The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's an illustration. It shows both the faults of the reasoning and the double standards of the Cult of Lechmere.

The Cult of Lechmere use reasoning? Could you post a link to it Fiver?

[A P Tomlinson]

The Cult of Lechmere use reasoning? Could you post a link to it Fiver?

It's the same "reasoning" that the writers of the TV show "Sherlock" employed many times when writing mysteries for Holmes and Watson to engage with.

Doyle used the mantra "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

The Sherlock writers took that, jiggled it about a bit, and applied it as "The truth can be as improbable as all Hell, just as long as no one can prove it to be impossible." and because it is delivered with confidence by a voice of authority and status, people will line up to defend it.

Sound familiar?

[Fisherman]

This is my final post on this thread, a post written in response to Herlock Sholmes´ pointing out that the word ”around” is not present in Cutting Point, when I discuss the timing aspect of the case and the suggestion Lechmere made about when he left home.

It should initially be pointed out that the phrase ”around 3.30” is not the only one used in the reports from the inquest. We have the Morning Advertiser wording the process like this:

”Charles Allen Cross, a carman, in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, said - On Friday morning I left home at half past three.”

Here, we have no ”around” involved. Likewise, there are papers that report the time as 3.20 instead of 3.30.

We must however accept that since the absolute bulk of the papers spoke of ”around 3.30”, that is by far the likeliest wording to have been given.

The first thing to keep in mind here is that regardless of whether Lechmere used the phrase ”3.30” or ”Around 3.30”, it applies that neither phrasing is to be looked upon as being exact. And in the context we have, it is only the ”3.30” context that could potentially be exact. ”Around 3.30” can never be exact.

The reason for why we cannot regard the phrasing ”3.30” as exact is because it is not supplemented with any checkable claim of having taken the time from a reliable timepiece. On the other hand, Charles Lechmere must have based his take on the time on something, be that something a clock or a knocking up PC or anything else.

Once we have established that we would not have been able to regard a given time of 3.30 as exact for the reason that we don’t know where he got it from, we must add that even if we accept that he must have gotten it from some sort of timekeeping device or someone with access to such a device, we have an added source of possible mistakes in how clocks can of course be wrong.

So all in all, our stance when making a case against the carman can never be ”since Lechmere said 3.30, he must have arrived in Bucks Row at 3.37”, but instead ”IF Lechmere left home at 3.30, he SHOULD have arrived at the murder site at 3.37.” This, of course, if he walked at a normal pace, walked the nearest route and did not make any stops. Here, we must assume that these three parameters posed no problems that would add time to the trek. There is no mentioning of him taking an unnecessarily long way to Bucks Row, and there is no mentioning of him having stopped along the way. Instead, there IS a mentioning of him running late, and that may have made him raise his speed, shortening the time it would take to get to Bucks Row. Also, if he was late from the outset, it would arguably make him inclined to take the shortest route and to avoid any stops. Nevertheless, these are matters that may or may not have had an impact.

Let us now move on to what is said in Cutting Point.

On page 92, it says ”When the coroner summed up the inquest on September 22, 1888, he gave his view on the timing like this, as per the Daily Telegraph of September 24: ”The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 A.M., as this is fixed by so many independent data.”

This quotation is the reason that I later speak of a 3.45 timing.

On page 92, some lines further down:, it says: ”If we work from the 3:45 timing, we can also take a look at how this dovetails with what Charles Lechmere said about his own departure time on the murder morning. Here too we have varying information. Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at 3:30, but the time 3.20 is also mentioned in one paper. It seems possible that he told the inquest that he normally left home at 3:20, but that he left at 3:30 on the murder morning.”

Here, we have that 3.45 timing, but what I say is that IF we work from the 3.45 timing, we can see … and so on. The reasoning is theoretical and I set out that we are dealing with a suggested timing of 3.45, not a timing established as the unshakeable truth.

We then have the wording that Herlock dislikes, and I have said before that I would have much preferred to add the ”around”, if it had only crossed my mind that somebody would point to a possible deception on my behalf some way down the line if I did not. But it did not cross my mind, since I was making a theoretical suggestion. That becomes clear when we look at the next piece from the book.

On page 93, we have this line: ”But working from my seven-minute estimate we can see that if Lechmere left Doveton Street at 3:30, he should have been at the murder site at 3:37.”

So there we have it again - I do not write ”since we know that Lechmere left at 3.30” but instead ”If Lechmere left Doveton Street at 3.30 …” I therefore leave room for how this may not have been the case, and I make it clear that we have a theoretical discussion at hand, not any establishing of an exact timing.

Furthermore, I add to this, a few lines down on the same page: ”Of course, timings are by and large not all that safe in late Victorian London.”

So the fewest of lines below the line speaking of 3.30, we get a passage telling us that we can not rely too much on timings given. If I wanted to deceive the readers, that passage would be very strange to add. Then again, I of course never had any such intentions.

The next passage, from page 93, goes like this: ”The inference is obvious. Charles Lechmere was seemingly in place in Bucks Row long before Robert Paul arrived.”

Inference means an idea or conclusion drawn from evidence and reasoning. I am therefore not speaking of any certainty or established fact here, I am talking about what the evidence suggests. And here, we must look at what the phrasing ”around 3.30” amounts to, in terms of the time gap it suggests.

The further removed from 3.30 we get, the less it agrees with the time given. We can see that if we work from a 3.30 assumption, we get a time gap of of three minutes if we at the other end of the process accept that Lechmere found the body at 3.40, and if we work from a trek time of seven minutes. So from the very outset, we have Lechmere arriving at a time that is three minutes off - if we work from the parameters given above. And to this, we should add that if we work from a finding time at 3.45, we get a time gap of eight minutes.

This is of course a theoretical construction, hence the many ”ifs”. But what we must note and accept when we look at what is suggested by the material, is that each added or detracted minute will take us further into or away from what is suggested by the material at hand. And the material at hand says that Lechmere left home at around 3.30, meaning that he should have - if we use a seven minute trek time - arrived at the murder site at around 3.37. But it applies that Lechmere instead, according to the time established by Coroner Baxter, arrived at a time not far off 3.45.

In both cases, we have approximations, 3.30 and 3.45, but these approximations must be looked upon as the starting points of any theoretical discussion. We cannot favor 3.29 or 3.31 over 3.30, because it would equal suggesting a less likely time than the one suggested. And just as 5.43 would be a time that deviates from 3.30, so does 3.29 or 3.31 - albeit to a much smaller degree.

Ergo, when and if we want to reason theoretically about these things and if we want to work from as correct timings as possible, 3.30 and 3.45 are the timings we must use as starting points. There are no alternatives. But it does not mean that the timings must be correct in either case! It may well be that they are off, to some degree. Then again the more they are off, the less they are likely to be correct. The logic is an unforgiving one.

What we must always do in cases like these is to make clear that the results we get are only fully relevant IF the parameters we set out from are equally relevant. And I do that throughout. We can see it in the next relevant passage, from page 96:

”If Lechmere left home at 3:30 - as he himself claimed he did - he could have been in place at the murder scene for one minutes then Robert Paul arrived there.”

Here, I would much have preferred if the word ”around” was added. This is the passage where I have to say that Herlocks criticism has a thrust. Luckily, we still have that all important ”If” to safeguard me. I make it clear that we are dealing with a theoretical construction.

On page 196, we arrive at this wording:

”Was the fact that Lechmere was still in Bucks Row at a point in time when he should have used the street many minutes before if he left home as he claimed, a 3:30, merely a sign of how the Eastenders had no reliable timepieces to work from?”

Again, we here have an opening for the possibility of a timekeeping error.

As a further point, I would like to point to page 94, where I quote the Daily News. I write ”Over to Charles Lechmere now; what does he say about the encounter? We turn to the Daily News to get a fair representation of it:

’Charles A. Cross, carman, said that he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for some years. On Friday morning he left home about half past three to go to work …’

So here it is, finally, that ”around”, metamorphed into ”about” but with the exact same meaning. I can therefore point to how that phrasing is not hidden away in my book. If I had wanted to do so, I could of course have used the quotation from the Morning Advertiser, where it says ”On Friday morning I left home at half past three.” Or I could have cut away the initial words from the Daily News quotation. I did neither.

So there we are: The phrasing is in the book, there is never any reasoning that is not presented as anything but theoretical as proven by the word ”If”, and we must accept that even if some other time than 3.30 may have been the correct time, what the wording ”around 3.30” establishes, is and remains that if we want to describe the developments, we can use no other time than 3.30 as our starting time.

To claim, as herlock Sholmes have repeatedly done, that ”there is no time gap” is of course faulty. What can be said is that we cannot be sure of whether or not there is a time gap, and if there is, we cannot be sure about the width of that gap. But to claim that it does not exist, goes against the suggestion made by the material. And if we want to allow for a detraction of time, we must also allow for an addition of it.

Finally, there is a factor involved that makes the matter a truly precarious one for Lechmere. If we, as I do, work from the assumption that he was the killer, then it is reasonable to suggest that he prepared himself before going to the inquest on the 3rd of September, three days after the murder. And preparing would involve reading up on what was said in the press and reported from the inquest. And at the stage Lechmere took the stand in the inquest room in Whitechapel Road, the prevailing idea was that John Neil had arrived at the body at 3.45, putting Lechmeres finding Nichols at around 3.40 - as presented in for example the 19th of September report, signed by Swanson.

What he would therefore need to do, was to suggest himself leaving home at a time that dovetailed with arriving in Bucks Row at circa 3.40. And the given departure time of ”around 3.30” did just that.

It was only when Coroner Baxter, at the summation of the inquest, revealed that many independent data had fixed the finding time at not around 3.40 but instead not far off 3.45, that Lechmeres story became very suspicious. In one second flat, the time gap suggested by the material went from an understandable three minutes to a much less understandable eight minutes - seemingly more than doubling the time it should have taken for the carman to reach Bucks Row.

Once we absorb this, we can also see that the time gap that is opened up by the suggestions involved in Lechmeres and Baxters wordings, is a matter that any prosecutor worth his salt would point out at a trial. Equally, any defence lawyer worth HIS salt would point to the phrasings ”around” and ”not far off” - but he would have a much steeper mountain to climb once the suggested time gap went from three to eight minutes.

This is all I have to say on the matter of the timings. I will offer no more posts on this thread, regardless if Herlock chooses to react with "I dont care, and there is no time gap" and - I am sorry to say - I have not read the posts supplied after my former post, on account of having had a lot to do afterwards. I have noted that Fiver has made a few posts, and I may read up on them before inviting him to debate on the ”Prototypical life of a serial killer” thread, in the near future.

[FISHY1118]

Gee Whiz ,

Lechmere and Maybrick. Has there ever been two suspects that which more has been written and disussed about , with nothing other than a bunch of circumstancial, unproveable, highest unlikelyhood evidence shown and produced here ,whereby supporters of the two are absolutely convinced they where J t R ?.

Well at least one of them is them WRONG ,thank F for that .

[FrankO]

Ergo, when and if we want to reason theoretically about these things and if we want to work from as correct timings as possible, 3.30 and 3.45 are the timings we must use as starting points. There are no alternatives. But it does not mean that the timings must be correct in either case! It may well be that they are off, to some degree. Then again the more they are off, the less they are likely to be correct. The logic is an unforgiving one.

Except that Christer’s logic is today’s logic and, therefore, not necessarily applicable to 1888. After all, in our day & age we’d expect “about 3.30” to be a matter of 1, 2 or 3 minutes from 3.30, but no more than perhaps a maximum of 5. Even if it’s still perfectly possible for the modern estimator to be off more than 5 minutes.

But what if back then people generally thought in quarters of an hour like we do in minutes or 5 minutes? Then we could say that “about 3.30” would, according to the estimator, be closer to 3.30 than either 3.15 on the early side or 3.45 on the late side. Nothing more precise. If so, there goes your modern logic…

It’s interesting to see Jeff Hamm’s research table on estimating times here. If we’d apply it to Lechmere’s estimate of “about 3.30”, then the actual time would probably be somewhat later (assuming that he based his timing on seeing a clock when he arrived at his workplace that indicated 4 ‘o clock). His estimate would fall within the hour and people tend to overestimate short durations (up to about an hour).

Anyway, with all the possibilities that “about 3.30” and “not far from 3.45” might suggest or not suggest, we cannot use it as a pointer to Lechmere’s guilt or say that it made his story very suspicious. The most blaming/accusing thing we might say is that his timing doesn’t exonerate him, but it can go no further than that.

[A P Tomlinson]

Except that Christer’s logic is today’s logic and, therefore, not necessarily applicable to 1888. After all, in our day & age we’d expect “about 3.30” to be a matter of 1, 2 or 3 minutes from 3.30, but no more than perhaps a maximum of 5. Even if it’s still perfectly possible for the modern estimator to be off more than 5 minutes.

But what if back then people generally thought in quarters of an hour like we do in minutes or 5 minutes? Then we could say that “about 3.30” would, according to the estimator, be closer to 3.30 than either 3.15 on the early side or 3.45 on the late side. Nothing more precise. If so, there goes your modern logic…

It’s interesting to see Jeff Hamm’s research table on estimating times here. If we’d apply it to Lechmere’s estimate of “about 3.30”, then the actual time would probably be somewhat later (assuming that he based his timing on seeing a clock when he arrived at his workplace that indicated 4 ‘o clock). His estimate would fall within the hour and people tend to overestimate short durations (up to about an hour).

Anyway, with all the possibilities that “about 3.30” and “not far from 3.45” might suggest or not suggest, we cannot use it as a pointer to Lechmere’s guilt or say that it made his story very suspicious. The most blaming/accusing thing we might say is that his timing doesn’t exonerate him, but it can go no further than that.

This IS more like the mental time keeping of how someone who grew up with hearing clocks ring the quarters would estimate time.

When you relate events to someone, it would be based on when the clocks chimed rather than a firm grasp of the exact moment. If something happpened between 3.30 and 3.45, someone is likely to say "Around half past" if, in their memory it happened shortly after the half bell. But "Around a quarter to" if it happened, in their memory slightly before the three quarter chime.

At the crack of sparrow fart in 1888, those church and municpal clock chimes travelled because there was very little ambiant noise. And London ahd a LOT of those clocks.

I know... I know... I cant prove it, but someone like Cross/Lechmere would get knocked up, get dressed and when the clocks chime the half, that would be his signal to set off. "Around half past". So his "Around half past" is FAR more likely to have been a minute or two AFTER, as he would use the chime as his notification to shift, so then he grabs his coat and dons his cap and sets out the door. But I know...

A Victorian copper with a watch is only reliable if his watch is synchronised properly, and they too would use the chimes as a measure but their watch would offfer them a chance to measure the duration of an event, if needed.

It's almost ironic that around the time all this was happening, a newly penned song was becoming very popular in the music halls...
Yes... THAT song.
A song that subtley alludes to coppers nicking fob watches from drunkards.

[rjpalmer]

I've crawled out from under my stone of sitting and studying, rather than getting into the mud and arguing, because of the rise of this whole "Lechemre did it, and you're a moron if you can't see it," that I have recently seen escalate on certain Youtube Channels and other social media, which I would otherwise have sat down, watched and quietly disagreed with.
These channels seem to foster an environment where as long as you blow smoke up the presenters arse, they pat you on the head and let you get away with saying things like "he was CAUGHT...(or DISCOVERED!) ...standing over the body!" with absolutely no correction on the part of the presenter, who will quite freely engage with such commentators, and express their own exasperation at the idiocy of those who might have have read a book or two, rather than getting their information from Youtube Shorts and TV Documentaries, while ignoring the casual spread of ignorance going on under their very nose.

You're probably correct, but how, in this time of the internet, does one know if all of the commentary is even legitimate?

We now live in an age where there are such things as "reputation management software" (that eliminates negative comments and elevates positive comments), "socket puppet accounts," and even "comment bots."

I have no information and am not accusing anyone of anything, but YouTube channels are self-policed, and one should probably approach the comment sections on any given channel with considerable skepticism and even cynicism.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Response to post # 138 from Fisherman.


The first point that needs to be made in response to the suggestion that the omission of ‘about’ was not done intentionally is the fact that, coincidentally, it was omitted from the documentary too. The screenshot of the dossier given to Scobie showed that it also also omitted the word ‘about.’ So is an omission made three times simply a coincidence? Or a trend? I’ll leave it to others to form their own opinions of course.


Next we have Christer saying this:

“We must however accept that since the absolute bulk of the papers spoke of ”around 3.30”, that is by far the likeliest wording to have been given.”


But we get the quote from page 92 of Cutting Point which said:

“Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at 3:30, but the time 3.20 is also mentioned in one paper.”


So how do we explain this contradiction? Does this look like an accidental omission to anyone? Or a definite attempt to show that most of the newspapers say that he’d left home at 3.30. How can a researcher who has read through those newspaper reports as Christer undoubtedly has (numerous time) mistakenly come to the conclusion that most said that Cross had left home at 3.00. Christer can count as well as anyone.

Is there something that he now knows about those newspaper articles, allowing him to write about the “absolutely bulk” in his post that he didn’t know at the time that he wrote Cutting point? If there is then perhaps he’d tell us what it is?


The we have this sleight of hand concerning Baxter saying:

“The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45., as it is fixed by so many independent data.”


Christer doesn’t bother quoting the next sentence from Cutting Point where he adds:

“Coroner Baxter did not present the data he was referring to, but it must be accepted that there was such data available.”


So what does this tell the readers of Cutting Point? What seed does it plant in their minds? That there was some information, known only to the Coroner, which proved that the body was found very near to 3.45. And of course, the nearer to 3.45 that Christer can place the discovery of the body the greater the mysterious gap. What he neglects to mention of course is that we know what that independent data was. The independent testimonies of PC’s Neil, Thain and Mizen who all quote 3.45. So very obviously the body was found before their involvement. So before 3.45. There is no mystery in this.

Of course Baxter doesn’t specify how close to 3.45 he means because he had absolutely no way of doing so. And although Christer doesn’t like it ‘cannot have been far from 3.45,’ would easily include 3.40. We can deduce absolutely nothing about the discovery time from Baxter’s statement because we already have a very narrow time frame of around 5 minutes or so and Christer clearly wants to squeeze every available extra minute to strengthen the suggestion that Cross had been in situ longer than he claimed. All that we can say is that the body was discovered by Cross at some time around 3.40. And no more than that. All else is pointless hypothesising.

I initially thought it a little strange that, when responding to my point about the ‘about 3.30,’ Christer began by discussing Baxter’s suggestion about the discovery time, but the reason is obvious of course. It’s because Christer relies on a discovery time of 3.45 or a time right up close to it like 3.44 to plant the seeds of a gap.


“The further removed from 3.30 we get, the less it agrees with the time given. We can see that if we work from a 3.30 assumption, we get a time gap of of three minutes if we at the other end of the process accept that Lechmere found the body at 3.40, and if we work from a trek time of seven minutes. So from the very outset, we have Lechmere arriving at a time that is three minutes off - if we work from the parameters given above. And to this, we should add that if we work from a finding time at 3.45, we get a time gap of eight minutes.”

We have no reason to work from a finding time of 3.45 of course. This is a falsehood. Pure and simple. I’ll repeat - we don’t know what time Cross found the body (but we know that he found it of course.)


Christer ‘believes’ that if someone estimates a time of ‘around 3.30,’ then 3.30 is more likely than 3.28 or 3.29 or 3.31 or 3.32. How can this judgment be made in the absence of any way of assessing the accuracy of the estimation. I usually leave the assessment of matters regarding likeliness to Jeff as it’s in his field so if Jeff would like to comment I always appreciate his input.



I’ll finish with this point because I think that it’s at the root of the approach that’s taken. Christer says:

"If we, as I do, work from the assumption that he was the killer...".


It can never be a helpful, or valid approach to begin with an assumption of guilt and then to go looking to fit the evidence to that assumption. Especially when we have absolutely no evidence of his guilt in the first place. It can and often does lead to a tendency to shape the evidence to fit the theory. Something that we see with alarming regularity from the more zealous of Cross supporters. That he could have killed her isn’t anywhere near sufficient. Everything concerning any potential gap is hypothetical and so of no use to anyone. Yes he could have arrived in Bucks Row earlier but equally he could have arrived at 3.40. We could suggest that he could have left the house at 2.30 or at 3.00 or at 3.15 but the suggestion would be a pointless one because he just as easily could have left the house at 3.32 or 3.33 or 3.34 or 3.45. We have no evidence that allows use to come to a more accurate time.

We don’t know what time he left the house and we don’t know what time Robert Paul arrived and so we cannot and should not seek to arrive at conclusions based on two unknowns - and hypotheticals, whilst worthy of discussion, get us nowhere.


PS, I’ve just noticed that this is my 16662’nd post which might seem significant to the Church Of The True Crosstians.

[A P Tomlinson]

You're probably correct, but how, in this time of the internet, does one know if all of the commentary is even legitimate?

We now live in an age where there are such things as "reputation management software" (that eliminates negative comments and elevates positive comments), "socket puppet accounts," and even "comment bots."

I have no information and am not accusing anyone of anything, but YouTube channels are self-policed, and one should probably approach the comment sections on any given channel with considerable skepticism and even cynicism.

I know what you mean. And normally when I visit the Youtube channels I generally ignore the comments.
It's just THIS subject that has raised my ire, from the way the adherents seem to love the idea that people who have been researching for more than a year or two, are being trumped by them by virtue of them simply agreeing with a theory that is very easy for them to get behind because it requires so little background information to get behind.
"He was caught standing over the body and lied about his name in court... how dumb do you have to be to not see what's right in front of you?"

It's more to do with replying to someone, pointing out that what they are saying is either flat out wrong, (such as the old "Caught standing over the body" myth) or is based on conjecture, (such as "The Lie" over the name or the "Mizen Scam" both of which have pefectly plausible alternatives to Perjury and lying to a policeman, with documents to back those alternatives up,) or questioning the inference that Lechmere was turning up TO work in blood soaked clothes and no one noticed, and without them defending their misunderstanding in some attempt to explain it away, being told you are an idiot for not "seeing the obvious", and the curator of the group/channel allowing fallacies to continue to circulate.

It has just wound me up more than even the Diary, which has it's own group of "If you can't prove that it's not true... it must be genuine!" but it's much harder for Youtube commentators to get behind Maybrick, because it would require them reading the book.
Lechmere is dead easy to get behind.

[John Wheat]

I know what you mean. And normally when I visit the Youtube channels I generally ignore the comments.
It's just THIS subject that has raised my ire, from the way the adherents seem to love the idea that people who have been researching for more than a year or two, are being trumped by them by virtue of them simply agreeing with a theory that is very easy for them to get behind because it requires so little background information to get behind.
"He was caught standing over the body and lied about his name in court... how dumb do you have to be to not see what's right in front of you?"

It's more to do with replying to someone, pointing out that what they are saying is either flat out wrong, (such as the old "Caught standing over the body" myth) or is based on conjecture, (such as "The Lie" over the name or the "Mizen Scam" both of which have pefectly plausible alternatives to Perjury and lying to a policeman, with documents to back those alternatives up,) or questioning the inference that Lechmere was turning up TO work in blood soaked clothes and no one noticed, and without them defending their misunderstanding in some attempt to explain it away, being told you are an idiot for not "seeing the obvious", and the curator of the group/channel allowing fallacies to continue to circulate.

It has just wound me up more than even the Diary, which has it's own group of "If you can't prove that it's not true... it must be genuine!" but it's much harder for Youtube commentators to get behind Maybrick, because it would require them reading the book.
Lechmere is dead easy to get behind.

I agree. I'd add that both Lechmere and Maybrick are terrible suspects. I sometimes wonder if some posters are joking with there bullshit about either Lechmere or Maybrick.

[Fiver]

This is my final post on this thread, a post written in response to Herlock Sholmes´ pointing out that the word ”around” is not present in Cutting Point, when I discuss the timing aspect of the case and the suggestion Lechmere made about when he left home.

And proving brevity is not your strong point.

So all in all, our stance when making a case against the carman can never be ”since Lechmere said 3.30, he must have arrived in Bucks Row at 3.37”, but instead ”IF Lechmere left home at 3.30, he SHOULD have arrived at the murder site at 3.37.”

At 3:37? Or around 3:37? How did you estimate the time? How does that compare with the time estimates of Steve and Jeff, who aren't trying to fix a suspect up for the murder?

Let us now move on to what is said in Cutting Point.

On page 92, it says ”When the coroner summed up the inquest on September 22, 1888, he gave his view on the timing like this, as per the Daily Telegraph of September 24: ”The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 A.M., as this is fixed by so many independent data.”

This quotation is the reason that I later speak of a 3.45 timing.

You are not giving us the full picture.

"Mr. Baxter proceeded to point out that the unfortunate woman was last seen alive at half-past two o'clock on Saturday morning, Sept 1, by Mrs. Holland, who knew her well. Deceased was at that time much the worse for drink, and was endeavouring to walk eastward down Whitechapel. What her exact movements were after this it was impossible to say; but in less than an hour and a quarter her dead body was discovered at a spot rather under three-quarters of a mile distant." - 23 September 1888 Daily Telegraph

"Police-constable John Thail [Thain] stated that the nearest point on his beat to Buck's- row was Brady-street. He passed the end every thirty minutes on the Thursday night, and nothing attracted his attention until 3.45 a.m., when he was signalled by the flash of the lantern of another constable (Neale)." - 18 September 1888 Daily Telegraph

"Police constable John Neil deposed that on Friday morning at a quarter to four o'clock he was going down Buck's row, Whitechapel, from Thomas street to Brady street. Not a soul was about. He was round there about half an hour previously, and met nobody then. the first thing he saw was a figure lying on the footpath." - 3 September 1888 Daily News

"Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another..." - 4 September 1888 Daily News

"I beg to report that about 3.40am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, "carman" of 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green was passing through Bucks Row, Whitechapel (on his way to work) he noticed a woman lying on her back in the footway...he stopped to look at the woman when another carman (also on his way to work) named Robert Paul of 30 Foster St., Bethnal Green came up..." - Inspector Abberline's report of 19 Sept 1888

Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at 3:30, but the time 3.20 is also mentioned in one paper. It seems possible that he told the inquest that he normally left home at 3:20, but that he left at 3:30 on the murder morning.”

That's only speculation on your part. And you don't apply the same type of speculation to other witnesses.

"Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another..." - 4 September 1888 Daily News

"Police-constable G. Maizen, 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four...." - 4 September 1888 Morning Post

"Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row..." - 3 September 1888 Echo

"Police constable George Maizen, 55H, said - On Friday morning, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row...." - 4 September 1888 Evening Standard

"Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row...." - 4 September 1888 Morning Advertiser

"Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to one o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row...." 9 September 1888 Lloyds Weekly News

"Constable G. Mizen, 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row..." - 4 September 1888 Times

It was only when Coroner Baxter, at the summation of the inquest, revealed that many independent data had fixed the finding time at not around 3.40 but instead not far off 3.45, that Lechmeres story became very suspicious. In one second flat, the time gap suggested by the material went from an understandable three minutes to a much less understandable eight minutes - seemingly more than doubling the time it should have taken for the carman to reach Bucks Row.

You achieve this "gap" ignoring the rest of Baxter's statement and the testimonies of PC Neil, PC Thain, and PC Mizen. Baxter said that Nichols body was found "less than an hour and a quarter " after she was last seen alive - which means sometime before 3:45am.

There is no suggested time gap, let alone an 8 minute time gap.

[Lewis C]

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.

[Fiver]

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.

If they did that, it would be more obvious that they are interpreting facts to support a theory instead of analyzing the facts. Plus, presenting things as a whodunnit can be more entertaining, which leads to more clicks and book sales.

The supposed time gap is treated as a clue. The supposed covering of the wounds is treated as a clue. The supposed Mizen scam is treated as a clue. The use of his stepfather's surname is treated as a clue. The disagreement with PC Mizen is treated as a clue.

Speculation is presented as fact. Evidence that doesn't fit the theory is manipulated or ignored. Logical inconsistencies are dismissed by claiming that serial killers don't act in logical manners. Actual serial killer intellect and abilities are ignored for the fearless genius manipulators of popular fiction.

[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".

[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.