Evidence of innocence

[JeffHamm]

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

Good thing I didn't say Christer was arguing for 30/35 minute errors by the police then. What I did say, in response to your question about whether or not a PC would know what time it was while on his beat, was that was the basis for Christer's argument.

Christer has posted times where he's suggesting shifting PC's testimony by over 5 minutes. I've argued that the PCs would know what time it was, and given reasons for that argument (their job required them to note the time; when events happen, their job requires them to note the time things happened, while Cross/Lechmere and Paul are only going to have the clock time brought to their attention days later when asked about the events). That's why I do not shift their times and work from there based upon distances and average walking speeds. And everything else fits within the range of accuracy we can expect given the inexactness of the statements.

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

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.

I certainly agree with you in principle.

We call it 'bar time' on this side of the pond--I don't know if you have a phrase for it? The bartender sets his clock 5-10 minutes fast so he can 'cut off' a complaining customer before closing time and get him out the door before 'real' time hits, so he won't be in violation of the law. As you say, standard procedure.

But in this case, if this clock was deliberately set 5 minutes fast (not 35 minutes fast) to stay within the letter of the law, it does raise the question why the publican is nonetheless sneaking out beer through a side door after closing time. Maybe his clock was simply wrong?

Anyway, my actual interest in the article was the bit about the constable figuring time by a public clock, and the magistrate (or in this case, the mayor) not thinking that was good enough. As if a policeman's personal watch would be guaranteed to be accurate!

[JeffHamm]

Hi Abby Normal,

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.

Indeed, and that is what the recreation suggests as well. The recreation estimates that Paul was in Buck's Row at 3:41, which is indeed "about 3:45", and Cross/Lechmere left home at 3:33, which is 3:30 plus 3 minutes, both of which are entirely consistent with what you said.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

I certainly agree with you in principle.

We call it 'bar time' on this side of the pond--I don't know if you have a phrase for it? The bartender sets his clock 5-10 minutes fast so he can 'cut off' a complaining customer before closing time and get him out the door before 'real' time hits, so he won't be in violation of the law. As you say, standard procedure.

But in this case, if this clock was deliberately set 5 minutes fast (not 35 minutes fast) to stay within the letter of the law, it does raise the question why the publican is nonetheless sneaking out beer through a side door after closing time. Maybe his clock was simply wrong?

Anyway, my actual interest in the article was the bit about the constable figuring time by a public clock, and the magistrate (or in this case, the mayor) not thinking that was good enough. As if a policeman's personal watch would be guaranteed to be accurate!

Of course there’s a difference between having a pub full of rowdy drinkers after hours and slipping a half pint out through a back door after time has been called. Or, what is known as a ‘lock-in’ over here - a few regulars, often including local cops, remaining behind behind closed doors and with the lights dimmed. Ah, those were the days!

[harry]

I doubt the times will ever be a factor in proving either guilt or innocence against anyone in the Nichols murder.So starting with the knowledge of Cross standing in the road a short distance from Nichols body,and being observed so by Paul,what evidence of is there.Against anyone?No eyewitness to the murder itself.No physical evidence that can be traced to any person,and also linked to the crime.No evidence of anyone being in the victim's company prior to the murder,or at the time of the murder.No admission of committing the murder made by anyone.
Criticism is heaped on the police,but without evidence of the sort listed above,what did they have ?.Nothing.No reasonable suspicion that is for sure.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Harry,

I doubt the times will ever be a factor in proving either guilt or innocence against anyone in the Nichols murder.So starting with the knowledge of Cross standing in the road a short distance from Nichols body,and being observed so by Paul,what evidence of is there.Against anyone?No eyewitness to the murder itself.No physical evidence that can be traced to any person,and also linked to the crime.No evidence of anyone being in the victim's company prior to the murder,or at the time of the murder.No admission of committing the murder made by anyone.
Criticism is heaped on the police,but without evidence of the sort listed above,what did they have ?.Nothing.No reasonable suspicion that is for sure.

I agree, the timings can all be viewed as explainable by either a guilty or innocent Cross/Lechmere (other than his departure from home time of course; if he's guilty, he would have to leave earlier, but probably not by all that much if he met Nichols in Bucks Row - though that idea gets a lot of criticism. If it is thought he picks her up in Whitechapel, he has to leave that much sooner and get her back to that location, without being seen.

As we do not know how, or if, the police verified his departure time, his statement is not corroborated by anyone else. The fact that it would fit the rest of the testimonies could easily be explained because he knows that route - he walks that way to work, so would be able to work out the time to say he left.

After that, whether he's guilty or not, the rest of the times don't differentiate between his guilt or innocence. But the fact is, his stated time fits an innocent explanation, and there is no evidence that he lied. It could be speculated that he did of course, and there's no evidence to counter that speculation, but there's no evidence that he did, so no evidence to support that speculation either. We're into the unknown at that point.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

"3.46. Thain is on his way to the doctors"

Guesswork, I´m afraid.

Yes, as PC Thain just says he was called to the scene at about 3:45, so there could be some minutes of delay involved before he's even called by PC Neil. But, PC Neil does say he sent him immediately to fetch the doctor upon arrival. While that doesn't preclude a minute or two of them interacting, if I were to have included that no doubt you would be arguing he said immediately, or that I just made up a delay to "use up time".

So I "guessed" a value that gives your theory the best possible chance. I'm guessing in your favour. Are you suggesting I should delay these things. (By the way, the calculations with 0 delays would have PC Thain heading for the doctor before 3:46, but the seconds are getting close to it. Since I'm presenting to the minute here, that becomes 3:46).

And again, if Thain left at 3.46, he would arrrive at Llewellyns practice at 3.48. Llewellyn said that he was called to Bucks Row by Thain at either approximately 3.55 or approximately 4.00. If we accept 3.57.30 as a Solomonic mediary time, then. Thain arrived nine and a half minutes too early.

You are making the assumption that Dr. L's 3:55/about 4:00 refer to the time PC Thain knocked on the door. We have no basis for considering that as the only option because Dr. L. never states explicitly when he checks his watch during the episode that he's called to the scene. Rather, as per Dr. Blackwell, he may be referring to the time he arrives at the crime scene, which is also consistent with his statement (called to the scene could indicate when he himself gets "to the scene"), or possibly when he leaves his place to start going to the scene. Both of those events are where he's more likely to check his watch than the point he hears a knock at his door. And those times do emerge from the recreation, reflecting the approximation of his departure and his arrival at the scene. Therefore, there is no problem with Dr. L's times either.

And yes, we can use the times as juggling balls if we feel like it.

You are much more adept at that than I, so I'll leave the juggling to you. I prefer to stick as close to the actual statements as I can, and wait for evidence they produce non-realistic outcomes. So far they haven't.

It´s just that I don´t feel like it. I am not much of a juggler, and I recognize that there is a very bad risk that I would drop the balls. You are seemingly much less daunted by such a prospect.

You're far too humble. Your juggling skills far exceed my own.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

Interesting how one can easily construct a diagram of coincidences to make someone appear guilty. I can’t make a triangle or a fish, but I can do a pretty good imitation of a parallelogram.




The red dots are murder sites, the blue dots are spots Deimshitz and some members of the club are known to have been associated with.

Note: I haven’t included the close proximity of Deimshitz’s pony’s stable to Pinchin Street torso on this map.

I wonder, with a bit of research, how many other geometric shapes someone could come up with to show links to suspects?

For example, Paul claimed he went to Covent Garden for his work. Wouldn’t that take him through the “killing fields”?


If we are going to go with this sort of thing, I’d much prefer Jeff’s more detailed methods.

[drstrange169]

It’s difficult to know who Christer is trying to fool, us or himself.

Post after post he avoids the difficult questions.
Post after post he says he will answer these questions.
Post after post I ask them.
This usually prompts Christer to disappear for a while, on returning, presumably he assumes everyone has forgotten his failure to answer and disingenuously claims he is now happy to answer any question.

And so the circle continues.

The old wheel turns, and the same spoke comes up. It's all been done before, and will be again.
Arthur Conan Doyle


Christer’s post # 4984

>> As I say, list your questions and I will answer them. <<

That would be nice, but since you didn’t answer when I asked in
Post #4155
01-06-2022, 08:07 PM

And you didn’t answer when I asked in
post#4203
01-07-2022, 09:39 AM

And again in
Post#4210
01-07-2022, 03:56 PM

And yet again in
Post#4315
01-09-2022, 09:39 AM

Still no luck in
4318
01-09-2022, 02:13 PM

In desperation I tried once more in
Post#4373
01-10-2022, 08:58 AM

And that’s just the recent ones!


>>The only person fearing something here is you, who prefer to make the kind of untrue claims you do to simply providing me with a list.<<

As the above shows only one of us is writing untrue posts and here’s a hint, it’s demonstrably not me.

So how about it Christer and honest answer this time or are you going to disappear again, only to come back as Bill Murray or Andie MacDowell?


>>Then again, the last time you DID provide me with questions, you did not like the answers I gave.<<

NO, as the above shows, the last I provided questions, you didn’t answer despite promising to.

And the time before that and the time before that and the time before that and the time before that etc etc.


>>So go ahead, ask away! I have all the answers I need and then some.<<

Consider the above asked, Not holding my breath for answers though.



On to Christer’s post # 4986

>> they did not find out his registered name. That is a very clear implication of how Lechmere was never investigated in any depth at all. <<

A clear implication, really, who was going to tell them his other name? The school? The electoral commission?

If they asked his work – answer it seems, Cross.

If they went to his house asking if a Charles allen Cross lived there would Elizabeth say no?

Who else was relevant to his story that morning?


<<Plus, of course, whereas we know that Paul and Richardson and Barnett were hauled over the coals, we have no source at all mentioning any questioning at all of Lechmere.<<


Could you provide us with the police reports that state Paul and Richardson were “hauled over the coals”?

Since you believe Swanson is an unimpeachable source, could you tell us where in his reports he wrote that Paul and Richardson were “hauled over coals”?

If these people were investigated and as you claim,“hauled over coals” yet no record of that investigation exists in the police files, then we cannot say with any certainty that Cross was not investigated.


>>Althoug the rabbit regularly returns to bite your ass.<<

Hardly likely, I’m Australian.

https://webarchive.slwa.wa.gov.au/we...l/rabbits.html


Christer’s post # 4988

>>You should not pay much attention to Dustys ramblings. Nobody did when they were originally published.<<


More porkies?

Don’t you remember you were so obsessed with it, you set up a thread to discuss it?

Your reputation for honesty is taking a real hammering lately.



Christer’s post # 4989

>>Let´s try and be a little more honest, shall we?<<


Please, please, please PLEASE do!!!



>>. It is not as if I think Mizen said one thing and meant another.<<

Yet, you wrote, you thought that’s exactly what he might have done in post #3888

“It may be that Mizen himself thought that he ought to give a time that didn´t make Neil look bad.”

You really have to grasp the concept that each time you try to weasel out of something, all anyone has to do is look up your posts.


Christer’s post # 4999

>>You mean like how Dusty chose to say that I "invented" that Lechmere said that he left home at 3.20 instead of saying that I SUGGESTED that he MAY have done so? Along those lines?<<

Oxford Dictionary,
“Invent verb ... invent something to produce or design something that has not existed before”

Nothing wrong with “invented”, but I’m also happy to go with suggested, if it’s what you’d prefer.

The point of the post (you always seem to avoid the point of points) was that Bob (SuperShodan) has claimed on social media it is a FACT that Cross usually left at 3:20.
Perhaps instead of being so obsessed with me, you could address the point of my post and tell Bob, that it is only something you “suggested” not a fact?


Christer’s post # 5001

>>How do you suppose they summoned him, Dusty? <<

In writing as everyone else was summoned. The way inquests work.


>>There are many out here, some of them quite knowledgeable about these matters, who have said that he may well have gone directly to the inquest.<<

Perhaps “they” could explain how “they” know this and what evidence “they” have that supports it. I’d certainly be interested to read “their” evidence.


>>The suggestion that he would never have come and been admitted if he was not summoned beforehand is incorrect.<<

Good. I’m all ears, please do explain how you “know” it to be incorrect?



Christer’s post # 5008


>>It´s hard work trying to establish how three PCs cannot be wrong, whereas Paul and Llewellyn must have been. And Baxter, Swanson and the Daily News all speaking for how Lechmere was in place at 3.45 does not help either.<<

Since this involves the questions you will not answer, do tell us your explanations.


Christer’s post # 5028

>>It dovetails with what Baxter said, it dovetails with what Swanson said and it dovetails with what the Daily News wrote. It all adds up, but for one thing - it is in conflict with what the PCs said.<<

But you’ve yet to explain where Baxter told the jury not to believe the policemen’s timing.

You’ve yet to tell why Swanson said Goldstien turned up to the police station to say he was the man in Fanny Mortimer’s interview, before Fanny even gave the interview!

And you’ve failed to explain why the same Daily News article wrote Mrs Nichols was killed soon after leaving Emily Holland!


>>Let´s apply that kind of thinking to Swanson now. I would say that he got way more than ninety-five per cent of his factual information correct in his reports. Therefore, when he wrote that Lechmere found the body at 3.45, he was far, far more likely to have been correct than to have been wrong.<<

Bingo!!!!

Finally, almost an answer. A bit of weaseling sneaking in. So Swanson made errors? Apparently 5% of what he wrote was wrong. So how do we know 3:45 wasn't in that 5%?

Concerning his timings and your claim of 5%, how did you arrive at the figure of 5%?

How many timings did he get right and how many did he get wrong? Richardson, Cadosch, Reeves, P.C Smith, Davis, Donovan, Goldstein?

If he made mistakes how do we trust which ones were mistakes and which ones weren’t?

I see why you keep dodging the questions, your arguments starts melting away like a snowman on the equater.


>>What goes around comes around.<<

It does indeed.


Christer’s post # 5030

>>-He was at the murder site at a time that is consistent with being the killer.<<

Since we cannot give an exact time for Mrs Nichols attack, he could equally have been at the site inconsistent with when the killer struck.

There is some evidence that Mrs Stride was still alive when Deimshitz found her body. It is entirely possible that a crowd of people where present when she actually died.


>>-The wounds were hidden from sight.<<

A palpably false statement, as Neil claimed,

“I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat.”


>>-He gave a name he otherwise never used with the authorities.<<

He gave the name he always gave police it seems. A name that he would be recognised by. As he was legally required to do.

>>-He passed right throught the killing fields on his morning treks.<<

No, you “suggest” he passed through “the killing fields on his morning treks”.

>>-He disagreed with a serving PC about what was said in between the two.<<

As did Paul

>>-The version the PC suggested was one that is consistent with a wish to circumvent the police.<<

The version the PC suggested was one consistent with a simple misunderstanding.

>>-According to the PC, he did not mention how serious the errand was.<<

According to Paul, he told Mizen how serious the errand was.

>>-He refused to help prop Nichols up on Pauls proposal.<<

Cross was the only person to mention this. Which is consistent with an honest man relating what happened and a strange confession for a guilty man to make.

>>-Nichols bled for at least around nine minutes after Lechmere left her.<<

You “suggest” Mrs Nichols bled for at least around nine minutes after Lechmere left her which is a very different thing. Unless of course you have definitive proof.

>>-He said he left home at around 3.20 or 3.30, neither of which times is in keeping with being in Bucks Row at 3.40 and much less so at 3.45.<<

It has been demonstrated that can be.

>>These are things that must be explained away, all of them <<

They just have been. You may not like the answers, but you cannot prove them wrong.


>>But of course, one can always choose to argue that none of the matters above suggest guilt. That would be wrong, though, not least when we put them all together. Which was what Scobie did, coming up with a prima facie case.<<

If Scobie believed or was told the wounds were covered his judgement was flawed.

If Scobie believed or was told that it is an established fact that Cross “passed through “the killing fields on his morning treks”, his judgement is flawed.

If Scobie believed or was told that Paul didn’t claim to have told a PC that the errand was serious, his judgement is flawed.
And so on and so on.

[drstrange169]

Mark wrote in post # 4994

>> … my 1890s map suggests that he passed a brewery on the way. If Mrs Long can hear a brewery clock (accurate enough for running a large business), why can't Paul?<<

Thain passed in front of the brewery clock moments before being called by Neil. If we are to take the brewery clock as a reliable time factor, Thain’s time must be considered the most reliable of all the witnesses.

Mark again post # 5044

>>Footnote: We don't actually get much of a triangle at all until June 1888, as before then he always lived within a few blocks of his mother. Which in itself is interesting: he was never living all that far out of her sight until the age of 38 years and 8 months -- just a couple of months before the C5+1 killings started.<<

Good to read you totally dismiss the idea that Lechmere was a Thames Torso killer.

[drstrange169]

>>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?<<

Precisely!!!
As I've already noted. And how's employers time relate to all the witnesses. Why would it be in sync?

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

It has indeed and which witness went to a railway station that morning?

[JeffHamm]

Hi,

I'm trying to hold off, but I'm failing. I know it's tempting to draw lines based upon a particular "suspect". I also recognize that I'm repeating the gist of what Dusty is getting at, but seriously, our brains are pattern recognizes. That's what our brains do, it "sees" patterns, it hates "chaos". That's why clouds take on shapes, why back in the day when TVs had "snow" on them when the station signed off for the night, we could see pictures in the snow (no, it wasn't because of the reason you were staring at that sparkles in the first place for those of you old enough to even recall when this happened).

But the spatial analysis of crime locations is not about "suspect fitting". Look, I'm sure there are people out there looking at things from that point of view, but I'm unaware of their work so I don't know how they approach it, or how reliable it is. In fact, the thing that drew me to this area of research was because my gut feeling was that it was all garbage for the most part. I really didn't think there was anything reliable to it beyond a sort of chance probability. All one had to do was produce a pretty map, near where the crimes were, and beyond that, any sort of distribution would do.

And guess what? Some of the things that are common in the literature turn out to be just that. No better than chance (i.e. random). But, not all of it is garbage. In fact, some of the routines seem to work surprisingly well. I'm not one to accept things just because someone "says so" (and I don't expect anyone to accept what I say just because I say so either - that's why I tend to explain "why" I think something, so you can decide if what I think is based upon a line of reasoning that makes sense; I recognize that tends to make my posts long and boring, as do these little diversions into introspection ).

Anyway, to keep it short (already a lie), the routines by Canter, and the routines by Rossmo, are both well above chance. The routines I've been developing are, I'm pleased to say, also well above chance. In fact, there is little to choose between them overall, they all tend to do equally well, though if I were forced to rank them, I think Canter probably comes 1st, mine are 2nd, and Rossmo's 3rd. But that could just be the particular data set I have to test them with, and I would not at all be surprised if I had a different collection of offenses to use as a test set, that order could be completely different. They are that close (overall, obviously for any particular case, the order will be different from the general pattern - that's called variation).

I've shown those plots many times, and won't do it again here (I hope).

But, if I were to approach this as a "line drawing" exercise, with the idea of marking out the "routes of travel", I would not start with a particular person in mind. I would simply look at the area and look for the major roads. And those would be Whitechapel running east/west, and the Commercials, running north/south (green lines). And when I look at where the crimes occurred, including some of the non C5's (C5s in the brownish red and non's in the purplish blue).

From that, Hanbury is an interesting street, as it forms a sort of loop that connects the C5's, in that if JtR "patrolled" that loop, and included a jaunt down towards Berner via Commercial Road, he's travelling the major roads that links all the crimes.

For my own "draw a line" contribution, I've sometimes wondered, if we go with Stride as a real JtR victim (which may not be true; but let's pretend it is for now), then what if JtR fled south rather than the usually suggested north? I could see him following along something like the purplish/claret line, which has him emerge right across the street from St. Boltophs( small circle), which as I've posted before, may have been where Eddowes was headed when she was released. That would mean, he would get there close to the same time she does. Total speculation of course, and based upon a huge number of unevidenced assumptions, so no, I don't believe this must be true. It's just something that makes me go "hmmmm".

In part, because if we just draw a line from Mitre Square to the GSG (the green arrow, which doesn't look much like an arrow I'm afraid) that is pointing to the large circle, which is the area the spatial routines tend to emphasize. And if JtR killed Strided, and went along a southerly path, he is heading towards that area, but avoiding the largest main routes, where police might end up looking. Of course, the typical view is he headed north, and met Eddowes in a similar area, so it's not like it explains things any better really, other than it accounts for him emerging at the end of Houndsditch, when it sort of appears he may have wanted to get a bit east of there (the GSG flight path - again, assuming the apron is dropped as he left the area).

Now the main area of interest (larger circle), might just indicate the area JtR enters into the area. And given the flow of the crime locations along the main roads, and the higher density towards the northern part of Commercial Street, that suggests he enters from the North. This is where he begins his "hunt". And that is why I'm sort of interested in knowing more about characters like the "Bethnal Green Botherer". They are sighted a bit north of here, and maybe that is where we should look? And the main suggested search area might just be his anchor point in terms of a pub he goes to before he starts going looking for a victim.

This is all just conjecture, of course. But if we're looking for "routes", we are better off looking at the routes available to commit the crimes, rather than starting from the suspect we "like". We will see a pattern if we start with the suspect we "like". Forget who you like, just look at the road layout and look at what is available. The area is small enough that anyone living there could avail themselves to these routes, so anyone will "look good".

And no, nothing I'm presenting here with my lines is backed up by research, but none of our "lines for routes" maps are, so we're all in the same boat. But each and every one of us will come up with different lines to draw, and as soon as we put those lines on a map, we're going to see a pattern. That doesn't mean our lines work, it means our brains are working. Again, our brains will see a pattern even if what we draw is random. I'm pleased to see people considering things like this, but at the same time, I cannot emphasize enough that caution is absolutely called for. Don't get convinced by the routes you drew unless you have tested them with lots of other cases and show those lines really do tend to predict something. The routines I've been showing have gone through that, and they are better than chance by a long shot, so they do contain useful information, but they are not perfect either. What we're doing here has not even been shown to be better than a random search (chance). Tread carefully.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

Baxter explicitly said Mrs. Nichols was found before 3:45, so how is 3:45 or 3:46 relevant to Baxter?

"...the unfortunate woman was last seen alive at half-past two o'clock on Saturday morning,... in less than an hour and a quarter her dead body was discovered..."

But then you and Bob (SuperShodan) have a record of lying about what Baxter said haven't you?

Bob in his Rip article and you in the TV show(about six and half minutes in) when you said on camera,

“The Coroner said it was nothing less than astonishing that the killer had managed to escape given the circumstances.”

Bob in his article wrote,

"The likelihood of the murderer being an unknown third party running away seems slim to none. Coroner Baxter thought so too: “It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection”."

Both of you dishonesty changed Baxter's meaning,

"It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should escape detection for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person. The blood, however, might be principally on his hands, and the presence of so many slaughter houses in the neighbourhood would make the frequenters of this spot familiar with bloodstained clothes and hands, and his appearance might in that way have failed to attract attention while he passed from Buck's row in the twilight into Whitechapel road, and was last sight of in the morning's market traffic.”

And here you both are doing it again, attempting to change his summation of the time the body was found and the fact that he went with Neil's time of discovery.

If you want to be trusted you have to be honest.

It's simple as, if Novak wanted to play tennis in Melbourne he should have got vaccinated.

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

Back to your old trick of faking quotes Bob?

The Times,
"Robert Baul, a carman, of 30, Foster-street, Whitechapel, stated he went to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields. He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning and as he was passing up Buck's-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road."

Daily News
"Robert Baul [Paul], a carman, of 30, Foster-street, Whitechapel, stated he went to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields. He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning and as he was passing up Buck's-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road."

Telegraph
"Robert Baul, 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road."

Apart from Lloyd's article where does any report mention "hurrying"?
How many even mention him claiming to be late?