The Lechmere trail - so far

[Jonathan H]

Yes, I know, and that answer is, for me, inadequate and unconvincing.

How can you be sure that the police were so ignorant?

They were people, not documents, and I see here a confusion between the two.

[Fisherman]

Yes, I know, and that answer is, for me, inadequate and unconvincing.

How can you be sure that the police were so ignorant?

They were people, not documents, and I see here a confusion between the two.

It was a routine matter, to write down the registered and true name. Plus the name is but one thing of many that all fit together.

It really isnīt very hard, is it?

[Jonathan H]

That tells me straight off that you don't get it, Fisher Man.

Nothing could be harder that what you are attempting, and to claim it is straight-forward means you are hopelessly off-track.

Is it important to you that it be simple?

Historical/revisionist theories are usually as elaborate as human beings. Whereas your theory is flat and one-dimensional. It is not populated by humans, who make mistakes - especially when it comes to recording things.

You are making an extraordinarily ambitious claim, by no means an impossible one, but a big, big, big call.

It requires evidence, not just supposition or wishful thinking, because it is a big call entirely bereft of contemporaneous support.

Again, that does not matter if you have the goods on Lechmere, without much room ambiguity.

Instead you can pilot a Jumbo through the ambiguity.

Your list shows that your theory is totally reliant --and thus naively fragile -- on the veracity of documents, some of which are newspapers.

It's not good enough, because documents can be wrong, mistaken, biased, incomplete, contradictory and misleading.

For example, you talk about the blood evidence as if it is a definitely ascertained fact. It's nothing of the kind. You would need the blood-stained clothes to start with. And. So. On.

[Patrick S]

I have been asked to – once again – compile a comprehensive list of the points I and Edward find odd or suspicious when it comes to Charles Lechmere.
I present a list below, where the different points are not chronologically sorted, but instead given as a number of caserelated details to be looked upon one by one.

I am quite accustomed to how people can, for example, isolate point number 25 – where I point to how Lechmere lacked a father figure - and state that many men have grown up with no father figure and still managed to stay away from serial killing.
That is of course correct, but the point nevertheless adds to the overall understanding of the case, since there IS a clear correlation betwen lacking father figures and serial killings.

My recommendation is that all of the points are taken in before any judgment is passed. Are all of these matters likely innocent coincidences, or was James Scobie correct in saying that when the coincidences mount up, it will sooner or later result in one coincidence too many?

I will not go into any prolonged debates over isolated points, other than to explain matters if they need be explained. The reason I post this is to update the Lechmere case and I do it on the specific request of poster Patrick S.

I have tried to present all the points, but I may have missed out on one or two nevertheless, since there are many to keep track of.

Number 1: Charles Lechmere happens to stumble over the dead body of Polly Nichols.

Number 2: The wounds to the abdomen were covered, whereas this does not apply in the other Ripper cases. Was that a coincidence, or did it serve the practical purpose of hiding from Paul what had really happened? If Paul had discovered that it was a murder, then Lechmere would not have been able to leave the premises without suspicion.

Number 3: As Lechmere approaches the body, he has Robert Paul walking right behind him, thirty to forty yards away, so they are on the same, absolutely silent street. In spite of this, neither man professes to have seen or heard the other. And we know that John Neil heard his colleague Thain walk past the Buckīs Row/Brady Street crossing – 130 yards away! Was it a coincidence that Paul did not hear Lechmere? Or was that due to Lechmere not having walked in front of Paul, but instead having been engaged in cutting away at Nichos as Paul entered the street?
Note how a remark from Paul that he saw and heard Lechmere in front of him, ”There was this man walking right in front of me who suddenly halted outside Browns...”, would have meant that there could be no viable case for Lechmere as the killer.

Number 4: Lechmere must have passed up at the Bath Street/Foster Street crossing at the more or less exact moment Paul exited his lodgings, thirty, forty yards down on Foster Street. There were large lamps outside the brewery situated in the crossing. In spite of this, Paul did not see Lechmere passing.
Had Lechmere already passed the crossing, a second or two before Paul stepped out into Foster Street? If so, why did not Paul at least hear Lechmere, perhaps only thirty yards away? John Neil heard John Thain one hundred and thirty yards off.

Number 5: Nichols bled from the wounds in the neck as Mizen saw her, around five, six minutes after Lechmere had left the body. A pathologist has told me that stretching the bleeding time beyond five minutes is not to be expected. If that is correct, then we are left with very little or no time for an alternative killer. It remains that there can always be deviations in bleeding time, but overall, it must be accepted that the longer time we must accept that the neck bled, the less credible the suggestion is.

Number 6: The blood in the pool under her neck was ”somewhat congealed” according to Mizen. Normally, blood congeals fully around minute seven whereas the congealing starts to show after three or four minutes.
A logical timing suggests that Mizen reached the body some six minutes after Lechmere had left it. This means that if the normal coagulation scheme applied, then it is very hard to see that anybody else than Lechmere could have been the killer.
Of course, deviations may apply here too, but we know that the blood had turned into a congealed mass, a clot, at the time it was washed away, so the blood had no problems to coagulate. We also know tgat much as alcohol can prolong the coagulation time, a more excessive intake of alchol, such as in alcoholism, will instead make the blood coagulate more easily.

Number 7: Lechmere called Paul to the body, as if he wanted to see what they could do for the woman. But when Paul proposed that they should prop her up, Lechmere suddenly refused to do so.
It can be argued that much as Lechmere wanted to look as a helpful man trying to do what he could for the woman, he also knew that propping her up would immediately give away that she had had her neck cut to the bone.

Number 8: Lechmere arrived to the inquest in working clothes, thereby deviating from all other witnesses.
Our suggestion is that he used a false name and avoided to give his adress before the inquest in order to avoid having it known amongst his family and aquaintances that he had been a witness in the Nichols case. If this emerged, then he may have reasoned that there was a risk that his family and aquaintances would be more wary of any future connections to the coming murders. For example, as long as his family and aquaintances did not know about his involvement in the Nichols case, they would not react very much about the Chapman case a week later. But if they had been alerted to his role in the Nichols murder, then it may have seemed odd to them that the next victim should fall along his working route.
In light of this, he may have decided to go to the inquest in working clothes, so that he could give his wife the impression that he was instead headed for work.

Number 9: Lechmereīs fastest routes to work were Old Montague Street and Hanbury Street. The former was arguably a minute or two faster than the latter. Four of the murders happened along these routes or on a short-cut trailing off from one of them (Dorset Street).
There are thousands and thousands of streets in the East End. Lechmere could have had logical routes that excluded one or more of the killings. Instead he seemingly matches them all. Coincidence or not?

Number 10: All of these four murders may well have taken place at removes in time when Lechmere was heading for Pickfords, as far as the medicos given TOD:s are concerned. Coincidence?

Number 11: The Stride and Eddowes murders did not take place along his working routes, ruling out that he committed these murders en route to Pickfords. Instead, they are the only murders to take place on his night off, Saturday night. Coincidence?
If any one of these murders were to change places, Lechmere would be more or less ruled out. If Stride had died on September 8 at 1 AM, it would destroy the pattern pointing to Lechmere. If Kelly had been killed at 1 AM, the same would apply. If Eddowes had been killed at around 2 AM in Hanbury Street on a working day, the theory would be disrupted. Etcetera, etcetera – the fact that the locations, times and victims are all in line with the theory is a strong pointer towards Lechmere.

Number 12: The Stride murder is perpetrated in St Georges in the East, in the midst of the many houses where Lechmere grew up. Once the killings shifted from the Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street area, they could go north, west or east. They did not. They went south. And as they did, they could have gone into any of the areas south of the earlier killing zone. But they didnīt. They went into the exact area where Lechmere grew up and stayed for decades, before moving to Doveton Street. Coincidence?

Number 13: Lechmereīs mother was at the time of the double event living in 1 Mary Anne Street, a stoneīs throw away from Berner Street and directly to the south of the murder spot, meaning that if he had visited his mother, he would have to head north past the murder spot to get home.
It was earlier thought that she had lived in 147 Cable Street on this occasion, but she actually lived very much closer to the Stride murder site than so. We are dealing with less than a hundred yards, if I read the maps correctly.

Number 14: These two murders took place much earlier than the others, dovetailing well with the suggestion that he either visited his mother or searched out pubs in his old quarters – he had moved out a few weeks later only.

Number 15: The murders started in combination with how Lechmere moved away from the close proximity to his mother that had been a factor in all his life.
It can be argued that his mother was a dominant force in his life – she managed to bring her two children up singlehandedly until Lechmere was around ten year old (her husband, Charlesī father, had left the family), and then she married a ten year younger man. After his premature death, she remarried again,with a ten year older man. Both these marriages were bigamous. She also changed occupations on different occasions, all pointing to a strong and resourceful character.
It can be reasoned that the move to Doveton Street released dammed urges within Lechmere.

Number 16: Charles Lechmere gave the name Cross to the police, instead of using his real name. There are around 110 instances where we can follow the carmanīs contacts with different authorities. In all of them but one, he used the name Lechmere.
Is it another coincidence that he should swop to Cross when contacting the police in a murder errand?

Number 17: Charles Lechmereīs family came to be involved in the horse flesh business. His mother was a catīs meat woman, and his children opened a catīs meat business in Broadway market, where Lechmere himself had a stand.
This means that Lechmere would have had a proximity to the butchery business for many a year. And we know that handling dead carcasses can desensitise people.

Number 18: During the time Lechmere had a stand in Broadway Market, two dead women were found floating in Regents canal, passing through the market. Neither death was fully explained and the causes of death were not established.

Number 19: Charles Lechmere did not raise any alarm at the Nichols murder site. He waited until Paul tried to pass him, and only then placed his hand on his fellow carmans shoulder, saying ”Come and look over here ...”
He did not call out to Paul as the latter approached, and neither man contacted any of the dwellers in Bucks Row. They instead left Nichols lying and set out to work, professing to wanting to find a PC on their way.

Number 20: Charles Lechmere was stated to have told PC Mizen that another policeman awaited Mizen in Bucks Row, whereas he himself denied having said this at the inquest.
It is apparent from Mizens actions that he was under the belief that another PC did wait for him in Bucks Row. If he had not been told about the waiting PC in Bucks Row, he would have accepted that the carmen had found the body. It would therefore have sounded odd to him when Neil stated that he had found the body himself.

Number 21: The things Lechmere say at the inquest mirrors the wordings Paul used in his newspaper report to a considerable extent, implying that having read the article was what made him come forward. Coincidence?

Number 22: Lechmere only came forward after Paul had outed him in the newspaper article. Coincidence?

Number 23: Paul saw no blood under Nicholsī neck in spite of kneeling by her side and checking for breath. He saw her clothes and her hat, though.
Could it be that the cuts were so fresh that the stream of blood towards the gutter had not yet formed?

Number 24: In spite of Old Montague street being the shorter route, Lechmere took the Hanbury Street route after having spoken to Mizen, perhaps implicating that he wanted to avoid the Smith/Tabram murder route when the PC watched.

Number 25: Serialists regularly lack a father figure growing up. That fits Lechmereīs life. Coincidence?

Number 26: Lechmere seems not to have given his address in open court during the inquest. Coincidence?

Number 27: The quickest road from Berner Street to Mitre Square is Lechmereīs logical old working route from James Street to Broad Street. Coincidence?

Number 28: The Pinchin Street torso was discovered in a street where Lechmere has lived earlier with his family, and a very short route from 147 Cable Street where his mother, who became a catīs meat woman, had her lodgings. The body had been dismembered with a sharp knife and a fine-toothed bone saw, tools that were used by catīs meat people to cut up horses. Coincidence?

Number 29: The implications are that the Pinchin Street torso was carried manually to the dumping site.

Number 30: Charles Lechmere stated that he had left home at 3.20 or 3.30 on the murder morning. It takes seven minutes to walk to Browns in Bucks Row. He was found by Paul at around 3.46, standing close to the body.
He should have been outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.37, not 3.46, especially since he professed to being late for work. The probable thing is that he normally walked off at 3.20 (the trek to Broad Street is an approximate 40 minute trek and he started work at 4 AM), but that he said that he was ten minutes later that morning, starting out at 3.30.
Why was he outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.46? Was that also a coincidence?

Number 31: Lechmere said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, but Mizen is clear in saying that ”a carman”, not ”two carmen”, contacted him on the murder morning.

Thanks for this, Fisherman. I'm looking forward to digesting it. I was traveling for business this weekend but I did manage to bring along a few JtR books to bring myself back up to speed on Cross, Paul, etc. I'll begin the reading now!

[Fisherman]

Thanks for this, Fisherman. I'm looking forward to digesting it. I was traveling for business this weekend but I did manage to bring along a few JtR books to bring myself back up to speed on Cross, Paul, etc. I'll begin the reading now!

Sounds good - once youīre up to it, weīll talk. There are many things to look at concerning the list, and many angles to watch them from.

[Patrick S]

Number 1: Charles Lechmere happens to stumble over the dead body of Polly Nichols.

Suspicious if he killed her.......

Number 2: The wounds to the abdomen were covered, whereas this does not apply in the other Ripper cases. Was that a coincidence, or did it serve the practical purpose of hiding from Paul what had really happened? If Paul had discovered that it was a murder, then Lechmere would not have been able to leave the premises without suspicion.

I seem to recall testimony to the affect that Paul (?) adjusted Nichols’ clothing to cover better cover her. Perhaps someone can chime in on this. Short of that, I can check it tonight.

Number 3: As Lechmere approaches the body, he has Robert Paul walking right behind him, thirty to forty yards away, so they are on the same, absolutely silent street. In spite of this, neither man professes to have seen or heard the other. And we know that John Neil heard his colleague Thain walk past the Buckīs Row/Brady Street crossing – 130 yards away! Was it a coincidence that Paul did not hear Lechmere? Or was that due to Lechmere not having walked in front of Paul, but instead having been engaged in cutting away at Nichos as Paul entered the street?
Note how a remark from Paul that he saw and heard Lechmere in front of him, ”There was this man walking right in front of me who suddenly halted outside Browns...”, would have meant that there could be no viable case for Lechmere as the killer.

This point doesn’t impress me as there are simply too many variables here. I’ve no clue what types of soles Cross wore that night. I’ve no idea if Paul’s own footfalls managed to obscure any others he may have otherwise heard. I’ve no idea of the quality of Paul’s hearing, Neil’s hearing. I’ve no idea what types of soles Thain wore that night. I’ve no idea of the acoustics in Buck’s Row or Brady street.

Number 4: Lechmere must have passed up at the Bath Street/Foster Street crossing at the more or less exact moment Paul exited his lodgings, thirty, forty yards down on Foster Street. There were large lamps outside the brewery situated in the crossing. In spite of this, Paul did not see Lechmere passing.
Had Lechmere already passed the crossing, a second or two before Paul stepped out into Foster Street? If so, why did not Paul at least hear Lechmere, perhaps only thirty yards away? John Neil heard John Thain one hundred and thirty yards off.

Again, there are simply too many variables to give this point much credence.

Number 5: Nichols bled from the wounds in the neck as Mizen saw her, around five, six minutes after Lechmere had left the body. A pathologist has told me that stretching the bleeding time beyond five minutes is not to be expected. If that is correct, then we are left with very little or no time for an alternative killer. It remains that there can always be deviations in bleeding time, but overall, it must be accepted that the longer time we must accept that the neck bled, the less credible the suggestion is.

I was initially inclined to, reluctantly (because I feel that we are relying on testimony/observations rather than actual science as the foundation of this evidence), list this as a valid point. However, I feel that Trevor Marriot’s points – made on this thread – have brought me back from the precipice. I need more. I'm no expert. I've done research online in the past few days. I see no concensus.

Number 6: The blood in the pool under her neck was ”somewhat congealed” according to Mizen. Normally, blood congeals fully around minute seven whereas the congealing starts to show after three or four minutes.
A logical timing suggests that Mizen reached the body some six minutes after Lechmere had left it. This means that if the normal coagulation scheme applied, then it is very hard to see that anybody else than Lechmere could have been the killer.
Of course, deviations may apply here too, but we know that the blood had turned into a congealed mass, a clot, at the time it was washed away, so the blood had no problems to coagulate. We also know tgat much as alcohol can prolong the coagulation time, a more excessive intake of alchol, such as in alcoholism, will instead make the blood coagulate more easily.

This point is the same one made in 5.

Number 7: Lechmere called Paul to the body, as if he wanted to see what they could do for the woman. But when Paul proposed that they should prop her up, Lechmere suddenly refused to do so.
It can be argued that much as Lechmere wanted to look as a helpful man trying to do what he could for the woman, he also knew that propping her up would immediately give away that she had had her neck cut to the bone.

We don’t know why Cross called to Paul. It may be that he was squeamish and wanted Paul to attend to the woman. This would explain why he called to Paul in the first place and why he refused to touch the body. If I recall correctly, it was Cross he told Mizen that Nichols was dead. Paul indicated that he thought he detected movement. Perhaps Cross didn’t want to touch a dead body. Point is, we’ve no idea.

Number 8: Lechmere arrived to the inquest in working clothes, thereby deviating from all other witnesses.
Our suggestion is that he used a false name and avoided to give his adress before the inquest in order to avoid having it known amongst his family and aquaintances that he had been a witness in the Nichols case. If this emerged, then he may have reasoned that there was a risk that his family and aquaintances would be more wary of any future connections to the coming murders. For example, as long as his family and aquaintances did not know about his involvement in the Nichols case, they would not react very much about the Chapman case a week later. But if they had been alerted to his role in the Nichols murder, then it may have seemed odd to them that the next victim should fall along his working route.
In light of this, he may have decided to go to the inquest in working clothes, so that he could give his wife the impression that he was instead headed for work.

This is pushing it. I disregard this entirely.

Number 9: Lechmereīs fastest routes to work were Old Montague Street and Hanbury Street. The former was arguably a minute or two faster than the latter. Four of the murders happened along these routes or on a short-cut trailing off from one of them (Dorset Street).
There are thousands and thousands of streets in the East End. Lechmere could have had logical routes that excluded one or more of the killings. Instead he seemingly matches them all. Coincidence or not?

Possibly valid. Suspicious. I haven’t done the research. If I trust what’s here is true, then I concede this is suspicious pending more information.

Number 10: All of these four murders may well have taken place at removes in time when Lechmere was heading for Pickfords, as far as the medicos given TOD:s are concerned. Coincidence?

Possibly valid.

Number 11: The Stride and Eddowes murders did not take place along his working routes, ruling out that he committed these murders en route to Pickfords. Instead, they are the only murders to take place on his night off, Saturday night. Coincidence?
If any one of these murders were to change places, Lechmere would be more or less ruled out. If Stride had died on September 8 at 1 AM, it would destroy the pattern pointing to Lechmere. If Kelly had been killed at 1 AM, the same would apply. If Eddowes had been killed at around 2 AM in Hanbury Street on a working day, the theory would be disrupted. Etcetera, etcetera – the fact that the locations, times and victims are all in line with the theory is a strong pointer towards Lechmere.

Possibly valid.

Number 12: The Stride murder is perpetrated in St Georges in the East, in the midst of the many houses where Lechmere grew up. Once the killings shifted from the Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street area, they could go north, west or east. They did not. They went south. And as they did, they could have gone into any of the areas south of the earlier killing zone. But they didnīt. They went into the exact area where Lechmere grew up and stayed for decades, before moving to Doveton Street. Coincidence?

I’d need more information. But, for now, I’ll say that it’s possibly valid.

Number 13: Lechmereīs mother was at the time of the double event living in 1 Mary Anne Street, a stoneīs throw away from Berner Street and directly to the south of the murder spot, meaning that if he had visited his mother, he would have to head north past the murder spot to get home.
It was earlier thought that she had lived in 147 Cable Street on this occasion, but she actually lived very much closer to the Stride murder site than so. We are dealing with less than a hundred yards, if I read the maps correctly.

Possibly valid.

Number 14: These two murders took place much earlier than the others, dovetailing well with the suggestion that he either visited his mother or searched out pubs in his old quarters – he had moved out a few weeks later only.
Worth noting.

Possibly valid.

Number 15: The murders started in combination with how Lechmere moved away from the close proximity to his mother that had been a factor in all his life.
It can be argued that his mother was a dominant force in his life – she managed to bring her two children up singlehandedly until Lechmere was around ten year old (her husband, Charlesī father, had left the family), and then she married a ten year younger man. After his premature death, she remarried again,with a ten year older man. Both these marriages were bigamous. She also changed occupations on different occasions, all pointing to a strong and resourceful character.
It can be reasoned that the move to Doveton Street released dammed urges within Lechmere.

A stretch.

Number 16: Charles Lechmere gave the name Cross to the police, instead of using his real name. There are around 110 instances where we can follow the carmanīs contacts with different authorities. In all of them but one, he used the name Lechmere.
Is it another coincidence that he should swop to Cross when contacting the police in a murder errand?

Possibly valid. I’m interested in the point. I’d like to know how many other instances of contact were with police. For what reasons? In the end, I think it’s a fair question to ask. I tend to think there’s a very simply explanation that’s simply not apparent in that Cross is a stranger 100 years in the ground. But, I’m interested in this list of 110 contacts with authority.

Number 17: Charles Lechmereīs family came to be involved in the horse flesh business. His mother was a catīs meat woman, and his children opened a catīs meat business in Broadway market, where Lechmere himself had a stand.
This means that Lechmere would have had a proximity to the butchery business for many a year. And we know that handling dead carcasses can desensitise people.

Not ready to go here.

Number 18: During the time Lechmere had a stand in Broadway Market, two dead women were found floating in Regents canal, passing through the market. Neither death was fully explained and the causes of death were not established.

Possibly valid. If dead women turn up near one individual, it bears some scrutiny.

Number 19: Charles Lechmere did not raise any alarm at the Nichols murder site. He waited until Paul tried to pass him, and only then placed his hand on his fellow carmans shoulder, saying ”Come and look over here ...”
He did not call out to Paul as the latter approached, and neither man contacted any of the dwellers in Bucks Row. They instead left Nichols lying and set out to work, professing to wanting to find a PC on their way.

At the time he approached Paul he didn’t know if she was dead. He thought she was dead or drunk, if I recall. Cross testified that at the time he and Paul met Mizen he didn’t think she had been murdered. This is one of those points that looks odd only if we think that Cross killed Nichols.

Number 20: Charles Lechmere was stated to have told PC Mizen that another policeman awaited Mizen in Bucks Row, whereas he himself denied having said this at the inquest.
It is apparent from Mizens actions that he was under the belief that another PC did wait for him in Bucks Row. If he had not been told about the waiting PC in Bucks Row, he would have accepted that the carmen had found the body. It would therefore have sounded odd to him when Neil stated that he had found the body himself.

A stretch.

Number 21: The things Lechmere say at the inquest mirrors the wordings Paul used in his newspaper report to a considerable extent, implying that having read the article was what made him come forward. Coincidence?

A stretch. Let’s stay away from implications, just now.

Number 22: Lechmere only came forward after Paul had outed him in the newspaper article. Coincidence?

An implication. And a stretch.

Number 23: Paul saw no blood under Nicholsī neck in spite of kneeling by her side and checking for breath. He saw her clothes and her hat, though.
Could it be that the cuts were so fresh that the stream of blood towards the gutter had not yet formed?

If memory serves, Nichols jugular was cut and her carotid artery nicked (chime in if anyone has that info handy). If that’s the case, the blood was flowing freely. I’d actually think that if Cross had done the deed the human eye would more likely be drawn to the MOVEMENT of the blood (much as the eye is drawn to a moving shadow). Without movement the eye would likely see shapes, like a hat. The blood, having spilled and soaked the area beneath Nichols, was not flowing. Therefore, it appeared as a shadow. In any event, THIS explanation is as likely as any other. Thus, my opinion is that this is not very relevant.

Number 24: In spite of Old Montague street being the shorter route, Lechmere took the Hanbury Street route after having spoken to Mizen, perhaps implicating that he wanted to avoid the Smith/Tabram murder route when the PC watched.

Possibly valid. If dead women turn up near one individual, it bears some scrutiny.

Number 25: Serialists regularly lack a father figure growing up. That fits Lechmereīs life. Coincidence?

This is one of those points that looks odd only if we think that Cross killed Nichols.

Number 26: Lechmere seems not to have given his address in open court during the inquest. Coincidence?

Am I correct that the transcripts haven’t survived and we rely on newspaper accounts? I can’t recall. Chime in if you know. Still, This is one of those points that looks odd only if we think that Cross killed Nichols.

Number 27: The quickest road from Berner Street to Mitre Square is Lechmereīs logical old working route from James Street to Broad Street. Coincidence?

Possibly valid.

Number 28: The Pinchin Street torso was discovered in a street where Lechmere has lived earlier with his family, and a very short route from 147 Cable Street where his mother, who became a catīs meat woman, had her lodgings. The body had been dismembered with a sharp knife and a fine-toothed bone saw, tools that were used by catīs meat people to cut up horses. Coincidence?

Possibly valid. If dead women turn up near one individual, it bears some scrutiny. Although now we have a change in MO and I’d like more to go on with respect to the Nichols killing, then on to Chapman, et al………..

Number 29: The implications are that the Pinchin Street torso was carried manually to the dumping site.

See above.

Number 30: Charles Lechmere stated that he had left home at 3.20 or 3.30 on the murder morning. It takes seven minutes to walk to Browns in Bucks Row. He was found by Paul at around 3.46, standing close to the body.
He should have been outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.37, not 3.46, especially since he professed to being late for work. The probable thing is that he normally walked off at 3.20 (the trek to Broad Street is an approximate 40 minute trek and he started work at 4 AM), but that he said that he was ten minutes later that morning, starting out at 3.30.
Why was he outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.46? Was that also a coincidence?

Possibly valid. May be a simple explanation. Maybe not.

Number 31: Lechmere said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, but Mizen is clear in saying that ”a carman”, not ”two carmen”, contacted him on the murder morning.

Not ready to seize on this. There are many misstatements in the files. To infer something from this is….a stretch.

SUMMATION

So, these are MY thoughts. I’m not trying to denigrate what’s obviously been a great deal of research and theorizing. My compliments on your work here, Christer. Well done. At the very least you’ve added greatly to the texture of the case.
I’ll say this, from what I read here, I think that Cross has about as much business being considered a “suspect” (I hate that term) as many who currently have that distinction. I think that Fish’s list adds a few points that don’t really serve to make the case and have been added to bolster things but have the opposite effect on many. If you boil it down, though, you have proximity and opportunity. Well….maybe you have them. Now, you don’t have history. You don’t have any known mental issues or homicidal tendencies. You don’t have arrests (that I know of). You don’t have lunatic asylums. You don’t have any known ‘hatred toward woman’ or prostitutes. You have man who was married, raised a family, and had very stable employment (especially in the context of his time). What you have also, though, is a man whose name appears in the case files, he found a victim. His work route may have taken him in close proximity to other murder sites around the times they were committed. It may be demonstrable that he had reason to be near (his mother’s house) other murder sites at times (weekend) those crimes were committed. And he may have chosen other sites near areas he was familiar with (where he grew up). Thus, if some kind of connection can be made between Cross and each murder site then, well…I mean why not think of him along with some of the others with “suspect” pages on this site?

In the end I have judged that 13 items on this list are intriguing to me. This is my opinion alone. I hope that you don't hammer too hard, Christer. I compliment your work. For the anti-Cross folks, I'm trying to be open-minded here. And if I'm honest, this is what I come to. Still a lot of doubt. Miles away from elevating Cross above anyone else.

[caz]

To the point about whether lech would have taken off as soon as he noticed Paul and not stayed and try and bluff. Yes in more liklihood he would of, but perhaps not. I recently had an experience very similar.

I was walking to my car late at night after been in a bar. As I turned the corner into the small parking lot behind some buildings I came across a man standing over a downed man. He seemed somewhat startled and as I got closer he said go get some help. I said what happened he said I don't know I found this guy lying on the ground. I think he's been beat up. So I went back out on the street and found a cop and brought him back. The guy on the ground was getting up and the other guy was gone. It turned out the guy that told me to get help had knocked the other guy out with a brick and stolen his wallet.

So it does happen.

Well not quite, Abby. The assailant in your case left his victim alive and sensibly fled (presumably in another direction) after telling you to get help. Lechmere stands accused of doing pretty much the opposite. He supposedly committed a hanging offence, waited around for Paul to draw near, collared him then effectively invited him to examine his handiwork up close, before leaving with him and raising the alarm himself with PC Mizen, with the murder weapon concealed about his person and God knows what bloodstains. If guilty, he squandered two decent opportunities to walk swiftly away from Paul; if innocent he acted as anyone else would have done in similar circumstances.

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

Well not quite, Abby. The assailant in your case left his victim alive and sensibly fled (presumably in another direction) after telling you to get help. Lechmere did pretty much the opposite. He committed a hanging offence, waited around for Paul to draw near, collared him then effectively invited him to examine his handiwork up close, before leaving with him and raising the alarm himself with PC Mizen. If guilty, he squandered two decent opportunities to walk swiftly away from Paul; if innocent he acted as anyone else would have done in similar circumstances.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz makes a point here that I didn't expand on in my responses to Fishermans points. I'm in total agreement: Cross did not act with any consciousness of guilt. I feel that, in order to view Cross more favorably for JtR, a somewhat elaborate 'ruse' must be invented to explain why Cross didn't do what would be one's instinctual reaction (i.e. get out of there ASAP) and instead did the opposite. I feel as if the Cross theory would be better served simply not addressing this point. I think that there are some legitimate questions surrounding Cross. I feel that many likely have simple explanations, obscured by 127 years. Alas, I don't believe in any of the 'candidates' or 'suspects' (both terms that I loath), thus Cross may as well join the lot, in my view. But, its important to strip away the red herrings and inventions and concentrate on what's left. And for me that's proximinty and opporunity.

[Abby Normal]

Number 1: Charles Lechmere happens to stumble over the dead body of Polly Nichols.

Suspicious if he killed her.......

Number 2: The wounds to the abdomen were covered, whereas this does not apply in the other Ripper cases. Was that a coincidence, or did it serve the practical purpose of hiding from Paul what had really happened? If Paul had discovered that it was a murder, then Lechmere would not have been able to leave the premises without suspicion.

I seem to recall testimony to the affect that Paul (?) adjusted Nichols’ clothing to cover better cover her. Perhaps someone can chime in on this. Short of that, I can check it tonight.

Number 3: As Lechmere approaches the body, he has Robert Paul walking right behind him, thirty to forty yards away, so they are on the same, absolutely silent street. In spite of this, neither man professes to have seen or heard the other. And we know that John Neil heard his colleague Thain walk past the Buckīs Row/Brady Street crossing – 130 yards away! Was it a coincidence that Paul did not hear Lechmere? Or was that due to Lechmere not having walked in front of Paul, but instead having been engaged in cutting away at Nichos as Paul entered the street?
Note how a remark from Paul that he saw and heard Lechmere in front of him, ”There was this man walking right in front of me who suddenly halted outside Browns...”, would have meant that there could be no viable case for Lechmere as the killer.

This point doesn’t impress me as there are simply too many variables here. I’ve no clue what types of soles Cross wore that night. I’ve no idea if Paul’s own footfalls managed to obscure any others he may have otherwise heard. I’ve no idea of the quality of Paul’s hearing, Neil’s hearing. I’ve no idea what types of soles Thain wore that night. I’ve no idea of the acoustics in Buck’s Row or Brady street.

Number 4: Lechmere must have passed up at the Bath Street/Foster Street crossing at the more or less exact moment Paul exited his lodgings, thirty, forty yards down on Foster Street. There were large lamps outside the brewery situated in the crossing. In spite of this, Paul did not see Lechmere passing.
Had Lechmere already passed the crossing, a second or two before Paul stepped out into Foster Street? If so, why did not Paul at least hear Lechmere, perhaps only thirty yards away? John Neil heard John Thain one hundred and thirty yards off.

Again, there are simply too many variables to give this point much credence.

Number 5: Nichols bled from the wounds in the neck as Mizen saw her, around five, six minutes after Lechmere had left the body. A pathologist has told me that stretching the bleeding time beyond five minutes is not to be expected. If that is correct, then we are left with very little or no time for an alternative killer. It remains that there can always be deviations in bleeding time, but overall, it must be accepted that the longer time we must accept that the neck bled, the less credible the suggestion is.

I was initially inclined to, reluctantly (because I feel that we are relying on testimony/observations rather than actual science as the foundation of this evidence), list this as a valid point. However, I feel that Trevor Marriot’s points – made on this thread – have brought me back from the precipice. I need more. I'm no expert. I've done research online in the past few days. I see no concensus.

Number 6: The blood in the pool under her neck was ”somewhat congealed” according to Mizen. Normally, blood congeals fully around minute seven whereas the congealing starts to show after three or four minutes.
A logical timing suggests that Mizen reached the body some six minutes after Lechmere had left it. This means that if the normal coagulation scheme applied, then it is very hard to see that anybody else than Lechmere could have been the killer.
Of course, deviations may apply here too, but we know that the blood had turned into a congealed mass, a clot, at the time it was washed away, so the blood had no problems to coagulate. We also know tgat much as alcohol can prolong the coagulation time, a more excessive intake of alchol, such as in alcoholism, will instead make the blood coagulate more easily.

This point is the same one made in 5.

Number 7: Lechmere called Paul to the body, as if he wanted to see what they could do for the woman. But when Paul proposed that they should prop her up, Lechmere suddenly refused to do so.
It can be argued that much as Lechmere wanted to look as a helpful man trying to do what he could for the woman, he also knew that propping her up would immediately give away that she had had her neck cut to the bone.

We don’t know why Cross called to Paul. It may be that he was squeamish and wanted Paul to attend to the woman. This would explain why he called to Paul in the first place and why he refused to touch the body. If I recall correctly, it was Cross he told Mizen that Nichols was dead. Paul indicated that he thought he detected movement. Perhaps Cross didn’t want to touch a dead body. Point is, we’ve no idea.

Number 8: Lechmere arrived to the inquest in working clothes, thereby deviating from all other witnesses.
Our suggestion is that he used a false name and avoided to give his adress before the inquest in order to avoid having it known amongst his family and aquaintances that he had been a witness in the Nichols case. If this emerged, then he may have reasoned that there was a risk that his family and aquaintances would be more wary of any future connections to the coming murders. For example, as long as his family and aquaintances did not know about his involvement in the Nichols case, they would not react very much about the Chapman case a week later. But if they had been alerted to his role in the Nichols murder, then it may have seemed odd to them that the next victim should fall along his working route.
In light of this, he may have decided to go to the inquest in working clothes, so that he could give his wife the impression that he was instead headed for work.

This is pushing it. I disregard this entirely.

Number 9: Lechmereīs fastest routes to work were Old Montague Street and Hanbury Street. The former was arguably a minute or two faster than the latter. Four of the murders happened along these routes or on a short-cut trailing off from one of them (Dorset Street).
There are thousands and thousands of streets in the East End. Lechmere could have had logical routes that excluded one or more of the killings. Instead he seemingly matches them all. Coincidence or not?

Possibly valid. Suspicious. I haven’t done the research. If I trust what’s here is true, then I concede this is suspicious pending more information.

Number 10: All of these four murders may well have taken place at removes in time when Lechmere was heading for Pickfords, as far as the medicos given TOD:s are concerned. Coincidence?

Possibly valid.

Number 11: The Stride and Eddowes murders did not take place along his working routes, ruling out that he committed these murders en route to Pickfords. Instead, they are the only murders to take place on his night off, Saturday night. Coincidence?
If any one of these murders were to change places, Lechmere would be more or less ruled out. If Stride had died on September 8 at 1 AM, it would destroy the pattern pointing to Lechmere. If Kelly had been killed at 1 AM, the same would apply. If Eddowes had been killed at around 2 AM in Hanbury Street on a working day, the theory would be disrupted. Etcetera, etcetera – the fact that the locations, times and victims are all in line with the theory is a strong pointer towards Lechmere.

Possibly valid.

Number 12: The Stride murder is perpetrated in St Georges in the East, in the midst of the many houses where Lechmere grew up. Once the killings shifted from the Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street area, they could go north, west or east. They did not. They went south. And as they did, they could have gone into any of the areas south of the earlier killing zone. But they didnīt. They went into the exact area where Lechmere grew up and stayed for decades, before moving to Doveton Street. Coincidence?

I’d need more information. But, for now, I’ll say that it’s possibly valid.

Number 13: Lechmereīs mother was at the time of the double event living in 1 Mary Anne Street, a stoneīs throw away from Berner Street and directly to the south of the murder spot, meaning that if he had visited his mother, he would have to head north past the murder spot to get home.
It was earlier thought that she had lived in 147 Cable Street on this occasion, but she actually lived very much closer to the Stride murder site than so. We are dealing with less than a hundred yards, if I read the maps correctly.

Possibly valid.

Number 14: These two murders took place much earlier than the others, dovetailing well with the suggestion that he either visited his mother or searched out pubs in his old quarters – he had moved out a few weeks later only.
Worth noting.

Possibly valid.

Number 15: The murders started in combination with how Lechmere moved away from the close proximity to his mother that had been a factor in all his life.
It can be argued that his mother was a dominant force in his life – she managed to bring her two children up singlehandedly until Lechmere was around ten year old (her husband, Charlesī father, had left the family), and then she married a ten year younger man. After his premature death, she remarried again,with a ten year older man. Both these marriages were bigamous. She also changed occupations on different occasions, all pointing to a strong and resourceful character.
It can be reasoned that the move to Doveton Street released dammed urges within Lechmere.

A stretch.

Number 16: Charles Lechmere gave the name Cross to the police, instead of using his real name. There are around 110 instances where we can follow the carmanīs contacts with different authorities. In all of them but one, he used the name Lechmere.
Is it another coincidence that he should swop to Cross when contacting the police in a murder errand?

Possibly valid. I’m interested in the point. I’d like to know how many other instances of contact were with police. For what reasons? In the end, I think it’s a fair question to ask. I tend to think there’s a very simply explanation that’s simply not apparent in that Cross is a stranger 100 years in the ground. But, I’m interested in this list of 110 contacts with authority.

Number 17: Charles Lechmereīs family came to be involved in the horse flesh business. His mother was a catīs meat woman, and his children opened a catīs meat business in Broadway market, where Lechmere himself had a stand.
This means that Lechmere would have had a proximity to the butchery business for many a year. And we know that handling dead carcasses can desensitise people.

Not ready to go here.

Number 18: During the time Lechmere had a stand in Broadway Market, two dead women were found floating in Regents canal, passing through the market. Neither death was fully explained and the causes of death were not established.

Possibly valid. If dead women turn up near one individual, it bears some scrutiny.

Number 19: Charles Lechmere did not raise any alarm at the Nichols murder site. He waited until Paul tried to pass him, and only then placed his hand on his fellow carmans shoulder, saying ”Come and look over here ...”
He did not call out to Paul as the latter approached, and neither man contacted any of the dwellers in Bucks Row. They instead left Nichols lying and set out to work, professing to wanting to find a PC on their way.

At the time he approached Paul he didn’t know if she was dead. He thought she was dead or drunk, if I recall. Cross testified that at the time he and Paul met Mizen he didn’t think she had been murdered. This is one of those points that looks odd only if we think that Cross killed Nichols.

Number 20: Charles Lechmere was stated to have told PC Mizen that another policeman awaited Mizen in Bucks Row, whereas he himself denied having said this at the inquest.
It is apparent from Mizens actions that he was under the belief that another PC did wait for him in Bucks Row. If he had not been told about the waiting PC in Bucks Row, he would have accepted that the carmen had found the body. It would therefore have sounded odd to him when Neil stated that he had found the body himself.

A stretch.

Number 21: The things Lechmere say at the inquest mirrors the wordings Paul used in his newspaper report to a considerable extent, implying that having read the article was what made him come forward. Coincidence?

A stretch. Let’s stay away from implications, just now.

Number 22: Lechmere only came forward after Paul had outed him in the newspaper article. Coincidence?

An implication. And a stretch.

Number 23: Paul saw no blood under Nicholsī neck in spite of kneeling by her side and checking for breath. He saw her clothes and her hat, though.
Could it be that the cuts were so fresh that the stream of blood towards the gutter had not yet formed?

If memory serves, Nichols jugular was cut and her carotid artery nicked (chime in if anyone has that info handy). If that’s the case, the blood was flowing freely. I’d actually think that if Cross had done the deed the human eye would more likely be drawn to the MOVEMENT of the blood (much as the eye is drawn to a moving shadow). Without movement the eye would likely see shapes, like a hat. The blood, having spilled and soaked the area beneath Nichols, was not flowing. Therefore, it appeared as a shadow. In any event, THIS explanation is as likely as any other. Thus, my opinion is that this is not very relevant.

Number 24: In spite of Old Montague street being the shorter route, Lechmere took the Hanbury Street route after having spoken to Mizen, perhaps implicating that he wanted to avoid the Smith/Tabram murder route when the PC watched.

Possibly valid. If dead women turn up near one individual, it bears some scrutiny.

Number 25: Serialists regularly lack a father figure growing up. That fits Lechmereīs life. Coincidence?

This is one of those points that looks odd only if we think that Cross killed Nichols.

Number 26: Lechmere seems not to have given his address in open court during the inquest. Coincidence?

Am I correct that the transcripts haven’t survived and we rely on newspaper accounts? I can’t recall. Chime in if you know. Still, This is one of those points that looks odd only if we think that Cross killed Nichols.

Number 27: The quickest road from Berner Street to Mitre Square is Lechmereīs logical old working route from James Street to Broad Street. Coincidence?

Possibly valid.

Number 28: The Pinchin Street torso was discovered in a street where Lechmere has lived earlier with his family, and a very short route from 147 Cable Street where his mother, who became a catīs meat woman, had her lodgings. The body had been dismembered with a sharp knife and a fine-toothed bone saw, tools that were used by catīs meat people to cut up horses. Coincidence?

Possibly valid. If dead women turn up near one individual, it bears some scrutiny. Although now we have a change in MO and I’d like more to go on with respect to the Nichols killing, then on to Chapman, et al………..

Number 29: The implications are that the Pinchin Street torso was carried manually to the dumping site.

See above.

Number 30: Charles Lechmere stated that he had left home at 3.20 or 3.30 on the murder morning. It takes seven minutes to walk to Browns in Bucks Row. He was found by Paul at around 3.46, standing close to the body.
He should have been outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.37, not 3.46, especially since he professed to being late for work. The probable thing is that he normally walked off at 3.20 (the trek to Broad Street is an approximate 40 minute trek and he started work at 4 AM), but that he said that he was ten minutes later that morning, starting out at 3.30.
Why was he outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.46? Was that also a coincidence?

Possibly valid. May be a simple explanation. Maybe not.

Number 31: Lechmere said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, but Mizen is clear in saying that ”a carman”, not ”two carmen”, contacted him on the murder morning.

Not ready to seize on this. There are many misstatements in the files. To infer something from this is….a stretch.

SUMMATION

So, these are MY thoughts. I’m not trying to denigrate what’s obviously been a great deal of research and theorizing. My compliments on your work here, Christer. Well done. At the very least you’ve added greatly to the texture of the case.
I’ll say this, from what I read here, I think that Cross has about as much business being considered a “suspect” (I hate that term) as many who currently have that distinction. I think that Fish’s list adds a few points that don’t really serve to make the case and have been added to bolster things but have the opposite effect on many. If you boil it down, though, you have proximity and opportunity. Well….maybe you have them. Now, you don’t have history. You don’t have any known mental issues or homicidal tendencies. You don’t have arrests (that I know of). You don’t have lunatic asylums. You don’t have any known ‘hatred toward woman’ or prostitutes. You have man who was married, raised a family, and had very stable employment (especially in the context of his time). What you have also, though, is a man whose name appears in the case files, he found a victim. His work route may have taken him in close proximity to other murder sites around the times they were committed. It may be demonstrable that he had reason to be near (his mother’s house) other murder sites at times (weekend) those crimes were committed. And he may have chosen other sites near areas he was familiar with (where he grew up). Thus, if some kind of connection can be made between Cross and each murder site then, well…I mean why not think of him along with some of the others with “suspect” pages on this site?

In the end I have judged that 13 items on this list are intriguing to me. This is my opinion alone. I hope that you don't hammer too hard, Christer. I compliment your work. For the anti-Cross folks, I'm trying to be open-minded here. And if I'm honest, this is what I come to. Still a lot of doubt. Miles away from elevating Cross above anyone else.

Hi Patrick
Good post and good analysis. I agree with much of what you write here.

The main flags for me in terms of Lech's suspicion factor are:
Found with body before raising alarm.
Name swap.
Mizen/lech discrepancy on being wanted by another PC in Bucks row.
10 minute time loss.
Route/time to work brings him in close proximity to several victims.
Mothers address brings him close proximity to several victims.
Cats meat business.

Now all these could have innocent explanations, but to me they do add up, and would need some explaining away-something that you don't need to do for many other witnesses/suspects.

I think the blood evidence is rather weak. For me all it does is show that Lech cant be exonerated by it. I think if lech was innocent he scared off the killer, so we are only looking at a minute or so between possible killers. It does show though that she couldn't have been killed much earlier than when Lech found her.so-not a worthless point either way.

In all probability I think lech was probably just a hapless witness who discovered the body. I also have major difficulty with a post mortem serial killer, killing on his way to work. These types usually like to have lots of time (and privacy)to do there thing--and immediately afterwards.

However, definitely worth talking about, analyzing and researching further!

[Abby Normal]

Well not quite, Abby. The assailant in your case left his victim alive and sensibly fled (presumably in another direction) after telling you to get help. Lechmere stands accused of doing pretty much the opposite. He supposedly committed a hanging offence, waited around for Paul to draw near, collared him then effectively invited him to examine his handiwork up close, before leaving with him and raising the alarm himself with PC Mizen, with the murder weapon concealed about his person and God knows what bloodstains. If guilty, he squandered two decent opportunities to walk swiftly away from Paul; if innocent he acted as anyone else would have done in similar circumstances.

Love,

Caz
X

point taken caz and good point at that.

However, the guy could have just taken off running, the second he saw me, but he did bluff it out to some extant (not as much as lech obviously as you point out).

[Fisherman]

Overall, Patrick, I am happy to see that you think that there is a great number of points that you describe as "possibly valid". That is a lot better than the view you professed to last time over we discussed the case.
There are, however, other points where you discount the evidence on very bad grounds - like for exemple when you accept Trevors interpretation of Briggsī words on the blood. Did you read Jason Payne- James view? One of the most renowned and able men in forensic science, that is. If you did not, then you should. It is in my reply to Trevor.

I also note that you are of the meaning that the existing evidence does not elevate Lechmere over the other suspects. According to me, thatīs about as clear evidence of how you have not digested the list properly. He is not slightly elevated over them - he towers over them. But we all have a choice here, and things sometimes moe slowly - which is OK as long as they move!

There are two matters where you are uncertain, and where I can help you out.

You do not know which vessels were cut in the neck of Nichols, but it is an easy thing to remember in her case: all of them were severed. The head hung on by the spine only.The blood would have flowed freely, meaning that we can exclude that she was cut in the neck first and whole alive.

You also have a lacking picture of the pulled down dress, and you write that you remember that Paul professed to do some pulling. The truth of the matter is that the dresss was down over the lower abdomen as Paul arrived, whereas the thighs were left uncovered. Paul pulled the dress further down, but it would go no further than to the knees.

[Patrick S]

Overall, Patrick, I am happy to see that you think that there is a great number of points that you describe as "possiby valid". There are, however, other points where you discount the evidence on very bad grounds - like for exemple when you accept Trevors interpretation of Briggs words on the blood. Dids you read Jason Payne- James view? One of the most renowned and able men in forensic science, that is. If you did not, then you should. It is in my reply to Trevor.

I also note that you are of the meaning that the existing evidence does not elevate Lechmere over the other suspects. According to me, thatīs about as clear evidence of how you have not digested the list properly. But we all have a choice!

Thee are two matters where you are uncertain, and where I can help you out. You do not know which vessles were cut in the neck of Nichols, but it is an easy thing to remember in her case: all of them were severed. The head hung on by the spine only.

You also have a lacking picture of the pulled down dress, and you write that you remember that Paul professed to do some pulling. The truth of the matter is that the dresss was down over the lower abdomen as Paul arrived, whereas the thioghs were left uncovered. Paul pulled the dress further down, but it would go no further than to the knees.

Thanks for clearing that up. I read about Eddowes last night, as well, and I now realize it was her jugular that that was cut along with a pin-hole in the coratid.

I may not have been clear. I don't accept Marriot's findings on their face. It simply adds to my hesitance to give the "blood evidence" as much weight. I also include the fact that all of the "blood evidence" is based on testimony and observation, not science.

If I were you, and I'd put so much work into this thing, I'd concentrate on Cross' route to work, the timing of the murders, how they intersect. His mother's house and the neighborhood in which he grew up and how they relate to the weekend murders. Even the name issue. Up to now I've been unimpressed with it. Alas, you say that Cross contacted authorities of some stripe approx. 110 times, and gave his name each time as Lechmere save for one rather infamous instance. Fascinating and worth the time you've put into it. Looking at it dispassionately and without bias, I think these points are hard to discredit without serious research.

I think what you've done here is incredibly interesting. Thank you.

[caz]

Number 7: Lechmere called Paul to the body, as if he wanted to see what they could do for the woman. But when Paul proposed that they should prop her up, Lechmere suddenly refused to do so.
It can be argued that much as Lechmere wanted to look as a helpful man trying to do what he could for the woman, he also knew that propping her up would immediately give away that she had had her neck cut to the bone.

We don’t know why Cross called to Paul. It may be that he was squeamish and wanted Paul to attend to the woman. This would explain why he called to Paul in the first place and why he refused to touch the body. If I recall correctly, it was Cross he told Mizen that Nichols was dead. Paul indicated that he thought he detected movement. Perhaps Cross didn’t want to touch a dead body. Point is, we’ve no idea.

Hi Patrick,

I would just like to add here that if Lechmere didn't want Paul propping up the body and immediately discovering the neck had been cut to the bone, he was rather lucky after having persuaded him to examine the poor woman! Lechmere could only refuse to do so himself, as Fisherman pointed out, but he couldn't have stopped Paul without it looking suspicious, had Paul gone ahead and recoiled in horror.

Great summary by the way, and your point about Lechmere possibly being squeamish is a reasonable one. We simply have no idea if his bag was messing about in prossies' innards, or if he would have fainted at the sight of a blue steak.

I wonder if any research has been done to see if Lechmere had the spare time or opportunity to go and observe any local dissections open to the paying public. I think it might open my mind considerably if there was evidence that he did. Whoever cut into Chapman and Eddowes must have learned the required techniques somehow.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

Hi Patrick,

I would just like to add here that if Lechmere didn't want Paul propping up the body and immediately discovering the neck had been cut to the bone, he was rather lucky after having persuaded him to examine the poor woman! Lechmere could only refuse to do so himself, but he couldn't have stopped Paul without it looking suspicious, had Paul gone ahead.

Great summary by the way, and your point about Lechmere possibly being squeamish is a reasonable one. We simply have no idea if his bag was messing about in prossies' innards, or if he would have fainted at the sight of a blue steak.

I wonder if any research has been done to see if Lechmere had the spare time or opportunity to go and observe any local dissections open to the paying public. I think it might open my mind considerably if there was evidence that he did. Whoever cut into Chapman and Eddowes must have learned the required techniques somehow.

Love,

Caz
X

My dear caz people seem to forget that whoever was committing these appalling crimes certainly knew how to kill very quickly and very efficiently.

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick,

I would just like to add here that if Lechmere didn't want Paul propping up the body and immediately discovering the neck had been cut to the bone, he was rather lucky after having persuaded him to examine the poor woman! Lechmere could only refuse to do so himself, but he couldn't have stopped Paul without it looking suspicious, had Paul gone ahead.

Great summary by the way, and your point about Lechmere possibly being squeamish is a reasonable one. We simply have no idea if his bag was messing about in prossies' innards, or if he would have fainted at the sight of a blue steak.

I wonder if any research has been done to see if Lechmere had the spare time or opportunity to go and observe any local dissections open to the paying public. I think it might open my mind considerably if there was evidence that he did. Whoever cut into Chapman and Eddowes must have learned the required techniques somehow.

Love,

Caz
X

Excellent points, as always. I wonder if one was required to give a name to attend any such dissections? Finding the name Charles Cross or Lechmere on only one such dissection would be quite interesting.