Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Michael W Richards]

Even a butcher, and Lechmere was not a butcher, who showed up at work covered in bloodstains would be very suspicious. By Paul's own testimony, Lechmere stopped Paul and asked him to look at the victim.

In this era some surgeons were still wearing bloodstained smocks in surgery, as the ideas of sterilization and infection were still relatively new to the consciousness. Bloodstained workwear, aprons or coveralls, would be common sights at night in that district, and even moreso as you got closer to the docks. Its likely how Polly and Annies killer walked away unnoticed, because he was most likely a butcher.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just the idea of the Ripper killing on the way to work is insanely risky.

It certainly would have been Fiver and by not fleeing the scene he’d have known that it would have been overwhelmingly likely that he’d have ended up talking to a police officer who would have taken his name. This would have added even more pressure for him not to have been seen near to another crime scene. Could anyone think of a worse place to commit a murder but on a spot that you pass six days a week at pretty much exactly the same time?

[Abby Normal]

Seems unlikely that Paul "caught" Lechmere on the hop. It was a long, dark, misty backstreet but Lechmere would've certainly heard Paul approaching. He obviously had time to back up, adjust himself and wait in the middle of the street. The visibility would've worked more to Lechmere's advantage as he could've ducked out before Paul even noticed Nichols, assuming of course that he would. Paul might have mistaken her for a drunken down-and-out, or something else (tarpaulin?). And let's remember that Paul didn't even think Polly was dead.

Hi Harry
yes-good points.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

In this era some surgeons were still wearing bloodstained smocks in surgery, as the ideas of sterilization and infection were still relatively new to the consciousness. Bloodstained workwear, aprons or coveralls, would be common sights at night in that district, and even moreso as you got closer to the docks. Its likely how Polly and Annies killer walked away unnoticed, because he was most likely a butcher.

We tend to think of bloodstains as bright red on a pristine white shirt, but really, blood on other colour fabrics just looks dark brown. And unless it's in a stereotypical splash, it probably wouldn't stand out on well worn work wear. In the dark.
Then there's the whole debate as to whether he would have much blood on him?

[Michael W Richards]

We tend to think of bloodstains as bright red on a pristine white shirt, but really, blood on other colour fabrics just looks dark brown. And unless it's in a stereotypical splash, it probably wouldn't stand out on well worn work wear. In the dark.
Then there's the whole debate as to whether he would have much blood on him?

I agree with that ABE, as for blood on him, I think only Kellys murderer wouldn't be able to avoid that.

[Harry D]

Hi Harry
yes-good points.

Thanks, Abby.

That's why I've never found it convincing when people say "Lechmere never raised the alarm!". It was not immediately obvious to either man that Polly had been murdered, so there would be no cause for Lechmere to run off screaming for a copper. And the fact that two carmen both ventured down Buck's Row in short succession means there was nothing unusual about his presence either.
Finally, I think it's a valid point: after his close shave in Buck's Row, would Lechmere have murdered again on his work route while the Nichols inquest was still ongoing? If Lechmere was the Torsoripper, he obviously wasn't averse to taking timeout between murders. Why not lay low for awhile?

There are some inconsistencies in Lechmere's case, but he's not a unique witness in that respect (e.g. John Richardson, George Hutchinson).

[Syclone]

Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. It all fits. He fits.

*Local. Unremarkable in appearance. Delivered meat. Being covered in blood wouldn't attract attention.
*Had opportunities due to his work schedule.
*Estrangement from family may have been the catalyst and a boon.
*Mislead officials regarding his name and address because he killed Nichols. Probably Smith and Tabram, too.
*Placed not only in Whitechapel, but near all of the crime scenes.

Displays amazing hubris by continuing to kill after exposure to the police.
Ted Bundy continued to kill after landing on the FBI MWL and escaping from jail!

The killer really was in plain sight!

I want to know more about him.

Specifically:

Does Lechmere's 1888 physical description share commonalities with the accepted description of the killer? Did he once have dark hair and favor a moustache?

Handedness?

Did he know how to butcher animals?

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks, Abby.

That's why I've never found it convincing when people say "Lechmere never raised the alarm!". It was not immediately obvious to either man that Polly had been murdered, so there would be no cause for Lechmere to run off screaming for a copper. And the fact that two carmen both ventured down Buck's Row in short succession means there was nothing unusual about his presence either.
Finally, I think it's a valid point: after his close shave in Buck's Row, would Lechmere have murdered again on his work route while the Nichols inquest was still ongoing? If Lechmere was the Torsoripper, he obviously wasn't averse to taking timeout between murders. Why not lay low for awhile?

There are some inconsistencies in Lechmere's case, but he's not a unique witness in that respect (e.g. John Richardson, George Hutchinson).

I believe Cross thought that she was dead Harry, there is one account where he thinks she might still be barely breathing, but upon her discovery it was ascertained that the victim was surely mortally and likely fatally injured. Yet a decision to just hope they pass a policeman on the way to work is made. I find that odd. Maybe because its the first of these kinds of killings and not the sensation it will soon become. Street women were bullied and beaten and stabbed frequently. The first mutilation might not have been that shocking to them.

[GUT]

I believe Cross thought that she was dead Harry, there is one account where he thinks she might still be barely breathing, but upon her discovery it was ascertained that the victim was surely mortally and likely fatally injured. Yet a decision to just hope they pass a policeman on the way to work is made. I find that odd. Maybe because its the first of these kinds of killings and not the sensation it will soon become. Street women were bullied and beaten and stabbed frequently. The first mutilation might not have been that shocking to them.

But when they find that copper tell him she is dead or drunk.

[Fisherman]

But when they find that copper tell him she is dead or drunk.

Did they? How do you know that, Gut? Which sources did you use, and how do you portray them?

You are a man versed in the law, I know that much, although I do not recollect in which exact capacity you work/ed in the judicial system.

But you must be aware that when there are two parts claiming different things in a matter, then - unless there is proof telling us that one of the sides is correct - we cannot take the words of one of the parts as gospel, discarding the other part, can we?

I have made this point dozens of times. It seems the time has come to make it again.

Charles Lechmere is my suspect for the Ripper murders, as well as for the torso murders. I think he lied at the inquest. I think he told Mizen there was another PC in charge in Bucks row, for example.

I also think he played down the severity of the errand as he informed Mizen about it, to ensure that he was not detained by the PC. Therefore, I think he only said that there was a woman lying in the street in Bucks Row, and that she was probably drunk, that a colleague of Mizens had the matter in hand but could do with some assistance. This is exactly how Mizen portrays the exchange, by the way.

As a matter of fact, the only person who claims that it was stated that the woman in Bucks Row was "either drunk or dead" is the very man under suspicion for the murder - Charles Lechmere. Mizen never says that he was told that the woman was perhaps dead. Instead he tells the inquest (as per the Star of the 3:rd of September) that the carman said nothing about either any murder or suicide! And Robert Paul does not say that Mizen was informed that the woman was possibly dead (not that it has anything to do with anything else if Paul never even spoke to Mizen, as implicated by Mizens testimony). Not at the inquest, nor in his LLoyds Weekly interview.

So itīs either a case of all of us accepting that Lechmere must have told the truth and that we may rely, no questions asked, on how Mizen was informed about a possible death - or a case of being discerning enough to accept that what you posted is not even close to a fact.

It is an understandable mistake to make. You are not the first to make it and I dare say you will not be the last. But the devil is in the details, Gut. Letīs try and get it right, if we can. And we can, if we really want to.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. It all fits. He fits.


I want to know more about him.

Specifically:

Does Lechmere's 1888 physical description share commonalities with the accepted description of the killer? Did he once have dark hair and favor a moustache?

Handedness?

Did he know how to butcher animals?

We have no physical description of Charles Lechmere from 1888. So we cannot tell to what degree he fit the varying descriptions. I would not say that there is any overall accepted description of the killer as such.

We don' t know if he was left- or right-handed. But then again, we donīt know if the Ripper was left- or right-handed.

We know that the Lechmere family was into the horse meat trade for many years. His mother was a dealer in horse-flesh, and his children set up business in the same trade, having a stand in Broadway market. There is ample reason to surmise that Charles was well versed in cutting up horse carcasses, therefore. It clearly ran in the family in the years following the Ripper scare.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think he lied at the inquest.
I think he told Mizen there was another PC in charge in Bucks row, for example.
I also think he played down the severity of the errand as he informed Mizen about it, to ensure that he was not detained by the PC. Therefore,
I think he only said that there was a woman lying in the street in Bucks Row, and that she was probably drunk, that a colleague of Mizens had the matter in hand but could do with some assistance.

Christer what you think and what you can prove are a long way from each other

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Christer what you think and what you can prove are a long way from each other

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

True - and it goes for all of us out here. The relevance of what I (and numerous others) THINK about Lechmere lies in how it means that we must take the words of a suspected killer with a pinch of salt. Much like how I take everything YOU say with a barrel of the same commodity, Trevor.

When Gut chose to present what Lechmere (and Lechmere only) claimed as a fact, I therefore pointed out that since there are those who THINK the carman could be the killer, it needs to be pointed out that we owe it to ourselves to be a lot more discerning. To put it differently, I am very much for presenting the whole picture. I THINK that is the correct thing to do.

Then again, that is what I THINK needs to be done. You may be of a radically different meaning, of course, THINKING otherwise.

See how it works, Trevor? THINK about it.