What happened to Lechmere......

[Fisherman]

A rather artificial question, but how's this for an answer: "It depends on whether or not there was blood on the hands of the person standing next to my slain friend."

If that person had no blood on his hands, I'd be a more likely suspect than he was, since I knew the victim and he was found dead outside of my house.

If the hands of the person standing next to Nichols' body (let's call him 'L') was covered in blood and he had a knife sticking out of his belt, I'd think you had a pretty conclusive case. Without those things (or something equally compelling), I'd have no reason to suspect him.

Or maybe I just don't care enough about my friends.

So only with blood on his hands would you suspect him more than any other person, eh?
Okay.
Letīs move on then.
You say that anybody living in Whitechapel would be as likely as the man by the body. How about people living in Camden Town, Bow and Chelsea, then? Would they be as likely as anybody from Whitechapel?

Why do you concentrate on Whitechapel, Clark? Why not Seven Sisters, Paris or Burkina Fasso?

PS. Please note that your speaking about "suspecting" anybody is not applicable here. It is about likelihoods only - who is the more or less likely killer, one close to the body or one removed from it to a larger or smaller degree.

[Clark]

You say that anybody living in Whitechapel would be as likely as the man by the body. How about people living in Camden Town, Bow and Chelsea, then? Would they be as likely as anybody from Whitechapel?

But I didn't say "living in Whitechapel." I said:

...in Whitechapel at the time...

Where the person lived is immaterial.

[drstrange169]

>WHY wouldn't her clothes come down?<<

Because her legs were akimbo as described by Xmere , making pulling them down further than the knees too difficult.

[Fisherman]

But I didn't say "living in Whitechapel." I said:



Where the person lived is immaterial.

Okay, on we go then. Why are you pointing out people in Whitechapel at the time, Clark? What makes them likelier than others to have been the killer? Could it be because they were there and had a proximity to the victim?

And was everybodies proximity the exact same?

Letīs postulate another scenario here. Letīs say that the police knew the exact whereabouts of three men at cirka 3.45 on the Nichols murder night. They only had the names of the men, nothing else, but for the exact information of their whereabouts. One had been in Goulston Street, one in Bakers Row and one in Bucks Row. So all of them had been in Whitechapel.

Where do you think the police would start their investigation, who would they primarily concentrate on - and why?

In the end, Clark, we will get there, I īm sure. It may take time, but we will get there!

[Fisherman]

>WHY wouldn't her clothes come down?<<

Because her legs were akimbo as described by Xmere , making pulling them down further than the knees too difficult.

Maybe she walked with very small steps only? If the skirt was that narrow?

Actually, these skirts were normally quite wide, so I donīt think the suggestion works. If Nichols had been slain in the 1920:s, I would look differently upon it.
There are the odd exceptions, but they were worn by the upper classes.

[Clark]

Letīs postulate another scenario here. Letīs say that the police knew the exact whereabouts of three men at cirka 3.45 on the Nichols murder night....

I'm sure they knew the exact whereabouts of any number of men circa 3:45 on that night in Whitechapel. Unfortunately, they had no idea which one, if any, was actually Jack the Ripper.

[Clark]

Actually, these skirts were normally quite wide, so I donīt think the suggestion works....

Since her abdomen had been cut open, her skirt had obviously been pulled up by the killer. He would probably have needed to pull it above her waist in the back in order to get access to her abdomen in the front. Lechmere and Paul were not able to easily pull the skirt all of the way back down because it was bunched up above her bum as she lay on the pavement.

Doesn't sound all that mysterious, does it?

[Fisherman]

Since her abdomen had been cut open, her skirt had obviously been pulled up by the killer. He would probably have needed to pull it above her waist in the back in order to get access to her abdomen in the front. Lechmere and Paul were not able to easily pull the skirt all of the way back down because it was bunched up above her bum as she lay on the pavement.

Doesn't sound all that mysterious, does it?

Not until we ask us WHY it was bunched up above her bum, no.

By the way, I am glad you agree that Lechmere also pulled the dress down!

[Fisherman]

I'm sure they knew the exact whereabouts of any number of men circa 3:45 on that night in Whitechapel. Unfortunately, they had no idea which one, if any, was actually Jack the Ripper.

Ah, but it was just a suggested scenario to work from, Clark, nothing else. The police would not know where the people were, all of them, but if they had had this information about three different men, which man do you think they would put on top of their list? And why?

THOSE are the questions you are avoiding.

[Fisherman]

Hereīs a little something from the US National Institute of Justice: a guide for the police about how to behave on crime sites when it comes to people present there:

Secure and control people at the crime scene. Officers should control, identify and remove people from the crime scene.

The responding officer(s) should:

-Control all individuals at the scene — prevent individuals from altering or destroying physical evidence by restricting movement, location, and activity while ensuring and maintaining safety at the scene.

-Identify all individuals at the scene, such as:

Suspects. Secure and separate.

Witnesses. Secure and separate.

Bystanders. Determine whether they were witnesses, if so treat as above, if not, remove from the scene.


Why all the fuss about people on the crime scene, Clark? Why donīt they go to the surrounding streets and look there, or five blocks away?

Any ideas?

[Clark]

THOSE are the questions you are avoiding.

I'm not avoiding the questions, I just don't accept the premise. Obviously, they would not suspect anyone they knew for a fact to be too far away from Bucks Row to have made the journey in the time since Nichols was killed (which is probably true of Goulson St, but you know the area better than I do), but my point was that we don't have any idea where anyone who is not a part of the record was actually located at the time.

Maybe if you search all of the extant records for the exact location of everyone in Whitechapel at 3:45 on the night in question, you could determine the most likely suspects by a process of elimination. Of course, we don't have records of everyone's exact location in Whitechapel on that night, but it's your thought experiment, not mine.

[Clark]

Oh, here's an idea for a thought experiment. Suppose PC Neil had killed Nichols on his prior trip through Buck's Row while walking his beat. If there was any blood on his hands, he could have washed it off and stashed the knife further along his route. Then, when he completes the circuit and again turns into Buck's Row, he "discovers" the body, not realizing that Lechmere and Paul had left the scene only minutes before.

Can you prove it didn't happen?

[Fisherman]

Clark: I'm not avoiding the questions, I just don't accept the premise. Obviously, they would not suspect anyone they knew for a fact to be too far away from Bucks Row to have made the journey in the time since Nichols was killed (which is probably true of Goulson St, but you know the area better than I do), but my point was that we don't have any idea where anyone who is not a part of the record was actually located at the time.

I totally concur that the police would not know where the different people in Whitechapel would have been at the relevant remove of time. Therefore, any such person where there was no knowledge of the persons exact whereabouts at this time, would - all other matters unconsidered - be just as likely to be the killer as any other person whose whereabouts could not be established.
You have got that completely correct, Clark!

However, it is only BECAUSE their respective whereabouts could not be established that a pecking order could not be construed in this respect.
If the whereabouts of all people could have been established, then I can guarantee you that the police would have worked from the assumption that there was a direct coupling between the whereabouts and the likelihoods that the different people were the killer. The closer they could have been proven to have been to the murder site, the more likely they would be to be the killer, quite simply.
That is not to touch on the dreadful concept of guilt. Being at a murder site has no bearing on that concept other than in a secondary respect; if there are other pointers to guilt, a geographical proximity to the murder site will not help your cause.

So, albeit it cannot be established where people were on the murder night, it still goes without saying that the closer to a murder site you are, the more likely it will be that you are the killer, purely geographically speaking.
We can be rather certain that Mr Purkiss in Essex Wharf was not the killer, since his wife gave him an alibi. But it nevertheless applies, that ALL OTHER FACTORS UNCONSIDERED, he is one of the people of Whitechapel who was likeliest to be the killer. Because he was close to the site, simple as that.

I donīt think you have much trouble to admit this - your problem lies in having been proven wrong and disliking it. It is as human as it is improductive.

Maybe if you search all of the extant records for the exact location of everyone in Whitechapel at 3:45 on the night in question, you could determine the most likely suspects by a process of elimination. Of course, we don't have records of everyone's exact location in Whitechapel on that night, but it's your thought experiment, not mine.

There you go - you HAVE seen the light, to an extent! Yes, we must weigh in the possibility that somebody who was not Lechmere sneaked in and out of the site, killed Nichols and made good his escape.
However, Clark, there is no such person on record, and no observations to confirm the idea. Therefore, Charles Allen Lechmere is the only person to have been found alone by the body of Nichols, and he is therefore - from a purely geographical point of view - the likeliest person on earth to have killed her.

[Fisherman]

Oh, here's an idea for a thought experiment. Suppose PC Neil had killed Nichols on his prior trip through Buck's Row while walking his beat. If there was any blood on his hands, he could have washed it off and stashed the knife further along his route. Then, when he completes the circuit and again turns into Buck's Row, he "discovers" the body, not realizing that Lechmere and Paul had left the scene only minutes before.

Can you prove it didn't happen?

I cannot even prove that Emma Green did not do it, Clark. I can only point to how it is much more likely that Lechmere did.
We all know - at least those of us who know the case relatively well - that there is no absolutely conclusive proof as to who killed Nichols. It therefore applies that she could have been killed by anybody else who had - and listen hard now - a proximity to the murder spot that allowed for it. And the closer to the murder spot they were, the more likely ...

Iīm sure you get my drift.

[John G]

Clark: I'm not avoiding the questions, I just don't accept the premise. Obviously, they would not suspect anyone they knew for a fact to be too far away from Bucks Row to have made the journey in the time since Nichols was killed (which is probably true of Goulson St, but you know the area better than I do), but my point was that we don't have any idea where anyone who is not a part of the record was actually located at the time.

I totally concur that the police would not know where the different people in Whitechapel would have been at the relevant remove of time. Therefore, any such person where there was no knowledge of the persons exact whereabouts at this time, would - all other matters unconsidered - be just as likely to be the killer as any other person whose whereabouts could not be established.
You have got that completely correct, Clark!

However, it is only BECAUSE their respective whereabouts could not be established that a pecking order could not be construed in this respect.
If the whereabouts of all people could have been established, then I can guarantee you that the police would have worked from the assumption that there was a direct coupling between the whereabouts and the likelihoods that the different people were the killer. The closer they could have been proven to have been to the murder site, the more likely they would be to be the killer, quite simply.
That is not to touch on the dreadful concept of guilt. Being at a murder site has no bearing on that concept other than in a secondary respect; if there are other pointers to guilt, a geographical proximity to the murder site will not help your cause.

So, albeit it cannot be established where people were on the murder night, it still goes without saying that the closer to a murder site you are, the more likely it will be that you are the killer, purely geographically speaking.
We can be rather certain that Mr Purkiss in Essex Wharf was not the killer, since his wife gave him an alibi. But it nevertheless applies, that ALL OTHER FACTORS UNCONSIDERED, he is one of the people of Whitechapel who was likeliest to be the killer. Because he was close to the site, simple as that.

I donīt think you have much trouble to admit this - your problem lies in having been proven wrong and disliking it. It is as human as it is improductive.

Maybe if you search all of the extant records for the exact location of everyone in Whitechapel at 3:45 on the night in question, you could determine the most likely suspects by a process of elimination. Of course, we don't have records of everyone's exact location in Whitechapel on that night, but it's your thought experiment, not mine.

There you go - you HAVE seen the light, to an extent! Yes, we must weigh in the possibility that somebody who was not Lechmere sneaked in and out of the site, killed Nichols and made good his escape.
However, Clark, there is no such person on record, and no observations to confirm the idea. Therefore, Charles Allen Lechmere is the only person to have been found alone by the body of Nichols, and he is therefore - from a purely geographical point of view - the likeliest person on earth to have killed her.

Hello Fisherman,

Would you agree that there are parallels between the Nichols and McKenzie cases? Thus, the body of Alice McKenzie was discovered by PC Andrews at 12:50. However, there was still blood flowing from from her throat when Inspector Reid arrived on the scene at about 1:09-around 20 minutes later: see: http://www.casebook.org/victims/mckenzie.html Doesn't this demonstrate that Nichols may have been killed some time before Lechmere discovered the body, which would significantly increase the number of possible suspects-particularly if time of death was around 20 minutes earlier.

And, as Inspector Moore indicated, Whitechapel was such a labyrinth it probably wouldn't have been too difficult for her killer to have disappeared into the maze, where he would simply blend in with the local population. See:http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true