Evidence of innocence

[rjpalmer]

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.

Hi Fish. But what complicates matters, as you must know, is that Polly Nichols was not found once, but found twice, and that Baxter specifically referred to PC Neil's discovery before making this observation. Thus, his meaning is not as clear as you suggest it is.

You won't care for this, nor will it convince you, but here is what I think Baxter was saying in summation. My words, not his.

"The two carmen found Polly Nichols (note, that I don't say they found the body) in Buck's Row. They then left, but shortly afterwards Polly Nichols was rediscovered by a PC, who, having a lantern, now noticed that her eyes were glassy, and her throat was cut. He deposed that this was at 3.45.

"It therefore must be that Polly Nichols was already dead when the two carmen originally found her, though technically, this isn't absolutely proven. By all logic, it must have been the case, but since the two carmen didn't have a lantern, and it was very dark, they couldn't have verified her injuries or death. We know they saw Polly Nichols, but did they see a dead body?

"She must have been already dead, but, either way, the PC was not far behind them, so, for our purposes, the body could not have been found far off from the 3.45 mark. (ie., the time given by PC Neil)."

In short, and to split hairs, it wasn't absolutely proven that Polly Nichols was 'the body' until PC Neil showed up with a lantern.

That's what I think Baxter's thought process indicates during his summation.

[Fisherman]

The word ‘gobbledygook’ comes to mind Fish.

It does. Ever so often!!

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.

Mmm. But that was not what I said, was it? I said that if somebody is not certain of the time but thinks that 6.00 is the best guess he can make, then saying "it could not have been far off 6.00" portrays that sentiment.

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.

In fact, if he checked with Llewellyn how sure he was that Thain was not there BEFORE 3.55 and if he checked and found Llewellyns time source reliable, then why would he NOT use these timings as decisive in ruling that Lechmere was in place at 3.45, not 3.40?

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.

It could have been 3.44. It could have been 3.46. It could not have been 3.40. Sorry. If it could, then Baxter could not have said that the body could not have been found at a time that was far off 3.45. If there was the kind of slack you say, he could not have used that timing because he would not know if it was Neil or Lechmere who was there at 3.45.
I will not repeat this anymore, I have said it a hundred times, so let´s give it time to sink in instead.

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.

No, it smacks of a discerning attitude. What smacks of desperation is the denial that the gap is something that belongs to the matter. Just like all other indicators, efforts are made to rule them out one by one, since that is the easy way to go about it. It won´t work, I´m afraid. Lechmere is the prime suspect today on account of the evidence, and he will be so when you wake up tomorrow too. And that gap won´t have gone away.

[Fisherman]

Herlock, I will spend as little time on your lengthy protests to my earlier post. I will do what I sometimes do, single out two sentences that will disclose the amount of honesty and/or underestanding you employ:


1. Lechmere is likelier as a suspect than someone we can´t name because we can name him. Genius.

This is very dishonest, is it not? We can name zillions of people, and that has nothiong to do with whether or not they make good or bad suspects. What I said - and I think you are very aware of it - is that a person of flesh and blood who is proven to have been at a murder site, close by a freshly killed victim, at a time that is consistent with being the killer, is always a better suspect than any suggestion of an alternative killer that cannot even be proven to have existed. Tbis of course works from the preseumptin that there is nothoing to rule the person of flesh and blood out as the killer, and there is no such thing in Lechmere´s case.

I find it deplorable when somebody who should genuinely know better makes this kind of suggestion on my behalf, as if I was a cmómplete idiot, arguing the impossible. It makes me very disappointed, for what should be extremely obvious reasons.

2. 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?

What I am saying is that REGARDLESS of when Lechmere cut Nichols (if he was indeed the cutter, of course), Neils and Mizens evidence tells us that she went on to bleed for up against or beyond the nine minute mark. The two forensic pathologists, both of them very experienced and knowledgeable, said that the likelies bleeding out time would be in the 3-5 minute range. You wrote that we could look away from the blood evidence if we were not sure of the timings, but the time at which Lechmere would have cut her is completely irrelevant in that context, since regardless if he cut her at 3.40 or 3.45 or at 996 before Christ, she STILL bled for around nine minutes.

It is of vital importance that we not only avoid horrific misrepresentations of opur fellow poster, but also that we actually understand what we are talking about.

I will say no more about your post since I did not read all of it. I picked up these two matters in two seconds, and they are quite enough to make any more reading redundant.

Please shape up if you want to continue debating with me. We owe it to ourselves not to turn the boards into some sort of circus. And DON`T get furious instead of admitting that you got it wrong, because it will only make things worse.

[Fisherman]

That´s it, I´ve had it for now.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Show me any reasonable person Fish that refused to accept the very basic fact that we cannot assume a gap of time. The evidence doesn’t allow for stating a gap. And if we can’t state it as a known then there’s no point in stating it.

Show me the Prosecutor that believes that phrases like “sometime before” or “just before” or even “close to” can only mean the exact time or a set in stone amount of minutes before that time. This is another dead end. Baxter was clearly simply stating that the body was discovered by Lechmere before Neil arrived. And he accepted Neil’s 3.45 and so he just mean ‘before 3.45.’ Not 30 minutes before of course. Or even 15. 5 minutes itsentirely reasonable and plausible though and Baxter had no facts to hand that allowed him to narrow it down tighter than that. The narrowing down is being done here and now.

There isn’t a single smidgeon of evidence for a gap. It cannot be assumed and it shouldn’t be suggested.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Fish. But what complicates matters, as you must know, is that Polly Nichols was not found once, but found twice, and that Baxter specifically referred to PC Neil's discovery before making this observation. Thus, his meaning is not as clear as you suggest it is.

You won't care for this, nor will it convince you, but here is what I think Baxter was saying in summation. My words, not his.

"The two carmen found Polly Nichols (note, that I don't say they found the body) in Buck's Row. They then left, but shortly afterwards Polly Nichols was rediscovered by a PC, who, having a lantern, now noticed that her eyes were glassy, and her throat was cut. He deposed that this was at 3.45.

"It therefore must be that Polly Nichols was already dead when the two carmen originally found her, though technically, this isn't absolutely proven. By all logic, it must have been the case, but since the two carmen didn't have a lantern, and it was very dark, they couldn't have verified her injuries or death. We know they saw Polly Nichols, but did they see a dead body?

"She must have been already dead, but, either way, the PC was not far behind them, so, for our purposes, the body could not have been found far off from the 3.45 mark. (ie., the time given by PC Neil)."

In short, and to split hairs, it wasn't absolutely proven that Polly Nichols was 'the body' until PC Neil showed up with a lantern.

That's what I think Baxter's thought process indicates during his summation.

Faultless.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
It could have been 3.44. It could have been 3.46. It could not have been 3.40. Sorry. If it could, then Baxter could not have said that the body could not have been found at a time that was far off 3.45

Possibly in Swedish but not in English Fish.

5 minutes before a time is not far off that time by anyone’s reasoning but yours.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi Fish. But what complicates matters, as you must know, is that Polly Nichols was not found once, but found twice, and that Baxter specifically referred to PC Neil's discovery before making this observation. Thus, his meaning is not as clear as you suggest it is.

You won't care for this, nor will it convince you, but here is what I think Baxter was saying in summation. My words, not his.

"The two carmen found Polly Nichols (note, that I don't say they found the body) in Buck's Row. They then left, but shortly afterwards Polly Nichols was rediscovered by a PC, who, having a lantern, now noticed that her eyes were glassy, and her throat was cut. He deposed that this was at 3.45.

"It therefore must be that Polly Nichols was already dead when the two carmen originally found her, though technically, this isn't absolutely proven. By all logic, it must have been the case, but since the two carmen didn't have a lantern, and it was very dark, they couldn't have verified her injuries or death. We know they saw Polly Nichols, but did they see a dead body?

"She must have been already dead, but, either way, the PC was not far behind them, so, for our purposes, the body could not have been found far off from the 3.45 mark. (ie., the time given by PC Neil)."

In short, and to split hairs, it wasn't absolutely proven that Polly Nichols was 'the body' until PC Neil showed up with a lantern.

That's what I think Baxter's thought process indicates during his summation.

A very fair and unbiased post

Regards Darryl

[MrBarnett]

Herlock, I will spend as little time on your lengthy protests to my earlier post. I will do what I sometimes do, single out two sentences that will disclose the amount of honesty and/or underestanding you employ:


1. Lechmere is likelier as a suspect than someone we can´t name because we can name him. Genius.

This is very dishonest, is it not? We can name zillions of people, and that has nothiong to do with whether or not they make good or bad suspects. What I said - and I think you are very aware of it - is that a person of flesh and blood who is proven to have been at a murder site, close by a freshly killed victim, at a time that is consistent with being the killer, is always a better suspect than any suggestion of an alternative killer that cannot even be proven to have existed. Tbis of course works from the preseumptin that there is nothoing to rule the person of flesh and blood out as the killer, and there is no such thing in Lechmere´s case.

I find it deplorable when somebody who should genuinely know better makes this kind of suggestion on my behalf, as if I was a cmómplete idiot, arguing the impossible. It makes me very disappointed, for what should be extremely obvious reasons.

2. 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?

What I am saying is that REGARDLESS of when Lechmere cut Nichols (if he was indeed the cutter, of course), Neils and Mizens evidence tells us that she went on to bleed for up against or beyond the nine minute mark. The two forensic pathologists, both of them very experienced and knowledgeable, said that the likelies bleeding out time would be in the 3-5 minute range. You wrote that we could look away from the blood evidence if we were not sure of the timings, but the time at which Lechmere would have cut her is completely irrelevant in that context, since regardless if he cut her at 3.40 or 3.45 or at 996 before Christ, she STILL bled for around nine minutes.

It is of vital importance that we not only avoid horrific misrepresentations of opur fellow poster, but also that we actually understand what we are talking about.

I will say no more about your post since I did not read all of it. I picked up these two matters in two seconds, and they are quite enough to make any more reading redundant.

Please shape up if you want to continue debating with me. We owe it to ourselves not to turn the boards into some sort of circus. And DON`T get furious instead of admitting that you got it wrong, because it will only make things worse.

Of course, we’ve only recently been able to name the Pickford’s carman because he withheld his real name in court.

Unlike Kate Eddowes’ nephew George Gould/Frost who naturally felt it was appropriate to disclose his real name when summoned as a witness at his mother’s inquest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, I will spend as little time on your lengthy protests to my earlier post. I will do what I sometimes do, single out two sentences that will disclose the amount of honesty and/or underestanding you employ:


1. Lechmere is likelier as a suspect than someone we can´t name because we can name him. Genius.

This is very dishonest, is it not? We can name zillions of people, and that has nothiong to do with whether or not they make good or bad suspects. What I said - and I think you are very aware of it - is that a person of flesh and blood who is proven to have been at a murder site, close by a freshly killed victim, at a time that is consistent with being the killer, is always a better suspect than any suggestion of an alternative killer that cannot even be proven to have existed. Tbis of course works from the preseumptin that there is nothoing to rule the person of flesh and blood out as the killer, and there is no such thing in Lechmere´s case.

I find it deplorable when somebody who should genuinely know better makes this kind of suggestion on my behalf, as if I was a cmómplete idiot, arguing the impossible. It makes me very disappointed, for what should be extremely obvious reasons.

2. 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?

What I am saying is that REGARDLESS of when Lechmere cut Nichols (if he was indeed the cutter, of course), Neils and Mizens evidence tells us that she went on to bleed for up against or beyond the nine minute mark. The two forensic pathologists, both of them very experienced and knowledgeable, said that the likelies bleeding out time would be in the 3-5 minute range. You wrote that we could look away from the blood evidence if we were not sure of the timings, but the time at which Lechmere would have cut her is completely irrelevant in that context, since regardless if he cut her at 3.40 or 3.45 or at 996 before Christ, she STILL bled for around nine minutes.

It is of vital importance that we not only avoid horrific misrepresentations of opur fellow poster, but also that we actually understand what we are talking about.

I will say no more about your post since I did not read all of it. I picked up these two matters in two seconds, and they are quite enough to make any more reading redundant.

Please shape up if you want to continue debating with me. We owe it to ourselves not to turn the boards into some sort of circus. And DON`T get furious instead of admitting that you got it wrong, because it will only make things worse.

I wondered how long it would be before we arrived back at this point Fish. Deja vu. Anyone that disagrees with you is dishonest and anything that’s raised against your viewpoint is simply mocked in an attempt to dismiss.

On the blood evidence and the subject of terminology about what was described the work has been done on this. Your arguments have been shredded by David Orsam and as he said - oozing can continue 20 minutes later and we all know about the use of the word ‘running’ by Mizen. More manipulations of language to suit the case. So we can dismiss the blood evidence without a second thought. Could she have been killed earlier? Absolutely. This is all that we need to know. Likelihood only becomes an issue if it becomes impossible and it doesn’t come close to that. Nichols could have been killed before Lechmere arrived.

……

I 100% stand by my comment about your claim that a named suspect must be a better suspect than an unnamed one. It’s an embarrassment to reason. He was there and would have been immediately a person of interest. The police with more details and face to face access found nothing suspicious about him. But this gets firmly brushed under the carpet of course.

We can’t name Blotchy Man so is he automatically a less likely suspect than Hutchinson who was also there and we can put a name to?

Are you really so desperate Fish that you need to keep repeating “Lechmere was there.”

Again, John Richardson (according to your interpretation) was in the yard around 2 feet or less from a mutilated corpse but saw nothing. He had a disputed exchange with a police officer. And he admitted to having a knife on him. Why is he any less ‘suspicious’ than Lechmere? Ok, we don’t know where is Auntie Beryl lived so we can’t try the geographical stuff but we can’t have it all can we?

……

There’s one thing that you’re correct about Fish is that no further reading is required.

The blood evidence categorically doesn’t point to Lechmere even with the language manipulations.

We cannot presume or assume a gap without timing and language manipulations.

We can’t assume that a guilty Lechmere would have stood around rather that fled without offences to sense and reason.

And we can’t suggest that Paul might have interrupted Lechmere yet deny that Lechmere could equally have interrupted an unnamed killer without offences to reason.

And we cannot get away with blatant manipulations of the English language simply to narrow down to more convenient times.

……

He was there.

Apart from that….zero.

[MrBarnett]

Mike,

You say, ‘The police with more details and face to face access found nothing suspicious about him. But this gets firmly brushed under the carpet of course.’

Can you clarify what you mean when you say they had ‘more details’ more than what/whom?

Gary

[Darryl Kenyon]

Of course, we've only recently been able to name the Pickfords carman because he withheld his real name in court.

So he used a false name that nobody knew, or could trace him by ?

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mike,

You say, ‘The police with more details and face to face access found nothing suspicious about him. But this gets firmly brushed under the carpet of course.’

Can you clarify what you mean when you say they had ‘more details’ more than what/whom?

Gary

Not particularly well worded by me Gary. What I meant was that they had the opportunity of talking to him face to face and of asking him questions and to try and unearth more details. For example they might have looked closer at the time he left by asking him how he arrived at his estimation or they might have spoken to a neighbour who might have seen him leaving the house. We can’t assume anything of course but it’s not impossible that they might have known something that we don’t.

[Trevor Marriott]

Two things: Biggs gave his view BEFORE Payne James and Thiblin, and so it could not have been given to negate them.

Payne James and Thiblin are renowmed forensic pathologists, and as far as I know, Biggs is nothing of the sort. So in the choice between these doctors, I would recommend that the experience and seniority is weighed in.

I think I have read you writing about things being "blown ourt of the water" dozens of times now. It is of course absolute nonsense only.

I beg to differ and the only nonsence is coming from you. Payne and Thiblin are not forensic pathologists they are forensic physicians and there is a big difference

Forensic Physicians (or Forensic Medical Examiners - "FME"s) are what used to be called "Police Surgeons". (The name was updated a few decades ago, as they are neither police nor surgeons!)

They may do this in their "spare" time, and have a "normal" job (such as General Practitioner) during office hours, or they may be full-time in the FME role. They usually spend their time seeing live patients, such as victims of assault (to assess injury) or people in custody (to assess their fitness to be detained / interviewed by the police and / or to deal with any medical issues arising such as substance abuse / withdrawal). In some regions of the country they may also occasionally be called out to see dead bodies at scenes of death to confirm death / determine if things look suspicious, etc., but this varies with police force, historical arrangements and so on.

Forensic Pathologists on the other hand are principally concerned with dead bodies, and spend most of their time doing autopsies +/- attending suspicious death scenes. They occasionally get called to see live patients, but usually in the context of somebody who is dying on ITU after an illegal act such as an assault. They are also often asked to comment on photos of injuries sustained by live people, but this is due to them being "expert in injuries" role, rather than as medical doctors...

So nowadays a Forensic Physician might be called to see a living victim, whereas a Forensic Pathologist would attend a fatal victim's death scene / carry out the autopsy. Back at the time of The Whitechapel Murders, arrangements were less formal, and "police surgeons" (i.e. doctors who occasionally help the police when asked) would likely have been the medical personnel involved.

Out of interest, the coronial legislation still only requires that HM Coroner instructs a "suitably-qualified" person to conduct an autopsy - so essentially any medical doctor could do an autopsy... luckily these days they always ask an autopsy pathologist, and for "police" cases it is always a "forensic" pathologist.

On that basis would suggest Dr Biggs is far more in superiorority than your two you have used, and far more experienced to give a professional opinon on these matters

So yet again you have been told the medical evidence you seek to rely on is unsafe, when are you going to accept this and move on?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Mark J D]

[Blah, etc...]

What about replying to this bit...?

Biggs gave his view BEFORE Payne James and Thiblin, and so it could not have been given to negate them.

Thanks.

M.