Pickford & Co.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks RJ for your post, excellent points.



Hi Herlock, what do you mean by this sentence in bold? He knew about the murder just after it had happened. Can you explain just for the slow ones at the back, thanks.

Hi Geddy,

You’re not slow, it’s just that I’ve written a piece of utter drivel. What the hell was I thinking when I wrote that? I think that what I was trying to say was that Cross didn’t have to wait until Lloyd’s came out to find out that Paul had spoken to the Press or the police because he would have already considered the possibility.

[Geddy2112]

Thanks RJ for your post, excellent points.

Polly was killed on the Friday morning. Paul spoke to a reporter on the evening of the same day but the story didn’t appear until the Sunday. It’s unthinkable that Cross wouldn’t have known about the murder well before Sunday. So perhaps Cross simply went to the police station on Saturday after finishing work (not wanting to miss a days work) to tell them he was the man but too late for The Star to find out. They then interviewed him and submitted his name and address to the coroner’s office.

Hi Herlock, what do you mean by this sentence in bold? He knew about the murder just after it had happened. Can you explain just for the slow ones at the back, thanks.

[The Rookie Detective]

The first observation I would make is that in suggesting that Lechmere was forced to come forward due to Robert Paul's interview with the press, Stow is just offering a theory.

There's nothing wrong with offering a theory, but his followers forget this and insist that this is what happened. In reality, we have no direct information about how, when, or why Cross came forward or was traced, whether he read Lloyd's Weekly News, or whether he was summoned to the inquest or whether he just showed up spontaneously, but if that latter I rather think that it would have been a dramatic occurrence and would have been reported, and considering that his Doveton Street address was given at the inquest, he was formally summoned. If not, then Stow's colleague Christer Holmgren would need to explain how the coroner's clerk knew it, since it's his theory that reporter for the Star (who published Lechmere's address) got it from the clerk. Isn't that an internal contradiction in the theory? As I understand Stow, he admits the there is no 'proof' that any of this happened, but he is adamant that it is the natural inference one should draw from the surviving documentation.

A more serious objection is that it is impossible to believe that PC Neil, nor PC Thain nor Inspector Spratling nor Inspector Helson (when they learned of the murder) didn't question or have any curiosity about Mizen's sudden appearance on the scene --on their patch, no less---and what or whom would have brought him there.

For background information, I recommend the following discussion by David Orsam, explaining that a beat constable, except in rare exceptions, was not allowed to leave his beat, and if he did leave his beat, he was supposed to return to it again as soon as possible.

The Conflicts of PC Mizen - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

And yet the events of that morning show that PC Mizen stopped knocking people up (which he was required to do and would be punished for not doing), went to Buck's Row, and even (somewhat amazingly) went and fetched a police ambulance.

Against all rules and regulations, Mizen completely abandoned his beat.

At the end of his shift, Mizen would have reported this to his duty sergeant. And in doing so, he would have to have mentioned the two men who alerted him to the murder in Buck's Row because they were his justification for this infraction. This information would be passed on to Inspector Helson who was in charge of the murder investigation.

If for some strange reason Mizen decided not to report these two men and lie about it, then how was he going to explain his dereliction of duty?

Spratling clearly DID know that Mizen had been at the scene because he mentions him in his report of Friday 31 August, though being an H-Division constable instead of a J-Division constable, Spratling identified him as Smizen instead of Mizen.

Are we supposed to believe that Spratling didn't wonder what brought Mizen to Buck's Row? Or that Inspector Helson didn't also know that Mizen had been at the scene, and despite his many years of experience, didn't question why a PC had abandoned his beat and was at the scene of the murder in J-Division?

It is unfortunate that we do not have enough surviving documentation to know what happened, but since we don't, we need to weigh what is and what is not plausible.

Is Stow's theory plausible? Or would Helson have asked the obvious questions and have soon learned of the existence of Paul and Cross?

One of the best posts I've ever had the pleasure of reading on this site.

Utterly brilliant



RD

[rjpalmer]

My only question would be how might they have tracked Cross down if Cross hadn’t told Paul his name and workplace (“I’m Charlie, I work at Pickford’s etc)

No, you're that right that we don't know how Cross was traced (or whether he came forward) but it's the Lechmerean theory that since Helson and Co. were oblivious to his existence for 60-72 hours there would have been no effort to trace him, thus he must have been driven from the woodwork by Robert Paul.

Bear in mind that there couldn't have been any certainty in Cross's mind that Paul wouldn't go to the police on Friday or Saturday anyway-- regardless of whether an interview appeared in the newspapers-- so I'm not sure how the psychology behind the theory makes much sense anyway

So perhaps Cross simply went to the police station on Saturday after finishing work (not wanting to miss a days work) to tell them he was the man but too late for The Star to find out. They then interviewed him and submitted his name and address to the coroner’s office. Possible?

I recently revisited a debate between Dusty and Christer, and Dusty also felt that Lechmere must have come forward on Saturday.

By the way, in my previous post I wrote "At the end of his shift, Mizen would have reported this to his duty sergeant. And in doing so, he would have to have mentioned the two men who alerted him to the murder in Buck's Row because they were his justification for this infraction."

Of course, Cross and Paul didn't alert Mizen to the 'murder' per se; they alerted him to the woman in Buck's Row who turned out to be murdered, which would seemingly explain Mizen's short delay before proceeding to the crime scene.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The first observation I would make is that in suggesting that Lechmere was forced to come forward due to Robert Paul's interview with the press, Stow is just offering a theory.

There's nothing wrong with offering a theory, but his followers forget this and insist that this is what happened. In reality, we have no direct information about how, when, or why Cross came forward or was traced, whether he read Lloyd's Weekly News, or whether he was summoned to the inquest or whether he just showed up spontaneously, but if that latter I rather think that it would have been a dramatic occurrence and would have been reported, and considering that his Doveton Street address was given at the inquest, he was formally summoned. If not, then Stow's colleague Christer Holmgren would need to explain how the coroner's clerk knew it, since it's his theory that reporter for the Star (who published Lechmere's address) got it from the clerk. Isn't that an internal contradiction in the theory? As I understand Stow, he admits the there is no 'proof' that any of this happened, but he is adamant that it is the natural inference one should draw from the surviving documentation.

A more serious objection is that it is impossible to believe that PC Neil, nor PC Thain nor Inspector Spratling nor Inspector Helson (when they learned of the murder) didn't question or have any curiosity about Mizen's sudden appearance on the scene --on their patch, no less---and what or whom would have brought him there.

For background information, I recommend the following discussion by David Orsam, explaining that a beat constable, except in rare exceptions, was not allowed to leave his beat, and if he did leave his beat, he was supposed to return to it again as soon as possible.

The Conflicts of PC Mizen - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

And yet the events of that morning show that PC Mizen stopped knocking people up (which he was required to do and would be punished for not doing), went to Buck's Row, and even (somewhat amazingly) went and fetched a police ambulance.

Against all rules and regulations, Mizen completely abandoned his beat.

At the end of his shift, Mizen would have reported this to his duty sergeant. And in doing so, he would have to have mentioned the two men who alerted him to the murder in Buck's Row because they were his justification for this infraction. This information would be passed on to Inspector Helson who was in charge of the murder investigation.

If for some strange reason Mizen decided not to report these two men and lie about it, then how was he going to explain his dereliction of duty?

Spratling clearly DID know that Mizen had been at the scene because he mentions him in his report of Friday 31 August, though being an H-Division constable instead of a J-Division constable, Spratling identified him as Smizen instead of Mizen.

Are we supposed to believe that Spratling didn't wonder what brought Mizen to Buck's Row? Or that Inspector Helson didn't also know that Mizen had been at the scene, and despite his many years of experience, didn't question why a PC had abandoned his beat and was at the scene of the murder in J-Division?

It is unfortunate that we do not have enough surviving documentation to know what happened, but since we don't, we need to weigh what is and what is not plausible.

Is Stow's theory plausible? Or would Helson have asked the obvious questions and have soon learned of the existence of Paul and Cross?

That’s an excellent post Roger.

I’ve long thought that the suggestion from Christer that The Star reporter got his address from the clerk was a case of ‘the more that something is repeated the more chance of it being uncritically accepted.’ The obvious point (obvious after you pointed it out of course) is that if he got the Doveton Street address from the clerk, where did the clerk get it from. Either from the police who had somehow known of him and had submitted his name and address to the coroner’s officer for the coroner to decide whether or not to summons him to the inquest or not. Or else from Cross himself who showed up and gave his name and address to the court. But, as you say, there’s no evidence that he felt that he had no choice but to go purely because of a newspaper article. This suggestion implies that we somehow know how Cross would have thought at the time.

Added to that of course is the excellent point about Mizen leaving his beat (abandoning his knocking up duties) to go to Bucks Row. Thain of course was called/signalled by Neil but Mizen wasn’t. Is it really likely that none of the experienced officers would have thought “hold on, what was PC Mizen doing there?” I can’t see it. He would have been questioned and he would have told them about the two men. My only question would be how might they have tracked Cross down if Cross hadn’t told Paul his name and workplace (“I’m Charlie, I work at Pickford’s etc)

Polly was killed on the Friday morning. Paul spoke to a reporter on the evening of the same day but the story didn’t appear until the Sunday. It’s unthinkable that Cross wouldn’t have known about the murder well before Sunday. So perhaps Cross simply went to the police station on Saturday after finishing work (not wanting to miss a days work) to tell them he was the man but too late for The Star to find out. They then interviewed him and submitted his name and address to the coroner’s office.

Possible?

[rjpalmer]

Well I for one would love to read your criticisms. As far as I have read, and Facebook is rather current unlike here due to bannings etc. Christer and Ed, especially Christer has not moved one millimetre on any criticisms the theory has received, the name thing, the time gap, the blood evidence, the proposed alibis and the geo-profiling all have been ignored. It appears when challenging the theory it's safer and more productive to bang one's head against the wall.

The first observation I would make is that in suggesting that Lechmere was forced to come forward due to Robert Paul's interview with the press, Stow is just offering a theory.

There's nothing wrong with offering a theory, but his followers forget this and insist that this is what happened. In reality, we have no direct information about how, when, or why Cross came forward or was traced, whether he read Lloyd's Weekly News, or whether he was summoned to the inquest or whether he just showed up spontaneously, but if that latter I rather think that it would have been a dramatic occurrence and would have been reported, and considering that his Doveton Street address was given at the inquest, he was formally summoned. If not, then Stow's colleague Christer Holmgren would need to explain how the coroner's clerk knew it, since it's his theory that reporter for the Star (who published Lechmere's address) got it from the clerk. Isn't that an internal contradiction in the theory? As I understand Stow, he admits the there is no 'proof' that any of this happened, but he is adamant that it is the natural inference one should draw from the surviving documentation.

A more serious objection is that it is impossible to believe that PC Neil, nor PC Thain nor Inspector Spratling nor Inspector Helson (when they learned of the murder) didn't question or have any curiosity about Mizen's sudden appearance on the scene --on their patch, no less---and what or whom would have brought him there.

For background information, I recommend the following discussion by David Orsam, explaining that a beat constable, except in rare exceptions, was not allowed to leave his beat, and if he did leave his beat, he was supposed to return to it again as soon as possible.

The Conflicts of PC Mizen - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

And yet the events of that morning show that PC Mizen stopped knocking people up (which he was required to do and would be punished for not doing), went to Buck's Row, and even (somewhat amazingly) went and fetched a police ambulance.

Against all rules and regulations, Mizen completely abandoned his beat.

At the end of his shift, Mizen would have reported this to his duty sergeant. And in doing so, he would have to have mentioned the two men who alerted him to the murder in Buck's Row because they were his justification for this infraction. This information would be passed on to Inspector Helson who was in charge of the murder investigation.

If for some strange reason Mizen decided not to report these two men and lie about it, then how was he going to explain his dereliction of duty?

Spratling clearly DID know that Mizen had been at the scene because he mentions him in his report of Friday 31 August, though being an H-Division constable instead of a J-Division constable, Spratling identified him as Smizen instead of Mizen.

Are we supposed to believe that Spratling didn't wonder what brought Mizen to Buck's Row? Or that Inspector Helson didn't also know that Mizen had been at the scene, and despite his many years of experience, didn't question why a PC had abandoned his beat and was at the scene of the murder in J-Division?

It is unfortunate that we do not have enough surviving documentation to know what happened, but since we don't, we need to weigh what is and what is not plausible.

Is Stow's theory plausible? Or would Helson have asked the obvious questions and have soon learned of the existence of Paul and Cross?

[Geddy2112]

I have a number of criticisms of this theory, but I'll save them for the time being. I'm not entirely certain what their current belief is regarding Cross's use of 'Cross' rather than his birthname Lechmere. As you say, if he's giving his employer's name and his home address, it would seem nearly suicidal to attempt some sort of subterfuge on this score by supply a name that he was generally not know to use elsewhere. I would think that rather than reducing suspicion, it would greatly increase it.

Well I for one would love to read your criticisms. As far as I have read, and Facebook is rather current unlike here due to bannings etc. Christer and Ed, especially Christer has not moved one millimetre on any criticisms the theory has received, the name thing, the time gap, the blood evidence, the proposed alibis and the geo-profiling all have been ignored. It appears when challenging the theory it's safer and more productive to bang one's head against the wall.

[rjpalmer]

I think it all comes back to the same question as why would he lie about his name?
Why would he lie about his employer?
Why would he lie about his name?
If the answer to either of those questions implicates him in the murder, kindly explain why he would have:
a) bothered to turn up to the court in the first place and
b) given his actual address...

Hello AP,

As I understand it from a brief exchange with Ed Stow, an acceptance or appreciation of police incompetence is a necessary ingredient in understanding and embracing the Lechmere theory.

Stow's belief is that the police--and here I mean Helson, Spratling, etc.---all of them, really, other than PC Mizen----were entirely oblivious to the fact that two carmen had discovered Nichols' body lying in the street, and this ignorance remained for the better part of 72 hours. Until the second session of the inquest on Monday, 3 September, the police remained under the impression that PC Neil, and PC Neil only, had found the body, so neither Cross nor Paul and been traced and questioned or investigated, let alone had Cross been summoned to attend the coroner's court. It was, in short, a police c*ckup.

Ed cites the Coroner's Act in one of his videos, informing his audience that anyone who has important information can attend an inquest without having been formally summoned and this is what he believes happened with Cross aka Lechmere.

To answer your question in bold, what forced Lechmere's hand, according to the theory, was Robert Paul "running to the newspaper" and being interviewed by Lloyd's Weekly News. Thus, the first inkling of the police c*ckup was when Paul's interview was published in Lloyd's on Sunday, 2 September, over 48 hours after the murder had been committed. Only then did the realization begin to slowly trickle into the thick minds of the police that two members of the public, not previously known to them, had been at the crime scene before J-Division's beat constable, PC Neil. As evidence of this ignorance, Stow cites the internal report submitted by Spratling on Friday, 31 August, as well as what he calls an "interview" by Inspector Helson on Sunday, 2 September, neither of which mention the two carmen but instead insist that PC Neil was the man who discovered the body.

At this point you might wonder--as I still wonder--why they believe PC Mizen didn't pass along the highly relevant fact that he had encountered two men leaving the area of the murder back in Buck's Row. The answer, of course, is the so-called 'Mizen scam.' Cross did alert Mizen to the woman, but he made it sound as if another PC was already at the scene with the situation under control. Lo and behold, when Mizen arrives in Buck's Row PC Neil is already there, so he naturally assumes Neil already knew of the two men, so he doesn't mention them but instead goes to fetch the ambulance at Neil's instruction. In the minds of the Lechmere theorists, there is also some relevance in the fact that Inspector Helson will initially refer to the carmen as "messengers," showing his incomplete understanding of what had transpired even when information of Paul and Lechmere's existence starts to trickle in.

Thus, it was only Robert Paul running to the press that forced Lechmere's hand (the theory goes) and Lechmere responded by either spontaneously appearing at the inquest on Monday, 3 September (still wearing his work apron) or, at the most, he might have stopped by a police nick beforehand. This Cross did to defuse whatever suspicions might rise against him in light of Paul having contacted the press. Had Paul not done so, they argue, Lechmere's name would have been lost to history, and he would have simply disappeared into the woodwork, whereas they see Paul as something of a gadfly and malcontent. Or at least Ed Stow does.

I have a number of criticisms of this theory, but I'll save them for the time being. I'm not entirely certain what their current belief is regarding Cross's use of 'Cross' rather than his birthname Lechmere. As you say, if he's giving his employer's name and his home address, it would seem nearly suicidal to attempt some sort of subterfuge on this score by supply a name that he was generally not know to use elsewhere. I would think that rather than reducing suspicion, it would greatly increase it.

[Geddy2112]

Many thanks for your post...

It's how it works with lots of theories though, pick and choose what works and discard the rest as aberration, outlier, insignificance, "matter of opinion" or a badly quoted journalistic piece. Lechmere isn't alone in that department...

They do but in my opinion they are either liars or they are not. Most people have a reason for lying, self protection, ulterior motive etc but they usually have a reason. So in this case why would Lechmere be truthful about his address, place of work, time he roughly left home, but lie about what Paul said about propping up, about what he said to Mizen and that he only approached the bundle and not actually knifed poor Polly. It makes no sense and this cherry picking of evidence for me is one of the reasons this particular theory fails to convince.

The particular strength of the Lechmere theory in terms of popularity stems from a recent uptake in the association of "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion" with the fallacious "Therefore everyone's opinion is just as valid as anyone else's" washed down with a heavy dose of, "I don't need to prove I'm right, you need to prove I'm wrong." It falls in with a huge uptake in the "Lazy-Arsed True Crime" genre. People love to think they can come along and solve a 135 year old mystery by watching a few videos and show that they know more than the "experts" because obviously those stuffy gate-keeping experts have never heard of Lechmere and need to be put in their place! "I'VE watched the videos! I KNOW!"

Agreed it's the main theory to come out in the YouTube age. Christer and Ed do a good job of making sure it's always current even if they do not bring anything new to the table. Hence it's got big, they push it more the detractors push back, they push the detractors keep pushing back. Of course this keeps it 'new' and we live in an age of instant gratification and being 'current.' To agree with what you say about people's opinions this quote has become a favourite of mine -

'While Internet has transformed the world into a global village, it has also given a voice to people who would have been considered the village idiots.'

You tend to find the theory suffers on here, JtRforums and now more and more on the Facebook group, however it somewhat thrives on YouTube because the YouTube crowd tend to believe anything since it was on the 'telly.' Which of course we all know is dangerous. Ed seems to have free reign to put out any old garbage and the likes and positive comments just flow in. Good for the ego dare I suggest.

One of the most mystifying things is that there seems to be an awful lot of people who argue on behalf of the "Lechmere Dunnit" theory seemingly without even understanding it, and making such wildly inaccurate statements with the absolute conviction that they "Know" it to be the truth.
And when such comments appear in places where the architects of the theory are very present, those architects rarely, if ever, point to these comments as being wrong, and correct them.

Absolutely correct. The architects also seem to keep pulling out the name thing, the blood evidence, Scobie Doo, James-Payne, Thiblin, the time gap, the geo profiling and anything else time after time when all of these 'reasons' have been debunked more times that I've had hot dinners. But they keep pulling them out.. astonishing.

I mean, surely your theory is strong enough for you to be truthful to those who claim to support it and correct them when they are wrong?
It's almost as if they don't care about the truth, as long as they are getting support for their project.
If you are worried about your supporters knowing the truth, then I think your support is pretty weak.

Could not have put it any better myself, but here we are. Like I said I applauded Christer yesterday for coming up with a theory and publishing it, I do not agree with it and I think it's very flawed, however he has achieved to do what he set out to do and that is praise worthy but I did suggest, instead of wasting thousands of hours defending his theory and just print it and stand by it that he goes out and researches more to see if he can find the definitive Holy Grail then bring it back to the table. I can't remember the last time a 'juicy piece of information' was presented. Go on Christer, take on board the reasons why people have doubts with your theory and go out and work to prove them wrong. I doubt he will take the advice though.

[A P Tomlinson]

This is kind of my point. The theory relies on Lechmere telling the truth for part of his testimony but lying for the rest. Surely that is an unsafe way to build a theory.

It's how it works with lots of theories though, pick and choose what works and discard the rest as abberation, outlier, insignificace, "matter of opinion" or a badly quoted journalistic piece. Lechmere isn't alone in that department...

The particular strength of the Lechmere theory in terms of popularity stems from a recent uptake in the association of "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion" with the falacious "Therefore everyone's opinion is just as valid as anyone else's" washed down with a heavy dose of, "I don't need to prove I'm right, you need to prove I'm wrong." It falls in with a huge uptake in the "Lazy-Arsed True Crime" genre. People love to think they can come along and solve a 135 year old mystery by watching a few videos and show that they know more than the "experts" because obviously those stuffy gate-keeping experts have never heard of Lechmere and need to be put in their place! "I'VE watched the videos! I KNOW!"

One of the most mystifying things is that there seems to be an awful lot of people who argue on behalf of the "Lechmere Dunnit" theory seemingly without even understanding it, and making such wildly inaccurate statements with the absolute conviction that they "Know" it to be the truth.
And when such comments appear in places where the architects of the theory are very present, those architects rarely, if ever, point to these comments as being wrong, and correct them.
I mean, surely your theory is strong enough for you to be truthful to those who claim to support it and correct them when they are wrong?
It's almost as if they don't care about the truth, as long as they are getting support for their project.
If you are worried about your supporters knowing the truth, then I think your support is pretty weak.

[Geddy2112]

I think it all comes back to the same question as why would he lie about his name?
Why would he lie about his employer?
Why would he lie about his name?
If the answer to either of those questions implicates him in the murder, kindly explain why he would have:
a) bothered to turn up to the court in the first place and
b) given his actual address...

Or wait... was everything he said at the inquest a lie?
I mean there's no "Proof" the man who stood up in court that day and told all those other "Lies" lived at Doveton Street...
Oh my God... all that research into Lechmere... pointless and wasted... books... documentaries... Youtube channels!
We have no clue WHO he was!!! He could have literally had any name, worked anywhere and lived anywhere!

Or do we believe the address bit, while questioning everything else, because that address is the ONLY thing that links him to the name Lechmere, and that bit needs to be kept firmly in the picture.
Ed and Christer would be left without a vessel for their enthusiasm.

This is kind of my point. The theory relies on Lechmere telling the truth for part of his testimony but lying for the rest. Surely that is an unsafe way to build a theory.

[Lewis C]

To me, the debate over '3:30' or 'about 3:30' is of lesser importance and diverts our attention away from the far more relevant fact that the alleged "missing time" can be traced to Robert Paul's highly problematic deposition and the statement attributed to him in LWN. That Paul's estimated time of departure was left unchallenged in the Missing Evidence episode is a far greater omission than the single word "about."

HI RJ,

I agree with this. If one accepts the times that PC Neil said he found the body and that PC Mizen said that Cross and Paul talked to him, then there is no time gap to speak of even if one goes with '3:30' rather than 'about 3:30' for the time that Cross left home.

[A P Tomlinson]

I think it all comes back to the same question as why would he lie about his name?
Why would he lie about his employer?
Why would he lie about his name?
If the answer to either of those questions implicates him in the murder, kindly explain why he would have:
a) bothered to turn up to the court in the first place and
b) given his actual address...

Or wait... was everything he said at the inquest a lie?
I mean there's no "Proof" the man who stood up in court that day and told all those other "Lies" lived at Doveton Street...
Oh my God... all that research into Lechmere... pointless and wasted... books... documentaries... Youtube channels!
We have no clue WHO he was!!! He could have literally had any name, worked anywhere and lived anywhere!

Or do we believe the address bit, while questioning everything else, because that address is the ONLY thing that links him to the name Lechmere, and that bit needs to be kept firmly in the picture.
Ed and Christer would be left without a vessel for their enthusiasm.

[Geddy2112]

Hi Geddy,
In truth, I can't get on board with the idea that Christer Holmgren is dishonest. I know from personal experience that he's willing to discuss every aspect of his theory in enormous detail--even his internal thought process--and that's not the method of a grifter out to fool the public. Personally, I'm willing to accept his explanation.

Hi sir, I'm sorry I believe is he being 'economical with the truth.' Do not get me wrong I do not think he is evil or anything like that. However, he twists facts, evidence and the English language (see Breaking point - David Orsam) to suit his agenda, if that is not dishonesty I not sure of another polite word to use. If there is a less 'unfriendly' term to use I'm all for it but from what I've read on these boards, his behaviour and his posting on Facebook he strikes me as rather stubborn man, not willing to allow others to disagree with his 'theory.' Many have tried and it seems, again from what I've read his rudeness and arrogance is at the forefront. I'm sorry but that is how I see it.

To me, the debate over '3:30' or 'about 3:30' is of lesser importance and diverts our attention away from the far more relevant fact that the alleged "missing time" can be traced to Robert Paul's highly problematic deposition and the statement attributed to him in LWN. That Paul's estimated time of departure was left unchallenged in the Missing Evidence episode is a far greater omission than the single word "about."

The 'about' for me is rather important. It's the seed of doubt planted so his readers can start to believe this invented time gap. It's not only that he does it with in his book he does it with Payne-James' 'evidence' and of course the 'name' thing to name two, there are many other examples in there as well.

Your visual demonstration admirably demonstrates the absurdity of putting too much faith in Paul's accuracy. Lechmere is crouching over Polly's body, knife in hand, a full minute after PC Neil has already discovered her lifeless body. And Neil's estimate dovetails with the accounts given by Mizen and Thain and Lechmere. Further, this account of events is supported by Abberline's internal report--the one man who seems to have tried to work it out as precisely as possible.

Absolutely correct. The book and the video have rather large holes in them, are they deliberate. I think so, a one off might be excusable but a dozen in the book or in the case of the video over 30. So whilst I certainly disagree with your point of Christer being dishonest, I told him today his book is good, good as in the sense it sets out to finger Lechmere and it does that, do I agree with it's conclusions, absolutely not, do I believe Lechmere is JtR? Not on what he presented no.

As has been pointed out about a hundred times, Robert Paul is the odd man out. A single witness being inaccurate is utterly commonplace.

Robert Paul is the suspicious one for me also and I've demonstrated a couple of times how he could have easily, just as easily as Lechmere have killed poor Polly. Do I think Paul is Jack the Ripper, absolutely not because I've not got 100% solid evidence to say so. However he could have been. Apologies if I've offended by suggesting Christer is dishonest.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Geddy,

In truth, I can't get on board with the idea that Christer Holmgren is dishonest. I know from personal experience that he's willing to discuss every aspect of his theory in enormous detail--even his internal thought process--and that's not the method of a grifter out to fool the public. Personally, I'm willing to accept his explanation.

To me, the debate over '3:30' or 'about 3:30' is of lesser importance and diverts our attention away from the far more relevant fact that the alleged "missing time" can be traced to Robert Paul's highly problematic deposition and the statement attributed to him in LWN. That Paul's estimated time of departure was left unchallenged in the Missing Evidence episode is a far greater omission than the single word "about."

Your visual demonstration admirably demonstrates the absurdity of putting too much faith in Paul's accuracy. Lechmere is crouching over Polly's body, knife in hand, a full minute after PC Neil has already discovered her lifeless body. And Neil's estimate dovetails with the accounts given by Mizen and Thain and Lechmere. Further, this account of events is supported by Abberline's internal report--the one man who seems to have tried to work it out as precisely as possible.

As has been pointed out about a hundred times, Robert Paul is the odd man out. A single witness being inaccurate is utterly commonplace.