Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    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.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Batman View Post
      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?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        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.

        Comment


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

          Genuine question.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
            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.
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
              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.
              Last edited by MrBarnett; 11-15-2018, 04:43 PM.

              Comment


              • 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.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                  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.
                  Bona fide canonical and then some.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                    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?
                    Last edited by MrBarnett; 11-15-2018, 07:00 PM.

                    Comment


                    • 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.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by harry View Post
                        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!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          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.
                          It´s 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?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                            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,

                            ...isn´t 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. How´s that for rotten luck?
                            Last edited by Fisherman; 11-15-2018, 11:53 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                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,

                                ...isn´t 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. How´s that for rotten luck?
                                And by chance, he found the only victim whose wounds were hidden a few seconds before he heard Paul approaching.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X