If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Same here. That's always been one of my problems (among others!) when it comes to Lechmere as the Ripper.
Did a Ripper murder coincide with the route of a local carman, or did a local carman suddenly decide to kill on his route to work? I know which sounds more plausible to me.
It just seems so unlikely. Especially when you consider that he worked, raised a family and had what appears to be a normal, settled life. He's basically being suspected because he gave the name Cross. Maybe it would be a point if he'd said that it was Fred Smith and then disappeared off the radar but he didn't.
Regards
HS
Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Further, I suggest that Lechmere's reaction was almost identical the reaction Diemshutz had upon finding Stride in Dutfield's Yard. He struck a match and it was blown out. But he saw enough by it's light to determine that a woman was lying there. What did he do? Did be begin screaming for help? Of course not. He went to the club and told his wife and others what he'd found. And guess what he told them specifically? That he found a woman lying in the yard but he could not tell if she was "dead or drunk". Sound familiar?
Going further still...this term, "raising the alarm". I struggle with it. I suppose that it can describe any number of reactions. Alas, the reaction really depends on the information the alarm raiser has at the time he or she raises the alarm. I'd suggest both Lechmere and Diemshutz "raised the alarm" in that they alerted others to what they'd found. Of course, Diemshutz returned to scene with a candle and saw Stride's injuries, saw she was dead. Paul and Lechmere had no candle. But, what did they do, even as they were still unsure if the woman was "drunk or dead"? They went to find a policeman. Which is exactly what Diemschutz and Kozebrodsky did. Only they WERE shouting now because they had information that Lechmere and Paul did not: They knew the woman was DEAD. They saw her injuries. Thus, the alarm they raised was appropriate based upon the information they had at THAT time. Just as the alarm Diemschutz raised moments earlier was appropriate based on the information he had when he entered the club to report what he'd seen, not certain that he'd found a dead woman. And just as Lechmere and Paul's alarm was appropriate based on the information they had as the exited Buck's Row together.
Hi Patrick,
By coincidence I posted this earlier today on the other site:
I think it's very suspicious that he [Diemshutz] used different spellings of his name at different times. The man clearly had something to hide and possibly didn't want his wife to find out he had discovered a murder victim.
Did Diemschutz use different spellings of his name or did other people just mis-spell it?
It's a name of Russian origin, where the "real" spelling would be ДЫМШИЦ, but which could be transliterated into the Latin alphabet in a number of different ways - just like Чайко́вский, which is rendered as Tchaikovksy, Tschaikowsky, Tchaikowskij, Tsjaikovski, Czajkowski (etc) depending on who you ask and where you are.
So, you could argue that there's no "correct" spelling for ДЫМШИЦ, except in is native Cyrillic form. Everything else is a compromise.
Thanks for that Sam. Hardly surprising that non-English names in the case suffer a variety of spellings. Why couldn't they have sensible names like Sholmes?
Regards
Herlock
Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
I just find it difficult to believe that Jack the Ripper would commit a murder on his way to work?
a) he wouldn't have risked turning up for work spattered in blood (no matter how small an amount) when a murder had occurred on the very route that he'd taken to work.
b) he couldn't have known how long the murder would take to commit and we know how pushed for time he was. His main thought was not being late for work.
c) surely he took the same route to work every day and so it's likely that he'd seen Robert Paul before even if they'd never spoken. So if he knew that at least one other bloke walked along the same street at around the same time every day it would have deterred him.
d) I think that we would all think it was unlikely that Richardson would have killed Annie Chapman in his mother's back yard. Or that Reeve would have killed Tabram on a landing in the building where he lived. We don't know how intelligent Jack was but we can, at least, say that he was smart enough to avoid detection; would he really risk murdering a woman in a spot that he past every day on the way to work.
e) if he was guilty surely he'd more likely have just run when he heard Paul's footsteps around 40 yards away( a good head start )
f) he gave the police the name he used in speech every day. If he'd have called himself Lechmere people would be saying why didn't he use the name that he used every day (Cross)
g) he turned up to the inquest and gave a completely plausible account of his actions.
I, personally, can't see him as the ripper. I think the name thing has added mystery where none really exists.
Regards
HS
That just about sums it up. I agree that he's another very weak candidate .
Comment