The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Chris]

Well, I'm hardly the best person to explain it but the way I've understood it is that there was no blood on or around Nichols when Paul and Cross/Lechmere examined her together yet minutes later, when the first police officer arrived there was a pool of blood coming from her neck - the theory being that she must have just been killed before Paul and Cross examined her if he blood hadn't yet had time to seep onto the pavement.

This sounds similar to what Lechmere posted earlier from Andy MacNab.

The question is what evidence there is that there was no blood on the ground. As GUT says, it's unlikely Cross and Paul would have seen it. The other suggestion was that if it had been there they would have stepped in it. But per Tom, the indications are that no one stepped in the blood at any stage. So I don't think that gives us any indication about how recently Nichols had been killed.

[Bitsie]

But what is your nitpicking about the dress and how far it was or wasn't pulled down dismantling exactly?

[Bitsie]

This sounds similar to what Lechmere posted earlier from Andy MacNab.

The question is what evidence there is that there was no blood on the ground. As GUT says, it's unlikely Cross and Paul would have seen it. The other suggestion was that if it had been there they would have stepped in it. But per Tom, the indications are that no one stepped in the blood at any stage. So I don't think that gives us any indication about how recently Nichols had been killed.

I'm assuming that once the first officer arrived he put on his light, that more light followed and nobody would willfully step in blood?

Paul and Cross got close enough to her to touch her hands, face and chest and, I'm assuming again, they would have been standing near/at where the blood flowed into the gutter?

I know it appears that I'm defending this theory, I'm not really I'm as interested in the counter argument as any. I'm just not seeing that those given are any stronger than those from the Lechmere Crew.

[GUT]

But what is your nitpicking about the dress and how far it was or wasn't pulled down dismantling exactly?

The case

You see the allegations are that the case against Cross is purely circumstantial we are told that it's based on

The name
The pulling done of the dress
Him standing over the body
Mizen
Not giving his address in Court
The timing

And other things that no seems prepared to put together a full list of.

Now as I said the way to deal with such a case is one thread at a time, others have effectively dealt with some of these issues I am attempting to do the same.

I asked earlier which thread had to go, or how many of them, before we could say, nope not him, you said the blood, well that one is already sinking fast. But as long as new threads are attempted to be added to the list I'll keep picking.

See I'd love it if they were right, or anyone else for that matter, but I want it to be something that stands up to scrutiny.

[Fisherman]

Well Bitsie I'm doing what needs to be done picking apart the case thread by thread

Standing over the body - Gone
Name - Gone
Lech pulled down her dress - Gone

You ought to try it some day it's how you dismantle any case.

The blood looks to be on the brink now.

That´s not half bad - what a detective you are!

From the inquest, Lechmere speaking:

"The woman's legs were uncovered." (Daily News)

When I found her clothes were up above her knees we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down. (Morning Advertiser)

Did you not say that ALL the papers only said that the clothes were up to under her abdomen?

It seems you missed out on a few sources, then.

What´s more here? Standing over the body? We never said that, so it does not belong to our theory. We say close by the victim.

And name gone? When did THAT happen? The last time I heard it commented on was when Andy Griffiths said in the documentary that he was dutybound to give his correct name.

When did that point go? And how? I must read more often, since things seem to happen when you don´t notice.

Then again, maybe YOU should read more often? And more sources? So you don´t get it wrong?

Picking apart the case, was it?

Try and pick your act together instead.

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

Paul and Cross got close enough to her to touch her hands, face and chest and, I'm assuming again, they would have been standing near/at where the blood flowed into the gutter?.

Not if

1 they weren't on the gutter side of her or

2 Standing near her head

[GUT]

That´s not half bad - what a detective you are!

From the inquest, Lechmere speaking:

"The woman's legs were uncovered." (Daily News)

When I found her clothes were up above her knees we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down. (Morning Advertiser)

Did you not say that ALL the papers only said that the clothes were up to under her abdomen?

It seems you missed out on a few sources, then.

What´s more here? Standing over the body? We never said that, so it does not belong to our theory. We say close by the victim.

And name gone? When did THAT happen? The last time I heard it commented on was when Andy Griffiths said in the documentary that he was dutybound to give his correct name.

When did that point go? And how? I must read more often, since things seem to happen when you don´t notice.

Then again, maybe YOU should read more often? And more sources? So you don´t get it wrong?

Picking apart the case, was it?

Try and pick your act together instead.

The best,
Fisherman

No fish I said all the newspapers say Paul's evidence was that it was the stomach.

And the name went when team Lechmere said it didn't matter.

[Bitsie]

If her abdomen had been on display, I agree it would show that the body/scene was left in the same way that the subsequent murders were, which would be interesting.

Yet it would also throw up more questions about why it wasn't mentioned by anyone in any statement and Paul and Cross failed to get blood on them while examining her.

Also it's not eliminating Cross, it would just show that he didn't cover her up just like he didn't in the other murders.

[Bitsie]

Not if

1 they weren't on the gutter side of her or

2 Standing near her head

1) Why wouldn't they be if they approached together from the middle of the road?

2) True

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks for the answer! They seem to be as rare as hen's teeth on this thread.

But if that's right, it means no one at all stepped in the blood, including people who were there some time later than Cross and Paul, even when the pool of blood had reached its full extent. So it's difficult to see how Cross's and Paul's failure to step in the blood tells us anything about the time of death.

It tells us nothing about time of death, of course. I'd suggest the time of death might have been around 3:30am.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bitsie]

It tells us nothing about time of death, of course. I'd suggest the time of death might have been around 3:30am.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Why is that?

I don't seem to be able to see the original post from Chris quoted there.

[Tom_Wescott]

In principle the suggestion that it is only legitimate to investigate suspects named by the police at the time is farcical, given that most policemen intimately involved in the case believed they had no serious clue who did it.

I would agree with this with the exception of your use of the word 'suspect'. They should be researched as people and then only if historical data is discovered that promotes them to 'suspect' should that label be applied.

It is also ridiculous to claim that it is illegitimate to investigate a suspect without the permission of the living descendants. In a case this old there will potentially be scores of living descendants living all over the place.

As I recall it was Fish who kept repeating how special you guys were because you reached out to Cross's family. That's the only reason this subject came up. I tried to warn Fish about harping on your 'professional experts' because if the whole case rests on their opinion, then it falls with it as well. That's not a position you want to put yourself in.

Putting these false parameters in place shows a basic misunderstanding of criminology - but Ripperology isn't part of criminology really.

Are you aiming this rather dismissive comment inward as well as outward?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridewell]

You have to wonder why, if Lechmere was "standing over the body of a murder victim", as has been repeatedly claimed, Robert Paul gave evidence as follows:

"As he was passing up Bucks Row hw saw a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness (i.e. Paul) approached him he (Lechmere) walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped onto the roadway in order to pass him. He (Lechmere) then touched witness on the shoulder, and said, 'Come and look at this woman here'. Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway. Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach".

Lechmere doesn't say he was "standing over the body" and Robert Paul confirms that he was standing in the middle of the road, and was taken, by Lechmere, to the gateway where the body actually was. So who was it, who was also there, who reported that both Lechmere and Paul were lying on this point? If there wasn't a third person there, then all the evidence we have is that Lechmere was well away from the body and waiting to flag down the first person who approached.

Was James Scobie QC given this information or was he fed the line that Lechmere was found over the body when, quite clearly, he wasn't? I understand that Christer had no direct contact with Mr Scobie but clearly someone did. If the pudding was over-egged, so to speak, it is hardly surprising that Scobie reached the 'prima facie' conclusion that he did.

[GUT]

You have to wonder why, if Lechmere was "standing over the body of a murder victim", as has been repeatedly claimed, Robert Paul gave evidence as follows:

"As he was passing up Bucks Row hw saw a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness (i.e. Paul) approached him he (Lechmere) walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped onto the roadway in order to pass him. He (Lechmere) then touched witness on the shoulder, and said, 'Come and look at this woman here'. Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway. Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach".

Lechmere doesn't say he was "standing over the body" and Robert Paul confirms that he was standing in the middle of the road, and was taken, by Lechmere, to the gateway where the body actually was. So who was it, who was also there, who reported that both Lechmere and Paul were lying on this point? If there wasn't a third person there, then all the evidence we have is that Lechmere was well away from the body and waiting to flag down the first person who approached.

Was James Scobie QC given this information or was he fed the line that Lechmere was found over the body when, quite clearly, he wasn't? I understand that Christer had no direct contact with Mr Scobie but clearly someone did. If the pudding was over-egged, so to speak, it is hardly surprising that Scobie reached the 'prima facie' conclusion that he did.

G'day Bridewell

But didn't you read! Now it's that he was a couple of yards from the body, "we never said he was standing over the body" as usual anytime one thread is unpicked the goal posts move and that thread was not part of/ crucial to, the case.

[Lechmere]

So Paul pulled her clothes down to her knees over her open wounds and avoided getting any blood on him and it was so dark he didn't notice her abdominal injuries or throat wound or the blood.
But he could see that her dress was - let's say for now - not covering her legs.
And the reason her couldn't see the throat wound couldn't have simply been because her chin was down

No it was pitch black.
I wonder how Lechmere saw that tarpaulin at all it was so dark.
Are you a practising Barrister Gut?