The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Darryl Kenyon]

Fish you suggest - The wounds on the abdomen of Polly Nichols were covered as Robert Paul saw her, while in the other canonical evisceration cases as well as in the Tabram case, the wounds were left on display. This fits well with the suggestion that Lechmere may have conned Robert Paul. In no other of the cases could such a ruse have been suggested.

But -
Henry Llewellyn - I found she was dead, and that she had severe injuries to her throat. And - On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing about an inch in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about eight inches long. These cuts must have been caused with a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence.

John Neil - I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat.
IE - No mention of moving a collar/scarf etc to observe the neck wounds.


Please can you explain to me how hiding/covering the abdominal wounds [ if indeed Lech did that ], but leaving the , possibly more severe neck wounds untouched, and fully on view, is conning anyone ?

Regards Darryl

[A P Tomlinson]

Fish you suggest - The wounds on the abdomen of Polly Nichols were covered as Robert Paul saw her, while in the other canonical evisceration cases as well as in the Tabram case, the wounds were left on display. This fits well with the suggestion that Lechmere may have conned Robert Paul. In no other of the cases could such a ruse have been suggested.

But -
Henry Llewellyn - I found she was dead, and that she had severe injuries to her throat. And - On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing about an inch in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about eight inches long. These cuts must have been caused with a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence.

John Neil - I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat.
IE - No mention of moving a collar/scarf etc to observe the neck wounds.


Please can you explain to me how hiding/covering the abdominal wounds [ if indeed Lech did that ], but leaving the , possibly more severe neck wounds untouched, and fully on view, is conning anyone ?

Regards Darryl

I think the copy and paste answer to this is "Well, it worked didn't it!" which is true, but doesn't explain the reason for dramatically increasing the risk of being caught in such a con by effectively asking Robert Paul to mark his "Wound Hiding after a brutal murder" homework.

I think the equally pressing question is why the perpetrator of such a ruse would take the time and trouble to hide those wounds, then immediately stop a stranger in the street (a stranger who is actively trying to avoid him), and invite him over to examine the body he had just (very hastily) tried to disguise?
Such a ruse may have had a chance that a passerby simply considered her a passed-out drunk and walked on, but calling someone over to take a closer look seems like very odd behaviour for someone trying to hide his work.

I can't tell if we are supposed to think that Cross possessed the bravado of a WWE wrestler, the brains of a punched frog, or such levels of pure luck that would put the local bookies out of business had he been inclined to wager on the ponies.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think the copy and paste answer to this is "Well, it worked didn't it!" which is true, but doesn't explain the reason for dramatically increasing the risk of being caught in such a con by effectively asking Robert Paul to mark his "Wound Hiding after a brutal murder" homework.

I think the equally pressing question is why the perpetrator of such a ruse would take the time and trouble to hide those wounds, then immediately stop a stranger in the street (a stranger who is actively trying to avoid him), and invite him over to examine the body he had just (very hastily) tried to disguise?
Such a ruse may have had a chance that a passerby simply considered her a passed-out drunk and walked on, but calling someone over to take a closer look seems like very odd behaviour for someone trying to hide his work.

I can't tell if we are supposed to think that Cross possessed the bravado of a WWE wrestler, the brains of a punched frog, or such levels of pure luck that would put the local bookies out of business had he been inclined to wager on the ponies.

Agreed AP. Plus, why would Cross have testified that he’d simply observed the body from the middle of the road before he heard then saw Paul approach when he couldn’t have had a clue what Paul himself had seen as he’d approached? If Paul, testifying after him, had said that he’d seen the man walk from the body to the middle of the road then the words ‘recall Mr. Cross’ would have been heard from the Coroner, leaving Cross right in the ‘you know what.’

[rjpalmer]

I would be wrong if I said that the timings given establish a gap or proves it (which was the claim R J Palmer falsely made if he was talking about me), but I am not doing that. I am saying that it seems to SUGGEST a time gap - and it does.

This is getting tedious, Christer. I said my statement could be ignored if you somehow think I misrepresented you, but I come back to find that you're still banging on about it.

So here is the exchange I was thinking of from The Missing Evidence video, which can be found here:

(4) The Missing Evidence: Jack the Ripper (Full Episode) - YouTube

The exchange is between the 19: 05 and the 21:49 marks.


Narrator: There was one key aspect of Lechmere’s story that raised alarm bells with Christer. Lechmere’s walk to work took him within yards of Robert Paul’s house. The two men shared the same route, yet both Paul and Lechmere claim they saw no one else that morning. If they really were just seconds apart, they should have seen each other well before Buck’s Row.

Christer: the two should have walked in tandem more or less--30 or 40 yards--nothing more than that in between them, and yet nobody speaks about noticing the other man, walking right beside him more or less.

Narrator: Now Christer and Andy [Griffiths] can check whether Lechmere’s version of events made sense.

Andy: Charles Lechmere lived here at 22 Doveton Street.

Christer: He lived here. Yes.

Andy: Now I am really interested in the timing.

Christer: He said at the inquest that he left at 3.30. Some reports say 3.20 but the more common reports say 3.30.

Andy: Okay, so we got our start time of 3.30. Let’s time the walk from here to the body.

Christer: Okay. Here we go.

[The two men are shown walking the route, stopwatch in hand].

Narrator: At the inquest, Charles Lechmere claimed he found Polly Nichols lying in Buck’s Row on his way to work. He also claimed he was immediately joined by the second witness, Robert Paul. The street layout is the same as it was over a century ago. Christer and Andy time Lechmere’s route to the murder site. According to Paul’ evidence, Lechmere found the body some 16 minutes after he claimed he left home.

Christer [with stopwatch]: Okay, and stop. And it says seven minutes, seven seconds. That would have meant if Lechmere left his home as he said at 3.30, he should have been here at 3.37.

Andy: Well that’s very interesting because Paul says that he came into the street at 3.45.

Christer: Yeah.

Narrator: Andy and Christer seem to have found a major discrepancy in Lechmere’s story. Lechmere said that he was never alone with the body, but Lechmere would have reached the body at 3.37, long before Paul turned into the street at 3.45.

Andy: And it was the other thing about Paul was we know he was late for work as he said at the inquest…

Christer: Yeah.

Andy: ..and I think it is reasonable to assume then he was keeping an eye on the time.

Christer: then we got a discrepancy of about 9 minutes or something like that.

Andy: which is a big difference in time.

Narrator: It seems that Lechmere was alone with Polly Nichols a lot longer than he admitted.

---

I think any reasonable person would conclude from the above that you are suggesting that Lechmere should have been in Buck's Row at 3.37. You then agree with Griffiths that Robert Paul came into the street at 3.45 and this leaves a discrepancy.

You then say: Then we got a discrepancy of about 9 minutes or something like that.

Now, the post I was responding to was by 'Lewis Carroll' who thought he found a paradox in your thinking, in that you accepted Lechmere's word of having left at 3.30.

I then responded:

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.' (I said this because you and Ed have both said he could have left earlier)

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 (closer to 9, actually) whereas Lechmere also states Paul was only about 40 yards behind him. Thus, Lechmere must be lying.

This is what got your blood boiling and accused me of lying.

It still seems to me like I made a faithful rendition of what you were implying in the Missing Evidence video--that there was a several minute gap and thus Lechmere must have been lying about how long he was with the body.

You seem to be upset, however, that you only want to say that it "seems" like there is a 9-minute gap and that it only "seems" like Lechmere must have been lying.

Fine, then I again qualify or retract my former statement and whole-heartedly congratulate you on acknowledging that your assessment might be entirely wrong and there is no proven gap and that there is also no conclusive evidence that Lechmere was lying--that what we might actually be looking at is a faulty interpretation and an over reliance on Robert Paul (as per the video) and what 'seems' like a gap is actually a rather mundane illusion caused by faulty interpretations and assumptions.

I certainly won't repeat the mistake of ever suggesting again that you reasoning doesn't contain an internal paradox, as per Lewis Carroll's original post.

Ciao.

[Fiver]

Yes, all those people "see it". And all people around Galilei "saw" that the universe revolved around the Earth. It-is-not-a-popularity-contest, and as I said (although Fiver suggests it is a brain ghost of mine), there are numerous people on other sites who will not go near Casebook, but who support my view.

Disagreement. You must have heard of it?

So now you're comparing yourself to Galileo? Really?

I hadn't dreamed your ego was that immense.

[Fiver]

How about by viewing the video he did with me, which is where it is on record.

Why should I waste 103 minutes rooting through garbage just to find a specific piece of garbage? Especially when it may only exist in your mind?

The dictionary definition of oozing is clear. As has been shown to you many times, it does not mean what you want it to mean. If you've tricked someone into believing your fake definition, that doesn't change the facts.

[Fiver]

I did not say that ooze means running profusely.

Of course you did.

Richard Jones agrees that oozing can mean running profusely.

Seems you can't even portray your own statements accurately.

[Fisherman]

Over the weekend, I am occupied, so I will answer in the upcoming week. I will make the one exception, though. On my screen, as I write this, I can see Fiver doing what he usually does, trying to make me look like somebody who does not know at all what I am talking about. He uses two quotations to bolster his claim, but misses out on how me saying ”I did not say that ooze means running profusely” and ”Richard Jones agrees that oozing can mean running profusely” does not prove his point at all.

I had said ”I did not say that ooze CAN mean running profusely”, he would have had a point. But the point I was making was that I have never said that when we hear the term ooze, it WILL mean running profusely. The fact of the matter is that ooze can be described as depicting many types of bleeding, and of course running profusely is not the only one of them. Therefore I would not say that running profusely is the definition of ooze. It is one of the possible definitions. And although the naysayers have falsely claimed that it is NOT a definition that can be used, Richard Jones was able to verify that it IS.

Of course, it immediately had a naysayer claim that Richard Jones apparently does not grasp the British language. Charming!

He grasps it quite well. I have in earlier posts pointed out how the word combination ”ooze profusely” has heaps of hits on Google. To little avail when it comes to the naysayers, who banged on about how they were modern examples. It is nevertheless a fact that ooze is oftentimes used when liquid is welling out, provided that the welling is not a force with underlying pressure. In our case, it also applies that there are reports from the day before the inquest when PC Neil is quoted as saying that the blood was running profusely, but the naysayers have been able to prove that he cannot have said that, it must be an invention by the press. And how is this proved? Exactly, it is proved becase it can be shown that Neil said oozed at the inquest, and since the naysayers have reserved themselves the right to deny that ooze can mean welling out profusely without pressure, there we are. Easy-peasy!

This is how the Lechmere criticism works, so it is not as if it is in any way suprising me; it is very much about attacks like Fivers, focusing on whatever possibilities there are to try and make petty assaults, quite happy to let them focus around the messenger more than the message; ”he does not understand what he says!”, ”He does not realize what bis own experts are saying” and so on. And with any luck, these distractions allows him to cretae a circus about them, so that the real issues can be skipped over.

Lucky, then, that it is so easy to reveal it when it happens.

See y´all next week.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is getting tedious, Christer. I said my statement could be ignored if you somehow think I misrepresented you, but I come back to find that you're still banging on about it.

So here is the exchange I was thinking of from The Missing Evidence video, which can be found here:

(4) The Missing Evidence: Jack the Ripper (Full Episode) - YouTube

The exchange is between the 19: 05 and the 21:49 marks.


Narrator: There was one key aspect of Lechmere’s story that raised alarm bells with Christer. Lechmere’s walk to work took him within yards of Robert Paul’s house. The two men shared the same route, yet both Paul and Lechmere claim they saw no one else that morning. If they really were just seconds apart, they should have seen each other well before Buck’s Row.

Christer: the two should have walked in tandem more or less--30 or 40 yards--nothing more than that in between them, and yet nobody speaks about noticing the other man, walking right beside him more or less.

Narrator: Now Christer and Andy [Griffiths] can check whether Lechmere’s version of events made sense.

Andy: Charles Lechmere lived here at 22 Doveton Street.

Christer: He lived here. Yes.

Andy: Now I am really interested in the timing.

Christer: He said at the inquest that he left at 3.30. Some reports say 3.20 but the more common reports say 3.30.

Andy: Okay, so we got our start time of 3.30. Let’s time the walk from here to the body.

Christer: Okay. Here we go.

[The two men are shown walking the route, stopwatch in hand].

Narrator: At the inquest, Charles Lechmere claimed he found Polly Nichols lying in Buck’s Row on his way to work. He also claimed he was immediately joined by the second witness, Robert Paul. The street layout is the same as it was over a century ago. Christer and Andy time Lechmere’s route to the murder site. According to Paul’ evidence, Lechmere found the body some 16 minutes after he claimed he left home.

Christer [with stopwatch]: Okay, and stop. And it says seven minutes, seven seconds. That would have meant if Lechmere left his home as he said at 3.30, he should have been here at 3.37.

Andy: Well that’s very interesting because Paul says that he came into the street at 3.45.

Christer: Yeah.

Narrator: Andy and Christer seem to have found a major discrepancy in Lechmere’s story. Lechmere said that he was never alone with the body, but Lechmere would have reached the body at 3.37, long before Paul turned into the street at 3.45.

Andy: And it was the other thing about Paul was we know he was late for work as he said at the inquest…

Christer: Yeah.

Andy: ..and I think it is reasonable to assume then he was keeping an eye on the time.

Christer: then we got a discrepancy of about 9 minutes or something like that.

Andy: which is a big difference in time.

Narrator: It seems that Lechmere was alone with Polly Nichols a lot longer than he admitted.

---

I think any reasonable person would conclude from the above that you are suggesting that Lechmere should have been in Buck's Row at 3.37. You then agree with Griffiths that Robert Paul came into the street at 3.45 and this leaves a discrepancy.

You then say: Then we got a discrepancy of about 9 minutes or something like that.

Now, the post I was responding to was by 'Lewis Carroll' who thought he found a paradox in your thinking, in that you accepted Lechmere's word of having left at 3.30.

I then responded:

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.' (I said this because you and Ed have both said he could have left earlier)

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 (closer to 9, actually) whereas Lechmere also states Paul was only about 40 yards behind him. Thus, Lechmere must be lying.

This is what got your blood boiling and accused me of lying.

It still seems to me like I made a faithful rendition of what you were implying in the Missing Evidence video--that there was a several minute gap and thus Lechmere must have been lying about how long he was with the body.

You seem to be upset, however, that you only want to say that it "seems" like there is a 9-minute gap and that it only "seems" like Lechmere must have been lying.

Fine, then I again qualify or retract my former statement and whole-heartedly congratulate you on acknowledging that your assessment might be entirely wrong and there is no proven gap and that there is also no conclusive evidence that Lechmere was lying--that what we might actually be looking at is a faulty interpretation and an over reliance on Robert Paul (as per the video) and what 'seems' like a gap is actually a rather mundane illusion caused by faulty interpretations and assumptions.

I certainly won't repeat the mistake of ever suggesting again that you reasoning doesn't contain an internal paradox, as per Lewis Carroll's original post.

Ciao.

It’s staggering that you’ve had to waste time explaining this Roger. I’m glad that you posted this part though:

Christer: “He said at the inquest that he left at 3.30. Some reports say 3.20 but the more common reports say 3.30.”

Whereas on here Christer said: ““We must however accept that since the absolute bulk of the papers spoke of ”around 3.30”, that is by far the likeliest wording to have been given.”

Its impossible that he wasn’t aware of what the papers said at the time of the documentary and then later at the time of the book only to discover this years later (something that we were all fully aware of)

Absolutely 100% deliberation misinformation to manufacture suspicion against Cross.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Over the weekend, I am occupied, so I will answer in the upcoming week. I will make the one exception, though. On my screen, as I write this, I can see Fiver doing what he usually does, trying to make me look like somebody who does not know at all what I am talking about. He uses two quotations to bolster his claim, but misses out on how me saying ”I did not say that ooze means running profusely” and ”Richard Jones agrees that oozing can mean running profusely” does not prove his point at all.

I had said ”I did not say that ooze CAN mean running profusely”, he would have had a point. But the point I was making was that I have never said that when we hear the term ooze, it WILL mean running profusely. The fact of the matter is that ooze can be described as depicting many types of bleeding, and of course running profusely is not the only one of them. Therefore I would not say that running profusely is the definition of ooze. It is one of the possible definitions. And although the naysayers have falsely claimed that it is NOT a definition that can be used, Richard Jones was able to verify that it IS.

Of course, it immediately had a naysayer claim that Richard Jones apparently does not grasp the British language. Charming!

He grasps it quite well. I have in earlier posts pointed out how the word combination ”ooze profusely” has heaps of hits on Google. To little avail when it comes to the naysayers, who banged on about how they were modern examples. It is nevertheless a fact that ooze is oftentimes used when liquid is welling out, provided that the welling is not a force with underlying pressure. In our case, it also applies that there are reports from the day before the inquest when PC Neil is quoted as saying that the blood was running profusely, but the naysayers have been able to prove that he cannot have said that, it must be an invention by the press. And how is this proved? Exactly, it is proved becase it can be shown that Neil said oozed at the inquest, and since the naysayers have reserved themselves the right to deny that ooze can mean welling out profusely without pressure, there we are. Easy-peasy!

This is how the Lechmere criticism works, so it is not as if it is in any way suprising me; it is very much about attacks like Fivers, focusing on whatever possibilities there are to try and make petty assaults, quite happy to let them focus around the messenger more than the message; ”he does not understand what he says!”, ”He does not realize what bis own experts are saying” and so on. And with any luck, these distractions allows him to cretae a circus about them, so that the real issues can be skipped over.

Lucky, then, that it is so easy to reveal it when it happens.

See y´all next week.

As predictable as ever. Christer’s caught out and off he goes on his usual disappearing trick to some spot in Scandinavia where there’s sadly no internet access. Every single time.

[FrankO]

Please can you explain to me how hiding/covering the abdominal wounds [ if indeed Lech did that ], but leaving the , possibly more severe neck wounds untouched, and fully on view, is conning anyone ?

Hi Darryl,

In discussions that I had with Christer on the subject he said that he believes the killer also covered the neck wounds with the neck/upper part of the dress and that they got uncovered again when Paul pulled the dress down somewhat, just before leaving the body. I don't think I've misrepresented his view, but I'm sure he'll chime in to correct it if I have.

The best,
Frank

[Doctored Whatsit]

I had said ”I did not say that ooze CAN mean running profusely”, he would have had a point. But the point I was making was that I have never said that when we hear the term ooze, it WILL mean running profusely. The fact of the matter is that ooze can be described as depicting many types of bleeding, and of course running profusely is not the only one of them. Therefore I would not say that running profusely is the definition of ooze. It is one of the possible definitions. And although the naysayers have falsely claimed that it is NOT a definition that can be used, Richard Jones was able to verify that it IS.

I have in earlier posts pointed out how the word combination ”ooze profusely” has heaps of hits on Google.

No, "ooze" cannot be described as depicting many types of bleeding, and "running profusely" is not one of them! When bleeding is "profuse", it is not "oozing".

I have just googled "ooze profusely", as you suggest, and the first entries were definitions of "ooze", which were "seep out slowly", and "come out gradually in drops". In the first medical page, I found the entry, "bleeding stops or slows to an ooze or trickle".

Therefore "ooze profusely" is a contradiction - to seep out slowly profusely???

It is like saying "hurry slowly", or "loiter rapidly" - it is a contradiction.

[FrankO]

The Dahmer incident was forced behaviour. A drugged victim had escaped from his apartment. Choice - leave him free to go to the police and mention Dahmer, causing them to visit his apartment and check out the interesting contents of his fridge. Or intercept him and convince the police that he meant well. You might find that a difficult choice but I doubt that many would agree.

I'd add, Mike, that Dahmer did'nt choose to engage with the police; when he returned from the liquor store, he saw the boy with 2 or 3 girls. He then tried to get the boy from the girls, but they didn't want to give him up and only then the police arrived. But you're right, in Dahmer's case he really had no choice, not with the girls but certainly not with the police.

[etenguy]

I had said ”I did not say that ooze CAN mean running profusely”, he would have had a point. But the point I was making was that I have never said that when we hear the term ooze, it WILL mean running profusely. The fact of the matter is that ooze can be described as depicting many types of bleeding, and of course running profusely is not the only one of them. Therefore I would not say that running profusely is the definition of ooze. It is one of the possible definitions. And although the naysayers have falsely claimed that it is NOT a definition that can be used, Richard Jones was able to verify that it IS.

Hi Fisherman

I will start by saying that although I am not close to being convinced that Lechmere/Cross was JtR, I do recognise your good work in developing the case against him.

Regarding the use of the term ooze profusely (is it an oxymoron as seems to be the majority view?).

The Cambridge English dictionary defines the word ooze as:

to flow slowly out of something through a small opening, or to slowly produce a thick sticky liquid:

The Cambridge English dictionary defines the word profusely as:

in large amounts

So ooze has to do with the speed of flow through a small wound (in this case) and has a suggestion of being languid, and profusely has to do with the quantity of flow. So I think there is an argument to say that a wound could be oozing a profuse amount of blood over time (ie a large quantity of blood formed from a slow flow) - but it would not be correct to suggest a wound is oozing a profuse amount of blood at the point it is leaving the wound - ie the blood could not be leaving the wound in large quantities and at speed if the word ooze accurately describes what was witnessed.

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi Fisherman

I will start by saying that although I am not close to being convinced that Lechmere/Cross was JtR, I do recognise your good work in developing the case against him.

Regarding the use of the term ooze profusely (is it an oxymoron as seems to be the majority view?).

The Cambridge English dictionary defines the word ooze as:

The Cambridge English dictionary defines the word profusely as:


So ooze has to do with the speed of flow through a small wound (in this case) and has a suggestion of being languid, and profusely has to do with the quantity of flow. So I think there is an argument to say that a wound could be oozing a profuse amount of blood over time (ie a large quantity of blood formed from a slow flow) - but it would not be correct to suggest a wound is oozing a profuse amount of blood at the point it is leaving the wound - ie the blood could not be leaving the wound in large quantities and at speed if the word ooze accurately describes what was witnessed.

Yeah. It's another silly pedantic thing we are dealing with, but the two words don't go toether in medical terms.

Having discussed this with my ever patient wife who gave me the "You've been on one of those groups again haven't you" look... as she does whenever I approach her about something begnning with, "In your experiences in A&E..."
Me with my degree in English and her with her near 20 years as a trauma nurse came to the agreement that;
"Ooze Profusely" could possibly be an accceptable descritpion of something like an Oil Tanker leak, and even that would be served better by more precision, and the term is just, as you say an oxymoron when applied to a wound. Blood "Flows" profusely, it may spill, gush, spray profusely, it may BLEED profusely, it cannot OOZE profusely.

Other peoples' mileage may vary.