The Bucks Row Project Summary Report.

[Batman]

And what does the fact that Paul didn´t see that she was cut either tell us? Exactly, it tells us that the cuts were not on display.

A PCs lantern illuminates us. They couldn't see it because it was too dark. Simple as that.

JtR murdered in dark places. So much so we question how he could have seen what he was doing.

So nothing unusual there and no reason to think all the wounds were originally covered up at all.

Darkness explains it perfectly well.

The witnesses even said so themselves...

The Coroner - Did you not see that her throat was cut?

Witness - No; it was very dark at the time

If you think that a victorian would not pull down a dress that was up to the thigs, you may want to read up om the moral prevailing in the era. And the lower abdomen is the whole area down to the groin. If the clothing had been up to the waist, there is no chance whatsoever that the wounds would have been missed. None.

They pulled it down from just below her stomach to just above her knees. Below the stomach isn't the groin area. You have colon and intestines for example. You need to look where the stomach is.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/project...tSystem-01.jpg

How is a stomach anywhere near the groin???

I didn´t say that the bonnet was shiny. I said that it is odd that they could see it since it was not.

The blood had not coagulated as Lechmere and Paul were in place. It was still running as Neil and Mizen arrived, a good many minutes afterwards.

Forensically blood MUST coagulate in contact with air within minutes. Takes approx 30 secs for it to coagulate. So this idea there is no coagulation is demonstrably false in a lab. There can still be bleeding by anything that bleeds out has approx 30 secs before turning into clots and not liquid. Unless you add EDTA, you can forget about it staying liquid for long.

The sources tell us that Paul was the man who did the pulling down of the dress when both men were present. Unequivocally so. This, for example, is Lechmere speaking, from the Star of September 3:rd: "Before they left the body the other man tried to pull the clothes over the woman's knees, but they did not seem as though they would come down." And this is how it is voiced in the Echo, by the exact same man: "When I found her, her clothes were above her knees. There did not seem to be much clothing. The other man pulled her clothes down before he left."

You may notice that he describes what you feel is the clothes having been pulled up to the waist as "her clothes were above her knees", by the way.

I am not very much interested in discussing the case with somebody who is unaware of the facts. Read up and we can perhaps continue. Bye for now.

It's not my feeling, I am quoting Sugden. Is he unaware of the Nichols facts? I doubt it.

Evening Standard recorded the inquest. Let's see what it says.

Charles Allen Cross, a carman, in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, said on Friday morning I left home at half past three. I went down Parson street, crossed Brady street, and through Buck's row. I was alone. As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side in the gateway to a wool warehouse. It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had done, so I waited for him to come up. When he came up, I said, "Come and look over here; there is a woman." We then both went over to the body. I bent over her head, and touched her hand, which was cold. I said, "She is dead." The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, Yes, she is." he then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman." When I found her clothes were up above her knees, we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down. I did not notice any blood.

So at the inquest Cross says 'WE'. He also notes they wouldn't come down. Above her knees doesn't say where the dress was pulled up too exactly, just that it was above her knees. Robert Baul (Paul) also says Cross helped him...

The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down.

https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_nichols.html

[Fisherman]

But he would have no problems in running away,because the body would not have been discovered until he was long gone, and no reason for a policeman to stop a man running who if stopped could say he was late for work, that's of course if he had have come in contact with a policeman.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, Trevor... Where where you when this was discussed a thousand times before?

Would your PC stop and detain Lechmere if Paul was yelling blue murder fifty yards off? No?

Plus, as has been stated over and over again, it is quite possible that Lechmere actually enjoyed the exercise if he was a psychopath - and nine out of ten serial killers are.

Your colleague Andy Griffiths was very adamant on the take that Lechmere would never have run if he was the killer. So, you see, your logic does not appeal to him at all. People differ in this way; when somebody says "he would have done X", somebody else says "No, he would have done Y".

And why is that, Trevor? Correct, it is because people react differently in different situations, and we conclude from that - and come to different conclusions.

The exact same must apply to Lechmere if he was the killer. He either thought like you do, or he thought like Andy Griffiths do.

And so neither scenario can be excluded. He may have been inclined to run if he was the killer. Likewise, he may not have been.

See?

[Fisherman]

Paul didn't see that her neck was cut either and he didn't see any blood.



Almost up to her stomach means what it means. The dress was up near the abdomen, the trunk of the body, not the pelvis. Since when are stomachs part of the groin area? It isn't. Her pelvis and groin would have been exposed in this position. Hence why they tried to pull her dress down and only got as far as just above knees.



That's why the bonnet wasn't shiny.

Blood coagulates in a few minutes. That is why it isn't shiny either.

Does your source also say 'Cross' didn't pull down her dress and only Paul did as you claimed?

The PC needed his lantern to see the wounds on her neck.



Seems to me she was clearly exposed with her dress lifted up. Her hands by the sides resting and opened up is typical JtR posing.

And what does the fact that Paul didn´t see that she was cut either tell us? Exactly, it tells us that the cuts were not on display.

If you think that a victorian would not pull down a dress that was up to the thigs, you may want to read up om the moral prevailing in the era. And the lower abdomen is the whole area down to the groin. If the clothing had been up to the waist, there is no chance whatsoever that the wounds would have been missed. None.

I didn´t say that the bonnet was shiny. I said that it is odd that they could see it since it was not.

The blood had not coagulated as Lechmere and Paul were in place. It was still running as Neil and Mizen arrived, a good many minutes afterwards.

The sources tell us that Paul was the man who did the pulling down of the dress when both men were present. Unequivocally so. This, for example, is Lechmere speaking, from the Star of September 3:rd: "Before they left the body the other man tried to pull the clothes over the woman's knees, but they did not seem as though they would come down." And this is how it is voiced in the Echo, by the exact same man: "When I found her, her clothes were above her knees. There did not seem to be much clothing. The other man pulled her clothes down before he left."

You may notice that he describes what you feel is the clothes having been pulled up to the waist as "her clothes were above her knees", by the way.

I am not very much interested in discussing the case with somebody who is unaware of the facts. Read up and we can perhaps continue. Bye for now.

[Batman]

Paul didn't see that her neck was cut either and he didn't see any blood.

And the clothes being "almost up to her stomach" does not equal being up over her stomach - it equals her stomach being covered by the clothes, but only just. The clothing was up at the hip area, therefore, but did not reveal the wounds stretching all the way up to the breast bone.

Almost up to her stomach means what it means. The dress was up near the abdomen, the trunk of the body, not the pelvis. Since when are stomachs part of the groin area? It isn't. Her pelvis and groin would have been exposed in this position. Hence why they tried to pull her dress down and only got as far as just above knees.

Lying by her side, close to her left hand, was a black straw bonnet trimmed with black velvet.

Sugden, Philip. The Complete History of Jack the Ripper

That's why the bonnet wasn't shiny.

Blood coagulates in a few minutes. That is why it isn't shiny either.

Does your source also say 'Cross' didn't pull down her dress and only Paul did as you claimed?

The PC needed his lantern to see the wounds on her neck.

At about 3.45 PC John Neil 97J, a tall fresh-complexioned man with brown hair and a straw-coloured moustache and imperial, was patrolling eastwards along the south side of Buck’s Row. Thirty minutes earlier, when his beat had last taken him this way, he had seen no one. On this occasion he found the body. It was dark and the light from a street lamp some distance away on the opposite side of the street was poor. But, with the help of his lantern, Neil was able to inspect the woman more closely than the two carmen had done. She was lying on her back, lengthways along the footway and outside the gate to Mr Brown’s stables, her head towards the east, her left hand touching the gate. Her hands, which were open, lay by her sides and her legs were extended and a little apart.

Cross and Paul had partly pulled her skirts down and they were now a little above her knees.

Sugden, Philip. The Complete History of Jack the Ripper.

Seems to me she was clearly exposed with her dress lifted up. Her hands by the sides resting and opened up is typical JtR posing.

[Trevor Marriott]

If he runs, he can´t be identified?

Does that not wash only if he does not run into the arms of a PC, Colin?

And wold not that PC have a very good reason to believe that he was holding on to the killer?

This has been discussed on hundreds of occasions, and it has not changed.

But he would have no problems in running away,because the body would not have been discovered until he was long gone, and no reason for a policeman to stop a man running who if stopped could say he was late for work, that's of course if he had have come in contact with a policeman.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

That's well argued, but it's hardly perverse to suggest that, as he ran in those four cases (assuming all were killed by the same individual), he (the killer) perhaps ran in this case also. Also, if he runs he can't be identified. If, however, he stays and Paul has seen the whole thing then he's completely stuffed because identification is not in issue.

If he runs, he can´t be identified?

Does that not wash only if he does not run into the arms of a PC, Colin?

And wold not that PC have a very good reason to believe that he was holding on to the killer?

This has been discussed on hundreds of occasions, and it has not changed.

[Fisherman]

What are your sources?





Sugden, Philip. The Complete History of Jack the Ripper.




Begg, *Paul. Jack the Ripper: The Facts

Nobody said she was spread-eagled. A dead woman lying on her back with her skirt up around almost to her stomach, who wouldn't be wearing undergarments, is exposed and it has pretty strong sexual undertones to find a body like that. Even more so given her private area had been stabbed. None of which they could see, along with her slashed neck, because it was too dark.

So they could see her hat, but they could not see that she had had her throat slashed? It was bright enough for hats but too dark for blood and wounds, even if they went all the way around the neck and left a one- or two-inch wide gaping hole?
And they could see that her clothes were up over her thighs, but they could not see that she had had her genitals stabbed - and that owed to the same odd partial distribution of light?
What little light there was would be reflected in blood, since it is a very good reflector, while a hat is no such thing at all.

Maybe you can explain how all of this works, because I find it very strange.

Which sources do I have for how the clothing did not give away the wounds? Well, we do have Lechmere himself saying that "the woman's legs were uncovered" (Daily News), but one has to wonder how he could see that in all of that darkness? And the clothes being "almost up to her stomach" does not equal being up over her stomach - it equals her stomach being covered by the clothes, but only just. The clothing was up at the hip area, therefore, but did not reveal the wounds stretching all the way up to the breast bone.

Have you considered how the carmen´s failure to see the wounds in the neck could have been due to how they were concealed? Has it dawned on you that the reason that they could not see the wounds to the private parts could have been due to how they too were concealed? And that even if they were not, Nichols´ legs were not spread-eagled, and so the wounds to her private parts may not have been noticeable until she was examined afterwards? Could it be that the killer had spread her legs and added the stabs, only to stretch the legs out and pull the dress down as he heard somebody arrive?

Somebody is certainly working in the dark here. And I am not referring to Lechmere and Paul.

[Batman]

The skirt was not around her stomach at all, it was up at the thighs and Paul was the only puller of it afterwards as he pulled it down to her knees.

She was not "spread-eagled" like the others, and her genitals were not exposed as with the others. If you think that lying on your back, legs stretched out, is "very sexually suggestive", then you may do good to avoid the "me too"-movement...

If you think covering the wounds makes Lechmere a bad candidate you have totally misunderstood the theory. Going by what you say on these threads, that is probably the case.

Good night.

What are your sources?

She was lying on her back, her skirts raised almost to her stomach.

So, after attempting to pull down the woman’s skirts, they nonchalantly proceeded on their way intending to tell the first constable they might see.

Sugden, Philip. The Complete History of Jack the Ripper.

The woman’s clothes were raised almost to her stomach, her bonnet was off, but close to her head.

Begg, *Paul. Jack the Ripper: The Facts

Nobody said she was spread-eagled. A dead woman lying on her back with her skirt up around almost to her stomach, who wouldn't be wearing undergarments, is exposed and it has pretty strong sexual undertones to find a body like that. Even more so given her private area had been stabbed. None of which they could see, along with her slashed neck, because it was too dark.

[Bridewell]

You speak of a perceived barrier that kept him from running in the Nichols case. Perhaps we should instead speak of a one-off opportunity - once he had bluffed it out in the Nichols case, he could not do so on any of the other occasions. That means that he had to run in those four cases - whereas he did not have to do that at all in the Nichols case.

That's well argued, but it's hardly perverse to suggest that, as he ran in those four cases (assuming all were killed by the same individual), he (the killer) perhaps ran in this case also. Also, if he runs he can't be identified. If, however, he stays and Paul has seen the whole thing then he's completely stuffed because identification is not in issue.

[Elamarna]

If her clothes concealed her private parts, and if the killer rushed off, leaving the clothing as it was when he cut - then why are the private parts concealed when Paul sees her? Did the killer cut to the breastbone under her clothing?

Its not that simply i beleive.
Were any of the cuts made under the clothing?
Partial yes I beleive some could have been, such is suggested by secondary cuts and scratches.
The stays apparently being still in place also argues for limited access.

However that could very well be total wrong, the evidence is unclear to a very great extent, relying purely on Paul.

Steve

[John G]

But the whole point is that Nichols was NOT posed, John, while the others were - and arguably for a reason.

Ah, I see now. Presumably you're arguing that the killer did not have time to pose the body because he was disturbed, which somewhat ironically was Steve's argument in Post 43! Although if I'm wrong, what exactly are you arguing?

[Fisherman]

I am not convinced that her private parts were exposed, Paul said he had trouble in pulling it down, it was certainly up, but not as far as in the other cases.
We are disagreeing about degree here, not about intent I beleive.

That the killer planned to exposure her I have little doubt, but he was disturbed, be he Lechmere or someone else. The cutting was not to my view complete, but I may be wrong on that. He rushed off, leaving her clothing as it was when he cut.

Just my view.


Steve

If her clothes concealed her private parts, and if the killer rushed off, leaving the clothing as it was when he cut - then why are the private parts concealed when Paul sees her? Did the killer cut to the breastbone under her clothing?

[Fisherman]

But the point is according to Canter's analysis the vast majority of serial killers pose their victims. Therefore it isn't unusual behaviour. Therefore it proves nothing.

But the whole point is that Nichols was NOT posed, John, while the others were - and arguably for a reason.

[Fisherman]

So why did they try to pull her skirt down from around her stomach? This tells you they felt uncomfortable looking at her in the strange position she was in.

That position was very sexually suggestive and not done just to stab someone in the private areas. They could have done that through her dress. Instead, they wanted her exposed this way for a reason. The answer is in the sexual degradation of the attack which also involves "open and displayed", a JtR trait. These are all planned because they are part of his fantasy, which is evident from the evolution of the posing all the way to turning MJK's face towards the door and laying her arm inside her missing abdomen. Chapman's legs were brought up. Eddowes was in the same position. Stride wasn't. Which means the posing is done after the mutilation or during it.

It's obvious that Lechmere isn't making a very good candidate if he is dressing his victims back up again.

The skirt was not around her stomach at all, it was up at the thighs and Paul was the only puller of it afterwards as he pulled it down to her knees.

She was not "spread-eagled" like the others, and her genitals were not exposed as with the others. If you think that lying on your back, legs stretched out, is "very sexually suggestive", then you may do good to avoid the "me too"-movement...

If you think covering the wounds makes Lechmere a bad candidate you have totally misunderstood the theory. Going by what you say on these threads, that is probably the case.

Good night.

[John G]

If a killer poses victims in a series, there is good reason to suspect he will do so with ALL his victims. The examples are many, like for example the Hillside stranglers and Danny Rolling. It´s part of their thing.

But the point is according to Canter's analysis the vast majority of serial killers pose their victims. Therefore it isn't unusual behaviour. Therefore it proves nothing.