Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Lewis C]

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.

HI RD,

Does the statement do that? Do we know that the woman she was talking about was Nichols?

[Elamarna]

Hi all


I just wanted to throw a little spanner in the works and ask your learned opinions on the following...


The witness statement that was given by Charlotte Colwell; the 11-year-old Granddaughter of Charles Cross (not THE same Charles Cross/Lechmere) living in Brady Street, in which she stated hearing a woman calling out...

"Murder Murder Police Police Murder!"

And then hearing the woman get closer to her house and the sound of something or someone "scuffling or bumping" against the shutters.

And then listening as the sound of the woman moved passed and towards the direction of Bucks Row.


Do we give any credence to her statement?


Bearing in mind that initial reports stated that Nichols was initially attacked elsewhere, or at least, wasn't murdered where she was found.

This was based partly on bloodied hand prints allegedly found in Brady Street.




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


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.


Now I am not suggesting Lechmere was the killer because I don't believe he was...


However, for the sake of balance in the force; could Lechmere and Paul have worked together?


It's interesting to note that from one of the early newspaper reports on the 2nd September...

Paul said this...



"...I saw a man standing where the woman was."


Lechmere isn't necessarily suspicious to me, but when you add Paul and the statement made by Charlotte Colwell, it just adds a little spice to the mix.


Thoughts?


RD

RD, the claims of blood trails in Brady Street were corrected by the press a day or so later, all there was apparently was a single Mark that might have been blood, but it was not certain.
There is no real debate that Polly was indeed killed where she was found.

Considering how often the murder in Bucks Row is debate , it always amazes me that many have not yet read "Inside Bucks Row".
Yes it's mine, but it was also recommended by none other than Mr Paul Begg.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Point by Point RD.

The issue is that the statement made by Charlotte follows the path that Lechmere and Paul would have taken.
It either destroys him as a suspect like you say, or it makes things worse for him depending on how you look at it.

Research by Mr Orsam, which is still on this site suggests that the incident of the hand print occurred far further north in Brady Street .
I have provide maps and photos of the possible sites in a certain book.

I think the biggest impact it makes is that it questions the police.

Which police officer passed down Brady Street and/or into Bucks Row?

For me, Sergeant Kirby and PC Thain may have some explaining to do IF Charlotte was being truthful and accurate about what she heard.

The alleged incident occurred probably earlier than the attack on Mary Ann, unfortunately . no actual time appears to be mentioned. As I said in a previous reply, the press actually retracted the the claims of a blood trail zig-zaging down Brady Street.

There has always been a stigma surrounding the potential involvement of the police in the murders; based on the killer's almost superhuman ability to go unseen and unheard, evade capture and escape murder sites with relative ease.

There's just something about the police activity in Bucks Row that just feels a little off to me.

Neil, Thain, Mizen, Kirby etc... Something just doesn't ring true.

Only Neil patrolled Bucks Row.
Thain apparently had a very large beat that was to the east and north of Bucks Row.

Kirby, was the beat sergeant, and went round all the beats on his section. These are reported in the Echo, again it's on a thread on here.
Mizen, was in a different division, he was H, the others were in J.

Just what is it you find odd RD?

There's also another interesting little titbit that I wanted to add...

On the same morning of the murder of Nichols it was reported that shortly after midnight a local couple living yards from Bucks Row had a domestic.

Well, when I say domestic, I mean the husband cut his wife's throat and went out into the street. She was taken to the hospital in a critical condition...

But... This report only appears briefly in the newspaper and as of yet, I have been unable to verify whether this incident actually occurred or whether it was fabricated.

If it is true, then the husband who had just cut his wife's throat and left her for dead, and who then went outside, may or may not have bumped into Nichols.

Just after midnight you say, Well Mary Ann was still down by Osborne Street at 2.30, and apparently not in Bucks Row at 3.15.

The other thing of course is that IF the account is true, then there would have already been an increased police presence in and around Bucks Row.

We know from the police evidence that there were no extra police in Bucks Row before Neil arrived at the body .

Seeing as the name and fate of the wife is unknown, I am swayed by the idea that it never even happened.

But there's still a chance it did.

But going back to Charlotte; I find it fascinating that her mother's father was called Charles Cross.
I know it has been mentioned multiple times before but I just wanted to re-highlight that ironic coincidence


Lots to ponder


RD

As was shown in the thread The curious case of Mrs Colville, her father used Cross, but this was probably an anglicize the name Croissette.

[The Rookie Detective]

RD, the claims of blood trails in Brady Street were corrected by the press a day or so later, all there was apparently was a single Mark that might have been blood, but it was not certain.
There is no real debate that Polly was indeed killed where she was found.

Considering how often the murder in Bucks Row is debate , it always amazes me that many have not yet read "Inside Bucks Row".
Yes it's mine, but it was also recommended by none other than Mr Paul Begg.

Steve

Ah yes, but my point wasn't where Nichols died, it was where she was originally attacked.

Charlotte's statement also doesn't relate to the press reports that there was a trail of blood that zagged down the road, crossing over several times. It also doesn't relate to other reports of multiple blood spots found on the floor west of the murder site.

In fact, it's not even the alleged blood prints said to have been discovered in Brady Street (that is mentioned in the article)
The point is, regardless of whether there were or weren't blood marks found, Charlotte still claimed to have HEARD a woman call out "Murder! Police!" etc...
She claimed to have woken up her mother to tell her and her mother's response is rather telling.

Firstly, her mother doesn't refute her daughter's claims. Instead her syntax indicates a degree of apprehension and fear. She doesn't dismiss her daughter's claim, she simply nullifies it by highlighting the point that one shouldn't get involved with such incidences that go on outside.

There is nothing to refute or deny Charlotte's statement.

The issue is that her story doesn't fit in with the narrative.

Take for example Harriet Lilley, she was another key witness who was pushed into relative obscurity, because again her story didn't fit.

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.

It is of course important to highlight the difference between what the police believed was valid and true, and what actually was valid and true.

What is the reason to not believe Harriet and Charlotte respectively?

The 3 dodgiest witnesses in Packer, Hutchinson and Schwartz are all given their place in the spotlight despite clear indications they were all unreliable witnesses, and yet the claim of an 11 year old girl is not considered as valid.

The way I see it, an 11 year old girl is nore likely to tell the truth about she believed she heard, than most of the so called "witnesses" in this case, because she has no hidden agenda, underlying motive, financial incentive or plausible reason to lie.


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Point by Point RD.



Research by Mr Orsam, which is still on this site suggests that the incident of the hand print occurred far further north in Brady Street .
I have provide maps and photos of the possible sites in a certain book.



The alleged incident occurred probably earlier than the attack on Mary Ann, unfortunately . no actual time appears to be mentioned. As I said in a previous reply, the press actually retracted the the claims of a blood trail zig-zaging down Brady Street.



Only Neil patrolled Bucks Row.
Thain apparently had a very large beat that was to the east and north of Bucks Row.

Kirby, was the beat sergeant, and went round all the beats on his section. These are reported in the Echo, again it's on a thread on here.
Mizen, was in a different division, he was H, the others were in J.

Just what is it you find odd RD?




Just after midnight you say, Well Mary Ann was still down by Osborne Street at 2.30, and apparently not in Bucks Row at 3.15.





We know from the police evidence that there were no extra police in Bucks Row before Neil arrived at the body .



As was shown in the thread The curious case of Mrs Colville, her father used Cross, but this was probably an anglicize the name Croissette.

Please note that my mention of "just after midnight" was reference to the alleged domestic that occurred in the vicinity INSIDE a house, and has no connection with Charlotte's claim that she heard a woman calling out "murder! Police!"

The alleged incident of the Man cutting his wife's throat has nothing to do with Charlotte Colwell's statement, but I understand the confusion as I did say that the man could have walked out onto the street and bumped into Nichols. That is of course impossible because Nichols wasn't there at that time as you rightly stated.

I should have stuck to my actual point in Charlotte Colwell's statement that she heard a woman calling out. This occured shortly before Nichols was found.

That's why I believe Charlotte heard Nichols call out and that she was initially attacked at the northern end of Brady street (approximately)
I believe that Nichols may have been attacked close to the Jewish Cemetery on the western side of Brady Street, having gone there with a punter...

Or a policeman

"MURDER! POLICE"

literally speaking perhaps?


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

HI RD,

Does the statement do that? Do we know that the woman she was talking about was Nichols?

Yes, unless there was another woman attacked in Brady Street who then walked down Bucks Row and past the murder site before Nichols was murdered minutes afterward?

The statement by Charlotte Colwell is more damaging to the narrative than Maxwell's alleged conversation with MJK after she was already dead.

The difference being that Maxwell was the wife of a dodgy Lodging House in Dorset Street; whereas an 11 year old girl would have NOTHING TO GAIN from lying about what she heard.

Her mother doesn't tell us her daughter was wrong, and by proxy tell us she heard the woman outside too.


How can we dismiss the likes of Charlotte Colwell and Harriet Lilley and yet believe Lechmere and Paul?

Baffling


RD

[Elamarna]

Ah yes, but my point wasn't where Nichols died, it was where she was originally attacked.

Charlotte's statement also doesn't relate to the press reports that there was a trail of blood that zagged down the road, crossing over several times. It also doesn't relate to other reports of multiple blood spots found on the floor west of the murder site.

In fact, it's not even the alleged blood prints said to have been discovered in Brady Street (that is mentioned in the article)
The point is, regardless of whether there were or weren't blood marks found, Charlotte still claimed to have HEARD a woman call out "Murder! Police!" etc...
She claimed to have woken up her mother to tell her and her mother's response is rather telling.

Firstly, her mother doesn't refute her daughter's claims. Instead her syntax indicates a degree of apprehension and fear. She doesn't dismiss her daughter's claim, she simply nullifies it by highlighting the point that one shouldn't get involved with such incidences that go on outside.

There is nothing to refute or deny Charlotte's statement.

The issue is that her story doesn't fit in with the narrative.

We appear to be at cross purposes here RD.
Its not about questioning if the Colville account was genuine, the question rather is, what reason is there to believe it might be linked to the murder of Mary Ann Nichols?

Her wounds are such that she could not have fled an attack if she was cut.
The wounds clearly show she was attacked where she was found.

There was no blood trail, if she had been cut in Brady Street, there were be.

The only blood spots were slightly to the west of the body, these almost certainly from the body as it was loaded onto the ambulance.
We know that crys of murder were not rare, we are told that in Miller's Court.

Take for example Harriet Lilley, she was another key witness who was pushed into relative obscurity, because again her story didn't fit.

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.
It is of course important to highlight the difference between what the police believed was valid and true, and what actually was valid and true.

What is the reason to not believe Harriet and Charlotte respectively?

Not at all, I value the statement of Lilley as being potentially very significant. It happens at the appropriate time and at the exact location.

Unlike the Colville account.

If we remove the blood trail, and possibly the hand print too, then all you have left is a cry, at an unspecified time, a considerable distance from where the body was found.

What is there to link the two events ?

The 3 dodgiest witnesses in Packer, Hutchinson and Schwartz are all given their place in the spotlight despite clear indications they were all unreliable witnesses, and yet the claim of an 11 year old girl is not considered as valid.

We will disagree that Schwartz is unreliable, but that is a different debate.

The question here I repeat is not, is the report is unreliable, indeed I suggest in my work that she did hear an incident , it's that is unrelated to the murder of Nichols.

The way I see it, an 11 year old girl is nore likely to tell the truth about she believed she heard, than most of the so called "witnesses" in this case, because she has no hidden agenda, underlying motive, financial incentive or plausible reason to lie.


RD

As I said, it's not that she lied, it's that there is no evidence to link her incident to the murder.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

So accounting for duplicates, there are 7 accounts of Robert Paul suggesting they sit the woman up and only 1 where the idea was Lechmere's.

I'd say at least 5 of those reports came from the same (press agency?) source, so perhaps the ratio is as low as 2:1. Thanks for putting them all together, by the way - very handy

[Elamarna]

Please note that my mention of "just after midnight" was reference to the alleged domestic that occurred in the vicinity INSIDE a house, and has no connection with Charlotte's claim that she heard a woman calling out "murder! Police!"

The alleged incident of the Man cutting his wife's throat has nothing to do with Charlotte Colwell's statement, but I understand the confusion as I did say that the man could have walked out onto the street and bumped into Nichols. That is of course impossible because Nichols wasn't there at that time as you rightly stated.

Yes, I am aware of that, as I clearly said we have no time for Charlotte's account.

I was in no way confused, Given I have a chapter the Brady St event in Inside Bucks Row, I think I understand it fairly well.

You mentioned the 2nd attack saying it happened just after midnight and the husband might have bumped into Polly.
I was pointing out the gap between that attack and the attack on Polly.

I should have stuck to my actual point in Charlotte Colwell's statement that she heard a woman calling out. This occured shortly before Nichols was found.

Sorry, we are given no time for the attack in Brady St the reports mention no time, unless of course you have a source.

To state it occurred shortly before Nichols was found is simply incorrect, it could have been anytime.

That's why I believe Charlotte heard Nichols call out and that she was initially attacked at the northern end of Brady street (approximately)
I believe that Nichols may have been attacked close to the Jewish Cemetery on the western side of Brady Street, having gone there with a punter...

Or a policeman

"MURDER! POLICE"

literally speaking perhaps?


RD

What leads you to think that it was Polly?
As for the location I clearly show the likely position in my work.

Sorry but this is yet another leap by you my friend.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Yes, unless there was another woman attacked in Brady Street who then walked down Bucks Row and past the murder site before Nichols was murdered minutes afterward?

Sorry this is pure speculation on your part RD, there is no indication that the person who called out "murder" ever entered Bucks Row.

Where does minutes afterwards come from?
You are making some very big assumptions.

Steve

[The Rookie Detective]

The key here is that both Charlotte and her mother both heard a woman outside their house located midway down Brady Street, and then listened as the woman was heard moving closer to the end of Bucks Row, ergo, heading south down Brady Street toward Bucks Row.

But we know from multiple witnesses that Bucks Row was said to be quiet that night, i.e. none of the residents in Bucks Row said they heard anything apart from Mrs Lilley.

Bearing in mind that Matthew Packer initially also claimed he heard nothing and saw nobody...until he changed his mind post Le Grand.

But anyway...


Charlotte Colwell uses the important phrase "early this morning...before it was light" (paraphrasing slightly)

Now the sunrise on that morning was 5.16am, so we know it was before that time

We also know that it was after midnight because she states "Early this morning"

But seeing as Nichols was found circa 3.45am, then we can assume that after that time the vicinity would have been full of activity and therefore, more general noise.

We can therefore be sure that Charlotte heard the woman outside her house before Nichols was found.


But crucially, Charlotte says "before it was light"


But why use that phrase?

that phrase would not be used for someone referring to an incident occurring at say 2am, because the syntax used implies that it wasn't too far from becoming light, but early enough to be classed as "Early morning"

To use the phrase "Before it was light" would imply an incident between 3am - 5am, but combining the phrase "early this morning, it would then indicate before 4am.


I therefore believe that the woman that Charlotte and her mother BOTH heard, was outside their house in Brady Street sometime between 3am -4am.


Between midnight to 3am fits with "early this morning" but not "before it was light"
Between 4am - 5.15am fits with "before it was light" but not "early this morning"

But because Nichols was found by 3.45am, then we can reduce the time of the Charlotte claim to the following time frame...


3am - 3,45am

But... at 3,15am when a policeman passed down Bucks Row, they would have seen or HEARD the woman that Charlotte and her mother claimed to hear.

Therefore, the time frame can be reduced again, making the incident in Brady Street occurred after 3.15am but before 3.45am


Based on the police beats, it would then place the timing of the Brady Street woman calling "Murder, Police!" at a time when there were NO policemen in the vicinity of Brady Street.

Of course, it could be argued that the phrase "before it was light" is irrelevant, but just think of when you would use that phrase.

Would you use that phrase if you heard a fight outside your house before 3am?

Or would you use that phrase closer to the time that it would be getting light?


The simplest explanation is that the entire incident never happened at all and that Charlotte and her mother both lied.


That is far more likely than it being true and the woman they both heard NOT being Nichols.


In other words. if the incident happened, then it was Nichols, but it's likelier that they were lying.

For a woman to cry out "Murder Police!" repeatedly at a time when the streets were meant to be quiet, isn't suggestive of someone playing a prank or getting mugged etc... Both Charlotte and her mother heard NO OTHER FOOTSTEPS...and that is also suggestive of a killer who had injured his pray and simply followed her until she dropped.

The explanation for why there was no blood...because the main cuts were done post mortem and the killer had only inflicted ONE cut to Nichols in Brady Street. She tried to run but with a cut to her throat only managed to make it about 150 yards or so.

The killer followed her in silence, possibly wearing specially made boots made by a bootmaker, similar to ones worn by burglars.

When you include the possibility that the killer had served time in Cold Bath Fields prison under the Silent System, then you have a man trained by the system to carry out tasks in relative silence.

Edward Buckley and Daniel Sullivan both served time in Coldbath Fields Prison....together.


But i digress...


Nichols could have been cut and staggered away to try and escape her attacker. Because of her neck attire, it is possible that she could have bled through her clothing.

I just don't believe that the killer would have chosen Bucks Row as his primary kill site as there's no natural escape points.

Whereas in Brady Street, he has multiple choices...and perhaps after inflicting an initial wound, he just watched her try and escape and perhaps enjoyed the thrill of the hunt so to speak.

At least my hypothesis is something a little different from the Lechmere norm.

I am just not sure at what point Lechmere and Paul would have walked down Brady Street.


Covering for each other may have been a clever way out. Claiming they were there at different times helps to cover a wider time frame.


It just all feels rather convoluted and odd, and something about the entire story just doesn't feel right.



RD

[Abby Normal]

Love this Jerry!

Jerry I just need to say that your mere presence on this thread has already quadrupled my interest.

A big shout out to JerryD in da house!




RD

i second that!

[Abby Normal]

When I think of the Lechmere theory and its two main proponents, I'm reminded of when my Granddad died and we bought my Nan a budgie to keep her company. She named it Frankie after him. I asked her how did she know it was male and she replied 'Because it's called Frankie'.

lol. great story! reminds me when i was a kid there was a funny eccentric old spinster who used to tell us....be nice to dogs because theyre really just little old men. : )

[Elamarna]

The key here is that both Charlotte and her mother both heard a woman outside their house located midway down Brady Street, and then listened as the woman was heard moving closer to the end of Bucks Row, ergo, heading south down Brady Street toward Bucks Row.

No one disputes this.

But we know from multiple witnesses that Bucks Row was said to be quiet that night, i.e. none of the residents in Bucks Row said they heard anything apart from Mrs Lilley.

Bearing in mind that Matthew Packer initially also claimed he heard nothing and saw nobody...until he changed his mind post Le Grand.

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?

Charlotte Colwell uses the important phrase "early this morning...before it was light"

Now the sunrise on that morning was 5.16am, so we know it was before that time

We also know that it was after midnight because she states "Early this morning"

But seeing as Nichols was found circa 3.45am, then we can assume that after that time the vicinity would have been full of activity and therefore, more general noise.

We can therefore be sure that Charlotte heard the woman outside her house before Nichols was found.

Yes, probably before Polly was found.

But crucially, Charlotte says "before it was light"

But why use that phrase?

Because she woke up, and it was still dark.

that phrase would not be used for someone referring to an incident occurring at say 2am, because the syntax used implies that it wasn't too far from becoming light, but early enough to be classed as "Early morning"

To use the phrase "Before it was light" would imply an incident between 3am - 5am, but combining the phrase "early this morning, it would then indicate before 4am.

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.

I therefore believe that the woman that Charlotte and her mother BOTH heard, was outside their house in Brady Street sometime between 3am -4am.

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

Between midnight to 3am fits with "early this morning" but not "before it was light"
Between 4am - 5.15am fits with "before it was light" but not "early this morning"

Of course midnight to 3am fits.

But because Nichols was found by 3.45am, then we can reduce the time of the Charlotte claim to the following time frame...


3am - 3,45am

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

But... at 3,15am when a policeman passed down Bucks Row, they would have seen or HEARD the woman that Charlotte and her mother claimed to hear.

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.

Therefore, the time frame can be reduced again, making the incident in Brady Street occurred after 3.15am but before 3.45am

Seriously so you simply ignore

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

Based on the police beats, it would then place the timing of the Brady Street woman calling "Murder, Police!" at a time when there were NO policemen in the vicinity of Brady Street.

Clearly, but not at the time you suggest.

Of course, it could be argued that the phrase "before it was light" is irrelevant, but just think of when you would use that phrase.

Would you use that phrase if you heard a fight outside your house before 3am?

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

Or would you use that phrase closer to the time that it would be getting light?

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

The simplest explanation is that the entire incident never happened at all and that Charlotte and her mother both lied.

That is far more likely than it being true and the woman they both heard NOT being Nichols.

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

In other words. if the incident happened, then it was Nichols, but it's likelier that they were lying.

No

For a woman to cry out "Murder Police!" repeatedly at a time when the streets were meant to be quiet, isn't suggestive of someone playing a prank or getting mugged etc... Both Charlotte and her mother heard NO OTHER FOOTSTEPS...and that is also suggestive of a killer who had injured his pray and simply followed her until she dropped.

The explanation for why there was no blood...because the main cuts were done post mortem and the killer had only inflicted ONE cut to Nichols in Brady Street. She tried to run but with a cut to her throat only managed to make it about 150 yards or so.

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?

The killer followed her in silence, possibly wearing specially made boots made by a bootmaker, similar to ones worn by burglars.

When you include the possibility that the killer had served time in Cold Bath Fields prison under the Silent System, then you have a man trained by the system to carry out tasks in relative silence.

Edward Buckley and Daniel Sullivan both served time in Coldbath Fields Prison....together.

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

But i digress...


Nichols could have been cut and staggered away to try and escape her attacker. Because of her neck attire, it is possible that she could have bled through her clothing.

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.

I just don't believe that the killer would have chosen Bucks Row as his primary kill site as there's no natural escape points.

Whereas in Brady Street, he has multiple choices...and perhaps after inflicting an initial wound, he just watched her try and escape and perhaps enjoyed the thrill of the hunt so to speak.

At least my hypothesis is something a little different from the Lechmere norm.

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.

I am just not sure at what point Lechmere and Paul would have walked down Brady Street.

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

Covering for each other may have been a clever way out. Claiming they were there at different times helps to cover a wider time frame.

It just all feels rather convoluted and odd, and something about the entire story just doesn't feel right.

RD

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

Steve

[drstrange169]

For what it's worth ...

LLOYD'S WEEKLY NEWSPAPER Sept 2 1888