Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fiver]

Then again, I sometimes get reactions to my theory that are very much more positive. Take, for example, this glowing review of Cutting Point:

”I’m not ‘convinced’ of Lechmere’s guilt (I’m certainly not convinced of anyone’s guilt) but I am now ‘convinced’ that he has to be taken seriously as a suspect; as the ripper and maybe the Torso Killer. I could be wrong. We can all be wrong. Lechmere might be our man though; who knows? Fish piles on the circumstantial evidence without any leaps of faith. It’s conspiracy and Freemason-free. Sadly most ripper books I buy these days I end up wishing that I’d spent the cash on something else but not in this case. Fish has presented the case for Lechmere and he’s done it well.”

Here, we have a poster who is of the exact opposite meaning as Herlock Sholmes when it comes to the question about whether or not I present a fair case based on the evidence available. We are told that that there is not a single leap of faith in the book. Not one. I have presented the case for Lechmere well, it says.

Congrats, you can cherry pick a positive review.

As opposed to Tom Wescott, whose name you invoked earlier - "While I'm not convinced of Lechmere's guilt in any of the murders, I found the argument quite compelling." Note that Wescott makes a clear distinction between "compelling" and "convincing". And that 18 people people found his review helpful.

Or there's Rick, who 12 people found helpful - "Holmgren's theory is, to say the least, a nonsensical and weak attempt to crowbar yet another suspect into the Jack the Ripper narrative. Although engaging in its prose and providing a decent wider context from which to argue its case, it never really convinces, even when arguing for Lechmere as the killer of Mary Ann Nichols. Hugely important aspects of the Whitechapel murders are brushed aside or selectively picked over. Fundamental, factual errors abound with the links to the torso deaths, particularly in relation to Hebbert and Elizabeth Jackson. The so-called motivation for the kills (with accompanying random photographs) is laughably bad. No doubt the book will sell but I can't help but feel that Holmgren has now played his full hand. And it's a poor one. Stripped bare of TV's gadgetry from which this theory has so long relied, we're left with very little, and what we are left with is tenuous at best."

Or D P Cooper, who 6 people found helpful - "There is no viable case against Cross."

Or ALLOYD, who 5 people found helpful - "Very readable and holds one's attention but does not convince me, I'm afraid. The thesis that Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper has never been particularly strong in my view, and adding the torso mysteries further weakened the case against him."

[Newbie]

No inflammatory wording?! Like calling me ‘ignorant’ perhaps (not for the first time by the way) After that bit about my original comment on your book. Get real Fish. You continue to plough the same depths. Steve, myself and others have tried god-knows how many times to have a civil debate with you but it always goes the same way. Whenever we get to points of disagreement that we can’t get over you move into condescending mode with the odd snide dig thrown in. Then when a response is given you get on your high horse. I know that Steve will back me up on this because it’s just a fact. And now you come back on here and try and set the agenda by playing the wounded soldier who always acts with honour with everyone else as the villains of the piece when you’ve spend years talking down to everyone that questions you or disagrees with you. Then there’s the way that you and Stow have slated Steve’s transparently honest research.

And talking of facts….

You have edited evidence.

You have manipulated evidence.

You have twisted the English language to suit your needs.

You have exaggerated and claimed unknowns as either knowns or likely’s.

Basically you’ve committed some of the most egregious shoehorning that I’ve ever known in this case Fish. Instead of simply showing an interest in a subject you and Stow have created some kind of strange bandwagon. It’s like a cottage industry or even a religious movement…book, documentary, tv channel (I’m waiting for the Lechmere T-Shirts to go on sale or the boxes of Lechmere Shortbread)


Weak arguments.

Weak suspect.

What is the difference between calling an opponent 'ignorant' and 'absurd/ridiculous/pathetic' ? .... very little.

I read the 'civil' debating styles of those opposing Crister before getting involved: deplorably rude.
The kind of rudeness that comes from any gang opposing an individual, or heretic in this case:
numbers breeds insolence in humans, evidently.

You fly too often into rage mode Herlock, labeling the opposition as dishonest, tricky, ridiculous or stigmatizing that entity with group labels for me not to do anything but laugh when you complain of incivility.

And then you go into this act again: absent any specifics about these charges.

And talking of facts….

You have edited evidence.

You have manipulated evidence.

You have twisted the English language to suit your needs.

You have exaggerated and claimed unknowns as either knowns or likely’s.

The few facts are clear and indisputable: its just that the interpretations differ.,

1. Neither Lech/Paul mentions hearing (or seeing) the other during the walk down Bath/Brady/Buck's row,
while O'Neil testifies to having heard Mizen's footsteps from twice/thrice the distance.

- nothing edited, manipulated, twisted, exaggerated about it

- my comment is that they should have heard one or the other (an exaggeration? twisting?), and their failure to mention it is significant

- your comment is what? It's not significant? They heard each other all along - despite Lech saying otherwise? Not even this much - you just get indignant and froth at the mouth about lies and verbal gymnastics.

2. Lech testifies to finally hearing Paul when walking towards the body, when placed in the middle of the street.

- nothing edited, manipulated, twisted, exaggerated about it.


- my comment is that this fact has the appearance of convenience:
if Lech came from the body, and stood in the middle of the street waiting, this is what he would have said.
It would be nice if there was a fact that gave one some assurance that Lech acted differently from the killer

- your comment is what? A big coincidence? Again, you don't even say that; you just act indignant (in your rude way) as to anyone who would ever make the previous suggestion.

3. PC Mizen's impression that an official was waiting for him besides the body

- again, my comment is that it is significant: people typically are clear and precise to the police in that situation: why wasn't Lech? Why use 'you are wanted' with its implicit lack of clarity? Most wouldn't. And why did he include the dead - drunk bit?

- your comment? Well, you don't give one. Instead, you insist he's innocent and we're nit-picking. Suddenly, your main mode of argumentation about how people are likely to act goes down the toilet, and you don't attempt to explain why Lech 'inadvertently' mislead a policeman. In fact, in only a few cases do you employ the typical pattern of behavior argument: you mostly ignore it.


I can go on and on about your tendency to lurch into indignation mode, instead of attempting to give an alternate explanation for how these indisputable actions, or inactions, are reasonable for an innocent man.

It comes down to two things:

1. You don't believe that Lech was just ahead of Paul because of accoustics, and who heard what when
2. You don't believe that Lech was just ahead of Paul because of the observation by PC Mizen that, once arriving, blood was still flowing out of the neck wound ... which would have not been possible if someone else had killed Polly Nichols, so many minutes earlier.

On the 2nd point, if you go by Lech's testimony (not hearing a soul on Buck's row), you'd have to add 1 - 2 minutes for JtR to have cleared the street, before Lech enters Buck's row. That's a minimum of 1 - 2 more minutes, after the throat gets slashed, for the blood to leave the body.

But then again, the anti-Lechmerites happily avoid testimony when it suits there purpose.

[John Wheat]

so i was driving to work yesterday morning and noticed a body on the side of the road, in the grass between the sidewalk and a fence. i pulled over, put my hazards on and got out and checked on it. at tje same time a guy walking his dog came up. it was the body of a middle aged man, and at first we couldnt tell if he was even alive, but shortly determined he was. i called 9-11 and we both waited until the police and paramedics arrived which was about ten minutes. the guy was alive but we couldnt tell what was wrong with him, he was not responding or moving. once the police and ambulance showed up they thanked us and actually asked us to move on, which we did.
both our actions were what any normal citizen would do.

so next time i see someone say that lech behaved normally, was a good citizen and or to stop picking on poor ole lech think ill efffing puke.

oh still waiting for all the threads on those better than lechmere suspects? lol!!!

thats all carry on.

Bury is a far better suspect than Lechmere.

[Darryl Kenyon]

On the 2nd point, if you go by Lech's testimony (not hearing a soul on Buck's row), you'd have to add 1 - 2 minutes for JtR to have cleared the street, before Lech enters Buck's row. That's a minimum of 1 - 2 more minutes, after the throat gets slashed, for the blood to leave the body.

But then again, the anti-Lechmerites happily avoid testimony when it suits there purpose.

Lech not hearing a soul in Bucks Row until Paul came along is implicating himself. Unless of course he was telling the truth and he was completely innocent with no blood, no knife or nothing of a tangible nature apart from him finding a recently murdered body like Diemshultz or PC Watkin to connect him to the crime

Regards Darryl

[Fiver]

so i was driving to work yesterday morning and noticed a body on the side of the road, in the grass between the sidewalk and a fence. i pulled over, put my hazards on and got out and checked on it. at tje same time a guy walking his dog came up. it was the body of a middle aged man, and at first we couldnt tell if he was even alive, but shortly determined he was. i called 9-11 and we both waited until the police and paramedics arrived which was about ten minutes. the guy was alive but we couldnt tell what was wrong with him, he was not responding or moving. once the police and ambulance showed up they thanked us and actually asked us to move on, which we did.
both our actions were what any normal citizen would do.

How many other cars stopped?

[Lewis C]

What is the difference between calling an opponent 'ignorant' and 'absurd/ridiculous/pathetic' ? .... very little.

I read the 'civil' debating styles of those opposing Crister before getting involved: deplorably rude.
The kind of rudeness that comes from any gang opposing an individual, or heretic in this case:
numbers breeds insolence in humans, evidently.

You fly too often into rage mode Herlock, labeling the opposition as dishonest, tricky, ridiculous or stigmatizing that entity with group labels for me not to do anything but laugh when you complain of incivility.

And then you go into this act again: absent any specifics about these charges.

And talking of facts….

You have edited evidence.

You have manipulated evidence.

You have twisted the English language to suit your needs.

You have exaggerated and claimed unknowns as either knowns or likely’s.

The few facts are clear and indisputable: its just that the interpretations differ.,

1. Neither Lech/Paul mentions hearing (or seeing) the other during the walk down Bath/Brady/Buck's row,
while O'Neil testifies to having heard Mizen's footsteps from twice/thrice the distance.

- nothing edited, manipulated, twisted, exaggerated about it

- my comment is that they should have heard one or the other (an exaggeration? twisting?), and their failure to mention it is significant

- your comment is what? It's not significant? They heard each other all along - despite Lech saying otherwise? Not even this much - you just get indignant and froth at the mouth about lies and verbal gymnastics.

2. Lech testifies to finally hearing Paul when walking towards the body, when placed in the middle of the street.

- nothing edited, manipulated, twisted, exaggerated about it.


- my comment is that this fact has the appearance of convenience:
if Lech came from the body, and stood in the middle of the street waiting, this is what he would have said.
It would be nice if there was a fact that gave one some assurance that Lech acted differently from the killer

- your comment is what? A big coincidence? Again, you don't even say that; you just act indignant (in your rude way) as to anyone who would ever make the previous suggestion.

3. PC Mizen's impression that an official was waiting for him besides the body

- again, my comment is that it is significant: people typically are clear and precise to the police in that situation: why wasn't Lech? Why use 'you are wanted' with its implicit lack of clarity? Most wouldn't. And why did he include the dead - drunk bit?

- your comment? Well, you don't give one. Instead, you insist he's innocent and we're nit-picking. Suddenly, your main mode of argumentation about how people are likely to act goes down the toilet, and you don't attempt to explain why Lech 'inadvertently' mislead a policeman. In fact, in only a few cases do you employ the typical pattern of behavior argument: you mostly ignore it.


I can go on and on about your tendency to lurch into indignation mode, instead of attempting to give an alternate explanation for how these indisputable actions, or inactions, are reasonable for an innocent man.

It comes down to two things:

1. You don't believe that Lech was just ahead of Paul because of accoustics, and who heard what when
2. You don't believe that Lech was just ahead of Paul because of the observation by PC Mizen that, once arriving, blood was still flowing out of the neck wound ... which would have not been possible if someone else had killed Polly Nichols, so many minutes earlier.

On the 2nd point, if you go by Lech's testimony (not hearing a soul on Buck's row), you'd have to add 1 - 2 minutes for JtR to have cleared the street, before Lech enters Buck's row. That's a minimum of 1 - 2 more minutes, after the throat gets slashed, for the blood to leave the body.

But then again, the anti-Lechmerites happily avoid testimony when it suits there purpose.

Herlock was talking to Fish, not to you. Most of the things that you say Herlock hasn't responded to were responded to by someone. I forget whether it wqas Herlock or someone else that responded to it, but if someone else did, it wouldn't have been necessary for Herlock to also respond if he thought that the other person's response was sufficient.

[Newbie]

Why would an innocent man tell Mizen "you are wanted (by a policeman)".
Only one newspaper article refers to the policeman portion in Mizen's testimony - all others just include the phrase "you are wanted".

Of course, "you are wanted" can be construed in two ways:

1. An official, or persons, who are already there want you to come and help out.
2. It is your ethical duty as a PC to attend to the matter.

Lech would assume Mizen to believe #1, while he could maintain #2 as his intention.
No one at the inquest pressed him on the matter - he just said there wasn't a PC there.

It parallels his use of Cross: slippery, but plausible - being his former name.

[Newbie]

Herlock was talking to Fish, not to you. Most of the things that you say Herlock hasn't responded to were responded to by someone. I forget whether it wqas Herlock or someone else that responded to it, but if someone else did, it wouldn't have been necessary for Herlock to also respond if he thought that the other person's response was sufficient.

Hi Lewis C,

many respond here to responses that weren't directed to them. Just ask Christer ..... they practically line up to do so.
Do you intend on policing everyone on the matter? Fiver would be devastated.

Herlock has directed repeatedly the same accusations of dishonesty and lack of accountability regarding 'facts' to my posts,
with the same rude insolence.

I'm merely belatedly responding to his accusations.

Besides, I won't have much time to visit here for quite a while.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

That was an excellent way to handle the situation in 2023, but as you know, people in 1888 didn't have cell phones, so that required Lech and Paul to handle the situation differently from how you did. I really can't think of any way that people living in 1888 could have handled the situation any better than Lech and Paul did. And if they had handled it poorly, why blame Lech but not Paul?

i blame both of them one could have gone and looked for help while the other stayed with her.

[Fiver]

1. Neither Lech/Paul mentions hearing (or seeing) the other during the walk down Bath/Brady/Buck's row,
while O'Neil testifies to having heard Mizen's footsteps from twice/thrice the distance.

* Obviously, Charles Lechmere couldn't see behind him. We know he testified hearing Paul behind him at about 40 yards.

* At the estimated distance, Paul could not have seen Lechmere until Paul turned into Bucks Row.

* Paul testified to seeing Lechemre in front of him. He never stated what that distance was.

* Paul never testified when he heard Lechmere. He never claimed that he did not hear Lechmere.

All of these have been pointed out to you before. Multiple times.

2. Lech testifies to finally hearing Paul when walking towards the body, when placed in the middle of the street.

- my comment is that this fact has the appearance of convenience:
if Lech came from the body, and stood in the middle of the street waiting, this is what he would have said.
It would be nice if there was a fact that gave one some assurance that Lech acted differently from the killer

You're ignoring the responses already given to you multiple times.

* If Lechmere was the Ripper, he would have to move from kneeling, facing east, on the south side of the road, to standing, facing west, in the middle of the road. Where did he get the ninja skills to do this without being seen or heard? If he really was that sneaky, why didn't he just walk off into the darkness?

* Ripper-Lechmere would have no idea if Robert Paul had seen or heard him. He would have to watch Paul's reactions. Paul was clearly afraid of Lechmere. Paul tried to avoid Lechmere and keep going. The Ripper, unless he had a brain slightly smaller than a marble, would find the simplest and most logical explanation for Paul being afraid was that Paul had seen and/or heard Ripper-Lechmere near the body. At which point, the Ripper would have fled or tried to silence Paul.

* As you have repeatedly ignored, that's not the only thing that Lechmere did that would have been utter imbecility for a man with bllod on his hands, bood on his clothes, and a bloody knife in his pocket. Lechmere refuse to prop up Nichols body, which woul have provided an innocent excus for bllod on his hands or clothing. Lechmere did not split up from Paul and disappear into the darkness. Lechmere spoke to PC Mizen, who had a lantern. Lechemre continued to walk with Paul almost as far as Spitalfield's Market. Lechmere contacted the police, even though nether Robert Paul nor PC Mizen knew who he was.

3. PC Mizen's impression that an official was waiting for him besides the body

- again, my comment is that it is significant: people typically are clear and precise to the police in that situation: why wasn't Lech? Why use 'you are wanted' with its implicit lack of clarity? Most wouldn't. And why did he include the dead - drunk bit?

There are plenty of examples of police and doctors being unclear and imprecise at the inquests. Does that make any of them the Ripper? Why are you holding Lechmere to a higher standard than the police or the doctors? Why are you assuming that the miscommunication was not PC Mizen's fault for not paying attention? Why are you assuming deliberate miscommunication by Lechmere? Why are you repeatedly ignoring that Robert Paul's testimony backed Charles Lechmere, not PC Mizen.

[Fiver]

Besides, I won't have much time to visit here for quite a while.

Road trip with Fishy?

[Newbie]

Lech not hearing a soul in Bucks Row until Paul came along is implicating himself. Unless of course he was telling the truth and he was completely innocent with no blood, no knife or nothing of a tangible nature apart from him finding a recently murdered body like Diemshultz or PC Watkin to connect him to the crime

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

my point about that is if you want to establish the latest in which JtR slashed the throat of Polly Nichols, without it being Lech, you have to take into account Lech's testimony: that he could hear to the top of Buck's row, and heard nobody's footsteps leaving.

That would add more minutes to the time: JtR having left Buck's row before Lech entered.

[Newbie]

Road trip with Fishy?

No, don't worry fiver.

As far as I know, Fish is going to be battling here for awhile.

Once he loses enough blood from the feeding frenzy of peck marks prompted by his appearance,
he'll probably take a break again.

Fish seems interested in the blood evidence & the times.
I didn't involve myself in that so much; and my further posting would be a distraction.

There is a point where everyone is just going in circles.

[Fiver]

It comes down to two things:

1. You don't believe that Lech was just ahead of Paul because of accoustics, and who heard what when
2. You don't believe that Lech was just ahead of Paul because of the observation by PC Mizen that, once arriving, blood was still flowing out of the neck wound ... which would have not been possible if someone else had killed Polly Nichols, so many minutes earlier.

On the 2nd point, if you go by Lech's testimony (not hearing a soul on Buck's row), you'd have to add 1 - 2 minutes for JtR to have cleared the street, before Lech enters Buck's row. That's a minimum of 1 - 2 more minutes, after the throat gets slashed, for the blood to leave the body.

1) To the best of my knowledge, no one has analyzed the acoustics of Bucks Row. Fishy has claimed the men were wearing hobnailed boots and the street was a "acoustic tunnel". Which shows that Fishy has no problem with just making things up and he has no idea what an "acoustic tunnel" is. We cannot reach any conclusions about when Robert Paul heard Charles Lechmere - Paul never said anything one way or the other.

2) Elamarna has already shown this to be wrong. PC Mizen did not testify to the bleeding being under pressure. Seepage can continue long after the heart ceases beating. As you have repeatedly ignored, Alice Mackenzie's corpse continued to bleed for 20 to 25 minutes after it was found.

[Fiver]

As far as I know, Fish is going to be battling here for awhile.

So you don't read his posts, either? Fishy said he was going to be leaving before you did. Or are you saying Fishy was lying? It wouldn't be the first time Fishy said he was leaving, but didn't.