Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

If the police at the time did not consider him to be a person of interest then it would seem that they were grossly incompetent for the very reasons you mention. Like so many aspects of the case this involves the perceived competency of the police. Even if we have no record of it having taken place, we have to ask (and reach a conclusion) well wouldn't the police have checked him out? Now arguments can be made regarding the limitations of any investigation but we have to make a leap of faith and conclude that the police had some degree of competency and acted accordingly.

c.d.

Agreed. You would have thought that in those circumstances he would, at the very least, have merited a second look. It’s difficult to believe that they didn’t look closer and just because there might be no record surviving it can’t mean for certain that this second look didn’t take place. If its being suggested though that Lechmere intentionally lied to Mizen to achieve a goal (and it is being suggested) then it’s difficult see how alarm bells wouldn’t have gone off unless the police, on having that second look, had concluded that Lechmere’s actions/words in respect to Mizen weren’t suspicious. And also of course that his actions in Buck’s Row weren’t suspicious either.
The other point is, what would make Lechmere feel that lying to a Constable, face to face, a lie that would have been easily exposed, with another witness there, after Nichols had been discovered by him, was in any way a good plan to avoid eventual arrest?

[Fisherman]

Agreed. You would have thought that in those circumstances he would, at the very least, have merited a second look. It’s difficult to believe that they didn’t look closer and just because there might be no record surviving it can’t mean for certain that this second look didn’t take place. If its being suggested though that Lechmere intentionally lied to Mizen to achieve a goal (and it is being suggested) then it’s difficult see how alarm bells wouldn’t have gone off unless the police, on having that second look, had concluded that Lechmere’s actions/words in respect to Mizen weren’t suspicious. And also of course that his actions in Buck’s Row weren’t suspicious either.
The other point is, what would make Lechmere feel that lying to a Constable, face to face, a lie that would have been easily exposed, with another witness there, after Nichols had been discovered by him, was in any way a good plan to avoid eventual arrest?

Herlock, not a Ripper researcher, nor any historian or retired police heard the alarm bells for a hundred and twentyfive years when it comes to Lechmeres´ speaking of a second police officer in place in Bucks Row.

So how is it obvious that the police back then would have heard those bells?

As for the lie to Mizen, you must keep in mind that Lechmere - if the killer - would have the weapon on his person. Telling the truth - "I found her alone and spent some time close to the body before Paul entered the scene" - would inevitably result in Mizen detaining him, bringing him along to the crime scene and quite possibly searching him, and then he would swing for the murder of Polly Nichols.
In that context, it is perhaps less hard to see why he would have served the kind of lie he seemingly did?

[Trevor Marriott]

As for the lie to Mizen, you must keep in mind that Lechmere - if the killer - would have the weapon on his person. Telling the truth - "I found her alone and spent some time close to the body before Paul entered the scene" - would inevitably result in Mizen detaining him, bringing him along to the crime scene and quite possibly searching him, and then he would swing for the murder of Polly Nichols.
In that context, it is perhaps less hard to see why he would have served the kind of lie he seemingly did?

How many others who found bodies were so detained, and searched as you suggest? You are making it up as you go along again !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Varqm]

The police was in it's "infancy".Look at the difference on how they changed/treated things.As posted before in Lechmere's case they did not bother to get his name,home/work address for a later interview,which was most likely or was the reason Lechmere did not go back to the police.By the time of Eddowes murder couples/single man could get questioned or frisked-if I remember right,Miller's court residents could not leave until they gave their full statement and (perhaps) cross-checked with other residents.Smith trying to make Lawende,relatively a good witness although a stranger,to change his story-about his ability to recognize the sailor man (if i remember right),perhaps Lechmere would have been subjected to the same in regards to his version of events.
They wanted to get as much information from whoever got something to say about the murder "immediately",get a good "picture" and see what happened and where it could led them. They were learning along the way.
But remember their "evidence" against Kosminski,masturbation,eating from the gutter,if you think it through today that's laughable.
Even if they suspected Lechmere afterwards-after he already has gone to work or after work,it was too late.Weapon already thrown,clothes washed,perhaps alibi already made up or worked through,with no DNA and fingerprints the case is gone.
If Lechmere had a "violent" history then yes,maybe they would interrogate him.

----

[Darryl Kenyon]

If the police at the time did not consider him to be a person of interest then it would seem that they were grossly incompetent for the very reasons you mention. Like so many aspects of the case this involves the perceived competency of the police. Even if we have no record of it having taken place, we have to ask (and reach a conclusion) well wouldn't the police have checked him out? Now arguments can be made regarding the limitations of any investigation but we have to make a leap of faith and conclude that the police had some degree of competency and acted accordingly.
c.d.

Good post Cd

[Fisherman]

How many others who found bodies were so detained, and searched as you suggest? You are making it up as you go along again !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, of course I am - why on earth would a policeman want to detain somebody who had been alone with a woman who could well be dead? Silly me.

[Fisherman]

The police was in it's "infancy".Look at the difference on how they changed/treated things.As posted before in Lechmere's case they did not bother to get his name,home/work address for a later interview,which was most likely or was the reason Lechmere did not go back to the police.By the time of Eddowes murder couples/single man could get questioned or frisked-if I remember right,Miller's court residents could not leave until they gave their full statement and (perhaps) cross-checked with other residents.Smith trying to make Lawende,relatively a good witness although a stranger,to change his story-about his ability to recognize the sailor man (if i remember right),perhaps Lechmere would have been subjected to the same in regards to his version of events.
They wanted to get as much information from whoever got something to say about the murder "immediately",get a good "picture" and see what happened and where it could led them. They were learning along the way.
But remember their "evidence" against Kosminski,masturbation,eating from the gutter,if you think it through today that's laughable.
Even if they suspected Lechmere afterwards-after he already has gone to work or after work,it was too late.Weapon already thrown,clothes washed,perhaps alibi already made up or worked through,with no DNA and fingerprints the case is gone.
If Lechmere had a "violent" history then yes,maybe they would interrogate him.

----

All very true. A sound and insightful post. We are very much separated from the victorian realities and many seem to forget that.

[c.d.]

There is certainly a difference (or at least I think there is) between piss poor police work and complete incompetency.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

There is certainly a difference (or at least I think there is) between piss poor police work and complete incompetency.

c.d.

Isn´t piss poor police work the result of complete incompetency, C.D.?

I´m not sure what point you are trying to make here.

[c.d.]

Hello Fish,

I am not quite sure myself to be honest with you. I think the key word is "complete". Bungling some aspect of the investigation would constitute incompetency. Not realizing that an individual (hello Hutch and Kidney) is a strong person of interest to me would constitute complete incompetency.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Hello Fish,

I am not quite sure myself to be honest with you. I think the key word is "complete". Bungling some aspect of the investigation would constitute incompetency. Not realizing that an individual (hello Hutch and Kidney) is a strong person of interest to me would constitute complete incompetency.

c.d.

I have answered your post on the thread you just started. If you take a look on it, you will find my view, and it will work on this thread too.

[Varqm]

All very true. A sound and insightful post. We are very much separated from the victorian realities and many seem to forget that.

I'm glad we agreed on that one.

---

Depending on manpower,would they have suspected Lechmere afterwards and perhaps follow Lechmere as he was headed to work -this was their only way/chance to find out. Not doing it or doing it was the only way to know if they were competent or incompetent or mindless as to serial killers or something else.There is nothing to show they did it.I do not think they did it.


---

[Fisherman]

I'm glad we agreed on that one.

---

Depending on manpower,would they have suspected Lechmere afterwards and perhaps follow Lechmere as he was headed to work -this was their only way/chance to find out. Not doing it or doing it was the only way to know if they were competent or incompetent or mindless as to serial killers or something else.There is nothing to show they did it.I do not think they did it.


---

Nor do I - not for a second. They had their chance and blew it, simple as that. The picture Dew paints wil be the one they were left with - a rough, hard-working, simple man, doing his duty.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, not a Ripper researcher, nor any historian or retired police heard the alarm bells for a hundred and twentyfive years when it comes to Lechmeres´ speaking of a second police officer in place in Bucks Row.

So how is it obvious that the police back then would have heard those bells?

As for the lie to Mizen, you must keep in mind that Lechmere - if the killer - would have the weapon on his person. Telling the truth - "I found her alone and spent some time close to the body before Paul entered the scene" - would inevitably result in Mizen detaining him, bringing him along to the crime scene and quite possibly searching him, and then he would swing for the murder of Polly Nichols.
In that context, it is perhaps less hard to see why he would have served the kind of lie he seemingly did?

As Lechmere was asked if he’d seen a policeman in Buck’s Row and had replied in the negative the point had at least been noted that someone was either lying or they were mistaken. It appears that the police didn’t see this as pointing a finger of suspicion against Lechmere. Had they concluded that Lechmere was being truthful and that Mizen had either lied or been mistaken?

A guilty Lechmere would indeed have had a knife on his person when he encountered Mizen but he would have also had a knife on his person when he was faced with the choice at the crime scene. So when we talk about taking calculated risks we have to assume/accept that he would have been willing to enter into a course of action which would end, at least initially, with a meeting with a Constable. He would therefore have had to have been confident that he could have come up with a plan (in a short time and whilst in likely conversation with Paul) to enable him to avoid detention. And that external circumstances (like Paul’s behaviour and Mizen’s reaction) would have had to have fallen in his favour to have allowed his plan to succeed. Under the circumstances this would have been a massive risk.

And then, added to that, he certainly couldn’t be certain that the police wouldn’t have made him suspect number one due to his alleged lies. In short he couldn’t have thought “ those police will never notice that I lied to get past them.”

And I know that this point irritates but he could have easily avoided all this by walking away as soon as he heard footsteps approaching in the dark.

~
I’ll add a little ‘what if.’

Fish made the reasonable point, in response to my suggestion that for all Lechmere knew the footsteps could have belonged to a Constable, that Paul was late for work and so would have been walking quicker than regulation tread. Might not a guilty Lechmere have wondered if someone, a drunk in the shadows maybe, might have seen him attack Polly and have found a Constable and that the Constable was rushing to the scene? All I’m saying is he still might have thought that it could have been a Constable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nor do I - not for a second. They had their chance and blew it, simple as that. The picture Dew paints wil be the one they were left with - a rough, hard-working, simple man, doing his duty.

As we can’t be certain I have to say that, equally, they might have just looked at Lechmere and felt no hint of suspicion about his behaviour.