The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Fisherman]

Well, if push comes to shove, I deny that your stopwatch experiment even 'suggests' a gap.

What I think your experiment really 'suggests' it that there are bound to be discrepancies in the time estimates given by various honest witnesses, and further (though the documentary failed to address this point) it is obvious enough from the inquest depositions that Robert Paul is the odd man out, giving a wildly problematic time estimate that is directly at odds with the accounts given by Mizen, Thain, and Neill. Thus, Griffiths' use of Paul as his second reference point in your experiment was too simplistic and misleading to be valuable and is thus not 'suggestive' of any gap. It is suggestive of a bad time estimate by Robert Paul, coupled with too much reliance on Crossmere's 3.30 departure estimate as absolute.

In reviewing the inquest depositions, it might be noted that both Neill and Mizen gave evidence before Crossmere did, and in the case of Neill, who said he had discovered the body at 3.45, and if memory serves, this appeared in the press the day before Crossmere took the stand. That would have given a dishonest CAL many hours to ponder what he was going to say at the inquest.

In my opinion, knowing this, a dishonest man would have reasoned backwards, and then shoved his departure time as far forwards as he plausibly could, leaving no potential 'gap' in his account of the events.

Yet, Crossmere doesn't do this. One could even argue that his failure to do this shows his inherent honesty.

The person who actually did this was Robert Paul. Any reasonable observer would conclude that Paul's 3:45 estimate is the true discrepancy, running directly against the accounts given by the other witnesses. A suspicious person might conclude that it is Paul tweaking the chronology, not Cross.

This post of yours has been supplied with a lengthy answer from me. You will find it on the Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer thread, R J!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Catching you out on underhandedness is becoming a habit.

Way back in May of 2017 David Orsam proved that the word ‘profusely’ was added by a journalist. For some reason it won’t let me copy the exact post but this is the thread.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/scene-of-the-crimes/10592-blood-oozing/page32

The relevant post is number 469.

In post number 478 of that same thread you accepted David’s conclusion saying:

'That means that the probable thing is that the term profusely was added by a reporter...the term profusely should be regarded as having been added by a journalist....There is no rebuttal, because denying the obvious would be outright silly...There is,...personal belief on my behalf - personal belief that David is correct on this score.'


Now here we are, 6 years later, and you have conveniently reverted to using the word ‘profusely’ again to make a point.

No response I see.

[Fisherman]

No response I see.

Here is your answer, Herlock. I actually had forgotten about this exchange, so thank you for bringing it up!

The comparison David Orsam made concerned itself with two newspapers, the Globe and the Star. He made it clear that the two papers both drew on a Central News agency material. The similarity in wording made it clear that they most likely worked from the same source.

The Globe had the wording:

The wound was about two inches wide, and the woman was lying in a pool of blood. She was conveyed to the Whitechapel Mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat, the lower part of her body was shockingly mutilated, the injuries, which were of a sickening nature, having apparently been effected with a large knife.

The Star had the wording:

The wound was about two inches wide and blood was flowing profusely. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding. The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife.

At the time, just as you show us, I thought that Orsam must have been right in concluding that The Star - notorious for its "spicy" journalism - would have added the "flowing profusely" part. It made sense.

Then again, we can also point to how it was not just the Star who had the wording!. There were at least three more papers who printed it, The East London Advertiser, Lloyds Weekly and the Pall Mall Gazette.

The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four on Friday morning, when he discovered a woman between 35 and 40 years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done traversing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was discovered to be lying in a pool of blood. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open, with the bowels protruding. East London Advertiser

Between three and four in the morning the body of a murdered woman was found lying in the gutter in Buck's-row. It presented a horrible spectacle. The throat had been cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done tracing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open with the bowels protruding. Lloyds Weekly

The facts are that as Constable John Neil was walking down Bucks-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman between thirty-five and forty years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done tracing the throat from left to right. The wound was an inch wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel Mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripper open, with the bowels protruding. Pall Mall Gazette

The wording in the four articles bears similarities all over, and it is fair to say that they seem to have been furnished with the Central News agency material, all of them. That raises the question why and how four papers all decided to embellish the same story with the same exact wording about "flowing profusely". It would be odd if that happened, to say the least.

So why then, did not the Globe use the expression, if it was in the news agency material? Well, that is an open question, but we may have a possible clue in another discrepancy between the Globe and the Star. Where the Star writes that "the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding", the Globe tones that part down by using the wording "the lower part of her body was shockingly mutilated, the injuries, which were of a sickening nature, ..."

So instead of it being a case of the Star adding, it seems it could instead be a case of the Globe detracting! And the fact that the East London Advertiser, the Pall Mall Gazette and the Lloyds Weekly all had the wording, seems to suggest that it was not something the various papers all came up with independently.

However, there is another twist in all of this. I took a look at The Central News Agency, and it turns out that they were actually accused of sensationalizing their material! The Wikipedia entry says that "By undercutting its competitors, the Press Association and Reuters, and by distributing sensational and imaginative stories, it (The Central News agency; my remark) developed a reputation amongst newsmen for "underhand practices and stories of dubious veracity".

This is news to me, and news of a less than logical nature. As I have pointed out, as long as you don't cater to the general public, it makes no sense at all to sensationalize the material. For whatever reason, the Central News Agency apparently did that anyway. So that adds an unexpected element to the matter, and leaves us hanging when it comes to the matter of whether or not PC Neil did inform the press about a profuse flow of blood. It can be argued both ways, I find, and that is not something that is news to me, having made the case for Lechmere for many years.

It seems, however, from your posting, that you are less inclined yourself to admit that things can be argued both ways. I noticed that you in another post on the adjacent thread repeated your mantra that no killer will choose to stay put at a murder site and con his way out. And you wrote:

The fact that no one can find a example of someone finding the body of a woman in the street, then waiting for a witness, and it turns out that the discoverer was the killer.
Thats an overwhelmingly huge pointer toward innocence.

Actually, the fact that there are no other examples presented does not in any way point to either guilt or innocence. It only proves that it is statistically probably very uncommon. I write "probably" because it may well be that a number of killers have employed the tactic - and gotten away with it.

As a matter of fact, that would not be in any way odd. Becasue going on how you assert that you are ninety nine percent certain that it can never happen, it seems you have simultaneously invented the perfect crime: if you want to do away with somebody, just do it in the open street, and then wait until somebody passes by and say that you are just an innocent witness.

It will work, every time. You will never ne suspected, not by the police, not by anybody thinking straight.

It is a criminological breakthrough you have presented, Herlock.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here is your answer, Herlock. I actually had forgotten about this exchange, so thank you for bringing it up!

The comparison David Orsam made concerned itself with two newspapers, the Globe and the Star. He made it clear that the two papers both drew on a Central News agency material. The similarity in wording made it clear that they most likely worked from the same source.

The Globe had the wording:

The wound was about two inches wide, and the woman was lying in a pool of blood. She was conveyed to the Whitechapel Mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat, the lower part of her body was shockingly mutilated, the injuries, which were of a sickening nature, having apparently been effected with a large knife.

The Star had the wording:

The wound was about two inches wide and blood was flowing profusely. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding. The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife.

At the time, just as you show us, I thought that Orsam must have been right in concluding that The Star - notorious for its "spicy" journalism - would have added the "flowing profusely" part. It made sense.

Then again, we can also point to how it was not just the Star who had the wording!. There were at least three more papers who printed it, The East London Advertiser, Lloyds Weekly and the Pall Mall Gazette.

The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four on Friday morning, when he discovered a woman between 35 and 40 years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done traversing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was discovered to be lying in a pool of blood. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open, with the bowels protruding. East London Advertiser

Between three and four in the morning the body of a murdered woman was found lying in the gutter in Buck's-row. It presented a horrible spectacle. The throat had been cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done tracing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open with the bowels protruding. Lloyds Weekly

The facts are that as Constable John Neil was walking down Bucks-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, he discovered a woman between thirty-five and forty years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done tracing the throat from left to right. The wound was an inch wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel Mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripper open, with the bowels protruding. Pall Mall Gazette

The wording in the four articles bears similarities all over, and it is fair to say that they seem to have been furnished with the Central News agency material, all of them. That raises the question why and how four papers all decided to embellish the same story with the same exact wording about "flowing profusely". It would be odd if that happened, to say the least.

So why then, did not the Globe use the expression, if it was in the news agency material? Well, that is an open question, but we may have a possible clue in another discrepancy between the Globe and the Star. Where the Star writes that "the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding", the Globe tones that part down by using the wording "the lower part of her body was shockingly mutilated, the injuries, which were of a sickening nature, ..."

So instead of it being a case of the Star adding, it seems it could instead be a case of the Globe detracting! And the fact that the East London Advertiser, the Pall Mall Gazette and the Lloyds Weekly all had the wording, seems to suggest that it was not something the various papers all came up with independently.

However, there is another twist in all of this. I took a look at The Central News Agency, and it turns out that they were actually accused of sensationalizing their material! The Wikipedia entry says that "By undercutting its competitors, the Press Association and Reuters, and by distributing sensational and imaginative stories, it (The Central News agency; my remark) developed a reputation amongst newsmen for "underhand practices and stories of dubious veracity".

This is news to me, and news of a less than logical nature. As I have pointed out, as long as you don't cater to the general public, it makes no sense at all to sensationalize the material. For whatever reason, the Central News Agency apparently did that anyway. So that adds an unexpected element to the matter, and leaves us hanging when it comes to the matter of whether or not PC Neil did inform the press about a profuse flow of blood. It can be argued both ways, I find, and that is not something that is news to me, having made the case for Lechmere for many years.

It seems, however, from your posting, that you are less inclined yourself to admit that things can be argued both ways. I noticed that you in another post on the adjacent thread repeated your mantra that no killer will choose to stay put at a murder site and con his way out. And you wrote:

The fact that no one can find a example of someone finding the body of a woman in the street, then waiting for a witness, and it turns out that the discoverer was the killer.
Thats an overwhelmingly huge pointer toward innocence.

Actually, the fact that there are no other examples presented does not in any way point to either guilt or innocence. It only proves that it is statistically probably very uncommon. I write "probably" because it may well be that a number of killers have employed the tactic - and gotten away with it.

As a matter of fact, that would not be in any way odd. Becasue going on how you assert that you are ninety nine percent certain that it can never happen, it seems you have simultaneously invented the perfect crime: if you want to do away with somebody, just do it in the open street, and then wait until somebody passes by and say that you are just an innocent witness.

It will work, every time. You will never ne suspected, not by the police, not by anybody thinking straight.

It is a criminological breakthrough you have presented, Herlock.

So does the uncertainty you now express about the source of "flowing profusely" mean that you would like to retract your unqualified statement from two days ago (#316) that P.C. Neil "is on record as having used the expression "profusely" about the blood flow in the interviews made on the day before the first inquest day?"

[Fisherman]

So does the uncertainty you now express about the source of "flowing profusely" mean that you would like to retract your unqualified statement from two days ago (#316) that P.C. Neil "is on record as having used the expression "profusely" about the blood flow in the interviews made on the day before the first inquest day?"

The only source there was for whatever blood flow there was at the time discussed was P C Neil. The papers stated that blood was flowing profusely as he was there. They either guessed or Neil said this. The reporting provided led on that the papers had gotten the information by Neil, since there was nobody else they could have gotten it from, ergo, they served a story where Neil had informed about this. Therefore they - correct or incorrect - gave a picture of Neil having provided this information.

We can of course do that waltz, Herlock, but it will get us nowhere. What gets us somewhere is when we dive deep into the information and look at what it tells us.In this case, it cannot tell us with any certainty whether or not Neil spoke of a profusion of blood, but it seems we can say that it seems like David Orsam may have been wrong, since there were many papers who had the same wording, and they reasonably all got it from the same source, that source being the Central News agency. However, since the deep dive also revealed that the Central News Agency was no stranger to sensationalizing material, we are left with an uncertainty about whether or not Neil used the expression suggested.

They made a case for having been given the information about a profusion of blood, and there was no other possible source for it than Neil. Sadly, we cannot prove that the claim was correct, just as we cannot prove that it was incorrect.

That is how it often goes, and the more we learn about it and the less we quibble about it, the better.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only source there was for whatever blood flow there was at the time discussed was P C Neil. The papers stated that blood was flowing profusely as he was there. They either guessed or Neil said this. The reporting provided led on that the papers had gotten the information by Neil, since there was nobody else they could have gotten it from, ergo, they served a story where Neil had informed about this. Therefore they - correct or incorrect - gave a picture of Neil having provided this information.

We can of course do that waltz, Herlock, but it will get us nowhere. What gets us somewhere is when we dive deep into the information and look at what it tells us.In this case, it cannot tell us with any certainty whether or not Neil spoke of a profusion of blood, but it seems we can say that it seems like David Orsam may have been wrong, since there were many papers who had the same wording, and they reasonably all got it from the same source, that source being the Central News agency. However, since the deep dive also revealed that the Central News Agency was no stranger to sensationalizing material, we are left with an uncertainty about whether or not Neil used the expression suggested.

They made a case for having been given the information about a profusion of blood, and there was no other possible source for it than Neil. Sadly, we cannot prove that the claim was correct, just as we cannot prove that it was incorrect.

That is how it often goes, and the more we learn about it and the less we quibble about it, the better.

Sorry Fisherman, I think you missed my question. I was asking you if you now want to retract your unqualified statement from two days ago (#316) that P.C. Neil "is on record as having used the expression "profusely" about the blood flow in the interviews made on the day before the first inquest day?"

As you now tell me that, "we are left with an uncertainty about whether or not Neil used the expression suggested", your claim that Neil is "on the record" as having used this expression can't be right, can it?

[Fisherman]

Sorry Fisherman, I think you missed my question. I was asking you if you now want to retract your unqualified statement from two days ago (#316) that P.C. Neil "is on record as having used the expression "profusely" about the blood flow in the interviews made on the day before the first inquest day?"

As you now tell me that, "we are left with an uncertainty about whether or not Neil used the expression suggested", your claim that Neil is "on the record" as having used this expression can't be right, can it?

There is of course no official record, no. But it applies that there need be no such thing, since the agency cannot have quoted anybody else than Neil. He is therefore on unofficial record as having informed the agency. And the outcome of the equation is the exact same: we are left with no certainty.

Any extension of this matter will have to wait until tomorrow. Since I write that out here, it will likely be looked upon as me being on record as saying that I am postponing the date until tomorrow. It's not an official record, though, and it of course applies that it might not be me sitting at the computer.

Things are sometimes more complex than we like them to be. As long as we don't try to complicate them further and abstain from quibbling over them, it facilitates a useful debate, I find.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is of course no official record, no. But it applies that there need be no such thing, since the agency cannot have quoted anybody else than Neil. He is therefore on unofficial record as having informed the agency. And the outcome of the equation is the exact same: we are left with no certainty.

Any extension of this matter will have to wait until tomorrow. Since I write that out here, it will likely be looked upon as me being on record as saying that I am postponing the date until tomorrow. It's not an official record, though, and it of course applies that it might not be me sitting at the computer.

Things are sometimes more complex than we like them to be. As long as we don't try to complicate them further and abstain from quibbling over them, it facilitates a useful debate, I find.

You've now answered a different question to the one I asked! I didn't ask you if there was "an official record". The reason I didn't ask you this is because that's not what you said in the first instance. You never mentioned the word "official".

I was simply asking if PC Neil was "on record" as having used the expression in question. Because that's what you claimed.

For the benefit of anyone reading this entire thread who might think you are an authority on the subject, I'm going to cut this short by saying that you were clearly wrong to say that PC Neil is on record as having used the expression "profusely" about the blood flow. He is not on record at all as having said this. He is only on record as having seen blood "oozing" from a wound in Nichols' throat.

It's extraordinary that you can't seem to admit publicly to your mistake and retract your false statement but I think we have now come to the end of this topic.

[Fiver]

Now there will be no more answering Fiver, for two reasons:

I have finished my debate with him (or her), and I don't see any genuine will to discuss the case in an atmosphere without hostilities and a mocking tone.

Note how Fisherman attacks my tone. It's all he has, since the facts I presented show the glaring flaws in his theory.

Of course, if Fiver comes up with a good point or useful line of debate, like he did when he showed us that Lechmere could have been set off as a serial killer by way now his demanding working schedule and how it deprived him of control, I will gladly reenter a discussion with him.

I never said that. I never implied that. And since I have corrected you multiple times with links to the actual article and what I actually said about the article this cannot be a mistake on your part - which make the most likely explanation is that you are deliberately lying about what I said.

The idea that "Lechmere could have been set off as a serial killer by way now his demanding working schedule" is yours. The idea that Lechmere's work "deprived him of control" is yours. I don't know where you extracted your ideas from, but they are your ideas, not mine.

[Fisherman]

The idea that "Lechmere could have been set off as a serial killer by way now his demanding working schedule" is yours. The idea that Lechmere's work "deprived him of control" is yours. I don't know where you extracted your ideas from, but they are your ideas, not mine.

Yes, exactly, those are my ideas, Fiver. And they are in line with research in the area.

[Fisherman]

You've now answered a different question to the one I asked! I didn't ask you if there was "an official record". The reason I didn't ask you this is because that's not what you said in the first instance. You never mentioned the word "official".

I was simply asking if PC Neil was "on record" as having used the expression in question. Because that's what you claimed.

For the benefit of anyone reading this entire thread who might think you are an authority on the subject, I'm going to cut this short by saying that you were clearly wrong to say that PC Neil is on record as having used the expression "profusely" about the blood flow. He is not on record at all as having said this. He is only on record as having seen blood "oozing" from a wound in Nichols' throat.

It's extraordinary that you can't seem to admit publicly to your mistake and retract your false statement but I think we have now come to the end of this topic.

Let's be clear and simple:

I used a somewhat drastic wording. But it is not unwarranted.

The profusely running blood is on record in a number of papers, reporting on the case.

The material used obviously came from a news agency, The Central News Agency.

The material was certified to be factual, since the material supplied to the papers from the agency involved the phrasing "the facts are..." before these were listed, involving the profusely running blood.

So, to sum up, we have the phrase on record, it is guaranteed to be a fact, and it can only have originated with John Neil, since he was the only person in place who observed the rate of the blood flow.

Ergo, we have it on record that John Neil divulged that the blood flowed profusely as he saw Nichols.

If Neil was in turn quoted by another participant in the drama with the police, it matters not, because then that source would only have relayed Neils assertion.

"On record" means, and I quote:

"used in reference to the making of an official or public statement"

Since the statement was certainly made official, and since we all know that John Neil, and John Neil only, sat on the information, what we have is the P C going on record by divulging the rate of the blood flow.

It is another matter entirely that we do not know if the claim is true. Personally, I would say that the likeliest source for the phrasing is and remains John Neil, with the very obvious possibility that his information was relayed by one of his superiors at the police. The option that it was untrue is always less likely, unless it can be proven that there is reason to think otherwise.

As I have said, it is a useless exercise to try and establish the matter as either correct or incorrect.

As for me being an authority on the subject, I have never once made such a claim myself. But I have been called both expert and authority by other people, interested in or involved in studying the Ripper case. And that is exactly as it should be; what we are, what we say, what we do and how we do it, must be judged by others, not by ourselves.

Would you consider yourself an authority on the subject, Herlock? Or has anybody else named you one? If so, congratulations - it is always good to get some sort of recognition for what you do.

I think that is by far the best way to go about things. If we were to use the space out here to shout to people "They say he is an authority, but don't believe it! He is a deceitful liar and fraudster!", I think we would be making spectacles of ourselves.

Lechmere is a very acclaimed suspect, lets respect that.

Bury is, although not anywhere near as popular as Lechmere, also a suspect in many peoples minds. Let's respect that too.

Neither stance stops us from offering a considered criticism, outlining why we think a suspect is likely not the killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let's be clear and simple:

I used a somewhat drastic wording. But it is not unwarranted.

The profusely running blood is on record in a number of papers, reporting on the case.

The material used obviously came from a news agency, The Central News Agency.

The material was certified to be factual, since the material supplied to the papers from the agency involved the phrasing "the facts are..." before these were listed, involving the profusely running blood.

So, to sum up, we have the phrase on record, it is guaranteed to be a fact, and it can only have originated with John Neil, since he was the only person in place who observed the rate of the blood flow.

Ergo, we have it on record that John Neil divulged that the blood flowed profusely as he saw Nichols.

If Neil was in turn quoted by another participant in the drama with the police, it matters not, because then that source would only have relayed Neils assertion.

"On record" means, and I quote:

"used in reference to the making of an official or public statement"

Since the statement was certainly made official, and since we all know that John Neil, and John Neil only, sat on the information, what we have is the P C going on record by divulging the rate of the blood flow.

It is another matter entirely that we do not know if the claim is true. Personally, I would say that the likeliest source for the phrasing is and remains John Neil, with the very obvious possibility that his information was relayed by one of his superiors at the police. The option that it was untrue is always less likely, unless it can be proven that there is reason to think otherwise.

As I have said, it is a useless exercise to try and establish the matter as either correct or incorrect.

As for me being an authority on the subject, I have never once made such a claim myself. But I have been called both expert and authority by other people, interested in or involved in studying the Ripper case. And that is exactly as it should be; what we are, what we say, what we do and how we do it, must be judged by others, not by ourselves.

Would you consider yourself an authority on the subject, Herlock? Or has anybody else named you one? If so, congratulations - it is always good to get some sort of recognition for what you do.

I think that is by far the best way to go about things. If we were to use the space out here to shout to people "They say he is an authority, but don't believe it! He is a deceitful liar and fraudster!", I think we would be making spectacles of ourselves.

Lechmere is a very acclaimed suspect, lets respect that.

Bury is, although not anywhere near as popular as Lechmere, also a suspect in many peoples minds. Let's respect that too.

Neither stance stops us from offering a considered criticism, outlining why we think a suspect is likely not the killer.

Oh, you used "drastic wording" did you? Some people might use a word like: inaccurate, false, wrong, mistaken, erroneous, nonsensical, etc. but you've plumped for "drastic", as if that has any meaning.

I'm perfectly aware that the word "profusely" is "on record" in the newspapers but Neil is not on record as saying it, which is the whole point.

Only yesterday, in #333, you told me that we are left "hanging when it comes to the matter of whether or not PC Neil did inform the press about a profuse flow of blood." Now, because you are fundamentally and psychologically incapable of admitting to having made an mistake, you desperately try to find some way to justify your earlier claim that Neil is on the record as having done so.

So you now try and argue that, well, maybe he did say it, but it's obvious he didn't even speak to the any newspaper reporter, because had he done so he would have said that he saw the blood oozing from the wound, just as he testified at the inquest. The Central News agency reporter, from whose story all the newspaper reports mentioning the word "profusely" clearly derive, doesn't mention speaking to PC Neil and Neil is not quoted as having said anything. The first report by the Central News, as published in the early edition of the Globe on 31st August, didn't even mention the word "profusely" which is quite obviously a later (journalistic) addition to the report.

But this is all a distraction from the main issue which is that you said something quite false which you can't even bring yourself to admit to. The word "drastic" is ridiculous in the circumstances. Why not just man up and say that you were wrong to claim that Neil is on the record as having used the word "profusely"? You can argue the point that maybe he did as much as you like (even though it's obvious he did not) but what you can't do is argue that Neil is on record as having done so. That being so, why not just confess to your error? I'm sure it will be good for your soul, Fisherman.

[Fiver]

Yes, exactly, those are my ideas, Fiver. And they are in line with research in the area.

So there is research on how demanding stressful jobs turn people into serial killers? Feel free to share it.

[Tom_Wescott]

Fisherman is good at claiming things people never said. He does it with other posters. He does it with period sources. He does it with his own forensic witnesses. He does it with Robert Jones and Tim Wescott.

That's why I only trust the Gorton's Fisherman (American joke).

Yours truly,

Tim

[Patrick S]

After a long absence from these boards, it appears what is old is new again. I knew I'd posted something years ago related to this argument. I was able to locate it and I post it here (edited).

Much of the “evidence” against Lechmere is based upon the testimony of PC Jonas Mizen, the presumptive victim of the “Mizen Scam”. Yet, when one analyzes the information it’s clear that there was a “Mizen Scam” and it was Jonas Mizen who orchestrated it. Further, I think it’s clear that he did so for very simply, understandable reasons.

What do we know of PC Mizen’s behavior upon being informed that “a woman was lying in Buck’s Row”? Both Lechmere and Paul offer similar descriptions of Mizen’s reaction upon hearing this information. Lechmere stated that he replied, “Alright” and walked on. Paul states, “I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up…”

Keep in mind, both Lechmere and Paul stated that they informed PC Mizen that the woman in Buck’s Row may be dead. Lechmere stated in his inquest testimony that he told Mizen, “She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." Paul in his statement to ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’ flatly stated, “I had told him the woman was dead.” Mizen, however, contended that he was told only that a woman was “lying in Buck’s Row”, stating that he was told, “You are wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying."

Here we have three statements. Two are consistent: Paul's and Lechmere's. One is not: Mizen's.

This brings us to another major inconsistency. Mizen claimed at the inquest that he was told that he was “wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row”. It’s been suggested by Fisherman that such a statement may have led Mizen to assume that Lechmere and Paul had been interrogated and released by a policeman already on the scene in Buck’s Row. Thus, he (Mizen) let the men go on their way, forgoing questioning them further, or searching either man. However, neither Paul nor Lechmere agree with Mizen on this point. Lechmere testified after Mizen, on day two of the Nichols’ inquest. He was asked directly if he’d told Mizen another policeman was awaiting him in Buck’s Row. This exchange was published in Telegraph on Tuesday, September 4:

A Juryman: “Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?”

Witness: “No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row.”

Robert Paul’s statement in Lloyd’s makes no mention of a policeman waiting in Buck’s Row.

“I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see.”

Paul makes it clear that no policeman was present in Buck’s Row. In fact, he stresses that he believes that the police had not been doing their jobs effectively, clearly implying that the police had not been adequately patrolling the area.

Here, again, we have three statements. Two are consistent: Paul's and Lechmere's. One is not: Mizen's.

The available information tells us that PC Jonas Mizen was not forthcoming about his meeting with Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul on the morning of the Nichols’ murder. Further, Mizen did not relate even a mention of his meeting Lechmere and Paul to PC Neil at the scene. He also did not inform his superiors – it seems – as PC Neil testified on Saturday, September 1, that he and he alone discovered “Polly” Nichols body. PC Mizen was not called to give testimony in the inquest until Monday, September 3, the day after Robert Paul’s interview appeared in ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’. Paul stated in his interview that he “saw (a policeman) in Church Row, just at the top of Buck's Row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come….” It is reasonable to assume that Paul’s statement either compelled Mizen to share his encounter with the two men in Bakers Row, or Mizen had been asked about Paul’s statement by his superiors. Duty rosters would easily have identified the PC on duty “in Church Row, just at the top of Buck's Row” at 3:45am on August 31 as Mizen.

Based upon what we know, it’s obvious that PC Mizen was not truthful about many details of what occurred in Baker’s Row. His reasons for being less than honest is understandable, albeit not the sinister reasons many researchers may hope for. To me it’s clear the Mizen assumed that the two men he’d met in Baker’s Row had simply come across a woman lying drunk on the pavement. Thus, he continued “calling people up”. He reacted with no urgency whatsoever. He asked the men no questions. He didn’t ask their names. He was in no great hurry to report to Buck’s Row. Stating that he was told a PC was already on the scene absolves him, to some degree. Stating that he was not told the woman was dead, makes his lack of action somewhat understandable, as well. Mizen’s untruthful statements were made to protect his job and reputation.