Evidence of innocence

[drstrange169]

>>I thought I would have another look at things with regards to trying to work out roughly where C/L was standing in the middle of the street. <<

Great to see these various possibilities graphically shown Jeff.

[JeffHamm]

>>I thought I would have another look at things with regards to trying to work out roughly where C/L was standing in the middle of the street. <<

Great to see these various possibilities graphically shown Jeff.

Hey! I can quote again! Seems once a new page was created my edit/quote functions have been restored.

Anyway, thanks. Yah, it's tricky, given the rather confusing way the information appears in the press, combined with the errors associated with witness testimony as well. But, from what we have, I think we can narrow down the stretch of road where he was standing to be that indicated by the green dots, but shouldn't entirely preclude closer given George's results. While I recommend extreme caution in trying to extrapolate George's results to Bucks Row, given how little we know about the actual conditions we're trying to replicate, given his results look like they could have occurred if C/L were perpendicular to Nichols, then I think we can't exclude them entirely.

However, with that in mind, it would suggest the conditions could be "no darker/worse than those under which George conducted his recreation", and so we've reached a sort of absolute lower limit, which under some circumstances can be obtained. If the actual conditions were any better than these, the location moves towards the indicated range.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

And, the format of the "offending post" now seems fine too. It's fixed itself!

But, the time limit for me to edit it has passed, and I had left out the 2nd point to consider in this response:

3. What is the estimated distance between Paul and Lechmere as Paul turns into Bucks Row ?

That depends on a few things we don't know. But, if C/L and Paul are walking roughly the same speed, then the minimum would be about 40 yards (to the degree C/L's estimation of that distance is correct). That would require, of course, that C/L
1) did not slow his pace once he noticed a "shape" on the far side of the road, which at some point he thinks is a tarpaulin. If at that point C/L starts to slow down, then Paul will close the distance, meaning they were more than 40 yards apart before C/L changed speed.
2) C/L did not stop and pause entirely once he noticed it was not a tarpaulin but a women, to decide what to do next. If he did, we do not know how long it then took him to hear and then react to the sound of Paul's footsteps. While unlikely to be very long, for every second he is fully stopped, Paul would be closing an initially larger distance until the point C/L turns to look and to see Paul at 40 yards.

Combining points 1 and 2, which are very similar in many ways of course, there is every reason to suspect that initially the distance was greater than 40 yards, but the lower limit (the least distance) would be 40 yards.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Oh, and of course, that 40 yards is presuming Cross/Lechmere is reasonably accurate in estimating the distance.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>> Presumably because once he was able to realise it was a human, and not a tarpaulin, he assumed a man would not be wearing a dress.<<

Since her bonnet was further out in the street away from the gloom of the gate, that may well be what he recognised first.

"Her bonnet was off her head and was lying by her right side, close by the left hand."

[JeffHamm]

>> Presumably because once he was able to realise it was a human, and not a tarpaulin, he assumed a man would not be wearing a dress.<<

Since her bonnet was further out in the street away from the gloom of the gate, that may well be what he recognised first.

"Her bonnet was off her head and was lying by her right side, close by the left hand."

Possibly, I was figuring he was focused on the large tarpaulin shape, but if the bonnet caught his eye that may be what helped him figure out it was a person, and the overall clothing, either bonnet or dress, would generally preclude the conclusion it was a male.

I suppose it would be suspicious, though, if he had said to Paul "come look at this fellow", and Polly had been Peter in drag. I fear to include that sentence in case the fantasy debate erupts again, and this example could go places!

- Jeff

[Mark J D]

You have my answer so I don’t want to try again

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don't have your answer. You simply danced around my question.

From which I deduce that what Fisherman alleged was correct.

M.

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

He revealed his name because Baxter specifically asked to.

"In reply to the Coroner he said he was called Gould, though his real name was George Frost"

Of course he "naturally felt it was appropriate to disclose his real name" as it was one of the main the reasons he was called in the first place.

In no way comparable to witness Cross.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't have your answer. You simply danced around my question.

From which I deduce that what Fisherman alleged was correct.

M.

You can deduce what you like I know what I have quoted is factually correct !!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

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.

Are you aware of the phenomenon of added evidence altering the facts of a case? No? I gave pointed out many times now that the INITIAL belief that Neil found the body at 3.45 was sound enough - until added evidence changed the picture. And pointing out that one can obscure and cloud everything if one puts ones mind to it is not the same as estblishing Baxters message as in any way unclear. He, as well as the Daily News, were quite aware who was the real finder of the body and he would be acutely aware of how speaking of the finding of the body and mixing that up with Neils appearance at the scene - WITHOUT naming the PC - would muddle the business. So no, Iīm afraid.

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.

Really? How inventive! Me, I am a much simpler person, opting for the more obvioous and simple solutions. And I am acutely aware of what Baxter said of the carmen in his summary. If you are not, here it is:
Neither appear to have realised the real condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but this, no doubt, is accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot.
So Wynne BAxter was not conducting some sort of contrived reasoning about how Nichols could have been alive and well as the carmen exmined her. He had no doubt that she was already cut and dead or dying at this stage. Gone. Pushing up daisies.

Just like your suggestion, come to think of it.

[Fisherman]

A very fair and unbiased post

Regards Darryl

"Fair". "Unbiased".

Congratulations on getting the spelling correct .

[Mark J D]

You can deduce what you like I know what I have quoted is factually correct !!!!!!

You simply avoided the question about when you consulted your expert.

M.

[Fisherman]

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.

Correction: Anybody who disagress with me and who tampers with the facts to do so is wrong, and acting inappropriately.

The idea that I would regard anybody as dishonest for not agreeing with me on an overall scale is as wrong as it is rude.

But it IS the simple way out at times; we are proven wrong, we donīt like it, and so instead of admitting it, we paint the one who has proven us wrong out as mentally or morally deficient.

Itīs the oldest trick in the book.

I will make another post where I prove my point on at least one level when I have gone through and answered the other posts since yesterday evening.

[Fisherman]

The point is that if Richard Whittington-Egan did at one point believed that Jack and the Torso Killer were one and the same. He didn't believe it for long and by the end of his life certainly didn't believe it.

Thank you in advance for providing the quotation where he says so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh, and of course, that 40 yards is presuming Cross/Lechmere is reasonably accurate in estimating the distance.

- Jeff

Even if Lechmere took only 20 seconds to stop go over and check the ‘tarpaulin’ find that it was a woman and then move back to the centre of the road then that’s 20 seconds of walking for Paul. So how far can a man walk in 20 seconds? 40 yards? So add that to the 40 yards when Lechmere first became aware of him and we have the two men 80 yards apart. Then, as you say, how accurate was his judgment of about 40 yards? Yes it could have been less but it could have been 50 yards so that would give a gap of 90 yards. What if h was at the body for 25 instead of 25 seconds. Another 5 seconds of walking, another 10 yards so that’s 100 yards between them.

Of course some will say that I’m only adding but I’m only going on Lechmere’s words (and of course he could have lied) and to assume a short period after arriving at the scene for Lechmere is entirely reasonable I’d say.