Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Aethelwulf]

Fish’s whole case revolves around turning unknowns into ‘knowns.’ And this is the problem. We simply cannot know exactly what time Lechmere arrived in Bucks Row. We also cannot know exactly what time Paul arrived. We cannot know exactly what time Neil arrived but he reckoned 3.45 (and police officers on beats whilst far from infallible have more reason than most to be time aware) but for convenience Fish just adds 6 minutes onto Neil’s time! Just like that! All unknowns. Of course our estimates aren’t going to be far off but a very few minutes here and there can make a huge difference when making claims or assessing likelihoods.

Then we have Fish trying to manipulate the time that the body was discovered by mangling the English language (and not for the first time)

The Coroner: 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

So Fish thinks that we should use 3.45 as the ToD or that “cannot have been far…” can only have meant a very few seconds. It’s little short of unbelievable that this claim can be made. Baxter was basing his estimate on (independent data) like Neil arriving at the body at 3.45. And Thain who saw Neil’s signal at 3.45. And Mizen who said that he saw Lechmere and Paul at 3.45.

So very clearly (could it be clearer?) Lechmere must have found the body before 3.45 but fairly close too it. But that doesn’t mean 3.44.30 either (as Fish would like) And how long after finding the body did Lechmere and Paul see Mizen?

Paul: Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman.

So the only conclusion that we can draw from this (sans deliberate manipulations) is that Lechmere found the body around (or slightly more than) 4 minutes before 3.45.

So 3.40/3.41ish.

—————

Fish and the Church of Lechmere want it to be later of course so that they can imagine a suspicious gap. Just like they don’t like Lechmere’s ‘about 3.30’ for the time that he left home. And they absolutely hate the evidence which points to a later ToD for Annie Chapman too because that would mean that he was at work when she was killed. And they are sooo irritated by Neil, Thain and Mizen’s time and Paul’s ‘4 minutes’ too.

We have to allow margins for error on timings and in both directions. No one goes on about this more than I do but that doesn’t mean that we can pick one time in particular in a possible range and call it factually correct simply to back up a theory.

Good post. I think Fish's little stunt has backfired somewhat as all he has achieved is to shine a light on just how piss poor the case against Lechmere actually is.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Never let a paradox get in the way of a good story.

- Jeff

Well put Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good post. I think Fish's little stunt has backfired somewhat as all he as achieved is to shine a light on just how piss poor the case Lechmere actually is.

It’s all about writing a script Wulf.

[The Baron]

Fish's little stunt has backfired somewhat as all he as achieved is to shine a light on just how piss poor the case Lechmere actually is

I remember one researcher who described the Lechmere theory as funny.

I mean come on, who would mind some entertaining within ripperology huh?!

The new "originators" of the Lechmere theory have done more damage to it than if it was left intact in its former shape, without being twisted and played with.



The Baron

[Fiver]

Hallo Freunde,

wasp nest and all. Tons and tons of interesting information surrounding the Polly Nichols case, really elaborate and convincing.

But then - where's the meat in the other cases? This is where the whole thing falls down in my humble opinion.

Grüße,

Boris

Exactly. Nichols was not the only victim. Chapman was killed after Lechmere started work. To kill Strdie and Eddowes, he would have had to stay up at least 23 hours straight or get up at least 3 hours early on his day off.

[Elamarna]

I just wish to clarify something here, the Times I have suggested for Neil's arrival, that is relative to the carmen leaving, not absolute times, are estimates of the QUICKEST time Neil could arrive at the murder scene.
He could well have arrived later, there is NO way of knowing that.
However, he does give a time of 3.45, so unless there is evidence to the contrary, we should work with that time as a close approximate .
Of course we still have the old issue of non syncronizied timings, just how close his 3.45 was to others involved is simply unknown. However, we can see that the timing of Thain is probably within a minute or so.
The time quoted by Mizen fits well with the time quoted by Neil.

Using absolute timings such as this happened at 3.45 or 3.51 is I believe very deeply flawed, due to the issues over syncronizied time.
I much prefer relative timings.
Such as Neil arrived x minutes after the carmen left.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

As Lechmere used the name Cross at the inquest it’s reasonable to assume that this was the name that he used. So I’m going to try to remember to use that name too.

So we know that there are no issues with timings or blood that point to Cross over another killer. We know that the use of his stepfather’s name is a complete non-issue from which he gained absolutely no advantage and the fact that his Aunty Doris lived three streets from Berner Street couldn’t be more irrelevant imo. So what’s left? His exchange with Mizen?

The one thing that we have to remember about this is that Robert Paul was with him. Paul would have had to have been ‘in on it.’

“The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman.”

“Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen.”

It couldn’t be much clearer could it? And yet we get the truly desperate ‘Mizen Scam’ to keep Cross in the game. The ‘scam’ says that while he was waiting for Paul to get there Cross decided that he’d somehow have had no problem getting Paul away from Mizen so that he could lie to him without Paul realising it. Could anyone read this without s******ing? Come on! And on the strength of this ‘plan’ Cross decides to throw caution to the wind and not scarper! How could we take this seriously for a second? How far are some prepared to go? ‘Pretty damned far’ appears to be the answer.

The discrepancies between Cross, Paul and Mizen are entirely the kind of innocuous but annoying discrepancies that occur in any investigation. It would have been more suspicious if everyone’s stories tallied exactly. No advantage was gained. Nothing sinister can be deduced.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That’s weird. Why would it **** the word scarpering in the post above but it hasn’t done it here?

What typo could I have entered for ‘scarpering’ that might have been flagged up as offensive by the system?

[Doctored Whatsit]

As Lechmere used the name Cross at the inquest it’s reasonable to assume that this was the name that he used. So I’m going to try to remember to use that name too.

So we know that there are no issues with timings or blood that point to Cross over another killer. We know that the use of his stepfather’s name is a complete non-issue from which he gained absolutely no advantage and the fact that his Aunty Doris lived three streets from Berner Street couldn’t be more irrelevant imo. So what’s left? His exchange with Mizen?

The one thing that we have to remember about this is that Robert Paul was with him. Paul would have had to have been ‘in on it.’

“The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman.”

“Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen.”

It couldn’t be much clearer could it? And yet we get the truly desperate ‘Mizen Scam’ to keep Cross in the game. The ‘scam’ says that while he was waiting for Paul to get there Cross decided that he’d somehow have had no problem getting Paul away from Mizen so that he could lie to him without Paul realising it. Could anyone read this without s******ing? Come on! And on the strength of this ‘plan’ Cross decides to throw caution to the wind and not scarper! How could we take this seriously for a second? How far are some prepared to go? ‘Pretty damned far’ appears to be the answer.

The discrepancies between Cross, Paul and Mizen are entirely the kind of innocuous but annoying discrepancies that occur in any investigation. It would have been more suspicious if everyone’s stories tallied exactly. No advantage was gained. Nothing sinister can be deduced.

Yes, using all available evidence, we can safely conclude that there was no "Mizen scam".

Evidence for a scam - Mizen said Cross told him he was wanted by another policeman, but also admitted there was another carman with him at the time.

Evidence against a scam - the police interviewed Cross and Paul separately and took their detailed statements. If the statements tallied reasonably well, especially with regard to them being together when they saw Mizen, there can be no scam. We don't have their statements, but we do know that at the inquest that Cross said that he told Mizen that Nichols was either drunk or dead, and that "the other man" said she was dead. We also know from the newspaper article that Paul is said to have told Mizen that she was dead and very cold. It is safe to assume that he confirmed this in his written statement because the Coroner, Abberline and Swanson all concluded that Cross and Paul told Mizen what they had seen.

If the Metropolitan Police with all of the necessary evidence, which we don't have, concluded that Mizen was wrong, why should we think differently?

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

Oozing, of course, means dribbling very slowly, trickling gently, if you wish. This is in keeping with a slight disturbance of the body shortly before, and not like real bleeding, which would be much faster and more prolific. I have always assumed that this is why the word "oozing" was specifically chosen by experienced people. You must have noticed that the doctor, the police and the Coroner showed no surprise or suspicion at this evidence, so, unlike you, neither do I.

The amount of time between Paul and Lechmere leaving Nichols and PC Neil arriving is an unknown but fairly short interval. You suggest 6 minutes, but I see no reason why I should accept that - it is a figure picked out of the air that suits you. I am not aware of Neil describing the street as "uncannily silent", but I do have a note of him saying that "he didn't notice anyone about." It was very dark, so he wouldn't have seen anyone unless they were pretty close. I would imagine that the sound of hob-nailed boots would have been a fairly routine early morning sound as working men made their way to and from work.

Hi, Doctored Whatsit!

As I have pointed out, being less proficient in the British language than. the Brits themselves, I took help from Richard Jones. I suspected, after having read heaps of examples on the net, that "oozing" may well depict a rich flow of blood, but a flow without any underlying pressure. Richard Jones was able to verify this: oozing does not have to mean only a very slow or trickling flow at all.

If you google the phrase "oozed profusely", for example, you will get more than 700 hits! The second one on the list involves this sentence: "his drinking and promiscuous behavior was silently lying in a pool of blood as blood oozed profusely from his right eye and nose."
Of course, we then have the issue of whether or not that kind of a wording could have been used in 1888, and anybody who is willing to try and check it is welcome. It also applies that PC Neil did not only say "oozed", he also said that the blood was "running" from the neck wound.
All in all, I find that the claim that his use of the word oozed does not prove things either way. The blood was actively running, and it was not caused by Neil lifting an arm on Nichols. That is an important find, making progress in the case.

Whether ot not the ones involved were surprised by the evidence is not on record. Just as the record lacks any expression of surprise, it also lacks any record of the matter having been unsurprising to them. We should probably also consider how this crime was one that was anything but common, and there would not have been much experience on behalf of the ones involved about how long a more or less severed neck will bleed. One element involved is the heartbeat; if it was present for some time, it will have sped up the matter, if it was not, it is a different story. Taken together, in my view, the lack of recorded surprise on behalf of the ones involved in the proceedings has no impact whatsoever.

I am sad to hear that you consider my suggestion of six minutes as being "picked out of the air to suit me". I do not work like that. You should read Steven Blomers take on things - a longish period would absolutely not "suit him", but he nevertheless proposes such a thing, since it could. not have been any other way.

Very fair from picking it out of the air, I present it in a step by step presentation in Cutting Point, and it should also be noted that some of the elements are minimized in time, instead of the other way around. For example, I have Neil turning the corner up at Thomas Street as quickly as it could have happened, while it of course applies that he may have been half a minute later. Or a whole minute. Or two minutes. There is ample space for a much longer time than six minutes, but very little space for a shorter one.

So your misgivings are not in sync with the truth, I'm afraid. As for the uncannily silent night, it was not only Neil who witnessed about that, but here you have Neils take from the Daily News, the important matters in bold:

Police constable John Neil deposed that on Friday morning at a quarter to four o'clock he was going down Buck's row, Whitechapel, from Thomas street to Brady street. Not a soul was about. He was round there about half an hour previously, and met nobody then. the first thing he saw was a figure lying on the footpath. It was dark, but there was a street lamp on the opposite side some distance away. The figure was lying alongside a gateway, of which the gate, nine or ten feet high, was locked. It led to some stables belonging to Mr. Brown. From the gateway eastward the houses began, and westward there was a Board School. All the houses were occupied. The deceased's left hand was touching the gate. Directly he turned his lantern on the body, he noticed blood was oozing from the woman's throat. She was lying on her back with her hands beside the body, the eyes wide open, the legs a little apart, and the hands open. Feeling her right arm he found it quite warm. Her bonnet was beside her on the ground. Without disturbing the body he called a constable who was passing along Brady street. He came, and the witness said to him, "Here's a woman has cut her throat. Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn." He did so, and the witness seeing another constable pass along Baker's row, sent him for the ambulance. Dr. Llewellyn came in about ten minutes. In the meantime the witness rang the bell at Essex Wharf on the opposite side of the street. A man appeared at a window, and, in answer to a question, said he had not heard any unusual noise. Sergeant Kirby afterwards came and knocked at the door of New Cottage, adjoining the gateway. Mrs. Green answered from an upper window, and said that she had not heard any unusual noise. When the doctor came he pronounced life extinct. The deceased was then placed on the ambulance and taken to the mortuary. There Inspector Spratling came to take a description of the body, which he found was disembowelled. They found no money on the women; only a comb, a small piece of looking glass,and a white handkerchief, unmarked. When the witness found the body, there was a pool of blood beneath the neck. He had not heard any noise that night. On the contrary, the place was unusually quiet, and nothing had aroused his suspicion.

There were other witnesses too, speaking about the unusually quiet night, but I will not spend any more time on looking for that information. It is however there if you look for it.

The sound of hobnailed boots would certainly have been common. What would not be common is if a PC on an unusually quiet night failed to notice that sound, a very short stretch from himself in a street that was shaped like an accoustic tunnel.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Unbelievable!!!

If you google the phrase "oozed profusely", for example, you will get more than 700 hits! The second one on the list involves this sentence: "his drinking and promiscuous behavior was silently lying in a pool of blood as blood oozed profusely from his right eye and nose."

Of course a meaning can alter if you ADD another word.

And ‘running.’

’Running’ from Luton to Carlisle is the A6 road. The road is completely stationary though.

I am sad to hear that you consider my suggestion of six minutes as being "picked out of the air to suit me". I do not work like that

You absolutely do. You simply make things up.

The sound of hobnailed boots would certainly have been common. What would not be common is if a PC on an unusually quiet night failed to notice that sound, a very short stretch from himself in a street that was shaped like an accoustic tunnel.

And if Charles Cross heard these hobnailed boots approaching from a distance he’d have fled. This needs no discussion. He just would have. Cross remaining comes as close to conclusively exonerating him as possible.

It is 99% certain that Cross was an innocent man. The case against him is an invention.

[Fisherman]

Since we are debating at present, Doctored Whatsit, let me dissect this post of yours:

Yes, using all available evidence, we can safely conclude that there was no "Mizen scam".

Evidence for a scam - Mizen said Cross told him he was wanted by another policeman, but also admitted there was another carman with him at the time.

Evidence against a scam - the police interviewed Cross and Paul separately and took their detailed statements. If the statements tallied reasonably well, especially with regard to them being together when they saw Mizen, there can be no scam. We don't have their statements, but we do know that at the inquest that Cross said that he told Mizen that Nichols was either drunk or dead, and that "the other man" said she was dead. We also know from the newspaper article that Paul is said to have told Mizen that she was dead and very cold. It is safe to assume that he confirmed this in his written statement because the Coroner, Abberline and Swanson all concluded that Cross and Paul told Mizen what they had seen.

If the Metropolitan Police with all of the necessary evidence, which we don't have, concluded that Mizen was wrong, why should we think differently?

The evidence suggesting a scam amounts to three matters, not just the one as you claim.

1. Lechmere evidently never told Mizen that he himself was the finder of the body.

2. According to Mizen, Lechmere instead said that there was a PC in place.

3. According to Mizen, Lechmere never spoke of any murder or suicide. What Mizen seems to have been told is instead only that there was a woman flat on her back in Bucks Row.

It is important to present the whole picture when you are going to try and compare two sides of a matter.

You then write that "the police interviewed Cross and Paul separately and took their detailed statements". While the former is likely true, we do not know how detailed the statements the carmen gave were. And when we do not know, we cannot present things as facts.

Next: "If the statements tallied reasonably well, especially with regard to them being together when they saw Mizen, there can be no scam."

Again, we do not even know whether or not the police asked about the distance in between the carmen. Paul said at the inquest that "we told him about what we had seen" or something such, and that could have been interpreted as if Paul was close to Lechmere and spoke to Mizen himself. However, we also have Mizen claiming that ONE man walked up to him and spoke and we know that he had to be reminded by Baxter about how there was another carman present too. We therefore have two sides to consider and considering two sides is not best done by claiming with no binding evidence that the one we prefer is factually correct.

Then this: "We don't have their statements, but we do know that at the inquest that Cross said that he told Mizen that Nichols was either drunk or dead, and that "the other man" said she was dead."

This does not mean that we know for a fact that "the other man" said she was dead, Doctored. It only means that Charles Lechmere claimed it on behalf of Paul, who was not present in the inquest room as that claim was made. And that claim becomes highly questionable once we hear that Paul himself actually thought that she was not dead - he felt her chest moving. So why would a man who felt the chest move claim that the person with that moving chest was dead?
Regardless of your stance on things, you are going to have to admit that this is a very strange matter.

Next: "We also know from the newspaper article that Paul is said to have told Mizen that she was dead and very cold."

Yes. Just as we know that she was NOT very cold at all. So that factor is wrong. More importantly though, there are a number of matters in that article that depicts the proceedings in a way that is not true, and so there is therefore a very clear risk that the matter of Nichols being dead in Pauls view is also untrue. Whether by the reporters work or not, we cannot ell. But we do know, as I have already shown, that Robert Paul "felt certain" that he felt her chest move as he put his hand on it. So it becomes a question of which source we choose, the Lloyds interview that we know is flawed, or the sworn inquest testimony that we don't know is flawed.

Last: "It is safe to assume that he confirmed this in his written statement because the Coroner, Abberline and Swanson all concluded that Cross and Paul told Mizen what they had seen."

No, Doctored Whatsit, in this case it is anything but safe to assume that you cannot be wrong. What the coroner, Abberline and Swanson concluded always hinged on how the information they handled was shaped - and we do not know that. The claim that the police would have been extremely thorough and using methods that would never allow for getting things wrong should be pitted against the scores of mistakes made on the polices behalf both before and after the Ripper scare. As you will remember, Baxter had to send them out to hear the testimony of ALL the people in Bucks Row, once he found out that they had not made that effort on their own. That means that we actually have on record what you fail is impossible - that the police were ready and willing to make their calls on incomplete evidence.

You should also factor in what I always say when people tell me that the police would have been over Lechmere like a rash, since it so very evident that a man found a lone close by a victim and with no verifiable alibi, at a time that is at least roughly consistent and possibly perfectly consistent with her death: Lechmere did not become a suspect until more than a hundred years had passed, and none of the armchair detectives who looked at the case under all the many years picked up on how he has an armada of red flags lining to his person. Any claim that the police would never have gotten it wrong is therefore possibly very seriously flawed.

Let us not try and decide the case on claims that we are not only unable to prove, but where we also have a counter part who believes otherwise and who can make a case for that belief on the existing evidence. It will never - and of course, should never - work outside an isolated ring of friends.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi, Doctored Whatsit!

As I have pointed out, being less proficient in the British language than. the Brits themselves, I took help from Richard Jones. I suspected, after having read heaps of examples on the net, that "oozing" may well depict a rich flow of blood, but a flow without any underlying pressure. Richard Jones was able to verify this: oozing does not have to mean only a very slow or trickling flow at all.

If you google the phrase "oozed profusely", for example, you will get more than 700 hits! The second one on the list involves this sentence: "his drinking and promiscuous behavior was silently lying in a pool of blood as blood oozed profusely from his right eye and nose."
Of course, we then have the issue of whether or not that kind of a wording could have been used in 1888, and anybody who is willing to try and check it is welcome. It also applies that PC Neil did not only say "oozed", he also said that the blood was "running" from the neck wound.
All in all, I find that the claim that his use of the word oozed does not prove things either way. The blood was actively running, and it was not caused by Neil lifting an arm on Nichols. That is an important find, making progress in the case.

Whether ot not the ones involved were surprised by the evidence is not on record. Just as the record lacks any expression of surprise, it also lacks any record of the matter having been unsurprising to them. We should probably also consider how this crime was one that was anything but common, and there would not have been much experience on behalf of the ones involved about how long a more or less severed neck will bleed. One element involved is the heartbeat; if it was present for some time, it will have sped up the matter, if it was not, it is a different story. Taken together, in my view, the lack of recorded surprise on behalf of the ones involved in the proceedings has no impact whatsoever.

I am sad to hear that you consider my suggestion of six minutes as being "picked out of the air to suit me". I do not work like that. You should read Steven Blomers take on things - a longish period would absolutely not "suit him", but he nevertheless proposes such a thing, since it could. not have been any other way.

Very fair from picking it out of the air, I present it in a step by step presentation in Cutting Point, and it should also be noted that some of the elements are minimized in time, instead of the other way around. For example, I have Neil turning the corner up at Thomas Street as quickly as it could have happened, while it of course applies that he may have been half a minute later. Or a whole minute. Or two minutes. There is ample space for a much longer time than six minutes, but very little space for a shorter one.

So your misgivings are not in sync with the truth, I'm afraid. As for the uncannily silent night, it was not only Neil who witnessed about that, but here you have Neils take from the Daily News, the important matters in bold:

Police constable John Neil deposed that on Friday morning at a quarter to four o'clock he was going down Buck's row, Whitechapel, from Thomas street to Brady street. Not a soul was about. He was round there about half an hour previously, and met nobody then. the first thing he saw was a figure lying on the footpath. It was dark, but there was a street lamp on the opposite side some distance away. The figure was lying alongside a gateway, of which the gate, nine or ten feet high, was locked. It led to some stables belonging to Mr. Brown. From the gateway eastward the houses began, and westward there was a Board School. All the houses were occupied. The deceased's left hand was touching the gate. Directly he turned his lantern on the body, he noticed blood was oozing from the woman's throat. She was lying on her back with her hands beside the body, the eyes wide open, the legs a little apart, and the hands open. Feeling her right arm he found it quite warm. Her bonnet was beside her on the ground. Without disturbing the body he called a constable who was passing along Brady street. He came, and the witness said to him, "Here's a woman has cut her throat. Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn." He did so, and the witness seeing another constable pass along Baker's row, sent him for the ambulance. Dr. Llewellyn came in about ten minutes. In the meantime the witness rang the bell at Essex Wharf on the opposite side of the street. A man appeared at a window, and, in answer to a question, said he had not heard any unusual noise. Sergeant Kirby afterwards came and knocked at the door of New Cottage, adjoining the gateway. Mrs. Green answered from an upper window, and said that she had not heard any unusual noise. When the doctor came he pronounced life extinct. The deceased was then placed on the ambulance and taken to the mortuary. There Inspector Spratling came to take a description of the body, which he found was disembowelled. They found no money on the women; only a comb, a small piece of looking glass,and a white handkerchief, unmarked. When the witness found the body, there was a pool of blood beneath the neck. He had not heard any noise that night. On the contrary, the place was unusually quiet, and nothing had aroused his suspicion.

There were other witnesses too, speaking about the unusually quiet night, but I will not spend any more time on looking for that information. It is however there if you look for it.

The sound of hobnailed boots would certainly have been common. What would not be common is if a PC on an unusually quiet night failed to notice that sound, a very short stretch from himself in a street that was shaped like an accoustic tunnel.

Hi Christer,

"Ooze" means to trickle or dribble, and "running", used as it was, means moving as opposed to stationary. As Herlock points out adding "profusely" totally changes the meaning, and is therefore not remotely relevant.

You ignored the fact that I mentioned "surprise" and "suspicion" in the same sentence. No-one expressed any surprise, concern or suspicion about the oozing blood. Indeed, as you are well aware, the Coroner, Abberline and Swanson, having read the relevant statements, evidence which we don't have, were entirely satisfied with Lechmere and Paul's accounts.

People talk of no "unusual sound", for example - they are thinking of out of the ordinary or suspicious noises. Men walking to work are not in that category. A police officer pounding his beat is on the look-out for suspicious characters hanging around, drunks, fighting and the like. Something routine like men walking to work would attract no attention.

You are right to mention that the many people who did comment said that it was an unusually quiet night, that is relevant. It is why the evidence of Harriet Lilley, and the sounds she heard when a train was passing becomes so potentially relevant.

As for the "Mizen scam", if the entire Metropolitan Police officially accept the Paul and Lechmere version of events and not those of a police officer, then I am with the Met. They had the very necessary opportunity to talk to Mizen about the alternative evidence, and they accepted that Paul and Lechmere were correct. I refuse to accept that they were all so stupid that they accepted a version of events that contradicted a police officer, unless the evidence was very strong indeed.

[Ms Diddles]

That’s weird. Why would it **** the word scarpering in the post above but it hasn’t done it here?

What typo could I have entered for ‘scarpering’ that might have been flagged up as offensive by the system?

I think the censored word here was perhaps sn1ggering and it automatically *** the N word in the middle, no?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think the censored word here was perhaps sn1ggering and it automatically *** the N word in the middle, no?

How did I miss that?

Thanks Ms D