Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Fisherman]

One more thing, Frank, about Lechmere not hearing Paul until the latter was 30-40 yards away. You think that is strange, just like I do.

Have you given any thought to the fact that if Paul had 130 yards from the Brady Street corner, then he would have about a minutes walk down to Brown´s Stable Yard? So why did he not hear Lechmere walking in front of him? Surely he would have if this was so?

Or did Lechmere stand still in the middle of Buck´s Row for a full minute, doing not a iota? Was he already in place as Paul turned the corner up at Brady Street, standing there, looking at the woman - for a full minute? And doing absolutely nothing?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mornin´, Ruby. And thanks! Had your tea?

Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Good morning, Fisherman ! (good post, by the way)

[Fisherman]

Frank!

I see you are still defending the undefendable - that Lechmere and Paul would have been close together throughout. Unfortunately, you do so by writing:

"The context here is that these men were late for work, found a woman who was quite possibly dead, after which the men agreed that the best course to pursue was to tell the first policeman they met, that they walked on until they met a PC at the corner of Old Montague Street, that they briefly spoke to Mizen and that afterwards they walked on together.

This holds much water - but leaks at one of the seams: the most important one. You claim that "they briefly spoke to Mizen", but that would not be true. Let´s trawl through the press, hearing how Mizen saw it:

"... he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him ..." (Daily Telegraph)

How many men informed him? One or two? Correct: just the one.

"... he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row." (Times)

Same thing here - and it was just the one man passing, apparently. Of course, we know they were two, but it was just one of the two men passing that spoke to Mizen - that´s what we can see here.

"...he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there."..." (Daily News)

More of the same medicine. A man passes by. He speaks to Mizen. The other guy says nothing. They arrive together, but we do not know what the other man does as Lechmere speaks to Mizen. Nor do we know whether he stops or not.

"he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row ... There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness." (The Echo)

A man who looked like a carman spoke to Mizen. Not two men that looked like carmen. One. Lechmere. He had another man in company. Yes. They arrived in the street together, they would have spoken together, and when Lechmere had delivered his message, he once again struck up with Paul - "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street" as Lechmere talked to Mizen.

" I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when some one who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman." (Evening Standard)

Where´s Paul? Why does not Mizen say that two men passing told him something? Because, I would suggest, two men did NOT speak to him. ONE did.

"A man passing said to him, "You're wanted round in Buck's-row." That man was Carman Cross ... Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man." (the Star)

Once again, just the one man spoke.

It is very, very clear what Mizen said on this affair. And once again, accompanied by is not a phrasing that lends itself to any estimation of distances. It is one thing and one thing only: a verification that Mizen was of the meaning that the two men were in each other´s company. If Paul had walked ahead fifty yards, stopped, and shouted back to Lechmere "Come along, pal! We haven´t got all day", Mizen would STILL be able to say that they were in company. And they would still have been so.
There is absolutely no way that we can establish a single thing about how close that company was physically, but the Echo wording about "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street" gives us a clear pointer that they were not very close. It is in fact the only paper that makes any sort of call in the distance department, whereas the others just speak of "in company" or "accompanied by" that can mean anything inbetween an inch and many, many yards.

In this context, there is a much better question to ask, a much more interesting one. This is Lechmere, from the Times, where he claims that he:

"... told him there was a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back. Witness also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead."

Wait a sec. Didn´t we just find out that Mizen is very adamant on the point that just the one guy - Lechmere - spoke to him? Yes, we did. Then what business has Lechmere telling us that Paul ALSO spoke to Mizen? You tell me, Frank. My guess is that this is just one more pointer to how Lechmere performed his scam. If he could place Paul next to him, speaking to Mizen, then we would not see through his bluff, hopefully. He would conceal that Paul was NOT there and that he did NOT talk to Mizen. Good work, Lechmere - and totally, totally in line with the rest of his scheming.
What about Paul, does HE say that he spoke to Mizen? He would if he did, one would think. But no, he only says that they found themselves a PC and informed him - which is true, even if he said not a iota himself.

Don´t you ever think that these things are strange, Frank? Is it not very, very odd that there are all these pointers to foul play on behalf of Lechmere? Why could it not have been a simple unanimous affair, where Lechmere said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, where Paul said the exact same, and where Mizen said that" two men passing came up to me and the first man said, whereas the other man said..."

If this had been present, we would not be able to entertain these suspicions against Lechmere. But EACH and EVERY time the sinister interpretation possibility is there on offer, telling us that he could have been the villain of the play.
Why is this?
What is your very best guess, Frank?

"Brady Street offered some 130 yards. To the corner of the board school was about 40 yards."

I´ve heard a few differing suggestions about this, but knowing you are a meticulous man, I thank you for establishing this more exactly, Frank!

"How could he be sure that nobody would emerge from one of the houses, or from Brown & Eagle?"

He couldn´t.

"Since he couldn’t, the best thing to do would be to keep an eye but certainly an ear out for that side, especially when he was facing the board school. I trust you can see that, Fish."

In technicolor. It is totally clear that this would be the best thing to do, just as you say.
Then again, I have never disputed this. I have instead said that chances are that he did NOT do the best thing. And for a reason.

I spoke of sexuality the last time I posted to you. I will do so again, not because it has been established that there was an element of sexuality in the Ripper´s deeds, but because there is good reason to think that this was so.

Now, I need you to think of two criminals, both in a dark, silent street, both perpetrating a crime.

The first guy is a burglar. He stands in the empty street, trying to pry open the window of a house in which he believes a nice sum of money is to be found.
It is a difficult window to pry open, and it is very dark. It takes a lot of time, much more than he had expected. Every now and then he has to concentrate very much on how to use the screwdriver he handles to open that window. All the while, he is observant on anything that can give away that somebody is coming.
I would say that this sort of perpetrator does a job that is very much orientated towards financial gain. He does not do it because he feels an urge to pry windows open. He is not sexually aroused by doing so. But just the same, he sometimes has to divide his focus between the scannning of the street and the hardships offered by the reluctant window. Such a thing will decrease his capacity to stay on the alert for approaching danger.

Now take a rapist. He attacks a woman, forces her down on the ground, puts a hand over her mouth, tells her that if she so much as squeals, he will turn her face to mincemeat. He then pulls her dress up, lowers his own trousers and throws himself at her.

Do you really thing that this rapist will have just as good control of the surrounding environment as the burglar - who still had difficulties taking it all in?
Which of the two do you think are more likely to hear somebody from 130 yards away, and which is more likely not to hear that until he is in deep ****?
Which of the two do you think are more likely to focus very much on his own, internal driving forces and urges?
Which of the two is more likely to be doing what he does in a "bubble"?

To me, these questions answer themselves.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"whenever I get more than 5 yards from my wife I count it an enormous victory! Sadly she counts it as an enormous relief (which is probably nearer the truth)..."

Isn´t that a bit like the Lechmere saga - could be anyway - although we all have our hunches...?

"So what did you expect to prove with this earth-shattering statement? Certainly nothing to do with Cross/Lechmere..."

Actually yes. I expected to prove that the phrasing "accompanied by" does not necessarily mean "in very close physical contact with", as proposed by other posters. Back up a bit and read the posts and you will see what I mean.

The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

If I may...

Of course you may, Lechmere...

We can deduce from Paul's two press interviews (OK Moonbeggar, three, but the second was a duplication of the first apparently) that he was quite anti police.

Quite possibly.

It is also fairly clear that Paul did not speak to Mizen.

It would indeed seem that Cross did at least the best part of the few sentences that were spoken, but I don’t preclude the possibility that Paul did add something here or there. Unfortunately, both Mizen and Paul weren’t thoroughly questioned on the point of whether Paul actually spoke.

Hence it is not unreasonable to postulate that he did not stand too close while Charles Lechmere had his brief conversation with Mizen and accordingly may not have heard what was said.

I don’t see the ‘hence’. Even if Paul actually didn't say anything, there’s no reason why he would step a couple yards away. And even if he did move away somewhat, would that necessarily mean that he couldn’t hear what was said?

On the bubble issue. I would suggest it is dangerous to set too exact a view of what sort of person the Ripper was.

I wasn’t talking specifically about the Ripper. I was talking about criminals in general and certainly the ones who commit major crimes in public/out in the streets. The basic thing for them would be to be as alert as you can be so that you can get away before you can be seen or caught.

To reject a theory because it doesn't adhere to your preconceived notion of what such a killer would or wouldn't do is very unrealistic.

Again, it’s not a preconceived notion of what such a killer would or wouldn’t do, it’s simply a basic survival strategy for criminals who commit their crimes out in the streets, unless they don’t care to be caught or are willing to kill anybody who might catch them in the act. Besides, judging by the case evidence, the Ripper seems to have been quite good at 'surviving' his crimes.

Incidentally for the Ripper to conform to your expectation he would have simulaneously been looking easrtward, westward, to the north and to the south. He would have had no time to cut.

What nonsense is this, Lechmere? Obviously and quite simply, he just had to listen for sounds and every now and then glance east and westwards.

Consider the wounds to Eddowes. Do you think he was looking all around him while performing those mutilations?

Do I really need to answer this? Well OK. Yes, I do think he was dividing his attention between his victim and his surroundings as described above. I don't think he would have 'survived' if he hadn't.

All the best,
Frank

[Lechmere]

Frank
If I may...
We can deduce from Paul's two press interviews (OK Moonbeggar, three, but the second was a duplication of the first apparently) that he was quite anti police. It is also fairly clear that Paul did not speak to Mizen. Hence it is not unreasonable to postulate that he did not stand too close while Charles Lechmere had his brief conversation with Mizen and accordingly may not have heard what was said.

On the bubble issue. I would suggest it is dangerous to set too exact a view of what sort of person the Ripper was. How thorough, how meticulous and so on. He could have been a good planner who tended to get absorbed in his 'work'., for example. Psychopathic serial killers are not like you and me (I hope), yet they are human and do display many of the same vagaries of personality that can be observed amongst normal people. If a suspect theory makes the Ripper behave in a manner which is within normal bounds - such as being in a bubble and focussing his attention in the direction of most threat and being somewhat neglectful of the direction of least threat - then that really is all you can expect. To reject a theory because it doesn't adhere to your preconceived notion of what such a killer would or wouldn't do is very unrealistic.
Incidentally for the Ripper to conform to your expectation he would have simulaneously been looking easrtward, westward, to the north and to the south. He would have had no time to cut. Consider the wounds to Eddowes. Do you think he was looking all around him while performing those mutilations?

[FrankO]

It can certainly be read that way. But the case evidence also suggest that he - for example - used the opportunities offered by the timings of the policemens´beats, Frank. And that sounds like planning to my ears.

I'd agree that he probably relied on the prostitutes’ knowledge of the beats, Fish, but he needn’t have had actual knowledge of the beats himself. That’s what I mean with him not having been much of a planner.

And I don´t think suggesting some sort of bubble is in any way illogical.

I didn’t say that suggesting the bubble was illogical, just that it isn’t the most logical solution as far as I'm concerned.

Would it be strange if he focused totally, more or less, on that?

Of course, nothing is impossible, but actually, to me, yes, it would be strange.

Brady Street offered him 150 yards. Winthrop Street offered, what, thirty? Just saying.

Brady Street offered some 130 yards. To the corner of the board school was about 40 yards. Just answering. Still, this doesn’t deflect from my point. How could he be sure that nobody would emerge from one of the houses, or from Brown & Eagle? Since he couldn’t, the best thing to do would be to keep an eye but certainly an ear out for that side, especially when he was facing the board school. I trust you can see that, Fish.

I was in Barcelona last year, in company with (or accompanied by) my wife. I can assure you that we were a lot more than twenty yards away from each other at times, Frank. There is no way we can offer any credible upper limit here. Once Mizen had decided they were travelling together, he could say that Lechmere was in company with Paul, no matter how far apart they were physically. No five yard limit there!

Although I fear we’re on the verge of the territory of semantics here - you’re right, it’s not impossible to be in someone’s company and still physically not be all that close together. But the context here is not that these 2 men were having a nice weekend together in Barcelona or that they were at a shoot-out with their friends and afterwards went to a saloon together.

The context here is that these men were late for work, found a woman who was quite possibly dead, after which the men agreed that the best course to pursue was to tell the first policeman they met, that they walked on until they met a PC at the corner of Old Montague Street, that they briefly spoke to Mizen and that afterwards they walked on together.

Why, in this context, would they not walk quite closely together all the way from Buck’s Row to the point where they parted? From the Times and the Walthamstow & Leyton Guardian it's clear that Paul didn’t walk ahead alone down Hanbury Street, and the fuss he made in his press interview over the fact that Mizen continued knocking people up also suggest that he was right there. Was he one yard away from Mizen and Cross? Was it two? Was it three? I don’t know, but, other than the meager evidence the Echo phrase provides, there’s no evidence to suggest he was so far away that he was out of earshot.

"... It was over before Cross could say "You walk on ahead and I'll notify the PC" and wait for the gap to have grown to 20 yards or so."

And you are sure of this?

That last remark of mine was tongue in cheek, Christer, just to add to the picture of how quick the affair was.

Is that impossible? I totally fail to see how it could be.

It’s not a question of whether it’s impossible or not, it’s about whether or not there’s reason to believe this, whether or not there's something unambiguous in the evidence pointing this way.

But I think that it would have been nigh on impossible for the killer to leave unnoticed once Lechmere had come into the street. He says as much himself: "Witness did not hear any sounds of a vehicle, and believed that had any one left the body after he got into Buck's-row he must have heard him." And that means that he believed he would have heard anybody leaving all the way from Brady Street. The street was dead silent, apparently, and shoes would sound from a very long way, as witnessed about by Neil.

In the case of Neil, Neil himself wasn’t actually walking the moment he heard Thain, giving him better opportunity to hear Thain. Furthermore, there's reason to believe that Neil would be alert when he discovered the woman’s throat was cut while blood was still oozing from the wound. On the other hand, Cross was walking himself, his own footsteps therefore quite possily masking those of the Ripper, Cross had no particular reason to listen for sounds and the Ripper need not have run away, he may very well have just walked away rather softly and to the beat of Cross's footsteps in order not to alarm Cross.

Incidentally, why do you think that Lechmere asserted that nobody could have sneaked out without his hearing it from 150 yards away - when he did not himself hear a man rushing down the street until he was 30-40 yards off...?

I really haven't got a clue, Fish. The one thing I do find odd is that he stated that he only heard Paul until he was 30-40 yards away from him. That’s why I wish he’d been questioned more thoroughly on this point.

Lechmere´s story is full of holes and inconsistencies.

Not just Lechmere’s. There’s a lot of holes, inconsistencies and errors throughout the whole Ripper case. It could be interesting to try & list them all.

He could never bank on the newcomer not seeing the cut to the throat instantly, could he?

Neither could Cross as killer. And seeing that Paul felt her face, knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, it seems that Cross didn't do anything to prevent her from getting near her throat.

So no, I am not buying the theory with Lechmere disturbing the killer. To my simple mind, the more logical explanation is that the clothes were pulled down since the killer was still in place when Paul arrived.

I wasn’t expecting you would and, of course, that’s your prerogative, my Swedish friend.

All the best, Fish!
Frank

[Lechmere]

Sleek
That doesnt really work - there were no wolves to throw him to.
The police had already cleared him.

[Cogidubnus]

Sleekviper, in that (limited) context I think you may well be right!

All the best

Dave

[sleekviper]

I have thought about it, for a few hours, and it occurs to me that it must speak of a time closer to the Nichols murder when Paul is "fetched up" by the police. Competition is fierce to sell papers, Lloyd's is using that Friday night interview as a frame of reference in terms of the Sept.30, report. If they, or anyone, had said," Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police,following the murder of Annie Chapman, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing." WOW!!! Would we have a connection to two consecutive murders in the witness Paul? Well no, but it would be the truth, and it would have people buzzing to buy the only paper with a headline,"Witness in Nichols Murder Taken After Chapman Murder". Throw Paul to the wolves to sell papers? I think they would.

[Lechmere]

LLOYD'S WEEKLY NEWSPAPER SUNDAY, SEPT. 2, 1888.
SPECIAL SUNDAY EDITION,
CONTAINING
ALL YESTERDAY NEWS.
LLOYD'S WEEKLY NEWSPAPER OFFICE,
SUNDAY MORNING.
On Page 1
Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Every word he had said was true.
On Page 7
On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.

The policeman referred to was PC Neil who stated that he found Polly's body at the first day of the inquest held on Saturday, 1st September. Paul clearly conducted a second interview on the evening of Saturday, 1st September - after the first day of the inquest. He repeated the same story that he had given on the evening of Friday, 31st August - the very day of the murder. This was after the appearance of various initial newspaper accounts but obviously before any account of the inquest had appeared.
The accounts were printed on Sunday morning in Lloyds Weekly Register - giving Charles Lechmere all day to digest them (I mistakenly thought it was an evening paper I must confess)
It seems likely that Paul bumped into reporters while on his way home from work, on both Friday and Saturday evening - probably in the vicinity of Bucks Row.
Two things
(1) Paul stuck to his story - i.e. placing Charles Lechmere as 'standing where the woman was'.
(2) The reporter found Paul twice quite easily. Yet we are to believe the police could only find Charles Lechmere while he walked to work down Bucks Row?
Paul was self agrandising and talkative to the press - to big himself up. In front of authority he went all bashful and quiet and was anti police - and avoided the police. Hence Charles Lechmere was left to do the talking with Mizen.

[Cogidubnus]

I was in Barcelona last year, in company with (or accompanied by) my wife. I can assure you that we were a lot more than twenty yards away from each other at times, Frank. There is no way we can offer any credible upper limit here. Once Mizen had decided they were travelling together, he could say that Lechmere was in company with Paul, no matter how far apart they were physically. No five yard limit there!

Gawdalmighty Christer...whenever I get more than 5 yards from my wife I count it an enormous victory! Sadly she counts it as an enormous relief (which is probably nearer the truth)...So what did you expect to prove with this earth-shattering statement? Certainly nothing to do with Cross/Lechmere...

I say again Gawdalmighty...

Every good wish

Dave

[Fisherman]

Frank:

" The case evidence supports the notion of a compulsive killer who wasn’t much of a planner, but who was still eager enough not to get caught, who (probably with a good deal of luck) managed to get away on a number of occasions without attracting any attention. "

It can certainly be read that way. But the case evidence also suggest that he - for example - used the opportunities offered by the timings of the policemens´beats, Frank. And that sounds like planning to my ears. Could´ve been luck, of course, but like Ingemar Stenmark, the Swedish alpine skier put it: The more I train, the luckier I seem to get.

"The bottom line is, though, that you have to account for why he let Paul approach him, whether that be the ‘bubble’ or him liking the challenge, or just the jolly of bluffing; you suppose or add just the same as the ones who don’t necessarily see anything sinister in Cross’s actions (or lack thereof)."

He heard Paul from 30-40 yards, or so he said. That is not supposition, it´s inquest testimony. Neil heard Thain from 150 yards - same thing, testimony. There is a built in anomaly here. That is nothing I perceive by adding anything. And that´s what I am talking about. It´s much like the timings - they MAY have been off, but as it stands, the time seems to be there for him to kill. No addition, all accounted for in the inquest details.

"Since it’s a very reasonable thing to suggest, Christer, and since your whole theory is based on this very premise, we can go back to what I wrote: that for a killer who sets out to kill out in the open, the most logical and basic thing to do would be to keep an eye and ear out for his surroundings while committing his crime."

Yes, that is true. But it is also true that not all things go down according to the logic one would wish for. We must leave room for this, I think. And I don´t think suggesting some sort of bubble is in any way illogical. This was the first time he got to cut open a womans´abdomen, he clearly WANTED to cut up a womans abdomen, or so it would seem from what was to follow. If this had been a phantasy that had preooccupied him for the longest time, then I don´t think that all his senses were on the alert for any disturbances. It may well have been like some sort of weird sex to him, as I think you will agree - an act of sex about which he could have dreamt and become obsessed by for a long period of time. Would it be strange if he focused totally, more or less, on that?

"In fact, I think that’s basic stuff for any criminal who commits his crime outdoors and who is well aware that he’s doing something he shouldn’t. "

If he stole silverware, then it would be another thing. He would not have something that had grown from within him invested in such a thing. I trust you can see the difference!

"I would think it more logical for him to keep an eye and ear on both sides of the street; someone could come out of one of the houses, a night watchman could surface from Brown & Eagle, or, what actually happened, someone could turn into Buck's Row from Brady Street."

Brady Street offered him 150 yards. Winthrop Street offered, what, thirty? Just saying.

"A yard sounds pretty good to me. Or even two. Five? Disputable. Twenty? Nah."

I was in Barcelona last year, in company with (or accompanied by) my wife. I can assure you that we were a lot more than twenty yards away from each other at times, Frank. There is no way we can offer any credible upper limit here. Once Mizen had decided they were travelling together, he could say that Lechmere was in company with Paul, no matter how far apart they were physically. No five yard limit there!

"The text doesn’t rule out either that another man, a whole bunch of them or even an elephant for that matter, passed while they were speaking together, Fish, but is there reason to think that this occurred? "

Nope - but there is excellent reason to think the two were divided as Lechmere spoke to Mizen.

"The Times of 4 September and the Walthamstow & Leyton Guardian of the 8th are also very clear (and even clearer than the Echo version, if you ask me): “When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street.” This clearly suggests that Cross and Paul only continued down Hanbury Street after they had finished their short conversation with Mizen."

Says not a iota about the distance inbetween the men, as you will realize. And says just as little about whether they went down Hanbury Street arm in arm or not. And that´s final, I´m afraid.

I see the temptation to read it as if the two were intertwined all along, but this need not have been so, as I have already explained. Ponder this:

When Wyatt Earp Started firing in O K Corall, he was accompanied by his friends.

Does that say how close they were, geographically?

When they had won the shoot-out, they all went to the saloon.

Does that say that they did so in close contact? Or could they have arrived one by one?

"Besides, reading all the different versions of Mizen’s inquest testimony the picture emerges of a quick affair. Mizen was in the middle of knocking people up when Cross and Paul came around the corner. Cross addressed Mizen, a few sentences were spoken between them with possibly an addition from Paul and they were on their way again, while Mizen finished knocking up at one house. It was over before Cross could say "You walk on ahead and I'll notify the PC" and wait for the gap to have grown to 20 yards or so."


And you are sure of this? There is no chance that Lechmere can have told Paul this as they were approaching Mizen, say, twenty yards before? Paul says "Okay", and walks straight on, Lechmere takes a turn and steps onto the pavement "Excuse me, constable, but ...", swops two sentences or three with the PC, and steps off the pavement, quickens his step and catches up with Paul. All over in fifteen seconds or so.

Is that impossible? I totally fail to see how it could be.

"I do see what you mean and where you're coming from, but just like the ‘bubble bid’, I don’t think this a particularly strong point."

That´s your prerogative. I´m just happy we see eye to eye on point one here.

"What I’m suggesting is that if the pulling down of the skirts wasn’t done by Cross, then the Ripper, when hearing Cross approach from Brady Street some 100 yards away, may very well have done it to buy himself some extra time to get away before it was discovered what exactly was the matter with this woman lying there."

I know, Frank. But I think that it would have been nigh on impossible for the killer to leave unnoticed once Lechmere had come into the street. He says as much himself: "Witness did not hear any sounds of a vehicle, and believed that had any one left the body after he got into Buck's-row he must have heard him." And that means that he believed he would have heard anybody leaving all the way from Brady Street. The street was dead silent, apparently, and shoes would sound from a very long way, as witnessed about by Neil.
Incidentally, why do you think that Lechmere asserted that nobody could have sneaked out without his hearing it from 150 yards away - when he did not himself hear a man rushing down the street until he was 30-40 yards off...?
Lechmere´s story is full of holes and inconsistencies. But I think we can rely on Neil and accept that what Lechmere suggested was true. And if the killer DID hear Lechmere from 150 yards and took off unnoticed, then why would he spend some seconds hiding the abdominal wounds? He could never bank on the newcomer not seeing the cut to the throat instantly, could he?
So no, I am not buying the theory with Lechmere disturbing the killer. To my simple mind, the more logical explanation is that the clothes were pulled down since the killer was still in place when Paul arrived.

My regards, Frank!
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

That's your story and your sticking to it

It was Lloyds front page on the 2nd ( halfway down )

moonbegger