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

[Fisherman]

The only way this will move on is when you finally accept all the flaws in your Lechmere theory, which have been pointed out to you many times and then accept he did not murder Nicholls or any of the other victims, and was not resposnible for the torsos

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sorry, Trevor. I will not accept that there is one single flaw in the theory. Not one. What there IS, is people like you who think it is a given what a killer will never stay put at a murder scene to con his way out, for example. But that is nothing but a personal opinion, and to boot, an opinion where a senior colleague of yours, Dr Andy Griffiths, disagrees with you.

And you know, we really should not think that any take on things that are in conflict with our orw takes are flaws. They are instead disagreements. And if people did not disagree with you, Trevor, we would be in all sorts of trouble. In that sense, I am doing important sanitary work.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for this Fish. I haven't seen the documentary for some time, so I will definitely re-watch it before reading the book.

I hope we can agree that the knife would've had blood on it? If so for Lechmere to be the killer and as you say no knife was found, he either hid it and came back for it, which would seem risky? He stashed it in his clothing which in pitch dark with someone approaching? Who knows how if he had killed someone his mind would've been racing. It just doesn't to me sound that plausible, if he had been searched by an officer, and caught with the knife it would've been the gallows and surely he would've known that?

Thanks

Yes, the knife must have had blood on it. It could of course have been wiped off before he stashed it, but that would not entirely remove the blood.

As for hiding the knife and returning to it, Lechmere would not have had much time to do so if hearing Paul was what made him abort the cutting. The premises will have been thoroughly searched and my own feeling is that the chances that Lechmere had the time to hide the knife are very slim. I remain convinced that he had the knife on his person as he left Bucks Row.
Of course, if he was searched and a bloody knife was found on his person, that would suggest that he was the killer (although forensically, the medicos of the day could not tell human blood from animal blood). But as I have many times pointed to, there can be no real doubt that if Lechmere was the killer, he must have been of a psychopathic nature. And such people have another way of looking at these things than you and I would have. They are not given to panic and they many times thoroughly enjoy showing off how clever and unafraid they are.
It should also be noted that when Lechmere paired up with Paul, he became much less likely to be looked at as the potential killer. Two carmen in company, on their way to work, do not make for any hot suspects, and it is quite possible that Lechmere took advantage of that insight as he joined Paul.
The lie he seems to have told Mizen, paired with how he seems not to have told the PC how grave the errand potential was would also have helped him to pass the PC by, no questions asked.
That last detail is one that I find needs to be payed more attention; If you find a person lying in the street who you think may be dead, then how likely are you not to tell the PC you afterwards encounter that you are the finder yourself? Would you keep such a thing from that PC? Why does he not say "Officer, come quick, we found this woman lying in Bucks Row who seems to be dead!" instead of "Officer, a colleague PC of yours asked us to tell you to help him out in Bucks Row. There´s a woman lying there on the broad of her back."?

I have an answer to that question.

[AlanG]

As for the knife, the premises were searched around the Nichols murder site, and no weapon was found. The logical inference is that he had stashed it on himself before Paul stepped out of the darkness.

Thanks for this Fish. I haven't seen the documentary for some time, so I will definitely re-watch it before reading the book.

I hope we can agree that the knife would've had blood on it? If so for Lechmere to be the killer and as you say no knife was found, he either hid it and came back for it, which would seem risky? He stashed it in his clothing which in pitch dark with someone approaching? Who knows how if he had killed someone his mind would've been racing. It just doesn't to me sound that plausible, if he had been searched by an officer, and caught with the knife it would've been the gallows and surely he would've known that?

Thanks

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, I am, for one. You see, I do not for a second believe that I am the one who lacks understanding in this matter. I have another candidate lined up for that role.

You now make the interesting claim that unique charateristics do not make a case ... eeeeh, unique. That is rather a unique approach to things, but I have long since seized to be surprised by what is suggested out here.

You triumphantly and gleefully trumpet out that I have myself provided you with the best arguments when comparing murders to each other, but so far, you have not managed to clarify what it is this proves in your favor.

So let´s hear that, Harry: How does the fact that murders can be compared inbetween each other prove that Lechmere was not a killer?

Many years ago, a Swedish politician described how trying to understand a fellow parliament members' mind resembled staring into a corf full of eels. Your contributions to this discussion has made it clear to me what he meant.

Please try and be shrot and succinct so that we may end this... this ... eh, exchange, and move on.

The only way this will move on is when you finally accept all the flaws in your Lechmere theory, which have been pointed out to you many times and then accept he did not murder Nicholls or any of the other victims, and was not resposnible for the torsos

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

No fisherman,each case has unique characteristics,but on the whole are not unique.In fact my best arguements on this question,the Nichols murder,are ones you have supplied yourself in the many instances you have made comparisons with other murders and murderers.
The fact that only you seem to not grasp those facts,implies a failure on your part,but who,bynow, is surprised at your lack of understanding.

Well, I am, for one. You see, I do not for a second believe that I am the one who lacks understanding in this matter. I have another candidate lined up for that role.

You now make the interesting claim that unique charateristics do not make a case ... eeeeh, unique. That is rather a unique approach to things, but I have long since seized to be surprised by what is suggested out here.

You triumphantly and gleefully trumpet out that I have myself provided you with the best arguments when comparing murders to each other, but so far, you have not managed to clarify what it is this proves in your favor.

So let´s hear that, Harry: How does the fact that murders can be compared inbetween each other prove that Lechmere was not a killer?

Many years ago, a Swedish politician described how trying to understand a fellow parliament members' mind resembled staring into a corf full of eels. Your contributions to this discussion has made it clear to me what he meant.

Please try and be shrot and succinct so that we may end this... this ... eh, exchange, and move on.

[harry]

No fisherman,each case has unique characteristics,but on the whole are not unique.In fact my best arguements on this question,the Nichols murder,are ones you have supplied yourself in the many instances you have made comparisons with other murders and murderers.
The fact that only you seem to not grasp those facts,implies a failure on your part,but who,bynow, is surprised at your lack of understanding.

[Fisherman]

If Lechmere was the killer, would he not have blood on him? Would he of had to conceal a knife?
Thanks, really excited to read your new book!

Hello Alan!

Would Lechmere have had blood on himself? In the documentary, the forensic pathologist Jason Payne James says something along the line that he does not think that Lechmere would have had much - or even any - blood on his person. This he would have grounded on a couple of factors:

1. There were no traces of arterial spray on the site. Nichols seems to have been strangled before she was cut and the first cuts seem to have hit the abdomen. When the throat was cut, blood seems to have more or less trickled out there.

2. Thee were no organs taken out, like there was in the other evisceration murders in the series, so there is no reason to think that Lechmere must have reached into her abdomen.

It is also important to note that it is not as if we actually know that he did not have blood on his person. It was dark and no investigation of his person was made. He was quite possibly darkly clad, and his working clothes may well have had all sorts of stains on them, meaning that the odd speck of blood may well have been very hard to spot there. Equally, he could of course have had specks of blood on his hands to, at least to a degree, without it being noticed.

I think the Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly cases were ones where he would be much more likely to have his hands bloodied.

As for the knife, the premises were searched around the Nichols murder site, and no weapon was found. The logical inference is that he had stashed it on himself before Paul stepped out of the darkness.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
In post 220 you wrote,'you may even understand that each case is unique'. The onus is on you to clarify that claim in respect of the Nichols murder.not myself.It was a claim by you,not Griffith.That I do understand,clearly and succinctly.I simply asked what is unique? It is not an odd question.It may invoke an odd and evasive explanation by you,but that would be expected.
I find nothing unique in a person finding a body,identifying themselves,and giving evidence to that effect before a court.It happens frequently.

Yes, Harry, each case is unique. No two persons can be murdered by the exact same person in the exact same geographical spot at the exact same time and in the exact same manner.

Now, would you please tell us what it is you are trying to say? If it is that Lechmere was perhaps not guilty, then thank you very much, that is a point you have already made, and it has been taken to the protocol. If you have something weightier to anchor that point of view with than "he said so", then please, step forward and make that point. If not, then rest assured that your protests have been noted.

[harry]

Frank,
Whatever happened prior to the inquest is of little consequence.The police(Aberline) was attending at the inquest.Any question of Cross or Paul giving false evidence at the inquest would have resulted in the Coroner making mention of it,or Aberline investigating afterwards.There is no evidence either happened.All the could have beens,might have beens,and false assumptions being levelled at Cross and Paul mean nothing.Cross found a body and Paul arrived at the scene seconds later.That is what was accepted.

[AlanG]

If Lechmere was the killer, would he not have blood on him? Would he of had to conceal a knife?
Thanks, really excited to read your new book!

[harry]

Fisherman,
In post 220 you wrote,'you may even understand that each case is unique'. The onus is on you to clarify that claim in respect of the Nichols murder.not myself.It was a claim by you,not Griffith.That I do understand,clearly and succinctly.I simply asked what is unique? It is not an odd question.It may invoke an odd and evasive explanation by you,but that would be expected.
I find nothing unique in a person finding a body,identifying themselves,and giving evidence to that effect before a court.It happens frequently.

[Observer]

Me, my wife and my dog - who is terrified of firecrackers - spent a few days around new years eve in Småland, within walking distance of a glass artisans hut. So now I am collecting glass too. We rented a house for three nights and payed less for it than for the glass we bought ...

I can imagine. Ebay still the best place, been some good reasonably priced mid 20th Century Scandinavian glass of late.

[Fisherman]

Haha indeed, the ghost of old Lechmere might have pulled up outside your house on his horse and cart. I've had enamel signs in the past, funnily enough it's mid century Scandinavian glass that I collect now.

Me, my wife and my dog - who is terrified of firecrackers - spent a few days around new years eve in Småland, within walking distance of a glass artisans hut. So now I am collecting glass too. We rented a house for three nights and payed less for it than for the glass we bought ...

[Observer]

Haha indeed, the ghost of old Lechmere might have pulled up outside your house on his horse and cart. I've had enamel signs in the past, funnily enough it's mid century Scandinavian glass that I collect now.

[Fisherman]

Bit off topic but here's a nice enamel sign you might be interested in Fish. Look like a Victorian one.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VINTAGE-A...EAAOSw8qVf2hLF

I actually collect enamel signs - but smaller ones. That one was particularly nice, I must say, but I’ d feel a bit uneasy hanging it on my wall ...