I'm convinced it's either Lechmere or Joseph Barnett, the bf, to the last victim. Best two suspects with motives and "coincidences."

I couldn't disagree more; there is no evidence pointing to Lechmere. He discovered one of the bodies-that's it. This is a typical case of trying to make the evidence fit a "suspect." It's nonsense.

So you would kill someone on the way to your workplace

​@seankinnane12 Many serial killers have. Before,during, and after. Especially the truck drivers.

@@brandonk8948 Lechmere had a motive? I know that it's an usual request when dealing with Cross/Lechmere but could you provide a source for that? (Contemporary, rather than something Christer or Ed Stow made up.)

A killer who was looking for darkness and streets where few people were around, save desperate women looking for the last trick of a drunk evening, would do well to aim for the precise gap of time that the Ripper seemingly worked within. So far from being a bad suggestion that Lechmere could have killed en route to work, it is in fact a very good one.

@@christerholmgren335 That us a very good point as people in 1888 didn't busy around and have tge opportunities that they would havd today. Today we have more people going to the gym of coming home from a shift at work or other social activities. Back then apart from people coming out from pubs and clubs the streets would be dark and virtually empty between those twilight hours and give the ripper the ideal time to kill. You also didn't have motorcars on the road. So around the time of between 3 and 5:30 in the morning would be ideal.

I don’t think it’s possible. If you brutally murder someone in the pitch dark, there’s no way to know how much blood is on you. You run a massive risk turning up to work potentially covered in blood stains. For what it’s worth I think JTR must have been someone living in Whitechapple itself and someone living alone in a place with an entrance not shared with other people, i.e. a private house, not a boarding house or a doss house. They have to be able to get to a safe place very quickly. Anyone who’s ever cut themselves, even a small cut know how blood gets everywhere and it’s really hard to clean up. You wouldn’t be able to clean yourself without light and a mirror.

@NoddyBomb It wasn't pitch dark, especially if a moon is out, or dim gaslights. What about a man who would go directly to a bloody slaughterhouse? He worked at Pickford's. His mother also owned a cat's meat business that slaughtered horses.

@@NoddyTron many serial killers have had families and didn’t live alone. Your thoughts here aren’t really consistent with what we observe about these people. There’s a risk in killing somebody in public in the first place and we know for a fact somebody took that risk many times, they wouldn’t be bothered by having a bit of blood on them and even then there isn’t any indication they even did due to strangling the victims to kill them before dismembering and likely wearing gloves.

On the unpredictable seas of Ripperology, I believe it is by far the safest place to be! 👍

Many thanks for that! I would, however, want to add a few names to the mix. Derek Osborne and Michael Connor, for example, who outlined the possibility of a guilty Charles Cross (none of these men knew about the Lechmere name as they wrote about the carman) many years ago. And, not least, Edward Stow, who was the man who put me on the track a decade into this century, and who remains the real go to guy in all matters Lechmere. If Lechmere was the killer, we have all contributed in our own separate ways to get his name out there. And, of course, if the carman was not the killer, we have all gotten things wrong... As things stand, I am actually not very worried, I´ll say that much.

@@christerholmgren335 Refreshing to hear the analysis from a researcher unafraid to accept possibilities other than their own and shares credit with others. Thank you Mr Holmgren, your insights are fascinating. Compliments to the interviewer as well.

@@martybaggenmusic My heartfelt thanks for your kind words!

@@christerholmgren335 , what if the only Newspaper that got his address, got it because they followed Lechmere home?

Yes, I watched the program years ago as well and I felt it had a lot of merit. Fascinating!

I agree!

That could be very true. Coincidences don’t exist. They are kind of like astrology.

I think it was 8 years ago that the Christer Holmgren documentary was on ch5 it's gone so fast. I was almost convinced it was him back then but no so much now after hearing different reasons for different things

@@paulanthony5274 There are many more reasons to conclude that Lechmere was the killer today than there were in 2014, Paul.

@@christerholmgren335 Have you ever considered or thought of a reason why the murders or 3 out of 5 of them happened on a Friday morning? What days were these pickford workers paid? I wonder if the urges to kill were brought on more so by alcohol. There's a chance that if Lechmere is starting work at 4 am that he wouldn't necessarily go to bed the previous Thursday night and been drinking. Just clutching at straws but I'm trying to think of a reason why almost always fridays.The murders were done over a 2 month one week period. Seems odd that the urge didn't take him on between Monday and Thursday morning. That's only the cononical 5 of course. I can't remember what morning the Tabram murder occurred was that a Friday also? Another thing. You could try yourself to put some,say, blood from a packet of liver on the ground in dark circumstances outside and get down and see if you can see it. If you can then it goes towards your evidence of the wounds being incredibly fresh and still not pouring from the wound. I should imagine you would be able to see it and it would appear quite black. People might laugh at me saying that but blood in a packet of liver is very dark as would a wound from a deep cut to the throat.

Bet you were gutted when hanging was removed from statute book? ; )

If the killer had had removed one or more abdominal organs from Polly Nichols, we would also think that she had been "displayed". The fact that the others _appeared_ to be "displayed" is simply a byproduct of what happened to them. And if it's possible that Lechmere was interrupted by Paul, then it's equally possible that Polly's _real_ killer was interrupted by Lechmere. After all, it's very unlikely that the Ripper just happened to find Nichols in the obscure location of Bucks Row, but took her there (or was taken there by her) for sex. Lechmere's misfortune was that this location happened to coincide with his - and Paul's - route to work.

If the killer was disturbed, that doesn't necessarily mean that Lechmere was the killer. It could be that Lechmere disturbed the killer.

I wouldn't want to touch her either.

That is the prevailing reasoning yes. If JTR was not Lechmere and he had the time to escape unseen and unheard yes why bother to cover up the wounds?

Absolutely agree. The ones who appose this either have money, time or both invested in the “mystery” or want this to be the sinister man with a top hat and knife which makes for a good story but simply doesn’t match the reality.

it was 100 percent lechmere it couldn't be anyone else

I'm so glad I'm here with my Lechmere people. I can't believe some of the preposterous suspects 🤣😂

One big hole. Trying to rule out arterial spray saying she was strangled first so there was no blood pressure.... Then you also include in the same scenario, Robert Paul saying he felt her breathe when he touched her chest(so it was a recent attack) Well, one cancels out the other. If paul was wrong, its specualation she was strangled first and there was likely arterial spray. Lechmere would have blood on him when he spoke to the cop alongside robert paul.

@somoneunseen5168 not if he attacked her from behind. And, many of these woman offered anal sex to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Aria Excellent riposte.

Exactly! Having to explain 2 bodies around his vicinity wouldn't look so good for him either.

That and another man wouldn’t meet the preferred victim profile or the ripper’s criminal psychology

Easier to Co-opt Paul into his story instead of killing him "I was walking (to or from) work when I stumbled upon this unfortunate woman dead in the alley that's when I saw Paul and shouted there has been a murder and for him to get help"

He could have just legged it. He thought it was a tarp, Paul would have just walked down and checked it, by then Letchmere would have been well away.

@@rebelrouser184 Yeah he could of ran. And he could also of ran straight into PC Neil who actually did walk down the road in the opposite direction from where Robert Paul was walking toward him just three or so minutes later.

As a child I heard “eviscerated turkeys”. That’s how I learned the word.

I really for the life of me dont understand why he is considered a strong suspect. Sure he was found on one scene, but to me that is virtually the only suspicious aspect.

​@@Pawskno it is not. If it was just that he was at the crime scene then it would not be enough. He was at a dead body within moments of her throat being cut to near decapitation ( so obviously more than one slice ) and no one else around to have done it within the timeframe Charles himself gives. His being allowed to leave from the officer he stopped and told about Polly Nichols made me question him as far back as 1999, long before anyone made the connection, because it was so absurd to think a cop would do that. However I was basing that on the fact that we had, at that time, 111 years of more sophisticated policing. Either Lechmere was the u luckiest bystander in the whole case and scared off JtR who had just been there seconds prior ( again about the amount of blood found by p.c. Neill ) or he was caught and had to bluff things out. I do not personally believe Charles Lechmere is JtR, or the Whitechapel Murderer as I believe it should be called, but I DO believe Lechmere murdered Polly Nichols. How could that be? I believe there is more than enough reason to believe these murders were ALL unrelated and committed by different people, with different motives and THAT was the reason the police could never capture any one suspect. But Polly Nichols? The chances of being anyone besides Lechmere is so miniscule as to be rendered almost moot.

@@Pawskas opposed to what evidence for any of the other suspects? Their ‘evidence’ is usually just that they were insane and reportedly hated women.

I don’t know about that. It’s very strange to me how EVERYONE talks about how dangerous the area was due to gang activity. However nobody looks at the obvious explanation that these women passed due to gang violence. Gangs have a long history of running prostitution, maybe the women wouldn’t pay protection. In fact violent beatings were doled out pretty often to these poor women by gangs like the monkey parade gang. It’s not beyond reason that one of these gang members was particularly brutal. These gangs put rubber on the soles of their shoes to move silently in the night and knew the police beats just as well as the police did. In fact the bobbies on the beat when asked OFTEN stated they believed these were gang related crimes.

@@ImCaptainCabbage it’s unlikely a gang would go to the extent that JTR went as it would be too messy and time consuming. This type of murder only exists if it’s sexually motivated

Al things considered with regards to all the suggested "suspects" over the decades, Lechmere is a much more sensible person of interest than most. At least there is something to tie him to the Nichols case as given the timings, to have another individual on the scene before him would require a very small window. Not impossible though. Regardless, there's also not enough to be sure of Lechmere either

@@paulchristodoulou7973 I wonder if there’s any evidence of Lechmere fitting the sexually motivated profile, though?

​@@ImCaptainCabbage That is an interesting train of thought and sounds quite plausible. Regarding the murder of Mary Ann Nichols, I think it is difficult to come up with a logical explanation when taking into account the estimated time of death, police patrol routes and the two carmen witnesses that doesn't point to Lechmere as being the culprit in her death.

We can check his behaviour at one of the murder sites - and it involved a large number of anomalies and possible lies. It is not as if we can do that check on Kosminski, Druitt, Levy, Tumblety, Kelly, Barnett, Maybrick etcetera, etcetera. Because, of course, there is not a single sign of them ever having been at any of the murder sites at the relevant times. For starters.

Look at the guy's sinister face, does he look like your average delivery driver. 😂😂😂

​@@ThePrinceOrtmayer You're probably correct. His mother owned a cat's meat business that cut up the already slaughtered horses.

@@christerholmgren335exactly! These suspects are only suspects because they were known to be mad or to have hated women. There is zero circumstantial evidence to tie ANY of them to the murders.

I agree he has a real Scotland Yard Detective as a source of evidence as a lot of the other do not not. He has evidence that I have not heard from anyone that says Cross/Lechmere was killer.

Have you tried ‘They got away with murder’ channel. Great narrating voice.

When Paul first saw Lechmere, then latter was standing "in the middle of the road"/"where the body was", depending on which source we use. In no source does Paul claim that Lechmere was crouching over the body. Reasonably, if Lechmere was the killer and wanted to bluff Paul, he would have backed away from the body before Paul arrived. It does not detract from his potential culpability in any way if this was so.

@@christerholmgren335You’ve almost got my convinced because this does make sense.

@@christerholmgren335The Ripper was Maybrick…. Case closed

​@@johnjones-eu1rvPut him in London, let alone at a crime scene?

​@@johnjones-eu1rvMontague John Druett.

Exactly. What’s the likelihood that some other killer was there merely moments before Lechmere and he completely didn’t see him?

Welcome on board!

@@christerholmgren335 glad to be here.

Spot on... anyone who has genuinely and thoroughly studied the evidence implicating Charles lechmere's guilt, with an open mind (not whilst having another suspect fixed in their brain, and merely just trying to poke "holes" in arguments for JTR being Lechmere) then I fail to see how they could not, *at the very least,* come away thinking he is the most compelling suspect when compared to all of the other candidates that have been considered over all these years. The fact is there is not one SINGLE other suspect that has anywhere near as much credible evidence, albeit circumstantial, pointing towards their guilt. *However,* personally, I am comfortable going even further, I believe that even when not just comparing Lechmere against the other suspects, he would be the *PRIME SUSPECT* in a modern day investigation, based on even just the evidence we have *now,* and that there's an extremely high probability that he would be found guilty in a modern day, British criminal court of law. I find it so disingenuous and dishonest when people have the *audacity* to try and dismiss Lechmere as a compelling suspect based on the evidence, but then proceed to argue for another suspect when there is NO OTHER suspect that has anywhere close to the amount of credible evidence pointing towards Lechmere!

@@shellyseymore6249I tend to agree that he’s the most compelling possible suspect, but he’s only a suspect from our own perspective, never having been considered by Constable Plod; the reasons for this have, of course, been dealt with most adequately as resulting from his use of the Cross surname. The problem, as I see it, is that the most credible witness reports - those of Israel Schwartz, Joseph Lawende, and George Hutchinson (for the Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane Kelly killings respectively) - are quite varied and conflicting in their descriptions. The consensus of those reports seem to indicate that Jack the Ripper was stereotypically Jewish in appearance. If we dismiss the question of Jack’s Jewishness, then we also have to dismiss those witnesses as unreliable, and where does that leave us? Lechmere does seem to fit one of the three, though, which makes him the most compelling suspect to date…

Exactly, and considering Paul did not see or hear him walking ahead, then Lechmere would have a hard time explaining why he was standing next to a body for at least a couple of minutes all alone, which happened to be extremely close to the estimated time of death. He has no alibi for this period , and if not the killer there seems to be no evidence of a murderer running the length of bucks row and onwards detected.

New to you, I take it. Not to me, though.

It's always funny to me that people think they're "Ripperoligists" but have never heard of Charles Allen Lechmere. Can't take them seriously when I hear that. Most have the absurd suspects as well.

I would go as far as to say that it would be sensational if it was not him.

@@christerholmgren335 I agree Christer, I’d be more surprised to find out it wasn’t him.

Please share your thoughts when you have finished resding! I am always curious about how people look on things.

Nichols - killed at around 3.40-3.45 on a working day, when Lechmere traversed Spitalfields. Chapman - according to Dr Phillips, she was killed at the latest around 4.30, but probably earlier. Working day for Lechmere. Stride - killed at around 00.45 on the night between Saturday and Sunday, so on a day that ws likely a day off for Lechmere. And she died in a street that was situated right next to where his mother and daughter lived, and in an area where he had grown up and spent much of his young years. Eddowes - killed around 45 minutes after Stride, also on what will have been a night leading up to his day off. And along his old route to work from James Street to Pickfords. Kelly - the doctors were divided in their views, one optiing for around 2AM, the other for arund 6AM. The inbetween is 4AM, in line with the other working day murders as per the above. It was Lordmayors Day coming up , but most Eastenders were likely to work and get payed. What about that?

9 November 1888 was a Bank Holiday. It’s conceivable that he was off. He delivered meat to shops, if the shops were closed it quite possible that his employer was closed as well.

The other murders bar one took place on a Saturday or a public holiday

Wrong one happen earlier Kelly it was a bank holiday lechmere was off from work

Kelly was murdered by barnett

What about Kosminski? A poor, Scizophrenic who was 22 years old when Martha Tabram was killed. I feel bad for him.

@@walkawaycat431what about him? Can he be placed at the scene of any of the murders? Is he your suspect simply because he was schizophrenic? That plays into the old ‘he’s insane and hates women!’ JTR cliche.

Thank you! Let us know your thoughts after reading, please!

Donald Rumbelow used that picture in his book too. But I think we may now instead say "Oh, him!"

It was truly excellent that Richard interviewed experts on both sides! Lechmere is my choice too!

@@TiaMargarita This is plausible, however i always fall back on Joseph Barnett. Wish we'd get a video on him. Ultimate candidate to me. Loved Mary and hated her becoming a prostitute, decided to scare her off killing women on the streets to make sure she quit which she did, lost his job and couldn't keep her out anymore so ended up brutality viciously killing her out of hatred. What gets to me is that JTR victims always said to have been strangled first before anything else. It doesn't sound all that ooh i fucking get a kick out of doing this vibe. The only 1 that insanely vicious was the Mary 1 and that is more then likely because the killer knew her well and had history. The fact that it has been said she was the last JTR victim makes this even more plausible to me. Why did the killings stop? Because he had killed the reason he started doing it and saw no purpose to continue

Let’s try it with evidence against him. Zero evidence that he loved her so it’s an assumption we cannot make. Zero evidence that he hated her being a prostitute so that is an assumption we cannot make. (We do know for a fact that he hung out waiting for her then left. We don’t know why but his testimony had no anger or jealousy against her. It can be speculated, not assumed, that he was waiting his turn for “service”. Because this is a speculation only, we cannot assume this as a fact.) It is a Septuple assumption that he 1) hated her occupation and 2) wanted to scare her 3) decided the best way to scare her into stopping was by killing other sex workers. 4) that she would even care that other sex workers were being killed since this was an occupational hazard then and now, 5) he was supporting her financially and was no longer able to do so 6) decided to hate her 7) decided to viciously kill her. Well seven assumptions instead of six! So… Zero facts evidencing any of these seven assumptions. You are correct that he strangled first. It is a fact. He humanely killed each victim as quickly and painlessly as possible. Coroners testified that there was no time or ability to gasp or let out any noise. (You are making your points very well and there is no need to curse btw. If possible would you mind refraining? Thank you in advance.) Mary was also humanely killed. It appears that one of his intents was that he did not want anyone to suffer. His intention was to kill as quickly as possible to accomplish his main goal, to attend to his fascination with organs. I don’t believe he got a “kick out of it”. He falls in line with other serial killers on that point. It seems that he was vicious with Mary and the outcome was certainly vicious but he killed her as humanely as the others even though he had a private space and the time he craved. If any emotion was involved, like hatred or jealousy, he would have taken it out on her while he killed her. Anger makes for brutal imposition of pain and torture on a victim. He had plenty of time to make her suffer if he did so. I do however agree with you that he knew her. She knew him. There is zero hard evidence to hold this up as fact so this is a creative supposition on my part. I must make this clear. This is my opinion only and in order to make it I must utilize assumptive thoughts and supposition but clearly since this is not fact based, I cannot assert this as fact. My supposition is that he knew her. It is fact based on ONLY one piece of less talked about evidence. The face covering cloth. The supporting theory that makes the cloth relevant is based on the natural tendency of victim knowing killers who do not want to look at the face of someone already in their lives. So one price of evidence, the cloth and one reliable characteristic as to why some victims faces are covered. After these two pieces of information is where I make my opinion. Let me know if you are interested in it. 😊 ( Oh, one more fact that is crucial to my theory. She sang that night.)

Christer is credible because he doesn’t just have a theory, he backs it up with facts. Impressive

If Ted Bundy had not been caught, he would have been seen as a man who lived a full, seemingly successful life. Serial killers work from behind facades. And yes, innocent alternative explanations can always be thought up, that is the character of circumstantial evidence. In Lechmeres case, there are scores of points of evidence that seemingly poingt to guilt. And when there is, it is totally naive not to recognize it, and start speaking of dragging somebody through the muck. He was assessed by a KC by the name of James Scoboe in the 2014 documentary, a KC who used his experience to assess the case - and then ”dragged him through the muck”. Once we know that, it is no problem at all to smile at laymens efforts to claim that there is nothing to see.

Lechmere gave the name he was known as at work. I can’t understand why you’d suddenly commit a vicious murder on your usual route to work ( think they said Cross/Lechmere worked at Pickford s for 20 yrs ) then go on a killing spree . Would have thought if you were caught near a dead body, a killing spree is the last thing you’d do .

Yes I think the whole case against him is extrapolation on the mere fact that he was seen at the scene of the crime. There is no other compelling evidence. Perhaps if there were only one murder he might remain under suspicion but there are no obvious links to the other four murders.

Steven Blomers logic appeals to many, mainly those who reason that a killer would have reacted the way they would have themselves. However, the killer we are investigating here is with great certainty a psychopath, and psychopaths do not adjust to normal logic.

Thank you kindly, Sir!

Nominative determinism is not a thing, though. If I have a son and call him Voldemort Napoleon Adolf Whatever, don’t mean he’s going to grow up to become a genocidal dictator…

​@@feliscorax 😂😂😂idk, if my father named me that I'd become one just because

You can add Lechmere to that list of innocent victims...

@@davekeating. I often see these kinds of disparaging comments. Oneliners like ”It wasn’ t him” or, indeed, ”Lechmere is an innocent victim himself”. For whatever reason, there is rarely any factual reasoning to go along with them. If any value is to be ascribed to them, that kind of factual reasoning must be present, otherwise they amount to little less than internet trolling.

@@christerholmgren335 hi christer,if bleed out can occur for up to 15 mins(which we can see in the alice mckenzie case) and p.c thain sees blood running at 354 that would mean polly could have been cut at apprx 339- 340,enough time to kill and escape.also the visibility of the neck wound to robert paul for instance,it was so dark at the gates,no gas lamp near by,another example again from the mckenzie case is from the times july 19.inspector reid' the darkness was so great that it was necessary to use a constables lamp to see that the throat was cut though it was near a lamp'.

@@leslierock5005 I would not compare the Nichols case to the MacKenzie one - MacKenzie had far less damage done to her. The 10-15 extreme that Ingemar Thiblin suggests relates to Polly Nichols specifically, her wounds, her position and all we know about this. The same will go for the suggested 3-5 minute likely time frame; it is gauged with Nichols and her damage in mind, it is not a universal thing. You can bleed for hours on end if the wounds and position of the body allows for it. We have no exact parameters to work from in many angles of the case. For example, we do not know the composition of the blood in Nichols´ body. This is why what we can do is to work from the supposition that nothing was very much out of the ordinary in the Nichols case, and if nothing was very much out of the ordinary in her case, it applies that she would likely not have bled for more than 10-15 minutes, tops. And that in its turn suggests that another killer than Lechmere would be less likely on account of how he would have to work in the extreme interval of 10-15 minutes. As I say in the interview, we cannot exclude that possibility, but we CAN say that it is less likely than Lechmere being the killer, since he occupied the first nine minutes of the bleeding time. As for the darkness, if you can see a body from across a road and if you can see a dark hat against a dark street, then you can certianly also see a dark cut on a white neck, not least since blood is a fluid that will reflect light.

@@davekeating.Can't see how you would know that?... unless you was around in 1888 and know something we don't.

Tack! Oh, wait; that was Swedish. What I meant to say was Thank You! And Merry Christmas to you too!!

Thank you - good to hear that you enjoyed Cutting Point! And that is an intriguing surname …

Agreed. And the fact that the police did not aquire his real and registered name tells us which way to go on that question. Plus, of course, there is not any sign anywhere that he was ever under suspicion. It was 1888, and the police worked along other lines than todays forces - who nevertheless get things very wrong on occasion. In the investigations following the murder of Swedish prime minister Palme in 1986, the police managed to miss out on investigating one person who had been proven to be at the murder site at the relevant time. Some thirty years afterwards, it was concluded that he was the killer. At that stage, the man had been dead since 2000. Many of the things the 1888 police got wrong formed a basis for coming generations of policemen to learn from, many of the mistakes todays police make will make their followers better policemen. Competence is an aquired skill, not something we are born with.

Because the police messed up, just as they did nearly a hundred years later in Yorkshire. They had no clue who JTR was, and they didn't have the knowledge or profiling regarding serial killers that they do now. A seemingly respectful hard working carman on his way to work wouldn't have been a priority to investigate. But Peter Sutcliffe was also a married truck driver.

It’s common practice now, but policing wasn’t as developed as it is now. There was also a strong class prejudice about the kind of person who committed crimes, and that someone who would commit such vile acts as the Whitechapel murders must be a totally deranged lunatic in the absolutely cliched sense. People couldn’t fathom that an apparently ordinary sane family man could do something like that. There were also failings in the sense that different police departments and sections didn’t communicate, which had been an issue even until cry recently.

Victorian society was looking for a psychotic and a foreigner. It's very common for horrendous crimes anywhere to be blamed on foreigners. What Victorian society could not comprehend was a family man with stable employment being the killer. Some known deviant, psychotic or foreigner was far more appealing to their expectations.

I believe they thought that Robert Paul and Charles Lechmere were walking close together when Polly Nichol's was discovered. After Robert Paul's newspaper interview. They would have been very suspicious if they'd actually knew that Charles Allen Lechmere was alone with her for longer than he claimed. PC Mizen and PC Niel worked at different precincts as well. And they surely didn't know he lied about his name.

For some reason, it all fits that way. And perfectly so.

I always think of the geography as the litmus test of a suspect. Once you have a number of matters that don´t look good, THEN you check the geography. If it pans out, you generally stand a very good chance of having found the perpetrator.

@@christerholmgren335I’m glad you mention this, Christer, because I’ve commented in reply to you elsewhere about this since it could apply to anyone from the area. But it is a really good fit for at least two: Kosminsky and Lechmere. Others, too, probably. But I think your case, if it were to happen nowadays, it would have been investigated and probably gone to trial on the balance of probabilities alone.

Thank you! Thomas Cross, Charles´ stepfather had been dead for nineteen years when the carman reported in to the inquest. In all likelihood, there would be noone to remember Thomas C at the cop shop at that stage. So no, I do not think it was about rubbing up or aquiring sympathy - I think it was about more likely about obscuring his identity from people who could otherwise have found out about his role. And we may be spekaing of different catefgories of people; perhaps his wife and family, perhaps acquaintances, perhaps people who knew that a carman by the name of "Charles Lechmere" had formerly been accused of some sort of fould play, minds, as it were, that Lechmere did not want to stir.

Ok, I see. Yes, it makes sense. Thanks for your answer and for taking time to elaborate on this!

@@christerholmgren335 I think Lechmere is a great candidate, but one thing that bugs me about him using the surname Cross… Why would he use a name associated with him at all? Why not some completely random name? And why give his actual address?

Related?

The police at the time thought that he had stopped, yes. But in the summer of 1889, Liz Jackson had her throat cut, her abdomen cut open from sternum to groun, her uterus cut out and removed, her abdominal wall cut away in large sections (like Chapman and Kelly) and her ring wrenched from her finger (like Chapman), by somebody who was skilled in cutting. Sounds familiar? Jackson was killed by the so called Thames Torso killer - who I believe was the precise sam man as the Ripper, Charles Lechmere. Jackson had told aquaintances that she had been put up in lodgings earlier that year by a ”Charley”, by the way… And then there was the Pinchin Street case in September, on the very street where Lechmere grew up. And then dead women were found in pieces in Regents Canal some years afterwards - right by Broadway Market, where Charles Lechmere had a stal at the time. We cannot know that he stopped. If he did, we cannot know when. I agree with you that Kosminski seems like somebody a frightened prostitute would avoid. A common carman, born and bred in Britain, may have been another proposition.

It isn't unheard of for serial killers to just stop. Uncommon, but it's a myth that it doesn't happen. And Lechmere might have changed his killing locations and methods, he might be responsible for other unsolved cases. A good example is the BTK, he terrorized Wichita before suddenly dropping off the radar. He was active, his killings were simply not attributed to him due to different locations and BTK himself not claiming them to the police. They were only connected to him after he was caught.

I think that the type of men that used prostitutes like Mary Jane Kelly were very often the lowest class, the majority would have been quite dirty and probably very drunk.

Yes, this is a very good point. There’s just so much about these cases that seems to be in conflict, but your woman’s perspective is vital here, I think. To me, assuming the prostitutes of the time were filled with fear about Jack the Ripper (which does appear to be true), then even inebriated, it makes no sense that she would have invited someone like Aaron Kosminski into her room given his appearance. A man with a more “shabby genteel” appearance, as per the Joseph Lawende description on the night of Catherine Eddowes’ murder, might be deemed more respectable and less likely to cause trouble. I know which of the two scenarios I think is the more likely, though.

@@christerholmgren335 Dear Holmgren, your work on this case, including the detailed answers to the commentaries, is nothing short of extraordinary. That part about "Charley" is new to me; if it was not asked for too much, could you provide more details?

There is also the fact that Mizen quite likely will have read Neils view, where he said that it was not true that he was directed to the body by two men. If Mizen had been told about another PC, that would have made full sense to him; in Lechmeres version as described by Mizen, that was the exact thing that happened - a PC found the body, and then sent the carmen as messengers to himself. So no reason to come forward and protset - but Mizen must have been very surprised by the inquest!

Of course he is, I agree completely (I would, wouldn´t I?). The evidence does not allow for any other interpretation as far as I can see; you have to wallow in a sea of coincidences to believe otherwise. And why would you? I very much agree about his lonely nighttime working trek offered what would have offered by far his best option to kill. ”Working trek” should be regarded broadly, he likely did not stumble over victims along it, although it is not impossible er se that one or more of his victims were found in direction to the trek. The more logical suggestion is perhaps that he set out seeking opportunities and allowed time and space for it.

@@christerholmgren335 Hi Christer, Lechmere really is the only person who could be Jack The Ripper when you factor in the lies, odd behaviour, blood flow from Polly Nichols and him fitting the geographical profile. I genuinely find it fascinating the lengths people will go to (and the farcical explanations they'll come up with) to discredit the only suspect worth talking about in Lechmere. I can only think it's because they want to keep the guessing game going, whether that's financially motivated on their part is open to opinion. I'm working my way through your excellent book Cutting Point and wanted to acknowledge the sheer amount of research and excellent delivery you've put into it. A couple of questions, do you think any more information will surface regarding Lechmeres life, past latter years and family? Would you appear on the House of Lechmere channel for a thorough discussion with Edward Stow on the flaws with all the other suspects, it really would be great to see.

@@infamousaudio409 First of all, thank you for your kind words about Cutting Point! I agree about how the discrediting going on about Lechmere is not healthy. Nor is the unwillingness to engage in debate about him on certain hands. I hope - and believe - that this will change over time, and I think that process is ongoing. Do I think that more information will surface about Lechmere and his life and family? The answer is twofold: 1/ There is already an amassed wealth of information about these matters, and I believe you will be able to share in it in the future, when Edward Stow publishes. 2/ Lechmere is relatively new to the case students, and so it is quite likely that more information about him will surface. The Kosminski jam jar, for example, has arguably been scraped out very thoroughly, but that is not the case for the carman to the same extent. Would I appear on the House of Lechmere to cover the flaws of all the other suspects? Yes, gladly - although it would be a mammoth task. And personally, I prefer digging out evidence FOR Lechmere as opposed to evidence AGAINST other suspects. The efforts made on many peoples behalf to dismiss Lechmere have not inspired a wish to work from that direction, so to speak.

Thank you for that! To be perfectly honest, I tend to say that anybody would be able to make a very good case against Lechmere. It is a very straightforward matter, with no need for any leaps of faith. The material is there, ready to use. The one mindboggling matter is that it was not picked up on much sooner. When I look at the material that has been written about Lechmere, it is easy enough to see how he has become safeguarded by the various works. I often point to how Sugden in his masterful book writes that Lechmere and Paul ”gingerly” walked over to the body on the Bucks Row pavement. Such things creep in and colour how we think about the characters described, and I dare say that Lechmere was in many ways hidden in this way. Even today, I find myself arguing that he was able to see the body from the northern pavement of Bucks Row, and so it cannot have been all that dark, forgetting in the process that he probably never made that observation in the first place. It becomes treacherously easy to buy Lechmeres version of events, and it may well be that everybody fell in that trap for more than a century …

It is perhaps another sign of how little importance was ascribed to Lechmere and how insignificant to the proceedings he was regarded, that he was never described in any detail at all by anybody...

Sometimes eye witness reports are not reliable. There were a lot of drunk people back then as well. I believe no one saw the actual Ripper except Robert Paul and Polly Nichols. Charles Allen Lechmere.

​@@christerholmgren335Only just seen your reply. I agree with you. As you know I'm not fully subscribed to Lechmere being JTR but nor am I against it. The total lack of any description of him bothers me. His description, should it match any of what we know, would be very useful. I know a lot of evidence files were destroyed during WW2 etc, maybe we did have a subscription of him or some other evidence, we'll never know.

I agree entirely! Police carried a prejudice common at the time against those foreign born, (visitors and immigrants),Jews and the mentally disabled. Lechmere was not considered a suspect by any means at the scene or the inquest despite his stationary presence at the crime scene. I also agree that this interview is what we need in the Lechmere discussion. Richard gave a fair interview and Christer was an excellent guest. It is how all Lechmere conversations should be. Alas, I highly doubt that those on the “defense” will rely on their ineffective and angry behaviors. I confess that I have retaliated in anger on a certain JTR forum known to kick folks off that discuss Lechmere as a suspect. 😉

@@TiaMargarita I never have ventured into these forums due to the anti-Lechmere views.

Cognitive dissonance can be annoying. I wouldn’t have issue with someone who spoke like “I watched the videos.. i read the book.. maybe he was the ripper but I personally don’t think so” . Instead they put forward half assed arguments on why it’s IMPOSSIBLE compared to all the meaningful theories on why he MAY be. Shame most seem to lack basic understanding of epistemology.

Its only half a dozen or so posters from the Casebook forum that cause a stink about Lechmere. I posted briefly on the forum over a decade ago but soon left due to the zealous know it alls there. This was before the Lechmere theory gained any real traction, so the attitudes have always been around there.

@@PEMBYSGAMINGWORLD Good for you! My experience was so abysmal, that I have zero desire to go back.

Nobody would love that more than myself. But the person who has appointed himself top dog within the anti-Lechmereians, Steve Blomer, makes a point of avoiding such a debate. And he makes it another point to blame the Lechmereians for his own refusal to debate. According to him, those who promote Charles Lechmere as the killer are not civilized enough to do civilized debate, as I understand things.

​@christerholmgren335 I don't know how anyone explain away Lechmere being found near a dead body within 5 minutes of death. Lechmere either was the killer, or he had to have seen or heard the killer's escape. But he admitted that no one else was about. I've just ordered your book, can't wait to read!

To be fair, both carmen said that it was too dark to see the blood - which they (at least Paul) would likely have presumed was there. So we may have a situation where there was a pool of blood that had been visible with a helping light, as the carmen looked at her. But the overall blood evidence does speak for how it is likely in the extreme that Lechmere was the cutter. She bled for at least nine minutes after Lechmere "found" her at circa 3.45, meaning that fitting in another killer pre Lechmere becomes a very hard exercise. Likewise, there is the series of the carmen seeing no blood, Neil seeing a pool under her neck and Mizen seeing the same pool - that had run over the brim and trickled into the gutter. All the material suggests Lechmere was the killer, so one would anticipate that any sane judge of the matter would accept this as the likely scenario - but no, hardcore naysayers (and there are many of them) claim that another killer is not only possible, but somehow likelier. To them, priority number one is to dismiss Lechmeres candidacy. Good luck with that is what I say - people in general, with no vested interest in the matter, are really not that stupid.

The clothing would have soaked up the blood and polly was wearing a few layers, so the blood would have took a few minutes b4 it became visible

The Goulston Street wall writing? I tend not to delve into it, for the simple reason that it cannot be used in either way. It cannot prove or disprove a single thing, and is therefore a waste of time. That does not mean that it is disinteresting or unworthy of study, of course. It only means that I personally disregard it. My own take, for what it is worth (if anything) is that I don´t think that the killer wrote it. But - in line with the above - I could be woefully wrong. Not that it can be proven, though…

He gave a false name, but the right address, so this theory doesn’t quite hold up: had he been a suspect, the police would have had everything they needed to get into his private spaces. Edit: On the other hand, Christer Holmgren is also correct to assert that the epistemology used by the police at the time is almost certainly the reason why he was excluded from suspicion. An interesting question and thought experiment concerns what might have happened had Lechmere given his real surname to PC Mizen - would he have been followed up on as a potential suspect? I think the answer is “probably”.

​@@feliscoraxOnly one newspaper got his address. That is strange. I wonder if he went to ask a court clerk for the address.

The problem with Lilleys testimony is that if she overheard the murder, then she did so at 3.30. And Mizen noted at around 3.54 that Nichols was still bleeding. That means that for Lilley to be correct, Nichols would have bled uninterruptedly for 24 minutes. And professors Payne James and Thiblin both say that 3-5 minutes would be the expected bleeding out time, and Thiblin put the maximum time at 10-15 minutes, meaning that Lilleys time is way out. Very apparently, the coroner did not invest in Harriet Lilley, and in my view, wisely so.

You could be right there. I'd counter that by saying that the cuts could have been made later than 3.30. Maybe 3.35 or just after, and that the trickle from the neck wound as described by Lewellyn might have continued until 3.50 or just after, and would appear relatively fresh - although with some coagulation as described by Mizen. There's also the possibly that blood running from a neck wound could be described as 'running' as it has not continued to flow, or, as seen, is quite still and well clotted in parts - even at 3.55. Just my take on it.

Pete Clarke So what was he doing for a whole 5 minutes between 3.30 and 3.35. Just stand somewhere for 5 minutes and you'll see that's a pretty long time to be doing nothing. I doubt he got a book out and read a chapter.

Also, Harriet Lilley claimed she heard the painful moan of a woman yet not only did she NOT go over to the window to look out and try to locate the source of what she heard but she didn't tell her husband about it and ask him to go down to the front door to have a look either? Very odd. Nor did she make any mention of being too scared to do so. And what was she doing while Lechmere and Paul were there, then the police? She claimed she could hear much on the street. She doesn't appear to have come out to tell the police what she had heard just half an hour before, including two men conversing ten to fifteen minutes after the train It sounds like something she made up a few days later for a bit of attention.

Just a note regarding your reference to Cross/Lechmere. CAL’s name was never Cross.

May auto correct rot! Compliment not complement.

25 feet.

@@christerholmgren335 Hi Christer, so let’s take the middle ground and say Lechmere was standing 12.5 feet in the middle of the road. Admittedly this is subjective, but what side of the road do you believe Robert Paul was walking on to begin with when Lechmere became aware of him, the North side of the pavement or the South side? What is your interpretation of this? As was reported the following things were said by Lechmere at the inquest : 1. “Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed over to the body”. 2. “He stepped back and waited for the newcomer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down. The witness said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman." Robert Paul said this at the inquest : 1. “he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him.” 2. He said this in his ‘Remarkable statement’ : “He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth”. For me, my interpretation of all of this is that Robert Paul has practically crossed the road (he’s deliberately doing this to avoid the body, not Lechmere). It would suggest Robert Paul was initially walking on the South side of the pavement, the same side as Polly’s body, (which he should never have been on) as he’s not going to give a wide berth to Lechmere by walking into a wall on the North side if Lechmere is standing in the middle of the road. If he did give Lechmere a wide berth by being on the North side of the pavement, and he say’s he steps onto the roadway, he would have been heading right on for walking on to Polly’s body anyway, like you said the road was only 25 feet wide, so there’s no need for Lechmere to have pulled him across the road and say “come over here” to see it. Interested on your thoughts…. Edward Stow gave me his opinion on Robert Paul’s arrival time for work that morning of 3.55 a.m. (although I believe it was 5 minutes earlier). A bit early for someone who supposedly at all times during his commute to work that morning was running late. I know you said we don’t know his shift times, but I would wager it was a 4 a.m. start. I have since asked him if he could demonstrate in a video how fast Lechmere would have been walking to arrive for work at 4 a.m. after parting ways with Robert Paul at Corbet’s Place at 3.55 a.m. I’m guessing Edward’s over 6 feet tall, so if he could use someone closer to the average height that witnesses described that would be more accurate, as I guess Edward’s stride would be almost twice as much as someone a foot shorter than him (preferably wearing heavy boots too).

@@andy5xcool Robert Paul walked down Bucks Row on the northern pavement - it is in the material. And I think Lechmere stood in the road, and then moved towards the northern pavement as Paul drew closer, which was when Paul tried to avoid him by giving him that wide berth. At that stage, Lechmere turned back towards the southern pavement, placed his hand on Pauls shoulder and spoke. That is how I read it.

@@christerholmgren335 Thanks for the reply Christer. Just to go off on a bit of a tangent, if you have an opinion on this, do you believe JTR was left handed, right handed or ambidextrous?

@@andy5xcool You said you were going somewhere with your original question, did you get there? ...if so i missed it. Why do you assume Paul "deliberately moved into the road to avoid Nichols` body"

Bravo! You have understood what scores of people fail to grasp!! Well done, Sir.

A lot of people in the Victorian times went by more than one name. There are several examples in the JTR case alone. Lechmere seems to have used the name Cross for formal, law stuff. Perhaps because his step father was a policeman he thought it carried more weight. Who knows. But I don’t think there’s anything more in it than that.

There was never any cerrtainty that a PC would be on time every step+ of the way, though - if something happened, the PC intervened, and was thereafter behind on his timings. But I think it is reasonable to say that the measured tread of a PC was as such easy to recognize for a colleague.

Very interesting, new information for me.

Joseph James de Angelo, the Golden State killer, gave up HIS spree voluntarily in 1986. It happens, you know. And the FBI have stated that the idea that serial killers cannot stop is a myth only. What I think governs how people think about our specific case is the fact that there were supposedly five slayings (if we accept the so called canon) in ten weeks only, and there was an escalation of violence in between the deeds. That is a good reason to speculate that he would have carried on. Then again, I believe that he DID carry on - I think that Liz Jackson in the summer of 1889 and the Pinchin Street deed in September of the same year were killed by Lechmere. And a few years later, when he had a stall at Broadway market, two women were found in pieces in Regents Canal, very close by. Their deaths were ruled accidental and possibly caused by boat propellers, but it could equally be that they were killed, dismembered and thrown in the canal. Part of the first Thames Torso victim, the Rainham victim, ended up in Regents Canal too, back in 1887.

Good questions. Healthy open mindedness! Rewatch the video concerning JTR’s possible continued killing using another MO. There is an old fashioned myth that serial killers kill unless they are caught, prevented from killing or die. FBI, police and other law enforcement authorities have dismissed this myth. Some serial killers do stop. Google, Dennis Rader, BTK as just one example. I believe that there were only two suspects out of 333 who left for America. Tumblety and HH Holmes. HH Holmes was in London but not in the desperately poor area that is Whitechapel. There were no killings using the JTR MO recorded in American history then or since.

Gary Ridgway was the most prolific serial killer in US history. Likely around 70 or so victims. The overwhelming vast majority of them were during 1982-1984. Very few confirmed after that point, yet he wasn't caught until the 2000s. He has no confirmed kills after 1993. If someone like Ridgway can cool off I see no reason why Jack couldn't cool off, or slow down then finally stop.

@@lyndoncmp5751 Two other serial killers who stopped are BTK and the Golden State killer.

Margaret Yes. There are probably others that stopped but were never caught.... because they stopped. Did the Long Island serial killer stop? Zodiac?

Do you believe that Joseph James de Angelo (a family man, just like Lechmere, by the way) was the Golden State killer, as proven by DNA evidence? He stopped short in 1986 after having killed thirteen people in a very sadistic manner, and he didn´t kill for the 30 plus years after the 1986 slaying of Janelle Cruz. How about that case? How could he do it, if Lechmere could not have done it? What is it that tell the two apart in such a dramatic manner? Plus, of course, how do you know that Lechmere stopped killing? The thing about uncaught killers, isn´t that how we cannot say if and when they stopped killing? Personally speaking, your misgivings are based on some commodity lighter than helium. I do not know chemistry well enough to name it, though, but I hope you can see where I am coming from anyway.

You do realise there are many serial killers who stopped killing for years and before their deaths correct? The golden state killer and BTK are two recent ones that show your reasoning is flawed.

Many have speculated along this line, but I don´t think it is possible. The goods train Lilley would have referred to passed Bucks Row at 3.30, and Charles Lechmere ”found” the body of Polly Nichols at around 3.45, a full quarter of an hour after this point in time. This time was fixed at the inquest, and it was fixed by many independent parameters. Therefore, the train was long gone and the streets were utterly quite at the time the two carmen met in Bucks Row, right by the body of Polly Nichols. For what it´s worth, we also have Lechmere himself saying that he should have heard if anybody moved up at the murder site as he entered Bucks Row. If there had been a steam train puffing through, he would not have stood a chance to do so, as you may agree about. In my view, Harriet Lilley is a complete waste of time, and it would seem that the police and coroner entertained the same conviction. The one thing she has to offer is confusion. It is of course always tempting to accept witness testimony that so clearly seems to mirror what we assume happened, but I would warn against it. Many witnesses are sadly very unreliable, and the timings involved in the Nichols deed tells me that Lilley either belongs to this category - or she overheard somebody/something else entirely.

@@christerholmgren335 Also, we have no confirmation that Lechmere actually left his home at 3:30 either which make Mrs Lilley's statement irrelevant anyway. I am regular as clockwork when i go to work and if i need to break my routine - say for example: fill my car with fuel, then i allow extra time so i won't be late. If he had an urgent need to satisfy his bloodlust then he would have made the extra time before making sure he could go about his day as normal. Another example of a serial killer going about his day as normal was Jeffrey Dahmer who went to work one day with his packed lunch in one compartment of his bag and a severed head in the other! Lechmere fits like you say.

@@christerholmgren335 I disagree her statement is irrelevant or a waste of time. She described the moans which must have been Polly’s death and she describes the whispers which must have been Paul and Charles at her body discussing the situation. Based on what she says, I think the killer knew the area well and knew the luggage train was about to pass at that time and took Polly to the scene and slit her at precisely when the train passed to obscure her screams. He continued with his mutilation for a short while and was then disturbed. Whether that was Lechmere or somebody else, we do not know. However, we can assume Lechmere knew the train timetables and what time they passed because that was his daily route to work so it’s plausible that he could be the perpetrator.

The likeliest with so few candidates, that long ago? Almost certainly anybody else is more likely (more of them you see).

I think there would have been various answers to the question; some would get in deep trouble over it, and others would not. A very good worker was not somebody you want to let go, not then and not now. The difference is that there was much less of a safety net for the workers back then, meaning that in general, they would be more cautious not to be late.

Thomas Cross had been dead for nineteen years in 1888. I doubt that anybody remembered him in the cop shop. But if Charles wanted to obscure his Lechmere name, then the Cross name would be a legal way of doing it.

@@christerholmgren335 Of course he is a top suspect!. but still to this day.. "If you wish to be known by a different name you can change your name(s) (forenames, middle names, and surnames) at any time, provided you do not intend to deceive or defraud anyone.".....(Citizens Advice site)...and from Gov.uk "You do not have to follow a legal process to start using a new name"....

Such a thing would take very convincing evidence, because as a rule, sexual serial killers are almost always lone creatures. Yes, there are exceptions to that rule, but it is nevertheless the rule. And I would say that eviscerating serial killers are even less likely to be working in couples than "ordinary" sexual serial killers, if you like.

If the bodies weren't killed at the exact sites they were found, that would be plausible, 2 person killers usually take their prey elsewhere. I believe it was one person: Charles Allen lechmere.

I agree. It was two people. One of them was Mary Pearcey. Mary Pearcey killed Mary Kelly. Mary Pearcey is the person who witnesses mistook for Mary Kelly.

Professor Jason Payne James and professor Ingemar Thiblin were both well aquainted with how Nichols was heavily drunk as she spoke to Emily Holland, so they weighed that parameter in. On the warmth of Nichols´ body, Dr Llewellyn said at the inquest that "Her hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm." And Llewellyn was in place around twentyfive minutes to half an hour after Paul and Lechmere were by the body. It is a common enough thing to have cold hands, even when alive and kicking, I know that quite well from personal experience. A matter that has had a large impact on this issue is how Paul is quoted in his Lloyds Weekly interview from the 2nd as saying "The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time", but that seemingly owes to a disliking of the police on behalf of Paul, and if we check the article a bit more closely, we will also find that Paul said that "I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold." That is the extent to which Paul seems to have checked for warmth, he felt the hands. And we know that the rest was warm, as per Dr Llewellyn.

@Christer Holmgren Didn't Paul also say he felt her chest and thought she was still breathing ,and that is why he wanted to sit her up? I would have thought that if this was the case. Her chest area would have still been warm. There certainly seems to be stories from one to another that just don't support each others findings. As for the times being out. Well there is no saying that their watches were showing the right time, if in fact they did have watches, and the times o them were correct,or even clocks in their house's I'm always under the saying that the killer would be the last one to see her alive and / or the first one to see her dead. I guess as Holmes once said. After you Eliminate the impossible, what ever is left. However, improbable must be the truth. What ever the out come its a story that will run for another Hundred years and so on.

@@howling_at_the_moon1 Her chest area was covered by her garments, so Paul was not able to palpate for temperature there. And even if he had been, how would you explain that she was cold when Paul felt her, and warm 30 minutes later, as established by a professional medico? Wynne Baxter was able to establish that Lechmere "found" Nichols at 3.45 or not far off that time. The timepieces LLewellyn and Paul had gone by would arguably have been checked before that verdict was passed. The story will certainly run for centuries to come. But I believe it will be told in another manner. And I believe that the carman will be always be a vital part of those stories.

The other point which is not considered is the five minutes between Paul and Lech leaving the scene and the arrival of Neil. That gave ample opportunity for someone unknown to have inflicted the knife wounds. Paul and Lech did not see any wounds or blood and Paul even expressed the opinion she was alive. The professors said she could have bled out in three or five minutes which would be consistent with the time lapse between her being knifed and Neil discovering the pool of blood.

Yes, it is an absolute gem - which amazingly nobody had anything to say about for more than a hundred years!

Lech said "you are wanted" there. The implication is that an official was waiting for him beside the dead / drunk body.

@@thomashahn631Not necessarily. It’s also a rather idiomatic way of describing a necessity - as in “Something has happened and your attention is needed down yonder” - which is fairly common in older working class speech. This is only anecdotal, but that’s how my 80 year old uncle speaks even to this day, which is why this interpretation springs to mind. But, keep in mind that this would not be enough to exculpate Lechmere from guilt.

@@thomashahn631 He might simply have meant to convey that a police presence was required at the scene of an ill or injured person.

I agree with you entirely. I think Edward Stow said THE reason P.C. Neill believed he was the first to discover the body was because the policemen never conferred at the scene. So which is it? They did talk in which case they agreed on a time? Or they didn’t talk in which case P.C. Neill believed he was the first to discover the body?

We cannot tell where Paul was when Lechmere spoke to Mizen. But we CAN tell that Mizen never said that two men approached and spoke to him. He said that one man did so. The implication is therefore that Paul did not participate in the exchange. Lechmere would have had time to kill Nichols. Baxter established in his summing up of the case that the time at which the body was found was not far off 3.45. This, Baxter said, was FIXED by numerous independent data. And independent data do not lie. So when the clock struck 3.45, Charles Lechmere had been en route to work for around 15 minutes, during which time he had covered a stretch that takes 7 minutes to walk. I am not forgetting, as you suggest, that Thain was already on his way to Llewellyn when Mizen got to the site. If you read my book, you will see that I have Neil in place at 3.51, Thain arriving at 3.52 and immediately being sent off to Whitechapel Road, and Mizen arriving at 3.54. We know that when Mizen arrived, only Neil was in place at the site, Mizen says this himself. So no, I am forgetting nothing, I’ m afraid. I agree with you, however, that the 3.45 timings of the PCs were problematic. It is actually worse - they were wrong. The 3.45 finding time is well anchored by how Thain was at the site 3.52 and how he then got to Llewellyn at 3.55. This will have been one of the independent data that Baxter used to establish the timeline and fix Lechmeres ”finding” the body to 3.45. If, as you propose, Thain was sent to Llewellyn at 3.46, he would have arrived there at 3.48-3.49. He did not. He arrived at 3.55, as per Llewellyn himself. The discrepancy was what originally made Baxter think that Thain must have stopped by at the knackers to fetch his cape, loosing valuable time. However, this suspicion was dissolved by Tomkins’ testimony, and it was thus found out that the PCs timing of 3.45 was wrong. You also say that I would have claimed things on Baxters behalf that he never said, and that is regrettable. I can only direct you to the paper reports from the last inquest day, where you will find that Baxter said that the 3.45 was the time at which the finding of the body was fixed. It could not be far off that time, Baxter tells us. This matter has always been a sticking point between the defence and the prosecution, so to speak. The ones speaking for the defence claim that the three PCs cannot possibly all have been wrong. However, it must be accepted that the 3.45 timing on behalf of the three PCs may well have been something they conferred about at the murder site, where they were all present after Mizen had arrived back with the ambulance. Regardless of that, why would we today claim that the three PCs MUST be right, when coroner Baxter back in 1888 was able to fix the finding time of the body to 3.45? We also know that Donald Swanson, who before the summing up on Baxters behalf had signed a report where it was suggested that the body was found at 3.40, after that summing up amended that time to 3.45! Why? Because, of course, it had at that stage been found out that the three PCs timings were simply wrong! And one of the papers reporting from the inquest wrote that it was clear that the murder must have taken place between 3.15 (when Neil passed the murder site and noone was there) and 3.45 (when Lechmere was believed to have arrived at the body). If the three PCs had been deemed correct, then that paper should have written that the murder must have taken place between 3.15 and 3.40, because if the PCs were correct, then 3.40 would have been the finding time. But they did not write that, because it had been shown that 3.45 was the time the body was found. And suddenly, the time at which Thain was sent off by Neil fits perfectly with the time he arrived at Llewellyns, whereas in your scenario you say that it cannot have been a fit. And why? Becasue you refuse to believe that the PCs could have been wrong. Sorry, but they were, and it was proven by way of comparing independent data, the only real way to prove things conclusively in matters like these.

"if CAL left home at about 3:30 he simply had no time to kill poor Polly" A 7 or 8 minute walk = 3.37 or 3.38. That's if he left bang on 3.30 which is unlikely. How is that "no time" especially if Paul interrupted him? I wouldn't get too caught up in exact timings. Every timing seems to be in blocks of 5 minute marks. 3.30, 3.40, 3.45 etc. Nothing is ever 3.32, 3.43, 3.47 etc. Timings are nowhere near exact. Nor was there any digital synchronisation like there is now. My phone has the exact same time as my laptop, which has the exact same time as my tv. It wasnt like that back then. Exact timings are a red herring.

@@andy5xcool They could well have agreed on a time without the carmen having been mentioned. Neil and Thain would not have known about them and Mizen would have been certain that Neil was the one who had sent them, so why discuss them at all? Also, I think you may have misunderstood Edward Stow, since I beleive he is of the exact same sentiment about this as I am.

@@lyndoncmp5751 The times could be checked in retrospect, though - like for example the clocks Dr Llewellyn and Robert Paul referred to. If they could be shown to be correct and reliable, then we know with certainty that 3.45 or very close to 3.45 was when the body was found. And coroner Baxter says that this time was fixed by many independent data, so I beleive these checks were made.

If we work from the assumption that the killer wanted to extract specifically uteri and kidneys, then it stands to reason that he would have needed some level of light to accomplish it. But if we instead look at the option that he was willing to grab anything he laid his hands on, that changes the game. If so, he would only need to cut the belly open and then put his hand into the abdominal cavity and feel around, grabbing what he came across. Regardless of where we go on that issue, there is also the fact that there was at least some little light available at the murder sites. The darkest spot seems to have been Dutfields Yard, but he didn´t eviscerate Stride. So we are left with Mitre Square perhaps being the darkest site where he did take out organs, and we know from the Eddowes inquest that Dr Sequeira said that "Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed", and so it seems that there was never any real problem when it comes to the light available to the killer. As for whether or not Lechmere had an alibi for any of the murders, I can only say that if he did, it is not on any sort of surviving record. And the fact that the police had him down as "Cross" in their reports clearly suggests that he was never a suspect in any way and never reseraarched in any sort of depth. So in my view, he was never contacted by the police again after the Nichols inquest and never asked to produce any alibi.

Excellent question. Christer gives an excellent answer.

@@christerholmgren335 Thank you for elucidating the light issue. I knew that there was enough light to “do the deed” but did not know the specifics. Ty!

If Lechmere worked on the days of Chapman and Kelly murders, he could not have committed those murders on the way to work and still gotten to work on time.

Otis Dylan JTR didn't kill in daylight and didn't slice and dice in daylight. He liked and worked in the darkness. Annie Chapman was most likely killed hours before Phillips examined her, just as her said. In the dark. Possibly between 3.30 and 4.00. Not when people are up and about in daylight using back yards, walking through hallways looking out the window etc. Kelly was killed the day of a public holiday for many. Not sure carmen would be working on Lord Mayor's Show day.

It is an unknown which clocks struck the quarter hours and which did not.

All very true. I also believe that the combined fact that Lechmere had sought out the police twice and that the police had originally shunned Pauls story in Lloyds Weekly as a lie, helped Charles Lechmere immensely. It vaccinated him against any further police interest, since the police had already embarrassed themselves once and were not going to have a second go at it.

The obvious answer is of course to buy more time. Cover up a victim and flee gives you more time to get away as the one who disturbed you still has to figure out what has happened when he reaches the body and realize there is in fact a murder victim on the ground before he would raise the alarm. Seems like a smart thing to do, no ? On the same topic : why does Christer and other Lechmerians find it a given Polly Nichols was covered up or even that the killer was disturbed ? The job was done, she was strangled, her throat was cut and she was severely ripped (almost disemboweled) Her clothes on the other hand were not ripped. The killer just let them fall down on her body and that was that. Btw. the fact now her throat was covered too and Paul undid that (but failed to notice it) is very new to me I must admit. This is getting a bit weird isn't it ?

Clay Allison If JTR had the time to escape unseen and unheard by Lechmere or Paul then he wouldn't need to buy MORE time by covering up the wounds. He's already off and away from the spot. No need to cover the wounds up. He didn't cover up Chapman and Eddowes to facilitate his escape. Its suspected JTR was interrupted because he didn't finish the job like he did with Chapman and Eddowes, and there were still faint signs of life left with Polly plus the neck wound hadn't bled much, ergo whoever found the body must have come across it very very close to when the killer was doing the deed and interrupted said killer. Be it Lechmere or Paul doing the interrupting.

​@@clayallison7321 "The obvious answer is of course to buy more time. Cover up a victim and flee gives you more time to get away as the one who disturbed you still has to figure out what has happened when he reaches the body and realize there is in fact a murder victim on the ground before he would raise the alarm" You have to go to a general hypothetical scenario in order to argue this point. Its not general or hypothetical, we know the street and the scenario. If the killer was disturbed on Bucks Row they would just run, the disturber would be too close if the disturbed could see or hear them, and escape the other way would be easy. Also, like you ignored.... this links to my point of the 'previous people' ... Polly was very fresh as argued perfectly by Christer in this interview based on numerous statements and scientific rules. the streets were deserted, how many more people going back how long can you go ? the blood evidence suggests 10 minutes is pushing it. The police checks mean 12-13 minutes the absolute maximum. No one saw anyone leave the scene, there is no evidence of anyone previously being at the scene and everything points to Letchmere being first at the scene. So, yes... there could have been two people in the street before Letchmere, with 5 minutes ( realistic maximum time pre 3,45 discovery), one to disturb and one to be the killer. The killer decided to cover up the wounds to make it look like she was drunk and then strangely run away, no one saw him do this , and then the disturber decided not to say anything about his key sighting of the most famous killer in history. Nice logic. "why does Christer and other Lechmerians find it a given Polly Nichols was covered up or even that the killer was disturbed ? The job was done, she was strangled, her throat was cut and she was severely ripped (almost disemboweled) Her clothes on the other hand were not ripped. The killer just let them fall down on her body and that was that" Because in all other killings the narcissistic serial killer displayed his eviceration of the female . Strangely in this one case he did the exact opposite, the one case where strangely a man was found with the body. Not difficult that one. "Btw. the fact now her throat was covered too and Paul undid that (but failed to notice it) is very new to me I must admit. This is getting a bit weird isn't it ?" Not sure what you mean but since she was near decapitated and neither of them noticed is pretty good evidence that she was left to look like she wasn't dead. Happy for polite debate so keep em coming !

@@clayallison7321 We can only suggest that "the job was done" if we predispose that the killer did not intend to eviscerate Nichols. And why would we predispose that?

@@christerholmgren335 Because he hadn't before with Martha Tabram ? As often seen with serial killers their MO evolves as they are learning and 'getting better' at what they do. Tabram was stabbed, but not ripped. Nichols was ripped but not eviscerated. Chapman was eviscerated but without face mutilations. Eddowes was eviscerated and her face mutilated. And we know what the next step was with Kelly. (I'm obviously leaving out Stride) Looking at the build up in what was done to the different victims I don't see a reason why the 'job wasn't done'

Thompson lived nearby the Kelly murder scene, and he was known to carry a razor around, plus he had a history involving a romantic relationship with a prostitute. That does not make him a worse suspect than many others, on the contrary. But he is way behind a man who was found with a recently slain victim at a time very close to her desth (or directly on it) and went on to hide his identity, who had paths that corresponded with the murders and so on. Very many are very protective about their chosen suspects. What I recommend is to put any other suspect to a homicide detective, and then put Lechmere to him or her and let him or her choose …

Zero evidence connects him to the murders.

@@christerholmgren335 I must point out, as is my understanding, Thompson carried a dissecting scalpel - not a razor. He completed (or rather, repeated as he never graduated) medical school three times and so had anatomical knowledge, having dissected so many cadavers that his father remarked on the amount of money he was having to spend for Francis to do so. He dissected his sister's doll when he was a child- an early sign of serial killer pathology. He wrote poetry prior to the murders in Whitechapel, about a knight cutting open a woman's abdomen and removing twin fetuses as a metaphor for lust and the abhorrent loathing such desires brought about in him. So there we have a connection between sex and mutilation. Thompson also left Whitechapel soon after the Kelly murder. I wouldn't discount Lechmere as a suspect and his presence at the crime scene in Bucks Row, his decision to flit between the names Lechmere and Cross as well as his route to work corresponding with the crime scenes do present as compelling. The question that keeps coming to mind for me with regard to Thompson is, if we discount his presence in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, knowing what we know about Thompson's psychology alone, does he tick the boxes sufficiently to be considered a potential serial killer? If he does, then we place him back in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, the idea of him being the culprit makes even more sense.

@@musclecactus5183 A scalpel, yes, that is correct. I am a friend of Richard Patterson and so I should have remembered that. Nevertheless, I see no proven link between Thompson and the case at all, and I am extremely wary of those who claim that the psychology of their favoured suspect matches that of the Ripper. As I said, Thompson is not one of the worse suspects, but he remains a country mile behind Lechmere in my opinion. One is linked to the case factually, the other is not. One has a proven geographical correlation to the murder sites, the other has not. And so on. Anyway, I am grateful that so many people do so much work on so many suspects, or perceived suspects. It makes for a fuller case.

@@TiaMargarita Then we would be getting into the murky waters of what defines 'evidence'. Can we place him at the scene of the crimes directly as we can Lechmere at the first of the canonical five? No. But we can place him in Whitechapel. We can say he had anatomical knowledge and experience of dissecting bodies. We can say he had a strained relationship with a prostitute. We can say he carried a dissecting scalpel. We can say he had written poetry about mutilation of women and cannibalism. We can say he left Whitechapel soon after the Kelly murder.

He must have had a timepiece of his own, or - more likely - have heard a clock (could have been the brewery clock in Bath Street) strike the quarter hour just as he entered Bucks Row.

He would likely have come forward as a result of the LLoyds interview, yes. That was published on the 2nd of September, a Sunday. I beleive he came forward on the Sunday evening or on Monday morning, since he had been outed by Paul as a "man standing where the body was". The police would have been very interested in him, had he not come forward. Ironically, the police did not believe Pauls account, as proven by how they on Sunday evening denied that two men had shown Neil to the murder site; Neil was adamant that he was the finder and he testified to that effect on the first day of the inquest. You write that Lechmere was only seen in dim light, but keep in. mind that Mizen had no problems identifying his at the inquest. The fact that Mizen only did so at this stage is testimony to how Lechmere only came forward very late in the process. It would probably been Lechgmeres hope that nobody would ge to know about his involvement in the matter, and as we can see, that dream was very near to coming true.

@@christerholmgren335 It is one thing to identify a man in court who has come forward himself and says he was with you on the night and a whole other to find that man if he is hiding or to describe him to your peers. Anyway, it still doesn't make sense, does it ? He confronted Paul and directed him towards the victim (a risky thing to do as he knew there was a slain corpse on the ground and the police would undoubtedly get involved), and on top of that he then approached Mizen (who probably had a lantern) with a good probability he had fresh blood on him and with a bloody knife in his pocket, telling him a blatant lie. He had no control over that situation or Mizens reaction and all sorts of things could go horribly wrong from his point of view ("give your name and address please", "turn out your pockets", "a woman you say with another copper ? Ok, show me where", etc.) He did all that to get away from the scene without giving any personal information but with the certain knowledge within 5 minutes Mizen would have realized something was seriously wrong when he met no other PC at the crime scene and he would be a wanted man. In fact he must have been very surprised he didn't hear whistles and rattles behind him as the certain sign a manhunt had begun. Yet, an interview in LLoyds wherein was said there were 2 man at the scene with a cold body (he being n° 1) prior to the discovery by Neil should make him come forward ? As far as he knew the police was well aware of him. Mizen knew (he lied to his face). And the police were already looking for him . (If Mizen saw that article he would certainly think his name was Robert Paul). Why give up his anonymity he took so much risk for to protect and come forward (also having to explain himself about lying to Mizen) ? It gave the Police quite some problems to locate Paul whose name was in the paper, although they had 3 angles to work with. As far as I can see with Cross the police could only hope he would turn up again in Bucks Row, which he could easily avoid using another route to work (The 'Tabram route' comes to mind). Worst case scenario, if the police found him eventually, he could just play dumb and claim he thought he already had done his duty by contacting Mizen. We can't use hindsight when looking at Cross's motivation to come forward. He couldn't know what happened or was said with Mizen and Neil, that the police didn't believe Paul and that he wasn't a wanted man. He had no idea in fact what the Police knew, thought or maybe held back from the press, all he knew was that he lied his way past the Police, without giving them any personal information and had gotten home safely. It simply does not make sense in my view, if he was indeed the killer, to come forward at that point.

Quite often these killers like to inject themselves into the case. That's one reason. Another could have just been sheer arrogance. Or, if he was unsure as to whether or not they may have found out his real name....preventative measure....he wouldn't have to explain why they had to come looking for him for his testimony,etc. And,lastly, applying logical thinking to a maniac never works. You do raise good points,but I happen to believe this theory.

@@alexandermacdougall7873 That was going to be my point as well. A certain type of killer loves to taunt police and press, bring themselves as close to the case as they can by providing tips or volunteering to aid in police searches, etc. The thrill of almost being caught seems to bring them the same kind of pleasure the murder itself does.

Just like.a pyro likes to hang out in the crowd and watch a building burn,,, and hear what the police have for evidence