Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper so often discarded?

[Newbie]

fraid you started this so it's up to you to show lech was doing something sinister. I don't mind lech as a suspect to be fair, what annoys me, as with a lot of the suspects, is the weaving of fantasies out of nothing. He was in the road, that is it. Suddenly he's downsizing his family because of some attack that went wrong, suffering some illness in October that kept him off the streets, he's at the inquest in ordinary work clothes - so what? Also, even if the ripper attacked Tabram, this was his first on street mutilation - I've read comments saying he was so engrossed he didn't hear Paul. I'm just not buying that. I would say at all of the crime scenes he would have been hyper aware and been long gone by the time Paul got there. So what if he walked past a pc, who's to say he would have been stopped? As an example, and even if you don't rate Farmer as a ripper victim, after a right old ruckus her attacker made off past two PCs in broad daylight - neither stopped him or made any pursuit.

But PC Neil's route would have Neil near the corner of Baker and Buck's row at 3:37 am. So, the question for you is: in what direction would he go?
Towards, Paul or towards PC Neil? If you are walking towards Neil, and Paul hears your footsteps, discovers the body and starts shouting out that a murder has been committed...thinking that the person walking away had something to do with it, what then do you think PC Neil would do? It would be better to head towards Paul, who might not notice him to the extent that he couldn't give a good description after the fact. Staying put would be as good as either option.

A final possibility would be heading towards Neil some 50 yards, taking a left for another 30 yards to get onto Winthrop street, and then heading back to Brady,....all while walking to attract as little attention as you can. That places you trapped on a no exit street for some 150 + yards.

Since Lech had to go to work, being spotted and the police having a description, a locality, and a time would not be good.

Why not pretend being a guy who just discovered the body? You are just an average bloke going to work, in the location where you should be.

Lech said that he was walking up the extreme RHS of the street (uncommon), saw the body, walked towards the body, and stopped in the middle of the street when he suddenly heard Paul's footsteps some 40 yards away. That means Paul was following him by some 50 - 60 yards.

My question for you is why did Lech suddenly hear Paul footsteps from 40 yards away, but didn't hear them from 50 - 60 yards away?
It was a dark, dangerous street and pedestrians would have been as reliant on hearing as seeing in warning them of danger.
PC Neil, while examining Polly Nichol's body, heard a constable some 120 yards away on Brady street some 8 minutes later.

Mind you, it was very convenient and important to his testimony that he heard those footsteps right then and there, because it justified him standing there.

Then there is the lack of Paul being aware of Lech walking ahead of him in his testimony.

[Newbie]

It's worth noting that the name could so easily be traced back to Lechmere.

Yes, which is the contention of many. If he wanted to evade the police by using Cross, they could have easily located him anyhow.

I agree with this. The name change was not to protect him with the authorities, who never seemed to consider him a suspect;

it was used so that neighbors and family friends would not associate the inquests' Charles Cross mentioned in the Indianapolis Star (or whatever newspaper)
with Charles Lechmere of 22 Doveton: people who might be aware that he was not leaving home at 3:30 am or might mention reading about it to Lech's wife.

[Newbie]

I know that, if Lechmere was the killer, he was well able to think on his feet. That’s not the point. The only point I was trying to make is that pro-Lechmerians think he would have lost that coolness & quick-thinking capabilities in case he would have chosen to get away. They claim he just blindly has to run into a PC's arms.

I guess i'm just missing what you are trying to say. I like Lechmere more than any of the others as a suspect; but i do not pretend that the inescapable conclusion of the oddities surrounding him indict him.....it begs for a decent motive tying it all together, and Lech acting as the good citizen doesn't do that for me.
It doesn't even come close.

One of the 2 - 3 key arguments against Lech as a suspect was his not fleeing the murder scene. It was always a tough question to ignore;
but i think that point of view has been seriously weakened in my eyes. With the unexpected entrance of Paul at 3:37 am, staying behind and bluffing was a very good option, particularly in that Lech was at a location and time in which one would expect him to be. He would have taken that into account should something happen off script and he required a contingent plan.

Spots of blood on his work clothes, given the nature of his profession and the lessened ability to clean clothing routinely back then, wasn't unusual. He wasn't saturated in blood: strangle the victim, slash the neck and have the blood pool out from that wound, start dissecting the abdomen. He was probably very careful and hadn't yet reached in to grab something. He should have been presentable - take a rag out to wipe off any fresh blood on the hand and you're good to go in the dark environment of the streets.

[Newbie]

Haven't you ever not heard someone speaking to you, the honking of the car behind you, the warning call just before the ball conks your face, etc. because you were distracted by something and not tuned to outside sounds? (Wow, she's a hot babe! Bang!) Or perhaps he was hard of hearing.

Suppositions perhaps, but not any more so than he was JtR based on a minor point.

Yes, when i'm distracted and doing something else.

Have you walked down a dangerous, gang ridden street with bad visibility, early in the morning when it was deathly silent, and tuned out sounds?
Given the circumstances, its very much unlikely.

Paul described his attitude towards walking down Buck's row:

"Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about."

You would mean both were possibly hard of hearing, because neither seemed to pick up on the other's footsteps.

[C. F. Leon]

There are more issues than that:

Paul not describing hearing Lechmere's footsteps ahead of him over a course of a minute walking behind him, just out of sight in the darkness;
or Lechmere, while heading towards the body, conveniently claiming to suddenly hear Paul's footsteps some 40 yards away; and that was why he was standing in the middle of the road.

Meanwhile, PC Neil in his testimony claimed to having heard a constable all the way down to Brady Street while examining the murder victim.

Haven't you ever not heard someone speaking to you, the honking of the car behind you, the warning call just before the ball conks your face, etc. because you were distracted by something and not tuned to outside sounds? (Wow, she's a hot babe! Bang!) Or perhaps he was hard of hearing.

Suppositions perhaps, but not any more so than he was JtR based on a minor point.

[Abby Normal]

This GB agrees with the other GB. A very reasonable assessment, Abby. :-)

When I think of Lechmere, it’s the Pinchin Street case that stands out most, because of the location of the arch itself and more recently because of those intriguing cats meat sheds a minute’s walk away.

If I’m honest, I find CAL’s mother’s story more interesting than his. There can’t have been too many women with her background who found themselves bringing up a son in Tiger Bay.

thanks gary
I left the pinchin case/cats meat shop out of it because wanted to keep the torsos out of it. But I agree. another interesting (possible) connection.

[MrBarnett]

thank you GB

This GB agrees with the other GB. A very reasonable assessment, Abby. :-)

When I think of Lechmere, it’s the Pinchin Street case that stands out most, because of the location of the arch itself and more recently because of those intriguing cats meat sheds a minute’s walk away.

If I’m honest, I find CAL’s mother’s story more interesting than his. There can’t have been too many women with her background who found themselves bringing up a son in Tiger Bay.

[Abby Normal]

Thoughtful well reasoned post Abby.

Cheers, George

thank you GB

[GBinOz]

I was going to respond to posters individually but I think Ill just knock it out in one shot.

First full disclosure-Im not a lechmerian, more of a lech apologist. I think hes as good a suspect as as any other-I have him in my top ten valid suspects. Do I think the pro lechers over egg the pudding on some of the details? yes I do, but i also think you shouldnt throw out the baby with the bath water.

Hes got some things going for him as a suspect:

1.Big one for me-He is seen standing near a freshly killed victim before trying to raise any kind of alarm. Ive studied alot of true crime and I cant think of any innocent "witness" found in these circs. hes clearly in the frame for being Pollys killer.

2. Anyone known to be near a victim around TOD and or someone who discovers the body is a de facto person of interest by the police (at least by todays standards) until they are cleared. We have no evidence the police investigated lechmere as a suspect nor cleared him.

3. There is no evidence that Polly is with any other potential suspect near TOD, nor is anyone heard or seen leaving the crime scene, nor near her at around TOD, except lech.

4. Lecmeres time and route to work bring him near several victims locations. coincidentally (or not) the two who werent were killed on a probable day off, and the first (stride) was killed near his mothers and one daughters home. His geographic/proximity situation is by far and away the strongest of any other suspect.

5. The Lechmere Triangle-all the victims are killed-from tabram through Mckenzie (who I think, along with the c5, the evidence strongly indicates they are ripper victims) within or just near the border, of a triangle that connects lechs home, work place and mothers home. He would probably know this area like the back of his hand.

6. he has a major discrepancy with a police officer, Mizen, about what was said about the discovery of the body.

7. He gives a name to police that apparently isnt one he commonly used. Using aliases is a common practice among criminals.

8. he generally fits the other witness descriptions from other ripper murder scenes, and at the very least isnt potenentially ruled out. For example-Tumblety for appearance and Chapman for accent.

9. Hes a long time local average joe, in steady work, which fits the general profile and witness descriptions. hes English and not a jew, which fits the evidence (lipski and disparaging jewish GSG)

10. The GSG and bloody apron, the only clue the ripper left, is in a direction coinciding with away from the crime scene and back towards his home.

11. He is not ruled out by the mckenzie murder (like say druitt or Bury) whom the evidence points to being a probable ripper victim.




All the above are simply FACTS not speculation as to the case against Lechmere. They all could have innocent explanations and I think in many they probably do, but nonetheless yellow flags that need to be explained away if hes innocent.

Now all this being said and If im being totally honest-gun to head if asked IS he the ripper? Yes or no? I would say no, but with some trepidation.

But unlike many other ripper suspects (even valid ones), he has a clear and material connection to the case, and an actual physical connection to one of the victims. He is most definitely in the frame at least for being Polly Nichols killer.

Theres been so much crap on these boards lately with crackpot theories and suspects that do deserve to be ridiculed. Lech isnt one of them-Hes worthy of being investigated and exactly the type of suspect that needs more looking into. Not dismissed out of hand or subject to hysterical derision and knee jerk attacks against his proponents. IMHO folks who are doing this research into lech, like Gary Barnett and Fish, deserve kudos and respect.

Thoughtful well reasoned post Abby.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

I was going to respond to posters individually but I think Ill just knock it out in one shot.

First full disclosure-Im not a lechmerian, more of a lech apologist. I think hes as good a suspect as as any other-I have him in my top ten valid suspects. Do I think the pro lechers over egg the pudding on some of the details? yes I do, but i also think you shouldnt throw out the baby with the bath water.

Hes got some things going for him as a suspect:

1.Big one for me-He is seen standing near a freshly killed victim before trying to raise any kind of alarm. Ive studied alot of true crime and I cant think of any innocent "witness" found in these circs. hes clearly in the frame for being Pollys killer.

2. Anyone known to be near a victim around TOD and or someone who discovers the body is a de facto person of interest by the police (at least by todays standards) until they are cleared. We have no evidence the police investigated lechmere as a suspect nor cleared him.

3. There is no evidence that Polly is with any other potential suspect near TOD, nor is anyone heard or seen leaving the crime scene, nor near her at around TOD, except lech.

4. Lecmeres time and route to work bring him near several victims locations. coincidentally (or not) the two who werent were killed on a probable day off, and the first (stride) was killed near his mothers and one daughters home. His geographic/proximity situation is by far and away the strongest of any other suspect.

5. The Lechmere Triangle-all the victims are killed-from tabram through Mckenzie (who I think, along with the c5, the evidence strongly indicates they are ripper victims) within or just near the border, of a triangle that connects lechs home, work place and mothers home. He would probably know this area like the back of his hand.

6. he has a major discrepancy with a police officer, Mizen, about what was said about the discovery of the body.

7. He gives a name to police that apparently isnt one he commonly used. Using aliases is a common practice among criminals.

8. he generally fits the other witness descriptions from other ripper murder scenes, and at the very least isnt potenentially ruled out. For example-Tumblety for appearance and Chapman for accent.

9. Hes a long time local average joe, in steady work, which fits the general profile and witness descriptions. hes English and not a jew, which fits the evidence (lipski and disparaging jewish GSG)

10. The GSG and bloody apron, the only clue the ripper left, is in a direction coinciding with away from the crime scene and back towards his home.

11. He is not ruled out by the mckenzie murder (like say druitt or Bury) whom the evidence points to being a probable ripper victim.




All the above are simply FACTS not speculation as to the case against Lechmere. They all could have innocent explanations and I think in many they probably do, but nonetheless yellow flags that need to be explained away if hes innocent.

Now all this being said and If im being totally honest-gun to head if asked IS he the ripper? Yes or no? I would say no, but with some trepidation.

But unlike many other ripper suspects (even valid ones), he has a clear and material connection to the case, and an actual physical connection to one of the victims. He is most definitely in the frame at least for being Polly Nichols killer.

Theres been so much crap on these boards lately with crackpot theories and suspects that do deserve to be ridiculed. Lech isnt one of them-Hes worthy of being investigated and exactly the type of suspect that needs more looking into. Not dismissed out of hand or subject to hysterical derision and knee jerk attacks against his proponents. IMHO folks who are doing this research into lech, like Gary Barnett and Fish, deserve kudos and respect.

[FrankO]

But Lech could think on his feet, as evidence by his handling of the issue involving his disagreement with Mizen: "because there was no PC there."

I know that, if Lechmere was the killer, he was well able to think on his feet. That’s not the point. The only point I was trying to make is that pro-Lechmerians think he would have lost that coolness & quick-thinking capabilities in case he would have chosen to get away. They claim he just blindly has to run into a PC's arms.

[John Wheat]

What was he doing there standing in the middle of the road?

Presumably looking at the body he'd just discovered.

[Aethelwulf]

What was he doing there standing in the middle of the road?

fraid you started this so it's up to you to show lech was doing something sinister. I don't mind lech as a suspect to be fair, what annoys me, as with a lot of the suspects, is the weaving of fantasies out of nothing. He was in the road, that is it. Suddenly he's downsizing his family because of some attack that went wrong, suffering some illness in October that kept him off the streets, he's at the inquest in ordinary work clothes - so what? Also, even if the ripper attacked Tabram, this was his first on street mutilation - I've read comments saying he was so engrossed he didn't hear Paul. I'm just not buying that. I would say at all of the crime scenes he would have been hyper aware and been long gone by the time Paul got there. So what if he walked past a pc, who's to say he would have been stopped? As an example, and even if you don't rate Farmer as a ripper victim, after a right old ruckus her attacker made off past two PCs in broad daylight - neither stopped him or made any pursuit.

[Newbie]

What I was alluding to is that, generally, pro-Lechmerians are saying that Lechmere was able to think on his feet, first coming up with the idea to fool Paul and then to design "the Mizen scam", making things up as he went along. Yet, when it comes to getting away instead, according to these same pro-Lechmerians, he just has to run right into the arms of Neil and, apparently, would have lost his psychopath thinking abilities: without thinking he only runs, doesn't stop to watch around a corner, doesn't listen for sounds, doesn't look for places to hide (because, apparently, there were absolutely no places where he could do that), to dodge anybody - according to them, he has to just blindly run into Neil's arms - period, also because they have Paul raise an alarm the second he hears Lechmere run away and have PC's immediately hear the alarm and know where it's coming from.


If Lechmere was the meticulously planning type who'd cased the area as you suggest, then he would have known 1) when he left home that morning and, therefore, when he arrived at the scene, 2) he had enough time to get away without running or even walking into the arms of Neil and 3) that Paul ususally arrived at the scene a minute or 2 before he actually did on the night in question.

But Lech could think on his feet, as evidence by his handling of the issue involving his disagreement with Mizen: "because there was no PC there."

Paul says that the time arriving at the murder scene was 3:45 - he was off.

That is the time he typically left home: it taking him around 15 minutes to get to work. He was most probably early that morning and didn't realize it.

[Newbie]

I think it is abundantly clear that Charles Cross was merely a working man who on walking to his place of work happened across a Ripper victim. I dont see anymore to it than that and never have.

So you think that appearing at the inquest, as if he was heading to work is no big deal? You'd think he'd have some pride at a public official gathering.

Explain it?

You think Paul or Lechmere not hearing each other's footsteps on cobbled streets, walking in hobnailed boots, not a big deal?
Lechmere used a sudden realization of hearing Paul, at a short distance, to justify his standing in the middle of the street.

Paul gave an impression of first seeing Lech, not hearing him.

Explain that?

I'd bet my money he was with the body, heard the footsteps, and then came out in the middle of the street..

That he did seem to be a working man going to work is why he was ignored. Serial killers have the habit of appearing normal.
Using an appearance of normalcy is not an argument.