PC Jonas Mizen

[Patrick S]

All that make perfect sense, and in all probability Lechmere was innocent.

But let me ask you three questions:


1-Why did he refuse to help her?!

2-Why he was sure that she was dead, if Paul detected a breath?

3-All that points you have mentioned, don't disprove that Lechmere had the opportunity, he was there, alone, at the time she still was bleeding, was he not?!



The Baron

1. Are you referring to the idea that Cross stated he wouldn't touch her in response to Paul's suggestion that they "give her a prop"? If so, I've no idea why. Personal peculiarity. Squeamishness. Fear she'd wake up and begin screaming. I can't say. I can say that I don't see his refusal to touch Nichols as suspicious. Quite the opposite, in fact. If I were somehow able accept that Cross remained with Nichols rather than simply walking away, that he went so far as to touch Paul's shoulder when he tried to walk on and then invited him to "come see this woman" and that he did all of this as a "bluff", a ruse to place him beyond suspicion, I'd still wonder why he did NOT take the opportunity to move Nichols and have Robert Paul see him do it. I say this because the theory holds that Cross killed and mutilated Nichols in the near total darkness of Buck's Row and then stowed the knife on his person. Now, it can be debated if the killer had blood on his person and if so, how much. But, what cannot be debated is that Cross - had he just killed Nichols - in that short a period of time and with virtually no available light, had no way of knowing if had blood on his clothing or not. Moving Nichols and having Paul see him doing it gives him an explanation for any blood on his coat, hands, etc. An explanation that may become useful if joins Paul in an errand to find a policeman.
2. I think the simple answer is that he did NOT detect breath. Paul did. I'm not sure what's damning here in that we know that Cross was, in fact, correct because Nichols was nearly decapitated. Thus, Paul was incorrect. He saw no movement "as of breathing" because that was impossible. Cross didn't see any such movement because there no such movement to see. This would seem more damning of Paul, don't you think? Trying to convince Cross that Nichols was breathing when we know for a fact that she could NOT have been? I'd add that Cross never stated the he was "sure that she was dead". He said that she was "either drunk or dead" and that "for (his) part" he THOUGHT she was dead. I'd add also that it would seem odd for a man who just killed a woman to tell a police officer that she was dead if that fact was still in doubt.
3. He most certainly DID have the opportunity. And he WAS there alone. These reasons - along with the Lechmere/Cross name issue - are why I took this theory seriously when it gained traction, to some extent, a few years ago. I researched the Nichols' murder and Cross/Lechmere, Mizen, the Neil, Thain, etc. I've written extensively here and elsewhere why that research led me AWAY from the idea that Cross killed Nichols (or was JtR, the Torso Killer, et al).

I've said this before: I find the theory itself attractive. The idea that the man who found (what's thought to have been) the first victim's body was actually her killer (and Jack the Ripper) is, obviously, astounding. It's a wonderful idea and it deserved research and discussion and the book on it can never be entirely closed (that's the nature of acquiring "proof" of anything - one way or the other - some 130 years after events). My own research and reason has led me to believe, quite firmly, that Charles Allen Lechmere/Cross was what he was thought to have been before this all began, a man who found a woman lying on the ground in Buck's Row and who told the first person he met (Robert Paul) after doing so, all about it.

[Fisherman]

1.Quite the opposite, in fact. If I were somehow able accept that Cross remained with Nichols rather than simply walking away, that he went so far as to touch Paul's shoulder when he tried to walk on and then invited him to "come see this woman" and that he did all of this as a "bluff", a ruse to place him beyond suspicion, I'd still wonder why he did NOT take the opportunity to move Nichols and have Robert Paul see him do it. I say this because the theory holds that Cross killed and mutilated Nichols in the near total darkness of Buck's Row and then stowed the knife on his person. Now, it can be debated if the killer had blood on his person and if so, how much. But, what cannot be debated is that Cross - had he just killed Nichols - in that short a period of time and with virtually no available light, had no way of knowing if had blood on his clothing or not. Moving Nichols and having Paul see him doing it gives him an explanation for any blood on his coat, hands, etc. An explanation that may become useful if joins Paul in an errand to find a policeman.
2. I think the simple answer is that he did NOT detect breath. Paul did. I'm not sure what's damning here in that we know that Cross was, in fact, correct because Nichols was nearly decapitated. Thus, Paul was incorrect. He saw no movement "as of breathing" because that was impossible. Cross didn't see any such movement because there no such movement to see. This would seem more damning of Paul, don't you think? Trying to convince Cross that Nichols was breathing when we know for a fact that she could NOT have been? I'd add that Cross never stated the he was "sure that she was dead". He said that she was "either drunk or dead" and that "for (his) part" he THOUGHT she was dead. I'd add also that it would seem odd for a man who just killed a woman to tell a police officer that she was dead if that fact was still in doubt.
3. He most certainly DID have the opportunity. And he WAS there alone. These reasons - along with the Lechmere/Cross name issue - are why I took this theory seriously when it gained traction, to some extent, a few years ago. I researched the Nichols' murder and Cross/Lechmere, Mizen, the Neil, Thain, etc. I've written extensively here and elsewhere why that research led me AWAY from the idea that Cross killed Nichols (or was JtR, the Torso Killer, et al).

I've said this before: I find the theory itself attractive. The idea that the man who found (what's thought to have been) the first victim's body was actually her killer (and Jack the Ripper) is, obviously, astounding. It's a wonderful idea and it deserved research and discussion and the book on it can never be entirely closed (that's the nature of acquiring "proof" of anything - one way or the other - some 130 years after events). My own research and reason has led me to believe, quite firmly, that Charles Allen Lechmere/Cross was what he was thought to have been before this all began, a man who found a woman lying on the ground in Buck's Row and who told the first person he met (Robert Paul) after doing so, all about it.

A few facts:

Regardless of what accusation is directed against somebody, so long as it is not proven, there can always be alternative innocent explanations served up. Which is what is endlessly done in Lechmere´s case.
"Are you referring to the idea that Cross stated he wouldn't touch her in response to Paul's suggestion that they "give her a prop"? If so, I've no idea why. Personal peculiarity. Squeamishness. Fear she'd wake up and begin screaming. I can't say. I can say that I don't see his refusal to touch Nichols as suspicious."
What remains when the fog has cleared is that Charles Lechmere refused to help prop Nichols up, and that is consistent with the suggestion of him being the killer.
You manage to present a number of innocent alternatives, but they cannot clear away the fact that the carman refused to help prop a woman up, and that doing so would have given away that she had had her neck nigh on severed.
If you had been able to disprove that he did this, the case against him had been weakened.
If you had been able to disprove that he was in Bucks Row, alone with the victim as she still bled up until Paul arrived, you would have weakened the case.
If you had been able to disprove that Paul never confessed to having heard Lechmere, you would have weakened the case.
If you had been able to disprove that he disagreed with Mizen about what was said, you would have weakened the case.
If you had been able to disprove that you will normally arrive in Bucks Row from Doveton Street earlier that when Lechmere is on record to have arrived there if you start at the time he said he started, you would have weakened the case.
If yo had been able to disprove that he normally used the name Lechmere in his official contacts, you would have weakened the case.
If you had been able to disprove that his logical working routes would take him right through the killing fields of Whitechapel and Spitalfields, you would have weakened the case.
If you had been able to disprove that Stride died in the midst of the houses where Lechmere spent his youth, you would have weakened the case.
If you had been able to disprove that his mother lived very close by the Stride murder site, you would have weakened the case.
If you had been able to disprove that Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly all seemingly died at removes in time that may well be perfectly consistent with Lechmere being the killer, you would have weakened the case.

But what you are able to to is not to disprove any of the links that form a chain of events that point to Lechmere as a suspect. You are able to suggest that there MAY have been such reasons. It boils down to a "maybe it wasn't him after all, no more than that. You cannot even point to having in any way better explanations to these points than the ones consistent with Lechmere being the killer. It is, for example, LESS likely that a PC will mishear what somebody tells him, than that he will hear it correctly. A lot more than fifty per cent of what we are told is interpreted in the correct way, and not in the wrong way. A lot less than fifty per cent of testifying PC:s lie in court.

That is all there is. The chain of evidence is there, firmly in place. When you can take a link away, let me know.

[Patrick S]

What remains when the fog has cleared is that Charles Lechmere refused to help prop Nichols up, and that is consistent with the suggestion of him being the killer.
You manage to present a number of innocent alternatives, but they cannot clear away the fact that the carman refused to help prop a woman up, and that doing so would have given away that she had had her neck nigh on severed.

We've been over this many times. You contend that he refused to move Nichols because doing so would have revealed her injuries. So, clearly you believe that Cross did not want Paul to discover Nichols' injuries. Yet we know he waited by Nichols' body for Paul to arrive. Paul tried to pass, Cross didn't let him. He touched his shoulder and asked him to "come see". Hard to reconcile those actions with someone intent on keeping his victim's injuries secret. Paul didn't notice Nichols' BODY, much less her injuries. Yet, Cross, intent on preventing Paul from noticing her injuries, stops him on the street, and asks him to come have a look at her. The fact of the matter is that for any of this to make a even a modicum of sense, we must fit what we know of his actions with the motivations you've contrived for him. Motivations that make no sense, even if he HAD killed Nichols.

The only thing I'd mention beyond what's above (bold) is this: It's absurd to suggest that I - or anyone else for that matter - must "disprove" anything related to Lechmere lest it be accepted as established fact that he was Jack the Ripper. By this metric anyone can suggest anything, however far-fetched (and, as you know, I and most others view this business you've cooked up and quite far-fetched) and, unless it's disproved after 130 years, well then it was most likely so.

[drstrange169]

>>But let me ask you three questions:

>>1-Why did he refuse to help her?!

>>2-Why he was sure that she was dead, if Paul detected a breath?

>>3-All that points you have mentioned, don't disprove that Lechmere had the opportunity, he was there, alone, at the time she still >>was bleeding, was he not?!


Hello Baron,

Point one: We don't know, nobody does. If he was the killer the reason isn't hard to guess at. If he wasn't the killer the reason is equally easy to guess at. Both have logical and reasonable answers.

Point two: Is easy to answer and is definitive, there is no record of him claiming to be sure Mrs Nichols was dead.

Point three: Your sentence is based on assumptions, not facts, we simply do not know.

We do not know whether Xmere had opportunity, that would depend on his timing and that is a much debated subject. Much debated, because of the fact that none of us know his timing, despite some alleging they do.

We do not know whether Xmere was alone. We do not know, if Xmere wasn't the killer, whether the real killer was lurking in the shadows or hightailing around the corner.

We do know whether Mrs Nichols was still bleeding when the two men examined her. She probably was, but we don't know for sure. What is key, is that neither man claimed to have seen any blood or have left any bloody footprints.

[drstrange169]

Quick revision.

"We do know whether Mrs Nichols was still bleeding when the two men examined her. She probably was ..."

On reflection, I retract the "probably was".

[Fisherman]

The only thing I'd mention beyond what's above (bold) is this: It's absurd to suggest that I - or anyone else for that matter - must "disprove" anything related to Lechmere lest it be accepted as established fact that he was Jack the Ripper. By this metric anyone can suggest anything, however far-fetched (and, as you know, I and most others view this business you've cooked up and quite far-fetched) and, unless it's disproved after 130 years, well then it was most likely so.

Nobody is obliged to disprove anything at all about Charles Lechmere. The idea that anybody should have to disprove his guilt would be an odd suggestion since his guilt has not been proven.
What can be proven is that there is a chain of events that taken together are in line with a SUGGESTION that Lechmere was guilty, and my post was written to point out that no matter how many time alternative innocent explanations are offered to each and every link in that chain, it still holds fast.

Since you say that these links are "far-fetched", I would say that this is nothing but a hollow effort on your behalf to try and disarm them. James Scobie was clear in saying that they make for a case where the jury would not like the defendant. That is on account of how any jury would see that these links point a finger in Lechmere´s direction. If the links had been "far-fetched", this would not happen.

To point out how all of this works, let's use, say, Druitt, as a suspect. And let's apply your ideology to his case:

It was said that his own family suspected him.

Answer: MacNaghten may have lied or gotten it wrong. The family may have gotten it wrong. It could have been a hysterical member of the family who said it.

He drowned himself after the Kelly deed.

Answer: He could have had a thousand other reasons.

That's Druitt done! But stop - let's add a few phony suggestions:

A knife was found on his person.

Answer: Many people had knives.

He was the guy who "found" Chapman.

Answer: Somebody had to.

In fact, he "found" all the victims.

Answer: Like I said, somebody had to.

He was seen by his landlady putting half a kidney in a box together with a letter.

Answer: It could have been a spleen. And why would he not write letters, people DID back then.

Can you see what I am getting at? There is no stopping such a take on things. Once one decides to serve up an alternative innocent explanation to every pointer to possible guilt on Druitts behalf, that jar is never filled. There is no boundary where it cannot be done. The only boundary there is, is the silliness boundary: We can see that somewhere along the line, although where that somewhere is situated is blurry, the defense will become useless and silly.

I would not say that we are as far gone with Lechmere as in the Druitt example, but we (reads "you") are well under way. Charles Lechmere´s own story is a story a jury would not like. His is a case that a QC believes could be taken to court, and unless the carman had explanations for the links in that chain, he would run the risk of being convicted.

That is not a case built on far-fetched ideas and accusations. It is a sound case, and one that is stronger factwise than any other case that can be made against any other suspect.

Sorry, but there you are. You, and "most others" ...

[Fisherman]

Quick revision.

"We do know whether Mrs Nichols was still bleeding when the two men examined her. She probably was ..."

On reflection, I retract the "probably was".

Do you agree that Nichols had probably received the wounds that killed her at the stage when the carmen examined her?

Do you agree that Neil said that he saw blood oozing/running (he used both words) from her neck as he found her, some minutes AFTER the Carmens examination?

If so, why would it not be probable in the extreme that she bled as the carmen were with her?

Fot that not to be probable, is it not true that one must accept that either Neil was wrong and/or that Nichols had not received the wounds that killed her when the carmen examined her? Or that she bled as shew was cut, then stopped bleeding during the Carmens examination, only to then proceed to bleed again afterwards.

Or are you simply taking away the "probably", saying that she WAS bleeding?

[Patrick S]

Nobody is obliged to disprove anything at all about Charles Lechmere. The idea that anybody should have to disprove his guilt would be an odd suggestion since his guilt has not been proven.
What can be proven is that there is a chain of events that taken together are in line with a SUGGESTION that Lechmere was guilty, and my post was written to point out that no matter how many time alternative innocent explanations are offered to each and every link in that chain, it still holds fast.

Since you say that these links are "far-fetched", I would say that this is nothing but a hollow effort on your behalf to try and disarm them. James Scobie was clear in saying that they make for a case where the jury would not like the defendant. That is on account of how any jury would see that these links point a finger in Lechmere´s direction. If the links had been "far-fetched", this would not happen.

To point out how all of this works, let's use, say, Druitt, as a suspect. And let's apply your ideology to his case:

It was said that his own family suspected him.

Answer: MacNaghten may have lied or gotten it wrong. The family may have gotten it wrong. It could have been a hysterical member of the family who said it.

He drowned himself after the Kelly deed.

Answer: He could have had a thousand other reasons.

That's Druitt done! But stop - let's add a few phony suggestions:

A knife was found on his person.

Answer: Many people had knives.

He was the guy who "found" Chapman.

Answer: Somebody had to.

In fact, he "found" all the victims.

Answer: Like I said, somebody had to.

He was seen by his landlady putting half a kidney in a box together with a letter.

Answer: It could have been a spleen. And why would he not write letters, people DID back then.

Can you see what I am getting at? There is no stopping such a take on things. Once one decides to serve up an alternative innocent explanation to every pointer to possible guilt on Druitts behalf, that jar is never filled. There is no boundary where it cannot be done. The only boundary there is, is the silliness boundary: We can see that somewhere along the line, although where that somewhere is situated is blurry, the defense will become useless and silly.

I would not say that we are as far gone with Lechmere as in the Druitt example, but we (reads "you") are well under way. Charles Lechmere´s own story is a story a jury would not like. His is a case that a QC believes could be taken to court, and unless the carman had explanations for the links in that chain, he would run the risk of being convicted.

That is not a case built on far-fetched ideas and accusations. It is a sound case, and one that is stronger factwise than any other case that can be made against any other suspect.

Sorry, but there you are. You, and "most others" ...

Fair enough. You're certainly entitled to voice your perspective here, there, everywhere. I, of course, am free to express mine. Others should do the same, of course. And we both know we've been over this exact ground again and again. So, I'll concede I've nothing new to add to what you've written here aside from saying simply that I disagree. In my view, as I've said again and again, your chain of evidence and events requires - in my view - liberal measures of interpretation, supposition, assumed motivations, etc. That is not to say, however, that you aren't correct in saying that a prospective case made against Cross/Lechmere may be stronger than one made against any other suspect. However, I don't view that as a particularly high bar reach. In fact, I don't believe a credible case can be made against any proposed "suspect". I do believe that the police did a disservice in not fully investigating Cross/Lechmere (I am of the opinion that they did not because we simply have no evidence that they did). And that has left the door open for the types of questions you have, fairly, I think, asked. Of course, if identical circumstances were to occur today, the individual who found the body would, I think, face far more official scrutiny and investigation than did Cross/Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

Fair enough. You're certainly entitled to voice your perspective here, there, everywhere. I, of course, am free to express mine. Others should do the same, of course. And we both know we've been over this exact ground again and again.

So why not say just that - that you and I disagree, instead of referring to "most others", as if there was some sort of universal understanding that I am wrong and you right? I never cared much for that kind of argumentation. I would like to refer you to the comments out on the net regarding our documentary, where many, many viewers, seasoned crime buffs and newbies alike express the view that the Ripper has at long last been found. That puts another slant on matters.

So, I'll concede I've nothing new to add to what you've written here aside from saying simply that I disagree. In my view, as I've said again and again, your chain of evidence and events requires - in my view - liberal measures of interpretation, supposition, assumed motivations, etc.

Before a suspect can be positively identified and proven to be the culprit, interpretation, supposition and assumed motivations are what we have. If one was not allowed to use those tools, there would be no Ripperology. And I fail to see that the measures used re Lechmere would be in any way MORE liberal than what is done visavi any other suspect. On the contrary - all the rest of the suspects call for much more supposition (he must have been at the site, for example) than Lechmere does. The evidence surrounding his case is hard, actual evidence, not lofty speculations the way scenarios with Kosminski, Druitt, Chapman, Levy, Bury et al in the killers role. With them, we cannot look at how they behaved at a murder site, because we cannot put them on any of them. With Lechmere, we can - and what turns up is not as kosher as one would have wanted to claim innocence on his behalf.

That is not to say, however, that you aren't correct in saying that a prospective case made against Cross/Lechmere may be stronger than one made against any other suspect. However, I don't view that as a particularly high bar reach. In fact, I don't believe a credible case can be made against any proposed "suspect".

That's fair enough. It is a question of what kind of evidence we require to believe that a fair case has been made, and it is everybody choice to sort the bar in that division. On the torso/Ripper threads, I am told that both killers
Taking out uteri
Taking out hearts
Taking away abdominal walls
Stealing rings
Cutting from sternum to pubes
Being called skilled by medicos
Cutting out colon sections
...does not amount to any sort of substance to point to a similar identity. I disagree 100 per cent, I find the statement ridiculous and unworthy of logical thinking - but I cannot and will not disallow for sticking to the view. I point out why I believe it to be odd in the extreme, but that's all.

I do believe that the police did a disservice in not fully investigating Cross/Lechmere (I am of the opinion that they did not because we simply have no evidence that they did). And that has left the door open for the types of questions you have, fairly, I think, asked. Of course, if identical circumstances were to occur today, the individual who found the body would, I think, face far more official scrutiny and investigation than did Cross/Lechmere.

I agree totally, as you know, and I press the view that this owes more or less totally to the lacking insights and prejudiced perception of the police, medicos and society on the whole back in 1888. Which is why I also agree totally with you that if, as I believe, Charles Cross was woefully overlooked as a potential suspect, this would not have happened today. Which is not to say that the police have not served up some whoppers throughout. But overall, procedure is better beyond comparison today and we know so much more about serial killers than the victorians did.
Imagine them hearing Robert Ressler telling them that the archaic serial killer is a man in his thirties, with a wife and family and a long-term, appreciated employee! They would have thrown Ressler out double quick, with a tin foil hat on his head.

We live in another world altogether.

[drstrange169]

>>Do you agree that Nichols had probably received the wounds that killed her at the stage when the carmen examined her?<<

I don't know for certain, nobody does.

It my favoured theory, but I don't exclude the possibility at least some wounds were inflicted after they left. Such a theory explains the lack of blood sighted and transferred by the pair and also explains the oozing blood sighted by PC Neil.


>>Do you agree that Neil said that he saw blood oozing/running (he used both words) from her neck as he found her, some minutes AFTER the Carmens examination?<<

So the newspapers said. I don't recall a direct quote from Neil as to his exact words.


>>If so, why would it not be probable in the extreme that she bled as the carmen were with her?

Fot that not to be probable, is it not true that one must accept that either Neil was wrong and/or that Nichols had not received the wounds that killed her when the carmen examined her? Or that she bled as shew was cut, then stopped bleeding during the Carmens examination, only to then proceed to bleed again afterwards.<<

Or are you simply taking away the "probably", saying that she WAS bleeding?<<

See my first answer.

[Snidery_Mark]

To perhaps add a lighter note to proceedings, if I may?...

I've read a lot of this site and it seems quite clear to me that for every suggestion made in favour of Mr So-and-so being Jack the Ripper there are inevitably moreso responses proffering alternate views to reject the aforesaid suggestion - some of them are quite vehement, some are downright nasty. Most of the posters here already seem to have their preferred suspect and will refute other suggestions merely for the sake of argument. But it does make for good reading!

My personal view and I must stress personal is that Jack the Ripper was this Lechmere-cum-Cross bloke. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed and I expect to be shot down in flames, but I think this Xmere bloke dunnit. Here's why I think he did it (apart from seeing that doco which made me wanna research the subject matter and I am not the sleuth many here are).

Prior to seeing the documentary on Lechmere, I didn't think Jack the Ripper was a member of royalty or a doctor or Deeming or that bloke whose wife poisoned him when he got home to the US. There was another piece on telly a few years back saying it was the coroner's apprentice - and I couldn't see it as being him either. When I saw the Lechmere doco it sounded very convincing and none of the arguments I've seen herewithout have led me to believe otherwise.

To start with, Lechmere was in the meat deliver section of Pickford's where I suppose his daily work clobber would be a bloody apron (possibly leather) covered in bits of things that come from meat delivering. He was a local and had been for a while so knew the area well and probably the local bobby's beat. (He probably delivered meat to these ladies in the Whitechapel area and this is how they knew him and how he gained their confidence.) If I were a carman for Pickford's and lived in Doveton Street and walked to work every day, I'm pretty sure it'd become a routine that I was very familiar with - get up at the same time, leave home at the same time, go the same way every day (with maybe the one or two deviations to liven things up a bit), get to work at the same time, leave work at the same time, home at the same time, tea at the same time... Just seems like a "normal" thing to do - today or back in 1888, it's what we working class types do. (And who hasn't had the urge to beef up the boring existence with a bit of murder and mayhem, eh? Shame they didn't have Game of Thrones or Call of Duty back then - none of this would have occurred.)

My belief is that he came across Nichols by chance and decided, "Ah, well, I have my trusty 6" thin pointed knife handy, might just slice up this lady for a lark.", slices her throat good and proper and lies her down so she don't spurt all over the place and hears footsteps. "Hark", he says to 'imself, "Hoos this then?" Loping along the street comes young Bob Paul, the local ne'er-do-well who's a few buns short of a baker's dozen, sees our man Chucky lurking over the tarpaulin-like-woman. "C'mon over 'ere and sees wot I done... I mean 'ave a gander at this bird over 'ere, squire", says Lechcross. Paul checks her hands and thinks, "By crikey she's cold and appears to have been 'ere for some time, which will totally be contradicted by PC Neil later who says she was warm to touch, innit." He then kicks the woman and declares, "Look she moved! I think she's still alive!" To which Xlech says, "Ha! Good one, I get it, dead Polly! Beautiful plumage!" … And they laughed...

….." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle.

I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one 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, 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."..... (from Robert Paul's interview)


There's the point that Paul didn't even mention that Crossmere even came with him to find a plod - but this must have been the case because Mizen identifies Jack the Lechmere as the person who advises him of Polly's whereabouts in Bucks Row..

After this near miss, I think Lechmere got a taste for it - an adrenaline rush - sliced up a few more with his K-Tel boning knife and got away with it.

I don't think it takes anything out of the ordinary to be a killer excepting the fact the perpetrator would have little or no conscience for committing such atrocities. We all are pretty much capable of being Jack the Ripper barring the impediment of age and the fact that we don't go around gutting innocent people...

Still, though, he dunnit, I reckon - weren't some looney with a Polish sounding name who dies in the nut-house later - or some toff who Virginia Woolf's himself... nah... just your local meat carter dude with a penchant for and a numbed insensitivity toward blood.

That's my guess, anyway.

[drstrange169]

>> Here's why I think he did it (apart from seeing that doco which made me wanna research the subject matter and I am not the sleuth many here are).<<

Welcome Mark,

It doesn't matter how you were attracted to the field, most of us come via dubious stories. The wealth of information available will soon get you up to speed.


>>Most of the posters here already seem to have their preferred suspect ...<<

There is a very sizable section of us who are suspect free. We are fascinated by the people and information uncovered, rather than pinning the crime on someone.


>>To start with, Lechmere was in the meat deliver section of Pickford's where I suppose his daily work clobber would be a bloody apron (possibly leather) covered in bits of things that come from meat delivering. <<

One of the dodgy bits of the doco.

There is no evidence that Xmere carried meat and even if he did, meat carried by Pickfords was wrapped in cloth and contained in massive baskets, which were pre-loaded onto Pickfords carts by railway porters. Cross, as a company carman, could be delivering anything from bicycles to bananas.


>> (He probably delivered meat to these ladies in the Whitechapel area and this is how they knew him and how he gained their confidence.)<<

Pickfords were bulk deliverers, they didn't tend to deliver to individuals.


>>After this near miss, I think Lechmere got a taste for it - an adrenaline rush - sliced up a few more with his K-Tel boning knife and got away with it.<<

Lechmerites will tell you that they believe Xmere was dicing and slicing (literally) women for donkey's years before Mrs Nichols.

[Sam Flynn]

To start with, Lechmere was in the meat deliver section of Pickford's where I suppose his daily work clobber would be a bloody apron (possibly leather) covered in bits of things that come from meat delivering.

Hello Mark

I'm not sure that it's been determined that Cross specialised in delivering meat and, even if he did, it's unlikely that he'd have had a bloody apron. I've delivered meat myself, and it's usually well-drained by the time the delivery boys/men get their hands on it; it's not as if it goes straight from the killing-pen to the delivery cart. (Speaking for myself, I didn't have to wear an apron at all.) And that's assuming the meat wasn't packaged, usually by someone else, ready for delivery.

Besides, if the Ripper was ever seen by witnesses - and there's a good chance that he was on at least two or three occasions - then he wasn't wearing an apron, and it strikes me as a bit odd that a delivery-man would wander about the streets (minus his cart) wearing his apron in any case. The idea that Cross might have used his apron as a handy excuse doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, whichever way we look at it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. What can be proven is that there is a chain of events that taken together are in line with a SUGGESTION that Lechmere was guilty, and my post was written to point out that no matter how many time alternative innocent explanations are offered to each and every link in that chain, it still holds fast.

I think that the point is that if there were no plausible alternative innocent explanations then the chain linking Lechmere to the murders would be strengthened to near unbreakability but if we have them they need to be spoken and weighed up. After all, every single point might have a perfectly innocent explanation (or several explanations) or none.

You won’t be surprised that I’ve never seen suspicion in Lechmere not wanting to prop up Nichols. Yes we can mention squeamishness as Pat has but we can’t really back that up as it’s just a suggestion (however reasonable.) But the fact that Lechmere waited for Paul to arrive and then called him over suggests that Lech had no qualms about allowing Paul to discover that Nichols had had her throat cut. If, as has been suggested, Lechmere made the conscious decision not to walk away to safety but to ‘brazen it out’ then he would have expected as a reasonable possibility that Paul might have wanted to check the body for life risking Polly’s injuries being discovered. Additionally, if when he refused to assist Paul, Paul might have attempted to move Polly without his help. I think that this has to weaken on balance the suggestion that Lechmere refused to help prop up Polly for sinister reasons. Imo of course.

[Harry D]

How did Lechmere refuse to help Nichols? As in trying to pick her up?