Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[rjpalmer]

I found this cartoon from 1888, showing an old lady pulling the "Mizen Scam."

She tells the 'constable' that he's wanted in the next street.

Is she implying there was already another policeman there or (more obviously) is it just a common figure of speech?

[Elamarna]

So, I am making a pause now, since duty and a few other things call upon me. But I will be back in a few weeks. So far, the outcome has been quite interesting; we have concluded that Steve Blomer in his ”Inside Bucks Row” quotes people who have said things that the Lechmere theory does effectively NOT say in his book, and passed those things off as being representative for the theory. They have been quotations of suggestions that are all flawed and faulty, and thus Steve Bloimer has given an untrue impression to his readers of the Lechmere theory involving these obvious flaws and faults. In the process, he forgot to publish what the theory ACTUALLY says.

Actually WE, have not concluded, that Inside Bucks Row gives a flawed and faulty impression of what the theory on Lechmere claims at all.
Of course that's the impression your wish to convey, but such a view is itself deeply flawed to say the least.

The claim of of Neil arrives within 2 minutes or the carmen leaving as been explained on this thread, it is based on the preferences for bleeding times, suggested by Payne-James, he said he believed 3 and 5 minutes were more realistic.

I do however accept that is not made clear in the book. You will find the next update makes this very clear as well as giving your time of 6 minutes in Cutting Point.
It was also include comments on the suggestions by Thiblin, which are far from conclusive .
Inside Bucks Row was of course published before Cutting Point and the opinions of Thiblin.

You also have claimed I have provided unreferenced and anayomus sources in your posts. When presented with those references which are in the book, you replied in post # 990 the following:

"Then I apologize - as I said, I have not read the entire book. But I would make the point that it seems to me that Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin are the much better qualified professionals to have expressed their respective views."

May one ask, on what knowledge and experience you base your opinion that the experts you asked are "Much better Qualified " than experts used by other people?

Not for the First time, you present YOUR opinion as if it's a fact about which there is a consensus.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Actually WE, have not concluded, that Inside Bucks Row gives a flawed and faulty impression of what the theory on Lechmere claims at all.
Of course that's the impression your wish to convey, but such a view is itself deeply flawed to say the least.

The claim of of Neil arrives within 2 minutes or the carmen leaving as been explained on this thread, it is based on the preferences for bleeding times, suggested by Payne-James, he said he believed 3 and 5 minutes were more realistic.

I do however accept that is not made clear in the book. You will find the next update makes this very clear as well as giving your time of 6 minutes in Cutting Point.
It was also include comments on the suggestions by Thiblin, which are far from conclusive .
Inside Bucks Row was of course published before Cutting Point and the opinions of Thiblin.

You also have claimed I have provided unreferenced and anayomus sources in your posts. When presented with those references which are in the book, you replied in post # 990 the following:

"Then I apologize - as I said, I have not read the entire book. But I would make the point that it seems to me that Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin are the much better qualified professionals to have expressed their respective views."

May one ask, on what knowledge and experience you base your opinion that the experts you asked are "Much better Qualified " than experts used by other people?

Not for the First time, you present YOUR opinion as if it's a fact about which there is a consensus.

Debating him is like wrestling an eel.

[Fisherman]

Actually WE, have not concluded, that Inside Bucks Row gives a flawed and faulty impression of what the theory on Lechmere claims at all.
Of course that's the impression your wish to convey, but such a view is itself deeply flawed to say the least.

The claim of of Neil arrives within 2 minutes or the carmen leaving as been explained on this thread, it is based on the preferences for bleeding times, suggested by Payne-James, he said he believed 3 and 5 minutes were more realistic.

I do however accept that is not made clear in the book. You will find the next update makes this very clear as well as giving your time of 6 minutes in Cutting Point.
It was also include comments on the suggestions by Thiblin, which are far from conclusive .
Inside Bucks Row was of course published before Cutting Point and the opinions of Thiblin.

You also have claimed I have provided unreferenced and anayomus sources in your posts. When presented with those references which are in the book, you replied in post # 990 the following:

"Then I apologize - as I said, I have not read the entire book. But I would make the point that it seems to me that Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin are the much better qualified professionals to have expressed their respective views."

May one ask, on what knowledge and experience you base your opinion that the experts you asked are "Much better Qualified " than experts used by other people?

Not for the First time, you present YOUR opinion as if it's a fact about which there is a consensus.

We are not discussing ”Lechmere claims”, we are discussing the Lechmere theory. And you ascribe the flawed material you present in your book as being representative not of Lechmere claims, but the Lechmere theory. Plus in the Blood Evidence chapter we are talking about, you avoid publishing what the theory actually says, as per me and Edward Stow.

For me, there can be no two ways about it - if you test the viability of a theory, you test what the theory says, not what people who are not resonsible for the theory have misunderstood about it.

I welcome any effort you may make to cleanse this methodology out of your book. And yes, it was published before Cutting Point, but it has had numerous updates after Cutting Point, none of them correcting this matter as you must be aware.

Overall, I fail completely to understand what relevance it has if some people misunderstand and/or misrepresent a theory on a suspect in the Ripper case. That will, I am sure, be the case for each and every suspect that has ever been named, but why on earth would it be of relevance for somebody scrutinizing a theory? And - again - IF somebody feels inclined to exemplify how a theory is misinterpreted and misrepresented, why not WRITE that, instead of presenting the material as if it was representative of the real theory?

I have never seen such an approach to criticizing or commenting ion a theory in any other context ever before, and I never expected to encounter it.

As for your last question, on which knowledge and experience I base my opinion that the experts I consulted are better suited than that ones you used to have a viable opinion on the case, the question lacks any real base. I did not say that they were, I said that they SEEM to me to be. You are welcome to trump their credentials by way of presenting the credentials of your chosen experts. All I can say is that you are going to need a fair amount of time to read through the credentials of the two experts.

Anyway, this all adds up to your suggestion that I would have presented it as a fact that they are the better qualified men is nonsense. What I have stated as a fact is that it seems to me that they are the better qualified men. That wording allows for me to be right as well as it allows for me to be wrong.

Fair is fair.

[Fisherman]

Debating him is like wrestling an eel.

Says the poster who one day says that the Lechmere theory has no leaps of faith, only to then the next day claim that it is a bundle of flagrant lies, more or less. And who then goes on to first say that the good review was an attempt to be nice, only to then instead state that you missed out on the flaws on account of not having given the book a proper read.

As I said, publish these things, and your credibility suffers badly. Now you know.

[Fisherman]

This is it for now from my side. I apologize if I do not answer any questions that any of you may feel vital, but I have to draw the line here now. As I have promised, I will be back in a few weeks time. Any relevant questions you may have will be answered in due course.

Thank you for now.

[Doctored Whatsit]

And I established that this could not have happened in the order it needed to have happened to cause Nichols to bleed. That is what I said and what I stand by.

Sorry Christer, but I don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about. You explained that Neil checked the bloodflow before he touched Nichols. I have never disputed that. I wrote in #860, #958 and again in #1059 that when he checked the temperature of her hands and arm he caused the blood to ooze which Mizen saw and reported. Clearly, Neil first noted the flow of blood, then checked her hands and arms shortly before Mizen arrived, which is what I have been saying. You are saying that this order of events could not have happened, I think.

[Elamarna]

We are not discussing ”Lechmere claims”, we are discussing the Lechmere theory. And you ascribe the flawed material you present in your book as being representative not of Lechmere claims, but the Lechmere theory. Plus in the Blood Evidence chapter we are talking about, you avoid publishing what the theory actually says, as per me and Edward Stow.

For me, there can be no two ways about it - if you test the viability of a theory, you test what the theory says, not what people who are not resonsible for the theory have misunderstood about it.

I welcome any effort you may make to cleanse this methodology out of your book. And yes, it was published before Cutting Point, but it has had numerous updates after Cutting Point, none of them correcting this matter as you must be aware.

Overall, I fail completely to understand what relevance it has if some people misunderstand and/or misrepresent a theory on a suspect in the Ripper case. That will, I am sure, be the case for each and every suspect that has ever been named, but why on earth would it be of relevance for somebody scrutinizing a theory? And - again - IF somebody feels inclined to exemplify how a theory is misinterpreted and misrepresented, why not WRITE that, instead of presenting the material as if it was representative of the real theory?

I have never seen such an approach to criticizing or commenting ion a theory in any other context ever before, and I never expected to encounter it.

As for your last question, on which knowledge and experience I base my opinion that the experts I consulted are better suited than that ones you used to have a viable opinion on the case, the question lacks any real base. I did not say that they were, I said that they SEEM to me to be. You are welcome to trump their credentials by way of presenting the credentials of your chosen experts. All I can say is that you are going to need a fair amount of time to read through the credentials of the two experts.

Anyway, this all adds up to your suggestion that I would have presented it as a fact that they are the better qualified men is nonsense. What I have stated as a fact is that it seems to me that they are the better qualified men. That wording allows for me to be right as well as it allows for me to be wrong.

Fair is fair.

What's amazing is how YOU claim actual ownership of a theory, and that ONLY your version of said theory is legitimate.

While it is true that Ed Stow and yourself are the biggest advocates, the public face so to speak of the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer known as JTR; you are not the only ones.

There are people posting daily, either on the forums or on Facebook or writing articles for publication. There are numerous Videos of a dubious nature on Youtube( I do not mean those of the House of Lechmere or those by Richard Jones).

The reality is there is no single theory on Lechmere, just as there is no single theory on Kosminski.

Therefore to claim that the theory is misrepresented is itself flawed.

The last point, again a game of semantics, not for the first time of course.

You say they SEEM to be "much better qualified" means you could be right or wrong,

You refer to Credentials, as an answer, which does not actually answer the question. Which was of course what knowledge and experience you have to allow you to judge various experts against each other.
Simply reading a list of creditials does not give you a view of actual specialist expertise, only of general career and its advancement.

[Lewis C]

Her injuries were clearly covered up, her skirts were down below her waist, but above her knees.
However, I submit there was not a conscious attempt to cover her wounds, as they were not obvious.
Rather the clothing I suggest was found as it was left when the killer was disturbed. That is it simply fell that way, not specifically placed to cover the wounds.

The important point is that she was NOT disembowled. Her intestines were not pulled out of the body cavity, although it seems they were close to being so.
The killer, whoever he was, was disturbed before he could complete his work.

Indeed it was only while waiting at the mortuary that Spratling discovered the full extent of her wounds.
Llewellyn did notice them in Bucks Row.
He was the police surgeon not the coroner, different things.

Therefore her wounds ( the ones to the abdomen) were it seems not obvious.

Clearly neither Paul or Lechmere were sure of her condition, either "dead or dead drunk"

Steve

Hi Steve,

Paul Begg, in Jack the Ripper The Facts, and Philip Sudgen, in The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, both said that Nichols' clothing/skirts were raised almost to her stomach. Wouldn't that have been far enough that Cross and Paul could have seen at least some of her injuries if the lighting had been better?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Says the poster who one day says that the Lechmere theory has no leaps of faith, only to then the next day claim that it is a bundle of flagrant lies, more or less. And who then goes on to first say that the good review was an attempt to be nice, only to then instead state that you missed out on the flaws on account of not having given the book a proper read.

As I said, publish these things, and your credibility suffers badly. Now you know.

You really are desperate aren’t you Fish? Anything to distract from dealing with the issues. And by the way I said “without any leaps of faith” in comparison with some books which rely on conspiracy…..which is why I followed it with “It’s conspiracy and Freemason-free.” But why go for truth when you can do your usual tricks.

You asked “ But do proved proof of the other claims! That is how we establish these kinds of things, not by making sweeping generalizations without bolstering them.”

I then presented 10 examples……which you have ignored.

Same old Fish. First, adopt a wounded pose, then re-state the nonsense claims as if they are facts, then add an irrelevant diversionary tactic, then ignore a response……..then it’s off to the fjords.

Way too predictable.

[Fiver]

Just a final word for now: I have very clearly pointed out that I will give interested posters time in the near future, just as I have said that I am willing to answer questions that people may have, after I have finished my debates with the various posters. But I will not debate all posters who want to do so at the same time, for reasons equally clearly pointed out.

This has not changed, making posts like the one above superfluous.

The post is not superfluous. It's pointing out that in spite of your claims, you do not want a debate. You insist on being the only one to ask questions, only on the topics you wish to discuss, and only with the person you designate, regardless of their interest in participation, and frequently ignoring that there are other people better qualified to answer the question.

Your attempt to stack the deck, your fear of engaging in a real debate, and your demands for an uneven playing field are obvious to all save your most devoted acolytes.

Come back when you've dropped the delusion that you get to dictate what other people can post and when you're willing to engage in an actual debate.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Paul Begg, in Jack the Ripper The Facts, and Philip Sudgen, in The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, both said that Nichols' clothing/skirts were raised almost to her stomach. Wouldn't that have been far enough that Cross and Paul could have seen at least some of her injuries if the lighting had been better?

Hi, this is actually interesting.

From what I can see, raised almost to the stomach appeared ONLY in the Times 18th September when it reported Paul's testimony at the inquest.

"Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach."

This is not very pricise, skirts were normally full length , almost to her stomach can be interpreted as one wish. To a waist? Above her waist? to her mid thighs?

One can only assume this is what Begg and Sugden used as their source material.


Other reports from the 3rd August appear to be a little more pricise



Morning Advertiser 3rd September Lechmere's testimony talking about Paul


"He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman." When I found her clothes were up above her knees we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down"

Similar wording is used in the Evening Standard and Echo.
The Star only mentions trying to pull down to the knee.

Unfortunately, Paul in his Lloyds Weely account does not mention her clothing in thus respect.

On his arrival Neil says the clothing is at her knees.

On the balance of probabilities I would suggest that when found, the clothing was between her knees and her waist .

Could they have seen her injuries?

Given that her intestines had not been removed, that Llewellyn didn't notice the wounds, I suspect that if the clothing was where I suggest they would not have seen the wounds.
To see the wounds, the clothing would have needed to be at or above her waist I suggest, given the lighting.

But it's one we cannot be certain over.
All we know is that neither Lechmere, and perhaps more importantly Paul did not notice the wounds.

Hope that helps

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi, this is actually interesting.

From what I can see, raised almost to the stomach appeared ONLY in the Times 18th September when it reported Paul's testimony at the inquest.

"Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach."

This is not very pricise, skirts were normally full length , almost to her stomach can be interpreted as one wish. To a waist? Above her waist? to her mid thighs?

One can only assume this is what Begg and Sugden used as their source material.


Other reports from the 3rd August appear to be a little more pricise



Morning Advertiser 3rd September Lechmere's testimony talking about Paul


"He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman." When I found her clothes were up above her knees we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down"

Similar wording is used in the Evening Standard and Echo.
The Star only mentions trying to pull down to the knee.

Unfortunately, Paul in his Lloyds Weely account does not mention her clothing in thus respect.

On his arrival Neil says the clothing is at her knees.

On the balance of probabilities I would suggest that when found, the clothing was between her knees and her waist .

Could they have seen her injuries?

Given that her intestines had not been removed, that Llewellyn didn't notice the wounds, I suspect that if the clothing was where I suggest they would not have seen the wounds.
To see the wounds, the clothing would have needed to be at or above her waist I suggest, given the lighting.

But it's one we cannot be certain over.
All we know is that neither Lechmere, and perhaps more importantly Paul did not notice the wounds.

Hope that helps

Steve

Didn’t Fish try and claim that Cross had pulled down her skirts before Paul had arrived so that the wounds were hidden Steve? Or am I misremembering this? It would appear to be yet another baseless claim.

Then we have “ In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged.”

I’d have thought that this would imply that the skirts were lifted at least up to her thighs.

[Lewis C]

Hi, this is actually interesting.

From what I can see, raised almost to the stomach appeared ONLY in the Times 18th September when it reported Paul's testimony at the inquest.

"Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach."

This is not very pricise, skirts were normally full length , almost to her stomach can be interpreted as one wish. To a waist? Above her waist? to her mid thighs?

One can only assume this is what Begg and Sugden used as their source material.


Other reports from the 3rd August appear to be a little more pricise



Morning Advertiser 3rd September Lechmere's testimony talking about Paul


"He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman." When I found her clothes were up above her knees we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down"

Similar wording is used in the Evening Standard and Echo.
The Star only mentions trying to pull down to the knee.

Unfortunately, Paul in his Lloyds Weely account does not mention her clothing in thus respect.

On his arrival Neil says the clothing is at her knees.

On the balance of probabilities I would suggest that when found, the clothing was between her knees and her waist .

Could they have seen her injuries?

Given that her intestines had not been removed, that Llewellyn didn't notice the wounds, I suspect that if the clothing was where I suggest they would not have seen the wounds.
To see the wounds, the clothing would have needed to be at or above her waist I suggest, given the lighting.

But it's one we cannot be certain over.
All we know is that neither Lechmere, and perhaps more importantly Paul did not notice the wounds.

Hope that helps

Steve

Yes, that does help. Thanks, Steve.

[Fiver]

So, I am making a pause now, since duty and a few other things call upon me. But I will be back in a few weeks. So far, the outcome has been quite interesting; we have concluded that Steve Blomer in his ”Inside Bucks Row” quotes people who have said things that the Lechmere theory does effectively NOT say in his book, and passed those things off as being representative for the theory. They have been quotations of suggestions that are all flawed and faulty, and thus Steve Bloimer has given an untrue impression to his readers of the Lechmere theory involving these obvious flaws and faults. In the process, he forgot to publish what the theory ACTUALLY says.

We? Last I checked you weren't royalty. Or are you so deluded that you can't separate your opinions from reality?

We do know you've been caught out admitting you haven't even read Steve' whole book. And you haven't refuted Steve, or Dr Whatsit, or Herlock, or anyone else - you've dodged questions, presented speculation as fact, and then declared victory.

Regardless of what we choose to believe, it remains a fact in my world that a poster who admits to having made something up, is a poster that cannot be relied upon.

So far, the only one making things up is you. You've attacked positions no one ever held. You've claimed people supported your positions that didn't. You tried to rewrite the dictionary. You misrepresented the sources, the statements of the forensic professors, the posts of people that disagreed with you, and the period witness accounts.