Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[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.

[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.

[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]

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!

[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.

[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]

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...

[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

.

[Rainbow]

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

he simply hadn't any other choice!

This case is closed.

[John Wheat]

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

he simply hadn't any other choice!

This case is closed.

Of course it is a random witness was definitely Jack the Ripper.

[Harry D]

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

.

You mean like in the other murders where no one heard anything?

[Rainbow]

all other murders the victims had been seen with some person or the another soon before they had been butchered.... Tabram, Chapman, Stride, Eddows, Kelly

except with Nichols, no one had seen here after she left except Paul, with her killer..

[Fisherman]

You mean like in the other murders where no one heard anything?

Which murder would that be? Chapmans, where Cadosh heard the thumping sound against the fence, Strides, where Schwartz heard Lis cry out three times or Kelly´s, where two women heard her cry "Oh, murder!"?

Oh, you mean the Eddowes murder! I see!

[Rainbow]

Of course it is a random witness was definitely Jack the Ripper.

Far better than a random murderer who killed his wife like chapman or bury

and far better than a random mad jew who was locked in an asylum like Kosmenski, Levy, Hayam, Cohen, Kamnsky

and far better than a random doctor .......
or a random suicider who happened to kill himself that time...
or a random royal family member.

.

[Harry D]

Which murder would that be? Chapmans, where Cadosh heard the thumping sound against the fence, Strides, where Schwartz heard Lis cry out three times or Kelly´s, where two women heard her cry "Oh, murder!"?

Cadosch heard something. Did he hear the killer?

Schwartz's account is dubious. Mrs. Mortimer was standing outside her door around the time of Stride's murder and she didn't hear a thing.

It was never established that "Oh murder!" emanated from Kelly.