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

[Sam Flynn]

If you can see a body and identify it as a woman from three yards away, then it is not too dark to see blood or wounds

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.

[Fisherman]

Jack Random is more likely to have been the killer, John, on the very simple grounds that there are no documented cases of one who chose to stay with his nearly decapitated, freshly killed victim, to wait for the next man - whoever that might be - to reach the spot, then steer him over to where the body was, requiring him to inspect the damage. Or if there are such cases, Fish evidently does not think it necessary or desirable to draw our attention to them, which frankly I would find quite astonishing, considering his efforts to convince us all that Lechmere makes a much better suspect than one who would have left the scene unseen, because he wanted to remain anonymous and may well not have had a good excuse for being there, if the victim led her killer to the scene and not the other way round.

Love,

Caz
X

To be a better suspect, Jack Random needs to be found by a freshly killed victims side, use the name Stupid instead of Random (a wise choice), disagree with the police, just happen to have a daily trek that took him past the murder sites or close to them, have links to St Georges and the Mitre Square area and 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.

Ooops, Caz.

[Fisherman]

It's no more fanciful than Lechmere killing Nicholas.

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

[Fisherman]

I think this photo is a good example of 40 yards on Buck's row.

It's about the distance from the light at the gates to the figure in the distance under the second light.

That's a lit street.

There is quite some distance there.

It was too dark to see blood or wounds.

Paul, at the least, made attempts to pull back down her skirt raised almost to her stomach.

Both of them were feeling her hands and cheeks.

Cross believed she was dead. Paul didn't know and thought she was maybe breathing.

Paul was obviously wrong. You don't breath with your neck nearly severed.

If you can see a body and identify it as a woman from three yards away, then it is not too dark to see blood or wounds, Iīm afraid. I am pretty certain that the carmen (or Paul, at least) worked from the supposition that there had been blood to see, something that may well be wrong. Once you work from such a supposition and realize that you saw no blood, it is a logical conclusion that it was due to the prevailing darkness. But if you can identify a woman from three yards off, if you can see her hat, her hands etc, then you can also see blood and wounds.

As for Paul "obviously" being wrong, there is nothing obvious about that at all. There are reflexes and such that can move after having had the neck cut - or severed, even - and so he may well have felt the body stir.

[Batman]

Again, much as you claim it inexplicable, others claim the opposite. What if you are wrong, Batman? Is that even a remote possibility...? And can you please establish the exact distance Paul was from Lechmere when the latter noticed him? You see, I think that may have a great deal to do with the matter.
Plus, if you please, can you be so nice as to comment on why the clothing hid the wounds, because that too may be totally crucial.

I think this photo is a good example of 40 yards on Buck's row.

It's about the distance from the light at the gates to the figure in the distance under the second light.

That's a lit street.

There is quite some distance there.

It was too dark to see blood or wounds.

Paul, at the least, made attempts to pull back down her skirt raised almost to her stomach.

Both of them were feeling her hands and cheeks.

Cross believed she was dead. Paul didn't know and thought she was maybe breathing.

Paul was obviously wrong. You don't breath with your neck nearly severed.

[Abby Normal]

It's no more fanciful than Lechmere killing Nicholas.

perhaps a little bit more lol

[John Wheat]

Hi Caz
are you being sarcastic with this post? Paul came upon lech who was already by the dead victim. Your not seriously suggesting paul murdered Nichols, left and then circled around to re enter bucks row are you?

It's no more fanciful than Lechmere killing Nicholas.

[Abby Normal]

Lech turns up for work not long after he murders Polly.
He then turns up for work not long after murdering Annie a week later.
He then turns up at work three weeks later and say, ten minutes after murdering Kate.
Sorry, I don't buy it.

HI DK
I see where your coming from-its one of my main beefs with lech also-murdering on his way to work. You would think it would be better for him to murder on his way home from work.

but perhaps he didnt get off at the right time-perhaps too early for their to be prostitutes out? or something else in his personal circs that didnt allow it.
who knows?

[Abby Normal]

He would have been Fish's number one suspect, etenguy. No doubt about it. Paul was the one who had a rant against the police. Paul lied in the same newspaper by bigging up his own role in the affair. Paul initially failed to attend the inquest. Paul had to be tracked down and got up in the middle of the night to be questioned and made to give his account at the inquest. Paul had as much reason as Cross to be in Hanbury Street the following weekend when Chapman was murdered. Because Paul the liar claimed to arrive at the scene in Buck's Row after Cross, Fish may not have bothered to look in as much detail into any other possible associations in time and place which Paul may have had with other murders.

Not that I believe for a second that Paul should be considered a better suspect, or a suspect at all, but he and Cross should at least have equal 'person of interest' status on the information we do have about them. Yet Fish appears to give Paul a completely free pass for some reason, while insisting that Cross fits all the criteria to be the ripper.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
are you being sarcastic with this post? Paul came upon lech who was already by the dead victim. Your not seriously suggesting paul murdered Nichols, left and then circled around to re enter bucks row are you?

[caz]

In answer to the question, of course someone residing in Doveton Street could have been the murderer. As I've pointed out before, Lechmere's residence was only around a mile from all of the C5 sites.

However, let's consider Jack Random from Flower and Dean Street. He's just 0.6 miles walking distance from Mitre Square, if he goes via Wentworth Street-the GSG was found on the corner of Wentworth Street and Goulston Street; 0.6 miles from Durward Street; 0.4 miles from Hanbury Street; 0.5 miles from Henriques Street; and a mere 0.2 miles from Whites Row.

He is therefore within about half a mile of all the murder sites. Moreover, if you take into account other factors, such as work address, former work addresses, former residences, girlfriend's addresses, former girlfriends' addresses, etc, you will no doubt be able to discover even closer connections.

On that basis, what makes Jack Random less likely to be the killer than Lechmere, particularly as there is no substantive evidence linking Lechmere to any murder.

Thus, there is no forensic evidence, such as signs of blood on his person, or being discovered with a blood stained knife. No evidence that he was a violent character. No confession. No witnesses observing him commit a murder, or flee a murder scene.

All there is, from a substantive perspective, is the fact that he found a body close to the time when a murder took place. Well, someone had to find the body. And both Louis D and PC Thompson discovered the body of murder victims shortly after the murder took place. Does that make them prime suspects?

Jack Random is more likely to have been the killer, John, on the very simple grounds that there are no documented cases of one who chose to stay with his nearly decapitated, freshly killed victim, to wait for the next man - whoever that might be - to reach the spot, then steer him over to where the body was, requiring him to inspect the damage. Or if there are such cases, Fish evidently does not think it necessary or desirable to draw our attention to them, which frankly I would find quite astonishing, considering his efforts to convince us all that Lechmere makes a much better suspect than one who would have left the scene unseen, because he wanted to remain anonymous and may well not have had a good excuse for being there, if the victim led her killer to the scene and not the other way round.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

He would have been Fish's number one suspect, etenguy. No doubt about it. Paul was the one who had a rant against the police. Paul lied in the same newspaper by bigging up his own role in the affair. Paul initially failed to attend the inquest. Paul had to be tracked down and got up in the middle of the night to be questioned and made to give his account at the inquest. Paul had as much reason as Cross to be in Hanbury Street the following weekend when Chapman was murdered. Because Paul the liar claimed to arrive at the scene in Buck's Row after Cross, Fish may not have bothered to look in as much detail into any other possible associations in time and place which Paul may have had with other murders.

Not that I believe for a second that Paul should be considered a better suspect, or a suspect at all, but he and Cross should at least have equal 'person of interest' status on the information we do have about them. Yet Fish appears to give Paul a completely free pass for some reason, while insisting that Cross fits all the criteria to be the ripper.

Love,

Caz
X

Letīs see here, Caz, do you get to answer for me about what I would have said and done? Ehmmm, tough one, that...

Nope. Got it. You donīt.

The first thing we must accept to have Paul as the killer is that he must have left home, gone into Bucks Row, heard Lechmere, returned in the direction Lechmere was coming from instead of heading the other way, hidden halfway down Bucks Row, waited for Lechmere to pass and then left his hiding place, where Lechmere accidentally had not spotted him while passing, and joined his fellow carman at the murder scene.

Anybody who suggests something like that needs to have his head checked.

Or chopped off. Not literally, of course, only by way of being thrown to the wolves intellectually speaking.

[Fisherman]

He is also re-visiting at least three of the murder scenes at the same time every day on his day to work, by way of their same model. No beat PC, no investigator out at that time to get insights into the murder, apparently ever noticed him nor stopped him to find a big bloody sharp blade on him.

If nothing else, they should have hauled him in when he passed through the X-ray scan.

[Fisherman]

Lech turns up for work not long after he murders Polly.
He then turns up for work not long after murdering Annie a week later.
He then turns up at work three weeks later and say, ten minutes after murdering Kate.
Sorry, I don't buy it.

Lech was supposed to turn up at work on the morning of the 31:st of August.

He was in all probability supposed to do so on the morning of the 8:th of September too.

Iīm sure the others immediately would go "you killer, you" when he did. Unless they simply said "good morning". If they met him, that is. The thing is, we canīt know. We do not know the circumstances surrounding his arrival, how many people there were around, etcetera.

Mitre Square, I have told you my view of that.

If you donīt buy it, donīt be sorry. People are wrong ever so often.

[caz]

But there are many who pass through Whitechapel on route to the city, quite legitimately. What brings Lechmere into focus is that he found the body. That is what distinguishes him from all the others who would by your argument be, geographically speaking, the best suspect if they had found the body. If Paul had been ten minutes ahead of Lechmere, he might be in your number one slot.

He would have been Fish's number one suspect, etenguy. No doubt about it. Paul was the one who had a rant against the police. Paul lied in the same newspaper by bigging up his own role in the affair. Paul initially failed to attend the inquest. Paul had to be tracked down and got up in the middle of the night to be questioned and made to give his account at the inquest. Paul had as much reason as Cross to be in Hanbury Street the following weekend when Chapman was murdered. Because Paul the liar claimed to arrive at the scene in Buck's Row after Cross, Fish may not have bothered to look in as much detail into any other possible associations in time and place which Paul may have had with other murders.

Not that I believe for a second that Paul should be considered a better suspect, or a suspect at all, but he and Cross should at least have equal 'person of interest' status on the information we do have about them. Yet Fish appears to give Paul a completely free pass for some reason, while insisting that Cross fits all the criteria to be the ripper.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

He stayed because he had found a body and wanted to draw other witness attention to it, as many, if not all the other witnesses in the C5 did also (but Crow didn't for Tabram).

That is the reason for staying. He chose to do what they also did. Wait for someone to also aid in help.

It is simply inexplicable that the murderer needed to stay there with someone coming in the distance.

It IS explicable that witness should wait for someone else to help.

Again, much as you claim it inexplicable, others claim the opposite. What if you are wrong, Batman? Is that even a remote possibility...? And can you please establish the exact distance Paul was from Lechmere when the latter noticed him? You see, I think that may have a great deal to do with the matter.
Plus, if you please, can you be so nice as to comment on why the clothing hid the wounds, because that too may be totally crucial.