Lechmere The Psychopath

[IchabodCrane]

Hello to the forum,

since I admit I am not that well read in what must now be thousands of pages of publications and public discussion on Lechmere as a suspect, can you recollect whether the following question was ever answered by the Lechmere proponents:

If he killed on his way to work, why invariably choose bank holidays for his hobby?
Assuming he had to work on those holidays, what difference would it make from any other day of the calendar?

Clues are scarce in the Ripper mystery. The GSG is one clue, the pattern of holidays is another. Any proponent of a suspect would need to find some explanation for both of them to fit his theory.

Thanks and regards
IchabodCrane

[Patrick S]

Hi patrick




the people you mention here have no connection to the case. the witnesses do. many killers, serial killers have initially only been thought of as witnesses and they turn out to be the killer. History has taught us this.

They all have "connections" to the case. It's just a matter of believing that the "connections" are real.

[Patrick S]

Chapman only fits time wise if we accept the murder took place even earlier than Phillips suggests and we ignore all the witnesses.
I don't think lech ties into Stride or Eddowes. The timing seems wrong to me. Heading towards Liverpool street after Stride seems illogical. Far better to have headed East and North surely given the time.

However it's of course open to debate.



Steve

Hi, Steve,

Best to throw logic out. I'll explain.

If memory serves the theory is that Cross may have been visiting his mother and young daughter near Berner Street, or visiting pubs in the area when he killed Stride. He then went in search of another victim around St. Boltoph's, retiring to Mitre Square with Eddowes, then perhaps popping in at Pickford's in Broad Street to wash up - on a Sunday - before heading home to Bethnal Green.

Thus, it seems to me if we make Cross the Ripper, then he's a killer with no real modus operandi, at least as it pertains to when he stalks and kills his victims. And that's an issue when a cornerstone of the "case" against "the carman" is that the murders occurred along his "route" to work, a route that took him through the "killing zone".

The "double event" occurred on a Sunday, as we know. Stride was killed around 1am, Eddowes between 1:35 and 1:45. Clearly, these women were not killed while Charles Cross walked his "route to work" through the "killing zone". Thus, we must divert from the damning fact that his route to work was near "all the murder sites" and we must accept Cross killing - not while strolling along that incriminating route to work - but while visiting and pubbing on a night off near Berner Street. So, that means Stride and Eddowes weren't killed as Cross strolled tow work. So, that's two of the five (canonical) victims NOT killed while Charles Cross was made that incriminating walk to work.

So, let's look at Chapman. This was Saturday. We'll assume Cross was due at work at 4am. Richardson was in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street at 4:45. He saw nothing. Elizabeth Long says she saw Chapman talking to a man at 5:30am. Thus, we have two witnesses telling us that Chapman was alive and not in the back of 29 Hanbury before 4:45am. So, now we have Chapman not killed while Cross was on his route to work because he was already AT work when she was killed. It should be noted that there was - at one time - an attempt to suggest that Cross drove a cart to the market near Hanbury Street and, while it was being unloaded, slipped off to meet, proposition, murder, and extensively mutilate Chapman, returning to fetch the cart and go about his business. One can debate the plausibility of this (and that's been done) but the point here is simple: Annie Chapman was not killed while Charles Cross was on his route to work. She was very likely killed while he was AT work.

That brings us to Kelly. She was killed on a Friday morning. So, it was a working day for Cross. According to Mary Ann Cox, Kelly is singing at 1am. If she didn't go out again and was in the company of her killer then - again - it wasn't Cross on is route "through the killing zone to work" in that he wasn't due at work until 4am. According to Hutchinson she was talking to a man 2am. If Hutchinson is correct and that man was her killer then it wasn't Cross on his way to work, either. Cox tells us she heard someone go out at 3am. If this was the killer then it wasn't Cross on his way to work. At 4am Elizabeth Prater hears someone cry out "Oh! Murder!" If this was the end of Kelly then she wasn't done for by Cross on his way to work because he had just ARRIVED at work. If we choose to believe Caroline Maxwell, that she saw Kelly at 830am then she was alive while Cross was on the clock, not on his route to work. The same is true if we believe that Maurice Lewis saw her with Barnett at 10am.

This is why I struggle when Cross' route to work is used as damning evidence. The only (canonical) victim killed while the man was ON his route to work is the woman he FOUND lying in Buck's Row ON HIS ROUTE TO WORK.

[Abby Normal]

Good point Harry

Regards
Herlock

why is it a good point?

[Abby Normal]

How many known serial killers had a connection to the case before they were ultimately caught?

all of them obviously

[Herlock Sholmes]

How many known serial killers had a connection to the case before they were ultimately caught?

Good point Harry

Regards
Herlock

[Harry D]

How many known serial killers had a connection to the case before they were ultimately caught?

[Abby Normal]

Hi, Abby. I'm interested in your mentioning a "connection to the case" as a metric to determine validity as a "suspect". Obviously, you feel that Cross has a connection in that he was recorded as having discovered Nichols' body, he appeared at the inquest, etc., and thus you feel he's a valid suspect.


My own perspective is quite different from yours. I feel as if "Jack the Ripper's" true name is one we haven't heard, and it's one we'll never learn. I'm far more intrigued by names that come to us because they committed violent acts, crimes, or were committed or incarcerated for mental illness. Then we search for connections to the case. A geographic connection. Some I'm interested because I put little stock in "connection to the case", that is unless the connection leads somewhere. I feel as if searching the ledger for the names of witnesses to cast as the killer leads to the same kind of thing - though often not nearly as absurd - we've seen with well known individuals of the time being placed "under suspicion. Prince Albert. Gull. Sickert. Carrol. Van Gough. For me it seems as if we become guilty of shrinking the our world to a handful of people, all known to us, either through celebrity or some "connection to the case". Forgetting that about six million people lived in and around London in 1888.

connection to a victim, etc. Names like Hyam Hyams. David Cohen. Kosmisky. Levy. These names hold more fascination for me than names like Lechmere. I put very little stock in ANY of them having been "the Ripper", but I still have some interest in them, if that makes sense.

Thanks.

Hi patrick

Hi, Abby. I'm interested in your mentioning a "connection to the case" as a metric to determine validity as a "suspect". Obviously, you feel that Cross has a connection in that he was recorded as having discovered Nichols' body, he appeared at the inquest, etc., and thus you feel he's a valid suspect.

yes. hes also the only witness/suspect whos seen near a victims body before he raises the alarm, has a discrepancy with a PC, used a different name, and has close geographic connection to the victims. as I think torso man and the ripper were more than likely the same person age wise he fits the bill for that also.

I think its very easy to pick any person out that has absolutely nothing to do with the case and fit them up to be the ripper. at the very least to me, before anything else, they need to have been proved to have at least been in London at the time, and secondly to have some sort of physical connection to the case to even consider them-but that's just me.

I assume that you might initially view men like - to name only a few - John Richardson, George Hutchinson, perhaps Morris Eagle, and Joe Barnett with suspicion, as well. Perhaps excluding them for reasons that can't be applied to Cross. How is Cross a more likely killer than these men? What have you seen - beyond his connection to the case - that leads you to believe he may have been guilty of (at the very least) Nichols' murder?

I absolutely consider men like Richardson, hutch and Barnett with suspicion. Hutch is 1a (along with blotchy-1b) as my favored suspects and Richardson and barnet in my second tier of possible candidates. don't know about eagle though-feel free to enlighten me about him though. I actually have lech on par with Richardson, but Barnett slightly above and hutch way above. as for reasons see above response.

I'm interested because I put little stock in "connection to the case", that is unless the connection leads somewhere. I feel as if searching the ledger for the names of witnesses to cast as the killer leads to the same kind of thing - though often not nearly as absurd - we've seen with well known individuals of the time being placed "under suspicion. Prince Albert. Gull. Sickert. Carrol. Van Gough. For me it seems as if we become guilty of shrinking the our world to a handful of people, all known to us, either through celebrity or some "connection to the case". Forgetting that about six million people lived in and around London in 1888.

the people you mention here have no connection to the case. the witnesses do. many killers, serial killers have initially only been thought of as witnesses and they turn out to be the killer. History has taught us this.

Along with that-They have the physical connection that puts them in whole different circle as the absurd suspects you mention or other non famous ones that you really cant tie to the case at all.

its also why I wouldn't even consider Jacob levy before it was discovered he might be related to one of the mitre square witnesses.

In his case it was the wild goose chase started by Anderson, via Fido, that I Think set too many people off looking for a crazy Jew to fit up as the ripper.

My own perspective is quite different from yours. I feel as if "Jack the Ripper's" true name is one we haven't heard, and it's one we'll never learn. I'm far more intrigued by names that come to us because they committed violent acts, crimes, or were committed or incarcerated for mental illness. Then we search for connections to the case. A geographic connection. Some connection to a victim, etc. Names like Hyam Hyams. David Cohen. Kosmisky. Levy. These names hold more fascination for me than names like Lechmere. I put very little stock in ANY of them having been "the Ripper", but I still have some interest in them, if that makes sense.

That's fine. and an interesting way to go-I fully embrace it. if it yields any connection. if not, I put almost zero credence in it. like I did with Levy-but now I do. Kos is in my first tier because he has a connection to the case-a possible ID and a suspect at the time. Cohen-no. too convoluted an idea. Hyam Hyams? enlighten me-why is he a suspect?
again a lot of the jewish suspects were found because of the witch hunt I believe started after Anderson and Fido. as you can see this aspect of suspectology sticks in my craw abit. sorry.

[Henry Flower]

If some cutting was interrupted it was not the cutting of the neck.

Pierre

Hi Pierre. On what historical data do you base that assumption, please?

Best

HF

[Pierre]

Okay, this is in line with observations made by Dr Biggs. Thus in respect of Nichols Dr Biggs opined:

"A severe abdominal wound would 'contribute' to the rapidity of bleeding to death, but this effect could range from almost negligible (if the neck wounds were so bad that death would have been very quick, and the abdominal wounds didn't hit anything major) to very great (if the neck wounds miraculously missed all the major vessels, and the abdominal wounds pranged something big.)" (Marriott, 2013.)

Now, Paul has expressed doubt that something big was pranged, which I wrongly interpreted to mean unlikely, although, of course, doubt can simply mean uncertain.

Nonetheless, as far as I'm aware, Dr Llewellyn doesn't mention serious damage to major vessels in the abdomen, I.e. the aorta and the inferior vena cava, which suggests to me that death was as a consequence of the neck rather than the abdominal wounds.

If some cutting was interrupted it was not the cutting of the neck.

Pierre

[John G]

John

I agree with that.


Steve

Thanks Steve.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

Edition 124.

Steve

thanks el!

[Elamarna]

Okay, this is in line with observations made by Dr Biggs. Thus in respect of Nichols Dr Biggs opined:

"A severe abdominal wound would 'contribute' to the rapidity of bleeding to death, but this effect could range from almost negligible (if the neck wounds were so bad that death would have been very quick, and the abdominal wounds didn't hit anything major) to very great (if the neck wounds miraculously missed all the major vessels, and the abdominal wounds pranged something big.)" (Marriott, 2013.)

Now, Paul has expressed doubt that something big was pranged, which I wrongly interpreted to mean unlikely, although, of course, doubt can simply mean uncertain.

Nonetheless, as far as I'm aware, Dr Llewellyn doesn't mention serious damage to major vessels in the abdomen, I.e. the aorta and the inferior vena cava, which suggests to me that death was as a consequence of the neck rather than the abdominal wounds.

John

I agree with that.


Steve

[John G]

post #1505

"Were the abdominal wounds enough to kill? Probably, but in a timescale that would be longer than the neck"

That is in line with what I posted in #1749.

What Paul actually said was that potentially they could kill.

"However he doubted that the Aorta and Vena Cava would have been cut because of the depth of wound needed.
The other major vessels would in his opinion not kill fast enough to fit the time frame.

Basically he considers death by the abdominal wounds more unlikely than the neck."


How does that indicate an inability to read?


steve

Okay, this is in line with observations made by Dr Biggs. Thus in respect of Nichols Dr Biggs opined:

"A severe abdominal wound would 'contribute' to the rapidity of bleeding to death, but this effect could range from almost negligible (if the neck wounds were so bad that death would have been very quick, and the abdominal wounds didn't hit anything major) to very great (if the neck wounds miraculously missed all the major vessels, and the abdominal wounds pranged something big.)" (Marriott, 2013.)

Now, Paul has expressed doubt that something big was pranged, which I wrongly interpreted to mean unlikely, although, of course, doubt can simply mean uncertain.

Nonetheless, as far as I'm aware, Dr Llewellyn doesn't mention serious damage to major vessels in the abdomen, I.e. the aorta and the inferior vena cava, which suggests to me that death was as a consequence of the neck rather than the abdominal wounds.

[Patrick S]

Thanks Harry
I never considered Jacob levy a valid suspect before.Nothing ties him to the case. Until it was found that his cousin might be one of the mitre square witnesess.

Has it been conclusively established they were cousins? if so that's a bigee for me-because now he does have an actual connection to the case, even if its peripheral.

Hi, Abby. I'm interested in your mentioning a "connection to the case" as a metric to determine validity as a "suspect". Obviously, you feel that Cross has a connection in that he was recorded as having discovered Nichols' body, he appeared at the inquest, etc., and thus you feel he's a valid suspect.

I assume that you might initially view men like - to name only a few - John Richardson, George Hutchinson, perhaps Morris Eagle, and Joe Barnett with suspicion, as well. Perhaps excluding them for reasons that can't be applied to Cross. How is Cross a more likely killer than these men? What have you seen - beyond his connection to the case - that leads you to believe he may have been guilty of (at the very least) Nichols' murder?

I'm interested because I put little stock in "connection to the case", that is unless the connection leads somewhere. I feel as if searching the ledger for the names of witnesses to cast as the killer leads to the same kind of thing - though often not nearly as absurd - we've seen with well known individuals of the time being placed "under suspicion. Prince Albert. Gull. Sickert. Carrol. Van Gough. For me it seems as if we become guilty of shrinking the our world to a handful of people, all known to us, either through celebrity or some "connection to the case". Forgetting that about six million people lived in and around London in 1888.

My own perspective is quite different from yours. I feel as if "Jack the Ripper's" true name is one we haven't heard, and it's one we'll never learn. I'm far more intrigued by names that come to us because they committed violent acts, crimes, or were committed or incarcerated for mental illness. Then we search for connections to the case. A geographic connection. Some connection to a victim, etc. Names like Hyam Hyams. David Cohen. Kosmisky. Levy. These names hold more fascination for me than names like Lechmere. I put very little stock in ANY of them having been "the Ripper", but I still have some interest in them, if that makes sense.

Thanks.