Jack the Ripper: CSI Whitechapel

[Lechmere]

Monty
John Bennett agreed that an aspect of the tarpaulin story had been added to the actual record that we base our knowledge on. That is the only substantial point I was making.
I do also - as an opinion - think that the error came about as a result of unintententional, unconscious, institutions suspect bias.
I use the word 'institutional' as the additional 'scavenging' of the tarpaulin is a feature which has appeared in other reputable 'Ripper' books (and documentaries i think) and from there entered the standard storyline.
Also there is an 'old guard' in the Ripper world, of people familiar with each other and friendly with each other - which is hardly surprising or wrong.
I noticed in the recent Ripperologist there is a reference to the 'new guard' in terms which accepts that there is an 'old guard'. So the existence of this 'institution' can hardly be disputed.
I notice they didn't call it the 'young guard' though!

[Lechmere]

I would add that a book such as this would not make an error over a piece of evidence that was important to the suspect status of druitt, Kosminski or tumblety.
I am not castigating this book - far from it. It is one of perhaps three other books that I have ever bought more than one copy of.

[John Bennett]

Monty
John Bennett agreed that an aspect of the tarpaulin story had been added to the actual record that we base our knowledge on. That is the only substantial point I was making.
I do also - as an opinion - think that the error came about as a result of unintententional, unconscious, institutions suspect bias.

Cross considering scavenging the 'tarpaulin' has indeed become a part of the furniture in the Nichols case and its been around for half a century at least (as in Autumn of Terror); thus its inclusion here is institutional and no doubt unconscious.

But in my opinion, suspect bias has nothing to do with it in this case.

[Monty]

The official inquest docs have disappeared. However we do have The Times account stating Cross as saying Tarpulin. In the absences of the official inquest notes I think it is not unreasonable to note this comment from a reputatble newspaper.

If we were to question it then we question the whole new account of the inquest including the words of all the other witnesses unless verifed in Police Reports.

As for instututional suspect bias, this is unfounded. Cross in this book is a witness, quite simply and foremost, and that is how he is presented. This because he is indeed a witness.

Anything else is speculation.

Monty

[Ally]

I don't think the assertion that he claimed to have thought it was a tarpaulin is what is being questioned. It's ascribing the motive to it - that he wanted to scavenge it.

It is clear from the inquests that he thought it was a tarpaulin or initially assumed that it was a tarpaulin or that he used the word tarpaulin. The "addition" that has historically arisen is whether or not he wanted to scavenge it, not what he thought it was.

This is fair. He may not have wanted to scavenge it. He may not have had any deep interest at all until such time as he got closer and realized it didn't look so much like a tarpaulin but more like a woman.

But it is all irrelevant. John has already stated that the "scavenging" bit could have been left out, so any further just discussion is just going to drag this whole thing off-topic into a Lechmere candidacy tangent.

[PaulB]

Cross considering scavenging the 'tarpaulin' has indeed become a part of the furniture in the Nichols case and its been around for half a century at least (as in Autumn of Terror); thus its inclusion here is institutional and no doubt unconscious.

But in my opinion, suspect bias has nothing to do with it in this case.

Cross being a carter and therefore having a more than casual interest in a lost or discarded tarpaulin actually goes back to Matters and is repeated through to Cullen, where along with Cross's tuneless whistle it simply adds a little colour to the basic facts.

[Lechmere]

Yes it adds baseless colour to facts.
The problem I have with it is that this baseless colour tends to clear Charles lechmere - I would obviously prefer the unadorned facts to stand! Particularly as this will be a well read book.

[Colin Roberts]

..., as both documentary and book have Paul and I's name on them, ...

Paul's name + my name = Paul's and my names

John,

Paul's, (Jake's) and your book is the result of a spectacular effort.

Congratulations to the three of you!

I must say, however, that I believe that the use of the name 'Cross' without any corresponding reference to the name 'Lechmere' must surely stem from a subconscious bias regarding Lechmere's perceived significance in this mystery: that of a mere witness whose true identity is ... well ... unimportant.

I am not at all inclined to believe that Charles Lechmere murdered Mary Ann Nichols, but I must say that my suspicions were aroused when I learned that the man known to 'Ripper' studies as 'Charles Cross' had left a 'Mrs. Charles Allen Lechmere' and ten little 'Lechmere's at home that fateful morning, when leaving his dwelling in the Hamlet of Mile End Old Town to go to work in the City of London.

Lechmere's use of the name 'Cross' throughout the course of the initial inquiries and formal inquest into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mary Ann Nichols must surely be perceived as being nothing less than bizarre. The extraordinary nature of George Hutchinson's statement to the Metropolitan Police Service was apparently worth mentioning in this publication. Why not the extraordinary nature of a certain subterfuge that kept the true identity of the discoverer of Mary Ann Nichol's body a secret for some 120 years?

...

Moving right along ...

...

A pre-pentennial/pre-quinquennial - i.e., pre-five-year - mortality rate of fifty five percent?

Granted, you used the qualifications "in these worst areas" and "as many as", but where, oh where did this supposed rate of fifty five percent originate? The People of the Abyss?

You must recall that I laid that fifty five percent myth to rest a couple of years ago, on JTR Forums: Showing that in accordance with the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages in England ..., a figure of approximately thirty two percent for the Whitechapel Registration District as a whole, was the only one upon which we could count.

Might there have been a rate of some fifty five percent in ... let's say ... Old Nichol Street, in the Parish of St. Matthew Bethnal Green? Sure! But unfortunately we don't have any such recorded observation, to which we can turn. We are therefore left with the somewhat less sensational rate of ~32%.

...

An average rate of 4d for back-alley sexual services in London's East End?

You must realize, John, that neither you nor Paul could produce a contemporary source for that figure if your very lives depended upon your doing so.

We plainly and simply do not know what these women charged in various circumstances for their honour. It might go without saying that at the height of desperation some of these wretched dolly-mops would have indeed sold themselves for the price of a typical Spitalfields doss house bed, i.e. 4d. But the proclamations of Jack London's tour guide regarding a very specific group of these vagabonds - that were, I believe, sleeping on benches in 'Itchy Park': i.e. "two pennies, three pennies, or a loaf of stale bread" - notwithstanding, we do not know what the typical vagrant dolly-mop charged when she was well rested and her tummy was full. Sixpence? A shilling? We don't know! What might the likes of Frances Coles have typically charged? Again, we don't know.

...

The small hamlet of Stepney ... in reference to Whitechapel's origins ...?

I believe that I know what was meant by this statement, but it didn't come across in the way that it should have done. Ditto your description of Charles Booth's Life and Labour of the People in London: it simply didn't come across in the appropriate manner. I will clarify my positions here sometime later today, or later this week, i.e. when the necessary amount of time becomes available.

...

To the best of my knowledge, there are no known contemporary reports that place the alleged attack upon Emma Smith specifically on the corner of Wentworth and Osborn Streets, in the Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel, i.e. the southwest corner of the intersection. None!

...

Paul,

You have got to brush up on your understanding of the sequence of events that saw Eddowes and Kelly return to London from their hop-picking excursion in Kent. You obliterated that sequence - as described in Kelly's inquest testimony - in The Facts, and you have done so again here, but in an entirely different manner.

...

I know that I am being nitpicky, but accuracy ... is accuracy ... is accuracy ...

I am sure we wouldn't want it any other way!

And, of course, it's ever so easy for me to point out a few relatively minor mistakes; whereas it must be incredibly difficult for three persons to collaborate on such a praiseworthy publication.

[PaulB]

Yes it adds baseless colour to facts.
The problem I have with it is that this baseless colour tends to clear Charles lechmere - I would obviously prefer the unadorned facts to stand! Particularly as this will be a well read book.

How does it clear Charles Cross? If he murdered Nichols then the whole story about the tarpaulin was a lie. If his inquest testimony is true then investing him with a reason for being interested the tarpaulin does no harm.

[PaulB]

Paul's name + my name = Paul's and my names

John,

Paul's, (Jake's) and your book is the result of a spectacular effort.

Congratulations to the three of you!

I must say, however, that I believe that the use of the name 'Cross' without any corresponding reference to the name 'Lechmere' must surely stem from a subconscious bias regarding Lechmere's perceived significance in this mystery: that of a mere witness whose true identity is ... well ... unimportant.

I am not at all inclined to believe that Charles Lechmere murdered Mary Ann Nichols, but I must say that my suspicions were aroused when I learned that the man known to 'Ripper' studies as 'Charles Cross' had left a 'Mrs. Charles Allen Lechmere' and ten little 'Lechmere's at home that fateful morning, when leaving his dwelling in the Hamlet of Mile End Old Town to go to work in the City of London.

Lechmere's use of the name 'Cross' throughout the course of the initial inquiries and formal inquest into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mary Ann Nichols must surely be perceived as being nothing less than bizarre. The extraordinary nature of George Hutchinson's statement to the Metropolitan Police Service was apparently worth mentioning in this publication. Why not the extraordinary nature of a certain subterfuge that kept the true identity of the discoverer of Mary Ann Nichol's body a secret for some 120 years?

...

Moving right along ...

...

A pre-pentennial/pre-quinquennial - i.e., pre-five-year - mortality rate of fifty five percent?

Granted, you used the qualifications "in these worst areas" and "as many as", but where, oh where did this supposed rate of fifty five percent originate? The People of the Abyss?

You must recall that I laid that fifty five percent myth to rest a couple of years ago, on JTR Forums: Showing that in accordance with the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages in England ..., a figure of approximately thirty two percent for the Whitechapel Registration District as a whole, was the only one upon which we could count.

Might there have been a rate of some fifty five percent in ... let's say ... Old Nichol Street, in the Parish of St. Matthew Bethnal Green? Sure! But unfortunately we don't have any such recorded observation, to which we can turn. We are therefore left with the somewhat less sensational rate of ~32%.

...

An average rate of 4d for back-alley sexual services in London's East End?

You must realize, John, that neither you nor Paul could produce a contemporary source for that figure if your very lives depended upon your doing so.

We plainly and simply do not know what these women charged in various circumstances for their honour. It might go without saying that at the height of desperation some of these wretched dolly-mops would have indeed sold themselves for the price of a typical Spitalfields doss house bed, i.e. 4d. But the proclamations of Jack London's tour guide regarding a very specific group of these vagabonds - that were, I believe, sleeping on benches in 'Itchy Park': i.e. "two pennies, three pennies, or a loaf of stale bread" - notwithstanding, we do not know what the typical vagrant dolly-mop charged when she was well rested and her tummy was full. Sixpence? A shilling? We don't know! What might the likes of Frances Coles have typically charged? Again, we don't know.

...

The small hamlet of Stepney ... in reference to Whitechapel's origins ...?

I believe that I know what was meant by this statement, but it didn't come across in the way that it should have done. Ditto your description of Charles Booth's Life and Labour of the People in London: it simply didn't come across in the appropriate manner. I will clarify my positions here sometime later today, or later this week, i.e. when the necessary amount of time becomes available.

...

To the best of my knowledge, there are no known contemporary reports that place the alleged attack upon Emma Smith specifically on the corner of Wentworth and Osborn Streets, in the Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel, i.e. the southwest corner of the intersection. None!

...

Paul,

You have got to brush up on your understanding of the sequence of events that saw Eddowes and Kelly return to London from their hop-picking excursion in Kent. You obliterated that sequence - as described in Kelly's inquest testimony - in The Facts, and you have done so again here, but in an entirely different manner.

...

I know that I am being nitpicky, but accuracy ... is accuracy ... is accuracy ...

I am sure we wouldn't want it any other way!

And, of course, it's ever so easy for me to point out a few relatively minor mistakes; whereas it must be incredibly difficult for three persons to collaborate on such a praiseworthy publication.

Colin,
It is always a pleasure to see your observations and corrections to long-standing assumptions and they are duly noted. However, could you elucidate on the obliterated sequence of Eddowes and Kelly's return from London please.
Ta
Paul

[Lechmere]

Paul
The scavenge addition 'tends' to clear Charles lechmere (in the guise of Charles cross) as you invest an innocent purpose in his noticing the tarpaulin, you make him seem surprised that he found a body when he was only innocently intent on scavenging a tarpaulin.
You have taken his witness testimony and run with the ball - taking his forward pass as it were. Now this, in my opinion, was his intent when he made the sly tarpaulin reference - he made it to create distance between himself and the corpse and the scavenge invention creates even greater distance.
But there is no need to labour the point further.

[Ally]

Lechmere,

While I agree that the "scavenge" part probably should not have been included, I am completely flummoxed to understand how precisely it exonerates him more than a statement such as:

....As he was walking, Cross saw what he took to be a tarpaulin in the street. As he crossed over, he realized it was a woman.....

This is how the statement would be without the scavenge part. This is technically more factual, but adding "Thinking to scavenge it.." though inaccurate, does not, in my opinion, lend any weight one way or the other to his candidacy as far as bias or lack of bias.

Both statements equally presume him innocent, and equally presume him not the killer, so adding "thinking to scavenge" doesn't ADDITIONALLY exonerate him as the killer, BOTH statements exonerate him as the killer.

In short, I don't see your point. Is the scavenge part wrong? Yes. Does it bias away from him any further than it would have without it? No. Inaccurate, yes. Biased, no.

[Colin Roberts]

... could you elucidate on the obliterated sequence of Eddowes and Kelly's return from London please.

I'll be the first to admit that my use of "obliterated" in this context was hyperbolic, Paul, so please accept my apology for my verbiage in this instance. I am sorry!

The sequence of events as described in John Kelly's inquest testimony (and accordingly assessed by myself):

- Thursday (27/9/1888): Eddowes and Kelly return to London and spend the evening in the 'Casual Ward in Shoe Lane', i.e. the City of London Union Casual Ward in Robin Hood Court, just off of Shoe Lane, in the City of London.

- Friday (28/9/1888): Kelly manages to earn 6d and uses 4d to procure a bed for the evening at Cooney's Lodging House in Flower & Dean Street. Eddowes takes the remaining 2d and purportedly goes to the 'Casual Ward in Mile End', that being presumably the Mile End Old Town Casual Ward in Bancroft Road, in the Hamlet of Mile End Old Town.¹

It should be noted that the Whitechapel Union Casual Ward in Thomas Street was situated within the Hamlet of Mile End New Town, and so the possibility exists, albeit remote, that this was the casual ward, to which Kelly referred. But whilst we have records of Martha Tabram being resident in this casual ward with her two young sons in 1881, i.e. on 'Census Night', we also have reason to believe that this particular Poor Law facility did not offer accommodations to females in 1888, in as much as it did not do so on 'Census Night' in 1891.

¹ This is where it was alleged - by a single tabloid - that Eddowes confided in the Casual Ward Superintendent that she thought she knew the identity of the Whitechapel murderer. Ain't it funny how the superintendent's identity wasn't revealed by the tabloid, and that this supposed person wasn't called upon to testify at the inquest into the circumstances surrounding Eddowes's death? Likewise, ain't it funny how the lodging house deputy at 18 Thrawl Street that allegedly - so said, again, (as far as I know) a single tabloid - expelled Mary Ann Nichols for a lack of necessary funds just hours before her demise, wasn't named by the tabloid, and that this supposed person wasn't called upon to testify at the inquest into the circumstances surrounding Nichols's death? Timothy Donovan was most certainly called upon to testify at Chapman's inquest. So much for delusions of familiarity with 'Jack the Ripper' and Jolly Bonnets.

- Saturday (29/9/1888): Kelly and Eddowes meet up at Cooney's in the A.M., as Eddowes was purportedly REWARDED for misbehavior in the casual ward with an early dismissal, prior to completion of the normally requisite labourious tasks.

---

In a nutshell:

- Thursday (27/9/1888): Both return to London; both stay at 'Shoe Lane'

- Friday (28/9/1888): Kelly stays at Cooney's; Eddowes purportedly stays at 'Mile End'

- Saturday (29/9/1888): Both meet up at Cooney's in the A.M.

---

Here's some of the pre-fifth-birthday mortality data that I posted on JTR Forums in October of 2010:


London's 'East End', by Registration Districts: Estimated Rate of Pre-Pentennial Mortality, 1881-1890 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

Estimated Rate of Pre-Pentennial Mortality, 1881-1890

- Shoreditch Registration District: 28.53%
- Bethnal Green Registration District: 27.63%
- Whitechapel Registration District: 31.24%
- Mile End Old Town Registration District: 25.08%
- St. George in the East Registration District: 30.30%
- Stepney Registration District: 36.74%
- Poplar Registration District: 25.78%

- London's 'East End': 28.23%

---


London's 'East End', by Registration Districts: Estimated Rate of Poverty, 1889-1891 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

Estimated Rate of Poverty, 1889-1891

- Shoreditch Registration District: 40.20%
- Bethnal Green Registration District: 44.60%
- Whitechapel Registration District: 39.20%
- Mile End Old Town Registration District: 26.10%
- St. George in the East Registration District: 48.90%
- Stepney Registration District: 38.00%
- Poplar Registration District: 36.50%

- London's 'East End': 38.22%

---


Comparative Rates - London's 'East End', by Registration Districts: Estimated Rate of Pre-Pentennial Mortality, 1881-1890 (Blue) / Estimated Rate of Poverty, 1889-1891 (Red) (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

Comparative Rates: Estimated Rate of Pre-Pentennial Mortality / Estimated Rate of Poverty

- Shoreditch Registration District: 28.53% / 40.20%
- Bethnal Green Registration District: 27.63% / 44.60%
- Whitechapel Registration District: 31.24% / 39.20%
- Mile End Old Town Registration District: 25.08% / 26.10%
- St. George in the East Registration District: 30.30% / 48.90%
- Stepney Registration District: 36.74% / 38.00%
- Poplar Registration District: 25.78% / 36.50%

- London's 'East End': 28.23% / 38.22%

---

One last point regarding the Lechmere, aka 'Cross' name game:

I try not to toot my own horn, so to speak, but I will make note of the fact that Michael Connor sent me an e-mail some three or four years ago requesting assistance with the location of 22 Doveton Street in the enumeration of Bethnal Green census records, indicating that he had spent countless hours upon hours ... upon hours ... trying to find it, but to no avail.

I replied immediately, informing him of the fact that 22 Doveton Street, were it to be found in any census enumeration records, would only be located in those pertaining to the Hamlet of Mile End Old Town, as contrary to 'Ripperological' conventional wisdom, - and colloquial interpretations of political geography notwithstanding - that's where Doveton Street was: Mile End, not Bethnal Green.

Look at the portion of the Charles Booth map that appears in the very book, to which this thread is devoted. Doveton Street appears in this case as 'Queen Street', and - excepting a very small portion on its western edge - is firmly situated within the Mile End Old Town portion of the plotted area, as defined by the emboldened black boundary that separates the Parish of St. Matthew Bethnal Green from the Hamlet of Mile End Old Town. These boundaries - believe it, or not - had real significance. That is why Charles Booth chose to embolden them.

Anyway, with the blink of an eye, I was able to send a somewhat disbelieving - 'Ripperological' conventions die hard - Michael Connor along the right path, and he quickly located 22 Doveton Street in the 1891 Census enumeration records; it being inhabited, by the way, by a carman named Charles Allen Lechmere. Michael Connor went on to locate Lechmere in 1871 and 1881 St. George in the East census enumeration records, and somewhere along the way surmised that Charles Allen Lechmere and 'Charles Allen Cross' were indeed one, and the same person.

Connor then went on to publish his third Ripperologist article regarding 'Cross', only this time having good reason to believe that he had finally tracked down this most elusive of witnesses. Within hours of the publication's release, Chris Scott was able to prove conclusively that Charles Allen Lechmere and 'Charles Allen Cross' were precisely what Michael Connor had surmised: one, and the same person.

My point:

Every time that someone casually refers to Lechmere as 'Cross', I feel as if Michael Connor, Chris Scott and yes ... myself ... are all being slapped in the face; as if that person is saying 'nice little discovery, but who the hell cares', or 'I've always called him 'Cross', so that's what I am going to keep right on doing'.

This field is about (new) discoveries, people. The man's name was 'Lechmere'. Adapt!

[Ally]

Just for the record, I'm going to keep calling him Cross.

[Lechmere]

These reports are from the Polly Nichols inquest – with key parts (for nthe purposes of this discussion) emboldened:

The Times, 3 September 1888
“Police-constable John Neil 97 J, deposed that on Friday morning he was passing down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, and going in the direction of Brady-street, and he did not notice any one about. He had been round the same place some half an hour previous to that and did not see any one. He was walking along the right-hand side of the street when he noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, although a street lamp was shining at the end of the row. He walked across and found the deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. He noticed that the gateway, which was about 9 ft. or 10 ft. in height and led to some stables, was closed. Houses ran eastward from the gateway, while the Board school was westward of the spot. On the other side of the road was the Essex Wharf. The deceased was lying lengthways, and her left hand touched the gate. With the aid of his lamp he examined the body and saw blood oozing from a wound in the throat.”

[B]The Daily Telegraph, 3 September 1888
[/B]“John Neil, police-constable, 97J, said: Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previously, and I saw no one then. I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the westward. On the opposite side of the road is Essex Wharf. Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat.”

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, September 2 1888
“John Neill, police-constable 97 J, was sworn, and said: Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previous, and I saw no one then. I was on the left hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found the deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the westward. On the opposite side of the road is Essex wharf. Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat.”

Daily News, Monday 3 September 1888
“Police constable John Neil deposed that on Friday morning at a quarter to four o'clock he was going down Buck's row, Whitechapel, from Thomas street to Brady street. Not a soul was about. He was round there about half an hour previously, and met nobody then. the first thing he saw was a figure lying on the footpath. It was dark, but there was a street lamp on the opposite side some distance away. The figure was lying alongside a gateway, of which the gate, nine or ten feet high, was locked. It led to some stables belonging to Mr. Brown. From the gateway eastward the houses began, and westward there was a Board School. All the houses were occupied. The deceased's left hand was touching the gate. Directly he turned his lantern on the body, he noticed blood was oozing from the woman's throat.”

The first three reports are very similar. However it is clear that the nearest gas light was at the end of the row of houses and on the opposite side to where Polly lay. This can only refer to the Brady Street end. It is also clear that Neil needed his lantern to see the wound.

The gas lights in the East End were notoriously poorly serviced. The presence of other street lights in August 1888 closer to Brown’s Stable Yard cannot be discounted, but the inquest testimony makes it absolutely clear than the only functioning light that pertained to this crime scene was at down the end of Bucks Row – at the Brady Street end.

I believe the nearest Goad map for Bucks Row (by then called Durward Street) was dated 1899, although there was a 1887 Goad map of the eastern end of Bucks Row that stops short of Brown’s Stable Yard by a good 20 yards – this map really just covers the Browne and Eagle warehouses. In the aftermath of the Whitechapel murders more street lights were installed in the East End.

There are some sketches (see the photo archive on this site) which depict a gas light opposite Brown’s Stable Yard. If there was one there on 31st August 1888 and it wasn’t just added to the scene for artistic effect, then it most certainly wasn’t lit on the night Polly Nichols was murdered.
I seem to remember another sketch that shows a light attached to one of the terraced houses some doors down from where Polly Nichols body was found. Other sketches omit this light. But again, if it existed then it certainly wasn’t lit on the night in question.

Besides PC Neil’s inquest testimony, if there had been two street lights in that narrow street so close to where Polly Nichols body was found, in full view and with nothing to cast a shadow, then it is inconceivable, even given the dimness of gas light in this period, that Paul would not have seen Charles Lechmere sooner and that Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul would not have noticed that the victim had her throat cut – and that her eyes were open!
Also it seems unlikely that Polly Nichols would have taken a punter to somewhere that was lit up somewhat like the Blackpool illuminations.

However in ‘Jack the Ripper CSI: Whitechapel’ there are no less than four otherwise excellent artistic reproductions of Bucks Row from different angles, which include two errant gas lights, one burning directly opposite the murder scene and the other a couple of yards away on the same side of the road. These can be found on pages 54, 60, 64-65, and 68-69.

I understand the need to ‘up’ the illumination so that the reader can see the detail of the street, but adding the lights seriously compromises this crime scene and muddles our understanding of it.
A similar error was made on the TV documentary ‘Jack the Ripper: the Definitive Story’.

Unintentional institutional suspect bias again?

As a point of comparison ‘Jack the Ripper CSI: Whitechapel’ has dark images of Mitre Square (e.g. pages 146-147 and 152-153) where it was recorded that some gas lights weren’t working properly.