Every minute counts

[Fisherman]

But don’t forget, RJ, this is a killer who drew a line on a map between Pinchin Street and Doveton Street to determine where he should dispose of the bloodstained clothing. Ditto the apron piece in Goulston Street. Part of his weirdness was the need to leave clues to his ID. It’s very similar to ‘Pierre’’s killer choosing murder locations containing the letters of his own name.

Yes, and to Ley lines. As per you, Gary. Others may be a bit more discerning, mostly the ones who know that these kinds of clues have always been looked upon by the police as vital geographical implications. Recently, the Linköping double murder was solved here in Sweden. It took sixteen years, although the police had DNA from a cap, thrown away by the killer in a waste paper basket. Guess where it was situated?

You can do better than this. Trying to make irony out of what was always accepted police methodology is not funny or relevant.

[Fisherman]

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?

Nope. If this was so, then why is it that we hear about how many a serial killer has a "comfort zone" to which he can be (and often IS) linked? Meaning that he gets caught?
The argument has been posted before, more often than not in an effort to somehow claim that the chosen murder spots, all along Lechmeres logical routes, actually point AWAY from him being the killer.
It is, of course, a disingenous argument. Not least if we add the psychopathy factor, but thatīs another matter.

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.

Personally, I do not think that he picked up his victims in Whitechapel Road. Nor do you, because you think that he was a clever and cautious man who would not want to get nicked, right? And so, why would he pick up Polly, standing next to Sarah, Emma, Eugenie and Rose, admired by Danny, Peter, Joe and Henry, if he could instead find his prey in nigh on empty, dark streets?
Some arguments come back to bite you in the behind, donīt they?
I think that the correlation speaks clearly of him NOT using the crowded prostitution streets but instead the ones he moved along, saving time and being careful not to be seen.

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

Then rethink, R J!

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.

Bucks Row was one of many, many streets where prostitutes took their clients. The 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.
If you are of the meaning that no theories that involve possible deals with prostitutes outside of Whitechapel Road should be allowed, then just say so. Alternatively, you can read up on how many of the Whitechapel Streets actually provided prostitution.

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.

The day a complete correlation between a suspect and a number of murder sites is looked upon as uninteresting by the police is the day I stop paying taxes. Itīs good to know that you will serve the community in my place then.

[Fisherman]

Don’t just take my word for it, look at the clipping above.

The dead child’s father claimed to have received information that Cross was to blame for the accident.

Would it have been a responsible act for the coroner to have disclosed Cross’s home address in open court?

I believe this is the first time I see you leaning against David Orsam... Not sure why you posted that, though?

[Fisherman]

Only because we don’t have all the facts.

Are you saying that there must be facts that dissolve the picture I am giving?

Doesn’t Paul’s arrival fit the timing even better? But we discount him because Lechmere gives him an alibi.
What we don’t know is whether another man left the scene moments before Lechmere arrived.

True, I am working from the idea that Paul did not cut Nichols as Lechmere looked away. I am reasoning that since she was on the ground motions and soundless when Paul saw her, she was in fact already cut at that stage, Call me rash, but there you are.

And true, another man may have cut Nichols moments before Lechmere arrived. You may have seen that I have said so repeatedly? However, Gary, however: IF there was such a man, then he ADDS to the bleeding time, and if I am correct abut the nine minutes ( that Erobitha say is all about erroneous manipulation, but anyway), we must add a tenth minute - which is even further away from the time window that the pathologists said was the likely bleeding time.
It is a fact that the more minutes we add to the bleeding time, the unlikelier each added minute is. That is a law of nature, is it not?

If we could say that the timing just doesn’t allow for that to have happened, then Lechmere’s the killer. If not, then the case against him is weak.

Thatīs not how it works, Iīm afraid. The more minutes of bleeding time we have on record, the stronger the case against Lechmere becomes. If Nichols had not bled at all as Lechmere found her, THEN the case against him would be weak. If she had bled a minute after he found her, the case would also be weak - but less weak (people can bleed out in a minute only). If she had bled out in two minutes, the case against Lechmere would be a bit better. Three minutes - even better. Four minutes - even better. Five minutes - even better. Six minutes - even better (and now we leave the time window the pathologists thought was the likelies for bleeding. Seven minutes - now the case against Lechmere is a strong one. Eight minutes - even stronger. Nine minutes - even stronger.

It is not as if the case WEAKENS with added bleeding time. It is the other way around.

[Fisherman]

I’m saying you are warping timings and language at the very least, if not manipulating.

If I was to claim such a thing about you, I would not just sweepingly throw out accusataions, I would feel that I needed to substantiate it, Erobitha. I VERY clearly pint out that the timings I use are not written in stone, and so I think I have done all I can to be discerning. We can all see that the sequence of events in Bucks Row must have taken numerous minutes, and we can all see that Lechmere covers a very lengthy period of the bleeding time. That is important evidence, and claiming in any way that such information is inadmissible or stamping it as "erroneous" or "manipulation" is not something that should go down well with anbybody with an interest of examining the case.

It’s an unconscious bias most likely towards an already preferred suspect. It is a “what if” scenario at best. It cannot be dismissed and may have a level of credence, but the evidence offered and the variables outlined is not enough to give more weight to Lechmere than others. It is a “could be possible”.

If, as the pathologists say, the likelier time of bleeding is 3-5 minutes, whereas 7 minutes is less likely, then of course that weighs heavily in favour of Lecdhmere baing the cutter. It is not rocket science, is it?
If I had said that there can be no other cutter, it would have been another matter, but I donīt say that, do I?
There IS room for another cutter - but that cutter would add more time to the schedule and every added minute is a minute that is less likely to be a bleeding minute than the minute before. That too is something very different from rocket science.

The original premise is based upon how long blood takes to clot post-mortem which cannot be relied on, cross referenced with timings of witnesses and pathologists that cannot be relied on. Ergo...

Thre premise is based not upon the clotting of the blood but instead upon the fact (!) that every added minute is a minute less likely to be a bleeding minute than the preceding minute. If you object to that claim, then. please explain how you look upon it. The cross-referencing you speak of is the exact thing that make me say that we must allow for either added or detracted time. But when we look away from all of thesewitnesses and pathologists that you will not rely upon (although I would suggest that people like Payne-James and Thiblin are extremely experienced and knowledgeable professionals, and if we donīt listen to them, I cannot see who would be better to listen to - nobody...?), we are STILL left with a fair distance between Browns Stable Yard and the Hanbury Street/Bakers Row junction, that would have taken minutes to walk for the carmen. We are still left with an examination of Nichols by the carmen that would have taken itīs time, and a discussion inbetween Paul and Lechmere about what to do. We are still left with how it will have taken time for Lechmere to inform Mizen about the woman in Bucks Row. We are still left with the fact that Mizen did some knocking up before he left for Bucks Row.
No matter how we llok upon this, we are left with a considerable amount of minutes that must have passed. And no matter how we look upoin it, we are faced with the fact that every passing minute is always less likely to be a bleeding minute than the minute before.
That will not go away.
Nor will the fact that Lechmere therefore occupies an amount of minutes that goes beyond what the pathologists said was the likely bleeding time go away.

It cannot possibly be good news for Lechmere. And if we try to nullify this by claiming that I deal in erroneous timings (when I say that we must leave room for added or detracted time) and manipulation (when I pass on what two highly merited forensic pathologists had to say about likely bleeding times), then, and only then, does manipulation and misrepresentation enter the game.

The point I am making is a perfectly legit one, supported by top experts. You may need to learn to live with that.

[Fisherman]

But any opinion can only be guesswork, there is no way they can be specific, and no way for them to be able to conclusively and beyond doubt support your belief that Nichols had died within the parameters relative to Lechmere and his movements that morning.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The sequence of events cannot have taken 3-5 minutes only, Trevor. It is impossible. We can therefore say that the space of time described as the likely bleeding time by the pathologists is occupied by Lechmere alone.
It dpes not mean that there cannot have been time for another killer. But it does mean that things are not looking good at all for Lechmere.

[JeffHamm]

Since I do not want the overriding issue to get lost (or ooze away), Iīd like to ask whether people out here agree with me about it:

If we accept that Nichols bled as Neil and Mizen first saw her, does that not mean that Lechmere must be regarded as by far the likeliest killer of her?

Hi Fisherman,

I can see why that could be consistent with Cross/Lechmere as being her killer, but it's also consistent with Cross/Lechmere coming down the road and JtR leaving due to his approach. Even without debating the variation in bleed times, etc, if we just consider the idea of Cross/Lechmere being her killer, and therefore she was cut some amount of time before Paul sees Cross/Lechmere standing in the street, then in this scenerio Cross/Lechmere has time to have killed her, was able to notice Paul coming down the street (and Paul does not notice him), Cross/Lechmere then had enough time to move away from the body to be spotted standing there when Paul gets closer. Given something like that has to have happened for Cross/Lechmere to be her killer then there's nothing to exclude the possibility that Cross/Lechmere scared off JtR (since the idea is, after all, that Paul interrupted Cross/Lechmere, only Cross/Lehmere remained there rather than leave). There would be only a matter of 40-60 seconds difference in the bleed times, which is not going to be noticeable by the time the police get there. Therefore, the we cannot conclude the bleeding evidence is only consistent wtih Cross/Lechmere being her killer. It can be argued it is consistent with that idea, but that is not the same as it making him the most likely explanation. The "JtR fled when Cross/Lechmere comes down the road would get equal weight for consideration. I know the JtR fled may seem more complex, but we know JtR similarly leaves when PC Harvey patrols Church Passage in the Eddowes case, there's the interruption theory around Stride (though that is far less agreed upon, that's not an issue for here) so it's not like this sort of thing doesn't appear to happen with JtR, rather, it seems almost common.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

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 '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.

But don’t forget, RJ, this is a killer who drew a line on a map between Pinchin Street and Doveton Street to determine where he should dispose of the bloodstained clothing. Ditto the apron piece in Goulston Street. Part of his weirdness was the need to leave clues to his ID. It’s very similar to ‘Pierre’’s killer choosing murder locations containing the letters of his own name.

[rjpalmer]

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.

[MrBarnett]

Lord Orsam on the reporting of the 1876 accident:

“Four out of six witness did not have their addresses published in the local press reports of the inquest.”

Here’s what was published.

Walter Williams: 36, Cloudseley Road

George Porter: 3, Elizabeth Terrace*

Henrietta Owen: 100, Aldenham Street

Dr Hindbaugh: Barnesbury Road

William Warner: 25, Henry Street

Charles Cross: No address given

*His brother’s shop

In trying to be clever and argue (presumably) that ‘Barnesbury Road’ is not an address and 3, Elizabeth Terrace was not Porter’s own address , the great O drops the greatest of clangers and somehow misses one of the three witnesses whose addresses were published in full.

And in doing so obscures the point being made. No address or location was provided for Cross, for all the other witnesses one was.

I’ve no doubt there are similar examples of his Lordship’s slipshod methods in his endless waffle about the blood evidence. Be warned.

Don’t just take my word for it, look at the clipping above.

The dead child’s father claimed to have received information that Cross was to blame for the accident.

Would it have been a responsible act for the coroner to have disclosed Cross’s home address in open court?

[MrBarnett]

I’m not going to get into this debate but I’ll just let everyone know, if they don’t already, that David Orsam has a new article on this very topic. That’s my only contribution.

Lord Orsam on the reporting of the 1876 accident:

“Four out of six witness did not have their addresses published in the local press reports of the inquest.”

Here’s what was published.

Walter Williams: 36, Cloudseley Road

George Porter: 3, Elizabeth Terrace*

Henrietta Owen: 100, Aldenham Street

Dr Hindbaugh: Barnesbury Road

William Warner: 25, Henry Street

Charles Cross: No address given

*His brother’s shop

In trying to be clever and argue (presumably) that ‘Barnesbury Road’ is not an address and 3, Elizabeth Terrace was not Porter’s own address , the great O drops the greatest of clangers and somehow misses one of the three witnesses whose addresses were published in full.

And in doing so obscures the point being made. No address or location was provided for Cross, for all the other witnesses one was.

I’ve no doubt there are similar examples of his Lordship’s slipshod methods in his endless waffle about the blood evidence. Be warned.

[MrBarnett]

Since I do not want the overriding issue to get lost (or ooze away), Iīd like to ask whether people out here agree with me about it:

If we accept that Nichols bled as Neil and Mizen first saw her, does that not mean that Lechmere must be regarded as by far the likeliest killer of her?

Only because we don’t have all the facts.

Doesn’t Paul’s arrival fit the timing even better? But we discount him because Lechmere gives him an alibi.
What we don’t know is whether another man left the scene moments before Lechmere arrived.

If we could say that the timing just doesn’t allow for that to have happened, then Lechmere’s the killer. If not, then the case against him is weak.

[erobitha]

Thanks for the accusations of manipulation and erroneous timings! Maybe you can tell me how the timings can be erroneous when I very clearly say that they are not to be regarded as exact?
In my world, that is being discerning, in yours it is being manipulating, it seems..?

Now, unless Paul and Lechmere teleported themselves from Browns stable yard to Mizen, there will be an elapsed amount of time involved in the process. And we have Paul saying that the total amount of time, involving the examination and the trek, took no more than four minutes. Given the distance, that seems a fair estimation to me, but as I say, I am open to ideas that it took less or more time. Thatīs how manipulative I am.

Then Mizen had to get to Browns stable yard, and we should involve his conversation with Lechmere and his knocking up business in there, and so I find that four minutes may have been what it took. But, I am willing to move that time somewhat in either direction too.

The thing is, if we work from the assumption that Paul reached the body at 3.46, then the nine minute scenario has Thain leaving for Llewellyn in the correct time, justaboutish, and so that seems to make for at least some corroboration.

Whichever way we look at things, it must be accepted that the total amount of time could not have been five minutes only, far from it, and that is what it would take to reach the window of time the two pathologists name as the likely bleeding period. Meaning that another killer must have worked in a space of time that - according to the pathologists - was less likely to be a bleeding time.

This is something that should interest anybody studying the case, and since I have presented the material I work from in extenso and given my reasons for why I regard Lechmere as the most likely killer, I find it a bit sad when people cannot discuss it in a better tone than the one you use.

Itīs not that I am not used to it - itīs just that I believe it is squandering the possibilitites to have an intelligible discussion.

Can we try again, on a better note? How about you make an estimation of your own of the timings and present it, and we can work from there?

I’m saying you are warping timings and language at the very least, if not manipulating. It’s an unconscious bias most likely towards an already preferred suspect. It is a “what if” scenario at best. It cannot be dismissed and may have a level of credence, but the evidence offered and the variables outlined is not enough to give more weight to Lechmere than others. It is a “could be possible”.

The original premise is based upon how long blood takes to clot post-mortem which cannot be relied on, cross referenced with timings of witnesses and pathologists that cannot be relied on. Ergo...

[Trevor Marriott]

Not exactly, no - but we know for certain that it exceeds the likely time frame the two pathologists spoke of.

But any opinion can only be guesswork, there is no way they can be specific, and no way for them to be able to conclusively and beyond doubt support your belief that Nichols had died within the parameters relative to Lechmere and his movements that morning.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m not going to get into this debate but I’ll just let everyone know, if they don’t already, that David Orsam has a new article on this very topic. That’s my only contribution.