Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

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.

I donīt think he believes anything currently, John. Richard Whittington-Egan is dead.

[Fisherman]

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

And if they did not in the Nichols case, whereas Paul and Llewellyn did, that means ...

Okay.

[Fisherman]

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?

And if we DO, what bearing has hat on the Nichols case?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed it would comprise 5.55 and 6.05 as alternative possibilities! It would, at least to my mind, also include 5.50 and 6.10. But the point I made was that it would NOT exclude 6.00! Instead, the wording "I donīt know when I woke up, but it cannot have been far off the 6.00 mark" means that 6.00 is the best guess I can make.

Of course, me accepting in this case that 5.50 and 6.10 are viable alternatives, does not mean that I am ready to carve away five or ten minutes from Baxters estimation. That one was leaning against fair few times and since the coroner knew that there would be an approximate gap of five minutes between Neil and Lechmere, allowing for two minute discrepancies becomes unviable.

The word ‘gobbledygook’ comes to mind Fish.

If someone said ‘before 6.00’ or ‘sometime just before 6.00’ then ‘exactly 6.00’ becomes the least likely as the person saying it has definitively stated that he didn’t think that it was exactly 6.00. You are trying to narrow an approximation down.

We have 3 Constable’s giving times of approximately 3.45 (all before Lechmere’s arrival on the scene. Baxter didn’t have a solitary piece of information that would allow him to dispute those times because he wouldn’t have been able to deduce a time for the murder from Llewellyn or any other source.

All that he very clearly did was state the general known that the body must have been discovered by Lechmere before Paul arrived. We can deduce nothing more from unknowns and estimations. Therefore Lechmere discovered the body sometime between 3.40 and 3.45.

Either way there are easily enough combinations of time which would leave us with no gap. Therefore we cannot assume one. And if we cannot prove one (or assume one) then there’s no point even mentioning it let alone trying to state it as a known.

Sorry Fish but the attempt to keep this mythical gap in place smacks of desperation.

[MrBarnett]

What landlord or brewery doesn't love a fast clock? That way, not only can a pub open before most people even think a drink is available, but the landlord can also get the towels up nice and early, and let the night's last customers wander off to other pubs for their final round...

M.

That’s an excellent point. If the pub opened and closed its doors according to brewery time + 5mins, it follows that it opened 35 mins before it was legally allowed to each day. Bang to rights.

This one rather odd example is being used to cast doubt on every public clock in the land. Desperate times/desperate measures.

[Fisherman]

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

What is the "adequate" explanation you want? Do you want me to produe his timepiece? He said in Lloyds that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he passed down Bucks Row. When doing so, he had just passed a brewery where we know there were clocks. If that clock struck the quarter hour as he walked dwon the street, it would neatly explain why he said "exactly". It sould also be that he had a timepice of his own. Either way, he said he walked down Bucks Row at exactly 3.45, and he claimed at the inquest to have left his home "just before" or "around" 3.45.
Inceidentally, he did not use BOTH these wordings, so we need to establish which was the likely one.
Did he say "around 3.45" whereupon some papers wrote "just before"?
Or dis he say "just before" whereupon some papers wrote "around"?

Take your time!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Actually, regardless of who killed her and when, blood will behave in must the same way anyway.

And it’s been shown that the blood evidence is inconclusive. But what we certainly can say is that it can’t narrow things down to a minute or so. Therefore it’s entirely plausible that the killer could have fled the scene a minute or 2 (or even less) before Lechmere arrived.

So where is the positive evidence for Lechmere’s guilt? There is none.

[Fisherman]

Christer has posted times where he's suggesting shifting PC's testimony by over 5 minutes.
- Jeff

And you have posted where you are suggesting shifting Pauls and Llewellyns times by the same amount of time.

[MrBarnett]

The circumstances I am referring to is a man who woke up at a time he believed was at or very close to 6.00, although he had no conclusive proof for it. If he said "It could not have been far off 6.00", he would mean that his best guess was 6.00, but he was willing to accept that it could have been befoe or after that time too.

I am glad to see that you now admit that it takes special circumstances for Baxter not to have meant what I suggest he meant, instead of claiming that I do not copmprehend the English language. You also inadvertenly admit that for Baxter to have known that it could not have been 3.45, but must instead have been before or after that time, he would need to be able to exclude the 3.45 timing by proving it impossible.

The truth will out! And so we now know that what I suggest; that when Baxter said "The body could not have been found far off the 3.45 mark", he may have meant that Charles Lechmere will likely have been there spot on 3.45 or in close proximity to it.

Me, I think that it is more or less the only working suggestion, since Baxter knew that Lechmere was the only true finder, since Swanson joined ranks with him and since the Daily News supported the take.

But that is secondary in this post. This post only celebrated that you now admit that Baxter must not have meant that the time was close to but not exactly 3.45 as the body was found. 3.45 is instead the benchmark he uses, but were he allows for some little discrepancy.

Your grasp of English is somewhat better than Jeff’s here. If you knew whether you had left out before or after the time mentioned you’d say so. If you don’t mention before or after you are providing a possible range that includes the exact time mentioned.

[Fisherman]

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).

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.

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.

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

- Jeff

Neil said 3.45. Thain said 3.45. You build your whole argument on how you think the three PC:s could not have been wrong.

And now you suggest that Thain could actually have been alerted by Neil some minutes after Neils finding the body? So which PC had the right time and who had the wrong time?

This will take some serious juggling insights.

I am humbly suggesting that the only anchored timing that Baxter could have worked from was LLewellyns ditto. And although I have had Steve Blomer tell me that it would be cheating on the coroners behalf to use any other material in his summary than what was said at the inquest, I feel that one of the things Baxter must have done would have been to check how certain Llewellyn was and how accurate his timepiece was. It was not until he had that knowledge that he would be able to say with certainty that the finding of the body - and we know who found it - could not have been far off the 3.45 mark.

But you suggest that we should dithch LLewellyn and go by the three competent PC:s instead - who had no idea what the time was, it seems?

[Fisherman]

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.

Look - you are back. Good - I was afraid I had scared you away by making it apparent to the others out here that you could not counter what I say.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
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)

I am saying that if it was NOT Lechmere - who was observed all alone in close proximity to a freshly killed Polly Nichols, and who had a working trek that took him right through the Spitalfields murder area - then it was someone ELSE. That someone elseīs existence is not proven in any shape of form, so we have the choice of regarding himmor her as a genuine person whose existence is not in doubt, or as somebody whose existence is a mere suggestion. And people whose existence are mere suggestions, since nothing at all can be produced to prove it, are phantom people. So I will stick with that term, becasue I thinbk it is of the utmost importance to point put just how much there is to suggest another killer, let alone to point to such a fictitious character as being as likely a suspect or a better one than Lechmere.

Utterly devoid of reason. Lechmere is likelier than another killer because we can name him. Come on Fish.

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.

And there we are - you did it again. You promoted a person whose existence is in no way proven as a better suspect than a man we KNOW was in place right by the victim at a time that is consistent with when she was killed. By all means, tell me that you personally donīt feel that Lechmere was the killer, and by all means, tell me that there is a possibility that it was somebody else, but donīt give up contact with the real world, Herlock, becasue that does not strenghten your take. It makes it look ridiculous.

Lechmere is likelier as a suspect than someone we can’t name because we can name him. Genius.

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.

True, there is not a single fact that rules out the possibility of another killer totally. There is the blood evidence that speaks against the suggestion, but I agree that it cannot rule it out.

This suggestion eliminates any suggestion of an issue with blood.

Eh? What Payne James and Thiblin says about the blood - why would that information be rendered useless by the suggestion that somebody killed Nichols before Lechmere arrived? That is simply wrong, Iīm afraid.

Are you being serious Fish? If, for arguments sake, it was suggested that Lechmere killed Nichols between 3.41 and 3.43 are you really telling us that the blood evidence would preclude an earlier murder time of 3.38-3.40? Dr Llewellyn or Gandalf?

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)

Yes, it is possible, and if you had read me correctly, you would know that I have never ruled the possibility out. Of course, if there WAS such a killer, he would have left Nichols with the wounds hidden, and thatb would be in conflict with how he left the other evisceration victims on display. That could of course hapen, but it is not the likely thing. But we must be discerning and allow for discrepancies, so yes, we still have the possibility of another killer.

whoopie.

Therefore there’s no proper evidence against Lechmere that couldn’t apply to an unknown killer.

Of course not! What Lechmere could have done, somebdy else could have done, albeit the blood evidence provides an alternative killer with a small window of time.

So there could have been another killer. That’s all that we need. There’s no positive evidence against him.

So why do we hold such suspicion against Lechmere?

Because he was THERE, of course! He was there, and there are lots of anomalies linked to him. He gave an alternative name at the inquest, he disagreed with Mizen on a number of matters, each and every one of them with a shape that would be perfect for circumventing the police, he had a morning trek that took him right past Spitalfields, he had his mother staying very close by the Stride murder scene, the Goulston Street rag was left in between the murder site and 22 Doveton Street and so on. The fact of the matter is that when we look closer at Lechmere, there are many matters that are all in keeping with guilt on his behalf. If he had given his registered name, if he and Mizen had told the same story, if Paul had confirmed that he saw Lechmere halting in front of him, if he had worked somewheere else, ANYWHERE else, that did not take him through the killing fields, if he had "found" the body when it was too cold gīfor him to have been the killer - THEN it would make sense to beleive his story. But it is the other way around on point after point.
My question to you: Why do youn even ask why we suspect Lechmere? Has the many pointers presented against him completely illuded you? Is it even remotely possible?

Because none of them are remotely convincing Fish. In fact the evidence all points to Lechmere simply discovering a body on the way to work.

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.

No, the gap in not the main point against him at all. It is one point of many, and if I was allowed to present only three points against Lechmere at a trial, I would not pick the gap.

Good because it needs to be dropped entirely.

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?

Read the above. Please, PLEASE read the above!!

Yes please read it. It’s entirely reasonable and 100% free of bias.

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.

His step father had been dead for nineteen years. And we know that he - unless he was involved in legal cases of brutal deaths - always used the name Lechmere when dealing with any authorities. How this point can not sink in, is a total riddle for me. The matter that he would not have been doing something unusual if he had an alias, and the matter that it was legal to use othe names than your registered ones is neither here nor there un til you can prove that he actually DID, but for when he was called to inquests into violent cases of death where he either caused that death or is suspected of having done so.
I have explained this thousands and thousands of times, and still people are having problems to understand how this is a proven anomaly. And these are peoiple I discuss the case with! People who aspire to have insights about the case and a genuine wish to understand it! It is small wonder that I must take the occasional break from it!

Because it’s a blatantly irrelevant one. He was clearly hiding nothing. He gave his address for gods sake. It’s another non-issue for most but manna from heaven for some.

So that leaves us with next to zero.

Who are "us", Herlock? What I see is a poster who denies the obvious and who cannot understand why a person of flesh and blood is a better suspect than a fictional character telling us that there is no case against Lechmere. And when a barrister, who WOULD be able to gauge a case like thie, says that ther is reason enough not to suspect Lechmere, but to take him to trial, the knee-jerk answer is that since you are a better judge of matters legal than James Scobie, it must be concluded that he was badly misled or lied to by the film team. And he would not have asked to see how he was represented in the docu. And he would not have sued the film team for having made him say something he did not mean.
Donīt talk about us, Herlock. You and me are having this conversation and there is no "us" whatsoever around to verify your claims.

Back to the ‘we can name Lechmere so he’s a better candidate’ point. Ok. He’s no better a suspect than John Richardson.

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.

The "he had a reason to be there" was always a better argument for guilt than against. The killer was likely somebody who melted in - and had a reason to be there. Do you believe that only those who have NO reason to be in place are killers? If somebody is killed at a school, should we exonerate theteachers and pupils? If it happens asīt a working site, do we rule out the workers there as possible culprits?
The fact that he had reason to be there does in no way clear him or even implicate any lesser viability as the killer.

Id say that serial killers don’t usually kill on their own doorstep. So we have to believe that Lechmere killed on the way to work, 20 minutes or so before he was due there, at a spot that he’d probably have passed 6 days a week and at the same time. It could be more unlikely.

He finds a body.

Or kills a woman. The thing is, NEITHER can be claimed as a fact. But one of them is suggested by the evidence.

The facts point away from it. But yes, we can’t prove that he wasn’t the killer.

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.

But MANY serial killers are proven to be opportunistic. Meaning that you have no point at all. There was never any need to produce a twin replica for every serial killer to prove his or her existence. No other serial killer was ever know to drive a tan VW bug before Bundy did. That does. not mean that he could not have done so. And there are at present a couple of hundred so called "Highway murders" in the US, where it is generally accepted that they were to a large degree committed by commercial lorry drivers - men at work, that is, or en route to it.
If you can provide good, solid proof that it is impossible to kill somebody while on your way to work, then do so. If you can prove that Lechmere did not leave home half an hour before he ordinarily did on many an occasion with the intent to look for prey,m then do so or, as they say, forever hold your tongue.

Im not saying it’s impossible but unlikely. I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve discussed this case with you and we’ve touched on serial killers as whole and you’ve produced an example. I can’t help noticing that you haven’t produced a serial killer who killed under the same circumstances as you believe Lechmere to have done. I notice that you also haven’t produced an example of a serial killer who murdered his victim then stood waiting for someone to show up to show him his handiwork.

Where’s the suspicious behaviour Fish. I see absolutely none. In fact everything points to the fact that he simply found the body.
How much is a blind mans cane? If it is not too dear, Iīll send you one for next Christmas.

Save us from men with theories and suspects!

[rjpalmer]

In July, 1885, a correspondent calling himself TEMPUS FUGIT wrote to the Chelmsford Chronicle to complain about the accuracy of the public clocks in his home town of Halstead

We can analyse this until the cows come home: at what time would a train due to depart at 3.20 be steaming into the station?; where was the inconveniently placed clock actually located?; did TF have to disembark from his conveyance, pay a cab driver and purchase a ticket before he saw the station clock? etc etc… But it’s clear that what he was getting hot under the collar about was a discrepancy of 5 minutes or so.

This is quite the coincidence. I very nearly posted this same TEMPUS FUGIT letter yesterday, Gary, having also seen it. You have saved me the trouble.

Now imagine if a dead body had been found in the railway cloak room at Halstead, with apparently flesh wounds, at the same instance that various passengers entered the station, and we had to try and reconstruct what may have happened, but were forced to rely on the time estimates of the various witnesses, who at no time directly tell us which of the three clocks they were using for their time estimates, nor even telling us if they had even seen any of the three clocks!

The entire exercise would be utter folly, would it not?

The main criticism against Christer's theory is that he is trying to wring far too much meaning out of vagaries and inexactitudes, just like when he tried to wring far too much meaning out of the fact that only one newspaper published Crossmere's home address, when exactly the same thing was true of Henry John Holland.

[Fisherman]

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

>>Letīs 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 didnīt 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


>>Itīs 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!


>>Letīs 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.

I never read such long posts by you, Dusty, you should know by now that I consider it a waste of time. So what I will do is to look at the last so called question you refer to, that in post 4373.

When I do so, I find this:

>>I notice that Dusty is playing his "Fisherman is silent becasue I ask so very clever and challenging questions"-game again, and so I must advice him to list any questions he has if he wants them answered<<

The problem is you've already pulled this stunt and it resulted lots of avoidance, lots of response to posts that didn't have questions in them and no answers, see your post #3800.

So, lists don't work, because you just use the opportunity to dodge answering.

So lets' go through them one at a time. Start with a simple short one, say post #4315.

So you refer me back to post 4315. Alrighty! Letīs see!

Ah, there we are! In that post, you quoted me as saying:

>>- When Swanson altered the time Lechmere found the body to 3.45 in his October report, it is claimed that either A: He actually did not alter it at all, or B: It means absolutely nothing that he did.<<

I of course stand by how it is ridiculous to think that we can sweep Swnsosn report under the carpet. But never mind aboout that, what was your question? Here it is:

Could you list the errors in his reports and explain them to us? If not why should we believe this was not just one of his many mistakes?

So you ask me to go through all of Donald Swansons reports and to list all the errors there may or may not be in them. That is your first question - could I do that?

The second question is why you should not simply believe that the 3.45 timing was a mistake - if I donīt provide a list of the mistakes I can find going through Donald Swansons reports.

As anybody can see, it would be something of a lifetime achievement to go through Swansosn all reports. He worked - and reported - for many years. Perhaps Dusty means the Ripper-related reports only, but if I have learnt something about Dusty over the years, it is that he is unreliable in the extreme, so I must work from the assumption that he means all the Swanson reports there are.

Any sensible person - and I am not counting Dusty into that category - will understand that if this is the kind of questions he uses to prove his point that I cannot answer him or is too afraid of his sharp intellect to give it a try, then he must be awarded the victory of being proclaimed to win this issue. I am certainbly not going to dance to his pipe and spend days on end going through Swansons correspondance with his superiors.

What I WILL do, however, is to point out that for it to be equally likely that the 3.45 timing is supported by the facts as it is that it is an error on Swansons behalf, it would take that we can establish that the facts Swanson provided to his superiors were 50 per cent correct and 50 per cent wrong. I think we may rely on how they were in fact close to a hundred per cent correct. And we can of course be another hundred per cent correct that Dusty is a poster who should not be taken seriously. He is trying to establish a picture of me as being afraid of him and his questions, and nothing - I mean nothing - could be further from the truth. Then again, how am I to make him understnd that, if he cannot define "truth" correctly in the first place?

This, Dusty, is idiocy and timewasting in itīs worst shape. I urge you to exchange in a civil manner, instead of resorting to indecencies and nonsense.

[Fisherman]

2 out out of 19 reporters said 3.20 apparently. So the odds are against this being the case. Also if Lechmere was guilty then we would have to accuse him of gross stupidity if, considering the time gap between the event and the Inquest, he told the police he’d left the house at 3.20 given that he knew how long it took for him to walk to Bucks Row and therefore the police would have known too. He would have been knowingly dropping himself right in it. So I’d say that we would be on solid ground in sidelining the 3.20 at best.

So we have the 11 out of the remaining 17 saying “about 3.30.” And what’s more likely, that 6 reporters missed the word ‘about’ or omitted it for whatever reason when they were writing up their notes, or that 11 reporters imagined that they heard the word ‘about.’

So at the minimum we have to accept the possibility that Lechmere said “about 3.30” or the more likely is that the evidence tells us that he almost certainly said “about 3.30.”

And as we know that the English language tells us the by using the phrase “about 3.30” Lechmere was estimating the time that he left the house. So I’ll be fair and admit 2 things (as I always have) 1) that a guilty Lechmere could have lied and left the house much earlier, and 2) his estimation of ‘about 3.30’ could certainly have incorporated 3.25.

Unfortunately though Fish this even handedness isn’t always reciprocated by some. The time that Lechmere left the house could very easily have been 3.35 but some get very annoyed when this very obvious point is mentioned. I’m afraid that it’s a fact though. Lechmere could very easily have left the house at 3.35 and we don’t have a single thing that casts doubt on this.

We don’t know how Lechmere came by his estimation of course. Did he have a clock or a watch? He might have done but we can’t state this as a fact. And if he did have one how can we know how accurate it was? We can’t know of course. And if he did have a watch or a clock then it seems unlikely that he looked at it on the way out or he wouldn’t have needed an estimated time. For all that we know he might have been ‘knocked up’ every day at around 3.15 and simply estimated the time between getting ‘knocked up’ and leaving the house and we know that estimates can be out. Also, we don’t know that the Constable ‘knocking up’ wasn’t 5 minutes late that day. Or 3 minutes or 4 minutes?

…..

And so given all of the above, and none of it is manipulated or far fetched and I have certainly allowed for the possibility of an earlier time, we simply cannot assume a time that Lechmere left the house. So if we can’t assume a time reason and logic tells us that we cannot assume a gap.

So if we cannot assume a gap how can this be used as a pointer to Lechmere’s guilt anymore than saying “well, if Lechmere left the house at 3.00 he’d have had time to find a victim and kill her.”

The “gap” point should be dropped.

Show me a prosecutor who would buy that idea, Herlock. I think that one intriguing thing is how Lechmere, when testifying on the 3rd, said that he left home at around 3.30. And that is intriguing because it fits nicely with him being in Bucks Row at around 3.40 - which at that stage, owing to the three PC:s testimony, was the accepted "truth".
Then Baxter, the Daily News and Swanson tell us that it all changed during the course of the inquest, and suddenly Lechmere was placed at the site at circa 3.45, opening up that gap you dread so badly.
Show me a prosecutor who would not point that out to the jury!

And then show me a defence barrister who would not cry crocodile tears and ask for this evidence to be ruled inadmissible.