Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Good post Trevor, but I thought I'd just remind us that this was only an inquest held in a room in a school for poor boys - a sensational trial it certainly wasn't. With that in mind, would the protocols adhering to a criminal trial necessarily have been applied to their fullest extent? Would the authorities have really cared if a mere witness used his "work name" in this context? Would they even have thought of asking a witness whether he was giving his real name? Would it have even occurred to Cross to inform them otherwise?
    Sam

    They might have if the statement taken from him was in the name Lechmere and he is sworn in as Cross.
    Those are questions we don't have the answers to, but we know that the coroner didnt show any cause for concern when Cross was giving his testimony, nor was their cause for concern with the police who were investigating the murder. So where does Fish come up with his sinister theory surrounding the two names

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      If he’d been arrested after the Eddowes murder for example it would have been difficult/impossible for him to claim when questioned about Nichols that he was nowhere near Buck’s Row as it was on his route to work.
      A pertinent observation, HS.

      He'd have needed to avoid like the plague being connected with any of his subsequent murder scenes, after his very public appearance in Buck's Row, yet he supposedly chose to kill in location after location, all of which could have been associated, in one way or another, with his known movements, if the police had only been given a reason to look at him a bit more closely. And according to Fish, Lechmere himself gave them several reasons, right near the start of his killing career!

      I will never grasp the logic of a serial killer doing this, nor the logic of a suspectologist proposing it.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post
        A pertinent observation, HS.

        He'd have needed to avoid like the plague being connected with any of his subsequent murder scenes, after his very public appearance in Buck's Row, yet he supposedly chose to kill in location after location, all of which could have been associated, in one way or another, with his known movements, if the police had only been given a reason to look at him a bit more closely. And according to Fish, Lechmere himself gave them several reasons, right near the start of his killing career!

        I will never grasp the logic of a serial killer doing this, nor the logic of a suspectologist proposing it.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        Lechmere appears to keep putting his foot in it Caz.
        Regards

        Herlock






        "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

        Comment


        • Certain though I am that the posts on here are all examples of fair judgment, deep thinking and extensive knowledge, I can only bow to them in an unread state - I´m off to Iceland early tomorrow for a week´s flyfishing, and so I must abstain from soaking up the wisdom on offer.

          Until the next time!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            Certain though I am that the posts on here are all examples of fair judgment, deep thinking and extensive knowledge, I can only bow to them in an unread state - I´m off to Iceland early tomorrow for a week´s flyfishing, and so I must abstain from soaking up the wisdom on offer.

            Until the next time!
            Hope you have permission from the shop manager !

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              Hope you have permission from the shop manager !
              In case Fisherman doesn't know, "Iceland" is a chain of shops in Britain which serves the higher-end of the frozen food market. Their Cheesy Potato Pockets are, I'm reliably informed, a regular feature on the Queen's breakfast tray.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                In case Fisherman doesn't know, "Iceland" is a chain of shops in Britain which serves the higher-end of the frozen food market. Their Cheesy Potato Pockets are, I'm reliably informed, a regular feature on the Queen's breakfast tray.
                I always suspected that you were well connected Gareth
                Regards

                Herlock






                "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                Comment


                • Why didn’t Lechmere the Ripper, on hearing Paul approaching and having decided to stick around, throw the knife over a wall or just into the shadows? This would have relieved him of the need to come up with a ‘Mizen Scam.’ There was no DNA at the time and as long as the knife didn’t have ‘property of C.A. Lechmere’ engraved on it there’s no way that it could have been connected to him (Caz will recognise Wallace case thinking here ) So what would have been the worst that the police could have said when the knife was discovered half an hour or an hour or more after Lechmere had long gone? They might easily have said “why would the killer have discarded his knife?” For which the suggested explaination would have been “the killer heard Lechmere approaching and in panic he rid himself of the murder weapon in case Lechmere raised the alarm and found himself confronted with a Constable or two.”

                  If Lechmere had the presence of mind and a cool enough head to stick around at the crime scene and then scam his way past a Constable with another witness in tow why didn’t he have the presence of mind to dump the knife and avoid the risk?
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                  Comment


                  • Hi HS,

                    If Lechmere had walked calmly away from the scene [guilty or innocent] before Robert Paul arrived, we could now have a situation whereby nobody would ever have heard of Lechmere or Cross, and it would be Paul squeezed into the ripper's boots.

                    Paul would have been entirely on his own with Nichols. He'd have been on the late side for work if he spent a similar amount of time with her and then went to tell the nearest copper, who continued knocking up for a bit before going off to attend the scene. Arguably Paul would have hurried on his way without giving any personal details, then, on hearing that the woman had been foully murdered, he'd have had a go at the copper in the newspaper for his lack of urgency and done his "all coppers are bar stewards" bit.

                    And then - this is the biggy - he'd have avoided the authorities and the police would have tracked him down, questioned his version of events, as told to the newspaper, and made him attend the inquest.

                    Chapman's murder in Hanbury Street would only have made things worse for Paul in the 21st century.

                    So by staying put and ostensibly doing his duty, it looks like Lechmere saved Paul from the fate of becoming a 21st century suspect instead of himself. How unselfish of Lechmere if he was indeed the ripper, when he could so easily have left Paul - the next man to come along - to carry the can, by simply walking calmly away when he first heard the footsteps. He could even have dropped the murder weapon by the body if he'd really wanted to put the knife into this innocent stranger and save his own bacon.

                    Lechmere wasn't so smart after all, was he?

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Dump the knife?

                      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                      Why didn’t Lechmere the Ripper, on hearing Paul approaching and having decided to stick around, throw the knife over a wall or just into the shadows? This would have relieved him of the need to come up with a ‘Mizen Scam.’ There was no DNA at the time and as long as the knife didn’t have ‘property of C.A. Lechmere’ engraved on it there’s no way that it could have been connected to him (Caz will recognise Wallace case thinking here ) So what would have been the worst that the police could have said when the knife was discovered half an hour or an hour or more after Lechmere had long gone? They might easily have said “why would the killer have discarded his knife?” For which the suggested explaination would have been “the killer heard Lechmere approaching and in panic he rid himself of the murder weapon in case Lechmere raised the alarm and found himself confronted with a Constable or two.”

                      If Lechmere had the presence of mind and a cool enough head to stick around at the crime scene and then scam his way past a Constable with another witness in tow why didn’t he have the presence of mind to dump the knife and avoid the risk?
                      Hi HS, perhaps the answer is in your question/s, what if the knife could have been identified as Lechmere's, could be that it was gifted to him by a relative or possibly an employer and, possibly either unique in design ( and therfore also held sentimental value, so he wouldn't want to dump it) it's a possibility that it could be associated with him, I'd imagine it could have been a good quality knife as it seems to have been fairly strong and well looked after, generally, if a knife is a quality one, it possibly means it's expensive and therfore, looked after.
                      So, if that's the case, he wouldn't want to just dump it, after all
                      What would he do for his next victim (Chapman), he'd have to buy a new knife which would be difficult as he probably couldn't afford another quality one?
                      Also, as he was obviously a nutter (if he was in fact the Ripper), he might well have reasoned that his best defence was to keep the knife and, should things go south and Paul showed any sign of suspecting him, he could quickly silence him too?
                      It has also just occured to me that his knife, if a special or sentimental one, might well have been notched per kill as the gun slingers of the old west would do to the grip scales of their Colt 45's after they'd gunned down someone at high noon, who's to say with a nutter?
                      Possibly, as a sexual thing too, he might have seen it as an extension of his penis as he penetrates the unfortunates bodies, who knows with these perverts?
                      Then again, perhaps there was no knife - he might have been just walking to work��
                      Last edited by Rob1n; 08-16-2018, 01:16 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Rob1n View Post
                        Hi HS, perhaps the answer is in your question/s, what if the knife could have been identified as Lechmere's, could be that it was gifted to him by a relative or possibly an employer and, possibly either unique in design ( and therfore also held sentimental value, so he wouldn't want to dump it) it's a possibility that it could be associated with him, I'd imagine it could have been a good quality knife as it seems to have been fairly strong and well looked after, generally, if a knife is a quality one, it possibly means it's expensive and therfore, looked after.
                        So, if that's the case, he wouldn't want to just dump it, after all
                        What would he do for his next victim (Chapman), he'd have to buy a new knife which would be difficult as he probably couldn't afford another quality one?
                        Also, as he was obviously a nutter (if he was in fact the Ripper), he might well have reasoned that his best defence was to keep the knife and, should things go south and Paul showed any sign of suspecting him, he could quickly silence him too?
                        It has also just occured to me that his knife, if a special or sentimental one, might well have been notched per kill as the gun slingers of the old west would do to the grip scales of their Colt 45's after they'd gunned down someone at high noon, who's to say with a nutter?
                        Possibly, as a sexual thing too, he might have seen it as an extension of his penis as he penetrates the unfortunates bodies, who knows with these perverts?
                        Then again, perhaps there was no knife - he might have been just walking to work��
                        Good points RobIn.

                        For me though it would have been a massive and unnecessary risk to have used a knife that could have been connected to him. One that he couldn’t discard if he found himself in a difficult situation. We’ve no way of knowing though of course and it’s not impossible that the knife might have had some significance for him but I just feel it likelier that the killer, even though risks undoubtedly existed, had a sense of self-preservation which would have overridden other considerations. Just my opinion of course.
                        Regards

                        Herlock






                        "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                        Comment


                        • Of course you are correct Herlock, he'd be mad to use a knife that could be traced back to him. About the self preservation, to a degree yes, but one thing that always puzzled me was, how on Earth did he expect to get away from the Mitre square job, he killed her, cut her up and, got away with possibly only seconds to spare and, all in the dark! He didn't seem to have any sense of self preservation there, the odds were heavily stacked against him there.I kinda think he was a big risk taker or wanted to be caught, possibly he was terminally ill? Knowing he had a short time left perhaps it didn't matter to him, perhaps this is why he suddenly stopped? All supposition I'm affraid, God I wish someone would tell us who it was, I'm pretty sure the Police or, the authorities knew, why would they want to jold it from us- very frustrating but, then again we wouldn't be here to discuss it would we? And,that wouldn't do!
                          Last edited by Rob1n; 08-16-2018, 08:18 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Of course, if he was terminally ill, it couldn't have been Lechmere!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Rob1n View Post
                              Of course you are correct Herlock, he'd be mad to use a knife that could be traced back to him. About the self preservation, to a degree yes, but one thing that always puzzled me was, how on Earth did he expect to get away from the Mitre square job, he killed her, cut her up and, got away with possibly only seconds to spare and, all in the dark! He didn't seem to have any sense of self preservation there, the odds were heavily stacked against him there.I kinda think he was a big risk taker or wanted to be caught, possibly he was terminally ill? Knowing he had a short time left perhaps it didn't matter to him, perhaps this is why he suddenly stopped? All supposition I'm affraid, God I wish someone would tell us who it was, I'm pretty sure the Police or, the authorities knew, why would they want to jold it from us- very frustrating but, then again we wouldn't be here to discuss it would we? And,that wouldn't do!
                              I know what you mean RobIn. I’m very rusty on timings and details these days but Mitre Square was definitely ‘cutting it fine.’ I know that it’s been suggested many times that the killer might have been aware of police patrol times or maybe Catherine Eddowes told him “don’t worry we won’t be disturbed for ages yet” and he felt confident that from experience she would know. Or maybe he got the wrong time (in all likelihood not owning a watch) which left him thinking that there was a good 10 minutes until the Constable arrived and he only finished up and missed him by luck?

                              It’s not impossible that the killer might have had a life-threatening illness (or maybe even just believed that he had) which gave him a ‘so what if I get caught’ attitude. We know that Lechmere had a long life but it’s not impossible that he was a kind of manic hypercondriac who thought that his days were numbered. It’s something that we can’t assume though.

                              On of the problems with timings for me is the murder of Annie Chapman. I think that’s it’s reasonable to say that the vast majority of working men had to be at work at the same time every day. Therefore it’s reasonable to assume that Lechmere’s start time was 4am. If memory serves I think Fish goes for 4.30ish as the time of her death (I think as per one of the doctors.) This does contradict Long and Cadosch though. Even if we say between 4.30 and 5.30 it’s still after the time that we would expect Lechmere to have been at work. Not conclusive of course but a doubt that we have to make an assumption to overcome.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                I know what you mean RobIn. I’m very rusty on timings and details these days but Mitre Square was definitely ‘cutting it fine.’ I know that it’s been suggested many times that the killer might have been aware of police patrol times or maybe Catherine Eddowes told him “don’t worry we won’t be disturbed for ages yet” and he felt confident that from experience she would know. Or maybe he got the wrong time (in all likelihood not owning a watch) which left him thinking that there was a good 10 minutes until the Constable arrived and he only finished up and missed him by luck?

                                It’s not impossible that the killer might have had a life-threatening illness (or maybe even just believed that he had) which gave him a ‘so what if I get caught’ attitude. We know that Lechmere had a long life but it’s not impossible that he was a kind of manic hypercondriac who thought that his days were numbered. It’s something that we can’t assume though.

                                On of the problems with timings for me is the murder of Annie Chapman. I think that’s it’s reasonable to say that the vast majority of working men had to be at work at the same time every day. Therefore it’s reasonable to assume that Lechmere’s start time was 4am. If memory serves I think Fish goes for 4.30ish as the time of her death (I think as per one of the doctors.) This does contradict Long and Cadosch though. Even if we say between 4.30 and 5.30 it’s still after the time that we would expect Lechmere to have been at work. Not conclusive of course but a doubt that we have to make an assumption to overcome.
                                Witnesses eh! The Chapman timings seem very strange, I'm inclined to believe Cadosch because if Annie was dead at 04:30 ish why at 05:25 ish would someone be heard to say "no" and fall against the fence with a body already there ?
                                For it to be Lechmere, he'd have been, as you suggest, late for work.
                                Same problem with Kelly, she's murdered what, 2 -3 in the morning (can't remember the given times) then seen around 8 - 9 drunk or hungover near the Brittania I think? Witnesses again.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X