Evidence of innocence

[Abby Normal]

You missed Barrister/schoolteacher

Hi herlock
LOL! unfortunately my profile kind of rules Druitt out-based on geographics/location/local man and "Class". sorry, i know your crushed. ; )

However, to lighten your spirits, my profile notwithstanding, I will say that yes druitt is still a valid suspect.

[MrBarnett]

Oh, understood, Gary, understood.

Otherwise, it would run against the chief doctrine of Orthodox Lechmerism. The onus is always on everyone else to prove that Lechmere wasn't the killer. Hence the highly questionable premise of this thread.

In this instance, the onus is on me to prove there wasn't a massive illuminated and highly accurate clock high in the air above the brewery wall. You have no obligation to show that there really was one, of course. I grasped the rules of the Lechmere schtick long ago.



First off, what theory? I have no theory that Lechmere was the killer. In this instance, Christer and Robert Mills have a theory that Robert Paul's timing was accurate (despite it clashing with everyone else's) and thus Lechmere must have lied to the coroner, which presumably proves he killed Polly Nichols.

I am merely asking where this highly accurate clock might have been located, since the only one you’ve yet shown faced the Whitechapel Road on the far end of a massive complex and was nowhere near the dark back northwest corner where Paul passed by.

If you agree with Christer and Bob Mills’ reasoning, why not simply say so? Otherwise, you appear to be defending their theory without having the mettle to get your own feet wet.

Do you think Robert Paul saw an accurate clock and really did arrive in Buck’s Row at EXACTLY 3:45? If so, how do you explain that his estimate seems to clash with everyone else’s? If not, why are you arguing like you believe that he did?

And you do understand how perspectives work, correct?

Below is a man walking next to a brick wall. It seems strange that I need to post it. He can't see over it. Now image it’s dark. He REALLY can’t see over it.

Yet, if we back the camera up to the far end of Pereira Street in broad daylight, we will suddenly be able to see a very tall smokestack in the distance, even though there is a brick wall in front of it.

But, of course, Robert Paul was not walking along the far end of Pereira Street in broad daylight, was he? (Dang! I'm starting to sound like Christer!)

Or are you suggesting that the onus is on me to prove there wasn’t an illuminated clock on the smokestack?

This is silly stuff, Gary. Agreed?

I’ll tell you what. When you find how Robert Paul calculated the time, be sure to inform me.

Until then, Frank O has posted the only sensible post on this thread for several hours.

“Neither of you wrote mischievous twaddle (or you both did). The fact of the matter is that we don't know how Paul came to his timing. He may have heard a clock chime and he may have seen one or he may even have got it in another way (for instance, from a knocker-up). We don't and can't know. As far as I can see, the only thing we might be relatively sure of is that Thain and Paul didn't base their timing on the same clock, as there's just too little room for that to have happened.”

As for me, I'm happy to stick with Fred Abberline. Paul arrived around 3:40 a.m. The evidence of 'missing time' is really weak.

Ah, so Paul lived inside the brick wall and when he left home he hugged it all the way to Brady Street. I hadn’t realised that. I thought he had started his journey walking along Foster Street with the tall buildings of the brewery complex looming ahead of him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi herlock
LOL! unfortunately my profile kind of rules Druitt out-based on geographics/location/local man and "Class". sorry, i know your crushed. ; )

However, to lighten your spirits, my profile notwithstanding, I will say that yes druitt is still a valid suspect.

I wouldn’t put my money on any suspect Abby

[GUT]

I wouldn’t put my money on any suspect Abby

I would if the odds were good enough, especially if “never been named” was on offer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would if the odds were good enough, especially if “never been named” was on offer.

‘Never been named’ would be my favourite too GUT.

[drstrange169]

>>In this instance, the onus is on me to prove there wasn't a massive illuminated and highly accurate clock high in the air above the brewery wall. You have no obligation to show that there really was one, of course. I grasped the rules of the Lechmere schtick long ago.<<

These are the rules we must play by RJ. Stray outside them and you are clearly mentally deficient in constantly varying ways.

We have two stories. One supported by the available evidence and one based almost entirely on unsupported conjecture.

Story one.

We know Thain claims to have been called about 3:45.
We know there was a clock on the front of the brewery in Whitechapel Rd.
We know Thain's beat passed that clock.
We know, if his timing was correct, that he should have passed that clock within a minute or so of being called by Neil.
We don't know if the clock chimed the quarter hours, but if it did, both Thain and Neil should have heard it.

Story two.

Paul might have seen a clock that nobody can prove existed.
It might have chimed, but if it did, it would need to have done so out of earshot of Thain and Neil.


Perhaps this might help.

The edge of Bath and the brewery was composed primarily of the walls of carpentry sheds, stores and stabling yards belonging to the brewery.

Here is the east side yard circa 1889. Paul would not have passed this.



No clocks sighted.

Here is the west side yard, facing Bath and Brady circa 1889. Paul did pass this.



No clocks sighted.


It isn't just a question of Paul might have seen or heard a clock. It's proving that Neil and Thain are wrong as well.

And there's the rub.

To prove Lechmere's guilt, more and more the available evidence must be dismissed and more and more speculation has to be added to justify the various claims.

[drstrange169]

>>He may have heard a clock chime and he may have seen one or he may even have got it in another way (for instance, from a knocker-up). <<

A third option is that his Lloyds claim was generated by a desire to show up the police. But, all three are and, I suspect, will remain unknown's.

[MrBarnett]

>>In this instance, the onus is on me to prove there wasn't a massive illuminated and highly accurate clock high in the air above the brewery wall. You have no obligation to show that there really was one, of course. I grasped the rules of the Lechmere schtick long ago.<<

These are the rules we must play by RJ. Stray outside them and you are clearly mentally deficient in constantly varying ways.

We have two stories. One supported by the available evidence and one based almost entirely on unsupported conjecture.

Story one.

We know Thain claims to have been called about 3:45.
We know there was a clock on the front of the brewery in Whitechapel Rd.
We know Thain's beat passed that clock.
We know, if his timing was correct, that he should have passed that clock within a minute or so of being called by Neil.
We don't know if the clock chimed the quarter hours, but if it did, both Thain and Neil should have heard it.

Story two.

Paul might have seen a clock that nobody can prove existed.
It might have chimed, but if it did, it would need to have done so out of earshot of Thain and Neil.


Perhaps this might help.

The edge of Bath and the brewery was composed primarily of the walls of carpentry sheds, stores and stabling yards belonging to the brewery.

Here is the east side yard circa 1889. Paul would not have passed this.



No clocks sighted.

Here is the west side yard, facing Bath and Brady circa 1889. Paul did pass this.



No clocks sighted.


It isn't just a question of Paul might have seen or heard a clock. It's proving that Neil and Thain are wrong as well.

And there's the rub.

To prove Lechmere's guilt, more and more the available evidence must be dismissed and more and more speculation has to be added to justify the various claims.

Very interesting images, Dusty. Where did you obtain them? Was it from here?

https://issuu.com/walkeast/docs/bbb_guide_final_issuu

[MrBarnett]

I’m assuming the caption here is wrong and the stables were not on the east side of Cambridge Heath Road.

[drstrange169]

>>Hope this is of help Jeff.<<

Excellent bit of work George!

Some variables to throw in.

We don't know where the street lamp was and how much it altered the lighting of the murder site.

There is great debate as to where the lamp was. Some claim it was more or less opposite the murder site in front of Essex Wharf. Most seem to be of the opinion it was outside Schneider's hat factory a few metres further west of the murder site.

The other factors to take into consideration is that you know where your "body" was and what it is. Cross would not have known either.

Another factor is the dangerous nature of the street. Presumably, seeing something unusual would set the adrenalin flowing, altering his perception.

I've know idea how much any (if any) of this would alter your reconstuction.

Before my old dog died I'd do some less methodical tests, by walking through scrub land on the night walks. From those more meagre experiments, I know the unknown causes the brain to offer up some unexpected guesswork at what I might be looking at.

Either way your test is certainly valuable itself.

[drstrange169]

>>I’m assuming the caption here is wrong and the stables were not on the east side of Cambridge Heath Road.<<

Since the wagons exited via Brady street I'm assuming so too.

But how about the point of the post Gary? You didn't answer RJ's question either.

[drstrange169]

>>Very interesting images, Dusty. Where did you obtain them? Was it from here? <<

No, from the original source, but yours is interesting, thanks.

[MrBarnett]

No it does seem to right, the stables were on the other side of the Cambridge Heath Road from the brewery.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433008170288&view=1up&seq=392&skin=2021&q1=Mann

[drstrange169]

>>>>I’m assuming the caption here is wrong and the stables were not on the east side of Cambridge Heath Road.<<

Just double checked and yes, the pictures are visa vera. So west caption must be East and East caption must be west. Go figure?

[MrBarnett]

>>Very interesting images, Dusty. Where did you obtain them? Was it from here? <<

No, from the original source, but yours is interesting, thanks.

Yes I found it. It has the same wording as the booklet I posted.

Where did you get the idea that the stables were by Bath Street?