Cross The Ripper?

[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.

[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.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Sally,

But Paul happily recalls the dress being lifted 'almost to her stomach' leaving it to the hearer's imagination what was revealed. I can almost hear Lech inserting an 'er' or an embarrassed little cough before the word 'legs '

MrB

[Sam Flynn]

But Paul happily recalls the dress being lifted 'almost to her stomach' leaving it to the hearer's imagination what was revealed.

It's also potentially confusing. In layman's parlance the stomach is a bit of a moveable feast, encompassing a vague area that might extend from the ribs to below the navel. It's for this reason people sometimes prefer - especially in "posh" company - to (incorrectly) refer to the "stomach" instead of the slightly vulgar "belly", or the childish "tummy". With this in mind, it's quite possible that the abdominal wounds were indeed hidden from view; the two small stabs to the "private part" might simply not have been noticed owing (a) to the darkness; and/or (b) due to Cross/Paul being sufficiently gallant not to look. It's also quite possible that said stabs were indeed covered by Nichols' clothing, depending on high up the "private part" they were.

[Jon Guy]

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.

Indeed Christer, as I qualified in my reply to Ed, being concealed by the dress and being concealed by the killer are two very different things.

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?

Yes, which is why I brought McKenzie into the equation. The pattern of her wounds are similar to Nichols, and in McKenzie`s case we have no doubt that this is what happened. The killer was cutting away underneath her dress.

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!?

Agreed, which is why in Chapman`s case, also later mirrored with Kelly, the abdomen was opened up in panels.

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.

True, these alternative interpretations are a daily thing on the boards. But these can be countered with what facts we know. Such as if there was a gust of wind Nichols straw bonnet, which was lying just off her head would have been displaced further.

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.

True, but is the explanation of Jack the Ripper covering up the wounds of a victim lying in almost total darkness realistic?

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.

People were reeling in horror because they could see the bodies.
Again, Nichols clothes were raised to her lower abdomen and not covering the lower wounds, which could not be seen anyway as it was too dark.

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?

Because the Ripper left disembowelled women lying around.

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

What was the case ...?

Holding the skirt up with one hand and working the knife underneath with the other.


Are you and Ed saying that the wounds were covered because Cross was caught in the act by Paul, and he didn`t want Paul to notice the wounds ?

Because:
1) Cross was standing in the middle of the road when Paul saw him.
2) It was almost pitch black.

And of course, if guilty, Cross could just have walked off as soon as he noticed Paul.

[Jon Guy]

With this in mind, it's quite possible that the abdominal wounds were indeed hidden from view; the two small stabs to the "private part" might simply not have been noticed owing (a) to the darkness; and/or (b) due to Cross/Paul being sufficiently gallant not to look. It's also quite possible that said stabs were indeed covered by Nichols' clothing, depending on high up the "private part" they were.

Hi Sam

As per the illustration, depending on how high the dress actually was, wouldn`t the three or four downward cuts that commenced on the lower abdomen be visible, the stabs to privates would certainly have been visible if they had visibility?

[Jon Guy]

Sorry Sam, can`t get abdomen to upload. Starts just above the pubes.

[Fisherman]

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.

There is no suggestion that the clothes were pulled down to any exact level, Jon - all these damages could well have been hidden by clothes that generally speaking left the legs bare.
Also, Nichols was not "spread-eagled", was she? Apart from the fact that the descriptions allow for the private parts having been hidden from sight, it could well have been impossible to see any stabs to the private parts even if the clothing had been a bit further up. The killer may well have had her legs akimbo as he worked, only to stretch them out as Paul arrived, creating the impression of something more serene, if you like.

And this ONLY happens when Lechmere is on the scene - only then ...? Co-in-ci-dence? You bet! AG-AIN?? Yes, sir!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry Sam, can`t get abdomen to upload.

It's not often one sees that sentence, Jon!

Starts just above the pubes.

Indeed it does - in fact, the pubic area is lower-abdominal also - but it also extends up as far as the ribs. Those deep abdominal cuts could have been anywhere in between, however, and a substantial wound reaching as far as the pelvis could easily have been hidden by a skirt, even if it were pulled up as high as to expose the pubic mound.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

True, these alternative interpretations are a daily thing on the boards. But these can be countered with what facts we know. Such as if there was a gust of wind Nichols straw bonnet, which was lying just off her head would have been displaced further.

If there is any place in the world where I´d expect to meet selective winds, it is here. And that´s not speaking about you!

True, but is the explanation of Jack the Ripper covering up the wounds of a victim lying in almost total darkness realistic?

Yes, it is. I have no doubts that if she had been naked, Paul would have seen the damages to the abdomen.
Lechmere said that Paul looked as if he was afraid to be knocked down as he tried to pass him in the street. That seems to me to speak of the carman being able to make out his colleauges facial expression. It was not pitch dark, Jon.

People were reeling in horror because they could see the bodies.
Again, Nichols clothes were raised to her lower abdomen and not covering the lower wounds, which could not be seen anyway as it was too dark.

They could quite probably have been seen the wounds if they had been on display. Once they were not ...

Because the Ripper left disembowelled women lying around.

Exactly. So why not Nichols? Or was she not a Ripper victim?

Are you and Ed saying that the wounds were covered because Cross was caught in the act by Paul, and he didn`t want Paul to notice the wounds ?

Yes, we are.

Because:
1) Cross was standing in the middle of the road when Paul saw him.

He was very close to the body no matter how we cut it. And IF he had cut Nichols and wanted it to stay unknown, it would make a world of sense to move away from her, would it not?

2) It was almost pitch black.

We don´t know how dark it was. It was not too dark to see the bonnet, it was not too dark to see how far down the clothes were pulled, it was not too dark to see from half the width of the street that it was a woman lying there. So no, pitch black it was NOT.

If the clothes had been further up, a wet surface of dark blood against white skin would tell the story. And even if it had been so dark that they had to feel their way, then open wounds on the belly would just not feel right, methinks.

And of course, if guilty, Cross could just have walked off as soon as he noticed Paul.

Been there, done that ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Lechmere said that Paul looked as if he was afraid to be knocked down as he tried to pass him in the street. That seems to me to speak of the carman being able to make out his colleauges facial expression.

What's the facial expression for "I'm afraid I might be knocked down", Fish? I wasn't aware there was one. Surely, a fear of being knocked down usually results in a change of pace, trajectory, or both - neither of which require good lighting to detect them.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

I have no doubts that if she had been naked, Paul would have seen the damages to the abdomen.

Yes, PC Neil didn`t notice the cut throat until he was leaning over the body with his lamp?

Lechmere said that Paul looked as if he was afraid to be knocked down as he tried to pass him in the street. That seems to me to speak of the carman being able to make out his colleauges facial expression.

I think this was based on the fact that Cross noticed Paul start when he approached him. It was his body movements not facial expression (edit -as noted just by Sam).
But even so, this all would have taken place on the opposite side of the road to where the body was, nearer the lamp post.

It was not pitch dark, Jon.

Indeed, it was almost pitch black.
Dark enough for Nichols to appear like a tarpaulin until Cross got to the middle of the road, and Neil not to notice the throat cut and blood until he was standing over her with his lamp. Neil tells us that although there was a lamp opposite it was dark.

They could quite probably have been seen the wounds if they had been on display. Once they were not ...

Her cut throat and blood was on display.

Because the Ripper left disembowelled women lying around.

Exactly. So why not Nichols? Or was she not a Ripper victim?

Her abdomen was open and her bowels were protruding?

He was very close to the body no matter how we cut it. And IF he had cut Nichols and wanted it to stay unknown, it would make a world of sense to move away from her, would it not?

Paul didn`t see him walking away from the body, and yes, if guilty he could just have walked casually westwards.

If the clothes had been further up, a wet surface of dark blood against white skin would tell the story. And even if it had been so dark that they had to feel their way, then open wounds on the belly would just not feel right, methinks ?

Again, Neil didn`t notice blood and cut throat till he shined his lamp on the body

And of course, if guilty, Cross could just have walked off as soon as he noticed Paul.

Been there, done that ... ?

Yes we have ;-)

[Jon Guy]

It's not often one sees that sentence, Jon!
Indeed it does - in fact, the pubic area is lower-abdominal also - but it also extends up as far as the ribs. Those deep abdominal cuts could have been anywhere in between, however, and a substantial wound reaching as far as the pelvis could easily have been hidden by a skirt, even if it were pulled up as high as to expose the pubic mound.

Hi Sam

Couldn`t get planned image of abdomen so had to take a selfie, arrows showing the downward cuts that started on the lower abdomen. These are the ones that may have been slightly visible. ;-)

[Sam Flynn]

Couldn`t get planned image of abdomen so had to take a selfie

Thank God for that! For a moment, I thought I'd left my webcam on

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

Hi Christer

Yes, PC Neil didn`t notice the cut throat until he was leaning over the body with his lamp?

I would be a bit careful with that expression; "leaning over the body". It tends to irritate people.

It says nothing about leaning over the body, I think. What is said is that Neil found the body, and then shone his lantern on it, noticing the blood.

It says nothing about him making a longish examination before using his lamp, and still not being able to see any blood.

Moreover, we don´t know in what exact position the neck was when he found her, plus she was lying on a pavement that was dark in colour, making it harder to see the blood on it.

A comparison with open gashes on a belly, the skin white and the wounds dark red, doesn´t hold up very well.

Overall, I think it´s a useless quibble - as I said, Lechmere saw the figure from the other pavement inspite of the darkness, was able to make out that it was a woman from half that distance, they saw the bonnet etcetera. White and dark are total contrasts, and so open wounds to the stomach would have been something they could make out if they could make anything at all out - and they could.

I think this was based on the fact that Cross noticed Paul start when he approached him. It was his body movements not facial expression (edit -as noted just by Sam).
But even so, this all would have taken place on the opposite side of the road to where the body was, nearer the lamp post.

Let´s avoid the lamp post issue, Jon ...!

Indeed, it was almost pitch black.
Dark enough for Nichols to appear like a tarpaulin until Cross got to the middle of the road, and Neil not to notice the throat cut and blood until he was standing over her with his lamp. Neil tells us that although there was a lamp opposite it was dark.

Neil may have seen the shape lying on the ground, and realizing it was a woman, he could have lit his lamp and shone the light on her as he approached her for all we know. Why would he wait with that? So he may never even have given himself the time to see the blood - if he could do that - without the lamp. There is no test, no comparison.

And the "dark enough to appear like a tarpaulin" could be worded "light enough to be discernable from some distance".

I´ve seen pitch black, Jon, the kind of pitch black where you must fel your way forward, like a blind man. The carmen hurried along energetically along the pavement with no such problems. There was some light, arguably not enough to reveal dark blood (of which there was very little) on a dark pavement, but enough to enable the carmen to see a little something.

Once again, it´s a quibble that won´t be solved today.

Her cut throat and blood was on display.

We are talking about how killers are proud of their work and display it to the world by making a spectacle of it. Such people do not cover the abomen and lay their victims out as if they were sleeping. She was NOT a typically displayed victim - on the contrary. She differs VERY much from Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly in this respect - they are polar opposites in the regard.

Her abdomen was open and her bowels were protruding?

That was concealed, unlike in the other cases. So why not Nichols?

Paul didn`t see him walking away from the body, and yes, if guilty he could just have walked casually westwards.

Wudda, cudda, shudda ... He was THERE, by the body, close to it, and he has no alibi for the time leading up to Pauls arrival. What he "could have done" involves killing Nichols, I´m afraid.

If he didn´t, he should have given his real name to the inquest, he should not have disagreed with Mizen and he should not have had working paths and his mothers place that potentially aligned the murder sites.

But he did, and he had. Tough luck.

The best,
Fisherman