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

[Fisherman]

I never thought I’d live to see the day when I was on a Lechmere thread with Fish and I’m defending Lechmere’s status as a suspect.

These are truly weird times, Herlock. I promise I wonīt start calling you a Lechmereian, though - at least not until you have read my book. If it persuades you, then Iīd be proud to call you part of the gang!

[Fisherman]

The only ‘futility’ hear Trevor is the apparently pointless attempt to drill into you the fact that WE ARE NOT UNDERTAKING A POLICE INVESTIGATION! Why won’t you let this sink in?

We are under absolutely zero obligation to adhere strictly to the same terminology that the police use so why are you intent on saying that we are? Why are you so intent on ploughing on? I honestly can’t make up my mind whether you genuinly don’t understand this or if you’re just continuing bloody-mindedly. It really is elementary stuff Trevor. Pleeeeese try and understand. It doesn’t matter if we call someone a suspect or a person of interested or a cheese sandwich. It’s irrelevant.

All that we can do is debate the positives and negatives of each SUSPECT.

And just to add to this weirdness you yet again accuse me of trying to prove Lechmere a killer when I’ve stated at least twice but possibly three times on this thread that I don’t think that he was the ripper.

And the only issue with Feigenbaum is that you seem to believe that 3,500 miles don’t matter! That’s not bias of course though

Please get a grip Trevor.

Of course, I am convinced that if the police had the information about Lechmere that we have today, they would have considered him their prime suspect. I actually think they would have considered him the killer too, come to think of it.

Unless, of course, they were led by an early ancestor of Trevorīs. Then again, would not such a man be in the American Midwest, looking for the culprit...?

[Fisherman]

One must admire Trevor for his staunch defense, at least. He reminds me of a valiant knight. The Black Knight to be more precise:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs

[IchabodCrane]

Of course, I am convinced that if the police had the information about Lechmere that we have today, they would have considered him their prime suspect. I actually think they would have considered him the killer too, come to think of it.

Well they would have asked him some interesting questions, that is for sure.
Most notably
- did you hear any steps or saw anyone or anything moving away when you entered Bucks row?
- also, where he was and which way to work he took on the early morning of August 7th, the night of the Martha Tabram murder
- they would tell him very clearly that the fact that he was alone with the victim means he has to be considered a suspect and then work from his reaction

Next, they would have put him on a list and checked with him and his family members his whereabouts Saturday morning September 8th, after the next murder. If not cleared by then, they would have repeated the same for Sunday September 30th after midnight.

And all these records if they existed would give some interesting reading and surely would save us a lot of ink in our current day.

[Pcdunn]

In answer to the question posed by this thread, I've never read of anyone discarding the possibility that Charles Lechmere was the ripper, and I've read an awful lot of comments about him. the issue is just the degree of value attached to his candidature.

Dusty, that isn't the question posed by the OP's title. They want to know why people discard the possibility that Charles really did just interrupt the real Ripper, not that he WAS the Ripper.

[drstrange169]

Thanks for correcting me, duly noted.

[Pcdunn]

In my opinion, this is a very likely possibility, and its so frequently ignored. It would help explain why Nicholls was mutilated much less than 3 of the 4 later C5 victims.

Just want to say that I agree with you. The idea that Paul found Cross kneeling next to the victim (who is supposedly "still warm" as another poster says further down this thread) is so wrong and does not agree wirh the paper accounts.

[Daveshredder]

Assuming lechmere was close enough to interrupt the killer and make him flee. Did he not hear or see any one disappear?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Assuming lechmere was close enough to interrupt the killer and make him flee. Did he not hear or see any one disappear?

The problem is that there are things that we don’t know like what kind of footwear the killer might have been wearing. Or if his hearing was just better that Lechmere’s. It’s not impossible of course that some other noise spooked him and he fled or that he just finished and fled just before Lechmere arrived. Lots of maybe’s and ‘what if’s’ and unknowns there Dave.

[FrankO]

Assuming lechmere was close enough to interrupt the killer and make him flee. Did he not hear or see any one disappear?

According to a couple of newspapers, among which the Star of 3 September, Lechmere stated he thought that, had anyone left the body after he'd turned into Buck's Row, he must have heard him.

[Daveshredder]

According to a couple of newspapers, among which the Star of 3 September, Lechmere stated he thought that, had anyone left the body after he'd turned into Buck's Row, he must have heard him.

So, he's doubling up on no one there?

[FrankO]

So, he's doubling up on no one there?

Could you please rephrase, Daveshredder? Because as a Dutchman I don't know what 'doubling up on someone' means. For now, I take it to mean 'so, he's not chasing away someone/the killer there?'.

So, in the meantime, I'm just saying what he himself said, according to the evidence we're left with. Whether he was lying or unjustifiably sure of himself I don't know - if he was either of those, that is.

If he wasn't lying (because he was innocent), then the killer had either left the scene before Lechmere could hear him or he left too silently for Lechmere to hear him. Or, as I said, he was unjustifiably sure of himself, while in reality he hadn't paid as much attention to sounds as he thought he had.

If he was lying (because he was guilty), then I'd wonder if it hadn't been better to say that he'd actually heard someone walk away from the scene ahead of him.

[Daveshredder]

Franko. Yes, I just st mean he was confirming that he hadn't seen any one. If the body was as fresh as I've heard it was, then it's unusual he didn't see or hear anything, either that or he was guilty. He is the only person we can place at the scene of the crime at or very close to the time. It's not much but it's probably the closest to any kind of actual evidence we can ever get.

[Abby Normal]

Paul was walking down bucks row and sees a man near the freshly killed body of polly nichols. no one saw anyone running away. based on the evidence alone, lech is the most likely killer of nichols.

[FISHY1118]

Paul was walking down bucks row and sees a man near the freshly killed body of polly nichols. no one saw anyone running away. based on the evidence alone, lech is the most likely killer of nichols.

Or just as unlikely if you consider after kellys murder he lived another 32 years . Just sayin.