Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fiver]

A man who lived in the area would tend to know the area better than someone who doesn't, would generally be in the area more and so would have more opportunities to commit the murders, and it would be easier for someone who lived in the area to escape after a murder.

Agreed. That's why I would lean towards not just a local, but a carman, a coachman, or a postie if a credible suspect had one of those occupations.

[Fiver]

But also operating in such a compact area, and potentially being born/raised there with family ties, knows lots of people, would be at high risk of being recognised. the ripper didn't know how things would play out each time. In the case of a botched job or disturbance he could've been in big trouble. killing near mother's house would be a massive risk if things went wrong or he was seen. Killing Chapman in daylight while on an espresso break would be suicide.

That risk is why geographical profiling discounts locations too close to places the suspect lives or works. The killer being a local is likely, but you show why it is laughable that Lechmere killed Chapman or Stride. To indicate how risky the latter would have been - one of the people who saw Stride before her death was William Marshall. Marshall's wife appears to have nursed Charles Lechmere's sister in the last days before her death.

[Abby Normal]

No one has said that Mann, Endacott, or Mulshaw was a better suspect.

James Hardiman and GCS Lechmere are better suspects than Charles Allen Lechmere. Both died a few years after the murders ended. Hardiman might have had a motive for hating prostitutes. GCS Lechmere tried to slit his own wife's throat.



That's not even close to being true. Mulshaw was given as an example of how easy it is to find suspects with closer location ties than Charles Lechmere. I suspect I could do the same for Joseph Lawende, who like CAL used a different name in court than he did in official documentsJames Hardiman and GCS Lechmere are better suspects than Charles Allen Lechmere. Both died a few years after the murders ended. Hardiman might have had a motive for hating prostitutes. GCS Lechmere tried to slit his own wife's throat..



Robert Paul had the same disagreement with PC Mizen and supported Charles Lechmere's testimony.

good lord where to even start with this mess. sigh.. ok from tje beginning i guess.

No one has said that Mann, Endacott, or Mulshaw was a better suspect.

really? lol seemed like it. ah ok. good. i look forward to you excoriagating the posters that did propose them and yourself to agreeing to it lol. but dont be too hard on yourself fiver, as ive said lechmere causes people on both sides to lose it.

James Hardiman and GCS Lechmere are better suspects than Charles Allen Lechmere. Both died a few years after the murders ended. Hardiman might have had a motive for hating prostitutes. GCS Lechmere tried to slit his own wife's throat.

HAHAHA! as if dying after the murders is an indicator of guilt! that puts 2 billion people in tje frame for the ripper lol!

oh and btw, serial killers dont have a traditional motive for their crimes, and everyone with a modicum of knowledge on the history of SKs has figured out they target prostitutes because they are easy prey. go back and study up and get back to us please when your a tad smarter and less ignorantly arrogant.

nice find on the other lechmere lol. i look forward to your continued research.

not even close to being true. Mulshaw was given as an example of how easy it is to find suspects with closer location ties than Charles Lechmere.

lol. yes if course. did mulshaw discover one of the bodies, seen next to a ripper victim or have arse all to do with anything remotely to do with anything relevant? hes about as far away re location to ripper victim in comparison to lech as coronado was to el dorado.

GCS Lechmere tried to slit his own wife's throat

..

tried!! tried?? lol not very ripper like is it? but again, nice find on another lech!!! i guess murder is in their blood.

would love to continue this discussion with you fiver, but id rather retire to Bedlam.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Yah, Serial Killers do some weird things. Radar, though, believed he couldn't be traced, and indeed, for the most part he was right. He got lazy, or over confident if you prefer, and wanted to send his messages on a computer disk rather than go through the efforts he did to make multiple photo copies of photo copies (so the typewriter couldn't be traced). He enjoyed toying with the police, and the panic he caused in the area, but he went to lengths to not get caught. His mistake was that he believed the police when they told him (via correspondence in the news) that they couldn't trace a document on a floppy (and of course, the header information contains things like who the software is registered to, and the user logged onto the machine! Radar was surprised, and a bit upset, that the police had lied to him! He thought they enjoyed playing his game too, like it was just a friendly competition between them!).

Anyway, my issue, though, is that the "they do weird things card" gets played too often with Cross/Lechmere. Not just the decision not to flee when Paul is over 40 yards away (he has to get to the middle of the street after all), but why doesn't he let Paul just walk by when it is clear he's trying to? and so on (all the points have been raised before so I won't go through them all again). To me it seems like almost everything he does requires the "they just do weird things" card, because otherwise his actions make no sense for a guilty person. And if the "serial killers do weird things" card has to be played that often, it starts to look overplayed. Sure, one or two actions, maybe, particularly if he's been at it for awhile and is getting cocky and over confident. But on the very first murder (or 2nd, if you include Tabram), he's already acting like Radar, who had been successful at staying hidden for over 20 years? Or Dahmer, who had multiple victims by that point, with bodies in the fridge (so probably not of the soundest mind)?

I don't buy it. I do get you've got a different view, which is fine obviously - I certainly don't think my opinion is the only one that could be right, or the only one to be considered. I'm not trying to convince you you're wrong, or get you to change your mind, just spelling out my own thoughts and views for whatever they are worth. I know you've thought a lot about the case, and you don't have any particular suspect to push, which is the same as me. I just find Cross/Lechmere, while worthy of being looked at, seems to me to have been looked at and nothing has surfaced that connects him to the case as anything other than some guy who found the first of the C5. I just get the impression that if he left home as little as 2 minutes later, we would be arguing about Paul the Ripper instead, and Cross/Lechmere would be the fellow who disturbed him instead?

- Jeff

hi jeff
so now im playing some kind of card is it mate?ah ok. i thought i provided specific relevant examples of serial killers exhibiting behavior similar to a guilty lech in response to your question, but hey ho dont let me stop you from responding with ten paragraphs of irrelevant verboteum! you have in the past accused me and others when asking a simple hypothetical as engaging in " fantasy", called the whole case against lechmere as a "house of cards" and now accusing me of playing "a card". This type of rhetoric is unfortunate and quite surprising coming from you. its insulting and beneath you jeff.

there were several other respected researchers before fish who put forth lechmere as a valid suspect, and another tom wescott too who said hes a valid suspect and all tje time and effort fish and others have done researching him. fisherman should be applauded for his work on this suspect.

maybe you should stick to the drier aspects of tje case like statistics and geo profiling my friend. the more subtle aspects seem to elude you. ill leave you to it.

im bowing out disgusted and sick of this bull ****.

[Aethelwulf]

hi jeff
so now im playing some kind of card is it mate?ah ok. i thought i provided specific relevant examples of serial killers exhibiting behavior similar to a guilty lech in response to your question, but hey ho dont let me stop you from responding with ten paragraphs of irrelevant verboteum! you have in the past accused me and others when asking a simple hypothetical as engaging in " fantasy", called the whole case against lechmere as a "house of cards" and now accusing me of playing "a card". This type of rhetoric is unfortunate and quite surprising coming from you. its insulting and beneath you jeff.

there were several other respected researchers before fish who put forth lechmere as a valid suspect, and another tom wescott too who said hes a valid suspect and all tje time and effort fish and others have done researching him. fisherman should be applauded for his work on this suspect.

maybe you should stick to the drier aspects of tje case like statistics and geo profiling my friend. the more subtle aspects seem to elude you. ill leave you to it.

im bowing out disgusted and sick of this bull ****.

Lech is worth looking at for obvious reasons my beef is it's blown out of all proportion with nothing to show he killed Nicholls let alone anyone else over decades. It smacks of just trying to find points that fit like this extension of the lech routine to magically take in poplar high street.

Defo agree there are a group of people on here the pro fence sitters that dismiss everything and wouldn't know suspicious if whacked them in the face shovel.

[JeffHamm]

hi jeff
so now im playing some kind of card is it mate?ah ok. i thought i provided specific relevant examples of serial killers exhibiting behavior similar to a guilty lech in response to your question, but hey ho dont let me stop you from responding with ten paragraphs of irrelevant verboteum! you have in the past accused me and others when asking a simple hypothetical as engaging in " fantasy", called the whole case against lechmere as a "house of cards" and now accusing me of playing "a card". This type of rhetoric is unfortunate and quite surprising coming from you. its insulting and beneath you jeff.

there were several other respected researchers before fish who put forth lechmere as a valid suspect, and another tom wescott too who said hes a valid suspect and all tje time and effort fish and others have done researching him. fisherman should be applauded for his work on this suspect.

maybe you should stick to the drier aspects of tje case like statistics and geo profiling my friend. the more subtle aspects seem to elude you. ill leave you to it.

im bowing out disgusted and sick of this bull ****.

Hi Abby,

A shame you took it that way. "Playing the <insert topic> card" is a common phrase, and not one to get tied up in knots over. I've read and been involved in discussions about Cross/Lechmere a number of times, and those who pump for him being the Ripper strongly (I recognize you just think he's a suspect worth looking at and you aren't doing that) do play that card all the time. I was, by that point in my response to you, talking about how it comes up all the time as it is played for almost every step of the whole event from the time Paul shows up until he eventually separates from Paul and goes on to work. Near every action he makes someone at some time has fallen back to the argument "Well, serial killers are weird and do weird things". As I said, it gets over played with Cross/Lechmere - it wasn't a comment directed at you specifically so much as a comment on the bigger picture of the case against him. I've said time and again I thought Cross/Lechmere was someone worth looking at - but so far those who have looked at him have produced nothing to implicate him, and yet insist that every sign of innocence is just a clever serial killer pretending to be innocent - it is a house of cards theory.

And, despite your rather blunt suggestion, I will continue to comment upon whatever aspect of the case I feel like. If you find my posts to be of no use to you, it is perfectly within your rights to scroll past them.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again, his actions would be inconsistent with first discovers of other murder victims circling our story. Lech's apologists go to great lengths to normalize every oddity about his known behaviours. Surprisingly, people were shocked and frightened about murder and encountering dead bodies back in Victorian England. The first person to discover Martha Tabrum's body, panicked and immediately ran to the police; the discoverers of Mary Kelly's, Annie Chapman's, & Catherine Eddowes, did the same thing: Annie Chapman's going to the police after notifying neighbors. Catherine Eddowes body was in an even darker location than Polly Nichols. Their sense of urgency was not only out of common decency, but probably out of fear of being accused as the perpetrator.

With Lech, again weirdness prevails, even if you take his testimony at face value: he sees a fallen body of a woman; says that he hears Paul coming; ignores the body for some 25 seconds, waiting for Paul to arrive; and then proceeds in a seemingly calm fashion, informing Paul about the body, and then stumbling through an incomplete examination. There is no indication of stress or urgency on his part ever - except when refusing to prop up the body; he seems more resigned to sadness than anything else.
;

To quote John McEnroe: “you cannot be serious!”

There is nothing odd about Lechmere’s behaviour unless you completely ignore the reports of what he’d said that he’d done in favour of your own creative version. How can you ask why Lechmere didn’t run for the police like other witnesses?

“About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. 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. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed over to the body,”

So clearly almost the second that he realised that it was a woman and not a tarpaulin he heard Paul approaching so he waits for him to arrive. Absolutely nothing suspicious or strange about that. And why didn’t he fly into an immediate panic? Because until he and Paul approached the body together Lechmere had no idea that this woman was dead. She could have been drunk or injured or sleeping.

You do yourself or the subject no favours by this kind of twisting of the evidence Newbie. You add dubious statements like “ignores the body” simply to make it sound suspicious when Lechmere simply waited for Paul to get there. Totally consistent with an innocent man.

Then there’s this classic piece of deliberate misinformation. In fact Newbie I’d go so far as to say that this is an all time classic of transparent bias from you:

“There is no indication of stress or urgency on his part ever - except when refusing to prop up the body; he seems more resigned to sadness than anything else.”

More resigned to sadness!!! How could anyone honestly say that? It’s the kind of thing that you could only say if you had watched the incident with your own eyes. Only in Lechmere Land could a man, not being keen on handling a body, be considered as suspicious when it very clearly points to a man uncomfortable being that close to death. Hardly the ideal trait for a serial killer is it?

——————————

Yet again in ripperology we see suspectology run rampant in some quarters. Lechmere was with the body which would absolutely make him a person of interest and the first person that the police would look at. There should be no issue with someone asking “could he have been the killer?” Naturally the fact that neither Robert Paul or the police saw anything remotely suspicious in Lechmere is glossed over but it appears to be a fact. So we then have ‘Operation Frame Lechmere,’ where the starting position is that Lechmere was guilty and so everything is shaped to that end.

The name thing is constantly used in the face of the research that’s been done by people like David Orsam and Roger Palmer showing that there was absolutely nothing unusual about any of this. When the obvious is stated, that Lechmere clearly gained no advantage from using the name Cross, ever more imaginative suggestions are made. This was in no way indicative of guilt or of suspicious behaviour by Lechmere as the numerous examples have proved. This is a complete non-issue deliberately elevated to try and bolster a case.

Then we have the inconvenient fact that despite having ample opportunity to flee Lechmere acts exactly like a man who has simply found a body. And yet we get attempts to make even this a sign of guilt. What next? If we found evidence that Lechmere was in Scotland on November 9th I’d fully expect someone to say “well that proves he was guilty in that he would go to such lengths to set up an alibi!” Where does it end?

Then the geographical nonsense. He was a local man, like thousands of others. Unless we can callLechmere the ‘on the way to somewhere’ killer then this proves zero. I’m sorry but it’s woefully desperate stuff.

There are witness discrepancies in every case and probably in every other murder case but here it’s used to ‘incriminate’ Lechmere. This ignores the fact that he had a complete stranger with him so unless they were working in tandem I fail to see how these claims can be made?

Apart from the fact that he was at the scene there is nothing against Lechmere. A case against John Richardson could be made which is stronger than the one against Lechmere but I don’t find Richardson a worthy suspect.

I really wish that some people would stop getting so carried away.

———————

Finally a question Newbie. You appear to favour Lechmere as the ripper? What would you say makes him a likelier suspect than this man?:

Grew up without a father.
Mother committed to an asylum when he was just one and died there when he was five.
His older sister died while he was a baby.
In his early life he was dismissed from a job for theft.
He arrived in London in October 1887.
Wife possibly a prostitute.
Described as a violent drunk.
Threatened to cut his wife’s throat after five days of marriage.
Resided in nearby Bow at the time of the murders.
Suggestion as having an STD by his employer.
Was regularly violent toward his wife whilst spending her money.
Left London for Dundee in January of 1889 (important if Kelly was the final victim)
Murdered and mutilated his wife.
Two chalk messages mentioning JTR found at his flat.
Abberline questioned people that knew him.
Suggested that two officers went to question him in Dundee.

I’d suggest that it’s a case of people getting too hung up on the ‘alone with the body’ part. I wonder what percentage of men who discovered a dead body in the street over the years turned out to have been the killer? So perhaps I should add the question to my list?

1. How many serial killers killed on their way to work?
2. How many serial killers stood around and waited for someone else to get to the scene?
3. How many men who discovered a body in the street turned out to have been the killer?
4. How many killers trying to conceal their identities gave their correct forenames and address and just substituted their birth name for their stepfathers name?

He might just as well have said “I’m Marles Allec Bechmere of 22 Boveton Street!” And then thought to himself “that should do it. They’ll never track me down now!”

[Aethelwulf]

To quote John McEnroe: “you cannot be serious!”

There is nothing odd about Lechmere’s behaviour unless you completely ignore the reports of what he’d said that he’d done in favour of your own creative version. How can you ask why Lechmere didn’t run for the police like other witnesses?

“About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. 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. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed over to the body,”

So clearly almost the second that he realised that it was a woman and not a tarpaulin he heard Paul approaching so he waits for him to arrive. Absolutely nothing suspicious or strange about that. And why didn’t he fly into an immediate panic? Because until he and Paul approached the body together Lechmere had no idea that this woman was dead. She could have been drunk or injured or sleeping.

You do yourself or the subject no favours by this kind of twisting of the evidence Newbie. You add dubious statements like “ignores the body” simply to make it sound suspicious when Lechmere simply waited for Paul to get there. Totally consistent with an innocent man.

Then there’s this classic piece of deliberate misinformation. In fact Newbie I’d go so far as to say that this is an all time classic of transparent bias from you:

“There is no indication of stress or urgency on his part ever - except when refusing to prop up the body; he seems more resigned to sadness than anything else.”

More resigned to sadness!!! How could anyone honestly say that? It’s the kind of thing that you could only say if you had watched the incident with your own eyes. Only in Lechmere Land could a man, not being keen on handling a body, be considered as suspicious when it very clearly points to a man uncomfortable being that close to death. Hardly the ideal trait for a serial killer is it?

——————————

Yet again in ripperology we see suspectology run rampant in some quarters. Lechmere was with the body which would absolutely make him a person of interest and the first person that the police would look at. There should be no issue with someone asking “could he have been the killer?” Naturally the fact that neither Robert Paul or the police saw anything remotely suspicious in Lechmere is glossed over but it appears to be a fact. So we then have ‘Operation Frame Lechmere,’ where the starting position is that Lechmere was guilty and so everything is shaped to that end.

The name thing is constantly used in the face of the research that’s been done by people like David Orsam and Roger Palmer showing that there was absolutely nothing unusual about any of this. When the obvious is stated, that Lechmere clearly gained no advantage from using the name Cross, ever more imaginative suggestions are made. This was in no way indicative of guilt or of suspicious behaviour by Lechmere as the numerous examples have proved. This is a complete non-issue deliberately elevated to try and bolster a case.

Then we have the inconvenient fact that despite having ample opportunity to flee Lechmere acts exactly like a man who has simply found a body. And yet we get attempts to make even this a sign of guilt. What next? If we found evidence that Lechmere was in Scotland on November 9th I’d fully expect someone to say “well that proves he was guilty in that he would go to such lengths to set up an alibi!” Where does it end?

Then the geographical nonsense. He was a local man, like thousands of others. Unless we can callLechmere the ‘on the way to somewhere’ killer then this proves zero. I’m sorry but it’s woefully desperate stuff.

There are witness discrepancies in every case and probably in every other murder case but here it’s used to ‘incriminate’ Lechmere. This ignores the fact that he had a complete stranger with him so unless they were working in tandem I fail to see how these claims can be made?

Apart from the fact that he was at the scene there is nothing against Lechmere. A case against John Richardson could be made which is stronger than the one against Lechmere but I don’t find Richardson a worthy suspect.

I really wish that some people would stop getting so carried away.

———————

Finally a question Newbie. You appear to favour Lechmere as the ripper? What would you say makes him a likelier suspect than this man?:

Grew up without a father.
Mother committed to an asylum when he was just one and died there when he was five.
His older sister died while he was a baby.
In his early life he was dismissed from a job for theft.
He arrived in London in October 1887.
Wife possibly a prostitute.
Described as a violent drunk.
Threatened to cut his wife’s throat after five days of marriage.
Resided in nearby Bow at the time of the murders.
Suggestion as having an STD by his employer.
Was regularly violent toward his wife whilst spending her money.
Left London for Dundee in January of 1889 (important if Kelly was the final victim)
Murdered and mutilated his wife.
Two chalk messages mentioning JTR found at his flat.
Abberline questioned people that knew him.
Suggested that two officers went to question him in Dundee.

I’d suggest that it’s a case of people getting too hung up on the ‘alone with the body’ part. I wonder what percentage of men who discovered a dead body in the street over the years turned out to have been the killer? So perhaps I should add the question to my list?

1. How many serial killers killed on their way to work?
2. How many serial killers stood around and waited for someone else to get to the scene?
3. How many men who discovered a body in the street turned out to have been the killer?
4. How many killers trying to conceal their identities gave their correct forenames and address and just substituted their birth name for their stepfathers name?

He might just as well have said “I’m Marles Allec Bechmere of 22 Boveton Street!” And then thought to himself “that should do it. They’ll never track me down now!”

I know you favour druitt but I have a sneaking suspicion if someone had a gun to your head and asked who jtr was you might just say bury.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know you favour druitt but I have a sneaking suspicion if someone had a gun to your head and asked who jtr was you might just say bury.

I’d certainly say that if we looked at all of the suspects, at the type of person that the suspect was from the information that we have, and performed a kind of tick box exercise then I don’t really see how Bury wouldn’t come out as the likeliest of the named ones. I add Kosminski and Druitt to my list of possibles because I don’t think that we should dismiss suspects actually named by senior police officers. My suspicions about Druitt remain but of course as a person, and from the scant detail that we have, he appears an unlikely killer ‘type’ especially when compared to an actual killer like Bury. But this is what has always intrigued me about him Wulf…I genuinely don’t think for a second that Macnaghten simply named him because he died just after Kelly. No one will convince me that this is reasonable. So I believe that Mac genuinely felt that he had good reason for naming him. Was the evidence strong? It looks like we’ll never know but I don’t think it unreasonable that he might have wanted to protect a family like the Druitt clan.

Anyway, avoiding bringing Druitt into another thread (with the risk of certain posters swooping in, hackles rising, for an anti-Druitt rant) I’ll stick to my opinion that only 3 named suspects so far raise an eyebrow for me. Others like Levy are ‘interesting’ and I’ve ordered the Hyam’s book too. How anyone could favour Lechmere over Bury is beyond baffling though Wulf.

[Aethelwulf]

I’d certainly say that if we looked at all of the suspects, at the type of person that the suspect was from the information that we have, and performed a kind of tick box exercise then I don’t really see how Bury wouldn’t come out as the likeliest of the named ones. I add Kosminski and Druitt to my list of possibles because I don’t think that we should dismiss suspects actually named by senior police officers. My suspicions about Druitt remain but of course as a person, and from the scant detail that we have, he appears an unlikely killer ‘type’ especially when compared to an actual killer like Bury. But this is what has always intrigued me about him Wulf…I genuinely don’t think for a second that Macnaghten simply named him because he died just after Kelly. No one will convince me that this is reasonable. So I believe that Mac genuinely felt that he had good reason for naming him. Was the evidence strong? It looks like we’ll never know but I don’t think it unreasonable that he might have wanted to protect a family like the Druitt clan.

Anyway, avoiding bringing Druitt into another thread (with the risk of certain posters swooping in, hackles rising, for an anti-Druitt rant) I’ll stick to my opinion that only 3 named suspects so far raise an eyebrow for me. Others like Levy are ‘interesting’ and I’ve ordered the Hyam’s book too. How anyone could favour Lechmere over Bury is beyond baffling though Wulf.

RJ I think it was said something interesting about druitt, not that he was a dark horse but a white horse amongst dark horses, which looks odd I would say as well. Why was he named,but the ostrog was named too. Unfortunately I don't see the private info ever being resolved. I just like the easiest most obvious answer to the whodunnit issue.

Lech is superficially interesting if you've been sucked in by the c5 docu, but in reality when you look closer there is nothing. I suspect it must haunt the lechers at the back of their minds - what if it happened as described, just a man finding a body.

[rjpalmer]

And, despite your rather blunt suggestion, I will continue to comment upon whatever aspect of the case I feel like. If you find my posts to be of no use to you, it is perfectly within your rights to scroll past them.

- Jeff

Please do keep commenting. I enjoy your posts.

One thing worth noting is that when it comes to contemporary or near contemporary suspects (Kozminski, Druitt, etc.) we often only have a dim understanding of what the suspicions against these suspects amounted to. The suspicions against this person could have been misplaced, of course, but we often don't really know the full story. So, when analyzing these suspects, it is bit more like simply trying to unravel a mystery. As such, it's a bit difficult to get worked-up over someone who is accusing Kozminski, or an unnamed City suspect, or even a vague and unidentified figure like the "Bethnal Green Botherer" because ultimately, we have to admit that we don't have enough information to form a conclusive judgment, and it is hard to get enraged over an abstraction.

By contrast, and for good or bad, when it comes to a 'person of interest' that wasn't named until a modern theorist came along, we DO have all the information. We know exactly what 'evidence' is being used to accuse the suspect. For instance, we know why Christer Holmgren is accusing Lechmere, and we know why Patricia Cornwell is accusing Sickert, etc., because they are the ones making the accusations and submitting their arguments for public scrutiny. Because of this, it becomes a little touchy. To criticize or find faults in those theories is to necessarily challenge the methods and/or analysis and/or judgment of someone who is very much alive and might take offense. Or their supporters might take offense. It comes with the territory, though. If someone is going to take their 'case' public, then they are almost certainly going to face resistance. This is no country for old men. Or old women.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We did this somewhere else but I can’t recall where…..Roger and I (and others) were discussing Richardson after I’d suggested him as a suspect with my tongue very firmly in my cheek.

Hopefully Roger might make additions to this but I’m just trying to compare Richardson and Lech again simply as an exercise.


Alone with the body/opportunity to kill - Lechmere scores but so does Richardson as some believe in an earlier ToD which would put him in the yard with the corpse. 1-1

Local knowledge - tick to both men. 2-2

Connection to prostitutes - Unaware of any for Lech but Richardson claimed to have turfed out those using the passageway for ‘immoral purposes.’ 2-3 Richardson.

Violence - None for either as far as we know. 3-4 Richardson

Carried a knife - No for Lech, yes for Richardson. 3-5 Richardson

Questionable testimony - discrepancy with Lech and Mizen (but could it have been a deliberate lie with him having a complete stranger standing next to him?) With Richardson we have Chandler claiming that he hadn’t mentioned the boot repair plus the inquest stuff about the knife seems strange. 4-6 Richardson

Reason to be at the scene - tick for both. 5-7 Richardson.

Doubts on other crime scenes - none as far as we know for Richardson but doubt about the Chapman murder for Lech as he was at work. Score Richardson. 5-8 Richardson.

So Lechmere 5 Richardson 8.

[Elamarna]

Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was a bit busy, so couldn't respond to the entirety of your post.

1. The 50 yards notion is probably an estimate by Lech on the distance just beyond visibility on that street. It doesn't work for me for three reasons:

A. Two pedestrians separated by that distance, on that street, at that time, particularly in the element they were in, should have clearly heard the other for some time.
They weren't wearing rubber souls (a few years away), and their own sounds from walking should not have negated the sound of the other - its' contrary to what neuro-scientists currently believe about processing sounds while walking.

That's your opinion, I disagree.
We cannot say that they SHOULD have heard each other, only that they could have.
In fact we do not know when Paul was first aware of someone ahead of him, only that he saw a man in the road
Anything else is speculation.
Perception of course is a very interesting topic, some "neuro-scientists" may well support your view, others will not. Perception is an individual issue for each person concerned.

If you really want to insist on walking having negated one hearing the others footsteps,
then just consider more of Lech's testimony: that he had stopped to observe the tarpaulin type object, didn't hear Paul, started walking again a few paces, and then finally heard Paul while in the middle of the street, and turned around to wait for him.

Not sure where you get this version of events form, he slows down having seen the body, walks from the pavement into the road, stops and then says he hears Paul.
To suggests he stops twice and only then hears Paul is simply not what the evidence says.

B. Lechmere, in my mind, clearly indicates that he was only aware of the sounds presence, while he was heading towards the body, at the point of mid street; so, he stopped and waited.

Indeed, so Iam not sure of your point. No one is I think claiming Lechmere heard Paul earlier but you.

C. Lechmere, having come from the body, would have needed a reason to justify standing in the middle of the, waiting for Paul.
It was very convenient to be suddenly cognizant of Paul's footsteps at that time, when he didn't notice them beforehand. It was needed to justify his story.

Speculation that he came from the body. This is not supported by the statements of either man.

Could a guilty Lech have come up with a better story, involving being cognizant of Paul's footsteps for a while. On his end, it would have worked better; but then you have the uncertainty of how Paul would have responded .... suddenly, he would start thinking more about the issue of sound and not hearing footsteps.

Lech's first awareness of Paul's presence was auditory, but not from 40 yards away, but somewhere closer to the base of Buck's row.

Pure speculation on your part I am afraid.
The idea that Lechmere heard Paul at close to to the junction of Brady Street and Bucks Row is I am afraid speculation of the worst type. Not supported by evidence, but claimed because it is essential to the theory being put forward.

Poor method

[Elamarna]

It's important to draw a line in the sand about Lech marching steadily in front of Paul for a few minutes before finding the body.
Because, if it was a fabrication, then that opens up a whole new can of worms ..... hence, the desperation and screeches.

The important part of that is the word "IF".

There is no evidence to support it is a fabricated story, just alot of speculation.

I no longer think there is any justification in this position.

That's your view, many who have studied the Bucks Row Murder in detail, have a very different opinion.

I don't think I said anything about Lech arriving 3 - 4 minutes before Paul. I just said he undoubtedly arrived well beforehand.
Was it only 1 1/2 minutes, or 4 minutes? We have no information to go by, only speculation; but we should consider our two options.

The speculation is that He arrived well before.
We do have evidence, that of Lechmere, who said he was only 40 or 50 yards ahead of Paul, and Paul who says he see a man standing in the middle of the road.

Why you say we have nothing to go on is simply not so.

Let's say that Lech was innocent, and arrived earlier by only 90 seconds, that certainly should have given him time to ascertain that a woman (with a huge gash in her neck and belly) was unresponsive and in serious trouble. Otherwise, we have a thoroughly stupid and incompetent individual on hand, who delayed getting help by going through a charade of an investigation with Paul.

Why do you insist on inventing a gap, this time of 90 seconds?
There is no evidence to support THIS, only your belief.
The evidence says around 30 seconds .
Why do you insist on suggesting he had examined the body prior to Paul arriving?

Again this is speculation, based on a belief rather than the actual evidence.
I clearly demonstrate in "Inside Bucks Row"
How the gap of around 40-50 is very credible, based on the actual statements of both men

Again, his actions would be inconsistent with first discovers of other murder victims circling our story.

NO its not.

Lech's apologists go to great lengths to normalize every oddity about his known behaviours.

APOLOGISTS?

You betray the bias in your approach.

Surprisingly, people were shocked and frightened about murder and encountering dead bodies back in Victorian England. The first person to discover Martha Tabrum's body, panicked and immediately ran to the police; the discoverers of Mary Kelly's, Annie Chapman's, & Catherine Eddowes, did the same thing: Annie Chapman's going to the police after notifying neighbors.

Catherine Eddowes body was in an even darker location than Polly Nichols. Their sense of urgency was not only out of common decency, but probably out of fear of being accused as the perpetrator.

Not sure where to start here

In the Chapman case, Davies left the house to go to get a police officer, he saw two men outside the building a couple of doors along and told them as he passed, he did not go looking for neighbours.

In the Eddowes murder, the body is FOUND by a policeman, who can see with his lamp the injuries. He then goes to Get the aid of George Morris, whom he knows from experience is awake.

The Kelly case of course occurs at close to 11am, people are up and about.

In no way are these comparable to Bucks Row. Lechmere as no lamp and cannot see the injuries, neither can Paul.

It's 3.40-3.45 people are asleep.
Chapman's body was found just shy of 3 hours later, people were up, going to work, not so in Bucks Row.

Lechmere, seeing a man only 40 or so yards away, turns to this man, neither can see any wounds, and they go to find a police officer within minutes.

With Lech, again weirdness prevails, even if you take his testimony at face value: he sees a fallen body of a woman; says that he hears Paul coming; ignores the body for some 25 seconds, waiting for Paul to arrive; and then proceeds in a seemingly calm fashion, informing Paul about the body, and then stumbling through an incomplete examination. There is no indication of stress or urgency on his part ever - except when refusing to prop up the body; he seems more resigned to sadness than anything else.

Simply your interpretation, mine is he had no idea of Nichols condition, there was a man within 50 yards of him.
Knocking on doors would have given no quicker response.

But then, innocent Lech wasn't there just 20 seconds ahead of Paul, but a good deal longer (let's say 80 seconds at minimum - the time it takes to go up Buck's row).

Simply your belief, it's NOT what the evidence says, unfortunately it's a trait of some people to ignore fact, in favour of belief.

When, he heard Paul's footsteps at the bottom of Buck's row, while examining the body - why didn't he run off and get the police, or knock up residences? Didn't he have any concern about being alone with the body?

Firstly he says he only heard them at 40 to 50 yards, there is NO EVIDENCE to the contrary.
Second, he had not examined Nichols, he had simply seen a body lying in the gateway.
He had no idea of her condition, even after he and Paul examined her, they were unsure of her condition.
That is what the evidence of both men says.
Why would he run to the police, if he did not know her condition?
Why would he attempt to wake up residents when there is another man only yards away?

Of course you do not believe that. You appear to start from a position that Lechmere is probably guilty.

If Jack the Ripper surely would have fled, why would innocent Lech, who had less balls than JtR, have stuck around and done essentially nothing?

Because he did not examine her before Paul arrived, he did not know her condition, why would he behave anyother way than what he did in those Circumstances.

And why did innocent Lech, returning to the murder scene that afternoon when returning home, not engage the police or reporters who were clearly seeking witness?

Of course, he could very well have returned home along White Chapel road.

Would you care to provide evidence of what time Lechmere returned to Bucks Row?

Similarly would you care to provide evidence that press and police were still present.

Also would you care to provide evidence, not conjecture, of when Lechmere did first speak to the police?

On your last comment, he had several routes he could use home, maybe he did take another route.

[JeffHamm]

Please do keep commenting. I enjoy your posts.

One thing worth noting is that when it comes to contemporary or near contemporary suspects (Kozminski, Druitt, etc.) we often only have a dim understanding of what the suspicions against these suspects amounted to. The suspicions against this person could have been misplaced, of course, but we often don't really know the full story. So, when analyzing these suspects, it is bit more like simply trying to unravel a mystery. As such, it's a bit difficult to get worked-up over someone who is accusing Kozminski, or an unnamed City suspect, or even a vague and unidentified figure like the "Bethnal Green Botherer" because ultimately, we have to admit that we don't have enough information to form a conclusive judgment, and it is hard to get enraged over an abstraction.

By contrast, and for good or bad, when it comes to a 'person of interest' that wasn't named until a modern theorist came along, we DO have all the information. We know exactly what 'evidence' is being used to accuse the suspect. For instance, we know why Christer Holmgren is accusing Lechmere, and we know why Patricia Cornwell is accusing Sickert, etc., because they are the ones making the accusations and submitting their arguments for public scrutiny. Because of this, it becomes a little touchy. To criticize or find faults in those theories is to necessarily challenge the methods and/or analysis and/or judgment of someone who is very much alive and might take offense. Or their supporters might take offense. It comes with the territory, though. If someone is going to take their 'case' public, then they are almost certainly going to face resistance. This is no country for old men. Or old women.

Thanks rj.

I do recognize that I can be a bit on the verbose side, but often it's because a lot of the time there are loose ends that need to be gathered together as best we can. I also resort to using a lot of common idioms, like house of cards, loose ends, and playing the X card, and so forth quite often because they are generally used to convey quite complex ideas that otherwise require spelling out. I also separate out two types of speculation, one where we speculate to fill in missing information; things like "what did Annie do between leaving the Doss House and ending up in the backyard of #29?", which I just call speculation, and other situations where we change what we know, and then speculate on events that might have happened if a different choice had been made (i.e. What if Cross/Lechmere was JtR and so was at the body at the point Paul enters Buck's Row, and what if he instead of hanging out and waiting for Paul just ran?), which I called fantasy variations - fantasy because we change something we know, so we already know what we're speculating about isn't real. People objected to my use of fantasy, which simply avoided the actual point being made, but I refer to those as "fictional accounts" as the intent was to demark between very different situations of speculation rather than to cast dispersions.

Anyway, I've never objected to Cross/Lechmere being looked into, and can see the reasons why one might select him for closer examination. I don't think Abby's stance that Cross/Lechmere is a better suspect than most is wrong either, although I agree with him that his usual phrase of "least weak" is probably better. This is because we use the word suspect simply to refer to whoever is being looked at, and also because there are a lot of really ridiculous ones out there (Prince Eddy, Lewis Carrol, etc).

However, that doesn't change the fact that when it comes to arguing the case, meaning, putting up the evidence and suggesting how it points to Cross/Lechmere as being JtR, where things get weird. Nothing in Cross/Lechmere's behaviour, for example, is any different from Robert Paul's (both examine the body, neither raises an alarm with neighbors, both disagree with Mizen, etc), yet for Cross/Lechmere, doing exactly the same sort of thing as the clearly innocent Robert Paul gets twisted into evidence of the clever psychopath!

The connection eventually gets made, at every decision, by arguing that serial killers think differently and do weird things. Yes, they do, but in the end, that's the whole case against him - serial killers do weird things, so if Cross/Lechmere did weird things he's JtR. But that "do weird things suit" can be used to dress up anyone. Dr. Llewellyn, lived close to Buck's row. If he went out, kills Polly, goes home, and awaits to be called to the scene to re-examine his victim .... Hey, serial killers do weird things after all.

- Jeff