The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

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

lol i was thinking the exact same thing.

[GBinOz]

Hi Abby,

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

Hi Lewis C,

I think he was a far better suspect than the other three. He was known to be a vagrant in the area, he wrote poems about killing and mutilating women, and he was a student of Virchow and learned the latter's rarely taught technique for removing the heart from the pericardium via the abdominal cavity, which was what was done to Kelly. He was also said to have strange glowering eyes.

Cheers, George

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis C,

I think he was a far better suspect than the other three. He was known to be a vagrant in the area, he wrote poems about killing and mutilating women, and he was a student of Virchow and learned the latter's rarely taught technique for removing the heart from the pericardium via the abdominal cavity, which was what was done to Kelly. He was also said to have strange glowering eyes.

Cheers, George

Hi George

You might favor Thompson as a suspect a little more than I do, but I don't think we're far apart on this. I consider Thompson a longshot, but plausible, whereas Van Gogh and Carroll are ridiculous, and Sickert about as weak as a suspect can be without being completely out of the question.

[Abby Normal]

Hi George

You might favor Thompson as a suspect a little more than I do, but I don't think we're far apart on this. I consider Thompson a longshot, but plausible, whereas Van Gogh and Carroll are ridiculous, and Sickert about as weak as a suspect can be without being completely out of the question.

thompson not so bad, but van gogh, carol, sickert, maybrick, royal conspiracy, are all consigned to my last tier.. the ridiculous bin which is circular and resides next to my desk.
but we digress.

[Abby Normal]

Ok back on topic.
a question or concern I frequently see from the naysayer side is that everything concerning lech is viewed by the lechmerians through suspicious glasses. And that nothing in his behavior in of itself is suspicious on the face of it. Ie there is no starting point from which get any traction on ..well, what makes him a suspect? A valid and succinct point!

the mizen scam is probably a simple misunderstanding, the missing time could go either way , the oozing blood has been dealt with and the geographic stuff is basically what one would expect from someone who lived and worked in the area for many years.

for me it’s none of these things. my starting point with lech is a tad more subtle and seems to be misunderstood and or not grasped by many. It's that he is seen near the freshly killed victim before trying to raise any kind if alarm, or doing anything really. hes not in the process of giving aid, hes not trying to find help, not raising the alarm. he hasnt decided its probably just a passed out drunk and decided to go on his way. just as hes hovering near her body hes seen by Paul. what are the chances? its odd to me. ive followed true crime for a long time and i have never heard of an innocent witness in this circumstance.

apparently his behavior creeped out Paul too who tried to avoid him. In todays world anyone who discovers a body is a de facto suspect until cleared and if I was a detective and heard that he was also seen lingering near the body by another witness I would certainly be very suspicious and interrogate him closely. Something the police at the time apparently never did.

so that’s it for me. That’s my starting point with lech, and since I have a reason for suspicion it’s why I question the other evidence and look to see how it balances out as per guilty or innocent. One thing for sure there is nothing that convicts, but nor is there anything that exonerates him. Worthy of further investigation though absolutely!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok back on topic.
a question or concern I frequently see from the naysayer side is that everything concerning lech is viewed by the lechmerians through suspicious glasses. And that nothing in his behavior in of itself is suspicious on the face of it. Ie there is no starting point from which get any traction on ..well, what makes him a suspect? A valid and succinct point!

the mizen scam is probably a simple misunderstanding, the missing time could go either way , the oozing blood has been dealt with and the geographic stuff is basically what one would expect from someone who lived and worked in the area for many years.

for me it’s none of these things. my starting point with lech is a tad more subtle and seems to be misunderstood and or not grasped by many. It's that he is seen near the freshly killed victim before trying to raise any kind if alarm, or doing anything really. hes not in the process of giving aid, hes not trying to find help, not raising the alarm. he hasnt decided its probably just a passed out drunk and decided to go on his way. just as hes hovering near her body hes seen by Paul. what are the chances? its odd to me. ive followed true crime for a long time and i have never heard of an innocent witness in this circumstance.

apparently his behavior creeped out Paul too who tried to avoid him. In todays world anyone who discovers a body is a de facto suspect until cleared and if I was a detective and heard that he was also seen lingering near the body by another witness I would certainly be very suspicious and interrogate him closely. Something the police at the time apparently never did.

so that’s it for me. That’s my starting point with lech, and since I have a reason for suspicion it’s why I question the other evidence and look to see how it balances out as per guilty or innocent. One thing for sure there is nothing that convicts, but nor is there anything that exonerates him. Worthy of further investigation though absolutely!!

Hi Abby,

Whilst accepting that anyone can lie (including Cross) I think that his behaviour is explained in his inquest testimony and it’s one of timing.

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

We don’t know if an innocent Cross would have done anything had Paul not turned up of course. He might have been an ‘I don’t want to get involved’ kind of person. Or perhaps he might not have really wanted to know if she was dead or drunk, justifying walking on (in his own mind at least) by saying to himself ‘probably just a rough sleeper or a drunk….not my problem.’ Sadly some people do think like that (Unlike yourself of course with the incident that you previously mentioned where you stopped to help.)

From the testimony though it sounds like he heard Paul approaching just as he realised that it was a woman and not a tarpaulin. Deciding to wait the very few seconds until the second person arrived doesn’t seem suspicious to me.

[Lewis C]

I agree with what Herlock said, and I'll add that I'm a fairly reflective type myself. I tend to really think things over before I act, so I can relate to Cross doing something similar.

I don't think that Paul's actions resulted from him being creeped out by Cross' behavior. He didn't know that a body was there when he tried to avoid him, and he was walking through a high crime area in the dark by himself, so the wisest course of action was to keep his distance from strangers.

Maybe we don't know the full extent to which Cross was looked into, as we know that in many other situations related to this case, records have been lost.

I do agree that there is nothing that either convicts or exonerates Cross, as is the case for many of the suspects in this case. I would add that not only could none of the named suspects be convicted, but also if the standard for conviction were the same as in a civil trial, preponderance of evidence, none of the named suspects even rises to that level. I agree that he's worthy of further investigation, but I think that his case won't be strengthened much by re-analyzing existing evidence, what is needed is something new to be discovered in research.

[A P Tomlinson]

Ok back on topic.
a question or concern I frequently see from the naysayer side is that everything concerning lech is viewed by the lechmerians through suspicious glasses. And that nothing in his behavior in of itself is suspicious on the face of it. Ie there is no starting point from which get any traction on ..well, what makes him a suspect? A valid and succinct point!

the mizen scam is probably a simple misunderstanding, the missing time could go either way , the oozing blood has been dealt with and the geographic stuff is basically what one would expect from someone who lived and worked in the area for many years.

for me it’s none of these things. my starting point with lech is a tad more subtle and seems to be misunderstood and or not grasped by many. It's that he is seen near the freshly killed victim before trying to raise any kind if alarm, or doing anything really. hes not in the process of giving aid, hes not trying to find help, not raising the alarm. he hasnt decided its probably just a passed out drunk and decided to go on his way. just as hes hovering near her body hes seen by Paul. what are the chances? its odd to me. ive followed true crime for a long time and i have never heard of an innocent witness in this circumstance.

apparently his behavior creeped out Paul too who tried to avoid him. In todays world anyone who discovers a body is a de facto suspect until cleared and if I was a detective and heard that he was also seen lingering near the body by another witness I would certainly be very suspicious and interrogate him closely. Something the police at the time apparently never did.

so that’s it for me. That’s my starting point with lech, and since I have a reason for suspicion it’s why I question the other evidence and look to see how it balances out as per guilty or innocent. One thing for sure there is nothing that convicts, but nor is there anything that exonerates him. Worthy of further investigation though absolutely!!

I get that thim not immediately springing into action might appear to be suspicious.
But he did those things. Just not in a way that some people might have.
He saw a thing on the floor, had a closer look... it was a woman. If it had turned out to be a drunk on the floor, the residents of Bucks row would have had something to say about an alarm being raised at "Around" 3.30 to 3.45 am. So he probably paused for thought.
He stopped the first man he saw, who happened to be not far behind him. Paul tried to avoid him. He did enough in a very short space of time to convince him to stop and that he wasn't going to mug him, (And I know what Christer would say to this but... Paul would have instinctively looked to Crosses hands to look for a weapon... had they been stuffed in his pockets or he seen blood all over them I doubt he would have stopped, but of course... I can't prove that Paul didn't see any blood or that he even looked at him...) when he could have let him go and nothing would have happened, he could have gone on himself and let someone else find her. He stopped Paul and asked what they should do. Neither Cross, nor Paul wanted to raise the alarm even when they thought she was dead...
So, together they went and found a Policeman.

From the moment Paul stepped to one side to go round him, if Cross is the killer... ALL he had to do was keep his head down, say something like "Sorry mate... don't want no bother", and walk away. Paul is offering, and opening, a door for him to walk through to escape... But HE pursued the interaction.

[Abby Normal]

It would be interesting to know the percentage of people who are the first to find the body of
a murder victim that turned out to be the killer. It would also be interesting to know how many people who find the body of a murder victim are also seen by someone else the moment they make their discovery( and before they do anything else of course), but probably not gonna find numbers on that one .

let’s also do something else and change it up a bit to perhaps get another light on it. You’re a cop investigating the murder of a woman at night on a well used park trail. You talk to witness who says he was hiking the trail and came upon a man standing near the murder victim. As an investigator would you find the man who was seen with the body suspicious and want to talk to him asap??? Of course. The circs alone should make the man a suspect or at least a person of interest, until cleared.

[A P Tomlinson]

It would be interesting to know the percentage of people who are the first to find the body of
a murder victim that turned out to be the killer. It would also be interesting to know how many people who find the body of a murder victim are also seen by someone else the moment they make their discovery( and before they do anything else of course), but probably not gonna find numbers on that one .

let’s also do something else and change it up a bit to perhaps get another light on it. You’re a cop investigating the murder of a woman at night on a well used park trail. You talk to witness who says he was hiking the trail and came upon a man standing near the murder victim. As an investigator would you find the man who was seen with the body suspicious and want to talk to him asap??? Of course. The circs alone should make the man a suspect or at least a person of interest, until cleared.

Absolutely, if the person who found the body has left the scene without reporting that body. THAT is VERY suspicious. That right there is your prime suspect. You want a description out to as many coppers as possible with most heading in the direction he was seen moving toward and everyone else to keep their eyes open.

But far less so if the man who was near the body WAS the one who came up and said, "I found the body, it's over there."
At which point I'd want to hold him, (or at least firmly insist on him not leaving the scene) for further questioning, probably not as a suspect right away, but rather in the "we haven't ruled you out yet" frame of mind, which would apply to pretty much anyone at the scene.

I think there is a subtle distinction between being a "suspect", and being a "person of interest".
I think someone would have had to do more than find a body and report it, for me to move them into "suspect" territory that early. I'd want all their details, even if they say "I already gave them to that cop over there" simply for ciarification and consistency and I'd want a full statement along with contact details etc and for ether me or someone more competent to properly question them in case they know more than they are telling, or to be able to get information they might not consider relevant.

But I've seen 1001 Police procedurals, and read nearly as many books on the subject.
That clearly wasn't a protocol in 1888. Or maybe it was and there was a breakdown in communication.

I think the general opinion has long been that its the "Last person who saw them alive" rather than "The person who finds and reports the body." who is the prime suspect before further evidence emerges.
There have been quite a few instances where people have flipped that to "the one who finds the body is the most likely suspect", in regard to Lechmere. And I don't recall ever coming across that line of logical progression before in any other case. It may have transpired that the killer was the one who reported finding the body many times.
I'm sure that must have happened loads of times, as someone who is in a fix, tries desperately to shift attention from themselves when in a situation they can't get out of.

I think Mizen not holding the pair for questioning by an Inspector was more down to confusion and/or a breakdown in communication/misunderstanding than the carefully planned and well timed words of Charlie.
At that point he has practically done everything in his power to needlessly become a person of interest in the investigation, if not as a suspect than as a material witness. By first drawing attention to himself and the body, and then reporting that there is a woman who is probably dead to a copper who could have just as easily said, "Hold on, I'll need you two to show me this!" when both could have ensured their timely arrival at work by agreeing to just keep their mouths shut.
By saying anything that suggested a dead body was lying on the floor, he further increased that risk, so even when they did talk to Mizen; "There's a woman lying in road down Buck's row... looks in a bit of a state, you might want to take a look." absoluetly covers him.
Allow Paul to be the one to say that she might be dead, if he does, no difference and he said it not you. And if he doesn't mention it either... bingo.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It would be interesting to know the percentage of people who are the first to find the body of
a murder victim that turned out to be the killer. It would also be interesting to know how many people who find the body of a murder victim are also seen by someone else the moment they make their discovery( and before they do anything else of course), but probably not gonna find numbers on that one .

let’s also do something else and change it up a bit to perhaps get another light on it. You’re a cop investigating the murder of a woman at night on a well used park trail. You talk to witness who says he was hiking the trail and came upon a man standing near the murder victim. As an investigator would you find the man who was seen with the body suspicious and want to talk to him asap??? Of course. The circs alone should make the man a suspect or at least a person of interest, until cleared.

It would make certainly him a person of interest Abby. But wouldn’t it make them less suspicious if it was known that the finder passed that particular spot 6 days a week at the same time on his way to work?

[Abby Normal]

It would make certainly him a person of interest Abby. But wouldn’t it make them less suspicious if it was known that the finder passed that particular spot 6 days a week at the same time on his way to work?

yes of course. good point

[Abby Normal]

Absolutely, if the person who found the body has left the scene without reporting that body. THAT is VERY suspicious. That right there is your prime suspect. You want a description out to as many coppers as possible with most heading in the direction he was seen moving toward and everyone else to keep their eyes open.

But far less so if the man who was near the body WAS the one who came up and said, "I found the body, it's over there."
At which point I'd want to hold him, (or at least firmly insist on him not leaving the scene) for further questioning, probably not as a suspect right away, but rather in the "we haven't ruled you out yet" frame of mind, which would apply to pretty much anyone at the scene.

I think there is a subtle distinction between being a "suspect", and being a "person of interest".
I think someone would have had to do more than find a body and report it, for me to move them into "suspect" territory that early. I'd want all their details, even if they say "I already gave them to that cop over there" simply for ciarification and consistency and I'd want a full statement along with contact details etc and for ether me or someone more competent to properly question them in case they know more than they are telling, or to be able to get information they might not consider relevant.

But I've seen 1001 Police procedurals, and read nearly as many books on the subject.
That clearly wasn't a protocol in 1888. Or maybe it was and there was a breakdown in communication.

I think the general opinion has long been that its the "Last person who saw them alive" rather than "The person who finds and reports the body." who is the prime suspect before further evidence emerges.
There have been quite a few instances where people have flipped that to "the one who finds the body is the most likely suspect", in regard to Lechmere. And I don't recall ever coming across that line of logical progression before in any other case. It may have transpired that the killer was the one who reported finding the body many times.
I'm sure that must have happened loads of times, as someone who is in a fix, tries desperately to shift attention from themselves when in a situation they can't get out of.

I think Mizen not holding the pair for questioning by an Inspector was more down to confusion and/or a breakdown in communication/misunderstanding than the carefully planned and well timed words of Charlie.
At that point he has practically done everything in his power to needlessly become a person of interest in the investigation, if not as a suspect than as a material witness. By first drawing attention to himself and the body, and then reporting that there is a woman who is probably dead to a copper who could have just as easily said, "Hold on, I'll need you two to show me this!" when both could have ensured their timely arrival at work by agreeing to just keep their mouths shut.
By saying anything that suggested a dead body was lying on the floor, he further increased that risk, so even when they did talk to Mizen; "There's a woman lying in road down Buck's row... looks in a bit of a state, you might want to take a look." absoluetly covers him.
Allow Paul to be the one to say that she might be dead, if he does, no difference and he said it not you. And if he doesn't mention it either... bingo.

hi AP
absolutely its the one last seen with them alive, but its also the one who finds the body too. the finder is the first that needs to be cleared, as police then try to determine who was last to be seen with the victim. unfortunately at this early stage of murder investigation history it wasnt well known, and apparemtly wasnt done with lech.

[Fisherman]

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.

I was actually going to start working on my post to Fiver, but I cannot pass up on this post of R J Palmer, since it contains all the elements I need to show how there is misrepresentation going on out here. At least if I am the target of his criticism and claims.

I quote: ”what they are saying is that his own account of leaving home around that time would place him in Bucks Row 6 or 7 minutes ahead of Robert Paul, whereas Lechmere also states that Paul was only about 40 yards behind him. Thus, Lechmere must be lying.”

This is where R Js interpretation goes badly off the rails when it concerns me.

Yes, I am saying that IF Lechmere left home at 3.30, then he SHOULD have been in Bucks Row at 3.37, provided that the timing of seven minutes that I am using is correct.

That is a theoretical construction that is absolutely true. That is how it works: If we start from a point X at a time Z, and if we know that the stretch we are going to walk normally takes Y minutes to cover, then we can give an estimate of when the likely time of arrival is. I am sure that - although we can speak for years about ”around” and about how there may be disturbances along the road - we can all agree on this.

R J then adds Paul to the mix, saying that it is then concluded that since the suggested departure time should have put Lechmere in Bucks Row many minutes before Paul arrived there, but when Lechmere got to the murder site, Paul was only 40 yards behind, it applies that Lechmere must have lied.

This is not true. This is a totally false allegation, at least when it comes to me. It may well be that some are saying what R J seems to claim that every supporter of the theory are saying, but that is another matter. What I am saying is that IF Lechmere left home at 3.30, then he SHOULD have arrived at the murder site at 3.37. Or, if we want to use the word ”around”, IF Lechmere left home at around 3.30, then he SHOULD have arrived at the murder site at around 3.37.

And that is a very, very, very different matter than saying that SINCE Lechmere left at 3.30, he MUST have arrived at the murder site at 3.37.

Why R J alleges this, although I have taken great care in a very long post to show everybody that my reasoning is theoretical, he himself will be going to have to explain to me.

The world of the so called naysayers seems to involve believing in how the Lechmere theory claims as facts a long array of things that cannot be established as facts.

It should perhaps be of interest, therefore, for the naysayers to learn that my view is instead that the naysayers repeatedy falsely claim that the Lechmere theory involves things claimed as facts that cannot be proven as facts!

Let us start by untangling the matter above as a first exercise in the art of establishing who is wrong here.
Hade I said that it is proven that Lechmere must have been at the murder site at 3.37, and that he must therefore have been lying, as R J says? Or have I sad that the suggested departure time, if correct, is not in line with having arrived at the murder site at cirka 3.45, meaning that a time gap is suggested?

Is it true that in my eyes, I have caught Lechmere in an obvious lie, or is instead what I am saying that if the departure time suggested is correct, then it suggests that Lechmere seemingly lied?

Fiver is going to have to wait, I īm afraid; this has to be cleared up first. Letīs see, maybe R J will walk down the same path as Steven Blomer did when I pointed out to him that his book claimed things on behalf of the Lechmere theory that the Lechmere theory have never involved at all. Steven Blomer was obviously annoyed by how people with lacking insight claimed things for facts that were not facts at all. One can of course point such things out - but claiming them as being part and parcel of the Lechmere theory is another thing altogether.

Letīs see what R J has to say about the matter at hand.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The whole point of the original suggestion of a gap was to show that Cross had been in Bucks Row for longer than he claimed in his inquest testimony. This is why the word ‘about’ was omitted in the relevant section of Cutting Point, from the voiceover on The Missing Evidence and from the dossier given to Scobie from which he gave his opinion. If, as is being claimed, it was really only a suggestion that he ‘might’ have arrived at the location earlier we would have to ask why bother with mentioning times at all because the possibility always exists that he’d lied and had left home before 3.30. No, it wasn’t just talk of a hypothetical possibility it was clearly an attempt to show what probably did occur. Can anyone watch the documentary, for example, and not come away thinking that Cross had questions to answer on what he’d been doing since 3.30 (anyone without a deeper knowledge of the case of course - and no one could accuser Christer of a lack of knowledge)

Then we have this from Christer:

.
IF Lechmere left home at around 3.30, then he SHOULD have arrived at the murder site at around 3.37.

As we occasionally have to question the use of language the above is subject to an assessment of the word ‘around.’ If Cross left home at exactly 3.30 he should have arrived in situ at 3.37/8. If he left at exactly 3.31 he should have arrived in situ at 3.38/9. If he left at 3.32 he should have arrived at 3.39/40. And so on of course. And so the above quote gets us nowhere because we have no way of knowing what ‘around 3.30’ was exactly. ‘Around 3.30’ could have been 3.35 getting him into Bucks Row at 3.42/3. ‘Around 3.30’ could have been 3.25. We have no way of knowing so no ‘point’ can be made. Numbers are superfluous to a suggestion that Cross could have been in Bucks Row earlier than claimed because he could have lied. The use of times is a clear attempt to try and portray that a gap was likely; when it wasn’t.

Then we add the alleged discovery time. We don’t know the discovery time only a rough discovery time. Christer clearly wants it to be as close to 3.45 as possible (as his previous posts have shown) to increase the likelihood of a gap. We have Paul saying that he left home at around 3.45. Then elsewhere he said that he arrived in Bucks Row at 3.45. But we also know that he said that no more than 4 minutes had passed from him seeing Nichols to him seeing Mizen and Mizen said that this was at 3.45. So we have a timing conflict between Paul and Mizen so who does Baxter go with? Clearly Mizen because Mizen’s time was backed up by two other Constable’s (Neil and Thain) and this takes the discovery time back to ‘around 3.41.’ So if we take off the journey time this would have Cross leaving his house at around 3.33/4.

But none of the above matters because we have no way of knowing what time Cross left his house and we have no way of narrowing it down. So why has there been a very clear attempt to do just that if not to falsely increase suspicion against Cross. The timings prove nothing either way and they give us absolutely zero ‘red flags’ on Cross. I’ll repeat two points that shouldn’t have needed making in the first place, we cannot use unknowns to make a point and there’s absolutely no point in stating ‘well he could have been there earlier,’ because it’s no more helpful than saying ‘well if he had a knife on him he could have killed her.’