Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

No one talks more sense or adds more value to any discussion that you do Jeff.

[JeffHamm]

No one talks more sense or adds more value to any discussion that you do Jeff.

Hi Herlock,

Thanks, although often I'm just standing on the shoulders of giants. More often than not my posts are referencing ideas, points, or facts raised by others. Even if I disagree with someone's bigger picture, it is not uncommon for me to agree with some of their points, which I do try to acknowledge. As I say, I agree with Abby's point that Cross/Lechmere is worth looking into, and I agree with his referring to him as amongst the "least weak suspects". I just don't agree with him that the case against him is at all strong, nor that the research that has been done by (correctly) following up on him and looking into him, has lead to anything that points to him being anything other than the guy that found Polly. As such, the research that has been done into Cross/Lechmere, in my opinion, leads to strengthening the conclusion that he's not the Ripper and that those who push strongly for "case closed" are presenting a house of cards for a theory, and one built almost exclusively on the "does strange things" card. Abby doesn't push the theory strongly, and I thought I had made it clear in my post that I had moved on from his statements to a more general discussion of the larger Cross/Lechmere theory as a whole. Obviously, as is often the case with posts and texts, I wasn't clear enough in indicating that transition. To do so requires more words, and yet I'm told to use fewer, or refrain from commenting, and a previous misinterpretation gets dredged up and represented in the same incorrect description of my intentions gets applied despite my having explained what I meant. Apparently my understanding of my intentions is not as accurate as Abby's understanding of my intentions. I do enjoy Abby's posts, he's got lots of good ideas, but his assumption that he knows my intentions better than I do myself is not one of them. I accept that if I've not been clear, and a post comes across wrong, that it's my responsibility to clarify. Personally, I think it is pretty obvious when I'm intending to forcefully attack someone's personal view, which I will do when I'm directly attacked in kind.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Thanks, although often I'm just standing on the shoulders of giants. More often than not my posts are referencing ideas, points, or facts raised by others. Even if I disagree with someone's bigger picture, it is not uncommon for me to agree with some of their points, which I do try to acknowledge. As I say, I agree with Abby's point that Cross/Lechmere is worth looking into, and I agree with his referring to him as amongst the "least weak suspects". I just don't agree with him that the case against him is at all strong, nor that the research that has been done by (correctly) following up on him and looking into him, has lead to anything that points to him being anything other than the guy that found Polly. As such, the research that has been done into Cross/Lechmere, in my opinion, leads to strengthening the conclusion that he's not the Ripper and that those who push strongly for "case closed" are presenting a house of cards for a theory, and one built almost exclusively on the "does strange things" card. Abby doesn't push the theory strongly, and I thought I had made it clear in my post that I had moved on from his statements to a more general discussion of the larger Cross/Lechmere theory as a whole. Obviously, as is often the case with posts and texts, I wasn't clear enough in indicating that transition. To do so requires more words, and yet I'm told to use fewer, or refrain from commenting, and a previous misinterpretation gets dredged up and represented in the same incorrect description of my intentions gets applied despite my having explained what I meant. Apparently my understanding of my intentions is not as accurate as Abby's understanding of my intentions. I do enjoy Abby's posts, he's got lots of good ideas, but his assumption that he knows my intentions better than I do myself is not one of them. I accept that if I've not been clear, and a post comes across wrong, that it's my responsibility to clarify. Personally, I think it is pretty obvious when I'm intending to forcefully attack someone's personal view, which I will do when I'm directly attacked in kind.

- Jeff

You and Abby both give your honestly held opinions and neither of you are biased. I also agree that Lechmere was worth looking at and that we cannot exonerate him on evidence and so we are left to assess likelihood. To be honest I think that this is the only subject that I can think of where Abby and I are on a different page. I see Lechmere as far weaker suspect than he does but, unlike some, Abby doesn’t bend over backwards to make everything point to Lechmere’s guilt.

Its perhaps worth noting though, when it comes to suspects, how much debate time is spent on Lechmere and Maybrick. After those two (and to a lesser extent) it’s Koz, Druitt and Bury. It might be the case after the Hyam’s book that we can all have a change of scenery.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Herlock,

You and Abby both give your honestly held opinions and neither of you are biased. I also agree that Lechmere was worth looking at and that we cannot exonerate him on evidence and so we are left to assess likelihood. To be honest I think that this is the only subject that I can think of where Abby and I are on a different page. I see Lechmere as far weaker suspect than he does but, unlike some, Abby doesn’t bend over backwards to make everything point to Lechmere’s guilt.

I am of the same view, and I've said it enough that I may often rely upon that being understood, and so when I shift my response to start presenting my view of the bigger theory as a whole I presume that shift is also understood. That, to be fair, is of course my fault, which I acknowledge. But to have to continue to include explicit statements at every point would just turn my already lengthy posts into something that might compete with War and Peace!

Its perhaps worth noting though, when it comes to suspects, how much debate time is spent on Lechmere and Maybrick. After those two (and to a lesser extent) it’s Koz, Druitt and Bury. It might be the case after the Hyam’s book that we can all have a change of scenery.

One can only hope. As with all suspect based theories, in my view none of them are convincing at the moment, which is why I generally end up disagreeing with them as solutions. That doesn't mean I think all research into the various people proposed should be stopped, rather quite the contrary. It is only by uncovering what information still remains that we might transition from "possible but at the moment improbable" (where I place all suspects) to either "impossible" or "becoming more probable." For example, Druitt, only remains possible because it remains possible for him to take a train and be in London between his cricket matches.

I can think of two bits of information that, if ever discovered, could swing things in either of those directions. For example, let's say between cricket matches it was determined there was an evening event held where the club all went out for a meal. And it was found that Druitt's name is on the list of those who attended, with his signature that evening, removing the possibility that was in London. That would shift him out of consideration.

Alternatively, what if instead, in some examination of his legal documents, one was found in which he had to sign and date a document placing him in London for work related reasons at the critical time. Such a document would provide both the reason for him going to London, and would place him in the area of his office, which in turn gets him in a reasonable distance of the murders. That would then remove the question of his whereabouts, and so remove the doubt that not knowing for sure where he was. No, it doesn't prove he is the ripper, but by removing that source of doubt it in turn means he becomes slightly more probable (still not highly probable, but more probable than he is when that doubt exists in our knowledge).

I admit I'm just fantasying about what information gets discovered, and I rather doubt that either of those bits of information exist today, if they ever did exist in the first place. But this is why I think research into people is important - we need more information. So far, delving into the life of Cross/Lechmere has only uncovered information of the "at the club dinner" sort, but not quite so definitive. Similar to how the "signed legal document" example above is not definitive proof of guilt for Druitt.

Do I fault someone who chooses to research one suspect over another? Of course not, follow whatever line of enquiry that interests you or that you think has the best chance of "success". But don't forget that "success" can take the form of excluding someone - finding new information is the measure of success for a researcher and not only when that information fits with the interpretation you started out thinking looked more probable. In fact, the best research is done when one looks for information that would disprove what you think might be the case. If you find that information, you learn you guessed wrong; if you guessed right, you won't find that information but you can start to point out where you looked for disconfirming information and how it wasn't found here, there, or anywhere yet.

Will I call someone out if they overstate the strength of their case though? Yes, of course, and the case against Cross/Lechmere is often overstated to the extreme. Does Abby overstate it? No, he presents it as it should be presented, someone worth looking into because at the very least he was at the scene but he is still a weak suspect. Personally, I don't see anything beyond that point (he was there at least) as reason to look into him because nothing about his actions at the time or later in his life point to his involvement or point to him being someone who might have been involved. For him, if there were any surviving records from his employer, that's where I would want to look for information similar to the above ideas. Or maybe as a long shot, records of locations around his extended family - are there any diaries, or records from hotels, etc, that place him and his family out of town on any critical dates? Maybe hospital records, another long shot, might place him "out of the running"? Who knows what information is out there that might get uncovered if there aren't people doing the hard work of searching for it? But maybe none of those exist because he wasn't out of town, or his family didn't write diaries, and he wasn't sick, and all the employment records have been lost? Not finding the information doesn't make him guilty, of course, but we might look into police records through out his life for some signs of other offending, etc. Are there cases of serial killers where all of those would turn up empty as well? Yup. Are they common. Nope - most have criminal records, often involving violence as well. The "famous" cases often deviate from that general pattern (i.e. Radar, Bundy, etc), but that's why they are famous - they are rare and not the norm. We hear of every one of the rare cases because they are "news worthy", or make for good books because of how unexpected they are. As such, the impression is that those are common traits. Reporters used to refer to such stories as the "Man bites dog" type story, an expression that refers to the advice given to young reporters of how to spot "news" - "When a dog bites a man, that's not news, but when a man bites a dog, that is news."

I recall being at a conference many years ago where one presentation was on the frequency of stories about violent assaults in the news. As the violent crime rate went down in a city, the number of news stories about violent crimes went up - because as the events became more rare, they by default became more news worthy! One year, when I went back home to Nova Scotia from New Zealand, to spend time working with colleagues at the University in Halifax, my dad had said to me to be careful because Halifax had become much more dangerous than when I lived there during my study years at the university. I knew that violent crime rates were generally decreasing world wide, and had been for many years, so I thought it odd that Halifax would buck that trend, but I recalled that conference presentation. So I looked up publicly available information about violent crimes (assaults, muggings, etc) that were available, and sure enough, like most places, rates of violent crime in Halifax were much lower than when I studied there. But what my Dad was exposed to was the news, which was reporting more and more stories, because every incident was becoming news worthy. His impression was of increased violence but the reality was the opposite.

Common sense leads us to the idea that if there are more news stories about violence there must be more violence - but that is because common sense is what we think happens when we do not actually understand how things work.

Sigh, and I've done it again.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

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.

You aren't making any sense.

Why should I excoriate posters for mentioning lesser known suspects" Why should I excoriate posters for showing that Mulshaw had ties to some of the murder sites?

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

That's not what I said. Lets break it down into small simple points.

* The Ripper killings stopped.
* While a few serial killers do just stop, more often it's because they die or are imprisoned on an unrelated crime.
* The idea that someone who died or was imprisoned shortly after the murders makes a better suspect is hardly a new or novel idea. Perhaps you've heard of Montague Druitt? Or Aaron Kosminksi? Or William Bury?

James Hardiman died a couple years after the Ripper killings of TB.
George Capel Scudamore Lechemre was imprisoned a couple years after the Ripper killings. Shortly after his release he died in a workhouse hospital
Charles Allen Lechmere lived for three decades after the Ripper killings stopped.

Clearly on this point the other two men are better suspects than Charles Allen Lechmere.

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.

I never said that serial killers had a traditional motive. Serial killers do have motives, as research on the subject has shown. Sometimes prostitutes are targeted because they are easier targets, but sometimes they are targeted because they are prostitutes.

The link I gave is to the Behavioral Analysis Unit if the FBI. They list the following motives for serial killers, noting that an individual serial killer may have more than one of these motives.

• Anger is a motivation in which an offender displays rage or hostility towards a certain subgroup of the population or with society as a whole.

• Criminal Enterprise is a motivation in which the offender benefits in status or monetary compensation by committing murder that is drug, gang, or organized crime related.

• Financial gain is a motivation in which the offender benefits monetarily from killing. Examples of these types of crimes are “black widow” killings, robbery homicides, or multiple killings involving insurance or welfare fraud.

• Ideology is a motivation to commit murders in order to further the goals and ideas of a specific individual or group. Examples of these include terrorist groups or an individual(s) who attacks a specific racial, gender, or ethnic group.

• Power/thrill is a motivation in which the offender feels empowered and/or excited when he kills his victims.

• Psychosis is a situation in which the offender is suffering from a severe mental illness and is killing because of that illness. This may include auditory and/or visual hallucinations and paranoid, grandiose, or bizarre delusions.

• Sexually-based is a motivation driven by the sexual needs/desires of the offender. There may or may not be overt sexual contact reflected in the crime scene.

I think we can eliminate Criminal Enterprise or Financial Gain as motives for the Ripper. Full psychosis seems unlikely.

Now lets look at the three men I mentioned

Knacker James Hardiman's daughter had died and his wife has hospitalized with syphilis in mid June of 1888. His wife would die in hospital in mid-September. Hardiman may have already known he had the tuberculosis that would kill him a few years later. A man in those circumstances would be filled with strong emotions that could have provided a motive for he Ripper killings.

George Capel Scudamore Lechmere was semi-employed alcoholic barber, unable to take care of his wife and children, half of whom died young. In the middle of a quarrel with his estranged wife, he tried to slit his wife's throat while she was nursing their youngest child, failing only because he was drunk. He, too, might have had a motive for the Ripper killings.

Charles Allen Lechmere had no history of violence, a stable work history, and a stable married life. His life had started insecure, when his father had abandoned the family, but as he grew older, he transitioned to owning his own business and left his family 262 pounds. None of his sons were named for his deadbeat dad, or any other male relative on that side of the family. But his daughters were named after every aunt on the Lechmere side of the family. At times he used the surname of his stepfather, Thomas Cross. While we don't know everything about his life, I don't see any motive for the Ripper killings. If Charles Allen Lechmere was a serial killer, I'd expect alcoholic bootmakers, not impoverished women, to be his favorite target.

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

Most knife attacks were stabbing, not throat slitting. George Capel Scudamore Lechmere only failed to murder his wife because he was drunk.

[Lewis C]

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.

I'm in agreement with your overall outcome, but have a couple of minor disagreements. First, if Lechmere and Richardson both had a reason to be at the scene, that would be a tick for neither rather than for both, right? Same way for the Violence heading.

I think Richardson's testimony is more questionable than Lechmere's. The thing that Lechmere is called on is something that he and Paul agree on, and Lechmere's version seems more likely to be true than Mizen's. However, I believe Richardson's testimony changed a couple of times, and I find more reason for suspicion in his testimony than in Lechmere's.

Chapman's TOD is all-important in considering Richardson's suspect status. I consider him a viable suspect because I think an earlier time of death is a definite possibility, whereas I don't see any reason to suspect him if the later TOD is a certainty.

One other point that might be added is that I believe the police searched Richardson's place and found nothing suspicious, but I don't think anything similar was done for Lech.

[Fisherman]

It's been a while. And I really did not think I was going to write on Casebook anymore. But I have followed the debate out here closely throughout, and I feel the time has come to offer a very different picture of the Lechmere theory than the one promoted by many out here.

Having debated on Casebook for many years and being aware of how things are done out here, my contribution will come with a major restriction. I am not going to debate with all the naysayers as a large group, because that would involve me being swarmed with posts. With every ten posts I gave answers to, twenty new ones would arrive at the same time. That would not produce a sensible debate.

What I am going to do, is to give my view of the different areas of research and debate, and with each area I will debate a singled out poster. Whether or not the rest of those negative to the theory will play along with that scenario is another matter, I imagine that they may well not do so - but I will nevertheless only debate the topics I present with one poster per topic. If that poster should decline to debate, I will choose another one, and perhaps another topic.

Does this mean that I am discriminating anybody? No, it does not, because I will give each poster who wants to debate the opportunity to do so, and I will couple the posters with matters where they have expressed interest out here; Steve Blomer will be given the chance to debate the blood evidence, Herlock Holmes will be given the chance to debate whether or not a killer can possibly use the gap in time before arriving at work to kill, Fiver will be given the chance to debate whether or not there is a church of Lechmere, R J Palmer will be given the chance to debate if coincidences are something that should be weighed into the matter of whether someone is a viable suspect or not, and so on. If anybody should feel that he or she has a question to ask in an area where they have not been picked to debate, just write that question down and when we are through, you can post it on this thread and I will certainly consider answering it.

I will try to keep was civil a tone as possible throughout and I urge everybody to make the same effort.

These are the rules I will play by and stick to, and it is a take it or leave it offer.

First out is the blood evidence and I would like Steve Blomer to respond to what I have to say. There will be a number of urgent questions asked about how he depicts the Lechmere theory in his book, so I hope that Steve, who is often reluctant to debate with me, will offer answers.

Letīs begin by moving back to the 31st of August 1888, where we have Charles Lechmere present at the murder site at 3.45. I am using that time because it was established by Wynne Baxter at the inquest, where he said that the time at which the body was found could be fixed to a point in time not far off 3.45. It has been argued that Baxter may have allowed for 3.40 by saying ”not far off” 3.45, but I would say that since the two options that were there for the timing was always 3.40 or 3.45, it is very significant when Baxter chooses the latter timing over the former. We also have Donald Swanson altering his original claim of 3.40 in his September report to 3.45 in his October report, consistent with the suggestion that it was Baxters words at the inquest that caused the alteration. Given that the October report was the last one that gave a timing for Lechmeres finding of the body, and given Baxters fixing of the time, we are left with an impression that 3.45 needs to be regarded as the official timing of the matter, as far as I am concerned.

We have three observations made before Dr Llewellyn arrived at the scene:

1. Lechmere and Paul at around 3.45-3.46, who said that they saw no blood, Lechmere adding that it was too dark to do so.

2. John Neil, arriving at circa 3.51, and stating that there was blood oozing/running from the wound in the throat, and that there was a pool of blood under the neck of Polly Nichols.

3. Jonas Mizen, who arrived at around 3.54, and who said that the blood was still running and looking fresh, and adding the information that there was blood running from the pool under Nicholsī neck into the gutter.

From this, we can form a logical sequence: It seems that the blood in the pool was added to during these minutes, and eventually ran over the brim and started flowing into the gutter. This is what the sequence implicates.

Now, some say that the blood could have flowed for an undefined length of time, fifteen, twenty, thirty minutes, perhaps an hour. If this is true, then the significance of the observations made becomes very minor: It would allow for somebody else to have killed Nichols anywhere in between Neils passing the murder spot at around circa 3.15 and up to circa 3.44.

However, we have two senior medical forensic professors telling us another story. Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin, who both worked from the assumption that Polly Nichols was first strangled and only thereafter had her throat cut, said that considering the information available about wound severity, temperatures, position of the body and suchlike, the likely bleeding out time would have been around 3-5 minutes. After that the bleeding should have stopped. But neither man claimed that a longer bleeding time was impossible. Jason Payne James, when asked if Nichols was likely to bleed for three, five or seven minutes, said that all these options were possible, but 3-5 minutes were more likely than 7. And professor Thiblin agreed; he also stated that the 3-5 minute gap was the one most likely to cover the end of the bleeding but allowed for more than so.

Nichols did not stop to bleed after 3-5 minutes, however. Jonas Mizen stated that she was ”still bleeding” as he looked at her, meaning that we have a bleeding time of around nine minutes on record, and possibly more since there is no observation following that of Mizen until Dr Llewellyn arrives a long time after Mizen. So she could have bled for ten minutes too. Or eleven. Or twelve, and so on. But she could not have gone on to bleed for any amount of time, as per professor Thiblin, who said that at a stretch, he could accept a bleeding that went on for 10-15 minutes, but no more.

What we therefore seem to be looking at, if we examine the possibility that Lechmere was the cutter, is how the carman must have cut her neck at the latest at circa 3.45; Robert Paul arrived at around 3.46, preventing any suggestions of a later cutting.

3.45 to 3.54, the approximate time at which Jonas Mizen will have arrived, makes for nine minutes. If somebody cut Nichols before Lechmere arrived at the body at circa 3.45, then that must have been done at the very latest around 3.44. And that takes us into the 10-15 minute time gap that Ingemar Thiblin suggested as an extreme possibility.

Given this information, the only logical conclusion we can draw is that Charles Lechmere is the likely killer. For another killer to have been responsible, we have to enter the extreme and much more unlikely time gap of 10-15 minutes offered by Ingemar Thiblin. And it of course applies that the two professors both suggested that since 3-5 minutes was the likely time of the blood stopping to run, 6 minutes was a little less likely, 7 minutes was even more unlikely, 8 minutes was further unlikely and so on. Every added minute offers a less likely window for another killer.

This is all completely logical and cannot be challenged: If Thiblin and Payne James are on the money - and they are by far the likeliest people we can find to be on the money - then Charles Lechmere is and remains the likely killer of Polly Nichols.

Steve Blomer does not belong to the ones who suggest that Nichols could have bled for ages. He instead suggests that she could have bled for a much shorter time than what the evidence suggests. What Blomer suggests is that John Neils examination of the body caused an already seized bleeding to start all over again. We therefore need to look at this claim more closely. What we know is that Neil said that he felt the arm of Nichols, and found it quite warm from the joint upwards. So he must have put his hand on the arm of Nichols, meaning that he did of course touch her. But Neil denied having ”disturbed the body”, meaning that he did not alter the position of the body at all.

We also need to weigh in that if Neils actions were to cause any renewed bleeding, the body would need to be moved significantly - a cut throat, with no vessels spared will bleed out totally, with the exception of blood positioned under the level of the wound. It is a bit like a bottle: If we lay it down on the ground and open it, it will loose the amount of liquid that is in line with the neck and opening of the bottle, while the rest will stay inside. Putting a hand on that bottle will not cause more liquid to leave it. We need to lift and tilt it to get that effect. And Steve Blomer suggests that this was exactly what Neil may have done - he would have tampered with the arm to such an extent that the neck would emitted more blood, is his reasoning.

There are a few problems with the suggestion. The first is that Neils testimony seems to have him feeling the arm for warmth only after he had noticed the blood oozing/running: ”I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards.”

If this was so, then we can look away from the suggestion Blomer makes. Any touching/disturbing the body after having observed the running blood nullifies the idea of Neil being responsible for it.

The other problem lies in Neils wording: “There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. The blood was then running from the wound in her neck”

Steve Blomer here suggests that ”running” was not implicating that the blood actively ran - ”running” is instead implicating a ”direction” - as in running from point A to point B. But why would Neil in such a case say that the blood was THEN running? To me, that implicates that the blood was actively running as he looked at it. Moreover, why would the PC feel that he needed to point out that the blood in the pool under the neck he had established as a fact, came from the large hole in the cut throat that he had also established? Would the jury and coroner not be able to understand that without Neil having to actually point out which direction the blood ran in - from the wound to the blood pool?

All of this nevertheless pales somewhat to insignificance if we can show that Jonas Mizen, arriving at the scene some three minutes after Neil, actually saw the blood running. And I think that we can prove that beyond reasonable doubt.

Steve Blomer suggests the same scenario for Mizen as he did for Neil. The blood had stopped flowing, but Mizen started it flowing again by lifting Nichols onto the ambulance stretcher, half an hour after she had originally been cut. And the small stream of blood that was described by Mizen as running into the gutter, was also a matter of direction, not active running, as per Steve Blomer.

But the evidence tells a very different story.

Jonas Mizen said that as he saw Nichols, the blood was ”still running and looking fresh”. This means that Mizen predisposed that the blood had run throughout and never stopped; it was STILL running. For Blomers suggestion to work, Mizen must have accepted that Nichols could have bled for half an hour, because that was the approximate time it would have taken for him to fetch the stretcher up at Bethnal Green Police Station and return back to the murder site.

Could Mizen have been that ignorant? Personally, I doubt it very much. But ignorance can never be excluded as a factor, so letīs run with the idea that he was.

Then we have the fact that Mizen described the blood as looking fresh. What would that mean? The only reasonable explanation is that the blood was bright red. Oxygenated blood is bright red, whereas unoxygenated blood is much darker, almost looking black after some time.

But fresh blood can also be very dark: the blood that runs in our arteries is oxygenated, since it exits our hearts with oxygen from the lungs. The blood in our veins is on it’s way to the heart to get re-oxygenated, and so it is much darker.

What Mizen said seems to describe arterial blood, with oxygen in it. That means that it cannot have been half an hour old, because that would have deprived it of its oxygen and made it look blackish.

We now have clear implications that Steve Blomer is wrong. But there is another, more decisive matter. Mizen said that the blood was running from the neck into the pool under Nichols, where it was somewhat congealed. This is in line with the victim having bled for nine minutes, because blood will become visibly clotted after around four minutes after it leaves the wound. So we have a perfectly logical thing here: some of the blood in the pool was congealed, some was wet and running from the wound in the neck. It is exactly what to expect when looking at a pool of blood that has formed over a nine minute period.

We then have the clincher: the stream into the gutter that Mizen points out. It came from the pool under Nicholsī neck, and we know that this pool was only somewhat congealed. The blood that was NOT congealed would have been at the very top of the pool and what caused it to run over the brim - and it is only then that we get a stream leading into the gutter. So the blood in the stream can not have been congealed, it was wet and running. It was always going to be the blood that had arrived latest into the pool, fresh and runny, passing over the brim and trickling away towards the gutter.

This is only possible in one version, and it is not the version with two PCs reopening the bleeding, one after another.

While we are discussing the blood evidence, I would like to take the opportunity to quote a few matters from Steve Blomers book that I find alarming:

”In recent times a theory has been proposed which attempts to give a time of attack for Mary Ann Nichols, based on the degree of blood flow seen by the policemen Neil and Mizen. The aim of this theory is to say that Lechmere must have been present at this time of attack.”

This is not true, and very misleading. I very clearly say that there are a few minutes open for another killer, although such a killer is less likely than Lechmere, going on how far removed in time he must have been - the suggestion of a preceding killer fits badly with the evidence provided by the two medical forensics.

”The science which is proposed to support this theory is itself interesting, and at face value seems reasonable. It states that wounds such as those to the throat of Nichols will bleed for a certain amount of time after death, and thus one can, working back from a witness statement, arrive at a time when the first cut was made.”

This is not true. There is no certain time of bleeding suggested, there is a window of time proposed by Ingemar Thiblin. Accordingly, no exact minute can be found for when the cuts were made. The claim is therefore misleading. What we can do is to see how the extreme time window suggested by a renowned forensic medico is reached into if we believe in another killer.

”In practical terms the theory states that PC John Neil, on his arrival at Brown’s Yard, saw blood flowing under pressure from the wounds to the neck of Mary Ann Nichols.”

Again untrue, the theory works from a suggestion of a passive bleeding as stated by Ingemar Thiblin. Again misleading.

”It is suggested that Neil arrived within 2 minutes of the two carmen leaving the body and maybe as little as 3 minutes after the attack starts.”

Where on earth does this claim come from? I have Neil arriving at the body at 3.51, SIX minutes after the carmen left Nichols. It is spelled out very clearly in Cutting Point, and Steve Blomer has read and reviewed the book, so he is well aware about what time I suggest it took for Neil to get to the murder spot after Lechmere left it. If Neil was to arrive two minutes after the carmen left, the PC would actually have met them on their way up to the Bakers Row junction! The claim is a very strange one, therefore, and totally misleading.

When we add these matters together, we get a description in Steve Blomers book of the Lechmere theory as a concoction that suggests that I have no idea about the timings involved, that I would have championed the suggestion that Nichols was still living as John Neil got to her, that I am suggesting that I believe that I can establish the exact minute in time when Polly Nichols was cut, and that I would have suggested that the time schedule does not allow for any other killer than Charles Lechmere.

Small wonder then, if somebody who reads ”Inside Bucks Row” comes away with the idea that I am hopelessly wrong about the details of the case! And I find that deeply questionable and very regrettable. I furthermore think that I am entitled to an explanation.

I await comments from Steve Blomer, and I am ready to debate these matters before moving onto other topics and posters.

[Aethelwulf]

Charles Lechmere present at the murder site at 3.45. I am using that time because it was established by Wynne Baxter at the inquest, where he said that the time at which the body was found could be fixed to a point in time not far off 3.45.

These aren't the same thing though. 3.45 is well, 3.45. 'Not far off 3.45' is just a time close to 3.45. You could argue it is definitely not 3.45, just near 3.45 as 3.45 cannot be specified. If the timings are considered objectively there is no getting away from the fact that the 'gap' and everything that comes from it is seriously flawed. Apologies if I'm not allowed to post on this specific topic. I will raise my hand next time.

[The Baron]

It would allow for somebody else to have killed Nichols anywhere in between Neils passing the murder spot at around circa 3.15 and up to circa 3.44

Wrong.

It is up to the time when John Neil arrived and stated that there was blood oozing/running from the wound in the throat.


Before that there is no evidence that she was cut.

You cannot prove it is impossible that someone else cut her between the time Lechmere and Paul left her and Neil discovered her.

Actually, and according to your theory that less time of bleeding is more likely, that is the better explanation, Neil the cutter makes for a better suspect than Lechmere using your own bloody logic.


The Baron

[Fisherman]

As I have stated, I will not debate with anyone else than the named poster, but everybody who wants to will be given his or her chance along the line. So you need to bear with me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

These aren't the same thing though. 3.45 is well, 3.45. 'Not far off 3.45' is just a time close to 3.45. You could argue it is definitely not 3.45, just near 3.45 as 3.45 cannot be specified. If the timings are considered objectively there is no getting away from the fact that the 'gap' and everything that comes from it is seriously flawed. Apologies if I'm not allowed to post on this specific topic. I will raise my hand next time.

It’s typical stuff Wulf.

To claim that Lechmere arrived at 3.45 and that this was what Baxter meant is a blatant manipulation of the evidence. There’s no other way of putting it. Moving the goalposts in an attempt to frame Lechmere. Same old…

[The Rookie Detective]

Please forgive my interjection, but may I ask what happened to PS Kirby?

He is hardly ever mentioned, which is baffling as he was said to have passed the murder site around the same time as PC Neil, ergo, approximately 3.15am.

However, where did he go between 3.15am and the time Nichols was slain?


It seems likely he and Neil passed by around the same time, but this is never seen as significant?

Mrs Lilley claimed she heard multiple voices outside the window at approximately 3.30am...was that the killer and Nichols? Was it Lechmere and Paul? Or was it Neil and Kirby?

It would seem that Nichols was murdered around 3.30am.

And it can take up to 20 minutes to bleed out

Just wanted to throw these into the mix


TRD

[The Rookie Detective]

In addition, I've always felt that Lechmere and Paul's actions post discovery of Nichols is somewhat odd.

In all the other murders there was a real and normal sense of urgency to get help... But with Lechmere and Paul, they simply set off to work and hoped to tell a policeman.

What f they hadn't of bumped into Mizen?

A normal reaction would have been to of SHOUTED for help. By just leaving her there... THAT is suspicious in itself.

Considering Paul stated he thought she was still alive but then changing his story to state he thought she was dead is odd.
The reason is unknown but if Paul had of believed she was dead, it would explain both his and Lechmere's lackluster reaction to go and get help.
It then puts the focus onto the police and acts as a critique toward the police.

He originally stated he thought she was alive when he touched her and so WHY change the story?

If he truly thought she was alive then both his and Lechmere's reaction SHOULD have been more proactive.


BOTH Lechmere AND Paul are suspicious and something doesn't ring true about their accounts.

I don't believe for a second that saying they needed to get to work is a good enough reason to not get help audibly.

They were covering each others back, but why?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's been a while. And I really did not think I was going to write on Casebook anymore. But I have followed the debate out here closely throughout, and I feel the time has come to offer a very different picture of the Lechmere theory than the one promoted by many out here.

Having debated on Casebook for many years and being aware of how things are done out here, my contribution will come with a major restriction. I am not going to debate with all the naysayers as a large group, because that would involve me being swarmed with posts. With every ten posts I gave answers to, twenty new ones would arrive at the same time. That would not produce a sensible debate.

What I am going to do, is to give my view of the different areas of research and debate, and with each area I will debate a singled out poster. Whether or not the rest of those negative to the theory will play along with that scenario is another matter, I imagine that they may well not do so - but I will nevertheless only debate the topics I present with one poster per topic. If that poster should decline to debate, I will choose another one, and perhaps another topic.

In English - “I wont discuss topics that I have no answer for.”

Does this mean that I am discriminating anybody? No, it does not, because I will give each poster who wants to debate the opportunity to do so, and I will couple the posters with matters where they have expressed interest out here; Steve Blomer will be given the chance to debate the blood evidence, Herlock Holmes will be given the chance to debate whether or not a killer can possibly use the gap in time before arriving at work to kill, Fiver will be given the chance to debate whether or not there is a church of Lechmere, R J Palmer will be given the chance to debate if coincidences are something that should be weighed into the matter of whether someone is a viable suspect or not, and so on. If anybody should feel that he or she has a question to ask in an area where they have not been picked to debate, just write that question down and when we are through, you can post it on this thread and I will certainly consider answering it.

I will try to keep was civil a tone as possible throughout and I urge everybody to make the same effort.

These are the rules I will play by and stick to, and it is a take it or leave it offer.

In English - “I’m creating my own ‘safe space’, where I don’t have to answer nasty, uncomfortable questions.”

First out is the blood evidence and I would like Steve Blomer to respond to what I have to say. There will be a number of urgent questions asked about how he depicts the Lechmere theory in his book, so I hope that Steve, who is often reluctant to debate with me, will offer answers.

In English - “I’ll paint Steve as a coward.”

Letīs begin by moving back to the 31st of August 1888, where we have Charles Lechmere present at the murder site at 3.45. I am using that time because it was established by Wynne Baxter at the inquest, where he said that the time at which the body was found could be fixed to a point in time not far off 3.45. It has been argued that Baxter may have allowed for 3.40 by saying ”not far off” 3.45, but I would say that since the two options that were there for the timing was always 3.40 or 3.45, it is very significant when Baxter chooses the latter timing over the former. We also have Donald Swanson altering his original claim of 3.40 in his September report to 3.45 in his October report, consistent with the suggestion that it was Baxters words at the inquest that caused the alteration. Given that the October report was the last one that gave a timing for Lechmeres finding of the body, and given Baxters fixing of the time, we are left with an impression that 3.45 needs to be regarded as the official timing of the matter, as far as I am concerned.

In English - “Yes ok, I'm Swedish, but I think it only fair that I should use my own interpretation of the English language which differs from everyone else’s.?

We have three observations made before Dr Llewellyn arrived at the scene:

1. Lechmere and Paul at around 3.45-3.46, who said that they saw no blood, Lechmere adding that it was too dark to do so.

In English - “It’s my theory so I should be allowed to dictate imaginary times when these are unknowns.”

2. John Neil, arriving at circa 3.51, and stating that there was blood oozing/running from the wound in the throat, and that there was a pool of blood under the neck of Polly Nichols.

In English - “It’s my theory so I should be allowed to dictate imaginary times when these are unknowns.”

3. Jonas Mizen, who arrived at around 3.54, and who said that the blood was still running and looking fresh, and adding the information that there was blood running from the pool under Nicholsī neck into the gutter.

In English - “It’s my theory so I should be allowed to dictate imaginary times when these are unknowns.”

From this, we can form a logical sequence: It seems that the blood in the pool was added to during these minutes, and eventually ran over the brim and started flowing into the gutter. This is what the sequence implicates.

Now, some say that the blood could have flowed for an undefined length of time, fifteen, twenty, thirty minutes, perhaps an hour. If this is true, then the significance of the observations made becomes very minor: It would allow for somebody else to have killed Nichols anywhere in between Neils passing the murder spot at around circa 3.15 and up to circa 3.44.

However, we have two senior medical forensic professors telling us another story. Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin, who both worked from the assumption that Polly Nichols was first strangled and only thereafter had her throat cut, said that considering the information available about wound severity, temperatures, position of the body and suchlike, the likely bleeding out time would have been around 3-5 minutes. After that the bleeding should have stopped. But neither man claimed that a longer bleeding time was impossible. Jason Payne James, when asked if Nichols was likely to bleed for three, five or seven minutes, said that all these options were possible, but 3-5 minutes were more likely than 7. And professor Thiblin agreed; he also stated that the 3-5 minute gap was the one most likely to cover the end of the bleeding but allowed for more than so.

Nichols did not stop to bleed after 3-5 minutes, however. Jonas Mizen stated that she was ”still bleeding” as he looked at her, meaning that we have a bleeding time of around nine minutes on record, and possibly more since there is no observation following that of Mizen until Dr Llewellyn arrives a long time after Mizen. So she could have bled for ten minutes too. Or eleven. Or twelve, and so on. But she could not have gone on to bleed for any amount of time, as per professor Thiblin, who said that at a stretch, he could accept a bleeding that went on for 10-15 minutes, but no more.

What we therefore seem to be looking at, if we examine the possibility that Lechmere was the cutter, is how the carman must have cut her neck at the latest at circa 3.45; Robert Paul arrived at around 3.46, preventing any suggestions of a later cutting.

3.45 to 3.54, the approximate time at which Jonas Mizen will have arrived, makes for nine minutes. If somebody cut Nichols before Lechmere arrived at the body at circa 3.45, then that must have been done at the very latest around 3.44. And that takes us into the 10-15 minute time gap that Ingemar Thiblin suggested as an extreme possibility.

Given this information, the only logical conclusion we can draw is that Charles Lechmere is the likely killer. For another killer to have been responsible, we have to enter the extreme and much more unlikely time gap of 10-15 minutes offered by Ingemar Thiblin. And it of course applies that the two professors both suggested that since 3-5 minutes was the likely time of the blood stopping to run, 6 minutes was a little less likely, 7 minutes was even more unlikely, 8 minutes was further unlikely and so on. Every added minute offers a less likely window for another killer.

In English - “The body could have bled out for up to 15 minutes though a shorter time is more likely. I know this easily incorporates another killer but the longer I make this last people might lose sight of this fact.”

This is all completely logical and cannot be challenged: If Thiblin and Payne James are on the money - and they are by far the likeliest people we can find to be on the money - then Charles Lechmere is and remains the likely killer of Polly Nichols.

In English - for eg Nichols killed at approx 3.38, found by Lech/Paul approx 3.41, Mizen arrives around approx 3.46. Bleed time approx 8 mins. No issue.

Steve Blomer does not belong to the ones who suggest that Nichols could have bled for ages. He instead suggests that she could have bled for a much shorter time than what the evidence suggests. What Blomer suggests is that John Neils examination of the body caused an already seized bleeding to start all over again. We therefore need to look at this claim more closely. What we know is that Neil said that he felt the arm of Nichols, and found it quite warm from the joint upwards. So he must have put his hand on the arm of Nichols, meaning that he did of course touch her. But Neil denied having ”disturbed the body”, meaning that he did not alter the position of the body at all.

We also need to weigh in that if Neils actions were to cause any renewed bleeding, the body would need to be moved significantly - a cut throat, with no vessels spared will bleed out totally, with the exception of blood positioned under the level of the wound. It is a bit like a bottle: If we lay it down on the ground and open it, it will loose the amount of liquid that is in line with the neck and opening of the bottle, while the rest will stay inside. Putting a hand on that bottle will not cause more liquid to leave it. We need to lift and tilt it to get that effect. And Steve Blomer suggests that this was exactly what Neil may have done - he would have tampered with the arm to such an extent that the neck would emitted more blood, is his reasoning.

There are a few problems with the suggestion. The first is that Neils testimony seems to have him feeling the arm for warmth only after he had noticed the blood oozing/running: ”I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards.”

If this was so, then we can look away from the suggestion Blomer makes. Any touching/disturbing the body after having observed the running blood nullifies the idea of Neil being responsible for it.

The other problem lies in Neils wording: “There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. The blood was then running from the wound in her neck”

Steve Blomer here suggests that ”running” was not implicating that the blood actively ran - ”running” is instead implicating a ”direction” - as in running from point A to point B. But why would Neil in such a case say that the blood was THEN running? To me, that implicates that the blood was actively running as he looked at it. Moreover, why would the PC feel that he needed to point out that the blood in the pool under the neck he had established as a fact, came from the large hole in the cut throat that he had also established? Would the jury and coroner not be able to understand that without Neil having to actually point out which direction the blood ran in - from the wound to the blood pool?

In English - “I’ll continue to use my own version of the English language to suit.”

All of this nevertheless pales somewhat to insignificance if we can show that Jonas Mizen, arriving at the scene some three minutes after Neil, actually saw the blood running. And I think that we can prove that beyond reasonable doubt.

Steve Blomer suggests the same scenario for Mizen as he did for Neil. The blood had stopped flowing, but Mizen started it flowing again by lifting Nichols onto the ambulance stretcher, half an hour after she had originally been cut. And the small stream of blood that was described by Mizen as running into the gutter, was also a matter of direction, not active running, as per Steve Blomer.

But the evidence tells a very different story.

Jonas Mizen said that as he saw Nichols, the blood was ”still running and looking fresh”. This means that Mizen predisposed that the blood had run throughout and never stopped; it was STILL running. For Blomers suggestion to work, Mizen must have accepted that Nichols could have bled for half an hour, because that was the approximate time it would have taken for him to fetch the stretcher up at Bethnal Green Police Station and return back to the murder site.

Could Mizen have been that ignorant? Personally, I doubt it very much. But ignorance can never be excluded as a factor, so letīs run with the idea that he was.

Then we have the fact that Mizen described the blood as looking fresh. What would that mean? The only reasonable explanation is that the blood was bright red. Oxygenated blood is bright red, whereas unoxygenated blood is much darker, almost looking black after some time.

But fresh blood can also be very dark: the blood that runs in our arteries is oxygenated, since it exits our hearts with oxygen from the lungs. The blood in our veins is on it’s way to the heart to get re-oxygenated, and so it is much darker.

What Mizen said seems to describe arterial blood, with oxygen in it. That means that it cannot have been half an hour old, because that would have deprived it of its oxygen and made it look blackish.

In English - “I’ll take the words of a non-medical expert who probably left school at the age of 12 and whose job training involved about as much as a Tesco trolley collector as gospel on medical observations. And I’ll defend him against claims of being an idiot even though I’m quite happy to portray John Richardson as such an unmitigated dimwit that he didn’t understand the obstruction Al value of a door.”

We now have clear implications that Steve Blomer is wrong. But there is another, more decisive matter. Mizen said that the blood was running from the neck into the pool under Nichols, where it was somewhat congealed. This is in line with the victim having bled for nine minutes, because blood will become visibly clotted after around four minutes after it leaves the wound. So we have a perfectly logical thing here: some of the blood in the pool was congealed, some was wet and running from the wound in the neck. It is exactly what to expect when looking at a pool of blood that has formed over a nine minute period.

In English - “I’ll happily call Steve wrong but I just won’t accept what is proven in black and white……that I deliberately left out the word ‘around’ when writing about the time Lechmere left home in my book to create the impression of a gap. Scobie was also given this misleading information which led to him saying that Lechmere had a case to answer. And I’ll dispute these two facts because I know that without them Scobie would not have said what he did.”

We then have the clincher: the stream into the gutter that Mizen points out. It came from the pool under Nicholsī neck, and we know that this pool was only somewhat congealed. The blood that was NOT congealed would have been at the very top of the pool and what caused it to run over the brim - and it is only then that we get a stream leading into the gutter. So the blood in the stream can not have been congealed, it was wet and running. It was always going to be the blood that had arrived latest into the pool, fresh and runny, passing over the brim and trickling away towards the gutter.

This is only possible in one version, and it is not the version with two PCs reopening the bleeding, one after another.

While we are discussing the blood evidence, I would like to take the opportunity to quote a few matters from Steve Blomers book that I find alarming:

”In recent times a theory has been proposed which attempts to give a time of attack for Mary Ann Nichols, based on the degree of blood flow seen by the policemen Neil and Mizen. The aim of this theory is to say that Lechmere must have been present at this time of attack.”

This is not true, and very misleading. I very clearly say that there are a few minutes open for another killer, although such a killer is less likely than Lechmere, going on how far removed in time he must have been - the suggestion of a preceding killer fits badly with the evidence provided by the two medical forensics.

”The science which is proposed to support this theory is itself interesting, and at face value seems reasonable. It states that wounds such as those to the throat of Nichols will bleed for a certain amount of time after death, and thus one can, working back from a witness statement, arrive at a time when the first cut was made.”

This is not true. There is no certain time of bleeding suggested, there is a window of time proposed by Ingemar Thiblin. Accordingly, no exact minute can be found for when the cuts were made. The claim is therefore misleading. What we can do is to see how the extreme time window suggested by a renowned forensic medico is reached into if we believe in another killer.

”In practical terms the theory states that PC John Neil, on his arrival at Brown’s Yard, saw blood flowing under pressure from the wounds to the neck of Mary Ann Nichols.”

Again untrue, the theory works from a suggestion of a passive bleeding as stated by Ingemar Thiblin. Again misleading.

”It is suggested that Neil arrived within 2 minutes of the two carmen leaving the body and maybe as little as 3 minutes after the attack starts.”

Where on earth does this claim come from? I have Neil arriving at the body at 3.51, SIX minutes after the carmen left Nichols. It is spelled out very clearly in Cutting Point, and Steve Blomer has read and reviewed the book, so he is well aware about what time I suggest it took for Neil to get to the murder spot after Lechmere left it. If Neil was to arrive two minutes after the carmen left, the PC would actually have met them on their way up to the Bakers Row junction! The claim is a very strange one, therefore, and totally misleading.

When we add these matters together, we get a description in Steve Blomers book of the Lechmere theory as a concoction that suggests that I have no idea about the timings involved, that I would have championed the suggestion that Nichols was still living as John Neil got to her, that I am suggesting that I believe that I can establish the exact minute in time when Polly Nichols was cut, and that I would have suggested that the time schedule does not allow for any other killer than Charles Lechmere.

Small wonder then, if somebody who reads ”Inside Bucks Row” comes away with the idea that I am hopelessly wrong about the details of the case! And I find that deeply questionable and very regrettable. I furthermore think that I am entitled to an explanation.

I await comments from Steve Blomer, and I am ready to debate these matters before moving onto other topics and posters.

We’ve debated this case with you for years and always get the same approach. The Lechmere theory, as you call it, has become almost a religion. Every single, minute detail is twisted into something incriminating. So much so that many people who have been interested in the case for years find it more than a little embarrassing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On it goes….

"We also have Donald Swanson altering his original claim of 3.40 in his September report to 3.45 in his October report".



This is just so shocking. Swanson never wrote a September report. He never changed any claim. He's talking about a report written in September by Abberline which was merely countersigned by Swanson and Shore. Swanson never made any "original claim of 3.40". Abberline said that Cross found the body at 3.40 and he never changed his opinion. Swanson's 19th October report simply used approximate timings