Lechmere the serial killer?

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=John G;390919]

And I am very certain that the killer of the 1873 Battersea Torso did not kill Mary Kelly. In my opinion there is no forensic evidence that would suggest otherwise, and not a single medical expert has ever suggested otherwise. Not that the "forensic evidence" is worth much anyway, as I believe the Victorian medicos were way out of their depth.

Of course, there is also the radically different crime signatures. Sorry Fish, I couldn't resist!

Goodnight, Fish.

Absolutely John G
Fisherman believes that Lechmere has to be the Torso Killer because he believes he was the Ripper or something. Even though there's nothing to indicate
he was the Ripper.

Cheers John

[John G]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;390921]

Thatīs fine.

And you are wrong.

Nope, don't think so.

Mind you, in respect of Kelly I do find it ironic that the one opportunity that the Whitechapel murderer had to demonstrate the skills you believe the Torso perpetrator(s) had, i.e. because he could spend time with the body at his leisure, the result is no dismemberment, no attempted dismemberment, and a body that was absolutely butchered, by a killer who didn't even demonstrate the skills of a common horse slaughterer.

I would also point out that the inquest resulted in an open verdict on respect of the Battersea victim, so there's no proof she was even murdered.

Just saying...

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=John G;390919]

And I am very certain that the killer of the 1873 Battersea Torso did not kill Mary Kelly. In my opinion there is no forensic evidence that would suggest otherwise, and not a single medical expert has ever suggested otherwise. Not that the "forensic evidence" is worth much anyway, as I believe the Victorian medicos were way out of their depth.

Of course, there is also the radically different crime signatures. Sorry Fish, I couldn't resist!

Goodnight, Fish.

Thatīs fine.

And you are wrong.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;390913]

Yes. And considering the historical fact that we do not have the inquest source:

How do you know that Lechmere lied because he was a killer - and not for another reason?


And why did he lie twice?
Pierre

I can make sense of the first question you ask, so I can answer it, although I donīt think it is normally a good idea to answer you at all. In this case, I see it as a pedagogical exercise, so there may be good reason to do it.

I donīt know that Lechmere lied because he was a killer, and not for another reason. I do, however, find the idea that he would lie for another reason less credible - to lie to get earlier to work, for example, could be extremely dangerous.
Overall, a lie on accound of being the murderer fits well with numerous other details knit to the case, nit least his refraining from giving his correct name to the police. There is a consistency.

Your question why he lied twice is less intelligible, and snce I don+t know what you are asking about, I will leave it unanswered. It is not unheard of that criminals lie multiple times, however, and basically, if a lie can get you off the scaffold, I think most criminals would lie indefinitely if it served that cause.

I am not sure why you ask me for answers, Pierre. Am I not supposed to be a liar? So why waste your valuable time, if you cannot trust me?

[John G]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;390911]

I know you do.

I donīt, however. The way I got things lined up, he could not possibly have been the Ripper. I am fairly certain that the man who killed Mary Kelly was also the killer of the 1873 Battersea torso victim. I think the forensic evidence puts that beyond reasonable doubt. And Bury was 14 at the occasion, so he is most likely ruled out.

Kosminski was 8 and in Poland, Chapman was 8 and in Poland, Thompson was 14, just like Bury. Tumblety was not in the UK in 1889. To name but a few.

Lechmere was 24 at the time of the Battersea torso murder. Somehow, he always seems to fit the bill.

Goodnight, John.

And I am very certain that the killer of the 1873 Battersea Torso did not kill Mary Kelly. In my opinion there is no forensic evidence that would suggest otherwise, and not a single medical expert has ever suggested otherwise. Not that the "forensic evidence" is worth much anyway, as I believe the Victorian medicos were way out of their depth.

Of course, there is also the radically different crime signatures. Sorry Fish, I couldn't resist!

Goodnight, Fish.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;390845]

There we have it: a very clear indicator that Mizen WAS told by Lechmere that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row.

Yes. And considering the historical fact that we do not have the inquest source:

How do you know that Lechmere lied because he was a killer - and not for another reason?

And why did he lie twice?

Pierre

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=John Wheat;390904]

Unless of course Bury was the Ripper and I believe there is a distinct possibility he was.

I know you do.

I donīt, however. The way I got things lined up, he could not possibly have been the Ripper. I am fairly certain that the man who killed Mary Kelly was also the killer of the 1873 Battersea torso victim. I think the forensic evidence puts that beyond reasonable doubt. And Bury was 14 at the occasion, so he is most likely ruled out.

Kosminski was 8 and in Poland, Chapman was 8 and in Poland, Thompson was 14, just like Bury. Tumblety was not in the UK in 1889. To name but a few.

Lechmere was 24 at the time of the Battersea torso murder. Somehow, he always seems to fit the bill.

Goodnight, John.

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;390884]

When it comes to murder spot proximity, you are most probably correct.

Unless of course Bury was the Ripper and I believe there is a distinct possibility he was.

[Patrick S]

But will you use an alternative name at the subsequent inquest?

So you have now abandoned 'false name'? Even you now admit that Cross was not a false name at all. You must have found what I found, eh? That is to say the census that gives our man Chuck's name as CROSS as he lived with his stepfather, PC Cross, and his mother, PC Cross' wife. Thus, try as you have you cannot convince...well...ANYONE that this was a false name. So, now we've downgraded to 'alternative'? Progress, at least.

Now. The inquest. Let's first ask how Lechmere came to be at the inquest, shall we?

Was he hauled there by the Met? Well, no. He was "questioned" by Mizen in Baker's Row but allowed to go about his business, wasn't he? Mizen didn't ask his name. In fact, Mizen didn't say much of anything, did he?

Was he identified by a witness, Paul for instance? Was he described in such detail that he felt he had no other choice but to appear? Not at all. Paul - in Lloyd's - called him "a man". Not a tall man, short man, thin man, fat man, young man, old man, well dressed man, shabbily dressed man, rich man, poor man, black man, white man, carman. A man. Only a man.

Will you stumble over the murder victim within minutes after he/she was killed?

By this reasoning then, had Lechmere overslept that morning or took a route other than the one through Buck's Row allowing Paul to find the body at nearly the exact time Lechmere had, then PAUL would be the murderer. Andy Griffiths would be proud.

Will you be pointed out by a PC as having lied to him?

Ah, yes. The Mizen scam. The wholly debunked, logic defying Mizen scam. It is, however, appropriately named because there was a scam, and Mizen pulled it. Luckily, I have all the information I need to explain the Mizen Scam as it really was:

It should be noted that the official records of inquest into Mary Ann Nichols’ death have not survived. The information we have – as has been noted – comes to us from press coverage of the inquest and the media statements made by those involved. There are some notable inconsistencies contained in this information. Many of them involve the meeting in Baker’s Row involving Paul, Lechmere, and PC Mizen.

Both Lechmere and Paul offer similar descriptions of Mizen’s reaction upon hearing their information. Lechmere stated that he replied, “Alright” and walked on. Paul states, “I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up…”

Both Lechmere and Paul stated that they informed PC Mizen that the woman in Buck’s Row may be dead. Lechmere stated in his inquest testimony that he told Mizen, “She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." Paul in his statement to ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’ flatly stated, “I had told him the woman was dead.” Mizen, however, contended that he was told only that a woman was lying in Buck’s Row, stating that he was told, “You are wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying.”

This brings us to another major inconsistency. Mizen claimed at the inquest that he was told that he was “wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row”. Such information might lead Mizen to assume that Lechmere and Paul had been interrogated and released by the policeman already on the scene in Buck’s Row. Thus, he’d let the men go on his way, forgoing questioning them further, or searching either man. However, neither Paul nor Lechmere agree with Mizen on this point. Lechmere testified after Mizen, on day two of the Nichols’ inquest. He was asked directly if he’d told Mizen another policeman was awaiting him in Buck’s Row. This exchange was published in Telegraph on Tuesday, September 4:

A Juryman: “Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?”

Witness: “No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row.”

Robert Paul’s statement in Lloyd’s makes no mention of a policeman waiting in Buck’s Row.

“I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see.”

Paul makes it clear that no policeman was present in Buck’s Row. In fact, he stresses that he believes that the police had not been doing their jobs effectively inferring that the police had not been adequately patrolling the area.

The available information tells us that PC Jonas Mizen was likely not forthcoming about his meeting with Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul on the morning of the Nichols’ murder. As we have noted, Mizen did not relate this meeting to PC Neil at the scene. He also did not inform his superiors – it seems – as PC Neil testified on Saturday, September 1, that he and he alone discovered “Polly” Nichols body. PC Mizen was not called to give testimony in the inquest until Monday, September 3, the day after Robert Paul’s interview appeared in ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’. Paul stated in his interview that he “saw (a policeman) in Church Row, just at the top of Buck's Row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come….” It is reasonable to assume that Paul’s statement either compelled Mizen to share his encounter with Paul and the heretofore unnamed “other man” in Bakers Row, or Mizen had been asked about Paul’s statement by his superiors. Duty rosters would easily have identified the PC on duty “in Church Row, just at the top of Buck's Row” at 3:45am on August 31.

When the murder victim turns out to be one of six, all killed by the same hand - will you have geographical ties to the other five victims too?

Ah, yes. the "geographical" ties. All we actually know is where Lechmere lived and where he worked. The rest is invented out of whole cloth by you and cousin Eddie. A murder that doesn't fit into the timeline of his walking to work? He parked his cart and when off to murder as it was unloaded. Weekend murders? He was visiting his mother, it was "near" his childhood home........please. Be more precise when mentioning these "ties" so we can all laugh together.

Will a man who has walked 35 yards behind you for a number of minutes fail to recognize that he has seen you?

Will you wait for said man when walks upon you, in the process of murder and mutilation? Will you approach said man as he tries to walk BY you? Will you TOUCH said man with the very hands you used - seconds before - to murder and butcher Nichols? Will you ask said man to "come see this woman"? Will you leave the scene with the said man and stay in his company until you find Mizen in Baker's Row? Strange behavior indeed for a man who wishes to not be arrested for murder? Oh, and let's not forget, as mentioned above, after he succeeds in navigating through this business unnamed and unidentified, he shows up at the inquest - uncompelled - just a few days later.

Will you refuse to help prop the victim up when asked to do so, after having examined the victim by touch before that?

I for one would not refuse! HAD I killed her I'd have picked her up, rubbed her bloody body against mine and said, "Look! She's bled all over me! She must be dead...and she's bled on me!" You see, we know it was pitch black in Buck's Row. In your imagined scenario Lechmere killed Nichols, waited for Paul, forced him to see her body, then refused to touch her because it may give things away (?). Yet he passed up the opportunity to explain any blood that may have been on his person....even as he stayed with Paul until they FOUND a PC? Again, brilliant, Fisherman. Simply brilliant.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=John Wheat;390880]

Bury is a country mile ahead of Lechmere.

When it comes to murder spot proximity, you are most probably correct.

[Fisherman]

Fish can repeat ad nauseam that Lechmere is the best suspect by dint of being at the murder site but how many serial killers are actually found at the scene of the crime? And before the advent of automobiles, how many killers would murder on their way to work? As I've said before, if Lechmere didn't have a good reason for being at Buck's Row at that time, that would certainly provide grounds for suspicion, but he did. I've walked the same route to work, week in, week out, for the last five years. If a murder victim turns up on the street one day, there's a greater probability that my route to work has crossed with a crime than there is that I've suddenly become a murderer.

Indeed!

But will you use an alternative name at the subsequent inquest?

Will you stumble over the murder victim within minutes after he/she was killed?

Will you be pointed out by a PC as having lied to him?

When the murder victim turns out to be one of six, all killed by the same hand - will you have geographical ties to the other five victims too?

Will a man who has walked 35 yards behind you for a number of minutes fail to recognize that he has seen you?

Will you refuse to help prop the victim up when asked to do so, after having examined the victim by touch before that?

You see, Harry, much as you try to make it a case of finding the body only, there are numerous other factors that are quite alarming abut the carman. Letīs be discerning enough to admit that, shall we?

[Harry D]

Fish can repeat ad nauseam that Lechmere is the best suspect by dint of being at the murder site but how many serial killers are actually found at the scene of the crime? And before the advent of automobiles, how many killers would murder on their way to work? As I've said before, if Lechmere didn't have a good reason for being at Buck's Row at that time, that would certainly provide grounds for suspicion, but he did. I've walked the same route to work, week in, week out, for the last five years. If a murder victim turns up on the street one day, there's a greater probability that my route to work has crossed with a crime than there is that I've suddenly become a murderer.

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;390861]

So what are you saying here, Abby? That Bury is proven to have been a killer, while Lechmere is not?

Then why is not Bury a country mile ahead of Lechmere?

Bury is a country mile ahead of Lechmere.

[Patrick S]

Very disappointed, after all. I stop back after a busy spring and summer only to find it's still the same old Lechmere foolishness.

So...I guess there's not much happening, eh? No new shawls or diaries or internationally sent documentaries (about a "theory" that doesn't induce fits of laughter)? What IS Any Griffiths up to these days anyway?

Damn! I guess it's back to researching Hitler's grandfather!

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;390862]

Hi Fish
well yes-he was a proven killer-of a woman-using a knife.
and he mutilated her abdomen.
was a person of interest at the time.
was known to abuse women, used prostitutes.
was in the area.
avg joe type.

however, my cons for him is that nothing ties him directly to the case and that IMHO McKenzie was more than likely a ripper victim (and leaning that the torsos are also) which of course would rule him out. for these reasons hes not a country mile ahead of lech, just a bit more-just my opinion.

I think Lech is a viable candidate and you have done an admirable job researching him and defending your position. I didn't even consider him a suspect at all until your work.

and as you know I favor Blotchy and Hutch as suspects A and 1. A with candidates like Bury and Lech a bit more down the line(with candidates like Chapman, Kelly and Koz). But I think, frankly all the candidates are weak-some just less weak than others.

Knife murders and knife violence was the most common type of weapon violence in 1888, as you know. And domestic violence was very common.

So would you rank any Londoner who inflicted damage with a knife on his wife as a better suspect than Lechmere? In spite of how we cannot tie any one of these men to any of the murder spots?