Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Elamarna]

Since I have already debated with you, let's answer this. But I do not intend to have the whole hoard of naysayers to deal with simultaneously, one at the time is my aim.

- I have already said many, many times that I understand "oozing" in this case as welling out but with no underlying heartbeat pressure. There is therefore no need to be amazed.

- If what I quot from Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin is opposed to known medical science, then Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin, two renowned medical forensics, are themselves opposed to known medical science. I don't think they are.

Here is an excerpt from my conversation with Payne James, regarding criticism Trevor Marriott offered. It may be of interest.

Me: When I have discussed this with you, you said that you were of the meaning that Nichols probably bled out in a few minutes, more likely three or five minutes than seven. And you said that Lechmere seemingly fit the pattern of coagulation too. And then you took great care to point out that there could be deviations, wherefore your opinion in no way should be looked upon as conclusive.

Basically, I understood this as meaning that Lechmere seemed to fit the pattern, but it could be that somebody else was the culprit. However, the larger the time gap, the less likely that there WAS another killer - if we needed to predispose that Nichols bled for very many minutes to fit another killer in, then that would be a less likely alternative than Lechmere.

I am thankful for any help that you may offer. If you could state that you are happy about how your view was depicted by Blink Films and that you donīt feel you were misrepresented (which Marriott claims) it would be a great start. If you could confirm that my picture that you would not expected Nichols to have bled for any more than a few minutes, it would be even better.

J P J:Hi Christer,

Yes, bit surprised by the comments particularly as I emphasised that I was not in anyway placing myself in the position of determining who the Ripper was, merely responding as best I could to the reasonable questions put to me. That's why I am always reluctant to get involved in turf wars with those who have an agenda. That's also a point I made. Ho hum!

And this is from my conversation with Jason Payne James regarding how he is quoted in Cutting Point:

Me: I am sending you the chapter from my upcoming book on Charles Lechmere/Jack the Ripper/The Thames Torso killer, so that you can have a look at it and tell me if you are alright with the wording. The parts where you are concerned are in bold.

Here are the bold parts:

In a conversation with professor Jason Payne-James, a specialist in forensic and legal medicine and consultant forensic physician and the forensic expert taking part in the documentary ”The Missing Evidence - Jack the Ripper”, I inquired about how long time a woman with the damage that Nichols had would bleed from the neck before the blood had been emptied out and stopped running. I asked whether it could be a matter of perhaps three, five or seven minutes. Professor Payne Jamesī response was that all three suggestions could per se be correct, but he personally favored three or five minutes as the likelier answer. It should be noted that professor Payne-James was well acquainted with the total damage done to the body of Polly Nichols.

My own estimation of the timings is that many minutes would have passed after Nichols was cut and before Mizen could possibly have reached the murder spot. Coupling that with Payne-Jamesī view, the outcome of the equation is obvious; it was in all probability Lechmere who cut the throat of Nichols. If it was somebody who preceded Lechmere, it would push the time into a less credible stretch.

and

And there we have it. Two professors in forensic medicine, renowned specialists in the field, agree that as we arrive at the seven minute mark of continued bleeding, we have entered a time span where they are both are inclined to think it likely that the bleeding should have stopped. What we have on record is instead likely a nine minute bleeding time if Lechmere was the killer. Worse still, if we want to find another killer, we need to add a further minute or two, at the very least, ending up at a time span that is even further removed from what should be realistically expected.

Since there are no cases to compare from and since every case is unique, neither professor excludes the possibility that Nichols could have bled for a period of time that could perhaps have allowed for another killer. The message from these specialists is nevertheless loud and clear: Charles Lechmere is very much likelier to have been the cutter than another killer preceding him in Bucks Row.

In short: If the bleeding time followed the expectations of the forensic medical experts, then there is only one candidate for the killers role.

J P J: Hi Christer,

That's fine. All very best, Jason

I of course have what Thiblin said too, but it is in Swedish, and so it is something you will be unable to read and understand, I take it. But Payne Jamesī replies should be enough, I would hope. So this is the man you consider as being "in conflict with known medical science". If you would be so kind as to provide us with the names of those who have a picture that nullifies Payne Jamesī ditto, I would be interested to hear them. Until that happens and until Jason Payne James changes his opinion, I will go with my conviction that he is an eminent source. That means that I rate his opinion as more likely to be true than your own opinion, based on anonymous discussions with who knows. Knowledgeable people, one would hope - but more qualified than Jason Payne James...?

- I did not complain about any discussion of bleeding under pressure. What I complained about was how you in your book, contrary to the truth, claim that the Lechmere theory suggests that Neil saw bleeding under pressure. And that we think that Neil arrived to see that pressurized bleeding two minutes after Lechmere was in place!
You are welcome to discuss pressurized bleeding as much as you like to, but it remains that I believe that it is irrelevant to the case at hand, with the possible exception of the initial bleeding in somebody who has been recently killed and lost the heartbeat. In such persons, there will remain a lessened pressure in the vessels for some little time, and that may well have been the case for Nichols. In that respect, low pressure bleeding will perhaps initially have played some small role, but it seems to me by way of Llewellyns remarks that it would have taken place at the abdomen and not at the throat.

- As for your remarks about intentional misleadings and shameful or/and disingenuous posting on my behalf, I will leave that part uncommented on since I do not think it belongs to a serious discussion.

With this I hope to be allowed to return to my discussion with Doctored Whatsit.

With regards to the comments by Payne-James relating to your comments. Part of issue here is your use of the terms "bleed" and Bleed out".
Such terms are open to a great degree of interpretation not just by the person asking the questioned but also by the person answering.

Both experts appear to be very circumspect in their replies to the questions, neither are prepared to commit themselves.


This question of the interpretation as been raised several times, by others apart from.myself, on this and other sites.

Such a degree interpretation allows a for a manipulation of the answer.

Payne-james very clear does not want to get involved in what he calls a "turf war".

In reply to the email about the chapters in your book, the reply from Payne-James is fairl perfunctory, again suggesting he does not really want to get involved.

The attempt to portray this is my view, based on comments from anonymous source, verses that of an expert, is another example of a misleading comment.

Inside Bucks Row quotes not Anonymous discussions , but the views of Dr Michael Biggs. He while saying some degree of passive bleeding could go on, or restart after movement, for several hours, does also say that under 20 minutes is more likely.
Given there is, according to all 3 experts now mentioned, no actual concensus on an exact figure for passive bleeding to cease, both the 15 minute and 20 minute estimates must be given equal weight.

Using those figures it patently clear that there is ample time, some 6-11 minutes, for there to be a killer other than Lechmere.

In addition, in chapter 12 of Inside Bucks Row, while it does say that initially the argument appeared to be that Neil had observed bleeding under pressure, it also adds on page 174, that this appeared to change to ANY BLEEDING, be it under pressure or passive.
"bleeding” appeared to change to mean any blood loss whatever."

Therefore I do not accept that I incorrectly represent this part of the Theory.

That you do not think my closing comments belong in a serious debate is hardly surprising, since such opens up very serious issues.
I stand by those final comments. These points need to be made if a fully, accurate and unbias view is to be given

if you wish to respond does not really matter.

So yes go on with your private one to ones, held in public.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,



No, but I did read recently that Peter Kurten murdered one of his victims whilst on his lunch break, which struck me as potentially relevant to your first question.

You got me on the other two though!

Thanks Ms D.

On the subject of Kurten. It’s a complete mystery to me why there has been no book on him. Apart from Berg’s book in 1931, I think that there’s only a 40 page effort by someone and that’s it. It’s weird considering how many serial killer books there are.

[Elamarna]

Thanks Ms D.

On the subject of Kurten. It’s a complete mystery to me why there has been no book on him. Apart from Berg’s book in 1931, I think that there’s only a 40 page effort by someone and that’s it. It’s weird considering how many serial killer books there are.

Maybe because European? English not primarily language?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bittaker and Norris kept their latest hostages alive for nearly two days. They kept an audiotape of their rape and torture. Among other things, the tape captured Norris raping Jackie Gilliam, demanding that she play the role of a cousin who was the object of some of his sexual fantasies.
Tired of the game and running dangerously late for work, Bittaker repeated his trick with the ice pick, stabbing Gilliam in both ears

Seriously?

They kept the girls for two days and then decided to kill them because it was getting close to the time that he was due for work.

This is nothing like an example of a man who goes out and actually meets and kills a woman just before being due at work. It’s an example of a 2 day sick game that went on too long.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe because European? English not primarily language?

Possibly Steve, but we have modern day books on the Monster Of Florence for example. I think that someone’s missing an opportunity here.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s noticeable that those that don’t support Cross get called ‘naysayers.’ There’s a religious overtone to it. Why not blasphemers?

[Elamarna]

It’s noticeable that those that don’t support Cross get called ‘naysayers.’ There’s a religious overtone to it. Why not blasphemers?

I am sure it will come.


On another point, the claim that I said Neil arrives within 2 minutes is part of the Theory, is actually easy to explain if one actually reads the whole section where that is said in Inside Bucks Row.

After I say within two minutes of the carmen leaving and possibly within 3 minutes of the attack, the text goes on to talk about Fisherman's emails to Payne-James, where P-J is asked about 3,5 or 7 minutes for total bleed time.
He responds by saying he considers the shorter times to be more realistic, that is 3 or 5 minutes.
If 3 then Neil MUST arrive ONLY 3 minutes after the attack.
Even at 5, if you allow for Lech supposedly walking from the body to the middle off the road, after he hears Paul. Then walking towards Paul, talking to him and examining the body, we must be very close to 3 minute Mark of that 5 minutes , before they leave the body.

Again it seems people want it both ways, bleeding is more likely to stop at 3 or 5 minutes, but Neil arrives after 6!

And of course for years non Lechmere people have said he arrives within minutes or seconds of the carmen leaving .

[Dickere]

I think the censored word here was perhaps sn1ggering and it automatically *** the N word in the middle, no?

Lech was Straight Outta Old Compton Street after all.

[The Rookie Detective]

I don’t understand why you say that Cross would have arrived in Bucks Row around 3.37 RD?

I am basing his arrival time on the time he said he left home at around 3.30am (he normally left closer to 3.20am but he was running late)

If he said he left around 3.30am, then I can indeed accept that he left at 3.33am, because anyone can be 3 minutes out of time...BUT I can't accept pushing it to 3.34am, because it's only a minute away from 3.35am and usually a person would work to the nearest 5 minutes when stating approximate time. i.e. 3.34am is nearer to 3.35am than to 3.30am.

3.33am is the widest parameter to extend to based on him leaving around 3.30am and so I can concur with that amendment.

So let's say 3.33am in accordance with your timings (because they are still realistic)

However, logic would determine that if he was late for work, his pace would be slightly quicker than normal and so if it normally took between 7 to 8 minutes to get to Bucks Row, it would have taken 7 minutes to get there if he was walking at a quicker pace. That's only a saving of around 30 seconds, but again, the point is that it would have taken him UNDER 8 minutes.

Leaving at 3.33am and arriving at 3.40am, or 3.41am at the very latest.

There is nothing to suggest he did walk quicker than normal, but subconsciously a person will likely increase their pace automatically to make up for lost time, especially if he hadn't been late for work before. He's not expecting to bump into a murder scene and if he's late for work, then it's more probable on balance that he walked at a slightly quicker pace.

Therefore upon reflection i can concur that he could have arrived not at 3.37am, but 3.40am or 3.41am at the very latest.

BUT the real question here isn't what time Lechmere got there, because if he was innocent, it doesn't matter what time he got there, because he MISSED the killer leaving and heard or saw no-one by his own admission.

So we have Lechmere in Bucks Row by no later than 3.40am or 3.41am.

That means the killer had to of left Bucks Row BEFORE 3.41am.

The killer needed no more than a minute to completely clear Bucks Row and so the LATEST the killer could have left Bucks Row is 3.40am. Any later and Lechmere would have seen or heard him.

Theres no way that any killer would have remained at the scene for any more than 4 minutes (plus a minute to escape) and so 5 minutes is the absolute maximum time the killer needed.

And so, based on your own timings of Lechmere leaving at 3.33am, and the most likely arrival time being 3.40am or 3.41am, coupled with the killer needing to have cleared Bucks Row BEFORE Lechmere entered Bucks Row, then the murder would have taken place between 3.33am - 3.38am at the very latest.

That would still work with Mrs Lilley claiming to hear moans, voices and the train around 3.30am. If she was 5 minutes out, then it ties in with the murder taking place between 3.33am - 3.38am.

Did the killer arrive with Nichols or did he bump into her/ follow her separately?

If he went with her into Bucks Row, then it's unlikely to be Lechmere, because Lechmere didn't have the time to meet her beforehand as he was most likely coming from the opposite direction.

If the killer bumped into her or followed her, he then needed less time because you then negate his need to meet her beforehand and convince her to go off with him.

Another point is that you stated that the killer had met Nichol's, killed her and had left her in just 3 minutes.

But that to me seems to be a means to help rule out Lechmere without needing to do so.

The time it would have taken to meet her (enter Bucks Row WITH her) WITHOUT being seen (take a few moments to engage with her/pick his spot, then attack her through strangulation, drag her to the floor unconscious or incapacitated, stab and cut her throat to the point of almost decapitating her and then slashing the abdomen and then leave her and exit Buck Row WITHOUT being seen, would have taken more than 3 minutes.

It would have taken 4 minutes with a parameter of no more than 5 minutes (including entering and leaving Bucks Row)

Absolutely NO MORE than 5 minutes for any of his victims.

But like your stated leaving time of 3.33am, I am also willing to push the parameter for killing time to 3 minutes. BUT that is the LEAST amount of time it would have taken took to come, kill and go undetected.

And so, the killer entered Bucks Row with Nichols (like other victims part of his MO was to pick his prey, use his charm to convince them to go with him somewhere and then slay them at a spot of his choosing. that in itself would rule out Lechmere)

but we have to use the largest parameters possible and not the smallest.

SO he enters WITH her between at 3.33am (Mrs Lilley hears voices)
He attacks her at 3.34am (She hears moans/train goes past as it's running late like every British train)
He CUTS her at 3.35am and finishes ALL of his cutting in NO more than 2 minutes.
At 3.37am he gets up and leaves and is completely clear of Bucks Row and the beats of the police men who don't spot anyone within a minute.

At 3.38am, Bucks Row is empty

Lechmere arrives at 3.40am and sees the body.

The only issue is Paul. Lechmere can't have been standing in the road alone with a dead body for more than 2 minutes.

Paul bumps into Lechmere at 3.42am

I cant accept the idea of pushing back Lechmere's leaving time for work in order to try and justify Lechmere having no time with the body.

It's interesting that when we talk about blood pressure/bleeding our times/volume of blood etc... we all tend to use the longest time frame possible to fit the theory i.e. up to 20 minutes to bleed out from almost total decapitation.

But when we talk about the time it took for the killer to come, kill and go, we automatically use the smallest time frame possible in order to rule out suspects like Lechmere.

Lechmere left around 3.30 am (3.33am)
arrived in UNDER 8 minutes (3.41am)
Paul sees Lechmere standing in the road around 3.42am

The murderer arrived WITH Nichols at 3.33am and was gone by 3.38am

Lechmere is innocent and we can move on...

Or can we?

The reason why Lechmere has drawn more comments than any other suspect on this case... is because deep down we all know (if we are honest with ourselves) that something just doesn't ring true about this particular murder.

We make excuses for altering times to be approximate in terms of witnesses coming and going and manipulating the boundaries or what is possible, despite it being improbable.

the fact is that because Lechmere left late for work on the same day there was a murder that occurred in his path, then that should automatically raise questions.

Despite disagreeing with Christer on this, I also admire his resilience and guile in defending his corner.

I don't think Lechmere committed the murders because based in my opinion the killer watched, followed, approached, charmed and then went off with all of his victims as part of his game and Lechmere just didn't have the time for that.

Unless of course he left on time for work and then Christer has a very valid case against Lechmere.
It's so frustrating that the one day that he leaves late, a woman is brutally murdered. Very unlucky indeed.

[rjpalmer]

Possibly Steve, but we have modern day books on the Monster Of Florence for example. I think that someone’s missing an opportunity here.

Hi Herlock.

There's a 138 page book on Kurten (in English) by a bloke named Swinney. I found it somewhat 'pulpy' and unscholarly, so I wouldn't recommend it.

There is also an English translation of Berg's book, but, as you say, most of the important sources are in German.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am basing his arrival time on the time he said he left home at around 3.30am (he normally left closer to 3.20am but he was running late)

Nowhere in the case does Cross claim that he usually left at 3.20 RD. The majority of reporters said that he said ‘about 3.30’ but a couple said 3.20. It looks like they simply misheard what was said.

If he said he left around 3.30am, then I can indeed accept that he left at 3.33am, because anyone can be 3 minutes out of time...BUT I can't accept pushing it to 3.34am, because it's only a minute away from 3.35am and usually a person would work to the nearest 5 minutes when stating approximate time. i.e. 3.34am is nearer to 3.35am than to 3.30am.

I’d have no issue with using any time. Jeff produced some research on here on times. It’s surprising how wrong people can be when estimating times. I have absolutely no qualms in suggesting that Cross could have left the house any time from 3.25-3.35.

3.33am is the widest parameter to extend to based on him leaving around 3.30am and so I can concur with that amendment.

So let's say 3.33am in accordance with your timings (because they are still realistic)

However, logic would determine that if he was late for work, his pace would be slightly quicker than normal and so if it normally took between 7 to 8 minutes to get to Bucks Row, it would have taken 7 minutes to get there if he was walking at a quicker pace. That's only a saving of around 30 seconds, but again, the point is that it would have taken him UNDER 8 minutes.

Leaving at 3.33am and arriving at 3.40am, or 3.41am at the very latest.

There is nothing to suggest he did walk quicker than normal, but subconsciously a person will likely increase their pace automatically to make up for lost time, especially if he hadn't been late for work before. He's not expecting to bump into a murder scene and if he's late for work, then it's more probable on balance that he walked at a slightly quicker pace.

Therefore upon reflection i can concur that he could have arrived not at 3.37am, but 3.40am or 3.41am at the very latest.

BUT the real question here isn't what time Lechmere got there, because if he was innocent, it doesn't matter what time he got there, because he MISSED the killer leaving and heard or saw no-one by his own admission.

So we have Lechmere in Bucks Row by no later than 3.40am or 3.41am.

That means the killer had to of left Bucks Row BEFORE 3.41am.

The killer needed no more than a minute to completely clear Bucks Row and so the LATEST the killer could have left Bucks Row is 3.40am. Any later and Lechmere would have seen or heard him.

Theres no way that any killer would have remained at the scene for any more than 4 minutes (plus a minute to escape) and so 5 minutes is the absolute maximum time the killer needed.

And so, based on your own timings of Lechmere leaving at 3.33am, and the most likely arrival time being 3.40am or 3.41am, coupled with the killer needing to have cleared Bucks Row BEFORE Lechmere entered Bucks Row, then the murder would have taken place between 3.33am - 3.38am at the very latest.

As it’s possible that the killer might have been interrupted by hearing Cross approach I’d say that the killer could have killed Nichols closer to 3.40.

That would still work with Mrs Lilley claiming to hear moans, voices and the train around 3.30am. If she was 5 minutes out, then it ties in with the murder taking place between 3.33am - 3.38am.

Did the killer arrive with Nichols or did he bump into her/ follow her separately?

If he went with her into Bucks Row, then it's unlikely to be Lechmere, because Lechmere didn't have the time to meet her beforehand as he was most likely coming from the opposite direction.

And it’s unlikely that he’d have taken her to a spot on his route to work.

If the killer bumped into her or followed her, he then needed less time because you then negate his need to meet her beforehand and convince her to go off with him.

Another point is that you stated that the killer had met Nichol's, killed her and had left her in just 3 minutes.

But that to me seems to be a means to help rule out Lechmere without needing to do so.

The time it would have taken to meet her (enter Bucks Row WITH her) WITHOUT being seen (take a few moments to engage with her/pick his spot, then attack her through strangulation, drag her to the floor unconscious or incapacitated, stab and cut her throat to the point of almost decapitating her and then slashing the abdomen and then leave her and exit Buck Row WITHOUT being seen, would have taken more than 3 minutes.

It would have taken 4 minutes with a parameter of no more than 5 minutes (including entering and leaving Bucks Row)

Absolutely NO MORE than 5 minutes for any of his victims.

If the killer met her elsewhere why did they bother going to Bucks Row? I could understand moving to another location if it was for more privacy/better concealment but Bucks Row is a straight road and would have no attraction for a killer or his victim. So I think that the killer met Nichols as they were walking along Bucks Row. She needed cash so no persuasion would have been required. Phillips said that the far more extensive Chapman injuries (including organ extraction) would only have taken 5 minutes so I think from the moment that the killer bumped into Nichols to the time he fled - 2 minutes.

But like your stated leaving time of 3.33am, I am also willing to push the parameter for killing time to 3 minutes. BUT that is the LEAST amount of time it would have taken took to come, kill and go undetected.

And so, the killer entered Bucks Row with Nichols (like other victims part of his MO was to pick his prey, use his charm to convince them to go with him somewhere and then slay them at a spot of his choosing. that in itself would rule out Lechmere)

but we have to use the largest parameters possible and not the smallest.

SO he enters WITH her between at 3.33am (Mrs Lilley hears voices)
He attacks her at 3.34am (She hears moans/train goes past as it's running late like every British train)
He CUTS her at 3.35am and finishes ALL of his cutting in NO more than 2 minutes.
At 3.37am he gets up and leaves and is completely clear of Bucks Row and the beats of the police men who don't spot anyone within a minute.

At 3.38am, Bucks Row is empty

Lechmere arrives at 3.40am and sees the body.

The only issue is Paul. Lechmere can't have been standing in the road alone with a dead body for more than 2 minutes.

Paul bumps into Lechmere at 3.42am

I cant accept the idea of pushing back Lechmere's leaving time for work in order to try and justify Lechmere having no time with the body.

Then you’re suggesting that I’m considering 3.33 or 3.34 purely to eliminate Cross? He said ‘about 3.30.’ If someone asked me what time I did something yesterday I might say “about 3.30.” I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest if it was shown to have been 3.15. Clearly I’m not suggesting that Cross’ estimation would have been that far out but 3, 4 or 5 minutes is well within reasonable imo. For all that we know Cross might have been ‘knocked up’ everyday at 3.15 but on that day the Constable was 5 minutes late for some reason. I think that we should all be wary of getting too hung up on times.

It's interesting that when we talk about blood pressure/bleeding our times/volume of blood etc... we all tend to use the longest time frame possible to fit the theory i.e. up to 20 minutes to bleed out from almost total decapitation.

But when we talk about the time it took for the killer to come, kill and go, we automatically use the smallest time frame possible in order to rule out suspects like Lechmere.

Lechmere left around 3.30 am (3.33am)
arrived in UNDER 8 minutes (3.41am)
Paul sees Lechmere standing in the road around 3.42am

The murderer arrived WITH Nichols at 3.33am and was gone by 3.38am

Lechmere is innocent and we can move on...

Or can we?

The reason why Lechmere has drawn more comments than any other suspect on this case... is because deep down we all know (if we are honest with ourselves) that something just doesn't ring true about this particular murder.

Im sorry RD but I’m being 100% honest. Nothing about Cross comes close to raising an eyebrow with me. Events in Bucks Row are straightforward. I see no mystery.

We make excuses for altering times to be approximate in terms of witnesses coming and going and manipulating the boundaries or what is possible, despite it being improbable.

Its not excuses RD. it’s accuracy. If we don’t allow for a reasonable margin for error then we aren’t approaching the case honestly. This is the approach taken by some who support Cross

the fact is that because Lechmere left late for work on the same day there was a murder that occurred in his path, then that should automatically raise questions.

Not even remotely. I can’t begin to think why you should believe that? Millions of people have found bodies. For countryside dog walkers it’s almost par for the course.

Despite disagreeing with Christer on this, I also admire his resilience and guile in defending his corner.

I don’t.

I don't think Lechmere committed the murders because based in my opinion the killer watched, followed, approached, charmed and then went off with all of his victims as part of his game and Lechmere just didn't have the time for that.

Unless of course he left on time for work and then Christer has a very valid case against Lechmere.
It's so frustrating that the one day that he leaves late, a woman is brutally murdered. Very unlucky indeed.

I think that Cross was transparently an innocent man and that simply because he found the body ears pricked up and people started to weave a case to fit. A mysterious gap was invented by editing the evidence. The language was twisted to mean what certain people wanted it to mean. A minor and understandable discrepancy on wording is magnified into something sinister. A ludicrous, unbelievable ‘scam’ is created to try and explain away the very obvious fact that the real killer would have fled. Then to top it off we get those silly geographical locations stuff. As if anything could be less relevant.

Cross has no case to answer. He’s only a marginally better suspect than Paul.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock.

There's a 138 page book on Kurten (in English) by a bloke named Swinney. I found it somewhat 'pulpy' and unscholarly, so I wouldn't recommend it.

There is also an English translation of Berg's book, but, as you say, most of the important sources are in German.

Hi Roger,

Thanks for that. 138 pages is flimsy to say the least. I’ve always found it strange that there’s no full length modern day book on him though.

If you fancy writing one Roger….

[Herlock Sholmes]

Otherwise, it actually applies that everything that ever happened in a serial killer case must always have happened a first time at some stage. And every year, things that have never happened before in murder cases take place for the first time

I wish I could find the post but a few years ago on here Fish made some point about serial killer history to which I responded that there was a first time for everything. Fish then gave me a lecture on how ludicrous that was and ‘what are the chances of….’ etc.

[Elamarna]

A few comments RD.

I am basing his arrival time on the time he said he left home at around 3.30am (he normally left closer to 3.20am but he was running late)

I do wish people would stop saying he normally left at 3.20.

Of the press reports, only two mention 3.20, both those reports say he left that morning at 3.20, not that he normally left at 3.20.
Those two reports also report other matters in identical wording, suggesting a single journalist.
All the other reports say 3.30 or the majority "about " 3.30

Its probable that the 3.20 was either a mishearing/ reporting by the reporter.

If he said he left around 3.30am, then I can indeed accept that he left at 3.33am, because anyone can be 3 minutes out of time...BUT I can't accept pushing it to 3.34am, because it's only a minute away from 3.35am and usually a person would work to the nearest 5 minutes when stating approximate time. i.e. 3.34am is nearer to 3.35am than to 3.30am.
3.33am is the widest parameter to extend to based on him leaving around 3.30am and so I can concur with that amendment.

Sorry but you mean you work to the closest five minutes, not everyone does
People often round up or down to nearest 15 minutes..
I would suggest anytime in the range 3.25- 3.35 is acceptable and please remember that's the time he uses, we cannot assume it's syncronizied to the time used by Paul, Neil, Mizen or Thain.

So let's say 3.33am in accordance with your timings (because they are still realistic)

However, logic would determine that if he was late for work, his pace would be slightly quicker than normal and so if it normally took between 7 to 8 minutes to get to Bucks Row, it would have taken 7 minutes to get there if he was walking at a quicker pace. That's only a saving of around 30 seconds, but again, the point is that it would have taken him UNDER 8 minutes.

Leaving at 3.33am and arriving at 3.40am, or 3.41am at the very latest.

He does not say he was running late when he left home.
He only says this after he has stopped in Bucks Row.

It seems people assume that running late applies to him leaving home, when that is far from clear.
But what seems to happen is that people take 2 different issues, him saying he was behind time AFTER examining Polly, and the high probable mistaken time of 3.20.
And get he was running late when he left home.

My own preferred figure for walking speed is 3.5 mph, above average, which gets him to Brown's Yard in under 7 minutes .

So using a range of times for leaving home, say from 3.30 to 3.33 he arrives at Brown's Yard at 3.37-3.40 plus or minus say 30 seconds.

There is nothing to suggest he did walk quicker than normal, but subconsciously a person will likely increase their pace automatically to make up for lost time, especially if he hadn't been late for work before. He's not expecting to bump into a murder scene and if he's late for work, then it's more probable on balance that he walked at a slightly quicker pace.

Therefore upon reflection i can concur that he could have arrived not at 3.37am, but 3.40am or 3.41am at the very latest.

Any of those times is possible.

BUT the real question here isn't what time Lechmere got there, because if he was innocent, it doesn't matter what time he got there, because he MISSED the killer leaving and heard or saw no-one by his own admission.

So we have Lechmere in Bucks Row by no later than 3.40am or 3.41am.

That means the killer had to of left Bucks Row BEFORE 3.41am.

Again that's fair.

The killer needed no more than a minute to completely clear Bucks Row and so the LATEST the killer could have left Bucks Row is 3.40am. Any later and Lechmere would have seen or heard him.

Given that Paul and Lechmere appear not to have noticed each other until 50 yards apart, the same COULD be true here.
So it's possibly accurate but he may have left under a minute before Lech arrived.

Theres no way that any killer would have remained at the scene for any more than 4 minutes (plus a minute to escape) and so 5 minutes is the absolute maximum time the killer needed.

I would reduce this by at least a minute.

And so, based on your own timings of Lechmere leaving at 3.33am, and the most likely arrival time being 3.40am or 3.41am, coupled with the killer needing to have cleared Bucks Row BEFORE Lechmere entered Bucks Row, then the murder would have taken place between 3.33am - 3.38am at the very latest.

He does not need to have cleared Bucks Row, only be out of sight of Lechmere.
All we know is that Lechmere claimed He was aware of Paul at about 40 yards.
Given he heard the footsteps first we can allow up to 50 yards, so let's say 50 or so yards is how far you could see. Paul unfortunately does not give a distance.

That would still work with Mrs Lilley claiming to hear moans, voices and the train around 3.30am. If she was 5 minutes out, then it ties in with the murder taking place between 3.33am - 3.38am.

Perfectly fair, but Remember she does not give a time, the trains expected time is used, so it may be the train that is out, not Lilley.
she is not pricise about if the the voices are while the train is passing or shortly after, so one can extend the range you quote, as the exact time of the train is unknown.

Did the killer arrive with Nichols or did he bump into her/ follow her separately?

If he went with her into Bucks Row, then it's unlikely to be Lechmere, because Lechmere didn't have the time to meet her beforehand as he was most likely coming from the opposite direction.

If the killer bumped into her or followed her, he then needed less time because you then negate his need to meet her beforehand and convince her to go off with him.

Perfectly reasoned.

Another point is that you stated that the killer had met Nichol's, killed her and had left her in just 3 minutes.

But that to me seems to be a means to help rule out Lechmere without needing to do so.

The time it would have taken to meet her (enter Bucks Row WITH her) WITHOUT being seen (take a few moments to engage with her/pick his spot, then attack her through strangulation, drag her to the floor unconscious or incapacitated, stab and cut her throat to the point of almost decapitating her and then slashing the abdomen and then leave her and exit Buck Row WITHOUT being seen, would have taken more than 3 minutes.

It would have taken 4 minutes with a parameter of no more than 5 minutes (including entering and leaving Bucks Row)

Absolutely NO MORE than 5 minutes for any of his victims.

This all depends on who was where.
There is evidence that the area around Bucks Row and Winthrop street was a known red light area.
In which case, Polly may well have been waiting either at the gates or close by.
In which case we can reduce the time by at least 1 minute.
Kelly certainly took more than 5 minutes, but 5 is I think fair for the rest.

But like your stated leaving time of 3.33am, I am also willing to push the parameter for killing time to 3 minutes. BUT that is the LEAST amount of time it would have taken took to come, kill and go undetected.

And so, the killer entered Bucks Row with Nichols (like other victims part of his MO was to pick his prey, use his charm to convince them to go with him somewhere and then slay them at a spot of his choosing. that in itself would rule out Lechmere)

Wow lots of assumption there,
I suspect Polly was already at the site, certainly close to it.

I also strongy suspect, that in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes, the victims TOOK the killer to spots they considered safe.
If we accept Stride as a victim, then the killer attacker her where she was.

but we have to use the largest parameters possible and not the smallest.

SO he enters WITH her between at 3.33am (Mrs Lilley hears voices)
He attacks her at 3.34am (She hears moans/train goes past as it's running late like every British train)
He CUTS her at 3.35am and finishes ALL of his cutting in NO more than 2 minutes.
At 3.37am he gets up and leaves and is completely clear of Bucks Row and the beats of the police men who don't spot anyone within a minute.

At 3.38am, Bucks Row is empty

Lechmere arrives at 3.40am and sees the body.

All are assumptions, all are indeed possible, BUT they are NOT the ONLY possibilities.

The only issue is Paul. Lechmere can't have been standing in the road alone with a dead body for more than 2 minutes.

There is NO tenable evidence that Lechmere is ever alone in Bucks Row with the body.
The evidence such as it is, says Lechmere is around 50 yards ahead of Paul.

Everything else is speculation.

Paul bumps into Lechmere at 3.42am

I cant accept the idea of pushing back Lechmere's leaving time for work in order to try and justify Lechmere having no time with the body.

Using a walking pace of 3.5 mph, that's just over 100 yards per minute.
The evidence suggests Paul is between 40-50 yards behind Lechmere, so Paul bumps into Lechmere about 30 seconds after Lechmere arrives.

Your view that you can't accept later than 3.33 is simply because you feel you would not say about 3.30 if it were 3 34.
Not everyone would agree with that View RD.

It's interesting that when we talk about blood pressure/bleeding our times/volume of blood etc... we all tend to use the longest time frame possible to fit the theory i.e. up to 20 minutes to bleed out from almost total decapitation.

But when we talk about the time it took for the killer to come, kill and go, we automatically use the smallest time frame possible in order to rule out suspects like Lechmere.

Not really, the Times for bleeding under pressure are established medical facts. Reported in peer reviewed medical articles and text books, so we use the facts.
HOWEVER, the vague times for passive bleeding are because there is no set limit on this.

When looking at times for a kill, all we can do is estimate how long it would take, there are no hard facts so we tend to go with the killer just performing the actions and leaving.

We will as I have said before disagree on the almost total decapitation, but the blood vessels cut are exactly the same, the bleed time under pressure will stay the same.

Lechmere left around 3.30 am (3.33am)
arrived in UNDER 8 minutes (3.41am)
Paul sees Lechmere standing in the road around 3.42am

Why are you assuming he is a minute or more behind Lechmere?

The murderer arrived WITH Nichols at 3.33am and was gone by 3.38am

She may have already been there, she may have arrived with the Killer, both are speculation.

If we accept Lilley, then the murder occurred after 3 30, but before the carmen(both) arrived. We really cannot be any more pricise than that.

Using such pricise timing is of course flawed, if for no other reason than Lechmere's 3.30, might not be syncronizied with the train time, or with Paul's time.
I will go further and say it's highly improbable that the TIMES were syncronizied.

Lechmere is innocent and we can move on...

Or can we?

The reason why Lechmere has drawn more comments than any other suspect on this case... is because deep down we all know (if we are honest with ourselves) that something just doesn't ring true about this particular murder.

I disagree very strongly on that point RD.
The reason for the popularity of Lechmere, is a very well made, but highly controversial documentary, and a continual push by one or two individuals.
I can say hand on heart I see nothing that does not ring true with this murder.

That is not when you strip all the half truths, baseless speculation and sometime plain old misinformation away, and look at the actual facts.

We make excuses for altering times to be approximate in terms of witnesses coming and going and manipulating the boundaries or what is possible, despite it being improbable.
the fact is that because Lechmere left late for work on the same day there was a murder that occurred in his path, then that should automatically raise questions.

As I said earlier, there is NO EVIDENCE that he left late at all.
The two times of 3.20 do not say he normally left at 3.20, but that he left that day at 3.20.

It seems highly probable that a single journalist wrote for both papers and that 3.20 is a mistake.

Yes he does say he is behind time, but only AFTER, he stops and examines Polly.

Despite disagreeing with Christer on this, I also admire his resilience and guile in defending his corner.

NO comment.

I don't think Lechmere committed the murders because based in my opinion the killer watched, followed, approached, charmed and then went off with all of his victims as part of his game and Lechmere just didn't have the time for that.

Unless of course he left on time for work and then Christer has a very valid case against Lechmere.
It's so frustrating that the one day that he leaves late, a woman is brutally murdered. Very unlucky indeed.

By on time, are you suggesting that he normally left at 3.20?

If so there is nothing to support this was his normal time, only speculation based on a misreading of 2 press reports.

I hope you can see how somethings that are repeated over and over, are actually not supported by the evidence .


Steve

[The Rookie Detective]

A few comments RD.



I do wish people would stop saying he normally left at 3.20.

Of the press reports, only two mention 3.20, both those reports say he left that morning at 3.20, not that he normally left at 3.20.
Those two reports also report other matters in identical wording, suggesting a single journalist.
All the other reports say 3.30 or the majority "about " 3.30

Its probable that the 3.20 was either a mishearing/ reporting by the reporter.



Sorry but you mean you work to the closest five minutes, not everyone does
People often round up or down to nearest 15 minutes..
I would suggest anytime in the range 3.25- 3.35 is acceptable and please remember that's the time he uses, we cannot assume it's syncronizied to the time used by Paul, Neil, Mizen or Thain.



He does not say he was running late when he left home.
He only says this after he has stopped in Bucks Row.

It seems people assume that running late applies to him leaving home, when that is far from clear.
But what seems to happen is that people take 2 different issues, him saying he was behind time AFTER examining Polly, and the high probable mistaken time of 3.20.
And get he was running late when he left home.

My own preferred figure for walking speed is 3.5 mph, above average, which gets him to Brown's Yard in under 7 minutes .

So using a range of times for leaving home, say from 3.30 to 3.33 he arrives at Brown's Yard at 3.37-3.40 plus or minus say 30 seconds.



Any of those times is possible.



Again that's fair.



Given that Paul and Lechmere appear not to have noticed each other until 50 yards apart, the same COULD be true here.
So it's possibly accurate but he may have left under a minute before Lech arrived.



I would reduce this by at least a minute.



He does not need to have cleared Bucks Row, only be out of sight of Lechmere.
All we know is that Lechmere claimed He was aware of Paul at about 40 yards.
Given he heard the footsteps first we can allow up to 50 yards, so let's say 50 or so yards is how far you could see. Paul unfortunately does not give a distance.



Perfectly fair, but Remember she does not give a time, the trains expected time is used, so it may be the train that is out, not Lilley.
she is not pricise about if the the voices are while the train is passing or shortly after, so one can extend the range you quote, as the exact time of the train is unknown.



Perfectly reasoned.



This all depends on who was where.
There is evidence that the area around Bucks Row and Winthrop street was a known red light area.
In which case, Polly may well have been waiting either at the gates or close by.
In which case we can reduce the time by at least 1 minute.
Kelly certainly took more than 5 minutes, but 5 is I think fair for the rest.



Wow lots of assumption there,
I suspect Polly was already at the site, certainly close to it.

I also strongy suspect, that in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes, the victims TOOK the killer to spots they considered safe.
If we accept Stride as a victim, then the killer attacker her where she was.



All are assumptions, all are indeed possible, BUT they are NOT the ONLY possibilities.



There is NO tenable evidence that Lechmere is ever alone in Bucks Row with the body.
The evidence such as it is, says Lechmere is around 50 yards ahead of Paul.

Everything else is speculation.



Using a walking pace of 3.5 mph, that's just over 100 yards per minute.
The evidence suggests Paul is between 40-50 yards behind Lechmere, so Paul bumps into Lechmere about 30 seconds after Lechmere arrives.

Your view that you can't accept later than 3.33 is simply because you feel you would not say about 3.30 if it were 3 34.
Not everyone would agree with that View RD.



Not really, the Times for bleeding under pressure are established medical facts. Reported in peer reviewed medical articles and text books, so we use the facts.
HOWEVER, the vague times for passive bleeding are because there is no set limit on this.

When looking at times for a kill, all we can do is estimate how long it would take, there are no hard facts so we tend to go with the killer just performing the actions and leaving.

We will as I have said before disagree on the almost total decapitation, but the blood vessels cut are exactly the same, the bleed time under pressure will stay the same.



Why are you assuming he is a minute or more behind Lechmere?



She may have already been there, she may have arrived with the Killer, both are speculation.

If we accept Lilley, then the murder occurred after 3 30, but before the carmen(both) arrived. We really cannot be any more pricise than that.

Using such pricise timing is of course flawed, if for no other reason than Lechmere's 3.30, might not be syncronizied with the train time, or with Paul's time.
I will go further and say it's highly improbable that the TIMES were syncronizied.



I disagree very strongly on that point RD.
The reason for the popularity of Lechmere, is a very well made, but highly controversial documentary, and a continual push by one or two individuals.
I can say hand on heart I see nothing that does not ring true with this murder.

That is not when you strip all the half truths, baseless speculation and sometime plain old misinformation away, and look at the actual facts.



As I said earlier, there is NO EVIDENCE that he left late at all.
The two times of 3.20 do not say he normally left at 3.20, but that he left that day at 3.20.

It seems highly probable that a single journalist wrote for both papers and that 3.20 is a mistake.

Yes he does say he is behind time, but only AFTER, he stops and examines Polly.




NO comment.



By on time, are you suggesting that he normally left at 3.20?

If so there is nothing to support this was his normal time, only speculation based on a misreading of 2 press reports.

I hope you can see how somethings that are repeated over and over, are actually not supported by the evidence .


Steve

Hi Steve


Thank you for replying and working through my post in detail.

I am grateful that you clarified the point about the 3.20am being a misprint and an inaccurate assumption of when he usually left.

That actually makes more sense in terms of his leaving time from home and as you say, on the morning he states around 3.30am and I can concur with the idea that people often use quarterly hour declarations of time i.e. quarter past the hour, Quarter to the hour. On that basis I also accept the reasoning that his leaving time can be anywhere up to 3.35am.

Leaving around 3.30am could mean he left as late as 3.35am and so his arrival time then becomes 3.42am which tallies perfectly with Paul arriving just after him and means Lechmere was never alone with the body for more than 30 seconds, the time it took for him to stop, look over at the heap on the floor and realize it was a woman, then hearing Paul and then engaging with Paul as he approached.

But obviously, if he leaves around 3.30am but if was as early as 3.25am, then that means he arrives at Bucks Row at 3.32am and that doesn't fit with trying to disprove he's the killer.

As I say, I don't believe he's the killer, but I just want to clarify that when he says he left around 3.30am, that shouldn't just apply to adding 5 minutes to make it 3.35am (to tie in with Paul's arrival and clear Lechmere) but it should also make leaving as early as 3.25am just as likely as 3.35am, ergo, around 3.30am should include 5 minutes AFTER AND PRIOR to 3.30am for the sake of balance.

The issue with 3.25am however, is that it would mean he would have arrived at approximately 3.32am just as the murder likely taking place (based on Lilley) AND give Lechmere up to 10 minutes alone with Nichol's before Paul arrived at 3.42am.

Based on Lilleys statement/evidence and Lechmere's latest possible arrival time i.e. 30 seconds BEFORE Paul at 3.42am, then the murder MUST have occurred sometime between 3.25am and 3.40am.

That's now up to a 15 minute window, which now opens up a lot more possibilities.