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

[FrankO]

Simple facts. Paul and CAL did not see the injury and the blood, and were not reporting a murder as such. They just reported that there was a woman lying in Buck's Row who was drunk or dead. Mizen didn't ask any questions of them, and just said "alright". This allowed CAL if he was guilty to invent any simple story he wished before he volunteered his information to the police a few days later. He could, and if guilty surely would have said something like there was someone in the distance that he heard or vaguely saw in the darkness, but who he thought was just a man on his way to work, for example. But he said that he saw and heard nobody. Odd behaviour for a guilty man one would think! But natural behaviour for an honest innocent man who didn't think he had any reason to lie.

The thing that still has me wondering is that he told the inquest that he would have heard somebody moving away, had there been anybody, and that this statement involved the risk of provoking a question like: "Why, then, didn't you hear Paul?". However, instead saying that he actually did hear someone moving away would have involved the risk of the very same question being asked.

I was and still am genuinely interested in knowing if there are any unsurmountable reasons for Lechmere not to have said such a thing, but so far I haven't seen anything that convinced me. The only two things that have been proposed is that telling such a thing to Mizen would entail the risk of being detained by him and that, to explain himself afterwards, he would only be able to come up with something like "Oh yes, I forgot to mention that I saw a wild-eyed man with a bloody knife wearing an apron hovering over the body, who legged it the moment I laid eyes on him.".

[MrBarnett]

The thing that still has me wondering is that he told the inquest that he would have heard somebody moving away, had there been anybody, and that this statement involved the risk of provoking a question like: "Why, then, didn't you hear Paul?". However, instead saying that he actually did hear someone moving away would have involved the risk of the very same question being asked.

I was and still am genuinely interested in knowing if there are any unsurmountable reasons for Lechmere not to have said such a thing, but so far I haven't seen anything that convinced me. The only two things that have been proposed is that telling such a thing to Mizen would entail the risk of being detained by him and that, to explain himself afterwards, he would only be able to come up with something like "Oh yes, I forgot to mention that I saw a wild-eyed man with a bloody knife wearing an apron hovering over the body, who legged it the moment I laid eyes on him.".

Did I say that was the only thing he could have said?

[SuperShodan]

I think the idea of Lechmere disturbing JTR is perfectly valid and in my time on casebook I’ve seen it discussed often.

I think the most important point is that when Paul examines Nichols he’s not 100% sure she’s even dead. Despite him getting up and close and personal he see’s no injuries. I think this is absolutely crucial. An analysis of the crime scene tells us all we need to know.

Compare and contrast Nichols in Bucks Row with Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Left on display, organs over the shoulder, legs akimbo, dresses pulled up to expose the genitals and such like. Shocking and unmistakable crime scenes.

JTR added this final humiliation after death, he wanted to shock people. I believe this is the unique JTR ‘signature’. Leaving these horrendous murder scenes for anyone to chance upon was very much his objective. With JTR we have victims being left on display, whereas Nichols is the exact opposite. Even the police and the Dr fail to notice the abdominal wounds.

So I think the clear conclusion is that JTR was disturbed in the process of murdering Nichols. In addition to this, we have a crime scene that is the opposite of a typical JTR murder.

To summarise. We have 2 facts here. Firstly, JTR being disturbed, I think most of us agree on that, and secondly, Nichols crime scene being very different from the others.

Moving on to the crux of the matter. If JTR ran off, then why hide his handiwork? It doesn’t make sense. Apart from wasting valuable getaway time, it ruins his unique Ripper signature. If JTR is an unknown 3rd party, then hiding the wounds is the last thing he would do.

The only reasonable explanation for hiding the wounds would be if JTR was still in situ, and he was concealing that a murder had occurred from an approaching witness. The only person there is Lechmere and the approaching witness is Robert Paul.

So while we can consider the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper, by looking at the crime scene we can see that JTR never left Bucks Row.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I think the idea of Lechmere disturbing JTR is perfectly valid and in my time on casebook I’ve seen it discussed often.

I think the most important point is that when Paul examines Nichols he’s not 100% sure she’s even dead. Despite him getting up and close and personal he see’s no injuries. I think this is absolutely crucial. An analysis of the crime scene tells us all we need to know.

Compare and contrast Nichols in Bucks Row with Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Left on display, organs over the shoulder, legs akimbo, dresses pulled up to expose the genitals and such like. Shocking and unmistakable crime scenes.

JTR added this final humiliation after death, he wanted to shock people. I believe this is the unique JTR ‘signature’. Leaving these horrendous murder scenes for anyone to chance upon was very much his objective. With JTR we have victims being left on display, whereas Nichols is the exact opposite. Even the police and the Dr fail to notice the abdominal wounds.

So I think the clear conclusion is that JTR was disturbed in the process of murdering Nichols. In addition to this, we have a crime scene that is the opposite of a typical JTR murder.

To summarise. We have 2 facts here. Firstly, JTR being disturbed, I think most of us agree on that, and secondly, Nichols crime scene being very different from the others.

Moving on to the crux of the matter. If JTR ran off, then why hide his handiwork? It doesn’t make sense. Apart from wasting valuable getaway time, it ruins his unique Ripper signature. If JTR is an unknown 3rd party, then hiding the wounds is the last thing he would do.

The only reasonable explanation for hiding the wounds would be if JTR was still in situ, and he was concealing that a murder had occurred from an approaching witness. The only person there is Lechmere and the approaching witness is Robert Paul.

So while we can consider the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper, by looking at the crime scene we can see that JTR never left Bucks Row.

Again , he did not hide all the wounds [ if any ] PC Neil - I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat.
Why would you attempt to hide the abdominal injuries, yet leave the throat uncovered ? It doesn't make sense. If Lech was the killer how did he know that Paul wouldn't strike a match when he felt her face and see the blood coming from Polly's throat ?

[FrankO]

Did I say that was the only thing he could have said?

No, just the only thing you did say/offer so far. So, if you have any other ideas, I'm interested.

[Mark J D]

Again , he did not hide all the wounds [ if any ] PC Neil - I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat.
Why would you attempt to hide the abdominal injuries, yet leave the throat uncovered ? It doesn't make sense. If Lech was the killer how did he know that Paul wouldn't strike a match when he felt her face and see the blood coming from Polly's throat ?

Paul had by that stage pulled Nichols' clothes a little further down. This likely exposed the throat -- the killer's original attempt to cover which was probably the reason the clothes were found in the position they were: low enough to hide the abdominal wounds, high enough to cover the throat wounds.

M.

[SuperShodan]

Again , he did not hide all the wounds [ if any ] PC Neil - I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat.
Why would you attempt to hide the abdominal injuries, yet leave the throat uncovered ? It doesn't make sense. If Lech was the killer how did he know that Paul wouldn't strike a match when he felt her face and see the blood coming from Polly's throat ?

Lechmere didn’t know that Paul wouldn’t pull out a match. Paul could well have done just that. It was just sheer luck for Lechmere that Paul didn’t. There was no time to consider all the possibilities. Lechmere was acting on instinct, he probably had very little time to decide what to do.

Nichols was lying the the darkness, he probably hoped this would be enough. However, if Paul had struck a match I suspect Lechmere would simply go through the pantomime that they had found the dead body together. In a way I feel Lechmere is using Paul as an alibi, the ‘discovery’ of Nichols seemingly happening in tandem.

This was a blitz attack that went wrong, when Lechmere became of aware of Paul walking up Bucks Row, everything that follows is Lechmere reacting to the unfolding situation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think the idea of Lechmere disturbing JTR is perfectly valid and in my time on casebook I’ve seen it discussed often.

I think the most important point is that when Paul examines Nichols he’s not 100% sure she’s even dead. Despite him getting up and close and personal he see’s no injuries. I think this is absolutely crucial. An analysis of the crime scene tells us all we need to know.

Compare and contrast Nichols in Bucks Row with Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Left on display, organs over the shoulder, legs akimbo, dresses pulled up to expose the genitals and such like. Shocking and unmistakable crime scenes.

JTR added this final humiliation after death, he wanted to shock people. I believe this is the unique JTR ‘signature’. Leaving these horrendous murder scenes for anyone to chance upon was very much his objective. With JTR we have victims being left on display, whereas Nichols is the exact opposite. Even the police and the Dr fail to notice the abdominal wounds.

So I think the clear conclusion is that JTR was disturbed in the process of murdering Nichols. In addition to this, we have a crime scene that is the opposite of a typical JTR murder.

To summarise. We have 2 facts here. Firstly, JTR being disturbed, I think most of us agree on that, and secondly, Nichols crime scene being very different from the others.

Moving on to the crux of the matter. If JTR ran off, then why hide his handiwork? It doesn’t make sense. Apart from wasting valuable getaway time, it ruins his unique Ripper signature. If JTR is an unknown 3rd party, then hiding the wounds is the last thing he would do.

The only reasonable explanation for hiding the wounds would be if JTR was still in situ, and he was concealing that a murder had occurred from an approaching witness. The only person there is Lechmere and the approaching witness is Robert Paul.

So while we can consider the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper, by looking at the crime scene we can see that JTR never left Bucks Row.

For ‘hiding the wounds’ simply substitute ‘the killer holding the garments up in one hand simply let them go before escaping.”

Also, I don’t think that we can call it a given that the killer was interrupted. This might we’ll have been his first murder which could explain any difference in matters of display.

……

Im sorry but there’s nothing ‘reasonable’ about that explanation Bob. It’s simply yet another attempt to make Lechmere look guilty. Hasn’t there been enough exaggeration on this subject?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Lechmere didn’t know that Paul wouldn’t pull out a match. Paul could well have done just that. It was just sheer luck for Lechmere that Paul didn’t. There was no time to consider all the possibilities. Lechmere was acting on instinct, he probably had very little time to decide what to do.

He could have scarpered and avoided all issues. Which is what he would have done if he was guilty.

[Abby Normal]

I think the idea of Lechmere disturbing JTR is perfectly valid and in my time on casebook I’ve seen it discussed often.

I think the most important point is that when Paul examines Nichols he’s not 100% sure she’s even dead. Despite him getting up and close and personal he see’s no injuries. I think this is absolutely crucial. An analysis of the crime scene tells us all we need to know.

Compare and contrast Nichols in Bucks Row with Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Left on display, organs over the shoulder, legs akimbo, dresses pulled up to expose the genitals and such like. Shocking and unmistakable crime scenes.

JTR added this final humiliation after death, he wanted to shock people. I believe this is the unique JTR ‘signature’. Leaving these horrendous murder scenes for anyone to chance upon was very much his objective. With JTR we have victims being left on display, whereas Nichols is the exact opposite. Even the police and the Dr fail to notice the abdominal wounds.

So I think the clear conclusion is that JTR was disturbed in the process of murdering Nichols. In addition to this, we have a crime scene that is the opposite of a typical JTR murder.

To summarise. We have 2 facts here. Firstly, JTR being disturbed, I think most of us agree on that, and secondly, Nichols crime scene being very different from the others.

Moving on to the crux of the matter. If JTR ran off, then why hide his handiwork? It doesn’t make sense. Apart from wasting valuable getaway time, it ruins his unique Ripper signature. If JTR is an unknown 3rd party, then hiding the wounds is the last thing he would do.

The only reasonable explanation for hiding the wounds would be if JTR was still in situ, and he was concealing that a murder had occurred from an approaching witness. The only person there is Lechmere and the approaching witness is Robert Paul.

So while we can consider the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper, by looking at the crime scene we can see that JTR never left Bucks Row.

hi super
this is actually quite an astute analysis of the crime scene. The idea has a lot of merit. good post. and I agree that the rippers secondary sig, other than the primary one of cutting up and removing body parts, was to display, or keep the bodies on display to shock the public. many serial killers, even post mortem ones, make some attempt to hide the body, or cover up the wounds, even when they are still basically left in the public. The ripper was not like this-so why cover up the wounds?
You raise a good point-he was still there and was caught almost redhanded. If lech had disturbed the killer, it seems he would have left everything on full display and not waste time nor go against his secondary sig and cover up the wounds.

[Abby Normal]

I don't know enough Lech to comment on him, I suspected he was an amusing red herring put up by some witty contributers here to prove that anyone could be made to a suspect, I didn't realise people were serious.
I will do some swatting up but my first impression is at least he knew the area, great deal more than most suspects here, but also abit like shooting the messanger? what about that guy at the Chapman murder scene who was cleaning his shoe with a knife on the steps shortly before she was found?

bingo wiggy
people like richardson and lech are exactly the type that need more looking into.

[Aethelwulf]

I think the idea of Lechmere disturbing JTR is perfectly valid and in my time on casebook I’ve seen it discussed often.

I think the most important point is that when Paul examines Nichols he’s not 100% sure she’s even dead. Despite him getting up and close and personal he see’s no injuries. I think this is absolutely crucial. An analysis of the crime scene tells us all we need to know.

Compare and contrast Nichols in Bucks Row with Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Left on display, organs over the shoulder, legs akimbo, dresses pulled up to expose the genitals and such like. Shocking and unmistakable crime scenes.

JTR added this final humiliation after death, he wanted to shock people. I believe this is the unique JTR ‘signature’. Leaving these horrendous murder scenes for anyone to chance upon was very much his objective. With JTR we have victims being left on display, whereas Nichols is the exact opposite. Even the police and the Dr fail to notice the abdominal wounds.

So I think the clear conclusion is that JTR was disturbed in the process of murdering Nichols. In addition to this, we have a crime scene that is the opposite of a typical JTR murder.

To summarise. We have 2 facts here. Firstly, JTR being disturbed, I think most of us agree on that, and secondly, Nichols crime scene being very different from the others.

Moving on to the crux of the matter. If JTR ran off, then why hide his handiwork? It doesn’t make sense. Apart from wasting valuable getaway time, it ruins his unique Ripper signature. If JTR is an unknown 3rd party, then hiding the wounds is the last thing he would do.

The only reasonable explanation for hiding the wounds would be if JTR was still in situ, and he was concealing that a murder had occurred from an approaching witness. The only person there is Lechmere and the approaching witness is Robert Paul.

So while we can consider the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper, by looking at the crime scene we can see that JTR never left Bucks Row.

If you assume the wounds were covered, which there is no evidence for, there may be another explanation. This was the ripper's first attempt at on street mutilation and potential aim at removing parts, perhaps this is why he was looking in this quieter areas compared to the other sites. Hearing Lech's footsteps he covers up to buy time and make his escape, which worked as Lechmere and Paul both interrupted their journeys.

Your argument also falls flat for me when you introduce Tabram - I'm sorry but there is only one suspect worth looking at for this who is a million times more likely to have been responsible (and also Millwood and Wilson). We also know the time for Tabram is an issue for Lech, unless of course you disregard the doctor's estimate ToD (2.30-2.45) and assume it happened just before the body being observed by Crow at 3.30, although this goes directly against the Lecher's theory on Chapman (Phillips' ToD accepted without question and witnesses ignored).

Too much special pleading with Lech. No evidence he has ever done anything sinister his whole life and long working career. Too many times don't fit. It's like taking a jigsaw out and finding it doesn't go together because there are pieces from two separate puzzles mixed up in the one box. Try as you might, they can't be fitted together.

[MrBarnett]

hi super
this is actually quite an astute analysis of the crime scene. The idea has a lot of merit. good post. and I agree that the rippers secondary sig, other than the primary one of cutting up and removing body parts, was to display, or keep the bodies on display to shock the public. many serial killers, even post mortem ones, make some attempt to hide the body, or cover up the wounds, even when they are still basically left in the public. The ripper was not like this-so why cover up the wounds?
You raise a good point-he was still there and was caught almost redhanded. If lech had disturbed the killer, it seems he would have left everything on full display and not waste time nor go against his secondary sig and cover up the wounds.

Hi Abby,

Why cover the wounds when someone suddenly appears who will be at the body in a minute or two? The same reason you might not run off immediately: to forestall a hue and cry. It would have been an instinctive action that took a second or so.

For me Nichols was CAL’s first murder, so all talk about a signature or how criminals typically behave is of little value.


Gary

[MrBarnett]

If you assume the wounds were covered, which there is no evidence for, there may be another explanation. This was the ripper's first attempt at on street mutilation and potential aim at removing parts, perhaps this is why he was looking in this quieter areas compared to the other sites. Hearing Lech's footsteps he covers up to buy time and make his escape, which worked as Lechmere and Paul both interrupted their journeys.

Your argument also falls flat for me when you introduce Tabram - I'm sorry but there is only one suspect worth looking at for this who is a million times more likely to have been responsible (and also Millwood and Wilson). We also know the time for Tabram is an issue for Lech, unless of course you disregard the doctor's estimate ToD (2.30-2.45) and assume it happened just before the body being observed by Crow at 3.30, although this goes directly against the Lecher's theory on Chapman (Phillips' ToD accepted without question and witnesses ignored).

Too much special pleading with Lech. No evidence he has ever done anything sinister his whole life and long working career. Too many times don't fit. It's like taking a jigsaw out and finding it doesn't go together because there are pieces from two separate puzzles mixed up in the one box. Try as you might, they can't be fitted together.

A million times more likely? Only if you are talking about the blind laces seller who committed a very similar attack on a woman near Spitalfields market a few weeks later.

[MrBarnett]

Why on earth would anyone accept Phillips and question Killeen? After all they were both highly trained and experienced in forensics. Weren’t they?