Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fisherman]

Yes thank you again, Fisherman,



No you are absolutely right. I can't prove it. You said what you said. You don't think the police necessarily checked if Pickfords had a Charles Cross in their employ. You are parsing words and I am okay with that. Put it however you want it, Mr. Fish.

This has been Your and Ed's Big Deal for as long as I can remember. He fooled the police and everyone by using an alias.

it's gone on for so long now, no one else seems to give a hoot except ole' Goose. But to me, it will always be your starting point, which I find sorely lacking. A dud for all the obvious reasons.

You must recall old Boss
A Cross is just a Cross

You may rest assured that I WILL "put it however I want it", Mr Goose. And thank you for acknowledging that you falsely claimed that I would have said things that I have never said.

Your efforts to try and tarnish me in retrospect will be, I'm sure, much welcomed in some camps, but that matters very little to me. What carries weight is that I can, over and over again, show that the ongoing charade out here is not truthful.

[Fisherman]

And I think the option to... just get another job...maybe go work for the railways - booming industry and all that? Even use some of the money you saved and maybe start working for yourself... would be a better solution than going straight to "Murder Rampage".
Maybe he only realised that he had that option just a little bit too late... and stopped killing people and started saving money?

"Stressed at work" is just another insubstantial "What IF..." and that's all there is to the theory.

Yes, it is another "What if?". That is absolutely correct. But I have little doubt that we will in the future see posters out here claiming that I would have said that I am certain that this was what set Lechmere off.

That is how it goes out here, you see.

[Fisherman]

Or that newspaper was rounding to the nearest quarter hour instead of trying to set an exact time.

They were gauging against the half hour trek of Neil. It is that simple.

And since when should we take a single newspaer's estimate over the estimates of three police constables and the offical report by inspector Abberline?

Since Baxter summed the case up, stating as a fact that the body was found at 3.45 or not far off. That is when.

Inspector Spratling gave a report on 31 August 1888 stating that PC Neil had found Nichols body at 3;45am.

... and at this stage, Charles Lechmeres role was not known.

Inspector Abberline's report was on 19 September 1888. PC Neil, PC Mizen, Charles Lechmere, PC Thain, and Robery Paul had testified in court, with Abberline being present for testimony. Abberline estimated that Lechmeme found the body around 3:40am. There is no evidence that Abberline ever changed that view.

...nor is there any evidence that he did not. The coroners summary did not arrive until September 22, well AFTER the 19th of September report, so we don't know Abberlines response to it. But it would be very, very odd if he opposed Baxters fixed timing.

Inspector Swanson gave a report on 19 October 1888 where he estimated that Lechmere and Paul found the body around 3:45am.

Which leads to two possibilities.
* Swanson discounted the testimonies of PC Mizen, PC Neil, and PC Thain, as well as Abberline's and Spratling's report's.
* Swanson was rounding to the nearest quarter hour.

The second seems much more likely and is reinforced by the fact that the coroner, the jury, the police, and the press did not see any time gap in the testimonies.

The second suggestion is ridiculous, since we all know that no "rounding off to the nearest quarter hour" would be helpful in telling two timings apart that were divided by five minutes only. Nobody, not the police, not the inquest, nor the papers, had any difficulty at all understanding that if Neil got to the body at 3.45, then Lechmere got there around 3.40. Similarly, none of them would have any difficulties to understand the implications for Neil et al when the coroner established that the body was found not around 3.40 but instead around 3.45.

[Fisherman]

Only Fisherman would use Lechmere having a job to imply that Lechmere was a serial killer.

Back in the real world, Fisherman's source had nothing to do with work stress, Fisherman only provided his personal speculation that work stress could lead to becoming a serial killer. Fisherman has not shown that Lechmere's work stress was in any way different from the 10s of thousands of other carmen, or that the work stress of carmen was unique to the trade.

But why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good theory?

See my posts to your friends.

[Fisherman]

Oh, come on Fiver... what possible reason would Swanson have for even thinking that three constabless from two divisions and a reknowned Inspector and professional horrologist would have a better understanding of the timelines of the combined interwoven overlapping movements of those involved, when put aganst mouthy carman Robert Paul's estimate of "Ass-pull O'clock"

A good example of where the reasoning of the naysayers goes when faced with unsurmountable problems. To the pub.

[Fisherman]

Clearly you're in the "never mention the rag at all camp"since you ignore the Hooper Street rag and give prominence to the St Phillips Church rag.

I already told you that the only rag that has any bearing for my reasoning is the St Philips rag - and it is either one of the greatest coincidences in criminal history, or a useful piece of evidence. And to be frank, the naysayers coincidence account has been overdrawn for years now.
Can you think, Fiver, of any author presenting a theory about a suspect and finding this kind of stuff - a dumped murder victim in the suspects childhood street of all St Georges streets, placed in a railway arch that took tearing down his mothers old lodgings, and a bloody rag placed exactly on a straight line drawn from that dumping site up to the suspects lodgings - who would NOT point it out?
An "honest" author perhaps?
But I AM honest, and - in conflict with you dishonest claim that I would have refused to say that the rag was not connected to Lechmere - I did point this out very clearly, for example in Cutting Point: "Of course, this second apron cannot be conclusively linked to the Pinchin Street victim the way Catherine Eddowes´ apron was linked to her".
So why don't I mention the Hooper Street rag? Isn't that dishonest? No, it is not. I am presenting the case against Charles Lechmere, not the case for his innocence. If I was, it would A/ produce a book thicker than the Bible, and B/ take away from the clarity of the case I am making.
Make, if you will, the assumption that the police would have set up a cold case group in 1895, devoted to looking at the many people involved in the case. Then make the assumption that they came to suspect Lechmere.
If they then were alerted to the two rags found on the day after the dumping of the torso, would they go: "Oh, look, that rag was dumped in an exact line from the arch up to Mr Lechmeres lodgings - but no, on second thought, it can have no bearing on then case, since another rag was found in Hooper Street. Bugger!"

Your guess is not as good as mine, I believe.

A general coverage of the Pinchin Street Torso wouldn't mention either bloody rag, they're just random bits of rubbish.

Isn't that you claiming for a fact that the rags are proven not to be connected to the case? Tell us how you did that!
Myself, I would recommend not trying to sweep potentially very damning evidence under the carpet, they way you would prefer.

I tell you what, you are welcome to bang on about YOUR rag as much as you like to, and I will bang on about mine.

Deal?

A more detailed coverage would to mention that the Hooper Street rag was found a few hundred yards from the Pinchin Street Torso a couple hours afterwards, while the St Phillips Church rag was found the next day, nowhere near Pinchin Street. It would also mention that neither rag is proven to have anything to do with the Pinchin Street Torso.

My coverage DID mention that the St Philips rag is not proven to have had anything to do with the Pinchin Street torso, so you can have no complaint about that. But it WOULD be fair if you showed us the evidence for how I would have "refused to acknowledge" it!

You see, making those kinds of allegations comes with a duty.

And a little remark: It is not WHEN and WHERE the rags were found that tells us whether or not they were possibly linked to the crime. The "when" is just ridiculous, there are zillions of examples of evidence altering a case when they are found late in the process. And the "where" in this case is massively affected how one of the rags was found in an exact line from the dumping site to a suspects lodgings. If a killer can walk half a mile then he can also walk one and a half. And it would be equally "logic" to say that the St Philips rag seems to point to a killer who took care to throw away evidence at a fair distance from the crime site. Then again, I would not make those kinds of "points", because I would feel silly about it. But you don't seem to mind.

Any kind of good coverage would not mention Charles Lechmere in the context, since there is no evidence that he had anything to to with the Torso or either bloody rag.

Dont be ridiculous. Any kind of good coverage would never sweep the rag under the carpet (see what I did there?), while it would also need to point out that although the rag WAS found in an exact line from the arch to Lechmeres lodgings, it is not proven to have had anything to do with the torso.

Lousy, biased coverage would mention the St Phillips Church rag and ignore the Hooper Street rag. Lousy, biased coverage would draw a Ley Line to Lechmere while ignoring you could draw the same Ley Line to thousands of Londoners. Lousy, biased coverage would be to ignore that St James Church rag was not on any likely walking route between Pinchin Street and the Lechmere home. Lousy, biased coverage would be to ignore that Lechmere wouldn't be going home at 5:30am, he would be at work.

Nope. But lousy, biased criticism would want to sweep the rag under the carpet (see what I did there? Again!)

[Fisherman]

Like reading all the newspaper reports of the inquest quoting Cross. Counting them up. Seeing that the majority clearly said “around 3.30.” Then writing the opposite. Then wriggling around because you know that you can’t justify doing it.

I have no problems. But you do, having to prove a case of intentional misleading.

When is that going to happen, Herlock?

[Fisherman]

You will never directly admit to being wrong, but your previous post clearly shows that you have no evidence.

"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." - Christer Holmgren

If you had any evidence that work stress led to serial killing, you would have given it instead of trying to get me to do the research for you.

Your words show that you have no evidence that work stress leads to serial killing. Your words prove what you will never directly admit.

No, my words do not show that I have no evidence. My word claims that you need to look for the evidence yourself, since I am not going to do hours of work only to then have it pooped on by you. And if you can prove that stress and a feeling of lost control is not regarded as common factors in the starting up process for many a serial killer, then fine. But you can't.
You have to settle for making false claims about how my reluctance to dig for hours on end in a leash you provided would somehow prove me wrong. It does not.

[Fisherman]

Every time you repeat your Ley Line theory, you are claiming there is a connection between the bloody rag and Charles Lechmere.

Every time I repeat the fact that the St Philips rag was found in an exact line between the arch and Lechmeres lodgings, I point to a circumstance that potentially has a very clear bearing on the case.

Every time you claim that I would have claimed that there IS a proven link between the rag and Lechmere, you are lying - unless what you are saying is that the rag is PROVEN to have been found in a direct line between the arch and Lechmeres lodgings.

Do not accuse me of any misleadings, Fiver. It always backfires.

Like now.

But by all means, go on trying to spread cowling about me - it provides me with excellent opportunities to show who it is that lives submerged in the stuff.

Who, for example, falsely claims that I would have "refused to acknowledge" that the St Philips rag is not linked to Lechmere or the Pinchin Street murder. As I have provided conclusive proof for in the above, this is a false accusation of yours.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

Before I’m going into this post of yours I have some remarks.

First off, I’m not R J; I’m Frank. Please don’t forget me.

So YOU say. But how do I know it?

Oh, sorry, I have just been answering posts from a less discerning crowd, so I am perhaps a bit on edge.

Sorry about that Frank! I will try to get it right forthwith.

Secondly, it would not only be courteous of you, but also more effective if you could 1) remember my view on what Baxter meant with his “not far from 3.45”, and 2) take off your “it’s an established fact that Baxter investigated all relevant timings and was, as a result, able to conclude that Lechmere had found the body at 3.45, give or take a minute” goggles off for a moment and try to see how things would look from my side. That way I wouldn’t need to rewrite how I see things every time I respond to something you write.

I KNOW your take, Frank. But as I said, I don't think it works with the facts other than if we stretch them a good deal.

I have no trouble seeing things from your perspective and, in doing so, understand why you see certain things the way you do, so it would be nice if you’d extend me the same courtesy.

Having said that, let’s go into what you’ve written.

Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
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.
Yes, in theory there would be 2 suggestions of when the body was found and they would be extremely obvious to anybody who would be interested in getting to the bottom of when, exactly, the body was found by Lechmere. So, I’m not suggesting Baxter would have been unaware of anything, I just very seriously doubt that anybody, including Baxter, would be as interested in it as you are or I am. With the problem that everybody owned a clock or watch, especially in the poorer parts of town, and with clocks & watches not necessarily being synchronized, I think our modern sense of time is different than that of 1888 and to pinpoint things to the minute would simply be undoable.

But Baxter did not pinpoint to the minute. He pinpointed to the minute "or not far off". And I am convinced that 3.40 would not be within that boundary, because it would render Baxters claim useless. As for clocks and accuracy, that could always be checked. And indeed, it must have been, if you ask me. And when you have two independent sources like Paul and Llewellyn, once you know how accurate the timepieces from where their respective takes stemmed, you can fix a time with great certainty - although perhaps not to the exact minute as such.

But his harsh questioning of Thain proves that he was aware of the matter.
The first things the coroner asked Thain were not about his timing but first about the blood and then about whether he had searched the neighbourhood. So this doesn’t fit very well with your suggestion that Thain’s timing was important to Baxter. Had that been the case, then the first thing to get cleared up was his timing and asking him some questions about it.

What’s also interesting is that it wasn’t the coroner who asked Thain about whether he’d passed the slaughterhouse on his way to the doctor but it was someone on the jury.

All in all, this doesn’t give me the impression of any harsh questioning in the sense of trying to get to the bottom of why it might have taken him so long to get to the doctor’s before anything else or whether his timing might have been off 5 minutes or so. Yes, he was asked a question about whether he had passed by the slaughterhouse on his way to the doctor, but not by the coroner and only near the end of his inquest appearance; it certainly wasn’t the first question he was asked.

The matter was something that would have grown in importance the more Baxter realized that there were two incompatible timings. So the fact that Baxter did not ask about it first proves nothing if you ask me. The information, regardless if initiated by the coroner or a juror, would have proven that there were inconsistencies that needed to be cleared up.
It also applies that it was juror, not Baxter, who asked Lechmere if he had spoken of another PC in Bucks Row. That does not mean that it looses in potential relevance.

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.
I can understand that you’d persist that when you’re assuming it as fact that Baxter investigated the timings and concluded what you think he concluded. However, as far as I’m concerned, what you consider a fact is only your interpretation and can’t be anything other than that.

It is a question of whether or not the coroner would have felt he was able to fix the time without using information about the time. I am saying that it is impossible. If you are of another opinion, then you need to tell me how it would work. Was he guessing?

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.
It isn’t so difficult. I can see that, if you presume that your interpretation of Baxter’s summing up “could not have been far from 3.45” is the correct one, that you then can’t see how things would work. However, if you let go of that presumption, open your mind to the notion that Baxter, or anybody else for that matter, quite possibly didn’t look at the timings with our modern eyes (meaning that we think in matter of minutes), but rather that it would be undoable to try to pinpoint things to the minute (or two), then it would work.

Again, it is not me "interpreting" that Baxter was right, it is Baxter himself establishing that many independent data enabled him to establish this. If you want to go with the idea that he was wrong or made it up, You are of course entitled to do so. But to me, when Baxter says that it has been cleared up and established that 3.45 or not far off it was the time, then I accept it as having been stated as a researched fact.

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, ...
If Mizen did actually say or tried to say that Paul continued to walk down Hanbury Street while he and Lechmere spoke, the snippet would really be a very awkward & vague way of saying it. There’s no way of going around it or denying it. But seeing the other two snippets (Star of 3/9 & Times of 4/9) of what was said, it should become clear that Mizen didn’t say that Paul continued while he spoke to Lechmere.
So, it should be clear that this snippet really is, at best, the thinnest and flimsiest of evidence to base your view on/to support your view. And as far as I’m concerned, the same goes for your “cannot have been far from 3.45” theory/evidence.

Here, you are doing what you tell me NOT to do - you are regarding it as a fact that Mizen did not lead on that Paul proceeded down Hanbury Street as Lechmere spoke to Mizen. I mean, I can count, and I know that it is not supported by the other papers. But it remains that it not ruled out by them either.
So if you are entitled to beleive that the body could have been found at 3.40 although Baxter says 3.45, then I fail to see why I would not be entitled to point out that Paul may have been walking down Hanbury Street as Lechmere spoke to Mizen.

...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?
So in post #191 on The Darkness of Baker’s Row” you say that you “don't say that it is necessarily the correct one”, referring to your interpretation of what Baxter meant by “it cannot have been far from 3.45”. But now you’re claiming that it is?

3.45 exactly is not necessarily the correct timing. But I think, for reasons given above, that it rules out the around 3.40 in favor of the around 3.45 in such a fashion as to disenable 3.40 exactly, whereas 3.45 exactly is the likeliest explanation, followed by 3.46, 3.44, 3.47 and 3.43. But NOT by 3.48 and /or 3.42.

Whatever the case, as long as your interpretation is just one possible interpretation, it can never be a base to establish anything. So, your take doesn’t seal a thing. I’m not going to say that you are arrogant, but you sure can come off as such, Christer.

Which is unlucky, if that is the case. But keep in mind that I am on a daily basis called a liar and deceitful out here, by people who are VERY loose about the facts. It does not inspire a gentle and soft-spoken character, perhaps.

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.
Except he didn’t say “at 3.45”, he said “not far from 3.45”; they are not the same thing.

Read your quotation of me again: I am adding the "not far off", Frank.

Why did not a single Ripper researcher notice it until more than a hundred years after the murders?
I’m not asking about Ripper researchers and I’m not asking about ‘the Mizen scam’ and I’m not interested in some femur bone in John Christie’s case; I’m especially asking about what Baxter found, if he was – as you claim – as keen on getting to the bottom of when Nichols was first found and if he found a maximum of 5 minutes as important as you find it. All the things you add are nothing but smoke & mirrors.

"Smoke and mirrors" is, if I am not wrong, a way of describing somebody trying to obfuscate and hide away in favor of presenting a wrongful picture, intended to deceive. Correct me if I am wrong.
What I am adding are all elements that I firmly believe to be correct. I have no intention of producing any smoke or mirrors.

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.
Distraction!

BUT precisely the response I predicted in my post #190 on The Darkness of Baker’s Row. “By the way, it's interesting to see how the 3.30 in "about 3.30" is used to widen the gap, whilst the "he got to Pickford's yard at Broad-street at four o'clock", when used by us naysayer folk, is seen as useless (as in: we can't be certain that it was precisely four o'clock or even very close to it).”

Distraction? No. I am pointing to obvious possibilities.

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.
And how could he do that, not having the whole picture? 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.

I have described in detail how it would work. The stories of Paul/Thain/Llewellyn taken in combination with a check of clock accuracy could well have sealed it. It could provide independent data that was proven to be correct enough to make the claim Baxter made.

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.
If you mean by this that we just have all the inquest statements and his summing up and that we don’t know anything he did – investigative-wise – outside any of the inquest sessions, then I agree. He listened to everybody and summed up based on what he’d heard during the inquest sessions. Other than the question put to Thain by the jury about passing by the slaughterhouse on his way to the doctor we have no evidence of him believing any one timing over any other(s) and never disputed any timing. That’s what I go by.

And I am going on how I accept that when a coroner says that he has independent data that fixes a time, that is becasue he has independent data that fixes a time. I don't think his not listing it in his summary means that he is wrong.

It was only if he asked other questions that he would have needed to look into Lechmeres timings. Apparently, he never asked those questions.
That doesn’t make sense at all. Wasn’t Lechmere the very one who’d found Nichols?? So, why wouldn’t he have been interested in the timings that Lechmere gave?? Especially if he was as bent on getting the finding time right as you think he was and seeing that his 4 o’clock timing was really the only precise timing given by those first 6 witnesses on the scene, it doesn’t make sense and is, therefore, unconvincing!

As I said, if he felt that he had the truth about the timings, why would he go into any other testimony? Once you are satisfied that you have proven something, then that something is proven. Not suggested and in need to be further looked into. But of course, one can argue that he could have been interested to check Lechmeres timing too, just to empty out all sources. But it would of course be A/ in conflict with your take about a real effort on Baxters behalf, and B/ it may actually be that he DID weigh it it, and gave Lechmere the benefit of a doubt wince he said "around 3.30". It is a common enough thing in these investigations to try and make all ends meet.

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.
Well, I’m not so hung up on a time, Christer. I’d settle for around, maybe, 3.42, but am certainly not married to it. And my view is further that the only thing that would be problematic is trying to piece together to the minute the comings & goings of our 6 witnesses and that I don’t think Baxter or anybody else for that matter back then would have seen it very differently.

So lets disagree. That is my best offer, since I rule out 3.42 categorically.

If Baxter really was as focused on uncovering Lechmere’s finding time as you think he was, then why don’t we see anything similar in Stride’s case? After all, it’s clear that PC Smith’s timing of “about 1 am” arriving at the corner of Commercial Road and Berner Street doesn’t go with either Diemshutz (1 am) or Blackwell’s (1.16) or Lamb’s (1.04 to 1.06, based on Blackwell’s timing). According to his own account he saw PC’s Lamb and Collins when arrived in Dutfield’s Yard and he hadn’t seen PC 426 H running for the doctor. Just when Smith left the yard to go for the ambulance at Leman Street police station, he saw Blackwell’s assistant arrive. So, Smith’s timing was off by at least some 5 minutes. Yet, we see no evidence at all of Baxter being harsh on Smith or adjusting Diemshutz’s discovery time.

How do we know that Baxter did not make a huge effort - that came to nothing, Frank? Just how?

Then again, since when does ripperology prohibit people from entertaining all sorts of views...?
The best to you too, Christer.

Frank
zz0.huxjxq5abx5zz

I hope we can stay on friendly terms, Frank. I really do. I know we both have the ability to disagree in style, so I hope that is what will come of our exchange.

[Fisherman]

Maybe you need to go over it once more or many times, but I don't feel a particular need, Christer.


Yup. As I've said in previous exchanges between us on the subject, Baxter indeed referred back to Neil's timing, because that was the closest one he had and immediately before giving his "cannot have been far from 3.45" bit, he actually mentioned Neil discovering the body. I know you don't agree with it, but that's how I see and read it. And, again, Baxter didn't say "the body was found at 3.45 or not far off it"; he just said "not far from 3.45" - as below.

"Cross and Paul reported the circumstance to a constable at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, about 300 yards distant, but in the meantime Police constable Neil discovered the body. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from a quarter to four a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data."

So, while your "not far from 3.45" means "at 3.45 or perhaps give or take one minute", mine means that it might also have been 3.40.

I'll leave you to it.

The best,
Frank

What Baxter said was, and I am quoting the Morning Advertiser, "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". But to be perfectly honest, Frank - does not "cannot have been far off 3.45" MEAN "at 3.45 or not far off it" ....? Or does the "not far off" mean that we should work from the assumption that it was off, only not far off...?
Just as when we say "I left home at around 3.30", it means that 3,30 is the time we are suggesting as a likelihood, a suggestion meaning that 3.45 is our best guess, although we accept that we may be wrong about it to a degree?

[Fisherman]

Your theory is that the police did not make inquiries at all of the houses on Buck's Row, even though they were ordered to do so by Coroner Baxter and even though they reported making inquiries at all of the house adjoining Buck's Row.

Why would Inspector Spratling ignore Baxter's orders to make inquiries at all the houses in Bucks Row?

Why would the police make inquiries at all the houses adjoining Buck's Row and not make inquiries at all the houses in Buck's Row?

I have already answered these questions, Fiver. Why would I do it again, just because you failed to notice it, or chose to try and make it out as if I had not?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not I who must disprove that your allegations are false, it is YOU who need to prove them right. And you cannot do that.

If you believe that making false allegations about a fellow poster being a liar, deceitful and dishonest is a reason to roll around laughing, I beg to differ. I consider it extremely rude and totally misleading, since I have never once sought to mislead anybody about anything in the Ripper saga.

What you need to prove that I would have tried to intentionally mislead, is any documentation that this was so. Suspecting it does not work, as anybody with any sort of functioning reason would be quite aware about.

Here is a snippet from Michael Connors dissertation on here "Did the Ripper Work for Pickfords?":

"The Star (3 September) wrote: ‘He [Cross] was employed by Pickfords. He left home on Friday at twenty minutes past three, and got to Pickfords’ yard at Broad-street at four o’clock.’ The Times agreed, reporting that Cross ‘stated that he left home on Friday morning at 20 minutes past three, and he arrived at his work, at Broad-street, at four o’clock.’ In 1888, Pickfords was a long-established British firm of carriers who are still in business today.

The statement in the Star and Times are incorrect. Cross was with Robert Paul in Buck’s Row at approximately 3.45 and with PC Mizen shortly after, so it would have been impossible for him to have reached Broad Street by 4am. Other newspapers—the Daily News (4 September) and Daily Telegraph (4 September)—said he left home about 3.30 and the Morning Advertiser (4 September) appeared to be offering Cross’s own words, which agreed with this later timing: ‘On Friday morning I left home at half past three.’ These discrepancies are explainable.

Walking time between Doveton Street, where Cross lived, and Broad Street, where he worked for Pickfords, is about 40 minutes. Cross may have told Coroner Wynne Baxter that he usually left home at 3.20 and arrived at Broad Street at four o’clock, but on Friday he was late and left home at 3.30. In the Daily News story, Cross claimed that he was ‘behind time’. If this is what happened, then the Star and The Times recorded his usual timetable, while the Daily News, Daily Telegraph and Morning Advertiser gave the time he claimed to have left home on the day of the murder. Cross may have been explaining why he was in Buck’s Row at a later time than usual.

Walking time between Doveton Street and the Buck’s Row murder site today is approximately six minutes—it would have been quicker in 1888. Even on the basis of this modern timing, if he left home on that morning about 3.30 then he would have been in Buck’s Row about 3.36."

Note how Michael Connor does not suggest that the finding time was around 3.45. He says that this was so, and uses this as the starting point for his reasoning.

He then quotes the Dn and the DT as both saying "about 3.30" and adds that the Morning Advertiser had it without the "about": "I left home at half past three". And then Connor says that the Dn and DT timings agree with the Morning Advertiser.
You don't think they agree at all, do you? You think they disagree.

And what happens then? Well, then Connor says that Cross may have told Coroner Wynne Baxter that he usually left home at 3.20 and arrived at Broad Street at four o’clock, but on Friday he was late and left home at 3.30.

The scoundrel!

He LEFT OUT the about!!

So, Herlock, was Connors aim to mislead and lie, to misrepresent and deceitfully lead his readers up the garden path?

Or was he simply reasoning theoretically about where it takes us if we work from the 3.30 timing? While supplying the information that the wording "about" was actually there in two named papers?

Which is it? When do people turn into liars in your eyes, for reasoning theoretically about these things and actually using the only time given when doing so? This is where you normally start claiming that Lechmere did NOT give the timing 3.30, he gave the timing "about" 3.30. But as you can see, people reasoning about it WILL use the 3.30 thing as the starting point of their thinking and reasoning anyway - becasue it IS the time Lechmere suggested he left home, REGARDLESS of how he garnished it with an "about".
As I have said a thousand times now, any theoretical reasoning will and must work from 3.30. No theoretical reasoning that worked from 3.29 or 3.31 would be as sound, and every added or detracted minute would make it worse.

Again, you have failed to provide any sort of evidence at all for how I would have tried to intentionally mislead my readers by way of not adding the "about" to the theoretical reasoning I - and Michael Connor - do about where we end up IF Lechmere left home at 3.30.

Again, you have failed to prove your allegations.

And you have now added the element that it would somehow lie upon ME to clear myself of YOUR unproven allegations?

And then you speak of rolling around laughing? When you time and time again make these kind of posts, the laughing is not on me, Herlock. The laughing - AND the crying - is all on you.

Proof, please! NOW!

That’s not even worth a ‘nice try.’

An embarrassingly desperate attempt at obfuscation. Connors is a distraction tactic and an attempt to shake me off. Not happening Fish.

It has been proven. Categorically, without a solitary scintilla of a doubt. So I’ll keep trying.

—————————

You wrote Cutting Point and did the research - you wouldn’t deny that of course.

During that research you checked the inquest testimonies as reported in the various newspapers to get an overall view of what was actually said (eliminating the possibility of things like one or two newspapers repeating an error that wasn’t reported in 15 others - so to get a balanced overall view of what was actually said.)

As an experienced Journalist you would be as aware as anyone of the importance of getting facts correct. Opinions and interpretations can vary but basic facts have to be correct.

So during this period of research (when I assume that you read these newspaper reports more than once) it would have been the simplest thing in the world to do a bit of counting (after all were not talking hundreds of reports are we?)

So in Cutting Point you make this positive stamens of (what should easily have been) fact:

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

This isn’t an estimation….it’s a positive statement that more papers said ‘3.30’ than ‘3.20.’

On here you admitted that:

“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.”

I’ll ask you again:

How is it remotely possible that you could have read those newspaper reports (numerous times) and not only did you wrongly state that the majority of them said ‘3.30’ but you also managed to completely omit any mention that some of them said ‘around 3.30,’ whilst remembering to mention the one mention of 3.20?

How could you have possibly done this unintentionally and how you even expect anyone to believe it?

This absolutely PROVES that this was done deliberately despite you’re obvious attempts at obfuscation. It cannot have been otherwise.

[Doctored Whatsit]

What Baxter said was, and I am quoting the Morning Advertiser, "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". But to be perfectly honest, Frank - does not "cannot have been far off 3.45" MEAN "at 3.45 or not far off it" ....? Or does the "not far off" mean that we should work from the assumption that it was off, only not far off...?
Just as when we say "I left home at around 3.30", it means that 3,30 is the time we are suggesting as a likelihood, a suggestion meaning that 3.45 is our best guess, although we accept that we may be wrong about it to a degree?

Why are we discussing this at such length? Baxter's summing up seems to me to be crystal clear. Holland saw Nichols at 2. 30 am, she recalled that the nearby clock struck while they were talking. Baxter when summing up, stated that "in less than an hour and a quarter after this she was found dead." So there we have it, Baxter clearly decided that she was found dead before 3. 45 am.

So what info did he use in his consideration? He had three police officers and Paul quoting events timed at or about 3.45 am. Paul walking to work, Neil finding the body, Thain being called by Neil, and Mizen meeting Paul and Lechmere. Paul suggested about four minutes to find Mizen. I think that Llewellyn's time is too far distant to be a useful source in estimating the discovery time. Baxter concluded that Neil "must independantly have found the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen." So Baxter, avoiding estimating to the minute, and having specified that the body was found before 3. 45 am, concluded that it was found "not far off" that time, which can only mean very shortly before that.

The suggestion that the carmen were with Nichols for perhaps about one minute, and then took four minutes to reach Mizen, gave Abberline a suggested 3. 40 am time for the actual discovery.

Obviously, Holland's timing, Lechmere's estimated time of departure from home, Paul's estimated time, the times quoted by the police officers, and that quoted by Llewellyn were all achieved using different time sources, and cannot be guaranteed to agree perfectly. But Baxter's "less than an hour and a quarter" is absolutely clear.

[Fiver]

Yes, bravo, Herlock! It would apply to every single Ripper suspect who suddenly got a much more straining job by way of having working hours added. You have, at long last, grasped what I am saying.

You are welcome to explain to us why it would be staggeringly pointless to point out that elements that can set off serial killing may have been there in Lechmeres case. Personally, I always thought that if such a thing could be pointed to, it would be of tremendous interest.

And it is of course noteworthy that it came up in a context that was aimed to prove how Lechmere was perhaps LESS likely to commit murder than other Eastenders.

As Luke Skywalker would say- Amazing, every single thing you just said was wrong.

You again misrepresent my posting of the original article. You continue to do so in spite of my repeated explanations and direct links to what I actually said. This has to be deliberate on your part by now. I never said anything about the article having anything to do with how likely Lechmere was to be a murderer. I used it to point of that if he was the murderer, killing after work made far more sense than killing during or before work.

There is no evidence that any of the elements that can set off serial killing were present in Lechmere's case. Nobody but you even suggests that a stressful work environment can lead to serial killing. The sources you gave do not discuss work related stress. You have no evidence to support your theory.

Lechmere did not "suddenly get a much more straining job by way of having working hours added". He just continued working the job he'd been working for roughly the last two decades and would continue for roughly another decade afterwards. There is no evidence that being a carman was any more stressful for Lechmere than it was for any of the other roughly 68,000 carmen in the London area. There is no evidence that being a carman was more stressful than other period jobs.

Only Fisherman would try to use Lechmere having a job to imply he was the Ripper.