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

[Fisherman]

You’re a bit naughty here, Christer, because you know, of course, that neither of the carmen said they didn’t express in words that the eyes were open. So, yes, it’s just me saying that, had they seen that her eyes were wide open, I think they:
1. would have said so (as Joshua suggested) and
2. would have (re)acted differently than they actually did.
The fact that Paul touched her face and knelt down to hear her breathe only strengthens the notion that, at least, he didn’t see the wide open eyes.

Naughty? I think it is important to be correct on these matters, and so when you said that the carmen didnīt see her eyes open, that needed some amendment. It can be reasoned that they may have done so, but as you will know, later down in this post of yours, you say that you donīt think that they should necessarily have seen the gash in her neck. Then, to my mind and in all fairness, why is it that they should have seen her eyes? Especially if her head was tilted away from them? You can listen for breath anyway, right?
At the end of the day, we just donīt know. And so we canīt say that since they could not make out the open eyes, etc...

Regardless of whether they should be weighed in or not, even if we’d suppose that both Lechmere & Paul knew of these 2 possibilities and that they did see the eyes were wide open, I don’t think that these things would have made them (re)act in the way that they actually did. And I think you'll agree.

Iīm actually not all that sure. Even if they saw the eyes open, I donīt think they would necessarily have reacted in any other way than they did. But since we donīt know what they saw, it is a bit of a moot question.

I know it’s no guarantee, but reading Neil’s statement, it certainly seems that he didn’t need to move the head to see her eyes were wide open. He put on his lamp, noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat, that she was lying on her back with her clothes disarranged and saw her eyes wide open.

It could well have been a case of the head being tilted away from the street and Neil walking around the body and shining his light on the face. He must not have moved the head, and he probably never did. It is not a given that he saw the eyes at the same time that he saw the gash and the blood, not by any means, is it?

I don’t know about the 2 seconds flat, but I’ll give you this one, Christer. But only because it's this time of year.

I think we are agreed that this killer would not want to have any obstacle between himself and his victims when he cut away. The notion that he lifted the clothes and held them over the thighs, while reacing all the way up to the steernum when cutting makes for a very awkward scenario. And that goes regardless of the time of the year, methinks.

I understand that you fail to see this, but I don’t. Her clothes including the collar were dark and they may well have mistaken the dark blood for the dark collar. They could see things, but it was very dark, as not only they stated. There would always have been a transition from dark to light in the neck area and I think the throat wounds may even have been covered to some extent by the collar without her killer necessarily consciously interfering with it.

What I can imagine is that the collar may have lined up with the gash and so the gash may not have stood out as a broad band across the neck. But if Lechmere covered the body up the way I think he did, then he would certainly have covered the gash also. Any other scenario seems much less credible to me.

[Fisherman]

I dont have a problem with anyone scrutinizing the results of my investigation into Feigenbaum. What I do object to is the likes of you and Fish cristicising the work and making sweeping statements about it when neither of you have bothered to read the results in full. The term numpties springs to mind

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The one and only statement I have made about your research into Feigenbaum is that you have used press reports when researching him, something you have freely admitted, in spite of how you claimed that I was in the wrong for admitting press material into my research.

That is how "sweeping" my remarks about your Feigenbaum research has been.

You, on the other hand, have taken the liberty to call my research into Lechmere "deluded".

So who is it that is making the truly sweeping statements around here, Trevor? Please donīt answer - your contributions to this thread have been quite enough as it is. But do make the effort to try and understand how your argument looks.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I dont have a problem with anyone scrutinizing the results of my investigation into Feigenbaum. What I do object to is the likes of you and Fish cristicising the work and making sweeping statements about it when neither of you have bothered to read the results in full. The term numpties springs to mind

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Noticeable that you don't respond properly. How many times must I tell you Trevor. I've read your book. I own your book. I've re-read the Feigenbaum chapter 3 times at least. Lawton's statement cannot be corroborated by anyone therefore he may simply have made if up. After all did he go to the police...no. Did hd write to The Met.....no. He went straight to the newspapers. Hardly the actions of someone interested in helping the case.

You just don't like having this pointed out to you because you seem to believe that everyone should take everything you say as gospel.

[Trevor Marriott]

Noticeable that you don't respond properly. How many times must I tell you Trevor. I've read your book. I own your book. I've re-read the Feigenbaum chapter 3 times at least. Lawton's statement cannot be corroborated by anyone therefore he may simply have made if up. After all did he go to the police...no. Did hd write to The Met.....no. He went straight to the newspapers. Hardly the actions of someone interested in helping the case.

You just don't like having this pointed out to you because you seem to believe that everyone should take everything you say as gospel.

People are at liberty to accept or reject any argument

Why would Lawton want to make it up when he would have known someone might look into it

I think you need to either get an up todate version "Jack the Ripper The Real Truth" or re read it

In that you will find Lawtons statement, and you will also find corroboration to not only what is included in that statement, but also what is included in the statement of Feigenbaums brother. You will also find details about his work as a merchant seaman, and you will also find that he can be placed in London as late as 1891 on a merchant ship from the same line that had ships in London on the dates of the murders, a merchant line to which records show he had been working for, for many years.

And of course most importanly he is one of the few suspects that actually commited a murder using a long blade knife by cutting a womans throat plus much more.

So please dont say that he should not be regarded as a likely suspect based on all of that. Fegenbaum was a killer and a proven thief as well as the court records show, not forgetting he also used several aliases namely Carl Zahn and Anton Zahn.

We dont have any other suspect whose antecedents come anywhere near that of Feigenbaum

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Noticeable that you don't respond properly. How many times must I tell you Trevor. I've read your book. I own your book. I've re-read the Feigenbaum chapter 3 times at least. Lawton's statement cannot be corroborated by anyone therefore he may simply have made if up. After all did he go to the police...no. Did hd write to The Met.....no. He went straight to the newspapers. Hardly the actions of someone interested in helping the case.

You just don't like having this pointed out to you because you seem to believe that everyone should take everything you say as gospel.

Lawtons could not go to the police becasue what converation took place between them was covred by legal privillege and he was not permitted by lw to disclose anything. However one Feigenbaum had been executed that legal privilege no longer existed.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Fegenbaum was a killer and a proven thief as well as the court records show, not forgetting he also used several aliases namely Carl Zahn and Anton Zahn.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Tell me, Trevor, why is it nefarious when Feigenbaum uses an alias but not when Lechmere does? The logic escapes me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

People are at liberty to accept or reject any argument

Why would Lawton want to make it up when he would have known someone might look into it

I think you need to either get an up todate version "Jack the Ripper The Real Truth" or re read it

In that you will find Lawtons statement, and you will also find corroboration to not only what is included in that statement, but also what is included in the statement of Feigenbaums brother. You will also find details about his work as a merchant seaman, and you will also find that he can be placed in London as late as 1891 on a merchant ship from the same line that had ships in London on the dates of the murders, a merchant line to which records show he had been working for, for many years.

And of course most importanly he is one of the few suspects that actually commited a murder using a long blade knife by cutting a womans throat plus much more.

So please dont say that he should not be regarded as a likely suspect based on all of that. Fegenbaum was a killer and a proven thief as well as the court records show, not forgetting he also used several aliases namely Carl Zahn and Anton Zahn.

We dont have any other suspect whose antecedents come anywhere near that of Feigenbaum

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If he said " Feigenbaum told me that he had the desire to...." how can anyone look into this when Feigenbaum was dead? It cannot be corroborated. Exactly like the Memorandum.

If you looked you would find numerous men that killed a woman with a long bladed knife. The murder was nothing like a ripper murder.

Until you can prove that he was in the country at the time of the murders Feigenbaum doesn't exist as a suspect.

Anyway, I'll leave it to discussion of Lechmere. A man who was in England at the time of the murders.

[Trevor Marriott]

Tell me, Trevor, why is it nefarious when Feigenbaum uses an alias but not when Lechmere does? The logic escapes me.

But Lechmeres use of his other name was not done with any intent to deceive, he was entitled to use that other name. You dont openly give a false name with intent to decieve when the police know where you live and where you work, and your family history.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

If he said " Feigenbaum told me that he had the desire to...." how can anyone look into this when Feigenbaum was dead? It cannot be corroborated. Exactly like the Memorandum.

Well didnt the Met Police and the doctors believe the killer to be a madman?

If you looked you would find numerous men that killed a woman with a long bladed knife. The murder was nothing like a ripper murder.

Well nor were the torsos fished out of the thames but they are still suggested as being the work of the same killer

Until you can prove that he was in the country at the time of the murders Feigenbaum doesn't exist as a suspect.

Can you prove he wasnt? Its no different to asking many of the Uk based suspects on the list can be placed in London at the exact dates and times of the murders?

Anyway, I'll leave it to discussion of Lechmere. A man who was in England at the time of the murders.

Yes but he was a totally innocent man

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

But Lechmeres use of his other name was not done with any intent to deceive, he was entitled to use that other name. You dont openly give a false name with intent to decieve when the police know where you live and where you work, and your family history.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I can’ t believe I am reading this. How in the whole world do you know what intent the carman had...? The extremely simple answer is that you cannot. As I have pointed out a thousand times you may well give a false name with an intent to deceive although you give your working place and address correctly. The arrogance and ignorance you display is breathtaking!

[FrankO]

Naughty? I think it is important to be correct on these matters, and so when you said that the carmen didnīt see her eyes open, that needed some amendment.

Then why didn't you just make that amendment, instead of asking questions you allready knew the answer to? And now also suggesting that I don't think it's important to be correct on matters?

It can be reasoned that they may have done so, but as you will know, later down in this post of yours, you say that you donīt think that they should necessarily have seen the gash in her neck. Then, to my mind and in all fairness, why is it that they should have seen her eyes?

That is exactly my point. Since they didn't see the open eyes, there's no reason to think they didn't see the throat wounds because they were covered.

Especially if her head was tilted away from them?

Of course, if the head was tilted away from them, they might not have noticed the open eyes. But we don't know if the head was tilted away from them, do we? And there's no evidence to particularly suggest that it was the case.

You can listen for breath anyway, right?

If you're close enough to the mouth, yes. But would you still hear it when you put your ear near her elbow? Near her hand, knee, foot? No, methinks.

At the end of the day, we just donīt know. And so we canīt say that since they could not make out the open eyes, etc...

Just as you can't say that since they couldn't make out the wounds in the throat, etc... It's a good suggestion and one that goes very well with your theory, but at the end of the day we don't know how her clothes were folded below her body, if he needed to pull them up to cover the throat wounds, if he actually did that and if they did come down when Paul pulled her dress down, so that they were uncovered when Neil shone his lamp on her.

It could well have been a case of the head being tilted away from the street and Neil walking around the body and shining his light on the face. He must not have moved the head, and he probably never did. It is not a given that he saw the eyes at the same time that he saw the gash and the blood, not by any means, is it?

Doesn't something like "it's no guarantee" sort of mean "It's not a given"?

What I can imagine is that the collar may have lined up with the gash and so the gash may not have stood out as a broad band across the neck.

At least we agree on something...

[Trevor Marriott]

I can’ t believe I am reading this. How in the whole world do you know what intent the carman had...? The extremely simple answer is that you cannot. As I have pointed out a thousand times you may well give a false name with an intent to deceive although you give your working place and address correctly. The arrogance and ignorance you display is breathtaking!

Its on a par with yours then

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Then why didn't you just make that amendment, instead of asking questions you allready knew the answer to? And now also suggesting that I don't think it's important to be correct on matters?

In all honesty, I was not absolutely certain that there was no comment on it by the carmen. And I am not saying that you don’ t think it is important to be correct, I am saying that it is a priority of mine. I have never held you anything but very high in regard and I am not going to change that now.

That is exactly my point. Since they didn't see the open eyes, there's no reason to think they didn't see the throat wounds because they were covered.

The problem is that they MUST have seen the neck while they must not have seen the eyes, Frank.

Of course, if the head was tilted away from them, they might not have noticed the open eyes. But we don't know if the head was tilted away from them, do we? And there's no evidence to particularly suggest that it was the case.

Exactly. We don’ t know. Therefore the possibility remains.

If you're close enough to the mouth, yes. But would you still hear it when you put your ear near her elbow? Near her hand, knee, foot? No, methinks.

And I agree. But what I am saying is that you may lean in over a head and listen even if the head is tilted away from you.

Just as you can't say that since they couldn't make out the wounds in the throat, etc... It's a good suggestion and one that goes very well with your theory, but at the end of the day we don't know how her clothes were folded below her body, if he needed to pull them up to cover the throat wounds, if he actually did that and if they did come down when Paul pulled her dress down, so that they were uncovered when Neil shone his lamp on her.

True. We don’ t. Which is why I present it as a possibility and not as a fact.

Doesn't something like "it's no guarantee" sort of mean "It's not a given"?

Yes it does, and it seems we agree.

At least we agree on something...

When reading my take on things, Frank, one must keep in mind that I am searching for an unbroken path that is in line with Lechmere being the killer. That means that I favour facts that are part of that road if I find them as likely or likelier than the alternatives. It does not mean that I am unaware that I may be wrong, but overall, I don’ t think I am, generally speaking. The typical suspect is one who COULD be the Ripper. The many circumstances surrounding Lechmere makes him a suspect who could not NOT be the Ripper in my world. Once the book is out, the full basis for my reasoning will be presented. To judge the case for Lechmere, all the little bits must be taken into account.

[Fisherman]

Its on a par with yours then

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, it is the only discipline where you have the upper hand on me, Trevor. By a country mile.

Do you want more mudslinging, or have you had your fill now?

[MrBarnett]

Let’s not get bogged down in terminology, but Lechmere must have understood the difference between his ‘street’ name, Cross (assuming he was generally known by that name) and his ‘official’ name, Lechmere.

And he must have known that he was expected to use his ‘official’ name in his encounters with officialdom. But in the Nichols case he didn’t, and it seems that when he ran over and killed a child in 1876 he also hadn’t.

Why might he have used Lechmere when he married, on every census he appeared on, when registering his kids at school or registering to vote, etc. but not on these two occasions?

What’s more likely, that they were oversights or intentional?