Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

David Orsam:

Fisherman - just to move away from the detail for the moment and look at the big picture. Once the blood of Nichols was embarrassingly washed away (removing any chance of finding footsteps in that blood) I don't believe that the police had any real interest in searching for more bloodstains. What did they care if the body was killed in another street a few yards away? How does it help them or make any difference to the investigation of the crime? There was no understanding of forensic psychology and I just don't think it mattered to them.

You seem to think, David, that they did not search the ground for bloodied footprints, that they did not look at the blood pool under Nichols´neck?

I think they did. I think they searched the ground thoroughly, looking for any lead or clue that could have been there.
Oddly, you also seem to think that the police cound not have cared less about where Nichols was killed. I disagree very much - they would have been very interested in such matters. That is why you find Helson in Brady Street, looking for bloodstains.

Sure, it mattered if the body was killed at an entirely separate location, hence the consideration of whether there were any wheel marks or tracks, thus bringing the body from a distance. And hence Helson gives evidence that the arrangement of the clothing showed to him that the body "could not have been carried far". Leaving aside how he came to this conclusion, it is obvious that he thought it might have been carried - but if had not been carried far then Helson didn't care.

If Nichols was killed in Brady Street and carried to Bucks Row, the police would certainly have asked themselves the pertinent question: "Why?"

Given such a scenario, I think the first suggestion to surface would be that the killer was either trying to deflect or suggest guilt. In the latter case, a killer who disliked the owner of Brown´s Stable Yards could have placed the body on his doorstep so as to evoke suspicion against that owner.
The more credible soilution to the riddle would however be the first alternative: That the killer had attacked Nichols in or close by his dwellings, wherefore he wanted to rid himself of the evidence by carrying her away from his premises.

In this context, I think the police would entertain a huge interest about exactly where she was killed, if she was not killed in Buck´s Row. In the end, they did decide that she WAS killed where she was found, and they would therefore be inclined to think that the suggested blood in Brady Street had nothing to do with the murder and that there was no need to specifically look in that street for the killer´s lair.

Note that there is no mention in Helson's report of 31 August of any search for bloodstains, despite the fact that the report was supposed to contain the "fullest obtainable information" and in my view the attitude of the police was shown when the coroner asked Spratling about the search for bloodstains and Spratling answered him by telling him about the search for a weapon, only to receive a telling off from the coroner to answer the question he had been asked. For me, Spratling's attitude was telling because it showed the police's priority at the time. Where was the weapon?

It would have taken one search of the area to conclude that the killer had brought the weapon with himself when leaving. The police would not feel that this would be anything strange at all.
They would, however, be equally interested in any blood trail if you ask me. What Helson says is that "...careful search was continued with a view to find any weapon that was used by the murderer(s), and I think it is very reasonable to suggest that this search was not one that was supposed to sift the weapon from any other evidence. Those who searched looked for the weapon, yes - but they of course simultaneously looked for anything else that could throw light on the events!

And Helson could not be extremely thorough on everything - he does not mention the blood under Nichols´ neck either, does he?

And the reason the coroner was asking about the bloodstains was probably because of the newspaper report that morning that there were bloodstains in Brady Street. On the defensive, all the police officers said that they didn't see any blood but if they weren't actually looking for it at the time then that's not surprising. Such splatter would not be easy to see. As soon as it's daylight and residents start walking around and everyone's chatting about the murder, any proper search, which you need to do very carefully if it's just small splashes, becomes almost impossible. And there is no way the police are going to admit that a reporter found blood but they didn't!

The coroner - and we know who! - may well have asked on acount of rumours and paper articles. His was a tricky ockupation, trying to defend the people who were supposed to uphold the law, and he was not in a position to look away from things like these. So yes, he would have wanted to clear things up. As far as I can see, Helson puts the question to bed by naming that one patch that MAY have been blood.
Blood does not just go away. If it was not there a few hours after Nichols was found, it would have been washed away. And if it was, the the police could not just have ignored things. You are in the deep end of a bottomless pool here, I´m afraid. It does not pan out.

Anyway, it's just my personal opinion and this, I believe, is true whether there were or were not stains in Brady Street. I may be wrong about reliance on the newspaper reports but I don't think they can simply be dismissed out of hand, especially if only on the basis of the police evidence.

Nor do I! The papers must be weighed in, but we have so many examples of them relying on hearsay and getting things badly wrong, so in this case I think they are telling an untrue story, plain and simple.

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

But if bloodstains were noticed in Brady St, it's odd that none were noticed in Buck's Row, apart obviously from the ones outside Brown's Yard and a couple of stains west of it.

I understand the point. Nothing wrong with it. But we do need to bear in mind that Green has come out to wash up the blood, we don't know how thorough a job he did, and water will have potentially run down the street. I mean, I think it all depends on whether there really was a trail of bloodstains in Brady Street leading to Buck's Row. If there was, then even though the stains might have appeared to stop at Buck's Row, I would be very reluctant to rule out a connection between the bloodstains and the murder on that basis alone.

Re your idea that the killer might have been trying to hide the body, I think that would only work if the killer was indeed having trouble with the body, because otherwise he'd simply have tossed her over the gates, which would have been the best option.

I disagree with this. In my theory he wasn't trying to hide the body as such because he wanted it to be easily seen in the morning by as many people as possible. I also think that tossing a body over a gate isn't as easy as you suggest but let's not get into a body tossing debate!

[David Orsam]

That is why you find Helson in Brady Street, looking for bloodstains.

On a factual point, there is no evidence that Helson actually looked for bloodstains in Brady Street. He did give evidence to the coroner that he saw a suspicious spot in Brady Street but for all we know that was something he noticed while looking for a weapon or just walking along Brady Street.

Anyway, the difference between us is that you accept the police evidence while I'm dubious about it. Of course, if the police did make a careful search of Brady Street on the Friday then you are absolutely right and the newspaper reports are nonsense. I've done my best in post #5 of the Brady Street thread (supplemented by post #6) to set out the weakness of the evidence that such a search was carried out and can do no more.

I don't know the truth of the matter one way or the other. I was simply struck by the newspaper reports, which seemed quite detailed, and then when I looked at the police evidence to discount those reports it all seemed a bit thin to me. The only thing I can say for certain is that there is no mention whatsoever of any search by the police for blood in Inspector Spratling's report of 31 August.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam:

On a factual point, there is no evidence that Helson actually looked for bloodstains in Brady Street. He did give evidence to the coroner that he saw a suspicious spot in Brady Street but for all we know that was something he noticed while looking for a weapon or just walking along Brady Street.

It may well be true that Helson never said that he looked for blood evidence around the murder spot. Equally, it may well also be true that he never spoke of it since he regarded it as something he did not even need to mention - everybody with any sort of insight into police work will know that looking for evidence in the surroundings of a murder spot is a routine matter. And if the murder has involved bloodshed, the blood evidence will be looked upon as crucial.
Of course, one may counter that looking for a weapon also should go without saying - but I think that Helson had to point to the kind of police activity that was inititated by the murder, and that was to search the grounds. He only mentioned the weapon, but we must accept that ALL matters of potential importance would have been noted - dropped items, blood, wheelmarks, clothing items left behind; everything that could have a bearing. In Goulston Street, Alfred Long knew that a rag is no murder weapon - but since there was blood on it, he immediately knew it was of potentially huge interest anyway.

Anyway, the difference between us is that you accept the police evidence while I'm dubious about it. Of course, if the police did make a careful search of Brady Street on the Friday then you are absolutely right and the newspaper reports are nonsense. I've done my best in post #5 of the Brady Street thread (supplemented by post #6) to set out the weakness of the evidence that such a search was carried out and can do no more.

You have certainly pointed to a possibility - it´s just that I regard it as a very remote one.

I don't know the truth of the matter one way or the other. I was simply struck by the newspaper reports, which seemed quite detailed, and then when I looked at the police evidence to discount those reports it all seemed a bit thin to me. The only thing I can say for certain is that there is no mention whatsoever of any search by the police for blood in Inspector Spratling's report of 31 August.

The wordings of the paper reports you posted are so very similar that one must accept that there was a mutual source for them. And yes, they are very detailed, so it´s tempting to think that they must be correct. But once we realize that we are probably dealing with just the one source, we can also see that there seems to be a lack of corroboration. And then things suddenly become a lot less credible.
If we look at the original post of the thread about the Brady Street bloodstains, we can see that in no case does any reporter say that "I went to Brady Street and saw the blood trail myself". In all cases, it seems the reporters are recounting something they have been told, but have not seen.

We may also note how the story grows - on the 1:st, it´s the bloodtrail, but on the 2:nd one paper adds that bloody handprints could be seen in Brady Street. To me, that´s just another step, building the story of how Nichols and her killer battled it out in Brady Street. And if you ask me, there were no bloodied handprints at all, and there was no blood at all in Brady Street. Maybe there was some sort of liquid spilt, and somebody who saw it made an interpretation of it after having heard about the murder and spread the word.
And maybe it´s just a tall tale - the case is full of them.

All the best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

Hi Fisherman, the questions you raise about the accuracy of the newspaper accounts are interesting and worth discussing. In response, I would make the following points:

1. The reporter for the Daily Chronicle (whose reports were reproduced in the Evening Standard and Evening News) surely must have been in both Buck's Row and Brady Street on the Friday. We can see from his account, which appeared on Saturday morning, that he had spoken to Mrs Colville (of Brady Street) who told him that she heard a woman's voice screaming in the night. He adds that "Several persons living in Brady-street state that early in the morning they heard screams". If he didn't get that information from residents of Brady Street (or even just Mrs Colville herself), where did it come from? Surely not the police. Even if the information was wrong, the reporter knew Mrs Colville's name, which she had presumably told him. He also says: "Mrs. Green, Mr. and Mrs. Perkins, and the watchmen in two neighbouring factories agree that the night was unusually quiet." That might have come from the police but I would have thought it more likely to have come from speaking to them. That being so, it strikes me as very unlikely that he would have needed someone else to have told him that there were bloodstains in Brady Street when he could simply have looked for himself.

2. The LWN reporter must also have been in Brady Street on the Friday because, unlike the Daily Chronicle journalist, he has a statement from Mrs Colville's daughter Charlotte, who is not mentioned in the Daily Chronicle. Her statement was said to have been made to "our representative". Furthermore, I believe that the LWN reporter was the very first to break the exclusive news that Mrs Green's son had washed the blood away. He clearly spoke to her because his story includes a long quote from her and her story was confirmed by the evidence at the inquest on the Monday. He has obviously also spoken to Mr and Mrs Perkins, because he knows Mrs Perkins was not very well. What I will grant you is that the LWN says that Charlotte Colville's statement was made "on Friday night" so this does not prove that the reporter was there during the day to see the bloodstains. It is true that there are some similarities between the two accounts, such as the distances given (120 yards, 150 yards), but when the LWN reporter wrote the story he would have had the benefit of having read the Daily Chronicle and thus might well have incorporated things like distances that the Daily Chronicle reporter had calculated into his story. That he was not simply copying the story is suggested by the addition of a few facts not apparent from the Daily Chronicle such as: "There would be drop after drop two or three feet, and sometimes six feet apart for a distance", "In front of the gateway there was a large stain, looking as if the bleeding person had fallen against the wall and lain there" (is this the bloody handprints reference you think you have seen Fisherman?) and, most crucially, "It was wet on Friday morning, and at noon, although the sun had dried it, and there had been many feet passing over it, it was still plainly discernible". That key sentence was not in the Daily Chronicle so it gives us some reason to think that the journalist was on the scene at least at noon on the Friday.

3. It's right to say we can't believe what we read in newspapers but sometimes they get it right and are the only source of information we have other than the police.

Anyway, if you want to continue the discussion - and I have a few more things I want to say about the police evidence - perhaps come over to the Brady Street thread with me? I don't think this point impacts on whether or not Lechmere was the killer as he could just as easily have murdered Nichols in Brady Street as well as Buck's Row.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam:

Hi Fisherman, the questions you raise about the accuracy of the newspaper accounts are interesting and worth discussing. In response, I would make the following points:

1. The reporter for the Daily Chronicle (whose reports were reproduced in the Evening Standard and Evening News) surely must have been in both Buck's Row and Brady Street on the Friday. We can see from his account, which appeared on Saturday morning, that he had spoken to Mrs Colville (of Brady Street) who told him that she heard a woman's voice screaming in the night. He adds that "Several persons living in Brady-street state that early in the morning they heard screams". If he didn't get that information from residents of Brady Street (or even just Mrs Colville herself), where did it come from? Surely not the police. Even if the information was wrong, the reporter knew Mrs Colville's name, which she had presumably told him. He also says: "Mrs. Green, Mr. and Mrs. Perkins, and the watchmen in two neighbouring factories agree that the night was unusually quiet." That might have come from the police but I would have thought it more likely to have come from speaking to them. That being so, it strikes me as very unlikely that he would have needed someone else to have told him that there were bloodstains in Brady Street when he could simply have looked for himself.

Hmm - but DID he see that blood himself? Let´s take another look at how it was worded:

Buck's-row runs through from Thomas-street to Brady-street, and in the latter street what appeared to be blood stains were, early in the morning, found at irregular distances on the footpaths on either side of the street.

The stains were found early in the morning - at which time the reporter was not there, apparently. They "were found" at that stage. And they "appeared to be" blood.

I don´t hear the reporter describing the bloodstains as if he had seen them himself; do you?

And when the paper follows up their story, on the 3:rd, with the sensational scoop about the blood in Brady Street, now fully aware that there was an agreement that Nichols had been killed where she was found, they play to a different tune:

"The conclusion now arrived at is that woman met with her dreadful fate where he body was found. What were at first supposed to have been pools of blood for some distance upon the pavement cannot be relied upon as such, owing to the darkness of the stains".


The darkness of the stains? Well, we can conclude that this assessment was not made from looking at the stains two days after they were set off, deciding that they had grown too dark to have been blood. I think that the paper now tells us something that they did not tell us on the 1:st - that the stains that "appeared" as though they could have been blood, in all probability was something else, something darker. The paper will have been aware of this, but they will have been just as aware that blood sells more papers than blackcurrent lemonade - or whatever it was. Unlike blood, it seems to have evaporated swiftly!

2. The LWN reporter must also have been in Brady Street on the Friday because, unlike the Daily Chronicle journalist, he has a statement from Mrs Colville's daughter Charlotte, who is not mentioned in the Daily Chronicle. Her statement was said to have been made to "our representative". Furthermore, I believe that the LWN reporter was the very first to break the exclusive news that Mrs Green's son had washed the blood away. He clearly spoke to her because his story includes a long quote from her and her story was confirmed by the evidence at the inquest on the Monday. He has obviously also spoken to Mr and Mrs Perkins, because he knows Mrs Perkins was not very well. What I will grant you is that the LWN says that Charlotte Colville's statement was made "on Friday night" so this does not prove that the reporter was there during the day to see the bloodstains. It is true that there are some similarities between the two accounts, such as the distances given (120 yards, 150 yards), but when the LWN reporter wrote the story he would have had the benefit of having read the Daily Chronicle and thus might well have incorporated things like distances that the Daily Chronicle reporter had calculated into his story. That he was not simply copying the story is suggested by the addition of a few facts not apparent from the Daily Chronicle such as: "There would be drop after drop two or three feet, and sometimes six feet apart for a distance", "In front of the gateway there was a large stain, looking as if the bleeding person had fallen against the wall and lain there" (is this the bloody handprints reference you think you have seen Fisherman?) and, most crucially, "It was wet on Friday morning, and at noon, although the sun had dried it, and there had been many feet passing over it, it was still plainly discernible". That key sentence was not in the Daily Chronicle so it gives us some reason to think that the journalist was on the scene at least at noon on the Friday.

Here I think we can be sure that the reporter did not see any stains himself, I think: "There would be drop after drop..." should have been "there is" or "there was" if so. "There would be" tells us that we are dealing with second hand information at best.

3. It's right to say we can't believe what we read in newspapers but sometimes they get it right and are the only source of information we have other than the police.

All very true! We need the papers to get a better understanding, but they are challenging in differing from each other many times, and also - of course- in being governed to some extent by the need to sell copies.

Anyway, if you want to continue the discussion - and I have a few more things I want to say about the police evidence - perhaps come over to the Brady Street thread with me? I don't think this point impacts on whether or not Lechmere was the killer as he could just as easily have murdered Nichols in Brady Street as well as Buck's Row.

I´ll take a look on the thread!

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

I don´t hear the reporter describing the bloodstains as if he had seen them himself; do you?

I'm not saying he necessarily found the stains. Chances are someone pointed them out to him. The main thing is that he was there on the day and so could have checked them out for himself.

And when the paper follows up their story, on the 3:rd, with the sensational scoop about the blood in Brady Street, now fully aware that there was an agreement that Nichols had been killed where she was found, they play to a different tune:

"The conclusion now arrived at is that woman met with her dreadful fate where he body was found. What were at first supposed to have been pools of blood for some distance upon the pavement cannot be relied upon as such, owing to the darkness of the stains".

Yes, but look at the first sentence: "The conclusion now arrived at is that the woman met with her dreadful fate where her body was found". Whose conclusion could that possibly have been? The police's conclusion is the answer. And the last thing they wanted was to be shown to be incompetent by the newspapers. What I suggest has happened here is that the police went to Brady Street on the Sunday by which time you couldn't really tell what the stains were. And they reported this to the editor who could hardly do anything other than report what the police were telling him. And clearly, by this account, there were stains on the street, yet Spratling doesn't seem to have seen anything at all on the Friday. My knowledge of bloodstains is not brilliant but after a couple of days on the ground, no doubt during periods of intermittent rain, would it be possible with the untrained naked eye to tell whether a stain was blood or not?

[drstrange169]

"...Buck's-row runs through from Thomas-street to Brady-street ..."

Odd that someone who had been there, didn't know that was incorrect.

[Richard Patterson]

Look at Francis Thompson instead.

Here's an easiest way to get Lechmere off the hook. Look at Francis Thompson, the perfect suspect.
http://forum.casebook.org/forumdisplay.php?f=44

[Fisherman]

Here's an easiest way to get Lechmere off the hook. Look at Francis Thompson, the perfect suspect.
http://forum.casebook.org/forumdisplay.php?f=44

Aha. So I gather Thompson was found with a victim too, is that correct?
And he had ties to the murder area too, of course, otherwise he would not compete with Lechmere.
Did Thompson walk along routes leading up from where he lived to Whitechapel, taking him right past the murder sites?
Thompson must also have been involved in discussion with the police, where it can be shown that he concealed his true identity from them, and he would also have misinformed the police in order to compare to Lechmere, would that be correct too?

Does Thompson compete with Lechmere on these basic practical issues?

Or is he just another man that somebody - in this case you - thinks is a nice fit for what the Ripper may have been like? Kind of like Jacob Levy, but with even less going for him, not being locally living?

Why would Thompson get Lechmere off the hook? Did he steal away round the schoolhouse corner in Bucks Row as Lechmere came into the street? Did he step out of the Hanbury Street backyard minutes before Lechmere passed by? Was he the man who killed Tabram just before Lechmere came by, walking to his job? Perhaps Lechmere saw the shady figure of Thompson scuttling away eastwards down Dorset Street as he entered the same street himself on that November morning?

Is there any logical reason why we should place Thompson in these places at the relevant hours? Because there IS for Lechmere.

Do we have enough on Thompson to allow for a barrister to say that a court case could be formed?

Is there enough on him to make a former murder squad leader say that he is of tremendeous interest to the investigation, and that he needs to be cleared before there is any need to look at other suspects?

I think that before you try to get Lechmere off the hook, you need to find a hook of your own for Thompson. And a line.

Then I will provide the sinker for you.

I´m afraid I can´t even bring myself to say "nice try"!

The best,
Fisherman

[Richard Patterson]

Thanks for responding. It was a nice try. You certainly know an awful lot about Lechmere! Actually I think your response probably has everything there is to connect Lechmere to the crimes. Though if I’m wrong I am certain you can enlighten me. Believe me when I tell you that this reply has barely anything on what I know about my suspect. You are right Thompson was not found with the victim. In the late Victorian age, without DNA, fingerprints, lie-detectors, blood analysis, etc… All the police could hope for was to actually catch the murderer with the body, or a gain a confession, if they were to make an arrest. Strange that this Lechmere was not arrested immediately, but I people put that down to some sort of bumbling keystone cops representation of London’s police force. Even though the police were more likely on the whole well trained dedicated professionals.

Also there is more than reasonable doubt that Lechmere and Charles Cross, who found Nichol’s body, were even the same person. In fact there is census data that indicates that the opposite is true. I understand that carman, Charles Cross, spoke with PC Mizen, and that there are conflicting accounts about what transpired, as with many other aspects of the case, but that Cross was deliberately misleading PC Mizen is mere speculation. Mere speculation is all that anyone seems to have on Cross (or Lechmere if one wishes to make leaps of imagination) You provide many, speculating that Cross was acting suspiciously in Bucks Row, speculating that he (or your Lechmere) passed by Tabram on the night she was murdered, speculating that he entered Dorset Street on the morning that Mary Kelly was murdered.

All your questions about Thompson are fair to ask, if you know nothing of him. Let me answer these before I ask you some. Yes, Thompson did have ties to the murder area. He spent nights, while 3 years homeless, upon Mile End Road, on his though Whitechapel walking to the West End. He found any place he could in the East End to sleep including a homeless refuge in Limehouse from which he would once again from through Whitechapel as he headed into central London. Unlike Lechmere, who having to work, was under time constraints, an unemployed Thompson had all the time in the world. Now, I’m not telling the world that I possess proof that police sighted Thompson or even questioned him but it is certainly possible. Biographer on Thompson, the writer John Evangelist Walsh wrote in his 1987, “Strange Harp, Strange Symphony the Life of Francis Thompson,” the following:

'At this time occurred the most bizarre coincidence in Thompson's life. During the very weeks he was searching for his prostitute friend, London was in an uproar over the ghastly deaths of five such women at the hands of Jack the Ripper…The police threw a wide net over the city, investigating thousands of drifters, and known consorts with the city’s lower elements, and .it is not beyond possibility that Thompson himself may have been questioned. He was, after all, a drug addict, acquainted with prostitutes and, most alarming, a former medical student!'

Now here are my questions. Did your Lechmere have the ability to kill these women and the skill to cause their wounds? Thompson, a trained surgeon did.
Did your Lechmere have a motive to kill prostitutes? Thompson, who was dumped by his prostitute lover after a heated argument, sure did. He came to hate this profession, writing about them as, ‘These girls whose Practice is a putrid ulceration of love, venting foul and purulent discharge- for their very utterance is a hideous blasphemy against the sacrosanctity [sacred ways] of lover's language!'

Did your Lechmere, on his way to work every morning, have the opportunity to kill all 5 canonical victims? Thompson did. He was able to walk the East End streets at all hours. Being homeless there for years, he was ignored as part of the landscape and could come and go as he pleased without rousing suspicion. Although by the start of the Ripper murders Thompson still homeless, he had been paid some money for the first publication of his poetry that he used to clean himself up and buy new clothes and a coat. Did you Lechmere even own a knife? Thompson did. In fact he not only possessed a knife, it was a dissecting scalpel, that he was well trained in using. An instrument specifically designed to cut into corpses.
Could you remind me what undeniable proof there is again that Lechmere and Charles Cross are the same person?

I can’t tell you if my facts could cause a barrister or some such person to say Thompson would face court. I don’t even know how much I would need to pay one to do so.

Now, if it helps anyone, here is what I believe happened regarding Charles Cross and Mary Ann Nichols in the following scenario. Because this comes from my novel, I accept it is full of speculation, but not as much as those Cross/Lechmere Fans have shown.

‘It was at around 3.45 in the morning of August 31st 1888 when Mr Charles Andrew Cross walked into Buck Row from the eastern end. He has just turned the corner from Brady Street. Although it is just the first day of autumn with the early morning being cold, Charles was dressed warm. He wore a many-layered coat, round brimmed hat and a scarf. Charles had just left home and was heading toward Broad Street in the City to the premises of Pickford & Company. This was a delivery firm where he worked as a Carman. Charles was just passing Schneider's Cap Factory when he slowed upon seeing something on the other side of the street. Charles thought he had spotted a pile of rumpled tarpaulin lying in a heap on the pavement. He began to cross the street to investigate and reached the middle before he froze in his tracks. What he thought was a tarpaulin was actually a woman. She lay on her back, with her arms to her side and her skirt raised up to the waist. Two doors down was the yellow light of an oil lamp burning from a second story bedroom window. As Charles came nearer, the dim glow enabled him to make out the woman's dress and features. She wore a coat the colour of port wine. It was an ulster coat sporting large shiny buttons. She was lying before the high wooden gateway that led into Brown's stables. Charles heard someone approaching. A second man appeared forty metres away from the west end of Buck's Row. He was dressed like Charles who guessed correctly that he was probably also a Carman and on his way to work as well. The man walked on the same pavement side on which the woman was lying. When he saw Charles, he left the pavement to walk in the centre of the street, but as he was about to walk pass, Charles went to him. Touching him on the shoulder Charles said, ‘Come and look here. There's a woman lying on the pavement.’ Charles and the man approached the women and crouched down beside her. Charles took the woman's hand in his and feeling that it was cold said, ‘I believe she is dead.’ Charles touched the woman's cheek and felt that it was still somewhat warm. The other man, who was named Robert Paul and a Whitechapel resident, put his hand against the woman's chest and turned to Charles and said, ‘I think she's breathing, but very little if she is.’ Both men quietly argued as to if the woman were dead or a sleeping drunk. They also disagreed as to whether to move the woman and which of them should fetch a police officer. Robert, who was due at work at Corbett's Court in Spitalfields, said he had to go. Charles also did not want to be late for work at Pickford's so they decided to leave the woman and relate what they have seen to the next passing constable. They attempted to pull the woman's skirts down and then together they walked westward to Hanbury Street. The two men later found an H-Division constable named Jonas Mizen. Charles Cross said to Mizen should go to Bucks Row where a woman was lying on the ground. Cross told PC Mizen that the woman looked to him to be either dead or drunk, but for his part, he thought she was dead. PC Mizen had taken the two men's names and addresses before sending them on their way and heading to the scene.’

All the best

Richard.

[eighty-eighter]

I believe the only way to get Lechmere "off the hook" is the improvable theory that Nichols wasn't dead when he and later Paul found her. Which would have meant that the killer had only managed to strangle her (only!) and had been disturbed by Lechmere's approach, had taken up a nearby hiding place and waited (bit of a risk taker). Then when Lechmere and Paul left he returned to the spot and finished off his nights work.

That night/early morning was only partly cloudy with a quarter moon, it was dark but not totally dark. Cross/Lechmere recognised the body for what is was from the middle of the road. Possibly one or both men might have spotted some evidence of blood from a closer examination, yet neither did.

This theory hinges on how much time elapsed before Lechmere/Cross and Paul left the scene before pc Neil arrived; was it long enough for the mutilations? How long would the knife work have taken? A not impossible scenario, but a very risky one for the killer.

Against this and hence for Cross/Lechmere being the killer are a number of points.
1. From what I recall of my visits and from modern CGI artwork, there was nowhere really suitable nearby to hide.
2. Cross stated the he saw and HEARD nothing, meaning no tell tale footsteps either running or walking (unless the killer had rubber soles).
3. Was it dark enough for the killer to hide nearby which meant really in a doorway?
4. It would have been a HUGE risk to loiter at the scene of a murder with beat policemen never far away. To my mind if that scenario had unfolded then the killer would have withdrawn and saved his work for another night.

This leaves it looking that Lechmere being the killer is more tangible than the scenario just mentioned. I need to know more about the character/temperament of this fellow. I don't understand if it was him then where did his apparently psychotic hatred of the victims come from? He would have had to have been a real Jekyll and Hyde character from what we know so far, perhaps more information that is relevant will be unearthed over time and I look forward to the book.

The frenzied murder and detailed mutilation of Mary Kelly beyond any horror that had passed before is also a concern, unless of course that was a copycat killing. It seems the work of a lunatic. Very unlikely I know but there were a number of differences:

1. The length of time that had elapsed before her killing.
2. The killing was indoors.
3. The victim was significantly younger (and a catholic).
4. A meat chopper had been used.
5. Information on the killings and the techniques were widely available.

The deal breaker relates to the condition of Nichols body when discovered; could both men have missed the blood? Was Nichols still breathing? If they simply missed the blood because of the dark then it was probably the case that the killer had struck between 3.15am and 3.40am and was gone.

However if the blood was absent because of the freshness of the kill then that puts Lechmere right back under suspicion doesn't it? Either that or the rather implausible theory above.........

[Richard Patterson]

Let’s have a look at how the murderer may have remained hidden. Only a few meters west from the body of Mary Ann Nichols on the north side of the street was a short wall guarding the London and Northern Railway line. This railway, which passed south beneath Bucks Row, originated in Limehouse. This was where Thompson was sleeping. It wouldn’t require a great effort for him to have slain Nichols, take a few steps, hopped over the wall and walk back to Limehouse, mostly beneath Whitechapel, to where he slept.

Yes it was dark enough to hide and for both men to miss the blood. I believe that there was one lamp at the end of the row '. If this one of the old-fashioned oil of coal tar fuelled naphtha lamps like those that then lit Mile End Road, then it’s brightness would have been equivalent to a 25-watt electric bulb. A light hardly fit to project a few meters let alone to where the body lay. Also, since it was standard practice for the supply of gas for street lamps to be cut at eleven o'clock this lamp would have been off. Rubber soled shoes were rather rare in those days and only really used in hospitals. Thompson trained previously for six years in the Manchester Royal Infirmary.

[Sally]

Let’s have a look at how the murderer may have remained hidden. Only a few meters west from the body of Mary Ann Nichols on the north side of the street was a short wall guarding the London and Northern Railway line. This railway, which passed south beneath Bucks Row, originated in Limehouse

There was a wall?? The Crossmere documentary didn't say anything about that.

[Richard Patterson]

I suspect the documentary, which I never saw, has lamplight too. Here are two photos. One of the low walls, north and south of the railway line and another, a map, showing the railway line's position a few meters from where the body lay. This is a 1894 map, that's why Bucks Row is marked Durward Street.