The Darkness of Bakers Row

[John Wheat]

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.

I agree Herlock. Cross is nearly as weak a suspect as Maybrick. The evidence is just not there. Cross found a body so what?

[FrankO]

You can’t ‘move’ an estimation because it’s not a fixed time!!!!

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah - the LIST! Thank you, Herlock! When you write "I know something for certain…whatever your response, it will be nonsense.", it tells me that you have in advance decided not to believe what I write or in any way concede any wrongdoing on your behalf. And to me, that implies that you ae quite aware that your case is a rotten one. But hey, let's find out!

• Your omission of the word ‘about’ when discussing a potential gap of time between Cross leaving home and the discovery of the body is clear evidence of editing. You had used ‘about’ in a previous chapter so you cannot claim error but when you were making the claim of a gap it ‘disappeared.’ It was also quite deliberately omitted from the documentary too and the ‘still’ shows that the evidence presented to Scobie also claimed that Lechmere left the house at 3.30 and not about. This led Scobie to assume that there must have been a gap which naturally he would find created an element of suspicion around Cross. Would he have considered there to have been ‘case to answer’ without this. At the very least I’d say that it would have thrown a large doubt. Personally I think that without the ‘gap’ he wouldn’t have said that there was a case to answer. So…editing.

Nope. There was no editing at all, I wrote in good faith, and since I say that we cannot rely on the timings in the sentence directly underneath and even provide a quotation that involves "around", I do not claim any exact timing can be used, on the contrary. So no "editing" can be proven.

Omitted from the section of Cutting Point where you invent the gap. Missed from the documentary. Missed from the dossier given to Scobie. Intentionally.

• You have previously and numerously proceeded to narrow down this ‘about.’ When I and others suggested that 3.35 or 3.34 was ‘about 3.30’ you were clearly unhappy with this. You said something to the effect of…if someone estimates 3.30 then 3.30 is the likeliest time. This is clearly nonsense. Even in the modern word estimates can he massively wrong but you couldn’t even bring yourself to accept a conservative plus or minus 5 minutes. I think that you would struggle to find any reasonable person to agree with you on this point. We do not and cannot know what time Cross left the house so your attempt to narrow this time down to 3.30 or 3.31 or 3.32 is plainly an attempted manipulation of the evidence.

This has been covered in extensor in our exchange, and I remain steadfast at how there is not time that "around 3.30" points clearer to than ... well, 3.30. You can - unintelligibly - disagreee, but a disagreement is not an example of any manipulation.

Deliberate mangling of the English language in a desperate attempt to make your point.

• You then, quite bizarrely, try and put a time on the gap between Cross and Paul leaving and Neil arriving. This is another unknown. Neil gave 3.45 as his time but we can’t know how accurate his time was. Did he have a watch? How accurate was it? Was it synchronised to other notes times? How can you know that he didn’t arrive the second that Cross and Paul left the body? It’s an attempt to claim to know, or to be able to judge accurately, an unknown. This is a manipulation of the evidence.

John Neil walked down Bucks Row from Thomas Street to Brady Street as he approached the murder site. This means that if we do not accept that there must have been a time gap between Neil and Lechmere/Paul, they should have met in Bucks Row, the carmen walking west and <Nail walking east in the same street. They did not meet, therefore a time gap is proven. Any talk of a manipulation is consequentially proven wrong.

No time can be proven. All that we can say is that the earliest time that Neil can have arrived in Bucks Row is at the point when Cross and Lechmere were out of sight to him. This is an unknown period of time. The time was said to have been 3.45 by Neil but for the usual reasons this cannot be claimed as a certainty. So any attempt to claim to know the length of that gap is a manipulation of the facts.

• Then there is the English language issues regarding the blood….oozing and running etc. Both dealt with conclusively by David Orsam. This is manipulation and a misuse of the language.

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!

And if you could point me in the direction of the research of that tour guide I’d be grateful. The choice between you, Richard Jones and David Orsam really is no choice. Orsam every time.

• Then you try and use the blood evidence to try and make Cross the likeliest suspect when he’s no more likely than a killer who fled just before he arrived. And because we can’t put a name to this man you use a bit of propaganda by naming him the ‘phantom killer’ which implies that he couldn’t have existed which is arrant nonsense. If Paul could ‘in effect’ have interrupted Cross then Cross could have interrupted someone else who was no less likely a suspect than Cross just because we have no name for him. In fact he’s a far better suspect that Cross because this bloke didn’t hang around waiting for Cross to arrive. Exaggeration and manipulation.

The two forensic professors both agree that Nichols was most likely to bleed for 3-5 minutes only, and Thiblin said that 10-15 minutes was the extreme possibility. Against that backdrop, there would only be a 1-6 minute gap (and I know that we can't be exact, which is what I said "against that backdrop") for another killer, and it would predominantly be made up of he extreme time scope suggested by Thiblin. So there is a scientific explanation for my stance. Conversely, there is no such thing for your idea that another killer is LIKELIER since Lechmere did not chose to run. That is nothing but another disagreement, turned into foul play on my behalf.

Again, I’ll refer you David Orsam. You blood nonsense has been thoroughly shredded. You even manipulate what experts actually say.

• Then we have the suggestion that refusing to flee was perfectly normal behaviour which flies in the face of what we know about killers. We can’t name one that stood around waiting for someone to show up. How many men can we name who found a body in the street who turned out to be the killer? How could any man, with even the meanest levels of intelligence, have not seen that the benefits of fleeing massively and overwhelmingly outweighing the ‘benefits’ of staying? Exaggeration.

I never said that refusing to flee was perfectly normal behavior, though, did I? That is manipulation (isn't that the word you like to use?) of the evidence therefore. I don't even say that Lechmer refused to flee, I say that he in my view (so it is about disagreements again, turned into foul play by you) CHOSE to stay put. What is intelligent behavior and what is not is another matter but we do know that Dahmer chose to walk up to two policemen and claimed a murder victim back from them. Fleeing is not always the chosen option. To speak of an exaggeration is ridiculous. It is a disagreement, nothing else.


The Dahmer incident was forced behaviour. A drugged victim had escaped from his apartment. Choice - leave him free to go to the police and mention Dahmer, causing them to visit his apartment and check out the interesting contents of his fridge. Or intercept him and convince the police that he meant well. You might find that a difficult choice but I doubt that many would agree.

• Then, realising that a choice to stick around would have been close to suicidal you take a sidestep and invent the ‘Mizen Scam’ as a means of justifying it. This would have meant Cross, on the spur-of-the-moment and in a handful of seconds coming up with this nonsense, and risking his life on the strength of it. A plan that required him manipulating a man that he’d never met before and had no clue on how he might or might not have behaved. Little is more preposterous in this case than the Mizen Scam. It’s evidence of desperation. More exaggeration.

Your idea of me inventing the Mizen scam as some sort of damage limitation can be called a lot of things. "Wrong" is good enough to cover it, wrong in all sort of ways. Another disagreement, nothing else, turned into foul play by you.

No. It shows that you are actively and desperately searching around for something to explain the fact that he stayed put. Because staying put can only point to one thing. Innocence.

• Then there’s the attempt to show Cross’s behaviour at the body as somehow strange. It was perfectly normal as has been shown over the last few posts. A manipulation to create an impression.

It SHOULD be perfectly normal, Herlock. The idea you are implying here, that a killer would somehow reveal himself by acting strangely as another person comes upon the scene, is ridiculous. Of course Lechmere acted normally, it was his only chance to get away with it. To predispose that he did so because he was the murderer cannot be proven, that is in the nature of it, but to claim that it cannot be argued that the normal behavior was a chosen tactic falls flat on its face. It is best decided by checking whether or not there are other matters that don't look right with the matter. And we both know how that pans out. So again, you have nothing but a disagreement - but you try to elevate it to foul play on my behalf.


And we both know that there is absolutely nothing that doesn’t look right

• Then we have the name issue which is a non-issue. It would only be an issue, in regard to a murder, if it somehow aided his avoiding discovery, He used his stepfathers name, his own Christian names and his own address. He turns up at the inquest with policeman everywhere. When Cross was a child he must have been absolutely useless at hide and seek. Exaggeration.

Same thing: disagreement, nothing else. And again, you try to paint me out as the bad guy.

No it’s NOT disagreement. Proof has been piled upon proof by David Orsam and yet you still cannot bring yourself to admit that you were wrong. As you clearly were. The day that you have the integrity to admit that you were wrong on this point is the day that I’ll say ‘fine, it’s done.’

• Then there’s the geographical desperation. What can I say? I just can’t be bothered wasting words on the silliness. How desperate can anyone be to build a case of you have to resort to quoting where his Aunty Nellie lived?! Exaggeration and invention.

How is it "desperate" to establish that the mans trek took him right through the killing fields, that he had close links to Berner Street, both by way of having grown up in the are and by way of having his mother and daughter staying there? And t point to how his old working trek would have led him right past Mitre Square? The claim is beyond ridiculous - geography is the EXACT thing a police corps checks for when they suspect somebody.

Because it could apply to thousands. Vague, meaningless generalities.

This last point illustrates quite well how much value can be ascribed to your list. In actual fact, since it is proven that the police ascribe a lot of value to a geographical correlation between a suspect and the murder sites, I could start calling you things and alleging dishonesty on your behalf. But I don't do that, do I? I prefer to let the facts tell the story, because if I cannot produce a factually sustainable story, then I should not produce a story at all.

Waffle.

Now that we have seen what your allegations amount to, so much more reason to once again ask you to stand by your arguments if you feel so inclined - but NOT with false allegations about your opponent.

Ive rebutted every point. They all stand. Completely waffle-free.

I of course knew from the outset that you would have no point. That is because I don't lie and I don't manipulate. And that is for the simple reason that those who mean something in ripperology would immediately disclose it, and they would - and SHOULD, it is their duty! - hang me out to dry. That has not happened yet and it is not about to happen. Allegations from your direction is another matter, they cannot be taken seriously and nobody will do so with the possible exceptions of a few predictable people.

Now, can we have a debate without those inclusions of yours? Where we BOTH acknowledge that we are dealing with disagreements and not foul play on my behalf only?

Sleep on it, Herlock. I'm out for today.

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.

[Lewis C]

R J Palmer! Lets get to the core immediately and waste no time:

I then wrote:

"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."

What do you find unfair about this statement?

That nobody representing the Lechmere theory - and that will be me and Edward Stow - has ever said that Lechmere must be lying.If you have heard or read other people who believe the carman is guilty, you are welcome to criticize them, but you don't get to say that any of the ones behind the theory have ever said that the timings mean that Lechmere must be guilty. Inferring such a thing is equal to making us responsible for a statement that none of us would utter, on account of how you, me, Edward Stow and the rest of the ripperological world with few exceptions, know that making that statement would be a falsehood.

That is what I find unfair about your statement.

If you aren't saying that you caught Lechmere in a lie, then what are you saying?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What a waste of time. I have proven that case many times now. To make the suggestion go away, we must MOVE the timings.Speaking about dishonesty.

You can’t ‘move’ an estimation because it’s not a fixed time!!!!

[Fisherman]

Ah - the LIST! Thank you, Herlock! When you write "I know something for certain…whatever your response, it will be nonsense.", it tells me that you have in advance decided not to believe what I write or in any way concede any wrongdoing on your behalf. And to me, that implies that you ae quite aware that your case is a rotten one. But hey, let's find out!

• Your omission of the word ‘about’ when discussing a potential gap of time between Cross leaving home and the discovery of the body is clear evidence of editing. You had used ‘about’ in a previous chapter so you cannot claim error but when you were making the claim of a gap it ‘disappeared.’ It was also quite deliberately omitted from the documentary too and the ‘still’ shows that the evidence presented to Scobie also claimed that Lechmere left the house at 3.30 and not about. This led Scobie to assume that there must have been a gap which naturally he would find created an element of suspicion around Cross. Would he have considered there to have been ‘case to answer’ without this. At the very least I’d say that it would have thrown a large doubt. Personally I think that without the ‘gap’ he wouldn’t have said that there was a case to answer. So…editing.

Nope. There was no editing at all, I wrote in good faith, and since I say that we cannot rely on the timings in the sentence directly underneath and even provide a quotation that involves "around", I do not claim any exact timing can be used, on the contrary. So no "editing" can be proven.

• You have previously and numerously proceeded to narrow down this ‘about.’ When I and others suggested that 3.35 or 3.34 was ‘about 3.30’ you were clearly unhappy with this. You said something to the effect of…if someone estimates 3.30 then 3.30 is the likeliest time. This is clearly nonsense. Even in the modern word estimates can he massively wrong but you couldn’t even bring yourself to accept a conservative plus or minus 5 minutes. I think that you would struggle to find any reasonable person to agree with you on this point. We do not and cannot know what time Cross left the house so your attempt to narrow this time down to 3.30 or 3.31 or 3.32 is plainly an attempted manipulation of the evidence.

This has been covered in extensor in our exchange, and I remain steadfast at how there is not time that "around 3.30" points clearer to than ... well, 3.30. You can - unintelligibly - disagreee, but a disagreement is not an example of any manipulation.

• You then, quite bizarrely, try and put a time on the gap between Cross and Paul leaving and Neil arriving. This is another unknown. Neil gave 3.45 as his time but we can’t know how accurate his time was. Did he have a watch? How accurate was it? Was it synchronised to other notes times? How can you know that he didn’t arrive the second that Cross and Paul left the body? It’s an attempt to claim to know, or to be able to judge accurately, an unknown. This is a manipulation of the evidence.

John Neil walked down Bucks Row from Thomas Street to Brady Street as he approached the murder site. This means that if we do not accept that there must have been a time gap between Neil and Lechmere/Paul, they should have met in Bucks Row, the carmen walking west and <Nail walking east in the same street. They did not meet, therefore a time gap is proven. Any talk of a manipulation is consequentially proven wrong.

• Then there is the English language issues regarding the blood….oozing and running etc. Both dealt with conclusively by David Orsam. This is manipulation and a misuse of the language.

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!

• Then you try and use the blood evidence to try and make Cross the likeliest suspect when he’s no more likely than a killer who fled just before he arrived. And because we can’t put a name to this man you use a bit of propaganda by naming him the ‘phantom killer’ which implies that he couldn’t have existed which is arrant nonsense. If Paul could ‘in effect’ have interrupted Cross then Cross could have interrupted someone else who was no less likely a suspect than Cross just because we have no name for him. In fact he’s a far better suspect that Cross because this bloke didn’t hang around waiting for Cross to arrive. Exaggeration and manipulation.

The two forensic professors both agree that Nichols was most likely to bleed for 3-5 minutes only, and Thiblin said that 10-15 minutes was the extreme possibility. Against that backdrop, there would only be a 1-6 minute gap (and I know that we can't be exact, which is what I said "against that backdrop") for another killer, and it would predominantly be made up of he extreme time scope suggested by Thiblin. So there is a scientific explanation for my stance. Conversely, there is no such thing for your idea that another killer is LIKELIER since Lechmere did not chose to run. That is nothing but another disagreement, turned into foul play on my behalf.

• Then we have the suggestion that refusing to flee was perfectly normal behaviour which flies in the face of what we know about killers. We can’t name one that stood around waiting for someone to show up. How many men can we name who found a body in the street who turned out to be the killer? How could any man, with even the meanest levels of intelligence, have not seen that the benefits of fleeing massively and overwhelmingly outweighing the ‘benefits’ of staying? Exaggeration.

I never said that refusing to flee was perfectly normal behavior, though, did I? That is manipulation (isn't that the word you like to use?) of the evidence therefore. I don't even say that Lechmer refused to flee, I say that he in my view (so it is about disagreements again, turned into foul play by you) CHOSE to stay put. What is intelligent behavior and what is not is another matter but we do know that Dahmer chose to walk up to two policemen and claimed a murder victim back from them. Fleeing is not always the chosen option. To speak of an exaggeration is ridiculous. It is a disagreement, nothing else.

• Then, realising that a choice to stick around would have been close to suicidal you take a sidestep and invent the ‘Mizen Scam’ as a means of justifying it. This would have meant Cross, on the spur-of-the-moment and in a handful of seconds coming up with this nonsense, and risking his life on the strength of it. A plan that required him manipulating a man that he’d never met before and had no clue on how he might or might not have behaved. Little is more preposterous in this case than the Mizen Scam. It’s evidence of desperation. More exaggeration.

Your idea of me inventing the Mizen scam as some sort of damage limitation can be called a lot of things. "Wrong" is good enough to cover it, wrong in all sort of ways. Another disagreement, nothing else, turned into foul play by you.

• Then there’s the attempt to show Cross’s behaviour at the body as somehow strange. It was perfectly normal as has been shown over the last few posts. A manipulation to create an impression.

It SHOULD be perfectly normal, Herlock. The idea you are implying here, that a killer would somehow reveal himself by acting strangely as another person comes upon the scene, is ridiculous. Of course Lechmere acted normally, it was his only chance to get away with it. To predispose that he did so because he was the murderer cannot be proven, that is in the nature of it, but to claim that it cannot be argued that the normal behavior was a chosen tactic falls flat on its face. It is best decided by checking whether or not there are other matters that don't look right with the matter. And we both know how that pans out. So again, you have nothing but a disagreement - but you try to elevate it to foul play on my behalf.

• Then we have the name issue which is a non-issue. It would only be an issue, in regard to a murder, if it somehow aided his avoiding discovery, He used his stepfathers name, his own Christian names and his own address. He turns up at the inquest with policeman everywhere. When Cross was a child he must have been absolutely useless at hide and seek. Exaggeration.

Same thing: disagreement, nothing else. And again, you try to paint me out as the bad guy.

• Then there’s the geographical desperation. What can I say? I just can’t be bothered wasting words on the silliness. How desperate can anyone be to build a case of you have to resort to quoting where his Aunty Nellie lived?! Exaggeration and invention.

How is it "desperate" to establish that the mans trek took him right through the killing fields, that he had close links to Berner Street, both by way of having grown up in the are and by way of having his mother and daughter staying there? And t point to how his old working trek would have led him right past Mitre Square? The claim is beyond ridiculous - geography is the EXACT thing a police corps checks for when they suspect somebody.

This last point illustrates quite well how much value can be ascribed to your list. In actual fact, since it is proven that the police ascribe a lot of value to a geographical correlation between a suspect and the murder sites, I could start calling you things and alleging dishonesty on your behalf. But I don't do that, do I? I prefer to let the facts tell the story, because if I cannot produce a factually sustainable story, then I should not produce a story at all.

Now that we have seen what your allegations amount to, so much more reason to once again ask you to stand by your arguments if you feel so inclined - but NOT with false allegations about your opponent.

I of course knew from the outset that you would have no point. That is because I don't lie and I don't manipulate. And that is for the simple reason that those who mean something in ripperology would immediately disclose it, and they would - and SHOULD, it is their duty! - hang me out to dry. That has not happened yet and it is not about to happen. Allegations from your direction is another matter, they cannot be taken seriously and nobody will do so with the possible exceptions of a few predictable people.

Now, can we have a debate without those inclusions of yours? Where we BOTH acknowledge that we are dealing with disagreements and not foul play on my behalf only?

Sleep on it, Herlock. I'm out for today.

[Fiver]

In the future, I would prefer if you made your points and stood by them, without claiming to have lots and lots of followers.

I understand that English isn't your first language, but your reading comprehension of the language is obviously extremely flawed.

I never made any claims about how many followers I had. I pointed out your claim that only a small number of people refuted you on the thread was a false claim.

I know it's an adjustment for you being outside your echo chamber, but your repeated ignoring and distorting of the evidence shows nothing but your refusal to look at whole picture.

[A P Tomlinson]

You struggle to see what separates him from anyone living in Bucks Row, and who can be proven to have been at home at the time of the murder?

I will help out - he was observed, all alone, close by the freshly slain Polly Nichols. That is what tells him apart from Walter Purkiss, for example.

Not what I said, but the point isn't that anyone in the street was likely to have done it, that's absoultely not what I was suggesting. Exactly the opposite... its that Cross was just as unlikely to have done it as any other person in the street.

He was in the street... and... did nothing suspicious. Approached a man and drew attention to the body. The man must have been able to see his hands, or would have kept on walking... no blood. He is in no way suspicoulsy sweating or breathing heavily or dishevelled after fighting a woman to the ground, and brutally tearing her apart, not blood spattered, is calm... and non threatening. Agrees to walk with a stranger to find a copper when he could have turned off a number of times and agreed that they would both send teh first PC they find... walks along through points at which there must have been more light, still no blood to be seen, and when they meet a copper approaches and talks to him. Copper sees no blood, sends them on their way.

There is no way he knows if he has blood on his face, or in his hair, and he's carrying on like he hasn't a care in the world beyond being late for work.

Nothing about his behaviour or appearance is suspicous to either the man who initially thinks he's a mugger or a to a Police Officer.

So. The case is "he was in Bucks row when the body was discovered." everything else is supposition, theory and fabrication.

The accusations of perjury are just... unvbelievable. I know you dismiss the diea of his employres or acquaintances taking an inteerst and reportuing him for lying... But he knew by Sunday that Lloyds had somehow spoken to Paul twice by the time he turns up and tells the world his employer, his genuine address, and a made up name, and never thinks for a moment that a reporter might knock on his door and ask for a follow up interview... "Charlie Cross live at that house?" "Nah mate, no Cross.. them's the Lechmere's in that house!" Boom Perjury!

1876 he appears before the bench and this does involve his employers. BIG time. He is the one who the father of the child is blaming for his son's death. But Charlie is not on the line for the compensation if he is found culpible. He'll get time with labour. But if that case goes against him, then Pickfords will be the ones getting sued by the father as teh death happened on THEIR company time.
But I seriously ask you to accept that they WOULD have taken an extremely close interest in THAT inquest. There would have been a Pickfords attorney or clerk at every session of that inquest.
And had he committed perjury THAT time, and it had been found out... then his entire defence is shot, he's likely to be found guilty (certainly of perjury) and Pickfords will be also liable for hiding the perjury from the court.
If Cross had lied at that inquest, he would have been reported by a Pickfords lawyer eager to distance the company from the episode. For them NOT to do so would be incredibly self destructive, and would have been fired as soon as he lied about his name.

The only sensible reason none of that happened is because he WAS known as Charles Cross to enough people for it to NOT be a matter of prejury!

[Fiver]

Luckily, in this case I can ot be refuted, since it is a proven fact that the timings DO suggest a time gap of 8 minutes. So any effort to try and refute that is logical and factual harakiri.

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

[Fiver]

[B]Yes, and people who post on other forums refute YOUR ideas and claims, Fiver.

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.

[Fisherman]

And any attempt at proposing that a gap is suggested is simple dishonesty.

What a waste of time. I have proven that case many times now. To make the suggestion go away, we must MOVE the timings.Speaking about dishonesty.

[Fisherman]

For good measure, Herlocks post:

For f***s sake Christer! Just for once stop wriggling on the hook. I was pointing out how people can not only be wrong in their estimations but they can be surprisingly wrong by a large timespan. Which gives the utter lie to your constant claim of the estimated time being the likeliest to be correct. You are sooooo wrong. And totally deliberately so. It’s a tactic and nothing more bdcause it’s impossible that an educated man can’t grasp this point.

The fact of the matter is that the estimated time is more likely to be correct than any other time until otherwise proven, Herlock. As I keep saying, and as we all know, it does not HAVE to be correct, for the simple reason that we all misjudge at times and consult flawed timekeeper on occasion. But again that does not mean that suggestions of times that deviate from the time originally estimated are as likely to be correct. In effect, the more removed they are from the original suggestion, the less likely are they to be correct.
That has nothing to do with tactics, but everything to do with the laws of physics. It is a fact. A truth. In fact, the ONLY truth (there can never be two competing truths).

And while we are discussing the topic of educated men, I am truly amazed if anybody tries to deny this. For the umpteenth time, we do NOT know how large the time gap was, and we cannot be certain that there must have been one. But ... you will recognize this ... the timings given suggest that there was an eight minute time gap.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

Lechmeres claim that he would hear anybody at the murder site, 130 yards off, dovetails poorly with how he did not hear Paul until he was a mere 30 or 40 yards off - but it does not prove anything sinister.

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

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.

The fact that Lechmere had geographical links or reasons to pass to the murder sites - all of them - does look like a case clincher - but it is nevertheless no absolute proof at all.

This is how it goes, all the way - not a single conclusive point. None of the points can bring the carman down. But the collected weight of these matters CAN. That is how police work is conducted.

[Fiver]

I don't mean to be a you-know-what, but I think you need to re-phrase & clarify that Abberline concluded she was "Found"around 3.40 or a whole new can of worms might open up...

Thank you for catching my error

Yes, I definitely meant Abberline said Nichols body was found around 3:40am. Abberline did not give a time estimate for when she was killed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, and people who post on other forums refute YOUR ideas and claims, Fiver. As I said before, that kind of popularity contest was never in any way a reliable thing. Luckily, in this case I can ot be refuted, since it is a proven fact that the timings DO suggest a time gap of 8 minutes. So any effort to try and refute that is logical and factual harakiri.

In the future, I would prefer if you made your points and stood by them, without claiming to have lots and lots of followers. I will do the same, and that is the only way to do debate fairly. If you feel you cannot stand up for your points without calling in the fire brigade, that tells a story too. It's your choice.

And any attempt at proposing that a gap is suggested is simple dishonesty.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The reason that I thought it a waste of time to repost is because I’ve experienced your desperate wriggling on numerous occasions so I know something for certain…whatever your response, it will be nonsense.

• Your omission of the word ‘about’ when discussing a potential gap of time between Cross leaving home and the discovery of the body is clear evidence of editing. You had used ‘about’ in a previous chapter so you cannot claim error but when you were making the claim of a gap it ‘disappeared.’ It was also quite deliberately omitted from the documentary too and the ‘still’ shows that the evidence presented to Scobie also claimed that Lechmere left the house at 3.30 and not about. This led Scobie to assume that there must have been a gap which naturally he would find created an element of suspicion around Cross. Would he have considered there to have been ‘case to answer’ without this. At the very least I’d say that it would have thrown a large doubt. Personally I think that without the ‘gap’ he wouldn’t have said that there was a case to answer. So…editing.
• You have previously and numerously proceeded to narrow down this ‘about.’ When I and others suggested that 3.35 or 3.34 was ‘about 3.30’ you were clearly unhappy with this. You said something to the effect of…if someone estimates 3.30 then 3.30 is the likeliest time. This is clearly nonsense. Even in the modern word estimates can he massively wrong but you couldn’t even bring yourself to accept a conservative plus or minus 5 minutes. I think that you would struggle to find any reasonable person to agree with you on this point. We do not and cannot know what time Cross left the house so your attempt to narrow this time down to 3.30 or 3.31 or 3.32 is plainly an attempted manipulation of the evidence.
• You then, quite bizarrely, try and put a time on the gap between Cross and Paul leaving and Neil arriving. This is another unknown. Neil gave 3.45 as his time but we can’t know how accurate his time was. Did he have a watch? How accurate was it? Was it synchronised to other notes times? How can you know that he didn’t arrive the second that Cross and Paul left the body? It’s an attempt to claim to know, or to be able to judge accurately, an unknown. This is a manipulation of the evidence.
• Then there is the English language issues regarding the blood….oozing and running etc. Both dealt with conclusively by David Orsam. This is manipulation and a misuse of the language.
• Then you try and use the blood evidence to try and make Cross the likeliest suspect when he’s no more likely than a killer who fled just before he arrived. And because we can’t put a name to this man you use a bit of propaganda by naming him the ‘phantom killer’ which implies that he couldn’t have existed which is arrant nonsense. If Paul could ‘in effect’ have interrupted Cross then Cross could have interrupted someone else who was no less likely a suspect than Cross just because we have no name for him. In fact he’s a far better suspect that Cross because this bloke didn’t hang around waiting for Cross to arrive. Exaggeration and manipulation.
• Then we have the suggestion that refusing to flee was perfectly normal behaviour which flies in the face of what we know about killers. We can’t name one that stood around waiting for someone to show up. How many men can we name who found a body in the street who turned out to be the killer? How could any man, with even the meanest levels of intelligence, have not seen that the benefits of fleeing massively and overwhelmingly outweighing the ‘benefits’ of staying? Exaggeration.
• Then, realising that a choice to stick around would have been close to suicidal you take a sidestep and invent the ‘Mizen Scam’ as a means of justifying it. This would have meant Cross, on the spur-of-the-moment and in a handful of seconds coming up with this nonsense, and risking his life on the strength of it. A plan that required him manipulating a man that he’d never met before and had no clue on how he might or might not have behaved. Little is more preposterous in this case than the Mizen Scam. It’s evidence of desperation. More exaggeration.
• Then there’s the attempt to show Cross’s behaviour at the body as somehow strange. It was perfectly normal as has been shown over the last few posts. A manipulation to create an impression.
• Then we have the name issue which is a non-issue. It would only be an issue, in regard to a murder, if it somehow aided his avoiding discovery, He used his stepfathers name, his own Christian names and his own address. He turns up at the inquest with policeman everywhere. When Cross was a child he must have been absolutely useless at hide and seek. Exaggeration.
• Then there’s the geographical desperation. What can I say? I just can’t be bothered wasting words on the silliness. How desperate can anyone be to build a case of you have to resort to quoting where his Aunty Nellie lived?! Exaggeration and invention.