Blood on Charles Lechmere

[Pierre]

The crimes differ in this respect, though. The killer of Chapman, the killer of Eddowes, the killer of Kelly had his hands inside these victims, cutting and rummaging around.

Not so with Nichols, as far as we can tell.

And why didnīt he do that?

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

I thought one of the first things we learn in Ripperology 201 is that the killer (Lechmere or not) might have gotten little to no blood on them during the crimes? After all, the victim was strangled before any of the cuts were made, and the throat cut appears to have been made so that the blood spray went away from the killer.

The crimes differ in this respect, though. The killer of Chapman, the killer of Eddowes, the killer of Kelly had his hands inside these victims, cutting and rummaging around.

Not so with Nichols, as far as we can tell.

[Fisherman]

Dr Strange:

This fantasy seems to have come about from a fairy tale told by Arthur Ingrams about Broad Street being awash in offal. The guy has no idea what he was taking about...

Note to myself: Experts on different establishments have no idea what they are talking about - Dusty is by far the better source.

If Baxter was right and the throat was cut first, it was a two handed action, one to lift and hold the head, the other to wield the weapon.
If Llewellyn was right and the stomach wounds were inflicted first, the skirt was in the wrong direction to shield the killer.
Never say never, but skirt shielding seems a very unlikely scenario.

Straddling the body, lifting the skirt and stabbing and cutting at the abdomen is entirely possible. End of story.



Answer to post #26


>>Paul did say that Lechmere touched the body - <<

Um … no he didn’t.

Can you provide any quote were Paul specifically said Xmere touched the body?

Daily News:

Robert Paul said he lived at 30 Forster street, Whitechapel. On the Friday he left home just before a quarter to four, and on passing up Buck's row he saw a man in the middle of the road, who drew his attention to the murdered woman. He and the man examined the body,...


>>but Lechmere refused to help prop it up.<<

What is most interesting here is that Xmere was the ONLY person to tell this story.
Not information a killer would want to reveal, but fully understandable for an innocent man to mention.

...and if he suspected that Paul would at some stage press this point, he would be clever to be prospective.

Yet again, the perpetuation of the myth the killer needed to run to escape. All witnesses testified it was dark. All the killer had to do to escape was step into the nearest shadow and disappear, 1 to 2 seconds max!

And stand there as the morning drew on...? How utterly clever! Which place do you suggest? The doorway of New Cottage? The entrance to Essex Wharf...?

The station was busy in the hours before Xmere’s claimed arrival of 4 a.m.

It was a station filled with different rooms and corridors. Lechmere may well have been the first man in place on one of these places. If there is a fact available, then that is that we simply donīt know. Letīs be fair and admit that, shall we?

[Damaso Marte]

I thought one of the first things we learn in Ripperology 201 is that the killer (Lechmere or not) might have gotten little to no blood on them during the crimes? After all, the victim was strangled before any of the cuts were made, and the throat cut appears to have been made so that the blood spray went away from the killer.

[drstrange169]

Catching up.

Answer to post #11


>>...or Jonas Mizen<<


Doh! (Sound of palm slapping forehead).



Answer to post #16


>>And even if there was, this was a carman working for a goods depot that freighted meat on an everyday basis. Realistically, each and every one of the carmen had some blood on their clothes.<<

“Realistically” no carmen would have blood on their clothes from work practices.
1. The “meat train” arrived before Xmere started work ( see Smithfield Market start times).
2. Carmen did NOT load the carts, that was a job specifically assigned to porters.
3. There is no guarantee that Xmere ever carted meat.
4. Meat arriving at Broad Street was pre slaughtered, wrapped in linen cloth and packed in wooden crates. Not even the porters that did the loading would have had blood on them.

This fantasy seems to have come about from a fairy tale told by Arthur Ingrams about Broad Street being awash in offal. The guy has no idea what he was taking about and shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone without cross checking to see if his claims have any kind of credence. Something Fish and fellow conspirator Ed refused to do last time this issue arose.



Answer to post #19


>>Edward Stow has suggested that the killer may have straddled Nichols, pullig the skirt up and using it as a shield from any blood spatter.<<

If Baxter was right and the throat was cut first, it was a two handed action, one to lift and hold the head, the other to wield the weapon.
If Llewellyn was right and the stomach wounds were inflicted first, the skirt was in the wrong direction to shield the killer.
Never say never, but skirt shielding seems a very unlikely scenario.



Answer to post #26


>>Paul did say that Lechmere touched the body - <<

Um … no he didn’t.

Can you provide any quote were Paul specifically said Xmere touched the body?


>>but Lechmere refused to help prop it up.<<

What is most interesting here is that Xmere was the ONLY person to tell this story.
Not information a killer would want to reveal, but fully understandable for an innocent man to mention.
Which leads us to the downfall of tha Xmere theorists, cherry picking.
Xmere is a liar except when he says something that might be held against him, then he is a truthful man. If Xmere can’t be trusted then his claim about not wanting to move the body cannot be believed because nobody else confirmed it.
Once again, Xmere’s story if innocent, makes sense, whereas Xmere’s story if guilty, requires an elaborate theory to it explain any potential guilt.

Ocram’s razor.



Answer to post #33


>>if he had run into the arms of a police, we would perhaps have had his execution on record.<<

Yet again, the perpetuation of the myth the killer needed to run to escape. All witnesses testified it was dark. All the killer had to do to escape was step into the nearest shadow and disappear, 1 to 2 seconds max!



Answer to post #34


>>What if he was the first to arrive at Broad Street?<<

He wasn’t, fact.

The station was busy in the hours before Xmere’s claimed arrival of 4 a.m.

[MrBarnett]

I must have missed the evidence for this, Christer. Could you please provide the sources for:

a) Lechmere working at this particular depot

b) This particular depot freighting unpackaged fresh meat on an everyday basis in the second half of 1888

c) Each and every carman at this depot routinely handling unpackaged fresh meat and therefore 'realistically' having some blood on their clothing

Thank you.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Coulda been flesh, coulda been fish, coulda been something else entirely.



From the Worcester Chronicle 4th Feb., 1888.

Gary.

[Patrick S]

Yes, what if?

What if he was the first to arrive at Broad Street?
What if he had facilitites to clean up?
What if the speckles were on the clothes only?
What if he wore gloves?
What if...

All we know is that he may well have been the killer - and he may well have passed the speckle test.

I'm beginning to sense desperation.

Now we have "Fisherman" telling us not only that Lechmere handled bloody meat in his daily duties with no evidence to suggest such a thing other than that it aids his "theory". He also asks us to believe that Lechmere killed and mutilated Nichols in the dark, avoided blood splatter by straddling her and using her dress as a shield, stored the bloody knife in his clothing (along with the bloody gloves he may have worn?) while parading himself in front of everyone who came within earshot, and now he's passing "speckle tests"?

I've been known to suspend disbelief for the sake of a good yarn, but even I'm having trouble with this one.

[Patrick S]

Paul did say that Lechmere touched the body - but Lechmere refused to help prop it up. If he was the killer, it would be understandable, since such a thing would give away that Nichols had had her neck cut off down to the bone.

So even if he was tempted...

How would it be understandable, "Fisherman" (he asked knowing he wouldn't get a response)? You say his motivation for not helping to "prop up" Nichols was he feared that in doing so he'd reveal that she'd had her neck cut down to the bone. So, we have this man - the KILLER (aka JACK THE RIPPER!) - taking evasive action in refusing to give Nichols "a prop" designed to obscure the fact that she's been murdered. Correct? Okay. Now, let's look at some of the other things that he did in order to obscure the fact that Nichols had been murdered and that HE was the KILLER!

1. He hears Paul approaching from 40 yards off and, rather than simply walk away, he waited by the body.
2. Paul, upon reaching the scene, attempted to walk around Lechmere and avoid the whole scene. Rather than allow THAT to happen Lechmere approached Paul, touched his shoulder, and asked him to "come see this woman".
3. Paul thought he detected "slight movement". Rather than agree with Paul (Establishing that Nichols was ALIVE would be good way to avoid revealing her injuries, nay?) he DISAGREES and says he thinks she is DEAD.
4. Lechmere had an advantage in that he knew which way Paul was headed while Paul had no clue which way Lechmere was headed. Thus, he could have told Paul he was headed to work in the direction from which Paul had come. Alas, he didn't do that. He stayed in Paul's company. And together they went looking for a cop!
5. He doesn't part company from Paul at any time before finding a PC. Again, he could have said, "Oh! I go the other way!" when the reached the top of Buck's Row, before they met Mizen. He didn't. He stayed with Paul.
6. He encounters good, noble, honest, true Jonas in Baker's Row. Let's avoid the whole Mizen Scam thing and leave it there. What we do know is that Mizen took no names. And that rather than remain unnamed, the "killer" came forward to tell his tale at the inquest, DRIVEN from HIDING by Paul's statement. Of course, Paul didn't describe him, and minimized his role with Paul claiming that he and he alone sought out Sainted Jonas. Alas, BACK into the arms of the law he goes.....somewhat less desperate to avoid capture than he was when he refused to give Polly a prop a few nights before.

[Patrick S]

If he was the killer, then yes, he was lucky to an extent.

If he was the killer, it was run or stay.

There were potential drawbacks to both choices. There are many recorded criminals who have run into the arms of patrolling PC:s and payed the price for it.

Andy Griffiths said that there was no way he was going to run, wioth patrolling officers all around him.

Well, if that's what Andy Griffiths said then I guess we should go with that. Yet.....I wonder. I wonder if Andy Griffiths considered that he wouldn't have had to run at all. He could have simply WALKED away. According to this "theory" of yours, the killer had virtually no blood on him. I mean he's straddling and using the victims clothing to shield him, right? And Paul doesn't simply pop out from behind a corner and say, "Gotcha, Charlie!", now does he? No. He's approach is heard from some forty yards off. In a dark alley. If Lechmere was the killer, he knows that Paul had not SEEN the crime. It's dark, he's a good ways off, he is ultimately confident enough that he (Paul) hadn't seen the murder in that he - according to the "theory" - stands away from the body a bit and then asks Paul to come and see it. Clearly he wasn't afraid he'd been observed.

Thus, Paul doesn't know a crime has been committed. Why run? Why not simply WALK on to work? Why would walking to work have driven him into the "arms of the police"? Did they have crystal balls too? Did they know that a murder had been committed? It seems as if you believe that Lechmere - if he were the killer had two choices only: Run away or stay. And not only stay. Stay AND approach the man (Paul) even as he had the murder weapon hidden in his coat, ask him to come see the woman he'd just killed, and when the man says that he thinks she's still alive to tell him that he thought she was, in fact, dead, and then refuse to move her even as that would give him a much more plausible reason to have blood on his clothes, and then to stay with the man until they find a PC, and then to tell the PC that he thought she was dead......and then voluntarily show up at the inquest a few days later. AH, YES! I can see that talking it through now it makes much more sense!

You have a different idea.

If Lechmere was the killer, then he never tried out your idea. He tried out the other one. And if he was the killer, it worked for him.

With the aid of his trusty crystal ball. As we've seen Lechmere's actions can be explained one of two ways. 1. He was an innocent man who found a woman lying on the pavement in an alley and tried to do the right thing; 2. He was Jack the Ripper.

One of these to options perfectly explains his actions. One requires us to believe that he was a serial killer who behaved completely irrationally, doing the opposite of what might be expected at nearly every turn because he was either lucky, a criminal mastermind, or a soothsayer with crystal ball on loan from the Amazing Kreskin.


Itīs not as if he must be innocent if he did not run. Not even nearly so.

The fewest criminal deeds can aspire to being without risk. You are going to need some sort of luck - or at least the absense of bad luck - at some stage.

I think it's progress that you are at least now conceding that Lechmere - if he were the...uh...."killer" - was lucky. I think that indicates that even you can see that his bizarre, irrational, unexplainable behavior required luck to have succeeded in not resulting in his capture. Of course, it would be more progress if you simply realized that there was no luck needed and, indeed, no bizarre or irrational behavior at all. It's all perfectly explainable and what you'd expect when you understand that Lechmere DID NOT kill Nichols.....or anyone else for that matter.

How many times do I have to spell that out to you before you grasp it, Caz?

A few more times, maybe. Try again.

My responses - which will go unanswered - above bold.

[Fisherman]

Hi Colin,

If the guilty man was anyone other than Charlie Boy, that's precisely what he did do, and why nobody knows his real identity to this day.

Not sexy enough for some people, is it?

Love,

Caz
X

Intelligence. Thereīs sexy for you.

[Fisherman]

I must have missed the evidence for this, Christer. Could you please provide the sources for:

a) Lechmere working at this particular depot

b) This particular depot freighting unpackaged fresh meat on an everyday basis in the second half of 1888

c) Each and every carman at this depot routinely handling unpackaged fresh meat and therefore 'realistically' having some blood on their clothing

Thank you.

Love,

Caz
X

Can you prove to me that he did not kill Nichols? I must have missed the evidence for that.

Talk about futile exercises!

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

But Lechmere didn't know who Paul would turn out to be. This stranger could very easily have been PC Neil, treading his beat, and he had a lantern to shine all over Nichols and Lechmere. Even if the blood didn't appear to extend from the wounds on Nichols to Lechmere himself, he'd have struggled to explain away the bloody knife still on his person.

"Oh that, officer! Yes, I merely used my work knife to loosen the poor dear's clothing and see what the matter was."

"You're a good man and no mistake. Off you go to work and I'll deal with this now."

Lucky Lechmere.

Love,

Caz
X

If he was the killer, then yes, he was lucky to an extent.

If he was the killer, it was run or stay.

There were potential drawbacks to both choices. There are many recorded criminals who have run into the arms of patrolling PC:s and payed the price for it.
Andy Griffiths said that there was no way he was going to run, wioth patrolling officers all around him.

You have a different idea.

If Lechmere was the killer, then he never tried out your idea. He tried out the other one. And if he was the killer, it worked for him.

Itīs not as if he must be innocent if he did not run. Not even nearly so.

The fewest criminal deeds can aspire to being without risk. You are going to need some sort of luck - or at least the absense of bad luck - at some stage.

How many times do I have to spell that out to you before you grasp it, Caz?

[Fisherman]

I did say in my post, Fisherman, what if Lechmere had speckles of blood when he first arrived at work, before he started hauling the meat around (if that is indeed what he did.)

Yes, what if?

What if he was the first to arrive at Broad Street?
What if he had facilitites to clean up?
What if the speckles were on the clothes only?
What if he wore gloves?
What if...

All we know is that he may well have been the killer - and he may well have passed the speckle test.

[Fisherman]

Quite. The irony is that, had he done what you might expect a guilty man to do and run off into the distance, no-one would ever have heard of Charles Allen Lechmere, let alone suspected him.

Reconstructing history is a hard game, Colin - if he had run into the arms of a police, we would perhaps have had his execution on record.

[caz]

Quite. The irony is that, had he done what you might expect a guilty man to do and run off into the distance, no-one would ever have heard of Charles Allen Lechmere, let alone suspected him.

Hi Colin,

If the guilty man was anyone other than Charlie Boy, that's precisely what he did do, and why nobody knows his real identity to this day.

Not sexy enough for some people, is it?

Love,

Caz
X