Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[GBinOz]

i blame both of them one could have gone and looked for help while the other stayed with her.

Hi Abby,

I agree with you, and it would seem that so did Paul, or at least that is what he told the Lloyd's reporter. So did he feel guilty about them both leaving her, or did he walk on assuming the discoverer of the body would stay, only to find that Lechmere had followed him.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I am basing his arrival time on the time he said he left home at around 3.30am (he normally left closer to 3.20am but he was running late)

the fact is that because Lechmere left late for work on the same day there was a murder that occurred in his path, then that should automatically raise questions.

The fact is, we don't know what time he left home. We have only Lechmere's word on this subject. These times can be considered only in the context that he was not the perpetrator. Serial killers are not known for their honesty.

Cheers, George

[Fiver]

The fact is, we don't know what time he left home. We have only Lechmere's word on this subject.

Agreed. Lechmere could have lied about when he left home.

The Church of Lechmere could just say that instead of jumping through a bunch of hoops. Instead, they cherry pick and distort evidence to create a time gap.

But we only have Robert Paul's word on when he left home. We only have PC Neil's word that he stuck to his patrol route and was last through Bucks Row around 3:15am. Speculating that someone could have lied is not proof that they did.

And people have lots of reasons to lie. Lets try a hypothetical - that evidence surfaced which proved that Robert Paul left home at 3:00am. That wouldn't be proof that Paul was the Ripper. He could, for example, have lied to hide the fact he was having an affair with PC Neil's wife while her husband was out on patrol. Or he suffered from insomnia or had an argument with his wife, went out for a walk, and then lied so he wouldn't be a suspect.

But hypotheticals don't prove anything. We need to look at how the witnesses behaved when there were other witnesses present who could confirm or deny what they said. From the moment that Paul and Lechmere say they detected each other until the moment they parted company near Spitalfield's Market, the two carmen's accounts support each other. That includes the disagreements with PC Mizen - both said that they told Mizen that the woman might be dead and both said that Mizen continued knocking up instead of heading immediately to Bucks Row.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Too much water under the bridge to even bother asking anymore which evidence has been maligned.

Ive told you.

I believe that I have clearly and carefully separated evidence from speculation.

I've asked many times for corrections: I just get sweeping generalizations.

I find your responses baffling Newbie. As far as I’m aware I’ve answered fully everyone of your points. And aside from that they’ve also been dealt with numerous times by Fiver and Steve (to name but two) If there’s is something I’ve missed then you only have to repeat the exact question/point instead of being vague and I’ll answer if I can.

That there should have been noticeable blood spots on Lech's person is not evidence;

I have never claimed this as proof of anything Newbie. All that I’ve suggested is that, in that dark area, he couldn’t really have been absolutely certain that he didn’t have some wet blood on him. It was a risk.

That it is alleged that no one kills on their way to work is not evidence;

But it’s an addition to the unlikeliness.

That Lech would have fled if guilty is not evidence;

But it’s another addition to the unlikeliness level.

That Lech did everything an innocent man should have done is not evidence;

But it’s a damn good start Newbie! But what is stranger, me saying that his behaviour is indicative of an innocent man or your bizarre claim that his innocent behaviour is just too perfect therefore indicative of deceit. Come on Newbie. I don’t think that even Fish would back you up on that one.

That Lech was a family man is evidence, but it's extension to him being a good guy is not evidence: like everything here, it's speculation.

And I’ve never made this claim Newbie. All that we can say is that we have no evidence of violence from him but that goes for most suspects (apart from one’s like Bury)

What Lech said at the inquest are only facts in the sense that someone presents what he said: by themselves, his statements are not facts.

Again Newbie, no one has made this claim, least of all me. They are all that we have though and are there to be tested as far as we can and nothing that he said is not believable.

In short, most anti-Lechmerians seem to base pretty much base all their arguments towards innocence on speculation,
and pretend that they are fact minded.

This is such a strange point as our points are responses to points made. The whole case against Cross is speculation. And there’s nothing wrong with speculation btw. We all do it. As long as we acknowledge when we are doing it.

Now, the argument heads towards rate of blood loss.

Someone here scolded me for claiming that Polly Nichols was almost decapitated.
Actually, the coroner closes with the statement that her head was almost cut off (his words);
was it an exaggeration on my part saying that that almost constitutes decapitation?

I would guess that a decapitated person loses an awful lot of blood at a very fast rate.

No?

You would guess? We’re both laymen on medical issues Newbie. This has been gone over. Again read what David Orsam has said, read what Steve Blomer (who does have a medical background) has said, read what Jeff Hamm has said. Whatever the conclusions it’s a simple fact that the killer could have fled the scene a minute or two before Cross got there. There is absolutely zero issue with the blood evidence except from people who are deliberately trying to make it so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

George and others make an absolutely fair point that Lechmere could have left his house before 3.30. We can’t assume a margin for error in only one direction. I said earlier, as an estimation, between 3.25 and 3.35 (as he was unlikely in those circumstances to have been massively wrong imo) This would have been a simple and understandable error of estimation but, as George says, he could have lied.

Against this, I’d suggest it unlikely that he left much earlier looking for a victim and then left it until 3.40. It’s surely also unlikely that he’d have met Nichols elsewhere then took her to a spot that he passed every day. I’d have thought it likelier that they might have found a more secluded spot if it was earlier in the morning as he wouldn’t have been under such time pressure.

For me, this points to the killer killing Nichols at the spot where they met. No one would suggest of course that Cross went out earlier and then stood in Bucks Row on the off-chance until a victim showed up 20 minutes before he was due at work. And if he had met Nichols earlier than 3.40 then the question “why was he still there” assumes even greater relevance.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On Abby’s example. Abby acted as he did because he’s a decent, caring person but…..we have this guy on Quora:

“I was driving to work years ago in the early morning through a notoriously rough neighborhood. Guy went to cross the street when a speeding car sent him 50 feet in the air. Driver never stopped. I was meeting my boss and figured the cops would come with an ambulance. I kept right on moving, but couldn’t shake the image of him being creamed by the car all day. When work was over and the sun was down, I drove past the scene out of curiosity. The guy that was hit was still in the road like a speed bump. No one came to his aid, they just drove over him for 10 hours straight. I always heard that even the cops didn’t want to go through the town, because of the violence. I came the same way the next day and the poor guy was just a stain in the road. People assume that dead is dead. You can’t kill someone twice. You wouldn’t be guilty of anything unless you witnessed it and lied that you didn’t.”

However…..

Here we have hundreds of people who walked past a body and the only person that stopped stole his phone.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/160472...ole-his-phone/

Here’s an example of numerous people ignoring victims badly injured in a car crash so that they could steal the money that was spilled.

https://metro.co.uk/2017/01/18/people-ignore-injured-victims-in-road-to-pick-up-banknotes-spilled-in-car-crash-6389777/

Another body just left in the street.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/dead-body-left-lying-pavement-12050014#google_vignette

Here’s guy in New York who lay injured in the street after saving a woman from being mugged. Twenty five people walked straight past him.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1269102/Good-Samaritan-Hugo-Tale-Yax-dies-New-York-street-ignored-25-pedestrians.html

Here’s a student who was ignored because people were afraid that they might have ended up having to pay his medical bills.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/body-british-student-ignored-hours-8407615

Here’s the tragic case of a 2 year old kid hit by a car and ignored by passers-by.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/toddler-in-china-hit-by-2-cars-then-ignored-dies/2011/10/21/gIQAmamL2L_story.html

Sadly life is full of people who act in this way. All the Charles Cross did is wait a very few seconds for a man, who he knew was approaching, to get there. It’s hardly callous behaviour is it? He could have walked on and if asked said “I didn’t notice a body.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Could you quote where in Lechmere's testimony he says he could hear to the junction of Brady Street?

Of course I know you cannot, because he doesn't say that.

A bit of speculation here Steve but I’ve wondered at the possibility that Cross and Paul (who took that route six days a week) might have been aware that Bucks Row was part of a police beat (but they might not have been sure of the exact time that the Constable was due to arrive in Bucks Row?) If that was the case then they might have been unwilling to stand around for what might have been 5 minutes or so, increasing their chances of being late for work. It’s true that they never mentioned this possible knowledge of course but could they have just kept schtum about it because they knew that the question would have been asked “Why didn’t you stick around and wait for him to arrive then?”

Perhaps they justified their actions to themselves by saying “one of us will almost certainly bump into another Constable on our way to work but, by then, the Bucks Row Constable will almost certainly have arrived.”

[JeffHamm]

Sadly, all one has to think about is the number of people who walk by a homeless person sleeping in the street. How do they know that person isn't actually dead? Or in need of assistance? They don't, they just pass on by. To even check is a level of compassion that exceeds 99% of humanity. I admit, I have passed on by someone sleeping on the sidewalk because it is an all too familiar sight and I had things to do. But maybe some weren't asleep, maybe some needed help, maybe some were actually dead? Looking at Cross/Lechmere's actions, the very fact that he even bothered to do more than just "move on" after he realised that what he saw wasn't a piece of tarpaulin, but a person, is to deny to recognize that he did more than most. He even called another (Paul) to his assistance, who to their credit also got involved. To fault either for not "doing more" is to ignore they already did more than most. They also did stop and send police assistance, they didn't just forget this person, but took action, as much as they probably thought they could do. One can always 2nd guess, and say they could have done more, but had Polly simply been drunk and passed out, with her life saved by PC Mizen having been sent her way, we would never know of it and yet, their act would have been worth knowing of. Sadly, that is life. We know of their actions because she was murdered, but to apply hindsight (which is odd, given we know she was beyond saving) to deaminize them, smacks of self-righteousness. They did what they felt they could, and they did more than most would, then or now. To me, that is part of why I find the "case" (if we can call it that) against Cross/Lechmere is so unjust. Not only is it based upon self-serving bias (fame for solution; money for book sales; etc) but it also denies recognizing that an innocent Cross/Lechmere seems to have done something worth recognizing (similar to Abby's recent event - he did something that he describes as something anyone would do - the sad thing is that very few would do anything even remotely similar - he deserves credit for that - but so does Cross/Lechmere). Nothing even remotely puts Cross/Lechmere in the spotlight of interest, particularly now that he has been examined. Is he a good "suspect" in the Ripperologist sense? Yes, of course. Is there any reason to believe he is involved in any of the murders, now that he's been looked at? No, unless you consider "well, it's not impossible" to be a reason.

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

The fact is, we don't know what time he left home. We have only Lechmere's word on this subject. These times can be considered only in the context that he was not the perpetrator. Serial killers are not known for their honesty.

Hi George,

but the strange thing is, not knowing when Cross left for work is irrelevant to the argument.

Forget about not knowing when Cross left for work. It doesn't matter. What the Lechmere theorists are saying is that Cross has been caught in a lie.

In their world, Cross claims he left for work at 3.30, and this would put him in Buck's Row at 3.38.

And since (in their world) Robert Paul didn't show up until 3.45, that means there is a "missing seven minutes" that Cross didn't tell anyone about.

So, the argument has nothing to do with our ability to know when Lechmere left for work, it's based on our supposed ability to tell that he is lying.

And bizarrely, this is solely based on whether or not Robert Paul was accurate, and that makes the whole theory look rather silly (to me) because Robert Paul's estimated time of arrival clashes with everyone's. Not just Cross's, but with estimates of three police constables. Yet, carefully considered, Paul's estimate is wildly problematic.

Therefore, the way I see it, the entire 'Cross lied' and 'there are seven missing minutes' is poorly argued. The evidence for it is just not there. I don't need to know when Cross left for work to see and understand that their argument is weak.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George,

but the strange thing is, not knowing when Cross left for work is irrelevant to the argument.

Forget about not knowing when Cross left for work. It doesn't matter. What the Lechmere theorists are saying is that Cross has been caught in a lie.

In their world, Cross claims he left for work at 3.30, and this would put him in Buck's Row at 3.38.

And since (in their world) Robert Paul didn't show up until 3.45, that means there is a "missing seven minutes" that Cross didn't tell anyone about.

So, the argument has nothing to do with our ability to know when Lechmere left for work, it's based on our supposed ability to tell that he is lying.

And bizarrely, this is solely based on whether or not Robert Paul was accurate, and that makes the whole theory look rather silly (to me) because Robert Paul's estimated time of arrival clashes with everyone's. Not just Cross's, but with estimates of three police constables. Yet, carefully considered, Paul's estimate is wildly problematic.

Therefore, the way I see it, the entire 'Cross lied' and 'there are seven missing minutes' is poorly argued. The evidence for it is just not there. I don't need to know when Cross left for work to see and understand that their argument is weak.

Well put Roger.

Three police officers all on regulated beats saying 3.45. Paul says that he arrived at 3.45 (with no way of confirming it) and Christer disregards the Constable and goes for Paul. And when Baxter makes the obvious deduction that the body must therefore have been discovered before the Constable’s 3.45 he attempts, by some weird interpretation of the English language, to narrow that down to as close to 3.45 as possible despite having no legitimate reason for doing it (apart from the attempted creation of a ‘gap’) 3.40 after all is just before 3.45.

[Fiver]

Sadly life is full of people who act in this way. All the Charles Cross did is wait a very few seconds for a man, who he knew was approaching, to get there. It’s hardly callous behaviour is it? He could have walked on and if asked said “I didn’t notice a body.”

Robert Paul would have just walked on if Charles Lechmere hadn't stopped him. Yet most condemnations focus on blaming Lechmere.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Robert Paul would have just walked on if Charles Lechmere hadn't stopped him. Yet most condemnations focus on blaming Lechmere.

Good point Fiver.

[Fisherman]

No inflammatory wording?! Like calling me ‘ignorant’ perhaps (not for the first time by the way) After that bit about my original comment on your book. Get real Fish. You continue to plough the same depths. Steve, myself and others have tried god-knows how many times to have a civil debate with you but it always goes the same way. Whenever we get to points of disagreement that we can’t get over you move into condescending mode with the odd snide dig thrown in. Then when a response is given you get on your high horse. I know that Steve will back me up on this because it’s just a fact. And now you come back on here and try and set the agenda by playing the wounded soldier who always acts with honour with everyone else as the villains of the piece when you’ve spend years talking down to everyone that questions you or disagrees with you. Then there’s the way that you and Stow have slated Steve’s transparently honest research.

And talking of facts….

You have edited evidence.

You have manipulated evidence.

You have twisted the English language to suit your needs.

You have exaggerated and claimed unknowns as either knowns or likely’s.

Basically you’ve committed some of the most egregious shoehorning that I’ve ever known in this case Fish. Instead of simply showing an interest in a subject you and Stow have created some kind of strange bandwagon. It’s like a cottage industry or even a religious movement…book, documentary, tv channel (I’m waiting for the Lechmere T-Shirts to go on sale or the boxes of Lechmere Shortbread)


Weak arguments.

Weak suspect.

Thank you for answering my post, Herlock!

We will of course begin with the most important matter - how Herlock said in 2021, after having read my book, that there are no leaps of faith, and that I presented the case against Lechmere well. He took his hat off to me, and said that he was convinced that Lechmere has to be taken seriously as a suspect.

Now Herlock says that his words were an attempt at conciliation. He was trying to be nice to me, in an attempt to end the hostility that has always plagued the Lechmere issue.

In other words, he was just making things up, in an attempt to clear the air. He DID see lots and lots of leaps of faith, he COULD see right through the arguments, he DID despise the mere suggestion that Lechmere could have been the killer and his taking his hat off to me was nothing but a good-hearted gesture. And of course, he never actually believed that Lechmere had to be taken as a serious suspect.

He just said so, since he was intent on conciliation.

He therefore made up a story that was the exact opposite of what he actually thought. He was never anything but a staunch believer in how the Lechmere theory is worthless as such and promoted by somebody who twists and exaggerates and turns things into facts, although they are no such thing.

This of course brings us back to one of the quotations from my initial post to Herlock, where I presented this sentence by Herlock about how I work:

”You simply make things up.” (Post 911)

It would now seem that making things up is not necessarily a bad thing. If you make things up with the intention of bettering the climate of a discussion (as Herlock claims he did), you are doing a good thing. It is only when you make things up with the intention to deceive your readers (as Herlock claims I do) that it is an uncommendable thing.

The thing is, though, that a debate is first and foremost intended to present the positions of different parties involved in that debate. We are called upon to as truthful and factually as possible make our respective cases, and if somebody then does the exact opposite by claiming that he supports something that he actually does not in any way support, it disrupts the whole meaning of having a debate.

Worse still, when that somebody then supposedly comes clear and says ”I only said that I agreed to make us all feel better, but I actually don’t agree”, we are faced with a problem. Said debater has then admitted to making things up. And once we admit to making things up, how do we propose to be relied upon the next time we make a claim? Why would I accept that Herlock dislikes me and my theory, when he has himself admitted to making things up? Why could it not be that he actually likes me and the theory very much? He has certainly said so before.

I am sure that we can all agree that there is a huge problem here.

Lets now move on and have a look at some of the claims Herlock makes, and see whether they reflect the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - or not.

- And 3.40 is ‘not far off’ 3.45. It really is as simple as this. Baxter was working from one very obvious point - that the body was discovered before Neil, Thain and Mizen got involved. And the time that they gave was 3.45.

Yes, the time the PCs gave was 3.45. That - as I have already explained - would put Lechmere at the murder site at 3.40 or thereabouts. If Baxter had been of the meaning that the PCs were correct, he would need to put the finding of the body at 3.40, not 3.45. Although ”not far off” means that there is learoom, that learoom does not extend to involving 3.40. Otherwise, we need to explain why Baxter did not say 3.40.

-But you have no basis for these claims. You have 3 Constable’s all on regulated beats and one guy whose time is at odds with them and who had no way of being so precise…. and you conveniently alight on that guy.

Paul is not the only source putting the time at 3.45ish. We know that Thain was sent to fetch Llewellyn and that he alerted the doctor at 3.55-4.00. This means that he left the site at around 3.52-3.53ish, since it takes no more than two, three minutes to cover the stretch. If we use 3.40 as the time Lechmere found the body, we get Thain taking seven or eight minutes to cover the stretch up until 3.55. And we know from the inquest that it was initially believed that Thain could have been withholding a visit to the butchers in Winthrop Street. The only reason that there could have been for this suspicion would be if there was a way too long time gap to explain. That time gap goes away when we accept Baxters suggestion that the body was found close to 3.45, or not far off 3.45, depending how we word it.

-And no, you weren’t suggesting a starting point. You were suggesting that there definitely was a gap.

I was saying that the timings suggest a gap, not that there must have been one. I reason that Baxters verdict puts thee finding of the body at 3.42.30 - 3.47.30, and if this is true, there is certainly a gap. I am also reasoning that any jury who heard the timings would be likely to dislike Charles Lechmeres testimony. But that is if I am correct, of course. And I have never claimed anything else.

-But we know that Baxter didn’t move the discovery time to 3.45. That’s an invention on your part.

Since we do not know what margins Baxter allowed for, there is no invention at all on my part. You yourself claim that Baxter must have included 3.40 in the possibilities. THAT is what an invention looks like.

-I won’t waste time digging up some quotes of the stuff that you have said Fish. But I could.

You are welcome to try it, Herlock. In fact, I would welcome it very much. And I would say that it is only by quoting what other posters say that we can judge their reliability. Personally, I have absolutely nothing at all to hide and I am not afraid in the slightest of being scrutinized by anyone. So go ahead!

-From the person who said that we should avoid getting personal.

There is nothing personal in saying that when you made a 180 degree turn, then to my mind, you burnt your ships along with your shipyard when it comes to credibility. I have explained above how that works. The sentence involves no personal criticism at all, it is based solely on your 180 degree turn.

-Again, you cannot know that gap of time between the cutting of Nichols throat and Neil’s arrival. Six minutes is more wish-thinking on your part.

What we can know is that your suggestion of a minute only is quite impossible and out of the question. It is an ill informed suggestion, therefore, just as I pointed out. I also pointed out that Steve Blomer used the suggestion of it taking two or three minutes only for Neil to reach the murder site as an example of how wrong the Lechmere theory is. In the process, he quoted somebody who was never part of shaping the Lechmere theory as it is depicted in Cutting Point, for example, and he used that flawed example to point out how ridiculous the suggestion of two or three minute only was. Steve Blomer concurs with me that it would have taken Neil many minutes to reach the site after the point that Lechmere first arrived there, and he will not be far off the six minute suggestion. So you see, that is where anybody who has a grip of the facts end up, regardless if they support or dismiss the Lechmere theory.

Finally, this:

-You have edited evidence.

-You have manipulated evidence.

-You have twisted the English language to suit your needs.

-You have exaggerated and claimed unknowns as either knowns or likely’s.

You are welcome to produce proof of that claim. The one thing I beleive you could produce would be claims that you feel are exaggerated, because that is a matter of interpretation. Proving that you are the better judge of what is an exaggeration and what is not is always going to be a useless exercise out here. But do proved proof of the other claims! That is how we establish these kinds of things, not by making sweeping generalizations without bolstering them.

I am putting it to you that I have never done any of the things you claim on my part, while we are all aware of how you claim as a fact that Annie Chapman was killed at a time not far off 5.30, although it is no way any fact at all.

As far as I can see, that means that you are starting from a 0-1 situation. I can easily add to it, but I will not do so for now. Instead I will await your many examples of me twisting things and making up facts.

I also urge a debate that continues with no personal attacks. If you think something is wrong, point that out, but don’t make the assumption that it is must be due to an evil disposition on account of the person responsible for the information. There is such a thing as honest mistakes, so lets try and keep our debate some way over ground instead of taking it into the ordinary rabbit hole.

[Sam Flynn]

As I live and breathe.

Hello Gareth, how are you?

Living and breathing, too, thankfully Cheers Herlock!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you for answering my post, Herlock!

We will of course begin with the most important matter - how Herlock said in 2021, after having read my book, that there are no leaps of faith, and that I presented the case against Lechmere well. He took his hat off to me, and said that he was convinced that Lechmere has to be taken seriously as a suspect.

Now Herlock says that his words were an attempt at conciliation. He was trying to be nice to me, in an attempt to end the hostility that has always plagued the Lechmere issue.

In other words, he was just making things up, in an attempt to clear the air. He DID see lots and lots of leaps of faith, he COULD see right through the arguments, he DID despise the mere suggestion that Lechmere could have been the killer and his taking his hat off to me was nothing but a good-hearted gesture. And of course, he never actually believed that Lechmere had to be taken as a serious suspect.

He just said so, since he was intent on conciliation.

He therefore made up a story that was the exact opposite of what he actually thought. He was never anything but a staunch believer in how the Lechmere theory is worthless as such and promoted by somebody who twists and exaggerates and turns things into facts, although they are no such thing.

You appear determined to make an issue out of this non-event non-event Fish. It’s a distraction tactic of course but ok. My very first post on a forum was on JTRForums and it was responded to by Anna Morris. It was my case on why Cross was a poor suspect. I’ve stuck by this opinion for the entirety of my time as a poster on both forums. At the time before your book was due out we were have one of our ‘let’s try and be more civil to each other’ periods. I read your book intending to give it a fair go. I found it well written and with the crackpot conspiratorial leaps of faith that plague some books but…..I was at fault for reading through it too quickly and without doing what I usually do….making notes. I noticed no glaring issues (apart from the geographical stuff which you’ve always been aware of my opinion on.) So details like the missing ‘about’ passed me by. I said, and I stand by it, that no one could have put the case for Cross any better. A repeat reading, a reading of Steve’s book and closer comparisons highlighted more issues. You are trying to make an issue out of nothing Fish.

This of course brings us back to one of the quotations from my initial post to Herlock, where I presented this sentence by Herlock about how I work:

”You simply make things up.” (Post 911)

It would now seem that making things up is not necessarily a bad thing. If you make things up with the intention of bettering the climate of a discussion (as Herlock claims he did), you are doing a good thing. It is only when you make things up with the intention to deceive your readers (as Herlock claims I do) that it is an uncommendable thing.

I would have thought that was obvious.

The thing is, though, that a debate is first and foremost intended to present the positions of different parties involved in that debate. We are called upon to as truthful and factually as possible make our respective cases, and if somebody then does the exact opposite by claiming that he supports something that he actually does not in any way support, it disrupts the whole meaning of having a debate.

Rubbish Fish. I was not supporting the Cross theory. I was simply saying that you had presented the case as well as could be done. Nothing more.

Worse still, when that somebody then supposedly comes clear and says ”I only said that I agreed to make us all feel better, but I actually don’t agree”, we are faced with a problem. Said debater has then admitted to making things up. And once we admit to making things up, how do we propose to be relied upon the next time we make a claim? Why would I accept that Herlock dislikes me and my theory, when he has himself admitted to making things up? Why could it not be that he actually likes me and the theory very much? He has certainly said so before.

I did NOT change my opinion on the Cross theory. This is pretty low stuff Fish.

I am sure that we can all agree that there is a huge problem here.

Yes, the huge problem is that you are scraping the bottom of the barrel in a pathetic point scoring exercise.

Lets now move on and have a look at some of the claims Herlock makes, and see whether they reflect the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - or not.

- And 3.40 is ‘not far off’ 3.45. It really is as simple as this. Baxter was working from one very obvious point - that the body was discovered before Neil, Thain and Mizen got involved. And the time that they gave was 3.45.

Yes, the time the PCs gave was 3.45. That - as I have already explained - would put Lechmere at the murder site at 3.40 or thereabouts. If Baxter had been of the meaning that the PCs were correct, he would need to put the finding of the body at 3.40, not 3.45. Although ”not far off” means that there is learoom, that learoom does not extend to involving 3.40. Otherwise, we need to explain why Baxter did not say 3.40.

No! For Christ sakes Fish. I’m not taking lessons in the English language from a Swede! Some time before 3.45 includes 3.40, 3.41, 3.42, 3.43 and 3.44 EQUALLY.

-But you have no basis for these claims. You have 3 Constable’s all on regulated beats and one guy whose time is at odds with them and who had no way of being so precise…. and you conveniently alight on that guy.

Paul is not the only source putting the time at 3.45ish. We know that Thain was sent to fetch Llewellyn and that he alerted the doctor at 3.55-4.00. This means that he left the site at around 3.52-3.53ish, since it takes no more than two, three minutes to cover the stretch. If we use 3.40 as the time Lechmere found the body, we get Thain taking seven or eight minutes to cover the stretch up until 3.55. And we know from the inquest that it was initially believed that Thain could have been withholding a visit to the butchers in Winthrop Street. The only reason that there could have been for this suspicion would be if there was a way too long time gap to explain. That time gap goes away when we accept Baxters suggestion that the body was found close to 3.45, or not far off 3.45, depending how we word it.

You simply CANNOT know how long this would have taken. You CANNOT know exactly what time he left. You CANNOT know how long it took for someone to hear his knocking/ringing and come down to answer the door. You CANNOT know that it wasn’t a servant who answered. You CANNOT know whether the servant went up stairs and passed on the message or whether he got Lewellyn to come down. You CANNOT know if Lewellyn came down then had to go back upstairs to get ready. You CANNOT know how long it took for Lewellyn to get ready, maybe a quick wash, get dressed, get his medical back (perhaps check that everything needed was inside) go downstairs put on his coat then leave and walk to Bucks Row.

This is yet another example of you claiming to know what you CANNOT possibly know.

-And no, you weren’t suggesting a starting point. You were suggesting that there definitely was a gap.

I was saying that the timings suggest a gap, not that there must have been one. I reason that Baxters verdict puts thee finding of the body at 3.42.30 - 3.47.30, and if this is true, there is certainly a gap. I am also reasoning that any jury who heard the timings would be likely to dislike Charles Lechmeres testimony. But that is if I am correct, of course. And I have never claimed anything else.

Where are you deducing seconds from Fish? On what grounds? The timing does not suggest a gap u less you manipulate the evidence to create one.

-But we know that Baxter didn’t move the discovery time to 3.45. That’s an invention on your part.

Since we do not know what margins Baxter allowed for, there is no invention at all on my part. You yourself claim that Baxter must have included 3.40 in the possibilities. THAT is what an invention looks like.

How can you make a claim to honesty with points like this?

-I won’t waste time digging up some quotes of the stuff that you have said Fish. But I could.

You are welcome to try it, Herlock. In fact, I would welcome it very much. And I would say that it is only by quoting what other posters say that we can judge their reliability. Personally, I have absolutely nothing at all to hide and I am not afraid in the slightest of being scrutinized by anyone. So go ahead!

-From the person who said that we should avoid getting personal.

There is nothing personal in saying that when you made a 180 degree turn, then to my mind, you burnt your ships along with your shipyard when it comes to credibility. I have explained above how that works. The sentence involves no personal criticism at all, it is based solely on your 180 degree turn.

Its a dishonest distraction tactic. Nothing could be more irrelevant.

-Again, you cannot know that gap of time between the cutting of Nichols throat and Neil’s arrival. Six minutes is more wish-thinking on your part.

What we can know is that your suggestion of a minute only is quite impossible and out of the question. It is an ill informed suggestion, therefore, just as I pointed out. I also pointed out that Steve Blomer used the suggestion of it taking two or three minutes only for Neil to reach the murder site as an example of how wrong the Lechmere theory is. In the process, he quoted somebody who was never part of shaping the Lechmere theory as it is depicted in Cutting Point, for example, and he used that flawed example to point out how ridiculous the suggestion of two or three minute only was. Steve Blomer concurs with me that it would have taken Neil many minutes to reach the site after the point that Lechmere first arrived there, and he will not be far off the six minute suggestion. So you see, that is where anybody who has a grip of the facts end up, regardless if they support or dismiss the Lechmere theory.

Whatever is the minimum distance along Bucks Row where Cross and Paul (walking away) could not be seen or heard by Neil entering the street…..that is the absolute minimum. Six minutes is an invention based on nothing but wish-thinking.

Finally, this:

-You have edited evidence.

You left out the ‘about’ when trying to create a gap (coincidentally absent in the documentary too)

-You have manipulated evidence.

Your claim about Baxter’s comment about the discovery time is a clear manipulation.

-You have twisted the English language to suit your needs.

You’re attempts to tell us what ‘before’ or ‘sometime before’ should mean. Your claim that there exists 100 Lechmere ‘signatures.’

-You have exaggerated and claimed unknowns as either knowns or likely’s.


You are welcome to produce proof of that claim. The one thing I beleive you could produce would be claims that you feel are exaggerated, because that is a matter of interpretation. Proving that you are the better judge of what is an exaggeration and what is not is always going to be a useless exercise out here. But do proved proof of the other claims! That is how we establish these kinds of things, not by making sweeping generalizations without bolstering them.

This thread is full of them!

I am putting it to you that I have never done any of the things you claim on my part,

You have.

while we are all aware of how you claim as a fact that Annie Chapman was killed at a time not far off 5.30, although it is no way any fact at all.

I’m not going to quibble over what percentages I’ve used, 95%, 99%, who cares. The evidence is overwhelming unless you are biased. And you are.

As far as I can see, that means that you are starting from a 0-1 situation. I can easily add to it, but I will not do so for now. Instead I will await your many examples of me twisting things and making up facts.

Your Cross fantasy is in tatters. It began as genuine inquiries into a person of interest but it has degenerated into a tissue of bias, exaggeration, shoehorning and a level of zealotry that I’ve never known in 40 years of interest in the subject.

I also urge a debate that continues with no personal attacks. If you think something is wrong, point that out, but don’t make the assumption that it is must be due to an evil disposition on account of the person responsible for the information. There is such a thing as honest mistakes, so lets try and keep our debate some way over ground instead of taking it into the ordinary rabbit hole.

No. I won’t dance to your tune Fish. There have been no personal attacks. Everything that has been said about your methods is true. If you just want people to tell you what you want to hear then talk to Von Stow or one of your acolytes.