Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[The Rookie Detective]

Does the witness evidence given by Mrs Colwell and her daughter suggest that Nichols was initially attacked in Brady Street BUT that she didn't receive any physical cuts until the Ripper caught up with her in Bucks Row?

If the woman heard calling out "murder, police!" In Brady Street around the time that Nichols was murdered in Bucks Row, wasn't Nichols herself trying to flee the ripper, then we have another mystery woman who has never been identified or traced and who was heard randomly calling out "murder, police!" for no valid reason and it just so happens that in the street she was heard moving towards there was actually a real murder about to take place.

What utter nonsense.

The only logical explanation is that Nichols was heard by Mrs Colwell and her daughter as she tried to flee the Ripper in Brady Street who pulled out his knife but failed to cut her. He then followed her into Bucks Row and murdered her before she could identify him.

That statement is corroborated by the all the known evidence and explains the witness statement of Colwell and her daughter.

The issue is that accounts of crimes heard audibly and then given to police by females, was never considered as important or valid...and the fact remains today.

Had Mrs Colwell have been a man her account would have been highly regarded as fact.

The same applies to Mrs Lilley.


My hypothesis also explains why the Ripper chose Bucks Row...he didn't!

He chose Brady Street near the Jewish Graveyard.


Ultimately, my hypothesis for the Ripper's initial failed attempt at an attack on Nichols in Brady Street and the subsequent following her into Bucks Row, is a strong one, because for me explains a lot of those things that just haven't felt right up until now.


Of course I may be wrong but I believe the evidence given by Mrs Colwell and her daughter proves otherwise.

Just to be clear... Nichols received no physical cuts in Brady Street but was followed by the Ripper and dispatched in Bucks Row....

Just before Lechmere himself turned into Bucks Row...from Brady Street.

Eek!


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

As I said, for her to judge the time as you proposes she needs to have a clock, and if so why not give the time.
I note you use a press report that says about the time of the murder. However, it's simply a 3rd person report , of a very non specific comment, and is in my view of little value.

Steve

I would suggest she was more likely to have a physical clock inside her house, than on her person.

The lack of clock argument can be applied to virtually all the witnesses from every Ripper murder and so it's all relative.

I would suggest that apart from the police who would have had a means to check the time on their person, that every other witness was also likely to be mistaken on the very basis of the point you make.

Elizabeth Prater would be reliable as she was said to have walked past the massive clock on the side of Christchurch Spitalfields.

But apart from her, your point should be applied to all those witnesses who never had a clock of means to tell the time.


It can't just be applied to someone like Mrs Colwell simply because her claims don't fit in with the accepted narrative.


I find it baffling how for someone like Schwartz for example is generally accepted as a witness despite...

Nobody saw or heard him
Nobody saw or heard anything he claimed to have seen or heard
Nobody has been able to definitively identify him outside of the Stride murder...


And yet....

Mrs Colwell and her daughter's claims are rejected because they may not have had a clock?

How bizarre.


The issue is that in this case, many choose to put their faith in witnesses like Schwartz, Hutchinson, Packer, Maxwell, McCarthy, etc... when witnesses like Mrs Colwell and Mrs Lilley are overlooked and dismissed.

The finest nuggets of evidence are in the little details.




RD

[Geddy2112]

Why accept Lechmere and Paul but deny every single witness who claimed to have heard anything in Bucks Row, including 2 females in Mrs Lilley and Charlotte Colwell.
It is as though any audible evidence is rejected and we are left with just Lechmere and Paul.

...because they are irrelevant, according to Stow.

Other witnesses (apart from Paul) are irrelevant.

[drstrange169]

>>The court reporter thought it was odd, so he pointed it out.<<

The court reporter didn't think it was odd, they commented on the appearance of several witnesses.

It was just their style of reporting.

"Inspector John Spratling was the first witness - a keen-eyed man with iron-grey hair and beard."

"Standing with his hands in his pockets the witness, a roughly dressed young fellow of low stature"

"Thank you, sir," said witness, and he went away rather angry and somewhat relieved."

[drstrange169]

>>(I have no issue with admitting I was wrong)<<

That sort of talk will get you kicked out of ripperology!;-)

[drstrange169]

"... my hypothesis for the Ripper's initial failed attempt at an attack on Nichols in Brady Street and the subsequent following her into Bucks Row..."

If so it's very hard to imagine she would not be screaming her head off, which we know for certain didn't happen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because he wouldn't have gone to work that day?

The court reporter thought it was odd, so he pointed it out.

You are trying to hard to be obtuse on this point Herlock.

But what would have stopped him going to work after he’d testified? He wouldn’t have known what time he’d be called to testify so he might have told his employers that if they finished with him early enough he could go in a do maybe half a days work or even to work late to make up for lost time.

[drstrange169]

"Tom Wescott, proposed a victim in his book Ripper Confidential"

Tom had the perfect answer to the Colville conundrum, unfortunately he made a simple, but crucial mistake, which some took delight in pointing out.

[drstrange169]

"But what would have stopped him going to work after he’d testified?"

And what would have stopped him putting five hours work before he testified?

My personal thoughts are that because he was brought in to be specifically identified by Mizen, he was asked to wear the apron.

[FISHY1118]

I would suggest she was more likely to have a physical clock inside her house, than on her person.

The lack of clock argument can be applied to virtually all the witnesses from every Ripper murder and so it's all relative.

I would suggest that apart from the police who would have had a means to check the time on their person, that every other witness was also likely to be mistaken on the very basis of the point you make.

Elizabeth Prater would be reliable as she was said to have walked past the massive clock on the side of Christchurch Spitalfields.

But apart from her, your point should be applied to all those witnesses who never had a clock of means to tell the time.


It can't just be applied to someone like Mrs Colwell simply because her claims don't fit in with the accepted narrative.


I find it baffling how for someone like Schwartz for example is generally accepted as a witness despite...

Nobody saw or heard him
Nobody saw or heard anything he claimed to have seen or heard
Nobody has been able to definitively identify him outside of the Stride murder...


And yet....

Mrs Colwell and her daughter's claims are rejected because they may not have had a clock?

How bizarre.


The issue is that in this case, many choose to put their faith in witnesses like Schwartz, Hutchinson, Packer, Maxwell, McCarthy, etc... when witnesses like Mrs Colwell and Mrs Lilley are overlooked and dismissed.

The finest nuggets of evidence are in the little details.




RD

''Nobody saw or heard anything he claimed to have seen or heard''



And Yet


''Noboby came forward to say they have a different version of the attack on stride'' .!

There is no evidence yet put forward that Schwartz either lied or was dishonest when he gave his Statement to police, or when he identified Liz Strides body ot the mortuary.

There is nothing baffling about Schwartz ,only that which is based on speculation and conjecture.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"But what would have stopped him going to work after he’d testified?"

And what would have stopped him putting five hours work before he testified?

My personal thoughts are that because he was brought in to be specifically identified by Mizen, he was asked to wear the apron.

Good point Dusty.

[The Rookie Detective]

"... my hypothesis for the Ripper's initial failed attempt at an attack on Nichols in Brady Street and the subsequent following her into Bucks Row..."

If so it's very hard to imagine she would not be screaming her head off, which we know for certain didn't happen.

That same logic can be applied to Schwartz's account in the Stride murder

RD

[The Rookie Detective]

''Nobody saw or heard anything he claimed to have seen or heard''



And Yet


''Noboby came forward to say they have a different version of the attack on stride'' .!

There is no evidence yet put forward that Schwartz either lied or was dishonest when he gave his Statement to police, or when he identified Liz Strides body ot the mortuary.

There is nothing baffling about Schwartz ,only that which is based on speculation and conjecture.

That's the point..

Nobody else came forward to give a different version because how could they if it didn't happen in the first place?!

It would be like coming forward to the police and saying...

"Officer, I have a different version of events to that Schwartz fellow.... It didn't happen the way he said... because nobody else saw or heard anything and I am not one for making up stories like that Packer fellow!"


RD

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

Absolutely. He might have had the opportunity just as others might have had.

Quite right, Mike.

I find the whole 'gap argument' rather unconvincing. The timings of the 3 PC's and, especially, Lechmere's testimony that he arrived at work "at 4 o'clock" (and not "around") give me no reason to doubt them. Including the 'give or take a minute (or two)', of course.

Also, there’s no reason why we have to think Llewellyn took particular notice of the exact time, no evidence to back up the notion that he did, no hint of him having consulted a clock or watch. Or, at least not when he did. If he had taken notice of the time at one particular point between waking up and arriving at the crime scene, then we’d know. The best we can say is that, at some unknown point in time after having woken up, he learned the time from a certain timepiece (could also have been the 4 o'clock chime) and then estimated his timing of "about five minutes to four". That he later 'classified' it as "about 4 o'clock" doesn't mean that he'd changed his mind about his timing.

The same sort of thing is true for the geography. The best thing the yea-sayers can say is that it doesn't exonerate him. Of course, he has Buck's Row and Hanbury Street going for him, (although both are arguably poor/questionable choices) and, if Stride was actually a Ripper victim, then Dutfield's Yard too, but Mitre Square doesn't particularly point to Lechmere, nor does Miller's Court.

Cheers,
Frank

[The Rookie Detective]

Ultimately, what gets Lechmere off the hook as being the Ripper, is that he has ZERO connection to any of the other murders after Nichols.

The strongest weapon for anti-Lechmerians is that Nichols was the victim of a serial killer.

However, using the murder of Nichols as a way to try and disprove Lechmere is not the best way to approach it.

If Nichols was a solitary isolated murder then Lechmere would be the prime suspect by default.

However, because the Ripper killed after Nichols it then makes the likelihood of Lechmere having been the Serial killer Ripper to virtually zero.

I find it baffling how those who discredit Lechmere as the Ripper don't use the obvious tactic of circumventing the Nichols murder and asking the valid question...

How is Lechmere linked to any of the other murders?

Answer... He isn't.


But by trying to constantly focus on the Nichols murder you are playing into Pro-Lechmerian hands.

It's like trying to play a difficult and unwavering team on their own turf.

Bring the fight to you and cease trying to focus on Nichols, because quite frankly, the more you look, the harder it becomes to rule out Lechmere as the killer of Nichols.


Lechmere's entire validity as a suspect lies in the solitary murder of Nichols, and so use that to your advantage.




RD