Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proving that Charles Lechmere is a very good suspect

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

    These two reporters appear to be the only ones to speak of a ‘tarpaulin sheet’. Others speak of just a tarpaulin or a ‘man’s’ tarpaulin.
    I've worried about this a lot. We know that tarpaulin sheets loomed large in the daily life of a carman, as such things were protectively stretched over the top of the cart and above his high chair (I have illustrations), and Broad Street itself had a 'tarpaulin store'. Yet, at the same time, a tarpaulin was an item of clothing that clearly had a certain significance...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g83y1X5jn4

    M.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

      Do you refer to the blood evidence that Gary once characterized as "really weak"?

      If members of the congregation are themselves casting doubt about the chief tenets of your faith, just imagine how it looks to us heretics standing outside the church door.

      The point being that the blood noticed oozing from Nichols's throat was intrinsically linked to her body having been lifted into the police ambulance.
      The so called oozing blood was blood mentioned by Neil, at a point when she was NOT lifted onto (not into, an "ambulance" was a stretcher, not a car) the ambulance. and Neil ALSO spoke of running blood in his testimony. Plus he is quoted in pre-inquest articles as saying that Nichols bled profusely. Moreover, the word oozing can be coupled with word like just "profusely". "Oozed profusely" gives 843 Google hits, and I don´t care a iot if you think personally that it is an impossible combination. If it exists, it exists. To me, the one thong we can read into Neils "oozed" is that he spoke of blood running with no underlying pressure. End of.

      Since Neil saw running blood, and Mizen also saw running blood, at the later stage reaching into the gutter, yes, I do not hesitate to say that the blood evidence is valuable forensic evidence. As for heretics, I don´t invest much in their "knowledge".
      "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

      Comment


      • Here we go again. RJ questioning my independence.

        One for admin to deal with.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

          I've worried about this a lot. We know that tarpaulin sheets loomed large in the daily life of a carman, as such things were protectively stretched over the top of the cart and above his high chair (I have illustrations), and Broad Street itself had a 'tarpaulin store'. Yet, at the same time, a tarpaulin was an item of clothing that clearly had a certain significance...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g83y1X5jn4

          M.
          It sounds like two reporters realised that Lech was talking about a sheet rather than a jacket and independently decided to clarify the situation for their readers.

          Identical twins, perhaps?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
            In reference to the word 'about' ---

            From The Times, Sept 18th.

            Robert Baul [sic], 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.

            If we take 'about' a quarter to four as meaning pretty damned close to 3:45, or at least Paul's honest and best effort to be accurate, we have Paul rather miraculously not leaving home until Thain was already discovering the body.

            And when Paul does arrive in Buck's Row a minute or two later, Lechmere was still there!

            An obvious absurdity.

            Further, since The Times got Paul's name wrong, should we now discount that Paul used the word 'about,' and insist that he reported that he hadn't left home until exactly 3:45?

            I wouldn't want to base any theory on this rag-tag data. This looks very much like a case of 'garbage in, garbage out.'
            You don´t have to do the job, R J. Baxter did it for you, establishing that many independent data fixed the time at which the body was found to a time not far from 3.45.
            "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

              And incomplete rag-tag data is even less than useless. David has cherry-picked 19 reports and claimed that there were no other reports of that day’s inquest. There were. How many and whether any of them were produced by other reporters than the 10 he believes were there is anyone’s guess. Until that is clarified, all talk of majorities is misleading. More so than leaving out ‘about’. But I shan’t be holding my breath while I wait for the howls of outrage directed at Lord O.

              I would guess that 3.30 was Lechmere’s best estimate of when he left home and since his job was in the railway industry, an area where precision in timing was essential, I would suggest he left pretty close to that time.
              Of course he did - and he was aware that he was running late, meaning that he worked from an established timing. The outcome of it all is easy enough to establish to everybody liking and acceptance:

              We do not know that Charles Lechmere left home at exactly 3.30, and so we cannot say that the inference was that there was an eight minute gap.

              We only know that Charles Lechmere left home at around 3.30 and so we can say that the inferencve is that there was around an eight minute gap.

              Nobody should have a problem with that, I believe.
              "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post

                So are you saying that we can only draw conclusions if we have every single newspaper report on the subject Gary?
                Wasn´t you the one who suggested a majority rule, Michael? Have you abandoned that line now?
                "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                Comment


                • I've had to delete another post.

                  But I really don't have the time to waste carrying on like this. Suspensions will be the next step if people carry on breaking the rules.

                  Everybody. Don't accuse people of lying. Don't accuse people of deliberately misleading,

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post
                    Ok Gary I won’t fall into an argument about it. As far as I’m concerned David is completely correct. And Christer’s leaving out of the word ‘about’ can have no excuse whatsoever.
                    Actually, the inexcusable matter around here is to ground an accusation of dishonesty on incomplete information. And to claim that Cutting Point does not mention the "about" word.

                    Each to his own, though.
                    "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                      Here we go again. RJ questioning my independence.

                      One for admin to deal with.
                      I'm questioning your independence by pointing out that you DON'T agree with Christer on the value of the blood evidence?

                      How on earth does that work?


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
                        I've had to delete another post.

                        But I really don't have the time to waste carrying on like this. Suspensions will be the next step if people carry on breaking the rules.

                        Everybody. Don't accuse people of lying. Don't accuse people of deliberately misleading,
                        And that's one on each side in the last few minutes.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
                          when she was NOT lifted onto (not into, an "ambulance" was a stretcher, not a car) the ambulance.
                          I've seen a photograph of one Victorian-era ambulance that looked like a gigantic baby carriage, so I'll stick with "in."

                          But as so much of the Lechmere theory seems to come down to tedious arguments over semantics (almost as if the evidence can't stand up on its own) I'll save you further trouble by removing myself from the conversation. Enjoy.

                          Comment


                          • Michael Banks:

                            Then why do it?

                            In your section on the gap. You know, the relevant section. You omit the word ‘about.’ This is a fact. Wriggle, squirm, dissemble and imagine all you like. The result was the same. The casual reader was given the impression that it was an established FACT that he’d left the house at 3.30.

                            Your bleating from your high horse will make no difference. You are wrong. And I will not back down on this black and white issue.

                            You don´t have to back down. You have been backed down already. It is not for you to decide whether or not the full quote from the Daily News is relevant or not to the discussion. It should be obvious to anybody that it is as relevant as can be. If the material had NOT been in Cutting Point, it would have been unlucky - but not deceitful. I do not deal in deceptions, but I may well - as may anybody else - miss out on naming things that are of relevance. Which is why I say that I would have used and discussed the word "about" if it had only crossed my mind that it was necessary as I wrote.
                            However, as it is proven by now that the material IS in Cutting Point, any claim of me having "omitted" it or "left it out" or hidden it or whatever phrasing you prefer to use in your personal crusade becomes demonstrably wrong.

                            I cannot see how I can be any clearer - but I can see how you prefer a complete fog.
                            "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

                              I've seen a photograph of one Victorian-era ambulance that looked like a gigantic baby carriage, so I'll stick with "in."

                              But as so much of the Lechmere theory seems to come down to tedious arguments over semantics (almost as if the evidence can't stand up on its own) I'll save you further trouble by removing myself from the conversation. Enjoy.
                              The ambulance that was used in the Nichols case was a stretcher, so you may want to reconsider.

                              Neil: "We placed her on the ambulance..."

                              Tedious or not.
                              "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                              Comment


                              • A while back it was a party line. Now it’s tenets of a faith.

                                Insulting either way.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X