The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Sam Flynn]

I think we can reasonably safely say "Unknown" did it.

I disagree.

Agreed, John. Although I respect drstrange169's statement, I believe that a different "Unknown" did it

[Fiver]

If somebody is convinced that a killer of a number of innocent people has been identified, I would see more problems with clamming up about it than with presenting the case. And I would see even more problems if somebody tried to interfere with that decision. It is interesting how Lechmere only has people lamenting this decision, while other suspects, some of them mentally challenged and poor people, evoke no such motherly affections.

Defending the accused has been around as long as supectology has been around. And where the suspect has no record of violence, there is often a great deal of sympathy towards the accused. Charles Lechmere currently gets significant attention due to the persistence of his accusers; he is far from the only one being defended. There's a Maybrick thread with over 10,000 posts. There are active threads on Sickert and Hutchinson and recent threads on Druitt, Kosminski and Hyams. Go back further and Dr Gull was popular. Give it another five years and the threads will probably be full of new flavors of the month.

[Fiver]

low hurdle to clear? your low hurdle to clear seems to be violent and or insane and forget any connection to the case. thats half the male population of london.

david cohen- another in the long list of pin the tail on the crazy jew. and what does koz have to do with it? and since you mention koz, why isnt he one of your top suspects? at least he was there, has possible eye witness testimoney against him and was a police suspect at the time.
other lech- where was he in 88? what connection to the case again?
hardiman- the son of a peripheral witness. zero physical connection to the case. whats his history of violence or insanity? looks like just a tragic history of illness in his family to me.

David Cohen was violent and in failing health, being institutionalized and dying shortly after the Ripper murders ended. Charles Allen Lechmere had no record of violence and lived for decades after the murders ended. I have no idea why you mention Kosminski - he was non-violent and overwhelmed by compulsions and delusions that would have meant no prostitute would have sought him as a client.

George Capel Scudamore Lechmere attempted murder against his own wife during an argument. He had an irregular work history and was only semi-employed. He and his wife were separated. He used a knife to slit his wife's throat - most period knife murders were stabbing, with the Ripper being one of the few to slit throats. GSC Lechmere was callous enough to attempt the murder wife his wife was nursing their baby and in front of another small child who ran screaming for help. GSCL was in the workhouse at the time of the Tabram murder, but no known alibi for the other Ripper murders. GCSL was imprisoned shortly after the murders ended and clearly in failing health as he died not long afterwards.

James Hardiman had a potential reason for hating prostitutes - his wife was dying and his only child dead from inherited syphilis. The murders started shortly after his child's death and his wife's hospitalization. They ended shortly after his wife's death. Hardiman had a geographical link to one of the murders - Chapman was killed in his mother's back yard. Hardiman probably worked as a slaughterer, which would give some knowledge of anatomy, something you wouldn't learn from being a delivery driver. Hardiman lived alone, which would make it far easier to hide trophies than for a suspect whose home swarmed with children. Hardiman also was in failing health and died not long after the murders ended.

Charles Allen Lechmere has no geographical link to any of the murder sites, no history of violence or criminality, no possible motive, no place to hide trophies, no anatomical skills. His timing is supported by three police. His actions and interactions are supported by Robert Paul. He would have been at work when Chapman was killed. The Double Event would have required staying up 23+ hours or getting up 3+ hours early on his only day off. He lived over three decades after the murders ended.

The only evidence against Charles Allen Lechmere is he lived in the area and found a body., which makes him no better of a suspect than any of the other men who found one of the bodies.

[Newbie]

Dealing with these points:

* Lechmere's words and actions were those of an innocent man or those of a criminal who repeatedly took stupid and unnecessary risks. None of them were suspicious.
* There was no "pattern of offending" in Lechmere's life.
* Lechmere was not "geographically linked" to any of the murder sites. Two took place along the route he walked to work, but it was also the route Robert Paul and probably dozens of other people walked.
* The timing of the Nichols murder does not hurt Lechmere. Lechmere's time estimate is supported by the testimony of three police officers.
* The timing of the Chapman murder helps Lechmere - it took place after he would have started work.
* The timings of the Stride and Eddowes murders help Lechmere. They would have required him to stay up 23+ hours or get up 3+ hours on his only day off.

All that Scobie's statement proves is that Scobie was given a mixture of falsehoods and speculation masquerading as fact.

Lech could have easily taken a nap at his mums after work, or before visiting. In some locals, the night clubs close at 5 am.
Those people seem to manage.

[Fiver]

Lech could have easily taken a nap at his mums after work, or before visiting. In some locals, the night clubs close at 5 am.
Those people seem to manage.

How many of those locals were 39 years old and had after worked 14 to 18 hours a day for 6 days straight in a household where the infant might have just started sleeping through the night? Assuming that he only worked a 14 hour shift that Saturday, that would get him a 5 hour nap after which he would visit his mother at 2am, covered in blood and toting a few trophy organs. Or he could visit his mum, spend that whole time sleeping instead of actually visiting, leave at midnight, and return home at 2am, covered in blood and toting a few trophy organs.

How likely is that?

[chubbs]

Phwoaaarrr - I just finished reading this entire thread. Any chance of an award for me?

[Geddy2112]

Phwoaaarrr - I just finished reading this entire thread. Any chance of an award for me?

Regardless are you now illuminated?

[chubbs]

Regardless are you now illuminated?

Dunno about 'illuminated', but I've certainly had my eyes opened - probably more regarding the contributors than the actual case itself.

I think, taking the thread as a whole, my most relevant contribution would be to explain to anyone who struggles to grasp the subtle nuances of how working class Londoners spoke (and still speak), that the phrase "You're wanted in Bucks Row..." is a perfectly normal idiom for a Londoner.
It doesn't necessarily mean that a particular person needed PC Mizen (although, of course it could). It could equally be shorthand for, "There's a woman who needs your help..." or it could even imply as general a statement as, "You're a police officer, you should go to Bucks Row because something's happened and it's your job to go there...".
Anyone who claims to know the precise meaning of the phrase used by Charles Cross, doesn't understand (or doesn't want to understand) that it's a generalised suggestion that doesn't have a precise meaning, made by someone who wants to relay a message, to make a suggestion, but doesn't want to get too involved. He's basically passing the baton to Mizen in as brief a way as possible, so he can get to work.

[Geddy2112]

Dunno about 'illuminated', but I've certainly had my eyes opened - probably more regarding the contributors than the actual case itself.

I think, taking the thread as a whole, my most relevant contribution would be to explain to anyone who struggles to grasp the subtle nuances of how working class Londoners spoke (and still speak), that the phrase "You're wanted in Bucks Row..." is a perfectly normal idiom for a Londoner.

Not just London I suspect, for me it means the 'situation' wants you. Regardless for me it can't be interpreted as 'a policemen wants you in Bucks Row.'

[Lewis C]

Not just London I suspect, for me it means the 'situation' wants you. Regardless for me it can't be interpreted as 'a policemen wants you in Bucks Row.'

I agree. If Cross wanted to communicate that a policeman wanted him, I would think he would have specifically mentioned a policeman.

[Geddy2112]

I agree. If Cross wanted to communicate that a policeman wanted him, I would think he would have specifically mentioned a policeman.

But he didn't because he did not see one Oh but that means the Mizen Scam is not true and completely made up.

[drstrange169]

I just read Christer's opening post. He has a tendency to not think though before the writes, which means many of his posts are defeated by his own logic.

In this case he wrote,

"If John Neil was searching the ground on the northern side of Bucks Row for evidence relating to the murder when Mizen passed up at Bakers Row, where would the former mans focus be? On the ground or 260 yards off, up at Bakers Row? ... I also tend to think that Neil would have spent most of his time in close proximity to the body."

The problem is, if stayed by the body he wouldn't be able to see Mizen until he was virtually on him.

There is no way he would make a mistake about Mizen being in Bakers Row if he stayed with Mrs Nichols.

To see Mizen from any real distance, he MUST have moved away from the body and looked towards Bakers Row.

Endlessly walking over the same ground every half hour, Neil would have an intimate knowledge of the street and distances.

[Geddy2112]

Endlessly walking over the same ground every half hour, Neil would have an intimate knowledge of the street and distances.

Indeed to the West there is not a huge line of sight. There are a lot of things that do not add up with this particular murder case and this is one aspect.