Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Geddy2112]

Very fair answers.

I still prefer Bucks Row or even Whitechapel Road to the Northern part of Brady Street.

Sorry for not putting that across too well. I do prefer Buck's Row to North Brady Street, and for the reasons mentioned even maybe to Whitechapel Road. Apologies for the confusion.

[Elamarna]

Could she have been taken there by a client? Obviously just speculating. Or taking with a client en route to Buck's Row?



Brady Street continues south until it hit's Whitechapel Road. A straight line so to speak. Myself personally when in my youth, when I've been trying to 'give people the slip' was to include as many twists and turns as possible to break up line of sight. Also, maybe she thought if Buck's Row was dimly lit then it might have been harder for her attacker to see her. Also if she was familiar with Buck's Row because she had done business there on occasions she might have felt safer there, knowing hiding spots or the like.

Not trying to be an arse but rather trying to throw more ideas in the ring. I've kind of always thought some of the victims may have been dump jobs so this theory by RD is fascinating. Thanks.

Very fair answers.

I still prefer Bucks Row or even Whitechapel Road to the Northern part of Brady Street.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Could she have been taken there by a client? Obviously just speculating. Or taking with a client en route to Buck's Row?



Brady Street continues south until it hit's Whitechapel Road. A straight line so to speak. Myself personally when in my youth, when I've been trying to 'give people the slip' was to include as many twists and turns as possible to break up line of sight. Also, maybe she thought if Buck's Row was dimly lit then it might have been harder for her attacker to see her. Also if she was familiar with Buck's Row because she had done business there on occasions she might have felt safer there, knowing hiding spots or the like.

Not trying to be an arse but rather trying to throw more ideas in the ring. I've kind of always thought some of the victims may have been dump jobs so this theory by RD is fascinating. Thanks.



Shame, your insights have been a valuable part of this thread and certainly provided food for thought without arrogance, stubbornness or blinker wearing.

I have just told RD that myself.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Hi Frank,

I think that we might also add that he could have been ‘knocked up.’ Maybe he got ‘knocked up’ each day 3.15 and left for work around 15 minutes later? This would raise the questions: how accurate his estimate of 15 minutes was on that day and did the Constable get there at exactly 3.15? It takes very little to be 5 or even 10 minutes later or earlier than thought. We just down know enough.

[Geddy2112]

Two issues apart from the timing.
Issue one, why would Nichols be in the Northern part of Brady Street?
It is not reported as being an area for women to look for clients Whereas that is just what is said by the police about Bucks Row.

Could she have been taken there by a client? Obviously just speculating. Or taking with a client en route to Buck's Row?

We then have the next question, which I asked before. If she is not cut, only physically assaulted in Brady, why does she not seek safety in the Whitechapel Road, rather than turn into the dimly lit and largely deserted Bucks Row.

Brady Street continues south until it hit's Whitechapel Road. A straight line so to speak. Myself personally when in my youth, when I've been trying to 'give people the slip' was to include as many twists and turns as possible to break up line of sight. Also, maybe she thought if Buck's Row was dimly lit then it might have been harder for her attacker to see her. Also if she was familiar with Buck's Row because she had done business there on occasions she might have felt safer there, knowing hiding spots or the like.

Not trying to be an arse but rather trying to throw more ideas in the ring. I've kind of always thought some of the victims may have been dump jobs so this theory by RD is fascinating. Thanks.

Excellent points as always
No further comment from me regarding Bucks Row

Shame, your insights have been a valuable part of this thread and certainly provided food for thought without arrogance, stubbornness or blinker wearing.

[Elamarna]

My apologies Steve

I had no intent to offend you and I am saddened by the idea that you felt aggrieved by my challenging hypothesis.

I will refrain from further comment regarding Bucks Row for fear of causing unintended offense to yourself or anyone else.

I am sorry


RD

Don't be silly Chris, I said one could be offended, not that I was.
I was thinking of some other people, who take critism as a personal attack.
That's why I said "Happily I dont".

Comment as much as you like, we are simply disagreeing on a minor ( in my view)
Point.

Steve

[The Rookie Detective]

Two issues apart from the timing.

Issue one, iwhy would Nichols be in the Northern part of Brady Street?
It is not reported as being an area for women to look for clients Whereas that is just what is said by the police about Bucks Row.

We then have the next question, which I asked before. If she is not cut, only physically assaulted in Brady, why does she not seek safety in the Whitechapel Road, rather than turn into the dimly lit and largely deserted Bucks Row.

Excellent points as always


No further comment from me regarding Bucks Row


Regards


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

We are back to the time of the incident which is unclear, despite your claims to the contrary.

As for your claim that not to agree is utter nonsense, if someone had studied the murder in great depth, over a great number of years, one might find that somewhat offensive.
Happily, I don't take it personally.

My apologies Steve

I had no intent to offend you and I am saddened by the idea that you felt aggrieved by my challenging hypothesis.

I will refrain from further comment regarding Bucks Row for fear of causing unintended offense to yourself or anyone else.

I am sorry


RD

[Elamarna]

I've asked on here and I've asked elsewhere for 'evidence' from CH and ES regarding the other murders. To this date all I've got is I believe a second hand quote from Tom Wescott stating that if he killed Polly and there was a serial killer (eviscerater/mutilator) around he was by default JtR. My argument to this is the other side of the coin (a coin Christer likes to use when it suits and does not when it does not.) If there was a serial killer and he DID NOT kill Kelly then by the same logic he could not have killed Nichols. Fair? Christer then goes on of course and having him killing every murder victim in the East End until 1892.. mmmm.



Been there done that. They argue in the Hanbury Street case, the Doctor was wrong with TOD. The chap did not sit cleaning his boots when he said he did or Lechmere left an abandoned cart in the street for what, 15 mins whilst he nipped around the back to finish off poor Annie. All the while claiming Hanbury Street was of course on his way to work and the route he took after killing Polly.
We also get the 'His mum lived near Berner Street.' Still not had anything for Mitre Square (which would involve him moving in the opposite direction to his mam's or home address) or nothing for Millers Court.

Good summing up

[Elamarna]

Two issues apart from the timing.

Issue one, iwhy would Nichols be in the Northern part of Brady Street?
It is not reported as being an area for women to look for clients Whereas that is just what is said by the police about Bucks Row.

We then have the next question, which I asked before. If she is not cut, only physically assaulted in Brady, why does she not seek safety in the Whitechapel Road, rather than turn into the dimly lit and largely deserted Bucks Row.

[Geddy2112]

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.

I've asked on here and I've asked elsewhere for 'evidence' from CH and ES regarding the other murders. To this date all I've got is I believe a second hand quote from Tom Wescott stating that if he killed Polly and there was a serial killer (eviscerater/mutilator) around he was by default JtR. My argument to this is the other side of the coin (a coin Christer likes to use when it suits and does not when it does not.) If there was a serial killer and he DID NOT kill Kelly then by the same logic he could not have killed Nichols. Fair? Christer then goes on of course and having him killing every murder victim in the East End until 1892.. mmmm.

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.

Been there done that. They argue in the Hanbury Street case, the Doctor was wrong with TOD. The chap did not sit cleaning his boots when he said he did or Lechmere left an abandoned cart in the street for what, 15 mins whilst he nipped around the back to finish off poor Annie. All the while claiming Hanbury Street was of course on his way to work and the route he took after killing Polly.
We also get the 'His mum lived near Berner Street.' Still not had anything for Mitre Square (which would involve him moving in the opposite direction to his mam's or home address) or nothing for Millers Court.

[Geddy2112]

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.
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....

Personally I like it. I really do, is it correct, is it what happened who knows. The big problem that account of the events are that it rules out Lechmere unless he of course left home even earlier and took a completely different route to Buck's Row.

[Elamarna]

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

How many times, must one say this, I am not rejecting the claims of the incident, ONLY your assesment of when it likely to occurred .

[Elamarna]

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.

We are back to the time of the incident which is unclear, despite your claims to the contrary.

As for your claim that not to agree is utter nonsense, if someone had studied the murder in great depth, over a great number of years, one might find that somewhat offensive.
Happily, I don't take it personally.

[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