Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Fisherman]

Richardson and Long aside, Fish, it's the alternate suggestion for Cadosch's "overheard person by the fence" around 5:30a that is the real chin-scratcher. Seemingly, wirh a dead Chapman lying in the yard, we would have someone (probably a woman) finding Annie Chapman's body, exclaiming "No!", and then proceeding to say nothing about the crime while allowing Davis to find her dead body a half hour later.

Does that ring impossible to you? I earlier suggested that we may have a case of a prostitute entering the yard with a punter. The woman sees Chapman, cries out "No!", and the punter says "Letīs get the hell out of here!", not wishing to be disclosed as a punter. And then they leave, the punter assuring the prostitute that admitting to what they had seen may equal putting a noose arund their necks.

It is just a suggestion, though. Whether Cadosch heard anything at all reamins written in the stars. Chapman was long dead at that stage at any rate, going by Phillips, so she had nothing to do with the matter.

[Sam Flynn]

It is just a suggestion, though. Whether Cadosch heard anything at all reamins written in the stars. Chapman was long dead at that stage at any rate, going by Phillips

But only by Phillips - not Cadosch, Long or Richardson.

[Fisherman]

But only by Phillips - not Cadosch, Long or Richardson.

Very true - and in Longs case, Chapman actually survived the onslaught overheard by Cadosch. Not only that, she was so sprightly she even hooked up with another punter outside 29 Hanbury Street immediately afterwards - the Ripper!

The only "only" we should use here is that Phillips was the only one out of the four to be totally unlikely to be totally wrong.

[Patrick S]

Much ado about nothing, Patrick.

It is a fact that he used another name than he otherwise used in authority contacts. Trying to explain why is engaging in alternative innocent explanations. Again. To no avail.

Covering the wounds would have made it possible to fool Paul. In no other Ripper case does this happen. The only person who stands to gain from it, is somebody who is still on the spot.

It is a fact that he passed through the killing fields. Putting a suspect on the spot is vital to any investigation.

It is a fact that Louisa Lechmere inhabited 1 Mary Ann Street at the time of the Stride murder. It is equally a fact that Lechmereīs daughter was listed as living with her.

It is a fact that he disagreed with the police over what was said. Offering alternative innocent explanations is ... well, you will know by now.

It is, as you recognize, a fact that he appeared at the murder scene with the victim still bleeding, just as it is a fact that he did not come forward until he had been mentioned by Paul in the press.

You are still moving in circles, offering alternative innocent explanations, and it all ends up the way I predicted - they change none of the matters that make him a suspect.

The Mizen scam is your favourite attacking object, going by how you have spent your time on the errand.

Letīs fit it in with the rest!

Charles Lechmere could either not happen upon a murder site or he could not. As destiny would have it, he DID do that.

Once that happened, he could either arrive there alone or in company with somebody else - or at least be seen arriving. As destinby would have it, he arrived there all alone.

When this happens, you can either arrive at a remove in time that speaks of innocence on your behalf - or you can arrive at a remove in time that is entriely consistent with guilt. As destiny would have it ...

At this stage, he had drawn the short straw three times in a row.

And it goes on:

It just so happens that out of the five Ripper sites, this was the only one where the wounds were hidden. It was a one in five risk that this ould happenm and guess what? He drew the short straw, leaving four long ones untouched.

And it just so happens that out of all directions Lechmere could have walked to work, he had to use the one direction that took him past the killing fields. He wasnīt going north, he wasnīt going south, he was not on his way east - no, as destiny would have it, just by pure coincidence his work trek coincided with the killing fields! The poor, unlucky bastard - it seems he could not find a single long straw!

And so he eneded up at the inquest. And when you do, if you have a name you regularly use in your contacts with the authorities, one would have expected you to use that name with the police too - but no, by a cruel twist of fate, it transpires that he used another name instead.

And Paul! He either could have witnessed about how he heard and saw Lechmere come to a halt and walk out into the street and stop, or he could have been forty yards behind, a stretch that would be just enough to disenable him to see Lechmere - and apparently to disenable him to hear him too! And so, Robert Paul could not, owing to the next twist of fate, confirm what Lechmere said. Rotten luck, that!

And the Mizen scam? Well, it applies that Lechmere could either agree with the police or he could disagree with them. And guess what happens?
Furthermore, if Mizen told porkies, as you suggest, then he could either tell a porkie that was NOT consistent with how a lie construed by Lechmere to get past the police would look like, or he could accidentally come up with a version that was totally consistent with it.
And which straw does the unlucky carter draw this time. Well as destiny would have it...

It is simply not a sound suggestion that all of these matters and more were just a loooong line of examples of how our carman happened to get hold of the hort end of the straw every time he tried his hand at it. And that is exactly the position James Scobie tok up when saying "when the coincidences mount up - and they DO in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many".

Regardless, though, of how many coincidences we list, one, two, four, fifteen, thirty, a hundred, a thousand or a million, it always remains an unfallable truth that we can ALWAYS come up with alternative innocent explanations for each and every one of them.

Much ado about nothing... Such is the entire Lechmere theory. You cannot believe any of this amounts to anything credible unless you "view the evidence with an eye on Lechmere being guilty"... The quote is yours, by the way.

[Varqm]

Does that ring impossible to you? I earlier suggested that we may have a case of a prostitute entering the yard with a punter. The woman sees Chapman, cries out "No!", and the punter says "Letīs get the hell out of here!", not wishing to be disclosed as a punter. And then they leave, the punter assuring the prostitute that admitting to what they had seen may equal putting a noose arund their necks.

It is just a suggestion, though. Whether Cadosch heard anything at all reamins written in the stars. Chapman was long dead at that stage at any rate, going by Phillips, so she had nothing to do with the matter.

So even though Richardson said "Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there", he missed the body plus another man and a woman who saw it and refused to testify? How about the simpler explanation, the body was not there when Richardson was sitting and what Cadoche heard was the time or beginning Chapman was about to be attacked/killed.Philips could easily have been off by an hour or two since that's the most accurate doctors could do EOF.


---

[Fisherman]

So even though Richardson said "Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there", he missed the body plus another man and a woman who saw it and refused to testify? How about the simpler explanation, the body was not there when Richardson was sitting and what Cadoche heard was the time or beginning Chapman was about to be attacked/killed.Philips could easily have been off by an hour or two since that's the most accurate doctors could do EOF.


---

No, I do not agree at all. I donīt think there is any realistic chance that Chapman died at around 5.30. And accordingly, it is not in any way the simpler explanation - it is the distorted one.

[Fisherman]

Much ado about nothing... Such is the entire Lechmere theory. You cannot believe any of this amounts to anything credible unless you "view the evidence with an eye on Lechmere being guilty"... The quote is yours, by the way.

Not only do I believe it, Patrick - a large number of people who saw the docu do, and some of them have studied the case for decades. David McNab, who produced it and who is a student of the case going back twenty years or so, believes it. And his is a very sharp mind. As is Scobies and Gffiths.

Why would I worry about you not agreeing and not being able to counter the theory with anything but alternative innocent explanations? There was always going to be disagreement over a topic like the Ripper one, some of them sound, some less so.

I know the quote is mine, and I understand what you are trying to imply with it. Incidentally, it puts you in the "less sound" category on that score.

[Patrick S]

I know the quote is mine, and I understand what you are trying to imply with it. Incidentally, it puts you in the "less sound" category on that score.

I'm not trying to imply anything. What did you mean by it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Much ado about nothing, Patrick.

It is a fact that he used another name than he otherwise used in authority contacts. Trying to explain why is engaging in alternative innocent explanations. Again. To no avail.

How many times? When you say in ‘authority contacts’ that’s a clever way of not saying ‘in writitng’ or ‘when filling in official papers’.’ As opposed to being asked his name and responding with the name he used every day. Add to this, yet again, that he gave his correct Christian names and his correct address meaning that he was hiding from no one.

Covering the wounds would have made it possible to fool Paul. In no other Ripper case does this happen. The only person who stands to gain from it, is somebody who is still on the spot.

And he just hoped to luck that Paul wouldn’t notice that her throat was cut while he was checking for a pulse?

It is a fact that he passed through the killing fields. Putting a suspect on the spot is vital to any investigation.

No. He passed down Buck’s Row. We can’t show that he passed down Berner Street or Dorset Street though.

It is a fact that Louisa Lechmere inhabited 1 Mary Ann Street at the time of the Stride murder. It is equally a fact that Lechmereīs daughter was listed as living with her.

And so obviously Lechmere would visit his daughter then think “I know, I think i’ll butcher a prostitute on the way there. Perhaps they’ll fancy a bit of kidney for supper?

It is a fact that he disagreed with the police over what was said. Offering alternative innocent explanations is ... well, you will know by now.

Or we might say that one police officer disagreed with the version of events provided by two people.

It is, as you recognize, a fact that he appeared at the murder scene with the victim still bleeding, just as it is a fact that he did not come forward until he had been mentioned by Paul in the press.

Hasn’t the fact the the body was still bleeding been debated on here? How can we know what the reason was for him coming forward?

You are still moving in circles, offering alternative innocent explanations, and it all ends up the way I predicted - they change none of the matters that make him a suspect.

Perish the though that someone might not view each event without the aid of the Lechmere Goggles.

The Mizen scam is your favourite attacking object, going by how you have spent your time on the errand.

Letīs fit it in with the rest!

Charles Lechmere could either not happen upon a murder site or he could not. As destiny would have it, he DID do that.

Proving that he was there and nothing else.

Once that happened, he could either arrive there alone or in company with somebody else - or at least be seen arriving. As destinby would have it, he arrived there all alone.

Because he probably didn’t feel the need to take a friend to work with him as a possible future alibi should anything out of the ordinary occur.

When this happens, you can either arrive at a remove in time that speaks of innocence on your behalf - or you can arrive at a remove in time that is entriely consistent with guilt. As destiny would have it ...

A meaningless statement.

At this stage, he had drawn the short straw three times in a row.

So he goes to work -as expected - Alone - as expected - Along Buck’s Row - as expected - At that time - as expected. Nothing mysterious can be read into these facts.

And it goes on:

Unfortunately it does

It just so happens that out of the five Ripper sites, this was the only one where the wounds were hidden. It was a one in five risk that this ould happenm and guess what? He drew the short straw, leaving four long ones untouched.

Or that it was the first murder so the killer hadn’t settled on displaying his victim? Or that the killer her Lechmere approach and just dropped her skirt down and left?

And it just so happens that out of all directions Lechmere could have walked to work, he had to use the one direction that took him past the killing fields. He wasnīt going north, he wasnīt going south, he was not on his way east - no, as destiny would have it, just by pure coincidence his work trek coincided with the killing fields! The poor, unlucky bastard - it seems he could not find a single long straw!

Unbelievable!
Yes because he lived where he did and worked at Pickford’s. If he’d gone via Dagenham it would have been a bit strange. So did Paul’s work trek for that matter.

And so he eneded up at the inquest. And when you do, if you have a name you regularly use in your contacts with the authorities, one would have expected you to use that name with the police too - but no, by a cruel twist of fate, it transpires that he used another name instead.

This is pathetic! He used his stepfathers Christian name. One that he probably used daily. His birth name Lechmere was the one he used in written form, on official documents. If he gave the name Lechmere for sinister, evasive reasons, he wouldn’t have given his correct Christian names or his correct address for Christ Sake! A possible reason for using Cross was that he wanted to keep the family name out of the papers.

And Paul! He either could have witnessed about how he heard and saw Lechmere come to a halt and walk out into the street and stop, or he could have been forty yards behind, a stretch that would be just enough to disenable him to see Lechmere - and apparently to disenable him to hear him too! And so, Robert Paul could not, owing to the next twist of fate, confirm what Lechmere said. Rotten luck, that!

And unless Paul was in cahoots with Lechmere a completely irrelevant point.

And the Mizen scam? Well, it applies that Lechmere could either agree with the police or he could disagree with them. And guess what happens?
Furthermore, if Mizen told porkies, as you suggest, then he could either tell a porkie that was NOT consistent with how a lie construed by Lechmere to get past the police would look like, or he could accidentally come up with a version that was totally consistent with it.
And which straw does the unlucky carter draw this time. Well as destiny would have it...

Or we could invent a ‘scam’ from nothing. Manufacturing a series of events for which there is no evidence. Lechmere is left trying to manipulate the situation on the spur of the moment, with Paul by his side, so that he can then tell a lie to a Constable that would have been easily discoverable. Lechmere is a convenient amalgamation of cleverness and stupidity. Convenient.

It is simply not a sound suggestion that all of these matters and more were just a loooong line of examples of how our carman happened to get hold of the hort end of the straw every time he tried his hand at it. And that is exactly the position James Scobie tok up when saying "when the coincidences mount up - and they DO in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many".

These are easily explainable events. Only the Lechmere Goggles alter that viewpoint.

Regardless, though, of how many coincidences we list, one, two, four, fifteen, thirty, a hundred, a thousand or a million, it always remains an unfallable truth that we can ALWAYS come up with alternative innocent explanations for each and every one of them.

Yes we can. Especially when they are manufactured to suit.

And we have the ludicrous idea of Lechmere butchering a prostitute 15 mins before he has to be at work.

And the ludicrous suggestion that he found Polly elsewhere then took her to a spot that he passed every day at that time on the way to work. So that if he’d been caught later on in the series he couldn’t reasonably deny ever being in Buck’s Row at the rough time of the murder.

And the point that he stays put when he could easily have fled to safety.

Or that we cannot place him at any other crime scene. (And I don’t mean that his Aunty Barbara lived 4 streets away from Mitre Square either.)

And we have no evidence of Lechmere being violent.

And we have the murders ceasing after Kelly. Oh, I forgot, that’s why you are so desperate to tie the Ripper Murders together with the Torso Killings.

Oh and we can see why you are desperate for John Richardson to be either a liar or a half-wit.

Yes, the list goes on

[Abby Normal]

whereas I believe that chapman more than likely was killed 5:30 ish and Richardson was correct in that she wasn't there when he was-one thing has always bugged me about the chapman murder/scene.


All other victims killed in the middle of the night while still dark.

Chapman killed in morning daylight, in what was IMHO, the most risky of circumstances for the ripper. In a public yet enclosed area where he could have been trapped and seen because it was light.

[Fisherman]

I'm not trying to imply anything. What did you mean by it?

What made you use the quotation? And point out that it was mine? Nothing at all, it was just a fluke...?

This is not what the thread and boards are for.

[Fisherman]

whereas I believe that chapman more than likely was killed 5:30 ish and Richardson was correct in that she wasn't there when he was-one thing has always bugged me about the chapman murder/scene.


All other victims killed in the middle of the night while still dark.

Chapman killed in morning daylight, in what was IMHO, the most risky of circumstances for the ripper. In a public yet enclosed area where he could have been trapped and seen because it was light.

And where does that lead you, Abby? At 5.30, Hanbury Street was filled with people on their way to the market, and not a soul seems to have mentioned that a bloodsoaked man stumbled out of 29 Hanbury Street.
Nor did the killer wash up, in spite of there being a tap and a sink filled with water.
Maybe he did not see them - in the dark?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And where does that lead you, Abby? At 5.30, Hanbury Street was filled with people on their way to the market, and not a sould seems to have mentioned that a bloodsoaked man stumbled out of 29 Hanbury Street.
Nor did the killer wash up, in spite of thre being a tap and a sink filled with water.
Maybe he did not see them - in the dark?

And neither Paul or Mizen mention Lechmere having a speck of blood on him after cutting Polly Nichols throat and mutilating her abdomen.

[Fisherman]

And we have the ludicrous idea of Lechmere butchering a prostitute 15 mins before he has to be at work.

And the ludicrous suggestion that he found Polly elsewhere then took her to a spot that he passed every day at that time on the way to work. So that if he’d been caught later on in the series he couldn’t reasonably deny ever being in Buck’s Row at the rough time of the murder.

And the point that he stays put when he could easily have fled to safety.

Or that we cannot place him at any other crime scene. (And I don’t mean that his Aunty Barbara lived 4 streets away from Mitre Square either.)

And we have no evidence of Lechmere being violent.

And we have the murders ceasing after Kelly. Oh, I forgot, that’s why you are so desperate to tie the Ripper Murders together with the Torso Killings.

Oh and we can see why you are desperate for John Richardson to be either a liar or a half-wit.

Yes, the list goes on

Iīll just do what I normally do when you have these fits, Herlock - I isolate one detail and scrutinize it:

"And we have the murders ceasing after Kelly. Oh, I forgot, that’s why you are so desperate to tie the Ripper Murders together with the Torso Killings."

I am not desperate to tie the series together. Nor do I have to. They do it by themselves. It takes sticking your head in the sand like an ostridge to miss out on that, and my have you stuck your head DEEEP in!

Oh, but I forgot, you have alternative explanations for this too: they both took out uteri, they both took out hearts, they both cut necks, they both abstained from physical torture and they both had a penchant for cutting away the abdominal wall in flaps - but they did so for wildly varying reasons (!), yes Sir!

It is okay not to have the capacity to see the implications of all this. It is okey to be ignorant. Totally (in both respects). Many people are, and as they say: it takes all kinds.
What is not okay is to produce the kind of crap you do and proudly flaunt it on public boards. It is even less okay to lack sorely in historical insights and try to hide that by accusing others of being the stupid ones.

You are talking out of your behind, Herlock, and the result is accordingly very meagre in terms of usefulness for the readers of these boards. I can only advice you not to overinvest in your capacity - but such advice is normally not appreciated for itīs good sense, and I donīt expect it to happen this time either.

Itīs a shame. The boards could - and should - be a source of insights and knowledge and not a stage for a vociferous concoction of misinformation, rude accusations and a seemingly bottomless pit of ignorance.

It nevertheless is just that at times.

[Fisherman]

And neither Paul or Mizen mention Lechmere having a speck of blood on him after cutting Polly Nichols throat and mutilating her abdomen.

"I donīt think that he must have had necessarily much or indeed any blood visible on his person".
(Jason Payne-James)

... but we of course payed him to say that, and he is just a simple liar anyway, misled by us and the devious film crew. And you are of course a MUCH better judge of this than him!!!

That is another alternative explanation.

Now I really donīt have any more time to spare for you. You have made the exact same statement before, and you have had the exact same answer before. You can lead a donkey to water...