So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel?

[Harry D]

She was arguably lying on her clothing in such a manner as to disenable that - Paul was not able to pull them down more than just a little bit further, down to the knees. It seemed, he said, as if they would not come down.

That answers this problem of yours.

...but Paul was able to bring her skirts down from her waist to her knees. The point stands that if Lechmere was the killer he would've done a better job of concealing his handiwork, particularly as he was going to draw Paul's attention to the victim.

Is it? What would you have him say?

"It was very dark. If someone had been there, I might not have noticed them".

[Fisherman]

Strange thing for a murderer to say.

Is it? What would you have him say?

[Fisherman]

Polly's skirts were raised. If Lech the RIpper had really wanted to conceal his gruesome deed, it stands to reason he'd lower them all the way.

She was arguably lying on her clothing in such a manner as to disenable that - Paul was not able to pull them down more than just a little bit further, down to the knees. It seemed, he said, as if they would not come down.

That answers this problem of yours.

[Harry D]

he said that if there had been anybody moving up at Browns, he could not have failed to notice it.

Strange thing for a murderer to say.

[Harry D]

And by chance, he found the only victim whose wounds were hidden a few seconds before he heard Paul approaching.

Polly's skirts were raised. If Lech the RIpper had really wanted to conceal his gruesome deed, it stands to reason he'd lower them all the way.

[Fisherman]

And by chance, he found the only victim whose wounds were hidden a few seconds before he heard Paul approaching.

Yes. And there is no law of nature saying that such a thing cannot happen. But I find there is a limit to how many coincidences I can accept before I call a halt to the proceedings. For me to doubt the value of his candidacy, I would need something more than assertions that family men like him are not killers, and that there are possible innocent explanations to the markers of possible guilt.
As I keep saying, once we are justifiedly worried about matters like the "coincidences" discussed here, we need to take a look and see how he fits the bill geographically. And we all know where that leads us.

I find it hard in the extreme to believe that a person can rack up such a mountain of coincidences, possible lies, unlucky timings and seemingly evasive tactics and not be a prime suspect. Going through years of the standard treatment out here awarded anybody having a suspect not named back in 1888 hasnīt changed that one little bit.

[MrBarnett]

In which case he would have done so long before Lechmere turned into Bucks Row - he said that if there had been anybody moving up at Browns, he could not have failed to notice it.
And why would the killer hide the wounds if he was long gone when Lechmere arrived?

The question I ask myself is this:

If there was to be but one case out of six where the killer, Mr P Hantom, for some reason chose to hide the wounds,

If there was to be but one case out of six where Lechmere found the body,

...isnīt it very unlucky that these matters should coincide? If Lechmere had found any of the other victims, there would not have been any option to miss out on what had happened on account of hidden wounds.

Not only do the Spitalfields victims turn up along that small sliver of land that radiated from Doveton Street in the exact direction he took.
Not only did he coincidentally come upon Nichols while she was very freshly cut and would bleed for a number of minutes after his arrival.
Not only did he arrive there ten or twenty seconds too early for Paul to be able to corroborate that he spoke the truth.
He also had to find the only victim in the group that had the wounds hidden.

It leaves him completely open to a suspicion of having been her killer, and if we alter any of the above in any direction, it would have exonerated him. Howīs that for rotten luck?

And by chance, he found the only victim whose wounds were hidden a few seconds before he heard Paul approaching.

[Fisherman]

I think a brisk morning to work walk would have seen him well out Buck's Row before Paul may have noticed Nichols.

But he was not into brisk walks - it took him twice the time it should have to reach Bucks Row.

Maybe he stopped to lace up his shoes.

[Fisherman]

Looks that way. But i could see if lech wasnt the ripper, then the ripper may have done it before he took off because of lech.

In which case he would have done so long before Lechmere turned into Bucks Row - he said that if there had been anybody moving up at Browns, he could not have failed to notice it.
And why would the killer hide the wounds if he was long gone when Lechmere arrived?

The question I ask myself is this:

If there was to be but one case out of six where the killer, Mr P Hantom, for some reason chose to hide the wounds,

If there was to be but one case out of six where Lechmere found the body,

...isnīt it very unlucky that these matters should coincide? If Lechmere had found any of the other victims, there would not have been any option to miss out on what had happened on account of hidden wounds.

Not only do the Spitalfields victims turn up along that small sliver of land that radiated from Doveton Street in the exact direction he took.
Not only did he coincidentally come upon Nichols while she was very freshly cut and would bleed for a number of minutes after his arrival.
Not only did he arrive there ten or twenty seconds too early for Paul to be able to corroborate that he spoke the truth.
He also had to find the only victim in the group that had the wounds hidden.

It leaves him completely open to a suspicion of having been her killer, and if we alter any of the above in any direction, it would have exonerated him. Howīs that for rotten luck?

[Fisherman]

You're assuming they'd have noticed anything in the first place, but it's by no means guaranteed. Like I said, it's difficult to see dark red things in dim light.

Itīs not a question of color so much as a question of reflecting light, Gareth. In darkness, we see all colors in grey-scale. Admittedly, red nuances go lost first, but ALL colors are gone in darkness, and so reflections of light is what is left to us. Not only wet surfaces will reflect light, all surfaces do, which is why they saw the hat, the hands, the woman - everything. The wetter a surface is, the more light it will reflect, and fresh blood reflects a lot of light - more so than a hat, for example.
Neil said nothing about any blood running into the gutter, it was Mizen who was first with that observation. Arguably, there was no blood running into the gutter when Neil arrived, and of course not when the carmen were there. What blood there was to be seen would have been the pool under her neck, and if you see such a pool when examining a woman you think may be dead on a morning of fair and bright weather, you are not going to think "look, there is mud under her neck", are you?

[MrBarnett]

In answer to post 443.
I do not know how the police would have approached the problem of checking the chances of Cross being the only peron to have association of all the murder sites.To my understanding it was never a problem in 1888,and has only been claimed in recent years.So it is the persons of tody who make the claim,to support it with evidence.

Like every other element of the case against Cross,theoretically it appears a good point,but as with every other element put forward by his accusers,it fails miserably in being supported by fact.

Have to go I'm celebratin my 91st birthday today.Might see Lechmere at the bar.

Happy 91st, Harry!

[MrBarnett]

I think a brisk morning to work walk would have seen him well out Buck's Row before Paul may have noticed Nichols.

Why do I think this?

I think this because JtR probably did exactly that just as Cross turned onto Buck's Row.

Very scientific.

[MrBarnett]

I think a brisk morning to work walk would have seen him well out Buck's Row before Paul may have noticed Nichols.

Why do I think this?

I think this because JtR probably did exactly that just as Cross turned onto Buck's Row.

If unfortunates like Nichols knew spots in Buck's row, then they are the ones who give JtR the window in a PCs beat. After that, it is just civilians in the way.

I don't accept Nichols was his first victim. I think from prior assaults plus the time he spent with Tabrams gave him an idea of how much time he had to inflict mutilations.

If one believes in the high-risk opportunistic model, and JtR just got lucky, then even this model would accept he learned to time by experimenting.

So with Nichols, JtR understood he had roughly a max amount of time that the unfortunate told them they had and within those minutes he experimented with what he could do while watching out for the first sign of anyone coming.

Cross was likely that person.

How many East End police beats do you think Polly Nichols was familiar with, bearing in mind she hadn't been in the area for very long, didn't own a watch and was probably drunk more often than not?

[Batman]

But could a guilty Lechmere have been sure of that? Especially If Paul had heard him running away from the body, arousing his suspicion that an assault of some kind had taken place?

I think a brisk morning to work walk would have seen him well out Buck's Row before Paul may have noticed Nichols.

Why do I think this?

I think this because JtR probably did exactly that just as Cross turned onto Buck's Row.

If unfortunates like Nichols knew spots in Buck's row, then they are the ones who give JtR the window in a PCs beat. After that, it is just civilians in the way.

I don't accept Nichols was his first victim. I think from prior assaults plus the time he spent with Tabrams gave him an idea of how much time he had to inflict mutilations.

If one believes in the high-risk opportunistic model, and JtR just got lucky, then even this model would accept he learned to time by experimenting.

So with Nichols, JtR understood he had roughly a max amount of time that the unfortunate told them they had and within those minutes he experimented with what he could do while watching out for the first sign of anyone coming.

Cross was likely that person.

[harry]

In answer to post 443.
I do not know how the police would have approached the problem of checking the chances of Cross being the only peron to have association of all the murder sites.To my understanding it was never a problem in 1888,and has only been claimed in recent years.So it is the persons of tody who make the claim,to support it with evidence.

Like every other element of the case against Cross,theoretically it appears a good point,but as with every other element put forward by his accusers,it fails miserably in being supported by fact.

Have to go I'm celebratin my 91st birthday today.Might see Lechmere at the bar.