Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fiver]

Serial killing is often seen off by stress factors. Serial killers are very much about controlling their surroundings. If Lechmere got a schedule that gave him many more working hours, that would deprive him of control to some degree and it would likely cause stress for him.

Why are you mentioning Lechemre and ignoring the other 68,000 carman who were working in the area at the time?

And feel free to provide any evidence that anyone became a serial killer due to stress at work.

Making a loooong post without having anything to say does not change that.

You complaining about long posts is rather ironic. Perhaps you should take another look at the post by Fisherman that I was replying to.

And you dodging that facts doesn't change the facts. The source you listed in your textwall did not contain the quote you attributed to it. Neither the source you named, nor the source you quoted supported your theory that people could become killers due to work related stress. Both of the sources stated some characteristics of serial killers - characteristics that there is no evidence for, and in some cases strong evidence against Lechmee having. And these points against your theory were in parts of the sources that you didn't quote.

[Fiver]

[B]Again "the absolute bulk" IS the majority, Herlock.

I see we can add "majority" to the list of English words you do not understand, along with "oozing", tottering", and your failure to understand the difference between "at the top" and "near the top".

A majority means more than half. "The absolute bulk" means almost all. The words are not interchangeable. "Almost all" is a majority. A "majority" could mean "almost all" or it could mean "barely more than half" or anything in between.

Saying that the majority of the newspapers said Lechmere left around 3:30am is technically correct, but it is much less accurate than saying that almost all of the newspapers said Lechmere left around 3:30am.

[FrankO]

It is not about a horse. It is about a cow that has been CALLED a horse, R J. But I understand why you are reluctant to discuss the matter any further. And I am fine with that, there is absolutely no need, since the time was fixed to 3.45 by a collection of independent data, some of which must have been the timings of Paul and Llewellyn.

I am often enough quite willing to say that there can be no knowing. But that does not apply when there IS knowing, and there is in this case. I don't think it is a question of two equally good suggestions. I don't think we have to suggest anything at all, because it is a settled matter. Whether or not it was exactly 3.45 as the body was found can, to a degree, be discussed, but whether or not the findings of the coroner established the PCs or Paul/LLewellyn/Thain as the true version cannot.

Your ‘timing theory’ has a few debatable things, Christer.

First, the one that’s done to death, that Baxter was able to fix the time that Lechmere’s supposed to have found the body as 3.45, or a timing not far from it. I’m not going to discuss this again with you. All I’m going to say is that what you claim isn’t a given, but just your interpretation.

Then, that Baxter noted that there were two camps, and he therefore investigated the matter and found that camp 2 was the correct one. And this he could only have done with the help of one or two timepieces, those employed by Paul (who was able to nail an exact time) and Llewellyn (who in all probability owned a clock or two or three that could be checked in retrospect, just as Pauls given time source could).

In reality, there’s no evidence at all that Baxter investigated whether there were two camps or not, much less how he’s supposed to have done that. The two things you base your assumption on is Llewellyn, who first told newspapers that he was called by Thain at about 3.55 and then, at the inquest, stated “about 4 o’clock” (which doesn’t necessarily mean he thought Thain called him between 3.55 and 4:00); and on Thain, because of the timing Llewellyn gave at the inquest, seems to have taken far too long to fetch the doctor. But that’s it. Baxter never questioned any of the timings given. So, this point is really quite similar to “The other man, who went down Hanbury Street, appeared to be working with Cross.”, which is the evidence you use to show that Paul was out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen.

So, you claim that it was important for Baxter to discover the 5 minutes between 3.40 and 3.45 (or very close to it). But why, if he did actually find it so important to move Lechmere’s timing of finding the body from 3.40 to 3.45, didn’t he, as a result, find it important that Lechmere’s timing of leaving home must also have been wrong? Because after all, if Lechmere found the body at 3.45, he couldn’t have left home at about 3.30, but it should have been between 3.35 and 3.40 – a good 7 or 8 minutes later than he’d claimed? And why didn’t the police – or any journalist for that matter – make anything of that point?

And, if Baxter was as interested in the timings involved as you suggest, why didn’t he include Lechmere’s timing of when he stated he arrived at work? Because, after all, that’s really the only exact timing, given only as “at four o’clock”, so without “about”, “around” or “approximately”.

In this regard it’s interesting to know that the distance from where the carmen met Mizen to the entrance on Eldon Street to Broad Street Station/Goods depot was around 1750 meters or 1910 yards. Walking that distance at the rather brisk walking speed of 3.75 miles or 6.03 km per hour, it would have taken him almost 17 and a half minutes to arrive there from where he spoke to Mizen.

Or, in other words, if Lechmere found Nichols at 3.45, then he would have left the body together with Paul at around 3.46, would have arrived at Mizen at 3.49 and have left him, say, half a minute later. So, he would have arrived at work at 4.07-ish. And why, if he was as investigative as you suggest, would Baxter not have found these 7 or so minutes important?

These are the wonderings that come to mind when I see you seemingly claim things as given or established when they aren't.

The best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Hi again, Fisherman,



You didn't buy it though when the Connor and Osborne articles were discussed here on Casebook in 2008:



You only hopped on board when the name thing arose. The "aha" moment. Yet for a decade now you continue to insist the police did not bother to inquire if Pickfords had a Charles Cross in the employ. But you have never proved it.

Back then, in 2008 to you, like all of us, Charles Cross was.. well, just Charles Cross. There was even a song about him in a move-

You must recall old Boss
A Cross is just a Cross

Yes, that is perfectly correct and well documented, I originally did not invest in Lechmere likely being the killer. Now, if you can tell me how and why that is interesting, I would be grateful.

What happened was that I took another look at him and read up a lot more, after having met Edward Stow - and changed my mind.

Is there anything about that you find remarkable?

Until you dug up the goalposts and took of in a westerly direction, what you and I discussed was your claim that I would have said that the police never went to Pickfords. I corrected you and told you that what I have said, is that I don't think that the police necessarily did that. I never said that I know that they did not. But YOU claimed that I DID say precisely that, which was why I requested proof. And now you reiterate that claim, again without backing it up.

Where is that proof, Mr Goose? You ARE aware what it implies if you cannot provide it, I hope?

[Fisherman]

Why do you keep repeating that the absolute bulk is the majority?????

Of course it is. Who would say otherwise? I certainly haven’t.

Please stop dodging as you simply cannot be misunderstanding the point.



In Cutting Point on page 92 you said:

“Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at 3.30, but the time 3.20 is also mentioned in one paper.”

So, in your book, you are saying that the majority of newspapers said that Cross left home at 3.30 (I genuinely can’t believe that I’m having to repeat this)


And yet, much later on here, you said:

“We must however accept that since the absolute bulk of the papers spoke of ”around 3.30”, that is by far the likeliest wording to have been given.”

And so you are now saying that the majority of newspapers said ‘around 3.30.


So……and I’m keeping it simple……


How is it possible that when writing Cutting Point you came to the conclusion that the majority of papers said 3.30. But you NOW admit that the majority said ‘around 3.30.’ What information do you now have that wasn’t available to you when you wrote Cutting Point?

Surely even you can’t keep wriggling on this point?

Are you still on about that? I have already told you that I had no intention of deceiving anybody.

How are you going to prove that I did?

Furthermore, I encouraged the readers NOT to take 3.30 as gospel, since timings were not always very exact in the victorian days.

Furthermore, I quoted the "around 3.30" wording from ine of the papers, although I could have left that wording out, if I was the sinister devil you make me out to be.

Furthermore, when discussing the time gap in the book, I never said that a time gap was established. I said that IF he left home at 3.30, then he should have arrived in Bucks Row at 3.37.

You are quite welcome to point out that if I had added the "around", it would have made things clearer.

But that is as far as it goes. I never intended any foul play at all, I was reasoning theoretically which is a very uncontroversial thing to do, and I advised the riders to be wary about the timings - plus I PRINTED the "near 3.30" in the material where the reasoning was made.

How this all would permit you, or anybody else, to claim it proven that I purposefully tried to mislead my readers is something you have yet to explain. If you want to say that it leads you personally to that conclusion, then fine. But proving that your take is the correct one, Herlock, is a very, very different matter.

Again, if you do not have that proof, you would do better to acknowledge that. In my view, whatever "wriggling" there is, is all about you trying to get around the fact that you have made a claim you can never substantiate. And it is quite a claim too!!

[Fisherman]

Such a weak answer.

He had a job delivering stuff. He wasn’t Prime Minister or Head of the KGB.

The prime minister of KGB would be equally at risk to become stressed by many added working hours, just as it would be a factor that could make him feel that he was loosing control over part of his existence. It would therefore be as likely to cause him to tip over if he had the disposition of a serial killer, as it would be likely to tip Lechmere over as a carman.

In fact, people with large ambitions are - generally speaking - more likely to have a psychopathic disposition than those who have not.

That is how "weak" the answer is.

[Fisherman]

Maybe you should take the blinkers off and stop falling for other Lechmereians bullshit and downright lies.

Maybe he thinks the alternative on offer is way more intimidating.

[Fisherman]

Originally posted by Fisherman
No, Fiver, all the inhabitants of Bucks Row had not been questioned on the 17th of September. We have Spratling telling us this in no uncertain terms:

Inspector Spratling. -- I have been making inquiries into this matter.

The Coroner. -- have you been to every house in Buck's-row?

Witness. -- No; but if anything had come to light down there we should have heard of it. I have seen all the watchmen in the neighbourhood, and they neither saw nor heard anything on the morning in question. The Board school ground has been searched, but nothing likely to throw any light on the matter was discovered.

Inspector Helson. -- We have had a constable in the street for a week, but nothing was gained by it.

Here we may see that Sprawling denied that every house had been visited, and Helson adding that what they instead did was to place a PC in Bucks Row, in case any of the inhabitants would come forward and add information. That, however, did not happen.

Inspector Spratling said that he had not visited every house on Buck's Row personally. Your interpretation only makes sense if you believe that Spratling was the only member of the police investigating the Nichols murder. which is clearly false.

Your interpretation does not make any sense in any way, because you are suggesting that Sprawling would not have told the coroner about how a full house to house inquiry had been made when he asked about it. You are suggesting that Sprawling told the coroner that he himself had not been to all the houses, and that he did n ot add the information "..,. but other members of the police have taken care of the matter", although Spratling would have known this. And that is bonkers. What you are doing is to skip over the fact that "you" can mean both "you, inspector Sprawling" as well as "you in the police", and you produce a fairytale from that tactic.

Originally posted by Fisherman
I therefore conclude that the snippet you quoted from the Morning Post does not prove that the houses in Bucks Row had all been visited. To begin with, it does. not even speak of Bucks Row, it speaks of the adjoining streets:
"A house-to-house investigation and inquiry has been made in all the streets adjoining Buck's-row, but with no tangible results."

This you elevate to another status than it stands for:

"So the police did check every house and speak to the inhabitants in Buck's Row and the surrounding streets."

Ooops - suddenly Bucks Row is added. By you.
So you contend that the police who did a "A house-to-house investigation and inquiry has been made in all the streets adjoining Buck's-row" would not bother to do a house-to-house investigation and inquiry on Buck's Row? Even after the Coroner directly ordered Inspector Spratling to do it?

In what bizarro world would the police check every house in the streets near Buck's Row and ignore houses in Buck's Row? You theory is nonsensical.

I of course foreshadowed how you were going to make this remark in my former post - you are incredibly predictable. Read the statement you posted, please. It VERY clearly says that the adjoining streets were made the object of a house to house investigation, and it equally clearly does not involve Bucks Row in that effort.

Originally posted byFisherman
But would the police not check Bucks Row if they checked the adjoining streets? Well, that depends on what the police were looking for. Inquiries and investigations were certainly made about rumors of a blood trail in Brady Street:

The quote I mentioned specified "house-to-house investigation and inquiry". That's going to the houses and talking to the people who live there.

The police were also looking for clues outside the houses, as I already quoted.

"About six o'clock that day he [Inspector Spratling] made an examination at Buck's- row and Brady-street, which ran across Baker's-row, but he failed to trace any marks of blood. He subsequently examined, in company with Sergeant Godley, the East London and District Railway lines and embankment, and also the Great Eastern Railway yard, without, however, finding any traces. A watchman of the Great Eastern Railway, whose box was fifty or sixty yards from the spot where the body was discovered, heard nothing particular on the night of the murder. Witness also visited half a dozen persons living in the same neighbourhood, none of whom had noticed anything at all suspicious. One of these, Mrs. Purkiss, had not gone to bed at the time the body of deceased was found, and her husband was of opinion that if there had been any screaming in Buck's-row they would have heard it. A Mrs. Green, whose window looked out upon the very spot where the body was discovered, said nothing had attracted her attention on the morning of Friday last." - 4 September 1888 Daily Telegraph

"About six o'clock that day he [Spratling] made an examination at Buck's- row and Brady-street, which ran across Baker's-row, but he failed to trace any marks of blood. He subsequently examined, in company with Sergeant Godley, the East London and District Railway lines and embankment, and also the Great Eastern Railway yard, without, however, finding any traces. A watchman of the Great Eastern Railway, whose box was fifty or sixty yards from the spot where the body was discovered, heard nothing particular on the night of the murder. Witness also visited half a dozen persons living in the same neighbourhood, none of whom had noticed anything at all suspicious. One of these, Mrs. Purkiss, had not gone to bed at the time the body of deceased was found, and her husband was of opinion that if there had been any screaming in Buck's-row they would have heard it. A Mrs. Green, whose window looked out upon the very spot where the body was discovered, said nothing had attracted her attention on the morning of Friday last." - 4 September 1888 Daily News

Yes, indeed - Sprawling specified the places in Bucks Row he had gone to and made inquiries - and he did so in response t the coroners question if he had visited all the houses in Bucks Row. Sprawling answered in the negative: this had not been done. And that was why the coroner told him to see to it that it WAS done. How this would in any way help your reasoning, I am a a loss to understand. It still remains that when a coroner asks a policeman if every resident in a street have been interviewed, what the coroner wants to know is if that task has been carried out or not. He will be patently uninterested in getting to know who did it, or if a singled out policeman did it all on his own.

Originally posted by Fisherman
The idea that the coroner was only interested in Spratlings doings and that Spratling would not have informed the coroner that full investigations had been done in Bucks Row if that was the case, is not up to scratch.

Agreed, but that is not what I said. Again you put words in my mouth.

Not so, you are actually - and fantastically - suggesting that the coroner was prioritizing finding out if Sprawling alone had visited every house in Bucks Row over getting to know if the police as an organization had done it.

Lets look at another bit of the exchange between Baxter and the police.

Yes, lets!

"The Coroner: We cannot do more. (To the police): There was a man who passed down Buck's-row when the doctor was examining the body. Have you heard anything of him?
Inspector Abberline: We have not been able to find him. Inspector Spratley, J Division, stated he had made inquiries in Buck's-row, but not at all of the houses.
The Coroner: Then that will have to be done.
Witness added [Spratling] that he made inquiries at Green's, the wharf, Snider's factory, and also at the Great Eastern wharf, and no one had heard anything unusual on the morning of the murder. He had not called at any of the houses in Buck's-row, excepting at Mrs. Green's. He had seen the Board School keeper.
The Coroner: Is there not a gentleman at the G.E. Railway? I thought we should have had him here.
Witness: I saw him that morning, but he said he had heard nothing.
The witness added that when at the mortuary he had given instructions that the body was not to be touched.
The Coroner: Is there any other evidence?
Inspector Helson: No, not at present." - 18 September, 1888 Daily Telegraph

This shows:
* The Coroner was interested in an unknown man who had a passed through Buck's Row while Dr Llewellyn was examining Nichols body. That's an indication of the police were trying talk to anyone related to the case, no matter how weakly.

Yes, indeed - the police is as a rule always interested in getting to know as much as possible about any case they are investigating. Well spotted!

* Inspectors Abberline and Spratling both answered the Coroner's question. Inspector Helson would also answer some of the Coroner's questions.

Yes, both Sprawling and Helson is on record as having added information at the inquest. Again a keen-eyed observation on your behalf.

* Spratling was not the only person investigating the Nichols murder.

True, true! Bravo!

* Spratling was giving an account of his personal investigations, not the investigations of the whole force.

He does use the word "I" when describing the efforts that had been made, so you have a point there.

* The Coroner told Inspector Spratling to make inquiries at all the houses in Buck's Row.

No!! How sad, you were doing so well! Lets look at the Daily Telegraphs wording of the exchange:

Inspector Spratley, J Division, stated he had made inquiries in Buck's-row, but not at all of the houses.

The Coroner: Then that will have to be done.

Where does the coroner say that Sprawling specifically must carry out the work? I cannot find it? To me, it seems the coroner only points out that the inquiry has to be done, without specifying any wish that Sprawling himself called at all the houses.

The Morning Advertiser has this:

Inspector Spratling. -- I have been making inquiries into this matter.

The Coroner. -- have you been to every house in Buck's-row?

Does this mean that the coroner is asking Sprawling if he himself has been to every house in Bucks Row, or does it mean that he wants to know if THE POLICE has been there? I have a guess myself about it, but since the coroner uses the word "you" we cannot be certain, can we?

More, what more? The Times, perhaps?

Inspector Spratling, J Division, said he had made inquiries at several of the houses in Buck's-row, but not at all of them.
The CORONER. - Then that will have to be done.

Where specifically does Baxter say "then that will have to be done by YOU, Mr Spratling? Again, I cannot find it. Nor do I think that the coroner would ever get it into his head to try and decide for the police who they were to use for various tasks.

Your theory requires Spratling to ignore the Coroners order and not make inquiries at every house in Buck's Row.

No, as per the above, my theory does not require that at all. There is no problem at all with my theory, but I cannot say the same for yours - it predisposed that the coroner would have placed the task of interviewing all the inhabitants of Bucks Row on the shoulders of Spratling. And that is not credible in any shape or form.

So what's your theory on why Spratling would deliberately ignore the Coroner's orders and try to sabotage the investigation?

That it never happened , other in your parallel universe, of course. It is a universe where you are seemingly consistently trying to look at how things can be given another interpretation than the obvious one. And you are good at it, let me tell you that much! But not course, once your suggestions are scrutinized, we can all see why they are generally ludicrous. And it can be revealed how they are put together, a painstaking work no doubt.

[Fisherman]

As Christer refuses to admit, there is no known connection between the bloody rag and Charles Lechmere, either.

When did I ever "refuse to admit" that there is no known connection between the St Philip rag and Charles Lechmere, Fiver? Please direct me to the quotation you are using for this claim of yours.

If you don't, I will persist.

And Christer's double standard is shown by his ignoring the bloody undergarment found in Hooper Street, only 500 yards from the torso and only about two hours after the torso was found. A "staggeringly straight line" between the torso and the Hooper Street garment doesn't pass anywhere near Charles Lechmere's home.

Why would I mention the Hooper Street undergarment at all, Fiver? Are you suggesting that since a bloody rag was found in a place that points away from Lechmere having thrown it there, that would in some mysterious way take away from how the St Philips rag was found in an exact line between the Pinchin Street railway arch and Lechmeres home? Are you saying that bloody rags were found all over London on the day? It seems not, because both rags had the police on their toes.
Are you perhaps saying that for a bloody rag to be of interest in the Lechmere case, we must accept that ALL bloody rags found on the day after the dumping MUST have been dumped by Charles Lechmere?

Maybe you can explain to me how my focus on the rag up at St Philips shows that I have "double standards"? And if you in the process could verify that I would have "refused to admit" that there is no known connection between the St Philips rag and Charles Lechmere?

Many thanks in advance.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Along with Inspector Abbey Road, perhaps?

[Fisherman]

Why are you mentioning Lechemre and ignoring the other 68,000 carman who were working in the area at the time?

Because Lechmere was the one and only of them who was found close to a freshly killed Ripper victim who was still warm and bleeding, and who has an array of circumstial pieces of evidence pointing in his way. That is why.

And feel free to provide any evidence that anyone became a serial killer due to stress at work.

Feel free to do the research and see if there is any coupling made by experts on the matter between stress factors and serial murder.

You complaining about long posts is rather ironic. Perhaps you should take another look at the post by Fisherman that I was replying to.

We both write long posts. I suggest we learn to live with it. I made the remark because you on this thread once made the remark "You are certainly verbose" or something along that line - before adding a large number of posts yourself. If we can agree that it is ridiculous to make those remarks, maybe we can both stay away from them. Yes?

And you dodging that facts doesn't change the facts. The source you listed in your textwall did not contain the quote you attributed to it. Neither the source you named, nor the source you quoted supported your theory that people could become killers due to work related stress. Both of the sources stated some characteristics of serial killers - characteristics that there is no evidence for, and in some cases strong evidence against Lechmee having. And these points against your theory were in parts of the sources that you didn't quote.

See the above.

[Fisherman]

I see we can add "majority" to the list of English words you do not understand, along with "oozing", tottering", and your failure to understand the difference between "at the top" and "near the top".

A majority means more than half. "The absolute bulk" means almost all. The words are not interchangeable. "Almost all" is a majority. A "majority" could mean "almost all" or it could mean "barely more than half" or anything in between.

Saying that the majority of the newspapers said Lechmere left around 3:30am is technically correct, but it is much less accurate than saying that almost all of the newspapers said Lechmere left around 3:30am.

Since when was almost all not more than half, though ...?

I am glad to hear that you acknowledge that what I said was correct, though. Tell Herlock, because he is trying to flog the idea that I am lying - and that he can prove it!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Are you still on about that? I have already told you that I had no intention of deceiving anybody.

How are you going to prove that I did?

Furthermore, I encouraged the readers NOT to take 3.30 as gospel, since timings were not always very exact in the victorian days.

Furthermore, I quoted the "around 3.30" wording from ine of the papers, although I could have left that wording out, if I was the sinister devil you make me out to be.

Furthermore, when discussing the time gap in the book, I never said that a time gap was established. I said that IF he left home at 3.30, then he should have arrived in Bucks Row at 3.37.

You are quite welcome to point out that if I had added the "around", it would have made things clearer.

But that is as far as it goes. I never intended any foul play at all, I was reasoning theoretically which is a very uncontroversial thing to do, and I advised the riders to be wary about the timings - plus I PRINTED the "near 3.30" in the material where the reasoning was made.

How this all would permit you, or anybody else, to claim it proven that I purposefully tried to mislead my readers is something you have yet to explain. If you want to say that it leads you personally to that conclusion, then fine. But proving that your take is the correct one, Herlock, is a very, very different matter.

Again, if you do not have that proof, you would do better to acknowledge that. In my view, whatever "wriggling" there is, is all about you trying to get around the fact that you have made a claim you can never substantiate. And it is quite a claim too!!

And you still can’t bring yourself to address the specific issue. Attempts to dismiss it as inconsequential with your “you’re not still on about that are you?” Won’t work. I will not be letting this go. So I’ll ask again….

How can it be even remotely possible that during the research for Cutting Point you looked through all of the newspaper accounts and came to the obviously erroneous (false) conclusion that the majority had said that Cross had said that he’d left his house at 3.30 when you now admit that the majority say that he said “around 3.30.”? On what planet could that be described as an ‘innocent’ error?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The prime minister of KGB would be equally at risk to become stressed by many added working hours, just as it would be a factor that could make him feel that he was loosing control over part of his existence. It would therefore be as likely to cause him to tip over if he had the disposition of a serial killer, as it would be likely to tip Lechmere over as a carman.

In fact, people with large ambitions are - generally speaking - more likely to have a psychopathic disposition than those who have not.

That is how "weak" the answer is.

One of the most feeble suggestions in the history of ripperology. Cross was tipped over the edge into becoming a deranged serial killer due to the pressures of driving a cart around and delivering various items.

[Fisherman]

Your ‘timing theory’ has a few debatable things, Christer.

So lets look at what it is that bothers you, Frank!

First, the one that’s done to death, that Baxter was able to fix the time that Lechmere’s supposed to have found the body as 3.45, or a timing not far from it. I’m not going to discuss this again with you. All I’m going to say is that what you claim isn’t a given, but just your interpretation.

First you say that you are not going to discuss it, and then you .. discuss it? What I would say is that Baxter may have lied or misunderstood what fixes a timing, so in that respect, there can be "interpretations" made that question him. But it cannot be claimed that he did not say that the time at which the body was found was 3.45 or not far from it, since it is fixed by many independent data. So either we trust him, or we do not.

Then, that Baxter noted that there were two camps, and he therefore investigated the matter and found that camp 2 was the correct one. And this he could only have done with the help of one or two timepieces, those employed by Paul (who was able to nail an exact time) and Llewellyn (who in all probability owned a clock or two or three that could be checked in retrospect, just as Pauls given time source could).

It was always extremely obvious that there were two suggestions of when the body was found, around 3.40 if the PCs were correct, and around 3.45 if Paul was correct. I am not going to accept that Baxter could have been unaware of this, generally speaking. If he bought of it as two camps or just as a problem, who can say. But his harsh questioning of Thain proves that he was aware of the matter. I would also persist in saying that no coroner could have concluded what Baxter concluded without involving one or more timepieces. If he did not use that element, he would never be able to say that he could fix the time to 3.45 or not far off that mark.

In reality, there’s no evidence at all that Baxter investigated whether there were two camps or not, much less how he’s supposed to have done that.

That I agree with. But there are matters that need not be stated out loud, if the evidence ensures that they were there. And it does in this case. Of course, you are free to disagree, but I cannot see how that would work. Which is perhaps an indications that ... well, that I am unable to see something you can see. If so, tell me about it.

The two things you base your assumption on is Llewellyn, who first told newspapers that he was called by Thain at about 3.55 and then, at the inquest, stated “about 4 o’clock” (which doesn’t necessarily mean he thought Thain called him between 3.55 and 4:00); and on Thain, because of the timing Llewellyn gave at the inquest, seems to have taken far too long to fetch the doctor. But that’s it. Baxter never questioned any of the timings given. So, this point is really quite similar to “The other man, who went down Hanbury Street, appeared to be working with Cross.”, which is the evidence you use to show that Paul was out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen.

From behind: I don't say that the "the other man ..." snippet proves anything, Frank, although it IS in line with what I am suggesting, as is the wording "I sent the other man for a policeman" in the Morning Advertiser. These are things I point out because they are potentially adding a measure of confirmation to my take on things.
The "not far off 3.45" matter is another thing, and here, I am not saying that it potentially tells us that the timing of 3.45 is likely the correct one. I am saying that it establishes that this was so, although it has not been given that status before.
So why would my take seal it? Am I that arrogant? Nope, it was never a question of my take, it is a question of the coroners take, who says that he can prove that the body was found at 3.45 or not far off 3.45. That is what he says when he says that the time has been fixed to that point. What we are left with if we favour the 3.40 timing is them the faint hope that although Baxter said 3.45 or not far off it, he may have included 3.40 in his verdict. And that suggestion suffers very badly from our insight that Baxter knew quite well that t 3.40 or 3.45 was where the battlefield stood. And this is proven by his questioning Thain.

So, you claim that it was important for Baxter to discover the 5 minutes between 3.40 and 3.45 (or very close to it). But why, if he did actually find it so important to move Lechmere’s timing of finding the body from 3.40 to 3.45, didn’t he, as a result, find it important that Lechmere’s timing of leaving home must also have been wrong? Because after all, if Lechmere found the body at 3.45, he couldn’t have left home at about 3.30, but it should have been between 3.35 and 3.40 – a good 7 or 8 minutes later than he’d claimed? And why didn’t the police – or any journalist for that matter – make anything of that point?

Why did not a single Ripper researcher notice it until more than a hundred years after the murders? Becasue, perhaps, we do miss out on the potential powder buried in what we think looks like harmless stories? Why did nobody see the potential in how Lechmere seemingly lied to Mizen about another PC? A jury member asked about it, but was happy with the user he got, and nobody latched on. Nor did they notice that Mizen said that he had only been told about a woman flat on her back in Bucks Row - although Lechmere claimed to have told the PC about a likely dead woman.
Why did the policemen who questioned John Christie not notice that the fence that surrounded his little garden was supported by some small wooden props - and a femure bone?
Some people are very good at deceiving others and leading them up the garden path - lined with femur bones though it may be. The victorian society was never compatible to that of today in terms of criminological insight.
There WAS actually a paper that wrote after Baxters summary that it now had been established that the murder must have taken place at between 3.15 and 3.45, meaning that they accepted that the latter time was when Lechmere got to the body. But they did not couple that to how Lechmere had said he left home at around 3.30. Nor did they take note of his disagreements with Mizen.
Human nature, R J. That is what it is about.
And since we are not willing to accept how poor judges we often are, it is often said that the police must have interrogated Lechmere since everybody can see how bad things look for him.
Where were those people before 2005? Why did nobody step forward and speak of Lechmere back then, if it was all so bloody obvious how things looked for him?

And, if Baxter was as interested in the timings involved as you suggest, why didn’t he include Lechmere’s timing of when he stated he arrived at work? Because, after all, that’s really the only exact timing, given only as “at four o’clock”, so without “about”, “around” or “approximately”.

See the above. There were many things that should have been done differently.

In this regard it’s interesting to know that the distance from where the carmen met Mizen to the entrance on Eldon Street to Broad Street Station/Goods depot was around 1750 meters or 1910 yards. Walking that distance at the rather brisk walking speed of 3.75 miles or 6.03 km per hour, it would have taken him almost 17 and a half minutes to arrive there from where he spoke to Mizen.

And maybe he was late to work! Or maybe he arrived there, panting baldy after a brisk run! But would he tell the inquest about that if he was the killer - or would he try to give as grey and colorless a version of events? Yes, he ran the risk of the police checking it. But killing always come with risks.

Or, in other words, if Lechmere found Nichols at 3.45, then he would have left the body together with Paul at around 3.46, would have arrived at Mizen at 3.49 and have left him, say, half a minute later. So, he would have arrived at work at 4.07-ish. And why, if he was as investigative as you suggest, would Baxter not have found these 7 or so minutes important?

Because, I would suggest, that what Baxter was looking for was the time at which the body was found - and he quickly found out that he had all he needed to establish that time. As for Baxter being investigative, we have it on record that he was. We know that he researched the data, and found that independent parts of them established that 345 or not far off that time was when the body was found.
Once he had this timing, he was perhaps not likely to try and check any further. There would have been no need.
It was only if he asked other questions that he would have needed to look into Lechmeres timings. Apparently, he never asked those questions.

These are the wonderings that come to mind when I see you seemingly claim things as given or established when they aren't.

The writing is on the wall as far as I'm concerned, Frank. I am not changing my mind on the score for reasons given above. You are as welcome as ever to have a different view, but it is a very problematic one if you are going to speak for 3.40 as the likely finding time.
Then again, since when does ripperology prohibit people from entertaining all sorts of views...?