Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Elamarna]

I personally dont subscribe to the theories that any of the victims were killed elsewhere, and then the bodies dumped afterwards. For me there are to many practical, and logistical reasons to rule these suggestions out.

Eddowes murder is the one murder that an accurate, but not precise time of death can be identified.

Dr Sequeira arrived at 1.55am he stated that life had been extinct no more than 15 mins, which puts the time at approx 1.40am which is dead in line with my belief that the killer was disturbed by Harvey coming down Church passage towards the square giving him time to escape before Watkins came back into the square.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Happy to agree with much of that, however i am prepared to consider the possibility that death took place around 10 minutes earlier. That of course means discarding Lawende and also means Watkins is being economic with the truth(maybe actually in with Morris having a chat).Just ideas but ones which should not be 100% ruled out i think.

Steve

[Jon Guy]

The question remains however was his estimate based on purely medical evidence? and if so what?

or was it based on a mixture of medical and physical evidence?(like Watkins says she was not there on his previous beat).

Hi Steve

Dr Brown based his guess on the warmth of the body and no signs of rigor:
The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body.


My point with regard to Chapman, being that Phillips noted she was cold, and rigor had started.
The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing.
[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Both Paul and Xmere had discrepancies with Mizen, that's why Mizen's account is questioned.

Cross used a different name from what?

If the Charles Cross, Pickford's driver, involved in the traffic accident, is the same Charles Cross (something that can't be confirmed yet) then he used the same name when dealing with police and possibly Pickford's. The fact that he also used the name Lechmere on bureaucratic forms is nothing odd for the Victorian period, indeed, it was not even necessarily illegal to use the name Cross at the inquest.

Criminals usually use aliases to avoid detection, this was not what happened in this case. Anybody who read the newspaper could go and knock on his door.

If Charles Lechmere was jtr then everything he did was dodgey, if he wasn't, nothing raised so far is actually out of keeping for an innocent man.

Hi Dusty,

Picture the scene. A policeman at Lechmere’s door.

Knock knock. Lechmere opens the door.

Lechmere : Er, can I help you.

Constable : Possibly Sir. Are you Charles Allen Cross.

Lechmere : No. I’m Charles Allen Lechmere.

Constable : oh. Sorry to have bothered you sir. Good day to you..

Lechmere closes the door

Lechmere : It worked!!!

[GUT]

Hi Dusty,

Picture the scene. A policeman at Lechmere’s door.

Knock knock. Lechmere opens the door.

Lechmere : Er, can I help you.

Constable : Possibly Sir. Are you Charles Allen Cross.

Lechmere : No. I’m Charles Allen Lechmere.

Constable : oh. Sorry to have bothered you sir. Good day to you..

Lechmere closes the door

Lechmere : It worked!!!

Or

Con: Well Mr Pickford do you employ a Charles Cross of Doveton St, been with you about 20 years

Pick: Nope but a Charles Lechmere who has been with us about that long and lives at 22.

Best disguise of all time.

[Harry D]

Im also probably a bit sympathetic to the "witness" suspects, as I favor hutch and also think these types need more looking into-like Richardson, bowyer, and possibly Barnett.

Hello, Abby.

I can see where you're coming from. Witnesses are connected to the crime and on the surface appear to be regular people, just like serial killers, not mad doctors or tortured artists. I'd be interested to see how many serial killers were initially witnesses. Unless they can help it, serial killers don't tend to loiter around the crime scene ex post facto. Even some of the real schizo ones knew to get while the going was good.

Fisherman believes that the grounds of suspicion against Lechmere are enough to view his subsequent actions through the prism of guilt, as Patrick S would call it. He's a done a commendable job at that, and I admire his tenacity. For me, I don't find there is anywhere near enough incriminating evidence against Lechmere to identify him as a suspect, let alone the killer. 'He could be' isn't exactly a damning indictment. The surname argument is a moot point, as he volunteered his address and workplace, while Mizen had more reason to bend the truth about the exchange that took place between him and the carmen that morning than Lechmere did. And let's presume Lechmere did lie about the PC in Buck's Row, he probably wanted to avoid being late for work and losing his livelihood.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve

Dr Brown based his guess on the warmth of the body and no signs of rigor:
The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body.


My point with regard to Chapman, being that Phillips noted she was cold, and rigor had started.
The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing.
[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

the issue of course is that we are using touch which is highly subjective rather than actual temperatures.
what is cold to one person maynot be to another, and the same person may have different perception of "warm" or "cold" at different times.


In the Chapman case, Rigor can and does set in far faster than was beleived in the LVP.


It something we can debate allday and never reach a consensus.


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

the issue of course is that we are using touch which is highly subjective rather than actual temperatures.
what is cold to one person maynot be to another, and the same person may have different perception of "warm" or "cold" at different times.

Quite, Steve.
Phillips described Chapman as;
"The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body."

Estimating that the ToD was at least two hours earlier.
Compare this with Brown's words when describing Eddowes body during the autopsy, over 12 hours after death;

"made a post mortem examination at half past two on Sunday afternoon. Rigor mortis was well marked; body not quite cold."

[Patrick S]

Or

Con: Well Mr Pickford do you employ a Charles Cross of Doveton St, been with you about 20 years

Pick: Nope but a Charles Lechmere who has been with us about that long and lives at 22.

Best disguise of all time.

To be fair... The police weren't actually looking for Cross/Lechmere. Mizen didn't ask his name. Neil testified on the inquest's first day (Saturday) that he and he alone found Nichols' body and made no mention of Cross/Lechmere and Robert Paul having been in Buck's Row, most likely because Mizen had told neither him nor anyone else that they'd been there (and subsequently reported that to him).

Thus, we are asked to believe that after killing and (at least partially) mutilating Nichols, waiting for the first person to happen along to arrive at the body (realizing here that Cross/Lechmere had no idea who was approaching... the spot was along Neil's beat and he WOULD pass through seemingly seconds after the two men left... so it very well could have been a PC... with a lamp), forcing that man (Paul) to "come see this woman", joining him on a errand to find a PC, FINIDNG a PC (Mizen), and managing to escape the situation without so much as being asked his name and, not only that... it would seem he even managed to make it to work ON TIME!

And still, he shows up at the inquest on Monday, allegedly after reading Paul's comments in Lloyd's that refer to him only as "a man". Better still it would seem... Paul makes no mention of Cross/Lechmere accompanying him to find a PC, he makes no mention of him and casts himself as the man speaking with Mizen in Baker's Row. Anyway, he's driven out by this bombshell that doesn't name him, describe him, and omits him altogether from any actions outside Buck's Row... only to...

Appear voluntarily at the inquest, giving this "false" name, but his actual address in Doveton Street, his actual employer (Pickfords), and how long he's been there (lest they confuse him with another Charles Cross at Pickfords). And this is the name swap.

[Michael W Richards]

I personally dont subscribe to the theories that any of the victims were killed elsewhere, and then the bodies dumped afterwards. For me there are to many practical, and logistical reasons to rule these suggestions out.

Eddowes murder is the one murder that an accurate, but not precise time of death can be identified.

Dr Sequeira arrived at 1.55am he stated that life had been extinct no more than 15 mins, which puts the time at approx 1.40am which is dead in line with my belief that the killer was disturbed by Harvey coming down Church passage towards the square giving him time to escape before Watkins came back into the square.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree with the idea that Kate being killed elsewhere is improbable, however this is the Canonical murder where contemporary theorizing by the authorities raised the possibility. And the murder scene is within a small square inhabited by few residents and a few empty warehouses. She could have been killed inside then taken outside....but I don't think cut inside make sense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or

Con: Well Mr Pickford do you employ a Charles Cross of Doveton St, been with you about 20 years

Pick: Nope but a Charles Lechmere who has been with us about that long and lives at 22.

Best disguise of all time.

[Abby Normal]

Hello, Abby.

I can see where you're coming from. Witnesses are connected to the crime and on the surface appear to be regular people, just like serial killers, not mad doctors or tortured artists. I'd be interested to see how many serial killers were initially witnesses. Unless they can help it, serial killers don't tend to loiter around the crime scene ex post facto. Even some of the real schizo ones knew to get while the going was good.

Fisherman believes that the grounds of suspicion against Lechmere are enough to view his subsequent actions through the prism of guilt, as Patrick S would call it. He's a done a commendable job at that, and I admire his tenacity. For me, I don't find there is anywhere near enough incriminating evidence against Lechmere to identify him as a suspect, let alone the killer. 'He could be' isn't exactly a damning indictment. The surname argument is a moot point, as he volunteered his address and workplace, while Mizen had more reason to bend the truth about the exchange that took place between him and the carmen that morning than Lechmere did. And let's presume Lechmere did lie about the PC in Buck's Row, he probably wanted to avoid being late for work and losing his livelihood.

Hi Harry
Thanks. and yes agree with everything you say here.

I guess the main thing for me with Lech, aside from the discrepencies (which probably have innocent explanations) and my tendency to favor the witness suspects (although I got Bury, koz, blotchy and chapman up there as well) is the almost visceral feel I get when I imagine Paul coming down bucks row and sees lech standing near the body in the dark.

I know-not very scientific but there it is.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Harry
Thanks. and yes agree with everything you say here.

I guess the main thing for me with Lech, aside from the discrepencies (which probably have innocent explanations) and my tendency to favor the witness suspects (although I got Bury, koz, blotchy and chapman up there as well) is the almost visceral feel I get when I imagine Paul coming down bucks row and sees lech standing near the body in the dark.

I know-not very scientific but there it is.

Abby,

You've seen the photo of CAL, right?

I'm with you on the 'visceral feel' thing. Science doesn't come into it. Just imagine being Robert Paul and being confronted by that visage.

Not saying Lech is my man, but anyone who dismisses him as a 'crap suspect' is talking crap.

Gary

[Abby Normal]

Abby,

You've seen the photo of CAL, right?

I'm with you on the 'visceral feel' thing. Science doesn't come into it. Just imagine being Robert Paul and being confronted by that visage.

Not saying Lech is my man, but anyone who dismisses him as a 'crap suspect' is talking crap.

Gary

Thanks gary
I agree.

I think people need to also remember that even with all this back and forth debate that no one has yet to totally debunk any of the points in favor of his suspect hood. None of the points fish argues has been ruled out.

I also find it extremely interesting that ma lech owned a cats meat shop, and the posibility that the young lech was around alot of butchery and gore and ma lech in charge.

[Sam Flynn]

You've seen the photo of CAL, right?

I'm with you on the 'visceral feel' thing. Science doesn't come into it. Just imagine being Robert Paul and being confronted by that visage.

I don't see anything odd in that photo of (the older) CAL and, besides, the nature of photography at the time lent itself to people adopting unnatural expressions. My great grandfather was a lovely man, but I have a photo of him taken in the 1910s where he looks like Seweryn Kłosowski and his wife looks like an emotionless ice-maiden, which was also far from the truth.

[Trevor Marriott]

Abby,

You've seen the photo of CAL, right?

I'm with you on the 'visceral feel' thing. Science doesn't come into it. Just imagine being Robert Paul and being confronted by that visage.

Not saying Lech is my man, but anyone who dismisses him as a 'crap suspect' is talking crap.

Gary

Conversely, anyone who thinks he is a suspect based on what is known is also talking the same crap

www.trevormarriott.co.uk.