nights even though they are legally entitled to continue sales, which is what the defence was claiming, and the defence won that case. Now, winning a case and being true are, of course, not the same thing, but it shows that the courts accepted the problem of desync in clocks, and we should recognize the size of the error they accepted at that time.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

... And do we really imagine this PC walked his beat with no clear idea of what the time was?

Well, that seems to be the basis for Christer's argument - the PCs were all wrong, and Paul, for some reason that has never adequately been explained, was the keeper of the one true time.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Well, that seems to be the basis for Christer's argument - the PCs were all wrong, and Paul, for some reason that has never adequately been explained, was the keeper of the one true time.

- Jeff

because he was trying to get to work, and knew the time having just left his house, and its corroborated by the coronor who heard all the testimony?

anyway after all the time minutia ad nauseum, im right back where i always was. paul was in bucks row about 3:45, and if lech isnt lying, he left home about 3:30, give or take a couple of minutes.

[MrBarnett]

Hi MrBarnett,



That maybe so, but the court accepted and dismissed the case based upon a dispute of up to 35 minutes. They wouldn't do that if it was accepted that all clocks were generally "in sync". And pubs also may shut their doors early on slow nights even though they are legally entitled to continue sales, which is what the defence was claiming, and the defence won that case. Now, winning a case and being true are, of course, not the same thing, but it shows that the courts accepted the problem of desync in clocks, and we should recognize the size of the error they accepted at that time.

- Jeff

Pubs are legally obliged to allow customers to drink on the premises during opening hours.

So are you suggesting that the pub regularly kept its clock 35 minutes fast? 5/10 minutes was quite common, but 35 minutes? Extremely unlikely.

[MrBarnett]

Well, that seems to be the basis for Christer's argument - the PCs were all wrong, and Paul, for some reason that has never adequately been explained, was the keeper of the one true time.

- Jeff

By 30/35 minutes? You know full well Christer is not suggesting anything so extreme.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d say that Lechmere probably left home between 3.25 and 3.35. and found Nichols body between 3.40 and 3.45.

I don’t think that we can say anymore than these without tipping it too far one way or another to suit (which some are blatantly doing followed by hollow claims that it’s others that are being biased which is beyond bizarre.)

This leaves us with zero evidence of a gap. It’s not physically impossible that there could have been but equally there might not have been one. Therefore reason tells us that no gap can be claimed because it’s an unknown. And with no gap there’s nothing suspicious about Lechmere and every single thing fits with him finding a body.

[JeffHamm]

Pubs are legally obliged to allow customers to drink on the premises during opening hours.

So are you suggesting that the pub regularly kept its clock 35 minutes fast? 5/10 minutes was quite common, but 35 minutes? Extremely unlikely.

Hmmm, I don't think my point is coming across. I'm not arguing that the time really was 11:00, or even that she wasn't serving after hours, only that the courts recognized that due to the inaccuracies of the clocks at the time, it could not be proven she was. Whether or not she really was guilty is irrelevant for that point, what is relevant is the indication that clock sync discrepancies were sufficiently large that the courts acknowledged them.

Really? So you're saying it is illegal for a pub to close early?

- Jeff