Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[FISHY1118]

I somehow think in Lechs case, his more of a "Person of Interest" rather than a suspect. Then again that could be said about them all.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[chubbs]

...Even if Paul had seen him he would not have been able to identify him like all the other witnesses in the case. Cross, at the time it took Paul to encroach on the 40 or so yards Cross heard him from, had enough time to be around the School Building and away. There is absolutely zero reason for a guilty Cross to stay in situ. Unless you believe, which you do in the fantasy portrayed by Holmgren and Stow.
He had time to get away, he didn't because he was not guilty, it's that simple I'm afraid.

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)​ 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!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps I just misunderstand, but if Cross/Lechmere could not have been that far from Nichols because he had to be very close to see her body due to the darkness, how could Paul, 40 yards away, see him flee? Isn't it supposed to be so dark that Cross/Lechmere can't discern a shape to be a body when only 1/2 a street width or so away (pending on the angle)?

It seems to me that like so many things in this theory, "it is, until it has to be otherwise, and which point it isn't".

- Jeff

Exactly Jeff. The evidence is like a buffet for some. Just pick the parts that you like and ignore the rest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

So a guilty Lechmere, who the evidence proves clearly was known as Cross at that period of his life, hears a man approach and he doesn’t know what the man had or hadn’t seen. He would certainly have known though that the man wouldn’t have been able to have given a remotely damaging identification. ‘It was a man I think’ would have been about the extent of it. So does he a) escape into the darkness realising the obvious fact that, after going over to look at the body, the chances of a complete stranger chasing after a knife-wielding murderer with a 100 yard head start through the streets was non-existent, or b) he stands around in the hope of finding out what he’d seen?

So for your suggestion, b) how would he have hoped to have achieved that? “I say old chap, when you were walking toward me what did you actually see? Whereabout was I standing? Did you see me actually doing anything that might be construed as suspicious? And what would he have done if he’d said “I saw you crouching over the body wiping something on the woman’s dress,” what would he then have done? Come up with a ‘Caught Bang To Rights Scam’?

Get a grip Mark. A 30-40 yard head start. By the time Paul gets to the body Cross is 70-80 yards away. Even just 30 seconds to go over to the body and discover the wounds and Cross is 100+ yards. If he’d run he’d have been 150 yards away.

It’s a no-brainer. Unless Cross was not only an entirely unique serial killer he was also possibly the stupidest. The fact that he stayed put proves his innocence. There is no case to answer for Cross. Scobie only said that there was because he was duped by false evidence. Remove the gap and he would given Cross a resounding ‘no chance.’ Clearly innocent.

[JeffHamm]

Perhaps I just misunderstand, but if Cross/Lechmere could not have been that far from Nichols because he had to be very close to see her body due to the darkness, how could Paul, 40 yards away, see him flee? Isn't it supposed to be so dark that Cross/Lechmere can't discern a shape to be a body when only 1/2 a street width or so away (pending on the angle)?

It seems to me that like so many things in this theory, "it is, until it has to be otherwise, and which point it isn't".

- Jeff

[chubbs]

Would the moon have been low enough to backlight Cross as he was walking west along Bucks-row?

If the moon was at 39 degrees, in that position in the sky, its direct light would not have reached ground level, or even human head level in Bucks Row at that time. It would have caught the higher parts of taller buildings (eg the warehouse). In any case, a crescent moon's illuminative power is minimal, even on a clear night.

There's no getting away from the fact that is was bloody dark down there.

[Geddy2112]

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. Far from it. 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.

He preferred Cross, he said so at the inquest He would have known what Paul could see as a few seconds previously he had had the same view. Or similar. Even if Paul had seen him he would not have been able to identify him like all the other witnesses in the case. Cross, at the time it took Paul to encroach on the 40 or so yards Cross heard him from, had enough time to be around the School Building and away. There is absolutely zero reason for a guilty Cross to stay in situ. Unless you believe, which you do in the fantasy portrayed by Holmgren and Stow.
He had time to get away, he didn't because he was not guilty, it's that simple I'm afraid.