The Darkness of Bakers Row

[John Wheat]

hi fish
one thing i definitely agree with you on is the above. we have a boat load of suspects that have been put forth who have zilch connection to the case and more everyday- he was violent, he was a known prostitute user, he was an insane jew, he went to jail for attacking a woman etc.etc ad nauseum. then we even have these suspects put forward that have some nebulous relationship with a peripheral witness lol. and meanwhile lech is denigrated as some kind of laughable suspect. and by many on here who have a favored suspect themselves. its insanity. if theres no evidence against lech, theres no evidence against any.

i mentioned koz in terms of evidence against because really he is the only suspect where there is any kind... eye witness testimony. but even that is tenous as the witness was probably unsure or even mistaken. one could argue lech is even better than that because we know for sure he was seen near a victim near tod. its proven fact.

lech is as good a suspect as any and better than most, or as i like to say he is as least weak as many any least weak than most.

keep up the good work.

This is wrong. Lechmere found a body. That makes him a witness not a suspect. There is a complete lack of evidence against him. All there is is a load of bluster dreamed up by the ill informed.

[Fisherman]

This is ludicrous, Christer.

An "alibi" is evidence that a suspect wasn't at a crime scene --but was somewhere else--so it is utterly nonsensical to state that Lechmere was "at one of the murder sites with no alibi."

If you think it is utterly ludicrous to point out that there is nothing that stops Lechmere from having killed Nichols, then I ´m afraid that will have to stand for your way of doing things. I do them very differently, and that involves taking a look at the facts versus the story Lechmere told.
What the carman did was to produce a story that - if true - gave him an alibi; he would have been at the site for seconds only before and he would not have been in physical contact with Nichols. That story would therefore provide him with - like it or not an alibi.
However, the suggestion made, and supported by a mountain of evidence (see?) is that Lechmere was in fact not an innocent witness at all, but instead the killer. And to be able to make that suggestion, the alibi he presented must be proven to be something that can be challenged. And we all know that this can be done, and has been done.
So this s a matter at the very core of the accusation act against the carman, and I am therefore not very impressed by how you think it is in any way "ludicrous". Nor are the many, many who believe that Lechmere was the killer.

He was at the crime scene...because he was walking to work. No different than John Reeves had left for work when he found Martha Tabram on the landing.

THAT is ludicrous. THAT is how "ludicrous" works. What you are doing here is to say that it is a proven thing that the one and only reason that Lechmere was in Bucks Row was becasue he was on his way to work.
Did you miss when we suggested that he could have met Nichols in Whitechapel Road, and the she may have taken him into Bucks Row?
If this was so, then he was NOT in Bucks Row becasue he was en route to work, was he? No, if this was so, then he was in Bucks Row to kill.

Are you saying that we can discard this suggestion, becasue you happen to know that the one and only reason that he was in Bucks Row was becasue he was en route to work? Becasue if tht is your suggestion, why would I - or anybody else who is able to see other options - discuss this with you at all?

Prick up your ears and get to learn something, R J:

Charles Lechmere was in Bucks Row EITHER because he was en route to work OR because he had been led there by Nichols after having agreed to buy her sexual services. And the first option - the ONLY one according to yourself - applies, that actually does not clear him either, becasue it may be that he WAS en route to work when he found Nichols, and decided to kill her.

A closed mind will deprive the brain of oxygen, so I suggest you reconsider.

Would you say that Reeves was "damningly found at one of the crime scenes with no alibi?"

That too is ludicrous. Do I really, really have to explain these tings to you, R J? Are they really, really so hard to gras But okay, take a seat in my lap and lean against my chest, and I will explain to you why the Tabram matter is different to the Nichols one.

John Saunders Reeves found the body of Martha Tabram at 4.45 in the morning. Doctor Killeen, who examined the body, said that Tabram had been dead some three hours as he looked at her. And Killeen arrived at the site shortly after Reeves found the body, meaning that Tabram had been dead a couple of hours when Reeves found her.
Ergo, Reeves did not NEED any alibi, other than if it had been suggested that he had popped out of bed at around 2 in the morning.

That was not too hard to understand, was it? One killer is found with a war, bleeding and breathing victim, and the other finds a cold, long dead woman. Therefore, surprise, surprise, one man ONLY is a viable contender for the killer title.

But you knew this already, R J, because you are anything but slow on the uptake. So I have to ask myself why you go on the way you do. Do you have an answer for me on that one?

As timed by Steve Blomer, David Barrat, and perhaps others, when Lechmere was spotted by Robert Paul in the middle of the street, shortly before Lechmere went out of his way to alert Paul to the body, he was precisely at where he should have been and the time he should have been there, had he been merely innocently walking to work.

The body was found not far from 3.45, was what the coroner said. That means that Lechmere was NOT where he should be if he was simply walking to work. Of course, what Steve Blomer says is that 3.40 IS "not far off 3.45", and so he suggests that this what what the coroner meant when he said 3.45. He meant 3.40.

That is how Steve Blomer reasons.

When I asked him why the coroner would not say 3.40, if 3.40 was the time he meant, Steve Blomer suggested - and I am not joking here! - that perhaps the coroner only expressed himself in full quarters of hours. Meaning that in the choice of saying 3.30, 3.45 or 4.00, he chose 3.45 because that was the full quarter timing closest to 3.40 - which was what the coroner actually meant when he said 3.45, remember?

That is how much credence I invest in Steve Blomers timings.

What I am saying is that when Charles Lechmere went to the inquest, he was under the impression that - as had been reported in all the papers - it was believed that Neil had found the body at 3.45. And THAT would mean that the carman should have been in place around 5 minutes earlier, at circa 3.40. And so, when Lechmere said that he left home at around 3.30, that would roughly fit with the 3.40 finding time.

I am actually suggesting that Lechmere lied, and that he shaped his lie to fit with what was the accepted finding time of PC Neil.

Then, when the coroner had looked through all the timings and found out that Lechmere must have found the body at circa 3.45, NOT 3.40, Lechmeres suggested departure time becomes a problem for the carman, because he suddenly had an extra five minutes to account for - and he cannot do that. He should have been in Bucks Row some eight minutes BEFORE he was actually there, and so Steve Blomer and David Barrat - and perhaps others ... - are not necessarily correct, you see. The main problem is that their suggestions and the established timings do not dovetail. At all.

On the other hand, and as you may be aware of, a killer who lies is ALWAYS going to shape his lies so as to fit as closely as possible with the established facts. Therefore, we should not be all too surprised that Lechmeres story post Pauls arrival is in keeping with those facts as much as possible.Many have said this precise thing: "But he did not act suspiciously", as if they expected the carman to dance around naked with a bloody knife between his teeth a Paul arrived.

That is not a successful strategy for a liar.

Then again, why am I offering all this insight, if you are going to persist in claiming that it is proven that the only reason Lechmere was in Bucks Row was becasue he was en route to work?

Because I hope it will enable you to use both eyes?

Yes, exactly. That is how naďve I actually am.

[Fisherman]

hi fish
one thing i definitely agree with you on is the above. we have a boat load of suspects that have been put forth who have zilch connection to the case and more everyday- he was violent, he was a known prostitute user, he was an insane jew, he went to jail for attacking a woman etc.etc ad nauseum. then we even have these suspects put forward that have some nebulous relationship with a peripheral witness lol. and meanwhile lech is denigrated as some kind of laughable suspect. and by many on here who have a favored suspect themselves. its insanity. if theres no evidence against lech, theres no evidence against any.

i mentioned koz in terms of evidence against because really he is the only suspect where there is any kind... eye witness testimony. but even that is tenous as the witness was probably unsure or even mistaken. one could argue lech is even better than that because we know for sure he was seen near a victim near tod. its proven fact.

lech is as good a suspect as any and better than most, or as i like to say he is as least weak as many any least weak than most.

keep up the good work.

I understand your reasoning about Kosminski, but here's the thing: You say that it is a case where there is any kind of eye witness testimony.

Ask yourself, Abby: IS there really eye witness testimony?

Or was there a CLAIM that there was an eye witness who for unknown reasons pointed a finger at an unidentified man, best referred to as Andersons Polish Jew?

When push comes to shove, I find that there IS no eye witness testimony at all produced in relation to this evasive character. And I am very much reinforced in my thinking by how Melville MacNaghten - who simply MUST have gotten his information about "Kosminski" from the originator/s of the accusations, namely the Anderson camp or Anderson himself - shoved "Kosminski" to the side in favor of Druitt!

Ergo, MacNaghtens "private information" - that was enough to make him believe that Druitt was the likely killer - was better and harder evidence than the alleged eye witness confrontation. And Mac was not sure about Druitt, it was just that he thought that he was the best bid.

So when we clear away the dust from the shoulders of Druitt, "Kosminski" and Ostrog, we find that what we are left with is hoo-hums, nudges and personal takes on the matter - and NOT a scintilla of evidence, be that MacNaghtens alleged communications or Andersons alleged eye witness.

THAT is where the investigations starts, and that is why Lechmere is by a country mile a better suspect than these three men. Or, rephrasing myself, that is why Lechmere IS a suspect, while the others are actually not.

Thanks for the thumbs up, Abby!!

[Fisherman]

This is wrong. Lechmere found a body. That makes him a witness not a suspect. There is a complete lack of evidence against him. All there is is a load of bluster dreamed up by the ill informed.

For somebody who find the Lechmere debate tiresome, you are really warning to the subject.

Finding a body makes you a witness. That is true.

Being found by a body that is extremely freshly slain, and still breathing and bleeding, without being able to prove your innocence and without there being any other obstacle for guilt on your behalf - makes you a suspect.

Subtle difference that this is, it is nevertheless important to realize. But tiresome.

[John Wheat]

For somebody who find the Lechmere debate tiresome, you are really warning to the subject.

Finding a body makes you a witness. That is true.

Being found by a body that is extremely freshly slain, and still breathing and bleeding, without being able to prove your innocence and without there being any other obstacle for guilt on your behalf - makes you a suspect.

Subtle difference that this is, it is nevertheless important to realize. But tiresome.

I thought you weren't responding to me. You're wrong with no evidence against him Lechmere is a witness not a suspect.

[Fisherman]

I thought you weren't responding to me. You're wrong with no evidence against him Lechmere is a witness not a suspect.

I thought you found the debate too tiresome to participate in?

Read the above, and do try to understand it: If you are found all alone with a freshly killed murder victim - and Lechmere was found all alone with a freshly killed murder victim- if that victim still bleeds and breathes although she has had her throat severed dowen to the bone - and Nichols was still bleeding and breathing although she had had her troat severed down to the bone - and if there is no obstacle for the finder being the killer - and there is no obstacle for Lechmere being the killer - then you are immediately and automatically a suspect. This is not a suggestion, it is a fact.

I am not wrong. And you are not right. You are denying the facts, and the only two possible reasons for such a thing is that you are either too ignorant to understand how it works, or you are hellbent on denying the facts, come what may. There is of course also the alternative that you are both ignorant AND hellbent on denying the facts, I forgot that. So it´s three options, John!

I know what my money is on.

[Admin]

There are entirely too many personal comments on this thread. If I infracted them all, people would not be posting here til 2025. I am currently in the mood to do this. Let silence and peace reign throughout the land.

The next person who makes a personal comment on this thread about another poster, instead of arguing PURE FACTS, will get a six month suspension. If you respond in kind, you will as well.

Cut the **** people.

[Abby Normal]

This is wrong. Lechmere found a body. That makes him a witness not a suspect. There is a complete lack of evidence against him. All there is is a load of bluster dreamed up by the ill informed.

hi john
bury claimed to have found a body too, i suppose he must have just been a witness also! so as you can see, many killers who have claimed to have just found a body have turned out to be the perpetrator.

but im not going to argue too hard with you, as you know i favor bury as one of the least weak ripper suspects.

[John Wheat]

hi john
bury claimed to have found a body too, i suppose he must have just been a witness also! so as you can see, many killers who have claimed to have just found a body have turned out to be the perpetrator.

but im not going to argue too hard with you, as you know i favor bury as one of the least weak ripper suspects.

I would argue that in Bury's case there is some strong circumstantial evidence and in my opinion Bury may well have been the Ripper. I don't believe this about Lechmere.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Christer - I'd like to quote your comments about Reeves directly, and respond to them, but as we've discussed before, I can't because of the unusual way in which you use the "quote" function. It takes too much effort to do a lot of unnecessary cutting and pasting just to respond.

So let me just say that I disagree with your understanding of the word 'alibi.'

No one is disputing that Lechmere was at the crime scene that morning, so mentioning his 'lacking an alibi' is inappropriate. At the time of the murder, he was either in Buck's Row, was in route to Buck's Row, or was at home in bed preparing to leave for work. This is not in dispute, so we need not talk of his "alibi."

What is relevant is that he had an entirely logical reason for being at the crime scene when he was seen there because it was his route to work, and the blood evidence (which even one of your sometimes supporters, Gary Barnett, admitted is "really weak") in no way conclusively places him in Buck's Row at the time of the murder.

Same too, with Reeves. Reeves had a reason for finding the body--because the landing was also on his way to work. That Tabram was murdered some hours earlier, according to the forensic estimates, is neither here, nor there, because Reeves, by his own admission, was in the same building when Tabram was murdered. Surely, in your long experience with reading "true crime" you've come across cases where the person who reported the murder--even though it took place some hours earlier--was also the culprit? How would this delay exonerate Reeves? Wouldn't it have been the best way to alert the police--to wait until he had a reason for finding the body? (By contrast, Lechmere could not have used a similar gambit, because at the moment he was spotted in Buck's Row by Robert Paul, the timing coincides perfectly or nearly perfectly with the time he would have been at the same spot had he been walking to work anyway--just like he reported)

Similarly, does Tabram's earlier time of death exonerate Alfred Crow, who by his own admission, had crossed the landing in the early morning hours--consistent with Tabram's time of death? And Crowe never alerted the police, unlike Paul and Lechmere. If one wants to aim suspicion in the direction of any of these blokes, one can certainly do it. The question then becomes: is that suspicion justified?


Yes, things are a bit more"hot" for Lechmere (and for Paul) because Nichols had been dead for a shorter period of time, but in every case--Crow, Reeves, Lechmere, and Paul---every single one of those blokes had a legitimate reason for being at the crime scene, so referring to them as not having "an alibi" would be entirely inappropriate and misleading.

When one refers to someone "not having an alibi" it is when they can't give a reasonable account of their whereabouts at the time of a crime occurred that would have either benefitted them directly, or there is some extraneous reason to suspect that they might have committed it. Crow, Reeves, Lechmere, and Paul have reasonable explanations for being in the vicinity of the crime. They were either going to work, or returning home from work. A man who had recently placed an insurance policy on his wife, who then turned up murdered, would need an "alibi." The police would want to know where he had been at the time of the crime.

I'll leave it at that, because we'll now need to discuss your "missing time" theory, and it's been thoroughly sifted dozens of times and would just lead to unnecessary repetition.

Enjoy your Sunday.

[Fisherman]

hi john
bury claimed to have found a body too, i suppose he must have just been a witness also! so as you can see, many killers who have claimed to have just found a body have turned out to be the perpetrator.

I never thought of it like that before, Abby - a very good point!

[rjpalmer]

I never thought of it like that before, Abby - a very good point!

The dead and mangled woman Bury discovered and reported to the police was his own wife.

If the dead and mangled woman Lechmere found on his way to work was Elizabeth Bostock, our conversation would be a bit different, no?

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer - I'd like to quote your comments about Reeves directly, and respond to them, but as we've discussed before, I can't because of the unusual way in which you use the "quote" function. It takes too much effort to do a lot of unnecessary cutting and pasting just to respond.

So let me just say that I disagree with your understanding of the word 'alibi.'

Alibi basically means ”elsewhere”. And there is no distance involved in the term. If you can prove that you were in the adjacent room to where a murder was perpetrated, you have an alibi - you were elsewhere. The same applies in Lechmeres case: his alibi is that he was on the northern pavement of Bucks Row and then moved into the middle of the road before Paul arrive - ergo, he was not at the murder site, he was elsewhere. However, an suggested alibi only becomes a real alibi when it is proven to be true. And Lechmeres claim cannogt be corroboraed by anybody, meaning that he has no alibi.
The terminology as such works perfectly, as you will see.

No one is disputing that Lechmere was at the crime scene that morning, so mentioning his 'lacking an alibi' is inappropriate. At the time of the murder, he was either in Buck's Row, was in route to Buck's Row, or was at home in bed preparing to leave for work. This is not in dispute, so we need not talk of his "alibi."

The aspect is of interest and needs to be covered, I find. When you read about Lechmere, you will be served with a story about him going to work, seeing what he thinks may be a tarpaulin and then proceeding into the middle of the road, noticing Paul arriving at that exact stage. This would be an alibi, if it was true. It is essential, therefore, that we acknowledge that the story that Lechmere provides only suggests an alibi, whereas the truth is that this alibi can never be proven.
You say that no one is disputing that Lechmere was at the crime scene, but we need to be much more exact than that. We need to look at all possibilities, and just noting that it is accepted that he was there is insufficient to cover these possibilities - on account of how Lechmere suggests that he was not at the actual murder site, he was ”elsewhere” - he claimed to have an alibi.

What is relevant is that he had an entirely logical reason for being at the crime scene when he was seen there because it was his route to work, and the blood evidence (which even one of your sometimes supporters, Gary Barnett, admitted is "really weak") in no way conclusively places him in Buck's Row at the time of the murder.

I tend to tell people who make this point that they have invented the perfect murder: Kill in a space where you are supposed to be, and you are free to walk away. This factor should of course be weighed in, and if there was nothing more to implicate him as the killer, then nobody would suggest it. The blood evidence should be weighed up by experts, and the experts say that Nichols was likely to bleed for three to five minutes, although she could have bled for a longer period of time too, Ingemar Thiblin putting the max at 10-15 minutes. We therefore have two concurring experts who speak for a time of 3-5 minutes as being the likeliest. One we know that, we also known that Nichols bleeding of at lesat around. Nine minutes was unexpected - but neverthless happened. It then applies that she was pushing close to the maximum period suggested by Thiblin, and thst very much puts Lechmere in the crosshairs. To boot, we have Paul being sure that he felt her breathe faintly. While it is not impossible per se that she was cut very shortly before Lechmere arrived, it is a set of information that does he carman no favors at all. And it deserves pointing out that it is NOT a question of Lechmere versus an identified man who was there at around 3.40. The fat of the matter is thare is no other man identified. Therefore, to dismiss Lechmere as the likely killer - which is in line with the evidence as per the above - we must rule him out in favor of a phantom killer, a man whose existence is not in evidence. It is and remains a suggestion to ditch a very obvious suspect in favor of no suspect at all, just a hunch that there MAY have been a different man there. Ask your local police statio. How that would have solved that equation, R J!

Same too, with Reeves. Reeves had a reason for finding the body--because the landing was also on his way to work. That Tabram was murdered some hours earlier, according to the forensic estimates, is neither here, nor there, because Reeves, by his own admission, was in the same building when Tabram was murdered.

That was the exact thing I said before: To be the killer, Reeves must have been up and about some hours before he went to work These thoings can never be ruled out, but for him to be the killer, it requires that he first did for Tabram at around 2 AM and then went back to sleep, then rose again and pretended to find the body at around 4.45 - and reported it to the police! If we compare to Lechmere, we don´t have the kind of very conthrived scenario, plus Lechmee had somebody come uopn him, making him forced to eiher run for it or tell a bluff. That never happened to Reeves, and accordingly, the two do not compare on any level when it comes to suspect viabílity. As a consequence, not a soul havs come up with the idea of looking at Reeves as a possible killer. In fact, I would say that anybidy in that stairwell BUT Reeves, would be a likelier killer. There are many, many reasons for why Lechmere is a much favored suspect with the students of the cae - and why Reeves is not. Making the point that both men found a body is not making a very good point on account of the above - and carries the risk of further sealing the suggestion that Lechmere was a mere finder of a body.

Surely, in your long experience with reading "true crime" you've come across cases where the person who reported the murder--even though it took place some hours earlier--was also the culprit? How would this delay exonerate Reeves? Wouldn't it have been the best way to alert the police--to wait until he had a reason for finding the body? (By contrast, Lechmere could not have used a similar gambit, because at the moment he was spotted in Buck's Row by Robert Paul, the timing coincides perfectly or nearly perfectly with the time he would have been at the same spot had he been walking to work anyway--just like he reported)

Again, I never said that Reeves could. Not have been the culprit per se. But I am saying that there is a reason that the suggestion of him being the killer has not a single follower. Unless you are that follower? It is always about sifting as sensibly as we can, and this sifting tells us that Lechmere is a very likely killer and Reeves a very unlikely one.

Similarly, does Tabram's earlier time of death exonerate Alfred Crow, who by his own admission, had crossed the landing in the early morning hours--consistent with Tabram's time of death? And Crowe never alerted the police, unlike Paul and Lechmere. If one wants to aim suspicion in the direction of any of these blokes, one can certainly do it. The question then becomes: is that suspicion justified?

Exactly. It´s about using that sieve all over again.

Yes, things are a bit more"hot" for Lechmere (and for Paul) because Nichols had been dead for a shorter period of time, but in every case--Crow, Reeves, Lechmere, and Paul---every single one of those blokes had a legitimate reason for being at the crime scene, so referring to them as not having "an alibi" would be entirely inappropriate and misleading.

Misleading? How would that work? Any responsible police force would be interested it the dwellers in that stairwell, and rightly so. They all seemingly would have hgad opportunity, ans that is no small thing. It would therefore be of interest to the police to establish whether or not they had alibis. There would be nothing at all inappropriate or misleading about it. I perhaps fail to see what you are trying to say, so an expm´lanation would be welcome.

When one refers to someone "not having an alibi" it is when they can't give a reasonable account of their whereabouts at the time of a crime occurred that would have either benefitted them directly, or there is some extraneous reason to suspect that they might have committed it.

Again, it is all about space. An alibi is information that somebody could not have been the killer on account of geographical reasons. as I explained above, what Lechmere said would give him an alibi if it could be verified. For example, if Paul was close enough, he should perhaps have been able to say that ”yes, I saw this man in front of myself on the northern pavement, who slowed dowen and stopped and steeped out into the middle of the road”. It is not the typical alibi, but it is nevertheless exactly that - proof that Lechmere was not at the murder site. I am perfectly aware that ”alibi” normally puts a person a longer way away from the victim, but the implications are the exact same.

Crow, Reeves, Lechmere, and Paul have reasonable explanations for being in the vicinity of the crime. They were either going to work, or returning home from work. A man who had recently placed an insurance policy on his wife, who then turned up murdered, would need an "alibi." The police would want to know where he had been at the time of the crime.

Anybody who is found alone with a murder victim who is still warm, still bleeding and still breathing needs an explanation. Lechmeres explanation was that he found the body on his way to work. Therefore, if he had decided to kill in the early mornings, and then proceed to work, he seems to have found the perfect scheme, at least of you were the detective looking at his case. I would be a very different proposal myself.

As I have already pointed out, if there was nothing else, then. Lechmere would not be the prime suspect that he inevitably is. But there IS more. And that is something that must be looked into when we find people all alone with murder victims who have had their throats cut to the bone, but still bleed and breathe. That MUST have us reasoning that regardless of all other factors, anybody found with a murder victim under these types of circumstances MUST either be the killer, or the killer must have preceded them by a very small margin of time. We cannot reason that the investigating police should let people who had reason to be at a murder site loose unquestioned. That would be incredibly irresponsible. So what we must do in these cases, is to ask ourselves ”Is there more?” And that is where we find for example:
-The name matter.
-The disagreement with Mízen.
-The failure of both men to note the other one.
-The covered up wounds.
-The departure time for Lechmere, not dovetailing with when he was in Bucks Row.
- The refusal to help prop Nichols up.

Once we see these matters and their potential, we must turn to the whole series and ask ourselves: ”If he killed Nichols, is there reason to think that he may have been the man who also killed Tabram, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly?” And when we look a that, we find that his treks are seemingly a perfect fit with the rest.

Once we reach this point, we have no excuse for not dubbing Lechmere the prime suspect and likely Ripper. At this stage, we have gone far, far behind the question of a suggested alibi on the carmans behalf - suggested by the carman himself and corroborated by absolutely nobody.

I'll leave it at that, because we'll now need to discuss your "missing time" theory, and it's been thoroughly sifted dozens of times and would just lead to unnecessary repetition.

Enjoy your Sunday.

Enjoy yours too. Whenever you feel ready to discuss the missing time bit, I am up for it.

[Fisherman]

The dead and mangled woman Bury discovered and reported to the police was his own wife.

If the dead and mangled woman Lechmere found on his way to work was Elizabeth Bostock, our conversation would be a bit different, no?

It would be very different matters - just like Lechmere is a very different matter to John Saunders Reeves.

It is nevertheless an interesting point that a poster who consistently claims that finding a dead woman on Lechmeres behalf was always a point against him being the killer, is in fact somebody who roots for a man who claimed to be the finder of another dead woman as the likely killer.

[Elamarna]

One does not mind being challenged on ones views, but one expects those views to be presented in full, unedited and not in a way that gives a misleading impression, particularly on such a prestigious site as this.

The body was found not far from 3.45, was what the coroner said. That means that Lechmere was NOT where he should be if he was simply walking to work. Of course, what Steve Blomer says is that 3.40 IS "not far off 3.45", and so he suggests that this what what the coroner meant when he said 3.45. He meant 3.40.

That is how Steve Blomer reasons.

When I asked him why the coroner would not say 3.40, if 3.40 was the time he meant, Steve Blomer suggested - and I am not joking here! - that perhaps the coroner only expressed himself in full quarters of hours. Meaning that in the choice of saying 3.30, 3.45 or 4.00, he chose 3.45 because that was the full quarter timing closest to 3.40 - which wa7s what the coroner actually meant when he said 3.45, remember?

That is how much credence I invest in Steve Blomers timings.



.

I actually presented several options on the FB thread this report alludes to.

"Why settle on 3.45?
Possibly because people do tend, and did tend to round up or down to the nearest 15 minutes"

So far so good, however, the following lines are missing, this omission inevitably leads to a false fimpression being given.

I gather that this is referred to as "Clipping" rather than "Editing " , whichever we call it, it's misrepresenting what was really said.
The following lines read

"Or maybe because that's the time he had from the 3 police officers, which would place the discovery a few minutes before, that is NOT FAR OFF, 3.45."

This is not a case of disputing an opinion, but of distorting what was said.