Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Rainbow]

This is the answer why Lechmere didn't flee...

he simply hadn't any other choice!

This case is closed.

[Rainbow]

There was no place for that phantom killer except to fly with two wings in the sky, although I will still dought this possibility or it will be heard flying too

John Neil, police-constable said in the inquest:

Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previously, and I saw no one then

There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck.

The Coroner: Did you hear any noise that night?

Witness: No; I heard nothing. The farthest I had been that night was just through the Whitechapel-road and up Baker's-row. I was never far away from the spot.

and we know he discovered the body of the victim soon after Lechmere and Paul went searching for a policeman.

Alfred Malshaw , a night watchman in Winthorpe-street, had also heard no cries or noise. In a straight line he was about thirty yards from the spot where the deceased was found

Police-constable John Thail stated that the nearest point on his beat to Buck's- row was Brady-street. He passed the end every thirty minutes on the Thursday night, and nothing attracted his attention until 3.45 a.m.

Sergeant Kerby passed also down Buck's Row and saw nothing.

this side of the the row was closed by the police constable Neil for the phantom killer to flee, and the other side of the row was closed too by Paul, and the blood was still running from the wound on the victim's neck.


if he was not Lechmere, then he must had flown in the sky

.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: First of all, we don't know to what extent the clothes were already pulled down.

Correction: We do not know to what EXACT extent they were pulled down. But we DO know that it was to somewhere between the knees and the abdomen.

If it was dark enough for Lechmere & Paul not to spot the gaping knife-wound in Polly's neck, and dark enough for Lechmere to confuse her body for a tarpaulin, I'd daresay it's possible that the wounds were partially exposed and they simply didn't see them in the darkness.

The wound in the neck may well have been hidden, and then exposed as Paul pulled the dress down.
Thinking the body was a tarpaulin was something that was assessed from six yards away or so, so it is not a fair comparison. Besides, it may well be a total lie.
At any rate, the carmen had no problems seeing the black bonnet on the ground, so they could see a whole deal.

Like most details in this case, there is a lack of definites.

And a lack to acknowledge the probabilities. There, total darkness reigns...

[Harry D]

First of all, we don't know to what extent the clothes were already pulled down. If it was dark enough for Lechmere & Paul not to spot the gaping knife-wound in Polly's neck, and dark enough for Lechmere to confuse her body for a tarpaulin, I'd daresay it's possible that the wounds were partially exposed and they simply didn't see them in the darkness. Like most details in this case, there is a lack of definites.

[Fisherman]

Here´s the next piece from Dusty´s post that needs a little work:

P.C.’s Thain and Neil wore wooden soled shoes and walked at a regulated pace. It is an accepted fact that a policeman’s tread was recognisable.

What Dusty "forgets" to mention here is that the normal worker would also wear hobnail boots - only the fewest wore rubber soles.

Plus Lechmere asserted that he would hear if anyone moved down by Browns the moment he entered Bucks Row. That was 130 yards away. Apparently, Lechmere discounted the possibility that this suggested man, better known as the Phantom killer, could be wearing quiet enough soles to stay undetected. And it stands to reason - the street was an accosutic tunnel, and it was dead silent. If a needle fell upon a plate, it would be audible from 130 yards away.

And still, Paul did not notice Lechmere until he arrived at Browns? And still, Lechmere, the man who heard anybody from 130 yards, did not hear Paul until he was 30-40 yards away?

No consistency, no logic, no dovetailing with the suggested scenario. But it works perfectly with a scenario where Lechmere was the killer, and silently covered what he had done as he waited for Paul - who he had heard from 130 yards away - to draw nearer.

The rest of the points Dusty makes are more of the same. If I can work up the will, I will pick them off, one by one.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: But if the killer was not Lechmere, and was disturbed, running off, then he would have had no time to pull the clothes down, and in any event why would he have wanted to if it were the same killer who killed the other victims they were all left with their clothes up above the waist.

Exactly. And that was my very point, Trevor. The pulled down clothes are more logical in combination with Lechmere as the killer than with the dreaded phantom killer.

And if Lechmere was the killer there would have been no need for him to pull them down, after all the victim was dead, clothes up or down it would have made no difference to him finding the body. I think you theorising is wrong with regards to this issue, by trying to suggest Lechmere was the killer, and it was he who pulled the clothes down prior to the arrival of Paul.

If Lechmere did not pull the clothes down, and if he was the killer, then it would have been obvious that a murder had been committed, and the police had been called to the scene. Having the knife on his person, Lechmere would hang for it.
I think that is a pretty good reason to hide the murder. Don´t you?

If he had thought about pulling the clothes down, surely he would have thought about making off, running away from a crime scene is a sign of guilt, staying with a body found at a crime scene is not !

There is no logic at all in the vicinity of that statement. If he DID pull the clothes down, then why make off? The other way around, if he decided to do a runner, then why pull the clothes down first?

Staying with a body is not a sign of guilt, that is very true! And if Lechmere stayed to bluff Paul, would he want to look guilty or innocent? That´s the ten thousand pound question!

[Trevor Marriott]

So where did you go wrong this time? Ah, yes! You are citing PC Neil, and yes, at the time Neil saw the body, the cut in the neck was uncovered.
But you try to establish that it was uncovered throughout, and that won´t do.
Here is the deal: It is a fact that the wound in the neck was uncovered when Neil arrived. It is not a fact that the wound in the neck was uncovered when Paul arrived. Paul pulled the clothing down, and that may well have uncivered the neck wound.
I trust you can see how that works, and how it would be wrong to say that it is a fact that the wound was uncovered all along.

As for the cherrypicked quote that the clothing was raised almost up to the stomach, there are other quotes putting the dress lower. But you avoided them, for some reason? Anyhow, ALMOST up to the stomach is BELOW the stomach, and the cuts were IN the stomach.
I trust you can see how this works too?

Now, you claim that there were cuts below the stomach. Here´s the inquest wording: "There were no injuries about the body until just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. The wound was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. There were three or four similar cuts running downwards, on the right side, all of which had been caused by a knife which had been used violently and downwards. the injuries were form left to right and might have been done by a left handed person. All the injuries had been caused by the same instrument."

So what are you talking about? Ah - I see: you are referring to how it was said that the "private parts" were stabbed twice. So I don´t think we are talking about cuts, we are talking about stabs. And to what degree they were easy to see would depend on a number ofthings: where they were, how deep and wide they were - and of course, it seems that the clothing was pulled over the vagina as well as over the abdomen. There is no reason at all to suspect anything else. We could, for example, pick another wording than the one you preferred:
Charles Lechmere: "When I found her clothes were up above her knees" (Morning Advertiser).

Your efforts are - as usual - in vain, Dusty. The overall picture is one where the clothing covered the wounds. We´ve been through it all before, and it ends up the same way each time.

But if the killer was not Lechmere, and was disturbed, running off, then he would have had no time to pull the clothes down, and in any event why would he have wanted to if it were the same killer who killed the other victims they were all left with their clothes up above the waist.

And if Lechmere was the killer there would have been no need for him to pull them down, after all the victim was dead, clothes up or down it would have made no difference to him finding the body. I think you theorising is wrong with regards to this issue, by trying to suggest Lechmere was the killer, and it was he who pulled the clothes down prior to the arrival of Paul.

If he had thought about pulling the clothes down, surely he would have thought about making off, running away from a crime scene is a sign of guilt, staying with a body found at a crime scene is not !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

>>You said that the wound in the neck was not covered, but it would be very odd if it was not since the wounds in the abdomen were. Reasonably, Paul should have seen the gaping hole - it was not pitch dark, since the men saw the bonnet. I therefore suggest that you are wrong, and that the wound in the neck was indeed covered. When Paul left, he pulled the dress down, and the covering of the neck may well have followed suit, so to speak.>>

"I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat." PC Neil

>>Ergo, your point that the wound in the neck was not covered is not a fact.<<

According to an eyewitness it was. I guess that's as near as facts get in this case. Nice try though.

P.S.

"Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." Robert Paul

Mrs Nichols had cuts below the stomach area. If the above quote is accurate (accounts do vary) it is not necessarily a fact that her wounds were covered. Alternately, the wounds may not have yet been affected when Xmere and Paul saw her. That the abdominal wounds were covered, no matter how reasonable it may sound, is just speculation.

So where did you go wrong this time? Ah, yes! You are citing PC Neil, and yes, at the time Neil saw the body, the cut in the neck was uncovered.
But you try to establish that it was uncovered throughout, and that won´t do.
Here is the deal: It is a fact that the wound in the neck was uncovered when Neil arrived. It is not a fact that the wound in the neck was uncovered when Paul arrived. Paul pulled the clothing down, and that may well have uncivered the neck wound.
I trust you can see how that works, and how it would be wrong to say that it is a fact that the wound was uncovered all along.

As for the cherrypicked quote that the clothing was raised almost up to the stomach, there are other quotes putting the dress lower. But you avoided them, for some reason? Anyhow, ALMOST up to the stomach is BELOW the stomach, and the cuts were IN the stomach.
I trust you can see how this works too?

Now, you claim that there were cuts below the stomach. Here´s the inquest wording: "There were no injuries about the body until just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. The wound was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. There were three or four similar cuts running downwards, on the right side, all of which had been caused by a knife which had been used violently and downwards. the injuries were form left to right and might have been done by a left handed person. All the injuries had been caused by the same instrument."

So what are you talking about? Ah - I see: you are referring to how it was said that the "private parts" were stabbed twice. So I don´t think we are talking about cuts, we are talking about stabs. And to what degree they were easy to see would depend on a number ofthings: where they were, how deep and wide they were - and of course, it seems that the clothing was pulled over the vagina as well as over the abdomen. There is no reason at all to suspect anything else. We could, for example, pick another wording than the one you preferred:
Charles Lechmere: "When I found her clothes were up above her knees" (Morning Advertiser).

Your efforts are - as usual - in vain, Dusty. The overall picture is one where the clothing covered the wounds. We´ve been through it all before, and it ends up the same way each time.

[drstrange169]

>>You said that the wound in the neck was not covered, but it would be very odd if it was not since the wounds in the abdomen were. Reasonably, Paul should have seen the gaping hole - it was not pitch dark, since the men saw the bonnet. I therefore suggest that you are wrong, and that the wound in the neck was indeed covered. When Paul left, he pulled the dress down, and the covering of the neck may well have followed suit, so to speak.>>

"I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat." PC Neil

>>Ergo, your point that the wound in the neck was not covered is not a fact.<<

According to an eyewitness it was. I guess that's as near as facts get in this case. Nice try though.

P.S.

"Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." Robert Paul

Mrs Nichols had cuts below the stomach area. If the above quote is accurate (accounts do vary) it is not necessarily a fact that her wounds were covered. Alternately, the wounds may not have yet been affected when Xmere and Paul saw her. That the abdominal wounds were covered, no matter how reasonable it may sound, is just speculation.

[Columbo]

Hi All,

Cross and Paul, both carmen [but not in the same employ], probably had regular work routines. They would leave home at approximately the same time every morning and take the same route to work.

Inquest: "The other man [Paul] left witness [Cross] soon after. Witness had never seen him before."

Why had they not previously met on their way to work?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I wondered that myself. I figured they would cross paths at least once, but it's possible they saw each other but not clear enough to identify each other. Cross seemed very casual or scared enough to reach out to him. Strange.

Columbo

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Cross and Paul, both carmen [but not in the same employ], probably had regular work routines. They would leave home at approximately the same time every morning and take the same route to work.

Inquest: "The other man [Paul] left witness [Cross] soon after. Witness had never seen him before."

Why had they not previously met on their way to work?

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

>>So do you want me to or not? Not, I take it?<<

???

I govern what you do? If I'm in error, surely the point of these forums is to correct errors and misconceptions, you don't need my permission.

Ah! Well, then I will just comment on one point from memory. You said that the wound in the neck was not covered, but it would be very odd if it was not since the wounds in the abdomen were. Reasonably, Paul should have seen the gaping hole - it was not pitch dark, since the men saw the bonnet.
I therefore suggest that you are wrong, and that the wound in the neck was indeed covered.
When Paul left, he pulled the dress down, and the covering of the neck may well have followed suit, so to speak.

Ergo, your point that the wound in the neck was not covered is not a fact.

There were heaps of other examples of faulty statements in your text (there normally is) but I really cannot be bothered to look it up tonight. If I can muster the will to do so, I may do it tomorrow.

[drstrange169]

>>So do you want me to or not? Not, I take it?<<

???

I govern what you do? If I'm in error, surely the point of these forums is to correct errors and misconceptions, you don't need my permission.

[Rainbow]

Aaaand with that, we're done

You asked for it Harry.

[Harry D]

No, he was on his way to kill...

Aaaand with that, we're done. If you are presupposing guilt on the part of Lechmere, then it doesn't matter what any of us say, you will twist it whatever you want to conform it to your unsubstantiated belief.

Harry D: A man who was on his way to work at the time. Nothing unusual there.


Are you now saying that the main trait of serial killers is to adjust to the norm...?

Or are you saying that there are territories where serialists are disallowed to ply their trade? Like the road to work?

Please elaborate.

I'm saying that Lechmere's route to work that day coincided with a murder victim, it didn't cause one. Had a woman been killed in Buck's Row at that time, then a carman on his way to work in the early hours would've naturally been one of the first to discover the body. If not Lechmere, then Paul.