Lechmere and Chapman

[Herlock Sholmes]

Am I the only one having problems with the site not listing the latest posts as they tick in? At the tiop of the list of "Most recent posts" on the main page, I have a post made by tangy at 4.59 PM yesterday, marked as having been posted 25 minutes ago. Any posts after that time are not presented.

Me too Fish. As I post this the most recent post is on this thread from Ozzy 23 minutes ago. Ozzy’s actual post was just over 24 hours ago. Sometime yesterday (or was it the day before?) I couldn’t access the Forum as it was saying that the server couldn’t be located. When I finally got on there was a problem with the latest posts. There’s definitely some technical issue.

[Fisherman]

Why you include me Fisherman in your post 25 I cannot imagine,and I need tell no one anything of the difficulty you have in proving any of your claims,your self confessed failure says it all.

I think the one thing I can prove in this whole context is that you will always demand proof, regardless of how anybody who has some little knowledge of the case is aware that there is no proof to be had.

That, Harry is what says it all.

All YOU ever say is "Polly wants PROOF!!""

[Fisherman]

Me too Fish. As I post this the most recent post is on this thread from Ozzy 23 minutes ago. Ozzy’s actual post was just over 24 hours ago. Sometime yesterday (or was it the day before?) I couldn’t access the Forum as it was saying that the server couldn’t be located. When I finally got on there was a problem with the latest posts. There’s definitely some technical issue.

Okay, thanks for that, Herlock! It´s good - and bad - to know I´m not the only one!

[Abby Normal]

I think the allegation was that he was on his way to work so didn't have a cart yet; but that we only have his word that he left ten minutes later than usual.

Now I fear and tremble to raise a cadet's head above the Lechmere parapet without a tin hat, but my take is that Mr L/C would have been a person of considerable interest to the police, especially after his run-in with one of their own, Mizen. When the next murder arrived, would the police at the time have sought him out to check his whereabouts, or would that have been considered harassment? (If he had a verified alibi that would have ruled him out, but since there are no records it is all speculation.)

hi dupin
but as far as we know the police really never seemed to consider him a suspect. even after the descrepency with mizen at the inquest it seems to have dropped and or forgotten. and if he was the ripper, his work and particularily his work hours would have been the perfect cover.

[Abby Normal]

He probably normally left home at around 3.20, but claimed he was late on the day of the murder, having left at 3.30 instead. If he left at 3.20 in normal cases as I believe, he would get to the murder spot at around 3.27 and from there he had a walk of few minutes only up to the junction Bakers Row/Hanbury Street, where he would be at around 3.30, roughly. That would mean that he would perhaps have passed 29 Hanbury street at around 3.40-ish or shortly before that time.

thanks fish
as you know one of the main sticklers for me with lech was him killing on his way to work. its not so much anymore. the urge is there and if there is no other opportunity because of his family...well these guys usually find away.

plus if he was the ripper, i think on days he was hunting, he probably left sooner than his usual time. or perhaps he killed after work, after visiting his mum, or on days off etc. i mean he could make up any excuse to tell his wife, if he had to, about being away at night... work, mum that sort of thing.

[harry]

You are incorrect again Fisherman.There is heaps of proofs in the Ripper killings,just none that support Cross as the killer.

[Fisherman]

You are incorrect again Fisherman.There is heaps of proofs in the Ripper killings,just none that support Cross as the killer.

There is no hard proof supporting any killer at all. There is evidence, all of it circumstantial, pointing to various persons. The quality of the circumstantial evidence varies from case to case, and for many suspects there is no circumstantial evidence at all.

If you think the case is made up by "heaps of proof" pointing to anybody but Charles Lechmere, you are as wrong as you could be. Not that it surprises me in any way - you generally are.

And that´s the end of our debate.

[Fisherman]

thanks fish
as you know one of the main sticklers for me with lech was him killing on his way to work. its not so much anymore. the urge is there and if there is no other opportunity because of his family...well these guys usually find away.

plus if he was the ripper, i think on days he was hunting, he probably left sooner than his usual time. or perhaps he killed after work, after visiting his mum, or on days off etc. i mean he could make up any excuse to tell his wife, if he had to, about being away at night... work, mum that sort of thing.

Yes, I regard it as a more or less of a given that he will have left home when he wanted to, in order to allow for him to kill. If there is a common denominator for serial killers, it is that when they are revealed, an astounded group of friends and relatives realize that they have been fooled for the longest time.

[Damaso Marte]

Yeah I don't think Cross/Lechmere killed anyone, but there is a significant double standard on this website where pro-Cross/Lechmere claims are met with far higher burdens of proof and far higher levels of vitriol than anything else. Perhaps because it is a home-grown theory and within Ripperology it seems that familiarity breeds contempt.

Cross/Lechmere can be placed at the scene of one crime (alone, no less) and can generally be placed within Whitechapel during the duration of the murders, and on the streets of Whitechapel in the early hours of the morning when most of the killings took place. That doesn't prove that he's the killer, but it is significantly more than we can say of almost any other suspect. Druitt can't even be placed in Whitechapel and he still has adherents here, and Maybrick can't even be placed in London and has at least one proponent here.

IMO the strongest evidence against Lechmere is Chapman TOD but this thread is specifically not about that so I'll refrain from bringing up any points. Suffice it to say, though, if adherents of a late TOD like myself can dismiss Victorian medicine as prone to error, adherents of an early TOD can dismiss it in the opposite direction (though they then still have to find ways to dismiss multiple witnesses).

[Abby Normal]

Yeah I don't think Cross/Lechmere killed anyone, but there is a significant double standard on this website where pro-Cross/Lechmere claims are met with far higher burdens of proof and far higher levels of vitriol than anything else. Perhaps because it is a home-grown theory and within Ripperology it seems that familiarity breeds contempt.

Cross/Lechmere can be placed at the scene of one crime (alone, no less) and can generally be placed within Whitechapel during the duration of the murders, and on the streets of Whitechapel in the early hours of the morning when most of the killings took place. That doesn't prove that he's the killer, but it is significantly more than we can say of almost any other suspect. Druitt can't even be placed in Whitechapel and he still has adherents here, and Maybrick can't even be placed in London and has at least one proponent here.

IMO the strongest evidence against Lechmere is Chapman TOD but this thread is specifically not about that so I'll refrain from bringing up any points. Suffice it to say, though, if adherents of a late TOD like myself can dismiss Victorian medicine as prone to error, adherents of an early TOD can dismiss it in the opposite direction (though they then still have to find ways to dismiss multiple witnesses).

hi dm
good post and i agree with alot of what you say here. not only can lech be placed at the scene of the crime alone, hes there with a freshly killed victim before raising any alarm. put your self in Pauls shoes. id want to steer clear of lech too.

And yes his work route and time (and mums house for double event) makes him the ONLY suspect where we have specifics that tie him to the immediate area of tje murders at aproximate times.

while an earlier time of death for chapman is more in line with his work route time, i dont neccesarily think the later time really does him much damage. he could have been off, late, comming back from spending the night at his mums (and where his other daughter lived). i go with the witnesses on chapman tod, but its no bigee either way, at least to me.

[harry]

Damasco,
What then is the level of proof that you would like to see exhibited here?Does the fact that Cross cannot be placed in Nicholl's company while she was alive,interest you,or that Cross cannot be placed in Hanbury Street in the company of Chapman.Despite what Fisherman claims,there is no evidence,let alone proof,against Cross,circumtantial or otherwise.There is IF this occured,MAYBE this happened,Could have been this way etc,but nothing prooved.
So lets hear your level of proof.that proves otherwise.

[Abby Normal]

Damasco,
What then is the level of proof that you would like to see exhibited here?Does the fact that Cross cannot be placed in Nicholl's company while she was alive,interest you,or that Cross cannot be placed in Hanbury Street in the company of Chapman.Despite what Fisherman claims,there is no evidence,let alone proof,against Cross,circumtantial or otherwise.There is IF this occured,MAYBE this happened,Could have been this way etc,but nothing prooved.
So lets hear your level of proof.that proves otherwise.

theres plenty of circumstantial evidence against lech, its just how strong one thinks it is.

and re nichols.. is in the process of dying considered alive? i think it is. she was either just dead or dying and lech was certainly in her company alone.

and proof is a subjective word anyway. it could mean anything from evidence to a mathematical proof.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If Lechmere were the Ripper, and therefore had a desire to escape suspicion, he need only have said something like...

I was late for work, and left home about twenty minutes to four.
I heard the clock chime on the quarter hour, while walking along Buck's Row.

Or...

I left home at 3:35

Short, sweet and precise - the later being 'proof' that he had his own timepiece.

The point is, it would have been very easy for Lechmere to avoid any suspicion, by 'tweaking' his departure time by as little as 5 minutes.
It is those who suggest oddly precise times, that we should be taking a closer look at - people like Robert Paul and Louis Diemschitz.

[harry]

Ok Abby.Name the circumstantilal evidence against Cross.She was either dead or dying when Cross found her.How does that place Cross in her company at the time the injuries were inflicted? It doesn't.Cross's evidence,the only evidence there is,is of a time after the injuries were received.
Five different persons were alone with a body on finding them,(The canonical five)so according to your reasoning,each one is circumstancially involved in their deaths? According to what law of evidence?
Proof is not a subjective word in a murder case.It has a definition of'Beyond reasonable doubt'.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Someone has to find a body though, otherwise it's a missing persons case. In Lechmeres' situation, it's the fact that Polly appeared to be very recently deceased, if not actually still alive. So it's the time proximity. Which is the sole thing that makes Chuck a suspect. It makes him a suspect in relation to Polly. Quite how that connects him to all the killings, torsos included, is an entirely different matter.