Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Sam Flynn]

I’ll leave it to the David Canters and the Kim Rossmos of this world to provide a psychological explanation for this frequently observed “epicentral” phenomenon, but it does appear to hold true.

...and not just psychological explanations, either. There are obvious practical and logistical ones, too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the subject of locations I can’t help thinking that Mary Nichols was killed on the unlikeliest spot for a guilty Lechmere.

Apart from the question ‘why would he kill on his way to work leaving himself only 15 minutes to check himself over for blood then possibly a clean up and then to get to work for 4? There is also the question ‘why would he kill at a spot that he was known to pass 6 days out of 7 at exactly the same time?’

It’s usually proposed that he would have picked Polly up elsewhere and brought her back to Buck’s Row. Is this remotely believable though? After all if Lechmere had been picked up and questioned by the police after one of the later murders how coulde have denied being in or near to Buck’s Row at exactly the time that Polly was killed?

[Trevor Marriott]

Finding the body makes everyone a de facto suspect, until their cleared. You of all people should know that, but dosnt surprise me you dont.

And no he isnt a crap suspect trevor, crap suspects are ones like feigenbaum, remember him? Lol

Well at least Feigenbaum we know murdered a woman by cutting her throat with a long blade knife, and when seen doing so made good his escape. He didnt try to front the witness out who saw him !

As stated there us diddly squat as you would say to suggest Lechmere was, or should be regarded as a suspect.

And finding a body doesn't make that person a suspect you clearly haven't a clue as normal.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

Is there evidence that Bury was a cat's meat butcher? Or just a reference to his having worked for a horse-slaughterer? Knackers were required by law to keep detailed records of all the animals they processed and the larger firms employed clerks to do so. Bury was a factor's clerk at one point, wasn't he? I think it's far more likely that he would have been keeping the knacker's books than slaughtering.

As Abby says Ma Lechmere was at one stage running a cat's meat business, but as far as I know there's no evidence that she was doing so in or prior to 1888.

There is some evidence that makes me think it's likely that CAL at some stage carried horse flesh for Harrison, Barber. But that would most likely have been boiled meat that already had the bones removed. Preparing that for retail sale would have required next to nothing in the way of butchery skills or equipment.

That may be but none of that changes the fact that Lechmere is a crap suspect whereas Bury is logically the best Ripper suspect.

[Patrick S]

On the subject of locations I can’t help thinking that Mary Nichols was killed on the unlikeliest spot for a guilty Lechmere.

Apart from the question ‘why would he kill on his way to work leaving himself only 15 minutes to check himself over for blood then possibly a clean up and then to get to work for 4? There is also the question ‘why would he kill at a spot that he was known to pass 6 days out of 7 at exactly the same time?’

It’s usually proposed that he would have picked Polly up elsewhere and brought her back to Buck’s Row. Is this remotely believable though? After all if Lechmere had been picked up and questioned by the police after one of the later murders how coulde have denied being in or near to Buck’s Row at exactly the time that Polly was killed?

I've run through this scenario with Christer a few times over the years. He's suggested that Nichols was strangled and likely dead when her throat was cut and that she was on the ground, her killer standing above her. He contends that in that her heart was no longer beating there would have been no blood splatter and the killer would have had very little and "likely no blood on him" as a result. I suggested that he'd have likely gotten some blood on his sleeves or elsewhere in performing the abdominal mutilations, as well. He contends this isn't true. So... we're being asked to believe that Lechmere killed Nichols in the near pitch black of Buck's Row and got no visible blood on his person. Recall he's alleged to have inflicted the following wounds to her neck:

"On the left side of the neck, about 1 in. below the jaw, there was an incision about 4 in. in length, and ran from a point immediately below the ear. On the same side, but an inch below, and commencing about 1 in. in front of it, was a circular incision, which terminated at a point about 3 in. below the right jaw. That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision was about 8 in. in length. That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision was about 8 in. in length. the cuts must have been caused by a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence. "

He then turned his attention to mutilating Nichols and inflicted the following wounds to her abdomen:

"Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. The wound was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. There were three or four similar cuts running downwards, on the right side, all of which had been caused by a knife which had been used violently and downwards."

So he'd done all this... in the dark. Then, so the theory goes, he heard Paul. He does NOT discard the weapon. No weapon was found in Buck's Row. The theory holds (or held, I'm uncertain if this has been changed). He HIDES the weapon on his person. So, he's nearly decapitated Nichols. He's inflicted several "deep" and "jagged" incisions to her abdomen - "inflicted with great violence". He then hides the "long bladed" knife on his person. Yet... he is SO CERTAIN that he's emerged from all this free of blood that, upon hearing Paul in Buck's Row he opts for a bluff... waits for him, approaches him, TOUCHES him with a hand he's supposedly just used to kill and mutilate Nichols (confident that no blood will be transferred to Paul clothing). He's confident also that this man is not a PC with a lamp. So, he's certain he'll not inspected, or at least if he is, no blood will be noticed. He's confident Paul is not carrying a match with which to light the scene, seeing Nichols' wounds and blood on his person. In fact, he's so certain that he's emerged from all of this free of blood on his person that he accompanies Paul to Baker's Row and speaks with Mizen. Now... he KNOWS Mizen is a PC. He KNOWS Mizen has a lamp. He knows that a PC being told of a woman lying in Buck's Row might reasonably ask the two men to return with him to Buck's Row, shine his light upon them, perhaps search them, all of the above... And he's alleged to have had the bloody knife ON HIS PERSON? He's alleged to have just butchered Nichols' in the dark of Buck's Row... and submits himself for inspection?

To me, at least, it's clear he did all this because he KNEW he didn't have blood on his person and because he DID NOT have a bloody knife tucked into his coat!... Because he didn't kill Nichols.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fish often refers to crime history in debate when discussing likelihood’s (and of course there’s nothing wrong with that) but it does leave a question. It’s a question that I’ve asked before but no answer appears available so I’ll try again.

How many people in the history of crime, who have discovered a body out in the open, have turned out to be the killer? Bearing in mind that I’m not talking about cases where, for example, husbands have murdered their wives and then set about it to make it appear that she committed suicide or was killed by intruders. Do we have examples?

[Herlock Sholmes]

In addition how many serial killers do we know of that used to kill on the way to work?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've run through this scenario with Christer a few times over the years. He's suggested that Nichols was strangled and likely dead when her throat was cut and that she was on the ground, her killer standing above her. He contends that in that her heart was no longer beating there would have been no blood splatter and the killer would have had very little and "likely no blood on him" as a result. I suggested that he'd have likely gotten some blood on his sleeves or elsewhere in performing the abdominal mutilations, as well. He contends this isn't true. So... we're being asked to believe that Lechmere killed Nichols in the near pitch black of Buck's Row and got no visible blood on his person. Recall he's alleged to have inflicted the following wounds to her neck:

"On the left side of the neck, about 1 in. below the jaw, there was an incision about 4 in. in length, and ran from a point immediately below the ear. On the same side, but an inch below, and commencing about 1 in. in front of it, was a circular incision, which terminated at a point about 3 in. below the right jaw. That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision was about 8 in. in length. That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision was about 8 in. in length. the cuts must have been caused by a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence. "

He then turned his attention to mutilating Nichols and inflicted the following wounds to her abdomen:

"Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. The wound was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. There were three or four similar cuts running downwards, on the right side, all of which had been caused by a knife which had been used violently and downwards."

So he'd done all this... in the dark. Then, so the theory goes, he heard Paul. He does NOT discard the weapon. No weapon was found in Buck's Row. The theory holds (or held, I'm uncertain if this has been changed). He HIDES the weapon on his person. So, he's nearly decapitated Nichols. He's inflicted several "deep" and "jagged" incisions to her abdomen - "inflicted with great violence". He then hides the "long bladed" knife on his person. Yet... he is SO CERTAIN that he's emerged from all this free of blood that, upon hearing Paul in Buck's Row he opts for a bluff... waits for him, approaches him, TOUCHES him with a hand he's supposedly just used to kill and mutilate Nichols (confident that no blood will be transferred to Paul clothing). He's confident also that this man is not a PC with a lamp. So, he's certain he'll not inspected, or at least if he is, no blood will be noticed. He's confident Paul is not carrying a match with which to light the scene, seeing Nichols' wounds and blood on his person. In fact, he's so certain that he's emerged from all of this free of blood on his person that he accompanies Paul to Baker's Row and speaks with Mizen. Now... he KNOWS Mizen is a PC. He KNOWS Mizen has a lamp. He knows that a PC being told of a woman lying in Buck's Row might reasonably ask the two men to return with him to Buck's Row, shine his light upon them, perhaps search them, all of the above... And he's alleged to have had the bloody knife ON HIS PERSON? He's alleged to have just butchered Nichols' in the dark of Buck's Row... and submits himself for inspection?

To me, at least, it's clear he did all this because he KNEW he didn't have blood on his person and because he DID NOT have a bloody knife tucked into his coat!... Because he didn't kill Nichols.

Couldn’t agree more Patrick. It’s not just a question of whether he would or wouldn’t have gotten blood on him but, with Lechmere deciding to take the massive risk of sticking around, there’s no way that he could have been anything like confident that he hadn’t gotten blood on him. He might have been able to talk his way out of a bit of blood on his hand or sleeve but not if he’d gotten some on his shoulder or his trousers or on the front of his shirt then it would have been alarm bells.

[Sam Flynn]

Couldn’t agree more Patrick..

Seconded. Great post, Patrick.

[Elamarna]

I've run through this scenario with Christer a few times over the years. He's suggested that Nichols was strangled and likely dead when her throat was cut and that she was on the ground, her killer standing above her. He contends that in that her heart was no longer beating there would have been no blood splatter and the killer would have had very little and "likely no blood on him" as a result. I suggested that he'd have likely gotten some blood on his sleeves or elsewhere in performing the abdominal mutilations, as well. He contends this isn't true. So... we're being asked to believe that Lechmere killed Nichols in the near pitch black of Buck's Row and got no visible blood on his person. Recall he's alleged to have inflicted the following wounds to her neck:

"On the left side of the neck, about 1 in. below the jaw, there was an incision about 4 in. in length, and ran from a point immediately below the ear. On the same side, but an inch below, and commencing about 1 in. in front of it, was a circular incision, which terminated at a point about 3 in. below the right jaw. That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision was about 8 in. in length. That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision was about 8 in. in length. the cuts must have been caused by a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence. "

He then turned his attention to mutilating Nichols and inflicted the following wounds to her abdomen:

"Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. The wound was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. There were three or four similar cuts running downwards, on the right side, all of which had been caused by a knife which had been used violently and downwards."

So he'd done all this... in the dark. Then, so the theory goes, he heard Paul. He does NOT discard the weapon. No weapon was found in Buck's Row. The theory holds (or held, I'm uncertain if this has been changed). He HIDES the weapon on his person. So, he's nearly decapitated Nichols. He's inflicted several "deep" and "jagged" incisions to her abdomen - "inflicted with great violence". He then hides the "long bladed" knife on his person. Yet... he is SO CERTAIN that he's emerged from all this free of blood that, upon hearing Paul in Buck's Row he opts for a bluff... waits for him, approaches him, TOUCHES him with a hand he's supposedly just used to kill and mutilate Nichols (confident that no blood will be transferred to Paul clothing). He's confident also that this man is not a PC with a lamp. So, he's certain he'll not inspected, or at least if he is, no blood will be noticed. He's confident Paul is not carrying a match with which to light the scene, seeing Nichols' wounds and blood on his person. In fact, he's so certain that he's emerged from all of this free of blood on his person that he accompanies Paul to Baker's Row and speaks with Mizen. Now... he KNOWS Mizen is a PC. He KNOWS Mizen has a lamp. He knows that a PC being told of a woman lying in Buck's Row might reasonably ask the two men to return with him to Buck's Row, shine his light upon them, perhaps search them, all of the above... And he's alleged to have had the bloody knife ON HIS PERSON? He's alleged to have just butchered Nichols' in the dark of Buck's Row... and submits himself for inspection?

To me, at least, it's clear he did all this because he KNEW he didn't have blood on his person and because he DID NOT have a bloody knife tucked into his coat!... Because he didn't kill Nichols.

Patrick, really good post, fine points.

The thing to note is that as of last year Christer was suggesting that the Abdomen was attacked first and was the cause of death, not the cut to the neck.

I won't even attempt to discuss the ramifications of a heart stopped before the neck/throat cuts for the "Blood Evidence" theory or indeed just how that theory is actually flawed here.


Let us not forget also with regards to the lack of blood, that according to the witness statements of those at the mortuary, Spratling and Helson, that the upper areas of Nichols's clothing area described as being soaked and saturated with blood, and there are the large clotts between her clothing to contend with as well, that hardly suggests that the person making the cuts would be blood free.


Steve

[Patrick S]

Patrick, really good post, fine points.

The thing to note is that as of last year Christer was suggesting that the Abdomen was attacked first and was the cause of death, not the cut to the neck.

I won't even attempt to discuss the ramifications of a heart stopped before the neck/throat cuts for the "Blood Evidence" theory or indeed just how that theory is actually flawed here.


Let us not forget also with regards to the lack of blood, that according to the witness statements of those at the mortuary, Spratling and Helson, that the upper areas of Nichols's clothing area described as being soaked and saturated with blood, and there are the large clotts between her clothing to contend with as well, that hardly suggests that the person making the cuts would be blood free.


Steve

Thanks, Steve. I think I do remember that. She was throttled (or somehow rendered unconscious) then the abdominal wounds inflicted, causing death, then the throat cut just seconds before Paul's arrival (or perhaps because of his arrival). This, of course, makes little sense but I'm sure was presented in order to explain something or other and "point toward" Lechmere as Nichols' Killer?

[Abby Normal]

In addition how many serial killers do we know of that used to kill on the way to work?

bingo-this is one my first main beefs with Lech as a suspect. still is kind of.

I cant think of any off hand and I know I used to raise this all the time, but Fish came back with some examples of killers who did.

[Jon Guy]

bingo-this is one my first main beefs with Lech as a suspect. still is kind of.

I cant think of any off hand and I know I used to raise this all the time, but Fish came back with some examples of killers who did.

Hi Abby

I used to ask myself who would even pick up a prostitute on the way to work.
Then I saw a US documentary cop programme about the vice squad targeting punters (in cars) picking up prostitutes on their way to work.
Amazingly, there were loads of em
Yes, I know they weren`t murderers but it shows that it could happen

[barnflatwyngarde]

Jack the Mincer.

Like Kenneth Williams?

[Harry D]

How many people in the history of crime, who have discovered a body out in the open, have turned out to be the killer? Bearing in mind that I’m not talking about cases where, for example, husbands have murdered their wives and then set about it to make it appear that she committed suicide or was killed by intruders. Do we have examples?

Off the top of my head? I can think of one. Christie Mullins, young girl who was murdered in 1975. Her killer took his family "for a walk" and returned to the crime-scene to find the body. He also pretended he saw a dodgy geezer fleeing the scene, which led to the wrongful arrest of a mentally handicapped guy.