Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

Is there anything that indicates Lechmere had a good enough grasp of the anatomy to know how to remove the uterus, kidneys, intestines in a few minutes in the dark?

What at all is there to indicate Lechmere was handy enough with a knife to remove the organs?

If Lechmere killed on his way to work (which seems unlikely for the ripper, more logical he'd be killing on his nights off) what if he got bloodied? He couldn't likely go into work all bloodied up now could he?

Thanks, Rocky!

The best,
Fisherman

[pinkmoon]

Not that I've ever murdered anyone but surely human instinct would be to run if you were about to be discoverd next to a recent victim .

[Fisherman]

Is it likely that he would have planned to commit a murder on his way to, or just before, work? If he was wanting to use it as a cover for being potentially covered in blood, wouldn't it make more sense to commit the murder after he had finished for the day rather than before he'd started? I was also curious as to whether there was anything other than his connection to each of the murder sites that tied him to the other murders, does he match any eyewitness descriptions or anything like that?

Thought it was a great documentary, and I like the theory

Thanks, Harriet! Appreciated!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

That's your whole response?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Many, many thanks and my undying gratitude...? Howz´at?

The best,
Fisherman

[Amanda]

Really...

That would be interesting! Edward has however visited the Pickfords´ archives, and there are no longer any records of those days in existance. Getting access to the Pickfords archives is not something that is granted on an everyday basis either - they made a gracius exception for Edward.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,
Appreciate your response. I take it Pickford's do have archives then? Just conveniently not records from 1888.....

Amanda

[Harry D]

Not that I've ever murdered anyone but surely human instinct would be to run if you were about to be discoverd next to a recent victim .

Interestingly enough, I was on websleuths the other week reading about a cold case from the 70s where a teenage girl had been found bludgeoned to death in the woods after spending the day with her friend. Apparently, the guy who found her body was walking with his family in the woods when he spotted another man striking something with a piece of wood. He realized he'd been seen and took off. Long story short, the police tried to fit a mentally disabled guy up for the crimes, when in actual fact it would appear that the witness who found the body with his family was probably a better suspect. According to his stepson at the time, he deliberately tampered with evidence at the scene. This of course means that if the man who found the body WAS the murderer, he must've killed the girl, then went home, retrieved his family and took them for a stroll in the woods so that he could 'happen upon' the body.

[GUT]

I'd suggest that Harriett Lilley's unbiased though largely misunderstood testimony MIGHT exonerate Charles Cross.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thanks for the reminder Tom, she hears something that fits with a murder at time that makes it impossible for Cross to be the killer if he left at 3:30 and highly unlikely if he left at 3:20. Highly unlikely because on any timng it gives him about 2 minutes to find Polly and kill her.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks for the reminder Tom, she hears something that fits with a murder at time that makes it impossible for Cross to be the killer if he left at 3:30 and highly unlikely if he left at 3:20. Highly unlikely because on any timng it gives him about 2 minutes to find Polly and kill her.

Fisherman's not the least bit curious regarding my thoughts on why I called Lilley 'misunderstood'. Odd then he started this thread and asked for input?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Abby Normal]

Fisherman's not the least bit curious regarding my thoughts on why I called Lilley 'misunderstood'. Odd then he started this thread and asked for input?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Well I am. Please elaborate!

[Rosella]

Plus, the fact that Lechmere gave a false name has been given a lot of emphasis in discussions. There could be several reasons why he gave the surname of his stepfather, Thomas Cross, instead of his own.

He could have been wary of the police, didn't want to get involved so gave the first surname that popped into his head. He was late for work and just said anything to get away. If this was suspicious behaviour why did he bother giving his correct address?

At Polly's inquest Lechmere was obviously pulled away from his work and just didn't want to be there, as evidenced by the fact that he wore his (work) sacking apron to the court. He knew he wasn't going to be paid for time away from his employment.

[Damaso Marte]

The proponents of Lechmere receive such venom on this site, it is very bizarre. Let's face it: every suspect sucks. Kosminsky has nothing linking him to any of the murder scenes, Druitt has only rumors of rumors, proponents of niche suspects like Le Grand post here unmolested, etc. Lechmere was at least at the scene of one crime, and had reasons to be near some of the other murder scenes, but the fact that there is otherwise no evidence of his guilt means he is just like every other suspect, not somehow to be singled out as a bad idea.

Could it be that the chief proponents of Kosminsky, Druitt, etc., are long dead and never posted here...and the proximity of the Lechmere pioneers breeds contempt?

[Defective Detective]

This is an easy one:

Paul would have noticed the blood encrusted on Cross' hand when he touched him, not to mention the likely faecal stench that would have attached to him from rooting about in Nichols' intestines.

[GUT]

The proponents of Lechmere receive such venom on this site, it is very bizarre. Let's face it: every suspect sucks. Kosminsky has nothing linking him to any of the murder scenes, Druitt has only rumors of rumors, proponents of niche suspects like Le Grand post here unmolested, etc. Lechmere was at least at the scene of one crime, and had reasons to be near some of the other murder scenes, but the fact that there is otherwise no evidence of his guilt means he is just like every other suspect, not somehow to be singled out as a bad idea.

Could it be that the chief proponents of Kosminsky, Druitt, etc., are long dead and never posted here...and the proximity of the Lechmere pioneers breeds contempt?

Damaso with all due respect I;m not sure that the proponents of Lechmere are getting any harder time than the proponents of any other suspect. Just look at the attack on Edwards work, look at the response Jonathan gets whenever he starts on his Macnaghten ideas.

The biggest problem is that they are basically all bad ideas because most of the evidence is missing, and all to often any proponent is not open to considering anything other than their pet ideas.

[GUT]

This is an easy one:

Paul would have noticed the blood encrusted on Cross' hand when he touched him, not to mention the likely faecal stench that would have attached to him from rooting about in Nichols' intestines.

G'day DD

That's actually a very good point about the smell and one I hadn't considered, the only negative I can think of is that hygiene wasn't exactly at today's standards

[Rosella]

Yes, one lecturer at working men's institutes in the late 19th century recorded that he had to hold his breath until he reached the podium, the stench was so awful.