The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

That statement does not say they walked together all the way.It allows that Paul started off alone,was followed and joined by Cross,and they met Mizen in each others company.

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

"We left together and went up Baker's row, where we met a constable."

My main problem is this:

If Paul went off first, saying that he would find a PC and send him to Bucks Row, whereupon Lechmere let him walk off, before suddenly changing his mind and setting off in hot pursuit of Paul - why does neither man mention such a curious matter at the inquest?

In fact, if it had not been for the clear wordings in the papers, I suppose it could be argued that the reason that Paul did not see the inch-wide gap in the neck or any blood on the pavement could be that Lechmere told him to walk on ahead, only to use the opportunity to then cut the neck.

It would also explain how the blood could run for such a long time - it would take a minute or two off the bleeding time.

So you open up an interesting avenue of research. And we do have the Echo, where your suggestion finds a little corroboration. This is how things are described in there:

"He (Paul) then said, "Sit her up," I replied, "I'm not going to touch her. You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him." When I found her, her clothes were above her knees. There did not seem to be much clothing. The other man pulled her clothes down before he left.

Did you touch the clothes? - No, Sir.

Did you notice any blood? - No, it was too dark. I did not notice that her throat was cut. I then left her, went up Baker's-row, turned to the right, and saw a constable. I said to a constable - the last witness - "There's a woman lying in Buck's-row. She looks to me as though she was dead, or drunk." The other man then said, "I believe she is dead."

How about that, Harry? here - and nowhere else - it seems that we can fit your scenario in:
Lechmere tells the other man to go find a PC.
Lechmere says that HE left the woman, not THEY.
Lechmere implicates that as he reached the PC, the other man was there.

Now, Harry, given that Lechmere is the man who generates the most discussion as a suspect today, how do you think a thing like this looks?

Paul said he could not see that the neck was cut in the darkness. But he also says that nobody would iss the woman, as she was easy enough to see. SO could we have the explanation here why he dod not see the neck cuts - bacause Lechmere sent him on his way before cutting the neck?

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.

But not to worry, Harry - one of the other papers confirm this version. And Pauls wording at the inquest - the man walked with me to Montague street - seems to discard the sinister Echo article.

Of course, if we need even more confusion, we can always look at what Paul said at the inquest, according to the Morning Advertiser: "I sent the other man for a policeman."

At the end of the day, all we can do is to weigh the different sources against each other and opt for the more credible solution. And much as I would have loved for all the other papers to carry the Echo version, I do think that Lechmere would have been made the prime suspect long before today. It would be a behaviour that called for some serious attention, wouldn´t you say?

[Fisherman]

Of course, in my last post,

"But not to worry, Harry - one of the other papers confirm this version."

should read:

"But not to worry, Harry - not one of the other papers confirms this version."

[drstrange169]

Fish:
"Yawn. We even have the Swanson report accepting 3.45 as the time when the body was found."


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 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.

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.

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..."

Fact: Xmere said he left Doveton Street at 3:30
Fact: The journey to the body, depending on his speed, was about 7 to 8 mins.
Fact: The journey from the body to Hanbury Street is about 2 and a half to 3 and a half mins.
Fact: About 3 and half mins is not an unreasonable time for Xmere to wait for Paul and examine the body.
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)

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.
Fact: Neil said he found the body at 3:45.
Fact: He categorically stated that there were NOT two men in the street at the time.
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.



Fish again:
"Here´s 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."

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.

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.



"Covering the wounds:"

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



"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.

[harry]

Paul and Cross were at the body together.They were together when meeting Mizen.Fact.Paul may have moved off before Cross,but he would have had to be joined by Cross before reaching Mizen.Fact. No semantics,no twisting of information given.No lies.It w as a journey of about 250 paces taking roughly 125 seconds.Not much leeway there for Cross to have delayed before moving off,if he were to catch up to Paul.

[Fisherman]

Paul and Cross were at the body together.They were together when meeting Mizen.Fact.Paul may have moved off before Cross,but he would have had to be joined by Cross before reaching Mizen.Fact. No semantics,no twisting of information given.No lies.It w as a journey of about 250 paces taking roughly 125 seconds.Not much leeway there for Cross to have delayed before moving off,if he were to catch up to Paul.

No? Well then, HOW much leeway? Enough for Paul to dissapear into the darkness, giving Lechmere the opportunity to add two quick cuts to the neck? It would have taken all of five seconds or so.

If, Harry, Lechmere lingered at the murder site after having sent Paul off, then it can never be excluded that he had time enough to cut the neck at that stage.

Now, I dont think that you should worry all that much abut the proposition, since the much more credible thing is that both men walked off together, as quoted ad verbatim in the press.

I find it a bit amusing (and you must excuse me for that) that you now have manouvred yourself into a situation where you want Paul to have left first, and Lechmere afterwards - but absolutely NOT as long afterwards so as to have had the time to cut the neck.

Just how are you going to pull that off, Harry?

[drstrange169]

Hello C4,

Thanks for the carmen articles, interesting stuff.

[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. Let´s 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. Let´s 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, let´s 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 ´s work at most, taking us to 2.52.30.

Thain now sets off, but dives into the horseknackers´ 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. Let´s 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:
"Here´s 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 it´s Ssssssch!!!! But let me remind you of a wise man´s 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?

[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

[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

[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. Let´s 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. Let´s 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, let´s 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 ´s work at most, taking us to 2.52.30.

Thain now sets off, but dives into the horseknackers´ 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. Let´s 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:
"Here´s 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 it´s Ssssssch!!!! But let me remind you of a wise man´s 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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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."

[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 minute´s 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.