Consciousness of Guilt: Buck's Row

[Rob1n]

Certainly Jack took a lot of chances, just thinking about Mitre sq., he had so little time to do "his work" he must have known about or heard the police patrol/s and their frequency yet, he did what he did, Eddows had been seen with a Man not long before the Murder, if it was him then he'd been seen - he doesn't seem to care, alright we know he'd just done the Stride murder so he must have been raging at his failure so, he must have been so mad that he HAD to do a proper job and he must have had to do it the same night or he'd have failed his task?

He too, probably knew that some if not most warehouses had some sort of Night watchmen and indeed, there was one very close by yet he still did what he did! Now either he was a cocksure chap or he was completely insane and didn't give a tuppenny damn if he was caught or not.

I'd imagine that when the urge arises and you see Red then, you do what you do and don't even think about the consequences- whoever he was he was obviously totally mad, I've often wondered if say, one of the constables on Mitre sq or indeed, any witness attempted to challenge the Ripper, would he (JTR) have gone hand to hand with them and sliced them? It had occurred to me that he may well have been seen but, would someone want to take him on knowing what he was capable of?
Armed with just a trucheon or nothing at all, in a dark dank corner of some secluded square, Buggered if I'd take a mad Man on! Just a thought😳

[Elamarna]

Tin helmet on.

Don't I know it!!

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I sincerely hope that we will see a distinction in your reasearch results -

that it will not just be the same old "anyone could have done it".

Best wishes, Pierre

Pierre
It won't be anyone, because that is not what I am looking at


I am specifically looking at the wounds and conditions in Bucks row, and how these may or may not link to other murders.


Will it name a killer?

No

Will it exclude certain individuals?


It will probably give a probability of Lechmere being the killer as either high or low based on the medical evidence.

Until I finish I cannot rule out the possibility that the timings may be too close to call, but my initial opinions are not looking like that.

I intend to supply the data in a decent form, obviously with some initial comments.

I will then allow all on here to comment, before I reach any final conclusion.



Steve

[Fisherman]

when I am done will open all up on the forums to let others comment before i make my final conclusions.

steve

Tin helmet on.

[Fisherman]

He might be clear, but it sadly doesn't mean he was accurate. On the other hand, my half-remembered idea of Sgt Kirby's "traversal" might be precisely what we're after; if only I could find the specific reference. I'm sure it's in one of my book-books* somehwere...

* "Book-books" are what I call books of the non-electronic variety. Lovely to look at, a pleasure to hold, but hellish difficult to search through.

I know the feeling. I saw the pile of newspaper clippings at my office on the murder of prime minister Palme before it was all computerized. Thereīs a book-book (or pile-pile) if ever I saw one.

As you say, clarity does not equal accuracy, so letīs hope you can find the Kirby source. Itīs annoying when you know itīs there somewhere, and you cannot pin it down...

[Pierre]

The timings you give I broadly agree with, and have said more than once the I consider Lechmere to be viable.

when I am done will open all up on the forums to let others comment before i make my final conclusions.

steve

Hi Steve,

I sincerely hope that we will see a distinction in your reasearch results -

that it will not just be the same old "anyone could have done it".

Best wishes, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Iīm fine for now, doing the math. If we work from a perspective where Paul arrived at 03.45 hours, then he will have walked the street down first for a minute, at least. That makes it 03.44. Lechmere was in place 30-40 yards before him, that another half a minute, 03.43.30. The cutting and covering up would have taken perhaps a further minute, taking us to 03.42.30.
You say three to four minutes at most, in your estimation. If three is the figure, then the killer got up and walked away when Lechmere was halfway down Bucks Row - IF it was somebody else than Lechmere that did the killing. If four minutes apply, then there is room for another killer - only just. If it was two minutes, then Lechmere killed Nichols.

I canīt help but to think that it seems you have full respect for the possibility that Charles Lechmere may have been the killer of Polly Nichols.

The timings you give I broadly agree with, and have said more than once the I consider Lechmere to be viable.

when I am done will open all up on the forums to let others comment before i make my final conclusions.


steve

[Sam Flynn]

Heīs pretty clear, though: "... it was given in evidence that only a quarter of an hour before the discovery of the body the row had been traversed by others."

He might be clear, but it sadly doesn't mean he was accurate. On the other hand, my half-remembered idea of Sgt Kirby's "traversal" might be precisely what we're after; if only I could find the specific reference. I'm sure it's in one of my book-books* somehwere...

* "Book-books" are what I call books of the non-electronic variety. Lovely to look at, a pleasure to hold, but hellish difficult to search through.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Not sure that's the case, especially with press deadlines to meet.

I am very sure, regardless of the deadlines. Iīve been ajournalist all my life, and much as I have seen blunders, they are extremely rare when comparing to how much is correct.

Besides, there seems to be no other reference to this 3:30 "traversal" anywhere else, so perhaps the journalist really was thinking of either Kirby and/or Neil all along, and over-generalised the timings. It will be interesting, of course, if anything else turns up.

Heīs pretty clear, though: "... it was given in evidence that only a quarter of an hour before the discovery of the body the row had been traversed by others."

So he is not mistaking what he has heard, he is claiming that it was given in evidence by somebody.
As it stands, it seems it is a mistake of sorts, but it remains of interest.

Cheers, Fish

My pleasure!

[Fisherman]

At the moment yes, but that could still change, I mean the cut which was the cut which meant she would bleed out, be that abdomen or throat.

To be more precise, its the first major cut.

sorry cant be more precise at present .

ask anything you like and if I can answer I will

steve

Iīm fine for now, doing the math. If we work from a perspective where Paul arrived at 03.45 hours, then he will have walked the street down first for a minute, at least. That makes it 03.44. Lechmere was in place 30-40 yards before him, that another half a minute, 03.43.30. The cutting and covering up would have taken perhaps a further minute, taking us to 03.42.30.
You say three to four minutes at most, in your estimation. If three is the figure, then the killer got up and walked away when Lechmere was halfway down Bucks Row - IF it was somebody else than Lechmere that did the killing. If four minutes apply, then there is room for another killer - only just. If it was two minutes, then Lechmere killed Nichols.

I canīt help but to think that it seems you have full respect for the possibility that Charles Lechmere may have been the killer of Polly Nichols.

[Sam Flynn]

Of course it happens. But mistakes are less common than getting it right, quite simply.

Not sure that's the case, especially with press deadlines to meet. Besides, there seems to be no other reference to this 3:30 "traversal" anywhere else, so perhaps the journalist really was thinking of either Kirby and/or Neil all along, and over-generalised the timings. It will be interesting, of course, if anything else turns up.

I donīt see you as the vindictive type, so Iīll take your word for how you are not plotting anything sinister against the Lancet.

Cheers, Fish

[Elamarna]

Fair enough. I will have a question or two for you. Maybe even three... A question: When you say " I have No doubt at all the murder cut occurred within at most 3-4 minutes of Paul's arrival", can I take it "the murder cut" is the neck cut?

At the moment yes, but that could still change, I mean the cut which was the cut which meant she would bleed out, be that abdomen or throat.

To be more precise, its the first major cut.

sorry cant be more precise at present .

ask anything you like and if I can answer I will

steve

[Elamarna]

I have every right when he accuses me, and does the self same thing himself. What are his credentials that make him any more of an expert than the experts. He like anyone else is entitled to give their opinions but not at the expense of slagging another off for purportedly doing the same. He like you is just another armchair detective, both of you with no credentials, at least I have a proven track record.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor claim what ever you like, as opinion, as I did in that post, just don't present such as fact, and I will not say a word.

Its only when you insist that your view is the only possible answer that i say anything, that is not slagging off, that is putting forward the reasoned alternative view.


I made it clear in the op and my follow up post that it was MY view: "I have no doubt" were the words used, not there is no doubt or it is clear or anything to suggest it is an authoritative view.



I spent 35 years working in research, I have never claimed I am more expert than the "experts" you use .

However it is evident I am far more expert on matters of science and medicine than yourself. I am sure you are far more expert on law than me.


Someone appears to be suffering bruised ego issues.

cheers


steve

[Fisherman]

Unless they themselves (one or both) were the selfsame folk who traversed Bucks Row at approximately that time, especially if the journalist miscalculated or misheard[*].


[* It does happen, Fish, and I'm not pursuing a vendetta against the Lancet, I promise you. Far from it; I used to be a subscriber.]

Of course it happens. But mistakes are less common than getting it right, quite simply.
I donīt see you as the vindictive type, so Iīll take your word for how you are not plotting anything sinister against the Lancet.

[Fisherman]

I have every right when he accuses me, and does the self same thing himself. What are his credentials that make him any more of an expert than the experts. He like anyone else is entitled to give their opinions but not at the expense of slagging another off for purportedly doing the same. He like you is just another armchair detective, both of you with no credentials, at least I have a proven track record.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Go away.