Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    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.

  • #2
    Hi Stacker,

    I'd have thought the prevailing belief was more inclined to be the other way round? I certainly wouldn't say it's 'discarded', unproven yes, debatable, but most would be in agreement that it's a likelihood.

    Your question kind of leans towards there being a "pro Lechmere" consensus, which is definitely not the case. A handful of people (well, one really) think he was the killer. For the others who believe he found Polly on his way to work, his approaching footsteps scaring off the killer is perfectly plausible. I can't honestly say it's frequently ignored.

    However, we do have a hotly anticipated new book on this very subject due soon.

    ​​​​​​
    Thems the Vagaries.....

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
      Hi Stacker,

      ...we do have a hotly anticipated new book on this very subject due soon.

      By that one person who believes that Lechmere was the killer, even!
      And will it address this very issue? Indeed it will!
      And will those experts alluded to comment on it? For sure!

      Who knows, Al, in days to come, we may find ourselves in a situation where I am not the only person on planet Earth who favours Charles Lechmere as the killer. Time will tell.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Stacker View Post
        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.
        Have you asked yourself this:

        If Aaron Kosminski, Montague Druitt, Charles le Grand, Jacob Levy, George Chapman, Lewis Carroll, Vincent van Gogh, William Bury, James Kelly, Francis Tumblety, Robert Mann, James Hardiman, William Gull, James Stephen, Joseph Barnett or any other of the suspects or somebody who was never a suspect managed to squeeze in before Charles Lechmere arrived and was interrupted by the carman, deciding to flee the scene - then why did that somebody take care to cover up the wounds before he did so? It seems not to have been any of his priorities at the other murder scenes? You see, in my humble opinion, if Lechmere was the killer and stayed put at the site as he heard Paul approaching, then he and he alone would have a rational reason for doing so. It becomes a logical act when looked upon in this manner, whereas it is an anomaly otherwise.
        Any thoughts on that?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

          Have you asked yourself this:

          If Aaron Kosminski, Montague Druitt, Charles le Grand, Jacob Levy, George Chapman, Lewis Carroll, Vincent van Gogh, William Bury, James Kelly, Francis Tumblety, Robert Mann, James Hardiman, William Gull, James Stephen, Joseph Barnett or any other of the suspects or somebody who was never a suspect managed to squeeze in before Charles Lechmere arrived and was interrupted by the carman, deciding to flee the scene - then why did that somebody take care to cover up the wounds before he did so? It seems not to have been any of his priorities at the other murder scenes? You see, in my humble opinion, if Lechmere was the killer and stayed put at the site as he heard Paul approaching, then he and he alone would have a rational reason for doing so. It becomes a logical act when looked upon in this manner, whereas it is an anomaly otherwise.
          Any thoughts on that?
          Yes, Christer, you've written Vincent van Gogh correctly ('van' instead of 'Van')! Hope (but I trust you do) you pronounce it correctly, too (i.e. not as 'ven go')!

          God helg! Happy Holidays!
          "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
          Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by FrankO View Post

            Yes, Christer, you've written Vincent van Gogh correctly ('van' instead of 'Van')! Hope (but I trust you do) you pronounce it correctly, too (i.e. not as 'ven go')!

            God helg! Happy Holidays!
            I believe I know how its pronounced, Frank. But I dont pronounce it that way, Im afraid. I find Dutch a very unforgiving language and so I cheat - but I take heart in how the Dutch themselves are generally very good when it comes to using English.

            As for painters, I find it odd how Pieter de Hooch and Van Gogh spell their names very differently but pronounce them rather alike. Then again, a Dutchman may find that too indiscriminating a statement...?

            God Jul och Gott Nytt r to you too, Frank!

            Comment


            • #7
              Actually, I must of course wish you all out here a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. We Swedes celebrate Christmas on the 24th, not on the 25th, so theres another occasion where I am some way ahead of the rest of you...

              Have a wonderful holiday, all!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                Have you asked yourself this:

                If Aaron Kosminski, Montague Druitt, Charles le Grand, Jacob Levy, George Chapman, Lewis Carroll, Vincent van Gogh, William Bury, James Kelly, Francis Tumblety, Robert Mann, James Hardiman, William Gull, James Stephen, Joseph Barnett or any other of the suspects or somebody who was never a suspect managed to squeeze in before Charles Lechmere arrived and was interrupted by the carman, deciding to flee the scene - then why did that somebody take care to cover up the wounds before he did so? It seems not to have been any of his priorities at the other murder scenes? You see, in my humble opinion, if Lechmere was the killer and stayed put at the site as he heard Paul approaching, then he and he alone would have a rational reason for doing so. It becomes a logical act when looked upon in this manner, whereas it is an anomaly otherwise.
                Any thoughts on that?
                Hi Fish,

                Im working from a very fallible memory here but wasn’t it suggested/mentioned somewhere that Robert Paul pulled the skirt down?
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Stacker View Post
                  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.
                  I think the evidence is that Polly should have had more extensive cutting done. Thats based on comparing this murder with the next one less than 2 weeks later, and the resulting wounds made there. If his goal was as suggested by the medical experts who examined Annie, then its likely he fell just short of that in Bucks Row. So yeah...likely interrupted.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Hi Fish,

                    Im working from a very fallible memory here but wasn’t it suggested/mentioned somewhere that Robert Paul pulled the skirt down?
                    Your memory is just fine, Herlock - Paul DID pull the clothing down. However, and thats the point I am trying to make, when Paul first saw Nichols, the clothing was already down to the thighs, covering the cutting in the abdomen. And THAT covering will have had another originator than Paul.

                    My suggestion is that Lechmere killed Nichols, that he cut her abdomen open, and then, when he heard Paul approaching, he decided to con his way out of the situation. Accordingly, he cut the throat twice, pulled the clothing down over the abdominal cuts and he also covered the gash in the throat before he got up and backed away from the body. Then, once the carmen had examined Nichols, Paul finished by pulling the clothing further down, to knee-height. Once he did this, the clothing was pulled away from the throat, and accordingly, Neil was able to see the gash immediately as he shone his lantern on the scene.
                    If the throat had not been covered a Paul saw her, he would arguably have seen the gash, since it was a very large one.

                    Hope this makes sense!
                    Last edited by Fisherman; 12-24-2020, 05:16 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I personally think that Lechmere is a logical candidate as the potential murderer of Polly Nichols.

                      For a start, we know he was actually in the right place at the right time (which is more than can be said for a lot of the well-known suspects).

                      There are some unanswered questions about his name and timings. Whilst there are plenty of perfectly innocent possible answers to these questions, without such answers they do, imho, lend a little more weight to his candidacy.

                      The fact he was literally found standing over her warm body surely must carry some indications of possible guilt.

                      I am pretty sure that in a modern police investigation, someone found in such circumstances would be considered of significant interest, until evidence came to light to prove otherwise.

                      But there is not, again imho, any evidence that Lechmere was involved in the other murders.

                      Assuming it was not he, could Lechmere have disturbed the actual murderer?

                      He seems to have been unaware of having done so. But as he found a still-warm body, in a street where people passed quite regularly, so it seems logically possible to me that the person murdering Nichols may have seen or heard Lechmere approaching and left the scene before Lechmere noticed him.

                      The alternative is that JTR had already left before Lechmere came on the scene.

                      Given the regularity of the policemen's beats, and the fact that, at this time of the morning, there were people using the road on their way to (and from) work... his window for killing Nichols and safely leaving the scene would have surely been quite small. Plus when discovered, she showed signs that life had very recently terminated.

                      So, imho, the chances of Lechmere having disturbed JTR seem quite high, and it is something that is worthy of consideration.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                        I think the evidence is that Polly should have had more extensive cutting done.
                        What if the killer didn't feel like cutting more?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

                          What if the killer didn't feel like cutting more?
                          But how could that be, Scott? Surely, he was always intent on making the exact same cuts and taking out the exact same bits and bobs ...?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                            But how could that be, Scott? Surely, he was always intent on making the exact same cuts and taking out the exact same bits and bobs ...?
                            If that were the case we would have seen that with the other victims, in the absence of those important factors the iference must be that the killer was only intent of murder and mutilation.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.
                              dustymiller
                              aka drstrange

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X