All roads lead to Lechmere.

[SuperShodan]

All roads lead to Lechmere.


There are various anomalies and facts about Bucks Row which on there own don’t make Lechmere guilty, but I believe taken together they start to mount up, and they all point on one direction. To quote QC James Scobie, who believes there is enough to put Lechmere before a jury


“When the coincidences mount up against a defendant, it becomes one coincidence too many”


There are 2 propositions I make about Charles Lechmere.


1. Lechmere innocently discovered Polly Nichols body on his way to work.
2. Lechmere killed Polly Nichols.


One of these must be true, and they are mutually exclusive.


So let’s examine some facts and see which proposition is more likely.


Lechmere is found standing near Polly Nichols freshly killed body down a dark street at 03.45 in the morning - she has clearly just been killed. Minutes at most and maybe even less. For me this is enough on its own to arrest him. The chances of anyone being found near a body in such circumstances and not being the killer is a 1000/1 shot. In any modern investigation they are immediately the prime suspect.


1. Lechmere being found near the body so close to the time of death makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.


The time is roughly 03.45 when Paul enters Bucks Row and sees Lechmere. The body is 7 minutes walk from Lechmere’s home (I’ve also seen 5 minutes mentioned). Lechmere leaves for work at 03.20 every morning. On this occasion he claims to have left at 03.30. Big coincidence that on the morning he finds a dead body he is also running 10 minutes late. He’s much later than normal. It’s somewhat unlucky to be both so late for work and find a body on the same night…


If he isn’t late for work, and he’s lied about leaving at 03.30, and has left at his usual time of 03.20 then it’s taken him over 20 minutes for a 7 minute walk to Bucks Row.


So we have a situation where both roads lead to Lechmere. One leaves a huge amount of unaccounted time, another looks a big coincidence.


2. Both leaving at 03.20 or 03.30 make proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.


Lechmere is there very close to the time of death. There is one way out of Bucks Row to the West on Brady street, and East you have to get past the Board school before you can exit. Lechmere see’s or hears nobody, the street is completely deserted.


3. Nobody else being seen there makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.


The other witnesses hear and see nothing either. Local residents, patrolling policemen and nearby night watchmen all nothing. No suspicious characters lurking around, nobody seen or heard running away. The only witness we have is Robert Paul, and the only person he see’s is Lechmere.


4. There is nobody else around, nobody’s seen or heard a soul. This makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.


Killers have their Modus Operandi MO and their signature. The signature of JTR is to leave his victims posed for shock value. His handiwork visible for all to see (Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly).

On this occasion JTR has done the complete opposite.

Nichols wounds have been very well concealed. Robert Paul checks for signs of life and still doesn’t notice Nichols has been murdered (partly because it’s pitch dark but more of that later). The police don’t notice the abdominal wounds until Nichols is undressed at the mortuary. JTR has on this occasion taken some time to hide the abdominal wounds. Why ?

If JTR had completed his handiwork then made off he would have left Nichols on display. This is his signature. It’s what he does.

He was clearly interrupted (the coroner said so at the inquest). So if JTR was interrupted and ran off why did he waste valuable escape time covering up Nichols wounds, it could have led him to him being seen or caught. This crime scene behaviour is a smoking gun for me. There is no reason to conceal that a murder has taken place, unless the killer is still in situ and needs to hide the crime scene from an approaching witness.


5. Nichols abdominal wounds being concealed make proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.


Lechmere blocks Paul’s path. He won’t let him pass by, physically standing in his way so he has no option but to stop. Why would Lechmere do this ? It’s quite threatening and to my mind is very suspicious. Lechmere has been focusing on Nichols and has been caught unawares. Lechmere has to ascertain what Paul has seen, he has to be sure Paul saw nothing incriminating. Paul could have seen everything, he could walk past then sprint for a policeman the minute he gets to the end of the street. Lechmere can’t take the chance. He needs to know for sure. Lechmere gets him to look at the woman with him, sizing him up, but it seems Paul has seen nothing, and Lechmere starts his pantomime of finding the body.

Lechmere blocking Paul’s path is often seen as unimportant, a minor detail. One that gets missed and left alone. You rarely see it mentioned. To me it’s crucial. It’s one of the facts that makes me zone in on Lechmere. Lechmere’s actions were to establish if Paul had seen anything incriminating. Lechmere couldn’t risk letting Paul walk past without knowing what he saw.

6. Lechmere blocking Paul’s path makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.


Now we get to seeing in the dark. Not easy to see down a poorly lit backstreet. Nichols is lying in total darkness, it’s pitch black in the gateway, the darkest section of the street. Lechmere knows it’s a woman lying there. How does he know this ? Prior to Paul arriving Lechmere must have been close enough to Nichols to identify her in the darkness. He would have needed to be closer than the middle of the street. So Lechmere had been close to Nichols before Paul approaches.


7. Lechmere knowing a woman is lying there despite the darkness shows he has been in close proximity to the body. It makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.


Upon finding the body Lechmere has made no attempt to raise the alarm or seek assistance. He didn’t rush off to fetch a policeman, knock on any doors, shout for help or contact a night watchman. This is despite the fact there has been 2 recent high profile murders in the area. Instead he waits patiently and silently as Paul approaches. After the examination it’s Paul’s idea to fetch a policeman.


8. At no point in the drama does Lechmere even suggest raising the alarm. This makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.


The coroner said it was a miracle the killer got away. There were police patrols either end of Bucks Row and one beat even went down Bucks Row.


9. The fact that it would have difficult for anyone else to have killed Nichols and got away makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.


After drawing Paul’s attention to the body Lechmere won’t help him move Nichols to an upright position. Lechmere starts the process, drawing attention to Nichols then won’t follow it through. Why will Lechmere not help to move Nichols ? Surely it’s the decent thing to do. Instead the men decide to see if they can bump into a policeman on the way to work. Callously leaving poor Nichols lying in the street. Of course Nichols has had her neck cut to the vertebrae, any attempt to move her and this will be immediately apparent.


10. Lechmere’s refusal to move the body makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.


Going back to the issue of time and Lechmere’s departure from his home in Doveton Street at either 03.20 or 03.30 (remember that Nichols body is at most 7 minutes away from Lechmere’s home).

The time between Lechmere’s home and the body was discovered by Dr Andy Griffiths, former head of Sussex Murder Squad. He walked the route himself with a stopwatch. This simple yet brilliant practical investigation produced the crucial and incriminating missing time evidence. Whichever time we take there is missing time that can’t be accounted for. A 03.20 departure and it’s nearly 20 minutes of time. Even leaving home at 03.30 means that there is up to 8 minutes unaccounted for. Lechmere would arrive in Bucks Row at 03.37 and is found there at 03.45. The timings aren’t exact, but I suggest they won’t be far off either. Its 1888 not the Middle Ages. It’s worth adding that any mistakes in the time can lengthen the missing time, as well as shorten it. Any errors could just as easily see Lechmere depart at say 03.28 and be found in Bucks Row at 03.47. Lechmere has been alone in Bucks Row for a period of time before Paul arrives, possibly minutes alone with the body, and what exactly has he being doing in that time ?


11. Lechmere being in Bucks Row at 03.45 is incriminating. There is time missing. This makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.


And finally. Lechmere stays with Paul the whole time, never leaving him alone for a second. After leaving Mizen and despite already being late for work, he then walks with Paul along Hanbury Street to Paul’s work, checking that he goes in. Lechmere still can’t be 100% sure Paul saw nothing and hasn’t had seconds thoughts. He could even be worried that Paul meets another policeman. Hanbury Street is not the fastest way to Lechmere’s work, so after talking to Mizen why did he not go his separate way and head off to Pickford’s ? Lechmere both claims to be late for work, and then also takes a longer route to work.

Lechmere never leaves Paul alone and goes out of his way to walk him to his work. Lechmere is making sure he’s there should Paul meet anyone, and that nothing happens he’s not aware of.

12. Lechmere never leaving Paul makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.



I’ve just touched on some of the issues surrounding Lechmere in Bucks Row. Others have gone into much greater detail. Personally I’ve found the more you look at Bucks Row, the more clearly you can see that Charles Lechmere is Jack the Ripper.

[JeffHamm]

All roads lead to Lechmere.


There are various anomalies and facts about Bucks Row which on there own don’t make Lechmere guilty, but I believe taken together they start to mount up, and they all point on one direction. To quote QC James Scobie, who believes there is enough to put Lechmere before a jury


“When the coincidences mount up against a defendant, it becomes one coincidence too many”


There are 2 propositions I make about Charles Lechmere.


1. Lechmere innocently discovered Polly Nichols body on his way to work.
2. Lechmere killed Polly Nichols.


One of these must be true, and they are mutually exclusive.


So let’s examine some facts and see which proposition is more likely.


Lechmere is found standing near Polly Nichols freshly killed body down a dark street at 03.45 in the morning - she has clearly just been killed. Minutes at most and maybe even less. For me this is enough on its own to arrest him. The chances of anyone being found near a body in such circumstances and not being the killer is a 1000/1 shot. In any modern investigation they are immediately the prime suspect.

Then you also must agree that Deimshutz, who found Stride very close to her murder, must also be arrested immediately.
And, PC Watkins, who found Eddowes, very shortly after her murder, must also be arrested immediately.
And John Davies, who found Chapman, not too long after her murder, must also be arrested immediately.

Kelly, whom some have argued was alive in the morning of her discovery, so murdered in the daylight hours, would therefore have been found quite soon after her murder by Thomas Boyer, and so he too must be arrested immediately.

Resulting in 5 different people, each of whom you would arrest immediately, conceding that each was killed by a different person, so there is no singular JtR.

1. Lechmere being found near the body so close to the time of death makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.


The time is roughly 03.45 when Paul enters Bucks Row and sees Lechmere. The body is 7 minutes walk from Lechmere’s home (I’ve also seen 5 minutes mentioned). Lechmere leaves for work at 03.20 every morning. On this occasion he claims to have left at 03.30. Big coincidence that on the morning he finds a dead body he is also running 10 minutes late. He’s much later than normal. It’s somewhat unlucky to be both so late for work and find a body on the same night…

It's only a big coincidence if his leaving for work time invariably was 3:20. People don't normally talk with reference to their variation, though, but it may have been quite common for him to leave "between 3:10 and 3:30" type thing, making this just another day in his normal variation. We don't know his variation, so we can't draw the inference that this is a big coincidence at all. What we do know, though, is despite his delay, he got to work on time, so it's not like he left so late that getting to work on time without a delay was likely to be of concern to him.

If he isn’t late for work, and he’s lied about leaving at 03.30, and has left at his usual time of 03.20 then it’s taken him over 20 minutes for a 7 minute walk to Bucks Row.


So we have a situation where both roads lead to Lechmere. One leaves a huge amount of unaccounted time, another looks a big coincidence.

The huge amount of unaccounted time only exists if you start from the premise he lied, which is to start from the premise he is guilty. Unless we have evidence, independent of the presumption of guilt, that indicates he lied, well ....

2. Both leaving at 03.20 or 03.30 make proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.


Lechmere is there very close to the time of death. There is one way out of Bucks Row to the West on Brady street, and East you have to get past the Board school before you can exit. Lechmere see’s or hears nobody, the street is completely deserted.

Yes, if JtR were still with Nichols when Lechmere enter's Bucks Row from the east, then JtR leaving to the west towards the school would be the case. Being able to exit unobserved in that direction is entirely plausible, particularly as the crime scene would suggest JtR would be oriented eastwards, so he would have a good chance of seeing Lechmere enter. Given both Lechmere and Paul indicate the body was obscure until they got very close, the reverse is unlikely - meaning Lechmere has a good chance of not seeing JtR leave.

3. Nobody else being seen there makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.

Given above, where it seems easily arguable that JtR could go unseen by Lechmere, who else is there to see JtR? PC Neil was patrolling side-streets to the east and then north, which is why Lechmere and Paul do not spot him when they leave.

The other witnesses hear and see nothing either. Local residents, patrolling policemen and nearby night watchmen all nothing. No suspicious characters lurking around, nobody seen or heard running away. The only witness we have is Robert Paul, and the only person he see’s is Lechmere.


4. There is nobody else around, nobody’s seen or heard a soul. This makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.

We don't know if there is nobody else around. If Lechmere did not kill Nichols, then clearly there had to be someone else. That's the question under investigation after all, so we can't state as a premise that one of those options is false to begin with.

Killers have their Modus Operandi MO and their signature. The signature of JTR is to leave his victims posed for shock value. His handiwork visible for all to see (Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly).

On this occasion JTR has done the complete opposite.

Nichols wounds have been very well concealed. Robert Paul checks for signs of life and still doesn’t notice Nichols has been murdered (partly because it’s pitch dark but more of that later). The police don’t notice the abdominal wounds until Nichols is undressed at the mortuary. JTR has on this occasion taken some time to hide the abdominal wounds. Why ?

We don't know that Tabram was a victim of JtR, though she very well could be. If she is, though, it's clear JtR's crime scene behaviour is evolving - goes from frenzied stabbing to throat cutting and abdominal mutiliations. If so, his later displaying of the victims would just be a further refinement of him developing "what works" for him. Nichols, being the first case where he engages in mutilations, is perhaps the most likely to show this behaviour being in the "incompletely developed" phase.

If JTR had completed his handiwork then made off he would have left Nichols on display. This is his signature. It’s what he does.

He was clearly interrupted (the coroner said so at the inquest). So if JTR was interrupted and ran off why did he waste valuable escape time covering up Nichols wounds, it could have led him to him being seen or caught. This crime scene behaviour is a smoking gun for me. There is no reason to conceal that a murder has taken place, unless the killer is still in situ and needs to hide the crime scene from an approaching witness.

While her abodominal wounds were likely covered when Lechmere and Paul examined her, we must remember that Paul (I think) does indicate he pulled her dress down. So, if JtR has fled, he didn't go to great lengths to cover them. Also, while we don't have as complete descriptions of her wounds as in other cases, her abdominal cuts do seem a bit more "exploratory" (for lack of a better word), suggesting he's less experience with performing them than he has later. Holding up her clothing, and cutting like that, would result in him just dropping the clothing and fleeing, leaving the wounds covered, but the dress hiked up and out of place. Later, having decided this was what really turned him on, he goes to greater lengths to get the clothes out of the way. Again, we cannot draw conclusions that point to Lechmere exclusively.

5. Nichols abdominal wounds being concealed make proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.


Lechmere blocks Paul’s path. He won’t let him pass by, physically standing in his way so he has no option but to stop. Why would Lechmere do this ? It’s quite threatening and to my mind is very suspicious. Lechmere has been focusing on Nichols and has been caught unawares. Lechmere has to ascertain what Paul has seen, he has to be sure Paul saw nothing incriminating. Paul could have seen everything, he could walk past then sprint for a policeman the minute he gets to the end of the street. Lechmere can’t take the chance. He needs to know for sure. Lechmere gets him to look at the woman with him, sizing him up, but it seems Paul has seen nothing, and Lechmere starts his pantomime of finding the body.

Lechmere blocking Paul’s path is often seen as unimportant, a minor detail. One that gets missed and left alone. You rarely see it mentioned. To me it’s crucial. It’s one of the facts that makes me zone in on Lechmere. Lechmere’s actions were to establish if Paul had seen anything incriminating. Lechmere couldn’t risk letting Paul walk past without knowing what he saw.

This has been discussed at lengths, and while it can be presented in the context of a guilty story, it is also entirely consistent with one of innocence. In the end, there is nothing inherent in calling for assistance under the circumstances that points to guilt. Many feel this is far more indicative of innocence. Perhaps the most conservative view would be to say it is "non-informative".

6. Lechmere blocking Paul’s path makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.


Now we get to seeing in the dark. Not easy to see down a poorly lit backstreet. Nichols is lying in total darkness, it’s pitch black in the gateway, the darkest section of the street. Lechmere knows it’s a woman lying there. How does he know this ? Prior to Paul arriving Lechmere must have been close enough to Nichols to identify her in the darkness. He would have needed to be closer than the middle of the street. So Lechmere had been close to Nichols before Paul approaches.


7. Lechmere knowing a woman is lying there despite the darkness shows he has been in close proximity to the body. It makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.


Upon finding the body Lechmere has made no attempt to raise the alarm or seek assistance. He didn’t rush off to fetch a policeman, knock on any doors, shout for help or contact a night watchman. This is despite the fact there has been 2 recent high profile murders in the area. Instead he waits patiently and silently as Paul approaches. After the examination it’s Paul’s idea to fetch a policeman.

This is not true. He stops Paul, so he did seek assistance, by definition. Also, neither of them knew she was murdered, both thought she might just be drunk. And, they both agreed to look for the police, and they spoke to the first PC they came across (PC Mizen) and directed him to her. He actually did everything you suggest he didn't.

8. At no point in the drama does Lechmere even suggest raising the alarm. This makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.


The coroner said it was a miracle the killer got away. There were police patrols either end of Bucks Row and one beat even went down Bucks Row.

Given both Paul and Lechmere thought she might just be drunk, what alarm should they have raised?

9. The fact that it would have difficult for anyone else to have killed Nichols and got away makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.


After drawing Paul’s attention to the body Lechmere won’t help him move Nichols to an upright position. Lechmere starts the process, drawing attention to Nichols then won’t follow it through. Why will Lechmere not help to move Nichols ? Surely it’s the decent thing to do. Instead the men decide to see if they can bump into a policeman on the way to work. Callously leaving poor Nichols lying in the street. Of course Nichols has had her neck cut to the vertebrae, any attempt to move her and this will be immediately apparent.

It would not have been difficult for someone else to kill her. Even getting away without being seen is not improbable, as per above.

Not wanting to handle someone passed out on the street is hardly atypical. Had they sat her up and discovered the extent of her wounds, then no doubt their actions would have been very different.

10. Lechmere’s refusal to move the body makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.


Going back to the issue of time and Lechmere’s departure from his home in Doveton Street at either 03.20 or 03.30 (remember that Nichols body is at most 7 minutes away from Lechmere’s home).

The time between Lechmere’s home and the body was discovered by Dr Andy Griffiths, former head of Sussex Murder Squad. He walked the route himself with a stopwatch. This simple yet brilliant practical investigation produced the crucial and incriminating missing time evidence. Whichever time we take there is missing time that can’t be accounted for. A 03.20 departure and it’s nearly 20 minutes of time. Even leaving home at 03.30 means that there is up to 8 minutes unaccounted for. Lechmere would arrive in Bucks Row at 03.37 and is found there at 03.45. The timings aren’t exact, but I suggest they won’t be far off either. Its 1888 not the Middle Ages. It’s worth adding that any mistakes in the time can lengthen the missing time, as well as shorten it. Any errors could just as easily see Lechmere depart at say 03.28 and be found in Bucks Row at 03.47. Lechmere has been alone in Bucks Row for a period of time before Paul arrives, possibly minutes alone with the body, and what exactly has he being doing in that time ?


11. Lechmere being in Bucks Row at 03.45 is incriminating. There is time missing. This makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.

PC Neil finds the body at 3:45, so Lechmere isn't in Bucks Row at 3:45. PC Mizen reports that he was approached by Lechmere and Paul around 3:45. That would make Lechmere and Paul leaving the body closer to 3:40 - 3:41ish, so Lechmere's arrival more like 3:38-3:39 ish, pending on how long he and Paul need to do their meeting, interactions, examinations, etc. And that arrival time is entirely in line with a roughly 7 minute walk when one leaves around 3:30ish.

Basically, there is no evidence of missing time.

And finally. Lechmere stays with Paul the whole time, never leaving him alone for a second. After leaving Mizen and despite already being late for work, he then walks with Paul along Hanbury Street to Paul’s work, checking that he goes in. Lechmere still can’t be 100% sure Paul saw nothing and hasn’t had seconds thoughts. He could even be worried that Paul meets another policeman. Hanbury Street is not the fastest way to Lechmere’s work, so after talking to Mizen why did he not go his separate way and head off to Pickford’s ? Lechmere both claims to be late for work, and then also takes a longer route to work.

Lechmere never leaves Paul alone and goes out of his way to walk him to his work. Lechmere is making sure he’s there should Paul meet anyone, and that nothing happens he’s not aware of.

He gets to work on time, he remains with Paul until they find the police, and they separate afterwards. Clearly, he wasn't concerned about being so far behind time he might not get work that day.

12. Lechmere never leaving Paul makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.



I’ve just touched on some of the issues surrounding Lechmere in Bucks Row. Others have gone into much greater detail. Personally I’ve found the more you look at Bucks Row, the more clearly you can see that Charles Lechmere is Jack the Ripper.

Nothing is clear when it comes to JtR I'm afraid.

- Jeff

[erobitha]

Proposition 1 is correct. The rest is pure conjecture and not evidence.

[drstrange169]

>>To quote QC James Scobie, who believes there is enough to put Lechmere before a jury<<

But, Scobie, according to Trevor, was misled.



>>Lechmere is found standing near Polly Nichols freshly killed body down a dark street at 03.45 in the morning.<<

Incorrect.

Cross has a cast iron alibi for 3:45. He was talking to a policeman who was knocking people up, telling them the time. Any claim he was elsewhere is to be regarded with the deepest suspicion.



>>she has clearly just been killed.<<

Not according to modern medical evidence. Mrs Nichols death cannot be placed more accurately than half an hour (Neil’s last visit).Which I guess could be described as "fresh", so maybe technically you are right.



>>Minutes at most and maybe even less. For me this is enough on its own to arrest him.<<

Crow arrested.
Cadosch and/or Richardson arrested.
Deimshitz and/or Eagle arrested.
Watkins and/or Lawende and his mates arrested.
Bowyer arrested.


>>The chances of anyone being found near a body in such circumstances and not being the killer is a 1000/1 shot.<<

Really?

At 3:45 a man in Buck’s Row finds the body of Mrs Nichols, just as he discovers her body he hears footsteps of another man. He alerts the man who comes and looks at the body.

I’m, of course talking about PC Neil and PC Thain. 100/1 shot?


>>In any modern investigation they are immediately the prime suspect.<<

Prime suspect or witness whose circumstances needs to be ascertained before they can be fully dismissed? Can you show me where is is purely a "modern" idea?



>>The time is roughly 03.45 when Paul enters Bucks Row and sees Lechmere.<<

Only according to one very unreliable, unsworn statement that is universally regard as containing incorrect information. Even if true, the accuracy of the timepiece cannot be verified, nor can it be compared in terms of synchronisation to any of the others witnesses, three of whom can be considered very reliable.


>>The body is 7 minutes walk from Lechmere’s home (I’ve also seen 5 minutes mentioned).<<

What speed would someone be walking at to achieve that and how could that be accurately enough compared with sufficient prove, to the actual speed Cross walked that night? What speed did Cross walk at? If you cannot say you cannot compare? For example, there were at least two public urinals in Cambridge Heath Road, do you have information as to whether he stopped at any of those?


>>Lechmere leaves for work at 03.20 every morning. <<

Can you cite where Cross specifically says what time he normally left for work at 3:20?



>>Big coincidence that on the morning he finds a dead body he is also running 10 minutes late.<<

To make that claim you need to show he was 10 minutes late. There is no quote from Cross anywhere saying he was late for work when he left home.


>> ... a huge amount of unaccounted time, <<

Cross could certainly have lied about the time he left home, nobody can prove that either way, but you have completely failed to prove there is any unaccounted time, let alone a “huge amount”.


>>Lechmere see’s or hears nobody, the street is completely deserted.<<

That seems a very odd statement for a guilty man to make.

Surely a guilty man would make it clear someone else could have been there before him? Isn’t that statement an indication of innocence?



>>3. Nobody else being seen there makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.<<

Exactly! That’s why would a guilty man wouldn't say nobody could have been in front of him. To claim there was, would be the perfect lie.



>>The other witnesses hear and see nothing either. Local residents, patrolling policemen and nearby night watchmen all nothing. No suspicious characters lurking around, nobody seen or heard running away. The only witness we have is Robert Paul, and the only person he see’s is Lechmere.<<

Completely untrue I’m afraid.
Thain saw two men in Brady Street.
Mrs Lilley heard two people in Bucks Row.
And Neil claimed,
“The Whitechapel-road was a busy thoroughfare in the early morning …At that time any one could have got away.”

Pretty damning huh?

>>Killers have their Modus Operandi MO and their signature. The signature of JTR is to leave his victims posed for shock value. His handiwork visible for all to see (Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly). <<

And Mrs Stride’s body?



>>Nichols wounds have been very well concealed. <<

Incorrect.

The neck wounds where totally uncovered and the abdomen wounds had simply been draped over by apparently the killer dropping her skirt.

>>JTR has on this occasion taken some time to hide the abdominal wounds. Why ?<<

Since the killer didn’t, there isn’t a “why” to answer.
The wounds were covered by dropping the skirt 1 to 2 seconds at most. Even the man using the alias "Ed Stow" agrees with that.



>>Lechmere blocks Paul’s path. He won’t let him pass by, physically standing in his way so he has no option but to stop. Why would Lechmere do this ? It’s quite threatening and to my mind is very suspicious.<<

Is this you Bob?

If so you already know he didn’t



>>Lechmere blocking Paul’s path is often seen as unimportant, a minor detail. One that gets missed and left alone. You rarely see it mentioned. <<

As it did not happen according to both Cross and Paul’s testimony your claim is irrelevant.



>>Not easy to see down a poorly lit backstreet. Nichols is lying in total darkness, it’s pitch black in the gateway, the darkest section of the street.<<

In which case Lechmere would know Paul couldn’t see him and it would be easy for Lechmere to disappear unseen.
Ditto if Cross interrupted the killer.



>>Lechmere knows it’s a woman lying there. How does he know this ? Prior to Paul arriving Lechmere must have been close enough to Nichols to identify her in the darkness. He would have needed to be closer than the middle of the street.<<

Since Neil saw her body from a distance we know for a fact the theory is unsound.



>>Upon finding the body Lechmere has made no attempt to raise the alarm or seek assistance.<<

Since you’ve already claimed he forcibly stopped Paul he, indisputably, did raise the alarm it's an essential part of your own theory.



>>He didn’t rush off to fetch a policeman, knock on any doors, shout for help or contact a night watchman.<<

Did Paul?

Of course not. Unlike every other C5 murder discovery, there was no evidence of foul play that the two of them saw.



>>After the examination it’s Paul’s idea to fetch a policeman.<<

Incorrect.

It was Cross’s.

“Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him”
Star newspaper



>>The coroner said it was a miracle the killer got away. <<

Completely untrue.

In fact he said the complete opposite.

“ … the presence of so many slaughter-houses in the neighbourhood would make the frequenters of that spot familiar with blood-stained clothes and hands, and his appearance might in that way have failed to attract attention while he passed from Buck's-row in the twilight into Whitechapel-road and was lost sight of in the morning's market traffic.”



>>After drawing Paul’s attention to the body Lechmere won’t help him move Nichols to an upright position.<<

The only person to mention this was Cross, Paul said nothing about. Once again volunteering this kind of detail, is suggestive of innocence not guilt.



>>The time between Lechmere’s home and the body was discovered by Dr Andy Griffiths, former head of Sussex Murder Squad. He walked the route himself with a stopwatch. This simple yet brilliant practical investigation produced the crucial and incriminating missing time evidence.<<


If you check this and the other site you will see the timings have been discussed before the TV show and were well known to researchers.



>> …there is up to 8 minutes unaccounted for.<<

Since there is no correlation known between Cross and Paul’s timings, any “gap” is purely fictional designed it seems to suck in the uninformed or gullible.

However, if Cross told the truth about leaving around 3:30, the circumstantial evidence supporting his timing is overwhelming. Three policemen who can reasonably believed to be more or less in sync with each other, support and corroborate Cross’s version and disputing Paul's unsworn, unreliable Lloyds interview. One of the policemen was even waking people up and telling them the time. Could Cross reach Broad s Street by 4:00 if Paul was only just turning into in Bucks Row at 3:45?


>>And finally. Lechmere stays with Paul the whole time, never leaving him alone for a second.<<

In which case it would be indisputable that Paul heard Cross’s conversation with Mizen, meaning Mizen was in error not Cross.



>>After leaving Mizen and despite already being late for work, he then walks with Paul along Hanbury Street ..<<

Isn’t that his normal route to work? What evidence is there that it was not?



>> …Paul’s work, checking that he goes in.<<

Cross wouldn’t be able to see Paul’s work from Hanbury Street it was up a side court. There is zero evidence to suggest he knew where Paul worked let alone "checked" where he went.


>>Hanbury Street is not the fastest way to Lechmere’s work<<

How do you know?

I believe Broad Street goods yard spread from Eldon Street up to Worship street, which entrance did Cross use?



>>so after talking to Mizen why did he not go his separate way and head off to Pickford’s ? <<

As far as we know he did head straight to Broad Street. How else would have got there on time?


>>Lechmere never leaves Paul alone and goes out of his way to walk him to his work.<<

You have zero evidence to support that claim.

Suppose both your and my responses were presented to Scobie, do you think he would still say the same?

The thing about Lechmere is that everything is consist with an innocent man. In fact, can anybody name anything Lechmere was guilty of in his entire life?
Did he have a criminal record?
A history of mental illness?
A record of hating or abusing women?
A record for being a loner?
Antisocial?
Violent?
Erratic.
Mood swings?
Any known obsessions?
Abusive childhood?
Wrecked marriages?
Obsession with prostitutes?
Unsteady work ethic?
Inability it hold a job down?

[The Baron]

>>To quote QC James Scobie, who believes there is enough to put Lechmere before a jury<<

But, Scobie, according to Trevor, was misled.



>>Lechmere is found standing near Polly Nichols freshly killed body down a dark street at 03.45 in the morning.<<

Incorrect.

Cross has a cast iron alibi for 3:45. He was talking to a policeman who was knocking people up, telling them the time. Any claim he was elsewhere is to be regarded with the deepest suspicion.



>>she has clearly just been killed.<<

Not according to modern medical evidence. Mrs Nichols death cannot be placed more accurately than half an hour (Neil’s last visit).Which I guess could be described as "fresh", so maybe technically you are right.



>>Minutes at most and maybe even less. For me this is enough on its own to arrest him.<<

Crow arrested.
Cadosch and/or Richardson arrested.
Deimshitz and/or Eagle arrested.
Watkins and/or Lawende and his mates arrested.
Bowyer arrested.


>>The chances of anyone being found near a body in such circumstances and not being the killer is a 1000/1 shot.<<

Really?

At 3:45 a man in Buck’s Row finds the body of Mrs Nichols, just as he discovers her body he hears footsteps of another man. He alerts the man who comes and looks at the body.

I’m, of course talking about PC Neil and PC Thain. 100/1 shot?


>>In any modern investigation they are immediately the prime suspect.<<

Prime suspect or witness whose circumstances needs to be ascertained before they can be fully dismissed? Can you show me where is is purely a "modern" idea?



>>The time is roughly 03.45 when Paul enters Bucks Row and sees Lechmere.<<

Only according to one very unreliable, unsworn statement that is universally regard as containing incorrect information. Even if true, the accuracy of the timepiece cannot be verified, nor can it be compared in terms of synchronisation to any of the others witnesses, three of whom can be considered very reliable.


>>The body is 7 minutes walk from Lechmere’s home (I’ve also seen 5 minutes mentioned).<<

What speed would someone be walking at to achieve that and how could that be accurately enough compared with sufficient prove, to the actual speed Cross walked that night? What speed did Cross walk at? If you cannot say you cannot compare? For example, there were at least two public urinals in Cambridge Heath Road, do you have information as to whether he stopped at any of those?


>>Lechmere leaves for work at 03.20 every morning. <<

Can you cite where Cross specifically says what time he normally left for work at 3:20?



>>Big coincidence that on the morning he finds a dead body he is also running 10 minutes late.<<

To make that claim you need to show he was 10 minutes late. There is no quote from Cross anywhere saying he was late for work when he left home.


>> ... a huge amount of unaccounted time, <<

Cross could certainly have lied about the time he left home, nobody can prove that either way, but you have completely failed to prove there is any unaccounted time, let alone a “huge amount”.


>>Lechmere see’s or hears nobody, the street is completely deserted.<<

That seems a very odd statement for a guilty man to make.

Surely a guilty man would make it clear someone else could have been there before him? Isn’t that statement an indication of innocence?



>>3. Nobody else being seen there makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.<<

Exactly! That’s why would a guilty man wouldn't say nobody could have been in front of him. To claim there was, would be the perfect lie.



>>The other witnesses hear and see nothing either. Local residents, patrolling policemen and nearby night watchmen all nothing. No suspicious characters lurking around, nobody seen or heard running away. The only witness we have is Robert Paul, and the only person he see’s is Lechmere.<<

Completely untrue I’m afraid.
Thain saw two men in Brady Street.
Mrs Lilley heard two people in Bucks Row.
And Neil claimed,
“The Whitechapel-road was a busy thoroughfare in the early morning …At that time any one could have got away.”

Pretty damning huh?

>>Killers have their Modus Operandi MO and their signature. The signature of JTR is to leave his victims posed for shock value. His handiwork visible for all to see (Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly). <<

And Mrs Stride’s body?



>>Nichols wounds have been very well concealed. <<

Incorrect.

The neck wounds where totally uncovered and the abdomen wounds had simply been draped over by apparently the killer dropping her skirt.

>>JTR has on this occasion taken some time to hide the abdominal wounds. Why ?<<

Since the killer didn’t, there isn’t a “why” to answer.
The wounds were covered by dropping the skirt 1 to 2 seconds at most. Even the man using the alias "Ed Stow" agrees with that.



>>Lechmere blocks Paul’s path. He won’t let him pass by, physically standing in his way so he has no option but to stop. Why would Lechmere do this ? It’s quite threatening and to my mind is very suspicious.<<

Is this you Bob?

If so you already know he didn’t



>>Lechmere blocking Paul’s path is often seen as unimportant, a minor detail. One that gets missed and left alone. You rarely see it mentioned. <<

As it did not happen according to both Cross and Paul’s testimony your claim is irrelevant.



>>Not easy to see down a poorly lit backstreet. Nichols is lying in total darkness, it’s pitch black in the gateway, the darkest section of the street.<<

In which case Lechmere would know Paul couldn’t see him and it would be easy for Lechmere to disappear unseen.
Ditto if Cross interrupted the killer.



>>Lechmere knows it’s a woman lying there. How does he know this ? Prior to Paul arriving Lechmere must have been close enough to Nichols to identify her in the darkness. He would have needed to be closer than the middle of the street.<<

Since Neil saw her body from a distance we know for a fact the theory is unsound.



>>Upon finding the body Lechmere has made no attempt to raise the alarm or seek assistance.<<

Since you’ve already claimed he forcibly stopped Paul he, indisputably, did raise the alarm it's an essential part of your own theory.



>>He didn’t rush off to fetch a policeman, knock on any doors, shout for help or contact a night watchman.<<

Did Paul?

Of course not. Unlike every other C5 murder discovery, there was no evidence of foul play that the two of them saw.



>>After the examination it’s Paul’s idea to fetch a policeman.<<

Incorrect.

It was Cross’s.

“Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him”
Star newspaper



>>The coroner said it was a miracle the killer got away. <<

Completely untrue.

In fact he said the complete opposite.

“ … the presence of so many slaughter-houses in the neighbourhood would make the frequenters of that spot familiar with blood-stained clothes and hands, and his appearance might in that way have failed to attract attention while he passed from Buck's-row in the twilight into Whitechapel-road and was lost sight of in the morning's market traffic.”



>>After drawing Paul’s attention to the body Lechmere won’t help him move Nichols to an upright position.<<

The only person to mention this was Cross, Paul said nothing about. Once again volunteering this kind of detail, is suggestive of innocence not guilt.



>>The time between Lechmere’s home and the body was discovered by Dr Andy Griffiths, former head of Sussex Murder Squad. He walked the route himself with a stopwatch. This simple yet brilliant practical investigation produced the crucial and incriminating missing time evidence.<<


If you check this and the other site you will see the timings have been discussed before the TV show and were well known to researchers.



>> …there is up to 8 minutes unaccounted for.<<

Since there is no correlation known between Cross and Paul’s timings, any “gap” is purely fictional designed it seems to suck in the uninformed or gullible.

However, if Cross told the truth about leaving around 3:30, the circumstantial evidence supporting his timing is overwhelming. Three policemen who can reasonably believed to be more or less in sync with each other, support and corroborate Cross’s version and disputing Paul's unsworn, unreliable Lloyds interview. One of the policemen was even waking people up and telling them the time. Could Cross reach Broad s Street by 4:00 if Paul was only just turning into in Bucks Row at 3:45?


>>And finally. Lechmere stays with Paul the whole time, never leaving him alone for a second.<<

In which case it would be indisputable that Paul heard Cross’s conversation with Mizen, meaning Mizen was in error not Cross.



>>After leaving Mizen and despite already being late for work, he then walks with Paul along Hanbury Street ..<<

Isn’t that his normal route to work? What evidence is there that it was not?



>> …Paul’s work, checking that he goes in.<<

Cross wouldn’t be able to see Paul’s work from Hanbury Street it was up a side court. There is zero evidence to suggest he knew where Paul worked let alone "checked" where he went.


>>Hanbury Street is not the fastest way to Lechmere’s work<<

How do you know?

I believe Broad Street goods yard spread from Eldon Street up to Worship street, which entrance did Cross use?



>>so after talking to Mizen why did he not go his separate way and head off to Pickford’s ? <<

As far as we know he did head straight to Broad Street. How else would have got there on time?


>>Lechmere never leaves Paul alone and goes out of his way to walk him to his work.<<

You have zero evidence to support that claim.

Suppose both your and my responses were presented to Scobie, do you think he would still say the same?

The thing about Lechmere is that everything is consist with an innocent man. In fact, can anybody name anything Lechmere was guilty of in his entire life?
Did he have a criminal record?
A history of mental illness?
A record of hating or abusing women?
A record for being a loner?
Antisocial?
Violent?
Erratic.
Mood swings?
Any known obsessions?
Abusive childhood?
Wrecked marriages?
Obsession with prostitutes?
Unsteady work ethic?
Inability it hold a job down?

What a beautiful post!

Thankyou Sir for taking the time to write this!

Much appreciated!




The Baron

[SuperShodan]

Incorrect.


Cross has a cast iron alibi for 3:45. He was talking to a policeman who was knocking people up, telling them the time. Any claim he was elsewhere is to be regarded with the deepest suspicion.


This is embarrassing. You appear to be saying Lechmere had an alibi for a murder that took place at 03.45 because he is talking to a policeman at 03.45, when we know that Nichols was dead before he left Bucks Row !? It’s a lack of intelligence and understanding on your part. Can you step back and see how ridiculous this point is. It’s hardly worth answering. It could be 03.46 it could be 03.43 when Lechmere is in Bucks Row. The point is this.


Lechmere was alone with the body and there is missing time.



Not according to modern medical evidence. Mrs Nichols death cannot be placed more accurately than half an hour (Neil’s last visit).Which I guess could be described as "fresh", so maybe technically you are right.


Again you are completely wrong. Nichols had clearly just been killed. Paul doesn’t even notice she’s dead and he see’s no blood nor does he get any on him. The severity of her wounds, her arteries, wind pipe, jugular all the tissues are cut down to the bone. She would bleed profusely. When Paul is there she hasn’t, she’s just been killed. If she had been killed half an hour earlier she would have completely bled out by the time Paul is there.


Crow arrested.

Cadosch and/or Richardson arrested.

Deimshitz and/or Eagle arrested.

Watkins and/or Lawende and his mates arrested.

Bowyer arrested.



Another ridiculous, clutching at straws answer. Bowyer ? Kelly was killed hours before and in a locked room. He was never alone with the body.

Lawende and his mates were never alone with the body.

Diemshutz immediately raised the alarm, compare his reaction to Lechmere’s. And Diemshutz gave a full statement to the police as did Richardson. And Richardson lived about 5m from the crime scene and he was questioned and house searched. You just can’t compare any of these guys to Lechmere.


Really?
At 3:45 a man in Buck’s Row finds the body of Mrs Nichols, just as he discovers her body he hears footsteps of another man. He alerts the man who comes and looks at the body.
I’m, of course talking about PC Neil and PC Thain. 100/1 shot?



Again you show an inability to understand basic facts. We know PC Neil wasn’t the first on the scene, Lechmere was. Then Paul. Then Neil. You seem to be suggesting Neil finding the body is the same as Lechmere, which is distorting what happened to suit your own agenda.



Prime suspect or witness whose circumstances needs to be ascertained before they can be fully dismissed? Can you show me where is is purely a "modern" idea?


Lechmere being the prime suspect is the opinion of Dr Andy Griffiths former head of Sussex Murder Squad. I quote ~


“From a police point of view the person who finds a body in circumstances like this is always going to be significant to an enquiry”


But of course you know better. Can I ask how many murder cases have you solved ?


Only according to one very unreliable, unsworn statement that is universally regard as containing incorrect information. Even if true, the accuracy of the timepiece cannot be verified, nor can it be compared in terms of synchronisation to any of the others witnesses, three of whom can be considered very reliable.


Actually Paul is very sure of the time. And everything he said about Bucks Row seems accurate. Again you miss the point with the time though. Lechmere was alone with the body before Paul arrived.


What speed would someone be walking at to achieve that and how could that be accurately enough compared with sufficient prove, to the actual speed Cross walked that night? What speed did Cross walk at? If you cannot say you cannot compare? For example, there were at least two public urinals in Cambridge Heath Road, do you have information as to whether he stopped at any of those?



Again you go off on a tangent. Could be 5 minutes walk, could be 10 minutes. The point is there is missing time. Could be as little as a couple of minutes, but that’s enough for the blitz style attack.


Can you cite where Cross specifically says what time he normally left for work at 3:20?

Not sure of what it is you’re attempting to say with this one. There are 2 newspaper reports that I know of that state that. And the journey to Broad Street from Doveton Street is roughly 30 - 35 mins. He would have to leave around 03.20 to arrive in time for work. Lechmere says he was running late and that he left at 03.30. Again this puts his usual time at 03.20.


Cross could certainly have lied about the time he left home, nobody can prove that either way, but you have completely failed to prove there is any unaccounted time, let alone a “huge amount”.


Again you display a complete myopia about basic facts. If Lechmere leaves home at 03.20 and is in Bucks Row at 03.45 then there’s a lot of time missing.


That seems a very odd statement for a guilty man to make.
Surely a guilty man would make it clear someone else could have been there before him? Isn’t that statement an indication of innocence?


A lack of comprehension on your part. Lechmere did not make this statement. This is clearly part of my post and my words. Unbelievable.

Exactly! That’s why would a guilty man wouldn't say nobody could have been in front of him. To claim there was, would be the perfect lie.


Same as above. You are reading my post and for some bizarre reason you can’t tell that it’s me writing it not Lechmere. You are attributing my comments to Lechmere.


Completely untrue I’m afraid.

Thain saw two men in Brady Street.

Mrs Lilley heard two people in Bucks Row.

And Neil claimed,

“The Whitechapel-road was a busy thoroughfare in the early morning …At that time any one could have got away.”

Pretty damning huh?



Again you are clutching at straws to try and place more people at Bucks Row. Mrs Lilly could have heard Lechmere and Nichols or even Lechmere and Paul. She could have heard someone a good bit earlier than the murder. Thain saw men in Brady Street not Bucks Row and Neils statement is a generalisation. We know from both Paul and Lechmere they saw or heard nobody. And when Neil arrived there is nobody else their either.


And Mrs Stride’s body?


Really. You can’t hazard a guess ? He was clearly disturbed, narrowly avoided being caught and had a narrow escape.

Incorrect.
The neck wounds where totally uncovered and the abdomen wounds had simply been draped over by apparently the killer dropping her skirt.


Even the Dr didn’t notice the abdominal wounds. Nobody noticed until she was in the mortuary. Paul not noticing the neck wounds, PC Neil did, suggest that Nichols had just been killed when Paul was there.


Since the killer didn’t, there isn’t a “why” to answer.

The wounds were covered by dropping the skirt 1 to 2 seconds at most. Even the man using the alias "Ed Stow" agrees with that.


Again you miss the point. You seem to lack any kind of insight.

On this occasion the body was not posed or displayed or left out. The killer was disturbed. In my view he took a quick few seconds to conceal that a crime had taken place. He was caught unawares, he messed up, and had seconds to act.


As it did not happen according to both Cross and Paul’s testimony your claim is irrelevant.


Lechmere did block Paul’s path, Paul had to take an evasive manoeuvre to try and get past him. One thing is for sure, Paul wasn’t getting past until Lechmere established what he had seen.


In which case Lechmere would know Paul couldn’t see him and it would be easy for Lechmere to disappear unseen.

Ditto if Cross interrupted the killer.


True. I do think Lechmere could have made an escape. Fight or flight. On this occasion he chose to stay and talk his way out. He had seconds to decide what to do, he didn’t have time to weigh up the pro’s and con’s, I believe he was acting on instinct.


Since Neil saw her body from a distance we know for a fact the theory is unsound.


We don’t know that. Neil could have been only yards away when he saw her. And anyway, if PC Neil can see it’s a woman from from far away, why does Lechmere think it’s a piece of tarpaulin ?

Since you’ve already claimed he forcibly stopped Paul he, indisputably, did raise the alarm it's an essential part of your own theory.


My theory is in stopping Paul, Lechmere is
ascertaining what Paul saw, he’s not raising the alarm.



Incorrect.
It was Cross’s.

“Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him”

Star newspaper


I notice you are happy to use newspaper reports when it suits you. At no point does Lechmere even suggest raising the alarm. It’s Paul’s decision to fetch a policeman, not Lechmere’s.


Isn’t that his normal route to work? What evidence is there that it was not?


Lechmere could take a number of routes to work. The point is after saying he was late he didn’t take the fastest route to work, which would have been Old Montague Street. He’s finding out as much about Paul and what he saw as he can.

How do you know.

I believe Broad Street goods yard spread from Eldon Street up to Worship street, which entrance did Cross use?


Thanks to an invention called a street map I can deduce the best route.

You have zero evidence to support that claim.
Suppose both your and my responses were presented to Scobie, do you think he would still say the same?
The thing about Lechmere is that everything is consist with an innocent man. In fact, can anybody name anything Lechmere was guilty of in his entire life?

Did he have a criminal record?

A history of mental illness?

A record of hating or abusing women?

A record for being a loner?

Antisocial?

Violent?

Erratic.

Mood swings?

Any known obsessions?

Abusive childhood?

Wrecked marriages?

Obsession with prostitutes?

Unsteady work ethic?

Inability it hold a job down?



Actually Lechmere closely matches the 1988 FBI profile. I’m working on that just now and will put it up on the FB group shortly.

There is a great deal about Lechmere which is very interesting.

Father left when he was a baby. Lived in 6 different addresses. Mother married a 23 year old when she was 32. He had no male role model at home until he was 9, then it was a guy close enough in age to be a big brother etc etc



Take care Dusty.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Supershodan,

I think the 23-year-old lied about his age on the marriage cert, and was no more than 21. And in addition, Lechmere’s mother’s first husband was still alive when she married him. Did she know this? Perhaps not, but she must have considered it at least a possibility.

Her background in Hereford was very respectable - she would have had useful contacts there and yet for some reason she left there, took her small children to the East End and wound up living in what was then one of the most notorious centres of prostitution in London - Tiger Bay. You have to wonder how Maria coped with that. Her husband, little more than a boy himself, probably came into contact with prostitutes on an almost daily basis and her adolescent son must have been aware of their activities. She must have warned him against the bad streets, the bad men and, above all, the BAD WOMEN in the vicinity.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Supershodan,

I think the 23-year-old lied about his age on the marriage cert, and was no more than 21. And in addition, Lechmere’s mother’s first husband was still alive when she married him. Did she know this? Perhaps not, but she must have considered it at least a possibility.

Her background in Hereford was very respectable - she would have had useful contacts there and yet for some reason she left there, took her small children to the East End and wound up living in what was then one of the most notorious centres of prostitution in London - Tiger Bay. You have to wonder how Maria coped with that. Her husband, little more than a boy himself, probably came into contact with prostitutes on an almost daily basis and her adolescent son must have been aware of their activities. She must have warned him against the bad streets, the bad men and, above all, the BAD WOMEN in the vicinity.

The way I see it, the Cross set up was a deceit. Maria did a bunk from Hereford to conceal her scandalous relationship with a much younger man and to create some distance between herself and her husband, whom she must have suspected might well be alive and who might have felt he was entitled to a share in his her inheritance. Bearing in mind that the executor of his wife-to-be’s inheritance was a local Herefordshire JP who had a say in police appointments, why would Thomas Cross have felt the need to join the Met and police the dangerous streets of the East End?

And in that little imaginary scenario, the reluctance of Maria’s son to give his unique full name in court alongside the name of his ‘stepfather’ makes absolute sense.

[rjpalmer]

When I was looking into the Cross families in Herefordshire, almost the first couple I came across was a man of 25 married to a 40 year old widow, so perhaps such things weren't as unusual and scandalous in the 19th Century as people believe.

The widow gets a husband with a strong back, and he gets a stable woman and perhaps a bit of money or land. No shame involved. A win-win.

[MrBarnett]

When I was looking into the Cross families in Herefordshire, almost the first couple I came across was a man of 25 married to a 40 year old widow, so perhaps such things weren't as unusual and scandalous in the 19th Century as people believe.

The widow gets a husband with a strong back, and he gets a stable woman and perhaps a bit of money or land. No shame involved. A win-win.

Well that’s my theory well and truly dismantled by your exhaustive research into the subject.

Did you spot the 5 year old child? I wonder who his father was?

[MrBarnett]

Here’s our TC on the 1861 census - aged 36, allegedly.

And he gave his age as 23 when he married Maria in the March Q of 1858.

But the 1851 census records his age as 14.

[Fiver]

All roads lead to Lechmere.

Clearly, not, as ably shown by JeffHamm and drstange169.

Picking through the smoldering wreckage of your claims, there are only a few points they missed.

To quote QC James Scobie, who believes there is enough to put Lechmere before a jury.

Jame Scobie appears to have said ""He was found standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols.. Lechmere was alone with her for longer than he admits. Lechmere then lied to the police and gave false details at the inquest. And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area. Wearing blood stained overalls his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred."

"He was found standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols" - This statement is provably false. Robert Paul testified Lechmere was "standing in the middle of the road".

"Lechmere was alone with her for longer than he admits." - This statement is based on fudging the times. It starts by using 3:20am, the time Lechmere usually left for work, instead of 3:30am, the time Lechmere testified he left for work. It further fudges the time by assuming a ten minute walk would take 7 minutes or less. It fudges the time a third time by ignoring the time estimates of Lechmere and of all three of the first policemen to arrive in favor of the time estimate of Robert Paul.

It also ignores that the Ripper inflicted far worse mutilations in Catherine Eddowes body in only about 10 minutes. If the Ripper had 18 minutes alone with Polly Nichols he could have inflicted all of the actual mutilations and been 10 minutes walk down the street by the time Robert Paul arrived. An 18 minute time gap contradicts the idea that Lechmere was the Ripper, interrupted in his work.

"Lechmere then lied to the police..." - Lechmere's testimony contradicted PC Mizen's testimony. If that's proof that Lechmere was the Ripper, then it also proves Robert Paul was the Ripper, since he also contradicted PC Mizzen. This whole phrase is based on "guilty until proven innocent". It assumes that Lechmere was lying while completely ignoring the possibilities of Mizen lying or Mizen misunderstanding what Lechmere said.

"...and gave false details at the inquest." - Lechmere gave no provably false details at the Inquest. He did use his stepfather's surname as he had done in 1876 in an accidental death case. It's not unusual for men to use a stepfather's surname. It is unusual for men to use a stepfather's surname part of the time and their father's surname part of the time, but Lechmere had started doing that at over a decade before the first Ripper murder. It does not prove that Lechemere "gave false details at the inquest", let alone that he was the Ripper.

"And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area." - this statement is provably false. Charles Lechmere's family moved to Whitechapel at least 30 years before the Ripper killings began.

"Wearing blood stained overalls..." - Carmen wore sack aprons. Nobody present at the time noticed bloodstains on Lechmere. Lechmere worked for Pickford's, not a meat packing plant, so a bloodstained apron would have been an occasional on-the-job hazard for those times he carried meat and it was improperly packed.

"...his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred." - this statement is provably false. Lechmere's job placed him at one of the killings around the time that it occurred - Polly Nichols. Martha Tabram was killed near Lechmere's route to work and might have been killed while he was walking to work. Annie Chapman was killed while Lechmere was at work - he has an alibi. Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly were not killed along Lechmere's route to work and they were not killed on work days.

Scobie was clearly fed a mix of false information and opinion masquerading as facts. As the old computer saying goes - GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Nichols is lying in total darkness, it’s pitch black in the gateway, the darkest section of the street. Lechmere knows it’s a woman lying there. How does he know this ?

"He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman." - Nichols Inquest

10. Lechmere’s refusal to move the body makes proposition 1 less likely and proposition 2 more likely.

Quite the opposite. A guilty man would have jumped at Paul's suggestion about touching the body as it would provide an explanation for any inconvenient bloodstains.

The time between Lechmere’s home and the body was discovered by Dr Andy Griffiths, former head of Sussex Murder Squad. He walked the route himself with a stopwatch.

How can you walk a route that doesn't exist anymore?

Bath Street between Collingswood and Brady would have been an essential part of Lechmere's walk to work. It 's been underneath a Sainsbury's for nearly three decades.

Hanbury Street is not the fastest way to Lechmere’s work...

Tell that to Fisherman. He thinks Hanbury Street was Lechmere's route to work when he tries to pin Chapman's murder on Lechmere.

[Fiver]

Actually Lechmere closely matches the 1988 FBI profile.

The 1988 profile says:

"28 to 36 years of age" - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

"the clothing he wears at the time of is not his everyday dress" - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

"he was raised by a domineering mother and a weak, passive, and/or absent father." - we do not have enough information to know if this matches Charles Lechmere.

"his mother drank heavily and enjoyed the company of many men." - we do not have enough information to know if this matches Charles Lechmere.

"detached socially" - we do not have enough information to know if this matches Charles Lechmere.

"preferring to be alone" - we do not have enough information to know if this matches Charles Lechmere.

Set fires and tortured small animals when he was young - we no evidence of Charles Lechmere doing this.

Violent "personal writings" and "drawings of women being mutilated". - we no evidence of Charles Lechmere doing this.

"would seek a position where he could work alone and vicariously experience his destructive fantasies". - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

"paranoid thinking" - we do not have enough information to know if this matches Charles Lechmere.

"some type of physical abnormality" - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

"below or above average height and/or weight" - this describes Dwayne Johnson, Peter Dinklage, Stan Laurel, and Oliver Hardy. Needless to say, it is completely useless.

Probably not married - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

If "married to someone in the past it would be to someone someone older than himself and the marriage would have been of short duration." - this does not match Charles Lechmere, who had been married for 18 years.

"the major extent of his heterosexual relationships would be with prostitutes". - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

"perceived as being quiet, a loner, shy, slightly withdrawn, obedient, and neat and orderly in appearance" - we do not have enough information to know if this matches Charles Lechmere.

"He drinks in the local pubs and after a few spirits, he become more relaxed and finds it easier to engage in conversation" - just like everybody else.

"He lives or works in the Whitechapel area." - just like every other suspect

"Prior to each homicide, the subject was in a local pub drinking spirits" - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

"He would be observed walking all over the Whitechapel area during the early evening hours." - this does not match Charles Lechmere. He would have been at work.

"Post offense behavior would include returning to an area where he could wash his hands of blood and remove his clothing." - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

"would visit the gravesites of the victims during the early morning hours." - this does not match Charles Lechmere. he would have been at work.

Would only stop if he "came close to being identified, was interviewed by the police, or was arrested for some other type of offense" - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

[SuperShodan]

Actually here’s a summary of the profile. Profiles are of course subjective. Sometimes it comes down to personal interpretation or even a confirmation bias about a favourite suspect. However, when we look at Lechmere, and we do know a wee bit about him. A few interesting points pop up. I think he’s a surprisingly good fit for the profile.

Broken home. Absent or weak father and a domineering mother.

Lechmere’s was born in 1849 and in the 1851 census his father is absent. As a child he lived at 6 different addresses ✅

Mother would be a drinker and would enjoy the company of many men.

Unknown about the drinking although her husband did abandon her. She married a 23 year old when she was 32. I have read on the Casebook Forum that he could have been as young as 21. So his stepfather is more in the age group of a big brother than a father for Lechmere. She married again after that. Both were bigamous marriages. Quite close to the profile but not an exact match.❓

He wouldn’t have had positive male role models.

He didn’t have any male role models at all from birth until he was 9. His dad left when he was a baby. His stepdad was 23 (or 21) so more like a big brother than a father. So no role models during childhood, then a young stepdad. Again the profile isn’t far off but it’s not an exact match.❓

He might not have received insufficient care or attention from his mother.

We can’t say. Although his mother remarrying when he was 9 may have meant less attention for him, and competition for her affections. Having somebody young enough to be a brother enter the household would be a huge change on the homefront. And it would undoubtedly meant sharing his mother with a stranger. Possibly, but not an exact match.❓

He could have become withdrawn and internalised his anger.

Another one we can’t say. He ditched his stepfathers name the minute he was old enough. He always went by his birth name despite never knowing his father. I don’t think there’s much of a connection between Lechmere and his stepdad. Was there a tension there, did he feel rejected by his mother and resentful of her youthful husband❓

He would have a diminished social response to his fellow man.

Another one we can’t say. He did run over a child in an accident. It would be interesting to see his response to that. Did he express remorse or sorrow, or did he only think of himself ?❓

Might have some sort of minor disability, a speech impediment, pock marked face from childhood illness, bad skin, poor complexion or suchlike.

We have a picture of Lechmere. A colourised photo shows what looks like a blotchy / ruddy complexion, especially on his cheeks. It looks like he has grown a beard over this. ✅


He wouldn’t have been married, or if he was it wouldn’t have lasted long.

He married at 20 and they were still married 50 years later. ❌

Would have a solitary job. Would be a bit of a loner.

A carman, the modern equivalent of a lorry driver, was a solitary job. He was out on his own all day doing deliveries. ✅

He would be employed. Saturday or Sunday would be his days off.

He was employed. Saturday was his only day off. ✅

Before the killings he would drink in local pubs.

He killed on his way to work. The Kelly murder happened on a likely day off, and Eddowes and Stride on his Saturday off. We can’t say whether he drank in local pubs or not for those murders. However, I feel he killed on his way to work. It was his cover and his excuse to be out. ❌

He would be in the 28 to 36 age range - a high degree of psychopathy at the crime scenes, an ability to converse with victims until they were in place, and an ability to avoid detection.

He was 38 at the time of the murders, I suspect there were attacks before the C5. The FBI profile tends towards a more mature killer. Like Lechmere. ✅

He would be a white male. ✅

He would be local to Whitechapel.

He lived in Whitechapel all his life. 5 different addresses. ✅

He wouldn’t look out of the ordinary.

He has an unremarkable appearance. As a carman walking to work you wouldn’t take a second look at him. ✅

He wouldn’t wear his usual clothes. He would want to project an image that he had money so victims would approach him.

An interesting one that caught my attention. Lechmere even wore his work uniform and apron to the inquest. Lechmere would be wearing his work clothes, not his day to day attire, when he killed. ✅

He would appear as shy, being neat and orderly in appearance.

We have a photo of Lechmere. He is neat and tidy in his dress. ✅

Time of death early morning hours.

This was noted by the profiler and commented on. Lechmere would walk to work anywhere between 03.20 and 04.00 which is the generally accepted time of several of the murders ✅

Suspect was able to maintain control of victims during initial ‘blitz style’ attack.

He was a male of 38 with a blue collar type job. Pickford’s historians say it would be a tough, physical and even messy job. Lechmere would be strong enough to subdue and control his victims. ✅

Nose, kidney and other body parts removed post mortem. Had a rough anatomical knowledge.

Lechmere was a carman and delivered from Pickford’s depot to local butchers. His job would give him rough anatomical knowledge, and he might be used to blood and guts too.✅

He would probably have been talked to by police on several occasions.

Lechmere was spoken to by police at least once. Walking through Ripper territory, night after night at the height of the killings, he would have been challenged by both policeman and the vigilance committee’s. Of course his job gave him the perfect excuse. ✅

He would have been overlooked and missed because he did not appear odd or ghoulish. Police had a preconceived idea of what JTR looked like.

Lechmere’s appearance as a carman on his way to work was perfect. It was more than perfect. Nobody would ever suspect him. ✅

He had the sense to know where and when to attack his victims.

Lechmere knew the area like the back of his hand. He grew up there, he walked the same streets night after night. He would have the knowledge required. There would be few around who knew the back streets of Whitechapel better. ✅

After the attacks he would go somewhere where he could wash his hands and clothes.

Pickford’s had a large area where the messy workmen could wash themselves and their equipment down. After arriving at work Lechmere would have ample opportunity to clean himself. ✅

He would not have committed suicide, and it is unlikely he would have stopped after the last murder (Kelly).

Lechmere didn’t commit suicide. And I think he killed both before and after the C5. ✅

He would carry a knife around. He would be slightly paranoid and have a knife in case he was attacked.

My understanding is that carmen were obliged to carry a knife with them. They had to be able to cut the horses reins in the event of an accident. When walking through the back streets of Whitechapel at night he would have been armed. ✅

[SuperShodan]

The 1988 profile says:

"28 to 36 years of age" - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

"the clothing he wears at the time of is not his everyday dress" - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

"he was raised by a domineering mother and a weak, passive, and/or absent father." - we do not have enough information to know if this matches Charles Lechmere.

"his mother drank heavily and enjoyed the company of many men." - we do not have enough information to know if this matches Charles Lechmere.

"detached socially" - we do not have enough information to know if this matches Charles Lechmere.

"preferring to be alone" - we do not have enough information to know if this matches Charles Lechmere.

Set fires and tortured small animals when he was young - we no evidence of Charles Lechmere doing this.

Violent "personal writings" and "drawings of women being mutilated". - we no evidence of Charles Lechmere doing this.

"would seek a position where he could work alone and vicariously experience his destructive fantasies". - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

"paranoid thinking" - we do not have enough information to know if this matches Charles Lechmere.

"some type of physical abnormality" - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

"below or above average height and/or weight" - this describes Dwayne Johnson, Peter Dinklage, Stan Laurel, and Oliver Hardy. Needless to say, it is completely useless.

Probably not married - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

If "married to someone in the past it would be to someone someone older than himself and the marriage would have been of short duration." - this does not match Charles Lechmere, who had been married for 18 years.

"the major extent of his heterosexual relationships would be with prostitutes". - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

"perceived as being quiet, a loner, shy, slightly withdrawn, obedient, and neat and orderly in appearance" - we do not have enough information to know if this matches Charles Lechmere.

"He drinks in the local pubs and after a few spirits, he become more relaxed and finds it easier to engage in conversation" - just like everybody else.

"He lives or works in the Whitechapel area." - just like every other suspect

"Prior to each homicide, the subject was in a local pub drinking spirits" - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

"He would be observed walking all over the Whitechapel area during the early evening hours." - this does not match Charles Lechmere. He would have been at work.

"Post offense behavior would include returning to an area where he could wash his hands of blood and remove his clothing." - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

"would visit the gravesites of the victims during the early morning hours." - this does not match Charles Lechmere. he would have been at work.

Would only stop if he "came close to being identified, was interviewed by the police, or was arrested for some other type of offense" - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

I could go through your whole post but there are so many mistakes I don’t know where to start.
So I’ll pick 2 from the bottom.

"Post offense behavior would include returning to an area where he could wash his hands of blood and remove his clothing." - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

This is so utterly wrong. A monkey with a crayon could do better. Lechmere went to Pickford’s after the attacks. They had a large area for workmen to wash down their equipment and themselves.

"would visit the gravesites of the victims during the early morning hours." - this does not match Charles Lechmere. he would have been at work.

You have absolutely no idea whether he would visit the gravestones or not. You can’t possibly say that. It’s just silly. How could you even guess what he did in his free time. Unbelievable.