The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Fisherman]

yes but at that point with paul he dosnt know hes going to run into mizen. at this point paul is like a mini mizen, someone lech would be trying to con and get past too, so saying she was dead would only heighten the seriousness of the problem. but saying to paul.. ahh looks like another passed out drunk to me...would minimize everything and get them both on their way (and lech out of potential trouble)faster and easier.

I just had a quick look, and I actually cant find any report where Paul says that he was told by Lechmere that the latter thought that the woman was dead. I would appreciate if somebody has information to the contrary. We know that Lechmere claimed to have told Paul by the body that he believed that the woman was dead - but it now seems that Paul never confirms that…?

So maybe your question was asked on faulty grounds - and if so, those grounds were provided by me. Sorry if that is the case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I haven’t read the initial post on this thread because life is too short and I’ve wasted too much of mine on this desperate and dishonest attempt to frame a clearly innocent man. The Mizen Scam is utter b******s from start to finish. A piece of fiction created in desperation because Christer (and Herr Obersturmbannfuhrer Von Stow) realised straight away the utter feebleness of the suggestion that a guilty Cross wouldn’t have fled to safety but would have stood around whistling and scratching his a**e until Paul rucked up, so they needed back up. And so ‘on the spot’ we have Cross creating a ‘plan’ which assumed that Paul wouldn’t stand there shouting ‘murder’ at the top of his lungs and that assumes that Cross will be able to walk to find a Constable (with Paul at his side) and then somehow, without making Paul suspicious, disengage himself and talk to the Constable alone and lie about the body hoping that no one ever questions him to say “hold on, but you told PC Mizen x when that wasn’t true, so why did you lie?”

How many more times is Christer going to keep disappearing when the heat of questioning gets too hot to spend a couple of weeks coming up with evermore elaborate tosh in defense of this tissue of nonsense and then returning with a lengthy essay before picking and choosing who he fancies responding to.

There’s nothing wrong with looking at Cross as a ‘suspect’ (unlikely as he clearly is) but this level of bending over backwards to convict should be identified and utterly rejected by any fair minded posters. It’s gone on far too long. It’s become nothing but a bandwagon. And a tiresome one at that.

[Abby Normal]

I just had a quick look, and I actually cant find any report where Paul says that he was told by Lechmere that the latter thought that the woman was dead. I would appreciate if somebody has information to the contrary. We know that Lechmere claimed to have told Paul by the body that he believed that the woman was dead - but it now seems that Paul never confirms that…?

So maybe your question was asked on faulty grounds - and if so, those grounds were provided by me. Sorry if that is the case.

no problem fish. appreciate your honesty.

[Fisherman]

I haven’t read the initial post on this thread because life is too short and I’ve wasted too much of mine on this desperate and dishonest attempt to frame a clearly innocent man. The Mizen Scam is utter b******s from start to finish. A piece of fiction created in desperation because Christer (and Herr Obersturmbannfuhrer Von Stow) realised straight away the utter feebleness of the suggestion that a guilty Cross wouldn’t have fled to safety but would have stood around whistling and scratching his a**e until Paul rucked up, so they needed back up. And so ‘on the spot’ we have Cross creating a ‘plan’ which assumed that Paul wouldn’t stand there shouting ‘murder’ at the top of his lungs and that assumes that Cross will be able to walk to find a Constable (with Paul at his side) and then somehow, without making Paul suspicious, disengage himself and talk to the Constable alone and lie about the body hoping that no one ever questions him to say “hold on, but you told PC Mizen x when that wasn’t true, so why did you lie?”

How many more times is Christer going to keep disappearing when the heat of questioning gets too hot to spend a couple of weeks coming up with evermore elaborate tosh in defense of this tissue of nonsense and then returning with a lengthy essay before picking and choosing who he fancies responding to.

There’s nothing wrong with looking at Cross as a ‘suspect’ (unlikely as he clearly is) but this level of bending over backwards to convict should be identified and utterly rejected by any fair minded posters. It’s gone on far too long. It’s become nothing but a bandwagon. And a tiresome one at that.

As we have seen before, Herlock Sholmes will sometimes claim that something is worthless only to then, some time later claim that it is very good. I therefore cannot attach any value at all to what he says. What he calls ”fair minded posters” today may be called useless contributors by him tomorrow, and it would be wasting time to be either happy or irritated by it. Moreover, posts that are seemingly only intended to inflame are not something that can take a debate forward, so this is the one and only reply I will give until I can detect any will to debate along civil lines.

[Fisherman]

no problem fish. appreciate your honesty.

Thank you, Abby - what a gap there is between posters out here!

[Herlock Sholmes]

As we have seen before, Herlock Sholmes will sometimes claim that something is worthless only to then, some time later claim that it is very good. I therefore cannot attach any value at all to what he says. What he calls ”fair minded posters” today may be called useless contributors by him tomorrow, and it would be wasting time to be either happy or irritated by it. Moreover, posts that are seemingly only intended to inflame are not something that can take a debate forward, so this is the one and only reply I will give until I can detect any will to debate along civil lines.

Yeah, still desperately latching on to that unbelievably unimportant nonsense as a get out clause. The point you keep harping on about barely comes up to knee level compared to deliberately editing evidence to try and make a point does it. Some might be suckered but I’m not, and I’m far from alone.

[Fisherman]

Yeah, still desperately latching on to that unbelievably unimportant nonsense as a get out clause. The point you keep harping on about barely comes up to knee level compared to deliberately editing evidence to try and make a point does it. Some might be suckered but I’m not, and I’m far from alone.

Nonsense? You are on record as having initíally told us all that my work on Lechmere as represented in my book was an effort you took your hat off to, hailing how there was not a single leap of faith in it. You stated that you were glad that you had bought it. And then, two years later, you call the theory you applauded in 2021 ”dishonest” and ”utter bullshit” and so on. And not a syllable of the theory has changed meanwhile.

Your explanation, if you need me to remind you, was first that you only wanted to be nice (!), and then you changed that to claiming that you wished that you had read the book more carefully before giving it a glowing review.

If you think that there is any sort of regaining any sort of respect or trust after that show, you may need to rethink it.

You have now seemingly reduced yourself to calling people abominable and rude names and leading on dishonesty and all sorts of unsubstaniated accusations on behalf of people you dont agree with. It is - at best - a pitiful show, and I will have as little of it as possible. I advice you to shape up and at least try to offer some sort of relevant criticism instead of the sorry soup you are habitually serving.

Now I would like to move on to the real issues. We may for example have found out that Robert Paul never said that Lechmere told him that he believed that Nichols was dead, something that may open up new angles to look at Lechmeres veracity from. Those kinds of things are what these boards are for, not juvenile name calling and wild and baseless accusations.

[Fisherman]

Ignoring Herlocks posts, there is still just the one poster who has given his view of the main matter here, the question whether we must accept that Jonas Mizen was in Bakers Row when John Neil saw him.

Surely, there must be more posters who have an idea about it?

I will check in later, I am done for today.

[jmenges]

I advice you to shape up and at least try to offer some sort of relevant criticism instead of the sorry soup you are habitually serving.

OR WHAT?

You take that ridiculous tone while in the same breath accuse HIM of making “wild and baseless allegations”? Really unbelievable.

JM

[John Wheat]

You forgot one "about" in the first sentence. You made an untenable claim in your next. You were dead wrong in the third sentence. And it is only if you were commenting on your own contributions that you got it right in the end.

Surely you could do better than this? There is a case to discuss in detail, that is a far better case than any other case has ever been in the Ripper topic. Producing the odd vomit does not help.

No I'm correct and the Lechmere theory is complete crap.

[JeffHamm]

hi fish. good to see you back.
i think the most likliest thing that happened is a misunderstanding/ misremembering by mizen.

lech tells him hes needed in bucks row, and when he gets there a pc is already in place, so he misremembers later that lech said your needed in bucks row by a policeman. simplest and most reasonable conclusion, no?

I couldn't agree more Abby. That is entirely the type of misrecollections that people make under the conditions you point out. Nothing more complicated than that is required.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nonsense? You are on record as having initíally told us all that my work on Lechmere as represented in my book was an effort you took your hat off to, hailing how there was not a single leap of faith in it. You stated that you were glad that you had bought it. And then, two years later, you call the theory you applauded in 2021 ”dishonest” and ”utter bullshit” and so on. And not a syllable of the theory has changed meanwhile.

Your explanation, if you need me to remind you, was first that you only wanted to be nice (!), and then you changed that to claiming that you wished that you had read the book more carefully before giving it a glowing review.

If you think that there is any sort of regaining any sort of respect or trust after that show, you may need to rethink it.

You have now seemingly reduced yourself to calling people abominable and rude names and leading on dishonesty and all sorts of unsubstaniated accusations on behalf of people you dont agree with. It is - at best - a pitiful show, and I will have as little of it as possible. I advice you to shape up and at least try to offer some sort of relevant criticism instead of the sorry soup you are habitually serving.

Now I would like to move on to the real issues. We may for example have found out that Robert Paul never said that Lechmere told him that he believed that Nichols was dead, something that may open up new angles to look at Lechmeres veracity from. Those kinds of things are what these boards are for, not juvenile name calling and wild and baseless accusations.

My ‘accusation’ is based on a cast iron fact. In your book, which you and no one else wrote, in the section where you were trying to show that there was a suspicious gap of time between Cross leaving his house and the discovery of the body you deliberately omitted to mention that Cross had said that he left the house at ‘about 3.30.’ Was this simply an error? If it was then it was one that was ‘inadvertently’ repeated in the documentary while you were trying to make exactly the same point. I think we can all see the pattern. For years I’ve heard you post from that high horse but it’s all hollow.

So my ‘accusation’ isn’t baseless. It’s in black and white and on screen. And to add to this we can see that the person that gave the dossier/file to Scobie also ‘inadvertently’ left out the ‘around.’ That’s a fair bit of inadvertent and very specific omitting going on.

Your high horse had just galloped off into the sunset. Perhaps he’s gone fishing?

[Abby Normal]

I couldn't agree more Abby. That is entirely the type of misrecollections that people make under the conditions you point out. Nothing more complicated than that is required.

- Jeff

thanks Jeff
of course there are other possible explanations, but this one to me is by far the most likely.

[Fiver]

What is evident to anybody reading the chapter is that Steve Blomers piece de resistance is the last point, the Lloyds Weekly article (from September 2). He says so himself, effectively.

How about letting Steve speak for himself. You have misquoted even your own forensics experts on this forum, so I have significant doubts that you have accurately represented Steve's position.

[Fiver]

When it comes to the scam, I have always said and believed that what tells the story is the fact that the three deviations Lechmere represented visavi Mizen (he did not tell Mizen that he himself was the finder, he told him that tehre was another PC in place and he suppressed the gravity of the errand, all of this if we believe Mizen), these three matters were all tailormade to allow the carmen to pass the police by. There could have been dozens of misunderstadings that would not have had that effect, but this never happened. The three deviations ALL serve the purpose of getting Lechmere off the hook. And if it walks like a duck …

Your conclusion is based on:
* Ignoring what Robert Paul said.
* Assuming that any disagreement between Lechmere and Mizen means one of them is lying. You ignore the possibilities of miscommunication or fallible memory.
* Assuming that Lechmere's statements were "tailormade to allow the carmen to pass the police by".

The last fails on basic common sense. If Charles Lechmere had wanted to avoid the poilce, why would he deliberately approach one and talk to them? If Charles Lechmere had wanted to avoid the police, he would have just walked off the moment he heard Robert Paul approaching. Or he would have let Paul just keep walking, rather than stop him and draw Paul's attention to the body. Or suggested to Paul that they split up to find a policeman faster and just disappeared into the night.

Looking at Robert Paul's statement in the 2 September Lloyd's Weekly News.

"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. 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. 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. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."

Note that Paul claims to have clearly told PC Mizen that the woman was dead. This supports Lechmere's testimony, or more correctly Lechemere's testimony supports Robert Paul, since Lechmere's testimony was given after Paul's statement appeared in the newspaper. Paul's statement also contradicts the testimony of PC Mizen.