Cross The Ripper?

[Jon Guy]

The Times: Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach. (Paul)

The Daily News: The woman's legs were uncovered. (Lechmere)

Some paper has it down as "to the hips", I seem to remember.

All in all, a suggestion that the wounds were covered by the clothes works eminently.

Does it ?

Llewellyn on the abdominal injuries:
""There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards."

and from Spratling`s report:
and tw[o] small stabs on private parts

If Cross and Paul had any visibility they would have seen cuts I have highlighted and the stabs to privates.

She wasn`t covered up very well, if that`s what happened.

[Sally]

Interesting that Lech seems squeamish about recalling the area immediately 'above the legs'.

Nah, it wouldn't have done to have specified beyond that Mr B.

It just, well - wasn't done. More to do with the social conventions of the day as reflected in contemporary press accounts than any personal feelings on the part of an individual, I'd suggest.

[MrBarnett]

Interesting that Lech seems squeamish about recalling the area immediately 'above the legs'.

[Fisherman]

Nichols dress was up to her lower abdomen when they discovered her.
How could Cross and Paul have seen in the dark anymore than what they reported. They told us the dress was up to the lower abdomen, therefore wounds would have been visible if they had the light to see them. There were wounds to her lower abdomen, and lower.

The Times: Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach. (Paul)

The Daily News: The woman's legs were uncovered. (Lechmere)

Some paper has it down as "to the hips", I seem to remember.

All in all, a suggestion that the wounds were covered by the clothes works eminently.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: Hi Christer
It`s not a given that the wounds were concealed.

It IS a given that her wounds were concealed - but whether intently or by coincidence is something that can be discussed. Concealed they were, however.

The killer could have held the dress up with one hand and worked under her clothing, dropping the dress when he finished.

Yes, he could have held the dress with one hand and used the dress as a shield against any blood that was flying around.
But Nichols was cut and opened from the breastbone down, and if we imagine her lying flat down on her back and the killer lifting the clothes all the way up there, and then letting go of them, they would end up over her ribcage, and not over her lower abdomen, reasonably.
Did he lift her clothes and reach up under them to cut? Does that sound realistic?
In the Chapman case, we can deduct that he first threw her clothes up over her, and then he tore her intestines out, and threw them over the dress, up over her shoulder. No holding the dress up as he cut away at the intestines there!

We can always come up with alternative suggestions, Jon - a sudden gush of wind could have lifted Nichols dress and blown it down over the abdomen. A street dog could have done it. The explanations are always at hand.

I´m fine with that, as long as one keeps count of how many alternative explanations we need to keep Lechmere in the clear - and how realistic they are.

At the end of the day, if we look at Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, we know that they had the ones who found them reeling with horror, while Nichols was lying stretched out serenely with her clothes covering her abdominal wounds. That is the only example we have of what seems to be a concealing of the wounds - and coincidentally, it happens when Lechmere was in the street, by the body.

In fact, considering the state in which the bodies were discovered it seems a bit of a stretch to say he pulled Nichols dress back down when he`d finished.

How so?

The pattern of Nichols wounds are almost identical to Alice McKenzie`s, and this was the case in that instance.

What was the case ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Ed

Mackenzie was left ‘on display’..

No, she was just left as she was by the killer.
There is nothing to suggest McKenzie was left on display ?

The abdominal wounds were not covered.

Only a third of McKenzie`s abdomen was visible. Just a little higher than how Nichols was found.
The long downward cut from the breast down McKenzie`s right side was not visible - as was Nichols long vertical cut, also on the right side, not visible.

The abdominal wounds to Nichols were covered. Is it unfair to suggest they were concealed? .

There is a difference between the killer concealing the wounds by pulling her dress down, and her wounds been concealed by the dress.

Not really, when every other victim, canonical and non-canonical had their abdominal injuries left uncovered.

Nichols dress was up to her lower abdomen when they discovered her.
How could Cross and Paul have seen in the dark anymore than what they reported. They told us the dress was up to the lower abdomen, therefore wounds would have been visible if they had the light to see them. There were wounds to her lower abdomen, and lower.

[Lechmere]

Garry
I thought your point was that a fearful Lechmere would have given an alternative name to avoid getting done over by the local gangs.
As you are an authority on East End gangs of the period I assume you have knowledge that they targeted people for retribution, who they didn’t otherwise know, based on knowing their name only. And if they knew that person’s address and workplace they would not bother to get hold of any such person for retribution purposes at their home address or workplace.

That is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from your suggestion that Lechmere gave a false name but his correct home and workplace address in a bid to escape retribution from these fearsome gangs.

It may interest you that it hasn’t been suggested, at least not by anyone who thinks Lechmere was guilty, that Lechmere gave the false name to hoodwink the police specifically.

Jon
Mackenzie was left ‘on display’. The abdominal wounds were not covered.
The abdominal wounds to Nichols were covered. Is it unfair to suggest they were concealed? Not really, when every other victim, canonical and non-canonical had their abdominal injuries left uncovered.
It is more of a stretch to suggest the culprit merely left the dress to fall with no intent one way or another.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

And what heppens when we realize that it is only in the case when this suggesed killer is present on one of the murder spots, that the damage done to the victim is concealed?

It`s not a given that the wounds were concealed. The killer could have held the dress up with one hand and worked under her clothing, dropping the dress when he finished. In fact, considering the state in which the bodies were discovered it seems a bit of a stretch to say he pulled Nichols dress back down when he`d finished.

The pattern of Nichols wounds are almost identical to Alice McKenzie`s, and this was the case in that instance.

[Garry Wroe]

So Lechmere was frightened of the street gangs and he masked his true identity to shield his family from attack - then gave his address?

Precisely my point, Lechmere. He gave his address to the authorities, which makes no sense whatever for a man supposedly attempting to hoodwink the police. It does make sense, however, for a man who was aware that his involvement in the case was about to be detailed by the press and if he feared that those responsible for the Nichols murder might come looking for him with retribution in mind. But then I suspect that you know little of these gangs and the fear they instilled in the local population.

[Sally]

Edward is top notch, David, take my word for it. But he can´t work miracles.

The best,
Fisherman

Are you sure?

I don't have a strategy. If I did I would have sat in my lair and not breathed a word until I unleashed my magus opus onto an unsuspecting world and the twenty or so 'Ripperologists' who have thus far discussed it would have been none the wiser.

Apparently, he can.

Ah! I always knew he was a dark horse...

[MrBarnett]

Sam,

And a Lech Magnum Opus is one you really wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley!

MrB

[DVV]

Did she really even have an ex called Joe Fleming?

[DVV]

DVV
It's unsubstantiated that the 6 foot 7 inch Fleming was known to Kelly?
That's a strange way of putting it.
It hasn't been substantiated that it was. It is a theory.

Barnett said Kelly told him she had an ex called Joe Fleming.
There was someone called Joseph Fleming who was put in an asylum a few years later.
Same person? Who knows?
Did she really even have an ex called Joe Fleming?
She seems to have had another ex called Joe. All the same person?
Who knows?
I suspect the one locked up in the asylum wasn't Kelly's ex - whether she genuinely had an e- called Joe Fleming is another matter. None of it is provable I suspect.

You may impress some clueless newbyes with your post, but who else ?

[DVV]

Edward is top notch, David, take my word for it. But he can´t work miracles.

The best,
Fisherman

I'm glad he's found his Netley.

Cheers

[Sam Flynn]

No doubt all will become clear when the Lech. 'Magnum Opus ' surfaces.

Magnum opus = A big Irish cat

(Graeme Garden, I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue)