Evidence of innocence

[Abby Normal]

I do have an issue with Lechmere as a serious suspect.

He gave evidence at the PAN inquest and would therefore have been seen by all members of the investigating team.

If his description had matched that given by any of the witnesses he would of been identified.

Not to mention the huge risk of being spotted a second time by the body of a victim.

If PAN had been the last victim there may have been a case for lechmere. But since the attacks continued and he wasn’t even a suspect we cannot assume the police were THAT incompetent.

Any contradictory thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

yeah almost getting busted at nichols you would think lech (if he was the killer) would have stopped. but history has taught us the serial killers are nothing if not brazen.

[FISHY1118]

I do have an issue with Lechmere as a serious suspect.

He gave evidence at the PAN inquest and would therefore have been seen by all members of the investigating team.

If his description had matched that given by any of the witnesses he would of been identified.

Not to mention the huge risk of being spotted a second time by the body of a victim.

If PAN had been the last victim there may have been a case for lechmere. But since the attacks continued and he wasn’t even a suspect we cannot assume the police were THAT incompetent.

Any contradictory thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Not bad for a first up post , i tend to agree with you , others wont. Such is the nature of casebook .

I guess you can also add to that he hang around for another 32 years after kellys death with no official ripper kills after that . Bit odd.

[Fanatic]

yeah almost getting busted at nichols you would think lech (if he was the killer) would have stopped. but history has taught us the serial killers are nothing if not brazen.

I get the concept that ‘killers can’t just stop’ but my main point is that surely someone would notice this guy (who would be known to police after their PAN inquest) around the location of other attacks … In my opinion he would have come under suspicion if it were him.

Obviously all we can do is speculate at this point but I think that there are many far more likely candidates than Lechmere

[Fanatic]

Not bad for a first up post , i tend to agree with you , others wont. Such is the nature of casebook .

I guess you can also add to that he hang around for another 32 years after kellys death with no official ripper kills after that . Bit odd.

Thanks. I know people also attribute the pinchin street torso murders to Lechmere but in reality there is no evidence to back this up, other than the fact he lived in the area.

I know we don’t have evidence for any suspect and all we can do is speculate but for me Lechmere is low on the likely suspect list…, He had no criminal record, no history of violence, and wasn’t ever interviewed as a suspect.

[Hair Bear]

I know we don’t have evidence for any suspect and all we can do is speculate but for me Lechmere is low on the likely suspect list…, He had no criminal record, no history of violence, and wasn’t ever interviewed as a suspect.

How do you know he "wasn’t ever interviewed as a suspect"? I'll bet lots of folks were interviewed as suspects that we don't know about.

[Harry D]

Don't forget that five days after attending the inquest and making himself known to the authorities, Lechmere supposedly went out and murdered Annie Chapman

I guess if we say "serial killers are risk-takers" it covers all bases.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Don't forget that five days after attending the inquest and making himself known to the authorities, Lechmere supposedly went out and murdered Annie Chapman

I guess if we say "serial killers are risk-takers" it covers all bases.

From memory, Peter Sutcliffe was arrested for drink driving and while awaiting trial he murdered two women.

In the end, I think Cross/Lechmere is another one who hits a dead end in terms of meaningful suspicion.

Aye, he was stood over Polly's body and that would make him someone to be questioned but, like most suspects, outside of that there simply isn't anything meaningful which connects him to the murders.

[FISHY1118]

From memory, Peter Sutcliffe was arrested for drink driving and while awaiting trial he murdered two women.

In the end, I think Cross/Lechmere is another one who hits a dead end in terms of meaningful suspicion.

Aye, he was stood over Polly's body and that would make him someone to be questioned but, like most suspects, outside of that there simply isn't anything meaningful which connects him to the murders.

''meaningful suspicion''.

I think your spot on there Mac there are more just like him ., some even worse who should be eliminated altogether as suspects.

[Fleetwood Mac]

''meaningful suspicion''.

I think your spot on there Mac there are more just like him ., some even worse who should be eliminated altogether as suspects.

Agreed, Fishy.

When they enter police files I think that's a different matter, although the police aren't infallible by any stretch of the imagination.

Plus, I don't like Anderson one bit, 'comes across as not a very nice man driven by religious bias (nothing wrong with religion, by the way, but when solving crime you'd probably want to leave it to one side).

[Fiver]

We still haven’t solved the nuts and bolts of the matter. Using the 40m distance between our protagonists mentioned in previous posts, this.requires Paul to walk 90m up Bucks Row and have no awareness of a man walking 40m in front of him the entire way. Paul doesn’t see him and he doesn’t hear him (Lechmere too has no awareness of anyone behind him).

Lechmere’s version is that he finds the body and a few seconds later he becomes aware of Paul coming up Bucks Row. I think we have caught Lechmere in a lie This scenario requires Paul both to be about 40m away (others estimate not mine) and also not to see Lechmere until he see’s him “standing where the woman was”. I think these 2 situations are mutually exclusive. For me its just not possible that Paul doesn’t sight Lechmere sooner.

My explanation is this. I think Paul see’s nobody ahead of him because there is nobody ahead of him. I think Lechmere is crouched by Nichols, hidden by the darkness of the gateway as Paul walks up Bucks Row. He’s engrossed in killing her and becomes aware of Paul too late. He quickly pulls her dress down to cover her wounds and steps back from the body into the road. His pantomime of ‘finding’ the body begins.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

1) We have no idea at what distance Paul saw Lechmere in front of him.
2) Paul testified that Lechmere was "standing in the middle of the road".
3) Paul testified that he pulled Nichols dress down.

Paul's testimony contradicts your theory.

Lechmere's testimony is that he heard Paul about 40 yards away, not that they were walking 40 yards apart. Normal walking speed is 1.4m per second, so even a "few seconds later" (your words, not Lechmere's) would put them 50+ yards apart.

[Fiver]

Lechmere only interacted with one Policeman, PC Mizen, who never took his name, address or place of employment. Once Lechmere walked off into the night he walked off into anonymity. So it would be interesting to know how the police contacted him for questioning. Answers on a postcard please.

Furthermore, why would they anyway, Lechmere was just some random passing on a message from a policeman who needed a hand in Bucks Row.

As you show, the police had no way of knowing who Lechmere was or how to contact him.

Which leads to the logical conclusion that Lechmere contacted the police. That's an action that points towards his innocence.

We know that Lechmere was never interviewed as on the first day of the inquest the police still thought PC Neil had found the body. If they had interviewed Lechmere they would know this wasn’t the case. The police got Bucks Row badly wrong, they never even established who found the body.

Just to clarify, at no point was Lechmere interviewed by the police during the Ripper enquiry.

This last bit is a mix of speculation and errors on your part.

If the police had interviewed PC Mizen, they would know that PC Neil was not the first person to find the body. in his testimony, PC Neil said that he found the body, but he did not claim that no one else had found the body before him. Just who found the body was established by the coroner with the testimony of Mizen and Lechemre on next day of the inquest.

It seems highly unlikely that Lechmere would be called as a witness and give testimony at the inquest if he had not been interviewed by the police.

[Fiver]

Luckily Mizen was a pushover, just like Paul had been, and Lechmere walked off into anonymity.

Lechmere did not walk off into anonymity. He contacted the police and testified at the inquest.

[Fiver]

His gut instinct was to stay and face Paul and not run. He walked off to talk to Mizen and took the lead by taking to him alone. He stood, he took ownership, but that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have had the huge adrenaline rush. The difference is he can be totally cool under stress, cool enough to talk to a policeman minutes after murdering someone.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, both Paul and PC Mizen's testimony contradict your theory that Lech,re talked to Mizen without Paul being present.

[Scott Nelson]

Lechmere did not walk off into anonymity. He contacted the police and testified at the inquest.

Then he walked off into anonymity.

[Harry D]

Did Mizen, Lechmere and Paul get their wires crossed? Did they all bend the truth a little bit out of self-interest? Lechmere and Paul because they were running late for work, and Mizen for his lack of urgency? Or was it all a devilish feat of misdirection from Lech the Ripper?

You pays your money, you takes your choice.