So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel?

[MrBarnett]

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.

I wonder why the ripper might have done that.

[Abby Normal]

The killer, whoever he was, adjusted Nichol's clothing, presumably to hide her injuries, didn't he?

Genuine question.

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.

[MrBarnett]

The killer, whoever he was, adjusted Nichol's clothing, presumably to hide her injuries, didn't he?

Genuine question.

[John Wheat]

Killing Nicholas? Does that mean there will be no X-mas this year...?

No it means autocorrect on my phone is a pain in the arse.

[MrBarnett]

Paul didn't see any blood even when feeling her hands and breastbone.

That corroborates Cross thinking her a tarpaulin.

Paul had no intention of going near her by his own admission.

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?

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, so they may well have thought "wow, this woman has an inch-wide smear of dirt across her throat. And look at THAT smear on her abdomen!"

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.

[Batman]

And if Lechmere had legged it from the body when Paul was few seconds away from the body, Paul would have thought 'Someone has run away from an obviously insensible woman covered in dark smears. Nothing untoward here. No need to make a fuss.'

Paul didn't see any blood even when feeling her hands and breastbone.

That corroborates Cross thinking her a tarpaulin.

Paul had no intention of going near her by his own admission.

[MrBarnett]

Yes, so they may well have thought "wow, this woman has an inch-wide smear of dirt across her throat. And look at THAT smear on her abdomen!"

And if Lechmere had legged it from the body when Paul was few seconds away, Paul would have thought, 'Someone has run away from an obviously insensible woman covered in dark smears. Nothing untoward here. No need to make a fuss.'

[Fisherman]

Likewise mud or dirty water, assuming there are any noteworthy sources of light around to reflect.So would mud or dirt.

Yes, so they may well have thought "wow, this woman has an inch-wide smear of dirt across her throat. And look at THAT smear on her abdomen!"

[Sam Flynn]

But wouldn't the sound of someone legging it away from the body have raised Paul's suspicion, whether he detected blood or not?

I'm just commenting on the difficulty of seeing red substances (particularly dark red ones) in dim light, Gary.

[MrBarnett]

Likewise mud or dirty water, assuming there are any noteworthy sources of light around to reflect.So would mud or dirt.

But wouldn't the sound of someone legging it away from the body have raised Paul's suspicion, whether he detected blood or not? The woman was clearly insensible, whether merely unconscious or dead, and the fact that someone left the scene in a hurry would have suggested that a violent crime had taken place.

[Sam Flynn]

But blood is wet and reflects light.

Likewise mud or dirty water, assuming there are any noteworthy sources of light around to reflect.

Plus any wounds on the body would be dark against a white background.

So would mud or dirt.

[Fisherman]

This does raise the focus on Cross.


You overstate. Lechmere/Cross simply used one version of his name rather than another. We have no evidence he did not use Cross regularly.


Not alone there.



Some of them not others - as did Paul as did your friend Jack Random




No links with Mitre Square, you simply speculate he may have passed it on his way to work.



There is no so on



The points go away because they are a) mostly based on speculation and b) even if the speculation is correct do not provide any evidence of Lechmere being the murderer.

Ooops, Caz.

[/QUOTE]

There is a so on - there are many of them - and neither that nor the rest will go away because he did not run in Bucks Row. It does not work that way, I´m afraid - although some less trustworthy posters harbour a burning wish that it was so. No such luck, though.

[etenguy]

To be a better suspect, Jack Random needs to be found by a freshly killed victims side,

This does raise the focus on Cross.

use the name Stupid instead of Random (a wise choice),

You overstate. Lechmere/Cross simply used one version of his name rather than another. We have no evidence he did not use Cross regularly.

disagree with the police,

Not alone there.

just happen to have a daily trek that took him past the murder sites or close to them

Some of them not others - as did Paul as did your friend Jack Random

have links to St Georges and the Mitre Square area

No links with Mitre Square, you simply speculate he may have passed it on his way to work.

and so on.

There is no so on

The points FOR Lechmere do not go away on account of how you personally believe that he would have run in Bucks Row. Andy Griffiths, indefinitely better suited to understand this than you will ever be, was adamant that he would never have run.

The points go away because they are a) mostly based on speculation and b) even if the speculation is correct do not provide any evidence of Lechmere being the murderer.

Ooops, Caz.[/QUOTE]

[Fisherman]

The colour red is very difficult to perceive under dim lighting conditions, so any blood or wounds might be overlooked, or mistaken for shadows or mud.

But blood is wet and reflects light. Plus any wounds on the body would be dark against a white background.