Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[The Rookie Detective]

So the killer leaves - at what risk? He might have seen a Constable but he might also have been able to have seen him in advance and give him a swerve. And if he had passed a Constable how much attention might he have payed a bloke walking to work head down? And how would that Constable have known that there had been a murder when they weren’t sure if Nichols was dead or not.

vs

So the killer stays - at what risk? Well he definitely knows a Constable will be involved rather than there being an outside chance of it if he’d fled. He’d also have realised the possibility that in the dark he might have gotten blood on him. Maybe only a little, but what if they’d got near a lamp and Paul had seen a small patch of wet blood on his jacket or shoe. Straight away he’d have pointed it out to the Constable. What if Mizen had asked them both to accompany him back to the body and then searched them both when he found that Nichols was dead. Lech has a bloodied knife on him. But in another ridiculous attempt to get around this we have the desperate Lechmere Scam. I’ve never heard such a ridiculous, desperate fantasy as this. As if, on the spur-of-the-moment, at the crime scene, with the knife in his pocket Lech is supposed to have thought up “I know, we’ll go for a Constable but when we get there I’ll find a way of splitting up from this other bloke so that I can lie about the woman only being drunk so that he’ll let us go!” And that is the kind of ‘thinking’ that we’re faced with here.

Flee or stay - no competition - not for a second - flee every single time. Lech stayed…..because he hadn’t done anything wrong. For me this is as close to exoneration as we can get without actually completely exonerating him.

Brilliant as always Herlock

May I add into the mix the option that he was the killer but he never had the time to leave the scene before Paul got there?
There's evidence to suggest that the killer was disturbed and so what if he instinctively tried to conceal the wounds and went to leave, but as he stood to go, Paul got there quicker than he had anticipated?

I agree that it would have been ridiculous for Lechmere to have stayed if he was guilty and I concur with your thoughts about the murder.
However, for the sake of balance...

What if Lechmere COULDN'T leave the scene in time? What if he wastes those few seconds concealing the injuries and misjudged his time needed to escape?

He would if he could be he couldn't?


Just a thought but valid I believe.

Not stating I believe Lechmere was the killer but if we add the fact the killer was most likely disturbed (only victim.the killer tried to conceal the injuries) then that would indicate that either Paul interrupted Lechmere OR Lechmere interrupted the real killer but for some reason heard noone leave the scene?

It doesn't quite add up

If there's proof the killer was disturbed
Proof that the killer tried to conceal the wounds
Proof that Nichols was STILL clinically alive by the time PC Neil found her.
Proof that the one witness who could have cleared Lechmere, Mrs Lilley, wasn't called up as a witness.
Proof that the one day he leaves late for work is the day he just misses a murder taking place.
And proof that the killer wouldn't of had time to escape the scene before another approached.

Then that doesn't look good for Lechmere.


IF we can prove that the killer WASNT disturbed and prove its POSSIBLE that Nichols killer left BEFORE Lechmere arrived and therefore it's possible for Nichols to still be bleeding out from 3.38am...and prove Mrs Lilley heard the murder occuring as the train passed around 3.30am and prove Lechmere had other days he was late for work...

Then Lechmere for me is in the clear

[Fiver]

Fiver will be given the chance to debate whether or not there is a church of Lechmere

Whether or not there is a Cult of Lechmere will not be resolved by me directly debating you over its existence. It will and has been shown by those Lechmere supporters who:

Ignore facts that don't fit their theory.
Selectively quote witness and police testimony.
Present speculation as fact.
Present falsehoods as fact.
Use double standards, for example presenting certain actions proof of guilt, but only for Lechmere.
Claim people who were given incomplete and/or misleading information came to unrefutable conclusions about the case.

Thanks for the blank check to comment on every time you do one of these.

Not that I need permission from you.

[Fiver]

(only victim.the killer tried to conceal the injuries)

That's one of the falsehoods spread by the Cult of Lechmere. There was no attempt to conceal Polly Nichols injuries.

"She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged." - PC Neil

"The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down." - Robert Paul

"The woman’s clothes were above her knees, and before they went away the other man tried to pull her clothes down, but could not." - Charles Lechmere.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Ah, if she wasn't called as a witness then that is particularly telling.
It would be interesting to know the reason why they thought she wasn't worth calling up as a witness.
As you say, her statement if correct absolutely helps put Lechmere in the clear.

There are a few reasons why they wouldn't have called her up...

She wasn't seen as reliable (not sure why)
She contradicts herself (not sure how)
She heard the killer who was there at 3.30am but it didn't fit with everyone else and so they didn't want to confuse matters
The killer was a policeman and they covered it up

It is really very simple. At the inquest it was made clear that the police had not thus far interviewed all of the potential witnesses.

[The Rookie Detective]

That's one of the falsehoods spread by the Cult of Lechmere. There was no attempt to conceal Polly Nichols injuries.

"She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged." - PC Neil

"The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down." - Robert Paul

"The woman’s clothes were above her knees, and before they went away the other man tried to pull her clothes down, but could not." - Charles Lechmere.

Then that doesn't explain their lackluster response. If the above comments are true, then why didn't they rush to get a policeman? Call for help? Split up and get help?

If their statements suggest that the KILLER didn't cover her injuries, then why didn't NEITHER or them notice her injuries?

I don't believe the answer that is was dark is enough.

They're either lying or heartless for not getting help as a matter of urgency.

Paul trips himself up by stating he thought she was alive...and then stating he thought she was dead.

If he thought she was alive and the killer didn't cover her injuries...the why did they BOTH just walk off and if they found a policeman then that's a bonus.

No urgency
No covering up of wounds
And yet the coroner didn't even know the extent of her injuries initially.

Their story doesnt add up

[Herlock Sholmes]

Brilliant as always Herlock

May I add into the mix the option that he was the killer but he never had the time to leave the scene before Paul got there?
There's evidence to suggest that the killer was disturbed and so what if he instinctively tried to conceal the wounds and went to leave, but as he stood to go, Paul got there quicker than he had anticipated?

I agree that it would have been ridiculous for Lechmere to have stayed if he was guilty and I concur with your thoughts about the murder.
However, for the sake of balance...

What if Lechmere COULDN'T leave the scene in time? What if he wastes those few seconds concealing the injuries and misjudged his time needed to escape?

He would if he could be he couldn't?


Just a thought but valid I believe.

Not stating I believe Lechmere was the killer but if we add the fact the killer was most likely disturbed (only victim.the killer tried to conceal the injuries) then that would indicate that either Paul interrupted Lechmere OR Lechmere interrupted the real killer but for some reason heard noone leave the scene?

It doesn't quite add up

If there's proof the killer was disturbed
Proof that the killer tried to conceal the wounds



Proof that Nichols was STILL clinically alive by the time PC Neil found her.
Proof that the one witness who could have cleared Lechmere, Mrs Lilley, wasn't called up as a witness.
Proof that the one day he leaves late for work is the day he just misses a murder taking place.
And proof that the killer wouldn't of had time to escape the scene before another approached.

Then that doesn't look good for Lechmere.


IF we can prove that the killer WASNT disturbed and prove its POSSIBLE that Nichols killer left BEFORE Lechmere arrived and therefore it's possible for Nichols to still be bleeding out from 3.38am...and prove Mrs Lilley heard the murder occuring as the train passed around 3.30am and prove Lechmere had other days he was late for work...

Then Lechmere for me is in the clear

Robert Paul said that her clothes were ‘disarranged’ and that he himself helped to pull them down so I don’t think that we have actual proof that he was disturbed but it has to be a possibility of course. There’s nothing wrong with your ‘Paul possibly interrupted Lechmere or Lechmere interrupted the killer’ but I don’t think that we can deny a third possibility….that something else ‘spooked’ the killer just before Lech got there. It might sound unlikely because we can’t name the ‘thing’ but this was a killer who I imagine would have been on high alert (like an antelope at a watering hole) and so might have been spooked by a banging door, a voice carried on the wind etc. This was possibly his first kill too.

You’re right to point out the possibility of Lechmere being caught out but, there’s always a but…..

I find it difficult to believe that a killer in that location wouldn’t have been wary of the possibility of someone approaching so i really struggle to see Lechmere being caught out. Also, Lechmere (if the killer) couldn’t have been sure what Paul might or might not have seen. What if Paul had said to a police officer (during the inquest perhaps) “he just said that he saw the body from the middle of the road but when I first saw him he was moving from the body back to the middle of the road.”

Think of how far away Lechmere could have got. An approximate 40 yard gap. So walking quicker or even running, by the time Paul reaches the body Lech could have been 50/60 yards away. Then take the time for him to stop and check the body. Let’s say just 10 seconds. That’s another 20 yards. So by the time Paul knows that there’s a body (dead or drunk) Lech is 70/80 yards away. Then there’s even the possibility that Paul might not have noticed the body.

And then, as is suggested, if Lech could come up with the alleged ‘scam’ to bypass Mizen why couldn’t he have come up with the childishly simple “ I saw a shady figure walking/ running away but I couldn’t see him very clearly?” Or if he wanted to ensure that he could speak to a Constable away from Paul why didn’t he say “I think that we’ll have better luck finding a Constable if you go that way and I go this way?”

Nothing Lechmere did or said makes me suspicious of him. Honestly RD, nothing.

[Elamarna]

Then that doesn't explain their lackluster response. If the above comments are true, then why didn't they rush to get a policeman? Call for help? Split up and get help?

If their statements suggest that the KILLER didn't cover her injuries, then why didn't NEITHER or them notice her injuries?

I don't believe the answer that is was dark is enough.

They're either lying or heartless for not getting help as a matter of urgency.

Paul trips himself up by stating he thought she was alive...and then stating he thought she was dead.

If he thought she was alive and the killer didn't cover her injuries...the why did they BOTH just walk off and if they found a policeman then that's a bonus.

No urgency
No covering up of wounds
And yet the coroner didn't even know the extent of her injuries initially.

Their story doesnt add up

Her injuries were clearly covered up, her skirts were down below her waist, but above her knees.
However, I submit there was not a conscious attempt to cover her wounds, as they were not obvious.
Rather the clothing I suggest was found as it was left when the killer was disturbed. That is it simply fell that way, not specifically placed to cover the wounds.

The important point is that she was NOT disembowled. Her intestines were not pulled out of the body cavity, although it seems they were close to being so.
The killer, whoever he was, was disturbed before he could complete his work.

Indeed it was only while waiting at the mortuary that Spratling discovered the full extent of her wounds.
Llewellyn did notice them in Bucks Row.
He was the police surgeon not the coroner, different things.

Therefore her wounds ( the ones to the abdomen) were it seems not obvious.

Clearly neither Paul or Lechmere were sure of her condition, either "dead or dead drunk"

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then that doesn't explain their lackluster response. If the above comments are true, then why didn't they rush to get a policeman? Call for help? Split up and get help?

If their statements suggest that the KILLER didn't cover her injuries, then why didn't NEITHER or them notice her injuries?

I don't believe the answer that is was dark is enough.

They're either lying or heartless for not getting help as a matter of urgency.

Paul trips himself up by stating he thought she was alive...and then stating he thought she was dead.

If he thought she was alive and the killer didn't cover her injuries...the why did they BOTH just walk off and if they found a policeman then that's a bonus.

No urgency
No covering up of wounds
And yet the coroner didn't even know the extent of her injuries initially.

Their story doesnt add up

Just because her skirts were raised it doesn’t mean that it was enough to display her injuries. They were just showing a bit of respect. This was the Victorian era after all, even prostitutes didn’t walk around with their legs on show. (Steve beat me to it)

How could they have got help any more urgently than they did RD? And we also have to recall that these were tough times. Employers weren’t always sympathetic. They could sack someone on the spot for being late with no comebacks; no tribunals. A man loses his job and the family don’t eat. It might sound heartless to us but in that situation a man’s earnings would always come first. Most men at the time, in that situation, seeing a woman lying there would have said “some drunken ****, not my problem, I’m late for work.”

[The Rookie Detective]

Robert Paul said that her clothes were ‘disarranged’ and that he himself helped to pull them down so I don’t think that we have actual proof that he was disturbed but it has to be a possibility of course. There’s nothing wrong with your ‘Paul possibly interrupted Lechmere or Lechmere interrupted the killer’ but I don’t think that we can deny a third possibility….that something else ‘spooked’ the killer just before Lech got there. It might sound unlikely because we can’t name the ‘thing’ but this was a killer who I imagine would have been on high alert (like an antelope at a watering hole) and so might have been spooked by a banging door, a voice carried on the wind etc. This was possibly his first kill too.

You’re right to point out the possibility of Lechmere being caught out but, there’s always a but…..

I find it difficult to believe that a killer in that location wouldn’t have been wary of the possibility of someone approaching so i really struggle to see Lechmere being caught out. Also, Lechmere (if the killer) couldn’t have been sure what Paul might or might not have seen. What if Paul had said to a police officer (during the inquest perhaps) “he just said that he saw the body from the middle of the road but when I first saw him he was moving from the body back to the middle of the road.”

Think of how far away Lechmere could have got. An approximate 40 yard gap. So walking quicker or even running, by the time Paul reaches the body Lech could have been 50/60 yards away. Then take the time for him to stop and check the body. Let’s say just 10 seconds. That’s another 20 yards. So by the time Paul knows that there’s a body (dead or drunk) Lech is 70/80 yards away. Then there’s even the possibility that Paul might not have noticed the body.

And then, as is suggested, if Lech could come up with the alleged ‘scam’ to bypass Mizen why couldn’t he have come up with the childishly simple “ I saw a shady figure walking/ running away but I couldn’t see him very clearly?” Or if he wanted to ensure that he could speak to a Constable away from Paul why didn’t he say “I think that we’ll have better luck finding a Constable if you go that way and I go this way?”

Nothing Lechmere did or said makes me suspicious of him. Honestly RD, nothing.

On balance I tend to agree with you Herlock. I believe that you may be right about the option of something else having possibly spooked the killer BEFORE Lechmere arrived.
I feel its more likely it was something, as opposed to someone.
Perhaps it was Mrs Lilley situated at the front of the house a few yards away who disturbed the killer.
I believe she heard the murder around 3.30am around the time the train passed.
Whether the train masked the sound of approaching footsteps I guess is unknown.
I also believe that apart from MJK, the killer spent UNDER 5 minutes with all of his victims.

Initially I thought 10 minutes but that's just not realistic.

The killer could not have spent more than 5 minutes with Nichols and considering I think he used the sound of the train to mask the attack, I believe he left Nichols at 3.35am at the very latest.
That would explain why Lechmere didn't hear anyone and I think he only missed the murderer leaving by no more than 3 minutes.

If the killer didn't cover Nichols wounds, then there's no proof the killer had to flee in a hurry, meaning Lechmere would be in the clear.

The only thing I find hard to explain is why he and Paul didn't have any more urgency to find a policeman?

A pair of callous self centred morons who just left her to die
(I don't believe she was dead when the killer left her)

[JeffHamm]

Hi The Rookie Detective,

...

Seeing as they weren't aware she was dead then it may also suggest...that she actually wasn't clinically dead.

Given the extent of her injuries it is highly improbable that she was anything but clinically dead at the time. Her throat had been cut down to the spine, and her abdomen attacked. JtR in all probability cuts the throat (twice) first, then lifts her dress to attack the abodomen, and given the nature of her throat injury, I would be surprised if by the time he leaves (even if interrupted), she would have been dead by that point. On the other hand, I'm not a medical expert, and perhaps it takes more time for all signs of life (as in the autonomic nervous system responsible for breathing, etc) to cease than I think. So while I can't assert with complete confidence, I would be highly surprised if she wasn't clinically dead well before Cross/Lechmere sees her.

When Paul touches her and thinks she's alive but Lechmere believes she's dead, it would appear that by Paul touching her and believing she was alive, was enough to convince Lechmere that she wasn't dead.

Paul's opinion seems to convince Lechmere and so they head on to work and if they meet a policeman so be it. There's no sense of urgency and so you're absolutely correct that they didn't believe she had been attacked.

Given they do question whether or not she's alive, there was something that "creeped" them out about the situation. Paul (I think), does somewhere state he believed she might have been "outraged" (meaning raped, or otherwise sexually assaulted), so he at least did seem to harbour some notions that she may have been attacked.

Regardless, they are also two carmen on their way to work and neither is likely to feel equipped to render any assistance (given she's at the very least unconscious), and if she has been attacked she would need the police (who also would be equipped to render the assistance they cannot).

It is highly improbable that one is going to find a dead body in the street, and people who find bodies often say they initially thought they are looking at a mannequin. It is just so unlikely that we interpret what we're seeing in a more probable way, until eventually it dawns upon us that "no, that really is a body". With Cross/Lechmere and Paul, they appear to have spent relatively little time with her, and so that moment of insight never occurs (had they tried to sit her up, it would have become very apparent though), but as I say, something obviously about the situation did not sit quite right with them.

That in turn brings about another issue...

If Paul thought she was alive and then they head off to work, then she may hav been dead or alive BUT it's clear that her injuries must have been concealed.

All of the other victims were displayed (except Stride due to interruption or a different killer) and the killer wanted to show his work to the world by exposing their internal organs etc...

Therefore because neither Paul or Lechmere etc... were unaware of her injuries, the killer tried to conceal what he had done.

That doesn't fit

And so why did he conceal her injuries?

The only explanation I can determine from his attempt to conceal her injuries is that he was interrupted and wasn't quite finished.

If he had of been finished and then walked off before Lechmere arrived, her body would have been displayed for all to see like Chapman, Eddowes and MJK etc...

Not necessarily. You are back-projecting what JtR does later to what is the first of mutilation murders, rather than examining them in temporal order. The past may influence our future behaviour, but our future behaviour does not influence our past.

It was dark, and blood would be hard to see, particularly against the road (and much of it was underneath her, soaked into her clothes). While her dress was hiked up above her knees (hence Paul's thought she might have been outraged) when they found her, Paul did say he pulled her dress down (to provide her with some dignity).

Polly is the first of the mutilation murders (just in case you favour Tabram as JtR's first victim), and so it appears what he may have done is lift the dress up with one hand, reached underneath to cut at the abdomen, and just dropped the dress when he left. During later murders he apparently found that insufficient, and so exposes the abdomen more completely in order to have better access to perform his mutilations. He's learning as he goes, as serial killers do. The general pattern of escalation seen (omitting Stride of course), also points to someone improving upon what went before.

Basically, the "concealment" by the time PC Neil finds her may be nothing more than JtR's lack of prior experience combined with Paul pulling her dress back down.

In other words, if as you say they believed she was still alive and couldn't see the extent of her wounds, then that would surely mean the killer was interrupted.

Not necessarily. Sure, he might have been interrupted, but again, this is JtR's first mutilation murder. If you accept the idea that the later ones will build upon what came before because he's learning as he goes, then when you look in reverse chorological order you would expect to see things "removed". Polly, being the first, therefore may not show the more dramatic displaying and wide open abdomen because those aspects haven't yet been added, but appear in his next murder which he "improves" because he now has some experience.

Now at this juncture I must say that I'm on the fence about Lechmere because I believe the murder occurred some time between 3.30am - 3.38am... BUT...

If Paul found Lechmere yards away from her body and Lechmere claims he would have heard someone, then surely that doesn't fit with the killer being disturbed?

Only if you believe Cross/Lechmere couldn't be wrong in his belief about being able to hear someone. It is often argued that because PC Neil could hear PC Thain at the far end of Buck's Row, then Paul should have heard Cross/Lechmere ahead of him, etc. Of course, PC Neil is actively seeking assistance by this point, we have no reason to believe that Paul is on high alert. Whoever kills Polly has every reason to be on high alert though, and so whomever that is they should have heard someone enter Buck's Row. Now if that someone is Cross/Lechmere, then JtR could leave while Cross/Lechmere is over 400 feet away, and if so, Cross/Lechmere (who of course has no reason to be on high alert when he enters Buck's Row) could very well not have noticed and he's simply wrong in believing he would have.

Unfortunately, there's no way for us to really evaluate these things, and as such, they all remain possible because Cross/Lechmere is either right or wrong in his belief he would have heard someone. And on top of that, whether he's wrong or right, we don't even know if JtR fled when Cross/Lechmere enters Buck's Row or if he had left before that.

Either Lechmere interrupted the killer but didnt hear anything?
Or Paul interrupted Lechmere who quickly tried to conceal the wounds he had just inflicted because he heard Paul approaching and by doing so had NO TIME to escape an had to blag his way out of it.

Again, there's no reason to presume that the "concealment" was deliberate. JtR could have just finished (for whatever reason, done or interrupted, take your pick) and let the clothes fall where they may. Not intending to conceal, just done and leaving.

Sure, the latter is the Cross/Lechmere hypothesis, but really, nothing Cross/Lechmere does is lacking in what Paul does, so if one or the other is the Ripper, why is the other one not also the Ripper for the very same reasons?

OR there is another option...

Paul had just murdered Nichols but heard Lechmere approaching but he quickly hid in the shadows. Lechmere then walks past and notices Nichols and Paul waits for Lechmere to move on... But Lechmere doesn't and just stands there...and so Paul makes the decision to edge back...but as he does Lechmere hear and so Paul is forced to walk back towards the body and pretend he has just arrived on the scene.
He then convinces Lechmere she's still alive...and they move on to go to work...

Making Paul the ripper

And given that Cross/Lechmere's behaviour more or less mirrors Paul's, why then isn't Cross/Lechmere the Ripper and Paul innocent? But if Cross/Lechmere is the Ripper, why isn't Paul the Ripper too? Because their behaviours are similar all along the way, either they are both the Ripper, or they are both innocent.

But that's pretty thin...and it's more likely that Lechmere killed her and only had time to conceal the wounds and lost the time he needed to run.


Thoughts?

TRD

As per above.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

On balance I tend to agree with you Herlock. I believe that you may be right about the option of something else having possibly spooked the killer BEFORE Lechmere arrived.
I feel its more likely it was something, as opposed to someone.
Perhaps it was Mrs Lilley situated at the front of the house a few yards away who disturbed the killer.

I agree very possible, or another unnamed resident moving a curtain, letting light out, or lighting a candle or gas lamp .

I believe she heard the murder around 3.30am around the time the train passed.
Whether the train masked the sound of approaching footsteps I guess is unknown.
I also believe that apart from MJK, the killer spent UNDER 5 minutes with all of his victims.

I tend to agree again, certainly not much more

Initially I thought 10 minutes but that's just not realistic.

The killer could not have spent more than 5 minutes with Nichols and considering I think he used the sound of the train to mask the attack, I believe he left Nichols at 3.35am at the very latest.
That would explain why Lechmere didn't hear anyone and I think he only missed the murderer leaving by no more than 3 minutes.

I would suggest 5 minutes is too long.
I would also not be so sure of the time, the train may well have been late.
I would however say your time is within a. reasonable window .

If the killer didn't cover Nichols wounds, then there's no proof the killer had to flee in a hurry, meaning Lechmere would be in the clear.

I believe the wounds were covered, but such was more by accident than design.

The only thing I find hard to explain is why he and Paul didn't have any more urgency to find a policeman?

More urgency?
They carried out a cursory examination of the body, and probably left the scene within 2 minutes of Lechmere approaching Paul.
They then went off down Bucks Row to look for a policeman.
Considering they were not sure of her condition, how much more urgency could they have shown?

A pair of callous self centred morons who just left her to die
(I don't believe she was dead when the killer left her)

Given her wounds she would be dead in less than 4 minutes, the loss of blood from severing of both carotid arteries is about 740ml/per minute. Heart failure sets in at around 50% total blood volume loss.
Any abdomen injury would simply reduce the time.
So it's very possible that if Lechmere was NOT the killer, she may have already been dead before the carmen examined her, or very close to it.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi The Rookie Detective,


Given the extent of her injuries it is highly improbable that she was anything but clinically dead at the time. Her throat had been cut down to the spine, and her abdomen attacked. JtR in all probability cuts the throat (twice) first, then lifts her dress to attack the abodomen, and given the nature of her throat injury, I would be surprised if by the time he leaves (even if interrupted), she would have been dead by that point. On the other hand, I'm not a medical expert, and perhaps it takes more time for all signs of life (as in the autonomic nervous system responsible for breathing, etc) to cease than I think. So while I can't assert with complete confidence, I would be highly surprised if she wasn't clinically dead well before Cross/Lechmere sees her.

Heart failure would have set in between 3-4 minutes after the cut to the throat( if it was indeed first, some have argued it was secondary). ANY cuts to the abdomen would speed this up.

Polly is the first of the mutilation murders (just in case you favour Tabram as JtR's first victim), and so it appears what he may have done is lift the dress up with one hand, reached underneath to cut at the abdomen, and just dropped the dress when he left.

I have been suggesting this for sometime too Jeff, good to see I am not alone.

Basically, the "concealment" by the time PC Neil finds her may be nothing more than JtR's lack of prior experience combined with Paul pulling her dress back down.

Very possibly.

Only if you believe Cross/Lechmere couldn't be wrong in his belief about being able to hear someone. It is often argued that because PC Neil could hear PC Thain at the far end of Buck's Row, then Paul should have heard Cross/Lechmere ahead of him, etc. Of course, PC Neil is actively seeking assistance by this point, we have no reason to believe that Paul is on high alert. Whoever kills Polly has every reason to be on high alert though, and so whomever that is they should have heard someone enter Buck's Row.

Again I am in agreement Jeff.

Now if that someone is Cross/Lechmere, then JtR could leave while Cross/Lechmere is over 400 feet away, and if so, Cross/Lechmere (who of course has no reason to be on high alert when he enters Buck's Row) could very well not have noticed and he's simply wrong in believing he would have.

Yes, the whole concept of individual people's perception is something that needs to be taken into account, we will not all be the same, or at all times.

Again, there's no reason to presume that the "concealment" was deliberate. JtR could have just finished (for whatever reason, done or interrupted, take your pick) and let the clothes fall where they may. Not intending to conceal, just done and leaving.

Fully agree on this possibility Jeff.

Sure, the latter is the Cross/Lechmere hypothesis, but really, nothing Cross/Lechmere does is lacking in what Paul does, so if one or the other is the Ripper, why is the other one not also the Ripper for the very same reasons?



And given that Cross/Lechmere's behaviour more or less mirrors Paul's, why then isn't Cross/Lechmere the Ripper and Paul innocent? But if Cross/Lechmere is the Ripper, why isn't Paul the Ripper too? Because their behaviours are similar all along the way, either they are both the Ripper, or they are both innocent.

These are very fair questions Jeff, that appear to often be ignored or overlooked

Steve

[Fiver]

We have three observations made before Dr Llewellyn arrived at the scene:

1. Lechmere and Paul at around 3.45-3.46, who said that they saw no blood, Lechmere adding that it was too dark to do so.

2. John Neil, arriving at circa 3.51, and stating that there was blood oozing/running from the wound in the throat, and that there was a pool of blood under the neck of Polly Nichols.

3. Jonas Mizen, who arrived at around 3.54, and who said that the blood was still running and looking fresh, and adding the information that there was blood running from the pool under Nicholsī neck into the gutter.

From this, we can form a logical sequence: It seems that the blood in the pool was added to during these minutes, and eventually ran over the brim and started flowing into the gutter. This is what the sequence implicates.

I've already noted that you ignore the actual times given by PC Neil and PC Mizen.

There isn't enough information to assume any sort of sequence.
* Neither Paul not Lechmere saw the blood - you're just assuming that there was less blood when they saw the body around 3:40am.
* Ypu assume that when PC Neil saw the body at about 3:45am, the blood was wasn't also running into the gutter.
* You assume that the blood was fresh and flowing into the gutter when PC Mizen first arrived.
* You also don't give a time estimate for Dr Llewellyn, nor mention what he said about the blood.

"I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.' - 4 September Morning Advertiser

"Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.
The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter." - 3 September Echo

"Witness went to the spot, found Policeman Neil there, and by his instruction witness went for the ambulance. He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed." - 3 September Star

"I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station, and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman." - 4 September Evening Standard

So two accounts claim the blood was fresh, one said it was 'somewhat congealed", and one did not mention how fresh the blood appeared. How do we determine which is correct? Simple majority? Analyzing which papers were more prone to exaggeration?

There's also the question of what the time is when PC Mizen is describing the blood. Mizen testified to meeting Pail and Lechmere at 3:45am, which would probably pit his initial arrival at around 3:50am. But all of his descriptions of the blood are mentioned after Mizen was sent for and returned with the ambulance. Do we even have an estimate for how long that would have taken? Might the apparent contradiction be explained by Mizen describing the blood as fresh when he first saw Nichols' body and "somewhat congealed" when he returned with the ambulance?

As to Dr Llwellyn's comments on the blood:

"There was a very small pool of blood in the pathway which had trickled from the wound in the throat, not more than would fill two wine glasses, or half a pint at the outside." - 1 September Daily News

"There was very little blood round the neck. There were no marks of any struggle or of blood, as if the body had been dragged." - 3 September Daily Telegraph

Attempting to impose a sequence on the incomplete and somewhat self-contradictory statements tells us more about people claiming there was a logical sequence than anything else.

[The Rookie Detective]

At this point I'm convinced that Jeff, Steve and Herlock would have collectively solved this case back in 1888.

I say this because every time I believe I'm making a point that hasn't been fully conceived, I read some very well thought out and balanced responses that all make logical sense.

Exceptional comments and viewpoints across the board.

Bravo gentlemen!

[Fiver]

If their statements suggest that the KILLER didn't cover her injuries, then why didn't NEITHER or them notice her injuries?

Neither Paul nor Lechmere had a lantern.

PC Thain did have a lantern. He didn't spot the abdominal injuries. Neither did Dr Llewellyn or any of the witnesses who saw Nichols' body in the street.

"Inspector Spratley came to the mortuary, and while taking a description of the deceased turned up her clothes, and found that she was disembowelled. This had not been noticed by any of them before." - PC Neil, 3 September Daily Telegraph