Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Newbie]

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!”

Young John McEnroe was throwing an irrational temper tantrum at the time, because things weren't going his way - no?

Point #1: 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.

Yes, we are aware of Lech's testimony: why do you treat it as the gospel truth Herlock?
P.C. O'Neil heard PC Thain's footsteps on Brady Street - the acoustics were fantastic on that narrow street, lined with uninterrupted stone buildings, up to the murder location.

Are you maintaining that Lech shouldn't have heard Paul, or Paul Lech? Or, are you maintaining that there exists still some small probability that each wouldn't have heard the other on that dangerous dark street? You just seem to ignore the entire thing and merrily accept Lech's testimony at face value.

I could ask you Herlock to give some accounting, based on physical principles, as to why Lech suddenly heard footsteps in the middle of the street. Just before, when first noticing the body, he slowed down, stopped and looked at the body - why not hear footsteps there? Why not sooner?

He came from the body, positioned himself in the middle of the street, and then shaped his narrative to accommodate that event. How about that?

Point #2: 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.

Nothing at all dubious about characterizing stopping and waiting for Paul as ignoring the prostrate woman (not corpse). Most people would not do it that way; most would gauge how far away the newcomer is (40 yards), check up on the fallen woman, and then deal with the newcomer. You'd stand and wait for 30 seconds? Okay!

There is a slew of attempts to normalize odd behaviors on Lech's part- things most wouldn't do:

- most would attend to the fallen woman first, before addressing Paul
- most would use the name that appears on their marriage certificate at the inquest
- most would come to the inquest dressed in their best clothing - as if attending church (trying to avoid the circus with that?)
- most would have the incident passed down among the family lore
- most, if innocent, would be clear and precise when addressing a police officer about discovering the body:
"you are wanted (by the police)" would not be the unclear language (& i'm being charitable here) most would use.

If you could explain what type of motivation could lead an innocent man to these collective actions, that would go a long ways towards convincing me. But you never do. These facts are not actual facts is the argument - something is being twisted here; and after all, he's innocent.

Point #3: 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.

More of the same here. Starting point? It probably was by not using his family name, and then giving a PC the false impression that some authority wanted him on Buck's row. It was carefully constructed language, with the patina of deniability - he after all, didn't mention any PC waiting there. That puts it in the same category as using Cross. The police thought he was innocent, no doubt. They were primarily looking for jews, foreigners, and the violently insane. Victorian England justified their Empire by believing in the moral superiority of Englishman. An English bloke, with steady employment and a family, being a psychotic murderer was beyond their comprehension.
But we now know some serial killers are like that. As for Paul, he never conveyed what his private suspicions were .... nor was he asked that question at the inquest.

Point #4: 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.

We are in agreement that using Cross offered him no advantage, if innocent. If found out, it would open him up to some suspicion - so why go there? Further, he would disadvantage himself of not being able to use his wife to support his departure time - what did Pickford's know about when he left home? I can't think of any compelling reason for using it, if innocent. If all there was is the barely arriving first to the body, before Paul, and the use of Cross .... I would think nothing of Lech.

I wasted reading through 89 pages of the Lechmere/Cross controversy: David Orsam offered nothing there of value, imho, resolving anything.

Point #5: 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?

Its a sign that he first found the body, which traditionally cast some suspicion on anyone. If you ignore the inquest testimony and auditory science, you can believe that he found the body practically simultaneously with Paul. Then, one can ignore Lech's imprecise language that gives a PC a false impression of what happened .... I do it all the time.

Again, if he just got there before Paul, case closed. I don't believe this for reasons I previously stated. It's a waste of time arguing if we can't come to agreement on this. You believe his testimony, I don't. I find it more likely that Lech got there well ahead of Paul, then that JtR would flee.

Point #5: 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 considered Bury to be a very good suspect - you hit all the high water marks.

If I was arguing against him, using the mode of argumentation employed here against a suspect, I would say that most orphans of the era
do not have a pleasant past - and were put to work in the most abysmal conditions at a very young age. Yet, very, very few turn
into serial killers. I don't like this mode of argumentation - it would eliminate everyone quite easily.

My actual problem with Bury is that he was suspected by the police at the time: they sent people to interview witnesses associated with Bury. There is also an indication that Scotland yard interviewed Bury directly.

But generally, I think JtR was someone never suspected at the time .... so that rules out the most well considered suspects: violently insane Jews. I think the police investigators were highly competent, but hamstrung by certain biases and the lack of modern technologies.

[Fiver]

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.

You asked some vague questions of Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin, and interpreted them the way you wanted to.

For Jason Payne James:
Q. Just how quickly CAN a person with the kind of damage that Nichols had bleed out, if we have nothing that hinders the bloodflow, and if the victim is flat on level ground? Can a total desanguination take place in very few minutes in such a case.
A. Yes
Q. Do you know of any examples?
A. No
Q. Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?
A. I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic.

You appear to have made up the word "desanguination". You don't even appear to understand that to "bleed out completely' and to "stop bleeding" are not the same thing.

For Ingemar Thiblin you claim that Thiblin told you that there is "not much empirical data to go on"' as to how long "a seeping bleeding" could last, but that "ten to fifteen minutes'" possible.

So Thiblin stated that he had very little data and estimated 10 to 15 minutes.

James stated he had no data at all and estimated 3 to 7 minutes.

The two pathologists disagree on time and admitted they had little or no information to base their estimates on.

[Fiver]

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

Take a look at what other people did. Not shouting for help and just leaving the victim there was the most common reaction.

* Albert Crow ignored Martha Tabram's body and went to bed.
* John Reeves saw Tabram's body and went directly to the police.
* Charles Lechmere hailed the first person he saw, Robert Paul, showed him Nichols body, and they went to the police.
* John Davis hailed the first people he saw, showed them Chapman's body, and then went to the police.
* Louis Diemschutz went inside the club, checked his wife, then told the other club members. They went outside, examined Stride's body, and went to the police.
* PC Watkins went to the nearest person, George Morris, showed him Eddowes' body, and then sent Morris to get more police.
* Thomas Bowyer got the landlord McCarthy, showed him Keely's body, and then went to the police.

Summarizing
Went directly to the police - Reeves.
Sought a second person or persons and showed them the body before seeking police - Lechmere, Davis, Diemschutz, Watkins, Bower.
Just walked past the victim - Crow and probably Paul if Lechmere hadn't stopped him. Possibly Goldstein for the Stride murder, if the reporter didn't embellish Mrs Mortimer's account.

[Newbie]

So the killer leaves - at what risk? He might have seen a Constable but he might also have been able to have seen him in advance and give him a swerve. And if he had passed a Constable how much attention might he have payed a bloke walking to work head down? And how would that Constable have known that there had been a murder when they weren’t sure if Nichols was dead or not.

vs

So the killer stays - at what risk? Well he definitely knows a Constable will be involved rather than there being an outside chance of it if he’d fled. He’d also have realised the possibility that in the dark he might have gotten blood on him. Maybe only a little, but what if they’d got near a lamp and Paul had seen a small patch of wet blood on his jacket or shoe. Straight away he’d have pointed it out to the Constable. What if Mizen had asked them both to accompany him back to the body and then searched them both when he found that Nichols was dead. Lech has a bloodied knife on him. But in another ridiculous attempt to get around this we have the desperate Lechmere Scam. I’ve never heard such a ridiculous, desperate fantasy as this. As if, on the spur-of-the-moment, at the crime scene, with the knife in his pocket Lech is supposed to have thought up “I know, we’ll go for a Constable but when we get there I’ll find a way of splitting up from this other bloke so that I can lie about the woman only being drunk so that he’ll let us go!” And that is the kind of ‘thinking’ that we’re faced with here.

Flee or stay - no competition - not for a second - flee every single time. Lech stayed…..because he hadn’t done anything wrong. For me this is as close to exoneration as we can get without actually completely exonerating him.

The killer would have probably made it out; but it wasn't risk free. Not just constables (they were around), but more prostitutes, Johns, vagrants - you don't know who you will encounter fleeing, when going around a corner.

Yes, he probably would have gotten away just fleeing .... no argument there.

As for the blood, he was a carman - not an IBM executive, and it was dark. A spot or two of blood ....phfft!
That is blood from handling animal meat.

The wife washed clothing maybe once a week? Maybe, less often?
Reading a description of the typical London street, it was filthy place.

You are missing one option, the first person to find the body stays behind and Paul goes ahead and fetches help.
The idea that coming 10 - 15 minutes late to work, after helping the police with a distressed woman will get a long time employee in trouble with his employer is absurd. Not now, not then.

Provided that he hadn't a bloody knife in a coat pocket, and Paul was a reliable witness to the just arriving there together story.

[Fiver]

At this point I'm convinced that Jeff, Steve and Herlock would have collectively solved this case back in 1888.

They do provide a lot of helpful information and are appreciated for it.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Steve,

Heart failure would have set in between 3-4 minutes after the cut to the throat( if it was indeed first, some have argued it was secondary). ANY cuts to the abdomen would speed this up.

Wow! That's quite a bit longer than I would have guessed, thanks for that, I think I may have to revise my thinking on this.

Hmmm, at roughly 417 feet from the far end of Buck's Row to the crime scene, at 3.2 mph (average walking speed), that's 1 m 28 sec to cover. So, let's consider the idea that JtR leaves upon Cross/Lechmere's arrival at the far end, who takes roughly 1 m 30 seconds to arrive. Paul is 120 feet or so behind Cross/Lechmere, adding another 25 seconds before they move to inspect her (let's call it 30 to account for some sluff, like Cross/Lechmere slowing down, etc). That's 2 minutes after JtR has left. But her throat was cut prior to Cross/Lechmere entering Buck's Row, so we need to take into account the time for the murder itself as well.

My thoughts are that very little time would be required to cut the throat, lift the dress, and make a series of deep cuts; he's not yet disemboweling or removing bits from the gut cavity, just cutting slashes down the stomach region. I suspect Polly's injuries (not counting any strangulation time, etc, just the knife work), wouldn't require more than a minute, and probably less. That means it is possible that Cross/Lechmere and Paul are inspecting Polly as little as 3 minutes after her throat had been cut.

And if heart failure would be expected to occur in 3-4 minutes, maybe it is possible that Paul did detect the last flutters of life? Particularly as the breathing reflex could continue even longer. (Ok, I know the cuts to the abdomen would shorten that time somewhat, which one could argue shifts things to now be impossible, but just to be on the conservative side, one might suggest that Polly would have been someone on the longer end of the scale, so speeding things up just brings her more to the typical 3-4 minute range, etc.).

Learn something new every day. Nice.

I have been suggesting this for sometime too Jeff, good to see I am not alone.

Very possibly.

Again I am in agreement Jeff.

Yes, the whole concept of individual people's perception is something that needs to be taken into account, we will not all be the same, or at all times.

Fully agree on this possibility Jeff.

These are very fair questions Jeff, that appear to often be ignored or overlooked

Steve

Nice to know I'm not alone in some views. Obviously none of those things can be proven, and even my response above isn't meant as a "this is what happened", but rather a more modest "I can't say Paul couldn't have detected the last signs of life because if Cross/Lechmere did cause JtR to leave the scene, the time allows for it". Meaning "because it is possible, I can't exclude it". Obviously, it could be JtR left the scene 5 minutes earlier, and Paul was mistaken, but that conclusion can't be drawn firmly, and the timings combined with Paul's testimony, raise some interesting possibilities.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

At this point I'm convinced that Jeff, Steve and Herlock would have collectively solved this case back in 1888.

I say this because every time I believe I'm making a point that hasn't been fully conceived, I read some very well thought out and balanced responses that all make logical sense.

Exceptional comments and viewpoints across the board.

Bravo gentlemen!

ha ha! I won't speak for the others, but I wouldn't place any bets on me producing a solution, either in the past, present, or future. I don't even have a suspect and really, I am still trying to understand what happened, and when. Then again, there are plenty of others who have already solved the case, so I suppose that's why I do not feel compelled to solve it yet again.

- Jeff

[Lewis C]

If I understand Fisherman's argument, it's that the bleeding that was witnessed points toward Lechmere as the killer because if anyone else had killed Nichols, too much time would have passed for there to still be that much bleeding. That raises the question of what is the minimum amount of additional time that would have had to have passed if Lechmere's approach caused the killer to flee as opposed to Lechmere being the killer. I think it's 60 seconds, tops. I doubt that the bleeding evidence can tell us the time of the attack with that kind of precision.

[Newbie]

Brilliant post Jeff, well thought out and balanced. I really appreciate you putting that into context as I agree that based on their actions, it is almost certain that they thought she was merely drunk and had they of seen her wounds they would have reacted differently.

The way you describe the scenario in your post fits perfectly and I concur with that way of thinking.

Seeing as they weren't aware she was dead then it may also suggest...that she actually wasn't clinically dead.
When Paul touches her and thinks she's alive but Lechmere believes she's dead, it would appear that by Paul touching her and believing she was alive, was enough to convince Lechmere that she wasn't dead.

Paul's opinion seems to convince Lechmere and so they head on to work and if they meet a policeman so be it. There's no sense of urgency and so you're absolutely correct that they didn't believe she had been attacked.


That in turn brings about another issue...

If Paul thought she was alive and then they head off to work, then she may hav been dead or alive BUT it's clear that her injuries must have been concealed.

All of the other victims were displayed (except Stride due to interruption or a different killer) and the killer wanted to show his work to the world by exposing their internal organs etc...

Therefore because neither Paul or Lechmere etc... were unaware of her injuries, the killer tried to conceal what he had done.

That doesn't fit

And so why did he conceal her injuries?

The only explanation I can determine from his attempt to conceal her injuries is that he was interrupted and wasn't quite finished.

If he had of been finished and then walked off before Lechmere arrived, her body would have been displayed for all to see like Chapman, Eddowes and MJK etc...

In other words, if as you say they believed she was still alive and couldn't see the extent of her wounds, then that would surely mean the killer was interrupted.

Now at this juncture I must say that I'm on the fence about Lechmere because I believe the murder occurred some time between 3.30am - 3.38am... BUT...

If Paul found Lechmere yards away from her body and Lechmere claims he would have heard someone, then surely that doesn't fit with the killer being disturbed?

Either Lechmere interrupted the killer but didnt hear anything?
Or Paul interrupted Lechmere who quickly tried to conceal the wounds he had just inflicted because he heard Paul approaching and by doing so had NO TIME to escape an had to blag his way out of it.

OR there is another option...

Paul had just murdered Nichols but heard Lechmere approaching but he quickly hid in the shadows. Lechmere then walks past and notices Nichols and Paul waits for Lechmere to move on... But Lechmere doesn't and just stands there...and so Paul makes the decision to edge back...but as he does Lechmere hear and so Paul is forced to walk back towards the body and pretend he has just arrived on the scene.
He then convinces Lechmere she's still alive...and they move on to go to work...

Making Paul the ripper

But that's pretty thin...and it's more likely that Lechmere killed her and only had time to conceal the wounds and lost the time he needed to run.


Thoughts?

TRD

Hi Rookie Detective,

How difficult do you think it is to discern the difference between a sleeping drunk and being stone dead?
Or the difference between someone who had fainted, or was stone dead?
Not hard at all in my opinion ... something that can be determined right away.

No doubt, lots of drunks without shelter out there in East London for a PC; they had a policy on what to do with them;
but they would have been low priority over someone badly injured through violence.
Also lots of drunks whose liver finally shut down, and they died out on the street over night.
wouldn't PC Mizen initially think that was the situation?

One imagines Lech knew all this - his step dad being one;
Lech was no stranger to the perspective of a beat cop on these matters.


Paul thought she was raped, initially.
He doesn't mention inebriation.

It was Lech who made the suggestion that she might be drunk.
If you want the PC to immediately go to the site, and help the victim, why throw in that suggestion?

At the inquest, according to the Daily Telegraph, Lech says: In his opinion "deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries."

No "serious injuries "- it must have looked bad leaving a seriously injured woman behind.
Much better to think she was raped, and he merrily left her behind in that state.

Again, if Lech had just arrived ahead of Paul, moot point. It shows a rather callous attitude ... but what the hell.
But if Lech had arrived well before Paul, ........ he would know damn well that it was not a matter of a drunk, or a woman who had fainted.

He would have known that in his brief investigation with Paul.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Rookie Detective,

How difficult do you think it is to discern the difference between a sleeping drunk and being stone dead?
Or the difference between someone who had fainted, or was stone dead?
Not hard at all in my opinion ... something that can be determined right away.

No doubt, lots of drunks without shelter out there in East London for a PC; they had a policy on what to do with them;
but they would have been low priority over someone badly injured through violence.
Also lots of drunks whose liver finally shut down, and they died out on the street over night.
wouldn't PC Mizen initially think that was the situation?

One imagines Lech knew all this - his step dad being one;
Lech was no stranger to the perspective of a beat cop on these matters.


Paul thought she was raped, initially.
He doesn't mention inebriation.

It was Lech who made the suggestion that she might be drunk.
If you want the PC to immediately go to the site, and help the victim, why throw in that suggestion?

At the inquest, according to the Daily Telegraph, Lech says: In his opinion "deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries."

No "serious injuries "- it must have looked bad leaving a seriously injured woman behind.
Much better to think she was raped, and he merrily left her behind in that state.

Again, if Lech had just arrived ahead of Paul, moot point. It shows a rather callous attitude ... but what the hell.
But if Lech had arrived well before Paul, ........ he would know damn well that it was not a matter of a drunk, or a woman who had fainted.

He would have known that in his brief investigation with Paul.

Why didn't Paul know she was dead?

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

If I understand Fisherman's argument, it's that the bleeding that was witnessed points toward Lechmere as the killer because if anyone else had killed Nichols, too much time would have passed for there to still be that much bleeding. That raises the question of what is the minimum amount of additional time that would have had to have passed if Lechmere's approach caused the killer to flee as opposed to Lechmere being the killer. I think it's 60 seconds, tops. I doubt that the bleeding evidence can tell us the time of the attack with that kind of precision.

Hi Lewis C,

I'm not fully aware of all the details of the McKenzie case as I haven't really looked very closely at that one for a few years, though I keep meaning to when my time frees up. However, in her case her throat wound is described as still bleeding quite heavily for something like 10 or 15 minutes after she was found. I believe the indications are, like is currently being consider for Nichols, she was probably murdered very close to the time of discovery. There could be some differences to consider, as I think her throat injury isn't as deep or long as the one on Nichols, but I would think what's most important is what blood vessels are cut and not the length of the cut per se as the heart, while it still beats, forces the blood out, so if the same vessels are cut, it is forcing the blood out of effectively the same severed "pipeline". It could also be the case that the blood may clot faster in a smaller space, meaning Nichols could have bled even longer than McKenzie, but again, I'm just speculating on possibilities here and the last time I did that above, I wasn't all that accurate. Anyway, you might want to look into that case to help you make your own decisions as it contains relevant information.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

If I understand Fisherman's argument, it's that the bleeding that was witnessed points toward Lechmere as the killer because if anyone else had killed Nichols, too much time would have passed for there to still be that much bleeding. That raises the question of what is the minimum amount of additional time that would have had to have passed if Lechmere's approach caused the killer to flee as opposed to Lechmere being the killer. I think it's 60 seconds, tops. I doubt that the bleeding evidence can tell us the time of the attack with that kind of precision.

If people bled out as fast as Fishy claims, the most likely killer of Polly Nichols would be PC Neil. The pathologists he talked to told Fishy that they had little or no data to base their estimates on - a point that Fishy neglects to mention.

For the Nichols killing, we don't know when PC Mizen said the blood was running. If it was when he first arrived on the scene, that's probably 4 to 5 minutes after PC Neil found the body. If it was after PC Mizen returned with the ambulance, I'm going to guess that's about 15 minutes after PC Neil found the body. And we don't know how long after this that the blood flow stopped.

Another example is Alice Mackenzie, who might have been a Ripper victim. She was killed sometime after 12:20am (when a police last passed through Castle Alley) and 12:45am (That's when it began to rain and the ground under her body was dry). People's time estimates vary, but it appears her body was found around 12:50am. Her blood seems to have still been running at 1:10am when Dr Philips arrived, about 20 minutes after her body was found. Again, we don't know how long after this that the blood flow stopped.

That's not enough data to make any absolute conclusions, but they show that the blood was still running at least 25 minutes after Mackenzie was murdered. And Dr Phillips, who actually saw it, didn't seem find that number unusual.

If (and it's an if, not a certainty) the Mackenzie case is typical, then blood flow indicates Polly Nichols was murdered some time between 3:15am and 3:35am. Dr Llewellyn's estimate would put the murder sometime between 3:30am and 3:40am. Mrs Lilley's statement to the press would indicate the murder taking place around 3:30am with the sounds masked by the train passing.

[Newbie]

Here's the coroner's final summation at the end of the Polly Nichol's inquest: someone objected to my characterization of Polly Nichol's being almost decapitated.

"There are bruises about the face in both cases;the head is nearly severed from the body in both cases; there are other dreadful injuries in both cases; and those injuries, again, have in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge. Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it comes about that there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained, and, indeed, very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck. Surely it may well be that, as in the case of Chapman, the dreadful wounds to the throat were inflicted first and the others afterwards."

* The other case being that of Annie Chapman

Whoever objected to my use of language, must also object to the coroner's final statement.
The uncertainty was whether she died from her belly wound, or her neck wound.

She was messed up.

Perhaps, the smell of alcohol on Polly Nichol's body could have given Lechmere some idea that he was dealing with a dead alcoholic.
But no doubt dead or in critical condition would be a proper evaluation of her state, not simply drunk.


See, i can be objective.

Why did he settle for her being in a swoon after being raped? I have no idea.

[Newbie]

Why didn't Paul know she was dead?

- Jeff

In the Loyd's weekly interview, after briefly examining the body he thought "she was outraged and died in the struggle."
He also says that he told Mizen he thought Polly Nichols was dead.

In his inquest testimony, he said that he "detected a slight movement (in her chest) as of breathing, but very faint."

To my purpose, whether he thought her dead, or almost dead, it doesn't matter; the only important thing is that he didn't imagine the cause
of her problems being inebriation.

[Fisherman]

We have debated all these points, many times, we do not and will never agree.
I see no point in repeating these debates with you, when we both know that nothing will change, no views or opinions will alter.

I stand by the comments in my book, and the sources used to reach the conclusions.

You don't like that, That's something I have got use to.

Thank you for reacting, Steve. You are correct in saying that we have debated the matters before. There were, however, inclusions in my post that have not been given consideration by you before.

What I find more concerning is the fact that you will not comment on the passages in your book that I pointed to, and that misrepresent the Lechmere theory. You refer to the sources quoted by you, but once I look for them, I get the source ”Casebook.org” only, meaning that I need to read it from start to finish to find the material you supposedly worked from. Anybody knows that it is not possible to do so.

If we for clarities sake were to go by one of the matters only, as I said, you have read and reviewed my book, and you are therefore quite aware that in it, I suggest that PC Neil would have arrived at the murder site around six minutes after Lechmere claimed he got there. And the book must of course be the best source for how the theory should be read and understood.

Sourcing this claim of yours as ”Casebook.org” without naming who you are supposedly quoting and what was supposedly said out on Casebook and when it was said, and then choosing it over what must be regarded as an official source, namely Cutting Point, is a very dubious thing to do. Standing by the method when it is questioned is even worse, the way I look upon it.

It would be better, although quite unorthodox, if you were to publish the material you are working from alongside the true claim of the theory, so that your readers are not deprived of what I actually say, instead of only being served what I am not saying at all. If the kind of claim on our behalf has ever been made and published on Casebook - and I am not saying that it hasnīt, I cannot do so since I cannot take part of the material through your sourcing - then you must be aware that it is not the real view of the Lechmere theory. So far as I can tell, it could be anything from an unintentionally misworded post to some sort of experimental thinking or anything else like that - regardless, it is NOT what the Lechmere theory suggests. And given that you know what the theory suggests as per Cutting Point, I think it must rest on you as the author of Inside Bucks Row to try and be as fair as possible when describing your counterparts views of the case. In this, you have failed very badly, and I think it would serve both os us if these kinds of things were corrected.

I will await any reaction of yours, preferably one where you disclose the material you were working from when you claimed that the Lechmere theory has John Neil arriving at the site at a time we both know he could not have arrived without running into the carmen. If there is no reaction today or tomorrow, I will move on to the next poster.