Lechmere Triple Event

[Pierre]

Hi,

This is a discussion were we are moving away from Buck´s Row and discuss Charles Allen Lechmere on the double event 30th September and the Whitehall victim found 2nd October.

Since the hypothesis about Lechmere being the killer is based on very sparse material, we can know very little, if anything at all, about Lechmere and the three victims found within three days in London 1888. Therefore we must hypothesize without sources for Lechmere. This means the hypothesizing must be purely theoretical.

So what happened during these three days?

Firstly I hypothesize that L (Lechmere, being Jack the Ripper) killed Stride. And Stride became scared and ran away from him. So she was not killed in the place where L had intended to kill her.

This was a terrible mistake and L therefore had to change his MO that night. He did this by cutting off the piece of apron from the next victim and taking it with him as evidence. After that he went to get a piece of chalk. That is why there is a discussion about a time gap between the murder of Eddowes and the GSG.

So writing the GSG was extremely important to L. If he did not write the message he would make an even bigger mistake. Because the failure with the first murder could not be changed. It was a hopeless failure since she had run away.

So Lechmere (having a piece of chalk at home, coming home with the bits and pieces from Eddowes and collecting a piece of chalk) had to write the GSG.

But on this particular weekend he had decided to do a specific event at the new Scotland Yard building. He thought they would find it on the 1st or 2nd and it was found on the 2nd. It was found in the correct place.

And so L had managed to do the Triple Event but it was not perfect. In fact, it was a failure.

So L started to plan for the next murder. It was in late October that he planned it.

His wife would not be able to understand anything of it, although he had come home with the bits and pieces from Chapman and Eddowes.

The motive was that his wife was so domineering. And still, she did not know anything about her husband.

That is the short story about Lechmere and the Triple Event.

But is there evidence for it?

That is something we can discuss.

Cheers, Pierre

[John G]

Hi,

This is a discussion were we are moving away from Buck´s Row and discuss Charles Allen Lechmere on the double event 30th September and the Whitehall victim found 2nd October.

Since the hypothesis about Lechmere being the killer is based on very sparse material, we can know very little, if anything at all, about Lechmere and the three victims found within three days in London 1888. Therefore we must hypothesize without sources for Lechmere. This means the hypothesizing must be purely theoretical.

So what happened during these three days?

Firstly I hypothesize that L (Lechmere, being Jack the Ripper) killed Stride. And Stride became scared and ran away from him. So she was not killed in the place where L had intended to kill her.

This was a terrible mistake and L therefore had to change his MO that night. He did this by cutting off the piece of apron from the next victim and taking it with him as evidence. After that he went to get a piece of chalk. That is why there is a discussion about a time gap between the murder of Eddowes and the GSG.

So writing the GSG was extremely important to L. If he did not write the message he would make an even bigger mistake. Because the failure with the first murder could not be changed. It was a hopeless failure since she had run away.

So Lechmere (having a piece of chalk at home, coming home with the bits and pieces from Eddowes and collecting a piece of chalk) had to write the GSG.

But on this particular weekend he had decided to do a specific event at the new Scotland Yard building. He thought they would find it on the 1st or 2nd and it was found on the 2nd. It was found in the correct place.

And so L had managed to do the Triple Event but it was not perfect. In fact, it was a failure.

So L started to plan for the next murder. It was in late October that he planned it.

His wife would not be able to understand anything of it, although he had come home with the bits and pieces from Chapman and Eddowes.

The motive was that his wife was so domineering. And still, she did not know anything about her husband.

That is the short story about Lechmere and the Triple Event.

But is there evidence for it?

That is something we can discuss.

Cheers, Pierre

Well one obvious problem is that the Whitehall victim may have been stored for several months, so certainly was not killed on the 2nd October. And not only do we have a different MO, as well as different practically everything else, where did Lechmere store the body? The Lechmere underground storage site, otherwise known as the Lechmere basement?

[Robert St Devil]

Are you inserting Lechmere into your own hypothesis pierre? Too much of your story is missing to hypothesize Lechmere (or any suspect's) involvement, would first have to answer why GSG was necessary and how failure was measured in these cases.

[Sam Flynn]

Are you inserting Lechmere into your own hypothesis pierre? Too much of your story is missing to hypothesize Lechmere (or any suspect's) involvement, would first have to answer why GSG was necessary and how failure was measured in these cases.

Agreed. This line of thought doesn't require any suspect; indeed, given the propensity of certain suspects to completely derail a thread, why mention one at all? It's asking for trouble

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;423138]

Well one obvious problem is that the Whitehall victim may have been stored for several months, so certainly was not killed on the 2nd October.

She seems to have died in August.

[Abby Normal]

So much for the triple event

[Henry Flower]

I predict this will be an unusually short thread.

[kjab3112]

Firstly I hypothesize that L (Lechmere, being Jack the Ripper) killed Stride. And Stride became scared and ran away from him. So she was not killed in the place where L had intended to kill her.

Cheers, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

I can see one issue with your hypothesis immediately. Firstly we have a police con stable who states he saw Stride in Berner's Street. For your hypothesis to work (irrelevant of who Jack is), Liz either runs after having her neck cut or is caught at Dutfield Yard. In the latter case Schwartz is suggestive Liz was attacked whilst standing at the entrance (i.e. not running anywhere). In the former, although it would be possible to run with a severely cut throat, her syncopal collapse would have been forward not onto her back.

Just my thoughts

Paul

[Pierre]

QUOTE=kjab3112;423176

Hi Pierre,

I can see one issue with your hypothesis immediately. Firstly we have a police con stable who states he saw Stride in Berner's Street. For your hypothesis to work (irrelevant of who Jack is), Liz either runs after having her neck cut or is caught at Dutfield Yard.

Hi Paul,

There is no issue. Original source from Scotland Yard 19th October 1888 gives the time 12.35 for PC Smith having seen "a man and woman" and later identifying her as Stride and it gives the time 1 am for the finding of Stride by Diemshitz.

So there is 30 minutes between the sighting of Smith and the finding of Stride by Diemshitz.

Original inquest sources do not exist for the Stride murder.

And a comment here: the approach of trying to determine minutiae in the past (as in the case of Buck´s Row) gives low reliability and especially so when using newspaper articles - a problem which Fisherman has to handle all the time.

In the latter case Schwartz is suggestive Liz was attacked whilst standing at the entrance (i.e. not running anywhere). In the former, although it would be possible to run with a severely cut throat, her syncopal collapse would have been forward not onto her back.

Just my thoughts

Paul

12.45 is the time given by the original source for Schwartz, i.e. 15 minutes before the murder.

So since there is 15 minutes stated in the source as the time between the experience of Schwartz and the murder, there is no issue in that case either.

And given the earlier mentioned problem of trying to establish history on minutiae, we can safely leave those two non issues there.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi,

This is a discussion were we are moving away from Buck´s Row and discuss Charles Allen Lechmere on the double event 30th September and the Whitehall victim found 2nd October.

Since the hypothesis about Lechmere being the killer is based on very sparse material, we can know very little, if anything at all, about Lechmere and the three victims found within three days in London 1888. Therefore we must hypothesize without sources for Lechmere. This means the hypothesizing must be purely theoretical.

So what happened during these three days?

Firstly I hypothesize that L (Lechmere, being Jack the Ripper) killed Stride. And Stride became scared and ran away from him. So she was not killed in the place where L had intended to kill her.

This was a terrible mistake and L therefore had to change his MO that night. He did this by cutting off the piece of apron from the next victim and taking it with him as evidence. After that he went to get a piece of chalk. That is why there is a discussion about a time gap between the murder of Eddowes and the GSG.

So writing the GSG was extremely important to L. If he did not write the message he would make an even bigger mistake. Because the failure with the first murder could not be changed. It was a hopeless failure since she had run away.

So Lechmere (having a piece of chalk at home, coming home with the bits and pieces from Eddowes and collecting a piece of chalk) had to write the GSG.

In this hypothesis he writes the GSG because of the failure in Berner street ?

The GSG is written to show a link between Stride and Eddowes, much as proposed by Tom Wescott .
The GSG in this case would not exist unless the Stride killing was a failure, if it has wider meaning, surely he would have written it anyway and had chalk on him.

There is so a serious issue with Lechmere having time to get home to Doveton Street and Back again before the GSG IS found. The timing is too tight.

But on this particular weekend he had decided to do a specific event at the new Scotland Yard building. He thought they would find it on the 1st or 2nd and it was found on the 2nd. It was found in the correct place.

And so L had managed to do the Triple Event but it was not perfect. In fact, it was a failure.

So L started to plan for the next murder. It was in late October that he planned it.

His wife would not be able to understand anything of it, although he had come home with the bits and pieces from Chapman and Eddowes.

The motive was that his wife was so domineering. And still, she did not know anything about her husband.

That is the short story about Lechmere and the Triple Event.

But is there evidence for it?

That is something we can discuss.

Cheers, Pierre

If he planned for the end of October what happened? There is nothing to suggest why this would have been his plan or why it did not occur.

And of course we have no data I am aware of to say he had a domineering wife.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;423182]

In this hypothesis he writes the GSG because of the failure in Berner street ?

Hi Steve,

That is the hypothesis for L in this case. And the motive of Lechmere for taking the apron with him and leaving it in Goulston Street as evicence was his domineering mother.

The GSG is written to show a link between Stride and Eddowes, much as proposed by Tom Wescott .

Rather, the link was between Lechmere and the murders. He wrote it to confirm that he was the killer.

The GSG in this case would not exist unless the Stride killing was a failure, if it has wider meaning, surely he would have written it anyway and had chalk on him.

The hypothesis about the time gap indicates he had something to do. There was writing and therefore he needed chalk. That is all we know now. Therefore this knowledge should be used for an explanatory hypothesis.

There is so a serious issue with Lechmere having time to get home to Doveton Street and Back again before the GSG IS found. The timing is too tight.

Are you sure about this, and if so, why?

If he planned for the end of October what happened? There is nothing to suggest why this would have been his plan or why it did not occur.

I believe you misunderstood me. The planning was done by L in October, and L killed on 9th November according to the plan.

And of course we have no data I am aware of to say he had a domineering wife.

Steve

You are right, Steve. I meant to say domineering mother. It is according to the theory of Fisherman that L:s mother was domineering, since she was married more than once.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;423190]

Are you sure about this, and if so, why?

I do not say impossibly just too tight.

Reasoning . Using my timings we can see that the return trip will take between just over 50 minutes and just over the hour.
I assume he will not run or walk too quickly so as to avoid raising concerns in an area now swamped with police from both forces.

He must dispose of his trophies at home, clean himself or at least check he is clean, find the chalk And leave. Maybe 5 mins min in total. On his return he has to write the GSG, we NEED to allow him ensuring the "cost is clear" he as to deposit the apron and be out of sight before anyone appears another 5 min min I suggest.

Now we have a gap of about 75 minutes from the murder until the apron is found, assuming that the apron was not just missed at 2.20.
At the bottom end of the range I give in The Bucks Row Project, he could just about do it but it is very tight only a few minutes to play with.

If he is at the slower end of the range ( which is more probably if he does not want to attract any attention, it is not possible.
Hence I say just too tight.

Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;423190]

You are right, Steve. I meant to say domineering mother. It is according to the theory of Fisherman that L:s mother was domineering, since she was married more than once.

Cheers, Pierre

I think the same applies however be it wife or mother. I am aware of no sources which say his mother was domineering are you?

It's just another of those suggestions made over the Years which is possible but not backed by anything tangible.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;423198]

I do not say impossibly just too tight.

Reasoning . Using my timings we can see that the return trip will take between just over 50 minutes and just over the hour.
I assume he will not run or walk too quickly so as to avoid raising concerns in an area now swamped with police from both forces.

He must dispose of his trophies at home, clean himself or at least check he is clean, find the chalk And leave. Maybe 5 mins min in total. On his return he has to write the GSG, we NEED to allow him ensuring the "cost is clear" he as to deposit the apron and be out of sight before anyone appears another 5 min min I suggest.

Now we have a gap of about 75 minutes from the murder until the apron is found, assuming that the apron was not just missed at 2.20.
At the bottom end of the range I give in The Bucks Row Project, he could just about do it but it is very tight only a few minutes to play with.

If he is at the slower end of the range ( which is more probably if he does not want to attract any attention, it is not possible.
Hence I say just too tight.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Very good.

What is your estimation for the minimum and the maximum time that he would have needed to do what you describe above?

Pierre

[John G]

So much for the triple event

Good point!