The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Patrick S]

Yes! But nobody wants to read the word "running", since it dissolves the wanted picture produced by "oozing". As I have said before, the initital interviews - discareded by people who prefer "oozed" - have Neil saying that the wound bled "profusely".


Plus we have Neil saying the blood was running. And we have Mizen saying the blood was running.

But non of these parameters are allowed to come into play.

We have scores of examples on the net of people writing "oozed profusely".

But that parameter is also disallowed. We only want Neils "oozed" to rule the day, and it MUST have meant trickled very slowly, it can NOT have meant "welled out of the neck with no underlying pressure", in spite of how Neil says that the blood was running in the next sentence.

Itīs a game of pick and choose, and just the one word is picked, and the right to interpret it belongs to those who will never accept that the blood was running.

There will not have been any cascade of blood when Neil and Mizen looked at her, for the simple reason that there was not much blood in the pool. It probably flowed gently but steadily. But no matter how much blood came from the wound per second, it remains that it exited the body through a gaping hole, and it would therefore for reasons of gravitation have been over in a matter of minutes, more likely three or five minutes than seven, as per Payne-James.

That is all I have to say on the issue.

Well. I think that if the blood was running, perhaps if was even only oozing then Robert Paul was correct. Nichols was breathing, if only barely when Lechmere called him over to have a look at her. The killer had throttled her, heard Lechmere arrive, hid nearby, emerged when they left and finished her off. Thus, Neil DID find a VERY 'freshly killed' Polly Nichols. Maybe it's time we start looking at people who lived in Buck's Row? Someone who picked up Nichols, choked her out, darted inside and watched Lechmere and Paul fiddle about, popped out when they left and finished up?

[Abby Normal]

Well. I think that if the blood was running, perhaps if was even only oozing then Robert Paul was correct. Nichols was breathing, if only barely when Lechmere called him over to have a look at her. The killer had throttled her, heard Lechmere arrive, hid nearby, emerged when they left and finished her off. Thus, Neil DID find a VERY 'freshly killed' Polly Nichols. Maybe it's time we start looking at people who lived in Buck's Row? Someone who picked up Nichols, choked her out, darted inside and watched Lechmere and Paul fiddle about, popped out when they left and finished up?

So comes back cuts her throat, mutilates her abdomen and takes off all before PC Neil arrives? Makes the lech theory seem pedestrian by comparison.

[Patrick S]

So comes back cuts her throat, mutilates her abdomen and takes off all before PC Neil arrives? Makes the lech theory seem pedestrian by comparison.

Eh. Both equally out there, I think. But, I'm going to go with it...for now.

Remember, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." And, if Neil said the blood was RUNNING "profusely" how can we ignore that? How could blood have been running profusely when Neil arrived after we know that Lechmere and Paul arrived even before he did.....and they saw nothing. Remember, Paul and Lechmere saw no wounds, no visible blood. That could be explained if she had no wounds, correct? Further, it could explain why Paul thought he detected a 'slight movement'. She was alive...dying. They left, Saucy Jack pops out, cuts her throat, starts work on the mutilations....hears those distinctive PC foot-falls of Neil....and off he goes again. It stands to reason that if - as Christer maintains - Lechmere had virtually no blood on him and therefore had nothing to fear from tapping Paul on the shoulder, casually chatting up Mizen, that THIS Jack could have gone inside, cleaned off his knife, put it back in the butchers block, washed up, and gone out to see what all the fuss was about.

This is making more sense all the time. Who wants to be my literary agent? Who would have thought that what started as a tongue-in-cheek response would have led to Lechmere's exoneration and the likely solution to Ripper murders?

[Patrick S]

So comes back cuts her throat, mutilates her abdomen and takes off all before PC Neil arrives? Makes the lech theory seem pedestrian by comparison.

In all seriousness. I disagree. I think I could successfully defend this theory as being MORE plausible then the Lechmere theory.

[Rainbow]

After reading all of this , I believe Lechmere had picked up an amazing choice when he did not run away that night..

Such a choice granted him a lifelong innocence!


Rainbow°

[Patrick S]

If Polly Nichols the first victim of Jack the Ripper, then we must consider that she was killed at the doorstep of James Green, who lived with his mother, sister, and brother at New Cottage, Buck’s Row, literally above the exact spot where Polly Nichols was murdered on August 30, 1888. It was James Green who washed the blood from the pavement after Nichols’ body had been removed to the mortuary.

Charles Cross (Lechmere) passed through Buck’s Row at approximately 3:45am on August 30, 1888. He saw on the ground the body of woman, lying almost directly in front of the building in which James Green lived. Cross heard another man, Robert Paul, approaching. He and Paul inspected the body. They found the woman’s exposed face and hands cold. Paul also tells us that he noticed the woman’s “clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down". Paul felt that the woman may be alive, as he detected “a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint.” The two men noticed no wounds. They saw no blood. The men agreed to leave the woman where she was and to continue on together until they found a police officer.

A few moments later PC John Neil passed through Bucks Row, as he had just thirty minutes prior. He too noticed the woman lying on the pavement. He described his actions at the inquest the following day:

“(I) noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards. Her eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was off and lying at her side, close to the left hand. I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle.” Neil would go on to describe what he saw further, “There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck.”

Shortly after 4:00am Dr. Henry Llewellyn arrived in Buck’s Row. He found that the victim's “hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm”.

Let’s pause here to examine the facts as they’ve been related to us by those who were present in Buck’s Row on August 30, 1888.

-At approximately 3:20am PC John Neil passes through Buck’s Row. He sees “no one”.

-At around 3:45am Cross and Paul found Polly Nichols – perhaps alive, perhaps not – lying on the pavement in Buck’s Row, mere feet from James Green’s home. Paul tells us that her clothes were “disarranged” and the he “helped to pull them down”.

-Some few minutes after Cross and Paul leave the body in Buck’s Row to find a policeman (likely around 3:50am), PC Neil again passes through Buck’s Row. He sees Nichols’ body and, with the aid of his lamp, discovers a neck wound that he describes as “oozing”, blood “running” from it to a pool beneath the neck. Neil notices that the woman’s arms is “quite warm”. Strangely, Neil tells us that Nichol’s was “lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged”, even though Paul claims to have “helped to pull them down” just moments before.

-Dr. Llewellyn arrives just after 4:00am. He too finds the woman’s body and “lower extremities” warm.

The evidence STRONGLY suggests that Polly Nichols was likely either unconscious or dead from strangulation when Cross and Paul inspected the body at 3:45am and saw no wounds or blood. The man who throttled her and began his sexual assault (before hearing Cross approach), pulling her clothing up in “disarrangement”, was now hidden safely indoors. He waited for the two men to leave. Knowing he had several minutes before Neil again came through Buck’s Row (he had observed and timed Neil’s beat since the PC passed directly in front of his home) he returned to the body, cut her throat, again “disarranging” her clothing in order to begin mutilating her abdomen (wounds which would be discovered at the mortuary later that morning). Upon hearing the footsteps of PC Neil he again retreated indoors, to the safety of his home. Although, he did return to the murder scene later to wash the blood from the pavement in front of his family’s home.

James Green was Jack the Ripper.

James Green’s first victim was Polly Nichols. It has been established that serial killers often take their first victim close the safety of home. In this case, literally upon the killer’s doorstep. His next victim was Annie Chapman, a half mile away at 29 Hanbury Street. He then killed Katherine Eddowes, just less than a mile from his home in Buck’s Row, in Mitre Square. His final victim was Mary Kelly, killed in her room in Miller’s Court, again, just less than a mile from James Greens front door.

[John G]

If Polly Nichols the first victim of Jack the Ripper, then we must consider that she was killed at the doorstep of James Green, who lived with his mother, sister, and brother at New Cottage, Buck’s Row, literally above the exact spot where Polly Nichols was murdered on August 30, 1888. It was James Green who washed the blood from the pavement after Nichols’ body had been removed to the mortuary.

Charles Cross (Lechmere) passed through Buck’s Row at approximately 3:45am on August 30, 1888. He saw on the ground the body of woman, lying almost directly in front of the building in which James Green lived. Cross heard another man, Robert Paul, approaching. He and Paul inspected the body. They found the woman’s exposed face and hands cold. Paul also tells us that he noticed the woman’s “clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down". Paul felt that the woman may be alive, as he detected “a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint.” The two men noticed no wounds. They saw no blood. The men agreed to leave the woman where she was and to continue on together until they found a police officer.

A few moments later PC John Neil passed through Bucks Row, as he had just thirty minutes prior. He too noticed the woman lying on the pavement. He described his actions at the inquest the following day:

“(I) noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards. Her eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was off and lying at her side, close to the left hand. I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle.” Neil would go on to describe what he saw further, “There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck.”

Shortly after 4:00am Dr. Henry Llewellyn arrived in Buck’s Row. He found that the victim's “hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm”.

Let’s pause here to examine the facts as they’ve been related to us by those who were present in Buck’s Row on August 30, 1888.

-At approximately 3:20am PC John Neil passes through Buck’s Row. He sees “no one”.

-At around 3:45am Cross and Paul found Polly Nichols – perhaps alive, perhaps not – lying on the pavement in Buck’s Row, mere feet from James Green’s home. Paul tells us that her clothes were “disarranged” and the he “helped to pull them down”.

-Some few minutes after Cross and Paul leave the body in Buck’s Row to find a policeman (likely around 3:50am), PC Neil again passes through Buck’s Row. He sees Nichols’ body and, with the aid of his lamp, discovers a neck wound that he describes as “oozing”, blood “running” from it to a pool beneath the neck. Neil notices that the woman’s arms is “quite warm”. Strangely, Neil tells us that Nichol’s was “lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged”, even though Paul claims to have “helped to pull them down” just moments before.

-Dr. Llewellyn arrives just after 4:00am. He too finds the woman’s body and “lower extremities” warm.

The evidence STRONGLY suggests that Polly Nichols was likely either unconscious or dead from strangulation when Cross and Paul inspected the body at 3:45am and saw no wounds or blood. The man who throttled her and began his sexual assault (before hearing Cross approach), pulling her clothing up in “disarrangement”, was now hidden safely indoors. He waited for the two men to leave. Knowing he had several minutes before Neil again came through Buck’s Row (he had observed and timed Neil’s beat since the PC passed directly in front of his home) he returned to the body, cut her throat, again “disarranging” her clothing in order to begin mutilating her abdomen (wounds which would be discovered at the mortuary later that morning). Upon hearing the footsteps of PC Neil he again retreated indoors, to the safety of his home. Although, he did return to the murder scene later to wash the blood from the pavement in front of his family’s home.

James Green was Jack the Ripper.

James Green’s first victim was Polly Nichols. It has been established that serial killers often take their first victim close the safety of home. In this case, literally upon the killer’s doorstep. His next victim was Annie Chapman, a half mile away at 29 Hanbury Street. He then killed Katherine Eddowes, just less than a mile from his home in Buck’s Row, in Mitre Square. His final victim was Mary Kelly, killed in her room in Miller’s Court, again, just less than a mile from James Greens front door.

This is a very interesting hypothesis! I'm going to have to give it some thought.

[David Orsam]

But nobody wants to read the word "running", since it dissolves the wanted picture produced by "oozing".

Or it's you who does not want to read the word "oozing" because you prefer "running", wrongly thinking that it carries a different meaning.

If you care to consult a dictionary you will see that "running" does not "dissolve" the meaning of "oozing". Any liquid that oozes is also running.

PC Neil used the word "oozing" so that's obviously what he saw when he looked at the blood.

[David Orsam]

We have scores of examples on the net of people writing "oozed profusely".

But no witnesses testified that the blood of Nichols "oozed profusely" so what does it matter what you find on the internet?

[David Orsam]

We only want Neils "oozed" to rule the day, and it MUST have meant trickled very slowly,

Well that is what "ooze" means – to flow slowly or gently - so that must be what Neil saw.

[David Orsam]

Baxter does not stop Neil and say, "PC Neil. Earlier in your testimony you used the term "oozing". Now you say the blood was "running". These two terms create very different impressions. Which was it now? Oozing? Running? Are you simply trying to tell us that you observed that blood HAD flowed from the neck wound to this pool you describe or was it actively RUNNING, as you now say? Or was it OOZING, as you said earlier? This is important, PC Neil. Think."

Clearly, Baxter took no notice of Neil's contradiction

But there was no contradiction....hence Baxter's perfectly normal reaction.

"oozing" and "running" might create different impressions to you but they don't to me. Something which is oozing is also, by definition, flowing (slowly) and is, therefore, also running.

Having already testified that the blood was "oozing" I fail to see why Neil needed to expand on the meaning of the word "running". The meaning can be found in a dictionary.

[Rainbow]

Amazing !

He went looking for a victim, then he brought her back to kill her infront of his own door, so he can hide easily !

Fantastic!

[Patrick S]

But there was no contradiction....hence Baxter's perfectly normal reaction.

"oozing" and "running" might create different impressions to you but they don't to me. Something which is oozing is also, by definition, flowing (slowly) and is, therefore, also running.

Having already testified that the blood was "oozing" I fail to see why Neil needed to expand on the meaning of the word "running". The meaning can be found in a dictionary.

My main point is how little this tells us. The "blood evidence" consists - from what I gather - two words: running and oozing. You say they mean the same thing and I'll accept that for the purpose of this conversation, whether I agree or not. The main issue is that nothing was expanded upon. No useful information with respect to blood was related. Was it running? Was it oozing? I don't know, mainly because no one really seems to have cared much about blood in 1888 (which is understandable as science then isn't what science is now). Llewellyn didn't. Baxter didn't. Yet...somehow we have this 'blood evidence'. And it's based on two words...which mean the same thing.

[Patrick S]

Amazing !

He went looking for a victim, then he brought her back to kill her infront of his own door, so he can hide easily !

Fantastic!

More fantastic than killing her, waiting for the fellow 40 yards behind you in the dark to catch up, beg him to come see her dead body, then run off with your new pal to find a cop to tell (on yourself)......and then show up and the inquest a few days later?

Amazing how you can so quickly take issue with this theory but cannot see anything troubling in the Lechmere theory which requires FAR more assumption, assigning of motives, invention....

[David Orsam]

My main point is how little this tells us. The "blood evidence" consists - from what I gather - two words: running and oozing. You say they mean the same thing and I'll accept that for the purpose of this conversation, whether I agree or not. The main issue is that nothing was expanded upon. No useful information with respect to blood was related. Was it running? Was it oozing? I don't know

I'm afraid I don't understand this.

You say that you are accepting "for the purpose of this conversation" that oozing and running mean the same thing (although that wasn't what I said) then you ask whether the blood was running or oozing and say you don't know!

If they mean the same thing then the blood was both running and oozing wasn't it?