Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fisherman]

Robert Paul claimed that he spoke to PC Mizen. You ignoring that fact doesn't make it go away.

For your theory to work you have to explain why:
* Robert Paul would lie about speaking to PC Mizen when he hadn't.
* Charles Lechmere would support Paul's lie in his inquest testimony.
* PC Mizen didn't expose the two carmen's lies. After all, they had both claimed he continued knocking up, which made him look bad, so Mizen had a strong reason to undermine their credibility.

Your Mizen Scam is nonsense that requires ignoring the facts instead of presenting the whole picture.

I can make it go away in a second flat. The Lloyds Weekly reporter led on that Robert Paul had said that he spoke to Mizen.

There is not a iot in Pauls inquest testimony that infers that he spoke to Mizen personally. There is the wording "we told him what we had found" or something such, but as I have pointed out a million times, people say "we won" when the national team gets a victory in football, and that does NOT mean that the supporters all took part in the game.

There is a VERY obvious possibility that Paul never uttered a word to Mizen, and this is supported by how Mizen never recognizes having heard Paul utter a single word. Mizen instead - as you very well know - told the inquest that "a man", not two men, spoke to him, and he identified the man he had spoken to as Charles Lechmere.

So here are your answers, Fiver:

1. We do not know that Paul lied. It may well be the the Lloyds Weekly reporter embellished what he was told, and wanted to give an impression of having the main man of the drama in his interview, instead of a man who played no important role at all in the exchange with Mizen.
It further applies that since we can see that Lechmere is not even mentioned in the Lloyds Weekly article, there is an obvious possibility that Paul wanted to take the credit as being the captain of the ship himself, and when we have such desires, we are very likely to produce lies.

2. The reason why Lechmere would claim that Paul spoke to Mizen would obviously be that giving such a picture swept what had really happened under the carpet. If the inquest could be led to believe that both carmen took part in the conversation with Mizen, they would not realize the risk it would involve if Lechmere only did it. You speak of it as Lechmere supporting Pauls lie, but the underlying reason for Lechmere putting Paul at the spot, speaking to Mizen and asserting that the woman was likely dead (although we know that he was sure that he felt her chest move during the carmens examination) would not be to support Paul, but instead to create a picture of how the matter would not have allowed him to lie to Mizen. Again, Mizens assertions that one man, not two men, did the talking, is a powerful argument of how Lechmere may have lied.

3. We do not know what Mizen thought about it all, since he testified before Lechmere and Paul not after them. We know that he did question Lechmere by pointing out that the carman said nothing about any murder or suicide. But he could not know that LEchmere was going to deny having spoken about another PC. Whether or not Mizen did something in retrospect to clarify where he stood is an open question. There is also the obvious possibility that Mizen asked himself whether he had gotten things wrong, and perhaps let it go with that thought. Just as the inquest seems not to have seen the explosive power embedded in that other PC, and just as generations of ripper researchers missed out on it, it may well be that it never crossed Mizens mind that he could have been speaking to the killer.

[John Wheat]

If you had been a tad more observant, you would be aware that the thread you are currently writing on was started by Poster Patrick S. He can be called a lot of things, but "Lechmerian" is not one of them.
Otherwise, observing that people who believe that they have identified an excellent suspect are more inclined to start threads about said suspect than the ones who are not equally convinced about the suspect value of the described person, is really keen eyed.

Lechmere is not an excellent suspect he's a witness that is a terrible suspect.

[Fiver]

And about YOU, we can tell that you are ready to regard it as a fact that Paul also spoke to Mizen - which it is in no way.

Robert Paul claimed that he spoke to PC Mizen. You ignoring that fact doesn't make it go away.

For your theory to work you have to explain why:
* Robert Paul would lie about speaking to PC Mizen when he hadn't.
* Charles Lechmere would support Paul's lie in his inquest testimony.
* PC Mizen didn't expose the two carmen's lies. After all, they had both claimed he continued knocking up, which made him look bad, so Mizen had a strong reason to undermine their credibility.

Your Mizen Scam is nonsense that requires ignoring the facts instead of presenting the whole picture.

[Fiver]

What I was after was a reaction from your side about the very real possibility that you may have identified an important factor behind why Lechmere may have been the Ripper; the stress factor linked to a severe working schedule, in combination with how such a thing can have made him feel that he had been deprived of control in his everyday life.

If you want responses to your theory, it's best to post it in a clear, concise manner like this instead buried in a massive textwall.

Charles Lechmere's job was no more stressful than the jobs of any of the other 68.000 carmen working in London. It isn't evidence that Lechmere or any other carman was the Ripper.

It is evidence of you again twisting the facts to fit your theory.

That, I think, is the legacy of your find. As has been shown, although you may reason that you personally think that the schedule could have prevented Lechmere from having the time and drive to kill, looking closer at the matter tells us that no such claim can be in any way conclusive. But I think you have realized that too.

I never said that being a carman prevented Lechmere from having the time or drive to kill. I stated this repeatedly. I linked to my previous posts. I quoted this directly.

And yet you continue to claim I said things I did not say. That has to be deliberate at this point.

Anyone who reads what I actually posted, will see that Fisherman is putting words in my mouth again.

Here's my actual point, arguing against the idea that Lechmere would have killed Chapman or dropped the Pinchin Torso while on the job.

"It's a 14 to 18 hour shift. Pickford's vans typically had a van boy or van guard to prevent pilferage. Grabbing a bite or answering a call of nature takes a lot less time than finding a victim, going somewhere with them, mutilating the body, finding somewhere to clean up privately, cleaning up, and then heading back to the cart. And returning with obvious fresh blood on him would raise questions for every remaining customer and his coworkers when he returned to the Broad Street Station."

Lets try explaining that in detail, since you continue to get it wrong.
* If there was a van boy, there would be a witness to Lechmere being away from the cart for unexplained reasons and returning with fresh, unexplained bloodstains.
* If there wasn't a van boy, Lechmere would be leaving the cart unattended for an extended period of time. That would be an unnecessary risk to his keeping the job and investigation of the theft could expose why he had left the cart unattended.
* Every customer and many passersby would have a chance of spotting fresh, unexplained bloodstains for the rest of his shift, with most of the shift being in broad daylight.

I've also used the article to point out that if Charles Lechmere was the Ripper, it would make more sense to kill after work. He'd be getting off work sometime between 6pm and 10pm. That timing would mean he could kill after sunset. That level of time variation would give him hours to find a victim and still arrive home at a time he could blame on having more deliveries than usual. And give him hours to clean up before going home. And let him explain any missed stains as improperly packed meat or whatever leaking on him during his work day.

It still wouldn't solve the problem of how he'd keep trophy organs, or in the case of Christer's TorsoRipper theory, entire decaying corpses, hidden in a house full of small children. But I never accuse the Cult of Lechmere of logic.

[Fisherman]

Hmm...


It makes you wonder how long Lechmere stood lurking around in the yard, by the wall in the dark, just waiting for Stride to step back into the darkness...

Or make himself look 28 and kill her one-handed as he held a parcel?

Or buy grapes and then stand with her for over half an hour?

Or throw her to the floor, and then randomly shout racial abuse whilst standing outside a club full of Jews?

Or make himself a few inches taller as he lit up his pipe?

Or change his hat at least three times?

Or heavily disguise himself as a Jew?...



Or perhaps it's none of the above and merely a case of poor witnesses...

Maybe, just maybe, Lechmere walked along Berner Street but...

Mrs Mortimer
Charles Letchford
Letchford's sister
PC Smith
James Brown
the Sweetheart couple
Morris Eagle
Diemschultz
William Marshall
Joseph Lave
Packer?
Goldstein/Schwartz
The Horse...

Just didn't see him!

Now, IF we can prove that Lechmere had secretly trained as a ninja and scaled the rooftops before descending in silence to slay Stride, before quickly ascending back along the roof towards Mitre Square, and then sneaking into work just in time for a brew, then we may have another clue...



RD

While waiting for R J to appear on this thread, I'll give you an answer, Rookie Detective! How many of these people (and horses), said that they saw an unidentified man walking along Berner Street? Let's see:

Mrs Mortimer spoke of seeing a man, but he was later identified as Leon Goldstein, a member of the socialist club. The police were able to verify where he came from and where he was headed. He was coming from the Spectacle Café in Spectacle Alley as he entered and passed through Berner Street.

Charles Letchford passed through Berner Street at 12.30 and his sister was at the door of their lodgings at ten to one. Charles did not see anything out of the ordinary, and specified that his sister saw noone in the street.

PC Smith saw a man with Stride in the street.

James Brown saw a man with a woman at 12.45, in neighboring Fairclough Street.

The sweetheart couple walked up and down the street between 12.00 and 12.30. There are no comments from their side about seeing anybody in the street.

Morris Eagle did not remember seeing anybody in Berner Street as he returned there at 12.35.

Louis Diemschutz said nothing about having seen anybody around as he arrived to the yard.

William Marshall said that he saw Stride with a man at around 11.45, but that he was unable to see the mans face clearly.

Joseph Lave said that at 12.40, as he was in Berner Street, there was noone around to awake any suspicion.

Matthew Packer said he sold grapes to a man and woman (who may have been Stride) at around 12.00.

Israel Schwartz said that he, at 12.45, saw a broad shouldered man have an altercation with a woman, likely Stride, outside the yard, whilst another man was in the street.

You seem to be saying that the fact that nobody specifically says that they saw Charles Lechmere in the street, tells us that he was not there...? If so, that is a very odd thing to say, because not only would the absolute bulk (with the likely exception of William Marshall) not have known and been able to point Lechmere out, but it also allies that Brown, Packer and Schwartz all mention having seen an unidentified man (in Schwartz's case two unidentified men) in Berner Street. And Marshall said that he did not get a clear view of the face of the man he saw, adding another man to the four mentioned above.

Now, why could not either of these men have been Charles Lechmere? To me, that possibility renders your list useless in trying to exonerate the carman - if that is what you are trying to do.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hmm...


It makes you wonder how long Lechmere stood lurking around in the yard, by the wall in the dark, just waiting for Stride to step back into the darkness...

Or make himself look 28 and kill her one-handed as he held a parcel?

Or buy grapes and then stand with her for over half an hour?

Or throw her to the floor, and then randomly shout racial abuse whilst standing outside a club full of Jews?

Or make himself a few inches taller as he lit up his pipe?

Or change his hat at least three times?

Or heavily disguise himself as a Jew?...



Or perhaps it's none of the above and merely a case of poor witnesses...

Maybe, just maybe, Lechmere walked along Berner Street but...

Mrs Mortimer
Charles Letchford
Letchford's sister
PC Smith
James Brown
the Sweetheart couple
Morris Eagle
Diemschultz
William Marshall
Joseph Lave
Packer?
Goldstein/Schwartz
The Horse...

Just didn't see him!

Now, IF we can prove that Lechmere had secretly trained as a ninja and scaled the rooftops before descending in silence to slay Stride, before quickly ascending back along the roof towards Mitre Square, and then sneaking into work just in time for a brew, then we may have another clue...



RD

[Fisherman]

I will now turn to answering posts I find interesting, and I have decided to start with a post by R J Palmer. I am lifting it over to this thread from the "The Darkness of Bakers Row" thread, and it goes like this:

Originally posted by Fisherman
Nope, R J, that did not work for you either. What Andy Griffiths and I did was to show that IF Lechmere started out at 3.30, he should have been at the site at 3.37, presupposing that he kept a normal walking speed. The aim of the exercise was to show that - guess what: a time gap is suggested.
Well, if push comes to shove, I deny that your stopwatch experiment even 'suggests' a gap.

What I think your experiment really 'suggests' it that there are bound to be discrepancies in the time estimates given by various honest witnesses, and further (though the documentary failed to address this point) it is obvious enough from the inquest depositions that Robert Paul is the odd man out, giving a wildly problematic time estimate that is directly at odds with the accounts given by Mizen, Thain, and Neill. Thus, Griffiths' use of Paul as his second reference point in your experiment was too simplistic and misleading to be valuable and is thus not 'suggestive' of any gap. It is suggestive of a bad time estimate by Robert Paul, coupled with too much reliance on Crossmere's 3.30 departure estimate as absolute.

In reviewing the inquest depositions, it might be noted that both Neill and Mizen gave evidence before Crossmere did, and in the case of Neill, who said he had discovered the body at 3.45, and if memory serves, this appeared in the press the day before Crossmere took the stand. That would have given a dishonest CAL many hours to ponder what he was going to say at the inquest.

In my opinion, knowing this, a dishonest man would have reasoned backwards, and then shoved his departure time as far forwards as he plausibly could, leaving no potential 'gap' in his account of the events.

Yet, Crossmere doesn't do this. One could even argue that his failure to do this shows his inherent honesty.

The person who actually did this was Robert Paul. Any reasonable observer would conclude that Paul's 3:45 estimate is the true discrepancy, running directly against the accounts given by the other witnesses. A suspicious person might conclude that it is Paul tweaking the chronology, not Cross.

Hi R J! This post of yours is a very interesting one, and I think you make as good a case as possible for ruling Paul out in favour of Neil (and his two colleagues).
The problem is that - in my opinion - a much better case can be made for doing the opposite.

I will detail how this all looks to me.

You are calling Robert Pauls 3.45 timing an "estimate" on three occasions in your post. But the 3.45 timing was never given as an estimate at all. It was instead given as an exact timing: "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market".

This is the only occasion where we have the 3.45 timing given by Paul, and it is from Lloyds Weekly of the 2nd of September, not from the inquest.

We do not know whether or not Robert Paul had knowledge of how John Neil had made the claim that he had arrived at the body at 3.45, but we can say that already on the 31st of August, there were papers reiterating how Neil made this claim. This in itself may have contributed to why Paul felt it important to make it clear that Neil could not have been correct. This, though, is only a possibility, but I think it must be pointed out, to complete the picture.

Now, I know from my own experience, and I am going to make the assumption that it goes for you too, that whenever I have said "It was exactly..." about a timing relating to some experience of mine that went down well before I made the statement about exactitude, then I have always had a very good reason to speak of an exact time. I would otherwise never have used the term "exactly".

There does not have to be a timepiece involved, although that is normally the easiest explanation. There is also the option that the matter I am placing exactly in time, relates to some other matter that was simultaneous. An example would be if I for example said "It was exactly 3 PM when I called you up last Sunday, because I remember that the judge blew his whistle to start off the football game on the telly, and that game started 3 PM, on the dot."

So there can be varying reasons for why we are able to say "it was exactly...", but I find that - apart from how we may be misremembering things, or misunderstanding things - saying "it was exactly ..." is always coupled to a corresponding exact knowledge.

Therefore, I am suggesting that Paul must have had a reason to claim that he knew the time exactly. And I am also going to suggest that in his case, there will have been no football game starting on the telly or anything such. As far as I know there were no events commencing at 3.45 AM in the East End mornings, and Paul specifically stated, if I don't misremember, that he met nobody before he noticed Charles Lechmere.

What this leaves us with is of course that Paul must have gained his exact timing from a clock of sorts. He could have had a pocket watch, of course, but to be able to check it for time, he would have needed light, and the streets were dark. A pocket watch cannot be ruled out, though, since PC Neil said that there was a light "at the end of the row" as walked down Bucks Row. If such a light was placed at the Brady Street/Bucks Row intersection, that could have been when Paul could have checked a pocket watch, establishing that it was exactly a quarter to four as he walked down the street. His being late could have been there Eason for wanting to get in the exact know.

If we reason that Paul may not have had a watch of his own, we are left with public clocks. It can be that he heard a clock, perhaps at the brewery, chime the quarter hour as he entered Bucks Row. If this was so, it can be asked where PC Neil got his estimation from. If it was from another source, we still need an explanation for why he would not have heard the clock Paul used; he was a mere 130 yards from where Paul entered Bucks Row as he got to Nichols, and if there was a brewery clock, he should have heard it if he was in place at 3.45. Apparently, he either did not hear it, or he missed out on it. A reason for this can of course be that Neil and Paul would have been around five minutes apart, and so Neil could well have been a long way from the clock as it struck the quarter hour.

Anyway, let's return to our exact carman! We have him establishing, not estimating, that it was 3.45 as he entered Bucks Row. And what you say is that in giving the 3.45 timing, Paul was "giving a wildly problematic time estimate that is directly at odds with the accounts given by Mizen, Thain, and Neill".

What must be noted here is that Pauls timing is not automatically "wildly problematic" for being at odds with the there PCs. It can also be that it is the three PCs timings that are "wildly problematic". Every coin has a back side, R J! What CAN be said is that you are right in pointing out that Pauls timing differs from the timings of the three PCs. But I think there is a very logical solution to be had to the enigma about who was problematic and who was not. And that solution must involve how we have three estimations - and one exact timing! Not four estimations.

This is where we turn to coroner Wynne Baxter and his summation of the Nichols inquest, and those words he had to say about the timing matter: "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data."

First off, can the three PCs timings, jointly suggesting that they were all called into action at circa 3.45 have belonged to the data Baxter refers to? The answer can only be no, because IF the three PCs had all been called into action at 3.45, then the body would have been found at a time that was not far off 3.40 instead of not far off 3.45.
We should not allow ourselves to reason that five minutes here or there are in any way unimportant, because they are anything but. Those five minutes were the reason that the affair was checked out in detail.
It should always be kept in mind that we have two different proposals to work from, and that Baxter was acutely aware of this:
Either the PCs were correct, in which case the body was found at circa 3.40.
Or Paul was correct, in which case the body was found at circa 3.45.

This enigma was one that the police, the coroner and the inquest were all very much aware of. And it therefore was of the utmost importance to try and find out which version was the correct one. And we know that Baxter was able to fix it to "3.45 or not far from that time".
So how exactly was he able to do this? Well, he told us: He used many independent data to do so.

Can we know what these data were? No, we cannot say that we have all the cards on hand, and therefore we cannot say that we can identify the data. But what we CAN do is to acknowledge that we may be able to infer what the data must have looked like and what must have been involved. For example, Baxter could not have made his call without using any of the timings given. One or more timings MUST be involved, otherwise he could not have reached the conclusion he did. And Baxter must have been able to confirm this thing or these timings.

So what if Robert Pauls timing was what Baxter built his call on? Well, that cannot be so, for the simple reason that the decision did not rest on one factor only, it rested on "many independent data". And that translates into multiple sources. Furthermore, "many" seems to secure that we are talking about more than two matters, although it does not rule a two factor solution out entirely.

What we must ask ourselves is what Baxter could check in retrospect. And the obvious answer to what he would have done is to acknowledge that he would have called upon Neil, Thain, Mizen, Llewellyn and Paul to explain where they got their timings from. This is a given, I would say - without that information, Baxter could get no further.

We then know that Baxter settled for the later solution of 3.45 instead of the earlier one of 3.40, for when the body was found. I am writing 3.45 and 3.40 instead of "around" or "not far off" since we are discussing this theoretically, and I am doing it the easy way (which may upset some, but they would do better to follow my reasoning as such).

This implies that Baxter favored the suggestion made by Paul to the one made by the tree PCs. There is no denying this, and saying that 3.45 is "not far off" 3.40 is disingenuous. There were two options, basically, and Baxter chose the early option instead of the late one.

At this stage, I would like to take yourself back, R J, to your claim that Pauls timing was "wildly problematic"; it seems it was anything but to the coroner!

But let's return to the "many different data". We can see that Baxter favored Paul over the three PCs, but he must have had a reason to do so, a reason that was better than accepting Pauls claim in Lloyds Weekly, no questions asked. And indeed, a reason can be outlined:

At the outset of the inquest, on the 1st of September, no Charles Lechmere or Robert Paul were known of. Instead, we had John Neil saying that he was the finder of the body, and that he had found it around 3.45.
This meant trouble for his colleague John Thain, who also said that he was called into action - by Neil - at circa 3.45. This is no anomaly in any way, Neil saw the body, turned his light on it, saw the blood, noted Thains steps up at Brady Street, and signalled him down. It could all have happened in the scope of 60 seconds, no problems at all. Meaning that 3.45 could have been the correct estimate for both men.

So why was the timing a problem for Thain, if it was not for Neil? Well, that owes to how Dr Llewellyn said that he was called to the murder site by John Thain at "around 4 o clock" at the inquest. And when Baxter heard this, he did the maths:

Neil finds the body at 3.45.

He signals down Thain, also at 3.45.

Thain therefore arrives at the site a minute later, at 3.46.

Neil says "Here's a woman who had her throat cut, run at once for Dr Llewellyn!"

If this brief information is allowed to have taken up a full minute, then Thain set off for Llewellyn at 3.47.

And a run or brisk walk to Llewellyns practice too around 2 minutes, 3 at most.

Meaning that Thain must have arrived at Llewellyns place at 3.49 to 3.50.

But Llewellyn said that he was there at around 4 AM!

So why did it take so long for Thain do get to Llewelyn?

Coroner Baxter sensed a dereliction of duty at this stage, and since it was known that Thain had visited the butchers in Winthrop Street, Baxter thought that this may have been what Thain did before going to get Llewellyn: He would have gone to the butchers place, and he would have picked up his cape there and he would have chatted away with the butchers about the murder in Bucks Row.
Thain was actually hauled over the coals in order to get to the truth, we know this. We also know that Thain vehemently denied having done anything but to go to Llewellyns place immediately.

And when we look at the rest of the inquest testimony, we have one of the butchers confirming what Thain said - Thain only went to the butchers AFTER having fetched the doctor!

So why is there a gap of some ten minutes, Baxter will have asked. Where did that come from?

There is a solution, of course, and it starts by recognizing that Llewellyn said in the initial reports, before he took the stand, that Thain arrived at around five minutes to four. That halves the problem, but leaves five minutes of it, we still have Thain arriving at 3.49 - 3.50 to Llewellyns place, while he in actuality was there at 3.55, as per Llewellyn.

At this stage, most of the readers who have not fallen asleep will have seen how the problem can be solved: It can be solved if we work from Pauls exact timing of 3.45. If that time is correct, then the remaining five problem minutes disappear:

Lechmere found the body at 3.45, as Paul was walking down Bucks Row.

Neil arrived five minutes later, when the carmen were long gone.

He therefore sent Thain for Llewellyn, not at 3.47, but at 3.52.

And voilą, the problem goes away!

The one thing against which this scenario could be checked would be by way of checking the accuracy of the timing device Paul used. If it was found to be accurate, the coroner would be able to say that the time at which the body was found, could be fixed to a time not far off 3.45, as it was fixed by so many independent data: Pauls exact timing, a check of the timing device Paul went by, a check of how long the exchange between Neil and Thain took, a check of how long it took for Thain to get to Llewellyn, and a check of the time piece Llewellyn used and the accuracy of that clock - and the coroner would be home and dry.

I cannot prove that this is what happened, but I can point to how it is not only a very possible matter, but also, I believe, the only possible version we can identify if we are only to go by information given at the inquest.

The three PCs timings were of course checked too, but the outcome of that check was that Baxter favored the later scenario over the early one.

To cap things off, we can also look at the matter that has caused so much inflamed feelings out here, Lechmeres timings. If the above is correct, then we have a situation where Lechmere, knowing as he likely did at the remove in time when he took the stand at the inquest, that Neil claimed to have arrived at the body at 3.45, would (if he was the killer) have needed to gauge a timing for his own departure against this belief. And since he said around 3.30, we can see that this would have been a mere three minutes off a seven minute trek timing to the murder site. It would have been a suggestion that caused no disbelief at all.

So when you write: "In my opinion, knowing this, a dishonest man would have reasoned backwards, and then shoved his departure time as far forwards as he plausibly could, leaving no potential 'gap' in his account of the events. Yet, Crossmere doesn't do this.", you are looking away from how he gave a very uncontroversial timing that sat perfectly well with the belief there was at the outset of the inquest. And, of course, if he pushed the timing to, say, "around" 3.40 (that would have himself in Bucks Row at "around" 3.47), he would have claimed that he left home at the same time that he found the body, as per the belief that was held as he took the stand!

it is not until Baxter drops the early scenario in favor of the late one that Lechmeres timing becomes a truly worrying thing. Saying that he left home at around 3.30 could easily encompass being a couple of minutes wrong. But once we add those five minutes that tell the early and late scenarios apart, it becomes troublesome for Lechmere. He inherits that problem from Thain, whose version of events was obviously confirmed by the investigations. But Lechmere is left with a time table that seems to suggest that he took around fifteen minutes to complete what should have been a seven minute trek.

Anyway, there you are, R J, that is how we can likely explain how Baxter was able to fix the time to not far off 3.45, what he would have used as "many independent data" and what the implications of all of this become when we scrutinize it.

I hope you are able to respond in the near future.

---

[Herlock Sholmes]

What I was after was a reaction from your side about the very real possibility that you may have identified an important factor behind why Lechmere may have been the Ripper; the stress factor linked to a severe working schedule, in combination with how such a thing can have made him feel that he had been deprived of control in his everyday life.

That, I think, is the legacy of your find. As has been shown, although you may reason that you personally think that the schedule could have prevented Lechmere from having the time and drive to kill, looking closer at the matter tells us that no such claim can be in any way conclusive. But I think you have realized that too.

Unbelievable!

You can turn every single, inconsequential snippet into a pointer toward his guilt.

Compare the nonsense above with ‘standing around, knife in pocket, potentially with blood on him, waiting for a complete stranger to show up, rather that flee to safety.’

Thats an overwhelmingly huge pointer toward innocence.

The fact that despite efforts no one can find a single example of a serial killer killing just before he’s due at work.

Thats an overwhelmingly huge pointer toward innocence.

The fact that no one can find a example of someone finding the body of a woman in the street, then waiting for a witness, and it turns out that the discoverer was the killer.

Thats an overwhelmingly huge pointer toward innocence.

Oh, and the fact that there’s nothing that points to his guilt.

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby. We don't need any threads on Lechmere other than a witness thread. The threads were all started by Lechmerians though I believe.

Cheers John

If you had been a tad more observant, you would be aware that the thread you are currently writing on was started by Poster Patrick S. He can be called a lot of things, but "Lechmerian" is not one of them.
Otherwise, observing that people who believe that they have identified an excellent suspect are more inclined to start threads about said suspect than the ones who are not equally convinced about the suspect value of the described person, is really keen eyed.

[Fisherman]

I wasn't claiming expertise, please read what I actually said. Unconscious people normally have their eyes closed. Accounts that I have read by war veterans have stated that war dead typically have their eyes open. One Korean War veteran stated that he never saw a dead man in Korea that had his eyes closed. Of course that may not mean that the eyes open at death, it may mean that someone killed while their eyes were open did not close their eyes when they died. It's not the kind of thing that could be ethically researched.

I didn“t SAY you were claiming expertise, please read what I actually said.

There is research on the matter, and in at least one case the authors reasoned about the ethical factor.

[Fisherman]

This tells us more about you than it does about the case - your assumption of Lechmere's guilt, double standard when he does the exact same thing as Paul, poposing a theory that does not make sense, and ignoring that Paul also spoke to Mizen and at the inquest.

Of course, we already knew that about you.

And about YOU, we can tell that you are ready to regard it as a fact that Paul also spoke to Mizen - which it is in no way.

I was pointing out that you left out a very real possibility from you options, which is never a good thing. The same goes for how you now chose to call it "double standards" for pointing out that Lechmere may have had grounds to keep quiet about having noticed the open eyes that Paul would have had, if Lechmere was the killer. That is not double standards, that is taking a discerning look at all possibilities instead of sweeping the ones we dislike under the carpet.
Such a thing is not double standards, of course. It is no standards at all.

[Fisherman]

And yet you demand certain posters, and only those posters, answer topics chose by you. If you can't handle criticism of your opinions from all posters on this forum, then perhaps you should retreat back to one of your safe spaces.

“If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” - Harry Truman

Again, we are all at liberty to take part out here to whichever degree we like. We are even at liberty to falsely lead on that our opponents "can't handle criticism", if we want to do that kind of ripperology.

[Fisherman]

I already did. You even replied to it.

What I was after was a reaction from your side about the very real possibility that you may have identified an important factor behind why Lechmere may have been the Ripper; the stress factor linked to a severe working schedule, in combination with how such a thing can have made him feel that he had been deprived of control in his everyday life.

That, I think, is the legacy of your find. As has been shown, although you may reason that you personally think that the schedule could have prevented Lechmere from having the time and drive to kill, looking closer at the matter tells us that no such claim can be in any way conclusive. But I think you have realized that too.

[John Wheat]

do we really need three active threads on lech? cmon anti lechers, tighten it up! lol

Hi Abby. We don't need any threads on Lechmere other than a witness thread. The threads were all started by Lechmerians though I believe.

Cheers John

[Fiver]

Did his knocking down and killing the boy on his cart a few years prior to the murders have a distinct negative psychological effect on him?

RD

Unless he was a psychopath, the accident would affect him psychologically. He'd lost a young son a little under two years previously. The boy was only four years old. The boy wasn't killed immediately, but took some time to die. The accident had happened only a few days before Christmas and the inquest wasn't held until nearly New Years. As witnesses would testify, he'd done nothing wrong - driving slowly, well clear of the pavement, called out to warn the children, and tried to stop his van, but the father blamed him anyaway. His job and his freedom were on the line.

That would affect any normal man and there is no evidence that Lechmere was a psychopath. Depression, anxiety, PTSD, etc are credible, but not inevitable results. Overprotectiveness of his own children might occur.

But this tragedy wouldn't give anyone an urge to start mutilating prostitutes 12 years later. That's like arguing 1 + 2 = banana fish.