The Darkness of Bakers Row

[A P Tomlinson]

There is only one person in the whole matter whom I would consider a relatively trustworthy arbiter of time, for whom such accuracy would probably be something of professional pride.
Abberline.

And even he would not be infallible in the matter of measuring the times provided by witnesses. You can only work with what you have in front of you...

[Abby Normal]

They are "kind of" doing that, but like Fiver says, these interpretations and extrapolations have to start from a source to sound like they have been reached through an intellectual process rather than "creative writing".

But they are using an intellectual process in this regard. Lech said he left about 3:30 and first noticed Paul about 40 yards away in bucks row after he lech stopped momentarily to figure out what was lying there. So he places himself alone with nichols for at least several minutes until paul arrives. Not creative writing at all. More like astute observation.

imho though if he was the killer he probably left earlier than he said so yes to me kind of a moot point. But their stance on this is solid reasoning, but of course interprets about 3:30 as at least not much past 3:30 and that lech made a mistake if guilty by placing himself alone with Polly for longer time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But they are using an intellectual process in this regard. Lech said he left about 3:30 and first noticed Paul about 40 yards away in bucks row after he lech stopped momentarily to figure out what was lying there. So he places himself alone with nichols for at least several minutes until paul arrives. Not creative writing at all. More like astute observation.

imho though if he was the killer he probably left earlier than he said so yes to me kind of a moot point. But their stance on this is solid reasoning, but of course interprets about 3:30 as at least not much past 3:30 and that lech made a mistake if guilty by placing himself alone with Polly for longer time.

Hi Abby,

Its not several minutes though. It’s more like 5 seconds.

“He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away.”

So as soon as he saw that it was a woman he heard Paul approaching. And Paul saw Cross in the middle of the road. Cross could have lied of course but we have evidence of this.

[A P Tomlinson]

But they are using an intellectual process in this regard. Lech said he left about 3:30 and first noticed Paul about 40 yards away in bucks row after he lech stopped momentarily to figure out what was lying there. So he places himself alone with nichols for at least several minutes until paul arrives. Not creative writing at all. More like astute observation.

imho though if he was the killer he probably left earlier than he said so yes to me kind of a moot point. But their stance on this is solid reasoning, but of course interprets about 3:30 as at least not much past 3:30 and that lech made a mistake if guilty by placing himself alone with Polly for longer time.

I'm not sure I made myself clear.
When using Lechmere's words as the starting point, they get to make up a time and THEN act like its an intellectual process.
But if they were to start from the "On the asumption he IS the killer... he could have left at any time so it doesn't matter what he said, so let's just say he left at 3.15... NOW he has plenty of time." starting point (or whatever time they choose...), they'd very clearly be down the creative writing route, and it would be obvious that's what they are doing.

They have to have something to show was wrong to argue why they are right.
It's only occasionally that they say the quiet part out loud such as "If you assume he is the killer, then..."

And yes, if its a lie it's another silly, pointless lie. I know part of the goal for some is to establish him as wholly unstrustworthy, but in doing so it kind of suggests he's also a bloody idiot whose lies seemed more likely to point the finger of guilt AT him than away from him.
This cunning psycopathy of which Christer often speaks is less apparent with every lie he is accused of telling.

[Paddy Goose]

Good afternoon Abs,

...lech (sic) made a mistake if guilty...

You said it. If guilty.

So "they" being Fish & Ed are not using an intellectual process, nor are they making an astute observation. It is a belief system. Start with guilt and go from there so it ends in guilt. A closed loop.

(And Abby, by saying belief system I'm not dissing church, I used to play drums in a praise band my friend.)

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Its not several minutes though. It’s more like 5 seconds.

“He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away.”

So as soon as he saw that it was a woman he heard Paul approaching. And Paul saw Cross in the middle of the road. Cross could have lied of course but we have evidence of this.

hi hs
if lech said that, then those two statements also appear to be contradictory.

btw i just saw rjs post and looks like were saying the same basic thing... by his own words, and pauls, on the face of it, he puts himself in bucks row at least several minutes before Paul, and at most eight minutes before paul.

lech leaves home at about 3:30
it takes about seven minutes to arrive in bucks row
lech is in bucks row about 3:37
paul says hes in bucks row at 3:45
3:45-3:37 thats the max eight minutes there
lech also says that paul was about forty yards away in bucks row when he noticed him.

so eight minutes at most if you take their statements at face value, give five minutes for ambiguity in timings and its three minutes about at least.

but really, all timing and its difficulties aside, all you really need to know is that paul said he saw lech near the body before raising the alarm, to realize that lech could clearly could be her killer.

[Abby Normal]

I'm not sure I made myself clear.
When using Lechmere's words as the starting point, they get to make up a time and THEN act like its an intellectual process.
But if they were to start from the "On the asumption he IS the killer... he could have left at any time so it doesn't matter what he said, so let's just say he left at 3.15... NOW he has plenty of time." starting point (or whatever time they choose...), they'd very clearly be down the creative writing route, and it would be obvious that's what they are doing.

They have to have something to show was wrong to argue why they are right.
It's only occasionally that they say the quiet part out loud such as "If you assume he is the killer, then..."

And yes, if its a lie it's another silly, pointless lie. I know part of the goal for some is to establish him as wholly unstrustworthy, but in doing so it kind of suggests he's also a bloody idiot whose lies seemed more likely to point the finger of guilt AT him than away from him.
This cunning psycopathy of which Christer often speaks is less apparent with every lie he is accused of telling.

how can "they get to make up a time" .."when using lechmeres words". ?? theyre not making up a time, theyre using the time lech said he left...about 3:30.

[Abby Normal]

Good afternoon Abs,



You said it. If guilty.

So "they" being Fish & Ed are not using an intellectual process, nor are they making an astute observation. It is a belief system. Start with guilt and go from there so it ends in guilt. A closed loop.

(And Abby, by saying belief system I'm not dissing church, I used to play drums in a praise band my friend.)

hi paddy. you dont need to use "if guilty" when your just quoting lech on his times, actions. because on the face of it, hes putting himself in bucks row at least several minutes before pauls arrival. i just used it in my last statement because i was pointing out something alittle different... that a guilty lech apparently made a mistake by doing so. but yes the die hard lechmerians probably should use "if guilty" more in their discussions.

thank you for your concern in not wanting to dis me for going to church Paddy. appreciated. : )
btw i think its cool you played drums in a praise band!! ive never played in a praise band just the evil rock and roll kind lol!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

hi hs
if lech said that, then those two statements also appear to be contradictory.

btw i just saw rjs post and looks like were saying the same basic thing... by his own words, and pauls, on the face of it, he puts himself in bucks row at least several minutes before Paul, and at most eight minutes before paul.

lech leaves home at about 3:30
it takes about seven minutes to arrive in bucks row
lech is in bucks row about 3:37
paul says hes in bucks row at 3:45
3:45-3:37 thats the max eight minutes there
lech also says that paul was about forty yards away in bucks row when he noticed him.

so eight minutes at most if you take their statements at face value, give five minutes for ambiguity in timings and its three minutes about at least.

but really, all timing and its difficulties aside, all you really need to know is that paul said he saw lech near the dead body before raising the alarm, to realize that lech could clearly could be her killer.

But by his own words he doesn’t put himself in Bucks Row at any specific time because he can’t give a specific time that he left his house. And we haven’t a clue how Paul came by his time or how accurate it was. All that we know is that Paul’s time didn’t chime with the times of Neil, Thain and Mizen. It just doesn’t get us anywhere as he could have left the house, say, at 3.32 or 3.33 and then arrived in Bucks Row around 3.40 or 3.41 with Paul arriving less than a minute later.

I accept of course though Abby that he could have been there earlier but that suggestion leads to other questions. If it’s suggested that he’d been there say 5 minutes before Paul we would have to ask why weren’t the mutilations more extensive or, more aptly in my opinion, why was he still at the scene? If Paul had interrupted him as suggested then he couldn’t really have been there more than a couple of minutes tops. The other suggestion could be that he’d met her earlier elsewhere and taken her to Bucks Row but that doesn’t seem to make much sense. Wouldn’t they have found a less exposed spot? Would he have taken her to a spot that he couldn’t really deny being at because it’s on a direct route from his house to his place of work? It’s only a thought but, if Cross had been investigated for being near another crime scene the police wouldn’t have had much trouble finding that Bucks Row was on a direct route from home to work.

I know that you’re nowhere near a ‘Cross must me guilty’ man Abby. You just think that he’s worth considering. I’ve got no issue with that as you know and I’ve always said that we can’t exonerate him on evidence. I just think that the evidence makes him extremely unlikely. I know that Fish talks about a ‘phantom killer’ whenever another perpetrator is mentioned but if it’s suggested that Paul interrupted Cross then it’s equally likely that Cross interrupted someone else. So, from my own point of view, apart from him being there, I can’t see any other evidence to favour him. That’s just the way I see it of course.

And anyway….it was Druitt of course.

[Abby Normal]

But by his own words he doesn’t put himself in Bucks Row at any specific time because he can’t give a specific time that he left his house. And we haven’t a clue how Paul came by his time or how accurate it was. All that we know is that Paul’s time didn’t chime with the times of Neil, Thain and Mizen. It just doesn’t get us anywhere as he could have left the house, say, at 3.32 or 3.33 and then arrived in Bucks Row around 3.40 or 3.41 with Paul arriving less than a minute later.

I accept of course though Abby that he could have been there earlier but that suggestion leads to other questions. If it’s suggested that he’d been there say 5 minutes before Paul we would have to ask why weren’t the mutilations more extensive or, more aptly in my opinion, why was he still at the scene? If Paul had interrupted him as suggested then he couldn’t really have been there more than a couple of minutes tops. The other suggestion could be that he’d met her earlier elsewhere and taken her to Bucks Row but that doesn’t seem to make much sense. Wouldn’t they have found a less exposed spot? Would he have taken her to a spot that he couldn’t really deny being at because it’s on a direct route from his house to his place of work? It’s only a thought but, if Cross had been investigated for being near another crime scene the police wouldn’t have had much trouble finding that Bucks Row was on a direct route from home to work.

I know that you’re nowhere near a ‘Cross must me guilty’ man Abby. You just think that he’s worth considering. I’ve got no issue with that as you know and I’ve always said that we can’t exonerate him on evidence. I just think that the evidence makes him extremely unlikely. I know that Fish talks about a ‘phantom killer’ whenever another perpetrator is mentioned but if it’s suggested that Paul interrupted Cross then it’s equally likely that Cross interrupted someone else. So, from my own point of view, apart from him being there, I can’t see any other evidence to favour him. That’s just the way I see it of course.

And anyway….it was Druitt of course.

lol. might have been. or lech. or hutch. im favoring bury more and more these days, although i just cant seem to shake hutchs lurking pseudo stalking behavior. but ive got these guys, chapman, koz and kelly in my first tier, but gun to head i would say innocent to each one individually, but taken as a group i would say yes slightly above 50/50 hes in there, but cringe when saying it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

lol. might have been. or lech. or hutch. im favoring bury more and more these days, although i just cant seem to shake hutchs lurking pseudo stalking behavior. but ive got these guys, chapman, koz and kelly in my first tier, but gun to head i would say innocent to each one individually, but taken as a group i would say yes slightly above 50/50 hes in there, but cringe when saying it.

What! Does this mean that you discount Lewis Carroll or Van Gogh?

[Abby Normal]

What! Does this mean that you discount Lewis Carroll or Van Gogh?

yes unless you toss in sickert for the famous Creative Killers Gang theory.

[Lewis C]

yes unless you toss in sickert for the famous Creative Killers Gang theory.

Hi Abby,

I was going to say you could throw Frances Thompson in there too. But on second thought, I think he's a better suspect than the other three (though still not very good), so maybe he should be left out of it.

[Fiver]

paul says hes in bucks row at 3:45

PC Neil said that he was in Bucks Row at 3:45.
PC Thain said he was alerted by Neil at 3:45.
PC Mizen said he spoke to Lechmere and Paul at Hanbury Street at 3:45.

And Mizen probably had a timepiece, since he was knocking people up.

Likely all of them, including Robert Paul, are rounding times off. And we don't know how good they were at estimating time. And we don't know how accurate the clocks were that they were basing their times on.

If Lechmere started grabbing his coat and such after hearing a clock chime 3:30, he probably left home at 3:31 by that clock's time. If that clock was running two minutes late, he would have left at 3:33, reaching the body at 3:40. Which would roughly match the time estimates of all three policemen.

There is no evidence for a time gap in Lechmere's testimony. He'd been walking the route for 6 or 7 weeks by that point, so he knew how long it would take to get to Buck's Row. And if he was the killer, he had plenty of time to think of a credible time to giver the police.

To assume a time gap is to not just assume Lechmere was the killer, but also to assume that he was too stupid to give a good lie about the time. And to assume that Robert Paul was too stupid to notice it. And that PC Mizen was too stupid to notice it. And that PC Thain was too stupid to notice it. And that PC Neil was too stupid to notice it. And that Coroner Baxter was too stupid to notice it. And that Inspector Abberline was to stupid to notice it. And that Inspector Helson was too stupid to notice it. And that Detective-sergeant Enright was too stupid to notice it. And that Inspector Spratling was too stupid to notice it.

Another problem is that the supposed time gap isn't big enough. It is unlikely that Polly Nichols was waiting around on Bucks Row for someone to come along. More likely she was soliciting on a busier street and then led her killer to Bucks Row. if Lechmere killed her, he'd have had to spend time going to that major street, finding a victim, and returning to Buck's Row before killing and mutilating her. That can't be done in 3 minutes, it probably can't be done in 8.

[Abby Normal]

PC Neil said that he was in Bucks Row at 3:45.
PC Thain said he was alerted by Neil at 3:45.
PC Mizen said he spoke to Lechmere and Paul at Hanbury Street at 3:45.

And Mizen probably had a timepiece, since he was knocking people up.

Likely all of them, including Robert Paul, are rounding times off. And we don't know how good they were at estimating time. And we don't know how accurate the clocks were that they were basing their times on.

If Lechmere started grabbing his coat and such after hearing a clock chime 3:30, he probably left home at 3:31 by that clock's time. If that clock was running two minutes late, he would have left at 3:33, reaching the body at 3:40. Which would roughly match the time estimates of all three policemen.

There is no evidence for a time gap in Lechmere's testimony. He'd been walking the route for 6 or 7 weeks by that point, so he knew how long it would take to get to Buck's Row. And if he was the killer, he had plenty of time to think of a credible time to giver the police.

To assume a time gap is to not just assume Lechmere was the killer, but also to assume that he was too stupid to give a good lie about the time. And to assume that Robert Paul was too stupid to notice it. And that PC Mizen was too stupid to notice it. And that PC Thain was too stupid to notice it. And that PC Neil was too stupid to notice it. And that Coroner Baxter was too stupid to notice it. And that Inspector Abberline was to stupid to notice it. And that Inspector Helson was too stupid to notice it. And that Detective-sergeant Enright was too stupid to notice it. And that Inspector Spratling was too stupid to notice it.

Another problem is that the supposed time gap isn't big enough. It is unlikely that Polly Nichols was waiting around on Bucks Row for someone to come along. More likely she was soliciting on a busier street and then led her killer to Bucks Row. if Lechmere killed her, he'd have had to spend time going to that major street, finding a victim, and returning to Buck's Row before killing and mutilating her. That can't be done in 3 minutes, it probably can't be done in 8.

absolutely fiver. i cant argue with anything you say here.