Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

I would like to return to Dr Strange 169/Dustys post 3437, where he says it is "nonsense" to claim that the body of Polly Nichols was found at 3.45. I would also ask Great Aunt to listen to what I have to say; taking Dustyīs words about how "Inside Bucks Row" is the most comprehensive book on the Nichols case as gospel is something I would advice against. When saying this, I am working from the assumption that Dustys take on how the 3.45 timing is "nonsense", is mirrored in "Inside Bucks Row". If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me, Dusty.

Now, letīs get the timing issue untangled!

The criticism levelled at those who say that the body was found at 3.45 is that such a thing swears against what the three PC:s said. Neil, Thain and Mizen all said that they were brought into the business at 3.40, and so the 3.45 timing must be wrong, it is claimed.

To begin with, we can establish that there is nothing strange about how all three PC:s said that they were drawn into the proceedings in the exact same minute; it may well be that Neil flagged Thain down in the same minute that he found the body, and it may equally well be that this minute may be the same minute that Lechmere and Paul reached Mizen up at the juncture Bakers Row/Hanbury Street.
So far, so good.

In spite of how the three PC:s were in accordance with each other, the coroner, Wynne Baxter, said when summing up the case that going by many independent data, it was clear that the body was found in the vicinity of 3.45. Very clearly, Baxter therefore opposes the view offered by the three PC:s. And he does so on the last day of the inquest, when the evidence had been collected, the testimony given and everything had been weighed up.

It must be understood that the timeline is always of the essence in murder cases. The very fact that Baxter stated that the time at which the body was found would have been around 3.45 tells us that there had been discussions about the matter.
It seems evident that the initial belief was that the three PC:s had been called into action at 3.40. That timing, however, came with a large problem, and that large problem was Thains participation in the drama.

John Thain was called to the murder site by PC Neil. And he was called there in about the same minute that Neil found Nichols. Both PC:s report 3.40 as the time.
We then know that PC Neil told Thain to "run for Dr Llewellyn", showing us that there was urgency and haste involved.

When Thain was flagged down by Neil by way of signalling with the bulls eye lamp, he was in Brady Street, and so he had a 130 yard distance to cover before he reached Browns Stable Yard. If he was flagged down at 3.40, he would be in place at the murder site at 3.41 - at which time he was immediately sent for Dr Lewellyn.

Doctor Llewellyn had his practice in Whitechapel Road, a two- or three minute walk from the murder site. Thain would have been running, and so two minutes is likely what it would have taken him to reach the practice. We have therefore now arrived at 3.43.
However, and this is the crux, Rees Ralph Llewellyn said he was called up by Thain at 3.55-4.00. Which begs the question why Thain took 14-19 minutes to cover a stretch that would take no more than around two minutes to cover...?
How did that come to pass?
Or did it?

This question was evidently clear to the inquest too. And it originaly sparked the idea that John Thain would have sneaked into the butchers in Winthrop Street to get his cape and to tell them about how there had been a murder committed in Bucks Row. It must have seemed the only possibility to save the 3.40 timing given by the three PC:s. However, the testimony of Henry Tomkins quashed the idea; Tomkins laid down that Thain payed his visit to the butchers at 4.15, AFTER he had arrived back with Llewellyn in company.

Letīs now move on to look at what it would have meant if the PC:s actually had been called into action at 3.40.
Well, it would have meant that the two carmen would have met by the body at around 3.35. Otherwise, they would not have had the time to examine the body, make their decision to leave, and walk up to Bakers Row before Neil turned into Bucks Row from Thomas Street! And if this was the case, then Robert Paul would not have been late at all. He would only have thought that he was late, since he would have mistakenly believed that the time was "exactly 3.45" as he walked down Bucks Row.
So did Paul make that kind of a mistake?
Without even noticing it as he arrived to his job?
Hardly.

So which were the actual timings? And how do they fit together? Because they all do, except for one single timing - the one the PC:s gave. Here we go:

Letīs accept that what Wynne Baxter said after having investigated the matter thoroughly, what Donald Swanson said in his October report and what Robert Paul said was the actual truth: The carmen found the body at around 3.45.
More specifically, since Robert Paul said that the time was exactly 3.45 as he walked down Bucks Row, letīs assume that it was 3.46 as he found Lechmere by the body. Then what do we get?

-We get the carmen examining the body and walking up to Mizen, something that according to Robert Paul took no more than four minutes. That means the carmen reached Mizen at 3.50. Mizen was then informed about the woman in Bucks Row, finished a knocking up errand and made his way to the murder site. Reasonably, it would have taken Mizen around the same time as it took the carmen to do the trek in the opposite direction - around four minutes. So he would have arrived at the murder site at around 3.55. And at that stage, the only person in place was John Neil, because he had already sent Thain for Dr Llewellyn, as we shall see.

-We get John Neil arriving at the murder site at around 3.51. The carmen reached Jonas Mizen at around 3.50, and so they would have turned the corner up at Bakers Row at around 3.49.30 or something such, Before that time, Neil could not have turned into Bucks Row from Thomas Street, becasue he would have seen and heard the carmen in such a case. And if Neil turned into Bucks Row at circa 3.49.30, he would be at the murder site at around 3.51.

-We get Neil flagging down John Thain at around 3.52, after a minutes examination of the dead body of Polly Nichols, and so Thain would have reached the site at around 3.53. He was then informed about the errand by Neil and sent off to get doctor Llewellyn. He would have left the murder site at 3.53-3.54, having a two or three minute trek to Llewellyns practice, meaning that he would have arrived there at approximately 3.55-3.57. And Llewellyn said he was called to Bucks Row by Thain at between 3.55-4.00.

So this is how it all fits together. Each and every little bit, but for the timing given by the three PC:s. And this is what Baxter and the inquest realized, as well as the police, when sifting through the material and checking how the puzzle pieces fit together. It was therefore it became the official picture of the timings.

This is what Dusty calls "nonsense". And he tells us that Lechmere had an alibi - because "sworn police testimony" would somehow prove that Charles Lechmere could not have been at the site at 3.45. What other witnesses swore to, Dusty is much less interested in.

And to close the circle, that picture, Great Aunt, is what Dusty is trying to sell to you by recommending "Inside Bucks Row" as "the most comprehensive" source there is on the Bucks Row matter. Read the book, by all means - but do so with a barrel full of salt very close at hand ...

[Fisherman]

I've included this in a reconstruction of Lechmere's inquest statement, which is to be found here.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank!

A very comprehensive listing, so thank you for that!

By the bye - I think Iīve found the answer to your question why Lechmere would not have amended his timings to fit with his departure time from home, a question you brought up some little time ago.

In actual fact, I believe that amending his timings to fit the "facts" was exactly what he did!

Here it is:

Charles Lechmere said he left home at 3.30 on the murder morning. He was then found in Bucks Row by Robert Paul at 3.45, although he should have been halfways down Hanbury Street at that stage.

So why did he not say that he left home at 3.38ish, you ask.

I think we may have overlooked a component here, and it boils down to the alleged 3.40 timing given by the police!

Charles Lechmere would have been aware of two suggested time schedules. Schedule number one was the one given by Robert Paul. It suggested that Paul found Lechmere in Bucks Row at 3.46, outside Browns Stable Yard.

However, that timing, although it doubtlessly is the correct one (see my post to Dusty and Great Aunt above), was not the ACCEPTED one at the stage Lechmere took the stand. At that stage, the prevailing idea was that PC Neil had found the body at 3.40! That in its turn would mean that the carmen must have been in place some minutes earlier, at around perhaps 3.35-3.36.

And lo and behold - THAT timing fits like a glove with Lechmere having left home at "around 3.30"!!

So there you go - it would have been a question for Lechmere about who he thought the inquest would believe: PC John Neil or the estranged carman Robert Paul. Furthermore, before Lechmere testified, Jonas Mizen took the stand and confirmed John Neils time of 3.45! So that would likely have wrapped things up.

Hope you can see what Iīm after here, Frank, and Iīd appreciate any comment from your side.

[Harry D]

Well, l'm not... bring up with Fisherman.

I don't care. What you said was wrong and I was putting you straight.

[drstrange169]

>>Baxter - who knew quite well about the timings the three PC:s had given - established in his inquest summary that 3.45 was the time when the body of Polly Nichols was discovered. <<

No he didn't and you already know he didn't because it's been pointed out to you numerous times.

The only reliable time available to Baxter was the P.C.'s times, so he stated their time and specifically added a qualifier, which you keep trying write out of history.

Cross and Paul are not recorded as giving a time for being in Buck's Row, so to pretend he based a time on something they didn't give him is just not worth debating.


>>Swanson confirmed it in his October report, changing the 3.40 timing from before Baxters summary to 3.45.<<

Again, it's been pointed out to you numerous times that Swanson made proven errors in his reports, but, hey, if you want to go down the road of Swanson finding out Mizen lied or was mistaken and was an unreliable witness and changed his report accordingly, I'm more than happy to hold your hand and skip down that country lane!

If Baxter had stated an exact time as you just wrongly tried to claim, why would Swanson need to alter the police records, as time time would have been officially fixed at the inquest? Like Newbie, you're making circular self defeating arguments.


>>So no, you cannot dismiss this information once and for all. <<

As you can see, unless you're clinging to a Titanic Deck chair, pending new information, yes we most definitely can.


>>What can be dismissed is that the PCs must have been correct. Regardless of what they swore to. <<

Sure, Everybody that Mizen woke that day was late for work so the police records must show he was delict in his duty that day, yes/no? Sgt. Kirby was sanctioned for lying about Neil being on time on this beat, yes/no?

Let's not be desperate or silly about this.

[drstrange169]

>>Dusty Logic. Lechmere is found near the body by Robert Paul.<<

Depends on how you define near, is 50 yards away "near" something? How did Cross the killer get that far from the body without being seen and why when escape was the same distance away?


>>But he can’t have done it as when Nichols was killed he was with PC Mizen. <<

Go though every thread on Casebook and find me anybody who has ever claimed Mrs Nichols was attacked when Cross and Paul were with Mizen.


>>So despite meeting Mizen after Nichols is already dead this somehow gives Lechmere an alibi ?<<

I see now, sorry, you are not understanding what you are reading. Mizen gives Cross an unshakable albi for where he was a 3:45 nothing else.
Nobody knows exactly when Mrs Nichols was killed closer than sometime after PC Neil's last round and Cross and Paul finding the body.


>>Coroner Mr. Wynne E. Baxter himself fixed the time the body was found at around 03.45. “The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 03.45 as it is fixed by so many independent data”<<

Thank you, can you pass that on to Christer because he just denied the bit I've underlined.

[drstrange169]

>>I'm afraid that he did say something to that effect. Only the Star and the Times of 4 September carried this as follows.
Star: "Witness heard no sounds of a vehicle. He thought that had anyone left the body after he had turned into Buck's-row he would have heard them."

Thanks Frank, hearing no sounds of a vehicle is not hearing everything all the way up Buck's Row. The second part of the sentence is the reporters bastardisation of the first person account I quoted from Cross's which specifically relates to what he saw, not what he heard.

“No; I did not see anyone at all around except the constable I spoke to. I don't think I met anybody after I left my house till I got to the body.”

But, the key and big point here is not this, but the fact that were he the killer, it is to his great advantage to to say he did hear or see something.

[drstrange169]

>> ... taking Dustyīs words about how "Inside Bucks Row" is the most comprehensive book on the Nichols case as gospel is something I would advice against.<<

Giving advice about a book you haven't read about sums it up.

That "Inside Buck's Row" is the most comprehensive book is a matter of fact. No where else will you find so much detailed information on the Buck's Row incident. I'll leave it to others to judge the fact that you won't read it, as to how open you are to research. I disagree with your theory, but I still bought you book as soon as i could. For me research isn't selecting only the bits I like, it's looking at everything I can get my hands on.

The rest of your post is the standard bluster that I've already dealt with in post 3455.

[drstrange169]

>>Charles Lechmere said he left home at 3.30 on the murder morning. He was then found in Bucks Row by Robert Paul at 3.45, although he should have been halfways down Hanbury Street at that stage.<<

More bluster, let's be scientific about this. where is your evidence that Cross and Paul's clocks were in sync with each other? If you can't prove that very basic crucial element how can anyone serious about research take your fabrication seriously?

Speaking of fabrications,

>>the prevailing idea was that PC Neil had found the body at 3.40! <<

Where does this imaginary "prevailing idea" come from when every newspaper was writing,

"Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning" - Star and Evening News Aug31
"about 4.30 this morning, Constable Neale" - Echo 31 Aug
"At a quarter to four o'clock Police constable Neill, 97 J, when in Buck's row, Whitechapel, came upon the body of a woman" - Daily News Sept 1
"The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four on Friday morning" - ELA Sept 1
"It seems that on Friday morning Police-constable Neale [Neil], 97 J, was on his beat at about half-past four" - ELO Sept 1
"At a quarter to four yesterday morning Police-constable Neil was on his beat in Buck's-row" - Evening News Sept 1
"At a quarter to four o'clock Police constable Neill, 97 J, when in Buck's row" - Morning advertiser Sept 1
"At a quarter to 4 o'clock Police-constable Neill, 97J, when in Buck's-row" - The Times Sept 1

[SuperShodan]

>>Dusty Logic. Lechmere is found near the body by Robert Paul.<<

Depends on how you define near, is 50 yards away "near" something? How did Cross the killer get that far from the body without being seen and why when escape was the same distance away?


>>But he can’t have done it as when Nichols was killed he was with PC Mizen. <<

Go though every thread on Casebook and find me anybody who has ever claimed Mrs Nichols was attacked when Cross and Paul were with Mizen.


>>So despite meeting Mizen after Nichols is already dead this somehow gives Lechmere an alibi ?<<

I see now, sorry, you are not understanding what you are reading. Mizen gives Cross an unshakable albi for where he was a 3:45 nothing else.
Nobody knows exactly when Mrs Nichols was killed closer than sometime after PC Neil's last round and Cross and Paul finding the body.


>>Coroner Mr. Wynne E. Baxter himself fixed the time the body was found at around 03.45. “The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 03.45 as it is fixed by so many independent data”<<

Thank you, can you pass that on to Christer because he just denied the bit I've underlined.

Where to start with this ? Lechmere was found “standing where the woman was” by Robert Paul and by Lechmere’s own admission he had got close enough to identify that it was a woman lying on the street. Then he stepped back as he heard Paul approach. Both Paul and Lechmere are in agreement that Lechmere is close to the body. There’s just no debate on this.
Furthermore, when Paul arrives both men examine Nichols.The idea that Lechmere is 50m away from Nichols when Paul first sights him is clearly wrong. It’s actually a ridiculous notion.

PC Mizen gives Lechmere an ‘unshakable alibi’ for 03.45. So Mizen is exactly sure of the time to the exact minute. Everyone else in our drama is wrong, including Robert Paul who’s livelihood depended on getting up at the right time and not being late. Paul clearly had a good idea of the time as he was aware he was late and was rushing to get to Corbett’s Court in Handbury Street.

Time isn't synchronised. I accept there could be leeway, but this standard also applies to Mizen. I don’t think we can fix ANY of the times exactly. All are approximate. What we can say is that around 03.45 Robert Paul met Lechmere in Bucks Row. This is also the conclusion of the Coroner.

[The Baron]

>>Baxter - who knew quite well about the timings the three PC:s had given - established in his inquest summary that 3.45 was the time when the body of Polly Nichols was discovered. <<

No he didn't and you already know he didn't because it's been pointed out to you numerous times.

The only reliable time available to Baxter was the P.C.'s times, so he stated their time and specifically added a qualifier, which you keep trying write out of history.

Cross and Paul are not recorded as giving a time for being in Buck's Row, so to pretend he based a time on something they didn't give him is just not worth debating.


>>Swanson confirmed it in his October report, changing the 3.40 timing from before Baxters summary to 3.45.<<

Again, it's been pointed out to you numerous times that Swanson made proven errors in his reports, but, hey, if you want to go down the road of Swanson finding out Mizen lied or was mistaken and was an unreliable witness and changed his report accordingly, I'm more than happy to hold your hand and skip down that country lane!

If Baxter had stated an exact time as you just wrongly tried to claim, why would Swanson need to alter the police records, as time time would have been officially fixed at the inquest? Like Newbie, you're making circular self defeating arguments.


>>So no, you cannot dismiss this information once and for all. <<

As you can see, unless you're clinging to a Titanic Deck chair, pending new information, yes we most definitely can.


>>What can be dismissed is that the PCs must have been correct. Regardless of what they swore to. <<

Sure, Everybody that Mizen woke that day was late for work so the police records must show he was delict in his duty that day, yes/no? Sgt. Kirby was sanctioned for lying about Neil being on time on this beat, yes/no?

Let's not be desperate or silly about this.

Reading your posts is a joy!

The damage you caused to the Lechmere misguided theory is wide spectrum



The Baron

[The Baron]

But, the key and big point here is not this, but the fact that were he the killer, it is to his great advantage to to say he did hear or see something.

That alone is a glaring proof of Cross innocence.

If one can fancy a guilty person saying this, then it is a mission impossible convincing him otherwise.



The Baron

[FrankO]

However, that timing, although it doubtlessly is the correct one (see my post to Dusty and Great Aunt above), was not the ACCEPTED one at the stage Lechmere took the stand. At that stage, the prevailing idea was that PC Neil had found the body at 3.40! That in its turn would mean that the carmen must have been in place some minutes earlier, at around perhaps 3.35-3.36.

And lo and behold - THAT timing fits like a glove with Lechmere having left home at "around 3.30"!!

So there you go - it would have been a question for Lechmere about who he thought the inquest would believe: PC John Neil or the estranged carman Robert Paul. Furthermore, before Lechmere testified, Jonas Mizen took the stand and confirmed John Neils time of 3.45! So that would likely have wrapped things up.

Hope you can see what Iīm after here, Frank, and Iīd appreciate any comment from your side.

I can clearly see what you’re after, Christer, but I’m curious as to where you found that Neil discovered the body at about 3.40. As Dusty has pointed out, there are only newspapers saying that he found her at about 3.45 (and two of them say even later), including the Lloyd’s of the 2^nd of September, which also carried the interview with Paul. And this would be all that Lechmere could have read and known. So, until you can show me where the 3.40 comes from and why Lechmere would see that as the prevailing time, I can't give you any other comment than anything I've already given.

[Fisherman]

So, first things first: I made a glaring mistake by saying that Neil and his two colleagues said that they were called into action at 3.40. It was, as everybody knows, me included, 3.45. Which I have always said, which I write in my book - but which I got wrong this time. So apologies for that, we should not add further confusion to a matter that many people are already confused about.

However, this mistake of mine does not change the overall picture: the three PC:s were the only ones giving a timing that is not compatible with the events as they went down. This schedule of mine still stands:

Letīs accept that what Wynne Baxter said after having investigated the matter thoroughly, what Donald Swanson said in his October report and what Robert Paul said was the actual truth: The carmen found the body at around 3.45.
More specifically, since Robert Paul said that the time was exactly 3.45 as he walked down Bucks Row, letīs assume that it was 3.46 as he found Lechmere by the body. Then what do we get?

-We get the carmen examining the body and walking up to Mizen, something that according to Robert Paul took no more than four minutes. That means the carmen reached Mizen at 3.50. Mizen was then informed about the woman in Bucks Row, finished a knocking up errand and made his way to the murder site. Reasonably, it would have taken Mizen around the same time as it took the carmen to do the trek in the opposite direction - around four minutes. So he would have arrived at the murder site at around 3.55. And at that stage, the only person in place was John Neil, because he had already sent Thain for Dr Llewellyn, as we shall see.

-We get John Neil arriving at the murder site at around 3.51. The carmen reached Jonas Mizen at around 3.50, and so they would have turned the corner up at Bakers Row at around 3.49.30 or something such, Before that time, Neil could not have turned into Bucks Row from Thomas Street, becasue he would have seen and heard the carmen in such a case. And if Neil turned into Bucks Row at circa 3.49.30, he would be at the murder site at around 3.51.

-We get Neil flagging down John Thain at around 3.52, after a minutes examination of the dead body of Polly Nichols, and so Thain would have reached the site at around 3.53. He was then informed about the errand by Neil and sent off to get doctor Llewellyn. He would have left the murder site at 3.53-3.54, having a two or three minute trek to Llewellyns practice, meaning that he would have arrived there at approximately 3.55-3.57. And Llewellyn said he was called to Bucks Row by Thain at between 3.55-4.00.

So this is how it all fits together. Each and every little bit, but for the timing given by the three PC:s. And this is what Baxter and the inquest realized, as well as the police, when sifting through the material and checking how the puzzle pieces fit together. It was therefore it became the official picture of the timings.

This is still how the different pieces of the puzzle fit together. And Thain is still the one person who tells us that the 3.45 timing of the three PC:s was wrong. Because if Thain had been flagged down by Neil in the same minute that Neil first saw Nichols, then Thain would have been in place outside Browns Stable Yard a minute later, namely at 3.46. And if he was sent running for Dr Llewellyn at 3.46, then he should be at the doctors practice at 3.48.

But Llewellyn said he was called to Bucks Row by Thain at somewhere around 3.55-4.00, meaning that a route that should have taken Thain two minutes to cover, instead took nine to fourteen minutes. That is to say, if we listen to Dustys suggestion (that three PC:s cannot be wrong), then it took Thain four and a half to seven times as long to cover the stretch as it should have done.

The PC:s were therefore wrong. And Wynne Baxter, Donald Swanson and Robert Paul were correct. The body was found at around 3.45, not at 3.40.

When being told that Baxter concluded that the body was found at around 3.45, something we have in black on white from the inquest summary, Dusty flatly denies it:

No he didn't and you already know he didn't because it's been pointed out to you numerous times.

The only reliable time available to Baxter was the P.C.'s times, so he stated their time and specifically added a qualifier, which you keep trying write out of history.

Cross and Paul are not recorded as giving a time for being in Buck's Row, so to pretend he based a time on something they didn't give him is just not worth debating.

I never put much trust in how reiterating falsehoods could make them true. So we can look away from that particular protest. However, the rest of this remarkable statement has to be commented on. Dusty says that "the only reliable time available to Baxter" was the PC:s times. That is of course balderdash. ALL the timings given by the various participants must be regarded as equally reliable, and a weighing must be done before we can see how the bits fit together. And that weighing tells us that Thains trip to Llewellyn closes the deal - the PC:s were wrong. The idea that Cross and Paul did not give a time for when they were in Bucks Row is also bonkers; Robert Paul said very clearly that "I am a carman, and on the morning of the murder I left home just before a quarter to four." That means that 3.40 had already passed. And we also have the LLoyds article where Paul says that he walked down Bucks Row at EXACTLY 3.45. The two statements are perfectly in line with each other, he had a minute only to Bucks Row from his home and so to have walked down Bucks Row at exactly 3.45, he would need to have left his home just before a quarter to four - which is what he said he did.

And what "qualifier" is it Dusty speaks of? Any idea, anybody? Perhaps Dusty can tell us himself?

We apparenty need to be extremely cautious about Dusty and his selection of material. The next example is this answer of his, when I said that what can be dismissed is that the PCs must have been correct:

Sure, Everybody that Mizen woke that day was late for work so the police records must show he was delict in his duty that day, yes/no? Sgt. Kirby was sanctioned for lying about Neil being on time on this beat, yes/no?

Here, Dusty wants us to believe that Kirby stood at the inlet to Bucks Row from Thomas Row, clock in hand, confirming that John Neil turned into Bucks Row at around 3.43.30. In actual fact, Kirby arrived at the murder site after Llewellyn, and so he would have been in place after 4.10. If Dusty has the evidence to show us that he had spent the time leading up to 4.10 tracking and timing John Neils every step, the I say let him do so. According to The Complete Jack the Ripper, Kirby was reduced to constable and transferred to S division for impoperly drinking in a pub while on duty two months after the Nichols murder, so maybe we should be careful with both Dusty and Kirby anyway.
As for the ones Mizen woke up being late for work, that is just silly and deserves no further comment. We are talking of a few minute difference here, and there was always the chance that a PC would be delayed by all sorts of errands emerging along his way. Unless Dusty suggests that a PC would not intervene stop a brawl, help out with directions etcetera because he prioritized knocking people up, I believe we can leave the suggestion to oblivion.

Dusty further says that his idea that Inside Bucks Row is the most comprehensive book on the Nichols murder must not be challenged, and he means that I have no say if I have not read it. What I said was of course that IF Steve Blomer works from the idea that the three PC:s cannot have been wrong, then there is every reason to point out that it helps very little to write a thick book - if the information in it is wrong, skewed or biased.
We also know that Blomer in his review of my book on the murders wrote that I was "dodgy" for not giving the fact that Robert Paul told PC Mizen that he thought that Nichols was dead enough space. The sad thing is that it is no fact at all that Paul ever DID speak to Mizen, that Blomer quite well knew that I donīt believe he DID speak to Mizen, and that he nevertheless claimed that it was "dodgy" of me to play this "fact" down - although I actually mention it not once but twice in my book.
When I want to find a comprehensive book to rely upon, these kinds of things tend to govern which choices I make.
Steve Blomer has a interpretation of his own about what happened in Bucks Row. That is fine, he has all right in the world to do that.
But when he elevates a matter into a fact although the matter at hand is under discussion and has two possible solutions, and then uses that self-invented "fact" to claim that those who ascribe (without claiming it for a fact!) to the other interpretation are being "dodgy" for writing it in a book, then the floodgates for unserious and false claims are opened.
I have repeatedly tried to engage Steve Blomer in debate about this on the boards, but he refuses to do so. His only comment came on Facebook, where he said that his review was fair and honest, as if that was something he himself should decide about.

Moving on, Dusty comment on my sentence:
Charles Lechmere said he left home at 3.30 on the murder morning. He was then found in Bucks Row by Robert Paul at 3.45, although he should have been halfways down Hanbury Street at that stage.
by saying:

More bluster, let's be scientific about this. where is your evidence that Cross and Paul's clocks were in sync with each other? If you can't prove that very basic crucial element how can anyone serious about research take your fabrication seriously?

Why it would be unscientific to point out that a trek that takes around seven minutes in this case seems to have taken fifteen minutes instead is something Dusty gives us no real answer to. His reasoning simply builds on how timings can be wrong - unless, of course, they are referred to by three PC.s...
Asking for evidence that Pauls and Lechmeres clocks were in sync does not help much. We have no idea if they HAD clocks to begin with, but that does not mean that we can treat all timings as uninteresting. Pauls claim to have walked down Bucks Row at EXACTLY 3.45 must have had its origin in checking the time, and his inquest claim to have left home at "just before a quarter to four" is in line with it, and so that is the perhaps best timing we have overall. No other participant speak of an exact time but Paul does. And it fits with the rest of the evidence as per the above.
To Dusty, this is bad news, so he prefers to call it bluster. But the idea that the PC:s could not possibly have been wrong, although Baxter and Swanson concur that they WERE, is not bluster - it is instead a warm and soothing tropical wind, filled with fragrance.
Interesting, is it not?

Lastly, Dusty says that it is fabrication that Neil claimed to have been called into action at 3.40. Well, no - it is not. It is a mistake on my behalf, as per the above. But Dusty perfers to call it a fabrication. Altough he has read my book and therefore knows that it was a mistake. That should say it all.

[SuperShodan]

That alone is a glaring proof of Cross innocence.

If one can fancy a guilty person saying this, then it is a mission impossible convincing him otherwise.



The Baron

Actually adding a 3rd party into the equation could hurt Lechmere. If nobody else see’s or hear’s anyone else running off then it looks like an obvious attempt to blame somebody else, “a bigger boy did it and ran away” type excuse. It would convince nobody. Suspicion would fall back on Lechmere.

The idea that Lechmere not seeing anyone else confirms his innocence is highly subjective. Lechmere saying that he saw and heard no one is his best course of action.

Moving on, Lechmere confirming that’s there’s nobody else there, there’s no 3rd party that ran off, just indicates that there was indeed nobody else there - just Lechmere. The more and more unlikely an unknown 3rd party being JTR becomes, the more we are left left with the simplest and most obvious solution. Lechmere killed Polly Nichols and narrowly avoided being caught in the act. He’s the only one there. There is nobody else.

[Fisherman]

I can clearly see what you’re after, Christer, but I’m curious as to where you found that Neil discovered the body at about 3.40. As Dusty has pointed out, there are only newspapers saying that he found her at about 3.45 (and two of them say even later), including the Lloyd’s of the 2^nd of September, which also carried the interview with Paul. And this would be all that Lechmere could have read and known. So, until you can show me where the 3.40 comes from and why Lechmere would see that as the prevailing time, I can't give you any other comment than anything I've already given.

Yup, Frank - I mistakenly used the wrong timing. The real time for when Neil saw the body is of course 3.45 - but that still means that Lechmere and Paul should have been in place at around 3.40, and so Lechmere saying that he left home at 3.30 would be roughly in sync. However, if we accept that the body was found by the carmen at 3.45, which is more or less a certainty in my view, then we get a walk of around ten minutes on Lechmeeīs behalf, and that takes him out of the danger zone along the lines I drew up in my post.

Sorry for any inconvenience caused by my mistake.