Evidence of innocence

[drstrange169]

Lechmerians aren't going to like this because I'm using the known evidence.

We know Neil saw the body from a MINIMUM distance of 25 feet away. Neil doesn't say where he was when he saw the body, so he could have been even further away.

Purkiss said he "could see all there was to see" from his window.

[Abby Normal]

duplicate

[JeffHamm]

Hi George,

Hi Jeff,

I basically agree with your comments regarding the term "posing". The term I used was "on display", by which I meant that after the mutilations were complete there was no attempt to cover the injuries as there was for Nichols. I was questioning what reason could be considered for this sole (leaving Stride out of the discussion) exception?

Cheers, George

Unfortunately, Paul pulled Nichols' skirts down from the position they were originally left by her killer. Not only that, but the descriptions we have on that point are vague at best. There was some testimony, a bit confused, regarding her stays, and some of her garments, but as I'm woefully ignorant of female Victorian dress, it's hard for me to know what to make of those statements.

However, I think it's probably safe to go with the notion that Nichols was the first victim where her killer performed abdominal mutilations (at least in the street for those who consider the torso murders of course). If so, it's possible he was holding her clothes "up out of the way" with his left hand while slashing with the knife in his right hand. Upon leaving, he just drops the clothing and it falls over the wounds, later to be pulled further down by Paul. In subsequent murders, where his intent is to open and remove the internals, he has to cut the clothing to part them to provide him with better access. If something like that is going on, then the lack of displaying the wounds with Nichols simply reflects his lack of experience, or perhaps the fact he hasn't fully developed his idea of what it is he wants to do. After Nichols, with time to fantasize, he later realises he has to get the clothing problem sorted, and from then on he leaves the body and wounds exposed.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

>>if there were street lights near the Cap Factory or the Wool Warehouse gate, shouldn't Paul have spotted Cross as he passed under these lights<<

Nobody would have passed under the Cap factory light until they left the scene, as it was further down.

According to Cross's testimony, the wool warehouse gates is exactly where he was standing when Paul came up. The story fits.

No it doesn't. There is no way that Cross could know that the shape was a woman from the wool warehouse gates, which Frank measured as 17.5 metres. To be believable the testimony would have to be interpreted as Cross saying he first saw the tarpaulin shape when he was at the wool warehouse gates and he walked on to a point where he could identify the shape as a woman - about three metres.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

Paul is on his way to work at about 3:45 in the morning. its dark, he sees no one and hes wary. as he enters buck row he sees a figure hovering in the middle of the road near a dead womans body. he tries to avoid the man but the man he wont let him pass, touching him and saying come look at this woman.

im sorry but that is creepy. and suspicious

[GBinOz]

Hi George,



Unfortunately, Paul pulled Nichols' skirts down from the position they were originally left by her killer. Not only that, but the descriptions we have on that point are vague at best. There was some testimony, a bit confused, regarding her stays, and some of her garments, but as I'm woefully ignorant of female Victorian dress, it's hard for me to know what to make of those statements.

However, I think it's probably safe to go with the notion that Nichols was the first victim where her killer performed abdominal mutilations (at least in the street for those who consider the torso murders of course). If so, it's possible he was holding her clothes "up out of the way" with his left hand while slashing with the knife in his right hand. Upon leaving, he just drops the clothing and it falls over the wounds, later to be pulled further down by Paul. In subsequent murders, where his intent is to open and remove the internals, he has to cut the clothing to part them to provide him with better access. If something like that is going on, then the lack of displaying the wounds with Nichols simply reflects his lack of experience, or perhaps the fact he hasn't fully developed his idea of what it is he wants to do. After Nichols, with time to fantasize, he later realises he has to get the clothing problem sorted, and from then on he leaves the body and wounds exposed.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Can't quite agree with you on those points. Testimony by Cross at Inquest from Morning Advertiser 4 Sept:
"When I found her clothes were up above her knees we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down. I did not notice any blood."

I would have thought that JtR would have just thrown the dress up over her chest. The testimony is that they were unable to pull the skirts down from the position they were originally left by her killer. The point of difference that I see is that no wounds or blood was visible.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Paul is on his way to work at about 3:45 in the morning. its dark, he sees no one and hes wary. as he enters buck row he sees a figure hovering in the middle of the road near a dead womans body. he tries to avoid the man but the man he wont let him pass, touching him and saying come look at this woman.

im sorry but that is creepy. and suspicious

I agree Abby. Particularly when he touched him before he said anything to him. Why didn't he just talk to Paul before Paul got near him?

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Can't quite agree with you on those points. Testimony by Cross at Inquest from Morning Advertiser 4 Sept:
"When I found her clothes were up above her knees we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down. I did not notice any blood."

I would have thought that JtR would have just thrown the dress up over her chest. The testimony is that they were unable to pull the skirts down from the position they were originally left by her killer. The point of difference that I see is that no wounds or blood was visible.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

It's a bit situational, meaning, depends upon how her killer held up the clothes (in my example). He will be partly hindered by her dress being under her legs (as she's on her back), so if he pulls it up to her knees, then reaches under to bunch up the dress over the top side of her legs, lifts it to provide access, then when he's done, it would just fall down over her upper thighs, but with the hem of the dress "folded" up towards her head type thing.

Of course, as you say, it may be her killer did intentionally cover her wounds, I'm just not sure that intention must have been present. It seems reasonable to me to consider the possibility it was just a situational by product.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Oh, by "folded up towards her head" I just mean pointing in that direction and not that the hem was actually at her neck or anything like that.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George,

It's a bit situational, meaning, depends upon how her killer held up the clothes (in my example). He will be partly hindered by her dress being under her legs (as she's on her back), so if he pulls it up to her knees, then reaches under to bunch up the dress over the top side of her legs, lifts it to provide access, then when he's done, it would just fall down over her upper thighs, but with the hem of the dress "folded" up towards her head type thing.

Of course, as you say, it may be her killer did intentionally cover her wounds, I'm just not sure that intention must have been present. It seems reasonable to me to consider the possibility it was just a situational by product.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff
I personally see no evidence of the bodies being posed, bearing in mind there is a possibilty that in the cases of Eddowes,Nicholls and Stride there is a strong possibility that the killer was disturbed, so if that be the case no time to pose a body.

In the case of Eddowes the timings have been discussed many times but in her case the killer is alleged to have walked down church passage with the killer to the murder spot, and then carried out the murder and the mutilation, rifled her pockets, then allegedly removing organs, then cutting a peice of apron and then posing the body.

Didnt happen !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

Hi Jeff
I personally see no evidence of the bodies being posed, bearing in mind there is a possibilty that in the cases of Eddowes,Nicholls and Stride there is a strong possibility that the killer was disturbed, so if that be the case no time to pose a body.

In the case of Eddowes the timings have been discussed many times but in her case the killer is alleged to have walked down church passage with the killer to the murder spot, and then carried out the murder and the mutilation, rifled her pockets, then allegedly removing organs, then cutting a peice of apron and then posing the body.

Didnt happen !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I tend to agree with you as I view posing as a deliberate act of positioning beyond actions necessary to commit the offense. Meaning, if the offender has to move one leg off to the side (i.e. Eddowes) in order to gain access to the abdomen to perform the mutilations, then that's not something I would call posing. If, however, the offender positioned her leg after the mutilations to satisfy some desire, then that would be posing. It would even be posing if he positioned the leg first because he wanted her in that position for some psychological reason (satisfying to him; desire to shock when the body was found, etc), that would be posing too, in my view. Basically, posing, to me, requires the positioning not to be "functional" to the committing of the offense. From your post, it appears you use that definition as well.

I think it may be the case that some define posing as a shocking position, even if that position arises for solely functional reasons, although I could be wrong on that. But if so, I could see how Eddowes would meet that second definition of "posed" while not meeting the first definition.

- Jeff

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>> ... he walked on to a point where he could identify the shape as a woman - about three metres<<

Yet Neil had no trouble seeing from, at least, 8 metres and Purkis slightly further.

[drstrange169]

>> im sorry but that is creepy. and suspicious<<


All murders are creepy and suspicious. The time to worry is when you think they are not.

[drstrange169]

>>I would have thought that JtR would have just thrown the dress up over her chest. The testimony is that they were unable to pull the skirts down from the position they were originally left by her killer. The point of difference that I see is that no wounds or blood was visible.<<

Your answer is in your quote, the clothes would not go further either way.

[drstrange169]

>>Why didn't he just talk to Paul before Paul got near him?<<

Your question applies equally to an innocent or guilty man. It's not an indication of guilt or innocence. It's just what he did.