Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Elamarna]

Let me suggest it again - try reading the inquest testimonies. You'll embarrass yourself less.

Charles Lechmere did not just hang out with the body. He grabbed the first available person, showed them the body, and went for the police. Just like John Davis did for the Chapman murder. Just like Louis Diemschutz did for the Stride murder. Just like Thomas Bowyer did for the Kelly murder.

Let me also suggest that you read what other people said. You'll embarrass yourself less.

Charles Lechmere couldn't have contacted police or reporters on Bucks Row that afternoon - Pickfords shifts meant he would have been there until sometime between 6:20pm and 10:20pm.

I have no idea if Lechmere was inquisitive when he did return home and that has no bearing on his guilt or innocence. Sometime that weekend, he contacted the police. As opposed to Robert Paul, had to be tracked down by the police, which took a couple weeks.

These points have already been mentioned multiple times.

Hi Fiver, while I agree with most of your comments on this subject, I strongly suspect Paul was traced much earlier than is generally believed .
The fact that he did not appear until 17th is used to argue there was a large gap. However, I suspect that he was located far earlier, possibly on Saturday night/ Sunday morning or on the Sunday night, but simply not called to the inquest until later.

I covered the arguments for this in the Rippercast online conference last autumn, and of course it's in "Inside Bucks Row".
And while we can't be certain, I think the arguments are sound.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,
Drop in from time to time, but busy running another well known forum.

Lech does not give a time for discovery at all. At the inquest he says he leaves home at "about 3.30"

People then extrapolate this by adding speculative walking speeds.

Such is of course impossible to give accurately and certainly not to the pricise minute, but a range of 6 and a half minutes to 7 and a half is a fair estimate. Indeed even pushing that to 8 minutes is not unreasonable.

Paul gives different times, in Lloyds he says he entered Bucks Row at "exactly 3.45".
Such of course raises many questions, how did he fix the time?
A Watch, he may have had one, but was it syncronizied to that of anyone else that morning, if not the time given is of little use.

A public clock, I showed in my East End Conference talk last year 2022, that it's highly unlikely that Paul could have seen a clock at the Albion Brewery. This talk is available on Rippercast

A clock at home, does not fit with enters Bucks Row at exactly 3.45.

At the inquest, he amends his time, saying he left home just before 3.45, which of course is no more useful than Lechmere's "about 3.30 " for setting meaningful times.

thanks el
what forum do you run may i ask?

[Elamarna]

The discoverer of Martha Tabrum’s body immediately ran to get a cop; the discoverer of Annie Chapman’s body (John Davis, carman) immediately informed neighbors and then went to a police station; the discoverer of Elizabeth Stride’s body went into an establishment to get help…with the lighting of the murder site being worse than on Buck’s row.


Lech? He just hangs out by the body. And then, he fails to be inquisitive when returning in the afternoon.


Unless you believe the nonsense of Lech marching 50 yards in front of Paul for a while, unnoticed - and then, once diverted by a body and half-way across the street, suddenly hears Paul’s footsteps - you have to accept the notion that Lechmere was alone with the body for an indeterminate amount of time: one minute? 5 minutes?

Why do you call the idea of Lechmere being only 50 or so yards ahead of Paul a nonsense?
That's not what the evidence tells us.
While the evidence is limited, it is all we have, and is the sworn testimony of the two men involved.
At no point in that testimony is there anything to suggest it is not a truthful account from men?
While you can argue that you do not believe it, to call it nonsense simply demonstrates a mind that is set to one view only.

If innocent, why did Lechmere wait for Paul? Polly Nichol’s was almost decapitated …

Lechmere only waits if you believe that Paul is not only 40-50 yards behind him. if he is only 40-50 yards ahead, then asking him to look with you , appears to be the immediate action you ask for in other places

A great exaggeration I am afraid, the report of her injuries clearly shows she was not nearly decapitated.
Chapman was the closest to that.

how long does it take to realize she was in trouble?

Her condition was clearly not obvious.

Apparently it took a lamp, that of Neil to show just how bad Mary Ann was.
Robert Paul touched her, and he was unsure if she was dead or not.

Why not knock on doors, or go across the street to the horse slaughtering operation (was their lighting visible to Buck’s row pedestrians?)

It was 3.40- 3.45, people were asleep, why would you knock on a door, when you had a man walking 50 or so yards behind you.
Especially if you were not sure of her condition. At the time he saw Paul, he had no idea of Mary Ann's condition. Of course if one starts from the position of him being the killer, one would have a different view.

Harrison, Barber was NOT across the road, it was in an entirely separate street, Winthrop , which ran parallel and to the south of Bucks Row.

Why not go for a cop right after quickly ascertaining that Polly Nichol’s was critically injured?

Two points here,
Firstly neither Lechmere or Paul were sure of her condition. I suggest you read the statements of both men.

Second more important point, They DID head off to find a policeman, as soon as they could after checking Mary Ann.

The idea, that this was NOT done, comes from a belief that Lechmere was there minutes before Paul, such is simply speculation, based on a manufactured gap between the two men, which the evidence does NOT support.

If it was unlikely that JtR would hang out waiting for Paul, why is it suddenly likely that an innocent Lech would hang out there ….. and needlessly come under suspicion? Why not go get a cop when he hears footsteps at the bottom of Buck’s row?

Again, you are accepting that Lechmere is there minutes before Paul.
Footsteps at the bottom of Bucks Row?
Lechmere talks of 40 yards, which probably translates to a gap of about 50 yards before Lechmere slows down.
The bottom of Bucks Row is 130 yards away.
The evidence says that Lechmere goes for a policeman within probably a minute of so of first seeing Mary Ann Nichols.

Failing to hear each other’s footsteps is very much meaningful.

Actually it's not, Paul NEVER says if he hears Lechmere ahead of him.
ALL he says is he sees him in the middle of the road, he does not even give a distance,

Of course if one starts from a position of guilt, then it may seem meaningful.

[Elamarna]

thanks el
what forum do you run may i ask?

The other site, Howard's old one.

[Abby Normal]

The other site, Howard's old one.

thats right. duh lol

[Fiver]

The 6 things we know that everyone avoids

(and makes zero effort in trying to piece together in a consistent theory):

"Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong." - Luke Skywalker.

1. Paul did not testify to having heard or seen Lechmere, walking some 50 yards in front, over the few minutes it would have taken. Lechmere, himself, testifies that he could hear all the way up Buck’s row from Brady Street.

2. Modern understanding of how the brain processes sounds is that self generated, repetitive sounds, like footsteps, are unconsciously canceled out by our auditory cortex.

3. According to all but one newspaper account, Lechmere started off his inquest testimony furnishing a former name, his vocation, and his place of work, along with being the only one to describe his length of service.

“Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years.”


Unless they were PCs, doctors, doss house residents or witnesses on the job at the time in which they recount their testimony (night watchman, etc), every witness furnished the inquest with their home address, save Lechmere.

For example:

Edward Walker deposed: I live at 15, Maidwell-street, Albany-road, Camberwell, and have no occupation

Henry Tomkins, horse-slaughterer, 12, Coventry-street, Bethnal-green

Robert Baul [Paul], 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman

• The Daily Telegraph, Saturday September 1rst/3rd

One newspaper account gave Lechmere’s address: 22 Doveton street.


4. Lechmere attended the proceedings dressed in his work clothes: he was the only one pointed out as doing so:

Charles Cross, carman, who appeared in Court with a rough sack apron on, said that he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for some years.

• East London Observer, Saturday the 8th September

5. Elizabeth Lechmere was illiterate, and would not have access to newspaper accounts of things like inquest testimonies directly, but would have to depend on the gossip/hearsay of neighbors.


6. No one among Lechmere’s descendants knew that Lechmere was the first to discover Polly Nichol’s body. None of them corrected the widely held belief that the first to discover the body was a Charles Cross - who evidently they didn’t recognize as Lech.

1) Has been discussed extensively. We don't know when Paul saw or heard Lechmere and so cannot draw any conclusions from it. We know that Lechmere testified that he heard Paul at a distance about 40 yards behind him. It is quite possible that Lechmere heard him before that, but only on a subconscious level. We know that Lechmere said he did not hear anyone in front of him. That was a longer distance than 40 yards, but we also hear sounds in front of us better than those behind us - I have posted a link on that before. And at a distance of 50 yards, Robert Paul would have been unable to see Lechmere until Paul entered Buck's Row. Based on average walking speeds, that would have been roughly 30 seconds, not several minutes.

2) We also know that the brain processes out background noise, like people walking away from you.

3) You repeating a Cult of Lechmere lie doesn't make it true. He gave his home address of 22 Doveton Street at the inquest as required by law. He was not the only witness at one of the inquests to have their home address published by only one newspaper. You would know this if you read other people's posts.

4) You repeating a Cult of Lechmere lie doesn't make it true. Charles Lechmere was not the only person to attend one of the inquests wearing his work clothes. There are multiple reasons an innocent man would do so - these have been told to you repeatedly and you have repeatedly ignored them. You have been asked how wearing a work uniform shows guilt on Lechmere's part and have not answered the question.

5) You have not mentioned this point before. Elizabeth Lechmere was illiterate when she married in 1870. We don't know if she stayed illiterate. We also know that every one of her children became literate. And there's no indication that Elizabeth Lechmere was deaf.

6) Has been discussed extensively. Most great great grandchildren couldn't tell you their ancestors name, let alone anything that he did. This is not evidence of anything.

To sum up - 4 of your points are irrelevant, 1 of your points is false, and 1 of your points is both irrelevant and false.

[Fiver]

With a high degree of certainty, Lech arrived at Polly Nichols body earlier than he stated/implied at the inquest (around 3:38 am). How much earlier might he have arrived and who would know?

Lechmere could have left for work earlier that he stated at the inquest. There is no evidence that he did.

Elizabeth Lechmere was a housefrau, and one of her duties would have been to get up and prepare Charles Lechmere his breakfast and his lunch before Lech headed to work. She would have a good sense of the time, for obvious reasons. Lech was leaving well before 3:30 am - he could have invented the boss wants me to check in early - additional job duties - as an excuse. It doesn’t really matter.

Or Elizabeth Lechmere could have make breakfast and lunch for her husband the night before. Or maybe he bought breakfast and lunch from street vendors on his job. They might have just chosen an option that let Elizabeth get more sleep - little Charlie was only 5, Bertie wasn't only enough to be toilet trained, and Harriet was still nursing and possibly not sleeping through the night yet.

Broad Street Station schedules would have been based on train arrival times. Additional job duties would have meant Charles Lechmere had to work late, not that he needed to come in early.

If Elizabeth heard Lech testify that he only made it as far as Buck’s row, by 3:38 am, she would have known that it was well off: he should have been much, much farther along by that time.

She would then have entertained suspicions about what he was up to beforehand, if she knew. Maybe a neighbor was also aware of Lech’s departure times around that date.

Those are reasons against Lechmere being the Ripper. Going to work was a set schedule with little slack time to get murdery in. But Pickfords shifts lasted from 14 to 18 hours. It's a lot easier to get murdery with 4 hours slack and you can make up a credible lie for any bloodstains.

Elizabeth, being illiterate, would not have access to newspaper stories. She would learn about significant stories (local murders being big items) from neighbors. She most probably knew her husband was formerly Charles Cross, but her new neighbors wouldn’t have had a clue about it. Neighbors, reading that a Charles Cross, who worked at Pickford’s, was the first to discover Polly Nichols' body would not ring a bell. However, information that a Charles Lechmere, of 22 Doveton Street, was the first to arrive at the body, would likely be told to Elizabeth by some ones’ wife.

We don't know if the new neighbors knew him as Charles Allen Cross or Charles Allen Lechmere. Either way, they knew he lived at 22 Doveton Street, so his finding Nichols body wouldn't have been a secret to anyone. And if they knew him as Lechmere, everybody in the neighborhood would be wanting know why he had used the name Cross.

And Elizabeth's children were literate. Elizabeth was 15. Mary was 13. Thomas was 12. George was 10. James was 8. Louisa was 6. Elizabeth's mother-in-law and her husband were literate. Elizabeth's brother Thomas and his wife were literate. So were Elizabeth's single brothers.

Lechmere dressed in his work clothes at the inquest because he was pretending to go to work. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason why a guy with middle class proprietary ambitions, who would not go to work that day (his testimony was at 11 am) wouldn't dress in his best attire for the occasion. He’s not Alfie Doolittle.

Here you pile speculation on speculation. Most people didn't wear their Sunday best to an inquest. Many wore their work clothes. Lechmere might have worn his because he planned, or at least hoped to work a half day after giving his testimony. Or it could have been to make it easier for PC Mizen to ID him - Mizen wasn't the shiniest apple on the tree. Possibly both.

The idea that Lechmere was only pretending to go to work is laughable. Elizabeth Lechmere didn't have to be literate to notice that her husband's pay to be short a day's wages. Lechmere gave his home address publicly at the inquest and even threw in his middle name of Allen, so the odds of this lie getting past his wife (or his literate children or his mother) were almost non-existent.

The idea that he was picked up by the police in a dragnet, the Monday morning of the inquest, heading for work has several problems: first, it seems that the police didn’t buy Robert Pauls story, initially; 2nd, they most probably wouldn’t have fitted him into the inquest schedule on such short notice: there were later dates available.

This is the first part of any post that you made that makes the slightest bit of sense.

The result was that Lechmere’s family was kept in the dark about his association with Jack the Ripper. Most East Londoners would have reveled in that fact, exaggerating their participation in the events, like Robert Paul.

In addition to all the other flaws in your threory, it also requires that Lechmere manages to sneak off to talk to the police without being detected by anyone who knows him and that the police never stop by to question him about Robert Paul or anything else.

The Polly Nichol’s murder was the last JtR murder, that took place on a long open street, at a time when Lech would be heading for work: why?

The simplest and most credible explanation is that the Ripper got spooked by Lechmere and decided he wanted more privacy so he could do more with a single victim.

[Newbie]

Lechmere could have left for work earlier that he stated at the inquest. There is no evidence that he did.



Or Elizabeth Lechmere could have make breakfast and lunch for her husband the night before. Or maybe he bought breakfast and lunch from street vendors on his job. They might have just chosen an option that let Elizabeth get more sleep - little Charlie was only 5, Bertie wasn't only enough to be toilet trained, and Harriet was still nursing and possibly not sleeping through the night yet.

Broad Street Station schedules would have been based on train arrival times. Additional job duties would have meant Charles Lechmere had to work late, not that he needed to come in early.



Those are reasons against Lechmere being the Ripper. Going to work was a set schedule with little slack time to get murdery in. But Pickfords shifts lasted from 14 to 18 hours. It's a lot easier to get murdery with 4 hours slack and you can make up a credible lie for any bloodstains.



We don't know if the new neighbors knew him as Charles Allen Cross or Charles Allen Lechmere. Either way, they knew he lived at 22 Doveton Street, so his finding Nichols body wouldn't have been a secret to anyone. And if they knew him as Lechmere, everybody in the neighborhood would be wanting know why he had used the name Cross.

And Elizabeth's children were literate. Elizabeth was 15. Mary was 13. Thomas was 12. George was 10. James was 8. Louisa was 6. Elizabeth's mother-in-law and her husband were literate. Elizabeth's brother Thomas and his wife were literate. So were Elizabeth's single brothers.



Here you pile speculation on speculation. Most people didn't wear their Sunday best to an inquest. Many wore their work clothes. Lechmere might have worn his because he planned, or at least hoped to work a half day after giving his testimony. Or it could have been to make it easier for PC Mizen to ID him - Mizen wasn't the shiniest apple on the tree. Possibly both.

The idea that Lechmere was only pretending to go to work is laughable. Elizabeth Lechmere didn't have to be literate to notice that her husband's pay to be short a day's wages. Lechmere gave his home address publicly at the inquest and even threw in his middle name of Allen, so the odds of this lie getting past his wife (or his literate children or his mother) were almost non-existent.



This is the first part of any post that you made that makes the slightest bit of sense.



In addition to all the other flaws in your threory, it also requires that Lechmere manages to sneak off to talk to the police without being detected by anyone who knows him and that the police never stop by to question him about Robert Paul or anything else.



The simplest and most credible explanation is that the Ripper got spooked by Lechmere and decided he wanted more privacy so he could do more with a single victim.

Starting off with your laundry list method of disputation again, ay fiver?
And then, like a five year old, you use emojis to emphasize some knotty point .... that's cute!

You say that the facts I base my arguments on are wrong - all of them,
and then you don't bother to specify which ones, nor mention why they are wrong.

To you, a fact is anything that remotely has a chance of being true and supports your own position.

Does anyone think that Lech presented himself as Charles Cross to his neighbors, and his wife was presented as Elizabeth Lechmere?
That would certainly raise some eyebrows in Victorian England. His kids were Lechmeres, they must have been wondering who their
biological father was.

But hey! If it is remotely possible, it must be true. Right fiver?


Sorry I didn't read the rest of your laundry list.
After your start, I simply had no incentive to read any further.

Laughs & giggles emoji

[Newbie]

"Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong." - Luke Skywalker.



1) Has been discussed extensively. We don't know when Paul saw or heard Lechmere and so cannot draw any conclusions from it. We know that Lechmere testified that he heard Paul at a distance about 40 yards behind him. It is quite possible that Lechmere heard him before that, but only on a subconscious level. We know that Lechmere said he did not hear anyone in front of him. That was a longer distance than 40 yards, but we also hear sounds in front of us better than those behind us - I have posted a link on that before. And at a distance of 50 yards, Robert Paul would have been unable to see Lechmere until Paul entered Buck's Row. Based on average walking speeds, that would have been roughly 30 seconds, not several minutes.

2) We also know that the brain processes out background noise, like people walking away from you.

3) You repeating a Cult of Lechmere lie doesn't make it true. He gave his home address of 22 Doveton Street at the inquest as required by law. He was not the only witness at one of the inquests to have their home address published by only one newspaper. You would know this if you read other people's posts.

4) You repeating a Cult of Lechmere lie doesn't make it true. Charles Lechmere was not the only person to attend one of the inquests wearing his work clothes. There are multiple reasons an innocent man would do so - these have been told to you repeatedly and you have repeatedly ignored them. You have been asked how wearing a work uniform shows guilt on Lechmere's part and have not answered the question.

5) You have not mentioned this point before. Elizabeth Lechmere was illiterate when she married in 1870. We don't know if she stayed illiterate. We also know that every one of her children became literate. And there's no indication that Elizabeth Lechmere was deaf.

6) Has been discussed extensively. Most great great grandchildren couldn't tell you their ancestors name, let alone anything that he did. This is not evidence of anything.

To sum up - 4 of your points are irrelevant, 1 of your points is false, and 1 of your points is both irrelevant and false.

Have you forgotten fiver? Lechmere's own testimony said that he heard Paul, and then saw Paul emerge some 40 yards away.
(It's good that you are not a squirrel, you'd have no idea where you hid your nuts for the winter)

I used St. Lech's own testimony, which renders him a liar, for reasons that I stated.
I couldn't give a fig for all the thread pages that I wandered through today talking about walking rates, and mixing up times:
someone earlier told me that I would get clarity on the Cross/Lechmere name - boy, was i disappointed.

BTW, you got half of the highlighted sentence correct (the brain's ability to ignore background noise),
and then you shamelessly apply it to something for which it is not intended.

Is there a face palm emoji here?

[Newbie]

Why do you call the idea of Lechmere being only 50 or so yards ahead of Paul a nonsense?
That's not what the evidence tells us.
While the evidence is limited, it is all we have, and is the sworn testimony of the two men involved.
At no point in that testimony is there anything to suggest it is not a truthful account from men?
While you can argue that you do not believe it, to call it nonsense simply demonstrates a mind that is set to one view only.



Lechmere only waits if you believe that Paul is not only 40-50 yards behind him. if he is only 40-50 yards ahead, then asking him to look with you , appears to be the immediate action you ask for in other places

A great exaggeration I am afraid, the report of her injuries clearly shows she was not nearly decapitated.
Chapman was the closest to that.



Her condition was clearly not obvious.

Apparently it took a lamp, that of Neil to show just how bad Mary Ann was.
Robert Paul touched her, and he was unsure if she was dead or not.



It was 3.40- 3.45, people were asleep, why would you knock on a door, when you had a man walking 50 or so yards behind you.
Especially if you were not sure of her condition. At the time he saw Paul, he had no idea of Mary Ann's condition. Of course if one starts from the position of him being the killer, one would have a different view.

Harrison, Barber was NOT across the road, it was in an entirely separate street, Winthrop , which ran parallel and to the south of Bucks Row.



Two points here,
Firstly neither Lechmere or Paul were sure of her condition. I suggest you read the statements of both men.

Second more important point, They DID head off to find a policeman, as soon as they could after checking Mary Ann.

The idea, that this was NOT done, comes from a belief that Lechmere was there minutes before Paul, such is simply speculation, based on a manufactured gap between the two men, which the evidence does NOT support.



Again, you are accepting that Lechmere is there minutes before Paul.
Footsteps at the bottom of Bucks Row?
Lechmere talks of 40 yards, which probably translates to a gap of about 50 yards before Lechmere slows down.
The bottom of Bucks Row is 130 yards away.
The evidence says that Lechmere goes for a policeman within probably a minute of so of first seeing Mary Ann Nichols.




Actually it's not, Paul NEVER says if he hears Lechmere ahead of him.
ALL he says is he sees him in the middle of the road, he does not even give a distance,

Of course if one starts from a position of guilt, then it may seem meaningful.

Lechmere, of course, counts too; and Lech said that he heard Paul when he was some 50 yards away, and that is why he turned around.
The turning around is a significant part of his testimony, because it gives him a reason to be standing there, in the middle of the road, waiting for Paul, instead of having come directly from Polly Nichol's body and waiting.

Are you telling me that Lech heard Paul all along? Then why the 'he then heard the footsteps' part in his testimony? That's awfully hard to reconcile with having heard footsteps all along. He didn't hear footsteps, and then he did hear footsteps. Either Lech is lying on one matter, or he's lying on another: which do you prefer?


"He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. " - the Daily telegraph



With Paul, let's go back and get both his articulations on the matter: hopefully, he contradicts Lech, and we can establish some semblance of hearing the other's footsteps in a timely fashion (before Lech arriving at the body)?

"Robert Baul [Paul], 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road." - the Daily telegraph

""It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but, as I knew the dangerous character of the locality, I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot." - Loyd's Weekly

The inquest testimony is thin; but both Paul's descriptions identify his first notice of Lechmere as visual .... no mention of footsteps whatsoever. I highlighted 'when' in the sentence from Loyd's weekly, because the grammatical function of 'when' in a sentence is to provide a temporal division between a before and after. I judge it to be a division between a knowing, and not knowing of Lechmere's presence; if you consider that to be unclear - that's fine. You then need to return to Lechmere's testimony.

In a dark dangerous street, with murders and gangs, sounds are important for your survival. So it is very strange that Paul makes no mention of hearing anything ahead, and that he starts with a visual clue.

No matter, Lechmere hangs himself, and Paul doesn't bail him out.

My belief is that Lech, like PC O'Neil, heard footsteps at Brady street from the location of Polly Nichols body, and went to the middle of the street to wait.

When i have time, i'll get to the rest.

[Dickere]

Does anyone think that Lech presented himself as Charles Cross to his neighbors, and his wife was presented as Elizabeth Lechmere?
That would certainly raise some eyebrows in Victorian England. His kids were Lechmeres, they must have been wondering who their
biological father was.

Who's to say he presented himself like that at all ?

I just know our next-door neighbours first names. I assume they have the same surname but maybe not, my partner and I don't. Charlie the Pickfords carman would be enough.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll search for it; but as you can imagine, i have very limited expectations on the level of reasoning I will encounter.

I'm always open to something good and interesting.

If you find flaws in David’s research I’d suggest it will be a first.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lechmere, of course, counts too; and Lech said that he heard Paul when he was some 50 yards away, and that is why he turned around.
The turning around is a significant part of his testimony, because it gives him a reason to be standing there, in the middle of the road, waiting for Paul, instead of having come directly from Polly Nichol's body and waiting.

Are you telling me that Lech heard Paul all along? Then why the 'he then heard the footsteps' part in his testimony? That's awfully hard to reconcile with having heard footsteps all along. He didn't hear footsteps, and then he did hear footsteps. Either Lech is lying on one matter, or he's lying on another: which do you prefer?


"He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. " - the Daily telegraph



With Paul, let's go back and get both his articulations on the matter: hopefully, he contradicts Lech, and we can establish some semblance of hearing the other's footsteps in a timely fashion (before Lech arriving at the body)?

"Robert Baul [Paul], 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road." - the Daily telegraph

""It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but, as I knew the dangerous character of the locality, I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot." - Loyd's Weekly

The inquest testimony is thin; but both Paul's descriptions identify his first notice of Lechmere as visual .... no mention of footsteps whatsoever. I highlighted 'when' in the sentence from Loyd's weekly, because the grammatical function of 'when' in a sentence is to provide a temporal division between a before and after. I judge it to be a division between a knowing, and not knowing of Lechmere's presence; if you consider that to be unclear - that's fine. You then need to return to Lechmere's testimony.

In a dark dangerous street, with murders and gangs, sounds are important for your survival. So it is very strange that Paul makes no mention of hearing anything ahead, and that he starts with a visual clue.

Paul also says that he was “hurrying along” which would have allowed for an increased gap between them. Lechmere only had to have been at the scene 15 or 20 seconds before he heard Paul and we can add 30 or 40 yards to the gap between them making it 70, 80, 90 or a 100 yards between them as they were walking to work.

No matter, Lechmere hangs himself, and Paul doesn't bail him out.

My belief is that Lech, like PC O'Neil, heard footsteps at Brady street from the location of Polly Nichols body, and went to the middle of the street to wait.

When i have time, i'll get to the rest.

And when you have time, you might want to ask yourself why, if Lechmere heard Paul earlier than he’d claimed, he didn’t scarper? His remaining at the scene is strong evidence of innocent even if he’d first become aware of Paul 40 or 50 yards away. How much greater old this have been if he’d actually heard Paul even earlier? He’d have been long gone. You’re simply making a stronger case for Lechmere being the innocent man that he clearly was.

I have to say that you’re doing an excellent job of illustrating the unlikeliness of Lechmere being the ripper without any help from us but first a point that you should consider on the inquest testimony. These weren’t verbatim reports and we all know that a meaning can be altered simply by the omission of a word or by a reporter slightly mishearing a sentence and writing it down incorrectly. Obviously we can’t prove or disprove anything using this point but it’s worth keeping in mind. For example, we have Lechmere saying:

“He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away.”

How can we be absolutely certain that what he’d actually said wasn’t “I heard a man’s footsteps then I first saw him when he was around 40 yards away?”

Please note that I’m not making a claim about this, I’m just illustrating how we have to be aware of the possibility of slight differences/errors in wording.


Also, would he have told a lie about his name at an inquest attended by members of the public, anyone of whom might have known him and sidled over to a police officer and said “Cross isn’t his real name by the way?” Clearly there’s nothing suspicious about him using his stepfather’s name. Another point that those who zealously propose Lechmere never address is - why, if he was trying to hide something, didn’t he simply give the name Fred Smith, with a false address? The fact that he gave his correct middle name and his correct address and place of work tells us all that we need to know. It’s yet another non-point ludicrously raised to smoking gun level.

[Aethelwulf]

Is there a face palm emoji here?

Perahps Mark could adapt his CoL (Cult of Lechmere) avataar into a palm for you for occasions such as this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll point out again the desperation shown. Even the non-point that Lechmere arrived at the inquest wearing his work clothes is used as some kind of bizarre point against him. He wasn’t attending Henley Regatta or watching The Gentleman vs The Players at Lord’s. Every single thing is twisted in the attempt to frame a man who acted perfectly normally and did nothing wrong. I shouldn’t complain though because the more of these desperate points that are put forward the more obvious the desperation appears. I suspect that in a year or so’s time people will start to abandon Lechmere as a suspect and he’ll be consigned to the same areas occupied by Mann, Hardiman and Endacott.