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

[Trevor Marriott]

In the papers of the 3:rd. Like the Daily News, for example. There was a sort of press conference in the evening of the 2:nd, where PC Neil commented on the rumurs of two men inolved in the business, as per Lloyds Weekly of the same day, where Pauls interview was published. At that press conference, this was said:

"It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street."

So at this stage, the police still believed that Neil was the finder, they did not believe in the story told by Paul and they would consequently not go looking for Lechmere.

I thought you were aware of these things?

There was clearly a breakdown in communication, of course they would go looking for Cross the police knew there were 2 people present, and they would have known after later speakin to Paul that Cross had found the body. There is nothing to show the police did not belive Paul not at the time, or following the inquest and the same goes for Cross. You are again trying to fit square pegs into round holes creating a mystery when there is no mystery.

It was the police who assesed and evaluated the evidence and reported accordingly they foud nothing suspicious and you have to accpet that

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Ok, I’ll play Devil’s Advocate on this one. What if Lechmere didn’t have particularly good hearing? It’s not impossible of course. We also can’t be certain exactly how loud Paul’s footsteps were. We only have his word for how far away Paul was when heard him approach. What if he lied and that Paul was actually closer and maybe he could even see him approaching and he’d panicked and decided that Paul was too close for him to run? Maybe he felt that Paul might have been able to have given at least some kind of description to the police? Maybe he feared that Paul might have been a have-a-go-hero type that would have given chase? Then later, by saying that Paul was actually further away and out of sight when he’d first heard him Lechmere paints himself more like a discoverer than a murderer because the police would assume that a guilty man that had heard Paul from a distance he would have run away.

Why dont you got for broke and say that in addittion to being deaf he had one eye, and that shut at midnight, and a wooden leg that had woodworm

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[paul g]

Is this a possibility.
Paul is in the process of murdering the victim and hears Letchmere turning into the street.
paul being a local man knows running away would possibly lead him into the route of the police beat.
paul comes up with a spur of the moment plan , he doubles back down behind cross using the alleyways and back streets and positions himself now behind cross, hoping cross discovers the body.
Cross does ( fact). Paul/Jack now is in position to be further from suspicion being the Secind on the scene .

with not very much research at this time but I may work in it.
in Paul’s favour for becoming a candidate
second person to discover a victim
local person on his way to work
lives near all the murder sites
knowledge of the area
alll murders happened on his route to work
mother lives or lived near one of the murder site.
one of my main thoughts is Paul outed cross to the police knowing that the first to find the body would be more likely to be a suspect than the second.

Fisherman Trevor
in a simple one word answer yes or no is this a possible scenario

[paul g]

Apologies regarding spelling and grammar but I’m on a train posting via my phone

[Fisherman]

There was clearly a breakdown in communication, of course they would go looking for Cross the police knew there were 2 people present, and they would have known after later speakin to Paul that Cross had found the body. There is nothing to show the police did not belive Paul not at the time, or following the inquest and the same goes for Cross. You are again trying to fit square pegs into round holes creating a mystery when there is no mystery.

It was the police who assesed and evaluated the evidence and reported accordingly they foud nothing suspicious and you have to accpet that

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A breakdown in communication? And the police knew there were two people present?

Didnīt you read my post, Trevor? There was no breakdown in communication. there were rumours afloat, and one of them was that there had been two men involved in the finding of Nichols. Very clearly, these two men were the carmen. Pauls story was published on the afternoon of the 2:nd in Lloyds Weekly, and the police held a press conference to answer the many questions that had arisen. On that conference, John Neil denied that there were two men involved in his finding Nichols, he was alone when doing so, he told the papers.

The very obvious inference was that nobody realized that there were two PC:s involved. It was believed that Neil was the officer Paul claimed to have contacted in his interview, and that it was he who had been alerted to the murder site by the carmen.
Instead, it was of course Mizen, not Neil, who had been contacted. And the Lloyds Weekly interview did not inform people that the other carman had been the more active one, nor did it tell the public about the phantom PC. That was something that was only revealed at the inquest.

So once again no, the police did NOT go looking for Lechmere. They didnīt even go looking for Paul at this stage. But IF they had gone looking for either man, Paul would have been that man. His name had been in the papers and he had stated that he worked as a carman for the Covent Garden market, so he and he alone would be readily traceable.

Until the police had found Paul, how on earth could they track Lechmere down, Trevor? They did not have his name, they did not know where he worked or lived. Any idea how they accomplished it?

Saying that there is nothing to show that the police did not believe Paul when we have it in black and white in many papers where Neil denied the existence of the two carmen is even more derailed than most of your posts, Trevor. A piece of advice in all friendlyness: If you do not know what happened, then donīt get on your high horses and try to create a truth of your own.

By the way, who says I donīt accept that the police did not find Lechmere suspicious? What I am instead saying is that much as they did not find him suspicious, they SHOULD have done so, but missed out. Then again, missing out seems to be epidemic when it comes to policemen and ex-coppers trying to understand the case...

[Fisherman]

Ok, I’ll play Devil’s Advocate on this one. What if Lechmere didn’t have particularly good hearing? It’s not impossible of course. We also can’t be certain exactly how loud Paul’s footsteps were. We only have his word for how far away Paul was when heard him approach. What if he lied and that Paul was actually closer and maybe he could even see him approaching and he’d panicked and decided that Paul was too close for him to run? Maybe he felt that Paul might have been able to have given at least some kind of description to the police? Maybe he feared that Paul might have been a have-a-go-hero type that would have given chase? Then later, by saying that Paul was actually further away and out of sight when he’d first heard him Lechmere paints himself more like a discoverer than a murderer because the police would assume that a guilty man that had heard Paul from a distance he would have run away.

I think we must weigh in that it would take some time for Lechmere to cover the wounds up and to stash the weapon and check his own apparition before stepping back from the body of Nichols. How long that would take is of course to some degree debatable, but overall, I think that the minute offered by the distance from Brady Street down to Browns seems a likely time for Lechmere to achieve these things.

[paul g]

I think we must weigh in that it would take some time for Lechmere to cover the wounds up and to stash the weapon and check his own apparition before stepping back from the body of Nichols. How long that woud take is of course to some degree debatable, but overall, I think that the minute offered by the distance from Brady Street down to Browns seems a likely tme for Lechmere to achieve these things.

Bit if it was Paul in the scenario I described above then he could of hid the weapon on his way back behind cross/Letchmere and checked his attire. !

[Fisherman]

Is this a possibility.
Paul is in the process of murdering the victim and hears Letchmere turning into the street.
paul being a local man knows running away would possibly lead him into the route of the police beat.
paul comes up with a spur of the moment plan , he doubles back down behind cross using the alleyways and back streets and positions himself now behind cross, hoping cross discovers the body.
Cross does ( fact). Paul/Jack now is in position to be further from suspicion being the Secind on the scene .

with not very much research at this time but I may work in it.
in Paul’s favour for becoming a candidate
second person to discover a victim
local person on his way to work
lives near all the murder sites
knowledge of the area
alll murders happened on his route to work
mother lives or lived near one of the murder site.
one of my main thoughts is Paul outed cross to the police knowing that the first to find the body would be more likely to be a suspect than the second.

Fisherman Trevor
in a simple one word answer yes or no is this a possible scenario

I always answer yes to any suggestion that cannot be denied as impossible. But you are factually rather badly adrift. Not all murders were on Pauls route to work. Only Bucks Row and 29 Hanbury Street were, in fact. Millers Court was not on his route to work, nor were George Yard, Berner Street or Mitre Square. Why would it be damning tht his mother lived near one of the murder sites? And why would he be the second person to discover a victim - would he not instead be the killer, as per you?

One must ask oneself why Paul would double back and present himself at the murder scene once he had fled it...? Why did he do so in the first place, only to then return? It is a very strange scenario in my view and an utterly unlikely one. But not impossible per se, I guess.

[Fisherman]

I think we must weigh in that it would take some time for Lechmere to cover the wounds up and to stash the weapon and check his own apparition before stepping back from the body of Nichols. How long that woud take is of course to some degree debatable, but overall, I think that the minute offered by the distance from Brady Street down to Browns seems a likely tme for Lechmere to achieve these things.

Bit if it was Paul in the scenario I described above then he could of hid the weapon on his way back behind cross/Letchmere and checked his attire. !

Indeed. If.

[paul g]

Hi Fisherman .
I will take my tongue out of my cheek.
In all seriousness you have bought a potential suspect into the mix weather he was Jack may never be known .
Trevor disagrees you defend but it’s like you say tomato I say tomatoe.
To my mind there has only been the royal conspiracy and the shawl episode that has been debunked every suspect has those for or against or some that have no view.
The suspect board on here has suspects and most can’t be ruled out.
example being Bury gets ruled out because he killed his wife differently to the victims in the east end and very little else.
From the A to Z of suspects weather new or old there are those who agree or consider and those who don’t and the same can be said for anyone Trevor has forwarded.
Trevor and Fish your knowledge and research is fascinating and awe inspiring.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman .
I will take my tongue out of my cheek.
In all seriousness you have bought a potential suspect into the mix weather he was Jack may never be known .
Trevor disagrees you defend but it’s like you say tomato I say tomatoe.
To my mind there has only been the royal conspiracy and the shawl episode that has been debunked every suspect has those for or against or some that have no view.
The suspect board on here has suspects and most can’t be ruled out.
example being Bury gets ruled out because he killed his wife differently to the victims in the east end and very little else.
From the A to Z of suspects weather new or old there are those who agree or consider and those who don’t and the same can be said for anyone Trevor has forwarded.
Trevor and Fish your knowledge and research is fascinating and awe inspiring.

The fact that a suspect cannot be ruled out is - in my opinion - not much of a reason to rule that suspect in. Then again, once we look at the group of people the suspects are ruled into, it counts for very little to be ruled in. Most suspects only have that going for them; they cannot be ruled out. It is not a company I seek.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is this a possibility.
Paul is in the process of murdering the victim and hears Letchmere turning into the street.
paul being a local man knows running away would possibly lead him into the route of the police beat.
paul comes up with a spur of the moment plan , he doubles back down behind cross using the alleyways and back streets and positions himself now behind cross, hoping cross discovers the body.
Cross does ( fact). Paul/Jack now is in position to be further from suspicion being the Secind on the scene .

with not very much research at this time but I may work in it.
in Paul’s favour for becoming a candidate
second person to discover a victim
local person on his way to work
lives near all the murder sites
knowledge of the area
alll murders happened on his route to work
mother lives or lived near one of the murder site.
one of my main thoughts is Paul outed cross to the police knowing that the first to find the body would be more likely to be a suspect than the second.

Fisherman Trevor
in a simple one word answer yes or no is this a possible scenario

Hi Paul,

If you trawl back through the Lechmere threads you’ll find a post where I mention this. To be honest I just mentioned it as an alternative scenario. I believe I based it on the suggestion that as they used the same route each day Paul might have been aware that another man passed each day. So Paul murders Nichols then hides at the end of Buck’s Row and let’s Lechmere find the body and then ‘arrives.’

The problem is of course that he wouldn’t have known that he was going to bump into a victim in Buck’s Row and he would have needed to time the murder.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why dont you got for broke and say that in addittion to being deaf he had one eye, and that shut at midnight, and a wooden leg that had woodworm

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You’re right as ever Trevor. Poor hearing is such an extreme rarity after all; I mean, have you ever met anyone with poor hearing? I certainly haven’t either of course. Must be a 1 in 10,000,000 chance. And of course the Victorian National Health Service were very good at handing out free hearing aids. What was I thinking?

[Kattrup]

A breakdown in communication? And the police knew there were two people present?

Didnīt you read my post, Trevor? There was no breakdown in communication. there were rumours afloat, and one of them was that there had been two men involved in the finding of Nichols. Very clearly, these two men were the carmen. Pauls story was published on the afternoon of the 2:nd in Lloyds Weekly, and the police held a press conference to answer the many questions that had arisen. On that conference, John Neil denied that there were two men involved in his finding Nichols, he was alone when doing so, he told the papers.

The very obvious inference was that nobody realized that there were two PC:s involved. It was believed that Neil was the officer Paul claimed to have contacted in his interview, and that it was he who had been alerted to the murder site by the carmen.

Yes, the very, nay, extremely obvious inference is that everybody believed there was only one policeman involved.

Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat.

(my emphasis)

Oh wait, maybe not. Maybe everybody understood that there were in fact two different policemen involved, and the difference in opinion was just one of ascertaining who found the body first. Since, you know, there were two instances of the body being found independantly of another, once by a policeman and once by two men, who then alerted a policeman.
And maybe this is what Neil responded to, when he said it was not true that HE was alerted to the corpse by two men? A statement, which does not, by the way, imply that the police force in general did not believe Robert Paul's story.

One would not think that needed specifying, really, since it's perfectly clear already. Yet here we are, having to dismantle very obvious inferences which are very obviously wrong.

[paul g]

Thanks for the reply’s
Letchmere is interesting as seems to have appeared out of nowhere, so to speak and currently in my mind he is a could be then on other days a could not.
all suspects are forwarded with good intent by many researchers for more knowledgeable than me and most have there merits.
However with Letchmere there just seems more “if’s than actual facts.
Starting with “ found with the body”. Well someone wax always going to be the first to find a body in any murder.
almost like has the driver of the cart into “ George’s yard” been investigated , the landlords staff who first found Mary what about him.
Those two individuals alone may have similar points used to build a case or argument similar to Letchmere.
Lived local
worked in area or travelled while working near known murder sites.
indeed if they haven’t been investigated I’m sat wondering could you make a similar case that fisherman builds as supporting evidence against those two just using the supporting facts that are used in Letchmere .

however the use of name is interesting cross/Letchmere and is used as a main point but I’m struggling to see how significant it actually is.
To me though I find it extremely interesting and am awe of anyone who can research to take there thoughts to book or in any print form as I struggle to read a book never mind write one.

I like this thread and see Trevor’s issues but also fisherman’s points.

Letcmere as a suspect requires a leap of faith or a belief of what if’s.

The documentary give me the same feeling though very enjoyable I did come away after watching thinking the murder that took place off his route to work, the explanation that he could of been at his mothers house very weak and said to fit the theory.
same could be said for that legal guy at the end who says similar to “ 100% case to answer “ well if he had said to much circumstantial evidence could never take that to court “ would it of been included or maybe find someone waldstern who says the required statement.

Fisherman I’m not having a go at you personally I’ve said before you come across as a really nice person as does Trevor.

Maybe your book will reveal further convincing evidence that sways.