Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Elamarna]

So we take the estimated train time, add it to the evidence of Mrs Lilley, Lechmere and Co...and then the 3.30am attack time fits perfectly.

However, if Lechmere would have left on time, he would have witnessed the murder or at least have seen the killer and Nichols.

If the wounds to her neck are inflicted AFTER 3.35am, then either Lechmere and/or Paul, or PC Neil are the killer.

That's why bleed out time is crucial to get right.

It is NOT certain Lechmere would have seen the killer, only that he may have.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Thank you, I will give it a try.

... which I did, resulting in me finding this passage:

3. There are several issues here, firstly given that bleeding under pressure will stop from the cutting of

both Carotid's, as per Nichols, in about 3.5 minutes, and it takes 4 minutes according to Paul to get to

Mizen, it is highly improbable to put it mildly that he could see blood flowing under pressure, the

likely arrival times for Mizen are shown in Appendix 1 Table 12.

In addition, the majority of the witness statements from Mizen make it very clear he reports on the

blood after returning with the ambulance, not when he first arrives. Appendix 2: Mizen, reports 1,4,5

& 7. report 3, leaves out returning with the ambulance, and can be read to say the blood was seen when

he first arrived at Brown’s Yard.

Sadly, it seems not to contain the source behind your claim that the Lechmere theory suggests that John Neil arrived at the murder site two minutes after Lechmere had left the body and maybe as little as 3 minutes after the attack commenced. I would very much like to know where that information comes from - and the thinking process behind why you declined to use the timings I suggest in Cutting Point. Of course, if you could help out and provide the source, it would be very helpful.

There was also a point 4 on the page, but it was not clickable, and only led to press reports about Neil.

Again, that you assume any comment refers to only your work and your opinion is amusing.
Many have suggested arriving in a couple of minutes, as you well know.
We both agree this is very unlikely.

[Elamarna]

What do we know about PS Kirby in relation to the murder of Nichols?

All l can seem to ascertain is that he passed through Bucks Row around the same time as PC Neil.

3.15am

But that's it

So did PC Neil testify to PS Kirby passing through Bucks Row at the same time as he did?

What if PS Kirby passed by AFTER Neil?

Where did PS Kirby go after he passed through Bucks Row?
Did Thain or Mizen see him?

Why wasn't he called up as witness when he was in Bucks Row shortly before the murder occurred?

Why does no one seem to talk about him?

Could PS Kirby have been the killer?

Why would Mizen see him?

Different Divisions.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fiver,

...
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.

There is a sort of "hmmmm" moment with Goldstein as described by Mrs. Mortimer. Particularly as she says he walked down the street quickly, glances at the club, and continues on. Makes one wonder what made him glance? Did some movement in the ally catch his eye, but it was too dark to see? It teases at the idea that just maybe something like that happens, and the movement is JtR with Stride on the ground. If JtR noticed Goldstein as well, that itself could be the fabelled interruption event that results in JtR leaving Stride dead, but not mutilated.

Clearly, that's entirely speculation, but does it work? Well, the timing for Goldstein's passing is similar to the time of the Schwartz event, which could then be used to tie a few things up into a nice package. One problem, though, is that Mrs. Mortimer doesn't see the Schwartz event, and presumably in this idea Goldstein comes along very shortly after Schwartz has fled, and JtR has now got Stride into the ally somehow. That does, however, leave a short space of time to work with, allowing for Mrs. Mortimer to come out just after Schwartz flees, so she misses all of that, but she does come out after JtR and Stride are in the ally and in time to see Goldstein walk by - and perhaps that even explains why she even remembers him at all, because she sees him when she first goes outside but then sees nobody after that. And there's the rub. If she's seen nobody after Goldstein, clearly JtR hasn't left the scene as a result, and we have that last piece of the puzzle that just won't fit, which probably is telling me I've put the pieces together wrong after all (hardly a surprise).

Sigh. So there we have it. Another great story bites the dust as it ends up twisting itself into such a knot it eats it's own tail.

It was fun while it lasted.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Again, that you assume any comment refers to only your work and your opinion is amusing.
Many have suggested arriving in a couple of minutes, as you well know.
We both agree this is very unlikely.

I am not assuming that any comment refers to my work, no. But the ones who have shaped the Lechmere theory as it is today is me and Edward Stow. Of course, there have been many people who have latched onto the theory and who have been very careless with the facts - but if you have used such material to picture the theory, it would not reflect kindly on your book and your credibility. A theory does not involve fringe comments from people who happen to support the theory, as I am sure you will agree.
I believe you need to disclose the source you used. That way, we can assess whether or not it belongs to a truthful picture of what the Lechmere theory stands for.

[Elamarna]

I am not assuming that any comment refers to my work, no. But the ones who have shaped the Lechmere theory as it is today is me and Edward Stow. Of course, there have been many people who have latched onto the theory and who have been very careless with the facts - but if you have used such material to picture the theory, it would not reflect kindly on your book and your credibility. A theory does not involve fringe comments from people who happen to support the theory, as I am sure you will agree.
I believe you need to disclose the source you used. That way, we can assess whether or not it belongs to a truthful picture of what the Lechmere theory stands for.

The book is not just about Lechmere, so covers all suggestions, not just those involving the Carman.

In this case it's Neil's arrival, and considers when he could have arrived, that's independent of the Lechmere theory.

Many over the years, some supporters of the Lechmere theory, some not have suggested he arrives 2 or so minutes after the carmen leave.

No less than Paul Begg, in "The Facts" suggests it's only seconds possibly.

We both think this is incorrect.

And there I shall stop this pointless game.

PS.

I am sure those who you call "fringe" will love that comment btw.

[Fisherman]

The book is not just about Lechmere, so covers all suggestions, not just those involving the Carman.

In this case it's Neil's arrival, and considers when he could have arrived, that's independent of the Lechmere theory.

Many over the years, some supporters of the Lechmere theory, some not have suggested he arrives 2 or so minutes after the carmen leave.

No less than Paul Begg, in "The Facts" suggests it's only seconds possibly.

We both think this is incorrect.

And there I shall stop this pointless game.

PS.

I am sure those who you call "fringe" will love that comment btw.

Yes, we both know the suggestion is incorrect. Which is why I believe you have duty to point that out in your book. Instead, you pick a statement that you know must be wrong, and you quote it as being somehow representative for the theory as such. And you do not mention that the two people who are the originators of the theory in it's current shape are very aware about how the suggestion is silly.

I would like to refer you to your review of Cutting Point in Ripperologist, where you called me "dodgy" for not mentioning many enough times the fact that the material could be interpreted as Paul having spoken to PC Mizen. Of course, I DID mention it - twice. But that was not enough for you, you called it dodgy that I did not mention it many more times.

And now you are defending using a quotation from someone who you will. ot name and who have gotten the Lechmere theory totally wrong? And it would somehow not be dodgy that you are leaving out the real view of the Lechmere theory, basing the faulty philanderings of somebody who has failed to understand the matter off a it THAT is how the Lechmere theory works?

Yes, you are right, we need to end this exercise since it truly seems pointless to get you to recognize how totally wrong your approach is. If somebody should claim your book to be a good source, I am at least now able to advice him or her very differently.

All the best, and thank you for the answers you provided.

[Fisherman]

I would now like to call upon Doctored Whatsit and see if he is willing to debate with me. A very recent post of his caught my eye:

"I think that the frequent and sometimes heated debates about bleed out time are not really necessary. Quite simply, if Nichols was murdered at about 3. 30 am, as per Harriet Lilley, for example, then bleeding would probably have stopped by about 3. 40 am, and some time had elapsed for congealing to start to happen as per reports. Then, when Lechmere and Paul arrive they examine her hands, stating them to be cold, but by lifting them up a few inches from the ground to do so, they cause a little fresh blood to ooze from the neck wound, this being lower than the raised hands. Then about 3 -5 minutes later, PC Neil arrives, and checks her hands and the temperature of her skin just under the clothing covering her arms. He again lifts her hands a few inches and initiates a little oozing of blood from the neck wound. I don't see any issue here.

In a suggestion that this is not correct, it has been pointed out that PC Neil claimed that he didn't move the body, but I am quite sure that he only meant that he didn't alter the position in which the body was lying, because he surely didn't examine her hands and arms without lifting them slightly off the ground."

So, Doctored Whatsit, here are my thoughts about this post of yours:

Let´s begin from the end. You write that Neil surely did not examine the hands and arms of Polly Nichols without lifting them slightly off the ground. I am curious to know how that works - why MUST he have done so? Polly was on her back, with her arms stretched out alongside her. Why could Neil not have put his hand against the hand and arm as it lay there? Why would he feel compelled to lift it? If he just stooped down and put his hand on hers, and then slid it in under her sleeve? Why would he not be able to do it that way?

As such, the matter is very secondary to the other point I am going to make, so it is more a question about how we should perhaps not claim that we are certain of something that we cannot be certain of. But let's move on!

These are all quotations from papers, relating to the first day of the Nichols inquest, when Neil testified about what went down in Bucks Row:

Daily News: Police constable John Neil deposed that on Friday morning at a quarter to four o'clock he was going down Buck's row, Whitechapel, from Thomas street to Brady street. Not a soul was about. He was round there about half an hour previously, and met nobody then. the first thing he saw was a figure lying on the footpath. It was dark, but there was a street lamp on the opposite side some distance away. The figure was lying alongside a gateway, of which the gate, nine or ten feet high, was locked. It led to some stables belonging to Mr. Brown. From the gateway eastward the houses began, and westward there was a Board School. All the houses were occupied. The deceased's left hand was touching the gate. Directly he turned his lantern on the body, he noticed blood was oozing from the woman's throat. She was lying on her back with her hands beside the body, the eyes wide open, the legs a little apart, and the hands open. Feeling her right arm he found it quite warm.

Daily Telegraph: I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the westward. On the opposite side of the road is Essex Wharf. Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. 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.

Morning Advertiser: Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. 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.

Times: The deceased was lying lengthways, and her left hand touched the gate. With the aid of his lamp he examined the body and saw blood oozing from a wound in the throat. Deceased was lying upon her back with her clothes disarranged. Witness felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards, while her eyes were wide open.

Note, if you will, how it is said in DN that "Directly he turned his lantern on the body, he noticed blood was oozing from the woman's throat" What I would want to direct your attention to here is the question about when he lit his lamp. My suggestion is that he did so as he was approaching and bending down over the body. So it would have been the very first thing he did, in relation to the body - he lit his lamp and took a look at Nichols, to try and assess what he was dealing with.

Now, lets add the following two sentences: "Directly he turned his lantern on the body, he noticed blood was oozing from the woman's throat. She was lying on her back with her hands beside the body, the eyes wide open, the legs a little apart, and the hands open. Feeling her right arm he found it quite warm."

The mentioning of his feeling her arm for warmth is chronologically placed AFTER when he turned his lamp on the body. And we know that it was he turned the lamp on the body that he saw that she was bleeding: "Directly he turned his lantern on the body, he noticed blood was oozing from the woman's throat."

This is consistent throughout the reporting: 1. He shone his lamp on the body. 2. Directly he did so, he noted that she was bleeding. 3. He thereafter felt her arm for warmth.

We have the Morning Advertiser reporting from what happened before the inquest, publishing on the 1 of September: "At a quarter to four o'clock Police constable Neill, 97 J, when in Buck's row, Whitechapel, came upon the body of a woman lying on a part of the footway, and on stooping to raise her up in the belief that she was drunk, he discovered that her throat was cut almost "from ear to ear."

I would suggest that we here can identify the exact moment when Neil shone his light on the body; when he stooped down, he turned his light onto the body and saw the gash in the throat. It is proven by the same sentence as above: "Directly he turned his lantern on the body, he noticed blood was oozing from the woman's throat."

So there we are - Neil walks over to the shape on the pavement, he is uncertain of what he is looking at, and so he stoops down over the shape and turns his light on it. He then sees the gash in the neck and how she is actively bleeding. The lifting of the arm that you suggest came only after this, and so it cannot possibly have caused the active bleeding that Neil saw! The inclusions are the wrong way around to allow for it.

I would also say that we can be certain that he did not feel her for warmth before he turned the light on, if anybody should feel inclined to propose such a thing. At that stage, he did not know what he was looking at, and he would not commence trying to find out by feeling her for warmth! For all he knew, he could be dealing with a drunk woman, and you don't palpate anybody for warmth until you have reason to think that the person may be dead.

This is an important matter, because Steve Blomer and those who like his view of the drama have always proposed the same thing as you have: that it was palpating for warmth that caused Nichols to start to bleed as Neil examined her. And that the blood had previously stopped running and started to clot, leaving the crime scene with a not bleeding woman as Neil arrived. We can now see that the evidence is quite enough to nullify that suggestion. And we know that PC Mizen added that as he arrived, some three minutes afterwards, the blood had started to run into the gutter. That is perfectly in line with an ongoing bleeding between Neils and Mizens respective arrivals.

Very few days bring this kind of progress. We can now say that Polly Nichols was still actively bleeding as John Neil arrived at the murder site, some six minutes after Charles Lechmere had supposedly found her body. And that adds tremendously to further bolster the suggestion that Lechmere killed her.

I hope you will be willing to comment on this, and you are of course welcome to ask any questions you'd like of me.

PS. You write: "Then, when Lechmere and Paul arrive they examine her hands, stating them to be cold, but by lifting them up a few inches from the ground to do so, they cause a little fresh blood to ooze from the neck wound, this being lower than the raised hands. Then about 3 -5 minutes later, PC Neil arrives, and checks her hands and the temperature of her skin just under the clothing covering her arms."

Neil cannot have arrived three minutes only after the carmen examined the body of Polly Nichols. We need to weigh in how the carmen had a long stretch to walk up to the Baker Street junction and how they must have been out of the street as Neil entered it via Thomas Street. Neil then had a stretch of about 145 yards to cover, and that stretch would have taken him around a minute and 35 seconds, if he was walking at a speed of three miles per hour, which was supposedly the night time patrolling speed.

Before we can allow Neil into Bucks Row, however, we must have the carmen out of it, having turned into Bakers Row, where they found Mizen. And that would have taken a significant time. All in all, a time of some six minutes would have passed from when Lechmere supposedly found the body and up to when Neil arrived at it, meaning that the time from the examination up until the carmen found Mizen must have been considerably more than three minutes only.

[Elamarna]

Yes, we both know the suggestion is incorrect. Which is why I believe you have duty to point that out in your book. Instead, you pick a statement that you know must be wrong, and you quote it as being somehow representative for the theory as such. And you do not mention that the two people who are the originators of the theory in it's current shape are very aware about how the suggestion is silly.

I would like to refer you to your review of Cutting Point in Ripperologist, where you called me "dodgy" for not mentioning many enough times the fact that the material could be interpreted as Paul having spoken to PC Mizen. Of course, I DID mention it - twice. But that was not enough for you, you called it dodgy that I did not mention it many more times.

And now you are defending using a quotation from someone who you will. ot name and who have gotten the Lechmere theory totally wrong? And it would somehow not be dodgy that you are leaving out the real view of the Lechmere theory, basing the faulty philanderings of somebody who has failed to understand the matter off a it THAT is how the Lechmere theory works?

Yes, you are right, we need to end this exercise since it truly seems pointless to get you to recognize how totally wrong your approach is. If somebody should claim your book to be a good source, I am at least now able to advice him or her very differently.

All the best, and thank you for the answers you provided.

I believe I mentioned one renowned author who said seconds.
The book is NOT about just the Lechmere theory, but about the Bucks Row Murder full stop.
Therefore that some have suggested 2 minutes needs to be addressed.

End of.

[Fisherman]

Since I was very sloppy in post 147, here is he brushed up version of my answer to Steven Blomer:

Yes, we both know the suggestion is incorrect. Which is why I believe you have a duty to point that out in your book - we BOTH know it. Instead, you pick a statement that you know must be wrong, and you quote it as being somehow representative for the theory as such. And you do not mention that the two people who are the originators of the theory in it's current shape are very aware about how the suggestion is silly. You leave your readers to believe that the theory suggests that John Neil arrived at the scene two minutes only after Lechmere left it. You do not offer the real suggestion of around six minutes that the theory suggests; in actual fact, you leave it out totally.

I would like to refer you to your review of Cutting Point in Ripperologist, where you called me "dodgy" for not mentioning many enough times the fact that the material could be interpreted as Paul having spoken to PC Mizen. Of course, I DID mention it - twice. But that was not enough for you, you called it dodgy that I did not mention it some more times.

And now you are defending using a quotation from someone who you will not name and who has gotten the Lechmere theory totally wrong? And it would somehow not be dodgy that you are leaving out the real view of the Lechmere theory, instead basing your presentation of it entirely on the faulty philanderings of somebody who has miserably failed to understand what the theory claims?

Yes, you are right, we need to end this exercise since it truly seems pointless to get you to recognize how totally wrong that kind of a method is. If somebody should claim your book to be a good source, I am at least now able to advice him or her very differently.

All the best, and thank you for the answers you provided.

[Fisherman]

I believe I mentioned one renowned author who said seconds.
The book is NOT about just the Lechmere theory, but about the Bucks Row Murder full stop.
Therefore that some have suggested 2 minutes needs to be addressed.

End of.

Yes, it is fine to address such a thing, although a book scrutinizing a theory should not focus on the crackpot suggestions offered by people not involved in shaping the theory. And even if we find that such a crackpot suggestion too tempting to leave out, why on earth do you not establish it as nothing but a crackpot suggestion? Why do you not inform your readers that what you published as an example of what the theory suggests is nothing but a misconception on behalf of somebody who has no idea of the facts?

And much more pertinently, why do you choose to leave out the suggestion made by those who shaped the theory in it's current form? The TRUE suggestion of this behind the theory, as it were.

Surely that must lie upon any writer: to faithfully produce the material suggested by those who shape a theory. Instead you leave your readers thinking that the theory promotes a crackpot suggestion, and you leave out what it actually says.

That can never be a sound approach. It is the exact opposite if you ask me.

[rjpalmer]

And we know that PC Mizen added that as he arrived, some three minutes afterwards, the blood had started to run into the gutter. That is perfectly in line with an ongoing bleeding between Neils and Mizens respective arrivals.

Where are you finding the word 'started'?

[Fisherman]

As I say, I will not comment on anything asked by any poster who I am not engaging with at the moment. But everybody will get their chance as we move along. Right now, it is Doctored Whatsit I am debating with.

[Elamarna]

Yes, it is fine to address such a thing, although a book scrutinizing a theory should not focus on the crackpot suggestions offered by people not involved in shaping the theory. And even if we find that such a crackpot suggestion too tempting to leave out, why on earth do you not establish it as nothing but a crackpot suggestion? Why do you not inform your readers that what you published as an example of what the theory suggests is nothing but a misconception on behalf of somebody who has no idea of the facts?

And much more pertinently, why do you choose to leave out the suggestion made by those who shaped the theory in it's current form? The TRUE suggestion of this behind the theory, as it were.

Surely that must lie upon any writer: to faithfully produce the material suggested by those who shape a theory. Instead you leave your readers thinking that the theory promotes a crackpot suggestion, and you leave out what it actually says.

That can never be a sound approach. It is the exact opposite if you ask me.

Can't let this go without clarifying.

Are you saying that the Suggestion by Paul Begg in the facts , one that was commonly held at the time, it's in several other publications, was a "Crackpot" suggestion?

Rest assured the next update will mention your 6 minutes, and how it argues against Neil seeing active bleeding.

[Fiver]

It's been a while. And I really did not think I was going to write on Casebook anymore.

We have lost track of how many times you said you were leaving forever.

I am not going to debate with all the naysayers as a large group, because that would involve me being swarmed with posts.

There's an old saying - "If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

This is a public forum. You do not make the rules. Everyone has a right to respond to your posts. If you are afraid of dealing with every objection to your theories, then you should stay home.