Evidence of innocence

[Newbie]

I'm not strongly for Lechmere as a suspect, but I do see there are some compelling reasons for his suspicion. However, on the subject of time, if he was trying to avoid suspicion, would he not state a departure time more conducive to innocence by saying he was running late that day? Furthermore, he technically had enough time to scarper and avoid Paul altogether once he heard him approaching. Why would he remain standing over the victim running the risk that the approaching footfalls belonged to a constable? Even if he was simply brazen, any approaching person could ultimately turn witness and identify him. Then there's the problem of concealing a bloodstained weapon and (likely) hands. Additionally, the two men actively sought a policeman, adding even more risk to Lechmere being discovered. I could go on, but my point is, despite the reasonable argument for him being the Ripper, if you really look into his actions that morning, not much adds up regarding his supposed guilt.

Was the Ripper a risk-taker? - most certainly, but he was not foolhardy.
Geographically, Lechmere makes sense as a suspect. Making somewhat misleading statements is suspicious. But to kill and then literally invite witnesses to the scene of your crime? That's just ridiculous.

A. Yes, he would state a time that jives with when PC Neil first encountered the body, while Lech & Paul were talking to Mizen.
It's not rocket science. He is either lying or telling the truth about his departure time.....not much help by itself.

B. if he was the Ripper, an intelligent person like Lechmere would know roughly when to expect Neil to make his rounds up Buck's row.....but there would always be that paranoia, one imagines. Constables did walk around with lanterns that one would probably spot as they head towards you.

C. He had several options:
1. run away - with the clattering sound of hobnailed boots hitting the pavement attracting the attention of the constables not too far away, whose interest would be piqued

2. walk away - and not be certain from where the sounds are coming (east?/west?) due to the orientation of the ears poised over Polly nichol's body laying east/west. Which way do you go.....does it matter that there will be a witness if you chose wrong? And if you chose right, and the newcomer sees the splayed body, he might scream bloody murder having heard your footsteps walking away up the street. Judging the distance of the footsteps away from you is also not as easy as one would imagine. Visibility was less than 50 yards.

3. bluff your way - don't knock it, it worked like a charm....Lech, who indisputably was first to the body, was never suspected.

all three had risks, but each would probably work....the last one took the most nerve, the first one the least.

D. it was dark outside, and Lech (if JtR) would have wiped the blood off his hands with a towel. These guys weren't exactly going to office jobs,
some dirt and spots on their clothing was to be expected.

E. Actively seeking a policeman gets you the hell away from the murder scene. Lech's dad was a PC, probably had some knowledge in how to deal with them. People grossly overstate how dangerous it was dealing with Mizen: it wasn't, just so long as you don't mention murder/rape and being the first to the body. The dangerous option would have been to wait a few more minutes and deal with PC Neil.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman has claimed EXACTLY that.

You need to read my answer to Dusty, Harry. It will clarify a few things. Hopefully.

[Fisherman]

Actually her abdominal wounds were so severe her intestines were protruding. However, PC Neil, PC Mizen and everyone else never noticed. Even the attending Dr didn’t notice. The wounds went undiscovered until she was undressed at the mortuary. So we can say that her wounds were concealed. They were in fact very well hidden.
And who would benefit from such a course of action. Certainly not some third party who had to quickly run off.
The wounds were covered because JTR never left Bucks Row. The only reason to conceal that a murder has taken place would be if JTR was still in situ and trying to conceal his handiwork from an approaching witness. The only person there is Lechmere, and the approaching witness is Paul.

You must keep in mind that Neil, Mizen and Llewellyn only saw the body after Paul had pulled Nichols’ dress further down. So we cannot use them to establish how much was visible as Paul arrived at the site. However, I do agree that the wounds were already covered at that stage.

[Dickere]

You know, old bean, I reckon he'd have had no hesitation at all in calling it off by the Board School if he'd seen someone hove into view, or if there was a copper visible. One victim is as good as another to a random killer; and while he's wisely avoiding the ten days on either side of the full moon, he can always come back another morning -- or just walk further in and hope to get lucky once more off Wentworth Street... Again, if Nichols chose Bucks Row (which I'm a bit reluctant to believe, given the existence of the cut-throughs to Winthrop Street from the main road), and he saw someone approaching, all he has to do is tell Polly that he actually has no money on him and he is hoping for a freebie... Without the killing, no-one at all will see *anything* they would ever remember...

And was he actually 'late for work' at that stage? Or did his 'I was behind time myself' refer to him being *made late* by the 'discovery' (hahaha) of Nichols' body...? Genuine question, detective.

M.

It just feels like a needlessly long walk to me, and they don't end up in a private place that would explain it. Just putting it all together, I'm not convinced it is likely. Nothing's impossible though.

[Mark J D]

It just feels like a needlessly long walk to me, and they don't end up in a private place that would explain it. Just putting it all together, I'm not convinced it is likely. Nothing's impossible though.

Yuh. I've always considered it a weird location, whether Polly took the killer there or he found her soliciting (or sleeping) there. I can't help feeling that there's something big we don't know about -- such as Lechmere wanting to avoid Winthrop Street because he'd unsuccessfully tried something there, or there were horse-slaughterers working there who knew him, etc...

M.

[Aethelwulf]

I can't help feeling that there's something big we don't know about -- such as Lechmere wanting to avoid Winthrop Street because he'd unsuccessfully tried something there, or there were horse-slaughterers working there who knew him, etc...

M.

...or that someone else attacked her there and Lechmere has nothing to do with it....

[Mark J D]

...or that someone else attacked her there and Lechmere has nothing to do with it....

Yet again, someone's reflex hostility to Lechmere's candidacy makes them miss the point.

M.

[Aethelwulf]

Yet again, someone's reflex hostility to Lechmere's candidacy makes them miss the point.

M.

reflex hostility.....otherwise known as stating an entirely logical alternative explanation

[rjpalmer]

I wonder who first introduced the term “candidacy” into the study of the Whitechapel Murders? It seems weak and evasive. If you suspect someone of the murders he is not a candidate, he’s a suspect, and you’re not nominating him, you’re accusing him.

[Fisherman]

I wonder who first introduced the term “candidacy” into the study of the Whitechapel Murders? It seems weak and evasive. If you suspect someone of the murders he is not a candidate, he’s a suspect, and you’re not nominating him, you’re accusing him.

It took ages for Lechmere to surface on the list of suspects on this site. Up until that happened, he was a candidate only for some. Many rejects his candidacy to this day.

Myself, I find both variants applicable. But when I speak of his candidacy, it’ s not because I would be somehow reluctant too regard him a suspect. I regard him a killer, even.

[Mark J D]

I wonder who first introduced the term “candidacy” into the study of the Whitechapel Murders? It seems weak and evasive. If you suspect someone of the murders he is not a candidate, he’s a suspect, and you’re not nominating him, you’re accusing him.

Anyone else remember when we were all being told that Lechmere couldn't be called 'a suspect' because he wasn't named by the police who worked on the case?

It works like clockwork, folks: mention Lechmere's name, and someone, somewhere immediately feels the uncontrollable need to fabricate an objection to something...

Bedsit Killer probed over murder of barmaid, 24, found dead just miles from sicko's teen home amid fears he abused 1000s (thesun.co.uk)

"Serial killer expert and author Chris Clark says the vile electrician, 67, could be in the frame. The former intelligence officer for Norfolk Constabulary said: “David Fuller is an obvious candidate to be a serial killer, but he appeared to stop killing after 1989 when he gained access to mortuaries."

M.

[FrankO]

If he normally left home at 3.30 and in this case he had left at, say, 3.15, to find a victim, then he may simply have wanted to obscure that fact, forgetting in the process to amend for his presence in Bucks Row at 3.45. It really does not need to be any harder than that, I´d say.

While that may be true, I don't find it particularly convincing.

[rjpalmer]

"Serial killer expert and author Chris Clark says the vile electrician, 67, could be in the frame. The former intelligence officer for Norfolk Constabulary said: “David Fuller is an obvious candidate to be a serial killer, but he appeared to stop killing after 1989 when he gained access to mortuaries." M.

Yes, someone named Clark is also using the term, but that doesn't change my mind. It's a personal preference, perhaps, but I prefer to call a spade a spade. 'Candidate' is too namby-pamby for my liking.

[Fisherman]

While that may be true, I don't find it particularly convincing.

That´s okay, Frank - we must all make our choices as best as we can. But I would say that if all things always went down as expected and if nothing was ever out of what we perceive as the ordinary, then it would be a lot easier to chase serial killers ...

[Fisherman]

Yes, someone named Clark is also using the term, but that doesn't change my mind. It's a personal preference, perhaps, but I prefer to call a spade a spade. 'Candidate' is too namby-pamby for my liking.

I candidated you would come up with that answer.