The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Fiver]

The fact that he disagreed with Mizen is in evidence.

The fact that Robert Paul disagreed with Mizen is in evidence. Does that mean Paul was the Ripper?

PC Neil also disagreed with PC Mizen, saying Mizen claimed to have not seen anyone. Does that mean Neil was the Ripper?

[Fiver]

The fact that Lechmere is geographically closely linked to the rest of the murders in the series belongs to the evidence against him.

Lechmere lived in the area, just like almost every Ripper suspect. He has no "geographical links" to any of the murders - none of them occurred at his home, his workplace, or the home of his relatives.

[Fiver]

The fact that the wounds were covered is an indication of how Paul was not meant to see what had happened.

That's not a fact, either. Nichols' throat wound was never covered. The rest of her wounds were covered because Paul pulled Nichol's dress down.

"While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement." - Robert Paul, 18 September 1888 Times

Your theory makes no sense. If Lechmere didn't want Paul to see Nichols wounds, then why did he draw Paul's attention to the body? Why did Lechmere persist instead of letting Paul just keep walking? Why did he let Paul feel her face and lean down to try to hear her breathing, acts that would have made it much more likely for Paul to notice the uncovered throat wound?

[Fiver]

The fact that Nichols was still breathing as Paul felt her chest is evidence of how the cutting was performed very close in time to the examination.

It's not a fact. Here's what Paul actually said.

"Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead. It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood. They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met. He could not see whether the clothes were torn, and did not feel any other part of her body except the hands and face. They looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen. While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement." - Robert Paul, 18 September 1888 Times

Paul testified that he could not her Nichols breath, but 'fancied' he felt a slight movement when he accidentally touched her breast. Paul's statement shows that he believed Nichols was either barely breathing or not breathing at all. His testimony gives us no evidence of when Nichols was killed.

[Fiver]

It is only Lechmere who makes this claim, and interestingly, whe he does, he does NOT say that Paul spoke about how the woman was likely alive. He says that Paul claimed that he believed the woman was dead - and why would Paul do that, knowing as he did, that she was still warm and her chest was moving as if she was faintly breathing? There is something very much amiss here - and it is Lechmeres claim that is off.

You are incorrect again. Charles Lechmere's testimony that Robert Paul said he believed Nichols was dead is Lechmere supporting Paul's claims that had previously appeared in print.

"I had told him the woman was dead." - Robert Paul, 3 September 1888 Lloyds Weekly News

So how can Lechmere's claim be off when it matches Paul's claim?

[Fiver]

There is no evidence that Paul ever spoke to Mizen.

Your statement is incorrect. Robert Paul said he spoke to PC Mizen.

" I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one 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, 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." - Robert Paul, 2 September 1888 Lloyds Weekly News

[Fiver]

There is no more sensible answer than "Mizen did not mention the carmen". But laying the blame on Mizen for it is not what should be done. As has been pointed out, he would have been of the opinion that the information was already at the police's disposal, and once we are absolutely certain of such a thing, we don't waste our colleagues´ time by reiterating what they already know.

PC Mizen would only been of the opinion that the other police knew about Lechmere and Paul if Mizen ignored what the other police were saying.

"Constable John Neil (J 97) deposed that he was proceeding down Bucks-Row, Thomas-Street, Whitechapel, at a quarter to four in the morning. There was no-one about at the time." - 1 September 1888 Globe.

"The witness [Neil] remained by the side of the body until the doctor came, which was about ten minutes afterwards. No one had appeared except the police, and two people whom they had knocked up, and who said they heard nothing." 1 September 1888 Globe.

"John Neill, police-constable 97 J, was sworn, and said: Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-Street. There was not a soul about." - 2 September 1888 Lloyds Weekly News

So days before he testified, PC Mizen should have known that PC Neil had not sent Lechmere and Paul to fetch him.

[Fiver]

Yes, it is clear that Mizen did not mention the carmen. But no, it is no "omission" at all. He would have predisposed that the information was already given by Neil.

Not according to PC Neil.

"It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the Street. These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete." - 3 September 1888 Daily News

So when PC Neil asked PC Mizen if anyone had left the murder site, PC Mizen denied having seen Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul.

[Fisherman]

It's been discussed in great depth ad nauseam

Two sides repeating the same lines at each other, over and over.

I find the claim that you make is a very remarkable one. I doubt that more than a fraction of the posters out here has seen it, and I believe it is a matter that needs to be brought to light and discussed. As I have pointed out, if you choose not to be part of that discussion, that it absolutely your right. But I also believe that it is my right to start a discussion about it and find out what people in general think of the matter.

I have never heard of a coroner who has treated all important timings the way you suggest that Baxter may have done, on account of rounding off to the nearest fifteen minute stroke. Then again, I was born and raised in another culture than you, and so I am curious to find out what applies here. There will surely be recorded precedents, although finding them may prove difficult.

[Elamarna]

Fine. That means that I need to start a thread about it and try and get a discussion about it that way, since I find it one of the single most remarkable claims that have been made about the timing evidence. It would of course be more interesting to discuss it with you, here and in public, but if you wish to avoid it fortwith, then that is your prerogative.

It's been discussed in great depth ad nauseam

Two sides repeating the same lines at each other, over and over.

[Fisherman]

Of course you do not respond to the actual issue I posted about , that of misrepresentation.

I actually did, I said that if you felt that I misrepresented you, I was sorry, and that I want to get this as correct as possible. Because it is important.

You do however repeat the same tired old points, ones that have been repeated many time, rebutted many times, and nothing changes.
There is therefore NO meaningful or constructive point in repeating such debates.

I had no intention of joining this repeated debate, until my comments from another site were misrepresented.

I have now corrected that, there is nothing to add.

Steve

Fine. That means that I need to start a thread about it and try and get a discussion about it that way, since I find it one of the single most remarkable claims that have been made about the timing evidence. It would of course be more interesting to discuss it with you, here and in public, but if you wish to avoid it fortwith, then that is your prerogative.

[Elamarna]

I would not want to do that, I would want to get as close as possible to what was said. And you DID suggest that the coroner could have worked by dividing the time up in fifteen minute chunks, just as we can see from your quotation above.

I find that suggestion extremely odd, since we know that the aim of the coroner must have been to get as close as possible to the finding time. We also have a situation where it applies that Lechmere would have preceded Neil by around five minutes, and the coroner was quite well aware of this. Everybody was. The suggestion that Thain could have been wasting time by fetching the cape at the butchers came about as a direct result of the idea that Lechmere found the body at 3.40 - if this was so, it became inexplicable that Thain did not arrive at Llewellyns practice until at 3.55 - 4.00. He would have left the murder site at around 3.46-3.47 if the five minute slot holds true. It would in its turn mean that he spent around 9 - 13 or 14 minutes covering a stretch that took around two or three minutes to cover at most.
It was only when Baxter realized - and fixed - that the time Lechmere ”found” the body was instead 3.45, putting Neil at the site at around 3.51, that Thains arrival time at Llewellyns practice made sense.

Once we know this, we may discard the idea that Neil found the body at 3.45. If he did, Thain would have arrived at the practice at circa 3.48-3.39, and Llewellyn had the arrival at 3.55 - 4.00, so IF we are to move it from 3.55, we need to move it FORWARD, further away from Neil finding the body at 3.51.

In this context, where every minute counted and where everybody knew that the battle stood between Lechmere finding the body at 3.40ish or 3.45ish, I find the claim that Baxter would have avoided putting the time at 3.40 due to a wish to express himself in full quarters of hours only quite strange and in all likelihood completely wrong. Baxter, just like any other coroner before and since, would have tried to get as close as possible to the exact time, and he would - in my universe - never use the timing 3.45 if it was not the exact timing he wanted to express.

It also applies that the Daily News reporter, having sat through the proceedings on the day when Baxter fixed the 3.45 timing as the time when Charles Lechmere found the body, wrote that it could now be established that the murder took place between 3.15 (Neils earlier round) and 3.45 (when the body was found by Lechmere). If the body had been found by Lechmere at 3.40, making the PCs correct in their joint 3.45 assessment, then the murder could not have taken place between the last five minutes mentioned by the Daily News. In short, the killer must have struck before 3.40 if the PCs were right, and before 3.45 if Pauls timing of 3.45 was right.

As everybody can see, the case for the PCs timing falls apart when considering these things, and so I would really not want to be wrong when referring to this. If you feel that I was misquoting you, I am sorry - but my point stands when it comes to the suggestion that the coroner could have thought that the body was found at 3.40 but chose to say 3.45 on account of a habit to express himself in fifteen minute chunks.

I would very much welcome a further discussion of this, since it is a vital matter. Once we know that Lechmere found the body at circa 3.45, we may also realize that his suggested departure time is very much out. An eight minute gap is opened up, that needs an explanation (and I have one). So any input you are willing to offer is quite, quite welcome.

PS. If there was a general tendency to round timings up to even quarters of hours, is it not very much more likely that the PCs did this precise thing, than it would be for a coroner, intent on getting as close as possible to a very vital timing in a murder case, would work with that kind of crude timing?

Of course you do not respond to the actual issue I posted about , that of misrepresentation by "clipping" what was actually said.

You do however repeat the same desperately tired old points, ones that have been repeated many time, rebutted many times, and nothing changes.

There is therefore NO meaningful or constructive point in repeating such debates.

I had no intention of joining this repeated debate, until my comments from another site were misrepresented. If my comment had been in presented in full, there would have been no issue for me, sadly such was not the case.

I have now corrected that, there is nothing to add.

Steve

[Fisherman]

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.



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.

I would not want to do that, I would want to get as close as possible to what was said. And you DID suggest that the coroner could have worked by dividing the time up in fifteen minute chunks, just as we can see from your quotation above.

I find that suggestion extremely odd, since we know that the aim of the coroner must have been to get as close as possible to the finding time. We also have a situation where it applies that Lechmere would have preceded Neil by around five minutes, and the coroner was quite well aware of this. Everybody was. The suggestion that Thain could have been wasting time by fetching the cape at the butchers came about as a direct result of the idea that Lechmere found the body at 3.40 - if this was so, it became inexplicable that Thain did not arrive at Llewellyns practice until at 3.55 - 4.00. He would have left the murder site at around 3.46-3.47 if the five minute slot holds true. It would in its turn mean that he spent around 9 - 13 or 14 minutes covering a stretch that took around two or three minutes to cover at most.
It was only when Baxter realized - and fixed - that the time Lechmere ”found” the body was instead 3.45, putting Neil at the site at around 3.51, that Thains arrival time at Llewellyns practice made sense.

Once we know this, we may discard the idea that Neil found the body at 3.45. If he did, Thain would have arrived at the practice at circa 3.48-3.39, and Llewellyn had the arrival at 3.55 - 4.00, so IF we are to move it from 3.55, we need to move it FORWARD, further away from Neil finding the body at 3.51.

In this context, where every minute counted and where everybody knew that the battle stood between Lechmere finding the body at 3.40ish or 3.45ish, I find the claim that Baxter would have avoided putting the time at 3.40 due to a wish to express himself in full quarters of hours only quite strange and in all likelihood completely wrong. Baxter, just like any other coroner before and since, would have tried to get as close as possible to the exact time, and he would - in my universe - never use the timing 3.45 if it was not the exact timing he wanted to express.

It also applies that the Daily News reporter, having sat through the proceedings on the day when Baxter fixed the 3.45 timing as the time when Charles Lechmere found the body, wrote that it could now be established that the murder took place between 3.15 (Neils earlier round) and 3.45 (when the body was found by Lechmere). If the body had been found by Lechmere at 3.40, making the PCs correct in their joint 3.45 assessment, then the murder could not have taken place between the last five minutes mentioned by the Daily News. In short, the killer must have struck before 3.40 if the PCs were right, and before 3.45 if Pauls timing of 3.45 was right.

As everybody can see, the case for the PCs timing falls apart when considering these things, and so I would really not want to be wrong when referring to this. If you feel that I was misquoting you, I am sorry - but my point stands when it comes to the suggestion that the coroner could have thought that the body was found at 3.40 but chose to say 3.45 on account of a habit to express himself in fifteen minute chunks.

I would very much welcome a further discussion of this, since it is a vital matter. Once we know that Lechmere found the body at circa 3.45, we may also realize that his suggested departure time is very much out. An eight minute gap is opened up, that needs an explanation (and I have one). So any input you are willing to offer is quite, quite welcome.

PS. If there was a general tendency to round timings up to even quarters of hours, is it not very much more likely that the PCs did this precise thing, than it would be for a coroner, intent on getting as close as possible to a very vital timing in a murder case, would work with that kind of crude timing?

[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.

[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.