Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

Iīd be happy to oblige!

Hereīs the thing: Set the clock at 00.00.00 when Nichols has her neck cut. Make the assumption that she was cut by Mr X, not a carman.

Mr X is then disturbed by something and decides to leave the scene. going by the words of Charles Lechmere, he was not the one to disturb Mr X. Lechmere said that he would hear if anybody stirred down at Browns, from the moment he entered the street. So the killer will have left the street BEFORE Lechmere entered it. Lets say that he did so when he heard the echoing steps of Lechmere when the latter crossed Brady Street. We will therefore have around half a minute elapsing before Lechmere reached Bucks Row. After that, he had a 130 yard walk down to Browns, and that would take him a minute, at least. We are therefore at 00.01.30 when Lechmere arrives at the body.
Behind him, 30-40 yards away, walks Robert Paul. When Paul arrives at Browns, another half minute has elapsed. We are at 00.02.00.

Paul then says that it took no more than four minutes from the minute he first saw Nichols to when he and Lechmere reached Mizen. I think that must be a fair assumption, given how the two examined Nichols first, kneeling down, feeling the hands and the face, listening for breath, feeling the chest, discussing what to do and how they are late, pulling the clothes down, and then walked the long distance up to Mizen. So letīs go with four minutes. We are at 00.06.00.
Lechmere now leaves Paul and walks up to Mizen. He informs him that Mizen is needed in Bucks Row. The PC asks what is afoot, and is informed. He then proceeds to finish the knocking up of a person he had started to wake up earler, before heading East. Another half minute will have been added, at least. We are at 00.06.30.
Jonas Mizen now has a longish route to walk down to Browns. If he covered it in two minutes only, he was quick. Lets say he was. We are therefore then at 00.08.30.
After that, Mizen took a look at the body and saw that the blood was still running from the wound in the neck, and that it still appeared to be fresh. He saw that there was blood coagulating in the pool under the neck.

This is where we will end up, give or add the odd second. So Nichols bled eight and a half minutes after the cutting was done by Mr X.

Jason Payne-James, well aquainted with all the information there is on Polly Nichols and her wounds, says that he would expect the bleeding to be over in a matter of minutes. WHen I asked him if we were speaking of three, five or seven minutes, he said that the two first bids were more likely to be true than the seven minute bid. But he added that it was always going to be hard to pinpoint these matters - what he cpuld offer was only his professional opinion and his experience, and that in combination made the call that seven minutes would be asking for a lot.

If Lechmere did not kill her, we have around eight and a half minutes. If Lechmere DID kill her, we have around seven. Therefore, Lechmere becomes the more likely killer.

And that fits in with the rest:

He could have arrived mny minutes after Nichols was killed - he clearly arrived at a time that is consistent with him being the killer.
He could have said that he left home at 3.35-3.40 - but he did not.
Paul could have said that he saw or heard Lechmere - but he didnīt.
He could have had a working route that was niot compatibale with the other killings - but he didnīt.
He could have his mother living in Wensleydale - but he didnīt.
He could have helped to prop Nichols up - but he didnīt.
He could have told the coroner that his name was Lechmere - but he didnīt.

There are so many things that could have cleared him - nothing does. And the blood evidence is just another facet of that story. There is no need to accept that Nichols followed the normal schedule. But if we for some reason wanted to nail Lechmere for the murder, he is in fact in place at the exact time one would have wished for. There is nothing wrong with assuming that a normal schedule applied. Doing it the other way around is asking for trouble.

The blood evidence you rely on from Jason Payne-James is nothing more than him passing onto you statistics given either by himself or by other medical experts. You, nor anyone, can accurately determine this blood flow issue there are many factors which will effect this issue, which you continue to ignore. One is that Dr Bigg states that you cannot determine a time of death by a subjective observation, which is what the good doctor had said when he examined the body at the crime scene. He says 30 mins before his arrival, wow that fits nicely into your theory does it not?

But hey ho, whats the point in arguing with you. It is clear that you are never going to relent. Your misguided theory as it seems has become an obsession with you.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Columbo]

columbo
you are showing complete lack of knowledge or understanding on this.



Now you are confusing "motive" with MO. motive and MO are different. motive goes more with sig.

the motive is also the why of the crime, the deep psychological reason, what gets the killer off, his true aim. Signature is the physical manifestation of the motive that exhibits itself at the crime scene and upon the victim.

MO is the how. How the killer carries out his crime to achieve his true aim (motive and subsequent sig)and tries to get away with it.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I fully understand each category. I'm not confusing motive with MO at all. The motive drives the crime, the MO is the procedural carrying out of a crime (I think I said that already). You could link motive and signature but that's not exclusive. The motive is taking of organs. The signature is the way the throat was slit. Signature does not have to be done consciously by any criminal. It could be learned as the crimes go on, it could be reflex. It could be intentional. FBI profilers will say some criminals aren't even aware of their signatures.

I think you're making this more difficult than it is. Some people may say JTR's signature was the abdominal mutilations, but it's not. The mutilations are a means to an end. One signature is the removal of the uterus. If he consistently removed large flaps of flesh in 4 sections would be a signature.

Those are examples of course.

Columbo

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Great, I was waiting for you to do this. This will be good reading, and I hope you do not mind if I comment on it.


"Bare facts" sounds good and simple but as any social researcher or historian knows, such a concept is a socially established fact and therefore not "bare" in terms of interpretation. That, on the other hand, does not mean that the interpretations are pure lies. On the contrary. So letīs see what you write here.



Well done, you write "reasonably", so you are of course aware of the problem I mention above.

You will see that as far as possible I am trying not to interpret anything, which of course is not easy.

THE CASE IS MADE UP AS A NEWSPAPER STORY BY A JOURNALIST!

When I say that there is a case, I mean that we need to asses the data, we simply cannot dismiss him as a suspect without checking because of his extreme proximity to both the victim and the time of the attack..

It is weaker than many, since Lechmere was the finder of a victim and freely made contact with people around him and freely went to find a policeman and also attended the inquest.

But far stronger than say Prince Albert Victor, Queen Victoria, Lewis Carrol and John Williams to name but 4.

When such an expression is used "the case against", it has no substance. With a case against we must mean that there is a case, firstly. But there is no case against that man. He was a finder of a victim.

I would argue that he was in the vicinity very close to the attack, certainly in time.
You believe, he saw the killer do you not?
Therefore there are questions that needs to be asked.

The statement you make saying :

"there are no "circumstances" connecting his existence or actions to the murders. Nothing!"

cannot be true, given that he is clearly connected to the murder, if only as a witness.
5Of course maybe you have not expressed that entirely as you meant.

So if X > Y.

But since there is NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, NO SOURCES FOR X, there can be no Y. The Y is a pure invention.

I cannot argue with you on that, however that is the process which is being applied is it not?

I do not understand biological concepts so I never care to discuss items like "flaps" and such things. It simply is not my field of knowledge.

Pierre, one of the problems is that terms like "flaps" have no precise biological or medical meaning and so can cover a vast number of different items.

But X is not established at all. It is just an hypothesis built on a very specific and biased interpretation of sources which we do not have in the original.

Yes

But possibilities will not do of course.

Agreed.


steve

[Dane_F]

Jackson's uterus was removed. Even if we strip everything else away and say that definitely JTR's Signature was exclusively about the removal of internal organs, Jackson would still fit firmly inside of JTR's signature. Moreso than most other C5s.

[Fisherman]

The blood evidence you rely on from Jason Payne-James is nothing more than him passing onto you statistics given either by himself or by other medical experts. You, nor anyone, can accurately determine this blood flow issue there are many factors which will effect this issue, which you continue to ignore. One is that Dr Bigg states that you cannot determine a time of death by a subjective observation, which is what the good doctor had said when he examined the body at the crime scene. He says 30 mins before his arrival, wow that fits nicely into your theory does it not?

But hey ho, whats the point in arguing with you. It is clear that you are never going to relent. Your misguided theory as it seems has become an obsession with you.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Payne-James had all the details and commented specifically on the Nichols case, whereas Biggs seems to have offered opinions on all cases between Svalbard and Kiribati. Payne-James has extensive experience, and was discerning enough not to offer any certainties. He simply said that going by the word as he knew it, the bleeding would have been over in a couple of minutes only.
It is not as if we fix things down to the second. But we can clearly see that Lechmere fits right in. and thatīs what counts.

[jerryd]

Trevor,

Until you can overturn the "Wilful Murder" verdict in the Pinchin case and the Elizabeth Jackson case, they stand as murders no matter what you say. There is no proof needed as it has already been determined, they were murders. Sounds like the ball is in your court to prove they weren't, not the other way around.

[Elamarna]

Iīd be happy to oblige!

Hereīs the thing: Set the clock at 00.00.00 when Nichols has her neck cut. Make the assumption that she was cut by Mr X, not a carman.

Mr X is then disturbed by something and decides to leave the scene. going by the words of Charles Lechmere, he was not the one to disturb Mr X. Lechmere said that he would hear if anybody stirred down at Browns, from the moment he entered the street. So the killer will have left the street BEFORE Lechmere entered it. Lets say that he did so when he heard the echoing steps of Lechmere when the latter crossed Brady Street. We will therefore have around half a minute elapsing before Lechmere reached Bucks Row. After that, he had a 130 yard walk down to Browns, and that would take him a minute, at least. We are therefore at 00.01.30 when Lechmere arrives at the body.
Behind him, 30-40 yards away, walks Robert Paul. When Paul arrives at Browns, another half minute has elapsed. We are at 00.02.00.

Paul then says that it took no more than four minutes from the minute he first saw Nichols to when he and Lechmere reached Mizen. I think that must be a fair assumption, given how the two examined Nichols first, kneeling down, feeling the hands and the face, listening for breath, feeling the chest, discussing what to do and how they are late, pulling the clothes down, and then walked the long distance up to Mizen. So letīs go with four minutes. We are at 00.06.00.
Lechmere now leaves Paul and walks up to Mizen. He informs him that Mizen is needed in Bucks Row. The PC asks what is afoot, and is informed. He then proceeds to finish the knocking up of a person he had started to wake up earler, before heading East. Another half minute will have been added, at least. We are at 00.06.30.
Jonas Mizen now has a longish route to walk down to Browns. If he covered it in two minutes only, he was quick. Lets say he was. We are therefore then at 00.08.30.
After that, Mizen took a look at the body and saw that the blood was still running from the wound in the neck, and that it still appeared to be fresh. He saw that there was blood coagulating in the pool under the neck.

This is where we will end up, give or add the odd second. So Nichols bled eight and a half minutes after the cutting was done by Mr X.

Jason Payne-James, well aquainted with all the information there is on Polly Nichols and her wounds, says that he would expect the bleeding to be over in a matter of minutes. WHen I asked him if we were speaking of three, five or seven minutes, he said that the two first bids were more likely to be true than the seven minute bid. But he added that it was always going to be hard to pinpoint these matters - what he cpuld offer was only his professional opinion and his experience, and that in combination made the call that seven minutes would be asking for a lot.

If Lechmere did not kill her, we have around eight and a half minutes. If Lechmere DID kill her, we have around seven. Therefore, Lechmere becomes the more likely killer.

And that fits in with the rest:

He could have arrived mny minutes after Nichols was killed - he clearly arrived at a time that is consistent with him being the killer.
He could have said that he left home at 3.35-3.40 - but he did not.
Paul could have said that he saw or heard Lechmere - but he didnīt.
He could have had a working route that was niot compatibale with the other killings - but he didnīt.
He could have his mother living in Wensleydale - but he didnīt.
He could have helped to prop Nichols up - but he didnīt.
He could have told the coroner that his name was Lechmere - but he didnīt.

There are so many things that could have cleared him - nothing does. And the blood evidence is just another facet of that story. There is no need to accept that Nichols followed the normal schedule. But if we for some reason wanted to nail Lechmere for the murder, he is in fact in place at the exact time one would have wished for. There is nothing wrong with assuming that a normal schedule applied. Doing it the other way around is asking for trouble.

Fisherman,


Thanks for that.

I do understand where you are coming from, and Jason Payne-James is of course right in general, there are however areas which he, nor anyone could not know about:

For instance the micro climate so to speak in the area of the attack, temperature certainly does affect blood flow, as does alcohol intake,

It must be said however, that such have a very small effect on flow rates, but we are dealing in a small time scale anyway are we not.

One thing that Payne-James could have no knowledge of is the clotting factor in Nichols particular system. If this were low, clotting times would increase greatly.



I am aware of this not just professionally, but also personally, my wife having a fairly rare liver condition which gives her a lower clotting factor than most.

I fully accept that one cannot build a counter argument on such, but it could have a bearing, especially as it seems that Polly, liked the odd drink, which may, have had an effect on her liver.

However I am prepared to say that while statistically it is unlikely that Nichols had any problems of this type, it cannot be completely ignore due to the very limited window we are working in,

Payne-James does not rule out seven minutes, but says it is unlikely, if the timings are out by even one or two minutes that becomes far less unlikely.

Much of your case appears to hang on the accuracy of the timings, personal time estimation is often inaccurate, and here we are talking about a very small time scale to start with, you give it as 8.5 minutes, a minute or two out, makes a very big difference does it not?

So while I see, and did before, that Lechmere must have been very close to the time of the attack that does not make him automatically the killer as I am sure you agree.


Of course Lechmere claimed he did not see the body at first in the dark until he got reasonably close, if that is true, and lets assume for argument it is, then it is also possible that he may have not seen or heard a killer in the shadows either.


It is certainly interesting, however there is nothing in the post I had not previously seen, but many thanks for putting the case so clearly.

It certainly leads to the conclusion that the killing must have occurred either when Lechmere was there, in which case it is hard to argue against his involvement, or immediately preceding his arrival in which case he is just a witness.



Steve

[Columbo]

Jackson's uterus was removed. Even if we strip everything else away and say that definitely JTR's Signature was exclusively about the removal of internal organs, Jackson would still fit firmly inside of JTR's signature. Moreso than most other C5s.

Absolutely.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,


Thanks for that.

I do understand where you are coming from, and Jason Payne-James is of course right in general, there are however areas which he, nor anyone could not know about:

For instance the micro climate so to speak in the area of the attack, temperature certainly does affect blood flow, as does alcohol intake,

It must be said however, that such have a very small effect on flow rates, but we are dealing in a small time scale anyway are we not.

One thing that Payne-James could have no knowledge of is the clotting factor in Nichols particular system. If this were low, clotting times would increase greatly.



I am aware of this not just professionally, but also personally, my wife having a fairly rare liver condition which gives her a lower clotting factor than most.

I fully accept that one cannot build a counter argument on such, but it could have a bearing, especially as it seems that Polly, liked the odd drink, which may, have had an effect on her liver.

However I am prepared to say that while statistically it is unlikely that Nichols had any problems of this type, it cannot be completely ignore due to the very limited window we are working in,

Payne-James does not rule out seven minutes, but says it is unlikely, if the timings are out by even one or two minutes that becomes far less unlikely.

Much of your case appears to hang on the accuracy of the timings, personal time estimation is often inaccurate, and here we are talking about a very small time scale to start with, you give it as 8.5 minutes, a minute or two out, makes a very big difference does it not?

So while I see, and did before, that Lechmere must have been very close to the time of the attack that does not make him automatically the killer as I am sure you agree.


Of course Lechmere claimed he did not see the body at first in the dark until he got reasonably close, if that is true, and lets assume for argument it is, then it is also possible that he may have not seen or heard a killer in the shadows either.


It is certainly interesting, however there is nothing in the post I had not previously seen, but many thanks for putting the case so clearly.

It certainly leads to the conclusion that the killing must have occurred either when Lechmere was there, in which case it is hard to argue against his involvement, or immediately preceding his arrival in which case he is just a witness.



Steve

I agree with just about everyting you put on the table here, Steve. What it boils down to, in my opinion, is a case where we can clearly see that the implications are that Lechmere is caught in the eye of the storm - but the storm may not have occurred at the time we think it did.
There can always be deviations, no two people will bleed for the exact same time, no two pools of blood will coagulate in the exact same way.

You - and many with you - come from a different position than I do. In the documentary, I can be heard saying "Whatever I find will go to confirm his guilt, it will not go to clear him". Of course, the crew cut away when I first said that as I have looked further and further into Lechmere, I have found that in all the cases where he could have been cleared, this has failed to happen, and in all the cases where there needs to be a gap, if you will, that allows for him to be the killer, that gap has always been there. And so I said that I had the absolute feeling that I was on the right way, and consequentially I had come to believe that whatever I find about him would be more of the same stuff.

It was therefore no surprise to find that the blood evidence also put him right in the frame - from my point of view, it was to be expected. That does not mean that the reservations you make do not apply - they do, to the full.

But I find myself talking to a forensic expert who says that in his opinion, Polly Nichols would have bled for a couple of minutes only, three, perhaps five, but not very likely seven although it could happen, and the only conclusion I can draw about Lechmere is "there we are, he is right in the thick of things again". To that must be added "there may have ben time for another killer", but overall, with every second we add, we distance ourselves further and further from the suggestion made by Payne-James. Even before we can start talking about another killer, the suggestion is under considerable strain, since we have entered the not very likely-zone of around seven minutes with only Lechmere and Paul on the scene.

Payne-James himself said the same thing about both the blood and the coagulation: It does not prove that he killed her, but it does prove that he is right where he should be if he was the killer. As a Lechmere proponent, that is as far as the evidence will take me: to a likelihood, a probability.

James Scobie was unaware of the blood evidence when he uttered the last words of his in the documentaary, but to me they nevertheless represent what I think the blood evidence does, it "suggests that he was the killer". Whether that suggestion is fair and correct, remains to be seen. I have every hope that more will surface to further build under the case against the carman.

Thanks for a well measured post!

[John G]

John G: What do you mean about killers were highly skilled with a knife? That is wild speculation on your part, at least as regards JtR, where the medical opinion was conflicting.

I am referring to how Phillips said that the uterus and part of the bladder was taken out from Chapman "with one sweep of the knife". Clearly, this impressed Phillips a lot, and he reasoned that only a surgeon or a man with much anatomical skill could have done it.
I am quite aware that other doctors thought that little or no skill was evident in the Ripper murders, but this stands out.

And I don't know why you keep going on about similarities between Kelly and Chapman. Kelly was subjected to a frenzied knife attack with no evidence of skill or design whatsoever. In fact,Dr Phillips' described the assault as "most wanton."

They both had theor abdominal walls removed in large sections, John. That is a very clear similarity. There were also notches to the spinal column, but first and foremost, the removed abdominal walls is a very apparent similarity.
As for the frenzy you speak about, I think you should be careful to first speak about "wild speculation" on my part, only to then move on to speculating yourself. Kelly was much cut, but there may well have been method involoved to a very large degree anyway, making it something else than a frenzy.

And as I've already noted, Dr Biggs, who unlike yourself is medically qualified, as already pointed out that there are often "startling similarities" between two unconnected dismemberment cases, which completely contradicts your argument!

Forget about Biggs.

But then again, I suppose ignoring the medical testimony, and expert forensic opinion, so undermines your argument that it's understandable.

What I see is you trying to ignore a mountain of similarities inbetween the victims. When it comes to Biggs, there is nothing to ignore since he did not comment on the torso victims at all.

And have you forgotten that the crime signatures were totally different?

One cannot forget what one has never known. How would you describe the signatures, John? Please tell me.

I doubt it's possible to remove the uterus and bladder with one sweep of the knife. In any event, Dr Calder and Philip Harrison have concluded that it wouldn't be possible to have eviscerated Chapman at the crime scene, demonstrating the level of skill implied by Dr Phillips analysis, especially when taking into account the lighting conditions and time constraints the killer was under: see Marriott, 2013

Forget Dr Biggs? Are you seriously suggesting you have greater forensic knowledge than a qualified expert? I'm sorry, but with respect, that's totally absurd. Dr Biggs has given his professional opinion that Dismembererers tend to adopt similar strategies, with the consequence that the results can be startlingly similar. I realise that this is devastating to your layman's conclusions, but you're just going to have to accept it.

There is not a mountain of similarities between the victims, accept on a superficial level. In any event, you haven't examined any of the bodies and lack the necessary expertise to comment on this matter with authority-although I'm starting to believe that you actually view yourself as some sort of forensic genius. This will no doubt come back to haunt you the next time you criticise Pierre.

The Torso perpetrator(s) took extreme steps to prevent his victims from being identified; JtR couldn't care less, so clearly two very different personalities and approaches.

JtR, if he existed, was a maurader, who almost certainly didn't have transport: his murders were confined to an incredibly small area.

In stark contrast, the Torso victims were distributed all over London, so their killer(s) was clearly a commuter: he had access to transport.

According to Keppel (2005), posing was a signature characteristic of JtR-not so Torso: the Whitehall victim was actually buried.

Ritualistic behaviour can sometimes evolve, or become more elaborate: see Schlesinger, 2010. In fact, Schlesinger refers to an example where a perpetrator progressed from post mortem genital mutilation to dismemberment. However, serial killers do not alternate between two different rituals, and you've failed to provide a single example of this.

[John G]

hi el
thanks. No I have not made up my mind on the issue. in the past I only thought that there was a very slim possibility torso man and the ripper were the same. then I learned that all the torso victims had post mortem mutilations to the abdomen and that internal organs were missing so then for a while I was 50/50 on them being the same. then with further excellent research and details from Deb, fish and others I learned about MANY more similarities. and after analyzing all the info and similarities and differences and possible explanations for either now I'm at (if I had to put a number on it) at about 70/30 they were the same man.

I still keep an open mind and surely will be swayed either way with more evidence and debate, but so far the arguments against them being the same man is beset with innacuracies, faulty logic, lack of knowledge and weak or non existant counterpoints IMHO.

There is no proof that any of the Torso victims were subjected to post mortem genital mutilation, which is the crucial point regarding crime signatures, as JtR's victims clearly were.

[John G]

Large pieces of flesh - yes.

The abdominal wall only - no.

And letīs not forget in this context, that much as serialists may remove large parts of flesh (very few of them do, but it happens), the overall concept of such a serialist existing in duplicates at the same place and time and working to the same overall scheme is never going to be anything else than an absolute fluke chance.

Please cite authority. Please cite your medical/forensic qualifications to demonstrate that you're an authority in this area.

[John G]

wrong.

MO is the how of the crime. sig is the why.

MO is how the killer achieves his aim of the sig.

MO includes pre crime activity such as stalking, random attack, ruse etc. how the murder is committed-gun, knife etc. and how the killer gets away or covers up the crime-flees leaving body, disposal, hiding body etc.

but yes you can use MO as well as sig to link crimes.

The rippers MO was to ruse victims as being a client, get them to a secluded spot, sudden attack to incapacitate, probably via strangulation, cut the neck.
Flee leaving body before being discovered.

his sig was post mortem mutilation and the removal of internal and external body parts.

We don't know the torso mans full MO. I would venture however that it was pretty close to the ripper in that there was a ruse involved to get victim to a secluded spot (his bolt) hole. dismemberment was part of post murder MO to dispose of body.

neither the ripper nor the torso man made any overt attempts to hide the body, and one could argue that they both were actually displaying the body.

Torso mans sig was post mortem mutilation and removal of internal and external body parts. same as the rippers.

This is largely incorrect I'm afraid: see Keppel, 2005 for a discussion on JtR's signature.

Torso's signature was not post mortem mutilation, as there is no proof that any mutilation inflicted on the victims was for purposes other than dismemberment. Removal of the body organs can in no way be regarded as part of Torso's signature-that is wild speculation- as the purpose of removing the organs may well have been for purposes of disposal, i.e. part of the MO. There is certainly not a shred of evidence that any organs were retained by the perpetrator(s).

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;397506]

You will see that as far as possible I am trying not to interpret anything, which of course is not easy.

One can not be "trying not to intepret anything", Steve. That is impossible. Our brains interpret everything we experience.

When I say that there is a case, I mean that we need to asses the data, we simply cannot dismiss him as a suspect

First he has got to become a suspect. He was not a suspect for the police in 1888 or later and now he is not a suspect. He is just an historical person who found a victim.

without checking because of his extreme proximity to both the victim and the time of the attack..

And that goes for other finders too and for people in the extreme proximity to the victims.

But far stronger than say Prince Albert Victor, Queen Victoria, Lewis Carrol and John Williams to name but 4.

Well, I donīt know anything about those but I guess there is no evidence at all.

I would argue that he was in the vicinity very close to the attack, certainly in time.

In time, yes.

You believe, he saw the killer do you not?
Therefore there are questions that needs to be asked.

Good question, Steve! No, I do not "believe" it. I force myself to hypothesize it. That is one way to take historical problems forward.

The statement you make saying :

"there are no "circumstances" connecting his existence or actions to the murders. Nothing!"

Yes, and the key word of course is "connecting".

cannot be true, given that he is clearly connected to the murder, if only as a witness.

But his actions were not connected to the murder, that was my point.

Of course maybe you have not expressed that entirely as you meant.

OK. Cross did not kill Nichols. If he was on the murder site when she was mutilated he must have seen the killer. The only sighting Cross mentioned to Mizen, according to Mizen himself when he testified, was a sighting of a policeman.

That is just an historical fact. There is nothing I can do about it.

I do not believe it. But I think it is a more valid hypothesis than the idea that Lechmere was a serial killer, since it follows the sources very well and does not create a vast distance between the sources and the interpretation.

Pierre, one of the problems is that terms like "flaps" have no precise biological or medical meaning and so can cover a vast number of different items.

I know. It is poorely operationalized, to use scientific language.

Regards, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

There is no proof that any of the Torso victims were subjected to post mortem genital mutilation, which is the crucial point regarding crime signatures, as JtR's victims clearly were.

i never said anything about genital mutilation, if your going to refute someone at the very least get that right.