Tweet
Originally posted by Jon Guy
View Post
The best,
Fisherman
-
Are they the same ones that would not be visible if nothing but the legs were laid bare beneath the clothes? Just so I know that we are speaking of the same wounds, I mean ...
The best,
Fisherman -
With Nichols it is indisputable that the abdominal wounds were covered. It is clear that the dress was up to her groin area and the wounds were above this. If the wounds were visible then it would have been inconceivable that Paul managed to drag her dress down towards her knees and not get covered in blood. He also touched her breast. He must have been very close. The idea that he missed stomach wounds that were on show against the whiteness of her skin, even in the dark, does not hold water.
With Mackenzie it is indisputable that her abdominal wounds were visible. That a portion of one wound may have been covered does not nullify the visibility of the majority of her wounds.
If it was almost pitch lack then Lechmere wouldn’t have even seen a tarpaulin.Comment
-
Hi Christer
Yes, you`d think I was trying to push a suspect with that leap in logic ;-)Originally posted by Fisherman View PostI would be a bit careful with that expression; "leaning over the body". It tends to irritate people.
It says nothing about leaning over the body, I think. What is said is that Neil found the body, and then shone his lantern on it, noticing the blood.
But, as it was a lantern/lamp that Neil was using he couldn`t shine it on the body like a torch. Surely he would have to hold it close to something to illuminate ?
But, anyway the fact is Neil had to have the aid of a lamp to see the wounds.
I didn`t realise there was an issue.Let´s avoid the lamp post issue, Jon ...!
Sorry, you`ve lost me here ? What do you mean ?Neil may have seen the shape lying on the ground, and realizing it was a woman, he could have lit his lamp and shone the light on her as he approached her for all we know. Why would he wait with that? So he may never even have given himself the time to see the blood - if he could do that - without the lamp. There is no test, no comparison....!
"Hurried along energetically" !!I´ve seen pitch black, Jon, the kind of pitch black where you must fel your way forward, like a blind man
The carmen hurried along energetically along the pavement with no such problems. ....!
That`s a bit like my "Neil leaned over the body with his lamp". :-)
Well, I kind of agree. I`m not sure all killers want to display their work, for loons like Dahmer and Nielson it was a very personal and private affair with the corpse. I believe Bundy and Ridgeway hid some so they could revisit the bodies.We are talking about how killers are proud of their work and display it to the world by making a spectacle of it. Such people do not cover the abdomen and lay their victims out as if they were sleeping. .
But I agree that a killer like the Ripper wouldn`t cover any wounds. Which is why I`m arguing that the dress could have just been dropped as it was found by Cross and Paul (and there was no pulling it down - this is my argument) You are stating it like another fact that points to Cross`s guilt, it`s possible, but not a fact.
I`m glad you brought this up.She was NOT a typically displayed victim - on the contrary. She differs VERY much from Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly in this respect - they are polar opposites in the regard.
Don`t you think the reason that the above ladies were found with obviously splayed legs was because the killer removed the uterus ?
Because the killer worked the knife under her dress ?Her abdomen was open and her bowels were protruding?
That was concealed, unlike in the other cases. So why not Nichols?
Paul didn`t see him walking away from the body, and yes, if guilty he could just have walked casually westwards.
Wudda, cudda, shudda ... He was THERE, by the body, close to it, and he has no alibi for the time leading up to Pauls arrival. What he "could have done" involves killing Nichols, I´m afraid.
He was in the middle of the road, not close to it or by it
Alibi for the time leading up to Paul`s arrival ? He left home and was walking to work. Cross didn`t disappear off the radar.
Regarding the name thing, for it to have any credibility you need to show something like what name Pickfords knew him as -Cross or Lechmere.If he didn´t, he should have given his real name to the inquest, he should not have disagreed with Mizen and he should not have had working paths and his mothers place that potentially aligned the murder sites.
Working paths ? If we have to play the witness as a murderer game then out of the two Robert Paul is the most suspicious. Two consecutive murders occurring on his route to work.
Anyway, despite your tone, Christer, I still love you.
Comment
-
Jon Guy: Hi Christer
Yes, you`d think I was trying to push a suspect with that leap in logic ;-)
But, as it was a lantern/lamp that Neil was using he couldn`t shine it on the body like a torch. Surely he would have to hold it close to something to illuminate ?
But, anyway the fact is Neil had to have the aid of a lamp to see the wounds.
Ah, but that is what I am saying we can´t know - he would have shone his lantern as he approached the bo0dy, and so all we know is that he COULD see the blood with a torch. If he could see the blood without it, he never tested.
"Hurried along energetically" !!
That`s a bit like my "Neil leaned over the body with his lamp". :-)
Not really - we know that both men claimed to be late.
Well, I kind of agree. I`m not sure all killers want to display their work, for loons like Dahmer and Nielson it was a very personal and private affair with the corpse. I believe Bundy and Ridgeway hid some so they could revisit the bodies.
But I agree that a killer like the Ripper wouldn`t cover any wounds. Which is why I`m arguing that the dress could have just been dropped as it was found by Cross and Paul (and there was no pulling it down - this is my argument) You are stating it like another fact that points to Cross`s guilt, it`s possible, but not a fact.
It is a potential pointer, I think that´s the most we can say. And it only happens with Nichols - which is the one murder where I argue that the killer was in place when the body was found by somebody else - Paul.
I`m glad you brought this up.
Don`t you think the reason that the above ladies were found with obviously splayed legs was because the killer removed the uterus ?
Don´t you think the killer meant to and hoped to remove inner organs from Nichols too?
Because the killer worked the knife under her dress ?
No, Jon, I really don´t think so. Can´t exclude it, though.
He was in the middle of the road, not close to it or by it.
The middle of the road WAS close to the body.
Alibi for the time leading up to Paul`s arrival ? He left home and was walking to work. Cross didn`t disappear off the radar.
Oh, yes he did. We cannot know what he did in the time leading up to Pauls arrival. That effectively means he was off the radar. Saying that he did this and that only goes to provide a potential explanation to what he did when he was off it.
Regarding the name thing, for it to have any credibility you need to show something like what name Pickfords knew him as - Cross or Lechmere.
No, it is very suffuicient to point to all other signatures, more than a hundred of them. They make the case.
Working paths ? If we have to play the witness as a murderer game then out of the two Robert Paul is the most suspicious. Two consecutive murders occurring on his route to work.
But not first in place, and there goes the case (look, I rhymed!).
Anyway, despite your tone, Christer, I still love you.
Reciprocated! I´m too grumpy these days. And people discussing with me are too ungenerous! Things will light up, though, in the future, I feel confident about that.
All the best,
FishermanComment
-
Well, I always appreciate you taking the time to respond to my posts, Christer, so I apologise if I was ungenerous .. you know it`s only because we`re passionate about the subject. Have a great weekend ... it`s sunny, a classic world cup final .. what more can we ask for.Originally posted by Fisherman View PostComment
-
In my case: a telly!Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
I am going to spend the next week, starting on Saturday, on the remote island of Hallands Väderö, where electricity is an unknown factor. The only entertainment out there is seagulls, seals, sun and a bunch of merry friends who bring food and wine with them.
It is bliss.
As for being ungenerous, please don´t apologize, Jon. I was speaking in more general terms. I am very much aware that Charles Lechmere is an extremely good bid for the Ripper´s role. He is the kind of grey man who had reasons to be on the street at the relevant hours, and there are so many odd things adhering to him that a whopper of a case can be made. That has never happened before in the history of Ripperology.
I fully realize, though, that not all people will agree and be equally enthusastic. But it saddens me deeply when it is said that he is a non-starter, that no case can be made, etcetera. That is outright wrong and totally, totally disingenious.
Me, I´m half granite, half diamond, so I don´t dispare because of this - I know a case when I see it, and my own conviction that everything that surfaces as we look deeper and deeper into Lechmere will strengthen the case, has come very much true.
But what about those who make a good case for something or someone and who are not built the way I am? How many good and useful posters do we scare away with this attitude?
At the end of the day, should we not embrace the efforts that people make to try and help bring the case a little further along the road?
If we allow ourselves to be a bunch of cynics, we will pay for it in lost information and suggestions, that´s what I fear.
Anyway, I think the Germans are in for a major surprise in the World Cup final. And I´m as good a judge as you are going to find on such matters, having opted for Brazil in the game against the germans ...
All the best,
FishermanLast edited by Fisherman; 07-11-2014, 08:14 AM.Comment
-
I certainly don`t think he can be classed as a non-starter, Christer.
I think it would be inaccurate to say that He was in Bucks Row at the right time etc etc so, he can`t be ruled out as the killer... but ..... someone had to find the body, and he was on the way to work, but that`s my take anyway.
I don`t agree about losing out on info if we are cynical about theories. Many of my favourite Ripperologists don`t publicly favour any particular suspect yet continue to treat us again and again to facts that have enhanced our knowledge of the case. But fear ye not, Suspect Ripperology will always exist and no-one can deny that Lechmere could have killed Nichols.
Anyway, have a great week, don`t forget to take enough batteries for the portable radio. I want Germany to win, as reward for that exceptional semi final performance. I don`t think it was all down to Brazil being sh#t. England would still have struggled to get a draw .... !!!Comment
-
There´s cynical and there´s cynical, Jon. And then there´s Casebook cynical ...Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
I will have a great week nevertheless, thanks for the well wishes!
The best,
FishermanComment
-
Hi All
I know there is a lot of debate as to weather Cross was the ripper, having read all the arguments for him being so because of Nichols, the fact that he found the body, the time at which he was out and about being consistent with the murders taking place etc. I just wanted to ask where he fits in the other murders. What hypothesis do you have for these? What do we know about Cross apart from him being a carman, working early hours.
Does anyone know weather he had a criminal past. What was the motive? I don't think I know of any serial killers who didn't have a motive for committing a crime, or any who wasn't driven to commit a crime because of a dysfunctional background for example.
How does he fit in with the other crimes? I don't think any suggestions have been put forward in regards to this (forgive me if they have, just haven't read them) only that of Nichols.Comment
-
Hi natasha,I don't know where he fits in with the other murders and after over 125 years I think we will find it hard to check his alibi.The biggest problem I have with him apart from the no evidence is the fact that all of a sudden he stopped killing I'm pretty convinced who ever our killer was something happened to him after he butcherd Mary Kelly death or Looney bin I think.Originally posted by Natasha View PostThree things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truthComment
-
Indeed,Originally posted by Natasha View Post
Nichols seems to be the base upon which the theory is built upon, and it is rare to find a post which does not mention her, or Mizen, or Neil, or Paul.
I also note there is little, if anything, regarding Cross and the double event.
That said, this is not uncommon in suspect Ripperology, and that is not a criticism. Just observing.
Monty
Monty
https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif
Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622Comment
-
Hi Natasha!Originally posted by Natasha View Post
"Cross" is easy to physically track alongside the Nichols trail since we know his movements that night. In the other cases, we do not have that luxury, and so we have to speculate and extrapolate. One such extrapolation is that whoever killed Nichols would quite probably be the man that killed the other victims who had their bellies cut open too.
Here is an article I wrote some time ago about him that shows how we think he is connected to the other murders:
Early on the 31:st of August 1888, the carman Robert Paul was on his way to work in Corbett´s Court in London´s East End. He was late; the time was 3.45 as he briskly walked down Buck´s Row after having turned into it from Brady Street. At the intersection between the streets he passed a gas lamp. There were a further couple of lamps along Buck´s Row, but none of them functioned, so the darkness deepened around Paul with every step he took. Having walked a hundred yards or so, and with the light from the gas lamp as a haze in the distance, he suddenly discerned a man standing still in the middle of the street. Robert Paul felt uneasy, and as the other man took a step or two towards him, Paul chose to step down from the pavement to walk round him. Then the other man stretched out his arm, put his hand on Paul´s shoulder and said:
- Come and have a look, there´s a woman lying over here.
At the entrance to Brown´s Stable Yard, a figure was stretched out on its back. The men crossed Buck´s Row to take a look.
The woman lying on the southern side of the narrow street was the 43-year old prostitute Mary Ann ”Polly” Nichols. The man that had stopped Robert Paul was also a carman, 38 years of age, answering to the name Charles Allen Lechmere. And the murder – for it was a murder – was the first in the series attributed to Jack the Ripper.
The Ripper murders were all knife slayings. They were so violent that they made Londoners presuppose that they were dealing with a complete maniac. They would remain unsolved. There were five of them according to traditional opinion, and they were perpetrated over a period of around ten weeks.
When the story about them is told, a number of elements are usually involved: the competent Victorian police, the dark labyrinth of crime-infested streets called the East End and the skill that allowed the killer to avoid the police net.
Those who dig deep enough into the case will discover that one of these elements was not really there. Sadly, that element was the police competence. It is a controversial view, but an inevitable one. The police force had no experience of serial killings, it was led by men who in many instances had peculiar qualifications for police work and it carried out its duties in an era when racism abounded and phrenology – the belief that criminality could be read into people´s differing physiognomies – was an accepted ”science”.
If the investigation had been handled the way investigations are handled today, then Polly Nichols would probably never have come to be regarded as the first Ripper victim. The killings would probably have ended there and then. A modern police force would arguably have concluded that the man Robert Paul found standing by Polly Nichols, was also her probable killer: Charles Allen Lechmere. But let´s return to Buck´s Row and find out what it is that points towards him.
At the inquest after the murder, Lechmere claimed that he had noticed that there was something – his guess was a tarpaulin – lying on the southern side of Buck´s Row. He had then walked out into the street. At that same stage, he heard somebody – Robert Paul – was approaching. But he did not notice Paul until he was some thirty-forty yards away.
And yet we know that a policeman during the same night heard his colleague´s steps from 130 yards away. Reasonably, Lechmere should have already heard Paul when the latter turned into Buck´s Row. The street was resting in silence and the shoes of that time had hard, loud heels.
Likewise, Paul should have heard Lechmere walking in the darkness some thirty, forty yards ahead of him. But he didn´t.
The conclusion is inescapable: Lechmere was in place before he admits to have been. And once he noticed the approaching Paul, he chose to bluff the newcomer instead of running for it, and attracting attention to his person.
They then went over to the woman together to feel her. Her hands were cold, but the face was warm, and as Paul felt her chest he discerned some small movement.
- I believe she is alive, but only just, he said. Let´s prop her up, he suggested. But Lechmere then said that he would not touch her.
The reason for this is easy to see: as long as the woman was lying on the ground, it could not be made out in the darkness that she had had her neck severed down to the spine, and it provided Lechmere with the opportunity to procure an alibi for whatever blood he could have gotten on himself. But the moment they tried to sit her up, what had happened to her would become obvious.
Paul now remembered that he was late. He suggested that he should go and fetch a policeman to send to Buck´s Row. This made Lechmere say that he too was late, and throw forward a proposal that they should seek out that policeman together. If he had the murder weapon stashed on himself – no weapon was found at the spot when it was searched later – one can understand that he did not wish to wait for a policeman. And Paul had seen him and could identify him, so running was no longer any alternative. Lechmere was forced to improvise.
Before they set off, Paul respectfully pulled the woman´s clothes down as best as he could. Before that, they had been pulled up to the hip region, leaving the legs bare. But the clothes had covered her belly completely, and therefore her other wounds had been hidden – she had had the stomach ripped open from the breast bone down to the pelvic region. So somebody had taken the time to conceal this by using her clothes. Only one person stood to gain something by such a thing: a killer that had not been able to flee.
The carmen now left Buck´s Row and walked westwards. A couple of hundred yards from the murder scene, they ran into PC Jonas Mizen, who was in the process of knocking people up by tapping on doors and windows, a practice that was common amongst the police. Mizen would later at the inquest say that only one of the carmen – Lechmere – had spoken to him, and that this carman had told him that he was needed in Buck´s Row, where a woman was lying on the ground and where a fellow PC awaited his arrival.
But wait a second …?
There was no other PC in Buck´s Row, was there?
Exactly.
But if Lechmere was the killer, then he was still carrying his murder weapon on his person. Therefore he would have been anxious not to be searched, and determined to avoid being forced back to the murder site. That would have been why he invented a fictive PC, something that made Mizen accept that the carmen had already been cleared.
That is how easily the probable killer of Polly Nichols got past the police! And actually, there was another PC in place as Mizen arrived in Buck´s Row – PC John Neil had found Nichols on his beat a few minutes after the carmen had left her.
Could Lechmere possibly have known that Neil would be in place as Mizen arrived? Yes, that is an obvious possibility. He had probably picked Nichols up on Whitechapel Road, a known prostitute haunt. At that stage, the couple would reasonably have checked where the beat PC was before they sneaked up to Buck´s Row; prostitution was a crime.
The fact is that John Neil for a couple of days remained the man believed to first have discovered the body. But Robert Paul apparently had gotten word that Nichols had been killed, which was why he went to the press and gave a (probably well-paid) interview. It was published on the Sunday, two days after the murder and the day before the inquest. In the interview, Paul claimed to have found Lechmere standing ”where the body was”.
That was alarming news for Lechmere, and it arguably made him report himself to the police to provide his own version of the story, after which he was summoned to the Monday inquest. If he had avoided going to the police, then they would have had a situation where they knew a man had been standing by Nichols´ body at the approximate time of her death, only to later disappear. And Lechmere knew that both Paul and Mizen could identify him. Therefore he chose to come forward and present himself – but not fully. For he chose to call himself Charles Cross as he witnessed!
As a child, he had for a duration of around a decade had a stepfather called Thomas Cross, but there are no signs that Lechmere used his stepfathers name in any other context than the murder of Nichols. On the contrary; there are around ninety instances when the carman´s name is recorded in different official contexts. Every single name he writes himself Lechmere.
The secret about the name was unrevealed for more than a hundred years – it was not until some years ago that a genealogist made the connection.
The particulars Lechmere gave to the police where otherwise – apart from the name – correct. He stated 22 Doveton Street as his home address and he added that he worked for a Pickfords depot since an approximate twenty years. But when he witnessed before the inquest he added another anomaly to the false name: he did not state his home address before the jury, something witnesses normally do.
He said his name was Charles Cross and that he worked at Pickfords. But hundreds of men worked there, and without any home address he became unidentifiable to those who took part of the inquest proceedings in the papers. Consequently, his neighbours and his family could read about the murder without understanding that it was Lechmere who had found the victim.
But what about the police – surely they must have checked him out?
Not at all – a check in the registers, a visit at his home address or at Pickfords would immediately have disclosed that his name was not Cross. But Lechmere swiftly disappeared from the investigation, suspected of nothing at all. To be sure, a juryman did ask him if he had really told PC Mizen that another policeman was awaiting him in Buck´s Row, but this Lechmere denied. He added that he actually could not have said such a thing since there had not been any PC in Buck´s Row. This Robert Paul could of course confirm, and therefore everything pointed to Mizen having misunderstood things. And deeper than that nobody went – a murder inquest´s aim is merely to establish the cause of death.
Why then did the police fail to check Lechmere out? Well, they decided at an early stage that they were looking for a lunatic, very possibly a foreign such.
After the fourth Ripper killing, that of Catherine Eddowes, the detective Daniel Halse met two men in a street adjacent to the murder spot. His only measure was to establish that the men had legitimate reasons to be there. After that, he let them go. They were probably British, and they probably stated that they lived in the street or nearby, or perhaps that they were on their way to work. Exactly such a statement was also enough, as we have seen, for Charles Lechmere to gain a free passage from the inquest. He was British, he was a family father with eleven children, he was en route to his work. He was everything the Victorian police did not expect the killer to be.
And still, he was alone with a murder victim, a victim that may well still have been alive as Paul thought he discerned a small movement in her chest. When John Neil laid eyes on her, perhaps some three or four minutes afterwards, there was still blood running from her neck. And Mizen claimed the exact same thing, being in place a couple of minutes after Neil. The extensive damage she had suffered ought to have emptied her of blood quickly, it would not have been a matter of many minutes.
To tell the truth, Charles Lechmere should not even have been in Buck´s Row at 3.45 in the morning. For he claimed that he had left his home at 3.30, and to walk from Doveton Street to the murder spot is easily done in six or seven minutes. That means that Charles Lechmere should have left Buck´s Row well behind him long before Robert Paul turned into it. Therefore the time window is in place for Lechmere to have committed the murder.
All in all, a substantial amount of accusations can be raised against Charles Lechmere. But do we have something to check it against, something that can strengthen the case?
Yes we have, actually! We can take a look at the five Ripper killings, and we can add another knife slaying that may have been perpetrated by the same man, three weeks before the Ripper series. After that, we can compare the times and places the murders occurred at with Charles Lechmere´s route to work. When doing so, an amazing pattern emerges.
Lechmere had two roughly comparable thoroughfares from Doveton Street to Pickfords in Broad Street, where today’s Liverpool Street station is situated. They were Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street.
-On the 7:th of August, Martha Tabram was killed at the approximate time when Lechmere went to work. She died in George Yard, only thirty yards or so off Old Montague Street.
-On the 31:st of August Polly Nichols died on Buck´s Row – along Lechmere’s working route.
-On the 8:th of September Annie Chapman was murdered early in the morning on a working day, in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street.
-On the 9:th of November Mary Kelly met with her killer, early in the morning of a working day, in Miller´s Court, Dorset Street. And Dorset Street offered a short cut to Pickfords along the Hanbury Street route.
There are two murders left to account for, both of them on the 30:th of September, when first Liz Stride and later Catherine Eddowes were killed. Here is a deviation: Stride was killed shortly before one o clock in the morning. That was not a time at which Lechmere was en route to his job. Eddowes died a little less than an hour later, that too being too early to be tied to Lechmere´s working trek.
Nor did these victims die along Lechmere´s working route. Stride met her end on Berner Street, a couple of hundred yards south of the Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street area, and Eddowes fell prey in Mitre Square, that too being situated south of the Lechmere working trek territory.
These cases can, however, be regarded as confirmation of Lechmere´s culpability. For they took place on the night leading up to a Sunday, Lechmere’s day off. And the Stride case took place in the exact territory where Lechmere had grown up and lived for a long stretch of years. Furthermore, Berner Street was a thoroughfare to Cable Street, where Charles Lechmere´s mother and one of his daughters were living!
For a hard-working carman, there was only one real evening off, and that was Saturday evening. What could be more natural than to use that evening to visit your mother and daughter?
The Stride killing was different from the other canonical cases in the sense that her stomach was not ripped open. There is an obvious possibility that Lechmere was disturbed, and frustrated fled Berner Street. After that, he sought out Catherine Eddowes and killed her in Mitre Square – alongside his old working route from James Street to Pickfords! Lechmere lived in James Street until June 1888, when he made the move to Doveton Street. That means that he left his old grounds – and the close proximity to his mother – only weeks before the murders began.
The British police hunted the Ripper up until 1892. After that, scores of armchair detectives have tried to catch the illusive killer. Hundreds of suspects have come and gone, one more fantastic than the other. Lately, a theory that Vincent van Gogh was the killer has seen the light of day.
Many ripperologists have made a quid by throwing a speculation in along the rugged road that winds through the gas lit East End streets of the 1880:s. There now being a rationally functioning, everyday, grey suspect is not something all Ripper researchers have wished for.
They can find consolation in the fact that Lechmere actually has a glamorous family history, counting an archbishop and one of Admiral Nelson´s closest men. Lechmere’s branch of the family, however, had the bad luck of being hit by a waster, namely Charles´ grandfather, who threw away his fortune.
So, to top things off, Charles Lechmere had good reason to feel a strong urge for revenge as he wandered the streets of the East End together with prostitutes, pimps and robbers, carrying the insight that he was made up of another material altogether himself than they were.
Did that insight ultimately drive him over the edge?
Charles Allen Lechmere died at the age of 71, on the 23:rd of December 1920, in Bow, London, after having suffered brain hemorrhage two days earlier.
All the best,
FishermanLast edited by Fisherman; 08-11-2014, 02:09 AM.Comment
-
You need to do more research Christer, far more research.The police force had no experience of serial killings, it was led by men who in many instances had peculiar qualifications for police work and it carried out its duties in an era when racism abounded and phrenology – the belief that criminality could be read into people´s differing physiognomies – was an accepted ”science”.
Your ignorance on Victorian police is telling, and complete.
Monty
Monty
https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif
Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622Comment
-
Hi Natasha,Originally posted by Natasha View Post
The answer is, geographically. The theory holds that there were two likely routes from his home to Pickfords in Broad Street. A southern route along Wentworth Street and a northern route along Hanbury Street.
The murders fit nicely into his daily routine as follows:
Smith - southern route.
Tabram - southern route.
Nichols - either.
Chapman - northern route.
Kelly - Northern route.
The double event does not fit into this pattern, but as it was Sat/Sun, we would not expect Lech to be using his working route. It is pointed out that the Stride killing was a few streets away from where his mother lived, and if you accept that he was disturbed there, then Mitre Court was a random choice made out of desperation. And for good measure we have his mother running a cats meat business a few yards away from the railway arch where the Pinchin Street torso was found.
In addition to the geography, there is mention of Lech's attention to detail when filling out forms which is put forward as evidence of a controlling nature and also hints that his mother may have had a similar character. She ran several small businesses and entered into two bigamous marriages.
And one of the spin-offs from the Nichols events is the idea that the Cross name was given to hide his involvement from his illiterate wife.
MrBLast edited by MrBarnett; 08-11-2014, 02:32 AM.Comment
-
Hi Fish,
'Every single name he writes himself Lechmere'?
I may be being pedantic here, but how many examples of his actual signature do you have? His marriage cert and the 1911 census are all I can find. The bulk of the records are school records where only his forename(s) appears, written presumably by a school official or electoral forms that were compiled by the Electoral Registration Officer.
I stand to be corrected, but the impression I had of Lechmere proudly signing CAL over a hundred times may not have been the case at all.
MrBLast edited by MrBarnett; 08-11-2014, 02:46 AM.Comment
Comment