Window of Time for Nichols murder

[Elamarna]

Dusty,

One question for you over the 50 yard issue.

How did you arrive at this figure?

I have estimated from the point where Paul firsts sees Lechmere, to when Lechmere touches Paul, but I don't see how you estimate the distance Lech was from the body to 50 ft, I understood the original 100.
Sure I am missing something, but have just reread the article and don't see it.

May need to do a slight retouch on my work

Steve

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,
Not been around much last few months, but have been reading lots of your comments.
Most strike me as being very well reasoned and sensible..

Steve

Thanks. I try. I used to be a regular contributor years ago and I know I'm rusty on a lot of the details, so have been re-reading various books that, in my view, are good presentation of the information that we still have available. There's lots of knowledge here, and many different views, which I find interesting even if I don't agree with them.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

Hi Jeff,
Not been around much last few months, but have been reading lots of your comments.
Most strike me as being very well reasoned and sensible..

Dusty, the lazy man, is still adding references, and hyperlinks, but should get there soon.

One issue seriously is when a internet source changes it's address, that's happened a couple of times.


Steve

[JeffHamm]

>>The primary blood letting was pooled around her shoulders, and under her back (most soaked up in her dress), which suggests the throat cutting was first.<<

For arguments sake I'm going to assume a lot of things.

If Mrs Tabram was the first victim, the cutting throat m.o. had not yet been established. For some unexplained reason, Dr Llewellyn believed the abdomen mutilations occurred first. If so, the killer could have rendered Mrs Nichols unconscious/strangled, started the body injuries only to be interrupted by Charles Cross. Fearing she might still be alive, the killer returned as the pair left and slit the throat to insure death. From that point on the killer resolves to slit the throat first on all the following victims.

Just throwing out there.

Ok, so if we start with Tabram as the first of the series (or at least the one before Nichols), then I suppose abdominal multilations first could make sense for that offender. She's been rendered unconscious by strangulation, and there's an attack on the abdomen first as this is his primary desire (as could be evidenced by Tabram as well). There still needs to be a place for JtR to hide while Cross/Lechmere and Paul have their interaction, and time enough for JtR to return, cut the throat down to the spine, and leave the scene without being spotted by PC Neil, or by PC Mizen on his way to Buck's Row. We know that from the time Cross/Lechmere and Paul leave the scene and find PC Mizen there's a 4 minute (there about) window, which is more than enough time for JtR to complete those actions. There also has to be enough time for the blood observed at the crime scene that did originate from the neck to escape, and pool under the body, by gravity alone, and to account for PC Neil's description of blood "oozing". But, given the amount of time still left prior to PC Neil's previous patrol at 3:15, working that in is not really pushing the time limits we have, so there's nothing that makes it impossible, though I think that starts to require the Cross/Lechmere and Paul meeting to have occurred earlier than the testimony seems to suggest it would (but people's estimate of times are inaccurate, so some wiggle room is expected).

It strikes me as more complicated in some ways, as I'm not sure why JtR would leave, hide, and return rather than just leave once he was interrupted, but it's not impossible (if an appropriate hiding place can be found that also allows him to return, etc). It's the hanging around for a few minutes waiting to go back when he's clearly made an escape that doesn't sit well with me. Also, I think, because in my view, Cross/Lechmere and Paul not noticing the blood in the dark, given most of it was under her, doesn't really require any explanation in my view - they just couldn't see it due to the conditions. After all, even the police and the doctor didn't realize she was mutilated until after she was taken to the motuary, and they were examining the body then and there, with lights and all. So it strikes me as a less probable series of events, that is more complicated behaviours, requiring additional relaxation on the accuracy of the time related testimonies, that doesn't explain anything that is unaccounted for by the alternative that she already had her throat cut and was mutilated prior to the arrival of Cross/Lechmere and Paul.

But, it also doesn't create anything impossible, and while it might seem less probable, it's not widely out in left field either, and real events can often be more complicated than the simplest explanation. So, though it's not my first choice, I wouldn't throw it out of consideration entirely either.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>The primary blood letting was pooled around her shoulders, and under her back (most soaked up in her dress), which suggests the throat cutting was first.<<

For arguments sake I'm going to assume a lot of things.

If Mrs Tabram was the first victim, the cutting throat m.o. had not yet been established. For some unexplained reason, Dr Llewellyn believed the abdomen mutilations occurred first. If so, the killer could have rendered Mrs Nichols unconscious/strangled, started the body injuries only to be interrupted by Charles Cross. Fearing she might still be alive, the killer returned as the pair left and slit the throat to insure death. From that point on the killer resolves to slit the throat first on all the following victims.

Just throwing out there.

[JeffHamm]

>> ... when Paul suggests they move her, if Lechmere has just killed her and can't be sure if he's got blood on him, that would be a perfect opportunity for him to create an entirely innocent explanation for having blood on his hands when they then go off to find a police officer. His evidence of guilt turns into "we tried to move her and I got blood all over me when we did", etc. But he refuses to, which to me, sounds far more like the choice of an innocent person not wanting to touch what might be a dead body.<<

The argument of guilt is that by moving her the murder wounds would be discovered and Cross's bloody knife would be found. This pre-supposes that the neck wound was committed before they arrived, which is no certainty.

Fair enough, though for that to work, the throat cutting and mutilations have to occur in the space of time between them leaving and PC Neil arriving, and there has to be enough time prior to Cross/Lechmere finding her for her to have been strangled and JtR to have left and hidden until they leave, so he can return. Paul (I think it was) says that he pulled her dress down to cover her a bit, which seems to indicate she had already been mutilated. The primary blood letting was pooled around her shoulders, and under her back (most soaked up in her dress), which suggests the throat cutting was first. So, it looks to me (others may differ) like the alternative is, while not outside the realm of possibilities, is outside of the plausible range.

Paul's testimony about her being alive is not overly compelling. At one point in his testimony (from The Times) it reads "He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead." though later says "While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement." So, he thought she was dead, though possibly thought he felt a movement. Based upon that, I think the case for her still being alive is far weaker than for her to have been dead and mutilated prior to their arrival. Other newspapers may word those differently, but then, which do we choose? Ideally, we would have official transcripts, but alas, we do not.

More importantly, it was Charles Cross who tells us this story, Paul never mentions it in any records we have. The fact that Cross feels comfortable enough mentioning it, points to me of innocence, he could have easily have left it out and nobody would be the wiser. We also have a similar event with Mrs. Strides body, where Morris Eagle wants nothing to do with the body, so these things do happen.

True, but Paul would have had the opportunity to deny such a claim if it wasn't true. Whether he would have is open for debate. Regardless, if we consider that the suggestion was made, why would such a golden opportunity be passed over, especially as it might give him a chance to "slip the knife under the body" so it would also be found not on him?

Anyway, if Paul never made the suggestion, the point is moot, but if he did it is very odd that Cross/Lechmere turned down the opportunity to ensure he could explain any blood on him should it be found.

[drstrange169]

>> ... when Paul suggests they move her, if Lechmere has just killed her and can't be sure if he's got blood on him, that would be a perfect opportunity for him to create an entirely innocent explanation for having blood on his hands when they then go off to find a police officer. His evidence of guilt turns into "we tried to move her and I got blood all over me when we did", etc. But he refuses to, which to me, sounds far more like the choice of an innocent person not wanting to touch what might be a dead body.<<

The argument of guilt is that by moving her the murder wounds would be discovered and Cross's bloody knife would be found. This pre-supposes that the neck wound was committed before they arrived, which is no certainty.

More importantly, it was Charles Cross who tells us this story, Paul never mentions it in any records we have. The fact that Cross feels comfortable enough mentioning it, points to me of innocence, he could have easily have left it out and nobody would be the wiser. We also have a similar event with Mrs. Strides body, where Morris Eagle wants nothing to do with the body, so these things do happen.

[drstrange169]

Hello Rookie,

Briefly, Cross and Paul walked past Mrs Chapman's murder site after leaving Mizen, Paul actually worked in the next street. Christer (Fisherman) will claim that Mrs Chapman was murdered before Cross got to work, others will argue she was killed after he went to work.

Lechmere's mother lived a few streets away from where Mrs Stride was killed, Maryanne Street, one of his daughters lived with his mother.

There is no real connection known to Catherine Eddowes murder, although Lechmerites claim Mitre Square was on his route to work, but there is no evidence that he went there.

Again, there is no known connection to Mary Kelly, however, Lechmerites claim Miller's Court was on his way to work, there is no evidence that he ever went there either.

Slightly off the topic, more recently, some Lechmerites have tried to link the Thames Torso Murders to poor old Cross.

For the case against, Lechmere watch Christer's tv show on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MJJgUFFZZ8&amp;frags=pl%2Cwn

It contains a few errors and some unreasonable speculation, but it will give you a good idea of what they are claiming.

For the other side, Steve Bloomer's book (when the lazy bugger finally finishes it!) will give you a comprehensive look at the Buck's Row incident. If you get a back issue of Ripperoloist (number 142), you'll see article by yours truly on the subject, that gives a basic overview from the other side to Christer's show. One caveat, in it I say Cross was 100 feet away, from the body when Paul saw him, it's since been pointed out to me my maths, never my strong point, was wonky and in fact the distance according to Cross's testimony was more likely around 50 feet away.

For some timing of Buck's row see:https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...as-mizen/page3
Post 101.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff, you give one of the most compelling and balanced viewpoints and i completely acknowledge all of the points you make.

Thank you. To be fair, much of the information and interpretation is not only my own, but comes from the contributions of everyone in this thread and others. Debate, and sharing of ideas, can evoke emotional responses, particularly frustration when one's chosen view is disagreed with as I think we often mistake that for not being listened to - and few like being ignored.

There are interesting points and creative ideas being made both for and against Lechmere/Cross. Evaluation of those ideas has a level of subjectivity to it, so hardly surprising people don't always agree.

I initiated this particular thread at the very beginning asking the key question of timings and i am finally getting a measured and open minded logical analysis and response to my query.

You make a very good argument for Lechmere being innocent.


However, I am still unsure and Lechmere for me remains a key suspect.

To be precise, I present an argument that shows Lechmere/Cross could be innocent, not one that proves he is innocent. Hypotheses can be made that allow for a guilty Lechmere, though in my view they tend to require too many improbable events and choices to be made. One thing I've not mentioned, nor have I seen anyone else, is that when Paul suggests they move her, if Lechmere has just killed her and can't be sure if he's got blood on him, that would be a perfect opportunity for him to create an entirely innocent explanation for having blood on his hands when they then go off to find a police officer. His evidence of guilt turns into "we tried to move her and I got blood all over me when we did", etc. But he refuses to, which to me, sounds far more like the choice of an innocent person not wanting to touch what might be a dead body. Again, others will interpret that differently.

The reason for this stems from another line of investigation that i am running concurrently with this particular thread and so i needed some response from the question i raised at the beginning of this thread.

If there was time for it NOT to be Lechmere, then that helps me to focus on other areas of my investigation.

I think there is ample time for it not to be Lechmere, but regardless, I would encourage following up any interesting lines you're working on. Remember, there isn't universal agreement on exactly which of the Whitechapel murders should be grouped together as by the same killer. Your alternate line of inquiry may shed some interesting information whether or not Lechmere/Cross is guilty of Nichol's murder.

I am close to making a link between Lechmere and another JTR victim. If it mounts to nothing (which is most likely) then at least i have exhausted every possible outlet.

I am hoping to be the first person to connect Lechmere with multiple victims. If i can somehow reaffirm what i have already discovered to make it conclusive and definitive, then it really increase the chance of Lechmere having been JTR. If i fail, then it's just another of thousands of other theories.

Now that is something I look forward to reading about. I hope you will share what you've done and found, even if it ends up not making the link. Sometimes, it's the presentation of the lines of reasoning and the evidence found that is really helpful rather than the conclusion itself. What, for example, put you on the path of inquiry to see if there was a connection between Lechmere/Cross and the other case? What indications looked like you were getting close to showing that connection? What, in the end, made it all fall apart (if it does of course). All of the information together is useful and informative, even if it were to fall apart and the connection can't be made. It shows how research works, guided by hypotheses which are then tested by searching for evidence, and how conclusions are drawn from that process, rather than how hypotheses are treated as facts themselves.

If you make such a link, that would be very important. Lechmere/Cross is certainly a person of interest and worthy of consideration given the circumstances. It's only by a careful examination of events, as best we can so many years later and with such unreliable information as we have, that the case against him starts to weaken and appears to be the less probable. New evidence, however, might tip the balance the other way.

Thank you for your response, i fully appreciate someone who displays a measured and logical way of thinking which tackles the question instead of attacking fellow members; which i have noticed happens a lot.

A bit like politics; if everyone was to actually work together we could collectively crack the case wide open


I look forward to more discussion with you over time


The Rookie Detective

No problem. Boards on any topic of shared interest always have heated debates, which can get personal at times. Often due to the nature of written presentation, tone is missing from the "speaker" and it is universally "filled in" by the reader based upon the reader's state. And if the reader disagrees with something, they are likely to impart a more attacking tone on the message than the writer may have intended. Also, I think there's a general tendency to interpret someone pro-offering a counter hypothesis to mean that the other person believes strongly that the counter presentation must be true. I know I'll often present a counter-example interpretation not because I think it must be true, rather as a demonstration that the original interpretation is not the only one and so it cannot be said to be necessary to reach that conclusion. Now, if my counter presentation seems far less plausible in comparison, I might not convince many that it needs to be considered very strongly. But if my counter-example were to seem far more plausible, then the same applies in reverse. And if both seem equally plausible accounts, then we're at a point where no decision can be safely made, so any theory that goes beyond this point has to acknowledge that it's based upon an unsupported assumption. No matter how well the walls and roof are built, if the foundation gives way the house falls down.

- Jeff

[The Rookie Detective]

>>I am close to making a link between Lechmere and another JTR victim.<<

If you could make a provable link between Lechmere and another victim, that would be a significant advance. There have been quite a few suggested links, but nothing that moves beyond coincidence or contrivance.

Good Luck and keep us posted.

Yes will keep you posted as and when i can be certain of my findings.

I am rather new to the casebook; less than a week, and so i must apologize if i inadvertently go over old ground which has already been covered.

My intentions are sincere and i am not one to step on anyone's toes when it comes to the intricacies of the case.

May i inquire as to any of the particular links; albeit coincidental, which you have eluded to that may have already been mentioned or suggested on this site?


The Rookie Detective

[drstrange169]

>>I am close to making a link between Lechmere and another JTR victim.<<

If you could make a provable link between Lechmere and another victim, that would be a significant advance. There have been quite a few suggested links, but nothing that moves beyond coincidence or contrivance.

Good Luck and keep us posted.

[Elamarna]

Steve
Its not that they dont listen, its because they wont accept what they hear because they have their own agendas.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

What I see time after time is a sidestepping of the facts, in favour of:

The doctor used his experience

Or

He could tell how long a body had been dead, he had seen dead bodies before


Or better still

Or course he was aware of the issues surrounding touch to assess body warmth, and the possible issues with RM; but he obviously took these into account.

Which translates as his experience is more important than the science.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Herlock,

Been having just that very debate over on Facebook.

Pity people are incapable of listening to facts.


Steve

Steve
Its not that they dont listen, its because they wont accept what they hear because they have their own agendas.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Hi Herlock,

Been having just that very debate over on Facebook.

Pity people are incapable of listening to facts.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Very clear points by Dr Biggs, Trevor.

A pity that others do not address them correctly.

Why they continue to repeat the TODs given 130 years ago as if they are fact , when the methods used were purely subjective, is the real question?

Steve

Hello Steve

we had this very same issue when discussing Annie Chapman’s TOD in regard to John Richardson and Dr Phillips.