All roads lead to Lechmere.

[Abby Normal]

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.

good post. re flight or flight. theres also a reaction called freeze. i think if lech was the killer he was caught unawares and decided to stay put bluff it out and as you say, find out what paul had seen. ive had a personal experience similar.

to me the most odd and yes suspicious thing is that lech is seen hovering around the body before trying to raise any kind of alarm. just at that moment. i cant think of any case where an innocent witness was in a position like this.

and of course theres the possible missing time, and the discrepency with mizen. and nichols being freshly killed with no one else being seen around or fleeing. at the very least lech is clearly in the frame as nichols killer. now police would consider him a suspect until cleared no question. and your absolutely correct, lech has no "alibi" not sure why some are making this claim its ridiculous.

[drstrange169]

>>You appear to be saying Lechmere had an alibi for a murder that took place at 03.45<<

No, what I said and what I still say is that Cross was with Mizen and Paul at 3:45, or close enough to it and Neil was finding the body as conformed by Thain, and since Mizen was knocking at the time, Neil had just been checked by the sergeant, Thain may well have just passed the brewery clock and Thain and Neil would have started from the same sync source, they would be more likely to have the more accurate time. Ergo, Paul's claim, that he didn’t repeat under oath, of being at the beginning of Bucks Row at 3:45 G.M.T. is demonstrably wrong.



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

Lechmere may have been with the body longer, nobody disputes that, but there is not a single piece of provable evidence that he was.



>>Nichols had clearly just been killed. <<

When you write “clearly” have you run that past a medical expert?
If you do and if you give them ALL the available evidence, they will tell there is no such thing as “clearly”.



>>Paul doesn’t even notice she’s dead and he see’s no blood nor does he get any on him. <<

Since the medical evidence points to Mrs Nichols being strangled first and Dr Llewellyn claimed the bulk of the blood flowed INTO the body and the police reports told us there was no blood on the front of her clothes, but the back was saturated, we know that it would have been possible for Paul to examine Mrs Nichols without getting blood on him.



>> If she had been killed half an hour earlier she would have completely bled out by the time Paul is there. <<

This is why you really need to talk to medical professionals, bodies can leak blood for extended period of time. Dr. Biggs, said he had personally experienced bodies leaking blood 20 minutes after death. On another thread on this site I posted Old Baileys records of a 19th century doctor telling the court, blood was still leaking from a dead victim over an hour after death.



>>Bowyer ?<<

Yes, Bowyer. Mary Kelly’s t.o.d. is unknown and we only have Bowyers word for when he first saw the body, you know, just like we we only have Cross’s word for when he left home.



>>Lawende and his mates were never alone with the body. <<

How do you know?



>>Diemshutz immediately raised the alarm, <<

This site’s littered with people who insist otherwise. Check it out.



>>compare his (Deimshitz's) reaction to Lechmere’s. <<

Why? Deimshitz saw a cut throat and blood steaming for a couple of yards. Cross and Paul saw none of that and Cross and Paul both had the same reaction, so if Cross is guilty, so is Paul on that charge.



>>And Diemshutz gave a full statement to the police as did Richardson. <<

Are you claiming Cross never gave a statement to police?



>>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. <<

Richardson sat with in centimetres of, according to Lechmerites, the dead body of Mrs Chapman, close to when she was killed.



>>Then Neil. You seem to be suggesting Neil finding the body is the same as Lechmere, <<

I’m not seeming to suggest anything, I am factually pointing out that someone finding the body and hearing another approach is not the 100/1 shot you claim. But we actually have a statistician on this thread, so I’ll defer to Jeff about odds.



>>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”<<

No where in Griffiths quote does he use the term “prime suspect”. His description matches and has the same meaning as mine.



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

Solved? None. How many have I been involved in the reporting on? Maybe 40 or so. Two were mass murders though where who the killer was, was never in dispute. so, yes, I can recognise how police word things.



>>Actually Paul is very sure of the time. <<

Not in his sworn testimony, but that wouldn't matter anyway because we know he was wrong about "exactly" 3:45 in terms of g.m.t..



>>And everything he said about Bucks Row seems accurate.<<

Excellent! I love it when we agree, so you agree Paul spoke to Mizen!



>>Again you miss the point with the time though. Lechmere was alone with the body before Paul arrived. <<

I miss nothing, well of course I do, but not in this instance. All the discoverers of the C5 were alone with the body.


>>Could be 5 minutes walk, could be 10 minutes. The point is there is missing time. <<

Could be, could be, could aliens living amongst us for all we know. Could be that Cross was spot on too. The point is, there is no missing time because we DO NOT HAVE A VERIFIABLE TIME.
Nobody disputes Cross could have lied about time. The point is ,there is NO verifiable missing time. The notion has been deliberately manufactured to frame Charles allen Lechmere. Paul's Lloyds time has no relation to Cross’s, Mizen’s, Neil’s or Thain’s.



>>There are 2 newspaper reports that I know of that state that.<<

No there isn’t.

No report states Cross NORMALLY left home at 3:20. End of.


>>If Lechmere leaves home at 03.20 and is in Bucks Row at 03.45 then there’s a lot of time missing.<<

IF he did yes you are correct, but we have no evidence that he did.

If Richardson lied about seeing a body he must be guilty.
If Deimshitz lied about the time he arrived, plenty here think he is guilty.
If Bowyer and McCathy were in cahoots, as some have suggested, they might be guilty.
If it really is Catherine Eddowes d.n.a. on the scarf, Kosminski must be guilty etc. etc.


>>Lechmere did not make this statement.<<

Indisputably he did.
“He thought that had anyone left the body after he had turned into Buck's-row he would have heard them."
Charle allen Lechmere at the inquest in his own words.


>> He was clearly disturbed, narrowly avoided being caught and had a narrow escape. <<

Gosh, that sounds a familiar scenario doesn’t it? So if Cross or somebody else disturbed Mrs Nichols killer he wouldn’t pose the body.



>>Even the Dr didn’t notice the abdominal wounds.<<

He’s what you wrote:
“Nichols wounds have been very well concealed.”
Her throat wounds were visible. It’s incontrovertible, and the main area Paul concentrated on was the head and chest, with no recorded objection from Cross.



>>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.<<

So you’ve altered your opinion when you wrote,
“ Why did he waste valuable escape time covering up Nichols wounds, it could have led him to him being seen or caught.”


>>Lechmere did block Paul’s path, Paul had to take an evasive manoeuvre to try and get past him.<<

Come on, that’s not what you wrote and you know it,
“He won’t let him pass by, physically standing in his way so he has no option but to stop.One thing is for sure, Paul wasn’t getting past until Lechmere established what he had seen.”
Cross tapped Paul on the shoulder, meaning Paul was in the process of passing, meaning Paul had the option of continuing his journey if he so chose.



>>Neil could have been only yards away when he saw her. <<

“... he walked across and found the deceased …” PC Neil's testimony.



>>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 ? <<

Because as he said, he was further away, near the wool warehouse. See how it all fits together?



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

Nobody can prove what his motive was, we can prove he raised the alarm.



>>At no point does Lechmere even suggest raising the alarm. It’s Paul’s decision to fetch a policeman, not Lechmere’s. <<

“Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him”
Charles allen Cross."




>>Lechmere could take a number of routes to work. <<

Could he? Where was his entry point to Broad Street?



>>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.<<


You are simply swallowing a story you’ve heard. Where is the evidence? Where did he enter Broad Street? Why was Montague faster than Hanbury? How did he get to work on time if he went the wrong way?



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

And on that map where were the entrances to Broad Street?

You see the recurring problem here? You keep saying things that can’t be proven and you keep denying things that can.




>>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.<<

Good I look forward to reading it. Not a criticism, just question, why use such 1988 one and not some of the new ones?



>>Father left when he was a baby. <<

Along with half the East End at the time.


>>Lived in 6 different addresses.<<

****! I'm a serial killer!


>>Mother married a 23 year old when she was 32.<<

Cougar! Good on her. In this "woke" age we no better than denigrating women for that.


>>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<<

And when he did it was a policeman, what a great role model.

Just a heads up Bob, people here tend to be more knowledgable about the case and so there aren't many who believe the case against Lechmere stands up to close scrutiny. That's not to say we should dismiss him, just be realistic about what there is against him.

[drstrange169]

>>to me the most odd and yes suspicious thing is that lech is seen hovering around the body before trying to raise any kind of alarm. just at that moment. i cant think of any case where an innocent witness was in a position like this.<<

Certainly can, PC Neil and Thain. Intiely credible to think someone could have walked out of the club door at Berner St. Davis could have come down whilst Richardson was sitting there (if the body was there then). Imagine trying explain that one. If Crow was walking uo the stairs why couldn't somebody else? And so it goes on. To me that is the least surprising thing about the case.

No alibi for where he was at 3:45? You must be joking! He was talking to Mizen. Perhaps you think Mizen was waking people up saying, "Hey it's the wrong time don't get up"?

[etenguy]

Just a heads up Bob, people here tend to be more knowledgable about the case and so there aren't many who believe the case against Lechmere stands up to close scrutiny. That's not to say we should dismiss him, just be realistic about what there is against him.

Hi drstrange

This is where I sit too - can't dismiss but far from proven. If we think the canonical five were all killed by the same hand, then I think considering the circumstances around the other four murders raises questions for the Lechmere theory which, in my view, weakens the case against him.

[FrankO]

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.

(One of) the quickest route(s) through Hanbury Street (and passing Corbet's Court) was less than 50 yards longer than the route via Old Montague Street. I wonder if Lechmere would have noticed that.

[Abby Normal]

Hi drstrange

This is where I sit too - can't dismiss but far from proven. If we think the canonical five were all killed by the same hand, then I think considering the circumstances around the other four murders raises questions for the Lechmere theory which, in my view, weakens the case against him.

hi eten
how can his work route being near murder scenes possibly weaken the case? put it this way-lech is walking these routes almost daily. the victims are in these vicinities also almost daily. did lech know them? did he see them? have contact with them? did they ever solicite him?
see what im getting at? what other suspect do we know for a fact has this same type of specific proximity to most of the victims? none.

[rjpalmer]

Yes, Abby, you are correct.

Crossmere was forced to walk though a long red-light district on his way to work, or on his way home---just like many other people, including Leon Goldstein, Israel Schwartz, John Reeves, and hundreds of names we do not know.

And it is precisely this same fact that led Crossmere to find the body of Polly Nichols, which, in turn, brought him to our attention.

Doesn't that make this entire line of inquiry circular?

[etenguy]

hi eten
how can his work route being near murder scenes possibly weaken the case? put it this way-lech is walking these routes almost daily. the victims are in these vicinities also almost daily. did lech know them? did he see them? have contact with them? did they ever solicite him?
see what im getting at? what other suspect do we know for a fact has this same type of specific proximity to most of the victims? none.

Hi Abby

Only two of the murder sites are on Lechmere's supposed route to work - Nichols and Chapman. Chapman was killed while Lechmere would have been at work, the killer spent too much time at Miller's Court to be on a detour on his way to work. What did the killer do with the organs if he was on his journey to work? All areas where we can speculate but all questions which are a challenge for the Lechmere theory and questions his guilt. Then of course there are Stride and Eddowes, killed in a different area altogether. Could he have been visiting his mother? Possibly but no evidence he did.

The route that we think Lechmere took was one taken by many men going to work, so any of them could be the killer by that argument, the only thing that singles Lechmere out is that he discovered the body - not an insubstantial reason to consider him, but not a smoking gun either.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, Abby, you are correct.

Crossmere was forced to walk though a long red-light district on his way to work, or on his way home---just like many other people, including Leon Goldstein, Israel Schwartz, John Reeves, and hundreds of names we do not know.

And it is precisely this same fact that led Crossmere to find the body of Polly Nichols, which, in turn, brought him to our attention.

Doesn't that make this entire line of inquiry circular?

and how many of them were seen standing near a freshly killed victim before raising any kind of alarm?
with all due respect RJ, but the only thing I find circular are folks who have a preferred suspect and knee jerk attack all other valid suspects. Is your aversion to the likes of Hutch, koz and lech because you prefer Druitt? round and round we go.

Is lech really that bad of a suspect? really??

[Fiver]

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.

I linked to the actual profile, not just a summary. Lets look at the sections you gave checkmarks.

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

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

The profile says "he was raised by a domineering mother and a weak, passive, and/or absent father."

You have provided no evidence that his mother was domineering.
Charles Lechmere was abandoned by his father.
Charles Lechmere had a stepfather from ages 9 through 14. You have provided no evidence that his stepfather Thomas Cross was weak or passive and it seems unlikely of a police constable.
The number of places someone lives has nothing to do with whether their mother is domineering or their father is passive. And you have provided no evidence that as a child Charles Lechmere lived at 6 different addresses

We do not have enough information to know if this matches Charles Lechmere. Giving this a check mark says more about you than it says about Charles Lechmere.

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.

That's a pretty inaccurate summary.

The actual profile says "He would be expected to have some type of physical abnormality." and "May have problems with speech, scarred complexion, physical illness, or injury."

Having a beard is not a physical abnormality. Your interpretation of a (probably badly) colorized photo says more about you than it says about Charles Lechmere.

This does not match Charles Lechmere.

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.

That's a pretty inaccurate summary.

The actual profile says "For employment, he would seek a position where he could work alone and vicariously experience his destructive fantasies. Such employment would include work as a butcher, mortician's helper, medical examiner's helper, or hospital attendant."

Being a carman provided no opportunity to "vicariously experience his destructive fantasies".

And Victorian carman were not usually alone on their job. They typically also had a "van guard" or "van boy" to prevent pilfering while the carman delivered goods. Records of the Old Bailey are full examples.

This does not match Charles Lechmere. Giving this a check mark says more about you than it says about Charles Lechmere.

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

He was employed. Saturday was his only day off.

This applies to 99% percent of all Ripper suspects. It only eliminates clergymen and the homeless. That you would even bother to list it shows how weak your position is.

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.

The profile says "28 to 36 years of age". You even admit that Lechmere was older than that. Giving this a check mark says more about you than it says about Charles Lechmere.

This does not match Charles Lechmere. It's closer than many of the other points, but it still does not match.

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.

Every Ripper suspect is white. Virtually all Ripper suspects were male. Virtually all Ripper suspects lived or worked in the area. Virtually all Ripper suspects did not look out of the ordinary. That you would even bother to list any of these four points shows how weak your position is.

And you're blatantly contradicting a previous statement. "As a child he lived at 6 different addresses." and "He lived in Whitechapel all his life. 5 different addresses" cannot both be true.

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.

Charles Lechmere was wearing his usual work clothes when he found Polly Nichols. You even admit it. And yet you still gave this a checkmark.

This does not match Charles Lechmere.

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.

If you could afford to have your picture taken, you were neat and orderly for the picture. That you would even bother to try to use this against Lechmere shows how weak your position is.

The actual profile says "He would be perceived as being quiet, a loner, shy, slightly withdrawn, obedient, and neat and orderly in appearance"

We have zero evidence whether or not Lechmere was quiet or a loner or shy or slightly withdrawn or obedient.

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.

Lechmere had an alibi for at least one of the killings. He was in the area for some other others, but so were hundreds of other men in the area. Lechmere was strong enough, but so were hundreds of other men in the area.

Giving these check marks says more about you than it says about Charles

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.

Pickford's delivered meat. Pickford's did not process meat. Working for Pickford's would not give Lechmere anatomical knowledge. The only times he might have been exposed to blood or guts on the job was if he was carrying meat and it was improperly packaged and it leaked or the packaging burst.

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.

Lechmere testified at the Inquest. There is no evidence that he was ever interrogated by the police, let alone that he was interrogated multiple times. Hundreds of men walking through the area would have been challenged by the police and members of the vigilance committees.

You define this point so broadly that it applies to every man who lived or worked in the area, including most of the suspects. That you would even bother to try to use this against Lechmere shows how weak your position is.

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.

These same points apply to hundreds, if not thousands of men who lived and worked in the area. That you would even bother to try to use this against Lechmere shows how weak your position is.

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.

That's an inaccurate summary. The actual profile says ""Post offense behavior would include returning to an area where he could wash his hands of blood and remove his clothing."

Pickford's had an area where you could wash up after work, which would always be sweaty and often dirty. Showing up to work bespattered with blood and going to the wash up area would have been highly unusual and drawn the attention of everyone who saw him. It certainly did not provide the provacy to wash off bloodstains and change clothes in privacy.

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

Lechmere didnt' commit suicide. And I think he killed both before and after the C5.

Wait, are you claiming Lechmere must be the Ripper because he did not commit suicide?

The actual profile says "Jake the Ripper would not have committed suicide after the last homicide. Generally, when crimes such as these cease, it is because he came close to being identified, was interviewed by the police, or was arrested for some other type of offense."

Charles Lechmere was not close to being identified as the Ripper. The Ripper killings did not end after Lechmere talked to the police. Lechmere was not arrested for another offense.

And yet you still gave this a checkmark.

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.

As you note, Lechmere carried a knife because it was required by his job, not becuase he was paranoid. As did every other carman. And probably the majority of men and boys who lived or worked in the area. That you would even bother to try to use this against Lechmere shows how weak your position is.

[etenguy]

Is lech really that bad of a suspect? really??

Hi Abby

I know you were asking RJ, but from my point of view Lechmere is a person of interest, but the lack of any direct evidence and the questions that remain unanswered, do push him down the suspect list.

[AlanG]

Is lech really that bad of a suspect? really??

Depends who you speak to I suppose...

If Lechmere were the suspect, how do you account for the blood some 20 to 30 ft from the body in Bucks Row by the side of the road as reported in the Star at the time? All I have read say Lechmere was close to the body, when Paul arrived? The Star reported the blood was off the killer as they fled the area. Obviously its a newspaper account, but it is also evidence to suggest he isn't the killer?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

Only two of the murder sites are on Lechmere's supposed route to work - Nichols and Chapman. Chapman was killed while Lechmere would have been at work, the killer spent too much time at Miller's Court to be on a detour on his way to work. What did the killer do with the organs if he was on his journey to work? All areas where we can speculate but all questions which are a challenge for the Lechmere theory and questions his guilt. Then of course there are Stride and Eddowes, killed in a different area altogether. Could he have been visiting his mother? Possibly but no evidence he did.

The route that we think Lechmere took was one taken by many men going to work, so any of them could be the killer by that argument, the only thing that singles Lechmere out is that he discovered the body - not an insubstantial reason to consider him, but not a smoking gun either.

I see what your saying Eten, but i think i didnt get my point across. look forget he killed on his way to work. I dont necessarily agree with fish on that. My biggest deal against lech(more initially-now not as much) is that according to fish he killed on his way to work. I think if he was the ripper-these might have been days he actually had off or was coming home from work. or maybe he was killing on his way to work and had a stash there. who knows and i dont really care about that.

All im saying is his route to work puts him in very close vicinity to the murder sites (and stride/double event near his moms) and near where these women were when they were alive. its more than we have in this matter than for most if not all the other suspects. SPECIFIC LOCATIONS. thats gotta count for something.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

I know you were asking RJ, but from my point of view Lechmere is a person of interest, but the lack of any direct evidence and the questions that remain unanswered, do push him down the suspect list.

fair enough. hes not my favorite either but hes in my top tier.
and as ive said alot-all the suspects are week, some just less weak than others.

[Fiver]

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.

"Post offense behavior would include returning to an area where he could wash his hands of blood and remove his clothing."

Pickford's had an area for washing up after work. It did not have the privacy needed for washing off blood and changing clothes undetected. It would not have a spare change of clothes for Lechmere. Or a place to secretly dispose of bloodstained and besodden clothing. Showing up for work besplattered in blood would have raised the eyebrows of every coworker that saw 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.

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.

Clearly you did not read what I posted. I did not guess at what Lechmere did in his free times. "The early morning hours" were not free time for Charles Lechmere.

The profile said the killer "would visit the gravesites of the victims during the early morning hours". As I said before, this does not match Charles Lechmere. he would have been at work during the early morning hours.