What happened to Lechmere......

[Robert St Devil]

Going over the inquest testimony, i am left to wonder about the accuracy of the statements based Mary Nicholls clothing and the inerpretation of 'disarranged'. Paul claims they gave the woman some decency by arranging her dress ( pulling it down, i assume ) before seeking help, but PC Neil claims he found her dress 'disarranged'.

[Rosella]

I believe Paul pulled Polly's dress down somewhat, ie down over her knees. However Victorian dresses of the 1880's were almost to the ground with only the shoes or boots really being seen. If Neil saw legs, even lower legs, that would have meant 'disarranged' to him, IMO.

[David Orsam]

Going over the inquest testimony, i am left to wonder about the accuracy of the statements based Mary Nicholls clothing and the inerpretation of 'disarranged'. Paul claims they gave the woman some decency by arranging her dress ( pulling it down, i assume ) before seeking help, but PC Neil claims he found her dress 'disarranged'.

Haven't you answered your own question Mr St Devil? He didn't "arrange" the dress in any normal sense of the word, like flower arranging, he pulled it down. Thus, from the Telegraph report of his inquest evidence "The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down".

The attempt did not seem to be very successful according to the evidence of Cross:

"The other man tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down." (Evening Standard)

"before they went away the other man tried to pull her clothes down, but could not.” (Evening Post)

While checking the above, I couldn't actually find a report from the inquest in which Paul claimed to have "arranged" Nichols' dress nor even him using the word "decency" so I'm not sure which newspaper you have been reading in your review of the evidence.

[Clark]

Looks to me that what it comes down to is yes, Lechmere could have been the Ripper, to the same extent that practically anyone in Whitechapel at the time could have been the Ripper. The question is, do we have any reason to suspect that he was the Ripper, and the answer appears to be "not particularly."

Yes, he gave the authorities a name that he may no longer have commonly used. Yes, we are unable to track his movements to the minute around the time of the murder. Yes, Lechmere had reason to pass through Whitechapel every day, as did everyone else living in or near that highly crowded neighborhood. And yes, there are some minor discrepanies in the witness statements. But these are the same sort of trivial annoyances that surround any murder investigation.

Whether alone or together, these incidents are suggestive of nothing.

The real question is how thoroughly did the police satisfy themselves at the time that the first person to discover the body was not also the killer, and the answer to that is "we cannot know."

The reason we cannot know is because there is no record of any police enquiries into the validity of Lechmere's statements or considerations of any alibis that he might have had for this or any of the other Ripper murders, or if the police might however briefly have even considered the possibility that Liechmere might make a good suspect.

That doesn't mean that the police didn't do due diligence, it simply means that the record is silent and we have no way of knowing why Lechmere never made it to the list of possible suspects, just as we have no way of knowing why any number of other people in the area at that time were not considered as suspects.

I think Fisherman has given us the makings of a pretty good historical novel or movie here, but I see no real insight into the actual identity of Jack the Ripper. That's not meant as an insult or dismissal, it's just a cadet's opinion.

Your mileage may vary.

[Fisherman]

And this is why Lechmere falls down as a suspect, when all the talking points boil down to endlessly debating minutiae instead of getting to the crux of the matter... which probably suits Fisherman down to the ground... as otherwise you're just left with a witness who found the first victim and faded back into anonymity.

Harry, even if you are right and even if there are endless debates on details, that has nothing at all to do with Lechmeres value as a suspect.

Saying that it suits me is simply uninformed and uncivil. It does nothing of the sort. The endless debates repeated debates over small matters are something I detest, but that does not stop people from doing it again and again.

And you, Harry, have not got any idea if Lechmere was a killer or a witness, much as you would like to.

[Fisherman]

Haven't you answered your own question Mr St Devil? He didn't "arrange" the dress in any normal sense of the word, like flower arranging, he pulled it down. Thus, from the Telegraph report of his inquest evidence "The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down".

The attempt did not seem to be very successful according to the evidence of Cross:

"The other man tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down." (Evening Standard)

"before they went away the other man tried to pull her clothes down, but could not.” (Evening Post)

While checking the above, I couldn't actually find a report from the inquest in which Paul claimed to have "arranged" Nichols' dress nor even him using the word "decency" so I'm not sure which newspaper you have been reading in your review of the evidence.

Itīs the same old, same old - latter day commentators glue their own conceptions onto the ctors of the drama. This is why people think that the carmen walked "gingerly" across the street to look at Nichols. Neither of them said that they did - but Sugden awarded it to them anyway.

That said, I think the exact reason for Pauls pulling the dress down was for reasons of decency, and I have a slight feeling that I have seen it suggested somewhere. But I am not sure. Maybe I will look for it later. Maybe not.

[Fisherman]

Clark: Looks to me that what it comes down to is yes, Lechmere could have been the Ripper, to the same extent that practically anyone in Whitechapel at the time could have been the Ripper. The question is, do we have any reason to suspect that he was the Ripper, and the answer appears to be "not particularly."

No, Clark, not everybody in Whitechapel is as likely to have been the killer. In fact, no other person in Whitechapel is as likely. Lechmere, and Lechmere alone, was found completely solo with Nichols, and that means that he has the upper hand on any other "suspect" until somebody else can be shown to have been in any way involved. Sorry, but it really is that easy - and always was.

Yes, he gave the authorities a name that he may no longer have commonly used. Yes, we are unable to track his movements to the minute around the time of the murder. Yes, Lechmere had reason to pass through Whitechapel every day, as did everyone else living in or near that highly crowded neighborhood. And yes, there are some minor discrepanies in the witness statements. But these are the same sort of trivial annoyances that surround any murder investigation.

Whether alone or together, these incidents are suggestive of nothing.

Once you have him at the murder spot, they are confirmation that he seemingly fit the murder spot pattern. And only a thoroughbred idiot fails to see the possible implications of that. Incidentally, that is a cadre you want to avoid.

The real question is how thoroughly did the police satisfy themselves at the time that the first person to discover the body was not also the killer, and the answer to that is "we cannot know."

No, the answer is that we can be pretty damn certain that the police did a crap job in this respect - OTHERWISE THEY WOULD HAVE LISTED HIM BY HIS REGISTERED NAME!

The reason we cannot know is because there is no record of any police enquiries into the validity of Lechmere's statements or considerations of any alibis that he might have had for this or any of the other Ripper murders, or if the police might however briefly have even considered the possibility that Liechmere might make a good suspect.

See the above, please, no blinkers on.

That doesn't mean that the police didn't do due diligence, it simply means that the record is silent and we have no way of knowing why Lechmere never made it to the list of possible suspects, just as we have no way of knowing why any number of other people in the area at that time were not considered as suspects.

It means that the police in all probability didnīt do due diligence, yes. And we may compare with how they "forgot" to ask all the dwellers in Bucks Row if they had noticed something out of the ordinary on the murder night. Crap policework, Iīm afraid - but it may of course be to your liking?

I think Fisherman has given us the makings of a pretty good historical novel or movie here, but I see no real insight into the actual identity of Jack the Ripper. That's not meant as an insult or dismissal, it's just a cadet's opinion.

You can of course insult me (not that I would feel to impressed with it, but still...), but dismiss me you can not. However, yes, you are correct that there are the makings of a really good story in the Lechmere theory. But that is just an attractive side effect.

Your mileage may vary.

You bet.

[Clark]

No, Clark, not everybody in Whitechapel is as likely to have been the killer. In fact, no other person in Whitechapel is as likely. Lechmere, and Lechmere alone, was found completely solo with Nichols, and that means that he has the upper hand on any other "suspect" until somebody else can be shown to have been in any way involved. Sorry, but it really is that easy - and always was.

Hmmm. And yet, people come upon dead bodies all of the time without automatically becoming prime suspects, including every other discoverer of a body in the Ripper case--all of whom were alone when first coming upon the various bodies. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

Once you have him at the murder spot, they are confirmation that he seemingly fit the murder spot pattern. And only a thoroughbred idiot fails to see the possible implications of that. Incidentally, that is a cadre you want to avoid.

"Murder spot pattern"? Are you referring to the locations of the crimes being along potential routes that Lechmere may have taken to work or Mom's? That isn't a pattern, it's a coincidence. He had been making that journey for years without anyone being murdered because of it, and he continued to make it for years after the Ripper killings without anyone being murdered because of it.

Surely 100s of people followed the same general route everyday, including, apparently, Paul.

I'll give you "possible" implications, if you care to draw them. But again, it's an act of imagination, not a necessary consequence.

No, the answer is that we can be pretty damn certain that the police did a crap job in this respect - OTHERWISE THEY WOULD HAVE LISTED HIM BY HIS REGISTERED NAME!

Both names were technically correct, in a social sense. I've known several people with step fathers who have used both names without being criminals. It's hardly a crap job if Lechmere was easily identifiable in the district by either name, and we don't know that he wasn't.

It means that the police in all probability didnīt do due diligence, yes. And we may compare with how they "forgot" to ask all the dwellers in Bucks Row if they had noticed something out of the ordinary on the murder night. Crap policework, Iīm afraid - but it may of course be to your liking?

All dwellers? Spratling claimed to have questioned Mrs. Green of an adjoining house, Walter Purkis of Essex Wharf (across the street), and the PC on duty at the nearby wharf. The index on the papers of the Nichols case in the Home Office list police inquires of lodging houses, coffee stalls, prostitutes, night watchmen, the slaughtermen, and John Piser. >Sourced from "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper".

People in the neighborhood were anxious about the killing. Don't you think that if any one of them had information that could have helped the police they would have brought it forward--at least if they would have been truthful during any potential police questioning, that is. Doesn't sound like much of a dereliction of duty to me, especially for the standards of the time.

You can of course insult me (not that I would feel to impressed with it, but still...), but dismiss me you can not. However, yes, you are correct that there are the makings of a really good story in the Lechmere theory. But that is just an attractive side effect.

I just wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding (like the first time I posted). I find your theory fascinating and it is a very compelling story. And I truly wish there was more evidence available that might prove it one way or another. Also, I truly am impressed by your research skills (research being a primary hobby of mine, along with it being an important component of my career).

One thing I will say, which is probably true for most participants in boards like this, is that I love the opportunity to dig into available material, learn new things, and chew over the minutiae of subjects like this. We may not always get anywhere, but at least I have a hell of a lot of fun doing it.

But in the opinion of this cadet to the board (for whatever little it might be worth), there is just not enough here to make Lechmere a true suspect. I hope that additional evidence will show up.

Best wishes.

[Tom_Wescott]

Haven't you answered your own question Mr St Devil? He didn't "arrange" the dress in any normal sense of the word, like flower arranging, he pulled it down. Thus, from the Telegraph report of his inquest evidence "The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down".

The attempt did not seem to be very successful according to the evidence of Cross:

"The other man tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down." (Evening Standard)

"before they went away the other man tried to pull her clothes down, but could not.” (Evening Post)

Let's talk about this. WHY wouldn't her clothes come down?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Clark]

Let's talk about this. WHY wouldn't her clothes come down?

Bunched up behind her butt?

[Tom_Wescott]

Bunched up behind her butt?

Yes now think about that for a minute. What does that say to you?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Clark]

Well, other than the possibility that she may have been buggered, not much.

[Fisherman]

Hmmm. And yet, people come upon dead bodies all of the time without automatically becoming prime suspects, including every other discoverer of a body in the Ripper case--all of whom were alone when first coming upon the various bodies. Sorry, that's just the way it is.



"Murder spot pattern"? Are you referring to the locations of the crimes being along potential routes that Lechmere may have taken to work or Mom's? That isn't a pattern, it's a coincidence. He had been making that journey for years without anyone being murdered because of it, and he continued to make it for years after the Ripper killings without anyone being murdered because of it.

Surely 100s of people followed the same general route everyday, including, apparently, Paul.

I'll give you "possible" implications, if you care to draw them. But again, it's an act of imagination, not a necessary consequence.



Both names were technically correct, in a social sense. I've known several people with step fathers who have used both names without being criminals. It's hardly a crap job if Lechmere was easily identifiable in the district by either name, and we don't know that he wasn't.



All dwellers? Spratling claimed to have questioned Mrs. Green of an adjoining house, Walter Purkis of Essex Wharf (across the street), and the PC on duty at the nearby wharf. The index on the papers of the Nichols case in the Home Office list police inquires of lodging houses, coffee stalls, prostitutes, night watchmen, the slaughtermen, and John Piser. >Sourced from "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper".

People in the neighborhood were anxious about the killing. Don't you think that if any one of them had information that could have helped the police they would have brought it forward--at least if they would have been truthful during any potential police questioning, that is. Doesn't sound like much of a dereliction of duty to me, especially for the standards of the time.



I just wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding (like the first time I posted). I find your theory fascinating and it is a very compelling story. And I truly wish there was more evidence available that might prove it one way or another. Also, I truly am impressed by your research skills (research being a primary hobby of mine, along with it being an important component of my career).

One thing I will say, which is probably true for most participants in boards like this, is that I love the opportunity to dig into available material, learn new things, and chew over the minutiae of subjects like this. We may not always get anywhere, but at least I have a hell of a lot of fun doing it.

But in the opinion of this cadet to the board (for whatever little it might be worth), there is just not enough here to make Lechmere a true suspect. I hope that additional evidence will show up.

Best wishes.

After having read this through, I am once again reminded of the old saying about leading horses to water, and consequentially, I will waste a minum of time on it.
There is however a little something for you:

You claim that any person in Whitechapel is as likely to be the killer as Lechmere. So letīs look at that a bit closer.

Imagine, if you will, that your best friend is found murdered on the street outside your house. A person passing by notices how a man is standing close to the body of your friend. It is later revealed that your friend would have been killed at approximately the time when the person who was found by him was at the spot, or very close in time to it. Sadly, that person was allowed to leave the murder spot unchecked, and he only resurfaces some time later.

Now, for some odd reason, in this scenario I am proposing to you, you alone have the right to decide about which person should be investigated. And, not very productively, you are only allowed to suggest one such person. If that person cannot be tied to the murder, it is the duty of the police to close the investigation and move on to other errands.

Now, your general take on things is that people who are found alone, standing close to freshly slain victims, are not more likely to be their killers than anybody else living in the neighbourhood where the crime is committed.

So I would be interested to hear how you would reason in a purely theoretical case like this.

Any suggestions? The local butcher? The postman? A toddler? A train driver? Or the man found by the side of your freshly killed best friend? Let me know, please, and motivate your choice as best as you can - who would you direct the police to investigate...?

Perhaps nobody, so that you would be able to show off just how refreshingly unprejudiced you are?

[Fisherman]

Yes now think about that for a minute. What does that say to you?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thatīs a good question, Tom. How about this answer:

The killer (name begins with an L) grabs Nicholsīneck and throttles her, lowering her to the ground. She lands on her back, stretched out on the pavement.

L now decides he wants to get to her stomach - his intention is to cut it open. However, when he grabs hold of her skirt and lifts it, he cannot get it as far up over the body as he wants to, since she is lying on the skirt, her bottom and legs effectively hindering him to pull it far enough up over her.
He solves the problem by grabbing her by the legs and pulling the body towards him, gliding over the skirt, meaning that the skirt is tucked up under her bottom.

Then, when he hears an oncomer (letīs call him P), he does not have the time to fix this, but the skirt at least comes down over her private parts as he lifts it down, and he leaves her like that.

P then sees how the thighs are bare, and he pulls the dress further down by yanking on it a bit, but he is not able to pull it totally free from underneath her.

Do you have an alternative take, perhaps? By the way, itīs good to hear your voice again. You normally disagree with much of what I say, but you do it with afterthought and quality. That makes for a nice change to some of the criticism produced out here...

[Clark]

...who would you direct the police to investigate...?

A rather artificial question, but how's this for an answer: "It depends on whether or not there was blood on the hands of the person standing next to my slain friend."

If that person had no blood on his hands, I'd be a more likely suspect than he was, since I knew the victim and he was found dead outside of my house.

If the hands of the person standing next to Nichols' body (let's call him 'L') was covered in blood and he had a knife sticking out of his belt, I'd think you had a pretty conclusive case. Without those things (or something equally compelling), I'd have no reason to suspect him.

Or maybe I just don't care enough about my friends.