Your killer would have accepted ten minutes walking on the streets. Mine would have accepted twenty.
There really is no material difference - ten minutes and twenty minutes are both very long times to walk the streets after a murder, and anyone who does that has accepted to take that kind of risk.
Except it is a half hour walk home for Cross from Aldgate [and that is not including the half hour he could have been hanging around]. How long do you give the killer to be out and about with a bloody knife and Kidney?
If he did kill her, that same reason might still apply, but another, even more crucial reason might pertain.
It doesn't logically work. He wants to keep his identity out of the paper in your view... but he waits for a witness to come to up to him from down the other end of Buck's row in the dark and ends up being identified and reports his name to an officer?
Do you not see the contradiction of motives here? He goes from waiting around to be identified when he need not have to do so and then a few minutes later is avoiding being identified by not giving details in a suspicious way (according to you)?
Bona fide canonical and then some.
Keeping the name Lechmere out of the papers would not have hidden the identity of the man who found Nichols body,because that man made himself known to both the press and the authorities,and could easily have been located by the police at his home or at work.Whatever the intent,the use of the name Cross does not ,in any way,show Cross was the person who killed Nichols.
If a person has an exclusive claim of being the only one to match a particular charasteristic,such as Charles Cross access to the ripper murder sites,then the person/persons making that claim,has the responsibility to justify that claim,by showing that only that person,to the exclusion of all others,possessed that exclusive element.
So far he has been matched against a few individuals.A few hundred thousand still to go.
Also, I have yet to see addressed the problem that he was re-visiting the scene of the crimes daily at the hour they died.
The model doesn't have him just going passed Buck's Row, Hanbury St., and Dorset St., once, but doing so on a daily bases at the same hour the women were murdered.
Yet over the weeks investigating, not a single one of them notices this person at all 3 sites, at the right hours?
So what are you suggesting, that the early morning journey via Buck’s Row and Hanbury Street was a one-off? That he didn’t live in Doveton Street or work at Broad Street? He must have done, surely.
Of course we don’t know whether he had the same start time every morning, picking up goods from the same train each day, but he didn’t have much in the way of alternative routes from home to work that didn’t bring him close to the murder sites.