All roads lead to Lechmere.

[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

[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?

[erobitha]

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

[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

[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.