The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll finish with a question that Fish forgot to answer in regard to whether there has been any deliberate editing or misdirection going on:


In Cutting Point on page 92 he says:

“Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at 3.30, but the time 3.20 is also mentioned in one paper.”


And yet on post # 138 on here he says:

“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.”


So what has changed between then and now? What newspapers are available to him now that weren’t available then? Or was his abacus missing a few beads so that he couldn’t count properly?

How could this ‘absolute bulk’ not only have escaped his attention at the time that he was researching then writing his book but they were so well hidden that it led him to state the exact opposite?! He apparently had no problem finding and counting the one newspaper that mentioned 3.20 and was keen to mention it though. But this ‘absolute bulk’ apparently and very mysteriously eluded him.


Point proven.

Good night.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Richard Jones agrees that oozing can mean running profusely. Is he also a manipulator? Or does he not understand the British Language? No manipulation at a all and no misuse. Again you turn a disagreement between us into foul play on my behalf. Naughty, naughty!

Richard Jones clearly does not understand the English language. "Ooze" does not mean "running profusely". Let's not use a fallible human as a reference, let us use reputable references like the Oxford English dictionary, that by Collins, their thesaurus, and Roget's Thesaurus. I don't know Richard Jones' authority and qualifications, but they must be significantly inferior to the named sources above, which tell us that for a liquid to ooze, means to flow or leak slowly, to seep, a sluggish movement, or to pass slowly.

"Ooze" does have another meaning which can confuse the unwary. Dealing with qualities, it can mean to overflow e.g. he oozed confidence. Used of a liquid, it does not and cannot ever mean "running profusely". Presumably Richard Jones thinks that blood is a quality and not a liquid.

[Fiver]

[/LIST][B]Richard Jones agrees that oozing can mean running profusely. Is he also a manipulator? Or does he not understand the British Language? No manipulation at a all and no misuse. Again you turn a disagreement between us into foul play on my behalf. Naughty, naughty!

Why do you keep pretending that Richard Jones supports your nonsense?

Richard Jones's tour website says "As to whether Jack the Ripper has actually been “unmasked”, the honest answer to that question has to be a resounding no."

"The concrete facts about Charles Lechmere’s involvement in the Jack the Ripper murders, end with his being present at the site of the murder of Mary Nichols as the discoverer of her body, and anything linking him to the other Whitechapel murders is nothing more than supposition and speculation." - Robert Jones

"Already I’m sure you’re noticing that the might have, could have, what if school of criminology plays a pretty major part in the case against Charles Cross." - Robert Jones

And you continue to ignore what the dictionaries actually say.

Ooze - to move slowly or imperceptibly - Merriam Webster Dictionary

Ooze - to flow out slowly - Brittanica

Ooze - to flow slowly out of something through a small opening, or to slowly produce a thick sticky liquid - Cambridge Dictionary

So once again, you are trying to alter the facts to fit your theories instead of altering your theories to fit the facts.

[Fiver]

Richard Jones clearly does not understand the English language.

Lets not blame Richard Jones too hastily. Fisherman has misrepresented the opinions of his own forensic experts, so why should we think he has accurately quoted Jones?

[Fiver]

The fact that the Pinchin Street torso was dumped in Lechmeres boyhood street looks very suspicious - but it can be a coincidence.

You're confusing Charles Allen Lechmere for his daughter, Mary Jane Lechmere. Charles did not grow up or spend his formative years on Pinchin Street. Mary Jane lived with her grandmother. at 23 Pinchin Street in 1881, when she was 6 years old, but by 1885, when Mary Jane was 10, they were living at 1 Mary Ann Street.

Or at least I could excuse you as being confused the last time you were shown to be wrong on this point.

Now it's you deliberately ignoring the facts. Again.

The fact that a bloody rag was found in an exact line between the murder railway arch and 22 Doveton Street the day after the dumping of the Pinchin Street woman looks really, really bad for Lechmere - but it may be another almighty coincidence.

Ah, the Ley Line Theory resurfaces in all its nonsense. Again.

You do realize that the boogeyman who could leap over buildings to travel in a straight line, was Springheeled Jack, not Jack the Ripper?

The bloody rag was found just inside the fence of St Phillips Church. We don't know where, so you have to draw a cone, not a Ley Line.

Jeff Hamm has helpfully done this. (See the lines in blue).




The cone passes over hundreds of houses, one of which was Charles Lechmere's. It doesn't point at anyone's house.

There's no evidence that the bloody rag had anything to do with the Pinchin Street Torso.

[Fiver]

The whole case against Lechmere is built on inconclusive matters, actually.

"Already I’m sure you’re noticing that the might have, could have, what if school of criminology plays a pretty major part in the case against Charles Cross." - Robert Jones

The whole case against Lechmere is built on assumptions, deliberate ignoring of inconvenient facts, rewriting the dictionary, and some outright nonsense.

The timings given suggest a time gap of eight minutes - but that may not be correct.

Timings? You ignore the timings of PC Mizen, PC Neil, PC Thain, Coroner Baxter, and Inspector Abberline. The time gap exists only in your imagination. But if you were to give people the whole picture, they'd see how flawed your theory was.

The evidence suggests that Lechmere may have lied to Mizen - but that may not be correct.

You continue to ignore that Robert Paul's statements supported Charles Lechmere and contradicted PC Mizen. But if you were to give people the whole picture, they'd see how flawed your theory was.

The evidence tells us that he apparently hid his registered name from the inquest - but that may have had reasons that were anything but sinister.

The evidence shows that he identified himself as Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who had been working for Pickfords for the last couple decades and whose shift started at the Broad Street Station at 4am. Who would ever suspect that he was the stepson of Thomas Cross, Charles Allen Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who had been working for Pickfords for the last couple decades and whose shift started at the Broad Street Station at 4am. What a baffling mystery! Holmes himself would be stumped!

Charles Lechmere was not trying to hide his identity from the coroner, the police, the press, his family, his neighbors, his coworkers, or his employers.

Let me again mention another witness at one of the Ripper inquests. The surname on his marriage license was Lavender. The surname in the censuses for him, his wife, and his children, was Lavender. In a 1876 proceeding at the Old Bailey, his surname was given as Levender [sic] and it is clear from the court records that his friends knew his surname as Lavender. He appeared in city directories as Lavender. He was buried as Lavender.

But at the Eddowes inquest, he used the name Joseph Lawende. He never mentioned the surname Lavender.

Perhaps he "may have had reasons that were anything but sinister" to not use his "registered name"?

[Fiver]

Polly Nichols bled for many minutes after Lechmere left her - but that does not prove that he was the killer, there is a time window allowing for another killer.

If people bled out as fast as you claimed, she was probably murdered after Lechemre and Paul left her body in search of a policeman.

Lechmeres refusal to help prop Nichols up can look suspicious - but that may not be correct.

How could it possibly look suspicious? Propping her up would be a perfect excuse for a guilty man to have an innocent explanation for blood on his hands or clothing. This clearly points towards Lechmere's innocence.

The covered up wounds makes it look like Lechmere wanted to con Paul - but that may not be correct.

The wounds were not covered up. You repeating this falsehood doesn't make it true. But that would require reading the actual statements of PC Neil and Robert Paul and you have never wanted people to have the whole picture.

Even if the wounds had been covered, it doesn't even imply that Lechmere did it or that he was trying to con anyone. It's just something you made up to fit your theory.

[Fiver]

I genuinely don’t understand how Christer can make this claim Frank. It’s not even questionable. The point is obvious. I see it, you see it, Fiver sees it, Lewis sees it, AP sees it, Roger sees it, John sees it, just about everyone on here sees it.

Abby sees that point, and they think Lechmere is a good suspect. But Abby isn't a Cultist, either.

[Fiver]

Not what I said...

Fisherman is good at claiming things people never said. He does it with other posters. He does it with period sources. He does it with his own forensic witnesses. He does it with Robert Jones and Tim Wescott.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman is good at claiming things people never said. He does it with other posters. He does it with period sources. He does it with his own forensic witnesses. He does it with Robert Jones and Tim Wescott.

That is your reoccurring mantra, Fiver, and it is untrue. For example, you make the claim that I don't understand what my forensic witnesses say. Then you claim that I would not have understood that Jason Payne James spoke for another likely bleeding out time than Ingemar Thiblin did, and you say that Payne James suggested seven minutes.
The problem with this is that Payne James never did that. He very clearly suggested three to five minutes, and this is the exact thing I have stated in my book and presented on the boards. Thiblin then concurred with Payne James, so they are both promoting 3-5 minutes as the likeliest bleeding out time, although neither man is ruling out seven minutes. Or nine, for that matter.

So what you are doing is to claim things on my behalf that are simply not true. If they WERE true, they would make me look reckless/dumb/dishonest/misleading and so on and so forth, which may of course be the reason for your reoccurring misrepresentations of what I say. Or maybe you just were not able to read and understand what was said.

You are welcome to present where Payne James would have suggested another likely time of bleeding out that the one Thiblin did. The we can check and see how truthful your claim is. It is the absolute best way of checking things like these, and getting to the core of them.

[Fisherman]

So you're saying people who are afraid to face me in open debate on this forum are "refuting" me on other forums without daring to tell me? Sounds pretty cultish to me, they can't tolerate an iota of descent, but aren't willing to actually face me.

Of course this is assuming these unnamed alcolytes exist anywhere but inside your mind.

No, I am not saying that anybody is "afraid to face you" - it is you who are saying that. I know many people who say that they will not go anywhere near Casebook, and most of them support that take with how they feel that the debating climate is very hostile out here. That does not mean that they are afraid of anybody, only that they prefer to debate in a less fierce surrounding.

[Fisherman]

Sounds like you're self-appointing yourself Pope of the Cult of Lechmere and presuming you can speak ex cathedra.

Back in the real world, you have been repeatedly refuted. You ignoring most of the actual witness testimony doesn't make your theory true. There is no evidence for an eight minute gap

There is no proof for a eight minut gap. There is ample evidence to suggest it existed. As for "ignoring most of the actual witness testimony", it applies that the various witnesses cannot all be right, and so no single correct interpretation can be proven correct. And trying to turn it into a numeric exercise does not work; three PCs said 3.45 and just the one witness, Paul, challenged these three men and said that he, not the PCs, were in Bucks Row at 3.45.

3-1 to you? Yes - up to the moment when Coroner Baxter said that the body must have been found at a remove in time not far off 3.45.

This, the naysayers claim tallies with how Paul was wrong, because 3.40 is not far off 3.45.

I leave it to any reader of that suggestion to ponder what applies.

[Fisherman]

No we can’t. I stand by everything I say. You might get away with such flagrant nonsense with Von Stow and the gullibles on social media but i and many others are sick and tired of hearing you two drag the subject through the mud.

Cross is a p**s poor suspect. There’s not a jot of evidence against him. It’s time we all stopped beating around the bush. I repeat. He’s been promoted by a mixture of editing, evidence manipulation, poor reasoning, exaggeration and the deliberate misinterpreting of the English language. All of which are proven.

It is your choice if you want to call people disagree with you liars. As I said, it falls back on yourself.

And I dont have to lie or exaggerate at all ab out Lechmere.

He was found standing all alone by the body of a freshly killed Ripper victim.

The only person who claimed that he had only just arrived there before Paul got to the spot, was Lechmere himself.

He kept his registered name from the police and inquest. The only times he seems to have done so, was in combination with two cases of violent death. In all other authority contacts that we know of, he called himself Lechmere.

He disagreed with a serving PC over what he had told him on the murder morning. And the disagreements were all of a character that would help him pass the police by, if that was his aim.

He had a working trek that took him right through Spitalfields, where four of the victims were claimed (involving Martha Tabram).

He gave a time approximation of around 3.30 for his departure from home, and the coroner have an approximation of not far off 3.45 for when the body was found. That suggests that there was around an eight minute gap, since he should have arrived there at around 3.37. To boot, it was only at the summation of the coroner that he said that the time had been fixed as per the above, and so it applies that if Lechmere was the killer, his given departure time of around 3.30 worked well with the initial belief that the body was found at around 3.40 - but not at all well with how this time was then fixed to not far off 3.45.

The wounds on the abdomen of Polly Nichols were covered as Robert Paul saw her, while in the other canonical evisceration cases as well as in the Tabram case, the wounds were left on display. This fits well with the suggestion that Lechmere may have conned Robert Paul. In no other of the cases could such a ruse have been suggested.

Lechmere examined and touched the body of Polly Nichols together with Robert Paul, but declined to help prop her up when Paul suggested this, saying "I will not touch her" or something along those lines. Which is strange considering he already had touched her. And it of course applies that if the body was propped up, the neck wound would become obvious. It is therefore in line with the suggestion of a ruse when Lechmere declines to help.

Lechmere said that he would have heard if there was anybody moving up at the murder scene when he entered Bucks Row. But he failed to note his hurrying carman colleagues steps until the latter was a mere 30 or 40 yards off. This is in line with the suggestion of a ruse where Lechmere DID hear Paul a lot earlier - and decided to con the incomer, covering the wounds, backing off and making for the middle of the road, whilst tucking away the knife.

Anybody armed with that kind of a suspect does not need to manipulate, lie, misrepresent or anything along those lines. The case makes itself, and to add or twist would be utterly stupid, because that would only detract from the extraordinary truth and facts.

Again since we are speaking about circumstantial evidence, it applies that each item CAN be supplied with alternative innocent explanations. Again, it is not until these alternative innocent explanations are proven that the case and suspicions go away. Again, the likelihood of somebody racking up this kind of a rap sheet in terms of circumstantial evidence items and still being innocent is either zero or close to it.

This will change when the alternative innocent explanations are proven, or when examples of people who had tons of circumstantial evidence pointing to them without actually being guilty are provided.

But not before.

And that too is true. I don't deal in the lying and deception business for the simple reason that I don't have to, as per the above.

[Fisherman]

Right, Mike. A gap is only suggested when just sticking to the "3.30" and "3.45" (if this 3.45 actually did refer to when Lechmere found Nichols, of course) - so, with the "about" and "not far from" removed.

Not so, Frank. In neither case would a gap be proven, although it would become more clear with the "around and "not far off" removed. But it is suggested in both cases. Which should not worry anybody too much, since it can always be argued that the gap MAY not have been there, something I agree about. But the two claims that he left home "around" 3.30 and found the body at a time "not far off" 3.45, are seemingly suggestive of how there was a time gap of some eight minutes. If he had said "around 3.34" and if the coroner had said a time "not far off" 3.41, there would not have been a time gap suggested - although it would not rule out that there was one anyway. Any other timings will either go to suggest a time gap or to suggest that he got to the murder spot sooner than expected.

I think this was around the thirtieth time I mentioned this in this thread. Maybe it is time to let it go? We will not agree, but that does not necessarily mean that one part of the disagreement is a rotten liar. I would be wrong if I said that the timings given establish a gap or proves it (which was the claim R J Palmer falsely made if he was talking about me), but I am not doing that. I am saying that it seems to SUGGEST a time gap - and it does.

[Fisherman]

I genuinely don’t understand how Christer can make this claim Frank. It’s not even questionable. The point is obvious. I see it, you see it, Fiver sees it, Lewis sees it, AP sees it, Roger sees it, John sees it, just about everyone on here sees it.

Yes, all those people "see it". And all people around Galilei "saw" that the universe revolved around the Earth. It-is-not-a-popularity-contest, and as I said (although Fiver suggests it is a brain ghost of mine), there are numerous people on other sites who will not go near Casebook, but who support my view.

Disagreement. You must have heard of it?