Evidence of innocence

[Mark J D]

absolutely. ive often felt she may have gone into bucks row after not finding a client and decided to doze on the sidewalk and or up against a building/gateway. the time frames of her having just been killed recently when lech "found " her suggest it.

And this, of course, would allow Lechmere to remain closely in touch with the truth when giving his inquest evidence: he did walk up to what looked like a tarpaulin; he just omitted to mention all the parts that would have got him hanged.

M.

[Mark J D]

Thanks. From what I've learned from becoming (dear) boss-eyed staring at photos and postcards, that big building is the eastern edge of Broad Street Station: in front of it (i.e. under the big sign) is the north-south outdoor corridor with the dozen archways that lead east-west underneath the station platforms; and in the foreground of the picture is the westernmost edge of the Liverpool Street Station site.

Thing is, nothing in that pic refers to a delivery staff entrance/exit; and the reference to Eldon Street surely means that the public should go to the entrance over in Eldon Street if they want the General Enquiry Offices: this corridor is at 90 degrees to Eldon Street and on the opposite side of the Broad Street site. There's a pic around that shows flatbed rail wagons and some turntables down there serving the operation inside the arches: it's surely not a place the public would be allowed to go, even given a Malthusian attitude to Health & Safety...

M.

[Mark J D]

Here's a nice pic of that open corridor and its arches...

Definitely not for public use -- and, all told, not a great site for a workers' entrance/exit either, I'd say...

Go on: look at the front left of the photo and say it:
"... I could not tell ... what it was at first; it looked to me like a tarpaulin sheet..."




M.

[DJA]

Thanks. The most relevant thing available there seems to be this map...

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/broad_street/1896map.gif

Alas, I don't think it shows the best (western end) bits, which is where I think our 1931 big gate must be.

As a more general point, if anyone is reading: the (few) places I've worked that were related to logistics were all very concerned not to mix blue-collar and white-collar arrivals/departures -- and even more concerned not to have employees mixing with the public in anything except 'active customer service' contexts. I find it hard to believe that a society as super-stratified as 1880s London wanted a stream of carmen in boots and aprons and donkey jackets weaving their way through crowds of paying passengers. If Eldon Street contained the blue-collar clock-in/out desk as well as those in/out despatch control barriers (n.b. the 'time clock' as we know it was invented the day after Mary Kelly was buried), I wouldn't expect the workers to be arriving via Liverpool Street: I think they'd have a distant entrance that the ticket-buying public didn't need to see -- and they'd be told to get to it via a road the ticket-buying public didn't need to use. Think Appold Street or worse... If that meant any killer, I mean worker having to walk up to Skinner Street and go round, then who'd care? They weren't walking in works' time...

M.

DISTRICT(1888) p139 - Liverpool Street and Broad Street stations (plan) - Broad Street railway station (England) - Wikipedia

Reckon Nichols waylaid Henry Gawen Sutton outside London Hospital and he diverted her up either Thomas or Court Street.

Your map is interesting as Primrose Street was Sutton's route home to Finsbury Square before he moved to Sevenoaks well before the murders.

The parents of a male child living with sailorman George Hutchinson resided in Primrose Street.

[Abby Normal]

And this, of course, would allow Lechmere to remain closely in touch with the truth when giving his inquest evidence: he did walk up to what looked like a tarpaulin; he just omitted to mention all the parts that would have got him hanged.

M.

yup. agree.

[Mark J D]

Reckon Nichols waylaid Henry Gawen Sutton outside London Hospital and he diverted [/URL]her up either Thomas or Court Street.

Your map is interesting as Primrose Street was Sutton's route home to Finsbury Square before he moved to Sevenoaks well before the murders.

The parents of a male child living with sailorman George Hutchinson resided in Primrose Street.

Mate, there are days when it looks like they all bloody did it...

M.

[MrBarnett]

Here's a nice pic of that open corridor and its arches...

Definitely not for public use -- and, all told, not a great site for a workers' entrance/exit either, I'd say...

Go on: look at the front left of the photo and say it:
"... I could not tell ... what it was at first; it looked to me like a tarpaulin sheet..."




M.

So who do you imagine used it if not the public or workers?

[Mark J D]

yup. agree.

Okay, let me try something out, here...

If Nichols really had given up parading outside the five pubs on that single block, and had gone two whole roads back to get some drunken kip in a quiet street, then she would have been in a place that was pretty well guaranteed safe from the kind of generic marauding madman that was 'down on whores' and out looking for one to kill: while he's doing whatever he's doing in the places he thinks he can find just the right combination of women and privacy, she's in a place he's not even going to think of looking -- and has even found a maximally dark spot opposite a street light that's not working (Ripperology, passim). [Assumption: the ladies needing pennies for a bed looked for business in and near the pubs on the main road and did business in the alleyways and places like Winthrop Street immediately behind, but not in Buck's Row itself: neither Lechmere's nor Paul's testimony mentioned this particular 'social evil', many as were the times they'd walked down there; and when Paul saw someone ahead of him, he thought he was going to get thumped, not propositioned...]

In short, we aren't going to find a Kosminsky [stereotypical disorganised psychotic and absurdly popular suspect] setting off to walk up Buck's Row: he's not so mad as to think he'll find fallen women in places women don't fall. Which means that while poor Polly is sleeping it off against the double doors, the only kind of person going to come across her is a copper on his beat or ... a man on his way to work. Well, here comes one of Pickford's Finest, and he's still seriously pissed off that the one in George Yard pulled that stupid little knife on him... Still, he showed her, didn't he? And this one will be *much, much easier*...

[rjpalmer]

And this, of course, would allow Lechmere to remain closely in touch with the truth when giving his inquest evidence: he did walk up to what looked like a tarpaulin; he just omitted to mention all the parts that would have got him hanged.

M.

The reason this was roundly rejected when Rubenhold suggested it is that people can't imagine a street smart woman like Nichols crashing on the pavement in a spot that would directly interfer with the path of a beat constable. It's not impossible, but its not plausible, either.

Sooner rather than later, Polly would have been run-in or moved off.

I see Ed Stowe is suggesting that Lechmere picked her up in the Whitechapel Road. This is not as damaging as Christer's theory of an entirely different punter having brought her into this darkened backstreet, but it does leave one wondering why a murderer would have brought a victim back to the very spot that he traversed at the same time every morning for months. Is that likely?

[Mark J D]

All worth pondering. Thanks.

Some first thoughts:

The reason this was roundly rejected when Rubenhold suggested it is that people can't imagine a street smart woman like Nichols crashing on the pavement in a spot that would directly interfere with the path of a beat constable. It's not impossible, but its not plausible, either.

I am reminded of the way one of my oldest and smartest friends was once seen at a party drinking Special Brew from pairs of cans still held together by the plastic rings. Six hours later he woke up in a stranger's tiny front garden without the faintest recollection of how or why he ended up there. In short, it may just be a question of how drunk one is.

Sooner rather than later, Polly would have been run-in or moved off.

Where would that not have been the case in those streets? Brady Street? No. Baker's Row? No. Etc. We all know there were no fewer than three coppers patrolling street after street within sight/sound of that very place.

Nor do I see it as necessary to assume that Nichols imagined she'd get to sleep right through: maybe she just wanted to close her eyes for a bit till the world stopped spinning. And my guess is that, for a safe snooze, Buck's Row actually seemed like the smart choice, given its quietness, apparently stygian darkness, and distance from the main road. And she may even have thought she'd be harder to see against the double doors: maybe PC Niel would think she was just a piece of tarpaulin...

... Christer's theory of an entirely different punter having brought her into this darkened backstreet...

Hey, if you want Mrs Lilley's train and the accompanying sighs at 03:30, you have to have someone bringing someone into this darkened backstreet...

I see Ed Stowe is suggesting that Lechmere picked her up in the Whitechapel Road. This ... does leave one wondering why a murderer would have brought a victim back to the very spot that he traversed at the same time every morning for months. Is that likely?

That's Ripperology for you! A minute ago, everyone was telling me 'the killer had to have an intimate knowledge of the area'. Only when it's Lechmere do people suddenly start adding 'but not too intimate, obviously...' What's more, last time I brought this up, I was told in no uncertain terns that it's the prostitute who takes the man to her chosen spot. Pardon me all to hell for not knowing.

To me, Lechmere seems like a smart-enough guy who wasn't actually taking all the wild risks people think he was -- because as far as the 'walk to work' killings are concerned, he knew he was re-taking the walk over and over again, with no need to strike unless he could see that everything fitted properly. How bright is the moon tonight? Is the copper on this beat running early or late? Is this woman on her own, or is there someone else in that doorway? Etc. In his case, and his case alone, it's a bit like that guy in 'Groundhog Day' getting endless rehearsals to rob the cash from the security van. I don't think this point is sufficiently appreciated, steeped as people are in the century-old notion of a marauding madman striking out on impulse as he wanders randomly about.

Plus: Lechmere -- alone among the suspects! -- would have had a major thrill every single morning as he walked directly past one or more murder sites and relived the whole experience -- knowing all the time that he was golden, because even if people saw him as he passed by, they didn't really see him:

Albert Cadosch, as reported in the Morning Advertiser, 20 September 1888:

Coroner: Did you see a man or woman in the street?

Cadosch: No; I only saw workmen passing by to their work.

Nice chatting!

M.

[Abby Normal]

Okay, let me try something out, here...

If Nichols really had given up parading outside the five pubs on that single block, and had gone two whole roads back to get some drunken kip in a quiet street, then she would have been in a place that was pretty well guaranteed safe from the kind of generic marauding madman that was 'down on whores' and out looking for one to kill: while he's doing whatever he's doing in the places he thinks he can find just the right combination of women and privacy, she's in a place he's not even going to think of looking -- and has even found a maximally dark spot opposite a street light that's not working (Ripperology, passim). [Assumption: the ladies needing pennies for a bed looked for business in and near the pubs on the main road and did business in the alleyways and places like Winthrop Street immediately behind, but not in Buck's Row itself: neither Lechmere's nor Paul's testimony mentioned this particular 'social evil', many as were the times they'd walked down there; and when Paul saw someone ahead of him, he thought he was going to get thumped, not propositioned...]

In short, we aren't going to find a Kosminsky [stereotypical disorganised psychotic and absurdly popular suspect] setting off to walk up Buck's Row: he's not so mad as to think he'll find fallen women in places women don't fall. Which means that while poor Polly is sleeping it off against the double doors, the only kind of person going to come across her is a copper on his beat or ... a man on his way to work. Well, here comes one of Pickford's Finest, and he's still seriously pissed off that the one in George Yard pulled that stupid little knife on him... Still, he showed her, didn't he? And this one will be *much, much easier*...

yeah i lean toward she was chilling out in bucks row when the ripper came upon her. that late hour suggests it. i mean was she still parading up and down WC road and or around it a couple hours after holland saw her? perhaps but i think probably not. she was drunk and probably quickly getting tired.
either way it really makes no difference to me she where she encountered the ripper, i dont think it hurts lechs case either way. for all we know he left his house earlier and did a little bit scoping around.

[Abby Normal]

All worth pondering. Thanks.

Some first thoughts:



I am reminded of the way one of my oldest and smartest friends was once seen at a party drinking Special Brew from pairs of cans still held together by the plastic rings. Six hours later he woke up in a stranger's tiny front garden without the faintest recollection of how or why he ended up there. In short, it may just be a question of how drunk one is.



Where would that not have been the case in those streets? Brady Street? No. Baker's Row? No. Etc. We all know there were no fewer than three coppers patrolling street after street within sight/sound of that very place.

Nor do I see it as necessary to assume that Nichols imagined she'd get to sleep right through: maybe she just wanted to close her eyes for a bit till the world stopped spinning. And my guess is that, for a safe snooze, Buck's Row actually seemed like the smart choice, given its quietness, apparently stygian darkness, and distance from the main road. And she may even have thought she'd be harder to see against the double doors: maybe PC Niel would think she was just a piece of tarpaulin...



Hey, if you want Mrs Lilley's train and the accompanying sighs at 03:30, you have to have someone bringing someone into this darkened backstreet...



That's Ripperology for you! A minute ago, everyone was telling me 'the killer had to have an intimate knowledge of the area'. Only when it's Lechmere do people suddenly start adding 'but not too intimate, obviously...' What's more, last time I brought this up, I was told in no uncertain terns that it's the prostitute who takes the man to her chosen spot. Pardon me all to hell for not knowing.

To me, Lechmere seems like a smart-enough guy who wasn't actually taking all the wild risks people think he was -- because as far as the 'walk to work' killings are concerned, he knew he was re-taking the walk over and over again, with no need to strike unless he could see that everything fitted properly. How bright is the moon tonight? Is the copper on this beat running early or late? Is this woman on her own, or is there someone else in that doorway? Etc. In his case, and his case alone, it's a bit like that guy in 'Groundhog Day' getting endless rehearsals to rob the cash from the security van. I don't think this point is sufficiently appreciated, steeped as people are in the century-old notion of a marauding madman striking out on impulse as he wanders randomly about.

Plus: Lechmere -- alone among the suspects! -- would have had a major thrill every single morning as he walked directly past one or more murder sites and relived the whole experience -- knowing all the time that he was golden, because even if people saw him as he passed by, they didn't really see him:

Albert Cadosch, as reported in the Morning Advertiser, 20 September 1888:

Coroner: Did you see a man or woman in the street?

Cadosch: No; I only saw workmen passing by to their work.

Nice chatting!

M.

great points M!! great getting new and different perspectives from new posters.

[Abby Normal]

All worth pondering. Thanks.

Some first thoughts:



I am reminded of the way one of my oldest and smartest friends was once seen at a party drinking Special Brew from pairs of cans still held together by the plastic rings. Six hours later he woke up in a stranger's tiny front garden without the faintest recollection of how or why he ended up there. In short, it may just be a question of how drunk one is.



Where would that not have been the case in those streets? Brady Street? No. Baker's Row? No. Etc. We all know there were no fewer than three coppers patrolling street after street within sight/sound of that very place.

Nor do I see it as necessary to assume that Nichols imagined she'd get to sleep right through: maybe she just wanted to close her eyes for a bit till the world stopped spinning. And my guess is that, for a safe snooze, Buck's Row actually seemed like the smart choice, given its quietness, apparently stygian darkness, and distance from the main road. And she may even have thought she'd be harder to see against the double doors: maybe PC Niel would think she was just a piece of tarpaulin...



Hey, if you want Mrs Lilley's train and the accompanying sighs at 03:30, you have to have someone bringing someone into this darkened backstreet...



That's Ripperology for you! A minute ago, everyone was telling me 'the killer had to have an intimate knowledge of the area'. Only when it's Lechmere do people suddenly start adding 'but not too intimate, obviously...' What's more, last time I brought this up, I was told in no uncertain terns that it's the prostitute who takes the man to her chosen spot. Pardon me all to hell for not knowing.

To me, Lechmere seems like a smart-enough guy who wasn't actually taking all the wild risks people think he was -- because as far as the 'walk to work' killings are concerned, he knew he was re-taking the walk over and over again, with no need to strike unless he could see that everything fitted properly. How bright is the moon tonight? Is the copper on this beat running early or late? Is this woman on her own, or is there someone else in that doorway? Etc. In his case, and his case alone, it's a bit like that guy in 'Groundhog Day' getting endless rehearsals to rob the cash from the security van. I don't think this point is sufficiently appreciated, steeped as people are in the century-old notion of a marauding madman striking out on impulse as he wanders randomly about.

Plus: Lechmere -- alone among the suspects! -- would have had a major thrill every single morning as he walked directly past one or more murder sites and relived the whole experience -- knowing all the time that he was golden, because even if people saw him as he passed by, they didn't really see him:

Albert Cadosch, as reported in the Morning Advertiser, 20 September 1888:

Coroner: Did you see a man or woman in the street?

Cadosch: No; I only saw workmen passing by to their work.

Nice chatting!

M.

also, just off the top of my head one of btks victims lived on his street, but im sure some hysterical anti lecher will tell me how its not the same. i think the not killing on his work routes because its too close to home/ geoprofiling goes only so far.

however, the main issue i have and have had from the beginning is not his killing along his work route, but killing on his way to/before work. it opens a whole lot of issues..blood being on him, how does he clean up, where at work does he stash his goodies, not enough time, would be late alot etc. to me it would make more logistical sense if he killed after work. anyway lech is a valid suspect imho.

[JeffHamm]

also, just off the top of my head one of btks victims lived on his street, but im sure some hysterical anti lecher will tell me how its not the same. i think the not killing on his work routes because its too close to home/ geoprofiling goes only so far.

however, the main issue i have and have had from the beginning is not his killing along his work route, but killing on his way to/before work. it opens a whole lot of issues..blood being on him, how does he clean up, where at work does he stash his goodies, not enough time, would be late alot etc. to me it would make more logistical sense if he killed after work. anyway lech is a valid suspect imho.

Hi Abby,

Actually, "work routes" are expected locations in geographical profiling. Also, the "buffer zone" (too close to home) idea is one suggested by Rossmo, but other's (Canter) do not believe buffer zones are useful with respect to constructing a geographical profile. From my own analyses, it seems a bit of six of one half dozen of the other, as some cases will be slightly more accurate with one set of routines, but others will be slightly worse, so in the long run, both tend to work equally well. And yes, BTK is one where including the buffer zone does a bit worse (at locating his home; but BTK's main anchor point was his place of work, his crimes shifted closer to home in Park City after he stopped working at ADT securities and took on the job as a compliance officer for PC).

Anyway, back to JtR. What strikes me is how the crimes are all just off the two main roads (Whitechapel running east/west and Commercial Road/Street running north/south (with a bit of a bend). I've drawn in Hanbury Street from Buck's Row, and while I think the evidence points to Annie Chapman being killed long after Cross/Lechmere would have gone by and been at work, if he followed Hanbury street to work clearly he does pass that location, and he's not that far from Dorset Street either. The other two locations are clearly not on that route, nor would Tabram (purple dot) be. One has to suggest he varied his routes to work, which strikes me as unlikely. People are creatures of habit for such things, but of course, one can't discount the "not like the others" explanation entirely. I understand Cross/Lechmere's Mother lives somewhere near Berner Street, but I'm not sure where, but that's given as the anchor point for that murder (but then the trip to Mitre Square, followed by heading north east to GS (orange path and dot), is hard to understand). With what looks to be a main road continuing to run directly south (Leman Street; light blue line) from Commercial Street to the north (and Commercial Road being the off bend) it curious there's no offenses just off there. However, looking at the map, there doesn't appear to be many pubs along that street (one at each end, but I didn't see any in between). As such, it's an unlikely spot to find victims, and if JtR is drinking in the pubs, an unlikely place for him to be).

My own speculations tend to favour the area sort of around Commercial and Hanbury as JtRs main anchor point. Either he drinks in this area (my current favorite guess, based in part on the fact the murders all happen after the pubs have closed, and around areas with lots of pubs nearby - he may drink there, or simply know that's where he's likely to find victims), and he may live there as well, but I wouldn't discount the idea he enters the local around that area, so perhaps lives somewhere not too far north. That all makes the "Bethnal Green Botherer" of some interest, but then, there's always something to make someone of some interest some of the time.

Anyway, having digressed a bit, there's nothing inherently inconsistent with crime location spatial patterns with offenses following along an offenders home-work route. That's actually sort of expected (not that the route has to be home-work specifically, but a well know route between two locations that an offender travels frequently is going to be the areas he's most likely to spot opportunity). The hard part is to work out what the route the offender was actually following. In some ways, Cross/Lechmere's route to work fits the offense patterns, but in my opinion it's the timing for the Chapman murder in particular becomes problematic for the same reason.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

yeah i lean toward she was chilling out in bucks row when the ripper came upon her. that late hour suggests it. i mean was she still parading up and down WC road and or around it a couple hours after holland saw her? perhaps but i think probably not. she was drunk and probably quickly getting tired.
either way it really makes no difference to me she where she encountered the ripper, i dont think it hurts lechs case either way. for all we know he left his house earlier and did a little bit scoping around.

She’s still looking for money, though. Why not sit herself down in a doorway in the WR where she can doze and potentially meet a customer? Or call round at the knacker’s yard where men were working, in the hope of cadging a few pence, a cup of tea or something stronger?