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

[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.

[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, I´m 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?