The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Herlock Sholmes]

Quite right, Michael. It's just one interpretation of what Baxter said; not the only possible interpretation (as posts from many have shown) and certainly not necessarily the correct one. To think that it was necessarily the correct one, would be a flaw. Just as it would be a flaw to think that "about 3.30" must have meant no more than 4, maybe 5 minutes off 3.30.

In our day & age it possibly would, but certainly not necessarily back then. If "about 3.30" would then have meant "possibly 3.33 or 3.34 but no later", should we have expected a guilty Lechmere, knowing that Paul supposedly stated to the Lloyd's Weekly News "exactly 3.45", in the interview that's supposed to have propelled Lechmere into coming forward, to say "about 3.30" or should we expect him to say that he'd heard a clock chime a few minutes before he left home (or something similar)? If he was supposed to lie about when he left home, then why not lie better? I'm sure that when we can do the math, the psychopath could have managed to as well.

By the way, it's interesting to see how the 3.30 in "about 3.30" is used to widen the gap, whilst the "he got to Pickford's yard at Broad-street at four o'clock", when used by us naysayer folk, is seen as useless (as in: we can't be certain that it was precisely four o'clock or even very close to it).

The bias is so obvious Frank. You see it all the time. No wonder there is an army of gullibles on social media who believe these lies. It’s a sad state of affairs when people, for their own benefit, twist and squirm and manipulate and lie. Despicable stuff.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Surprise, surprise! And if we want to tīfind 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.

.

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.

[Fisherman]

Quite right, Michael. It's just one interpretation of what Baxter said; not the only possible interpretation (as posts from many have shown) and certainly not necessarily the correct one. To think that it was necessarily the correct one, would be a flaw. Just as it would be a flaw to think that "about 3.30" must have meant no more than 4, maybe 5 minutes off 3.30.

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

In our day & age it possibly would, but certainly not necessarily back then. If "about 3.30" would then have meant "possibly 3.33 or 3.34 but no later", should we have expected a guilty Lechmere, knowing that Paul supposedly stated to the Lloyd's Weekly News "exactly 3.45", in the interview that's supposed to have propelled Lechmere into coming forward, to say "about 3.30" or should we expect him to say that he'd heard a clock chime a few minutes before he left home (or something similar)? If he was supposed to lie about when he left home, then why not lie better? I'm sure that when we can do the math, the psychopath could have managed to as well.

See the above. I agree fully with the possible reasons for why we may need to be careful, but that does not alter that 3.30 and 3.454 are the timings that are the ones that are what we have to work from if we want to be as true to the material as possible.

By the way, it's interesting to see how the 3.30 in "about 3.30" is used to widen the gap, whilst the "he got to Pickford's yard at Broad-street at four o'clock", when used by us naysayer folk, is seen as useless (as in: we can't be certain that it was precisely four o'clock or even very close to it).

There is no need to widen the gap, Frank. Eight minutes is ample time to do the deed, as you may see. And indeed, I have never tried to widen the gap at all, I am fine witt the eight minutes suggested. 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.

[FrankO]

Just read the evidence and stop trying to shape it to fit.

Quite right, Michael. It's just one interpretation of what Baxter said; not the only possible interpretation (as posts from many have shown) and certainly not necessarily the correct one. To think that it was necessarily the correct one, would be a flaw. Just as it would be a flaw to think that "about 3.30" must have meant no more than 4, maybe 5 minutes off 3.30.

In our day & age it possibly would, but certainly not necessarily back then. If "about 3.30" would then have meant "possibly 3.33 or 3.34 but no later", should we have expected a guilty Lechmere, knowing that Paul supposedly stated to the Lloyd's Weekly News "exactly 3.45", in the interview that's supposed to have propelled Lechmere into coming forward, to say "about 3.30" or should we expect him to say that he'd heard a clock chime a few minutes before he left home (or something similar)? If he was supposed to lie about when he left home, then why not lie better? I'm sure that when we can do the math, the psychopath could have managed to as well.

By the way, it's interesting to see how the 3.30 in "about 3.30" is used to widen the gap, whilst the "he got to Pickford's yard at Broad-street at four o'clock", when used by us naysayer folk, is seen as useless (as in: we can't be certain that it was precisely four o'clock or even very close to it).

[Fisherman]

No thanks, Christer. I've grown tired of these semantic games.

You might find it endlessly fascinating to go over the same tired ground for the nine hundredth time, but it's been done to death. Relying on Baxter as your second reference point is as misguided as relying on Robert Paul. What you should rely on is balancing the accounts of the three constables on the scene, the report filed by Abberline, and the commonsense knowledge that there will be small variations and errors in calculating the time by witnesses. Once you do this competently, the "missing time" --whether you are insisting on it or whether you are merely 'suggesting it'--evaporates into an unconvincing interpretation in search of evidence.

If you want to discuss the case with me, these are my terms. Our topic will be "Charles Allen Lechmere: Evidence of Psychopathy." I imagine it will be a brief exchange but take it or leave it.

Cheers.

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.

[Fisherman]

Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
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.

No it doesn’t! ‘Around 3.30’ is not a time. ‘Cannot have been far from 3.45’ is not a time. No gap is suggested. It’s imagined and then manipulated into place.


3.30 and 3.45 are both times. Adding the around and the not far off does not change that, it only widens the scope. But it does not move the suggested epicenter in either way, and so any reasoning about the timings given, must work from 3.30 and 3.45. If we were to add time or detract time, we would move away from the only suggestions given. And if we were to disallow reasoning about it at all, we would be careless and wrong.


Again, and forever if I have to, it is one thing to say IF Lechmere left at 3.30 or around 3.30, he should have been in Bucks Row at 3.37 or around 3.37, and a very different thing to say that SINCE he left at this time he MUST have been in Bucks Row earlier than he claimed.

And if Cross left the house at 2.25 he should have been in Bucks Row at 2.32. If he left the house at 3.01 he should have been in Bucks Row at 3.08. Estimated times are useless and this is what we have. Pointless hypothesising.

Yes, and if her left at 2.21 he should have been there at 2.28. But since he never said he left the house at 2.21, that is not a time we can use. But we CAN use the "around 3.30", because that would take him to the site at around 3.37. But he was apparently there at 3.45ish instead. That is the time gap that is suggested. Not established, suggested. Have a deep breath.

The first claim is a perfectly correct and valid assessment whereas the second one would be a claim that there is not enough factual material to allow for.

A time gap IS suggested by the timings named. Just as it can have been the eight minute gap that is the closest guess we can make, based on the material, it may be that it was smaller or larger than so. If we can explain away those eight minutes, we can equally ADD a number of minutes to the gap.

A time gap isn’t suggested. This is simply an invention. Say it as often as you like Christer you are not getting away with it. Stow’s disciples might swallow this nonsense hook, line and sinker but they will believe anything.

I "got away with it" from day one - it is the claim that a time gap is not suggested that is demonstrably wrong.

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 material doesn’t suggest a gap.

It does.

Could it nevertheless be that there was no time gap? Well, if we add four minutes to 3.30 we get 3.34. And if we detract four minutes from Baxters 3.45, we get 3.41. And that would mean that it took Lechmere Sven minutes exactly to walk to the murder site. So yes, a theoretical suggestion can be made that there may not have been a time gap. But no theoretical suggestion can be made that is as likely or likelier than the suggestion of an eight minute time gap.

This is simply dishonesty yet again. You add a ridiculous suggestion like a four minute walk time which might chime with the disciples but not on here. It’s not a theoretical suggestion that there ‘might’ not have been a gap. It’s a fact. You continue to manipulate two unknowns to suit your own agenda.

I am reasoning theoretically. That is something that can and must be done, and it is not in any way ridiculous. This particular theoretical reasoning - you may have missed that - went to show how there may perhaps not have been a time gap - if we accept adding four minutes in one end and detracting four minutes in the other. Anybody can do so, but nobody will get a more fair picture by doing so. The suggested time gap is based on 3.30 and 3.45, and the basis for it is that these were the approximations made by Lechmere and Baxter, respectively. Yes, they may have been wrong to some degree, but if we were to accept your idea that there is no time gap, we must accept that 3.30 and 3.45 - or at least one of them MUST be wrong. And it would be dishonest to make such a claim. They can have been wrong, but they remain the timings we have to go by. And when we do, they offer up a suggestion of an eight minute time gap. Summing up, there is no PROVEN time gap, but there is a suggested one. Why does that irk you? It is the simple truth.

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

This has been shown to be yet another lie. He didn’t move the time. Again, your gullible acolytes might swallow this kind of dodgy reasoning but not people who look at evidence without bias.

No, Herlock, it has not been shown to be a lie. Your claiming so never clinched it in any way. The initial idea WAS that Neil got to the body at 3.45 and therefore, once Lechmere needed to be added in, it was thought that he was there five minutes before, at circa 3.40. In his summation, Baxter than said that the time at which the body was found, could not have been far off 3.45. If he had remained at the belief that Neil got to the body at 3.45, then Lechmere could not have found it at the same time. It is impossible. Therefore, when Baxter said tnhat the body was found at a time not far off 3.45, it meant that he also laid down that Neil got to the body at a time not far off 3.40. It is as simple as it can be, and as I pointed out above, I am not the one desperately wanting to alter these tinings. Ergo, I am not the one with a bias. You are.

Finally, I have also said that any prosecutor who was made aware of this, would definitely point it out in a court of law. It would then be up to the jury to take stock of it and put it alongside the rest of the evidence before deciding on their verdict. And as such, it would be a matter that did the defendant no good whatsoever. It is and remains a point against Charles Lechmere, a point that could be unwarranted at a stretch - but the timings keep suggesting otherwise.

Rubbish. If Scobie had been presented with an honest version of the evidence in the first place he wouldn’t have said that Cross had a case to answer.

Again, you never as saw the m material Scobie was given, so you are in no position to decide whether or not it was an honest version. Again, it is all very simple.

This can be discussed in absurdum, I'm sure. But it will not change.

It won’t change because you are to far invested in this utter joke. How you can come on here and blatantly twist evidence, reason and the English language to suit your own agenda beggars belief. Everything that you’ve posted above is complete and utter nonsense.

It is not I that won't change. It is the fact that there is a time gap of eight minutes suggested by the material that will not and cannot change. Again , that does not mean that the time gap must have been exactly eight minutes, It could have been longer or shorter and it may even, if we allow for substantial alterations of the timings given, not exist. But as it stands and as it will remain standing, there is a time gap of around eight minutes suggested. It is in evidence, and cannot be altered. I could of course go on to - kindergarten style - say that everything you say is wrong, and then we can have merry old time throwing horse manure on each other. But again, once it had run off our respective faces, we would still have a time gap of around eight minutes suggested by the material.
I don't know why you are shouting about dishonesty, twisting of the material and misusing the English language, but it may help to have the thread closed, of course.
Personally, I always preferred to be given the option to prove my point on this, and you have been instrumental in helping out so far.

[rjpalmer]

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?

Letīs see what R J has to say about the matter at hand.

No thanks, Christer. I've grown tired of these semantic games.

You might find it endlessly fascinating to go over the same tired ground for the nine hundredth time, but it's been done to death. Relying on Baxter as your second reference point is as misguided as relying on Robert Paul. What you should rely on is balancing the accounts of the three constables on the scene, the report filed by Abberline, and the commonsense knowledge that there will be small variations and errors in calculating the time by witnesses. Once you do this competently, the "missing time" --whether you are insisting on it or whether you are merely 'suggesting it'--evaporates into an unconvincing interpretation in search of evidence.

If you want to discuss the case with me, these are my terms. Our topic will be "Charles Allen Lechmere: Evidence of Psychopathy." I imagine it will be a brief exchange but take it or leave it.

Cheers.

[Fisherman]

Just read the evidence and stop trying to shape it to fit.

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. Surprise, surprise! And if we want to tīfind 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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

No it doesn’t! ‘Around 3.30’ is not a time. ‘Cannot have been far from 3.45’ is not a time. No gap is suggested. It’s imagined and then manipulated into place.

Again, and forever if I have to, it is one thing to say IF Lechmere left at 3.30 or around 3.30, he should have been in Bucks Row at 3.37 or around 3.37, and a very different thing to say that SINCE he left at this time he MUST have been in Bucks Row earlier than he claimed.

And if Cross left the house at 2.25 he should have been in Bucks Row at 2.32. If he left the house at 3.01 he should have been in Bucks Row at 3.08. Estimated times are useless and this is what we have. Pointless hypothesising.

The first claim is a perfectly correct and valid assessment whereas the second one would be a claim that there is not enough factual material to allow for.

A time gap IS suggested by the timings named. Just as it can have been the eight minute gap that is the closest guess we can make, based on the material, it may be that it was smaller or larger than so. If we can explain away those eight minutes, we can equally ADD a number of minutes to the gap.

A time gap isn’t suggested. This is simply an invention. Say it as often as you like Christer you are not getting away with it. Stow’s disciples might swallow this nonsense hook, line and sinker but they will believe anything.

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 material doesn’t suggest a gap.

Could it nevertheless be that there was no time gap? Well, if we add four minutes to 3.30 we get 3.34. And if we detract four minutes from Baxters 3.45, we get 3.41. And that would mean that it took Lechmere Sven minutes exactly to walk to the murder site. So yes, a theoretical suggestion can be made that there may not have been a time gap. But no theoretical suggestion can be made that is as likely or likelier than the suggestion of an eight minute time gap.

This is simply dishonesty yet again. You add a ridiculous suggestion like a four minute walk time which might chime with the disciples but not on here. It’s not a theoretical suggestion that there ‘might’ not have been a gap. It’s a fact. You continue to manipulate two unknowns to suit your own agenda.

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

This has been shown to be yet another lie. He didn’t move the time. Again, your gullible acolytes might swallow this kind of dodgy reasoning but not people who look at evidence without bias.

Finally, I have also said that any prosecutor who was made aware of this, would definitely point it out in a court of law. It would then be up to the jury to take stock of it and put it alongside the rest of the evidence before deciding on their verdict. And as such, it would be a matter that did the defendant no good whatsoever. It is and remains a point against Charles Lechmere, a point that could be unwarranted at a stretch - but the timings keep suggesting otherwise.

Rubbish. If Scobie had been presented with an honest version of the evidence in the first place he wouldn’t have said that Cross had a case to answer.

This can be discussed in absurdum, I'm sure. But it will not change.

It won’t change because you are to far invested in this utter joke. How you can come on here and blatantly twist evidence, reason and the English language to suit your own agenda beggars belief. Everything that you’ve posted above is complete and utter nonsense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

This is not what Baxter said. What he said was:

“The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m”

3.40 is not far from 3.45. 3.41 is not far from 3.45. 3.42 is not far from 3.45. All that Baxter was saying is that the body was found before the 3.4t quoted by the three Constable’s. You keep using 3.4t. It’s a clear manipulation.

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

Just read the evidence and stop trying to shape it to fit.

[Fisherman]

At the risk of stating the obvious and getting it wrong, if the "around four minutes" was the time it took to get from seeing the body to Mizen (at 3:45) then unless the encounter between Cross and Paul happened very swiftly from Paul enterring Bucks row to approaching the body, Cross would have been there a couple of minutues before Paul's four minutes began. (And NOT necessarily a couple of minutes before PAUL..) Say... 3:39, and if Cross heard the 3:30 half bells chime, and then pulled on his boots put on his hat and coat, and left "around" half past... Takes seven or eight minutes to reach the scene...

Is that such an unlikely timeline? To me that adds up pretty square.
Am I missing a factor, (only had the one coffee so far this morning...)?

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.

[Fisherman]

The whole point of the original suggestion of a gap was to show that Cross had been in Bucks Row for longer than he claimed in his inquest testimony.

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.

Again, and forever if I have to, it is one thing to say IF Lechmere left at 3.30 or around 3.30, he should have been in Bucks Row at 3.37 or around 3.37, and a very different thing to say that SINCE he left at this time he MUST have been in Bucks Row earlier than he claimed.

The first claim is a perfectly correct and valid assessment whereas the second one would be a claim that there is not enough factual material to allow for.

A time gap IS suggested by the timings named. Just as it can have been the eight minute gap that is the closest guess we can make, based on the material, it may be that it was smaller or larger than so. If we can explain away those eight minutes, we can equally ADD a number of minutes to the gap.

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.

Could it nevertheless be that there was no time gap? Well, if we add four minutes to 3.30 we get 3.34. And if we detract four minutes from Baxters 3.45, we get 3.41. And that would mean that it took Lechmere Sven minutes exactly to walk to the murder site. So yes, a theoretical suggestion can be made that there may not have been a time gap. But no theoretical suggestion can be made that is as likely or likelier than the suggestion of an eight minute time gap.

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

Finally, I have also said that any prosecutor who was made aware of this, would definitely point it out in a court of law. It would then be up to the jury to take stock of it and put it alongside the rest of the evidence before deciding on their verdict. And as such, it would be a matter that did the defendant no good whatsoever. It is and remains a point against Charles Lechmere, a point that could be unwarranted at a stretch - but the timings keep suggesting otherwise.

This can be discussed in absurdum, I'm sure. But it will not change.

[A P Tomlinson]

The whole point of the original suggestion of a gap was to show that Cross had been in Bucks Row for longer than he claimed in his inquest testimony. This is why the word ‘about’ was omitted in the relevant section of Cutting Point, from the voiceover on The Missing Evidence and from the dossier given to Scobie from which he gave his opinion. If, as is being claimed, it was really only a suggestion that he ‘might’ have arrived at the location earlier we would have to ask why bother with mentioning times at all because the possibility always exists that he’d lied and had left home before 3.30. No, it wasn’t just talk of a hypothetical possibility it was clearly an attempt to show what probably did occur. Can anyone watch the documentary, for example, and not come away thinking that Cross had questions to answer on what he’d been doing since 3.30 (anyone without a deeper knowledge of the case of course - and no one could accuser Christer of a lack of knowledge)

Then we have this from Christer:



As we occasionally have to question the use of language the above is subject to an assessment of the word ‘around.’ If Cross left home at exactly 3.30 he should have arrived in situ at 3.37/8. If he left at exactly 3.31 he should have arrived in situ at 3.38/9. If he left at 3.32 he should have arrived at 3.39/40. And so on of course. And so the above quote gets us nowhere because we have no way of knowing what ‘around 3.30’ was exactly. ‘Around 3.30’ could have been 3.35 getting him into Bucks Row at 3.42/3. ‘Around 3.30’ could have been 3.25. We have no way of knowing so no ‘point’ can be made. Numbers are superfluous to a suggestion that Cross could have been in Bucks Row earlier than claimed because he could have lied. The use of times is a clear attempt to try and portray that a gap was likely; when it wasn’t.

Then we add the alleged discovery time. We don’t know the discovery time only a rough discovery time. Christer clearly wants it to be as close to 3.45 as possible (as his previous posts have shown) to increase the likelihood of a gap. We have Paul saying that he left home at around 3.45. Then elsewhere he said that he arrived in Bucks Row at 3.45. But we also know that he said that no more than 4 minutes had passed from him seeing Nichols to him seeing Mizen and Mizen said that this was at 3.45. So we have a timing conflict between Paul and Mizen so who does Baxter go with? Clearly Mizen because Mizen’s time was backed up by two other Constable’s (Neil and Thain) and this takes the discovery time back to ‘around 3.41.’ So if we take off the journey time this would have Cross leaving his house at around 3.33/4.

But none of the above matters because we have no way of knowing what time Cross left his house and we have no way of narrowing it down. So why has there been a very clear attempt to do just that if not to falsely increase suspicion against Cross. The timings prove nothing either way and they give us absolutely zero ‘red flags’ on Cross. I’ll repeat two points that shouldn’t have needed making in the first place, we cannot use unknowns to make a point and there’s absolutely no point in stating ‘well he could have been there earlier,’ because it’s no more helpful than saying ‘well if he had a knife on him he could have killed her.’

At the risk of stating the obvious and getting it wrong, if the "around four minutes" was the time it took to get from seeing the body to Mizen (at 3:45) then unless the encounter between Cross and Paul happened very swiftly from Paul enterring Bucks row to approaching the body, Cross would have been there a couple of minutues before Paul's four minutes began. (And NOT necessarily a couple of minutes before PAUL..) Say... 3:39, and if Cross heard the 3:30 half bells chime, and then pulled on his boots put on his hat and coat, and left "around" half past... Takes seven or eight minutes to reach the scene...

Is that such an unlikely timeline? To me that adds up pretty square.
Am I missing a factor, (only had the one coffee so far this morning...)?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The whole point of the original suggestion of a gap was to show that Cross had been in Bucks Row for longer than he claimed in his inquest testimony. This is why the word ‘about’ was omitted in the relevant section of Cutting Point, from the voiceover on The Missing Evidence and from the dossier given to Scobie from which he gave his opinion. If, as is being claimed, it was really only a suggestion that he ‘might’ have arrived at the location earlier we would have to ask why bother with mentioning times at all because the possibility always exists that he’d lied and had left home before 3.30. No, it wasn’t just talk of a hypothetical possibility it was clearly an attempt to show what probably did occur. Can anyone watch the documentary, for example, and not come away thinking that Cross had questions to answer on what he’d been doing since 3.30 (anyone without a deeper knowledge of the case of course - and no one could accuser Christer of a lack of knowledge)

Then we have this from Christer:

.
IF Lechmere left home at around 3.30, then he SHOULD have arrived at the murder site at around 3.37.

As we occasionally have to question the use of language the above is subject to an assessment of the word ‘around.’ If Cross left home at exactly 3.30 he should have arrived in situ at 3.37/8. If he left at exactly 3.31 he should have arrived in situ at 3.38/9. If he left at 3.32 he should have arrived at 3.39/40. And so on of course. And so the above quote gets us nowhere because we have no way of knowing what ‘around 3.30’ was exactly. ‘Around 3.30’ could have been 3.35 getting him into Bucks Row at 3.42/3. ‘Around 3.30’ could have been 3.25. We have no way of knowing so no ‘point’ can be made. Numbers are superfluous to a suggestion that Cross could have been in Bucks Row earlier than claimed because he could have lied. The use of times is a clear attempt to try and portray that a gap was likely; when it wasn’t.

Then we add the alleged discovery time. We don’t know the discovery time only a rough discovery time. Christer clearly wants it to be as close to 3.45 as possible (as his previous posts have shown) to increase the likelihood of a gap. We have Paul saying that he left home at around 3.45. Then elsewhere he said that he arrived in Bucks Row at 3.45. But we also know that he said that no more than 4 minutes had passed from him seeing Nichols to him seeing Mizen and Mizen said that this was at 3.45. So we have a timing conflict between Paul and Mizen so who does Baxter go with? Clearly Mizen because Mizen’s time was backed up by two other Constable’s (Neil and Thain) and this takes the discovery time back to ‘around 3.41.’ So if we take off the journey time this would have Cross leaving his house at around 3.33/4.

But none of the above matters because we have no way of knowing what time Cross left his house and we have no way of narrowing it down. So why has there been a very clear attempt to do just that if not to falsely increase suspicion against Cross. The timings prove nothing either way and they give us absolutely zero ‘red flags’ on Cross. I’ll repeat two points that shouldn’t have needed making in the first place, we cannot use unknowns to make a point and there’s absolutely no point in stating ‘well he could have been there earlier,’ because it’s no more helpful than saying ‘well if he had a knife on him he could have killed her.’

[Fisherman]

Hi LC,

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.'

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.

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 suppose that is the appeal of the theory. To believe that one can see what everyone else has missed.

I was actually going to start working on my post to Fiver, but I cannot pass up on this post of R J Palmer, since it contains all the elements I need to show how there is misrepresentation going on out here. At least if I am the target of his criticism and claims.

I quote: ”what they are saying is that his own account of leaving home around that time would place him in Bucks Row 6 or 7 minutes ahead of Robert Paul, whereas Lechmere also states that Paul was only about 40 yards behind him. Thus, Lechmere must be lying.”

This is where R Js interpretation goes badly off the rails when it concerns me.

Yes, I am saying that IF Lechmere left home at 3.30, then he SHOULD have been in Bucks Row at 3.37, provided that the timing of seven minutes that I am using is correct.

That is a theoretical construction that is absolutely true. That is how it works: If we start from a point X at a time Z, and if we know that the stretch we are going to walk normally takes Y minutes to cover, then we can give an estimate of when the likely time of arrival is. I am sure that - although we can speak for years about ”around” and about how there may be disturbances along the road - we can all agree on this.

R J then adds Paul to the mix, saying that it is then concluded that since the suggested departure time should have put Lechmere in Bucks Row many minutes before Paul arrived there, but when Lechmere got to the murder site, Paul was only 40 yards behind, it applies that Lechmere must have lied.

This is not true. This is a totally false allegation, at least when it comes to me. It may well be that some are saying what R J seems to claim that every supporter of the theory are saying, but that is another matter. What I am saying is that IF Lechmere left home at 3.30, then he SHOULD have arrived at the murder site at 3.37. Or, if we want to use the word ”around”, IF Lechmere left home at around 3.30, then he SHOULD have arrived at the murder site at around 3.37.

And that is a very, very, very different matter than saying that SINCE Lechmere left at 3.30, he MUST have arrived at the murder site at 3.37.

Why R J alleges this, although I have taken great care in a very long post to show everybody that my reasoning is theoretical, he himself will be going to have to explain to me.

The world of the so called naysayers seems to involve believing in how the Lechmere theory claims as facts a long array of things that cannot be established as facts.

It should perhaps be of interest, therefore, for the naysayers to learn that my view is instead that the naysayers repeatedy falsely claim that the Lechmere theory involves things claimed as facts that cannot be proven as facts!

Let us start by untangling the matter above as a first exercise in the art of establishing who is wrong here.
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?

Fiver is going to have to wait, I īm afraid; this has to be cleared up first. Letīs see, maybe R J will walk down the same path as Steven Blomer did when I pointed out to him that his book claimed things on behalf of the Lechmere theory that the Lechmere theory have never involved at all. Steven Blomer was obviously annoyed by how people with lacking insight claimed things for facts that were not facts at all. One can of course point such things out - but claiming them as being part and parcel of the Lechmere theory is another thing altogether.

Letīs see what R J has to say about the matter at hand.