The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Lewis C]

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

Hi Abby,

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

[Abby Normal]

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

[Abby Normal]

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

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

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

And anyway….it was Druitt of course.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And anyway….it was Druitt of course.

[Abby Normal]

Good afternoon Abs,



You said it. If guilty.

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

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

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

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

[Abby Normal]

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

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

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

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

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paddy Goose]

Good afternoon Abs,

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

You said it. If guilty.

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

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

[A P Tomlinson]

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

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

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

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

Hi Abby,

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

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

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

[Abby Normal]

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

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

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

[A P Tomlinson]

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

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

[rjpalmer]

What I find especially odd about the time gap argument is that the only source we have for when Lechmere left home is Lechmere. If someone thinks that he might be the murderer, why would one want to use Lechmere's estimate for when he left home? If he's the murderer, his estimate can't be trusted. In that case, there's no basis for determining when he left home, and if we have no idea when he left home, there's no basis for claiming that there's a time gap.

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.

[A P Tomlinson]

What I find especially odd about the time gap argument is that the only source we have for when Lechmere left home is Lechmere. If someone thinks that he might be the murderer, why would one want to use Lechmere's estimate for when he left home? If he's the murderer, his estimate can't be trusted. In that case, there's no basis for determining when he left home, and if we have no idea when he left home, there's no basis for claiming that there's a time gap.

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