Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[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