Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[drstrange169]

" ... he becomes aware of Robert Paul approaching. He quickly puts his knife in his pocket (if it's still out), wipes his hands, stands up and quickly sneaks back into the middle of the road, hoping (fingers crossed) that Paul hasn't seen him move away from the body."

You missed one VITAL detail.

He sneaks back to the middle of the road and TURNS HIS BACK to Paul. Why on earth would a guilty man do that?

Paul's story corroborates Cross's.

Cross is the ONLY discoverer of a canonical victim to have his story visually corroborated.

[Doctored Whatsit]

There are three possible scenarios, aren't there?...

SCENARIO 1
The murderer, Charles Cross, is in the process of ripping open Polly Nichols' stomach, or arranging her legs in the 'wide open' position, when he becomes aware of Robert Paul approaching. He quickly puts his knife in his pocket (if it's still out), wipes his hands, stands up and quickly sneaks back into the middle of the road, hoping (fingers crossed) that Paul hasn't seen him move away from the body.
Then he approaches Robert Paul and touches him on the shoulder WITH A HAND THAT COULD STILL HAVE BLOOD & STUFF ON IT, and says, "There's a woman lying there." - or whatever he says. The rest is 'as testimony'. There is no way Cross would know how much/little Paul could see or had seen, yet he waits there.

SCENARIO 2
The murderer (not Charles Cross) is in the process of ripping open Polly Nichols' stomach when he becomes aware of Charles Cross approaching in the distance. He quickly puts his knife in his pocket, wipes his hands, stands up and quietly legs it, westwards, without Cross becoming aware of him. We know, from other murders, that he's a quick, slippery customer who is good at vanishing. It's possible.

SCENARIO 3
The murderer (not Charles Cross)â kills, abuses and poses Polly Nichols, wipes his knife and puts it away, wipes his hands and disappears off into the night, direction unknown. A minute or two later Charles Cross turns the corner into Bucks Row. We know the rest from his testimony.



I have typed the 3 scenarios in order - least likely first. You'd have to be a bit daft to think Scenario 1 is likely.

Look - no blood!

Or my most favoured SCENARIO 4 - JtR murders Nichols at 3.30 am with sounds muffled by the passing train as per Harriet Lilley's evidence, which is why no-one else heard anything. Cross arrived at appx 3.40 am as per Abberline's calculation, and as he gave evidence, he heard and saw nobody, because JtR was long gone.

[chubbs]

Or my most favoured SCENARIO 4 - JtR murders Nichols at 3.30 am with sounds muffled by the passing train as per Harriet Lilley's evidence, which is why no-one else heard anything. Cross arrived at appx 3.40 am as per Abberline's calculation, and as he gave evidence, he heard and saw nobody, because JtR was long gone.

Or SCENARIO 5 - JtR and Polly Nichols went into Bucks Row from Brady Street. A little way down, on the left, she lifted her skirts and he stabbed her in the stomach. She cried 'Murder, murder, Police!' and tried to escape by going further into Bucks Row, holding her stomach, hence the lack of blood on the way. One of them left bloody handprints on a wall, as reported by 11-year old Charlotte Colville, who was awoken by this kerfuffle outside her house early that morning, before dawn. Neither she nor her mother dared to go outside. The woman carried on down Bucks Row and her cries became fainter. By the time she reached the Stable Yard gates, where she was killed, either she collapsed or JtR forced her to the ground and there he cut her throat. Was it Charles Cross? Was it William Henry Bury? Was it someone else entirely? We have no idea, do we?

[Fiver]

Get a grip Mark. A 30-40 yard head start.

I think you vastly underestimate the amount of head start Rippermere could have had. Fight or flight are instinctive reactions, likely to occur after only a moment's hesitation. But Rippermere wouldn't be acting on instinct.

* What should I do? Fight or flee?
* Can he see me?
* Observe Paul's distance and where he is looking. Try to spot any reaction - expression, body language, change in pace.
* No, he hasn't seen me yet.
* Can I sneak away unheard before he sees me?
* No, he's too close.
* Can I kill him?
* Observe Paul's size, age, and wariness.
* No, he's on the alert and looks tough enough to put up a fight.
* I can't run or fight, what do I do now?
* Maybe I pretend to be innocent.
* Then I need to hide the evidence.
* Better make sure she's dead.
* Slice Nichols throat twice.
* Try and fail to pull down Nichols dress.
* Pull out a handkerchief.
* Wipe blood off his knife and hands.
* Conceal the knife with enough care not to stab himself.
* Stand up.
* Walk into the middle of the road.
* Turn his back on Paul.

Italics are for those who favor Fisherman's version of Rippermere.

I estimate these actions would take 20+ seconds, 30+ for the Fish version. At an average walking pace that's 30 to 45 yards covered, so if Rippermere just walks off, he has a 70 to 85 yard head start.

[Fiver]

Indeed so! In other words, Lechmere -- or, as he preferred to be called, Lechmere -- was not in any sense being stupid or unintelligent in not running away. Quite the opposite. He needed urgently to know how well and how much this approaching stranger had been able to see. Had the man seen him clearly enough to be able to describe or recognise him later, a fleeing Lechmere would have been headed straight for the gallows.

M.

At what distance can Paul have been so close that he could see clearly enough to recognize Rippermere's face, yet far enough away that he couldn't see Rippermere's whole body crouched over Polly Nichols?

[Fiver]

SCENARIO 1
The murderer, Charles Cross, is in the process of ripping open Polly Nichols' stomach, or arranging her legs in the 'wide open' position, when he becomes aware of Robert Paul approaching. He quickly puts his knife in his pocket (if it's still out), wipes his hands, stands up and quickly sneaks back into the middle of the road, hoping (fingers crossed) that Paul hasn't seen him move away from the body.
Then he approaches Robert Paul and touches him on the shoulder WITH A HAND THAT COULD STILL HAVE BLOOD & STUFF ON IT, and says, "There's a woman lying there." - or whatever he says. The rest is 'as testimony'. There is no way Cross would know how much/little Paul could see or had seen, yet he waits there.

There is no way Rippermere would know how much/little Paul could see or had seen.

But what would Rippermere think when Paul flinches away.

SCENARIO 1 Paul didn't see anything. Let's just tap him on the shoulder.

SCENARIO 2 Paul saw everything. I have to kill him now.

[Lewis C]

If Cross had killed Nichols and Paul had seen him do it, what would Paul do next if he saw that Cross was staying put? I would think he would loudly scream "murder!" while doing his best to ensure that Cross doesn't get close enough to him to kill him. Cross would have had to have been a fool to cause this to happen. That Paul kept quietly walking in Cross' direction would seem to indicate that Paul didn't see anything or Paul was a policeman. In either case, there's no sense in Cross staying there.

[Abby Normal]

lech is a better suspect than Maybrick yet a less better suspect than Bury (by alot.)

In mathematical terms it can be expressed as L >M X L< B *2

Where L=Lechmere, M= Maybrick, B*2= Bury squared

If we set M to Zero, which, as a suspect, he is, solve for B

good luck!