Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Elamarna]

Thank you for your amazing feedback Steve.

As always I respect and value your knowledge and I am aware of your extensive knowledge of the Bucks Row murder.

I accept mostly all your points because as you know, I do like to use hypotheses and question all the accepted boundaries of the case.

My only real point that I cannot concur with you; relates to the timing of the woman heard by the Cowells. It is fairly clear to me that it did occur around the time of the murder and so despite that idea flying in the face of what we all think we know, I just want to delve into why it is not possible that they didn't hear Nichols, but some other random woman who was never traced or heard of?
On that basis I must stick by my point that unless they were lying or mistaken, then they could have only heard Nichols as she tried to get away from her attacker.

Bearing in mind that this was the Ripper's early days as a killer...and may explain why he chose a relatively secluded garden away from the street with Chapman.



Rd

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

[Elamarna]

How many of Nichols cuts would be considered non-fatal?

Could Nichols have received any superficial wounds when her killer first attacked her?

In other words, could she have received superficial yet painful cuts (not the throat cuts of course - my mistake on that, sorry Steve) and then tried to get away from having being slashed in Brady Street, but then her killer caught up with her and then murdered her in Bucks Row, as per what the physical evidence suggests?


The reason why I ask, is because this idea DOES have an impact on Lechmere's validity as a suspect.

And this is a Lechmere thread after all


RD

All her other wounds are to her abdomen, there were no cuts to her clothing.
Therefore, for another cut to have been made, the killer must raise her clothing and cut her, while she is standing.
This is simply unrealistic.

Steve

[The Rookie Detective]

"Could Nichols have received any superficial wounds when her killer first attacked her?"

The forensic evidence we have available to us says no. No cuts to her clothing. No blood down the front of her. No superficial cuts to the unclothed parts of her body.

Now we are getting somewhere, excellent post!

So we know based on the evidence the following...

Nichols couldn't have had her throat cut anywhere but where she was found in Bucks Row

Nichols didn't receive any cuts or damage to her external clothing and so her abdominal cuts must have been done where she was found

Nichols throat wounds would have been instantly fatal and she would have been unable to talk or walk with her injuries

okay, so when we look at the witness statements of Charlotte and her mother, it clearly states that they heard a woman crying out "murder, police" around the time that Nichols was said to have been murdered.

We also hear unsubstantiated reports of another woman having her throat cut by her husband in a house close to the murder site BUT this has never been verified by any WITNESS.
The blood spots found west of the murder site couldn't have been from this other woman either, because she had her throat cut too and would of had the same limitations as Nichols.

Where does this all leave us?

It leaves us with yet another possibility.

Having flushed out the idea that it wasn't Nichols who was heard by Charlotte and seeing that on balance, I was wrong (I have no issue with admitting I was wrong)

But... has it now gone some way to proving that around the time of the murder, there was ANOTHER woman who travelled from Brady Street calling out "murder, police!" and who then tried to get in the house of Mrs Colwell as she tried to evade someone.

And so...if this woman wasn't Nichols, then who was she?

Was she...

A) a woman who witnessed the attack?
Unlikely because she was in Brady Street and went towards Bucks Row

Or

B) The Ripper tried BUT FAILED to cut her and she was his INITIAL target. She managed to evade an initial attack when the Ripper tried to attack her in Brady Street. She then flees and runs down Brady Street and towards the direction of Bucks Row.

The killer follows her, but loses her as she runs into Whitechapel Road, and he instead turns east into Bucks Row where he sees a drunk Nichols slumped up drunk against the wall. He then approaches and kills her and we are left with Nichols as the first Canonical victim.

Now...the above may sound pretty thin...

But how else to explain a woman who was heard by multiple witnesses calling out "murder, police!" ?

Nobody has been able to explain the incident, but unless anyone is prepared to state that both Mrs Colwell and her daughter either lied or was mistaken, then the incident must have happened, and moreso, around the same time that Nichols was murdered.

Who was this other woman?
Where did she go after heading down Brady Street towards Bucks Row?

If the science of forensics proves it couldn't have been Nichols, then the science of physics then presents us with another woman who was in Bradv Street calling out "murder, police" around the SAME TIME that an ACTUAL MURDER was being committed.

The irony of that coincidence is not lost on this thread.


And where does Lechmere fit into all this?

Well, as proven he did NOT walk down the entirety of Brady Street, BUT he did walk down a partial section of Brady Street in order to turn into Bucks Row...

Lechmere was at the murder site within a few minutes of Nichols having been murdered.
The science of space time and forensics proves that Nichols has only just been killed when Lechmere arrived.
Regardless of whether people like that idea, applied science can't be cherry picked to suit those who do or don't favour Lechmere as the killer.

Of course the one thing the woman heard by Mrs Colwell does prove, is that the woman outside must have been attacked by or at the very least SEEN the Ripper.

But seeing as she was in Brady Street at the time, it proves that the Ripper walked the same route down Brady Street and into Bucks Row, because it logically follows the path taken by the woman heard by Mrs Colwell and Charlotte Colwell.

This then proves that the killer met Nichols in Bucks Row after having physically been seen in Brady Street.

But who do we know that walked into Bucks Row from Brady Street shortly before Nichols was murdered?

Answers on a postcard please?

Does the inconvenience of Mrs Colwell and Charlotte Colwell hearing a woman calling out "murder, police" mid way down Brady Street, who the science proves wasn't Nichols, then by proxy prove that the Ripper tried but failed to kill another woman in Brady street before he killed Nichols in Bucks Row?

Of course, there is another option that nobody seems to have considered...

That the woman heard by Mrs Colwell and her daughter WAS Nichols, but that at the time she was in Brady Street, the killer hadn't managed to inflict any injuries on Nichols.
I believe the following explains it all...

Nichols and her client are north of the midway point of Brady Street when he suddenly pulls a knife and goes to attack her. She sees the knife and tries to flee. As she attempts to run she calls out "murder, police!" and bangs on the shutter of the Colwells house/shop which is heard by Mrs Colwell and her daughter.
The killer follows as Nichols south down Brady Street and rather than just run into Whitechapel Road, she makes the mistake of trying to hide by turning down Bucks Row. At this point she is exhausted trying to flee and her killer catches up with her and cuts her throat just as the train passes at the point Harriet Lilley hears whispering outside her window.
The whispering being the ritualist mumblings of the Ripper as he mutilates her.

This scenario then eradicate another woman other than Nichols, it eradicates the idea of Nichols having been cut elsewhere and it explains what Mrs Colwell and her daughter heard around the time the murder took place.

From the initial attack in Brady Street to the murder and mutilation of Nichols would have taken no more than 5 minutes.

I believe the "evidence" proves that Nichols was originally attacked in Brady Street BUT that she didn't receive any cuts until Bucks Row.
All it would take would be for the Ripper to have pulled out his knife and an attempt at attacking her for Nichols to have fled and crying out "murder, police!"

I believe that Nichols was the first and only victim of the Ripper who was murdered as she tried to flee her killer.


It is from this point that the killer modifies his MO to ensure that his future victims have no means of escape.

Nichols had seen the Ripper's face and so he couldn't just let her go after failing to kill her in Brady Street.
He just followed her into Bucks Row.

Based on the lack of scientific forensic evidence in Brady Street of course.

Now I know that calls of "Murder!" were said to be commonplace, but the streets were quiet at the time and seeing as there was actually a real murder committed around the same time a woman called out "murder, police!"...I find that just too much of a coincidence to just write it off because it's inconvenient to not do so.

In summary, if the Ripper's initial attempt at cutting Nichols did occur in Brady Street just north of the mid way point where the Colwell family lived, then where does that put Lechmere in terms of time frame?


RD

[Newbie]

An occasional post with actual content would make a refreshing change. Always short and snarky. Never any attempt to deal with evidence. After all this is the purpose of a forum. No problem though, it’s hardly surprising that you don’t debate the evidence is it.

Well, that would conflict with the general tone of this entire thread.

Personally, I much prefer short and snarky to prolix and snarky.

[Newbie]

Almost all press reports have Lechmere stating he left home around 3:30am. The reasonable thing is to go with the majority of accounts, but the Cult of Lechmere repeatedly ignores this.

* They ignore that the majority of reports on the time that Lechmere left home so they can add 10 minutes to the supposed time gap or to claim that Lechmere changed his story about when he left home.
* They ignore all the accounts of Paul seeing Lechmere in the middle of the road, so they can focus on a single ambiguous account that they can imply had Lechmere hovering over the body.
* They ignore that the timings given by PC Neil, PC Thain, and PC Mizen, selectively quote the coroner, and ignore the conclusion of Inspector Abberline to add 5 minutes to the supposed time gap.
* They ignore that Robert Paul supported Lechmere and contradicted PC Mizen to try to portray Lechmere as a liar.
* They ignore the testimony of Lechmere, Paul, and Mizen to manufacture the falsehood called the Mizen scam.

I agree with the notion that Lech testified to leaving for work at 3:30 am.
It fits with the time he would leave for work and get their on time, and the time he would meet up with the Polly Nichols body.
I think the one newspaper got it wrong.

It means that Lech was either telling the truth, or lying. He's not stupid.

[Newbie]

Also, Cross was the only person to mention the lifting refusal. A very strange admission for a guilty man to volunteer.

If it happened that way, why deny it? It wouldn't implicate him in anything, and Paul's testimony wouldn't conflict with his.

If guilty, he had every reason to suspend the examination and get the hell out of there.

[Newbie]

I’ve never understood why anyone could possibly think that wearing work clothes to an inquest is suspicious? I just don’t get it.

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.

[Newbie]

H Herlock,

I think that the idea behind Cross as a suspect is that the Ripper would have been more likely to kill when it was convenient for him. Rather than make a special trip somewhere just to kill someone, he more likely would have killed when he was going to be in the area anyway for some other reason. But that brings us to Geddy's point. If that's how he operated, then going to Mitre Square, the opposite direction from where he lived, doesn't fit with how he usually did things.

The argument of the Lechmere mob is that the route to Mitre Square, after the Elizabeth Stride murder, would have followed Lech's old route to work, before he moved to Doveton.

And then we know for a fact that JtR made his whereabouts known, after the Eddowes murder, immediately off of Old Montague Street, in the direction of Doveton & well poised to take Lechmere's current work route home, if he were indeed Lech.

But of course we know he was not, so all this is just a mad coincidence.

[drstrange169]

"Could Nichols have received any superficial wounds when her killer first attacked her?"

The forensic evidence we have available to us says no. No cuts to her clothing. No blood down the front of her. No superficial cuts to the unclothed parts of her body.

[drstrange169]

Forensic evidence tells us Mrs Nichols was killed where she was.

Even at the time it was acknowledged that,
"It is almost needless to point out that a person suffering from such injuries as the deceased had had inflicted upon her would be unable to traverse the distance .." (Evening News)

As I've already pointed out, another woman nearby had her throat cut that night.

Also the East London Advertiser claimed,
"In Buck's Row, naturally, the greatest excitement prevails, and several persons in the neighbourhood state than an affray occurred shortly after midnight, but no screams were heard, nor anything beyond what might have been considered evidence of an ordinary brawl."

Evening News again, and its doubts the two incidents are related,
"Even supposing that, with the severe abdominal wounds she had sufficient strength left to call out in the tones which Mrs. Colwell asserts she heard the deceased's throat could not have been cut at the spot where she was found lying dead, as that would have caused a considerably heavier flow of blood than was found there. As a matter of fact but a very small quantity of blood was to be seen at this spot, or found in Buck's-row at all, so the murderer could not have waited here to finish his ghastly task. If he had cut her throat on the onset the deceased could not have uttered a single cry afterwards. Mrs. Colwell's statement, looked at in the light of these circumstances, by no means totally clears up the mystery as to the exact locality which the murderer selected for the accomplishment of his foul deed."

And the Evening Standard wrote this,
"Several persons living in Brady street state that early in the morning they heard screams, but this is by no means an uncommon incident in the neighbourhood" Even Colville admitted it was a common occurance. As the East London Advertiser stated, "naturally, the greatest excitement prevails" easy then to ascribe anything heard that night to the murder.

[The Rookie Detective]

How many of Nichols cuts would be considered non-fatal?

Could Nichols have received any superficial wounds when her killer first attacked her?

In other words, could she have received superficial yet painful cuts (not the throat cuts of course - my mistake on that, sorry Steve) and then tried to get away from having being slashed in Brady Street, but then her killer caught up with her and then murdered her in Bucks Row, as per what the physical evidence suggests?


The reason why I ask, is because this idea DOES have an impact on Lechmere's validity as a suspect.

And this is a Lechmere thread after all


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

No one disputes this.



However, the Evening Standard 1st Sept, says this about Brady Street.

"Several persons living in Brady Street state that early in the morning they heard screams, but this is by no means an uncommon incident in the neighbourhood"

What on earth does Packer have to do with this?



Yes, probably before Polly was found.



Because she woke up, and it was still dark.



SORRY but it does not at all. All it tells us is that it was probably after midnight, but before approx 5.16am.
You assume that she had a clock in the room to judge the time by , which may not be the case.




Nothing more than a guess, I suspect because you have already decided or leaning towards it was Polly.


Of course midnight to 3am fits.



As I have already said , I suggest your reasoning for saying it must be at least 3 is flawed RD.




Only if they were close to the junction with Brady, or in Brady when the incident in Brady occurred.

Lets use your interpretation, that it must happen after 3am. If it takes place within the first ten minutes of the hour, NEIL will be well out of hearing and sight of Brady Street , and not be aware of it!

We should also consider Thain , who actually patrolled Brady Street, the problem of course is your interpretation that it cannot be before 3am.



It's not ignored, it's been considered and discarded RD.



Clearly, but not at the time you suggest.



Yes I might do, it suggests she had no clock and used the light as an indicator.



Again you assume she had a clock.
If so, why not simply give a actual time .



No, the probable explanation is that they told the truth , but it's unrelated




No



Seriously RD, the cuts to her throat would ensure unconsciousness in a few seconds, and death within a couple of minutes.
There is no way she could have got to Bucks Row.

Have you actually studied Pollys wounds in detail, or the blood flow rates?
I have, it's what started Inside Bucks Row.

But let's run with your idea, ignoring the science for a moment, why on earth would she turn into the deserted Bucks Row rather than go to the safety of the brightly lit and fairly busy Whitechapel Road?




I see we are now in the realms of pure speculation, fair enough.




No she could not have, please see above RD, or read Inside Bucks Row to get a full picture, showing how unrealistic this suggestion is.



Not this old limited escape routes again plesae RD.
Bucks Row has as many escape routes as Brady Street.

The police also suggest it was a known area for women to operate in.




Walked Down Brady Street?
They didn't!
Both would have crossed almost directly across Brady Street, from Bath Street into Bucks Row.




Sorry to be harsh, but there are some very serious factual misunderstandings , which may explain why it does not feel right for you.

Steve

Thank you for your amazing feedback Steve.

As always I respect and value your knowledge and I am aware of your extensive knowledge of the Bucks Row murder.

I accept mostly all your points because as you know, I do like to use hypotheses and question all the accepted boundaries of the case.

My only real point that I cannot concur with you; relates to the timing of the woman heard by the Cowells. It is fairly clear to me that it did occur around the time of the murder and so despite that idea flying in the face of what we all think we know, I just want to delve into why it is not possible that they didn't hear Nichols, but some other random woman who was never traced or heard of?
On that basis I must stick by my point that unless they were lying or mistaken, then they could have only heard Nichols as she tried to get away from her attacker.

Bearing in mind that this was the Ripper's early days as a killer...and may explain why he chose a relatively secluded garden away from the street with Chapman.



Rd

[The Rookie Detective]

Here we have a snippet from a more detailed account of Charlotte's mother's statement...




As we can see from the report above and as I stated earlier in this thread, Mrs Cowell states...

...about the time the murder was said to have been committed, she heard a woman running up the street shrieking "Murder; Police."


The issue is that the statement and her daughter Charlotte's were dismissed because at the time the press was focusing on "Leather Apron" who we now know was not the Ripper.
On that basis, everything reported as being associated with the Leather Apron in the Nichols murder was then deemed as not valid, but as a result, some of the key witness statements got caught in the cross-fire and so potentially crucial evidence was then neglected so the press and the police could save face in having hunted the wrong man in Leather Apron.


The article above validates my previous posts in highlighting that the incident witnessed audibly by Charlotte and her mother occurred shortly before Nichols was murdered.

Now we can use the "science" to state that Nichols could have been murdered elsewhere, but unlike Math; Science is often a learning process that evolves; and is often proved wrong once something unprecedented happens to shift the boundaries as to what is scientifically possible.

Now I am not saying that Nichols was murdered away from Bucks Row; because she appears to have died where she was found
I am not even saying that Nichols was mortally wounded by her attacker's initial attack

But I am suggesting that it is possible that Nichol's was attacked away from Bucks Row in the direction of the north of Brady Street.


And as I said previously, there is more chance that Charlotte and her mother lied, than their statement not relating to Nichols having been attacked around the time that Nichols was found to have been murdered.


Of course, the press could have been wrong... but then if that is the case, we should just scrap all the press reports and articles completely, because you can't apply one rule for one and not the other.


RD

[Fiver]

The reason I ask is because it is my understanding that Lechmere and Paul both walked down Brady Street.

Lechmere and Paul crossed Brady Street, not walked down it.

The issue is that Charlotte's statement places Nichols in the vicinity of north Brady Street at least a few minutes before she was found by Lechmere in Bucks Row.

The only time given was "Early this morning, before it was light". Dawn was at 4:37am.

If the child wasn't having a nightmare, it couldn't have been Nichols, who could not have called for help with a slit throat. I also doubt a dying, mutilated woman would have been in any condition to stagger 270 yards. And that having finally collapsed, she would lie flat on her back, hike up her skirts, and spread her legs.

Almost certainly this was another woman who was found, but not identified by Lloyds Weekly Newspaper.

"Our representative discovered, however, on making inquiries the same night, that at a house near where the blood spots were a man, early on the morning of the tragedy, had made a murderous assault on his wife and cut her throat. She was carried to the London hospital, and it is very probable some blood dripped from her.”

[drstrange169]

For what it's worth ...

LLOYD'S WEEKLY NEWSPAPER Sept 2 1888