It was Lechmere.

[andy1867]

Thats exactly my point.


Rainbow•

Then he must have left before Diemschitz (sp) discovered Stride
Before Reeves discovered Tabram...
carry the whole scenario on and Watkins killed Eddowes...Bowyer did Kelly etc etc...jobs a good 'un

[Harry D]

I honestly don't see a problem with the Ripper killing Nicholls and disappearing before Cross got there on a relatively quiet night, when he seemingly did the same with Stride for example on a rather busier night.

The argument goes: Why attribute the murder to a "phantom" killer when we already have a man found at the scene? The answer to that would naturally be, if said man doesn't present a compelling suspect (and Lechmere doesn't), we have to consider the alternative, i.e. that someone slew Nichols and made his escape before Lechmere came down Buck's Row. Like you say, given the killer's uncanny knack of being able to avoid detection, I don't see why this is so unpalatable.

[Elamarna]

Thats exactly my point.


Rainbow•

It's not a problem is it.

There is a period from 3.15 -3.20 until approx 3.45 when there are no policeman in Bucks Row and none in Bakers Row or Brady street. Therefore someone could come and go with out being seen.

Nichols was not seen by anyone in Bucks Row, neither were Lechmere and Paul. It seems fairly clear there is a 20-25 minute gap when we have no idea if anyone was in Bucks Row or not. To suggest that we can be sure there was not is just not looking at the actual facts.

Do you have Any comments to make on the serious factual mistakes in your previous post?


Steve

[Mike J. G.]

The argument goes: Why attribute the murder to a "phantom" killer when we already have a man found at the scene? The answer to that would naturally be, if said man doesn't present a compelling suspect (and Lechmere doesn't), we have to consider the alternative, i.e. that someone slew Nichols and made his escape before Lechmere came down Buck's Row. Like you say, given the killer's uncanny knack of being able to avoid detection, I don't see why this is so unpalatable.

The narrative being put out there is that this street was too dark and too dangerous for anyone to bother using it, nobody else was seen, so it had to be Lech...Yet we have Lech and Paul making their way on this street and coming across another person in Nichols who had obviously been on this street minutes before, not to mention her killer.

[Mike J. G.]

It's not a problem is it.

There is a period from 3.15 -3.20 until approx 3.45 when there are no policeman in Bucks Row and none in Bakers Row or Brady street. Therefore someone could come and go with out being seen.

Nichols was not seen by anyone in Bucks Row, neither were Lechmere and Paul. It seems fairly clear there is a 20-25 minute gap when we have no idea if anyone was in Bucks Row or not. To suggest that we can be sure there was not is just not looking at the actual facts.

Do you have Any comments to make on the serious factual mistakes in your previous post?


Steve

You're making too much sense, Steve!

[Rainbow]

I will take this a step further

If Fisherman believes in the bleeding evidence, and that the killing must have happen in about 3-7 minutes, I am afraid, this period is too much for me!

I have the breathing evidence!!!

In the inquest, Robert Paul said:

The clothes were disarranged, and I helped to pull them down. Before I did so I detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint

This phrase alone incriminates Lechmere, since the Endotracheal of the victim was recently severed, and still there was a trace of air movement because of the altered pressure of her chest. that means she couldn't have been killed more than two minutes.


Rainbow°

[andy1867]

I will take this a step further

If Fisherman believes in the bleeding evidence, and that the killing must have happen in about 3-7 minutes, I am afraid, this period is too much for me!

I have the breathing evidence!!!

In the inquest, Robert Paul said:

The clothes were disarranged, and I helped to pull them down. Before I did so I detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint

This phrase alone incriminates Lechmere, since the Endotracheal of the victim was recently severed, and still there was a trace of air movement because of the altered pressure of her chest. that means she couldn't have been killed more than two minutes.


Rainbow°

Also
Paul felt her face and hands and said "I think she's breathing but it's very little if she is". He thought she may be dead.

[Elamarna]

I will take this a step further

If Fisherman believes in the bleeding evidence, and that the killing must have happen in about 3-7 minutes, I am afraid, this period is too much for me!

I have the breathing evidence!!!

In the inquest, Robert Paul said:

The clothes were disarranged, and I helped to pull them down. Before I did so I detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint

This phrase alone incriminates Lechmere, since the Endotracheal of the victim was recently severed, and still there was a trace of air movement because of the altered pressure of her chest. that means she couldn't have been killed more than two minutes.


Rainbow°

You base that assement of the breathing on?

Your expertise? Study of the effects of a cut windpipe?
In some reports of the inquest Paul tells Lechmere she is dead, thus not breathing so the position is not as clear as you suggest.

However it's nice that you ignore the science, ignore the clear point that the hypothesis fails.

Steve






Nice to see that you chose to ignore the actually evidence.

[Rainbow]

Yes indeed, I like to ignore many things

Happily

Rainbow°

[andy1867]

I can imagine "Fisherman" on his way back from wherever, thinking..
"I wonder how me Lechmere thingy is going on casebook"................

[Elamarna]

Yes indeed, I like to ignore many things

Happily

Rainbow°

And still no comment about the very serious mistakes in post 35.
They demonstrate a very serious misunderstanding of the evidence, which is most worring.


Steve

[Rainbow]

and I think, I started to accept the report that the throat cut happened after.

She was unconscious, the heart puls was weak, and when Lechmere noticed Paul coming, he sliced her throat.

Thats maybe why Paul didn't spot directly the bleeding, but he detected the remaining and the last movement of her chest..


Rainbow°

[Rainbow]

And still no comment about the very serious mistakes in post 35.
They demonstrate a very serious misunderstanding of the evidence, which is most worring.


Steve

At that post I said probably and likely, That was not important and not my point.

Rainbow°

[Elamarna]

At that post I said probably and likely, That was not important and not my point.

Rainbow°

Sorry that is not entirely true

You posted:

"Neil first saw Mizen and call him, then he saw Thail, "

No probably or likely there.


It does not matter that you said the two men were likely rather than were, it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the evidence.
Anyone who has studied the case at all would know that suggestion was impossible
Of course such things are important. If one cannot get basic facts right how can anyone be expected to consider what you say as serious.


I note no reply to the following:

You base that assement of the breathing on?

Your expertise? Study of the effects of a cut windpipe?
In some reports of the inquest Paul tells Lechmere she is dead, thus not breathing so the position is not as clear as you suggest.

STEVE

[Elamarna]

and I think, I started to accept the report that the throat cut happened after.

She was unconscious, the heart puls was weak, and when Lechmere noticed Paul coming, he sliced her throat.

Thats maybe why Paul didn't spot directly the bleeding, but he detected the remaining and the last movement of her chest..


Rainbow°

That is your view you are entitled to it. It does of course cause considerable damage to the blood flow theory. But of course it does not function as a working hypothesis to start with anyway.


Steve