Minutiae in Buckīs Row.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;402465]

I suppose I am the target for this post of yours, Steve, and I am happy to offer some thoughts.

The time frame in which you put the killerīs meeting with Nichols in Bucks Row is 3.25-3.35. The time frame during which Neil said that the streets were totally empty and silent, reciprocated by for example the Purkisses, was 3.15-3.45.
The Phantom killer would therefore have evaded detection as he moved on the streets. Of course, Nichols did so too, so itīs by no means an impossible thing. But it adds to the number of improbabilities required for the Phantom to have existed.

And he was detected. Sworn PC Mizen stated at the inquest that the carman told him that he had seen a policeman at the murder site. You choose to ignore the testimonies of sworn policemen just to make a killer of an innocent man.

And as you can see, your idea about a ghost who is not seen is wrong. He was seen at the murder site by Lechmere. Lechmere was afraid to have the name of his own family in the papers so he gave the name Cross. But you ignore sworn police constable Mizen. You also choose to ignore a scared witness and instead you try to make him a killer.

You make the assumption that the killer may have seen Lechmere, whereas the latter did perhaps not see the killer. One wonders to what end he spent time pulling the dress down in such a case.

A dress can easily be pulled down twice: once over the abdomen and once towards the knees.

You allow for a 22 minute passage of time before Mizen saw the body, at which state it was still bleeding. Jason Payne-James said that the one thing that helped him deal with proponents who wanted to drag time spaces out further and further from his own estimation, was that sooner or later he would be able to point out that the suggestions were absurd. Does not a 22 minute time frame end up there, Steve?

You see in my Minutiae that what you call the blood evidence corresponds perfectly with Lechmere seing the killer as well as with the sworn testimonies of the three police constables.

Finally, I can only echo an earlier poster: Why on earth would we suggest and favour a Phantom killer over a man we KNOW for a fact was there, and who we know for a fact offered an alternative name to the police?

Just because you do not know who he was does not mean he did not exist.

Buckīs Row was the closest murder site to where Lechmere was living. That is the only reason why Lechmere was at Buckīs Row and happened to see the killer.

I am sorry, Fisherman. I do think that the person you call the "phantom killer" was seen by Lechmere and was interrupted.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=jerryd;402486]

Pierre,

You are saying testimony from "sworn policemen" is reliable, but aren't you trying to prove a "sworn policeman" was a serial killer.

Hi Jerry,

Not a sworn police constable at an inquest.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=jerryd;402486]

Pierre,

You are saying testimony from "sworn policemen" is reliable, but aren't you trying to prove a "sworn policeman" was a serial killer.

Now thereīs a conundrum if I ever saw one...

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Problem solved? Not quite.

Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper [page 7], 2nd September 1888—

"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. 'It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's Row to my work as a carman for Covent Garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along; when I saw a man standing where the woman was.'"

This puts Cross and Paul in Bucks Row at 3.45 am.

And on Page 1—

"Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Every word he had said was true."

Regards,

Simon

[MysterySinger]

I feel fairly happy with a time of around 3:38 am for Lechmere "finding" Polly Nichols lying in Bucks Row. He and Paul headed off in the direction of what is now Vallance Street perhaps. This is also the direction from which Neil approached since I think he said he saw Polly on the right side of the road. Why did Lechmere and Paul not see or hear Neil (and vice versa) - just a short window of time for them to miss each other.

I'll throw in another thought which may fit, especially in a scenario where the abdominal injuries were inflicted first and caused the near death of Polly. The killer was still there but hiding from sight having been disturbed by the approach of Lechmere. When the carmen were out of range, he went back to the woman and slashed the neck before making good his getaway - likely as not in the direction of Brady Street. Or, if he lived or worked in one of the buildings close by, that could have made things easier for him. Perhaps he felt the need to be absolutely sure that Polly would be unable to provide a description, or even a name because she may have known him.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;402492]

Now thereīs a conundrum if I ever saw one...

The problem of total generalization is inherit in peopleīs brains.

The past does not allow for total generalizations when you study sources from human activity.

[Fisherman]

I feel fairly happy with a time of around 3:38 am for Lechmere "finding" Polly Nichols lying in Bucks Row. He and Paul headed off in the direction of what is now Vallance Street perhaps. This is also the direction from which Neil approached since I think he said he saw Polly on the right side of the road. Why did Lechmere and Paul not see or hear Neil (and vice versa) - just a short window of time for them to miss each other.

I'll throw in another thought which may fit, especially in a scenario where the abdominal injuries were inflicted first and caused the near death of Polly. The killer was still there but hiding from sight having been disturbed by the approach of Lechmere. When the carmen were out of range, he went back to the woman and slashed the neck before making good his getaway - likely as not in the direction of Brady Street. Or, if he lived or worked in one of the buildings close by, that could have made things easier for him. Perhaps he felt the need to be absolutely sure that Polly would be unable to provide a description, or even a name because she may have known him.

Why are you "fairly happy" about 3.38? Could you feel the same enthusiasm for 3.45? If not, why?

If 3.38 was the time, then we would have had Thain arriving at the spot at around 3.43. The he was immediately sent to fetch Llewellyn who lived a very short walk away, a matter of perhaps three or four minutes. And Llewellyn said that he was fetched up at arund 3.55-4.00.
So why did it take Thain twelve minutes to cover a three or four minute stretch?

If Paul was on the money - and he was the only one to claim an exact time, he said it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he passed down Bucks Row - then he would have arrived at the murder spot at 3.46, examined the woman and left. Then Neil arrived at around 3.49, and summoned Thain, who would have sttod by Neils side by 3.50, just about. He was the informed and sent to fetch Llewellyn, so he should have been at the doctors house at around 3.54. And the doctor said 3.55 to 4.00.

I think that makes for a much more likely scenario.

On the idea that the killer cut the abdomen, was disturbed by Lechmere and Paul, waited for them to examine the woman, and then returned to the body:
If the killer left the body for fear of being detected, would he not leave permanently, on account of the risk of having the carmen notice the damage done to the trunk and sounding the alarm? He would be in a precarious position in such a case.
Also, if he cut the neck to ensure silence and death, how was he to know that the woman would not speak to the carmen, who would then be able to pass the information on?
If the killer left by way of Brady Street, then he would risk running into Thain, who would not have been far off. Walking down Bucks Row to Brady Street would take a minute, during which time the PC drew closer to the junction.

Also, how long does it take to cut a neck? Five seconds? Four? Three?
Why not do it BEFORE he left the body? If he had time to cover the wounds, then surely he had time to cut the neck?

The more probable thing is of course that the cutting took place in one sequence. That is reasonably the normal order of the day. But if we can invent an extra killer hey presto, then why can we not invent a series of divided cuttings? Iīll freely give you that.

[Fisherman]

Hi David,

Problem solved? Not quite.

Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper [page 7], 2nd September 1888—

"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. 'It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's Row to my work as a carman for Covent Garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along; when I saw a man standing where the woman was.'"

This puts Cross and Paul in Bucks Row at 3.45 am.

And on Page 1—

"Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Every word he had said was true."

Regards,

Simon

What problem do you recognize here, Simon? Paul could not guarantee any loger time space betwen his own "finding" of the body and Neils ditto than the time it took to walk out of Bucks Row, plus the examination time.
So where does that land us? Two minutes? Three? That how "long before the police" Paul could furnish.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;402472]The points raised by Simon were these:

1. Robert Paul walking up Buck’s Row on his way to work
2. Charles Cross standing by Polly’s body
3. PC Neil discovering Polly’s body
4. PC Thain being signalled by PC Neil
5. PC Mizen encountering Cross and Paul 300 yards away at the corner of Bakers Row and Old Montague Street.

It should be noted that one of these points, point number 2, differs from the other ones insomuch as how the person spoken of - Charles Lechmere - did NOT state that he stood by the body at 3.45.

It was in this case the police reports that arrived at the conclusion that he did so around that remove in time.

Wrong. The three (3!) police witnesses stated that Neil was at the murder site 3:45, that Thain saw the lantern of Neil from the murder site at 3:45 and that the carmen reached Mizen at 3:45.

Therefore, Lechmere was not at the murder site at 3:45. From that historically secured point in time, the only secure point for an historian who does not destroy the sources but analyzes them and establishes facts on them, you must construct the minutiae backwards in time.

That is the only possible method if you want to establish history from the sources available to us.

The other four points are all points where the time was given by the persons spoken of.

We can conclude that the largest time span that would have been involved, is the span between points 1 and 5; the time between when Robert Paul walked up Buckīs Row, late for work, and the time at which Lechmere and Paul arrived up at Bakerīs Row/Hanbury Street, where Mizen stood.
And Robert Paul gives an estimation of four minutes at most between when he first noticed Lechmere in the street and when the two arrived at Mizen. So, technically speaking, if Paul is on the money - and nothing seems to speak against it - we may have had all of the drama unfolding between 3.43 and 3.47, if we work from the assumption that Robert Paul was two minutes out on the time.

Much talk for nothing. But I must point out to you this: "... if we work from the assumption that Robert Paul was two minutes out on the time.":

You can not work FROM an hypothesis about one single person without making mistakes when three (3!) testimonies of sworn policemen contradict your assumption!

The "remove in time" you wish to construct to make Lechmere Jack the Ripper is your own removing the data in the sources from the sources by ignoring them.

It really, really is nothing much to quibble about, and it need not contain any sinister implications, conspiracies, lies or misleadings at all.

Yes, it is much.

It is the testimony of three (3!) sworn policemen and the testimony, among these, from Mizen that Lechmere did tell him that there was a policeman at the murder site. There is also Lechmere giving his name Cross. There is also another sighting of a policeman in the case of the Pinchin Street murder. That source is independent from the sources containing the statements of Mizen. Arnold behaved like Lechmere. He did not give his real name and he also changed his testimony.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jerry,

You beat me to it.

PC Watkin—"I next came into Mitre-square at 1.44."

Inspector Collard—'[I] proceeded myself to Mitre-square, arriving there about two or three minutes past two."

Dr. Brown—"[I] reached the place of the murder about twenty minutes past two."

Dr. Sequeira—"[I] I arrived at five minutes to two o'clock."

DC Halse—"At two minutes to two o'clock on the Sunday morning, when near Aldgate Church . . ."

Dr. Blackwell—"I arrived at 1.16 am."

Thanks for the list of officials, Simon
Did you find many civilians ?

[Elamarna]

What exactly is the methodological reason for ignoring the testimonies of three sworn policemen? ........



No, it it based on the assumption that the testimonies of three sworn policemen are reliable.

Pierre both points you make, are based on the presumption that the timings given by the police officers are 100% accurate.

While we have no reason to suspect that these are grossly inaccurate, we must allow for the less than modern reliability of time pieces in LVP, and more importantly, how these were synchronized between various witnesses.



I am not ignoring the sworn testimony, as all the times stated by the police witnesses are covered, I am just allowing for probably minor variations.

But that does not correspond with the sworn testimony of PC Mizen. What exactly is the methodological reason for ignoring the testimony of a sworn policeman?

Correct, but it does fit with the sworn testimony of Lechmere.

I have therefore produced almost a generic Time Line, which while not including the claimed communication, certainly allows for it.

The same approach is taken over Lechmere being the killer, while it is not in the time line; it could be!

The Time Line is flexible enough to allow for both his being the killer or him communicating with the killer.

But the time was fixed by Mizen, Niel and Thain. Not by likelihood.

The timing for the arrival at the body is reasonably firm, I allow for a small variation.

However Pierre the timing for the "death cut" is not fixed by the three officers, their testimony depending on the interpretation of several words allows one to construct several possible timelines for the "death cut", no more.

The Time Line looks at all possibilities:

22 minutes at one extreme being almost impossible given the testimony and the science.

Around 7 minutes, certainly possible according to the testimony and the science, and that is accepting only one interpretation of the testimony of the police officers.

I have also said it could be much shorter if Lechmere is the killer.

The timings are arrived at by assessing the testimony and the science involved.

I use the word likelihood purely because nothing is impossible as Payne-James rightly states with the blood flow issue, just some things are more improbable than others.

And following three sworn policeman gives you a very short time period.

Yes Pierre, agreed, and the Time Line allows for the smallest possible period but also gives longer, agreed improbable, alternatives.

While my personal current preference is 2-3 minutes( based on the science, a different interpretation of the police evidence to that used by Fisherman, and other research I am currently working on); I certainly do not exclude the possibility of the timing being a few seconds.

And please note I am talking about the "death cut", not the entire attack.

No, but working from the assumption that three sworn policemen were right and Paul was almost right.

Pierre, I am working from the presumption that all of those quoted are almost right with there timings.

Your timings are not established historical facts. Mine are.

Pierre, that entirely depends on how you wish to view what is said in the testimony.
You are taking as given that all 3 officers had accurate synchronized time pieces. Given that such was highly unusually until relatively recently, such an assumption cannot be taken to be a 100% probability.

If we do not make that assumption, we are left with another probability, that while all times are honestly given they are only close approximations.

We simply do not know that those timings by the 3 Police are synchronized with each other.

Th
e alternative Time Line merely sought to allow for these probably variations, and I do not see that the timings suggest are at odds with the sworn testimony.



I do however question your statement that the killer was waiting in Buck's Row at 3:33 exactly, what source are you using for this statement?



Steve

[Elamarna]

I suppose I am the target for this post of yours, Steve, and I am happy to offer some thoughts.

You certainly were not Fish, I was purely responding to Pierre, however the subject does mean I will of course touch on ground you are close too.

The time frame in which you put the killerīs meeting with Nichols in Bucks Row is 3.25-3.35. The time frame during which Neil said that the streets were totally empty and silent, reciprocated by for example the Purkisses, was 3.15-3.45.

With all due respect, Neil was not present at 3:25-3:35 and therefore any comments he makes about Buck's Row at that time are somewhat irrelevant.

His views of his previous beat and when he found the body of course are not, those reflect what he saw and heard.

With regards to the Purkisses, one has to be very careful with what was actually said by any such witness that night, or if any witness was actually awake, all we can be reasonable sure of is that no unusually noise or disturbance was heard.
Indeed no one seems to have noticed Paul or Lechmere walking down the street, other than themselves.

I am working on this particular issue at present, and will report back later on it, eventually, sorry it is taking long.


Surely if one is arguing for Lechmere not to be the killer, a later time helps his case, however the timing suggested certainly puts him in the frame; if not the actual "eye of the storm".

The Phantom killer would therefore have evaded detection as he moved on the streets. Of course, Nichols did so too, so itīs by no means an impossible thing. But it adds to the number of improbabilities required for the Phantom to have existed.

No not really, the Phantom, as you like to call him, could easily come and go without being seen, just as Nichols did as you rightly point out. And indeed as did Lechmere and Paul.

You make the assumption that the killer may have seen Lechmere, whereas the latter did perhaps not see the killer. One wonders to what end he spent time pulling the dress down in such a case.

I allow for the possibility.

From an analysis of the wounds I feel it is clear that the killer, who ever he was, Lechmere or another, was disturbed by someone approaching.

That was either Lechmere or Paul, if Lechmere had time to pull down the dress so did someone else.

The killer may not have known if he had been seen, and so to pull the dress down would buy a few seconds before the full extent of the crime could be observed, if it indeed was, which of course was not the case.

Its much the same argument if Lechmere did it, unless Paul pulled the dress up time was bought, the killer walked away.

The time one assumes is small, a matter of a few seconds.

You allow for a 22 minute passage of time before Mizen saw the body, at which state it was still bleeding. Jason Payne-James said that the one thing that helped him deal with proponents who wanted to drag time spaces out further and further from his own estimation, was that sooner or later he would be able to point out that the suggestions were absurd. Does not a 22 minute time frame end up there, Steve?

I allow up to 22 minutes, and then I all but completely dismiss it in my post, the only reason not to do so conclusively is the same reasoning Payne-James uses; not to rule out any thing that is not impossible.

I would suggest that 22 minutes is very close to such a position, however a lack of specific medical data on Nichols, means its not quite that, probably but not 100% certain.

I was attempting to offer all possibilities as suggested by various interpretations of the testimony, and then compare such to the science.

Payne-James said that seven minutes was less likely than three or five. The only sense I can make of that is that he proposed that the bleeding should have been over before it reached the seven minute mark. It seems apparent to me that it may well have reached that mark, going by an estimation of how long it would have taken Mizen to arrive, and so Payne-James would have been out on a minute or two in his estimation. But to me, that does not open up glorious new fifteen minute fields of exploration - it tells me that an already strained timeline was strained even further and it would not be to expect that more bleeding time was added.
Have you consulted anybody who has offered this suggestion, or is it your own?

Again, you are with all respect not fully understanding what I am posting.
I give a top figure of 15 minutes yes, this is the most it could be based purely on the testimony of those involved, with no science applied at all.

I finish the line about "15minutes" by saying it could be a matter of seconds.

I also say 15 minutes is highly unlikely, once one applies the science(actually I don't say that, but that is what it means)

Not even a real "suggestion" from me as such, just what the testimony on its own means could be possible.

Again I would say all but impossible given the science. So have not raised it with anyone, as i do not consider it a viable option.

You phrase yourself "The timeline allows for a maximum of 22 minutes between the death cut and the arrival of Mizen, which seems highly unlikely and a minimum of 7 minutes between the two occurrences, which seems more likely."
Can I take that to mean that you at least share my view that another killer becomes less likely with every passing minute outside the seven minute mark?

I had to think about that for along time, and the answer is dependent to when you feel Mizen arrived and what he actually saw.

To me it seems that if blood is still flowing freely when he does arrive, it probably means it is less than 7-8 minutes since the "death cut" and in that case the argument against another killer is strong.

If however the flow is not as you interpret it when Mizen arrives, and is less than free flowing, the time increases to maybe 10 minutes or so and the probability of another killer increases

I am not sure why you suggest a longer time frame speaks in favour of Lechmere, the opposite seems to be the case to me.

Finally, I can only echo an earlier poster: Why on earth would we suggest and favour a Phantom killer over a man we KNOW for a fact was there, and who we know for a fact offered an alternative name to the police? Which kneejerk reaction kicks in here?

Fisherman, with all respect you have not been able to place him at the scene at the exact time to indicate guilt, close to I readily accept and agree, but not exactly.

May I add that one of the issues here, but not the only one, is the less than unambiguous terms used by the police officers; which make you case difficult to prove.


The name issue we have all been over many times before, yourself and others have one view on its implications, and as far as I am aware there are at least 2 other scenario’s apart from yours which can work, that is not to say they do.

If you had been able to establish this, we would not be discussing it now.

Can you see how I think it utterly astonishing that the Phantom killer scenario is FAVOURED? If it was only suggested as an alternative, less likely option, whereas it was agreed that Lechmere is the prime suspect, I would not be as flabbergasted.

Agreed by whom Fish?

Certainly not the majority of those involved in this field, a sizable minority certainly believe it, but not all.

But it is seriously suggested that it is less likely that a man who was there, who gave the wrong name, and who is surrounded by anomalies and who fit the overall geographical pattern of ALL the Ripper murders, is actually not the likeliest bid there is. And only a few days back I posted the thoughts of Robert Ressler of the FBI about the typical serial killer: A man living what seems to be an ordinary family life, with a steady job and in his mid to late thirties.

Yes it is.

I know you think others are wrong, so keep up the efforts to convince people, you are not there yet.

With respect, it does take some serious alterations of the laws of logic to reach the stance that Lechmere is not a very viable bid and the most probable killer that has ever been presented in this case.

He is certainly a viable killer for Nichols and by wound analysis only, very probably for Chapman, Eddowes, probably also for Kelly.
Less probably but still more than possible for Mackenkie and possibly Stride.


I gave a post arguing that viewpoint as possible some time ago did I not?

I will say that my view has developed from reviewing all the wounds of Nichols, and I believe there is a case that the killer of Nichols, can be linked purely by wounds to those above to the degree I suggest.

However this thread, at least my post was about a time line, other arguments for and against Lechmere are for later.



Steve

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Problem solved? Not quite.

The problem as you posed it, Simon, has indeed been solved because you were talking about "official testimony." Can I remind you that you said in your earlier post to Pierre (with my bold highlighting):

What your minutiae fails to explain is how, according to official testimony, at 3.45 am we find Robert Paul walking up Buck’s Row on his way to work; Charles Cross standing by Polly’s body…

Having solved the problem of supposed inconsistencies in official testimony you now want to change the goalposts and bring in a newspaper report – one which contains known and obvious inaccuracies to boot.

It should be obvious to you that Paul (if he was even accurately quoted) was speaking in the context of being angered by reports that a police constable was claiming to have discovered the body at 3.45am, whereas Paul knew that he and Cross had found the body.

So now we have the perfect answer to your original question as to how "everyone" contrived to agree upon 3.45. The press initially reported that Neil found the body at 3.45 and this influenced Paul to say to a reporter that, no, he found it at 3.45.

In the context of there being "no watches or accurate public clocks at their disposal" everything is easily explained. No problem. Nothing to see here. Job done.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: You certainly were not Fish, I was purely responding to Pierre, however the subject does mean I will of course touch on ground you are close too.

I donīt waste any time on Pierre myself. I leave it up to others to decide if they should do so, but I recommend the opposite.


With all due respect, Neil was not present at 3:25-3:35 and therefore any comments he makes about Buck's Row at that time are somewhat irrelevant.
His views of his previous beat and when he found the body of course are not, those reflect what he saw and heard.

With regards to the Purkisses, one has to be very careful with what was actually said by any such witness that night, or if any witness was actually awake, all we can be reasonable sure of is that no unusually noise or disturbance was heard.

No, we should not be "very careful" at all - we should accept that numerous withesses said the exact same thing, and that it is therefore a realistic picture. Walter Purkiss said that it was an unusually quiet night, Emma Green said the exact same thing, Neil said that it was totally quiet, and Tomkins said the same. When everybody concurs, it is a lot more unhealthy NOT to take stock of it. t is and reamins testimony to how the streets around the murder site were deserted and quiet, generally speaking. It means that there was not a large heap of contenders for the Ripper title queuing in the streets, there were no hards of carmen passing, "just as likely" to be the killer as Lechmere - and the Phantom killer becomes a bit less likely too. Not impossible though - heaven forbid!

Indeed no one seems to have noticed Paul or Lechmere walking down the street, other than themselves.

Unless Harriett Lilley did - she heard soft voices and she may have been wrong on the timings. Otherwise, you are correct. Lechmere, Paul, The Phantom and Nichols seem all to have walked into the street unnoticed.

I am working on this particular issue at present, and will report back later on it, eventually, sorry it is taking long.

Take your time; the fewest do.

Surely if one is arguing for Lechmere not to be the killer, a later time helps his case, however the timing suggested certainly puts him in the frame; if not the actual "eye of the storm".

Jason Payne-James thought so, and I agree. If his schedule is on the money, then Lechmere was in place when Nichols was cut. That is in the eye of the storm.


No not really, the Phantom, as you like to call him, could easily come and go without being seen, just as Nichols did as you rightly point out. And indeed as did Lechmere and Paul.

Easily? That hinges on the circumstances. But yes, as I keep saying, there COULD have been another killer. The problem is that there is not a trace of him whatsoever. The exact opposite adhers to Lechmere. He WAS there, he WAS alone with the victim, he DID offer another name than his real one, he DID disagree with a PC over what he said, he DID have time to kill going on his own timings, he DID have reason to be at all the murder sites.

Thatīs part of what I have on Lechmere. What do you have on the Phantom?

I allow for the possibility.

So do I - as a secondary one, unsupported by any evidence and less likely.

From an analysis of the wounds I feel it is clear that the killer, who ever he was, Lechmere or another, was disturbed by someone approaching.

I agree - but I am sure somebody wonīt think it is "clear" at all.

That was either Lechmere or Paul, if Lechmere had time to pull down the dress so did someone else.

But Lechmere STAYED, and he therefore had a better reason to cover the wounds.

The killer may not have known if he had been seen, and so to pull the dress down would buy a few seconds before the full extent of the crime could be observed, if it indeed was, which of course was not the case.

It would equally sell out a few seconds, so whereīs the overall gain...? Yes, Mr Phantom may have reasoned "Iīll hide the wounds and buy some flight time", but it is an inferior suggestion to the one of a killer staying put wanting to hide the wounds.

Its much the same argument if Lechmere did it, unless Paul pulled the dress up time was bought, the killer walked away.

Unless, yes. But if? There was no guarantee at all, whereas Lechmere was in place and could monitor the actions taken. He stopped Pauls intentions to prop her up, for example.

The time one assumes is small, a matter of a few seconds.

And it works both ways.


I allow up to 22 minutes, and then I all but completely dismiss it in my post, the only reason not to do so conclusively is the same reasoning Payne-James uses; not to rule out any thing that is not impossible.

I do think that Payne-James would have deemed 22 minutes impossible, but I take your point. Quibbling about minutes is fruitless.

I would suggest that 22 minutes is very close to such a position, however a lack of specific medical data on Nichols, means its not quite that, probably but not 100% certain.

It probably only amounts to 99, 6784 per cent, so I agree.

I was attempting to offer all possibilities as suggested by various interpretations of the testimony, and then compare such to the science.

Makes two of us, then.


Again, you are with all respect not fully understanding what I am posting.
I give a top figure of 15 minutes yes, this is the most it could be based purely on the testimony of those involved, with no science applied at all.

I finish the line about "15minutes" by saying it could be a matter of seconds.

I also say 15 minutes is highly unlikely, once one applies the science(actually I don't say that, but that is what it means)

Not even a real "suggestion" from me as such, just what the testimony on its own means could be possible.

Again I would say all but impossible given the science. So have not raised it with anyone, as i do not consider it a viable option.

I have spent a number of years in the company of people who would never bat an eye about the indecency to use a thing like this to the full - THEIR full, which translates into "fifteen minutes is just as probable as three or five!".
Thatīs why I am unhappy about these propositions.
I am quite happy to discuss it with you against the backdrop of sense you offer - but I thoroughly dislike those who cannot handle a discussion in the same way, and instead opt for changing black into white.

So I would not say that I am not understanding what you say - I am. And in a perfect world, it would be free of risks to say it. In the whacky world of Ripperology, it is not, however.

I had to think about that for along time, and the answer is dependent to when you feel Mizen arrived and what he actually saw.

Of course it is.

To me it seems that if blood is still flowing freely when he does arrive, it probably means it is less than 7-8 minutes since the "death cut" and in that case the argument against another killer is strong.

I can relate to that...

If however the flow is not as you interpret it when Mizen arrives, and is less than free flowing, the time increases to maybe 10 minutes or so and the probability of another killer increases

The blood was still running from the wound in the neck into the pool under her, and it looked fresh. Thatīs free flowing, alright. What are you proposing is the alternative interpretation of those words?

I am not sure why you suggest a longer time frame speaks in favour of Lechmere, the opposite seems to be the case to me.

Me too. I wrote that "...another killer becomes less likely with every passing minute outside the seven minute mark", and I meant that Mr Phantom is less likely to have been the killer in such a case. Somebody is misunderstanding or miswording it, but we are at least in agreement, it seems.


Fisherman, with all respect you have not been able to place him at the scene at the exact time to indicate guilt, close to I readily accept and agree, but not exactly.

Payne-Jamesī estimation puts him there at the correct time, of course. But we know that his three to five minute barrier was breached, and he admits that it is hard to draw a conslusive line. Plus I have always said that there IS a possibility of another killer. And I did not say that he was there at the murder time, I said he was there, Steve.

May I add that one of the issues here, but not the only one, is the less than unambiguous terms used by the police officers; which make you case difficult to prove.


The name issue we have all been over many times before, yourself and others have one view on its implications, and as far as I am aware there are at least 2 other scenario’s apart from yours which can work, that is not to say they do.

If you had been able to establish this, we would not be discussing it now.

Itīs about probabilitites and likelihoods. For example the likelihood that a man who seemingly but not certainly gave the wrong name and who seemingly but not certainly lied about what he had told the police would ALSO fit the geographical pattern. Scobie, again: "When the coincidences add up, mount up - and they DO in his case, it becomes one coincidence too many".
Scobie has heard all the excuses, and he knows when itīs time to call a halt to it all.


Agreed by whom Fish?

The majority of the posters out here and preferably everybody. It would be flattering for their abilities of deduction.

Certainly not the majority of those involved in this field, a sizable minority certainly believe it, but not all.

More believe in it than it would seem, I am quite convinced about that. Some people yell "bullshit" at the tops of their voices, not because they consider it bullsghit, but because they do not want to admit the viability of th proposition.
My guess is that you know this too, just as yo know that it is impossible to prove. Luckily, it is just as impossible to disprove.
A good deal of the branches of the ripperological tree are rotten through and through, and need to be sawed off.


Yes it is.

I know you think others are wrong, so keep up the efforts to convince people, you are not there yet.

Then explain to me how Lechmere could NOT be the best bid? He was there at a time that is consistent with being the killer, he gave the wrong name, he disagreed with the police, he had reason to pass the murder sites at the correct times etcetera, etcetera. He fits the Ressler profile.
That begs a very pertinent question:

WHAT SPEAKS AGAINST HIM? What is it that makes him second in line after Mr Phantom? Or anybody else, in terms of evidence available?
And if nothing speaks against him, whereas more speaks for somebody else, who would that somebody else be? Itīs not Mr Phantom, I can see that, but who?
Could you clearly and comprehensively explain that to me? Where does Lechmere falter as a suspect?


He is certainly a viable killer for Nichols and by wound analysis only, very probably for Chapman, Eddowes, probably also for Kelly.
Less probably but still more than possible for Mackenkie and possibly Stride.

Old ground, Steve. I know that and have known if for many a year.

I gave a post arguing that viewpoint as possible some time ago did I not?

Same answer.

I will say that my view has developed from reviewing all the wounds of Nichols, and I believe there is a case that the killer of Nichols, can be linked purely by wounds to those above to the degree I suggest.

However this thread, at least my post was about a time line, other arguments for and against Lechmere are for later.

Okay. Welcome back, then!

[Patrick S]

"Itīs about probabilitites and likelihoods. For example the likelihood that a man who seemingly but not certainly gave the wrong name...

But it wasn't the "wrong" name. You yourself have moved away from referring to it as a "false" name and taken to calling it an "alternate" name. We know that his mother married a man called Cross and we know that Charles was known as Cross for at least some part of his life. We don't know that the people who knew him didn't simply call him "Cross". We don't know if the police remembered him as "Cross" in that his stepfather Thomas was a policeman. We don't know if he used the name Cross (with or without approval from the Met) because he was afraid of the killer. We don't know that he gave ONLY the name "Cross" at the inquest as the reportage - as we have seen again and again - was wildly inaccurate and/or lazy (Did Robert "Baul" give a false name, as well? Did "Cross" attempt to further deceive by giving the name "George"? What of PC "Thail"?) We don't know a great deal. Thus, it defies logic to call any of this "coincidence" as we simply don't have enough information to understand the circumstances.

and who seemingly but not certainly lied about what he had told the police would

Mizen lied. That's clear in any objective interpretation. He lied for simple, understandable reasons: to protect his career at the Met, his reputation. I believe he lied with at least the tacit approval of his superiors at the Met in order to protect them from further savaging in the press for their lack of success in resolving Millwood, Wilson, Smith, Tabram. Paul painted at very unflattering picture of Mizen in Baker's Row. Mizen's statement clearly was intended to blunt the criticism directed at him by either his superiors or the press, likely both. It had the added benefit, as well, of reflecting rather more positively on the Met as a whole. This one, for me, is much more cut and dried. We know a great deal. And it's Mizen who comes out the worse for wear. Not Lechmere.

ALSO fit the geographical pattern.

The geographical pattern is very simple: The murders took place over a small geographical area. Close to one (as Lechmere would have to be in order to have encountered a victim's body) means close to all. Of course, you are required to invent MORE supposition when have events do not quite fit into the geographic pattern (i.e. Lechmere was visiting his mother when Stride and Eddowes occurred).

Scobie, again: "When the coincidences add up, mount up - and they DO in his case, it becomes one coincidence too many".

Scobie has heard all the excuses, and he knows when itīs time to call a halt to it all."

It really is too bad that we nonbelievers cannot discuss this directly with Scobie. I'd be interested to know how he would respond to just a few of these points of contention.