Review of Bob Mills article in Ripperologist 170

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

I think fleeing the scene would be more apt, and he had ample time to do that, thats of course he was the killer, which we all know he wasnt except you !!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[drstrange169]

>You are welcome to keep posting untrue things and make up stories.<<

That's the thing, they can't be untrue if I'm posting your exact words.

[drstrange169]

>>Of course, if he was the killer and wanted to deflect guilt, he woul move AWAY from the body, not stay by it.<<

Thank you. I'll cut and paste that to all the Lechmerians like Bob who keep spreading the myth, he was standing over the body. Would you like to post that to clark2710 that your TV show was wrong?

[drstrange169]

>>a recognition of how Baxter spoke of Nichols having been found by Lechmere in close proximity to 3.45. <<

Other than Robert Paul, I didn't think anyone has ever disagreed with Baxter.

The three policeman confirm a time of 3:45 so Cross and Paul's discovery must have been "not far" from that time.

[drstrange169]

>>I think fleeing the scene would be more apt, and he had ample time to do that <<

Well it was the killer's M.O. to flee the scene before someone arrived. It's what they did in every case.

[drstrange169]

>>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 in which post did you lie, this post or post #3695 on the "Evidence of Innocence" thread?

C'mon Christer, the hole you are digging yourself is so deep we are having trouble hearing you.

It's a new year, just make a promise to be honest with us this year. A fresh start and a clean slate.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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!

You can trust Mizen if you wish, as it is crucial to your allegation that Lechmere lied to him. However, the evidence that Mizen was trustworthy is dubious to say the least.

I think it is a reasonable assumption to say that as Lechmere admits to being found alone with the body, and Mizen claimed that Lechmere immediately lied to him about the facts, then the most moronic detective on the planet would recognise the need to check Lechmere's story carefully. The police had the chance to question both Lechmere and Paul later to resolve any discrepancies in their stories. We don't have the details of statements taken, and any interviewing officers' reports, but we do have the later findings of Abberline and Swanson.

I think that both Paul and Lechmere must surely have told basically the same story about seeing Mizen and both of them advising him together. Abberline wrote in his report on September 19th that Paul and Cross found PC Mizen "and acquainted him of what they had seen". No reservations expressed there about Cross having lied, or that there was any doubt about the facts. Swanson wrote on 19th October that Cross and Paul, left the body and "they informed PC Mizen". Again, there was not the slightest hint of doubt in his report.

I think that the only way that the most senior police officers could have rejected PC Mizen's claim that Lechmere lied, is if both Paul and Cross reported that they both spoke to Mizen together. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised if that is what must have happened, because Paul is reported to have claimed in Lloyd's Weekly, "I told him what I had seen", then he complained that Mizen continued calling people up, "after I had told him the woman was dead." Lechmere at the inquest also said of the conversation with Mizen, "the other man stated he believed her to be dead." So those statements match perfectly. I have no evidence to suggest that both Abberline and Swanson were clearly morons.

One thing that concerns me about Mizen's claim that Lechmere lied, is when did he first allege this? I am quite uncertain of when he first reported the existence of Paul and Lechmere. He doesn't seem to have told PC Neil that he got the message from the two men he sent for help. Did he make any official report on the morning of the murder that he had seen Paul and Lechmere, who were clearly absolutely crucial witnesses? I don't believe that he did. Neil seemed to know nothing of them. Can anyone identify when Mizen first declared that he had been directed to the murder by those two carmen? Did he say nothing until the newspaper report made it unavoidable? I am quite unsure. I think that a responsible police officer would have reported this at once.

At present, I don't trust Mizen on the matter, and, it seems, neither did Swanson or Abberline. In fact, if you take Swanson's and Abberline's reports as accurate, and why wouldn't you, then they are admitting that their police officer lied on oath at the inquest! They are unlikely to have reached that decision lightly!

[drstrange169]

It's weird that one poster is missing from this thread.

When I wrote my article on Lechmere for Rip. I made myself available to answer all questions/complaints/praise. Why is the author not replying to the errors in his article? He is currently posting on Casebook.

[chubbs]

Not wishing to reopen old wounds, but I've just read the article in Ripperologist 170 (All Roads Lead To Lechmere, by Bob Mills) and one section bugged me, so I tested it out.

The parts I was worried about were Mr Mills' distances, timings and weather conditions regarding Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul in Bucks Row (page 12), where he tries to convince us that Lechmere must have been with the body of the murdered woman, or Paul would have been aware of Lechmere as they were walking down the street. To prove this, he uses bogus stats, as follows:

1. He says that it's 140m from Brady St to the body. It's not - it's 119m. Quite a difference. Check it on Google maps if you don't believe me.

2. He then says that it would take about 1m 45sec to get from the start of Bucks Row to the body at average speed. They were late for work - they were not walking at average speed, so this timing is TOTAL NONSENSE.
I just walked up the road with my stopwatch, as though I was late for work and I covered 20m every 10 seconds. Even if Lechmere had gone all the way to the body (which he says he didn't, until he was with Paul) it would only have taken him 60 seconds to cover the approx 120m (that's what it took me, and I'm not tall).

3. So, I've done the maths - Lechmere took 55 seconds to cover the 107m of Bucks Row until he saw the 'tarp'. He then slowed down, dithered, went into the road and approached another 10m slowly, until he realised it was a body. He turned and saw Paul approaching. This took about 10 seconds, making a total of 65 seconds between entering Bucks Row and seeing Paul. Paul was then 36-40m away, but if you take into account the fact that Lechmere had been almost stationary for about 10 seconds (10sec = 20m of brisk walking), this means the two men had been about 56-60m apart when both were walking briskly.
56-60m is half the length of Bucks Row, from Brady St to the body, so this means that Lechmere will already have been halfway down Bucks Row when Paul turned the corner into Bucks Row.
Lechmere will have been well beyond the single pathetic gas lamp and well into the darkness, 56metres ahead of Paul.

Which leads me onto the final bit of bogus - Mr Mills tells us 'the weather that morning was bright and fine'. Oh My God!!! No!!! It was VERY, VERY DARK, Mr Mills. It was NIGHT TIME!!!

Now that I've corrected the many inaccuracies in page 12 of Mr Mills' article, you can see that IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT NEITHER MAN WAS UNAWARE OF THE OTHER, GIVEN THESE DISTANCES AND CONDITIONS.

[Elamarna]

Not wishing to reopen old wounds, but I've just read the article in Ripperologist 170 (All Roads Lead To Lechmere, by Bob Mills) and one section bugged me, so I tested it out.

The parts I was worried about were Mr Mills' distances, timings and weather conditions regarding Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul in Bucks Row (page 12), where he tries to convince us that Lechmere must have been with the body of the murdered woman, or Paul would have been aware of Lechmere as they were walking down the street. To prove this, he uses bogus stats, as follows:

1. He says that it's 140m from Brady St to the body. It's not - it's 119m. Quite a difference. Check it on Google maps if you don't believe me.

2. He then says that it would take about 1m 45sec to get from the start of Bucks Row to the body at average speed. They were late for work - they were not walking at average speed, so this timing is TOTAL NONSENSE.
I just walked up the road with my stopwatch, as though I was late for work and I covered 20m every 10 seconds. Even if Lechmere had gone all the way to the body (which he says he didn't, until he was with Paul) it would only have taken him 60 seconds to cover the approx 120m (that's what it took me, and I'm not tall).

3. So, I've done the maths - Lechmere took 55 seconds to cover the 107m of Bucks Row until he saw the 'tarp'. He then slowed down, dithered, went into the road and approached another 10m slowly, until he realised it was a body. He turned and saw Paul approaching. This took about 10 seconds, making a total of 65 seconds between entering Bucks Row and seeing Paul. Paul was then 36-40m away, but if you take into account the fact that Lechmere had been almost stationary for about 10 seconds (10sec = 20m of brisk walking), this means the two men had been about 56-60m apart when both were walking briskly.
56-60m is half the length of Bucks Row, from Brady St to the body, so this means that Lechmere will already have been halfway down Bucks Row when Paul turned the corner into Bucks Row.
Lechmere will have been well beyond the single pathetic gas lamp and well into the darkness, 56metres ahead of Paul.

Which leads me onto the final bit of bogus - Mr Mills tells us 'the weather that morning was bright and fine'. Oh My God!!! No!!! It was VERY, VERY DARK, Mr Mills. It was NIGHT TIME!!!

Now that I've corrected the many inaccuracies in page 12 of Mr Mills' article, you can see that IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT NEITHER MAN WAS UNAWARE OF THE OTHER, GIVEN THESE DISTANCES AND CONDITIONS.

Hi Chubbs, firstly I suggest for distances, I suggest you use the period OS maps, rather than Google maps, Which does not allow for any changes since 1888.
The National library of Scotland is a good source, the online maps have a tool to measure distance.

The distance from the junction of Brady street to the entrance of Brown's Yard was approx 130 yards which is about 118-119 m as you say.

As for timings, it's impossible to say at what speed they were walking.
In my own work on the Bucks Row Murder, " Inside Bucks Row uses a range of walking speeds ranging from 3-5 mph.
To cover 130 yards that gives a range of times 1 minute 29 seconds, to 53 seconds .

While there are many questionable statements in that article , and I agree with your conclusion, can I suggest not falling into the trap of giving absolute timings, ranges are far better.

You may find my book of interest, Paul Begg reviewed the 1st Edition in Rip 165, we are now on edition 4.5.2

Steve

[chubbs]

Hi Chubbs, firstly I suggest for distances, I suggest you use the period OS maps, rather than Google maps, Which does not allow for any changes since 1888.
The National library of Scotland is a good source, the online maps have a tool to measure distance.

The distance from the junction of Brady street to the entrance of Brown's Yard was approx 130 yards which is about 118-119 m as you say.

As for timings, it's impossible to say at what speed they were walking.
In my own work on the Bucks Row Murder, " Inside Bucks Row uses a range of walking speeds ranging from 3-5 mph.
To cover 130 yards that gives a range of times 1 minute 29 seconds, to 53 seconds .

While there are many questionable statements in that article , and I agree with your conclusion, can I suggest not falling into the trap of giving absolute timings, ranges are far better.

You may find my book of interest, Paul Begg reviewed the 1st Edition in Rip 165, we are now on edition 4.5.2

Steve

Thanks Steve. I take your point about mapping. I trusted Googlemaps in this instance because I knew that this particular, straight distance from the end of Brady St to the where the body was found hasn't changed. I wouldn't use it to calculate Charles Cross's route to work through Sainsburys Supermarket for example!
You're absolutely right that I don't know the speed Charles Cross walked at. I only know the speed I walk at, if I need to get somewhere and I'm pressed for time and I'd be fined sixpence if I was one second late and I'd lose the entire day if I was 15 minutes late. But I DO know that 118 metres wouldn't take me the highly misleading 1min 45sec stated by Mr Mills. To be fair to Charles Cross, if he was jogging he could have done it in 25 sec!
I'll enjoy having a look at Rip 165 - and your book*. Thanks for the tip.


*ah - nice to 'meet' you Steve!

[Tom_Wescott]

Mr Mills tells us 'the weather that morning was bright and fine'. Oh My God!!! No!!! It was VERY, VERY DARK, Mr Mills. It was NIGHT TIME!!!

What's the context? Sure Mills isn't suggesting it was 'bright and fine' at 3:30-3:45 a.m.?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[chubbs]

What's the context? Sure Mills isn't suggesting it was 'bright and fine' at 3:30-3:45 a.m.?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Judge for yourself, Tom. The entire paragraph, direct from page 12...

"For Lechmere's statement to be true it would require two men, walking about 40-50 yards apart, to be unaware of each other while they walked down a silent and deserted back street. Sensing the movements of the world and the objects within it appears to be a fundamental job for our visual system. It's just not credible that Paul could be walking up Bucks Row and not have sight of Lechmere. Even if there was poor the light, the visual system would pick up movement ahead. Our brain is hardwired to detect movement, like somebody walking ahead. And the weather that morning was 'bright and fine' with around 30% cloud cover."

The entire article is riddled with misleading inaccuracies, which all just happen to help to frame the innocent Charles Cross.

[Geddy2112]

The entire article is riddled with misleading inaccuracies, which all just happen to help to frame the innocent Charles Cross.

Most Pro Lechmere articles are. Just something I'd like to mention. Was Cross 'behind time' when he left home or just as a result of co-finding the body? I think the latter, as going off the old map Mr Blomer mentions the two shortest routes to Broad St from Doveton St are roughly the same and both clock in at about the 30 min mark for an average walking speed. So when Cross said he left home 'about 3:30' I think he was probably on time.

[Geddy2112]

Before I discuss the numerous problems in the article...

Is it okay, on this board to post rebuttals of Ripperologist articles? If so I'd love to address some issues with one in the latest edition regarding Mr Paul.