The Lechmere trail - so far

[Abby Normal]

Yes, the blood evidence is inconclusive.

Yes, that opens the door for a killer shortly before Lechmere arrived.

I have said that for the longest time now.

But it also applies that we KNOW that Lechmere fits the bill, we KNOW that if the bloodflow and coagulation happened according to the normal schedule, then there is only very little or no time at all for an alternative killer, and we KNOW that the PC:s and watchmen surrounding Bucks Row reported that nobody was seen entering or leaving the murder area as far as they could tell.

I am consequentially, Harry, not saying that Lechmere is the proven killer. I am saying that he has to be the prime suspect given what we know, and that he is the probable killer of Polly Nichols.

This should go without saying - but there is a fear of going even near the thought amongst many Ripperologists.

Do you have another prime suspect to suggest? Can you see that there is any obstacle at all hindering Lechmere to have been the killer, other than the very subjective "I think he would have run", "I don´t think a man of his occupation would be a killer" or "I don´t think he would kill en route to work"?

If we sweep these things to the side, saying "Okay, lets assume that he would stay put, let´s assume that he would kill in spite of being a carman and en route to work" - then what are we left with, if not prime suspect?

I think people are missing the point that eventhough it could have been another killer who cut her, it would have to VERY shortly before lech found her. She couldn't have been killed say 20 minutes before he came upon her.

It narrows the window a lot on a killer other than lech and that's significant.
You combine that with the idea that there is 10 minutes apparently unaccounted for and that Lech and Paul neither saw nor heard each other on their way. So perhaps there is a connection there.

Frankly though, I think that there is a good chance lech might have actually scared off the killer and therefore the blood evidence is a wash for me.

Neeed to contemplate it more though.

[Patrick S]

Okay. I decided to put my life on hold last night, utilize the information on this site, pull out some old books, see what I could find, what further questions I could come up with and throw out there. Here's the first:

At 2:30AM Mary Ann Nichols meets Emily Holland, who was returning from watching the Shadwell Dry Dock fire, outside of a grocer's shop on the corner of Whitechapel Road and Osborn Street. Polly had come down Osborn Street. Holland describes her as "very drunk and staggered against the wall." Holland calls attention to the church clock striking 2:30. Polly tells Emily that she had had her doss money three times that day and had drunk it away. She says she will return to Flower and Dean Street where she could share a bed with a man after one more attempt to find trade. "I've had my doss money three times today and spent it." She says, "It won't be long before I'm back." The two women talk for seven or eight minutes. Polly leaves walking east down Whitechapel Road.

PC John Thain passes down Buck's Row at 3:15AM. He sees nothing unusual. At approximately the same time Sgt. Kirby passes down Buck's Row and reports the same.

So, we know that Nichols was alive and at the corner of Osborn Street and Whitechapel Road talking with Emily Holland at 2:30AM. She left Holland, drunk and headed east down Whitechapel Road.

Thus, we know that Nichols had not met her killer at 2:30AM. Holland does not see her approached by anyone as she heads east on Whitechapel Road. We know with near certainty, also, that she was alive at 3:15AM when Thain and Kirby passed the spot where her body would be discovered 25 to 30 minutes later.

It’s clear from the blood evidence she was murdered where she was found. Blood had pooled beneath her. There was no blood found leading to/away from the spot. She was led to the spot in Buck’s Row and killed there.

I think it’s also reasonable to assume that she was relatively at ease and unsuspecting when she was murdered. Mr. Purkiss and Mrs. Green stated they heard nothing unusual. Obviously, Nichols met her killer between the corner of Osborn Street and Whitechapel Road and the spot on which she was murdered. It’s likely she was accompanied to that spot by her killer.

We have a little more of an hour of her time unaccounted for. It's reasonable reasonable to assume that she spent some significant amount of this time with her killer. Further, if Nichols stated she would soon have her doss money, where would she have headed that would have allowed her to quickly do so? I don’t think that would be in Buck’s Row.

I think that Buck’s Row is where they went to transact business. So, where is she most likely to have met her killer? Who knows the area (circa 1888) between Osborn/Whitechapel corner and Buck's Row? I can't find enough detail to know what was there, business, pubs, dwellings, etc.

Fish, does the Cross scenario have her meeting Cross on the spot? If that’s the case, why was Nichols in Buck’s Row? If not, did Cross take another route to work that day and lead Nichols’ into Buck’s Row? It does not seem like a likely spot to quickly earn one's doss money.

[Patrick S]

Mary Ann Nichols’ body was found in Buck’s Row at 3:40AM or 3:45AM by Charles Cross (Lechmere). Cross stated that he was walking along the Essex Wharf side of Buck’s Row when he saw something lying against the gates leading to the stables next to New Cottage. It was dark. A street light shining at the end of the row did not provide sufficient light for him to identify the shape. “I could not tell in the dark what it was at first; it looked to me like a tarpaulin sheet, but stepping into the road, I saw that it was the body of a woman. Just then I heard a man (Robert Paul) about 40 yards off approaching from the direction that I myself had come from. I waited for the man, who started to one side as if afraid that I meant to knock him down. I said, “Come and look over here, there’s a woman.”

Paul went with Cross. It was too dark for either man to see any blood. The woman’s clothes were raised almost to her stomach. Her bonnet was off and lay close to her head. Cross felt her hands, which were cold and limp. Paul felt her face and found it warm. Paul felt for a heartbeat and thought he detected a faint movement. “I think she’s breathing but it’s very little if she is”, he said. Paul wanted to move the body but Cross refused to touch her. The two men, now late for work, decided to try to find a policeman.

We know that at the time Cross and Paul were examining Nichols, her throat had been cut twice. One cut was four inches long and one eight inches long; both cuts reached through to the vertebrae.

This means that both the left and right carotid arteries were severed. It means, also, that both sets of jugular veins were severed. Dr. Llewellyn states that he felt the murderer had faced her, held his right hand across her mouth and cut her throat with his left hand.

It’s difficult to argue that the killer would have been covered in blood. Instantaneously cutting the throat to near decapitation would create a copious blood spurt. There would be no continuous spray as you may find with nicked carotid artery, but the instantaneous release of pressure would create a fountain of blood that would quickly lose pressure. If she was killed in the manner described by Llewellyn, her killer would have been - again - covered in blood.

Yet, Cross feels comfortable approaching Paul and speaking with the police (it’s reasonable to assume that Mizen shined his light on Cross and Paul as they spoke).

To me, this blood evidence seems to clear Cross.

[caz]

Frankly though, I think that there is a good chance lech might have actually scared off the killer and therefore the blood evidence is a wash for me.

This makes sense if the killer would have done more to the body had someone not come along when they did. It's always going to be a problem for the Lechmere theory because he could just as easily have been the killer's unwelcome intruder as the killer interrupted.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Okay. I decided to put my life on hold last night, utilize the information on this site, pull out some old books, see what I could find, what further questions I could come up with and throw out there. Here's the first:

At 2:30AM Mary Ann Nichols meets Emily Holland, who was returning from watching the Shadwell Dry Dock fire, outside of a grocer's shop on the corner of Whitechapel Road and Osborn Street. Polly had come down Osborn Street. Holland describes her as "very drunk and staggered against the wall." Holland calls attention to the church clock striking 2:30. Polly tells Emily that she had had her doss money three times that day and had drunk it away. She says she will return to Flower and Dean Street where she could share a bed with a man after one more attempt to find trade. "I've had my doss money three times today and spent it." She says, "It won't be long before I'm back." The two women talk for seven or eight minutes. Polly leaves walking east down Whitechapel Road.

PC John Thain passes down Buck's Row at 3:15AM. He sees nothing unusual. At approximately the same time Sgt. Kirby passes down Buck's Row and reports the same.

So, we know that Nichols was alive and at the corner of Osborn Street and Whitechapel Road talking with Emily Holland at 2:30AM. She left Holland, drunk and headed east down Whitechapel Road.

Thus, we know that Nichols had not met her killer at 2:30AM. Holland does not see her approached by anyone as she heads east on Whitechapel Road. We know with near certainty, also, that she was alive at 3:15AM when Thain and Kirby passed the spot where her body would be discovered 25 to 30 minutes later.

It’s clear from the blood evidence she was murdered where she was found. Blood had pooled beneath her. There was no blood found leading to/away from the spot. She was led to the spot in Buck’s Row and killed there.

I think it’s also reasonable to assume that she was relatively at ease and unsuspecting when she was murdered. Mr. Purkiss and Mrs. Green stated they heard nothing unusual. Obviously, Nichols met her killer between the corner of Osborn Street and Whitechapel Road and the spot on which she was murdered. It’s likely she was accompanied to that spot by her killer.

We have a little more of an hour of her time unaccounted for. It's reasonable reasonable to assume that she spent some significant amount of this time with her killer. Further, if Nichols stated she would soon have her doss money, where would she have headed that would have allowed her to quickly do so? I don’t think that would be in Buck’s Row.

I think that Buck’s Row is where they went to transact business. So, where is she most likely to have met her killer? Who knows the area (circa 1888) between Osborn/Whitechapel corner and Buck's Row? I can't find enough detail to know what was there, business, pubs, dwellings, etc.

Fish, does the Cross scenario have her meeting Cross on the spot? If that’s the case, why was Nichols in Buck’s Row? If not, did Cross take another route to work that day and lead Nichols’ into Buck’s Row? It does not seem like a likely spot to quickly earn one's doss money.

Great point Patrick
One that I myself have brought up in the past and challenged Fish with. I'll let him respond though.

My take is that if lech was the killer, with killing on his mind that night, he may have ventured around a bit onbto whitechapel road where he encountered her and then both went into bucks row.

or, at some point she herself ventured into bucks row.

with all the timings to consider-she may have wandered around whitechapel road for a while, not found any clients, thus no doss money thus no where to sleep and vetured into bucks row (off the main road) after the police had passed by, to find somewhere to crash. perhaps lech came upon her dozing, (reclined with her back against the building.)

[caz]

I agree, have always felt the ripper had to have surgical experience and prosector confirmed it.

However, Hunter and others have made valid points that a hunter or butcher might have been able to pull it off, especially if they read books about it.

And Lech had the cats meat business in his family-so theres that and I do find it highly intriguing.

Hi again Abby,

I think Prosector made the point, however, that avoiding the belly button area, as the killer of Eddowes did as he slit open her abdomen, was/is only done because the needle used for sewing up the body afterwards was/is unable to penetrate the tough tissue at that point. It wasn't too tough to cut through with the killer's sharp knife and he wasn't planning to sew Eddowes up again, so it suggests he had learned the technique in the dissecting room, and was either using it automatically or copying it from observation. It wouldn't be something a hunter or butcher would naturally do, or ever need to do, surely?

A taxidermist?

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

Yes, the blood evidence is inconclusive.

Yes, that opens the door for a killer shortly before Lechmere arrived.

I have said that for the longest time now.

But it also applies that we KNOW that Lechmere fits the bill, we KNOW that if the bloodflow and coagulation happened according to the normal schedule, then there is only very little or no time at all for an alternative killer, and we KNOW that the PC:s and watchmen surrounding Bucks Row reported that nobody was seen entering or leaving the murder area as far as they could tell.

I am consequentially, Harry, not saying that Lechmere is the proven killer. I am saying that he has to be the prime suspect given what we know, and that he is the probable killer of Polly Nichols.

This should go without saying - but there is a fear of going even near the thought amongst many Ripperologists.

Do you have another prime suspect to suggest? Can you see that there is any obstacle at all hindering Lechmere to have been the killer, other than the very subjective "I think he would have run", "I don´t think a man of his occupation would be a killer" or "I don´t think he would kill en route to work"?

If we sweep these things to the side, saying "Okay, lets assume that he would stay put, let´s assume that he would kill in spite of being a carman and en route to work" - then what are we left with, if not prime suspect?

Fair enough, Fish.

You say that Lechmere "fits the bill". I assume you are only talking in regards to proximity here? Apart from the fact he found the body (or was found with the body, if you'd prefer ), there isn't anything to suggest that he was the killer. Paul was not far behind Lechmere, correct? If we took Lechmere out of the equation, would it then follow that Paul is the likeliest suspect?

Name a better suspect? William Bury. Lived in the area, was an abusive drunk, murdered his wife and mutilated her body. Can he be placed definitively at the scene of the crime like Lechmere? Not as far as I know, but can Lechmere definitively be proven as anything less than an honest family man?

[Jon Guy]

I think people are missing the point that eventhough it could have been another killer who cut her, it would have to VERY shortly before lech found her. She couldn't have been killed say 20 minutes before he came upon her.
.

But Abby, most people already accept that Nichols killer was either interrupted by Cross, or he had scarpered just before Cross showed up.

I`m not aware of anyone of who believes Nichols was killed before 3.30 -3.35am (when Mrs Lilley though she had heard something).

[Dane_F]

As far as the blood "evidence" goes: I'm confused as to why more hasn't been made about Nichols being drunk since alcohol acts as a blood thinner and reduces blood clotting,

"Researchers at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, D.C., discovered that the alcohol equivalent of two drinks decreases the clumping together of platelets, cells that are essential to blood clotting."

Given that she was drunk around an hour before death if not slightly more, this might indicate a thinning effect of her blood at the crime scene. To try and establish any type of "evidence" off of how the blood was congealed is just impossible.

If anything the "evidence" might suggest she was dead for longer than thought because of the body showing signs of congealing at all. At the least it is completely irrelevant and at most horribly inconclusive.

[Abby Normal]

Mary Ann Nichols’ body was found in Buck’s Row at 3:40AM or 3:45AM by Charles Cross (Lechmere). Cross stated that he was walking along the Essex Wharf side of Buck’s Row when he saw something lying against the gates leading to the stables next to New Cottage. It was dark. A street light shining at the end of the row did not provide sufficient light for him to identify the shape. “I could not tell in the dark what it was at first; it looked to me like a tarpaulin sheet, but stepping into the road, I saw that it was the body of a woman. Just then I heard a man (Robert Paul) about 40 yards off approaching from the direction that I myself had come from. I waited for the man, who started to one side as if afraid that I meant to knock him down. I said, “Come and look over here, there’s a woman.”

Paul went with Cross. It was too dark for either man to see any blood. The woman’s clothes were raised almost to her stomach. Her bonnet was off and lay close to her head. Cross felt her hands, which were cold and limp. Paul felt her face and found it warm. Paul felt for a heartbeat and thought he detected a faint movement. “I think she’s breathing but it’s very little if she is”, he said. Paul wanted to move the body but Cross refused to touch her. The two men, now late for work, decided to try to find a policeman.

We know that at the time Cross and Paul were examining Nichols, her throat had been cut twice. One cut was four inches long and one eight inches long; both cuts reached through to the vertebrae.

This means that both the left and right carotid arteries were severed. It means, also, that both sets of jugular veins were severed. Dr. Llewellyn states that he felt the murderer had faced her, held his right hand across her mouth and cut her throat with his left hand.

It’s difficult to argue that the killer would have been covered in blood. Instantaneously cutting the throat to near decapitation would create a copious blood spurt. There would be no continuous spray as you may find with nicked carotid artery, but the instantaneous release of pressure would create a fountain of blood that would quickly lose pressure. If she was killed in the manner described by Llewellyn, her killer would have been - again - covered in blood.

Yet, Cross feels comfortable approaching Paul and speaking with the police (it’s reasonable to assume that Mizen shined his light on Cross and Paul as they spoke).

To me, this blood evidence seems to clear Cross.

Hi Patrick
there was evidence that Polly might have been choked first. so if she was dead when her throat was cut it would diminish any blood spray.

there was also no blood found on her front. so if there was enough blood to spray the killer, surely there would be some on her front.

I think Polly was killed pretty much like the rest, strangled or punched into unconsciousness or death and then throat cut while lying on her back.

[Abby Normal]

Hi again Abby,

I think Prosector made the point, however, that avoiding the belly button area, as the killer of Eddowes did as he slit open her abdomen, was/is only done because the needle used for sewing up the body afterwards was/is unable to penetrate the tough tissue at that point. It wasn't too tough to cut through with the killer's sharp knife and he wasn't planning to sew Eddowes up again, so it suggests he had learned the technique in the dissecting room, and was either using it automatically or copying it from observation. It wouldn't be something a hunter or butcher would naturally do, or ever need to do, surely?

A taxidermist?

Love,

Caz
X

agree.

A taxidermist? hmmm. I don't know. Perhaps?

Hunter (the poster),oh Hunter!!!!
what say you?

[Abby Normal]

But Abby, most people already accept that Nichols killer was either interrupted by Cross, or he had scarpered just before Cross showed up.

I`m not aware of anyone of who believes Nichols was killed before 3.30 -3.35am (when Mrs Lilley though she had heard something).

Hi John
Not sure what most people think-just making a point that it might tighten the window for when she was killed.

personally, gun to my head-lech scared off the killer.

[Dane_F]

In regards to discovery of the body near time of death, weren't both bodies during the double event found within minutes of the killer being there? If we are inclined to believe that the murder had just taken place don't we have multiple occasions where the killer committed the crime (and was possibly disturbed)?

I cannot see how this strengthens the case for Lechmere in any way Since we have no sightings or descriptions that fit Lechmere at any of the other scenes. Evidence would suggest he is far more likely to have been the disturber than the disturbed.

[Jon Guy]

Yet, Cross feels comfortable approaching Paul and speaking with the police (it’s reasonable to assume that Mizen shined his light on Cross and Paul as they spoke).

To me, this blood evidence seems to clear Cross. [/B]

Yes, Patrick. Cross even put his hand on Paul when they met.
Not to mention the knife he had in his sack apron whilst he was chatting to Mizen.

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick
there was evidence that Polly might have been choked first. so if she was dead when her throat was cut it would diminish any blood spray.

there was also no blood found on her front. so if there was enough blood to spray the killer, surely there would be some on her front.

I think Polly was killed pretty much like the rest, strangled or punched into unconsciousness or death and then throat cut while lying on her back.

To be fair there had to have been some blood found on her front in that her abdomen was mutilated. I can find nothing that reference either the presence or abscence of blood on the front Nichols (body or clothes). At the scene, there is this description:

Mizen, Thain, and Neil put the body aboard the ambulance. Moving the body revealed a spot of congealed blood about six inches in diameter, which had run toward the gutter. PC thain also noticed a lot blood on the back of the body and assumed that this had run down from the neck. He got a lot of blood on his hands when lifting the body into the ambulance.

I agree that Nichols was choked, either to unconsciousness or death. I've always assumed the former. I don't subscribe to the punching as witness at Buck's Row and Hanbury Street likely would have heard a victim cry out while being beaten. Even if Nichols was dead when her throat was cut there would still be some spray/spurt as there is still pressure within the carotid artery. I find it unrealistic that Cross could have killed Nichols in the manner in which she was killed, mutilated her corpse, remained free of blood on his person, was able to hide the murder weapon on his person, and then interact with Paul and Mizen without arousing the suspicons of either.

A full postmortem occurred at 10:00AM. Dr. Llewellyn and his assistant found the following injuries:

A bruise on the right side of the face (made by a fist or pressure from a thumb)

A circular bruise on the left side of the face (probably also caused by a fist or thumb)

A small bruise on the left side of the neck and an abrasion on the right side of the neck

Note: All bruising appeared to have been caused at the same time as was recent

Two cuts in the throat: One four inches long and one eight inches long; Both cuts reached through to the vertebrae

Two or three inches from the left side of the abdomen was a jagged wound, very deep having cut through the tissues. Several incisions ran across the abdomen and on the right side there were three or four cuts running downward. All of the wounds had been inflicted with a sharp knife and in Llewellyn’s opinion by a left handed man. Llewellyn felt the injuries took four or five minutes to inflict.

The killer likely had some rough anatomical knowledge. He felt that Nichols had been murdered about half an hour before he arrived on the scene, perhaps about 3:50AM. He did not believe that Nichols had been seized from behind. He felt the murderer had faced her, held his right hand across her mouth and cut her throat with his left hand. The weapon was likely pointed with a stout back such as cork-cutter’s or shoemaker’s knife. It was not exceptionally long bladed.

While autopsy was being conducted Spratling returned to the mortuary and found Nichols’ clothes in a heap in the yard. I have found no desciption of the clothes beyond this.