Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

What ? The tarpaulin was useless ?!?!?

It must have been. You said yourself that "The only thing that was left lying around was the rubbish that could not be re-used or traded."

Look, Jon, I think you should stop trying to patronize me. I know quite well that people were poor back then, but I also know that not ALL were poor in the East End. You are painting your canvas with one colour and the same brush, and most people like that. Thatīs how they want their East End - a pack of starving people, fighting in the street over bread crumbs.

Letīs try and be a bit more discriminate.

If it had been a tarpaulin, many people in the East End would have scavenged it.

If Lechmere was telling the truth about things, then he did see it as a tarpaulin, and there is good reason to believe that he may have considered scavenging it.

However, once we accept that Lechmere told the truth, we must accept that it was a coincidence that:

-Paul didnīt hear or see Lechmere.
-Lechmere only heard Paul when he was very close.
-the clothes were covering her wounds.
-he gave the name Cross instead of his real name.
-he told Mizen a story he would not confess to at the inquest.
-he had a working trek that took him past most murder sites.
-he had ties to the rest of the killing fields.
-he would not help propping Nichols up.
-he was in Buckīs Row when he should have been much further down Hanbury Street.

All of these matters must be looked upon as unlucky coincidences, with no significance to the crime.

Do you, Jon, share my view that ANYBODY who is found ALONE by a freshly murdered person MUST be looked upon with suspicion until we can clear them?

If you do, do you consider Lechmere cleared in this respect? Because otherwise, it applies that you need to look at the further developments and see if you can find one single, small anomaly - or heaps of them.

If you accept that ANYBODY who is found ALONE by a freshly murdered person MUST be looked upon with suspicion until we can clear them, and if you DO find anomalies like lies, identity swops and a number of other things - what do you think should be the reaction to such things?

How do you propose to clear Lechmere?

You contradict yourself. Didn`t you just state that the tarpaulin was useless ?

Yes, but that was in an ironic recognition of your own argument, that you seem to have discredited by now - NOT all things left behind WERE useless, apparently.

So, if he lost, damaged or had his Pickford`s tarpaulin he wouldn`t have to pay to cover damages or have it replaced ? Because that`s how it worked in those days. If you lost or damaged company property it was taken out of your wages.

Thatīs one point for you - yes, that is a reason why he could have wanted to scavenge the tarpaulin, admittedly.

Well, 10 feet away from a freshly killed woman.

Donīt even go there. We donīt exactly know how close he was, but we DO know that he was there alone, so he COULD have been by her side previously, stabbing away at her. Nothing else matters.

So, Paul, at 3.30 in the morning trudging to work, was half asleep and not cocking his head like a hawk.
We need to put these things in perspective, it was 3.30 in the morning. !!

It was 3.45. Half asleep? He was late for work and hurrying along, he said so himself. And Lechmere said he would no doubt hear if anybody stirred by the gates of Brownīs, 130 yards away.
Plus the two men would have walked in tandem underneath the brewery lamps in Bath Street.

And the man who said he didnīt hear Paul until very late, was a man who lied about his real name to the police, who conned his way past a PC and who was found totally alone by a freshly killed murder victim, where the wounds to the stomach were covered.

Once again, do you or do you not ascribe any value to such matters in terms of potential guilt?

Quite simply, the best choice would have been to tell the truth.

Even if he was the killer? Can we get real any time soon?

The best,
Fisherman

[Harry D]

If people out here were as objective as possible, they would recognize that being found alone by a freshly slaughtered woman is not an everyday thing. For starters.

I repeat, someone had to find her body.

Believe me - I am. You just present a theory that has more going for it than mine, and Iīll change sides immediately.

What's the use in that? There are none so blind as they who will not see.

Calling it a myth is nailing YOUR colours to the opposite side. How "open-minded" of you!

I'm not the one posturing as some kind of pillar for truth and justice.

But you donīt need to participate if you donīt want to - just leave it to me, and then you can tend to the Torso killer.

You carry on making cheap digs instead of rational debate. We wouldn't want you to lose that caustic 'wit' of yours.

Yeah, but it would not be enough, would it?

Concession accepted.

He has more going for himself than any other suspect, and thatīs fine by me.

Just because you keep saying this tired line, doesn't make it true.

[Fisherman]

The whole point about the tarpaulin is a moot one. It could be that Crossmere was lying through his teeth. That doesn't prove he was the murderer. One could just as easily rationalize that he invented the story because he was afraid of being fitted up for the crime. But nope, much simpler to assume he was the killer and go from there.

Letīs dissect your reasoning here, Harry!

If Lechmere lied through his teeth, it still does not prove that he was the murderer.

Basically correct - it does not prove it. But once people lie to the police, it is a point against their credibility. We can divide the world up in two unequal parts:
1. Those who lie to the police, and
2. Those who donīt lie to the police.

When searching these groups for a percentage of killers, the first group will by far and away contain the largest percentage.

It is therefore more of an indicator of guilt than an indicator of innocence when we can prove a lie to the police.

One could just as easily rationalize that he invented the story because he was afraid of being fitted up for the crime.

Most people who are innocent fail to realize if they are found in a precarious situation, speaking of potential guilt on their behalfs. You must weigh in the fact that IF Lechmere was truthful about when Paul arrived, then he would have considered that he had an alibi for the murder, and so he would not likely lie about anything at all to the police, least of all something as insignificant as identifying a bundle on the ground with a tarpaulin.
Please note that when Lechmere testified, Robert Paul had not yet shown up. If Lechmere walked out into the street in the very moment when Paul came upon the scene, there is no reason not to think that Paul would be able to corroborate what he said about that particular detail.
Lechmere would therefore have no reason to lie, and even people who DO have a reason to lie after having had the bad luck of being found in what could seem a compromising situation normally donīt do so to the police.

But nope, much simpler to assume he was the killer and go from there.

I would say that the opposite applies: It is by far much easier to say that everything was as it was told, end of story. To suggest that he was the killer will have all sorts of people popping up and demanding evidence, and once they are given it they will sneer ignorantly and say "balderdash".

Anyway, Harry, to show you how this works, we need to go a bit further.

We have a man who theoretically lied about things, and we have two suggestions for explanations:

1. He lied to stay out of trouble.
2. He lied because he was the killer.

Is there any detail that can suggest that it is wiser to choose one of these options over the other?
Yes, there is.

There is the geographical distribution of the killings and Lechmereīs treks.

If he was innocent, then it would be very, very unfortunate if his treks seemingly covered the killing grounds. The East End is big, and he could have had his treks just about anywhere.

As it happens, four of the killings coincide exactly with his logical treks to work. Plus the killings along these treks happened roughly at the times when he would have been there, if these were his chosen routes.

To boot, the two remiaining killings took place along other routes where he had lots of living experience and a good reason to visit. And magically, these killings happened earlier, and whaddoyouknow, they took place on a Saturday night, the only day in the week when he would have had plenty of time to visit his mothers place.

So itīs six killings. And the four that took place late, were all along his working route. The two that took place early can be tied to his mothers place.

Do the maths and see how large that chance was! Why did not Tabram, Nichols, Chapman or Kelly die at around 1 AM? Mathematically, it could just as well have been these victims that died early.

Why were not either Stride or Eddowes killed late?

How big is the chance that all of these victims would answer to his logical routes and timings?

Anyway, I hope you get the message - when you need to choose between two options, you look at the surrounding evidence, and you make your call from that position. Not before.

It demands work, knowledge, afterthought and a clear analysis. It is a lot harder, therefore, than it is to just say "Nah, he didnīt do it. Next, please!"

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry D:

I'm not the one posturing as some kind of pillar for truth and justice.

Who has said anything about posturing? Who said anything about "justice"? I said I strive for the truth.

Donīt you?

Just because you keep saying this tired line, doesn't make it true.

Correct - itīs instead the evidence that makes it true.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Deleted - double posting.

[Jon Guy]

It must have been. You said yourself that "The only thing that was left lying around was the rubbish that could not be re-used or traded

Exactly, I dare say that if it had been a tarpaulin it wouldn`t have been lying there much longer. This was 3.45 in the morning, outside some stable gates. If it was still there at 3.45 in the afternoon then it could be described as lying around.

Look, Jon, I think you should stop trying to patronize me.

You mean, like you patronise me ?
It has to work both ways, Christer.
But anyway, unlike your patronising me, it`s not intentional. It`s just that you are asking us to make some huge leaps of faith, going against what we know of the times.

However, once we accept that Lechmere told the truth, we must accept that it was a coincidence that:

-Paul didnīt hear or see Lechmere.

He was half asleep trudging around at 3.30 in the morning, and he did see Cross when he stepped into the middle of the road. I`ve already posted the photo of Paul`s P.O.V. looking up Bucks Row (in daylight it looked gloomy)

-Lechmere only heard Paul when he was very close.

Yes, that make`s sense ?
That would also be when Cross realised he may need assistance, so he would be aware at that point, subconsciously.

-the clothes were covering her wounds.

Well, they were up to her lower abdomen and the killer could have held the skirts up with one hand and worked underneath with the other.

-he gave the name Cross instead of his real name.
.

Yes, the name of his step father, obviously his every day name

--he told Mizen a story he would not confess to at the inquest.
.

There seems to have been a misunderstanding.
Why not Mizen lying because he didn`t react correctly and run to the Bucks Row.

--he had a working trek that took him past most murder sites.
.

Well, we know he went up Hanbury Street with Paul on Aug 31st, and unfortunately, he didn`t pass the murder sites at the times of the murders.

---he had ties to the rest of the killing fields.
.

The killing fields were a tiny area, and nearly anyone can be linked to the area, a bit like that Kevin Bacon game.

Who visits their mum on a Sat night ? Especially a 40year old man ?
Maybe on a Sunday afternoon but on a Sat night ?

---
-he would not help propping Nichols up.

Probably didn`t want to chance getting vomit on himself.

----he was in Buckīs Row when he should have been much further down Hanbury Street.

How did you work this out ?

All of these matters must be looked upon as unlucky coincidences, with no significance to the crime.

No, they can be considered, as everyone who knows about the details has done.

Do you, Jon, share my view that ANYBODY who is found ALONE by a freshly murdered person MUST be looked upon with suspicion until we can clear them? .

He wasn`t found alone by a freshly murdered person, he was seen to be 10ft away. What about all the other witnesses in the other case - was Lewis Jacobs the murderer of McKenzie, did Richardson kill Chapman and so on..

If you do, do you consider Lechmere cleared in this respect? Because otherwise, it applies that you need to look at the further developments and see if you can find one single, small anomaly - or heaps of them.

If you accept that ANYBODY who is found ALONE by a freshly murdered person MUST be looked upon with suspicion until we can clear them, and if you DO find anomalies like lies, identity swops and a number of other things - what do you think should be the reaction to such things?

How do you propose to clear Lechmere.

I know you`ve been trying, but it is for you prove this kindly passer by as a killer.

Yes, but that was in an ironic recognition of your own argument, that you seem to have discredited by now - NOT all things left behind WERE useless, apparently..

But everything has to lie on the ground at some point before it is either left or taken. It was 3.45am in the morning, outside a stable ?!?!

. We donīt exactly know how close he was, but we DO know that he was there alone, so he COULD have been by her side previously, stabbing away at her. Nothing else matters...

So why do you, and your team, constantly write that Cross was seen crouched over the body of a woman ?

It was 3.45. Half asleep? He was late for work and hurrying along, he said so himself.

Yes, we`re not all early riser fisherman like you. It was 3.45 in the morning, that`s unnatural man !!

[QUOTE]
Plus the two men would have walked in tandem underneath the brewery lamps in Bath Street. [QUOTE]

Maybe they didn`t take any notice of each other. I`m not aware of passing people on the way to work this morning, but I must have.

[QUOTE]
Once again, do you or do you not ascribe any value to such matters in terms of potential guilt?[QUOTE]

No.
Christer, we will never know who the murderer is. We should just accept it. There still loads of interest and research that can be done.

[MrBarnett]

But Fish, the important thing is where he met the women, not where he killed them. Isn't it more likely that they were walking up and down the major thoroughfares looking for business?

Would you really have us believe that Nichols was soliciting in Bucks Row and Tabram in Wentworth Street? Isn't Whitechapel High Street/Road more likely?

Similarly for Chapman and Kelly, Commercial Street makes more sense than Hanbury or Dorset Streets.

I'll pass over the suggestion that Mitre Square was close to Cable Street , or directly on the route between Berners Street and Eldon Street.

And to get back on topic, Lech had a perfectly legitimate reason for being in Bucks Row at approximately that time in the morning. If he'd been found any distance away, that would have been suspicious. Hutchinson, on the other hand was by his own admission loitering (not lurking) outside the apartment of a known prostitute who was entertaining a wealthy-looking customer. He was there for whatever purpose, BECAUSE KELLY WAS THERE. And that is intrinsically more suspicious than Lech being on his normal work route.

MrB

[Abby Normal]

The tarp is a moot point. If innocent, its a perfectly normal thing to think at first. If guilty, its not an unreasonable thing to think up as a lie to act like you stumbled upon the body.

Id like to know what Lech and Fish think about how lech first happened upon Polly. We last see her leaving a friend walking east on Whitechapel Road around 2:35. She's very drunk and actively looking for doss money (actively prostituting). An Hour later she is dead in Bucks row.

Where did lech find her?
Did he come upon her in bucks row on his normal route?
Was he actively searching for a victim?
Did he go off his normal route to go down Whitechapel road because its a busier road where he is more likely to find a prostitute/victim?
If so is there enough time to find Polly there, engage her, walk to Bucks row and kill her?
Do the time frames add up?
When did he leave his house so the times do match up?
Did he really leave earlier than he said?
Does he bring his Knife with him every time he goes to work, on the chance he comes across a potential victim?

And finally-this is a big one for me-is it realistic that a serial killer, after having such a close call, being dragged to an inquest and now known to the police would venture out again only a week later and kill again?

Would like to know Fish and lech's thoughts on these questions.

[Abby Normal]

But Fish, the important thing is where he met the women, not where he killed them. Isn't it more likely that they were walking up and down the major thoroughfares looking for business?

Would you really have us believe that Nichols was soliciting in Bucks Row and Tabram in Wentworth Street? Isn't Whitechapel High Street/Road more likely?

Similarly for Chapman and Kelly, Commercial Street makes more sense than Hanbury or Dorset Streets.

I'll pass over the suggestion that Mitre Square was close to Cable Street , or directly on the route between Berners Street and Eldon Street.

And to get back on topic, Lech had a perfectly legitimate reason for being in Bucks Row at approximately that time in the morning. If he'd been found any distance away, that would have been suspicious. Hutchinson, on the other hand was by his own admission loitering (not lurking) outside the apartment of a known prostitute who was entertaining a wealthy-looking customer. He was there for whatever purpose, BECAUSE KELLY WAS THERE. And that is intrinsically more suspicious than Lech being on his normal work route.

MrB

Great post MrB
Great point about it being more suspicious that he would be found with a victim OFF his normal route. My previous post was hoping to uncover stuff just like that.

and great comparison between Hutch and Lech and why they were near the victim. I totally agree-INTRINSICALLY (great use of the word) more suspicious is hutchs reason.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: Exactly, I dare say that if it had been a tarpaulin it wouldn`t have been lying there much longer. This was 3.45 in the morning, outside some stable gates. If it was still there at 3.45 in the afternoon then it could be described as lying around.

Me no buy - if itīs left lying unguarded, itīs left lying around. But letīs leave it lying!

It`s just that you are asking us to make some huge leaps of faith, going against what we know of the times.

Not at all - we have Booths listings, for example, telling us that there were even people who kept servants in the East End, and others were pretty well off. Roughly speaking, people in general were dirt poor, but letīs use a bit nuancing at times, shall we? Otherwise, weīll end up thinking that no man in an Astrkhan coat could traverse the East End unscathed. It is not true, and it never was.

He was half asleep trudging around at 3.30 in the morning, and he did see Cross when he stepped into the middle of the road. I`ve already posted the photo of Paul`s P.O.V. looking up Bucks Row (in daylight it looked gloomy)

Yeah, yeah - very funny. People who are late for work and who are half running, are people with a focus. They are wide awake. And no, Paul never saw Lechmere step into the street.

Yes, that make`s sense ?
That would also be when Cross realised he may need assistance, so he would be aware at that point, subconsciously.

No, that does not make sense. Not when Lechmere tells us that there was no way that he would miss out on a sound coming from Browns. That means that he was alert enough as he walked down the street. And thirty, forty yards after he turned into the street, being alert enough to hear anything down at Browns, Paul turned into Buckīs Row. Then Lechmere and Paul walked ninety yards down the street, simultaneously, and the man who said that he would hear anything stirring down at Browns didnīt manage to hear that somebody was very close behind him.

So no, it makes no sense at all. There was a LONG period of simultanously walking with a small distance inbetween them, and neither man heard the other.

Well, they were up to her lower abdomen and the killer could have held the skirts up with one hand and worked underneath with the other.

But if so, it was the ONLY occasion where this occurred (he is SUCH an unlucky fellow, Lechmere!). In ALL other occasions, the clothes were thrown away from the abdomen to allow for access. So there is an anomaly to explain here . why would he work with his hands under the clothes in the first place? It would be distinctly awkward, plus it would deny him direct access to see the abdomen and easily feel it. It was the area he really liked, so why would he hide it from himself?

At any rate - itīs another deviance from all the other evisceration sites.

Yes, the name of his step father, obviously his every day name.

I wonīt grace that with an answer. Obviously

There seems to have been a misunderstanding.
Why not Mizen lying because he didn`t react correctly and run to the Bucks Row.

No, there was no misunderstanding. Mizen did not run because he was never told that it was a serious errand. If Lechmere had said that the woman was dead or dying, THEN Mizen would have run. The answer to the riddle is in Mizenīs reactions.

Well, we know he went up Hanbury Street with Paul on Aug 31st, and unfortunately, he didn`t pass the murder sites at the times of the murders.

If Phillips was correct - and the police thought he was - the he DID pass Hanbury Street at the murder time, more or less.

The killing fields were a tiny area, and nearly anyone can be linked to the area, a bit like that Kevin Bacon game.

No, the killing fields were not a tiny area, it involved hundreds of streets and the two furthest apart killings were divided by around a kilometre as the crow flies. And very few people traversed it at 3.45 in the morning. Plus there was a geographical scattering that ensures that only the fewest had reason to visit all sites.

Who visits their mum on a Sat night ? Especially a 40 year old man ?
Maybe on a Sunday afternoon but on a Sat night ?

The quality of your answers, Jon - really!

His daughter lived with his mum, and Saturday night was his only night off. Plus he may have helped out with the catīs meat business.

Probably didn`t want to chance getting vomit on himself.

Thereīs desperation for you. He could have lifted her from behind - it would have been the best option anyway.

How did you work this out ?

By walking Doveton Street-Buckīs Row in seven minutes.

No, they can be considered, as everyone who knows about the details has done.

Aha. They can be considered. And THEN they are regarded as coincidences, right?

He wasn`t found alone by a freshly murdered person, he was seen to be 10ft away. What about all the other witnesses in the other case - was Lewis Jacobs the murderer of McKenzie, did Richardson kill Chapman and so on..

Every person that is found alone by the body of a freshly killed victim must be viewed as a potential suspect. That is all we need to know. After that, what they say and what can be found out governs how to move on.

But you didnīt answer my question. Please do.

I know you`ve been trying, but it is for you prove this kindly passer by as a killer.

... and for you to prove him kindly.

So why do you, and your team, constantly write that Cross was seen crouched over the body of a woman ?

Please show me where I wrote that.

Yes, we`re not all early riser fisherman like you. It was 3.45 in the morning, that`s unnatural man !!

Not to somebody who works that shift. Of course.

Plus the two men would have walked in tandem underneath the brewery lamps in Bath Street.

Maybe they didn`t take any notice of each other. I`m not aware of passing people on the way to work this morning, but I must have.

Oh, please...!

Once again, do you or do you not ascribe any value to such matters in terms of potential guilt?

No.

That disqualifies you as a sleuth, then.

Christer, we will never know who the murderer is. We should just accept it. There still loads of interest and research that can be done.

I have a different view, Jon. Maybe you should just accept that.

the best,
Fisherman

[Harry D]

All of these points have been debated ad nauseam in several topics during the height of Lechmania. Until Fisherman and his cohorts can answer the key points I raised before, their theory has no leg to stand on.

Did Crossmere have the anatomical knowledge/skill for the crimes? And saying he must've acquired it because he was Ripper is begging the question.

Does Crossmere have any previous form for violence or criminality? In the main, most perpetrators begin with some kind of minor offence and escalate from there. There are always exceptions, of course, but it appears that prior to and after finding Polly Nichols, Crossmere lived an ordinary life with no grounds for suspicion at all.

And, last but by no means least, why did Crossmere stop after the Whitechapel murders? And if he didn't, then link him to subsequent murders.

[Fisherman]

But Fish, the important thing is where he met the women, not where he killed them. Isn't it more likely that they were walking up and down the major thoroughfares looking for business?

Would you really have us believe that Nichols was soliciting in Bucks Row and Tabram in Wentworth Street? Isn't Whitechapel High Street/Road more likely?

Similarly for Chapman and Kelly, Commercial Street makes more sense than Hanbury or Dorset Streets.

I'll pass over the suggestion that Mitre Square was close to Cable Street , or directly on the route between Berners Street and Eldon Street.

And to get back on topic, Lech had a perfectly legitimate reason for being in Bucks Row at approximately that time in the morning. If he'd been found any distance away, that would have been suspicious. Hutchinson, on the other hand was by his own admission loitering (not lurking) outside the apartment of a known prostitute who was entertaining a wealthy-looking customer. He was there for whatever purpose, BECAUSE KELLY WAS THERE. And that is intrinsically more suspicious than Lech being on his normal work route.

MrB

Once again, the important factor is that the victims were found very close to his treks. They could have been picked up there, or close to them.

Unless you are suggesting that they were picked up in Honolulu, Prague and Ulan Bator and then collected dead along Lechmereīs treks?

What we speculate is of little consequence to the matter. They were found on his routes and that is significant when you investigate him.

The best,
Fisherman

[barnflatwyngarde]

Would the world be a calmer place if I had never mentioned the bl***y tarpaulin?

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

Where did lech find her?
My guess is Whitechapel road.
Did he come upon her in bucks row on his normal route?
He could have. We just donīt know.
Was he actively searching for a victim?
Who can say? Since I think he went down to Whitechapel Road, my own guess is yes, he was. But if he found her in Buckīs Row, then itīs another matter, perhaps.
Did he go off his normal route to go down Whitechapel road because its a busier road where he is more likely to find a prostitute/victim?
Once more, I think he looked for prey, and made a deviation from his normal road choice. But I canīt be sure, and what I think is therefore neither here nor there, unfortunately. Itīs a hunch, nothing else.
If so is there enough time to find Polly there, engage her, walk to Bucks row and kill her?
Yes.
Do the time frames add up?
Yes.
When did he leave his house so the times do match up?
3.20-3.30 was what he said. It takes six or seven minutes to reach Buckīs Row. From Buckīs Row/Brady Street, it takes less than a minute down to Whitechapel Road.
Did he really leave earlier than he said?
He could have, but he neednīt have.
Does he bring his Knife with him every time he goes to work, on the chance he comes across a potential victim?
He brings it every day, since it is something he needs to cut the harness of his horses in an event of an accident.

And finally-this is a big one for me-is it realistic that a serial killer, after having such a close call, being dragged to an inquest and now known to the police would venture out again only a week later and kill again?

Wrong question. Serial killers will differ. The right question is if there are examples of brazen serialists who have killed although they knew that the police were onto them. And the answer to that one is yes.

Would like to know Fish and lech's thoughts on these questions.

I can only give my own answers. Iīm sure Edward will chime in and give his.

the best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal:

Where did lech find her?
My guess is Whitechapel road.
Did he come upon her in bucks row on his normal route?
He could have. We just donīt know.
Was he actively searching for a victim?
Who can say? Since I think he went down to Whitechapel Road, my own guess is yes, he was. But if he found her in Buckīs Row, then itīs another matter, perhaps.
Did he go off his normal route to go down Whitechapel road because its a busier road where he is more likely to find a prostitute/victim?
Once more, I think he looked for prey, and made a deviation from his normal road choice. But I canīt be sure, and what I think is therefore neither here nor there, unfortunately. Itīs a hunch, nothing else.
If so is there enough time to find Polly there, engage her, walk to Bucks row and kill her?
Yes.
Do the time frames add up?
Yes.
When did he leave his house so the times do match up?
3.20-3.30 was what he said. It takes six or seven minutes to reach Buckīs Row. From Buckīs Row/Brady Street, it takes less than a minute down to Whitechapel Road.
Did he really leave earlier than he said?
He could have, but he neednīt have.
Does he bring his Knife with him every time he goes to work, on the chance he comes across a potential victim?
He brings it every day, since it is something he needs to cut the harness of his horses in an event of an accident.

And finally-this is a big one for me-is it realistic that a serial killer, after having such a close call, being dragged to an inquest and now known to the police would venture out again only a week later and kill again?

Wrong question. Serial killers will differ. The right question is if there are examples of brazen serialists who have killed although they knew that the police were onto them. And the answer to that one is yes.

Would like to know Fish and lech's thoughts on these questions.

I can only give my own answers. Iīm sure Edward will chime in and give his.

the best,
Fisherman

Thanks Fish-perfectly reasonable responses.

If he finds her on Whitechapel road-as you hunch-he obviously takes her to bucks row. which happens to be his normal route to work.

Just happens to be his normal route to work. Pretty lucky that-No?
or is he so cunning he planned that too?

Not being facetious-it just struck me as either really good luck, really REALLY good planning, or both.