The Lechmere trail - so far

[Patrick S]

Good question, Patrick.
Remember, it was Paul who didn't come forward on his own-- the police showed up after reading his interview in the paper, found him at home and insisted he come in for an interview, as well as be an inquest witness.

I suppose Cross came in after reading the paper's account of the inquest, in which Neil is identified as the finder of the body. If his name had not been taken by Mizen (apparently another breach of police protocol), then it was unlikely they could track him to his home. But did Mizen get the names of the carmen? Much is made of this in the Lechmere theory, but it seems he only said his name was "Cross" at his inquest testimony. As his stepfather was a policeman, maybe that was part of the reason for using that name here-- or maybe not.
I think the use of the term "a false name" in the documentary film is misleading to viewers, perhaps an overstatement.

I'll be honest, I've always assumed that Mizen collected names in Baker's Row. Last night, after watching "New Evidence", I realized I'd nothing upon which to base that assumption. So, I spent several hours (a bit too late into the night, I'm afraid) digging through texts and websites, attemting to find some verification. It may exist. I've not found it yet.

What I've found thus far seems to indicate that Mizen didn't disclose his Baker's Row meeting with Cross and Paul until after Paul's interview appeared in Lloyd's.

Based on upon what's reported in Lloyd's it seems that there was - after Paul wen't public - some confusion about the issue with Neil remaining 'adamant' that he found the body and Lloyd's making it clear that they were siding with Paul ('every word he's said has been true'). Mizen, according to Mizen himself and Neil, arrived at the scene to find Neil with the body. Mizen says, "When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body." Other reports say that there were neighbors about the body at this time as well. But, let's deal simply with Mizen and Neil in Bakers Row.

Mizen is directed there by Cross and Paul.

Mizen goes to Bucks Row.

Mizen finds Neil in Bucks Row.

Now, if you believe in the "Mizen Scam" you believe that Cross told Mizen, "You are wanted in Buck's Row (by another policeman)." Mizen reported there finding what he expected to find: A PC and a body. Yet, it seems strange to me that there was no conversation whatever about how Mizen came to be in Bucks Row. Did Mizen never hear Neil refer to his finding the body, and correct him that the two men he'd spoken to in Bakers Row had said they'd found it? In any event, Mizen is dispatched to fetch an ambulance without speaking to Neil about any of this.

Then we have Neil testifying at the inquest on Saturday, September 1. His statement makes no mention of Cross and Paul. He does mention Mizen, however: "seeing another constable in Baker's-row, I sent him for the ambulance". No mention of Mizen telling him two men referred him there.

This chronology stood until Sunday, when Paul's statement appeared in Lloyd's. Clearly, subsequent to the events in Bucks Row, Mizen had not volunteered his encounter with Cross and Paul. He'd not come forward entered this informaiton into the case record. In fact, he'd let Neil testify that he'd been the first to find the body. And, as of Sunday, Lloyd's reports that he was still "adamant" about that fact.

The inquest resumed on Monday, September 3. It seems that Cross appeared voluntarily on this date. Entered his name as Cross (not Lechmere), gave his actual address and actual place of employment (Pickfords).

Mizen also appeared to give his account. One may assume that his appearance was driven to some extent by Paul's statment in Lloyd's. Mizen clarified that Neil was not the first to have found the body, as Neil had testified to on Saturday: "at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying."

Anyway, this is my understanding to this point. I'm open to any an all input or help here.

[Pcdunn]

Good question, Patrick.
Remember, it was Paul who didn't come forward on his own-- the police showed up after reading his interview in the paper, found him at home and insisted he come in for an interview, as well as be an inquest witness.

I suppose Cross came in after reading the paper's account of the inquest, in which Neil is identified as the finder of the body. If his name had not been taken by Mizen (apparently another breach of police protocol), then it was unlikely they could track him to his home. But did Mizen get the names of the carmen? Much is made of this in the Lechmere theory, but it seems he only said his name was "Cross" at his inquest testimony. As his stepfather was a policeman, maybe that was part of the reason for using that name here-- or maybe not.
I think the use of the term "a false name" in the documentary film is misleading to viewers, perhaps an overstatement.

[Abby Normal]

You are gradually self alienating yourself by reason of the fact that you are not prepared to accept that your theory has been shown by many on here to be littered with flaws, which you cant, and wont accept.

You have dug yourself a big hole with the content of the documentary, which was provided by you and you other partner in "Super Sleuths Inc" Inspector Gadget, which may have pleased the documentary makers by reason of the fact that they were able to edit it a way that when it went out to the public it was made to look as if you had solved the biggest and most well known murder case in the history of British crime, with all the experts provided by Blink films supporting your claim. well you havent and that is where it must rest for the time being.

I personally have nothing further to say on this thread. It has now become boring and tiresome, with the same old points being argued day after day. I hope posters will refrain form continuing to argue with you because it is clear you are not going to back down and accept one, some, or all of the points you seek to rely on to prove Lechmere killed Nicholls are not proven.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That certainly is rich coming from you marriot

You jump from wacky theory to wacky theory with the frequency of a cheap HAM radio, all the while milking the ripper case for all the money its worth, while also constantly personally attacking anyone who dosnt believe in YOUR nutty ideas. Including respected authorities on the case who probably don't like to post anymore here because when they do you (and others of your ilk) come out of the woodwork looking for any reason to antagonize them.

because it is clear you are not going to back down and accept one, some, or all of the points you seek to rely on to prove Lechmere killed Nicholls are not proven.

Oh yes, and you are such a paragon of open minded debate.

Yes leave like you promised and go back to selling your Ripper Brand t-shirts.

[Patrick S]

"New Evidence" states that Cross had "no choice" but to come forward after Paul's interview ("a bombshell"), making it clear that PC Neil was not, in fact, the first to discover Nichols' body.

I think there are two points that should be examined with respect to the above statement.

First, It's clear that - before Sunday, September 2 - it was believed, by PC Neil, the police, and the public, that Neil had found the body:

"Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Every word he had said was true." (Lloyd's, September 2, 1888)

It seems clear that Mizen had not made his encounter with Cross and Paul in Baker's Row a part of the official police record to this point. One obvious quesion: If Mizen arrived at the scene and found Neil there, why did he NOT mention the fact that he'd been directed there by two men who had - independendently, before Neil's arrival in Buck's Row - discovered the body?

Obviously, Mizen did not inform Neil of Cross and Paul in that Lloyd's clearly reiterates that Neil is adamant that HE found the body: "Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police."

Why did Mizen not tell Neil that Cross and Paul had found the body prior to his arrival?

Why had Mizen not followed up after the fact, making his encounter with Paul and Cross in Baker's Row a part of the offical record?

Second, "New Evidence" says that Cross had "no choice" but to come forward after Paul's interview. Here is what Paul said: "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head." (Lloyd's, September 2, 1888)

No mention of the name "Cross". No mention of the name "Lechmere". No first name. No description whatsoever. You aren't told if the man is tall, short, old, young, bearded, clean-shaven. We know only that he was 'a man'. Paul does not tell us that the man he met in Buck's Row was familiar to him. He doesn't mention if he was man on his way to work, or on his way home from a pub. He doesn't tell us that he was a fellow carman, that he worked at Pickfords.

Further, Paul gives himself the starring role. He goes in search of the police, seemingly alone. He speaks with Mizen. No mention here of 'the man'.

It seems clear that Cross and Paul did not give their names to Mizen in Baker's Row.

Why would Cross feel compelled to come forward in light of the publication of the Paul interview? There's no description of him. His role is marginalized by Paul. This - to me - seems to work in his favor.

If Cross had killed Nichols, approached Paul, went with him in search of the police, found a PC (Mizen), and successfully avoided capture (with the murder weapon on his person), unnamed and unidentified, why would he feel that "he had no choice" but to come forward in light of this "bombshell" from Lloyd's/Paul?

He got away with murder and was compelled to kill again. Why would he now submit himself - again - willfully, to the police?

[Trevor Marriott]

I am sorry, Patrick, but I took the decision not to debate any further with you yesterday.
You will be able to follow and comment on the theory as such should you wish to, but whatever you have to say will go uncommented on by me.

You are gradually self alienating yourself by reason of the fact that you are not prepared to accept that your theory has been shown by many on here to be littered with flaws, which you cant, and wont accept.

You have dug yourself a big hole with the content of the documentary, which was provided by you and you other partner in "Super Sleuths Inc" Inspector Gadget, which may have pleased the documentary makers by reason of the fact that they were able to edit it a way that when it went out to the public it was made to look as if you had solved the biggest and most well known murder case in the history of British crime, with all the experts provided by Blink films supporting your claim. well you havent and that is where it must rest for the time being.

I personally have nothing further to say on this thread. It has now become boring and tiresome, with the same old points being argued day after day. I hope posters will refrain form continuing to argue with you because it is clear you are not going to back down and accept one, some, or all of the points you seek to rely on to prove Lechmere killed Nicholls are not proven.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Hello, Patrick.

I seem to recall from other discussions that it is likely Llewellyn had a watch. Apparently the other men are estimating time (notice the use of words like "about" and "around" before the mention of the time), perhaps from public clocks.
We really don't know their sources for the times they gave.

We do know, however, that Robert Paul said that he was in Bucks Row at "exactly" 3.45. If that was an estimation, it was a very odd one. The better guess is that he had a timepiece, either at home or a pocketwatch that he anxiously followed, being late for work.
At the inquest, he said that he left home "just before" 3.45, meaning that his Bucks Row estimate seems to fit very well here - he had but a minuteīs walk to Bucks Row.

Just like you say, it is also likely that Llewellyn was guided by a timepice of his own. Therefore, it is interesting to se how Pauls and Llewellyns timings fit with each other, leaving the PC:s timings open to a proposition of a non.clock guided estimation. There were nearby clocks that struck the time, and the PC:s may well have relied on such a clockstrike - that may have been some minutes off.

[Patrick S]

Hello, Patrick.

I seem to recall from other discussions that it is likely Llewellyn had a watch. Apparently the other men are estimating time (notice the use of words like "about" and "around" before the mention of the time), perhaps from public clocks.
We really don't know their sources for the times they gave.

Thanks. It would be helpful to have a statement along the lines of, "I walked down Buck's Row at exactly 3:47AM. I know this because because the clock inside 'Fat Tony's Buck's Row Pizza and Sub Shop' said so, and that clock is famously accurate. Fat Tony is very particular about time because he closes shop at EXACTLY 6PM every night in order to get to 'Ms. Walton's House of Music' for his nightly lesson. He's learning to play the piccolo."

[Patrick S]

I am sorry, Patrick, but I took the decision not to debate any further with you yesterday.
You will be able to follow and comment on the theory as such should you wish to, but whatever you have to say will go uncommented on by me.

That's somewhat less than productive. But, I suppose it's to be expected when one is unable to defend the ground upon which they stand. I - for my part then - will continue to pose legitimate questions. Up to now you've been unable to present logical and/or lucid rebuttles and, as we both know, that's why you'll no longer debate me (I'm sure you'll continue to engage anyone with far less damaging points to make).

I suggest that - going forward - YOU refrain from being condescending and arrogant, insulting and sarcastic, to the point that others - who have much more skill in that area (along with an impartial ability to analyze) are obliged to respond in kind.

I'm actually very disappointed that my points will now go unchallenged. But, then, there haven't been any logical challenges up now, have there?

[Pcdunn]

Timing, it seems, is quite important when attempting to fit Cross as having killed Nichols. Thus, I think it's important to set a firm time at some point during the chronology, a baseline, if you will. Do we have any of the actors involved giving a solid time, firmly established and (to some extent) verifiable, that we can rely upon? We have all these characters giving times. Do we know how any of these men established the times they gave?

Hello, Patrick.

I seem to recall from other discussions that it is likely Llewellyn had a watch. Apparently the other men are estimating time (notice the use of words like "about" and "around" before the mention of the time), perhaps from public clocks.
We really don't know their sources for the times they gave.

[Fisherman]

I am sorry, Patrick, but I took the decision not to debate any further with you yesterday.
You will be able to follow and comment on the theory as such should you wish to, but whatever you have to say will go uncommented on by me.

[Patrick S]

drstrange169:

As researchers it's important that we look at all the facts not just select what we like and pretend the rest doesn't exist.

You mean like you did when you placed Lechmere half a mile from the body by cutting away the relevant parts from a quote?

You know, because I've pointed it out to you before, that Swanson's reports contained errors.
Knowing that, an unbiased researcher looks for further evidence rather then eagarly jumping on something you like. Was Swanson's "3:45" simply another of his mistakes? There are other police files that mention the timings, by cross-checking those we can get an answer.

Swansons FIRST report said 3.40. His second - the last one we have - has changed that time to 3.45. That means that the most official timimg we have of the finding of the body says 3.45, and it also means that the time was given after his final consideration.
Swanson may well have gotten things wrong, but that does not make his report less official or important. Choosing Abberline as some sort of phantom cop who could never be wrong is simply historically unwise. Not to speak about how you just advised against cherrypicking...

In a joint report dated 7th Sept. Helson and Keating also mentioned the body being found at 3:45. The authors noted that their report was a continuation of Spratling's original report,31st Aug. which had Neil discovering the body at 3:45. In a summation at the end they also put the body being found at 3:45. Unfortunately they do not say who by, so we don't know if they were referring to Cross and Paul or Neil.

No, but they do say 3.45.

Good research dictates we look further.

On 19th Sept. Abberline, the man actually in charge of the operation on the ground, wrote the most detailed report that has survived. In it he details who found the body and when,
" ...about 3:40. am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, ... noticed a woman lying on her back..."

A report that was cosigned by Swanson - who went on to opt for 3.45 in the end. If you think that was a decision he took without having weighed the matter and without having consulted the men out on the field, I would strongly object. Swansons whole role in the investigation was to work as a spider in the net and try to make sense of the many differing sources.

Fact: Xmere said he left Doveton Street at 3:30

He said both 3.20 and 3.30, seemingly, but I agree that 3.30 is the better suggestion, since that dovetails with him being late.

Fact: The journey to the body, depending on his speed, was about 7 to 8 mins.

6 to 7, more likely. We timed it at 7.07, but we walked at a very moderate speed, and I think the trek was slightly shorter back then, new buildings having swallowed up the old route. And Lechmere was late for work, so there is every reason to reason that he would have walked briskly.

Fact: The journey from the body to Hanbury Street is about 2 and a half to 3 and a half mins.

That will be close.

Fact: About 3 and half mins is not an unreasonable time for Xmere to wait for Paul and examine the body.

If you are adding the time it took for Paul to walk down Bucks Row, circa one minute +, and then add two and a half minutes further, then you will get a combined time of between five and six minutes for the sequence Paul arrives at Browns-they examine the body-they walk to Bakers Row. And Paul was clear in saing that this took no more than 4 minutes at most. So you are one to two minutes off the mark.

Fact: The journey from Hanbury Street to Broad Street was about 21 mins at a slow walk. Xmere could have done comfortably in 15 mins if he hurried.

(The walks were physically timed by fellow lister David Orsam)

Fellow poster Edward Stow has other timings, so there is a disagreement.

Fact: Thain said he was in Brady Street at 3:45. If Paul was entering Buck's row at that time, Thain should have seen him.

That depends on WHERE in Brady Street Thain was. And we are now entering an area where a few seconds could have changed the whole picture. Not that I think they did, but still. Letīs by the way, not forget that if Paul entered Bucks Row at 3.45 exactly, then Thain should have seen or heard Lechmere too -IF he was there at the time.
The only reasonable conclusion here is that either Paul was wrong or Thain was.

Only one of them said "exactly 3.45" and that was Paul. Thain may well have A/ given an estimation of the time and B/ relied on Neils words.

Fact: Neil said he found the body at 3:45.

He did. The real time would have been perhaps 3.50 or thereabouts. And Neil too could easily have gíven an estimate.

Fact: He categorically stated that there were NOT two men in the street at the time.

Nor were there. So once again, Paul or Neil is wrong.

Fact: Mizen said he met Xmere and Paul at 3:45.

Of course Mizen could be either lying or an incompetent witness, but where would that leave your so called Mizen scam?

It ain't rocket science.

Truly not. And still these misunderstandings!

Now, you have had your say and you have cherrypicked your witnesses and your favourite bits and pieces.

Some bits were left out, though. For some reason. Letīs look at them too, shall we?

You say that Neil called upon Thain at 3.45. That will have had Thain at Browns at 3.46. Then he was dispatched to get Llewellyn, who lived and practiced in 152 Whitechapel Road. And Llewellyn says at the inquest "On Friday morning I was called to Buck's-row about four o'clock. The constable told me what I was wanted for."

Some recordings have Llewellyn speaking of shortly before 4 AM.

Now, Thain who Neil sent running for Llewellyn, would in your world have taken off at around perhaps 3.47, if Neil spent a minute telling Thain what he wanted him to do.
He had a two minute stretch to cover. It took 13 minutes.

Can you explain that? Thain may of course have spent some time with the butchers, telling them about the murder and collecting his cape - but eleven minutes...? When he was on that kind of an errand?

Now, letīs try the suit on with my timings. I say that Paul entered Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 - as he put it in the newspaper article. He then arrived at Browns at around 3.46. He examined the body together with Lechmere, and his estimation that this process together with the walk to Bakers Row took no more than four minutes, speaks to me of an examination time of around a minute and a half. We therefore now arrive at circa 3.47.30. Then Paul leaves together with Lechmere (sorry, Harry) and walks up Bucks Row to the intersection with Bakers Row and turns the corner BEFORE Neil gets into the street. That takes around a minute and a half, and we are now at 3.49.

Now - at the earliest - Neil turns into Bucks Row, and walks the stretch down to Browns, adding another minute and a half. We end up at 3.50.30.

He takes a quick look guided by his lantern, and this shortish look plus wawing down Thain and having him arriving at the Stable Yard door will have taken around a minute and a half too.

We have now arrived at 3.52. Thain is informed by Neil. That is half a minute īs work at most, taking us to 2.52.30.

Thain now sets off, but dives into the horseknackersī and tells them what has happened. He also fetches his cape. This takes another minute, leaving us at 2.53.30, whereafter Thain sets off for 152 Whitechapel Road, where he arrives at 2.55.30.

This all predisposes that Thain walked past the Bucks Row opening up at Brady Street the exact moment when Neil had discovered the woman. If Neil spent a minute or two looking at her and establishing what she was about, we instead have Thain knocking on Llewellyns door at 2.56.30 to 2.57.30. That is to say he arrives when Llewellyn said he did, shortly before or around 4 AM.

This is the best material we have to check the timings given. Thains colleagues said that he returned with the doctor in less than ten minutes. Letīs check that too:

He sets off at 2.52.30. Llewellyn says that he arrived shortly before or around 4 AM. That tallies perfectly with what we have. If Llewellyn was knocked up at 3.56.30-3.57.30 and took two and a half to three and a half minutes to get dressed and leave, then the two had two and a half minutes to reach the murder spot before the ten minutes had passed. And the trek was a two minute trek.

Like you say, it is all-important that we look at ALL the sources and delve deeply into things before we make our calls.

But it seems you did not consider this part at all - you settled for the timings that suited your suggestion, you ditched Paul in favour of the PC:s and you avoided Llewellyn.

Fish again:
"Hereīs Wynne Baxter, from his summing up after the inquest, late in September:
"The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data."[/B]

Baxter summed up based on the evidence he heard.

Fact: He heard Thain say he was in Brady street at 3:45.
Fact: He heard Neil say he found the body at 3:45.
Fact: He heard Mizen say he met Xmere and Paul a few hundred yards away at 3:45.
Fact: 3:37 or 3:40 is not "far away from 3:45".
Fact: Xmere nor Paul gave times at the inquest.

Fact: You are not looking at Llewellyns testimony, which Baxter also heard.
Fact: 3.37 is miles away from 3.45 in this context. You need to make eight minutes disappear.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that Thain, Neil, Mizen and Xmere were the "so many independent data" that Baxter was referring to, because there was NO OTHER COMBINATIONS OF TIMES mentioned at the inquest.

Yes there was, as I have shown you - but they do not fit your thinking, so itīs Ssssssch!!!! But let me remind you of a wise manīs words:

"As researchers it's important that we look at all the facts not just select what we like and pretend the rest doesn't exist."

That was you talking...

To once more quote you: "3.40 is not far away from 3.45."

Well, 3.50 is no further away from 3.45!

"Covering the wounds:"[/B]

I noticed you backed away from you claim about the Ulster, sensible.

Did I?

"Blood evidence:"

Just after the quote you pasted from Baxter he went on to comment on the blood,
"There is not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where the neck was lying."

The case against Lechmere relies, to a large extent on this kind of cherry-picking quotes where it suits and denying the same witnesses where to doesn't suit.

Not a good way to build a case.

True enough. So why do you do it?

Timing, it seems, is quite important when attempting to fit Cross as having killed Nichols. Thus, I think it's important to set a firm time at some point during the chronology, a baseline, if you will. Do we have any of the actors involved giving a solid time, firmly established and (to some extent) verifiable, that we can rely upon? We have all these characters giving times. Do we know how any of these men established the times they gave?

[Patrick S]

Question for Christer:

I watched "New Evidence" last night. Congratulations. It's very well done and you are quite good in it. One comes away with respect for the work you've put in and I mean that sincerely.

Further, the graphics showing Paul, Cross, Nichols, Mizen, Niel, Bucks Row, etc., are fantastic. I quite enjoyed that.

In any event, I have a question and I know you're the guy that can answer it!

There is a hole in the information that I have, and it's mentioned - to some extent - in your program.

In "New Evidence" the narration states that Cross was "forced to come forward" once Paul's account appeared in print. Up to that point, the official line both from the police and press had been that PC Neil had found the Nichols in Buck's Row.

To this point, it seems, Mizen had not made his Baker's Row interraction with Cross and Paul a part of the official record.

"New Evidence" goes on state that Cross gave the name "Charles Allen Cross" at the inquest.

Here's where my question comes in: Was this the first time that Cross/Lechmere gave his name to the police with respect to the Buck's Row matter? There is no record of Cross or Paul giving Mizen their names in Baker's Row.

Thanks.

PDS

[Trevor Marriott]

The papers make it clear that they walked together to bakers Row. It is even worded exactly like this in The Evening Standard;

And we have Jason Payne-James saying that a bleeding time of seven minutes seems not very credible. Maybe we are looking at five minutes only - which Payne-James said was more credible.

He can only give a general opinion because he did not attend the crime scene, he did not view the body and did not see any photos. Any timings he gives are nothing more than rough estimates, and not to be totally relied on as you seem to want to do.


As to the newspapers. You are another who seeks to put to much reliance on newspaper articles. You cherry pick the articles that fit your theory and coincidentally never elude to the ones that dont. The various articles conflict with each other so on that basis caution in accepting them is required.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:

As researchers it's important that we look at all the facts not just select what we like and pretend the rest doesn't exist.

You mean like you did when you placed Lechmere half a mile from the body by cutting away the relevant parts from a quote?

You know, because I've pointed it out to you before, that Swanson's reports contained errors.
Knowing that, an unbiased researcher looks for further evidence rather then eagarly jumping on something you like. Was Swanson's "3:45" simply another of his mistakes? There are other police files that mention the timings, by cross-checking those we can get an answer.

Swansons FIRST report said 3.40. His second - the last one we have - has changed that time to 3.45. That means that the most official timimg we have of the finding of the body says 3.45, and it also means that the time was given after his final consideration.
Swanson may well have gotten things wrong, but that does not make his report less official or important. Choosing Abberline as some sort of phantom cop who could never be wrong is simply historically unwise. Not to speak about how you just advised against cherrypicking...

In a joint report dated 7th Sept. Helson and Keating also mentioned the body being found at 3:45. The authors noted that their report was a continuation of Spratling's original report,31st Aug. which had Neil discovering the body at 3:45. In a summation at the end they also put the body being found at 3:45. Unfortunately they do not say who by, so we don't know if they were referring to Cross and Paul or Neil.

No, but they do say 3.45.

Good research dictates we look further.

On 19th Sept. Abberline, the man actually in charge of the operation on the ground, wrote the most detailed report that has survived. In it he details who found the body and when,
" ...about 3:40. am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, ... noticed a woman lying on her back..."

A report that was cosigned by Swanson - who went on to opt for 3.45 in the end. If you think that was a decision he took without having weighed the matter and without having consulted the men out on the field, I would strongly object. Swansons whole role in the investigation was to work as a spider in the net and try to make sense of the many differing sources.

Fact: Xmere said he left Doveton Street at 3:30

He said both 3.20 and 3.30, seemingly, but I agree that 3.30 is the better suggestion, since that dovetails with him being late.

Fact: The journey to the body, depending on his speed, was about 7 to 8 mins.

6 to 7, more likely. We timed it at 7.07, but we walked at a very moderate speed, and I think the trek was slightly shorter back then, new buildings having swallowed up the old route. And Lechmere was late for work, so there is every reason to reason that he would have walked briskly.

Fact: The journey from the body to Hanbury Street is about 2 and a half to 3 and a half mins.

That will be close.

Fact: About 3 and half mins is not an unreasonable time for Xmere to wait for Paul and examine the body.

If you are adding the time it took for Paul to walk down Bucks Row, circa one minute +, and then add two and a half minutes further, then you will get a combined time of between five and six minutes for the sequence Paul arrives at Browns-they examine the body-they walk to Bakers Row. And Paul was clear in saing that this took no more than 4 minutes at most. So you are one to two minutes off the mark.

Fact: The journey from Hanbury Street to Broad Street was about 21 mins at a slow walk. Xmere could have done comfortably in 15 mins if he hurried.

(The walks were physically timed by fellow lister David Orsam)

Fellow poster Edward Stow has other timings, so there is a disagreement.

Fact: Thain said he was in Brady Street at 3:45. If Paul was entering Buck's row at that time, Thain should have seen him.

That depends on WHERE in Brady Street Thain was. And we are now entering an area where a few seconds could have changed the whole picture. Not that I think they did, but still. Letīs by the way, not forget that if Paul entered Bucks Row at 3.45 exactly, then Thain should have seen or heard Lechmere too -IF he was there at the time.
The only reasonable conclusion here is that either Paul was wrong or Thain was.

Only one of them said "exactly 3.45" and that was Paul. Thain may well have A/ given an estimation of the time and B/ relied on Neils words.

Fact: Neil said he found the body at 3:45.

He did. The real time would have been perhaps 3.50 or thereabouts. And Neil too could easily have gíven an estimate.

Fact: He categorically stated that there were NOT two men in the street at the time.

Nor were there. So once again, Paul or Neil is wrong.

Fact: Mizen said he met Xmere and Paul at 3:45.

Of course Mizen could be either lying or an incompetent witness, but where would that leave your so called Mizen scam?

It ain't rocket science.

Truly not. And still these misunderstandings!

Now, you have had your say and you have cherrypicked your witnesses and your favourite bits and pieces.

Some bits were left out, though. For some reason. Letīs look at them too, shall we?

You say that Neil called upon Thain at 3.45. That will have had Thain at Browns at 3.46. Then he was dispatched to get Llewellyn, who lived and practiced in 152 Whitechapel Road. And Llewellyn says at the inquest "On Friday morning I was called to Buck's-row about four o'clock. The constable told me what I was wanted for."

Some recordings have Llewellyn speaking of shortly before 4 AM.

Now, Thain who Neil sent running for Llewellyn, would in your world have taken off at around perhaps 3.47, if Neil spent a minute telling Thain what he wanted him to do.
He had a two minute stretch to cover. It took 13 minutes.

Can you explain that? Thain may of course have spent some time with the butchers, telling them about the murder and collecting his cape - but eleven minutes...? When he was on that kind of an errand?

Now, letīs try the suit on with my timings. I say that Paul entered Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 - as he put it in the newspaper article. He then arrived at Browns at around 3.46. He examined the body together with Lechmere, and his estimation that this process together with the walk to Bakers Row took no more than four minutes, speaks to me of an examination time of around a minute and a half. We therefore now arrive at circa 3.47.30. Then Paul leaves together with Lechmere (sorry, Harry) and walks up Bucks Row to the intersection with Bakers Row and turns the corner BEFORE Neil gets into the street. That takes around a minute and a half, and we are now at 3.49.

Now - at the earliest - Neil turns into Bucks Row, and walks the stretch down to Browns, adding another minute and a half. We end up at 3.50.30.

He takes a quick look guided by his lantern, and this shortish look plus wawing down Thain and having him arriving at the Stable Yard door will have taken around a minute and a half too.

We have now arrived at 3.52. Thain is informed by Neil. That is half a minute īs work at most, taking us to 2.52.30.

Thain now sets off, but dives into the horseknackersī and tells them what has happened. He also fetches his cape. This takes another minute, leaving us at 2.53.30, whereafter Thain sets off for 152 Whitechapel Road, where he arrives at 2.55.30.

This all predisposes that Thain walked past the Bucks Row opening up at Brady Street the exact moment when Neil had discovered the woman. If Neil spent a minute or two looking at her and establishing what she was about, we instead have Thain knocking on Llewellyns door at 2.56.30 to 2.57.30. That is to say he arrives when Llewellyn said he did, shortly before or around 4 AM.

This is the best material we have to check the timings given. Thains colleagues said that he returned with the doctor in less than ten minutes. Letīs check that too:

He sets off at 2.52.30. Llewellyn says that he arrived shortly before or around 4 AM. That tallies perfectly with what we have. If Llewellyn was knocked up at 3.56.30-3.57.30 and took two and a half to three and a half minutes to get dressed and leave, then the two had two and a half minutes to reach the murder spot before the ten minutes had passed. And the trek was a two minute trek.

Like you say, it is all-important that we look at ALL the sources and delve deeply into things before we make our calls.

But it seems you did not consider this part at all - you settled for the timings that suited your suggestion, you ditched Paul in favour of the PC:s and you avoided Llewellyn.

Fish again:
"Hereīs Wynne Baxter, from his summing up after the inquest, late in September:
"The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data."[/B]

Baxter summed up based on the evidence he heard.

Fact: He heard Thain say he was in Brady street at 3:45.
Fact: He heard Neil say he found the body at 3:45.
Fact: He heard Mizen say he met Xmere and Paul a few hundred yards away at 3:45.
Fact: 3:37 or 3:40 is not "far away from 3:45".
Fact: Xmere nor Paul gave times at the inquest.

Fact: You are not looking at Llewellyns testimony, which Baxter also heard.
Fact: 3.37 is miles away from 3.45 in this context. You need to make eight minutes disappear.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that Thain, Neil, Mizen and Xmere were the "so many independent data" that Baxter was referring to, because there was NO OTHER COMBINATIONS OF TIMES mentioned at the inquest.

Yes there was, as I have shown you - but they do not fit your thinking, so itīs Ssssssch!!!! But let me remind you of a wise manīs words:

"As researchers it's important that we look at all the facts not just select what we like and pretend the rest doesn't exist."

That was you talking...

To once more quote you: "3.40 is not far away from 3.45."

Well, 3.50 is no further away from 3.45!

"Covering the wounds:"[/B]

I noticed you backed away from you claim about the Ulster, sensible.

Did I?

"Blood evidence:"

Just after the quote you pasted from Baxter he went on to comment on the blood,
"There is not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where the neck was lying."

The case against Lechmere relies, to a large extent on this kind of cherry-picking quotes where it suits and denying the same witnesses where to doesn't suit.

Not a good way to build a case.

True enough. So why do you do it?

[drstrange169]

Hello C4,

Thanks for the carmen articles, interesting stuff.