Scenarios for other murders with Lechmere as culprit

[Abby Normal]

Hello Fish, Lech

Since much is made of the murders happening along Lechs walk to work route I would like to see what your specific scenarios of each murder are including all the murder victims you think can be attributed to Lech. Please include details like when lech left his house, where you think he encountered the victim , when the victim was murdered etc.
Basically, how you think each murder went down. You can skip Polly here obviously.
Thanks in advance and am very interested to see your response.
__________________

[Lechmere]

I will try to give you my take ASAP - at the moment I am just using an iPhone which makes anything but a short posting a bit difficult.

[DVV]

You can skip Polly here obviously.

Hi Abby.
Agreed.
Let's give her a wide berth.

[Scott Nelson]

NO! NO!! NO!!! Don't start this nonsense with other murders. One non-starter is enough.

[Robert]

Lech killed on an industrial scale and under a variety of names. It is only now that victims are coming forward to say they were murdered. How did he get away with it for so long??

[DVV]

The cross, Robert, the cross.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Robert

Chas'll fix it for you?

All the best

Dave

[Stephen Thomas]

Lech killed on an industrial scale and under a variety of names. It is only now that victims are coming forward to say they were murdered. How did he get away with it for so long??

I see you're on top form today, Robert

[DVV]

NO! NO!! NO!!! Don't start this nonsense with other murders. One non-starter is enough.

Mais si, mais si.
I suggest they start by the double event.

[Fisherman]

Scott:

"Don't start this nonsense with other murders. One non-starter is enough."

Coupling the other murders to Lechmere by means of timing and geography has already been done. In that respect, the aim of this thread has been met to some extent.

When it comes to coupling the murders as such to Lechmere in other respects, the obvious pointer is of course that they all look very much alike, Stride excepted. They are all evisceration murders carried out by means of knife, and they all portray the same sort of victimology. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that the man who killed Nichols, may well be the killer of Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly too. Particularly since eviscerators are very rare.

It really is not any harder than that.

The problem only arises when somebody claims that Lechmere as the killer of Nichols is a "non-starter". If this is true, then it would of course be absolutely useless to look at him as a possible culprit in the four later cases too. Why would we; if he could not have been Nichol´s killer, if he was in fact and by definition a non-starter, the he would not have killed any of these women.

This begs the question: What is a non-starter? And I would argue that a non-starter in this context is a person who could obviously not have been the killer of Nichols. There must be something to point at, that clearly tells us all that the very idea is preposterous.

If we were to take it a bit further, one would need to see proof that Lechmere could not have been the killer - that would make for a true non-starter. In this category we have men like Albert Victor, Ostrog and Sickert, who were not in place as the women died.

But as I understand the word non-starter, it is more of a pointer to the pointed-out suspect not being a realistic bid at all, but instead a ridiculous contender; Robert Mann, Lewis Carroll, Vincent van Gogh, etcetera.

It would be interesting if you could find the time to expand a bit on why you think Charles Lechmere is a non-starter, Scott. He is a social descender with an absent father figure, who moved into the killing grounds only weeks before the strikes, he was found standing by the first victim, he gave a name that he is not known to have used otherwise when talking to the police about the murder, he was reported to have told a PC a lie about another PC being present at the murder spot, thus perhaps creating a possibility for himself to slip by this PC. He was also described by the same PC as having played down the severity of the case when informing him about it, and he had geographical ties to the murder spots by means of his probable working route and the route to his mother´s house.

All of this you have seen before, and still you call Lechmere a non-starter. Why? What is it that you find disenables him to be a useful bid? What prohibits him from even being in the race?

I can´t see any such thing, but then again, I´m sure some will have it that I am beyond help and unable to see anything but guilt on Lechmere´s behalf, so I may need a little help here. As it stands, the only non-starter I can see is your post. That has all the hallmarks of a non-starter: It contains a ridiculous and unsustainable stance, and it is evident to me that it does not belong to a realistic debate. And that is what a non-starter is, is it not?

All the best, Scott!
Fisherman

[Barnaby]

Fisherman and Lechmere are doing their job. They are putting forth the strongest possible argument for their suspect, who is not wildly implausible. We certainly have the right to be skeptical, but I contend that they are doing a better job than most advocates of specific suspects.

[Fisherman]

My humble thanks, Barnaby!!

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Hello Fish, Lech

Since much is made of the murders happening along Lechs walk to work route I would like to see what your specific scenarios of each murder are including all the murder victims you think can be attributed to Lech. Please include details like when lech left his house, where you think he encountered the victim , when the victim was murdered etc.
Basically, how you think each murder went down. You can skip Polly here obviously.
Thanks in advance and am very interested to see your response.
__________________

I can name at least 4 case related individuals off the top of my head who have connections to the more than one of murder sites. PCs Neil, Pennett and Pearce for example.

I can name more who would pass them on a regular basis

Citing this as supporting evidence is fine, however its not exclusive to Cross.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"I can name at least 4 case related individuals off the top of my head who have connections to the more than one of murder sites. PCs Neil, Pennett and Pearce for example."

And there will have been many, many more, Monty - having some sort of connection physically to two of the murder sites would be something hundreds of men - if not more - would have had in common.
Personally, I don´t think any of the PC:s you mention make for good suspects, though.

"I can name more who would pass them on a regular basis"

All of them, Berner Street included? I don´t think I could do that, but that is not to say that I exclude the possibility that such men would have been around.

"Citing this as supporting evidence is fine, however its not exclusive to Cross."

No, it is not, in all probability. And I don´t think that the point has been made that this must have been so. On the other hand, if we are looking for somebody who had reason to pass the Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly murder spots on ordinary working days and at very early hours, then we will reduce the number of candidates very significantly. How many will be left? I don´t know, and I bet the same goes for you, Monty. Perhaps, though, you would find it reasonable to accord with me in saying that the time factor reasonably diminishes the number significantly.

After that, we have two murders (at least) left to account for. And if we accept that the number of people who had reason to travel alongside the murder sites of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly is diminished by weighing the time factor in, then it also stands to reason that we boil the number down further by adding the demand to have a reason for the suspects we want to throw forward to be in the vicinity of Berner Street on a Saturday night.
I have said it before and I may just as well say it again: If we work from an assumption that the Ripper killed six women, including Tabram into the tally, then there would have been one chance out of six that the only murder that took place on Lechmere´s free night was the only one that tallied with his mother´s address whereas it did NOT tally with his route to work. If Stride had been killed on a tuesday morning roundabout 3.30, she would have been an anomaly - it would have meant that Lechmere would have left his path to work in search of a victim, unless he met her on either Hanbury Street or Old Montague Street and allowed her to take him far away from that area before striking.
But this was not so - ALL the six killings may be fit into a functioning schedule as regards Lechmere, and that is of major interest as far as I can tell.

Saying that Lechmere must have been the only man to fill the requirements for potentially having been in place we cannot do, just as you say. But saying that the fit is a very good one is equally true.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

I never said the point has been made that is must have been so either, Im merely pointing the point out.

Im afraid you will have to match up and cite the locations, dates of the murders and Cross’s whereabouts before this thread really can take off with any significance. However, the locations you cite yourself are so tightly packed, and transverse an East/West line that anyone working in the City and lived in the East end would most likely pass along the same locations.

The evidence at the scene leans against Stride being murdered by the same killer as Tabram, Nichols, Eddowes and Kelly. The same can be same for the Pinchin Street torso, which is unique in itself. These two are the least likely.

As mentioned, it would be handy to have a full list of information before we can go over this in great depth.

In reply to your reply to Scott, Cross is a dubious suspect for many reasons. You ask for great leaps in imagination when it comes to human behaviour and reason. And present assumption as fact (Change of name, presentation to the Police etc). The circumstantial is there, however we have many suspect theories built on such, and that is no criticism, just a fact, it’s the way it is in suspect Ripperology for obvious reasons. However this is not for this thread.

Monty