Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Apron placement as intimidation? - by Elamarna 1 minute ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: It was Lechmere. - by Rainbow 3 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: It was Lechmere. - by Pierre 7 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: It was Lechmere. - by GUT 13 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - by Pierre 19 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - by andy1867 19 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - (197 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: It was Lechmere. - (12 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Apron placement as intimidation? - (7 posts)
Swanson, Chief Inspector Donald: Seaside Home - (6 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - (4 posts)
General Discussion: Are there any other fiction writers here? - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1011  
Old 02-17-2017, 11:03 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 839
Default

If Polly Nichols the first victim of Jack the Ripper, then we must consider that she was killed at the doorstep of James Green, who lived with his mother, sister, and brother at New Cottage, Buck’s Row, literally above the exact spot where Polly Nichols was murdered on August 30, 1888. It was James Green who washed the blood from the pavement after Nichols’ body had been removed to the mortuary.

Charles Cross (Lechmere) passed through Buck’s Row at approximately 3:45am on August 30, 1888. He saw on the ground the body of woman, lying almost directly in front of the building in which James Green lived. Cross heard another man, Robert Paul, approaching. He and Paul inspected the body. They found the woman’s exposed face and hands cold. Paul also tells us that he noticed the woman’s “clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down". Paul felt that the woman may be alive, as he detected “a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint.” The two men noticed no wounds. They saw no blood. The men agreed to leave the woman where she was and to continue on together until they found a police officer.

A few moments later PC John Neil passed through Bucks Row, as he had just thirty minutes prior. He too noticed the woman lying on the pavement. He described his actions at the inquest the following day:

“(I) noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards. Her eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was off and lying at her side, close to the left hand. I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle.” Neil would go on to describe what he saw further, “There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck.”

Shortly after 4:00am Dr. Henry Llewellyn arrived in Buck’s Row. He found that the victim's “hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm”.

Let’s pause here to examine the facts as they’ve been related to us by those who were present in Buck’s Row on August 30, 1888.

-At approximately 3:20am PC John Neil passes through Buck’s Row. He sees “no one”.

-At around 3:45am Cross and Paul found Polly Nichols – perhaps alive, perhaps not – lying on the pavement in Buck’s Row, mere feet from James Green’s home. Paul tells us that her clothes were “disarranged” and the he “helped to pull them down”.

-Some few minutes after Cross and Paul leave the body in Buck’s Row to find a policeman (likely around 3:50am), PC Neil again passes through Buck’s Row. He sees Nichols’ body and, with the aid of his lamp, discovers a neck wound that he describes as “oozing”, blood “running” from it to a pool beneath the neck. Neil notices that the woman’s arms is “quite warm”. Strangely, Neil tells us that Nichol’s was “lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged”, even though Paul claims to have “helped to pull them down” just moments before.

-Dr. Llewellyn arrives just after 4:00am. He too finds the woman’s body and “lower extremities” warm.

The evidence STRONGLY suggests that Polly Nichols was likely either unconscious or dead from strangulation when Cross and Paul inspected the body at 3:45am and saw no wounds or blood. The man who throttled her and began his sexual assault (before hearing Cross approach), pulling her clothing up in “disarrangement”, was now hidden safely indoors. He waited for the two men to leave. Knowing he had several minutes before Neil again came through Buck’s Row (he had observed and timed Neil’s beat since the PC passed directly in front of his home) he returned to the body, cut her throat, again “disarranging” her clothing in order to begin mutilating her abdomen (wounds which would be discovered at the mortuary later that morning). Upon hearing the footsteps of PC Neil he again retreated indoors, to the safety of his home. Although, he did return to the murder scene later to wash the blood from the pavement in front of his family’s home.

James Green was Jack the Ripper.

James Green’s first victim was Polly Nichols. It has been established that serial killers often take their first victim close the safety of home. In this case, literally upon the killer’s doorstep. His next victim was Annie Chapman, a half mile away at 29 Hanbury Street. He then killed Katherine Eddowes, just less than a mile from his home in Buck’s Row, in Mitre Square. His final victim was Mary Kelly, killed in her room in Miller’s Court, again, just less than a mile from James Greens front door.

Last edited by Patrick S : 02-17-2017 at 11:11 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1012  
Old 02-17-2017, 11:35 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
If Polly Nichols the first victim of Jack the Ripper, then we must consider that she was killed at the doorstep of James Green, who lived with his mother, sister, and brother at New Cottage, Buck’s Row, literally above the exact spot where Polly Nichols was murdered on August 30, 1888. It was James Green who washed the blood from the pavement after Nichols’ body had been removed to the mortuary.

Charles Cross (Lechmere) passed through Buck’s Row at approximately 3:45am on August 30, 1888. He saw on the ground the body of woman, lying almost directly in front of the building in which James Green lived. Cross heard another man, Robert Paul, approaching. He and Paul inspected the body. They found the woman’s exposed face and hands cold. Paul also tells us that he noticed the woman’s “clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down". Paul felt that the woman may be alive, as he detected “a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint.” The two men noticed no wounds. They saw no blood. The men agreed to leave the woman where she was and to continue on together until they found a police officer.

A few moments later PC John Neil passed through Bucks Row, as he had just thirty minutes prior. He too noticed the woman lying on the pavement. He described his actions at the inquest the following day:

“(I) noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards. Her eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was off and lying at her side, close to the left hand. I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle.” Neil would go on to describe what he saw further, “There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck.”

Shortly after 4:00am Dr. Henry Llewellyn arrived in Buck’s Row. He found that the victim's “hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm”.

Let’s pause here to examine the facts as they’ve been related to us by those who were present in Buck’s Row on August 30, 1888.

-At approximately 3:20am PC John Neil passes through Buck’s Row. He sees “no one”.

-At around 3:45am Cross and Paul found Polly Nichols – perhaps alive, perhaps not – lying on the pavement in Buck’s Row, mere feet from James Green’s home. Paul tells us that her clothes were “disarranged” and the he “helped to pull them down”.

-Some few minutes after Cross and Paul leave the body in Buck’s Row to find a policeman (likely around 3:50am), PC Neil again passes through Buck’s Row. He sees Nichols’ body and, with the aid of his lamp, discovers a neck wound that he describes as “oozing”, blood “running” from it to a pool beneath the neck. Neil notices that the woman’s arms is “quite warm”. Strangely, Neil tells us that Nichol’s was “lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged”, even though Paul claims to have “helped to pull them down” just moments before.

-Dr. Llewellyn arrives just after 4:00am. He too finds the woman’s body and “lower extremities” warm.

The evidence STRONGLY suggests that Polly Nichols was likely either unconscious or dead from strangulation when Cross and Paul inspected the body at 3:45am and saw no wounds or blood. The man who throttled her and began his sexual assault (before hearing Cross approach), pulling her clothing up in “disarrangement”, was now hidden safely indoors. He waited for the two men to leave. Knowing he had several minutes before Neil again came through Buck’s Row (he had observed and timed Neil’s beat since the PC passed directly in front of his home) he returned to the body, cut her throat, again “disarranging” her clothing in order to begin mutilating her abdomen (wounds which would be discovered at the mortuary later that morning). Upon hearing the footsteps of PC Neil he again retreated indoors, to the safety of his home. Although, he did return to the murder scene later to wash the blood from the pavement in front of his family’s home.

James Green was Jack the Ripper.

James Green’s first victim was Polly Nichols. It has been established that serial killers often take their first victim close the safety of home. In this case, literally upon the killer’s doorstep. His next victim was Annie Chapman, a half mile away at 29 Hanbury Street. He then killed Katherine Eddowes, just less than a mile from his home in Buck’s Row, in Mitre Square. His final victim was Mary Kelly, killed in her room in Miller’s Court, again, just less than a mile from James Greens front door.
This is a very interesting hypothesis! I'm going to have to give it some thought.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1013  
Old 02-17-2017, 11:51 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
But nobody wants to read the word "running", since it dissolves the wanted picture produced by "oozing".
Or it's you who does not want to read the word "oozing" because you prefer "running", wrongly thinking that it carries a different meaning.

If you care to consult a dictionary you will see that "running" does not "dissolve" the meaning of "oozing". Any liquid that oozes is also running.

PC Neil used the word "oozing" so that's obviously what he saw when he looked at the blood.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1014  
Old 02-17-2017, 11:52 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
We have scores of examples on the net of people writing "oozed profusely".
But no witnesses testified that the blood of Nichols "oozed profusely" so what does it matter what you find on the internet?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1015  
Old 02-17-2017, 11:53 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
We only want Neils "oozed" to rule the day, and it MUST have meant trickled very slowly,
Well that is what "ooze" means – to flow slowly or gently - so that must be what Neil saw.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1016  
Old 02-17-2017, 11:55 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
Baxter does not stop Neil and say, "PC Neil. Earlier in your testimony you used the term "oozing". Now you say the blood was "running". These two terms create very different impressions. Which was it now? Oozing? Running? Are you simply trying to tell us that you observed that blood HAD flowed from the neck wound to this pool you describe or was it actively RUNNING, as you now say? Or was it OOZING, as you said earlier? This is important, PC Neil. Think."

Clearly, Baxter took no notice of Neil's contradiction
But there was no contradiction....hence Baxter's perfectly normal reaction.

"oozing" and "running" might create different impressions to you but they don't to me. Something which is oozing is also, by definition, flowing (slowly) and is, therefore, also running.

Having already testified that the blood was "oozing" I fail to see why Neil needed to expand on the meaning of the word "running". The meaning can be found in a dictionary.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1017  
Old 02-17-2017, 12:03 PM
Rainbow Rainbow is online now
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 199
Default

Amazing !

He went looking for a victim, then he brought her back to kill her infront of his own door, so he can hide easily !

Fantastic!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1018  
Old 02-17-2017, 12:04 PM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 839
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But there was no contradiction....hence Baxter's perfectly normal reaction.

"oozing" and "running" might create different impressions to you but they don't to me. Something which is oozing is also, by definition, flowing (slowly) and is, therefore, also running.

Having already testified that the blood was "oozing" I fail to see why Neil needed to expand on the meaning of the word "running". The meaning can be found in a dictionary.
My main point is how little this tells us. The "blood evidence" consists - from what I gather - two words: running and oozing. You say they mean the same thing and I'll accept that for the purpose of this conversation, whether I agree or not. The main issue is that nothing was expanded upon. No useful information with respect to blood was related. Was it running? Was it oozing? I don't know, mainly because no one really seems to have cared much about blood in 1888 (which is understandable as science then isn't what science is now). Llewellyn didn't. Baxter didn't. Yet...somehow we have this 'blood evidence'. And it's based on two words...which mean the same thing.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1019  
Old 02-17-2017, 12:06 PM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 839
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow View Post
Amazing !

He went looking for a victim, then he brought her back to kill her infront of his own door, so he can hide easily !

Fantastic!
More fantastic than killing her, waiting for the fellow 40 yards behind you in the dark to catch up, beg him to come see her dead body, then run off with your new pal to find a cop to tell (on yourself)......and then show up and the inquest a few days later?

Amazing how you can so quickly take issue with this theory but cannot see anything troubling in the Lechmere theory which requires FAR more assumption, assigning of motives, invention....

Last edited by Patrick S : 02-17-2017 at 12:10 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1020  
Old 02-17-2017, 12:12 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
My main point is how little this tells us. The "blood evidence" consists - from what I gather - two words: running and oozing. You say they mean the same thing and I'll accept that for the purpose of this conversation, whether I agree or not. The main issue is that nothing was expanded upon. No useful information with respect to blood was related. Was it running? Was it oozing? I don't know
I'm afraid I don't understand this.

You say that you are accepting "for the purpose of this conversation" that oozing and running mean the same thing (although that wasn't what I said) then you ask whether the blood was running or oozing and say you don't know!

If they mean the same thing then the blood was both running and oozing wasn't it?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.