Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

"... 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.

[drstrange169]

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

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

[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."

[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.

[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

[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

[Elamarna]

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

Tom Wescott, proposed a victim in his book Ripper Confidential, although it now looks as if he may have been mistaken, it's worth looking at the posts covering it on here.

Steve

[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