Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[The Good Michael]

Of course, Fish, I agree that Crossmere was not found standing on Nichols's head. Indeed it would be remarkable if he had been, since Nichols was on the pavement and Crossmere was in the middle of the road. It could I suppose have just about been possible, if Nichols had a very large head - but I fear we're stumbling into the realms of fantasy here, Fish.

You may have something...Joe Fleming was the carman. Only Joe had long enough legs to stand in the middle of the road and on Nichol's head at the same time. So Joe used the name Cross, because he forgot Lechmere was the legal name, but he got the address right. This kind of explains everything, and connects him onward to Kelly.

Mike

[Robert]

And Fleming's footsteps would never have been heard at any murder scene - at least, not properly. People would have heard a single footstep. Then about a minute later, and a good way away, there'd have been a second. They'd have concluded that a very agile one-legged man was in the area.

[The Good Michael]

And Fleming's footsteps would never have been heard at any murder scene - at least, not properly. People would have heard a single footstep. Then about a minute later, and a good way away, there'd have been a second. They'd have concluded that a very agile one-legged man was in the area.

Or a kangaroo was bounding...which brings us to Deeming.


Mike

[Robert]

Yes indeed, bounding around the east end on the back of a kangaroo would be the ideal way to evade suspicion. Take the Eddowes murder. Deeming might have been stopped and searched, but the police would never think to search the kangaroo and hence would have missed the knife, womb and kidney in its pouch. Most likely, though, Deeming would simply have told them that a wombat wanted them in Mitre Square and they'd have been satisfied with that.

Also, a boomerang would explain the bruising on some of the victims.

[Chris]

... the police would never think to search the kangaroo and hence would have missed the knife, womb and kidney in its pouch.

They missed them because they were wrapped up in a silk shawl.

[Robert]

Ah! Got me there.

Well, maybe the kangaroo did the knocking up while Mizen went to Buck's Row. I'd always assumed that Mizen used a pole or, failing that, a trampoline. But a giant kangaroo seems just the ticket.

[GUT]

And Fleming's footsteps would never have been heard at any murder scene - at least, not properly. People would have heard a single footstep. Then about a minute later, and a good way away, there'd have been a second. They'd have concluded that a very agile one-legged man was in the area.

Gosh I hate it when people make me spit on the computer screen.

[Richard Patterson]

You postulate that your suspect Thompson was medically trained and you use that fact as part of you theory in his suspect viability.

But what if the organs of the victims were not removed at the crime scenes would that not weaken you case?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don’t know. Hypothetically, if the victim’s organs had not been removed then that would have changed the nature of the crimes. For this to happen it would be necessary for there to be a world, which generated a different kind of murderer. Such a changed world would have in turn changed its inhabitants of which Thompson was one of.

[Fisherman]

Richard Patterson: Hello Fisherman.

As to Lechmere’s (Outside this thread, I would use the name Charles Cross) reading and writing skills; Regardless of the literacy or illiteracy of his relatives, without schooling Lechmere was probably semi-literate, I’m speaking here as an English teacher, and I can assure you that literacy is not achieved through some sort of osmosis.

And you have established that Lechmere had no schooling? IS that it? Or are you guessing away?

Charles Lechmere was found with the body of 1 ripper victim. Everything else you use to maintain his guilt is nothing but conjecture. To say because he was found with 1 body that he was also with the bodies of 4 other victims is wrong. To say he killed all the other victims as they all were on his working trek is also wrong. This is because all the victims were not on his working trek and many of the murders happened on days when he was not working.

It´s actually conjecture that he killed Nichols too. It has to be, otherwise we would have a solved case.
All in all, you can do a lot worse than this chain:

Lechmere is found with the dead body of Polly Nichols. He gives the police a false name and he seemingly lies his way past them on the murder night. The pulled down clothing suggests that he was the killer, as does the fact that Paul never says a word of having heard or seen Lechmere walking right in front of him.

He is therefore a good bid for having killed Nichols.

Nichols had her neck cut and her abdomen cut open.

Lechmere´s logical work treks would have taken him right past three other murder sites where two of the women had their necks cut and their abdomens cut open.

It is not a very illogical leap of faith to suggest that if he killed Nichols, he also killed the others. I can assure you that when a police force get their hands on this kind of evidence, they WILL work from the assumption that the killer is one and the same in all cases.

Your world-view Fisherman is of bumbling cops, lying witnesses and a carman that might have had some cutting skill in the cat meat trade and you dare others on this thread to get him off the hook.

No, I don´t dare anybody to do that, and I never did. I asked for what people think would potentially take him off the hook, because I am interested to hear about that. There is therefore a big difference, and I don´t want any more people to misrepresent my views. It´s quite enough as it is.

I presented you with a far better suspect - a surgeon, with 6 years, training.

That is simply wrong. You have your idea about Thompson being a better bid, but it´s something that does not pan out. It rests very much on your conviction that the killer was medically trained, and most doctors back in 1888 disagreed. Bond said "not the skills of a butcher", even.

So why would I take your word for it?

There is one way and one way only to decide who is the better suspect, and that is to ask the question: To what extent would what we have on our suspects stand up in a court of law?

James Scobie said that there was enough of a case in Lechmere to put it to a jury, and he added that the evidence suggested that Lechmere was the killer.

Take your case to a barrister - any barrister - and ask him or her if you have enough on Thompson to warrant a trial. After that, you will know who of us has the best suspect.

There is one (1, uno, en, un, ein) suspect that has enough going for him to warrant a trial, and that is Charles Lechmere. Not a single one of the other suspects has that. And Thompson is NOT number two in line.

Both could have been in Whitechapel committing the murders at those hours, but afterwards and for the rest of his life yours got back to loading carts, while mine, clearly a genius and a survivor, became famous and wrote about it. The boy has yelled that the emperor has no clothes. In your heart of hearts and darkest nights you know what sort of being is really needed to be Jack the Ripper. Who will people ultimately fit the bill for the crime of a century? Lechmere, your crazy Jekyll and Hyde, who simply faded from history, or my vagrant turned famed poet.

In my heart of hearts and darkest nights, I did not think you were THIS way off the mark. I think that Lechmere makes for a VERY good suspect psychologically, much more so than Thompson. If writers and poets were that prone to become serialists, then where is the list of them...?

I think you will find that serialists typically come from unremarkable circumstances, being actual Jekyll and Hyde types, very often much liked by friends and neighbours, doing jobs that are not sought after by many.
Bundy, Shawcross, Ridgway, Dahmer, Bonin, Armstrong, Fish, Hansen, Gacy... romantic figures with a poetic vain?

Think again.

The Ripper murders particularly that of the Kelly and the murder in Thompsons’ confessionary murder story, written on the 1st anniversary of the crimes, share many of the same details. It was because of a raging argument between Thompson and his father Charles’ on his plan to remarry an Ann Richardson after the death of Thompson’s mother Mary that Thompson ran away from home. This all happened on November 9th 1995, and three years to the day to the murder of Mary Kelly. Coincidentally, the sign that hung at the front of Twenty-Nine, Hanbury Street read 'Mrs A. Richardson’ If for Lechmere Scobie says, ‘that the coincidence mount up’ then I wonder what he would say for Thompson?

Scobie looked at the practical evidence, Richard.

I suppose that Lechmere, like Millions of Londoners, could have had the opportunity to commit these. But only Thompson, without any speculation, also had the ability, motive, and weapon. These are facts.

Bundy, Shawcross, Ridgway, Dahmer, Bonin, Armstrong, Fish, Hansen, Gacy - which were THEIR motives? No, Richard, you are not speaking about facts - you are speaking about a dreamworld.

I’m speaking only about myself but if I said something about my suspect and you showed me I was wrong and I said it again then I would be a liar.

And where are you going with this? Please explain!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

There is nothing amiss, Dr Llewellyns estimated time of death is questionable and this has to be so, having regards to how he arrived at that approximate time of death given the state of her clothing. So you don't have such a watertight case as you keep telling everyone.

Show me where I say that I have a watertight case, then! Or are you just raving on with no substance again?

The rest of the smokescreen you have created, conversations,movements, false names etc then becomes irrelevant and can be thrown in the bin.

Then? If I am wrong? Yes, Trevor, if I am wrong, the case belongs in the bin. But as it stands, all the information suggests that I am NOT wrong. So your debate technique is every bit as weird as it was in your last post. And every bit as unneccessarily space-consuming.

You still owe me an explanation as to whom it is you suggest is dishonest. I won´t let you off on that score, so please present it, or retract what you suggested.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Of course, Fish, I agree that Crossmere was not found standing on Nichols's head. Indeed it would be remarkable if he had been, since Nichols was on the pavement and Crossmere was in the middle of the road. It could I suppose have just about been possible, if Nichols had a very large head - but I fear we're stumbling into the realms of fantasy here, Fish.

Not we, Robert. I never suggested that Lechmere stood on her head. It was you who implicated that I would make such a suggestion. So I would appreciate if you could leave me out of your ramblings into the fantastic.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Aren't you shooting yourself in the foot by saying this Fisherman? I mean, your star witness, PC Mizen, testified at the inquest that he spoke to Cross at about 3.45. His conversation with Cross must have been about five minutes after Cross said he first saw the body in Bucks Row. Are you not therefore undermining PC Mizen's credibility by insisting that he was about five minutes out in his evidence? It seems to me that, on the one hand, you want to stress how accurate the constable was in his recollection of his conversation with Cross but, on the other hand, you want to stress how inaccurate he was as to his recollection of the time of this conversation!

I think you will have to admit, David, that if you look at a clock that shows the wrong time, or are forced to make an estimation that is not spot on, you should not be blamed for that when trying to estimate the time afterwards. It should not reflect on the veracity of whatever else you have to say. And Mizen does not - contrary to Paul - say that it was exactly 3.45.

I have looked into this so many times and checked the parameters, and I think that if we should move any timings, we should move those of Neil, Thain and Mizen by adding some little time to them.

Thain is a useful example to show you what I mean:

Let´s say that Lechmere and Paul found the body at the time you jointly suggest with Abberline: 3.40. They then examine the body, taking us to 3.41-3.42.

Then they go down Bucks Row, and they find Mizen at, say, 3.44-3.45.

At 3.45, Neil finds Nichols and signals Thain down. Thain arrives at the body at 3.46-3.47, and he is immediately sent away to fetch dr Llewellyn.

He scuttles off to fetch the doctor, who has his practice at 152 Whitechapel Road, and he arrives there at around 04.00, 13-14 minutes after he left the murder site.

Now, find a map and search for 152 Whitechapel Road! Is it situated at a place that would take 13-14 minutes to reach from the murder site? Or is it situated at a place that is reached in 3-4 minutes?

So what did Thain do? Pop into a friends place for tea?

No, he did not. He probably, however, popped into the slaughterers in Winthrop Street to pick up his cape, but that would not take long.

I therefore think that we must accept that Thain left the murder spot well after 3.46-3.47.

If we work from Pauls timing, 3.45, and add those five minutes, and also if we add the same amount of time for being signalled down and told to go to Llewellyn´s practice, putting the time for Thains departure at 3.51-3.52, then we have a lot more credible scenario. Thain takes off, he retrieves his cape, telling the slaughterers about Nichols, something that may have added two minutes to his trek, and then we have six minutes left to reach 4.00.

He knocks on Llewellyns door, and the doctor is awakened, gets out of bed and goes to the door to hear what is happening. He realizes that he is needed urgently in Bucks Row, so he returns to his room and gets dressed, fills up his Gladstone bag with whatever equipment he needs, and then, at around 4.05-4.10, he leaves in company with Thain. They arrive at the site at around 4.10-4.15.

And wow - it all suddenly pans out!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

You may have something...Joe Fleming was the carman. Only Joe had long enough legs to stand in the middle of the road and on Nichol's head at the same time. So Joe used the name Cross, because he forgot Lechmere was the legal name, but he got the address right. This kind of explains everything, and connects him onward to Kelly.

Mike

Empty jesting.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

And Fleming's footsteps would never have been heard at any murder scene - at least, not properly. People would have heard a single footstep. Then about a minute later, and a good way away, there'd have been a second. They'd have concluded that a very agile one-legged man was in the area.

More empty jesting.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Yes indeed, bounding around the east end on the back of a kangaroo would be the ideal way to evade suspicion. Take the Eddowes murder. Deeming might have been stopped and searched, but the police would never think to search the kangaroo and hence would have missed the knife, womb and kidney in its pouch. Most likely, though, Deeming would simply have told them that a wombat wanted them in Mitre Square and they'd have been satisfied with that.

Also, a boomerang would explain the bruising on some of the victims.

More of the same.

Fisherman