Every minute counts

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

"Bucks Row was one of many, many streets where prostitutes took their clients."

Really?

Evening News
London, U.K.
7 September 1888

FIFTH EDITION.
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
WATCHING BUCK'S ROW.

"This morning, at one o'clock, two reporters commenced a watch in Buck's-row, which terminated at eleven o'clock, and from what they then observed, coupled with the evidence already given, they came to the conclusion that the police are altogether wrong in their assumption that the murder was committed on the spot where the body was found. This seems to be absolutely impossible, for the following reasons. In the first place, Buck's-row is a decently wide thoroughfare, running at right angles from Baker's-row to Brady-street. Buck's-row is in every sense thoroughly respectable, every tenant being an old inhabitant, and of good class. In addition to well-to-do artisans, the row contains a mission hall, the factory of Messrs. Schneider and Sons, and the factories and warehouses of Messrs. Torr, and Browne and Eagle, together with the private residence of the Rev. Henry North Hall, the curate of St. Mary, Whitechapel. There are watchmen at night at these factories, and many of the private residents were awake at the time the deceased was murdered, but none heard any cries for help on Friday morning.

"It has been stated that the street is a dark one, but this is altogether wrong, for it is well lighted at all hours of the night by the great lamps outside the [Albion] brewery of Messrs. Mann and Crossman, in addition to the ordinary street lamps, and it seems inconceivable that such a well-lighted street would be selected for the crime."

Hope you're keeping that Virus at bay.

Simon

[rjpalmer]

Hi RJ,

"Bucks Row was one of many, many streets where prostitutes took their clients."

Really?

Hello Simon. All is well here, thanks.

I was quoting Christer, so I'll let him respond if he is so inclined.

Of course, in contrast to the article you post, Abberline claimed the street was sometimes used by 'unfortunates,' but, even if we accept his statement without question, I think most people would assume that he meant that they did so in order to conclude a transaction, rather than to initiate one...

I'm an oddball, however. I have never entirely discounted the story told by the children of Mrs. Colville/Caldwell/Coldwell, of someone rattling doorknobs and running and screaming for dear life.

But I stray off-topic...

Cheers.

[Abby Normal]

Are the Lechmere theorists also followers of Hallie Rubenhold?

Here's why I ask.

If Polly Nichols was soliciting at the time of her murder, as most Ripperologists assume (and most likely this would have been somewhere along the Whitechapel Road, though I am open to other suggestions), wasn't it rather unfortunate for the Lechmere theorists that she would bring her punter, Charles the Ripper, back for an infamous 'knee trembler' in the very street that he would walk down if he was simply and innocently commuting from Doveton Street to Pickford & Co? Wouldn’t a murderer want to avoid his own route of egress?

I suppose the Lechmerians could argue that Charles, having picked her up in the Whitechapel Road, brought her to his own route by design, either to unconsciously incriminate himself by murdering a woman along his usual morning walk, or, conversely, having the startling foresight to realize that if he was nearly caught in the act, it would give him the ability to 'explain it all away.' But that would also mean that Charles timed the murder perfectly to coincide with his usual morning commute through Buck’s Row, and at very close to the time he would normally leave for work.

I confess that neither explanation appears to be the least bit palatable.

On the other hand, perhaps the Lechmerians might want to 'buck the Ripperological tide' (pun intended) and give a subtle wink in the direction of Ms. Rubenhold, theorizing that Polly was simply staggering down Buck's Row (or Heaven forbid, sleeping there!) when the Ripper/Crossmere came upon her.

If not, then why in the blazes is Lechmere's route to work, or his alleged time of leaving home, the least bit relevant?

Unless, of course, he was entirely innocent, and was just a bloke walking to work.

hi RJ
im in the weird position of disliking hr in general and because shes lying when trying to say the victims werent prostitutes and demonizing ripperologists and throwing accusations of misogyny etc., but then on the other hand i dont think its too crazy to suggest that some of the victims may have been dozing when the ripper came upon them and or not actively soliciting.

[Abby Normal]

surely if the neck had stopped bleeding/oozing by the time the cops arrived on the scene it would point away from lech no?
so any neck bleeding would place time of the attack closer to when lech was there. the way i see it the neck still oozing has to point more to lech than away.

[Abby Normal]

"Bucks Row was one of many, many streets where prostitutes took their clients. The[y] did not teleport themselves to and fro these streets, they actually visited them. If they, after having finished the business with a client, would turn away any other offers before they were back on Whitechapel Road, I would be very surprised. Saving time and making money is what prostitution is about, the tighter the schedule the better."

Dang, Fish, I didn't think you would want to go there, but you did!

So, in this scenario, Polly was in the dark and lonely Buck's Row at 3.40ish a.m., because she had taken another man there and the transaction was 'concluded' only moments before Lechmere came along on what was his normal path to work?

Well, I can't argue with that one.

I think most people have always believed that was the case; they just differed over what this 'transaction' entailed.

Good luck and carry on.

perhaps, or maybe she simply was drunk and tired and not finding any clients, got off the beaten track and was dozing in bucks row when the ripper encountered her.

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

Sorry, I should have made it clear that I understood you were quoting Christer.

As for Abberline, well he couldn't have said anything else without shooting himself in the foot.

And I'm with you on Mrs Colville.

Simon

[Fisherman]

Hi RJ,

"Bucks Row was one of many, many streets where prostitutes took their clients."

Really?

Evening News
London, U.K.
7 September 1888

FIFTH EDITION.
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
WATCHING BUCK'S ROW.

"This morning, at one o'clock, two reporters commenced a watch in Buck's-row, which terminated at eleven o'clock, and from what they then observed, coupled with the evidence already given, they came to the conclusion that the police are altogether wrong in their assumption that the murder was committed on the spot where the body was found. This seems to be absolutely impossible, for the following reasons. In the first place, Buck's-row is a decently wide thoroughfare, running at right angles from Baker's-row to Brady-street. Buck's-row is in every sense thoroughly respectable, every tenant being an old inhabitant, and of good class. In addition to well-to-do artisans, the row contains a mission hall, the factory of Messrs. Schneider and Sons, and the factories and warehouses of Messrs. Torr, and Browne and Eagle, together with the private residence of the Rev. Henry North Hall, the curate of St. Mary, Whitechapel. There are watchmen at night at these factories, and many of the private residents were awake at the time the deceased was murdered, but none heard any cries for help on Friday morning.

"It has been stated that the street is a dark one, but this is altogether wrong, for it is well lighted at all hours of the night by the great lamps outside the [Albion] brewery of Messrs. Mann and Crossman, in addition to the ordinary street lamps, and it seems inconceivable that such a well-lighted street would be selected for the crime."

Hope you're keeping that Virus at bay.

Simon

"Well lighted at all hours of the night".

I think you may have been taken to the cleaners, Simon...

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

No worries. I just don't see how an extra 60 seconds could possibly be differentiated one way or the other, particularly from the information we have to work with. Hence, in my opinion, the "bleeding evidence" taken in isolation leaves both the Cross/Lechmere hypothesis and the "JtR as other" hypothesis in equal standing. Particularly as everything that has to be assumed in the Cross/Lechmere hypothesis affords the same opportunities to "JtR as other" that enable his leaving the scene. Everyone is, of course, free to impart their own interpretations as to that and are under no obligation to agree with me. I'm just putting my 2 cents in to be considered for what it's worth (and I note, a lot of countries no longer have pennies ).

- Jeff

I am not saying that there may not have been 60 seconds for a killer to use, Jeff. Or 120. Or more. I am saying that we should not EXPECT there to have been and we should not put the tenth and eleventh and twelfth minute of bleeding on par with the first minutes. Any alternative killer would have to work in a window of time the pathologists would not have expected to be there - and that must be of interest to us.

[Fisherman]

Is it the case that a line drawn from the Pinchin Street arch through St Phillip’s church goes directly through 22, Doveton Street as Christer says?

The line we should be drawing should go FROM the arch TO 22 Doveton Street, in which case it passes over St Philips Church. And it is not as if it becomes irrelevant if the line passes an inch to the left or right of the church, it is nevertheless an amazing correlation.

[Fisherman]

"Bucks Row was one of many, many streets where prostitutes took their clients. The[y] did not teleport themselves to and fro these streets, they actually visited them. If they, after having finished the business with a client, would turn away any other offers before they were back on Whitechapel Road, I would be very surprised. Saving time and making money is what prostitution is about, the tighter the schedule the better."

Dang, Fish, I didn't think you would want to go there, but you did!

So, in this scenario, Polly was in the dark and lonely Buck's Row at 3.40ish a.m., because she had taken another man there and the transaction was 'concluded' only moments before Lechmere came along on what was his normal path to work?

Well, I can't argue with that one.

I think most people have always believed that was the case; they just differed over what this 'transaction' entailed.

Good luck and carry on.

Exactly, you canīt argue with that one. Although you would very much like to.

At 11 PM on the night leading up to the Nichols murder, Polly was seen in Whitechapel Road, likely soliciting. At 2.30, she met Emily Holland on that self same street. Whitechapel Road was always going to have people on it, as witnessed by for example John Neil. And so, when you walk it, people notice you and can testify about it. But nobody testifies about Polly Nichols in Whitechapel Road the minutes before she was found dead. And nobody testifies about Annie Chapmans whereabouts after she left the boarding house.
But you think they cannot have found business in the smaller roads, they MUST have been found by their killer in WHitechapel Road or Commercial Street.

So yes, I am going there as an obvious possibility, since it is supported by this evidence and since I think the killer would prioritize dark, empty back streets over well lit and populated ones.

[Fisherman]

surely if the neck had stopped bleeding/oozing by the time the cops arrived on the scene it would point away from lech no?

No, not as such. But it would make it much harder to build a case against him. It is only if the neck had not bled as Paul and Lechmere examined her that it would point away from Lechmere.

so any neck bleeding would place time of the attack closer to when lech was there. the way i see it the neck still oozing has to point more to lech than away.

Exactly. And it is a very easy equation: If she bled as Paul was there with Lechmere, it is bad news for the carman. If she bled as Neil arrived, it is significantly worse news for him. If she bled as Mizen first saw her, it is terrible news for Lechmere.

It should go without saying - but way goes without saying in Ripperland...?

[JeffHamm]

I am not saying that there may not have been 60 seconds for a killer to use, Jeff. Or 120. Or more. I am saying that we should not EXPECT there to have been and we should not put the tenth and eleventh and twelfth minute of bleeding on par with the first minutes. Any alternative killer would have to work in a window of time the pathologists would not have expected to be there - and that must be of interest to us.

Hi Fisherman,

Not a problem. I'm not expecting anything actually, just looking at what we have and seeing what sort of ranges we can realistically narrow things down to and considering the subsequent implications of that. The kind of information we're discussing here would not in my view allow us to produce a sufficiently narrow time window to differentiate between the Cross/Lechmere hypothesis and the JtR as other hypothesis. As such, both hypotheses survive this test, leaving them on equal footing when considering this information, that's all. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but you seem to be suggesting in your last statement that you believe this sort of data does narrow the time she was originally cut precise enough that an additional 30-60 seconds can be considered less likely? If I've misunderstood you, my apologies.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

One of the things I thought did not look right with such a proposition was that Nichols' clothing was pulled down over the wounds, and that was something the killer never did otherwise. But all in all, one must perhaps accept that the killer chose to do it in Bucks Row but nowhere else. Illogical? Absolutely. But possible? Yes.

Nichols' clothing was pulled down by Robert Paul and Charles Lechmere, at least according to Paul.

"The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down." - Robert Paul

In the book, I suggest that Nichols bled for a minimum of nine minutes. I am reasoning that Lechmere cut her throat as he first heard Robert Paul entering Bucks Row. After that, it took a minute for Paul to reach the murder spot.

Lechmere says he heard Paul when Paul was "about forty yards away". Average walking speed is about 1.4 meters per second, so that distance would be covered in 25 to 30 seconds. Possibly faster, since Paul was late for work.

Paul then says that his meeting Lechmere, examining Nichols and walking up to Mizen took around four minutes altogether. That means that we have five minutes elapsed at that stage.

"The man [Lechmere] walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman." - Robert Paul

Paul said that all this took "not more than four minutes", which is not the same thing as "around four minutes". Paul does not appear to have had a watch and we have no idea how accurate Paul was at estimating time. Anywhere from 2 to 5 minutes is probably a reasonable guess.

Then there was a conversation between Lechmere and Mizen, after which Mizen tended to some of his waking up duties before he set out for Bucks Row.

Nothing I have read indicates Mizzen continued with waking up duties. Neither he, Lechmere, or Paul mention it. It would have been a severe dereliction of duty on Mizzen's part when he thought he had been summoned by another constable.

I reason that this would have added up to around the same amount of time, four minutes, and so the whole procedure before Mizen reached the murder site would have taken a total of nine minutes.
Of course, it may have taken eight minutes too. Or ten. But the nine minute suggestion will not be wildly wrong.

Far more reasonable would be that Mizzen, who thought he was summoned by another constable, would have taken half as long as it took Lechmere and Paul to reach him. That means a total elapsed time of 3 1/2 minutes to 8 minutes.

As Mizen arrived at the murder site, he said that the blood was still running from the neck, and that it had at this stage started to run into the gutter. He said the blood looked fresh and that it was partly coagulated in the pool.

Mizen didn't say this at the Inquest. It was said by PC Neil, who arrived well before Mizen.

"I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat." - PC Neil

"There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck." - PC Neil

We are not sure when Neil saw Nichols' body. It was probably only a minute or two after Lechemere and Paul had left Nichols body. It certainly wasn't 9 minutes, it probably wasn't even 5. Unfortunately, Neil uses the contradictory terms "running" and "oozing". If we go with the 3 to 7 minutes estimation, then "running" blood gives a time frame for Nichols throat being cut from 3 or 4 minutes before Robert Paul saw her body to the clearly impossible a minute after Paul left. "Oozing" blood would indicate that internal blood pressure had dropped and a significant amount of coagulation had started, which would make it wildly improbable that Lechmere killed Nichols.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Christer,

You're right. I met Abberline at the cleaners.

He was having a few alibis laundered.

Hope you're well.

Simon

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Not a problem. I'm not expecting anything actually, just looking at what we have and seeing what sort of ranges we can realistically narrow things down to and considering the subsequent implications of that. The kind of information we're discussing here would not in my view allow us to produce a sufficiently narrow time window to differentiate between the Cross/Lechmere hypothesis and the JtR as other hypothesis. As such, both hypotheses survive this test, leaving them on equal footing when considering this information, that's all. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but you seem to be suggesting in your last statement that you believe this sort of data does narrow the time she was originally cut precise enough that an additional 30-60 seconds can be considered less likely? If I've misunderstood you, my apologies.

- Jeff

It goes a bit further that that, Jeff: Every minute of bleeding that is added to the total tally must always be a minute that is less likely to be a bleeding minute than the preceding minute/s.
It can be described as a law of nature, as I have pointed out already.

To say that Lechmere is no likelier than an alternative killer is something that we cannot do on a specific level, for the simnple reason that we do not know how long Nichols bled for. If she bled for twentyfive minute and if Mizen saw her after nine minutes, then we have a sixteen minute gap in which the killer may have operated.

However, what the pathologists agreed on is that once we pass the five minute border, we venture into a bleeding time that they thought a less likely one. So suggesting a bleeding time of twentyfive minutes is suggesting an unlikely thing, as per the pathologists. In actual fact, since they thought that a bleeding time of seven minutes was not as lilely as a shorter bleeding time, what is suggested is that if we have a bleeding of nine minutes as I suggest, then a tenth minutee should not be expected. It is unlikelier than a seized bleeding. An eleventh minute of bleeding is even unlikelier and so on.

So basically, what the pathologists say is that alternative killer must have worked in a gap of time that we should not expect to be present, because it is unlikely to have been there.

Now, unlikely things do happen. Even extremely unlikely things take place every now and then. But that doens not mean that a suggestion of an alternative killer becomes as likely as the suggestion that Lechmere did the cutting. It may have happened, but it is not as likely.

Thatīs what is suggested by the pathologists.