Review of Bob Mills article in Ripperologist 170

[drstrange169]

Before I discuss the numerous problems in the article, it’s worth going back to the actual available evidence. The following is composed entirely of quotes culled from the various sources.

Charles allen Cross …

“left home at half past three”
“got to Buck's-row, by the gateway of the wool warehouse”
“saw on the opposite side something lying against a gateway”
“In the dark he could not tell at first what it was.”
“it looked in the distance like tarpaulin”
“walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman”
“At the same time he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's-row”
“He stepped back and waited for the new-comer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down.”
“said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman."
“having felt one of the deceased woman's hands and finding it cold, said "I believe she is dead." The other man, having put his hand over her heart, said "I think she is breathing."
“He (Paul) suggested that they should "shift her", meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright.”
“"I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him."
“The other man tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down.”
“her legs were wide open, and the toes were turned outwards."
“Did you touch the clothes? - No, Sir. Did you notice any blood? - No, it was too dark. I did not notice that her throat was cut. I then left her, went up Baker's-row, turned to the right, and saw a constable.” “
“coming out of Montague-street”
I said to a constable - the last witness - "There's a woman lying in Buck's-row. She looks to me as though she was dead, or drunk." The other man then said, "I believe she is dead."
“The policeman answered, "All right."
“There was nobody in Buck's row when we left. The Coroner - Did the other man tell you who he was? The Witness - No, sir. He merely said that he would have fetched a policeman but he was behind time. I was behind time myself.
“From the time I left my home I did not see anyone until I saw the man who overtook me in Buck's-row. The Coroner - Did you see anything of a struggle. Witness - She seemed to me as if she had been outraged.”
“The other man left witness at the corner of Hanbury-street and turned into Corbett's court. He appeared to be a carman, and was a stranger to the witness.
“A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another policeman wanted him in Buck's-row? The Witness: No; because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.”

Because Robert Paul’s story is so frequently misrepresented I’ve done the same with his actual evidence.

“I am a carman, and on the morning of the murder I left home just before a quarter to four. As I was passing up Buck's-row I saw a man standing in the roadway.”
“As witness drew closer he (Cross) walked towards the pavement, and he stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman”
“Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway. Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach. Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead. It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood. They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met. He could not see whether the clothes were torn, and did not feel any other part of her body except the hands and face. They looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen. “
“Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach.”
“While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement.
By the CORONER. - The morning was rather a chilly one. Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen.Up to that time not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he saw the body. He had not met anyone before he reached Buck's-row, and did not see any one running away.”


Before we begin, it’s also worth noting that amongst the main protagonists in the Buck’s Row drama, Cross, Paul, Neil, Thain and Mizen, only one of them is known, beyond any doubt, to have told an untrue version of events, Robert Paul.

It’s strange then that the Lechmerian theory revolves around the version of Paul’s account we know to be untrue.

[drstrange169]

Right from the first sentence we get the idea this is not going to be an accurate article.

Quote

“He was running late for his job as a carman in Corbett’s Court in Hanbury Street. He was quickly on Brady Street then turned into Buck’s Row. It was 03.45, and he was rushing to get to work for his 04.00 start.“

Where does the information that Paul started work at 4:00 come from?

Certainly not Paul. And if he started work at Corbet Court (one “t”) at 4:00 how could he be late? It was only a few minutes away?

These kinds of silly mistakes are what you would expect in a daily newspaper or magazine article written by a journalist who has no real knowledge of the case, but hardly justifiable in a magazine specifically geared to students of the case.

Quote

“Lechmere was standing next to the freshly-killed body of 43-year-old prostitute Polly Nichols. In a statement to a reporter for Lloyd’s Weekly the next day, Paul described as seeing Lechmere “standing where the woman was”.

Remember, Paul’s Lloyds account is discredited and refuted by his sworn testimony. In his newspaper interview Paul claimed,
“If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time.”
How then, if we are to believe the Lloyds article, could Lechmere“be found standing next to the freshly-killed body” according to Paul?


Quote

“ He was a carman for Pickford’s in Broad Street, and like Paul he started at 04.00.“

Cross said he arrived at Broad Street at 4:00, but neither man stated when they started work.


Quote

“the mere fact of being found “standing where the woman was”

No where in Paul’s inquest reports is Paul quoted as saying “standing where the woman was”. What he is reported as saying is, “As I was passing up Buck's-row I saw a man standing in the roadway.” Cross told the inquest he reached the gates of the wool warehouse when he saw something that “looked in the distance like tarpaulin”.

Note the phrase “in the distance”. Mrs Lilley, who lived opposite the gates claimed to hear people talking. This is 3 house lengths from the body.

Nowhere in Paul’s inquest testimony is he recorded as disputing Cross’s version of events.

Remember, if we are using Paul’s Lloyds story then Mrs Nichols was long dead when Paul saw Cross.


Quote

“so close to the time of death would make Lechmere the focus of any credible investigation. It’s astonishing that in 1888 it didn’t.”

If Bob Mills is using the Lloyds interview as some kind of rossetta stone, how can she be freshly dead?

If Bob is using the inquest testimony why keep mentioning the Lloyds interview as a source? The two are incompatible. This is cherry-picking to create a story that isn’t actually there.

We have no evidence either way as to whether the police investigated Cross, but given Paul did not come forward to corroborate his story and a policeman (Mizen) disputed one element of Cross’s story, it is truly incredible to think police didn’t run some kind of check on Cross.


Quote

“To quote David McNab, the producer of the Channel Five television documentary that looked at Lechmere and Buck’s Row, “Lechmere was discovered standing over the body, but bizarrely no-one seems to think was an important fact.”

Unfortunately, there is no way to describe the above quote other than disgraceful!

Even the main researcher and “star” of the show, immediately after the show aired, acknowledged the portrayal of Cross standing/kneeling over the body when Paul saw him was an error. For someone to repeat that misinformation in a journal like Ripperologist is appalling and gives us a good idea of the quality of research put into the article.


Quote

“Paul is very sure that he arrived in Buck’s Row at 03.45 exactly“

Paul was also "very sure" she had been dead for a longtime.

Once again, this quote is cherry-picked out of context of the interview it was in.

If Paul was so sure of the time, why didn’t he repeat it under oath? We can speculate as to way he made that claim in the interview and why he hedged away from it under oath, but lets avoid speculation for the moment and just stick with facts for now.


Quote

“There is a gap of around fifteen minutes between Lechmere leaving his home and being met by Paul in Buck’s Row.“

Despite asking for several years now, nobody has explained how this mythic “fifteen” exists. Where is the evidence that Paul and Cross had clocks that were exactly in sync with each other? Without it, this claim is nothing more than an invented story. It has no value to serious researchers.

Elsewhere on this site I quoted the two 2021 Nobel Peace prize winners, it’s worth repeating those quotes.

“… our mission is clear – to distinguish between facts and fiction.”
Dmitry Muratov, Nobel Peace prize acceptance speech

“Without facts, you can’t have truth. Without truth, you can’t have trust. Without trust, we have no shared reality …”
Maria Ressa, Nobel Peace prize acceptance speech.


Quote

“There is time missing. We can see that there is around eight or nine minutes unaccounted for”

No, there is no known missing time, because nobody has established a positive link between the two times. It is pure speculation only. Why then label it falsely as a fact?


Quote

“It’s important to note that we only have Lechmere’s word when he left”

True, but we only have Paul’s word and we know for a fact he lied in his interview and that didn't stop Bob from claiming it as true.


Quote

“Lechmere’s usual time for leaving was 03.20“

Where is the evidence for this? Again, this is pure speculation falsely presented as a fact.


Quote

“usually reliable Times (newspaper)“

Let’s look at just how “reliable” that article in The Times was:

“One of Mr. Brown's men wiped up the blood.”

It was Mrs Green’s sone who washed away the blood.

“Mrs. Green, who also lived opposite the spot”

The Greens lived next to the murder site not opposite it.

“although she was up until 4 30 that morning”

Mrs Green was in bed that night not up till 4:30.

“Mr. Purkis, who also lived close by, stated his wife had been pacing the room that morning”

The Purkis’s lived opposite the site (where The Times claimed the Greens lived) and they were in bed not pacing the room.

“Jane Oram”

Her name was actually Emily Holland.

“Constable G. Mizen, 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning"

His initial was “J” not “G”, his collar number was 55H not 56H and he sated he saw the men at a quarter TO 4 not quarter PAST 4.

“He denied that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up.”

In fact he admitted he finished knocking up before leaving.

“George Cross, a carman”

It was Charles not George.

“He wanted witness to assist in shifting her, but he would not do so."

It was Paul not Cross who wanted to move her.

“Lechmere was found in Buck’s Row at 03.45”

But Mizen, a policeman who at that moment was specifically tasked with waking people up and telling them the time, told the inquest that he met Cross at the corner of Hanbury and Bakers. Why was that not mentioned anywhere in the article, as it is a far more credible source?



Quote

“it was about 18 minutes later than he would be there on his usual commute."

We’ve already shown, just how fake that claim is.


Quote

“I think she (Lilley) heard the murder being committed, then shortly afterward heard Paul and Lechmere at Nichol’s body.”

Mrs Lilley’s house was 3 house lengths away from the murder site, if she did hear Cross and Paul, that would confirm the meeting took place outside the wool warehouse, no where near the murder site.

Quote

“saw no-one running away, nor did he notice anything whatever of a suspicious nature”.

Which is a good indicator of innocence, as saying he did hear something would provide a guilty Cross with an alibi.

Quote

“Coroner Baxter thought so too: “It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection”

This is either an incredibly careless mistake or a deliberate distortion.

In fact, Baxter said exactly the opposite, but by editing out the rest of his quote Baxter’s intent completely reversed.

He is the FULL quote from Baxter,

“It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection, for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person. If, however, blood was principally on his hands, the presence of so many slaughter-houses in the neighbourhood would make the frequenters of this spot familiar with blood-stained clothes and hands, and his appearance might in that way have failed to attract attention while he passed from Buck's-row in the twilight into Whitechapel-road, and was lost sight of in the morning's market traffic.”


Quote

“Inspector Henson (Head of J Division), who oversaw the Nichols case said “...and there were no cuts in the clothing. It would have been impossible to inflict the wounds while the clothing was on.”

This quote is attributed to, “Irish Times, 18th September 1888.

But in fact there is no report of any of the murders anywhere in that issue.

Why pick such an obscure paper to quote anyway, when the main London papers all quoted Helson (not Henson)?

The answer seems to be the London newspapers quoted Helson quite differently,

“All the wounds on the abdomen were visible with the stays on, showing that they could have been inflicted without the removal of the stays.”
Star

“the witness's opinion, have been inflicted without the removal of that garment”
Daily News

So once again, we have the witness saying the exact opposite of what the Ripperologist article claims.


Quote

“So, the killer would have lifted the clothes for access to the abdomen, like he usually did”

Since there is no firm evidence that the killer murdered anyone before Mrs Nichols, how can there be any “usually did”?

Any murders after, assuming it was the same killer, would be the result of an evolving M.O.


Quote

“In fact, Nichols’ injuries had been so well concealed”

This demonstratable untrue.

Mrs Nichols neck wound was easily visible to P.C. Neil. There is no suggestion anywhere that it was “so well concealed”.


Quote

“when Paul examined her, he was not sure that she was dead.”

But in the Lloyds interview that Bob is so keen we accept as gospel, he is quoted as saying,

“If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time.”


Quote

“Jack the Ripper had taken time and effort to hide his handiwork.”

Ignoring the fact that the wound to the neck was not covered, to drop the skirt would take, literally, one second, how can anyone describe this as “time and effort”?


Quote

“There is no reason to conceal that a murder has taken place, unless the killer is still in situ”

Given that several people, myself included have given possible reasons why a mystery killer might cover the wounds, why would these possibilities not be covered in the acticle?

Plenty more inaccuracies to point out, but it's getting late, off to bed now.

[rjpalmer]

Quote

“Inspector Henson (Head of J Division), who oversaw the Nichols case said “...and there were no cuts in the clothing. It would have been impossible to inflict the wounds while the clothing was on.”

This quote is attributed to, “Irish Times, 18th September 1888.

But in fact there is no report of any of the murders anywhere in that issue.

Why pick such an obscure paper to quote anyway, when the main London papers all quoted Helson (not Henson)?

Hi Dusty: Not to rub it in, but it's a curious series of errors by Mr. Mills. As far as I can tell, it is not from the Irish Times of 18 September. It appears to be from the Irish Times of 4 September.

And the statement is a paraphrase of Wynne Baxter, (not Helson aka Henson) and it states the exact opposite of what Mills writes.

"It would have been possible to inflict the wounds while the clothing was on, and without cutting it."

Mills has changed 'possible' to 'impossible' and then changed the attribution from Baxter to Helson, getting both Helson's name wrong and the date of the article wrong.

Here's a link to the full Irish Times article. It's the fourth line down.


Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Irish Times - 4 September 1888


Maybe it's time for the Lechmere theory to make the slow, painful, inevitable walk the knacker's yard?

[Fisherman]

Hi Dusty: Not to rub it in, but it's a curious series of errors by Mr. Mills. As far as I can tell, it is not from the Irish Times of 18 September. It appears to be from the Irish Times of 4 September.

And the statement is a paraphrase of Wynne Baxter, (not Helson aka Henson) and it states the exact opposite of what Mills writes.

"It would have been possible to inflict the wounds while the clothing was on, and without cutting it."

Mills has changed 'possible' to 'impossible' and then changed the attribution from Baxter to Helson, getting both Helson's name wrong and the date of the article wrong.

Here's a link to the full Irish Times article. It's the fourth line down.


Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Irish Times - 4 September 1888


Maybe it's time for the Lechmere theory to make the slow, painful, inevitable walk the knacker's yard?

Why would the theory be undermined if an isolated person mistakes the word ”possible” for ”impossible”, R J? What we are talking about here is the assessment about whether or not it would have been possible or not to inflict the wounds to the abdomen without removing the clothing first.

In which universe does either solution to that question have any sort of impact on the question of who did the cutting? And how does either solution specifically disqualify Lechmere as the perpetrator?

Before we move on, I’ d be grateful if you could provide me with answers to those questions. You see, to me, the mere suggestion that the Lechmere theory is affected by the matter is beyond ridiculous. It sounds very much as sheer misrepresentations and wet dreams in hapless combination, and I’ m sure you dont want to give that impression. So please?

[Fisherman]

Before I discuss the numerous problems in the article, it’s worth going back to the actual available evidence. The following is composed entirely of quotes culled from the various sources.

Charles allen Cross …

“left home at half past three”
“got to Buck's-row, by the gateway of the wool warehouse”
“saw on the opposite side something lying against a gateway”
“In the dark he could not tell at first what it was.”
“it looked in the distance like tarpaulin”
“walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman”
“At the same time he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's-row”
“He stepped back and waited for the new-comer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down.”
“said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman."
“having felt one of the deceased woman's hands and finding it cold, said "I believe she is dead." The other man, having put his hand over her heart, said "I think she is breathing."
“He (Paul) suggested that they should "shift her", meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright.”
“"I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him."
“The other man tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down.”
“her legs were wide open, and the toes were turned outwards."
“Did you touch the clothes? - No, Sir. Did you notice any blood? - No, it was too dark. I did not notice that her throat was cut. I then left her, went up Baker's-row, turned to the right, and saw a constable.” “
“coming out of Montague-street”
I said to a constable - the last witness - "There's a woman lying in Buck's-row. She looks to me as though she was dead, or drunk." The other man then said, "I believe she is dead."
“The policeman answered, "All right."
“There was nobody in Buck's row when we left. The Coroner - Did the other man tell you who he was? The Witness - No, sir. He merely said that he would have fetched a policeman but he was behind time. I was behind time myself.
“From the time I left my home I did not see anyone until I saw the man who overtook me in Buck's-row. The Coroner - Did you see anything of a struggle. Witness - She seemed to me as if she had been outraged.”
“The other man left witness at the corner of Hanbury-street and turned into Corbett's court. He appeared to be a carman, and was a stranger to the witness.
“A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another policeman wanted him in Buck's-row? The Witness: No; because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.”

Because Robert Paul’s story is so frequently misrepresented I’ve done the same with his actual evidence.

“I am a carman, and on the morning of the murder I left home just before a quarter to four. As I was passing up Buck's-row I saw a man standing in the roadway.”
“As witness drew closer he (Cross) walked towards the pavement, and he stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman”
“Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway. Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach. Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead. It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood. They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met. He could not see whether the clothes were torn, and did not feel any other part of her body except the hands and face. They looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen. “
“Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach.”
“While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement.
By the CORONER. - The morning was rather a chilly one. Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen.Up to that time not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he saw the body. He had not met anyone before he reached Buck's-row, and did not see any one running away.”


Before we begin, it’s also worth noting that amongst the main protagonists in the Buck’s Row drama, Cross, Paul, Neil, Thain and Mizen, only one of them is known, beyond any doubt, to have told an untrue version of events, Robert Paul.

It’s strange then that the Lechmerian theory revolves around the version of Paul’s account we know to be untrue.

It’ s even stranger to make the claim that it does. Then again, your chosen moniker is Dr Strange …

But nice try, anyhow, to suggest that the theory leans against what ”we know to be untrue”. Flawed and untrue though it is, it is nevertheless true to your style and rap sheet. That, though, is the only truth there is to it.

How about turning the tables and looking at how you rely on how Paul spoke to Mizen; how does that sit with your information about the truthfulness of Paul. I trust Mizen on the matter, but you trust the devious Robert Paul.

Oh, for the shame!

[rjpalmer]

What we are talking about here is the assessment about whether or not it would have been possible or not to inflict the wounds to the abdomen without removing the clothing first.

In which universe does either solution to that question have any sort of impact on the question of who did the cutting? And how does either solution specifically disqualify Lechmere as the perpetrator?

Before we move on, I’ d be grateful if you could provide me with answers to those questions.

It doesn't matter to you, Fish, that the author completely changed the meaning of Baxter's statement, and then attributed it to Helson?

Unfortunately, since I can't read Mills' mind, I can't answer your question. I don't know if he truly thought the correct word was 'impossible,' or whether it was simply a transcription error, and he knew it should have been 'possible.'

But the difference would indeed have an impact on the Lechmere theory since you and others have argued that Nichols' clothing had been readjusted to hide her injuries. If it had been 'impossible' for the injuries to have been inflicted with the woman's clothing on and covering her body, then it would suggest to the casual reader that the murder did indeed meddle with the victim's clothing post-mortem. The misquote leaves a wrong impression.

By the way, at the risk of making another nit-picky point, 'Henson' was not the 'head' of J-Division. The Acting Superintendent of J-Division was William Dominic Davis, whose name appears in the Met files.

[Fisherman]

It doesn't matter to you, Fish, that the author completely changed the meaning of Baxter's statement, and then attributed it to Helson?

Unfortunately, since I can't read Mills' mind, I can't answer your question. I don't know if he truly thought the correct word was 'impossible,' or whether it was simply a transcription error, and he knew it should have been 'possible.'

But the difference would indeed have an impact on the Lechmere theory since you and others have argued that Nichols' clothing had been readjusted to hide her injuries. If it had been 'impossible' for the injuries to have been inflicted with the woman's clothing on and covering her body, then it would suggest to the casual reader that the murder did indeed meddle with the victim's clothing post-mortem. The misquote leaves a wrong impression.

By the way, at the risk of making another nit-picky point, 'Henson' was not the 'head' of J-Division. The Acting Superintendent of J-Division was William Dominic Davis, whose name appears in the Met files.

So, if somebody looking at Einsteins theory of relativity thinks that ”e” means elephant poo and ”MC” stands for motorcycle, the theory is on it’ s inevitable way to the knackers?

I see, R J. That’ s a whole new way of thinking to me, so you must excuse me for not taking it in quickly.

The difference, you say, impacts the theory since I have argued that the clothing hid the wounds? While it can be argued that the killer instead lifted the clothing, reached in under it and cut her open, deeply, from pubes to ribs?

Many things can be argued. Some of them are feasible, some are not. Luckily, we know that the killer of Tabram, Chapman and Eddowes did throw the clothing up in order to allow him to cut, so regardless of how it CAN be suggested that he didn’ t in Bucks Row, it must be regarded as an unlikely opportunity. Same as how the clothing could have blown up over her at a gust of wind or it was pulled up by a morally disgusted passer-by; possible but not likely in the slightest.

Give Einstein my condoleances.

[mpriestnall]

Hi Dusty: Not to rub it in, but it's a curious series of errors by Mr. Mills. As far as I can tell, it is not from the Irish Times of 18 September. It appears to be from the Irish Times of 4 September.

And the statement is a paraphrase of Wynne Baxter, (not Helson aka Henson) and it states the exact opposite of what Mills writes.

"It would have been possible to inflict the wounds while the clothing was on, and without cutting it."

Mills has changed 'possible' to 'impossible' and then changed the attribution from Baxter to Helson, getting both Helson's name wrong and the date of the article wrong.

Here's a link to the full Irish Times article. It's the fourth line down.


Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Irish Times - 4 September 1888


Maybe it's time for the Lechmere theory to make the slow, painful, inevitable walk the knacker's yard?

The knacker's yard would reject it!

[Fisherman]

The knacker's yard would reject it!

Yes, it seems barristers and ex-murder squads leaders are more keen on it than less educated people.

[rjpalmer]

By the way, at the risk of making another nit-picky point, 'Henson' was not the 'head' of J-Division. The Acting Superintendent of J-Division was William Dominic Davis, whose name appears in the Met files.

Correction.

I was sent a private message pointing out that William Davis was the Acting Superintendent of the Executive Branch at Scotland Yard (temporarily replacing Supt. Charles Cutbush); the Superintendent at J-Division at the time of the Nichols murder was actually James Keating.

It looks like the last edition of the Jack the Ripper A-Z (2015) made the same error I did; identifying Davis as the 'Acting Superintendent of J Division,' presumably because of the way his report to the Assistant Commissioner was headed: 'J Division.'

Yet, Keating's name can be seen on J-Division reports with the same date.

[drstrange169]

>>Why would the theory be undermined if an isolated person mistakes the word ”possible” for ”impossible”<<

Other than you, no one has suggested that. R.J. exact words were,

"it's a curious series of errors by Mr. Mills"

But that's what you do, isn't? Avoid the questions raised by trying to distract by making something up.

It seems you struggle with the idea that this is a written forum and each time you try to alter what people write, all anyone has to do is check for themselves, this is why your posts, on the subject of Lechmere at least, can't be trusted.

I note you didn't comment about Bob using the claim from your tv show that Cross was standing over the body when Paul saw him. Would you like to correct him or should I dig out the old posts where you and Ed Stow said it was a mistake?

I also note that you haven't mentioned Bob's misquote of Baxter's about the killer escape from Buck's Row, but then, of course, you tried to claim the same thing a few years back until I corrected you.

>>Before we move on, I’ d be grateful if you could provide me with answers to those questions.<<

Great point, where are the answers you promised us? Why keep avoiding posting them? Why ask others to do something you constantly avoid doing?


>>I trust Mizen ...<<

But you've already told us you don't,

"... coppers on occasion have met up and unified their stories before appearing in court. I think we may need to accept that this is true. And once we know this, it may be that we need to be wary of how "our" three coppers may have agreed to do so too. Not to make somebody look bad, but instead to avoid looking bad themselves.
The suggestion has general merit, simple as that."
Fisherman post #3497 on the "Innocence" thread.

Without truth there is no trust.

[drstrange169]

I note on the thread "Charles Cross", poster Clark2710 has written,

"The man standing over the body of Polly Nichols, Charles Cross, according to this doc. I'm watching "The Missing Evidence of Jack the Ripper" on Youtube."

This is importance of why people need to challenge these false claims being put out there by Christer and Bob and bring research back to the actual known facts.

[Fisherman]

>>Why would the theory be undermined if an isolated person mistakes the word ”possible” for ”impossible”<<

Other than you, no one has suggested that. R.J. exact words were,

"it's a curious series of errors by Mr. Mills"

But that's what you do, isn't? Avoid the questions raised by trying to distract by making something up.

It seems you struggle with the idea that this is a written forum and each time you try to alter what people write, all anyone has to do is check for themselves, this is why your posts, on the subject of Lechmere at least, can't be trusted.

I note you didn't comment about Bob using the claim from your tv show that Cross was standing over the body when Paul saw him. Would you like to correct him or should I dig out the old posts where you and Ed Stow said it was a mistake?

I also note that you haven't mentioned Bob's misquote of Baxter's about the killer escape from Buck's Row, but then, of course, you tried to claim the same thing a few years back until I corrected you.

>>Before we move on, I’ d be grateful if you could provide me with answers to those questions.<<

Great point, where are the answers you promised us? Why keep avoiding posting them? Why ask others to do something you constantly avoid doing?


>>I trust Mizen ...<<

But you've already told us you don't,

"... coppers on occasion have met up and unified their stories before appearing in court. I think we may need to accept that this is true. And once we know this, it may be that we need to be wary of how "our" three coppers may have agreed to do so too. Not to make somebody look bad, but instead to avoid looking bad themselves.
The suggestion has general merit, simple as that."
Fisherman post #3497 on the "Innocence" thread.

Without truth there is no trust.

I avoid no questions - that is your myth only. Try me, and find out! But no, you wont do that, will you? Which is what reveals your huffing and puffing as untrue. I prefer that expression to the more inflammable ”lie”.

I have already said that I have no access to my computer right now and that I will post the material you claim I dont have when returning back home. So thats the next untruth on your behalf.

I trust Mizen before I trust Paul on the matter of the discussions inbetween the different parties. What you - untruthfully, of course, as always - claimed was that I favor Paul as a reliable source.

You are welcome to keep posting untrue things and make up stories. But you see. They are ever so east to reveal.

Then again, you seem very hard to shame.

[Fisherman]

I note on the thread "Charles Cross", poster Clark2710 has written,

"The man standing over the body of Polly Nichols, Charles Cross, according to this doc. I'm watching "The Missing Evidence of Jack the Ripper" on Youtube."

This is importance of why people need to challenge these false claims being put out there by Christer and Bob and bring research back to the actual known facts.

Nice grip, to mix me up with someone who has made a mistake and dub us unreliable as a group. Right up your alley, Dusty!

The moronic idea that Lechmere becomes less suspicious the further he is removed from Nichols is a game the naysayers invented. Of course, if he was the killer and wanted to deflect guilt, he woul move AWAY from the body, not stay by it.

Not by a country mile as some genius suggested in a whopper of a Ripperologist article once upon a time, but some distance away.

[Fisherman]

Now the time has come for me to wish everybody a Happy New Year. May 2022 provide some soul searching and a sounder discussing climate out here. Plus, of course, a recognition of how Baxter spoke of Nichols having been found by Lechmere in close proximity to 3.45. I Think some misguided/misguiding posters out here have failed to recognize that fact in 2021.

See you next year.