What happened to Lechmere......

[Fisherman]

Hello Fisherman,

Would you agree that there are parallels between the Nichols and McKenzie cases? Thus, the body of Alice McKenzie was discovered by PC Andrews at 12:50. However, there was still blood flowing from from her throat when Inspector Reid arrived on the scene at about 1:09-around 20 minutes later: see: http://www.casebook.org/victims/mckenzie.html Doesn't this demonstrate that Nichols may have been killed some time before Lechmere discovered the body, which would significantly increase the number of possible suspects-particularly if time of death was around 20 minutes earlier.

And, as Inspector Moore indicated, Whitechapel was such a labyrinth it probably wouldn't have been too difficult for her killer to have disappeared into the maze, where he would simply blend in with the local population. See:http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true

Of coure there are parallels, John! However, the damage done to McKenzie was much lesser than the damage Nichols suffered. MacKenzie had her left carotid artery severed and reasonably a number of smaller vessels too. And she had a long, rather shallow, cut from breast to navel.
Nichols had her neck severed down to the bone, opening up each and every major vessel in the neck. And she had her abdomen ripped open by a very deep cut, plus a number of other cuts too that would have drawn blood.

In the Nichols case, there was never any possibility of a vessel contraction - or so Jason Payne-James tells me; she had the inner carotids cut off, and when you do, the blood will flow out freely. Payne-James said that going by the kind of wounds she had, and taking into account that she may have been dead when the neck was opened up, she would bleed out totally in a few minutes. He also said that three or five minutes were reasonable suggestions, while seven minutes was stretching things - although he took care to point out that each case is individual.

I donīt know if the inner carotid was severed in MacKenzies case, but even if it was, one must take into account that she had only a fraction of the vessels cut open, whereas Nichols had ALL her vessels opened up. Make a hole in a plastic bottle, make two in another, and see which one leaks out the fastest, John. And the difference was larger than that in these cases.

As for an alternative killer being a possibility, that remains so. But given Payne-Jamesī words, he becomes a less credible suggestion - and one that nobody ever saw or heard.

It was therefore PROBABLY Lechmere who dunīit - but it MAY only just have been somebody else.

PS. Jerry Dunlop makes an interesting case for Andrews being the killer of MacKenzie, based on the bloodflow and timings. Maybe you have read it?

[Fisherman]

The passage you are referring to here on Casebook is an interesting one, John:

1:10 A.M.: Inspector Edmund Reid arrives only moments before Dr. George Bagster Phillips. Reid notices that blood continues to flow from the throat into the gutter (about 1:09 A.M.) but it begins to clot upon the arrival of Phillips (about 1:12 A.M.)

Of course, the blood did not begin to clot as Phillips arrived - it did so the moment it left McKenzie. That is how coagulation works. I think that what is implied in this passage is that the blood was taking on a clotted state, all of it, at 1.12.
Reasonably, it would have been visibly clotting before that stage.

Didnīt it also rain when Reid saw McKenzie? That may have played a role in making the blood looking like it ran from the neck - although it may have done so on itīs own account. And since Reid says so, I am inclined to believe him.

[Harry D]

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.

Of course it does. It means there's nothing else worthwhile to talk about, only the construed 'suspicious' behavior on the part of Lechmere after discovering the body.

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.

If that were the case, why create topics centered around the "Mizen scam"?

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

Actually I do. Lechmere doesn't fit the profile of a serial killer and there's nothing substantial to link him to the Ripper, other than finding the first body.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Of course it does. It means there's nothing else worthwhile to talk about, only the construed 'suspicious' behavior on the part of Lechmere after discovering the body.

Hereīs your post, Harry:

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.

And there you are - Lechmere can never fall down as a suspect because people discuss details about him. The two are not in any way connected. Falling down as a suspect comes from having it evidenced that you do not work as a suspect. And falling down as a poster comes from not understanding this. Goodbye, Harry.

If that were the case, why create topics centered around the "Mizen scam"?

Because the Mizen scam is one of the most important bits in the act of accusation against Lechmere. But I donīt make al the calls here - many peole are discussing the Mizen scam. That was never the case up until I identified it - before that, nobody discussed it. And that was not on account of any conscious choice, it was because nobody had seen it. And now, people like you are sulking about it.


Actually I do. Lechmere doesn't fit the profile of a serial killer and there's nothing substantial to link him to the Ripper, other than finding the first body.

That in itself is way more than any other contender to begin with. Iīd be interested to see what you think a profile of a serial killer looks like, by the way!

[Harry D]

And there you are - Lechmere can never fall down as a suspect because people discuss details about him. The two are not in any way connected. Falling down as a suspect comes from having it evidenced that you do not work as a suspect. And falling down as a poster comes from not understanding this. Goodbye, Harry.

There are still people who discuss the Royal Conspiracy, Fish. That doesn't mean anything.

Because the Mizen scam is one of the most important bits in the act of accusation against Lechmere. But I donīt make al the calls here - many peole are discussing the Mizen scam. That was never the case up until I identified it - before that, nobody discussed it. And that was not on account of any conscious choice, it was because nobody had seen it. And now, people like you are sulking about it.

Sulking? Oh you wish.

Let's get one thing clear, I don't have a dog in this fight. Yes, I think William Bury is the likeliest candidate by dint of being a Ripper-like murderer, but I don't necessarily believe he was our guy. If you could provide some actual compelling evidence that Lechmere might've been the Ripper, I would gladly bow to you. But all I see here is a witness whose involvement has been overblown to portray him up as a potential suspect.

That in itself is way more than any other contender to begin with. Iīd be interested to see what you think a profile of a serial killer looks like, by the way!

Lechmere was a family man, who was gainfully employed and didn't have a criminal record. There's nothing in his make-up to suggest that he was capable of these murders or explain why he one day decided to start a string of atrocious murders that shocked the nation and then all of a sudden decided to stop or de-escalate.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: There are still people who discuss the Royal Conspiracy, Fish. That doesn't mean anything.

Nor does it in any way help your argument, poor as it is - that theory could not suffer any "downfall" ā la Harry D either as a result of people discussing it in great detail - it is only when the evidence goes against it it can suffer a downfall. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you by now.
I donīt know what it is you are trying to argue here, but it ainīt working.

Let's get one thing clear, I don't have a dog in this fight. Yes, I think William Bury is the likeliest candidate by dint of being a Ripper-like murderer, but I don't necessarily believe he was our guy.

Fine - then you should not be too disappointed when I tell you that he is a lousy suspect. Not only that, he is also a suspect the police took a real good look at, only to decide that there was nothing in it. Nothing, nada, inget, zilch, rien, keines.

If you could provide some actual compelling evidence that Lechmere might've been the Ripper, I would gladly bow to you. But all I see here is a witness whose involvement has been overblown to portray him up as a potential suspect.

One of the most renowned forensic pathologists say that we should not expect Nichols to bleed for more than five minutes or so - seven would be unexpected.

Now bow.

Lechmere was a family man, who was gainfully employed and didn't have a criminal record. There's nothing in his make-up to suggest that he was capable of these murders or explain why he one day decided to start a string of atrocious murders that shocked the nation and then all of a sudden decided to stop or de-escalate.

Whereīs the typical profile of a serialist I asked for? John Eric Armstrong was a family man, who was gainfully employed and didn't have a criminal record. There was nothing in his make-up to suggest that he was capable of any murders or explain why he one day decided to start a string of atrocious murders that shocked the nation.

Bing-bang-bong! Oh, what was that? Ah, it was the bell tolling for when I have no further time to invest in any discussion with you.

Sorry. At least it gives you the opportunity to step in unattacked and fire away a few more mistakes and faults. Congrats, Harry!

[John G]

The passage you are referring to here on Casebook is an interesting one, John:

1:10 A.M.: Inspector Edmund Reid arrives only moments before Dr. George Bagster Phillips. Reid notices that blood continues to flow from the throat into the gutter (about 1:09 A.M.) but it begins to clot upon the arrival of Phillips (about 1:12 A.M.)

Of course, the blood did not begin to clot as Phillips arrived - it did so the moment it left McKenzie. That is how coagulation works. I think that what is implied in this passage is that the blood was taking on a clotted state, all of it, at 1.12.
Reasonably, it would have been visibly clotting before that stage.

Didnīt it also rain when Reid saw McKenzie? That may have played a role in making the blood looking like it ran from the neck - although it may have done so on itīs own account. And since Reid says so, I am inclined to believe him.

Hi Fisherman,

I've just been reading the McKenzie inquest report and it does seem that the information in the Casebook reference is misleading. What Inspector Reid actually said was this:

"I saw that she had a cut on the left side of the throat, and there was a quantity of blood under the head which was running into the gutter."

[John G]

Of coure there are parallels, John! However, the damage done to McKenzie was much lesser than the damage Nichols suffered. MacKenzie had her left carotid artery severed and reasonably a number of smaller vessels too. And she had a long, rather shallow, cut from breast to navel.
Nichols had her neck severed down to the bone, opening up each and every major vessel in the neck. And she had her abdomen ripped open by a very deep cut, plus a number of other cuts too that would have drawn blood.

In the Nichols case, there was never any possibility of a vessel contraction - or so Jason Payne-James tells me; she had the inner carotids cut off, and when you do, the blood will flow out freely. Payne-James said that going by the kind of wounds she had, and taking into account that she may have been dead when the neck was opened up, she would bleed out totally in a few minutes. He also said that three or five minutes were reasonable suggestions, while seven minutes was stretching things - although he took care to point out that each case is individual.

I donīt know if the inner carotid was severed in MacKenzies case, but even if it was, one must take into account that she had only a fraction of the vessels cut open, whereas Nichols had ALL her vessels opened up. Make a hole in a plastic bottle, make two in another, and see which one leaks out the fastest, John. And the difference was larger than that in these cases.

As for an alternative killer being a possibility, that remains so. But given Payne-Jamesī words, he becomes a less credible suggestion - and one that nobody ever saw or heard.

It was therefore PROBABLY Lechmere who dunīit - but it MAY only just have been somebody else.

PS. Jerry Dunlop makes an interesting case for Andrews being the killer of MacKenzie, based on the bloodflow and timings. Maybe you have read it?

Hi Fisherman,

But isn't it also the case that the bodies of Stride, Eddowes and Coles-and possibly Mackenzie and Chapman as well- may well have been discovered within minutes of the murders taking place? And isn't that to be expected, considering that Whitechapel was a densely populated area and, with the exception of Kelly, the killer(s) left the victims in public areas, with no attempt to hide the bodies? Of course, in the case of Nichols, if Lechmere hadn't discovered the body, presumably Paul would have, just a few seconds later.

I'm aware of Jerry's theory, and I believe it was partly based on Andrews not blowing his whistle. However, I think this was explained by a change to the standing orders-when PC Pennett discovered the Pinchin Street Torso he also didn't blow his whistle.

Moreover, as Inspector Moore's comments indicate, it would have been fairly easy for a killer to escape undetected, disappearing into the Whitechapel labyrinth.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I've just been reading the McKenzie inquest report and it does seem that the information in the Casebook reference is misleading. What Inspector Reid actually said was this:

"I saw that she had a cut on the left side of the throat, and there was a quantity of blood under the head which was running into the gutter."

Thatīs a bit different, yes. Thanks for that, John!

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

But isn't it also the case that the bodies of Stride, Eddowes and Coles-and possibly Mackenzie and Chapman as well- may well have been discovered within minutes of the murders taking place? And isn't that to be expected, considering that Whitechapel was a densely populated area and, with the exception of Kelly, the killer(s) left the victims in public areas, with no attempt to hide the bodies? Of course, in the case of Nichols, if Lechmere hadn't discovered the body, presumably Paul would have, just a few seconds later.

Moreover, as Inspector Moore's comments indicate, it would have been fairly easy for a killer to escape undetected, disappearing into the Whitechapel labyrinth.

Well, John, you are now making the assumption that Lechmere arrived at the body seconds before Paul.

I donīt think he did, since neither man heard the other.

Even if the two HAD arrived in the street only seconds apart, it would not point to a timetable where carmen passed every seven seconds, Iīm afraid. Nobody entered or left the street as far as the PC.s and watchmen knew, and there was a total scarcity of people in the surroundings, as witnessed about by many people, Neil, Lechmere and Paul included.

If it had been the other way around, Baxter would not have said that it was nothing less than astonishing that somebody should have crept in and done the deed. There was nobody else there, quite simply, and if there was, then it seems it was a phantom with a propensity to creep in and out with nobody noticing him, in spite of the relative wealth of pc:s and watchmen surrounding the street.

And to boot, Lechmere fits the blood evidence like a glove! The blood was still running and looking fresh five, six or seven minutes after Lechmere left the body, and it was partly coagulated at that same stage, making all the sense in the world schedulewise.

So the man FITS, John. And we know that there are anomalies aplenty apart from that in his case. To me that means that although we do not have conclusive evidence, we DO at least have a clear indication in his direction. Why so many people object to his potential culpability is a conundrum to me.

[jerryd]

Dr Phillips said at the inquest Alice was killed within the half hour but probably much sooner. He arrived about 1:10/12. That puts the murder at the earliest at 12:40, but probably much sooner. Sgt. Herwin arrived on the scene about 12:55ish. He said she was killed a few minutes before his arrival.

John, my theory is partly based on the whistle, yes. A lot of it is also based on Isaac Jacobs testimony and what he claimed to see. The majority of it is based on Walter Andrews testimony and where he says he was at the relevant times. I think he was fibbing, as the testimony of ALL the witnesses proves different than what he says.

[Clark]

I donīt think you have much trouble to admit this - your problem lies in having been proven wrong and disliking it. It is as human as it is improductive.

Sorry, you lost me there. The slaughtermen were close enough to the murder scene to have committed the crime, as were Paul, Mizen, Neil, Thain, Green, Purkiss, his wife, and who knows how many other people in the area.

There you go - you HAVE seen the light, to an extent! Yes, we must weigh in the possibility that somebody who was not Lechmere sneaked in and out of the site, killed Nichols and made good his escape.
However, Clark, there is no such person on record, and no observations to confirm the idea. Therefore, Charles Allen Lechmere is the only person to have been found alone by the body of Nichols, and he is therefore - from a purely geographical point of view - the likeliest person on earth to have killed her.

No, he is the likeliest person on earth to have killed her that we know about and who fits your rather arbitrary criteria. Not the same thing at all.

Let me ask you a question, and try to be honest here. If there was only one person, other than Nichols, in Whitechapel on the night of the murder (let's call him "L"), but the police had no idea of where he was within Whitechapel at the time of the killing, who would be the most likely suspect?

The most likely suspect would be the only person other than Nichols who was in Whitechapel at the time, that is, "L".

The only problem is that "L" wasn't the only person in Whitechapel on the night of the killings, so this type of thought experiment gets us absolutely no where. Much like your overly restrictive prescription for likely suspects. Jack the Ripper need not have been one of the people known to have been in the vicinity at the time of the crime. That's your imposed limitation, not reality's.

[harry]

If Nichols,like a phantom, could creep into Bucks Row without being noticed,so then could her killer creep out.
I have yet to hear of any police force in England ,under the rules they operated ,accepting a person to be suspect on the sole condition that they were at the scene of a crime,w hether they be the first there or at any other time.
They would be of interest,untill such time as other evidence of a incriminating ,or honest nature could be established.
No incriminating evidence was or has been established,to suggest Cross was or is suspect of the Nichols murder.

[Fisherman]

Clark: Sorry, you lost me there. The slaughtermen were close enough to the murder scene to have committed the crime, as were Paul, Mizen, Neil, Thain, Green, Purkiss, his wife, and who knows how many other people in the area.

I am glad you agree with me, Clark. Because that is exactly what you do by pointing to the importance of proximity. Just like you say, it takes that we know that a person had that proximity before we with certainty can point to them from a geographical point of view. And it is those we can place closest to the murder site that are the more likely ones to have committed the crime, from that same geographical point of view.

It is a bit ironic that you should try to argue that I am not right by bolstering my take, but there you are. You see, I am not saying that being close to a murder site is suspicious per se - I am saying that the ones who are close to a murder site are more likely to be the killer than those who are not. And that the ones who are closest, are the likeliest. Nothing more than so.

The only reasonable outcome from this fact - for it is a fact - is that Lechmere and Paul are the likeliest killers working from a geographical perspective only.

Once we add our knowledge that Paul arrived after Lechmere, that moves Charles to the top of the list.

Like it or not, this is so.



No, he is the likeliest person on earth to have killed her that we know about and who fits your rather arbitrary criteria. Not the same thing at all.

There you go! Yes, he IS the likeliest person on earth to have killed Nichols that we know about, if we work from a geographical angle. That, and nothing else is what I am saying. After that, you can add any other ingredients and the picture will change in either direction, but that is another thing. You can also add that you think that there was somebody else in place BEFORE Lechmere who was even closer to Nichols, which is not impossible, and then that other person will be an even likelier killer - but the crux of that matter is that he/she will be the likeliest person on earth to have killed Nichils that we do NOT know about.

Let me ask you a question, and try to be honest here.

Try to be decent yourself, Clark. You will never get anything but honesty from me.

If there was only one person, other than Nichols, in Whitechapel on the night of the murder (let's call him "L"), but the police had no idea of where he was within Whitechapel at the time of the killing, who would be the most likely suspect?

Thatīs easy enough: L.

The most likely suspect would be the only person other than Nichols who was in Whitechapel at the time, that is, "L".

Actually, he would not just be the most likely killer, he would be the only possible killer if it was established that there was noone else in Whitechapel at the time of the murder.

The only problem is that "L" wasn't the only person in Whitechapel on the night of the killings, so this type of thought experiment gets us absolutely no where.

Not sure where you are headed; didnīt you just postulate that he WAS the only other person in Whitechapel apart from Nichols...?

Much like your overly restrictive prescription for likely suspects.

Wait a second - have I postulated that Whitechapel was empty apart from Nichols and Lechmere...? I donīt think so.

Jack the Ripper need not have been one of the people known to have been in the vicinity at the time of the crime.

No, of course not.

That's your imposed limitation, not reality's.

But I have not limited anything in this context, Clark. I am saying that Lechmere fits all the signs, and that it would be odd if somebody unknown succeeded to creep in and out unseen, and managed to kill Nichols in a fashion that made her blood run longer than expected and coagulate slower than expected.

However, if you scroll back over hundreds of threads, you will find that I am constantly saying that there COULD have been another killer. I find it less credible than Lechmere being the killer, for reasons mentioned, but I am not excluding it. So you seemingly misunderstood the whole matter from beginning to end.

[Fisherman]

harry: If Nichols,like a phantom, could creep into Bucks Row without being noticed,so then could her killer creep out.

Yes indeed - but it would take TWO succesfull creepings as opposed to the one and only by Nichols.

I have yet to hear of any police force in England ,under the rules they operated ,accepting a person to be suspect on the sole condition that they were at the scene of a crime,w hether they be the first there or at any other time.

Me too. And if you read the thread a bit careful you will see that nobody has said that Lechmere is a suspect on account of having been found by the body. What being found by the body carries with it, is that you become a likelier killer than those who were not found by the body. It is not a suspicion, it is a raised likelihood we are talking about.
What any police force would be required to do, Harry, would be to investigate this person and see if he needed to be added to the list of suspects or if they could let him go. Before he could explain his presence at the site in a credible manner, they would do well not to loose sight of him, I can say that much.

They would be of interest,untill such time as other evidence of a incriminating ,or honest nature could be established.

Yes, exactly!

No incriminating evidence was or has been established,to suggest Cross was or is suspect of the Nichols murder.

He gave a name to the police that was not the one he was registered by and which he is not known to have otherwise used in any exchange with the authorities.

Paul never corroborated that he walked just behind Lechmere down Bucks Row, as far as we can tell.

The police (Mizen) disagreed with Lechmere about what was said on the murder morning. It seems Lechmere may have lied on three different points.

According to Jason Payne-James, Lechmere fits the expected pattern of bleeding and coagulating.

Lechmere did not come forward until after Pauls interview. And when he did, he said things that pointed to how he may have read that interview.

His logical working routes seems to fit with four murder sites and -times.

He had logical ties to two more murder sites.

There are signs that he omitted to give his home address before the inquest.

If we pluck any of these matters out - like how he had a mother who stayed in Mary Ann Street at the time Stride was killed - it is very easy to say that many others had relatives and friends there. It is not until you put things together (an OH so hard discipline, eh?) that the full picture emerges. And that picture was what made Scobie say that "when the coincidences mount up - AND THEY DO IN HIS CASE - it becomes one coincidence too many" and "he acted in a manner that seemed suspicious, and a jury would not like that". So much as a Hutchinson zealot with a crumbling agenda will not swallow this pill, an unbiased barrister actually did - and savoured the taste.