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

[Mark J D]

But your suggestions make him look like a comedian

The woman is 5'2". He kneels by her right side. He can reach the top and bottom of her outer clothing at the same time.

M.

[Darryl Kenyon]

The woman is 5'2". He kneels by her right side. He can reach the top and bottom of her outer clothing at the same time.

M.

Unfortunately there is no evidence at all that Polly's neck wounds were covered. Again PC Neil - I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged.

The simple explanation is the neck wound wasn't noticed before because of the lack of light.
So your point is simply hypothetical with no evidence to back it up .

[Mark J D]

unfortunately there is no evidence at all that polly's neck wounds were covered. Again pc neil - i examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged.

The simple explanation is the neck wound wasn't noticed before because of the lack of light.
So your point is simply hypothetical with no evidence to back it up .

lol.

M.

[drstrange169]

>>We are talking one of these...<<

Close, but no cigar, but do keep looking.

[drstrange169]

>> Am I missing something?<<

Yes Jeff,

"... the abdomen had been [cut] open from centre of bottom of ribs a[long] right side, under pelvis to left of the stomach, there the wound was jag[ged], the omentium [sic], or coating of the stomach, was also cut in several places, and tw[o] small stabs on private parts, apparently done with a strong bladed knife, supposed to have been done by some le[ft] handed person, death being almost instantaneous"

Inspector John Spratling, 31 August 1888, file No. 327

Skinner, Keith; Evans, Stewart. The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook: An Illustrated Encyclopedia (Tom Thorne Novels Book 102) (p. 24). Little, Brown Book Group. Kindle Edition.

[JeffHamm]

>> Am I missing something?<<

Yes Jeff,

"... the abdomen had been [cut] open from centre of bottom of ribs a[long] right side, under pelvis to left of the stomach, there the wound was jag[ged], the omentium [sic], or coating of the stomach, was also cut in several places, and tw[o] small stabs on private parts, apparently done with a strong bladed knife, supposed to have been done by some le[ft] handed person, death being almost instantaneous"

Inspector John Spratling, 31 August 1888, file No. 327

Skinner, Keith; Evans, Stewart. The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook: An Illustrated Encyclopedia (Tom Thorne Novels Book 102) (p. 24). Little, Brown Book Group. Kindle Edition.

Ah thanks for that. I figured it was recorded somewhere. Seems a bit odd for it to ve left out bt Llewellyn at the inquest.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

No problem Jeff.

[Harry D]

I agree, Jeff. If Lechmere was innocent, then something like this is the explanation behind his remark that he would have heard somebody, had there been somebody. However, seeing what this remark means and the question it could, therefore, have provoked, it's not the explanation if Lechmere was guilty. Why, if guilty, would he have said such a thing, when it would have been better if he'd just said that he saw or heard nobody? What did he have to gain by putting it like he did and not just saying he saw and heard nobody? Because I don't see any gain (instead, I only see a risk), I'm saying he might just as well have said that he had heard somebody moving away from the body. That, besides the same risk, would at least have had a gain.

The argument I've read is that Lechmere didn't want to risk this being contradicted by another eyewitness. Once again, the suspect-based theorist wants to have their cake and eat it. After a vivid portrait is painted of the brazen killer Lechmere who stays to bluff it out with witnesses and coppers, attends the inquest, openly disagrees with a constable's testimony, and commits another murder whilst the inquest is ongoing, we are meant to believe he wouldn't dare suggest that he heard someone fleeing on the off-chance a surprise witness disputes it.

But yeah, it's mystifying why Lechmere would come out with that remark if he was guilty.

[Newbie]

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.

Because at the inquest Lechmere said that upon entering Buck's row, he saw and heard nobody.
That would be 3:37 am, if we are to accept his testimony on the time,
which would indicate that the latest JtR was by the body would be 3:36 am...him needing a minute to exit Bucks row.

A few have said that if Lech were JtR, he would have lied and invented some mysterious sounds trecking up the street.
Generally, its a good policy not to invent more things than you have to.....someone could have been standing up street for a brief time.
Lech just wanted to blend into the woodwork, not be a star witness.

[Newbie]

The argument I've read is that Lechmere didn't want to risk this being contradicted by another eyewitness. Once again, the suspect-based theorist wants to have their cake and eat it. After a vivid portrait is painted of the brazen killer Lechmere who stays to bluff it out with witnesses and coppers, attends the inquest, openly disagrees with a constable's testimony, and commits another murder whilst the inquest is ongoing, we are meant to believe he wouldn't dare suggest that he heard someone fleeing on the off-chance a surprise witness disputes it.

But yeah, it's mystifying why Lechmere would come out with that remark if he was guilty.

Why would he do that? Just give uninteresting testimony and then drop out of sight.

Telling the court that he heard footsteps heading off into the darkness, and then found the dead woman makes him suddenly a person of extreme interest. He didn't seem to want to be in the spotlight - remember how no one in his own family seemed to know? Shows up at the inquest in his work clothes, as if he was pretending to go to work.....probably had to pay someone to cover for him that day.

Nothing to gain, and should that odd person have been hanging out briefly.......big mistake.

[Newbie]

I think we’re in complete agreement, DW, only that we’ve been looking at things from different angles.

I look at it from the order in which Lechmere gave his two statements and, therefore, begin with his statement that it was only when he’d recognized the figure as the body of a woman, that he heard Paul and that Paul, at that point, was about 40 yards off. This suggests that he didn’t hear Paul until that moment or, at least, that’s what it suggests to me.

If we then look at his statement that “he thought that, had anyone left the body after he had turned into Buck's Row, he would have heard them”, we see that it doesn’t match with the first statement, because, there, he’s saying that he would have heard someone moving away from a maximum of about 130 yards away from him (from Brady Street to the crime scene). Therefore, this statement might well have provoked a question like “But didn’t you hear Paul, then, before you realized the figure was actually a woman?”.

What strikes me (just as it strikes you), is that Lechmere didn’t merely say that he didn’t hear or see anybody ahead of him, but that he would have heard someone, had there been someone. So, indeed, how could he be so certain?

Nice point.

First states that he hears Paul when he was about 40 yards away, but previously testifies to being capable of hearing all the way up the street.

Maybe Paul was walking up the street on his tippy toes? I like the old marching in unison, so one couldn't hear the other theory.

That's okay, Lech is innocent, so will just toss that out along with all the other curiosities.

[Newbie]

>>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.<<

For a guilty Lechmere to have said he thought he saw or heard someone further down the street ahead of him was a win/win scenario.

It planted the suggestion that someone was there before him.

If someone came forward and said they had been in the street, all attention then turned to them.

He would have gone to the inquest knowing Paul had already thrown Mizen under the bus, labelling the PC as disinterested.

There is no version of this scenario I can think of that has a downside for a guilty Lechmere. It is a telling indication of likely innocence.

Yes, it would plant the suggestion in everyone's minds that he had actually heard the killer leaving the crime scene. That would be of extreme interest to everyone.
Authorities would want to know more. I personally think that he went to great lengths to keep his family in the dark about his involvement, primarily because his wife might learn that he testified to leaving home at 3:30 am, when she knew he had been leaving home much earlier.

It makes zero sense doing that if Lech was the killer. Keeping a low profile makes perfect sense.

[Newbie]

BTW,

there was a discussion on PC O'Neils beat from another thread. His route was up Baker's street, along Thomas Street until merging with Buck's row. Back tracking from his arrival time at the body of Polly Nichols at 3:45 by some 7- 8 minutes, that would locate him roughly at the corner of Baker street & Buck's row at 3:37-3:38 am.

I think that is of some interest: a PC at the top of the street when that idiot Paul unexpectedly arrives early turning up Buck's row from Brady at 3:37 am. Remember, Paul said that the time in which he met Lech and the body was 3:45 am. I use to imagine that to be
odd and a bit irrelevant. It might be the most relevant statement of all. Lech was not expecting him until 3:45 am, and what a damn time he chose, with a PC stationed where he was. There possibly goes option #1 out the window.


Attached Files

• 

[Newbie]

And some people here would have had Lech make a mad dash right into PC Neil's arms.

[FrankO]

And some people here would have had Lech make a mad dash right into PC Neil's arms.

Only the ones who think Lechmere's guilty would have him lose his psychopath thinking abilities and dash right into Neil's arms.

In reality, Neil would only have been a minute or two closer to the crime spot after waiting for Paul and examining the body. How helpful would that be for a guilty Lechmere? What if the carmen walked right into his arms after leaving the body? What if Paul heard or saw him in a side street and called him over?