The Lechmere trail - so far

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Fisherman]

Pcdunn:
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.

I believe that he came in after having read how Paul said that he had found Lechmere standing where the woman was.
As it happens, the police chose not to believe Paul, but that was not something that Lechmere could have foreseen.
If you take the time to check the wordings between what Lechmere says at the inquest and what Paul said in the interview, you will see that there are a great many very close likenesses and formulations. For example, Paul said "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." Lechmere said "He stepped back and waited for the newcomer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down."
For example. There is a number of other similar things.

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.

It was not a breach of protocol, or so I have been told by Monty. He supposedly knows. If he was scammed by Lechmere, it furthermore applies that his colleagu (the one Lechmere would have invented) should have made the decision to take the names down or not.
Whether they could track him or not is not a very difficult question. If they searched for a man, looking like a carman, who passed trough Bucks Row at around 3.45 in the mornings, there would not be very many to choose from. And Paul could identify him, just as Mizen could - Mizen and his colleagues would arguably have met him on the streets before.

But did Mizen get the names of the carmen?

No. Here is the Echo of the 3:rd:
"Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman."

So he did not know it before, he just assumed the man was a carman, going by his appearance. As he attended the inquest, though, Mizen had been informed about the name and occupation of the man he had soken to on the murder morning.

Much is made of this in the Lechmere theory, but it seems he only said his name was "Cross" at his inquest testimony.

There is no recording of him ever using the name Cross on any other occasion. There are a hundred plus authority records where Lechmere has either signed himself or been signeed by officials as Lechmere. Never as Cross.

As his stepfather was a policeman, maybe that was part of the reason for using that name here-- or maybe not.

Thomas Cross had been dead 19 years as the carman stepped into the police station. And even if he wanted to impress upon the coppers that he had had a police stepfather, why would he not say "My name is Charles Lechmere, but it was once Cross. You see, I had a stepfather who was a policeman when growing up.

If he just said that his name was Charles Cross, who would make the connection, nineteen years after Thomas Cross died? For the policeman to understand that his stepfather had been a policeman, he would need to say that.

And if he told the story, then why masquerade as Cross, when he could say that his real name was Lechmere, but...?

I think the use of the term "a false name" in the documentary film is misleading to viewers, perhaps an overstatement.

I have on many occasions said that my take on things is that the registered name is the real name, and all other names are false. I am perfectly happy to call it the wrong name, an alternative name etc. The core of it all is that the carman used a name he never used otherwise with the authorities = BIG anomaly.

[Patrick S]

Pcdunn:
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.

I believe that he came in after having read how Paul said that he had found Lechmere standing where the woman was.
As it happens, the police chose not to believe Paul, but that was not something that Lechmere could have foreseen.
If you take the time to check the wordings between what Lechmere says at the inquest and what Paul said in the interview, you will see that there are a great many very close likenesses and formulations. For example, Paul said "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." Lechmere said "He stepped back and waited for the newcomer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down."
For example. There is a number of other similar things.

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.

It was not a breach of protocol, or so I have been told by Monty. He supposedly knows. If he was scammed by Lechmere, it furthermore applies that his colleagu (the one Lechmere would have invented) should have made the decision to take the names down or not.
Whether they could track him or not is not a very difficult question. If they searched for a man, looking like a carman, who passed trough Bucks Row at around 3.45 in the mornings, there would not be very many to choose from. And Paul could identify him, just as Mizen could - Mizen and his colleagues would arguably have met him on the streets before.

But did Mizen get the names of the carmen?

No. Here is the Echo of the 3:rd:
"Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman."

So he did not know it before, he just assumed the man was a carman, going by his appearance. As he attended the inquest, though, Mizen had been informed about the name and occupation of the man he had soken to on the murder morning.

Much is made of this in the Lechmere theory, but it seems he only said his name was "Cross" at his inquest testimony.

There is no recording of him ever using the name Cross on any other occasion. There are a hundred plus authority records where Lechmere has either signed himself or been signeed by officials as Lechmere. Never as Cross.

As his stepfather was a policeman, maybe that was part of the reason for using that name here-- or maybe not.

Thomas Cross had been dead 19 years as the carman stepped into the police station. And even if he wanted to impress upon the coppers that he had had a police stepfather, why would he not say "My name is Charles Lechmere, but it was once Cross. You see, I had a stepfather who was a policeman when growing up.

If he just said that his name was Charles Cross, who would make the connection, nineteen years after Thomas Cross died? For the policeman to understand that his stepfather had been a policeman, he would need to say that.

And if he told the story, then why masquerade as Cross, when he could say that his real name was Lechmere, but...?

I think the use of the term "a false name" in the documentary film is misleading to viewers, perhaps an overstatement.

I have on many occasions said that my take on things is that the registered name is the real name, and all other names are false. I am perfectly happy to call it the wrong name, an alternative name etc. The core of it all is that the carman used a name he never used otherwise with the authorities = BIG anomaly.

Oh, dear. Well. I have to say that it was a good decision to not present this in your television program. The poor, gullible, uninitiated viewer is left to assume this 'bombshell' (as its called) drove Cross from hiding, forcing him to appear at the inquest. Yet, again, we see your killer taking the most illogical path to freedom, the one that takes him back, always back, to the police. And of course, this is more look over here, not over there stuff, right? I mean, let's talk about the name issue again. HOW ODD, right, folks? Yes. How odd. And....how irrelevant to the THIS discussion. So, we have established WITHOUT challenge from brave Christer, that Charles Cross was asked for no name, was NOT described to any degree beyond being 'a man' by Robert Paul. His actions were marginalized by Paul in his comments in Lloyds. Again, its totally irrelevant that Cross didn't know the police did not believe Paul. Its totally irrelevant that Cross used the term 'knocked down' just as Paul had in the paper. Let's pretend that Cross said, verbatim, what Paul said in Lloyds. Again, totally irrelevant as it goes to Cross being the Ripper. The only thing to ask is this: Why on Gods green earth would he be there in the first place? To help corroborate his good buddy Paul?

Dear God, Christer. I'm hoping you don't get sued for misleading the filmmakers! I'm also laughing. But....I'm also hoping you don't get sued. Well.....I lied. No I'm not. But I am laughing at you. Hard.

[Patrick S]

Just to update the tally here:

We now have TWO rather huge omissions to the traditional telling the Mizen Scam fairy tale. First must disregard Paul's comments in Lloyds that demonstrate that he states flatly that he TOLD MIZEN that the woman in Bucks Row was LIKELY DEAD. Its stated in "missing evidence" and repeated by the detective walking around in the dark with Christer that Cross minimized the situation in Bucks Row by saying that she was merely lying on her back, likely drunk. If we are made aware of Paul's statement, then this cornerstone of the Mizen Scam falls apart. Thus, its left out. Christer can ask us to rewind the video take so to speak and check the archives....sorting through is 10k posts. Alas, what cannot be argued is that its not in "Missing Evidence".

Second we that fact that we finally have Christer admitting that Mizen didn't have Cross' name after Bakers Row. There was no description beyond him being a man. Yet, he comes forward. Ready to help out in any way he can....just because?

Missing Evidence, indeed. There's plenty of MISSING EVIDENCE here, Christer. Oh. I forgot. You're not talking to me.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I want nothing.I wish to change nothing as far as Paul's evidence is concerned.What I think ha s been done is show that Paul was not the liar you claimed he was.Why commit perjury when there was no need to ?What was the gain.
Do I give Cross the leeway to dwell and cut the victim's throat.Not necessarily,but you have raised an interesting and new claim.Her throat was cut AFTER the body wounds were made.Interesting.I'm sure posters will e agerly await your reasons for claiming so.
You may be amused at my predicament,I am laughing my head off at yours.

[Hercule Poirot]

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

I'm not trying to defend Fish something he can easily do by himself but when I hear someone question the whole of a theory because it may contain certain flaws, it's as if a theory has to be perfect before recieving a certain degree of acceptance. Even Einstein's theories still contain flaws depending on the dimensional level you exam it.

I believe we are in the presence of contradictions, ambiguities, partial evidence, lack of desirable documentation in the Lechmere case and Fish has probably been one of the very few riperologists trying to come up with a logical understanding of the puzzle.

As I said before, I don't share his conclusion but many are currently using a different set of evidence presentation rules and of course come with a different conclusion. It's as if everyone is picking up a different series of bed crumbs and try to define exactly the nature of the loaf of bread. Now what really pisses me is when some can't or won't admit serving their own agenda when 'offering' us their presumed expert feedback. As far as I'm concerned, they only manage to introduce a slice of their own loaf obviuosly ignoring what a real loaf of bread looks like.

Respectfully yours.
Hercule Poirot

[drstrange169]

Hello Harry,


Mrs. Nichols throat being cut after the stomach isn’t a new claim; it’s always been there in Baxter’s summation.
“Dr. Llewellyn seemed to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were inflicted first …”

[SirJohnFalstaff]

That will in all probability have been the documentary Blink Films made on the subject: "The Missing Evidence - Jack the Ripper". It was supposed to air in Australia too.

You may be interested in reading the above list, since it adds a number of matters to the docu presentation!

I just watched the video on Youtube. It certainly is interesting for the Nichols' murder. He might be her murderer, or a very strong suspect.

This said, the Swedish reporter falls for confirmation bias for the others. So does the other specialists.

The ending is the most annoying. Why would Lechmere stop? We know he lived until 1912 at least.
The reporter will try to find other crimes around him.
And there it is, an upcoming book deal...

This tv episode is a bit premature, in my opinion.

[drstrange169]

Hello Patrick,


If Mizen’s story was true, he was not obliged to take Xmere and Paul’s names. If Paul and Xmere’s story was true, he was. Either way he was obliged to write the incident down in his log. The Strange part is, two days after the murder. Mizen is reported in the newspapers as denying he saw anyone in Baker Street.
“These officers (Mizen and Thain) had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention …”

Equally bizarre, Mizen never mentioned the two men to Neil. Even stranger he was sent to Bethnal Green Police Station not only to get the ambulance but also reinforcements.



Being an H division copper off his patch he would have had to explain himself to the J division officers and some would have returned on the 15 to 20 minute back to the murder site with them, yet it appears he never mentioned the two men at any stage.



It gets worse, he went to the mortuary with the others (it was situated on his beat) and still he didn’t mention Xmere and Paul.

Re the timing of Xmere approach to the police;



At the end of the Saturday’s inquest, Abberline requested a meeting with Baxter asking for a delay as new evidence had come to light that he would like to present at the next inquest. Was that evidence Xmere? If it was then Xmere approached the police prior to Paul’s interview being published. And Xmere DID appear the next time the inquest convened.



Of course I’m moving into Fish’s area here, there is no proof, I’m just wondering.

[drstrange169]

Re Fish’s post 382


You seem to have a genuine problem understanding facts. What I wrote was based on sworn testimony and detailed police reports.



Your reply offered personal opinions and conspiracy theories. Therefore my original post stands as you failed to meaningfully contradict anything in it.


A few of points confused me though.


“… 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.”

Yet when you walked it in the TV show it specifically said,
“The street layout is the same now as it was over a century ago.”


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

No disagreement David walked and timed the distances, I’m sure Ed did the same; people walk at different speeds and take different routes. All I’m interested in is, was it possible for Xmere to hit the targets within the time frame, David proved he could.




“Only one of them said "exactly 3.45" and that was Paul.”


A classic example of cherry-picking. Even in this thread, you’ve admitted Paul’s Lloyds interview contains contradictions. You dismiss his claims that Mrs.Nichols was dead long before Xmere got there because it suits your theory.



However when Paul said something you like in the interview, you push it as gospel over the evidence of three different policemen. Including Mizen, who you cite as a paragon of virtue on all other occasions when he said something you like.


“You say that Neil called upon Thain at 3.45.”


No I didn’t, 100 Aussie dollars to your favourite charity if you can cite where in my post I claimed that.


Here is what I actually wrote.


“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.”


Can you see the difference? You tend to get a bit carried away when your challenged, like that Ulster coat business.



“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.”


And managed to do it without being seen by Thain despite the very bright lights of the brewery.




“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”


And managed to do it without passing Neil.




“We therefore now arrive at circa 3.47.30. Then Paul leaves together with Lechmere”



And Mizen along with Neil and Thain got it all wrong, as your Mr Scobie would say, “a jury would not like that”.





“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”



Of course I did, that’s the whole point. Paul’s interview was a joke and by aligning with it …

“and you avoided Llewellyn.”

Yes I did. If I get time I’ll explain why in another post.


I’d also like to talk about the way Andy Griffiths was misled or misunderstood what you told him.

[GUT]

I just watched the video on Youtube. It certainly is interesting for the Nichols' murder. He might be her murderer, or a very strong suspect.

This said, the Swedish reporter falls for confirmation bias for the others. So does the other specialists.

The ending is the most annoying. Why would Lechmere stop? We know he lived until 1912 at least.
The reporter will try to find other crimes around him.
And there it is, an upcoming book deal...

This tv episode is a bit premature, in my opinion.

G'day Sir John.

You do know that the reporter is Fisherman??