Some questions re. Lechmere

[Patrick S]

Then let's discuss. What are your feelings about the mutilation discussion we're having? What's your opinion on what was cut first, the neck or the stomach? That's pretty Lechmere nuetral.

Columbo

I forgot to mention another aspect of discussion boards. We are free to pick and choose what we discuss, when, and with whom.

[MsWeatherwax]

Genuinely fascinating discussion.

So assuming that JtR and TTK are one and the same, why were some women killed on the street and others in his 'private quarters'?

Were the women he killed on the street just reluctant to go somewhere unfamiliar, preferring to stay in public, thus forcing his hand? Or could there be another reason? Seasonal quarters...house guests? Anything in the timing of the torso murders to suggest a reason?

[Fisherman]

Quite possible. It does show a trial and error. But, to play Devil's Advocate, If Lechmere was the torso killer he would already have a pretty good idea of what the best way to kill was, and experimentation wouldn't really have been necessary would it? It seems to me he would've done all that on the corpses from the torso killings.

Columbo

Depends - the 1873 victim was killed by a couple of blows to the temple, apparently. Maybe he chose the more silent throttling/throatcutting when working in public?

PS. I note that Abby beat me to it...

[Abby Normal]

Quite possible. It does show a trial and error. But, to play Devil's Advocate, If Lechmere was the torso killer he would already have a pretty good idea of what the best way to kill was, and experimentation wouldn't really have been necessary would it? It seems to me he would've done all that on the corpses from the torso killings.

Columbo

Hi Columbo
not necessarily as presumably those murders happened in his private place and maybe didn't have the need to render the victim silent as quickly as possible and avoid blood transfer as would murders on the street.

[Abby Normal]

I have it Tabram - mutilation and a finishing-off coup de grace through the sternum to ensure death.

Nichols - mutilation and a finishing-off cut to the throat to ensure death and silence.

Chapman and forward - throat cut first, after having learnt the usefulness of this.

yup-and just to add

Tabram - strangulation then mutilation and a finishing-off coup de grace through the sternum to ensure death.

Nichols - strangulation (or a punch to the head)mutilation and a finishing-off cut to the throat to ensure death and silence.

Chapman and forward - strangulation-throat cut first, after having learnt the usefulness of this.

and except that perhaps no strangulation first with stride (because of her reluctance and him losing his temper and cutting throat first).

Kelly-no strangulation as she was perhaps already passed out.

[Columbo]

I have it Tabram - mutilation and a finishing-off coup de grace through the sternum to ensure death.

Nichols - mutilation and a finishing-off cut to the throat to ensure death and silence.

Chapman and forward - throat cut first, after having learnt the usefulness of this.

Quite possible. It does show a trial and error. But, to play Devil's Advocate, If Lechmere was the torso killer he would already have a pretty good idea of what the best way to kill was, and experimentation wouldn't really have been necessary would it? It seems to me he would've done all that on the corpses from the torso killings.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > General Suspect Discussion > Some questions re. Lechmere

See above bold. It's a discussion. And since it's a forum, posting his how the discussion happens.

You are right on one point and wrong on another. I do find the prospects of Lechmere as the Ripper ridiculous. However, I am VERY interested in discussing it. That shouldn't be all that hard to understand.

Then let's discuss. What are your feelings about the mutilation discussion we're having? What's your opinion on what was cut first, the neck or the stomach? That's pretty Lechmere nuetral.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

HI Ms and columbo

I would posit the ripper strangled first to render the victim unconscious, then cut the throat to make sure they were dead and to bleed the victim, so when he started the mutilation there would be less spray/blood spurting.

If he strangles to death, it also means less spray when he cut the throat.

IMHO since I believe Tabram was a ripper victim, he hadn't refined this technique yet and her killing was a bit more messy and problematic for him to achieve his true aim-mutilation and removal of internal organs.

I have it Tabram - mutilation and a finishing-off coup de grace through the sternum to ensure death.

Nichols - mutilation and a finishing-off cut to the throat to ensure death and silence.

Chapman and forward - throat cut first, after having learnt the usefulness of this.

[Patrick S]

I'm not trying to be a smarta** really, but I'm truly curious of your motivation.

Columbo

Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > General Suspect Discussion > Some questions re. Lechmere

See above bold. It's a discussion. And since it's a forum, posting his how the discussion happens.

You are right on one point and wrong on another. I do find the prospects of Lechmere as the Ripper ridiculous. However, I am VERY interested in discussing it. That shouldn't be all that hard to understand.

[MsWeatherwax]

HI Ms and columbo

I would posit the ripper strangled first to render the victim unconscious, then cut the throat to make sure they were dead and to bleed the victim, so when he started the mutilation there would be less spray/blood spurting.

If he strangles to death, it also means less spray when he cut the throat.

IMHO since I believe Tabram was a ripper victim, he hadn't refined this technique yet and her killing was a bit more messy and problematic for him to achieve his true aim-mutilation and removal of internal organs.

True and I believe the cutting of the throat was to cause death while throttling the victim was to get her under control. It also caused the heart to quit pumping which in turn decreased the chance of an artery spraying JTR with blood.

As far as I can tell Nichols was the only victim a doctor said the mutilations were first. I don't know if that's correct, but it's possible although I think only slightly.

Columbo

I think that these are both very likely to be the case - subdue, then mutilate.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if one of the victims was mutilated prior to the throat being cut - if the killers primary motivation was to mutilate the abdomen or remove organs (SPECULATION, M'LORD!!!!), then it wouldn't be at all shocking to me that he attempted to skip a step at least once. He was working in the open, very much at risk of discovery. If his actual objective was abdominal mutilation or organ removal, then as time was of the essence, he might be very tempted to go straight for the goal. Possibly even too out of control to stick to his plan?

That's the problem with these killings, this killer - so little is actually known you could almost twist any idea to fit the small amount of information that we actually have.

Actually...sorry, I'm conscious that I'm hijacking the thread.

[Columbo]

All very good points, and for those looking for a suspect to believe in they should look at that suspects overall life, and make a logical decision.

But I'm trying to figure out why, if you don't believe Lechmere is a suspect, or, if you find it a ridiculous idea and aren't interested in discussing it, do you post? I find the idea fascinating and like the conversation so far but I know you are adamantely anti-lechmere so why bother?

Columbo

I'm not trying to be a smarta** really, but I'm truly curious of your motivation.

Columbo

[Columbo]

I have some time on my hands! So, let's do this all over again, shall we?

Okay. Let's deal with this first: That Cross/Lechmere would have been/should have been considered a "prime suspect" for the killing of Nichols. I'll ask rhetorically, "Based upon what?" AH! Let's look at ONE "suspicious" aspect of we have that involves this "prime suspect" first, shall we?

He gave a false name to the police in an attempt to conceal his identity.

As most of us know this is not the case, as "Cross" was not a "false name" as his mother married a man called Cross. We know that his name was recorded in a census as "Charles Cross". We know he didn't give a false address. We know he gave the name of his employer. We know he gave his true occupation. Thus, we can surmise that he didn't make a particularly strenuous effort to conceal his identity. In fact, if take this "false name" foolishness out of the equation, we might say he made NO effort to conceal his identity.

Beyond this, all we can do is speculate about this "false name". For instance, we can speculate that he simply liked the name "Cross" better than he liked "Lechmere". I like it better. If I had my druthers, I'd like to be called "Cross", wouldn't you? Sounds strong and Anglo, right? CROSS! Perhaps he felt "Lechmere" sounded too "foreign". Perhaps he had been called "Cross" since his boyhood, thus he simply went by that name. We can speculate that he just didn't want get involved (though that's tough one in that he showed up at the inquest of his own accord but we'll get to that later) OR....we can speculate that he used the name "Cross" because he was Jack the Ripper (among other killers we may or may not know) and wanted to avoid detection as such.........

But then we have to ask.........

Why didn't he just WALK away? I use the word 'walk' deliberately because many like to speculate that he could not have RUN AWAY as there were police all over the place (though that didn't stop Nichols from being approached, murdered, and mutilated)! So, let's again talk about what we KNOW. We know it was so dark in Buck's Row that Robert Paul (who as far as I know is not currently accused of being Jack the Ripper) stood close to Nichols' body and could not see her wounds, any blood, etc. We know also that Paul entered Buck's Row from a distance that made his presence known to Lechmere before he himself saw either Lechmere or Nichols' body (40 yards is the most common estimate). So, why run? Why not just walk away, and disappear into the darkness. Ah! But he felt the best way "out" after having murdered Nichols was to pull this elaborate ruse. To pretend to have just found her rather than having just, you know, killed her.........

But then we have to ask..........

If Paul tried to walk by Lechmere (as Paul stated), why did Lechmere approach him (with the murder weapon hidden on his person), TOUCH him with the very hands he'd supposedly just used to nearly decapitate and dissect Nichols and ask him to "Come see this woman!"? The purpose of this "ruse" is to get away, correct? That's why he gave this "false name", right? Let's not loose sight of that fact this his AIM is escape! If he were the killer, his goal is ESCAPE! So, he forces a man who is trying to get by him to pay attention to him, and then invites him to come see the dead woman, his victim! But the goal - let's not forget - is escape! So then what does he do? He goes with the man to the body. This has taken an odd turn, don't you think? Still, this is a small matter, right? Clearly he's willing to kill. So, if things get dicey, he could just kill Paul and make a run for it. So, now what? They agree to continue on to work (Lechmere, murder weapon in tow). Together........

But then we have to ask.........

Why didn't Cross the Ripper take his leave then and there? He knew which direction Paul had come from. He knew that Paul had no idea which direction he (Cross) was headed. Why now simply say he worked in the direction from which Paul had come and say, "I'll find a copper this way. You try to find one that way! HURRY MAN! You yourself said she may be alive!"? Well, he didn't do that. He went with Paul (murder weapon and all). And at no point did he try to leave Paul. He stayed with him until he found a PC, Mizen, in Baker's Row. Now we come to the notorious "Mizen Scam"! I don't want to spend too much time on this because it's been debunked thoroughly and repeated on these pages. Let's just say that Paul (who as best I can tell STILL is not considered to be Jack the Ripper, or Jack's accomplice, or his best friend) tells us that Mizen, for lack of a better term, blew them off. The men told them they'd found a woman, told him she was likely dead, and Mizen 'continued calling people up' and didn't say whether he would go or not. Paul (not Jack the Ripper, still, right?) thought this a "great shame"? Okay. Okay....... Alas, Mizen himself admits he let the men go unsearched, unquestioned (one had the murder weapon ON him, according to the "theory"). He does not ask names. He let's then go on their way to work. And they do. But, Paul (still not a "suspect"?) gives an interview on his way home from work that very day. And he tells, essentially, the tale we see above. He paints Mizen's response in an unflattering light. If I am Mizen, I'm embarrassed. If I'm the Met brass, I'm angry...and embarrassed. Yet, "Lechemre" is.....not named. He's not described. In fact, he's relegated to a bit player with barely a cameo in Paul's story. Okay. I would think that if he'd killed Nichols he'd say, "You did it, Chuck! This guy wants the spotlight! Let him have it! You bluffed your way out! The "Mizen Scam" was an astounding success! No one knows who you are! If they come looking for you, bluff some more. But, for now.....LAY LOW! Well done!" But, that's not what Chuck did, is it...........

So then we have to ask.........

Why did Lechmere show up at the inquest? Paul's BOMBSHELL in Lloyd's that doesn't name Cross, doesn't call him a carman, tall, short, fat, skinny, bearded, not bearded, black, white, Asian, a pygmy...just a man. Yet it FORCES (?) him from hiding.....72 hours after the murder, to come and tell his tale? I'd like to pause her to remind the reader that his goal (if he killed Nichols).....was ESCAPE...which he achieved. Now, at the inquest - if we can get beyond why he's there in the first place - one might safely assume his goal might be to avoid suspicion. So what does he do? Shows up at the inquest of his own volition and contradicts a policeman, Mizen, who stated that he (Lechmere) told him a woman (not dead) was in Buck's Row where another PC was awaiting him (which was not true). Paul doesn't corroborate Mizen. Lechmere didn't even have to BE there....but this, folks, is the "Mizen Scam". And the very heart of the "Cross the Ripper" phenomenon.

And then Charles Allen Lechmere disappears. At least, he disappears as far as Jack the Ripper and the Torso Killer (he was him too, right?) is concerned. We know he continued on at Pickfords. We know he raised his ten children (one died as an infant). We know he moved up the socio-economic ladder. We know he opened a shop. We know he left a tidy sum to his wife of more than 50 years when he died past his 70th year. Of course, there is much we DO NOT know. For instance, we don't know if he was ever arrested. We DO know there is no record of that. We don't know if he was ever - in his life - a violent man. We DO know there is no evidence suggesting he was. You know, it's same old story we see with SO many "serialists". Stable employment records. Nearly a dozen kids. No criminal record. 50 year marriages. Small business owners. Dying in their beds at advanced ages, never suspected in their lifetimes of their, what, dozens, HUNDREDS of murders?

Yeah. Same old story.

All very good points, and for those looking for a suspect to believe in they should look at that suspects overall life, and make a logical decision.

But I'm trying to figure out why, if you don't believe Lechmere is a suspect, or, if you find it a ridiculous idea and aren't interested in discussing it, do you post? I find the idea fascinating and like the conversation so far but I know you are adamantely anti-lechmere so why bother?

Columbo

[Columbo]

If you believe that more than one of the victims was killed or rendered unconscious by strangulation, then there was no need to cut any of their throats - yet this still happened in every case (assuming that you believe that there is an 'every case). Under the circumstances, it could be argued that strangulation was a purely utilitarian technique to prevent a struggle during the killers real objective, which was to mutilate.

All hypothetical of course, and I'm no expert either.

True and I believe the cutting of the throat was to cause death while throttling the victim was to get her under control. It also caused the heart to quit pumping which in turn decreased the chance of an artery spraying JTR with blood.

As far as I can tell Nichols was the only victim a doctor said the mutilations were first. I don't know if that's correct, but it's possible although I think only slightly.

Columbo

[Abby Normal]

If you believe that more than one of the victims was killed or rendered unconscious by strangulation, then there was no need to cut any of their throats - yet this still happened in every case (assuming that you believe that there is an 'every case). Under the circumstances, it could be argued that strangulation was a purely utilitarian technique to prevent a struggle during the killers real objective, which was to mutilate.

All hypothetical of course, and I'm no expert either.

HI Ms and columbo

I would posit the ripper strangled first to render the victim unconscious, then cut the throat to make sure they were dead and to bleed the victim, so when he started the mutilation there would be less spray/blood spurting.

If he strangles to death, it also means less spray when he cut the throat.

IMHO since I believe Tabram was a ripper victim, he hadn't refined this technique yet and her killing was a bit more messy and problematic for him to achieve his true aim-mutilation and removal of internal organs.

[MsWeatherwax]

If she was dead after the strangulation (which, according to some medical reports can take as long as 6-10 minutes to kill someone that way) there was no reason to cut her throat.

Columbo

If you believe that more than one of the victims was killed or rendered unconscious by strangulation, then there was no need to cut any of their throats - yet this still happened in every case (assuming that you believe that there is an 'every case). Under the circumstances, it could be argued that strangulation was a purely utilitarian technique to prevent a struggle during the killers real objective, which was to mutilate.

All hypothetical of course, and I'm no expert either.