Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Patrick S]

He was asked to assess the case for the prosecution and found it excellent. I´m sure though, that if you had been around to tell him that you don´t think Lechmere did it, he would have changed his mind pronto.

Likely he would. Clearly there's some very basic information that he's not been provided. Then again... it really is too bad haven't entered into these kinds of debates for fifty-five years. Think of the fun you'd have!

[Patrick S]

He does not join any list in respect of evidence viability - on that score, he is alone, actually.

But we can go on saying this forever: Best suspect, no suspect, best suspect, no suspect...

It is a kind of debate that I abandoned fiftyfive years ago, and I am not about to reenter it now.

You are welcome to your misgivings. In the end, they will not matter a iot.

Will! Will not. Will! Will not. Will! Will not.Will!....

That's fine. Just one thing. Uh... you abandoned this kind of debate fifty-five years ago? So... the 17,000 posts on these boards... Those are mostly... what? You're favorite recipes and song lyrics? I know its fun to make outrageous claims... but come on.

[caz]

Now, it can of course be discussed whether he sat like this, whether he moved like this or that, whether he stooped down, whether the light was enough, whether he looked to his left and so on in eternity.

But it cannot be discussed whether he could see the body if the positions of him and Chapman were like in my drawing.

And basically, that is all this thread has ever been about - does the props involved in the scene allow for him having not been able to see Chapman? The answer to that question is yes.

Actually, Fish, no. This thread is called 'Lechmere was Jack the Ripper' - not 'Richardson may have missed Chapman's body at 4.45am, allowing for Lechmere to have ripped her up on his way to work before 4am'.

In fact, Hanbury Street hardly featured until I posted the following on page 15 - #146:

I think a point to make here is that a guilty Lechmere could have had no idea that the police did not find this of interest, and were not going to keep an eye on him and his movements over the coming days, in case any other 'anomalies' arose in connection with this witness. After all, he had seen the victim but had then shown an apparent unawareness of her extreme and fatal injuries, when reporting the matter to PC Mizen and falsely claiming another PC wanted his assistance.

How could he have dared do the same and more just days later, in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, when once again on his way to work, with the police possibly watching his movements on account of his having demonstrably lied not once but twice, to Mizen on the morning of the murder and then at the inquest - not to mention that a simple discreet enquiry at Pickfords would have led to his rather sudden change of name being discovered?

I presume you would say he 'dared' to do this because he was a psychopath, who couldn't grasp the concept of being caught, even within days of having lied to PC Mizen, lied again at the inquest and having given a surname to the authorities, which none of his associates would recognise him by.

Then, on page 17 - #164, Herlock posted this:

One 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.

The above triggered a response from you on page 18 - #173, concerning your touching faith in the ability of a Victorian doctor to determine TOD in a case like Chapman's [when it couldn't be done even today], and it all went tits up from there really, whenever anyone has dared to question a single argument or interpretation you favour, which, by amazing coincidence, all help rather than hinder your quest to make a case for Lechmere being Jack the Ripper: Richardson was a crap witness, so we should all shut up and accept that Chapman's body could have been there when he opened the door to the yard; Phillips was 130 years ahead of his time, so we should all shut up and trust his opinion that Chapman was killed early enough for Lechmere to have done it and still got to work on time; and as for who Long and Cadoche saw and heard, they may have had nothing to do with the murder, so we should all shut up and not ask who else they could have been seeing and hearing.

And so on and so on and so on, until the conditions are 100% perfect for Lechmere to enter the frame.

You can squirm all you like, Fish, but we weren't all born yesterday, and it will all happen again like clockwork if someone decides to stroll over to Mitre Square.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

1.He lived in the area, during the entire period of the murders.

Well, he lived "next door" strictly speaking, in Bethnal Green as opposed to Whitechapel. Although only a 12 minute walk away from the Nichols murder, make that 20 minutes for Chapman, 22 minutes for Stride, 28 minutes for Eddowes and 25 minutes for Kelly (approximate timings based on Google Maps). Not insurmountable times or distances by any means, but not particularly conducive for a killer on foot, either.

If he was prepared to venture West for up to 28 minutes in search of a victim, one has to wonder why nothing remotely like the Ripper murders happened within a similar radius to the North, East or South of Doveton Street. Unless he only felt the urge to kill whilst en route to work or his mother's residence; rather unlikely on both counts, I'd suggest.

On the contrary, someone confident enough to kill whilst a fair distance to the West of his home could easily have struck at any time and in any direction - particularly given the fact that, once at work and sat behind his horse, he could have extended his reach so much further.

[Elamarna]

Yeah, there's not a fag-paper between Lech and Van Gogh. (???)

HI Gary,

John is i feel over the top in his view.

Lechmere is in my humble opinion a viable person for a suspect.

1.He lived in the area, during the entire period of the murders.
2.He discovered a body, at the very least, a few seconds before Paul also came across it.

However that is a different thing from saying that he is a likely killer. The evidence which would support this view is either incomplete or non existent.

And because of this neither can he be dismissed entirely.



Steve

[Sam Flynn]

"Unleff they be pfycopathf" it says in my copy.

Ah, the wifdom of Folomon.

[MrBarnett]

Lechmere is a joke candidate up there with VanGough and Dr Barnardo etc.

Yeah, there's not a fag-paper between Lech and Van Gogh. (???)

[MrBarnett]

The originator was actually quoting the Bible: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are bold as a lion" (Proverbs 28:1, King James Version).

"Unleff they be pfycopathf" it says in my copy.

[Bridewell]

Why? Herlock made a perfectly cogent point.

Indeed - and he should not be mocked for doing so.

[Sam Flynn]

So, a passage from a 1904 text, where the originator states that "the wicked flee".

The originator was actually quoting the Bible: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are bold as a lion" (Proverbs 28:1, King James Version).

[John Wheat]

Lechmere is a joke candidate up there with VanGough and Dr Barnardo etc.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Question away. I cannot say more than this: it is a sad thing when criticism must start from a point of how something presented by an expert in a docu should not be believed, especially when no evidence whatsoever can be presented that this was so.

It goes hand in hand with the allegations of me not being truthful or only pointing to different matters because I am infatuated with lechmere.

If you can´t shoot down the message, shoot the messenger instead. If you do not like what an expert says, lead on that he or she has been misinformed, bribed or threatened.

That´s how we work out here, right?

No, we expect an expert to base an opinion after hearing both sides.

Now you might find that unfair of course......

[caz]

And to me therein lies the answer. Davis sees it off the top step, Richardson doesn’t, most logical reason being ???

Not only that, GUT, but Davis was not a young man and his eyesight was probably not wonderful. He was about 56, but was described as 'an elderly man with a decided stoop' and as 'an old and feeble man with a slightly humped back'.

In contrast, Richardson was twenty years younger and could easily spot in the darkness whether a padlock was closed and keeping the cellar secure. Yet we are being asked to believe that while Davis saw Chapman's body 'directly' on opening the door, Richardson could well have missed it.

Richardson would have known if he had kept his eyes and body turned strictly to the right, in the direction of the padlock, from the moment he began opening the door, and would have known if it had failed to open fully and stay put, all the while he was there. But in that case, he'd also have known how he could - just possibly - have innocently missed seeing the body, which, as he later learned, was on the ground to his left, possibly obscured by the partially open door. Why he didn't simply say so, if this accurately reflects his experience, is for Fish to explain. There would have been no shame in saying he couldn't be 100% certain the woman wasn't there, because his attention was all focused in another direction.

The obvious explanation is that Richardson, like most people on the planet, including Davis, was looking straight ahead as he opened the door and, like Davis, would have seen the body immediately had it been there.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

He was asked to assess the case for the prosecution and found it excellent. I´m sure though, that if you had been around to tell him that you don´t think Lechmere did it, he would have changed his mind pronto.

The fact that you don’t believe that, to come to a valid assessment, an expert needs to see the full picture, speaks absolute volumes about your method of arriving at a conclusion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I do, and I do not agree with Griffiths with the way that he said what he said.

He said what he said, because thats how the program makers wanted it to be so,

I have done these programs before and I can tell you exactly how it works.

The expert is in front of the camera and someone off screen will ask him question, that question is not recorded but the answer is.

For example
Q. Would you say that based on what is before you Lechmere is a prime suspect?

Now he cannot simply answer yes, because it would not sit well and would be out of context. So he is asked to in a round about way repeat the question in his answer

example "I believe that based on the evidence before me Lechmere is a prime suspect" a compelling answer for the viewers and 10 brownie points for the program makers, having got what they wanted.

Now of course the question is what has been presented to the expert for him to come to his conclusion ?

and this is the rub of the green. As you know I spoke to Scobie in person following the program airing, and he clearly had not been presented with the full facts, and quite openly stated that although there may be a prima facie case on what was presented to him it would never have got to trial, and I would suggest that if he had been presented with the full facts he would have been even reluctant to suggest there was a prima facie case.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Exactly Trevor.

And yet he keeps getting quoted