The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Fiver]

Hade I said that it is proven that Lechmere must have been at the murder site at 3.37, and that he must therefore have been lying, as R J says? Or have I sad that the suggested departure time, if correct, is not in line with having arrived at the murder site at cirka 3.45, meaning that a time gap is suggested?

Is it true that in my eyes, I have caught Lechmere in an obvious lie, or is instead what I am saying that if the departure time suggested is correct, then it suggests that Lechmere seemingly lied?

You certainly are verbose.

And repeating your error that Charles Lechemre arrived at the murder site circa 3;45.

You are not giving us the full picture.

"Mr. Baxter proceeded to point out that the unfortunate woman was last seen alive at half-past two o'clock on Saturday morning, Sept 1, by Mrs. Holland, who knew her well. Deceased was at that time much the worse for drink, and was endeavouring to walk eastward down Whitechapel. What her exact movements were after this it was impossible to say; but in less than an hour and a quarter her dead body was discovered at a spot rather under three-quarters of a mile distant." - 23 September 1888 Daily Telegraph

"Police-constable John Thail [Thain] stated that the nearest point on his beat to Buck's- row was Brady-street. He passed the end every thirty minutes on the Thursday night, and nothing attracted his attention until 3.45 a.m., when he was signalled by the flash of the lantern of another constable (Neale)." - 18 September 1888 Daily Telegraph

"Police constable John Neil deposed that on Friday morning at a quarter to four o'clock he was going down Buck's row, Whitechapel, from Thomas street to Brady street. Not a soul was about. He was round there about half an hour previously, and met nobody then. the first thing he saw was a figure lying on the footpath." - 3 September 1888 Daily News

"Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another..." - 4 September 1888 Daily News

"I beg to report that about 3.40am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, "carman" of 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green was passing through Bucks Row, Whitechapel (on his way to work) he noticed a woman lying on her back in the footway...he stopped to look at the woman when another carman (also on his way to work) named Robert Paul of 30 Foster St., Bethnal Green came up..." - Inspector Abberline's report of 19 Sept 1888

Nothing in the stated timings suggests that Charles Lechmere lied about the timings.

Nothing.

[Fiver]

As I have pointed out, the point of the original suggestion was to show how the timings mentioned suggest a time gap. You seem to follow on where R J left off, but you are just as wrong as he is. It is not any question of an attempt to lead on that Lechmere must have been in Bucks Row for longer than he claimed, it is an observation of how the time he suggested for leaving home, in combination with the time the coroner suggested that he found Nichols, suggests a time gap.

You only get your time gap if you selectively quote the coroner, ignore the testimony of three police officers, and ignore the time estimation concluded by Inspector Abberline.

But you were never about giving people the full picture.

Can we say that the gap never existed? No, we cannot, because 1/ the material suggests a gap, and B/ there is nothing to suggest that it was never there, apart from Lechmeres story - which cannot be relied upon as any given truth.

The statements of Coroner Baxter, PC Mizen, PC Neil, PC Thain, PC Mizen, and Inspector Abberline show that the supposed gap exists only in your imagination.

As I have pointed out numerous times, there is also the fact that when Lechmere took the stand, there was a prevailing notion that the body had been found by Lechmere at circa 3.30. And - as I have also pointed out numerous times - that thing fit roughly with the suggestion Lechmere made about his departure time.

Before the inquest began that day, there were two stories - that Robert Paul and an unknown man had found the body around 3;45am and that PC Neil had found the body around 3:45am. Then PC Mizen testified to speaking with Lechmere and Paul around 3;45am at Hanbury Street and Bakers Row. supporting PC Neil's timing. Then Lechemre testified to leaving home around 3:30am, supporting the timings of PC Neil and PC Mizen.

A time gap of three minutes was suggested, but the wording "around" and the general fact that clocks can be wrong, made the bid a very easy thing to accept.

There's only a three minute time gap if you assume all stated timings were exact based on direct observation of synchronized timepieces. Which is complete nonsense.

But once Coroner Baxter moved the finding five minutes forward in time, Lechmeres suggestion became much, much more of a problem for him.

Baxter did not do that.

"Mr. Baxter proceeded to point out that the unfortunate woman was last seen alive at half-past two o'clock on Saturday morning, Sept 1, by Mrs. Holland, who knew her well. Deceased was at that time much the worse for drink, and was endeavouring to walk eastward down Whitechapel. What her exact movements were after this it was impossible to say; but in less than an hour and a quarter her dead body was discovered at a spot rather under three-quarters of a mile distant." - 23 September 1888 Daily Telegraph

Baxter's statement was no problem for Lechmere. Baxter did not conclude there was a time gap in Lechmere's testimony. Nor did the jury. Nor did PC Mizen, who was present and would have jumped at an opportunity to undermine Lechmere, who had supported Robert Paul's claim of PC Mizen shirking his duty. Inspectora Helson and Spratling, as well as Detective-sergeant Enwight were present for Lechemre's testimony and did not conclude there was time gap. Inspector Abberline was present for Lechmere's testimony - he filed an official report saying the body was found around 3:40am.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You only get your time gap if you selectively quote the coroner, ignore the testimony of three police officers, and ignore the time estimation concluded by Inspector Abberline.

But you were never about giving people the full picture.



The statements of Coroner Baxter, PC Mizen, PC Neil, PC Thain, PC Mizen, and Inspector Abberline show that the supposed gap exists only in your imagination.



Before the inquest began that day, there were two stories - that Robert Paul and an unknown man had found the body around 3;45am and that PC Neil had found the body around 3:45am. Then PC Mizen testified to speaking with Lechmere and Paul around 3;45am at Hanbury Street and Bakers Row. supporting PC Neil's timing. Then Lechemre testified to leaving home around 3:30am, supporting the timings of PC Neil and PC Mizen.



There's only a three minute time gap if you assume all stated timings were exact based on direct observation of synchronized timepieces. Which is complete nonsense.



Baxter did not do that.

"Mr. Baxter proceeded to point out that the unfortunate woman was last seen alive at half-past two o'clock on Saturday morning, Sept 1, by Mrs. Holland, who knew her well. Deceased was at that time much the worse for drink, and was endeavouring to walk eastward down Whitechapel. What her exact movements were after this it was impossible to say; but in less than an hour and a quarter her dead body was discovered at a spot rather under three-quarters of a mile distant." - 23 September 1888 Daily Telegraph

Baxter's statement was no problem for Lechmere. Baxter did not conclude there was a time gap in Lechmere's testimony. Nor did the jury. Nor did PC Mizen, who was present and would have jumped at an opportunity to undermine Lechmere, who had supported Robert Paul's claim of PC Mizen shirking his duty. Inspectora Helson and Spratling, as well as Detective-sergeant Enwight were present for Lechemre's testimony and did not conclude there was time gap. Inspector Abberline was present for Lechmere's testimony - he filed an official report saying the body was found around 3:40am.

I’ve only just noticed your signature. Are you sure that isn’t a misquote?

[FrankO]

But I don't say that it is necessarily the correct one, do I?

Where did I claim that you say it’s necessarily the correct one, Christer?

But even though you don’t actually say the words, why continue to defend the position that would stretch the gap to a maximum? I have no doubt at all that, when asked about it, you'd admit that there’s no proof that it’s the correct one (and if you've already have recently, then I apologize), but you can sure give the impression that it is. That’s all.

I am saying that 3.45 is the only time that we have to work from, regardless of how it was given as an approximation. The same goes for your reasoning about the 3.30 timing - I am not saying that it must be spot on ( I actually warn against any such thinking), but it is also the only given timing we hav e to work from. And when we work from these timings, we get a time gap of eight minutes, that may or may not be correct. It is nevertheless the time gap that is most true to the timings given, and as good as we can do.

I understand that, but what I’m saying is that each and every gap we might come up with is meaningless, since we have no way of knowing what the correct times were. We can discuss them till death but they tell us nothing, nothing more than that they don’t exonerate Lechmere. If we want to, they point to guilt; and if we want to, they don’t. That’s useless.

But what should be pointed out is that if we allow for how the time gap may have been non existent, then we must also allow for how it may have been sixteen minutes instead of eight. There is a back side to everything.

And there's the problem in all its glory; I couldn’t agree more, Christer.

[Fiver]

There is no need to widen the gap, Frank. Eight minutes is ample time to do the deed, as you may see.

You're assuming is Polly Nichols was just waiting around in Bucks Row to be murdered, which seems unlikely.

Odds are she was soliciting in an major street. Which means that he killer had to walk to that major street. Then spend some time finding his victim. And then following her back to Buck's Row. Then there's the time needed to kill Nichols and mutilate her body. You can't do that in 3 minutes. You almost certainly can't do it in 8 minutes.

Some might suggest that Nichols took a client to Bucks Row and then was killed by someone who just happened by before she left. But there is no reason Nichols would have waited until that client was out of sight before she started to leave. And based on the position of he body, Nichols was facing east when she was killed and her killer was facing west when he killed and mutilated her.

And that does not fit with Lechmere being the killer. He entered Bucks Row from the west. If he had seen Nichols in front of him and hailed her, Nichols would have turned to face him. That would have resulted in Nichols facing west when she was murdered and her killer facing east when he killed and mutilated her.

[Fiver]

But what should be pointed out is that if we allow for how the time gap may have been non existent, then we must also allow for how it may have been sixteen minutes instead of eight. There is a back side to everything.[/B]

A sixteen minute gap? That would mean Robert Paul spotted Charles Lechmere at around 3:53. It would mean Robert Paul had at least an 8 minute gap in his testimony and that PC Mizen, PC Thain, and PC Neil were all at least 8 minutes late on their beats for no discernible reason.

[rjpalmer]

None of theses things were ever the issue. The issue was that you claimed that I (or "they" as you put it) would have made the claim that Lechmere must have been in Bucks Row before he said he was there. If you will not or cannot substantiate this, I fully understand (it is a falsehood and falsehoods cannot be substantiated), but don't claim that it has anything at all to do with semantic games on my behalf, when you are the only one initiating and playing those games.

So come on and do the right thing, R J: Prove your claim. That is what these boards are all about.

Sorry, Christer. I haven't the faintest idea what you are banging on about. Lechmere said he was in Buck's Row only briefly before he heard Paul coming up behind him and he then moved to the center of the road and waited.

If you are admitting that this is what happened, then why have you wasted all of our time?

Here is what I wrote:

"That's not really what they are saying, though.

They aren't saying that they believe Lechmere or that they believe that he left at 'about 3.30.'"

This was in response to 'Lewis Carroll' who suggest that there was an internal paradox in your theory, because you accepted Lechmere's estimated departure time without question.

I've never understood this to be the case because I've seen both you and Ed claim his departure time is unknowable--he could have left at 2 a.m., etc.

Yet even this simple statement has you up in arms!

So, are you saying that Lewis Carroll is correct and you do believe Lechmere left at around 3.30 based on his deposition?

I then wrote:

"The distinction is a little tedious, but what they are saying is that his own account of leaving around that time would place him in Buck's Row 6 or 7 minutes ahead of Robert Paul, whereas Lechmere also states Paul was only about 40 yards behind him. Thus, Lechmere must be lying."

What do you find unfair about this statement, other than you are stating you used Wynne Baxter as your reference point rather than Robert Paul?

Are you saying that you haven't caught Lehcmere in a lie, and Paul really was only 40 yards or so behind him, and thus Lechmere was only alone with Nichols for several second at the most?

I'm confused by what you are now suggesting, but you're clearly angry about this statement.

"So ultimately, they are arguing that Lechmere was such an incompetent liar that he admitted to a timeline that places him alone with Nichols for several minutes.

In their minds, they have caught Lechmere in an obvious lie that somehow escaped the attention of all the contemporaries, including the police."

I don't see how this is a semantic game.

Either you believe Lechmere was generally correct (and Paul and Baxter were correct, too) and that he left home at 3.30 (or earlier) and was alone with Nichols for several minutes or enough minutes to approach and murder her, etc..

Or you believe that Lechmere was mistaken about the time he left (and/or so was Paul) and wasn't alone with Nichols for several minutes.

I always thought you were arguing the former, but who knows what you are now arguing.

Either way, I don't particularly care. If you think I have somehow misrepresented you, by all means I apologize and feel free to inform the readers of this board to disregard my post.

And if ever you wish to discuss Lechmere's alleged psychopathy you might wish to PM me first as I can't guarantee I'll see your posts without notification.

[A P Tomlinson]

The problem with this suggestion is that we have it from Lechmere that Paul surfaced in the same moment that he himself stepped into the street to get a closer look at the shape on the opposite pavement. And that means that the four minutes Paul speaks of needs to start ticking at more or less the same time, because that was also when Paul was drawn into the matter as he was shown the body: "Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman." If we can add a single minute, then that is all.

There is also a risk combined with your reasoning: IF Charles Lechmere had been in Bucks Row for many minutes before Paul arrived, then that would give him ample time to have cut Nichols.

Plus 3.39 is six minutes off 3.45 - which was the approximate time that Lechmere found the body, as per the coroner.

Another coffee, maybe? I've had two already.

It's late now and I'm practically tweaking...
I was working from the individual witness statements, rather than Baxter's generalised overviewin summing up. Since Fiver has pointed those times out I'll not repeat the exercise.
If those times are taken as stated, it simply follows. It flows... It makes sense.
Each of the statements, when you allow for the obvious slight discrepancies between time keeping, matches up. For the 1880's that's a pretty solid witness based timeline.
You have to rely on outliers and extremes to make the "Gap" a thing.

It's only when you are working backwards from a position that Cross IS guilty that any reason at all is needed to consider the timeline faulty.

The times given by the witnesses do not point to Cross. They need to be carefully turned to point at him.

[Fiver]

From the moment Paul stepped to one side to go round him, if Cross is the killer... ALL he had to do was keep his head down, say something like "Sorry mate... don't want no bother", and walk away. Paul is offering, and opening, a door for him to walk through to escape... But HE pursued the interaction.

If Lechmere was the killer, he would have several things to worry about. Had Paul seen him attacking Stride's body? Had Paul seen or heard him moving from a crouching position near the body on the south side of the street facing west to standing in the middle of the road facing east? Had Paul spotted his knife? Had Paul spotted blood on his hands or clothing? If the answer to any of these is yes, Lechmere is in big trouble.

And then Paul, clearly frightened, steps aside, trying to avoid Lechmere.

Which for any murderer smarter than a cobblestone, would lead to the conclusion that Paul knows the truth and needs to be silenced.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The first point that I’d like to deal with is that of whether Cross could have picked Nichols up elsewhere and taken her to Bucks Row to kill her? This is surely about as unlikely as it gets? Why would he have avoided other locations only to kill her on a spot that he could actually be connected to by anyone investigating? And a spot so open when he’d must have had the opportunity to have found a better one. Also at a time so close to him having to be at work? Is it remotely believable that if he was out looking for a victim, as he would have had to have been if he was away from his route to work, he wouldn’t have left the house much earlier and would have found one with relative ease? How could he have left it until he was compelled to do the deed when he was just 15 or 20 minutes away from clocking on time? If he’d been questioned for being near to another murder site the police couldn’t have failed to have discovered that the Bucks Row murder site was on his likely route to work and that it occurred at just the time that he would have passed six days a week. The egregious stupidity defence can only be pushed so far.

So, if Cross was guilty, then he met and killed Nichols in Bucks Row. Hard to believe of course, on his way to work, just 15 or 20 minutes from clocking on but hey.

Still no other example of a serial killer killing on the way to work by the way (Christer brought up a terrible example a while ago and when I pointed out how he’d either misread or misinterpreted it and he said that he was going to look into it. The silence on the subject since his return tells me that he now knows that it was a false example) Perhaps he thought that I’d forgotten? And still not a single example of a person who found a body turning out to have been the killer (let alone a serial killer) For someone who loves quoting examples from crime history, and who’s done it so often over the years) isn’t it strange that we get no examples quoted on this? I don’t know…..perhaps there just aren’t any and Cross was a complete one-off?

So if Cross met and killed Nichols in Bucks Row (something that Christer, Von Stow and the disciples claim as a fact) then how long did he need to have been there? In a previous conversation Christer agreed that the murder and mutilation would have required a couple of minutes tops but more likely less. Little conversation between the two would have been required of course as a desperate-for-cash Polly would have required no persuading or haggling. So I’d say that a reasonable estimate for meeting, agreeing on business, murder and mutilation I’d say two to three minutes. Four would be pushing it in my opinion. Anything longer and we would have to ask, a) why no more extensive mutilations and b) why was he still in situ when Paul arrived. So…

If we take Cross’ estimate for leaving the house ‘about 3.30,’ and give 5 minutes leeway each way (being totally fair and not trying to skew it in one direction [unlike some]) we get a range from 3.25 to 3.35.

If we take the discovery time as being not long before 3.45 (with 3.40 also being suggested) I’ll use a range from 3.40 to 3.44.

So taking all of the range of departure times, using 7 minutes as a journey time, then using the 5 discovery times to calculate potential gaps when Cross could have murdered her we get:


12 mins x 1

11 mins x 2

10 mins x 3

9 mins x 4

8 mins x 5

7 mins x 5

6 mins x 5

5 mins x 5

4 mins x 4

3 mins x 5

2 mins x 5

1 mins x 4

0 mins x 3


That’s 51 potential ‘gaps.’ So where could a guilty Cross fit in?


The gaps of 0 and 1 minute can clearly be omitted as not allowing enough time. So that 7 gaps gone leaving 44. Gaps of 4 minutes before Paul’s arrival leaves us with questions that scream out in their obviousness - why weren’t there more extensive mutilations and why the hell was he still there? So we can, with firm reason, dismiss gaps of 4 minutes and above. So that’s another 34 gaps gone, leaving us with 10.

So out of our possible gaps (being totally fair in using estimations in both directions) we get just 10 out of 51 (19.6%) that potentially fit a guilty Cross.

Add the fact we can find no other examples of a serial killer killing just before being due at work. Add the fact that we can find no examples of a person finding a body in the street who turned out to be the killer (let alone a serial killer). Add to the fact that given a perfectly good opportunity of fleeing the scene he chose to wait for Paul to turn up whilst in possession of a bloodstained knife after killing and mutilating a woman in the dark (so how could he have been sure that he didn’t have at least some blood on him which could have been seen by Paul or even worse, a Constable ?) And this is explained by the ludicrous Mizen Scam which would have involved Cross taking this suicidal risk on the strength of a completely unfounded confidence in his ability to be able to lie to a Constable without Paul hearing. How could he have believed this? No one would have turned out a straightforward escape in favour of this madness.

It should be obvious to all that there isn’t a single thing that’s suspicious about Cross. He acted exactly as a man that discovered a body on the way to work would be expected to have acted.The name thing has been thoroughly and conclusively debunked for what it is. And that Cross would have lied but still given his real Christian names and real address (thus gaining him absolutely no advantage if guilty) is obvious nonsense. The geographical stuff is a perfect illustration of the level of desperation occurring to convict a clearly innocent man. As Fiver has pointed out, all that it shows is that, like thousands of others, he was a local man with various connections to the area and if serial killers only kill at spots that they have a family connection to then it’s news to me.

Cut out the gross exaggerations, the ludicrous tenuous ‘connections,’ the blatant manipulation of evidence and the clear distortion of the English language and we are left with a completely empty sack. No suspect has ever received such a concerted effort of shoehorning. No suspect has ever been the subject of such bias and obsession. No suspect has the kind of ridiculous online ‘fan club’ the he gets. Cross is the most over-promoted suspect in the history of the case. Imagine….a Jack the Ripper suspect that justifies a propaganda machine. You couldn’t make it up.

[A P Tomlinson]

If Lechmere was the killer, he would have several things to worry about. Had Paul seen him attacking Stride's body? Had Paul seen or heard him moving from a crouching position near the body on the south side of the street facing west to standing in the middle of the road facing east? Had Paul spotted his knife? Had Paul spotted blood on his hands or clothing? If the answer to any of these is yes, Lechmere is in big trouble.

And then Paul, clearly frightened, steps aside, trying to avoid Lechmere.

Which for any murderer smarter than a cobblestone, would lead to the conclusion that Paul knows the truth and needs to be silenced.

I agree.
There is a reason that situations like that are refered to "Fight or Flight scenarios" in both mens minds in this case. I just can't get behind the idea that instead of either of those options, which are open to him, Cross orchestrates encounters with a stranger and a police officer, both of which can, at any point, go horribly wrong for him.

If he had been the killer, he has so many safer, more sensible, options than the choices he made.

[Fisherman]

As usual, when Lechmeres name is mentioned, an avalanche of posts arrive, all of them written by the same people as always. That is why I have said that I am going to pick you one by one, and only debate with the person picked - which is what I am going to do with Fiver next.

But I will answer Herlocks first post, with the addition of two small inclusions from other posts of his, one on this thread, one from another. The post chosen illustrates, the way I see it, many of the problems at hand. Here it is:



Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
You know that Baxter said that the body was found at a time that could not have been far off 3.45. And then you reason that the body could have been found at 3.40, since "3.40 is not far off 3.45".

And then you claim that I am the one trying to shape the evidence to fit?

Personally, I could have sworn that I am the one who does not shape the evidence at all, while you are doing your utmost to rearrange it to fit your suggestions.

At the end of the day, we remain at the exact same situation: If we want to find the time that is most representative for "around 3.30", it is 3.30.


Manipulation. Simply untrue. A lie. A 3.30 estimation is no more or less likely than 3.27 or 3.28 or 3.29 or 3.31 or 3.32 or 3.33. And the fact that you desperately want it to be likelier is evidence of your bias and nothing more.

No, it is not manipulation. It is demonstrably true that the time most likely to be the correct one when somebody says "around 3.30" IS 3.30. When you say that all the times adjacent to 3.30 are no more or less likely, that means, in essence, that according to you, it does not matter how far away from the estimation given we move, all the times will be equally likely to be the correct one. This is false of course. If we claim that "around 3.30" estimation means that 3.30 and 8.25 are equally likely, we will soon enough find ourselves at the funny farm, wearing a jacket with very long arms. But hey, you say, everybody knows that 8.25 is impossible, but I am not suggesting a time hours removed, I am suggesting one only the fewest of minutes removed!
Yes, Herlock, that is true. But it is also true that just as 8.25 is moving away from the estimation, so is 3.31. It applies that every minute you move away from that estimation will be less likely than 3.30, and that is not something anyone of us can do anything about. It is a physical law.

Harsh though that may sound, there is consolation to be had; I of course agree that adding a minute or two keeps us on a ground that is consistent with the suggestion "around 3.30". I have no problems accepting that it could have been 3.31. Or 3.32. Or 3.34. None of these times would be in denial with the "around 3.30" proposition.

But - and this is an important but - that matter has never been where our conflict lies. I have time after time said that there must be learoom, so the conflict lies somewhere else. And to help illustrating how I look upon things, I am going to post a snippet from one of your posts on the thread "The Problem with Times". In the first post of that thread, you make a poll, and you offer up two answer alternatives to the question about how we should look upon the timings give in the case:

• With all times we should allow a reasonable margin for error.
• We should accept all times as correct and synchronised.

What we have here is a classical example of a misworded poll question. Because why would we think that all the ones answering the poll had the same idea about what a "reasonable margin for error" is? There may be those who think that a minute or two is the most they would consider reasonable, there are those who think that 10-12 minutes is reasonable, and there are lots and lots of other takes.
Making the poll worthless.
What would be more interesting would be to hear what people would allow for, because I don't think that anybody would disallow small time errors. And if that assumption is correct, there is only one answer one could give to your poll. I certainly would go for the first option - but that was only if I had to vote. From the outset, I would not answer a poll with this kind of wording!

But even if we accept that various people allow for various time discrepancies, that does not alter the outcome of the matter we are REALLY discussing here, and that is the matter of whether or not a tie gap is suggested by the material - and it is. It is an eight minute time gap that is suggested.

From what I have said above, it should be patently obvious that I do not say that "my" gap is in any way proven. Nor do I object to the idea that the gap could have been smaller or bigger. Nor can I say with absolute certainty that there must have been some sort of time gap.

My reasoning has been given many times, but here it is again: Charles Lechmere said he left home at around 3.30. Coroner Baxter said that the time at which the body was found could not have been far off 3.45. If the approximated timings were both spot on, then we have an established time gap of eight minutes. But we cannot know if the approximations WERE spot on, and so all we can say is that the timings given seem to involve a time gap of eight minutes. These are unshakable facts.

My way of looking at the timings given is that I personally believe the 3.30 approximation to allow for more learoom than the 3.45 one. And before you react to that, I am not saying that either suggestion must be spot on. But I find that whilst the 3.30 thing was not looked into with the intention of getting as close to the truth as possible, the 3.45 timing actually was. It was the result of how the coroner and inquest strived to get as close to the truth as they could. And since Baxter spoke of it being established that the timing could not be far off 3.45, I reason that one or more clocks, that could be checked for accuracy in retrospect, will have been involved. And those timepieces seem to me to have belonged to Dr Llewellyn and possibly Robert Paul.
The events surrounding Thain being informed by Neil and hurrying to fetch Dr Lewellyn could be timed in a reconstruction of the event, and a very useful timing could be made for that detail. If Llewellyn was then able to say with good accuracy when Thain arrived, and if he got that accuracy from a clock that was checked for accuracy and found to be perfectly accurate, then Baxter would be able to say that many independent data fixed the time to a place not far off 3.45 with only a small allowance for time deviations.

Bearing this in mind, I myself - no need to agree - consider any suggestion nearer 3.40 than 3.45 as being highly unlikely. So in this end of the matter, I am reasoning that "not far off 3.45" will very likely involve the possible timings of 3.43, 3.44, 3.45, 3.46 or 3.47. Any other times would mean that they should reasonably have been worded "not far off 3.40" or "not far off 3.45". And since we know quite well that the initial belief was that the body was found at around 3.40, owing to how Neil/Thain/Mizen spoke of having been drawn into the errand at circa 3.45, we can also say that Baxter in his summation opted for a timing that offered another scenario; that Lechmere found the body at circa 3.45 and Neil accordingly got to the spot around 3.50.

So that is why I am less generous with that particular timing. And it applies that since I only allow for two or two and a half minutes in that direction, we need five and a half or six minutes in the other end, and since that should have taken the time not to "around 3.30" but instead "around 3.40", my summation is that I find that a time gap around eight minutes is much likelier than no time gap.

Again what I think looks bad and what you think does not look bad, does not have any influence about how the estimations given have approximated center points (points around which the giver of the time allows for deviations, but also points that remain the centers for these possible deviations), are estimations that suggest that there was an eight minute gap.

And here is where we add in a snippet for a later post by your hand:

If there was an 8 minute gap what was he doing? The murder and mutilations can only have taken 2 minutes tops. Why was he still there?

Herlock, there is no need to think that Lechmere must have found Nichols in Bucks Row at 3.37, and then had tea with her until 3.43, when he struck. He could well have prowled Whitechapel Road in search of prey for some minutes, finding Nichols there and walking into Bucks Row and then attacked her. There are more possibilities that there is space out here. As I have said that I have no problems allowing for a smaller time gap, one of those possibilities would of course be if there was only a gap of, say, four minutes, Lechmere may have found Nichols in Bucks Row and gone to work on her immediately. There is absolutely no kind of problem connected to the suggestion of a time gap!

Surprise, surprise! And if we want to t´find the time that is most representative for "not far off 3.45", it is 3.45. Well, I never ...!

And when we apply these things - and there are no other timings suggested, although they may have to be allowed for to a smaller or larger extent - we gat a suggested time gap of eight minutes.

Baxter does not contradict that - he reinforces it. To reason otherwise, we must try to fit the evidence to fit. Which I didn't - but you just did

Totally untrue. You continue to manipulate evidence. All Baxter said was not far off 3.45. That’s all. That includes 3,44 or 3.43 or 3.42 or 3.41 or 3.40. We have no way of narrowing it down. Any attempt to do so is blatant dishonesty.

This is the exact problem that I have discussed above, and so I will not add anything to it here, with the exception of a few remarks that links onto the final words of your post, Herlock.

You simply cannot be misunderstanding this. It clearly a deliberate attempt to obfuscate. 3.40 is not far off 3.45. I don’t know what the case is in Swedish Christer but please don’t try telling native English speakers like myself, like Roger, like Fiver, like AP and everyone else apart from zealous Cross supporters that this isn’t the case. Five minutes is not far off.

When you say that I simply cannot misunderstand this, it seems what you want to say is that I must agree with you, that there are no other alternatives. The above should tell you how and why I disagree - and it should point you to how the REAL issue at hand, the suggested time gap, is something that remains as a likelihood. So nothing new there.
What IS new (well ...) is that you call me a liar, a deliberate obfuscator , a manipulator of the evidence, and blatantly dishonest.
Things like these may be true or they may be untrue. Regardless of what applies in this case, they are always allegations that must be supported by proof. It is not enough to disagree with somebody, to allow for throwing these kinds of allegations around oneself.
What I would suggest is that we both abstain from making allegations we cannot prove, and let the points we make in debate be the only things that give away where we stand. I am all for engagement and passion - I make my own case with lots of it - but I am less impressed with hysteria. If you can prove your reasoning about the timings to be correct, you do not need to claim what you claim about me, Herlock. Once you do resort to such behavior, it actually looks a lot more like frustration of having failed to prove your points.

I could also add that if I was a habitual liar, that would have been disclosed and proven a long time ago. And people like Tom Wescott would not be saluting my book and pointing out that it is all based on years of research and accessing reliable sources. Nor would Richard Jones call my book "fantastic", I think.
Then again, it is not a popularity contest. It is not about how you can name a handful of fellow posters who agree with you, whereas noone so far has agreed with me. That, I would suggest, is not because nobody does. Hundreds and thousands of people agree with me, but they are not writing out here, where there has for a long time been a very clear overweight for the so called naysayers. Therefore, finding support out here for your take is not something that seals any deal - it is not about popularity contests and polls, it is about the case facts.
Incidentally, speaking about polls, if you had made a poll back in 2012, asking who was the likely Ripper, Charles Lechmere would not have been among the top fifty mentioned contenders. Today, he is habitually up among the top three.
That owes to how the story about the carman has been expanded with added facts, and how it has come to peoples knowledge over the last stiff decade. And it tells us how much faith we should put in polls.

I hope this tells you exactly where I stand, and I work from the assumption that you are able to make whichever case you choose to make forthwith, without calling your opponent a liar for disagreeing with you.

---

[Fisherman]

If Lechmere was the killer, he would have several things to worry about. Had Paul seen him attacking Stride's body? Had Paul seen or heard him moving from a crouching position near the body on the south side of the street facing west to standing in the middle of the road facing east? Had Paul spotted his knife? Had Paul spotted blood on his hands or clothing? If the answer to any of these is yes, Lechmere is in big trouble.

And then Paul, clearly frightened, steps aside, trying to avoid Lechmere.

Which for any murderer smarter than a cobblestone, would lead to the conclusion that Paul knows the truth and needs to be silenced.

Fiver! Since I am not going to have the time to answer your many points, I decided to do just the one - this one. You will be given ample time to give your view in the future, and I will answer whatever questions you may have then.

On the point you make above - that since Lechmere did not kill Paul, he is either dumber than a cobblestone or innocent - I would direct your attention to how Paul did not actually see Nichols in the darkness until he was shown the body by Lechmere:

As he got nearer the man stepped on to the pavement, and as witness was passing he touched him on the shoulder and said, "Come and look at this woman." He then saw the body of a woman lying across the gateway, dead. (Illustrated Police News)

As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him. He then touched witness on the shoulder, and said, "Come and look at this woman here." Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway. (The Times)

Therefore, if Lechmere had his eye on Paul as he approached, he would know in which direction he had his attention, and apparently he had that attention on Lechmere himself, missing out on the body on the pavement across the street. And when Paul stepped aside, Lechmere interpreted that as an effort to try and avoid getting into trouble with Lechmere.

So when Lechmere put his hand on Pauls shoulder, and informed him about the woman, any reaction of surprise on Pauls face could well have assured Lechmere that his fellow carman knew nothing. And it also applies that Lechmere had ample time to question Paul as they walked to Bakers Row/Hanbury Street.

Of course, one can argue that a careful killer would have killed Paul anyway. Then again, counter to that it could be argued that it would be anything but careful to kill a fellow carman in the open street. He would have been another proposal altogether than a frail and drunken woman, in terms of possible resistance power.

Things like these can never nullify the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer. They are personal reflections, where an effort to add extra weight to them is made by making it out as if the proponent would know how Lechmere would have gauged the situation. Once somebody who disagrees, says that it would be stupid and reckless to kill Paul if he did not know that it was necessary, a counterweight has been produced, with equal value when it comes to the ability to read Lechmeres thoughts in retrospect - none.

[A P Tomlinson]

Fiver! Since I am not going to have the time to answer your many points, I decided to do just the one - this one. You will be given ample time to give your view in the future, and I will answer whatever questions you may have then.

On the point you make above - that since Lechmere did not kill Paul, he is either dumber than a cobblestone or innocent - I would direct your attention to how Paul did not actually see Nichols in the darkness until he was shown the body by Lechmere:

As he got nearer the man stepped on to the pavement, and as witness was passing he touched him on the shoulder and said, "Come and look at this woman." He then saw the body of a woman lying across the gateway, dead. (Illustrated Police News)

As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him. He then touched witness on the shoulder, and said, "Come and look at this woman here." Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway. (The Times)

Therefore, if Lechmere had his eye on Paul as he approached, he would know in which direction he had his attention, and apparently he had that attention on Lechmere himself, missing out on the body on the pavement across the street. And when Paul stepped aside, Lechmere interpreted that as an effort to try and avoid getting into trouble with Lechmere.

So when Lechmere put his hand on Pauls shoulder, and informed him about the woman, any reaction of surprise on Pauls face could well have assured Lechmere that his fellow carman knew nothing. And it also applies that Lechmere had ample time to question Paul as they walked to Bakers Row/Hanbury Street.

Of course, one can argue that a careful killer would have killed Paul anyway. Then again, counter to that it could be argued that it would be anything but careful to kill a fellow carman in the open street. He would have been another proposal altogether than a frail and drunken woman, in terms of possible resistance power.

Things like these can never nullify the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer. They are personal reflections, where an effort to add extra weight to them is made by making it out as if the proponent would know how Lechmere would have gauged the situation. Once somebody who disagrees, says that it would be stupid and reckless to kill Paul if he did not know that it was necessary, a counterweight has been produced, with equal value when it comes to the ability to read Lechmeres thoughts in retrospect - none.

This sort of suggests Cross is thinking something along the lines of "He thinks I'm a threat, I'd better show him this body and try and talk my way round it."
It still doesn't address why, if he has literally just finished killing this woman that he goes out of his way to stop a man who is clearly trying to avoid him and draw his attention to it. He has no idea if he has blood on his face, or on his clothes...

If Paul is close enough to touch her, at that point we have to assume that HE is in something like the Documentary pose ascribed to Lechmere and leaning by the body. At that point he is a quicker and easier kill than Polly.

I for one don't discount the suggestion he may be the killer. He is absolutely a person of interest. But I don't think, with the evidence we have, there is anything near a case to put forward, beyond "you can't disprove it".
We see this with the back and forth over the times. Abberline provides (as far as I'm aware) the only timeframe on the Nichols murder that isn't based purely on times "around" the quarters with his "3:40" etc, and of all the coppers and witnesses he's the one I'd most trust over the measuring and keeping of time. So I can't see what suggests he was wrong.

My principal issue is that we seem to need to start from a "He did it, so lets work out how..." and there's just not enough from even the Nichols murder to establish that, even with the selective use of witnesses and times, let alone all the other murders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As usual, when Lechmeres name is mentioned, an avalanche of posts arrive, all of them written by the same people as always. That is why I have said that I am going to pick you one by one, and only debate with the person picked - which is what I am going to do with Fiver next.

But I will answer Herlocks first post, with the addition of two small inclusions from other posts of his, one on this thread, one from another. The post chosen illustrates, the way I see it, many of the problems at hand. Here it is:



Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
You know that Baxter said that the body was found at a time that could not have been far off 3.45. And then you reason that the body could have been found at 3.40, since "3.40 is not far off 3.45".

And then you claim that I am the one trying to shape the evidence to fit?

Personally, I could have sworn that I am the one who does not shape the evidence at all, while you are doing your utmost to rearrange it to fit your suggestions.

At the end of the day, we remain at the exact same situation: If we want to find the time that is most representative for "around 3.30", it is 3.30.


Manipulation. Simply untrue. A lie. A 3.30 estimation is no more or less likely than 3.27 or 3.28 or 3.29 or 3.31 or 3.32 or 3.33. And the fact that you desperately want it to be likelier is evidence of your bias and nothing more.

No, it is not manipulation. It is demonstrably true that the time most likely to be the correct one when somebody says "around 3.30" IS 3.30. When you say that all the times adjacent to 3.30 are no more or less likely, that means, in essence, that according to you, it does not matter how far away from the estimation given we move, all the times will be equally likely to be the correct one. This is false of course. If we claim that "around 3.30" estimation means that 3.30 and 8.25 are equally likely, we will soon enough find ourselves at the funny farm, wearing a jacket with very long arms. But hey, you say, everybody knows that 8.25 is impossible, but I am not suggesting a time hours removed, I am suggesting one only the fewest of minutes removed!
Yes, Herlock, that is true. But it is also true that just as 8.25 is moving away from the estimation, so is 3.31. It applies that every minute you move away from that estimation will be less likely than 3.30, and that is not something anyone of us can do anything about. It is a physical law.

If it were true and 3.30 would be the likeliest to be correct then we would have to assume that any time that we thought back and estimated a time we would get it exactly correct more times than not. Clearly this is tosh. Your addition of 8.25 is a typical tactic for you. Deception and nothing more. Obviously no one would suggest such a way out time. You’re scraping the barrel again.

By allowing a simply 5 minutes either way or even a 3 minutes either way none of the non-3.30 times can be considered less likely.

Harsh though that may sound, there is consolation to be had; I of course agree that adding a minute or two keeps us on a ground that is consistent with the suggestion "around 3.30". I have no problems accepting that it could have been 3.31. Or 3.32. Or 3.34. None of these times would be in denial with the "around 3.30" proposition.

Replace ‘harsh’ with ‘wrong.’

But - and this is an important but - that matter has never been where our conflict lies. I have time after time said that there must be learoom, so the conflict lies somewhere else. And to help illustrating how I look upon things, I am going to post a snippet from one of your posts on the thread "The Problem with Times". In the first post of that thread, you make a poll, and you offer up two answer alternatives to the question about how we should look upon the timings give in the case:

• With all times we should allow a reasonable margin for error.
• We should accept all times as correct and synchronised.

What we have here is a classical example of a misworded poll question. Because why would we think that all the ones answering the poll had the same idea about what a "reasonable margin for error" is? There may be those who think that a minute or two is the most they would consider reasonable, there are those who think that 10-12 minutes is reasonable, and there are lots and lots of other takes.
Making the poll worthless.
What would be more interesting would be to hear what people would allow for, because I don't think that anybody would disallow small time errors. And if that assumption is correct, there is only one answer one could give to your poll. I certainly would go for the first option - but that was only if I had to vote. From the outset, I would not answer a poll with this kind of wording!

You really are getting worse Christer. I’m a little disappointed really. The poll is entirely valid because there are posters (a small minority) who don’t think that any margin for error should be given. So it was aimed at their opinion. Perhaps you should have read it properly?

But even if we accept that various people allow for various time discrepancies, that does not alter the outcome of the matter we are REALLY discussing here, and that is the matter of whether or not a tie gap is suggested by the material - and it is. It is an eight minute time gap that is suggested.

A lie.

From what I have said above, it should be patently obvious that I do not say that "my" gap is in any way proven. Nor do I object to the idea that the gap could have been smaller or bigger. Nor can I say with absolute certainty that there must have been some sort of time gap.

Then stop talking trying to convince the gullible that there was one then.

My reasoning has been given many times, but here it is again: Charles Lechmere said he left home at around 3.30. Coroner Baxter said that the time at which the body was found could not have been far off 3.45. If the approximated timings were both spot on, then we have an established time gap of eight minutes. But we cannot know if the approximations WERE spot on, and so all we can say is that the timings given seem to involve a time gap of eight minutes. These are unshakable facts.

But it’s irrelevant reasoning. I’ve never denied what could have been the case within reason. You are trying to manipulate the level of likeliness and looking desperate in the process.

My way of looking at the timings given is that I personally believe the 3.30 approximation to allow for more learoom than the 3.45 one. And before you react to that, I am not saying that either suggestion must be spot on. But I find that whilst the 3.30 thing was not looked into with the intention of getting as close to the truth as possible, the 3.45 timing actually was. It was the result of how the coroner and inquest strived to get as close to the truth as they could. And since Baxter spoke of it being established that the timing could not be far off 3.45, I reason that one or more clocks, that could be checked for accuracy in retrospect, will have been involved. And those timepieces seem to me to have belonged to Dr Llewellyn and possibly Robert Paul.
The events surrounding Thain being informed by Neil and hurrying to fetch Dr Lewellyn could be timed in a reconstruction of the event, and a very useful timing could be made for that detail. If Llewellyn was then able to say with good accuracy when Thain arrived, and if he got that accuracy from a clock that was checked for accuracy and found to be perfectly accurate, then Baxter would be able to say that many independent data fixed the time to a place not far off 3.45 with only a small allowance for time deviations.

Too many words to say nothing. Baxter arrived at his time by considering the three times available to him. The 3.45 times quoted by the three Constable’s. So the body must have been discovered before that time. It’s obvious. There is no other explanation.

Bearing this in mind, I myself - no need to agree - consider any suggestion nearer 3.40 than 3.45 as being highly unlikely. So in this end of the matter, I am reasoning that "not far off 3.45" will very likely involve the possible timings of 3.43, 3.44, 3.45, 3.46 or 3.47. Any other times would mean that they should reasonably have been worded "not far off 3.40" or "not far off 3.45". And since we know quite well that the initial belief was that the body was found at around 3.40, owing to how Neil/Thain/Mizen spoke of having been drawn into the errand at circa 3.45, we can also say that Baxter in his summation opted for a timing that offered another scenario; that Lechmere found the body at circa 3.45 and Neil accordingly got to the spot around 3.50.

The Fisherman version of the English language. Complete and utter nonsense. And absolutely deliberate.

So that is why I am less generous with that particular timing. Because you are biased. And it applies that since I only allow for two or two and a half minutes in that direction, we need five and a half or six minutes in the other end, and since that should have taken the time not to "around 3.30" but instead "around 3.40", my summation is that I find that a time gap around eight minutes is much likelier than no time gap.

And your wrong. Not mistaken….deliberately wrong.

Again what I think looks bad and what you think does not look bad, does not have any influence about how the estimations given have approximated center points (points around which the giver of the time allows for deviations, but also points that remain the centers for these possible deviations), are estimations that suggest that there was an eight minute gap.

And here is where we add in a snippet for a later post by your hand:

If there was an 8 minute gap what was he doing? The murder and mutilations can only have taken 2 minutes tops. Why was he still there?

Herlock, there is no need to think that Lechmere must have found Nichols in Bucks Row at 3.37, and then had tea with her until 3.43, when he struck. He could well have prowled Whitechapel Road in search of prey for some minutes, finding Nichols there and walking into Bucks Row and then attacked her. There are more possibilities that there is space out here. As I have said that I have no problems allowing for a smaller time gap, one of those possibilities would of course be if there was only a gap of, say, four minutes, Lechmere may have found Nichols in Bucks Row and gone to work on her immediately. There is absolutely no kind of problem connected to the suggestion of a time gap!

This is a joke right?

Surprise, surprise! And if we want to t´find the time that is most representative for "not far off 3.45", it is 3.45. Well, I never ...!

Manipulation.

And when we apply these things - and there are no other timings suggested, although they may have to be allowed for to a smaller or larger extent - we gat a suggested time gap of eight minutes.

Manipulation.

Baxter does not contradict that - he reinforces it. To reason otherwise, we must try to fit the evidence to fit. Which I didn't - but you just did

Manipulation.

Totally untrue. You continue to manipulate evidence. All Baxter said was not far off 3.45. That’s all. That includes 3,44 or 3.43 or 3.42 or 3.41 or 3.40. We have no way of narrowing it down. Any attempt to do so is blatant dishonesty.

This is the exact problem that I have discussed above, and so I will not add anything to it here, with the exception of a few remarks that links onto the final words of your post, Herlock.

You simply cannot be misunderstanding this. It clearly a deliberate attempt to obfuscate. 3.40 is not far off 3.45. I don’t know what the case is in Swedish Christer but please don’t try telling native English speakers like myself, like Roger, like Fiver, like AP and everyone else apart from zealous Cross supporters that this isn’t the case. Five minutes is not far off.

When you say that I simply cannot misunderstand this, it seems what you want to say is that I must agree with you, that there are no other alternatives. The above should tell you how and why I disagree - and it should point you to how the REAL issue at hand, the suggested time gap, is something that remains as a likelihood. So nothing new there.
What IS new (well ...) is that you call me a liar, a deliberate obfuscator , a manipulator of the evidence, and blatantly dishonest.
Things like these may be true or they may be untrue. Regardless of what applies in this case, they are always allegations that must be supported by proof. It is not enough to disagree with somebody, to allow for throwing these kinds of allegations around oneself.
What I would suggest is that we both abstain from making allegations we cannot prove, and let the points we make in debate be the only things that give away where we stand. I am all for engagement and passion - I make my own case with lots of it - but I am less impressed with hysteria. If you can prove your reasoning about the timings to be correct, you do not need to claim what you claim about me, Herlock. Once you do resort to such behavior, it actually looks a lot more like frustration of having failed to prove your points.

I could also add that if I was a habitual liar, that would have been disclosed and proven a long time ago. And people like Tom Wescott would not be saluting my book and pointing out that it is all based on years of research and accessing reliable sources. Nor would Richard Jones call my book "fantastic", I think.
Then again, it is not a popularity contest. It is not about how you can name a handful of fellow posters who agree with you, whereas noone so far has agreed with me. That, I would suggest, is not because nobody does. Hundreds and thousands of people agree with me, but they are not writing out here, where there has for a long time been a very clear overweight for the so called naysayers. Therefore, finding support out here for your take is not something that seals any deal - it is not about popularity contests and polls, it is about the case facts.
Incidentally, speaking about polls, if you had made a poll back in 2012, asking who was the likely Ripper, Charles Lechmere would not have been among the top fifty mentioned contenders. Today, he is habitually up among the top three.
That owes to how the story about the carman has been expanded with added facts, and how it has come to peoples knowledge over the last stiff decade. And it tells us how much faith we should put in polls.

I hope this tells you exactly where I stand, and I work from the assumption that you are able to make whichever case you choose to make forthwith, without calling your opponent a liar for disagreeing with you.

---

I’ll finish with an example (with a bit of Sweden thrown in just for you)

On Tuesday I agreed to go to IKEA with my brother. I was visiting my mom so he said that he’d pick me up there at around 2.30 (it usually took him around 30 minutes to get from his work to there and he finished work at exactly 2.00)

We both estimated that he’d arrived at fairly close to 2.30 and when I asked my mother she agreed at close to 2.30. So by your thinking 2.30 was the likeliest time (and we had 3 people all estimating the same) We were able to check though because as soon as he arrived he texted his wife to tell her he’d be late picking her up. The text was timed at 2.39. So 9 minutes out. In 2023.

And yet you insist on narrowing down times in 1888!

These times cannot be narrowed down if we use evidence honestly. Cross has no case to answer. The ‘case’ against him is a combination of exaggeration, manipulation and the deliberate misuse of the English language. The efforts to shoehorn this clearly innocent man is a stain on the subject. An embarrassment.