Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, so now there never was a Jack the ripper? When was that proposed? Did I miss that in your last book? Interesting.

Columbo

Its in my latest book "Jack the Ripper The Secret Police Files"

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/?page_id=191

If it is accepted that the name Jack the Ripper was an invention of the press then there could not have been such a person because he never existed.

At best you have three victims killed in what we can now term as "ripper like" fashion. Chapman, Eddowes, and Nicholls. But in 1888 without the name JTR simply a series of similar unsolved murders and had it not been for the name JTR we probably would not be here talking about them today

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: What did Lechmere say in his statement (paraphrasing)

I work as a carman at ------ I start work every day at ------------. I leave home at---------- I walk the same route to work every day. My route takes me along Bucks Row. On the morning of ------ I left home at the same time. As I walked along Bucks Row I saw what I believed to be a tarpaulin just off the road. On closer examination I saw it to be the body of a female. Moments later I heard footsteps coming towards me it was the witness Paul. I stopped him and we had a conversation.

Robert Paul corroborates that part of Lechmeres story

What Robert Paul corroborates is that Lechmere was standing in Bucks Row as he arrived there. What Robert Paul does NOT corroborate is that he arrived moments only after Lechmere. He could not corroborate that since he only noticed Lechmere as he arrived outside Browns. For all Paul knew, Lechmere could have been there since Sunday last. So letīs be truthful and honest when we say that Paul corroborated Lechmere!

Where are there any discrepancies in that statement to warrant him being looked upon as a suspect, then or now?

The discrepancy in the part of the statement you quoted lies in how Lechmere claimed to have left home at 3.30, in which case he should have been way past Bucks Row at 3.45. Even if the body was found at 3.40 (which is less probable), he should have passed Brows some minutes before that time.

The police may have checked it out with his wife re times leaving for work. His employers as to his work and start times etc. There was never any suggestion made that this part of his statement was untrue.

The police may have checked it out? Does it also apply, Trevor, that the ploce may NOT have checked it out? And would you say that a check would have turned up the carmanīs real name?

What other discrepancies were there ?

-The dress was pulled down over the wounds. That deviated from the rest of the evisceration victims.
-Mizens statement points to how he was seemingly conned by the carman.
-Lechmere refused to help prop Nichols up.
-He used another name than the one he ALWAYS used with authoritites otherwise.
You have had this - and other matters - listed before.

The different name used? We know he was entitled to use the other name. Its not as if he gave a totally false name.

There are a hundred plus documents derived from contacts Lechmere had with different authoritites. He always used the name Lechmere, no exceptions - but one. No matter how you cut that, it screams for attention and examination. Itīs as red as any flag can get.

Conversations with the police, these took place after the he found the body, They didn't effect or alter or bring into question the part of his statement about finding the body.

Which simply means they accepted Lechmeres vversion., Whether they did so on good or bad grounds remains undisclosed to us, but we KNOW that they didnīt get his name right, so we can be reasonably certain that the man who was found alone with the body was not checked out thoroughly.

If there were ever any discrepancies, which needed clarifying, they were done so, either before the inquest, or at the inquest, because again there is never any suggestion made by the police or the coroner that Lechmere was anything other than truthful.

That equates saying that the police never gets it wrong - which is as false as it is naïve.

What else does Fisherman seek to rely on? Well the doctor who says that when he arrived death had occurred only 30 mins before. We now from what a modern day forensic pathologist tells us that this was guesswork.

The doctor did NOT say that death had occurred 30 minutes ago. He said that death had occurred WITHIN 30 minutes. And his view was much less guesswork than yours...

Fisherman also seeks to rely on blood flow, well again this is nothing more than guesswork. Different bodies subjected to different wounds lying in different positions will all bleed from the wounds differently so no expert modern day or otherwise can categorically state how long it would have taken for a body to bleed out.

They can only offer a "normal" schedule. And if that "normal" schedule applied, Lechmere is certainly the only truly credible killer. But that HAS to be opposed, for some unfathomable reason. Btter then to suggest that Kosminski, Druitt, Levy, Thompson and Chapman all disappeared round the corner, knives in hands, as the innocent archangel Charles Lechmere entered the street...

For Fishermans suspicions to be confirmed he has to rely on the aforementioned and clearly they do not stand up to close scrutiny.

You are incredibly wrong, as always. It is only of I say that the case is proven that these matters do not stand up to scrutiny. If I instead say that they all point unanimously and clearly to Lechmere as the probable killer, they stand up to ANY scrutiny.

The real cruncher is that if Lechmere had been the killer he had more than enough time to escape, unseen when he heard Paul coming down the road.

Lord, see to the ignorants of this world. They really, really, really need it. And include them all, the ignorant, the more ignorant, the incredibly ignorant - and Trevor Marriott.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: What did Lechmere say in his statement (paraphrasing)

I work as a carman at ------ I start work every day at ------------. I leave home at---------- I walk the same route to work every day. My route takes me along Bucks Row. On the morning of ------ I left home at the same time. As I walked along Bucks Row I saw what I believed to be a tarpaulin just off the road. On closer examination I saw it to be the body of a female. Moments later I heard footsteps coming towards me it was the witness Paul. I stopped him and we had a conversation.

Robert Paul corroborates that part of Lechmeres story

What Robert Paul corroborates is that Lechmere was standing in Bucks Row as he arrived there. What Robert Paul does NOT corroborate is that he arrived moments only after Lechmere. He could not corroborate that since he only noticed Lechmere as he arrived outside Browns. For all Paul knew, Lechmere could have been there since Sunday last. So letīs be truthful and honest when we say that Paul corroborated Lechmere!

How would Pauls Statement have read (paraphrasing)

I work as a--------at ------ I start work every day at ------------. I leave home at---------- I walk the same route to work every day. My route takes me along Bucks Row. On the morning of ------ I left home at the same time. As I walked along Bucks Row I saw a man who I now know to be the witness Lechmere standing in the road. As a result of what he said to be I walked over with him and I saw the body of the deceased lying on the path.

It corroborates what Lechmere says. What does it matter what time Lechmere arrived at that location Paul would not and could not have known that. Its not rocket science to work out that Lechmere must have arrived at the scene moments before Paul, based on Lechmeres statement and movements

Where are there any discrepancies in that statement to warrant him being looked upon as a suspect, then or now?

The discrepancy in the part of the statement you quoted lies in how Lechmere claimed to have left home at 3.30, in which case he should have been way past Bucks Row at 3.45. Even if the body was found at 3.40 (which is less probable), he should have passed Browns some minutes before that time.

I am not quoting lies I am quoting what Lechmere told the police you are relying on precise times and those precise times cannot be proven.

The police may have checked it out with his wife re times leaving for work. His employers as to his work and start times etc. There was never any suggestion made that this part of his statement was untrue.

The police may have checked it out? Does it also apply, Trevor, that the ploce may NOT have checked it out? And would you say that a check would have turned up the carmanīs real name?

The likelihood is that the police didn't check it out because they had no reason to believe that both Paul and Lechmere were not telling the truth because they corroborate each other.

What other discrepancies were there ?

-The dress was pulled down over the wounds. That deviated from the rest of the evisceration victims.

This has nothing to do with proving the truthfulness of Lechmere and Pauls statements regarding finding the body. Because that is one the first parts of the investigation process. So analysing both statements relative to that part of the investigation there is nothing for the police to become suspicious about, or for us as 21st Century resrechers to do either. This is you muddying the waters.

-Mizens statement points to how he was seemingly conned by the carman.
That is conjecture on your part nothing more again you are muddying the waters trying to make something out of nothing.

-Lechmere refused to help prop Nichols up.

And your point here is ?

-He used another name than the one he ALWAYS used with authoritites otherwise.

Come on, this explanation is clear for all to see but you. If he had given a false name there may be something to question but it was a name he was entitled to use, and using a false name in not a criminal offence on its own. As had been said he may have had genuine reasons, but for you to use this as part of the jigsaw to prove a case against him is very weak, especially as it appears to never have been mentioned by the police or the coroner, or anyone else for that matter so whatever explanation he gave must have been accepted, and you have to accept that. You cant keep banging on about it when you cannot come up with a motive for his actions in doing that.


[/B]
Conversations with the police, these took place after the he found the body, They didn't effect or alter or bring into question the part of his statement about finding the body.

Which simply means they accepted Lechmeres vversion., Whether they did so on good or bad grounds remains undisclosed to us, but we KNOW that they didnīt get his name right, so we can be reasonably certain that the man who was found alone with the body was not checked out thoroughly.

If there were ever any discrepancies, which needed clarifying, they were done so, either before the inquest, or at the inquest, because again there is never any suggestion made by the police or the coroner that Lechmere was anything other than truthful.

That equates saying that the police never gets it wrong - which is as false as it is naïve.

No one is suggesting the police got everything right all the time, but we are talking basics about an important part of a murder investigation. We have to give them some credit, These discrepancies you rely on are basic ones which would have stuck out like sore thumbs, so why would they not be able to spot them and clear them up, in the absence of anything to the contrary they did and were happy with the answers they got. It up to you and you alone to prove that the police suspected Lechmere of being the killer or ever treated him as a likely suspect.

What else does Fisherman seek to rely on? Well the doctor who says that when he arrived death had occurred only 30 mins before. We now from what a modern day forensic pathologist tells us that this was guesswork.

The doctor did NOT say that death had occurred 30 minutes ago. He said that death had occurred WITHIN 30 minutes. And his view was much less guesswork than yours...

There is only one dunce here with his head stuck up his backside and its not me. Let me remind you what Dr Biggs says about this specific issue

"In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ‘time of death’ based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays, we recognise that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn’t attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature you couldn’t estimate a time since death to within less than a few hours. Suggesting that death happened 30 minutes previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

Fisherman also seeks to rely on blood flow, well again this is nothing more than guesswork. Different bodies subjected to different wounds lying in different positions will all bleed from the wounds differently so no expert modern day or otherwise can categorically state how long it would have taken for a body to bleed out.

They can only offer a "normal" schedule. And if that "normal" schedule applied, Lechmere is certainly the only truly credible killer. But that HAS to be opposed, for some unfathomable reason. Btter then to suggest that Kosminski, Druitt, Levy, Thompson and Chapman all disappeared round the corner, knives in hands, as the innocent archangel Charles Lechmere entered the street...

Well if death occurred long before Lechmere arrived that is possible

For Fishermans suspicions to be confirmed he has to rely on the aforementioned and clearly they do not stand up to close scrutiny.


[/B]
The real cruncher is that if Lechmere had been the killer he had more than enough time to escape, unseen when he heard Paul coming down the road.

Lord, see to the ignorants of this world. They really, really, really need it. And include them all, the ignorant, the more ignorant, the incredibly ignorant - and Trevor Marriott.

[COLOR="Red"]Please dont keep putting me on a pedestal I cant handle all this acclimation [/COLOR]

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Its in my latest book "Jack the Ripper The Secret Police Files"

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/?page_id=191

If it is accepted that the name Jack the Ripper was an invention of the press then there could not have been such a person because he never existed.

At best you have three victims killed in what we can now term as "ripper like" fashion. Chapman, Eddowes, and Nicholls. But in 1888 without the name JTR simply a series of similar unsolved murders and had it not been for the name JTR we probably would not be here talking about them today

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Wrong again Trevor
We would still be talking about them today and would be referring to him as the whitechapel murderer, leather apron or something else.

And you would still be sucking every penny you could get out of it.

[Elamarna]

Its in my latest book "Jack the Ripper The Secret Police Files"

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/?page_id=191

If it is accepted that the name Jack the Ripper was an invention of the press then there could not have been such a person because he never existed.

Of course not Trevor, just because the press invented the name, it does not follow that the killer referred to as such did not exist.

Following the logic demonstrated above the same warped conclusion must therefore apply to the Yorkshire Ripper must it not, and many other killers given names by the press or police?

At best you have three victims killed in what we can now term as "ripper like" fashion. Chapman, Eddowes, and Nicholls. But in 1888 without the name JTR simply a series of similar unsolved murders and had it not been for the name JTR we probably would not be here talking about them today

A person opinion Trevor, not a statement of fact, or indeed an opinion agreed by the majority of researchers on the subject.

Of course there are some who only ascribe the first two to the same hand, however those who say only 2 or 3 victims are at present in a minority.

While that obviously does not make that view wrong, I have real and serious problems with the continual presentation of unproven theories as fact, this applies not just you, others do the same too.

Such is wrong in any serious form of research.



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course not Trevor, just because the press invented the name, it does not follow that the killer referred to as such did not exist.

Following the logic demonstrated above the same warped conclusion must therefore apply to the Yorkshire Ripper must it not, and many other killers given names by the press or police?








A person opinion Trevor, not a statement of fact, or indeed an opinion agreed by the majority of researchers on the subject.

Of course there are some who only ascribe the first two to the same hand, however those who say only 2 or 3 victims are at present in a minority.

While that obviously does not make that view wrong, I have real and serious problems with the continual presentation of unproven theories as fact, this applies not just you, others do the same too.

Such is wrong in any serious form of research.



Steve

And your logic and reasoning is as perplexing to me as mine seems to be to you.

Had there been no named Jack the Ripper, none of the other synonymous rippers might not have followed. I would suggest all those that did emenated from the 1888 term Jack the Ripper.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Wrong again Trevor
We would still be talking about them today and would be referring to him as the whitechapel murderer, leather apron or something else.

And you would still be sucking every penny you could get out of it.

It is the name Jack the Ripper that has kept these murders in the public eye and still does to this day.No other name would have had so much impact as the name JTR has had.

I hope that I have managed to suck a few of your pennies over the years? Or are you one of the numpties who doesn't buy books but waits for others to buy them and comment on them and then jumps on the bandwagon with nonsensical and uninformed posts.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

Its in my latest book "Jack the Ripper The Secret Police Files"

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/?page_id=191

If it is accepted that the name Jack the Ripper was an invention of the press then there could not have been such a person because he never existed.

At best you have three victims killed in what we can now term as "ripper like" fashion. Chapman, Eddowes, and Nicholls. But in 1888 without the name JTR simply a series of similar unsolved murders and had it not been for the name JTR we probably would not be here talking about them today

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's bullshit JTR killed at least five.

[Trevor Marriott]

That's bullshit JTR killed at least five.

Was that the 5 and 5 only MM screwed up on ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

That's bullshit JTR killed at least five.

Hi John,

Why not be polite and discuss the issues in a civilized manner instead?

It doesnīt matter if the murderer called himself Jack the Ripper in some letters to the police.

I agree with you that he killed at least five women.

The reason why I agree is not based on whether there was a name "Jack the Ripper" or not, but on the historical fact that there are sources giving dates for coming to London and then going away again. These events occur from the time when the murders start and stop. There are two such periods, one that starts with Nichols and ends with Kelly and another one that starts with Elizabeth Jackson and ends with McKenzie.

Inside of these time periods there are dates when specific events occured that can explain the choice of murder dates.

I personally do not belive that he killed Jackson, but the sources indicate that he did.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

It is the name Jack the Ripper that has kept these murders in the public eye and still does to this day.No other name would have had so much impact as the name JTR has had.

I hope that I have managed to suck a few of your pennies over the years? Or are you one of the numpties who doesn't buy books but waits for others to buy them and comment on them and then jumps on the bandwagon with nonsensical and uninformed posts.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

that is right. The name has have such effects on peopleīs interest in the case.

But that is no contradiction to the hypothesis that the name was invented by the killer.

Regards, Pierre

[Harry D]

I wouldn't rule out more than one killer for the main series, although I find it difficult to believe that they would be working independently of one another.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;397000]

What other discrepancies were there?

Good analytical tool!

-The dress was pulled down over the wounds. That deviated from the rest of the evisceration victims.

Explanation: The killer was interrupted by Charles Cross. He pulled down the dress to hide the wounds. Who was that man that Charles Cross saw? According to Cross, it was a policeman.

-Mizens statement points to how he was seemingly conned by the carman.

Explanation: You Fisherman, has made Cross a liar. And you are right to have done so. Cross lied when he said that there was no policeman in Buckīs Row. He was afraid, and therefore he changed his testimony. It happens often.

Cross lied to protect himself and his family. Not to con Mizen.

-Lechmere refused to help prop Nichols up.

Explanation: He wanted to get away from the victim. The strange policeman could return. Instead of telling Paul that, he refused to stay there.

-He used another name than the one he ALWAYS used with authoritites otherwise.

Explanation: He lied about his name to protect his family. The killer might search for him and find Charles Cross, but the killer would not be able to find a Mrs Cross with children.

There are a hundred plus documents derived from contacts Lechmere had with different authoritites. He always used the name Lechmere, no exceptions - but one. No matter how you cut that, it screams for attention and examination. Itīs as red as any flag can get.

The flag is red since the past tells us that Lechmere was afraid because he had seen the killer.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

I wouldn't rule out more than one killer for the main series, although I find it difficult to believe that they would be working independently of one another.

Anything goes in the world of deductive thinking.

But if you start examining small scraps of sources, you must go with them instead.

Inductive thinking is the method in idiographic history. You find the particular. You wonder what it can be. It is a puzzle. After having collected the items, there is a pattern. When it emerges, you can induce from the data. The picture you get then will be very different from the pictures made by deductive thinking.

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

Why not be polite and discuss the issues in a civilized manner instead?

It doesnīt matter if the murderer called himself Jack the Ripper in some letters to the police.

I agree with you that he killed at least five women.

The reason why I agree is not based on whether there was a name "Jack the Ripper" or not, but on the historical fact that there are sources giving dates for coming to London and then going away again. These events occur from the time when the murders start and stop. There are two such periods, one that starts with Nichols and ends with Kelly and another one that starts with Elizabeth Jackson and ends with McKenzie.

Inside of these time periods there are dates when specific events occured that can explain the choice of murder dates.

I personally do not belive that he killed Jackson, but the sources indicate that he did.

Regards, Pierre

You haven't conversed much with Mr Marriot I take it. There are some where there is no point trying to be civil with them there never civil back. I find the notion ridiculous that all of a sudden in Whitechapel there were loads of knife wielding maniac's about. It's absurd. As for Elizabeth Jackson it's highly unlikely she was killed by JTR.

Cheers John