Was Charles Allen Lechmere Really Jack The Ripper?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 พ.ย. 2022
- The two books mentioned in the video are:-
Inside Buck's Row - By Steven E. Blomer, which can be bought from his Facebook page
profile.php?...
Cutting Point - By Christer Holmgren, which is available from Amazon.
www.amazon.co.uk/Cutting-Poin...
If anyone is named as a major suspect in the eternal quest to find the identity of Jack the Ripper, then the most important factor in assessing them as a viable candidate is putting them at the scene of the at the time when the murders were taking place. The case against any suspect falls apart if this cannot be done.
In recent years, one person, who most certainly was at the scene of a Jack the Ripper crime at around the time that it took place is Charles Allen Lechmere.
But look for him in any contemporary accounts of the Whitechapel murders and you will find that he is conspicuous by his absence. There is no mention of Charles Lechmere in any newspaper reports or official documents on the case.
But he is there, albeit he has been better known to students of the Ripper murders, as Charles Cross, the Pickfords carman who found the body of the first of the canonical five victims - Mary Nichols.
Cross was, in fact, the surname of his stepfather, a police constable by the name of Thomas Cross, and, for some reason, Lechmere gave his name as Charles Cross when he testified at the inquest into the death of Mary Nichols.
However, this has raised a red flag with some researchers, and they have used this apparent deceit to suggest that Charles Allen Lechmere was not the finder of the body of Mary Nichols, but was, in fact, but that he was, in fact, her murderer. They then go on to put him in the frame for the wider series of Whitechapel murders, and as the perpetrator of another series of crimes that took place around the same time - the Thames Torso murders.
In this video, Steve Blomer - author of "Inside Buck's Row" - and Richard Jones weigh up the evidence against Charles Allen Lechmere, and assess the viability of the case against him based on the few facts that we know about him.
![เจอประจำ ตอน เปิดเทอมวันแรก [EP.29]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eFK-B836i60/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 69 | คู่เอก "กุหลาบดำ vs นาบิล"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PNM6U8e_HMo/mqdefault.jpg)
He wouldn't kill Robert Paul because Robert Paul isn't a small woman. Paul could have put up a fight, cried out, woke up the street.. he'd have been caught... and how would he explain 2 bodies if he didn't get caught and someone else came along?
Better to string Paul along with, "Oh look what I found".
JTR modus operandi is to befriend, strangle/choke then stab eventually mutilating. Paul appears to be younger and stronger than Lechmere which is probably what saved him tbh.
My first thought.
Of course it's the case that Lechmere can't be considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's also true of every Jack the Ripper suspect that you care to name. That's what makes the case interesting: It's an unsolved mystery. When discussing Ripper suspects, one should never think that one can come to a final answer. The idea, rather, is to determine how likely or plausible each suspect is.
I agree.
After 134 years this is actually the wrong way to look at it. Even at the time he should have been grilled and would likely have been unmasked by confrontation with several late afternoon witnesses (not Schwartz) of the Stride case. The decisive fact is that he was the discoverer of the first body of the most famous case in British history, in fact one of the most famous events in all British history, and for 32 years he never mentioned this at any family gatherings. Imagine a Titanic survivor concealing for 30 years they ever were on the ship... The idea he could be innocent, false name/deceptive statements and all, does not stand scrutiny. It is still possible in the absolute sense, but not to the level of a reasonable doubt.
Correct. And I do not find him a very plausible suspect.
@@wrathofatlantis2316 Or, imagine a veteran of WWII who spends the next 40-50 years never talking about the horrors he experiences, with family or anyone else. Oh, wait, that happens more often than not.
I am not aware of anything that would have prompted the authorities to "grill" Cross/Lechmere as you suggest. Even if he was the Nichols murderer, nothing in his testimony or that of others that makes him, at the time, appear suspect. That he eluded suspicion for well over a century, only to become a circumstantial figure recently, does not mean that failure to view him as suspect was unreasonable then. At the time of the Nichols murder, there is no "Jack the Ripper," there is no long string of Whitechapel murders, there is no "most famous case in British history." That's all hindsight, and his place as a suspect remains purely speculative, as with all others.
@@timlarson7696 LOL. Okay
What's amazing is the number of people out and about at 4am. The victim, the murderer, two witnesses and two policemen. 6 people in or around that one little street is the space of an hour or two
Well London was the most populated city on earth at the time
probably because people were very poor and had to walk to work, so they had to leave the house extremely early.
In the Holmgren documentary, Andy Griffiths clearly stated that Lechmere by today's police standards could not be overlooked until he was plausibly eliminated from being the prime suspect. He was at the scene of the crime alone with the victim, and noone to corroborate his story within minutes of the time of death. Even when leaving home at three thirty by his own account, it takes approximately 7 minutes to get to the murder site, meaning he would have arrived at Buck's Row eight minutes prior to her approximate time of death.
The police would have some serious questions about this individual before any outlandish talk of celebrity suspects and fanciful plots.
Maybe he was eliminated. Most of the files have been lost, after all. I mean the police went through hundreds of locals, it seems more likely than not that they'd give him a look-over.
@@AC-hw5rs well they failed to question other people in the area. And he used the name Cross. Did he know that his bigamist stepfather would have been remembered? they didn't " have a Profile" for serial killers then. They didn't think a "Normal" person could do something like this. It HAD to be some kind of "Deviant" Much different than we would view the crime today.
@@AC-hw5rs Peter Sutcliffe was eliminated by police during their Yorkshire ripper enquiries
You're saying that 3:45 was her time of death, but 3:45 was when PC Mizen said that Lechmere and Paul told him what they saw. If Lechmere entered Buck's Row at 3:37, that would mean that it took 8 minutes for him to enter Buck's Row, Paul to enter it, the two of them look at the body and talk about it, and both walk to PC Mizen. That leaves very little time for Lechmere to be alone with Nicolls.
Totally agree. Griffiths said exactly what I'd been thinking (except he's a better source).. Until someone can eliminate Lechmere in Nichol's death, no one else can truly be considered. The later deaths of Kelly and Chapman bothered me some until I saw another video which suggested Lechmere could have slipped away from his cart for enough time to do it. The profile fit and the geography fit. The suggestion he killed Chapman in a location that might have gotten the police to consider Robert Paul the Ripper also made sense.
I've always loved the massive coincidence that I've loved documentaries about Jack the ripper since I was quite young, but it wasn't until I was 27 years old that I found the crazy coincidence that my name is Robert Paul Cross obviously a mix of Robert Paul and Charles Cross' names, and when I found this coincidence I was working for Pickfords, the same company Charles Cross worked for. Random coincidence 😁👍
are you related to thomas cross?
you’re the reincarnation bro
Why didn't lechmere see or hear anything before finding Nichols? Of course we cannot say it's him but he has to be of enormous interest.
Why is it so hard to believe that the Ripper heard Charles coming and took off. I don’t understand why people find this hard to believe. Then of course Charles would be first person to see Pauline. I don’t know either way but that is just as plausible as if he actually killed her
I am in the Lechmere camp, so I am pretty heartened by the comments below. Nevertheless, I am also open to critiques of the theory, as we all should be. I think it's dangerous being wedded to anyone idea, so lets just say, he piques my interest more than the others. When I saw the documentary featuring Lechmere, I was prepared for another eye-roller, and some easily discredited suspected. However, what struck me was A) He's the sort of unremarkable bloke who could slip under the radar, he would have also been around a lot of animal blood and muck, so wouldn't have been unusual. B) He had extensive history in and around the locations where many murders occurred. C) His previous residences, moreover his flat on Doveton street, were all within the radius of Scotland Yards evaluation of the suspects accomodation. While not part of the documentary, and part of an earlier study, it's fascinating anecdotal evidence. D) Admittedly, Doveton Street, was on the limits of the estimation, but it was certainly there. Moreover, his route to work, indeed his job saw him consistently near "Flower and Dean." So, sure there's all manner of speculation and so forth, but which of the suspects aren't involved in speculation.
I’ve been a fan of the Lechmere theory for a long time. Lately, however, I can’t seem to get over the issue of him not trying to escape. Why would he not just get out of there when he saw Paul. If you’re about to commit a horrible and time-consuming murder there, you must have some escape plan. If he had time to prop up the body before Paul was near, he had time to escape as well. They didn’t find a policeman right away, so it’s not as if he was trapped between Paul and a policeman blocking his escape. Even then, there were multiple escape routes out of Buck’s Row.
Firstly, there is No evidence let alone Proof, that Cross lived at that address & so, no Proof that Cross is Lechmere. An inquest document online - Chas. Andrew Cross. The fact of the matter is - no killer, let alone a Knife killer, would approach a witness who has Seen him now, then walks away chatting with him & then makes himself Known to the Cops. Then, continues skulking around the streets in the early morning hours when Many people know he was on the scene of that victim & he is Known to More of the cops because he did go to the inquest. Even if Cross is actually Lechmere, who lived in Whitechapel his whole life & worked at Pickfords for over 20 years, then he is Well Known to loads of locals & work colleagues & as a carman, also business associates. A couple of Morons make a doc & fooltube videos putting about that - he continued walking the streets in the black early morning hours for Weeks & carried on approaching prostitutes In Front of people & did the killings with the same & much worse MO. LOL. Really??
All the jibber jabber about 'times' for 3 cops & 2 other men is boring as all hell Childish friggin Bunk, nobody will Ever get it sorted. 5 men have No Idea what time they were where. End of. Each one says a time, each newspaper states various times & Christer made up His own time to suit his stupidass 'theory' about a guy by the name of Charles A. Cross & Christer does Not Know his home address. Putting modern font on a page with 1888 newspaper headers above, is Not proof of Cross' home address.
The professional hypnotist Stealthy Eddy Stow has made up His own 'times' to suit His mind numbing Gobshite & repeats it all over & over as his Brainwashing tactic. LOL.
There most certainly Were other males who came across other of the bodies.
Cross sure Did raise the alarm Straight Away, he did Not keep walking on down the road. It is very understandable considering the Times & the conditions for that area in 1888, that when he saw a woman who lay prone on the ground, his thoughts went to someone who had maybe been attacked & as there were lots of prostitutes who roamed around in the early morning hours, he was very well aware that would be the case & as they were known to Drink, his first thoughts did not turn to murder. If I was a male back then in Whitechapel, I sure as hell would Not have wanted to be the male to try & wake her up at 3.30 a.m., all by myself, at the very least, in whatever state, she could have just started screaming. He did Nothing wrong.
I do Not believe the Rubbish from Holmgren or Stow, both dopes who think they are smarter than all the police involved including Inspector Abberline from Scotland Yard who was brought in after the murder of Mary Ann Nichols, as he knew Whitechapel very well.
And BTW - in regards to Nichols, there were Two cuts to her throat plus 2 stabs to the vagina, several stabs & cuts to the abdomen causing the Bowels to Protrude through the abdomen. Now you are Informed of the basics, pleease don't carry on as if there would have been no blood on that friggin Knife, or anywhere else. In the black of night down that road with high buildings both sides, the killer would Not have Known about blood on his person, clothes or shoes. End of.
And FYI - Mary Ann had bruises on her face And on her hands, meaning, she put up a Fight.
And people are drinking the Kool aid no matter the lunacy of the dumb as dog doo ‘reasoning’ behind the blather. Jeez
i agree.You have just murderer someone,and you wait around to be caught.this chap just happened to be there on his way to work.bedsides he was too OLD to be the ripper...check the facts......@@ThomasVanhelden
Of all of the information I've seen is that Lechmere is the only person living in the area who was found near a body who also would have been travelling through the general area. That's noteworthy to me.
With all due respect, that statement applies to pretty much anyone who attended a crime scene... passers-by, witnesses, or simply the dozens of gawkers who just turned up to watch.
I imagine you have been listening to Edward Stow or Christer Holmgren if that is how you understand the situation. They do their best to isolate "Lechmere" as a unique case of situation, location, and opportunity when the truth is anything but...
Whitechapel is really small. In 1888 it was MASSIVELY over crowded.
The furthest distance between any of the murders is a little over 1 mile, most (note: I think it's ALL, but don't have the map to hand, so erring on the side of caution...) of the other murders occured within the circle of that 1 mile diametre.
Almost EVEYONE living in Whitechapel travelled through that area on a daily basis.
The most obvious and immediate example of someone who pops the "only one" bubble being Robert Paul, who was also in the area and was also a car man.
Ed and Christer and the adepts try to insinuate that all the victims were on Cross' route to work... only in so far as that multiple routes can be drawn from one side of Whitechapel to the other that each include the murder sites. So he would have to have taken a variety of routes, some of which confound logic... And, of course, anyone moving from the eastern end of Whitechapel to the west or vice versa would fall into the exact same circumstance.
There is LITERALLY no evidence of any substance to support Cross as a suspect, and every time I have challenged Ed or Christer or their followers to show anything that amounts to more than vague supposition "Well... if THIS then THIS, and if THAT then THIS..." the retort has been to tell me to go read something they wrote somewhere else, or that "Well... you can't prove it WASN'T him..." or the one that has evolved more recently, "Until you can prove it wasn't him, he remains the best suspect!" which is utter nonsense at best, wilful, manipulation of the easily led at worst... but, regardless, that ain't how it works. You need to show evidence that supports the suspect, not demand evidence that proves they didn't do it in lieu of having anything to present.
Or it didn't used to be the case till it became easier to watch a few TH-cam videos and skip the ones that disagree with your pet theory, than to read the books that you might find disagreeable, but will give you a better overall understanding.
Yeah.. all circumstantial!
@@andrewtomlinson5237 you beat me to saying this....Lechmere is vaguely implicated in only one of the cases because he discovered the body... what about all the other cases - these are ignored in the drive to state that he must be the ripper.....all circumstantial and not one shred of evidence .... to me...if he was the ripper with someone down the road approaching fast, but its dark and no way to identify him, and he'd just murdered a woman, blood on his hands and clothes and a bloody knife in his pocket then surely the first thing he would do is leg it and not hang around, he certainly wouldn't be caught in the dark and the warren of alleyways and yards if he knew the area....and if Paul caught up to him - well he's got a knife and not afraid to use it
Firstly, there is No evidence let alone Proof, that Cross lived at that address & so, no Proof that Cross is Lechmere. An inquest document online - Chas. Andrew Cross. The fact of the matter is - no killer, let alone a Knife killer, would approach a witness who has Seen him now, then walks away chatting with him & then makes himself Known to the Cops. Then, continues skulking around the streets in the early morning hours when Many people know he was on the scene of that victim & he is Known to More of the cops because he did go to the inquest. Even if Cross is actually Lechmere, who lived in Whitechapel his whole life & worked at Pickfords for over 20 years, then he is Well Known to loads of locals & work colleagues & as a carman, also business associates. A couple of Morons make a doc & fooltube videos putting about that - he continued walking the streets in the black early morning hours for Weeks & carried on approaching prostitutes In Front of people & did the killings with the same & much worse MO. LOL. Really??
All the jibber jabber about 'times' for 3 cops & 2 other men is boring as all hell Childish friggin Bunk, nobody will Ever get it sorted. 5 men have No Idea what time they were where. End of. Each one says a time, each newspaper states various times & Christer made up His own time to suit his stupidass 'theory' about a guy by the name of Charles A. Cross & Christer does Not Know his home address. Putting modern font on a page with 1888 newspaper headers above, is Not proof of Cross' home address.
The professional hypnotist Stealthy Eddy Stow has made up His own 'times' to suit His mind numbing Gobshite & repeats it all over & over as his Brainwashing tactic. LOL.
There most certainly Were other males who came across other of the bodies.
Cross sure Did raise the alarm Straight Away, he did Not keep walking on down the road. It is very understandable considering the Times & the conditions for that area in 1888, that when he saw a woman who lay prone on the ground, his thoughts went to someone who had maybe been attacked & as there were lots of prostitutes who roamed around in the early morning hours, he was very well aware that would be the case & as they were known to Drink, his first thoughts did not turn to murder. If I was a male back then in Whitechapel, I sure as hell would Not have wanted to be the male to try & wake her up at 3.30 a.m., all by myself, at the very least, in whatever state, she could have just started screaming. He did Nothing wrong.
I do Not believe the Rubbish from Holmgren or Stow, both dopes who think they are smarter than all the police involved including Inspector Abberline from Scotland Yard who was brought in after the murder of Mary Ann Nichols, as he knew Whitechapel very well.
And BTW - in regards to Nichols, there were Two cuts to her throat plus 2 stabs to the vagina, several stabs & cuts to the abdomen causing the Bowels to Protrude through the abdomen. Now you are Informed of the basics, pleease don't carry on as if there would have been no blood on that friggin Knife, or anywhere else. In the black of night down that road with high buildings both sides, the killer would Not have Known about blood on his person, clothes or shoes. End of.
And FYI - Mary Ann had bruises on her face And on her hands, meaning, she put up a Fight.
And people are drinking the Kool aid no matter the lunacy of the dumb as dog doo ‘reasoning’ behind the blather. Jeez.
I mean I do think he did in fact kill this woman, but I don't believe he committed most if any of the other known crimes. I don't believe there is one jack rather they are just a series of similar murders committed by different people, partly driven by the later media dramatization. I also believe that the from hell letter is also written by a real murderer likely the one who harvested that same liver from their potential victim. However, I believe that letter to be the only one of any authenticity. Regardless, the crimes were in my opinion most definitely committed by different people. alot of what makes up the mystery regarding these killings is simply the drama drummed up by the media of its time. jack is fictional.
The less people know about the case the more are they convinced about Lechmere's guilt.
Like Edward Stow, you mean? Who knows the case inside out?
The Bradford Yorkshire ripper killed on his way to work.he was a modern day cart man and local I grew up a couple of miles from him.. Paul has some good points but when he says it's all supposition against lechmere that's what it's been with every suspect. There's been some ridiculous ideas for suspects. I think lechmere is so popular because he fits the reality we have found from the study of modern serial killers. Not always foreign and not running screaming through the streets. He may not be the ripper at all but he's a more sensible suspect than all up to date.
And John Humble used Jack the rippers quotes and name to distract the Yorkshire police away from Sutcliffe.
Very well put! I personally think it was Lechmere, or if not him, someone very much like him (everyday man)-- I just think it makes so much sense. E.g. with Polly Nichols, he was literally standing next to the body when she was (possibly) still (just) alive, and no one heard footsteps and it was a terraced row so no way to get out? It goes back to the idea that the simplest answer is the right one-- JoR was the guy standing over the first body. At least, that's my opinion. But we all have to admit, we wouldn't be nearly as interested if we knew who he was... 👀🎩
The Yorkshire Ripper did not kill on his way to work. He used his own vehicles to lure woman when out of work.
He may not be but I believe he is he is the only suspect that it can be placed near the scene of all the crimes
It is a bit of a surprise that the police once they knew of his identity they didn’t check his alibi and question his movements it might have been him it might not but even with the rudimentary policing of the day you always have a good look at the people present at the crime scene
I find it interesting when people make the point, that when Paul seen Lechmere for the first time at the scene of the murder, he described him as standing in the middle of the road, instead of over or next to the victim, I find this irrelevant, because if Lechmere was the perpetrator and decided to bluff his way out, instead of fleeing, then it makes sense for him to distance himself from the victim, and take a few steps away, and the likelihood of Lechmere hearing Paul, in a dark lane at such a early time in the morning, extremely likely, with the hard sole shoes/boot's of that time period.
We have no confirmed evidence of Lechmere's relationship with his wife, but the fact thst she had herself placed in a separate grave at the opposite side of the same graveyard to her husband, speaks volumes.
Lechmere can never be confirmed as JTR, but he is the most plausible suspect by a country míle.
Being the eternal optimist, I have not given up on the possibility that Lechmere may at some stage be positively confirmed as JTR - but until that happens, I am quite happy to have him in the game as the only true suspect. The rest of the bunch are - at best - persons of interest. That is how the police would view them, anyways.
To me, the thing that argues again Lechmere being JtR is that this was the FIRST discovered murder. Knowing that he was already on he police radar (even as a witness) how likely would be to perform even more murders?
He wasn’t on their radar
The thrill of having got clean away. Its all part of the cat and mouse game that many serial killers such as BTK liked to play.
he wasn't on the police radar. They took zero interest in him. And he would have known that. Furthermore he would have had unnatural confidence if he truly was JTR
Exactly. People have a herd mentality that lechmere was jack, but he would've been too paranoid to murder having been now known to the police. Whoever the killer was, hauled ass. And people can't fathom that for some reason.
To all those who confidently pronounce lechmere wasn't on the police radar I beg to differ he was very publicly and prominently brought to police attention.I would also add the Nicol's murder would have been rigourously scrutinized by the detective department as this is where Scotland yard started to step in.
It was a pleasure to listen to a discussion between two absolute gentlemen who are well acquainted with the subject.
Great listen. Enjoyed this. Who knows if he was. I don't. The fact remains he is the ONLY suspect who was seen by someone else lingering alone right by the body of one of the victims at or near the time of death and with nobody else in sight or sound. No other suspect has that very black mark against them.
I agree with you. There are 330 plus suspects and many of them weren’t even in England but folks have regarded them as justified suspects. It’s been easy to discount all of them. I haven’t been able to discount Lechmere.
He was not lingering* by the body, but standing in the middle of the road. And, far from there being nobody else in sight, it was Robert Paul who tells us that Lechmere was standing there.
* BTW, "lingering" is the kind of loaded word used by Lechmere theorists, because it implies bad intent. We need to be careful, because loaded words can skew people's thinking, as well as our own. Lechmere was simply reported as standing in the road - not lingering, loitering or standing over the body.
As to why Lechmere didn't kill Paul, if he was the Ripper that is, well serial killers who target women don't tend to want to tangle with men, especially face to face. Extremely unlikely the Ripper would have attacked Paul to silence him. Even Bundy was scared off by other men.
Margaret,
Its crazy isn't it? Lechmere is the ONLY suspect to have even circumstantial evidence against him.
ftumschk
Lechmere was lingering by the body. No way to disregard that. He was. He was hanging around. Paul did not see him walking up ahead and then momentarily veer off. Lechmere was seen hanging around near the body of Polly at or near the time of death. Lechmere was already there standing in the road the first time Paul saw him. Thats lingering. He was not in motion. Paul did not see or hear anyone else. Only Lechmere.
My points are correct.
The thought that should be at the back of every Ripperologist's mind, is "what if I am wrong?" Of course you can't libel the dead, but if you are wrong, then you are hanging a horrible mantle on that person.
This is my favorite theory.
We may never know for sure, but he is definitely a good suspect
doesn't fit the offender profiling, for the ripper.1980s FBI report.just happened to be there.
There are so many ways this suspect is interesting when you compare him to serial killers we know about today. If it was him, the subtle deceptions that get him through the morning and past the police on the day he was seen with a victim. See, Kemper, Dahmer even Rifken, I'm sure there are so many. Also, I checked the murders that are attributed to the ripper except for two days all occur on days when someone would go to work or leave early to work. On these days the murders occurred around the time Lechmere may have left in the morning like the day he was caught. The two others the murders, Saturday and the night before a bank holiday were earlier, like the times he would leave a pub. The double event was one such night. The ripper was sloppy, left a good witness and ran off to reoffend. This sounds like the time Daronch escaped Bundy and he took off and found another victim. Daronch smelled alcohol on his breath, that was sloppy he left witnesses. Also, Chi Omega I think he had been drinking that night too. Another multiple event. He may have been in the crowd after with a beer watching the investigation. During 1888 the girls were on high alert, the killer was thought to be a foreigner. They would have felt comfortable with Lechmere. Certainly not with someone who had schizophrenia.
Yet we are supposed to believe that after appearing in court and becoming known to the police he then risked stalking 4 more victims, ridiculous
@@bfyrth You say ridiculous. One of the most prominent features that serial killers possess is flaunting in front of cameras, eye witnesses, and the police.
On the day Ian Huntley murdered two young girls he was seen being interviewed on TV as a local man. Peter Sutcliff was arrested eight or nine times before eventually being arrested and charged. Christie killed in the same house after Evans was hanged for murdering his wife.
Do your research before pronouncing presumed evidence.
Wasn’t Annie chapman seen after 5am? Meaning Lechmere would have been at work
The bit about Paul being unable to hear Lechmere walking still raises some questions for me. If Lechmere could hear Paul walking then why couldn't Paul hear him?
Didn't PC Neil mention he could hear people walking on the adjacent street?
Cross/Lechmere was standing still looking at the body and possibly puzzling what to do. Oc Paul couldn't hear a man standing still. PC Neil could hear his colleague PC Thain when he passed Bucks Row. Again Neil was standing still and could hear his fellow PC (wearing heavy duty police boots) as he passed the entrance of Bucks Row
That makes sense. Why didn’t Paul hear Lechmere’s footsteps. His own footsteps were loud enough to be heard. Also, if Lechmere thought it was a tarpaulin, and saw it was a freshly killed woman, wouldn’t he be freaked out and run up to Paul so they could quick get a policeman? He seemed so cool just standing with her and beckoning Paul to come to him. Paul detects life. If I was Lechmere and even if I didn’t think she was alive, I would jump at the hope that this poor woman could be saved. I would have yelled for a policeman to get her to a doctor immediately just hoping she could be helped. I certainly would have agreed with Paul’s suggestion to prop her up at the very least. I certainly would not get Paul to walk away from the poor woman. 😢
Jack the Ripper, Spring-heeled Jack, and Lechmere are obviously all the same entity... better known across the pond as John Wilkes Booth
Imo highly dependent on what type of shoes he was wearing, and how much background noise was present. I believe PC Neil said he heard footsteps of another policeman coming into Bucks Row, but the police would have worn heavy boots/ shoes that wouldn't wear out so quickly.
Steve M
Dont you think somebody walking to work and back every day and probably using the same footwear for outside work would probably have worn heavy boots that would last?
My big question is at some point both police and papers knew there was two different stories about the cop being told there was another officer at the body. So why wasn't this nailed down? Also in defense of Charles this man says people are just guessing at his guilt , well so is his arguments about him being innocent. I agree he is not proven guilty but he is far from being cleared.
At the inquest, Lechmere was asked if he had told Mizen another policeman wanted him, he said no.
In the internal police report, issued towards the end of the inquest, it clearly says the two carmen told PC Mizen what they had SEEN.
There is no mention of the version Mizen gave, so it would appear the police were clear that Mizen was mistaken.
@stevenblomer7738 You haven't proved his innocence either. Actually, you've made people believe in Lechmere's guilt now more than ever. To not even view him with a little suspicion is totally bizarre. He is the only suspect that can be placed directly at a crime scene..Nothing you've said now or in the past changes that fact.
@stevenblomer7738 You say that it's not a bit suspicious that Lechmere lied about his name? There is a baptism record from 1859 that said Charles Allen Lechmere, I'm assuming his mother wrote it out. His father is listed as John Allen Lechmere. Maria Lechmere had been married to Thomas Cross on 1858. A full year, after her marriage, his name on an official document is Charles Allen Lechmere, not Cross. There's nothing to see here.
The two cops PC Neill and PC Mizen worked for different divisions. I think it was just something that fell beneath the cracks. They probably never compared notes. And with so many lines of inquiry and a brand new investigation it simply wasn't spotted. And even if it had it would have been dismissed as a minor anomaly.
The police would have formed an instant mental picture of those involved. And the mental picture they likely formed of Lechmere and Paul was of two carmen who loudly proclaimed to the press that they and not the police were the ones who found the body. Which is more a case of "self publicist" rather than "suspect". In other words they forced themselves into the case not the other way around.
And of course this only applies to Paul. But I suggest that Lechmere initially got unjustifiably lumped into the same "self publicist" box. Which is about as far away from "suspect" as you can get. In other words they were both likely viewed as a slight nuisance whose evidence was needed but otherwise of no importance.
If the police had any other thought about him it would be "witness who actually showed up to the inquest without having to be tracked down". Unlike Paul who loved talking to the press and casting aspersions on the police but failed to show at the inquest. Which meant the police had to waste time to track Paul down to make him appear.
Hence they likely never put any critical thought or analysis into Lechmere's role. And also never fully separated him from Paul in their minds in terms of his role in the investigation. Once Lechmere had given evidence the box was ticked and they thought no more about him.
didn't
The reason he said to Mizen that there was a policeman waiting for him at the body is because he didn't want to be late for work, or just simply didn't care or want to get involved & if he said there was a body, then Mizen would have most likely made both men go with him to the body! I'm assuming that Cross & paul just wanted to get out of there & get to work & this was just an inconvenience for them!
Well done. Great interview. Well informed and well reasoned. Great series. Enjoyed it thoroughly. Studied the case for over 40 years but learned a lot from this. Definitely will read the book.
The question is... was he actually on his way to work? if so, it's unlikely that the ripper was committing his crimes on the way to work. He'd wait until after work or days off like every other killer.
Or like most other killers anyway.
Which tallies with the evidence given most of the murders were committed at weekends.
If he started work in the early hours of the morning, presumably he would have finished at 4pm or early evening The streets would have been busy so, not a good time to be commiting murder.
I thought this all along. Unless he has a lust for killing he cannot control, given the opportunity, why would he start stalking women to kill knowing others working for Pickford’s would be walking the streets to get to work around the same time?
suddenly you're an expert? everybody used to say that serial killers never stop killing until they are stopped or they die..... then suddenly we had a whole bunch that stopped killing decades before they were caught (BTK; Di Angelo).... so that conventional wisdom got dropped...
I have just been reading many.of the comments on here, what is very apparent is that a number of the replies are from people who clearly have not watched the actual video in question.
Thats funny - I have the exact same feeling about those who criticize the Missing Evidence docu…
My problem with Cross, is he plenty of opportunity to escape. If not on the initial encounter with Paul, then immediately after, when they both went for the police. He’s definitely still the prime suspect in my eyes though.
Walking in company with Paul would be a great advantage, since the police would not look for two working men as the likely source of the murder in Bucks Row. It also offered Lechmere the opportunity to learn more about Paul. If Lechmere was a psychopath - and around 90 per cent of the sexual serial killers are - then it would arguably not intimidate him to go about things the way Lechmere did. We tend to think that our own way of reasoning would apply to all and sundry, but psychopaths are a different breed.
Not really. If he had run he becomes the killer. He also would have known the place was crawling with cops.
What he did was show incredible sang froid and bluffed his way past Paul. And anybody who has studied the murders will recognise that as one of the key characteristics of JTR.
He did not need to run, he could have simply said, that he and Paul should split up to find the police.
it was dark and he’d probably be impossible to identify, if they ever apprehended him after for lineup, which would be highly unlikely.
I suppose the idea that he may have continued with Paul, for his own sadistic pleasure carries some weight. He may have also been deciding if killing him would be necessary.
Jack may have been extremely psychologically disturbed but he was no fool and didn’t want to apprehended. He specialised in hit and run attacks, he was definitely not inclined to stick around and was very aware of his surroundings.
I’m still inclined to say Jack would have either killed Paul, or like I suspect, he departed as he heard Cross approaching.
not running away was the smart play. If he was JTR he was a cunning person and full of self confidence. Hence playing it cool is totally part of his MO. He committed all his murders within earshot of dozens of people...... that's a very cool cucumber.
It's quite unusual that Lechmere and Paul hadn't seen each other on other occasions.
They went to work at roughly the same time, took similar routes.
I see pedestrians heading to the bus station every morning, as I drive to work in my truck.
Sometimes, if I am a little later, they are further along, but always there.
People are creatures of habit, especially in how they make it to work.
Regularity is comforting!
Oh and did I say Lechmere is a little liar?
He probably had to wear asbestos pants!!
we really are creatures of habit. itll be the same people coming in early and late same folks lol
Lechmere had just moved there a couple of months earlier.
Wasn't Paul late for work? Maybe he would normally take another route to avoid the dangerous Bucks Row, but that night went down that way to win some time and this surprised Lechmere, who probably knew exactly what times the PCs walked their beats, if there were workers who used to take this route at this time or not... and he could take a shot at a kill on a night where there was a prostitute around there. Paul came as a surprise a bit later and disturbed him ! Seems perfectly plausible to me
They probably had seen each other several times.
But since they both effectively walked to work during the night and there was no street light, they would have only seen the back of each others' silhouette.
@@andrewtomlinson5237Speculation. They said they NEVER met!
I agree he can just be an innocent bystander.
A ridiculous assertion based on absolutely zero evidence against Cross/Lechmere. First, Lechmere and Paul were the ones who pulled her skirt down-the murderer did leave her skirt up. Second, as the documentary said, we don't know if Cross/Lechmere ever visited his mother, or how he walked to work, so no one has any clue if he went by the murder sites. Third, Cross/Lechmere had no surgical or slaughterer training or reported anatomical knowledge, as every single doctor (except one Dr. Bond, who did not examine the first 4 victims) said that he had some degree of both. Shocking to see how quickly people are to label someone as a gruesome killer when there is absolutely no evidence against him.
Calling the theory ridiculous does not work well together with a lacking knowledge of the case details. You say that the killer "left her skirt up", but Lechmere testifies to the effect that this was not so (" When I found her clothes were up above her knees" Morning Advertiser, 4th of September 1888). If the clothing had been up over the abdomen, then the carmen would have seen the wounds, of course. The wounds were hidden from sight and somebody must have accomplished that before Paul and Lechmere examined the body. The fact that we are not sure that Lechmere was at his mothers house on the Stride/Eddowes murder night does not in the slightest detract from how he is linked very closely to the Stride murder area, I'm afraid. Linking a suspect to a site carries immense weight, and Lechmere can be linked to all the murder sites. Your claim that every doctor but for Bond would have claimed surgical or slaughter experience on account of the killer is wrong; there were various levels of verdicts on the matter, and when Bond said that the killer did not even have the insights of a butcher or hunter, that counts. Plus, of course, since we know that Lechmere got involved in the cats meat business at some stage, it is not as if we can rule out cutting skills on his part. Moreover, if he was the Torso killer - and much speaks for it - then he had ample cutting training when he cut Nichols. So your "point" is an exercise in futility, based on how you seem to think that lacking knowledge about something would mean that this something could be ruled out. That is not how it works, I'm afraid, far from it. And to cap thing off, try to be less shocked by the allegations against the carman, because there IS evidence pointing in his way, lots and lots of it. Your claim to the contrary is much more shocking in itself. What there is not is absolute and conclusive PROOF that Lechmere was the killer - but if we are to examine criminal cases, we crucially need to be able to tell evidence from proof. Apparently, you are not up to that task at all, and so you are spouting misinformation and basing your outrage on your own shortcomings in understanding the legal implications and facts surrounding the case. If I had a penny for every poster who engaged in the exact same rot, I'd be a millionaire by now. Sadly, I don't.
There is a very long debate (400+ pages) on Casebook where Christer Holmgren defends his Lechmere-did-it theory/book quite persuasively. The thread is actually something he himself instigated as a means to allow people to offer up reasons why Lechmere is innocent. I've only gotten through the first 25 pages but I'm very impressed with his rationale and his patience/ability to rebut the attacks from the very smug and obnoxious naysayers endemic to Ripperology.
Highly recommend for anyone looking for a thorough vetting of this subject!
The problem with the pro-Lechmere arguments are they are based firstly on a construct and then reinforced. There is no evidence only speculation.
Yes, I have always been fascinated by the Ripper case and so annoyed at the vast majority of books and "documentaries" being nothing but money making machine with 1 wild and unsubstantiated conspiracy theory after another. Then theres some, like Patricia Cornwall, who are not doing it for money, but they really want to solve the case, they just go about it the completely wrong way. They go into the case with a favorite suspect and instead of doing an unbiased investigation of available evidence, they go in to prove their pet theory, cherrypicking whats useful for them and ignoring the rest.
Christer Holmgren was the first person, I ever experienced, who actually went into the case with no suspect, no preconceived notions at all and did a proper investigation and let the evidence lead his way. And that he worked on it for 25 years b4 going public clearly shows, that it wasnt about money for him.
I too have been very impressed by Holmgren's evidence and arguments and also by his openness to be proven wrong.
Any chance you can link to it? Struggling to find it.
To me he is far and away the best suspect. We know the real bird is dead, no matter who. I do feel pretty strongly that it was Lechmere , look at his picture too, He looks like the Devil incarnate. As for biggest case ever, yes it is of this type. DB Cooper and Jon Bonet are up there, as is Zodiac and Black Dahlia
All roads lead to Cross with Holmgren -
Crossroads you might say - Cross is not the ripper the best Holmgren could get a C I and a Q C to say is yes he would need to be Eliminated from the Nicholls case which goes without saying now doesn't it Colombo .
Come on Steven, twenty escape routes from Bucks Row? Please don't exaggerate. I will agree there was two or three. Come on Man!
What gives me doubts about him is why he suddenly stopped? He lived for another 20 or so years right so why didn't he continue like most serial killers do, also did he have any backround in surgery or being a butcher? Also we know nearly nothing about his motive and want for removing the wombs and other organs, why would some random guy do that
Random guys go for the weirdest of things at times. When Sean Vincent Gillis was caught, he explained himself with the phrase ”I just wanted to see her femur”, for example. That is the nature of the beast, serial killers do not have the same interests as you and I do. As for how he suddenly stopped, how do you know that? He was not caught, and he could have gone on killing for years after 1888. There is. No need to think that killing in the open streets was something he would never abandon.
@@christerholmgren335some serial killers have stopped B.T.K, Gary Ridgeway. It’s rare but it is a myth.
@@jamessouth3808 gary ridgeway paused his killing but he continued
I thoroughly enjoyed that. Thank you for this video sir!
I asked if you could do a story on Lechmere earlier,and you deliver more than expected.My no.1 suspect,and so pleased to watch your take on this one.Brilliant as all your uploads pal.Greatly appriciated,and thanx alot for all your superb work.
Is he still your number one - or can't you get your head around these murders were committed for a Reason - they had an aim .
i think it was lechmere
@@belladonna70 his deliberate misdirection of potential witnesses and LEOs, his timing and other circumstances, are HIGHLY SUSPECT.
@@belladonna70 Firstly, there is No evidence let alone Proof, that Cross lived at that address & so, no Proof that Cross is Lechmere. An inquest document online - Chas. Andrew Cross. The fact of the matter is - no killer, let alone a Knife killer, would approach a witness who has Seen him now, then walks away chatting with him & then makes himself Known to the Cops. Then, continues skulking around the streets in the early morning hours when Many people know he was on the scene of that victim & he is Known to More of the cops because he did go to the inquest. Even if Cross is actually Lechmere, who lived in Whitechapel his whole life & worked at Pickfords for over 20 years, then he is Well Known to loads of locals & work colleagues & as a carman, also business associates. A couple of Morons make a doc & fooltube videos putting about that - he continued walking the streets in the black early morning hours for Weeks & carried on approaching prostitutes In Front of people & did the killings with the same & much worse MO. LOL. Really??
All the jibber jabber about 'times' for 3 cops & 2 other men is boring as all hell Childish friggin Bunk, nobody will Ever get it sorted. 5 men have No Idea what time they were where. End of. Each one says a time, each newspaper states various times & Christer made up His own time to suit his stupidass 'theory' about a guy by the name of Charles A. Cross & Christer does Not Know his home address. Putting modern font on a page with 1888 newspaper headers above, is Not proof of Cross' home address.
The professional hypnotist Stealthy Eddy Stow has made up His own 'times' to suit His mind numbing Gobshite & repeats it all over & over as his Brainwashing tactic. LOL.
There most certainly Were other males who came across other of the bodies.
Cross sure Did raise the alarm Straight Away, he did Not keep walking on down the road. It is very understandable considering the Times & the conditions for that area in 1888, that when he saw a woman who lay prone on the ground, his thoughts went to someone who had maybe been attacked & as there were lots of prostitutes who roamed around in the early morning hours, he was very well aware that would be the case & as they were known to Drink, his first thoughts did not turn to murder. If I was a male back then in Whitechapel, I sure as hell would Not have wanted to be the male to try & wake her up at 3.30 a.m., all by myself, at the very least, in whatever state, she could have just started screaming. He did Nothing wrong.
I do Not believe the Rubbish from Holmgren or Stow, both dopes who think they are smarter than all the police involved including Inspector Abberline from Scotland Yard who was brought in after the murder of Mary Ann Nichols, as he knew Whitechapel very well.
And BTW - in regards to Nichols, there were Two cuts to her throat plus 2 stabs to the vagina, several stabs & cuts to the abdomen causing the Bowels to Protrude through the abdomen. Now you are Informed of the basics, pleease don't carry on as if there would have been no blood on that friggin Knife, or anywhere else. In the black of night down that road with high buildings both sides, the killer would Not have Known about blood on his person, clothes or shoes. End of.
And FYI - Mary Ann had bruises on her face And on her hands, meaning, she put up a Fight.
And people are drinking the Kool aid no matter the lunacy of the dumb as dog doo ‘reasoning’ behind the blather. Jeez
The name thing is such a non-starter I can't take anyone seriously who hasn't done basic reading or genealogical research of the period. A relative of mine: parish records birth mother name (one of 3 known spelling variations for her), her brief marriage to a Smith, then a misspell of his mothers surname in 1841 (alone), 1851= 2 surnames (illegitimate father?), dropped his illegitimate mothers name (he was also illegitimate) later in life to follow the patriarchal illegitimate line then back to 2 surnames again. This isn't uncommon. Spelling is varied due to wide illiteracy so census takers just guessed phonetically...complicated family relationships to greater maternal mortality/mortality rates in general. "He's hiding something" no he's a poor person in Victorian England. Don't even get me started on addresses.
Why did he and Robert Paul. Not walk together. If they both walked the same way for 20 years.
I can't imagine that the person who committed these murders could go on to live a normal life for an additional 30 years. This type of killer continues to kill until they die, usually by self harm or violence by another criminal.
Of course Lechmere did not live a ”normal life” if he was the killer. That goes without saying. And as it happens, we have no idea what kind of life he DID live after 1888. I hold him responisble for the Thames Torso murders, as well as for the Ripper murders, and if I am correct, then we have him killing at least between 1873 and 1889. And after 1889, there are examples of women found dead and cut up, floating in Regents Canal, years after the Ripper murders. And the two women I refer to were found in close proximity to where Charles Lechmere had a stall on Broadway market. The truth of the matter is that we cannot know how many women he killed, and when - if he was indeed the killer. Nor can we exclude that he stopped! There are examples of it, not least the Golden State Killer, Joseph James de Angelo, who was arrested a few years ago, after having killed his last victim in 1986.
There are other murders that have lechmere as a suspect. The torso murders for a few examples. Don’t focus on the murders we associate as the canonical JTR murders. Look at lechmere and crime reports and you will see how much overlap there is for many years. Nonetheless we do have examples of serial killers stopping. Such as BTK and others. Look it up. There is no rule of behavior that serial killers always continue on or don’t change their patterns.
Not true. BTK and Joseph de Angelo stopped killing one day and weren't caught for decades later. So like the "serial killers never change MO" myth we can put this other myth to rest also.
It is an outdated notion to think serial killers don't stop until they are locked up or die. They now know that belief is not true since there have been serial killers that have indeed stopped.
@@fiachramaccana280 this actually isnt true, but a lot do stop after they get older
A good watch… always enjoy your videos and research. I wanted to comment on something mentioned…,most of us probably don’t pay attention to people around us while walking the streets day or evening but at 3ish AM on a dark alley with 1 other person I’d try my best to be aware of my surroundings
The sex workers were aware of their surroundings because the gangs were brutal. They made money to eat, to sleep and likely a pint or two to brighten their sad lives. JTR, like many successful serial killers, chose them as targets. Except rather than randomly kill and mutilate random sex workers, he profiled what he considered the most worthless. The oldest, sickest, alcoholic sex workers. Women who would spend their doss money feeding their alcoholic addiction and have too work later than healthier sex workers
Especially if he was concerned about getting mugged. He didn't have earphones in listening to music.
Yes i thought that
It stuns me for all the work you put in to this channel and the high quality of these videos how your subscriber count is so low. You definitely deserve a lot more engagement!
The biggest indication Lechemer wasn't JTR was his life surrounding the murders, he was middle aged (39) when the murders started, then lived another 32yrs after the final murder and died at the ripe old age of 71, no criminal record of any note, basically lived a non eventful life other than the Ripper tiny tiny connection of finding Polly Nichols body.
And Gary ridgeway only got caught because he was sloppy and modern forensics. He prolly had been killing for years and prolly adapted to avoid detection, or he like Dennis radar, went cold.
If Lechmere was the Ripper and there's every chance he was....no one knows when he started murdering and no one knows when he stopped.
ever heard of Ivan the terrible ?
The police always assumed that the Ripper must have died (Montagu Druitt) or gone insane and been institutionalized (Aaron Kosminski) after Mary Kelly’s murder, but at this date we’ll never know for absolutely certain. And there are other possibilities. He might have changed his modus operandi (they usually don’t, but I don’t think it’s impossible; he might have been satisfied to some extent with Mary Kelly’s death, not to the point that he would stop killing, but he might have decided to try experimenting with his savage ferocity in other ways; like the Thames Torso Murders). Another possibility is that he might have left the area. Francis Tumblety would be an interesting possibility if it were so. He fled to America because he didn’t want to talk to police (for whatever reason) and they could not extradite him. But my favorite suspect will always be Charles Lechmere. He’s my idea of a perfect psychopathic killer. A seemingly respectable citizen who may secretly be leading a double life, in which he schemes to vent some of his inner frustrations on strangers to whom he would normally not be even remotely connected. And I find too much contradictory psychology in the way he gave his testimony at the inquest. He was late for work, but was spending time looking for a tarpaulin that he might never find, he wants to help the victim but not so much as to try and lift her, he supposedly tells a policeman that another Constable is at the scene, but then officially insists he said no such thing. Finally, he found the body of Polly Nichols 15 minutes or less after she was killed. He was either the murderer or he was uncomfortably close to the murderer.
@@brianbommarito3376 All the outdoor murders had someone 'uncomfortably close' to them. Louis Diemschutz was close to Stride's murder, Albert Cadosch was clsoe to Chapman's murder, Joseph Lawende & co were close to Eddowes' murder.
Yes! I have been waiting for this one. Thanks so much for doing this great work!
Lechmere was summoned at his home, which means they had to look for him. I think he was aware of the policemen doing rounds and he heard or sensed pc Neil coming. He was clever
Lechmere would've had different shift patterns so the 4am start is not set in stone. It is also possible he left home early to find victims. Most plausible suspect out of all of them. He would be prime suspect today until he could be eliminated.
He started work at 4 like every other person at Pickford's
Mrs Harriet Lily said she heard muffled sounds at 3.30, we know that time right due 2 the 3.30 good train
Y is ot u lot change evidence 2 fit a bloke that didn't do anything.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Mrs Long saw Chapman in daylight over an hour after he started work
@@mathewlawton1362 Mrs. Long’s testimony is faulty.
@@lancerooke why?
@@lancerooke u don't know that u only are assuming that it's faulty
I have just seen that near Buck's row there was a slaughterhouse- horse slaughterer's. Charles Bretton and co-worker Henry Tomkins, who worked at this slaughterhouse accompanied each other to see the body in Buck's row that night. I believe the horse slaughterer's business was on Winthrop Street- which was around the corner- very close. It is said they returned to work at 1am the night of the murder. Charles Bretton lived on 25 Bucks row. Was it Charles Lechmere or maybe someone who worked at the slaughterhouse who is JTR? It seems a coincidence.
Thanks to Mr Blomer and Rich, I enjoyed listening to a good discussion. I respectfully disagree. Mr Blomer contends that accusing Lechmere is an act of pure speculation. Wrong. It may lead down a trail of speculation but it’s based in facts. 3 Facts: He spent an unknown amount of time with a victim that JUST died and he lied about his name to the police. And 3, Polly’s dress was pulled down, covering her abdominal wounds. WHY?? Why would the killer do that?? If all the other victims had been left out on display? Because the killer was trying to hide the wounds! Because he had been nearly caught in the act. This isn’t mere speculation, Mr Blomer. It’s critical thinking. Common sense!
If Mr Blomer is correct, it would meant that Polly was attacked and killed and the killer pulled down her dress in less than ten minutes!
Remember, NOBODY saw or heard anything! Right? No one running away, no struggle, and yet PC Neil can hear Thain down at the other end of Buck row.
Cmon man! Pure speculation?? How about a 70 year old, stroke riddled doctor? Or a it’s a poor schizophrenic young man or an American quack doctor or a depressed teacher. That’s pure speculation!
Yep. Great factual points and an excellent post.
Im all for being unbiased but some folks seem to wave away very red flags. There ARE aspects which look bad for Lechmere.
If Lechmere was the ripper, why Paul did not recognize knife or blood or something like that? Lechmere would not be able kill someone and go to work and noboby would seen anything suspicious of him. It did not make any sense at all. Lechmere was around 40 in the time of the ripper killings and the police at the time thought the killer was in mid or late twenties based on eyewitness descriptions. Also there is no evidence pointing that Lechmere was woman hater or psychopathic killer. He had dozen children and hi was working hard to fed his family. I feel that Lechmere theory is just another stretch. Jack the ripper also were propably jewish and had an accent. Those facts make either Aaron Kosminski or Nathan Kaminsky aka David Cohen more propably suspects of being the ripper.
He didn't use a false name. Cross was his stepfather's name, and it was the name used for him on a census. At that time, it was not unusual for people to use more than one name. It may well have been the name that he used at work. Anybody that finds a murder victim's body spends an unknown amount of time alone with the body.
Excellent post Dave. I've spent much time discussing these points with Steven Blomer as well as others. Point #1: Yes, this is huge! Lechmere is by the body ALONE shortly after the murder. Point #2: He lied about his name. Did he? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know if he was known as "Cross" at work. But, I definitely agree, he SHOULD have also identified himself as "Lechmere" at the inquest. Point #3: Indeed, WHY would the unseen, unheard killer take time to cover up Nichols' body? This makes no sense! The Ripper liked to display his victims. He was a risk taker. Steven Blomer says :"Well, it's not clear that the victim's wounds were covered. It may be just the way the dress fell..yada yada. No! That doesn't make sense.
@Jani Tähtikallio Aaron Kosminski was a 23 year old schizophrenic, he literally ate out of the gutters, according to the lunatic asylum he died at in 1919 he never harmed anyone. There is not one shred of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise that can place Kosminski at a murder site of the canonical 5. He was babbling in the streets, paranoid,very unorganized. Not a good suspect.
Fascinating. Youve both really undone me
Best channel on TH-cam! Wonderful scholarship! 👏👏👏
Wow, thank you!
Excellent interview,.. good info
I'm only 9 min 32 secs in and it's already the best thing i've watched this year.
Thank you. Very kind of you to say so.
This is a grand vid!
Well done, sir!
Thank you kindly!
Joe Dirt! Great name! From the movie? It’s soooo funny. I’ve watched it several times. 😂
Thank you!
it is indeed from the film.
Great discussion guys. Live from oregon USA
I don't think so but he was there at the Polly Nichols murder. The serial killer Morris Solomon Jr. actually reported his final murder (as a supposedly innocent bystander) and it led to his arrest.
I agree with you. Reporting the crime makes the killer seem less suspicious.
@@TiaMargarita Yall must think anyone who reports a crime is suspicious then? wow. Someone was going to find her body, happened to be Lechmere. Had it been John Smith or someone else, then yall be crying about said person in that instance as well.
@@TiaMargarita - Reporting any crime immediately puts you in the frame of investigation; the culprit doing so is more to do with 'duper's delight' or somesuch psychological foible.
@@herbert9241 so i guess we shouldn't bother reporting crimes then or if we come across a body just leave it? Incase we get accused
Im not sure where you got that information from but its not mentioned in the appeal court judgment which goes into considerable detail about his crimes. If he had done that it would be mentioned because it shows a “guilty mind”.
Fabulous Richard thanks 👍
Great video. Thank you very much. ❤
Thank you. This was so interesting!!!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I'm in love with this channel!!!
Thank you.
Has anyone looked into Paul as the ripper? The accounts I've heard was he knew the time because he was running late. Wouldn't it be possible he was running late because he was responsible? He very well could have been there first, heard Lechmere coming and hid in the shadows until the body was noticed? He would have touched her, said she was maybe still alive and wanted to move her to get a reaction and maybe have an excuse for any blood he might have on him.Has anyone looked into him?
I suppose he could be, but he approached "Cross" from his normal route. And he doesn't have the timing to really be considered the killer in the "Polly" case. She was just too dam fresh for him to have been at the murder site before "Cross" Remember the PC Neil ( I think Neil) found the body very few mins after the 2 carman left it. We know The timing "Cross" gave doesn't fit. Even giving him some leeway, puts him at the scene of the crime before he said he arrived. Why is it the Lechmere doubters leave that out? Yes they sight timing. apparently, they think watches were not in use at the time. Suprise! Pocket watches were mass produced by 1857.
Paul was interrogated by the police and had an alibi for the second murder.
@@brianwilcox3478the three policemen were the same on their times but Paul was the anomaly timewise
It takes an awful lot of mental gymnastics to believe that a man about to walk into work decides to commit bloody murder just before.
as mentioned countless times, Cross was the only guy around, and it was 3:45AM when Paul saw him by the body. what time Cross left his home really doesnt matter down to the minute, as he could say anything he wanted. the fact that Paul said he didn't see Cross tells me Cross left his house with time to spare after the murder. Only a max of 10 minutes, mind, but he still had time to kill Polly.
No, it tells you/us that Paul claims he didn't see Cross, the rest is an assertion pulled straight out of your ass. Let me guess, the facts also "tell you that Cross could've easily slipped away from work to kill Chapman and returned completely unnoticed"?
Why would he go to find the cop with paul? He could have run when he heard paul. Didnt.
He would have had some blood on him - or else where did he clean up? She was about a cut away from being disembowled. Rubber gloves😂😂?
@@someoneunseen5168 Think.
@someoneunseen5168 Run to where? There were no visible ways of escape, PC Niel was around one corner, PC Mizen around another corner, numerous cops were on their beats, around the streets. Charles Allen Lechmere walked those streets for over 20 years working for Pickford's. He grew up on those streets, he lived on those streets, he worked on those streets. I've seen photographs and maps of Buck's Row in 1888. He would have had to go into someone's house literally to escape.
@someoneunseen5168 I imagine he wanted to make it seem that he and Robert Paul walked in tandem and found the body together, remember according to Lechmere's time that he said he left, that would place him at Buck's Row 9 minutes before Robert Paul turned the corner, then it was a 40-50 yard walk Robert Paul had to get to the murder site. Robert Paul's newspaper interview and inquest testimony "I saw a man standing where the woman was"
Have we all forgotten that knifing someone means that there would be blood on the suspect. If Paul came across Charles just after slaughtering someone he would for sure have blood on him. Maybe a cut from the bloody knife slipping.
She was strangled first which would have stopped blood pressure and therefore there would not have been a lot of spatter.
Not if he strangled her to death first, and while he cut her throat her blood pressure would be so low that no arterial spray would’ve occurred and the blood would’ve pooled. Probably would be a fairly bloodless murder.
Not if you strangle them first
My first thought also. Cleaning up would be difficult in daylight, let alone in the dark, in a rushed few minutes.
No there wouldn't be blood splatter if the person was dead before stabbing then as the heart has stopped pumping.
This is a an excellent analysis and interview. Bravo!
Quién le proporcionó la coartada a Lechmere? Paul. Y quién le proporcionó la coartada a Paul? Lechmere. Mintieron los dos? Fueron ambos los destripadores?
When they met Mizen and told him another officer was waiting, wouldn’t Paul raise an eyebrow at Lechmere saying that? (If he did say it that is)
It sure would have been interesting to view the encounter. If he had heard what Lechmere said, he certainly would have reacted and reported it at the inquest. In fact, if he heard Lechmere say anything, he would have given testimony on it.
Might have been out of earshot of Paul.
According to the newspaper article in the Lloyd's Weekly of September 2nd 1888, Paul states that he went alone to fetch a policeman, leaving Lechmere with the body. Having found a policeman, did he then return. It seems a bit odd, the article could be embellishing the story, Mizen states that two men approached him !. So can we trust anything written on the case !. I myself don't believe Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. Why would he put himself into the picture, he could easily escape down one of the many small streets, I think he had enough time, I think Paul was probably 50 yards or so behind him. On hearing Paul approach, he could easily disappear into the night.
The account of their interaction that I've heard is that Paul was hanging back from Lechmere when he was talking to Mizen. Mizen didn't even mention Paul being there at the inquest until he was asked what the second man (Paul) was doing which jogged his memory.
This is one of the few points that is in favor of Lechmere as Not being the Ripper. If he made such a blatant lie, the police could have raised an eyebrow. One thing, perhaps the only thing, that all murderers have in common, they are all liars. When interviewed, they will lie and keep lying and lie some more, and when confronted with contradictory statements, they will spin a web of new lies to explain away the old ones. This is how many murderers are caught. Some of them are terrible liars, some very good ones. But they are all liars.
Wait till you see the case for the prosecution brilliant
Christer Holgrem and Richard Jones are conversing in the video comments! RJ dogged CH in this video. CH has invited a conversation here and now. I really hope RJ agrees!
Steven E. Blomer is a walking encyclopedia on the Ripper murders. I have heard him speak in another video about how the killer might have gotten away from Buck's Row, and he seemed to know each little alley and street like the back of his hand. He just rattled off street names. He is really incredible. Yet, he always says he doesn't know who the Ripper was. I have been reading about the case for years and I also don't know who he was. Just who he might have been. Wonderful video. They go through the available testimonies and talk about them. Which is all you can really do at this point.
31:46 Was the map is out of date by 1888 with the building of Whitechapel Station (District Railway and East London Railway), cutting off many of the roads?
I have recently realized , in the last year or so , two of the murders took place within a few yards of Kearley And Tonge 's warehouses , a large one in Bucks Row and a smaller one in Mitre Square . Probably just a coincidence , but still .....
Yes, this has actually been commented on a few years back. Not much came of it, as I remember it.
Everything well said, this presentation is awesome
Thank you.
Great video. Personally I don't think we'll ever know for sure if Lechmere/Cross is JTR. The key things for me are the actual time of the murder compared to when Lechmere/Cross was stated to be at the murder site. And it does appear as if the murderer concealed what he had done that time, compared to later murders. So I think its quite possible he was disturbed at some point that night. For those reasons I think Lechmere/Cross is a person of great interest in the case, but without the definitive proof of guilt.
Firstly, there is No evidence let alone Proof, that Cross lived at that address & so, no Proof that Cross is Lechmere. An inquest document online - Chas. Andrew Cross. The fact of the matter is - no killer, let alone a Knife killer, would approach a witness who has Seen him now, then walks away chatting with him & then makes himself Known to the Cops. Then, continues skulking around the streets in the early morning hours when Many people know he was on the scene of that victim & he is Known to More of the cops because he did go to the inquest. Even if Cross is actually Lechmere, who lived in Whitechapel his whole life & worked at Pickfords for over 20 years, then he is Well Known to loads of locals & work colleagues & as a carman, also business associates. A couple of Morons make a doc & fooltube videos putting about that - he continued walking the streets in the black early morning hours for Weeks & carried on approaching prostitutes In Front of people & did the killings with the same & much worse MO. LOL. Really??
All the jibber jabber about 'times' for 3 cops & 2 other men is boring as all hell Childish friggin Bunk, nobody will Ever get it sorted. 5 men have No Idea what time they were where. End of. Each one says a time, each newspaper states various times & Christer made up His own time to suit his stupidass 'theory' about a guy by the name of Charles A. Cross & Christer does Not Know his home address. Putting modern font on a page with 1888 newspaper headers above, is Not proof of Cross' home address.
The professional hypnotist Stealthy Eddy Stow has made up His own 'times' to suit His mind numbing Gobshite & repeats it all over & over as his Brainwashing tactic. LOL.
There most certainly Were other males who came across other of the bodies.
Cross sure Did raise the alarm Straight Away, he did Not keep walking on down the road. It is very understandable considering the Times & the conditions for that area in 1888, that when he saw a woman who lay prone on the ground, his thoughts went to someone who had maybe been attacked & as there were lots of prostitutes who roamed around in the early morning hours, he was very well aware that would be the case & as they were known to Drink, his first thoughts did not turn to murder. If I was a male back then in Whitechapel, I sure as hell would Not have wanted to be the male to try & wake her up at 3.30 a.m., all by myself, at the very least, in whatever state, she could have just started screaming. He did Nothing wrong.
I do Not believe the Rubbish from Holmgren or Stow, both dopes who think they are smarter than all the police involved including Inspector Abberline from Scotland Yard who was brought in after the murder of Mary Ann Nichols, as he knew Whitechapel very well.
And BTW - in regards to Nichols, there were Two cuts to her throat plus 2 stabs to the vagina, several stabs & cuts to the abdomen causing the Bowels to Protrude through the abdomen. Now you are Informed of the basics, pleease don't carry on as if there would have been no blood on that friggin Knife, or anywhere else. In the black of night down that road with high buildings both sides, the killer would Not have Known about blood on his person, clothes or shoes. End of.
And FYI - Mary Ann had bruises on her face And on her hands, meaning, she put up a Fight.
And people are drinking the Kool aid no matter the lunacy of the dumb as dog doo ‘reasoning’ behind the blather. Jeez
Many thanks for this :) An excellent discussion indeed! :)
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great. Good to have a Casebook quest, Steve is a very interesting and a real investigator of the crimes, of course like yourself too. Enjoyed this ...thanks.
Pleased you enjoyed it, Andrew.
Paul mentions that the spot where the body is found was well known for people being mugged. Do any records exist for who was carrying out these muggings?
There were numerous gangs in the area at the time. There were also street robbers.
@@JackTheRipperTours did street gangs in this era have their own patch similar to the current postcode based gangs?
The gangs of London certainly did. There were gangs in Notting Hill, Regent's Park. There were quite a few gangs in Whitechapel as well.
Street gangs usually don't eviscerate people, their motives are robbery. Why would they take a uterus, kidney here, and there.
First lechemere would have been aware of Paul as soon as Paul turned onto the street. He would be wearing hobnail shoes...so loud clacking shoes on cobblestone yet lechmere waited until Paul was more than halfway too him before revealing himself.
Her throat and abdomen was cut but her skirts were pulled back down and there was no evidence of blood on her neck yet. Even having been cut post mortem as she certainly was for both men to not notice blood in the time they were with her those cuts must have been made within a minute of Paul arriving on the scene at about the time paul turned onto the street.
It must have been lechemere who murdered this woman at least.
No she wasn’t cut post mortem. He strangled his victims into unconsciousness but they are still alive when he cuts their throats and mutilates them.
I also read that Paul said he was approached from the middle of the street and he thought he was going to be attacked by lechmere by the look on his face. I would like to know if he did think that. I have not seen it everywhere. Is it true??
No. Paul said that he was trying to avoid Lechmere because the area was known to be dangerous - nothing to do with the look on his face.
Denise E. it is odd. Paul perceived Lechmeres` demeanour/facial expressions as threatening rather than caring and concerned as Lechmeres words of "there`s a woman lying here" were meant to convey.
Everything about Lechmere is wrong.
@@albertross2022correct. Thank you
Brilliant video.
Fascinating! Steven Blomer must study the history whenever he is awake, and maybe in his sleep as well! His knowledge is incredible!
Lechmere was lying about the time he left home for work. If Lechmere had left at the time he said he did then Paul and Lechmere would have been walking side by side into Bucks Row. It may have been dark but at that time in the morning it was extremely quiet, everyone wore heavy boots - including the women - so footsteps on stone and cobbles would have echoed a great distance in the narrow streets. Paul said he didnt notice anyone until he was halfway down Bucks Row. Lechmere was in Bucks Row longer than he said he was and must have seen PC Neil exiting the street on his beat so he knew he had a certain amount of time before he returned. Unfortunately he heard Robert Paul turning into Bucks Row a short time later. So does he run or brazen it out and call Paul over saying he just found a body?
Yep. It does appear to be the case.
Prove it
That's a good point. They only talked about what could have been seen, but ignored the question of what could be heard.
@@UPTHETOWN It's a theory based on the actual evidence. Every judicial system in the world uses it. It is the basis and foundation that every detective, lawyer and barrister use to present their case to the jury supported by witness evidence. If the jury is persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt then they convict. If not they acquit. If this had happened today then Lechmere would be the main suspect because of inconsistencies in his statement. The police failed to investigate Charles Lechmere.
I suggest you do some actual research on walking speeds and distance rather than just accepting what is said in a tv show.
Great interview. We will never know for sure, however, I think he is the best suspect considering he was with the body!!
All of the victims' bodies were discovered by someone.
Diemschitz found Stride, Watkins found Eddows a few minutes after the murder. No difference at all.
@@ingowolf4205 good point. One could easily point to a cop murderer in Watkins, which is even more condemning because Eddows was spotted alive just ten minutes earlier.
So where is everyone accusing Watkins?
At 25.40 I can`t understand why Mr Blomer would say Robert Paul only became "switched on" as he became aware of Cross standing in the road. Robert Paul had already stated that you needed to "be on your guard" in that vicinity and would have certainly been "switched on" after entering Bucks Row so would have seen Cross 50 or so yards in front of him but he didn`t, he didn`t see or hear Cross walking ahead of him at any time.
A question: If you are going to compare two books to each other, and if you are coing to conclude that the writer who suggests a suspect is not only totally wrong but also unfairly damaging and destroying that suspects reputation, why is it that you do not invite BOTH authors to give their respective views? I am here whenever you want to speak to me. And I don´t bite. But you may of course have no such wish whatsoever?
Hi Christer, I'd be delighted to do a video with your views. I asked you last year but you didn't reply. If you would be interested in talking it would be great. I put up the link to your book as I feel it is important that people hear both sides of the story.
If you really want to reach me, please contact my publisher and he will direct you to me. We can then look at the possibilities open to us.
As I say Christer, I'd be delighted to do an hour chat with you. Just let me know how to get in touch and I'll set it up.
Hi Christer. As I said, I'd be happy to conduct an interview, so please contact me and we can set it up. It is over to you. Or, if you would prefer, ask your publishers to contact me.
@@JackTheRipperTours If you do get an interview would you ask him, why they never mention Mrs Harriet Lily statement please. Thank you.
Great interview, Rich. Very insightful. When will you interview me about Jack the Ripper films? I’m sure we both have a lot to say about that!
That is a great idea. When would be a good time? Would you also be up for discussing film versions of Dickens books?
@@JackTheRipperTours Lovely, Rich. I am generally free most weekends, so I’m sure we can sort something out between us. As for deacons adaptations? Well, to be fair, I don’t really know very much about those, so I won’t have a lot to say. I’ll send you an email in a bit
Sounds good. Let's get it done. Look forward to your email.
@@JackTheRipperTours email sent
One aspect which wasn’t mentioned which I’d consider unusual is the fact that his family until recently had no idea of his connection with the murders when it would seem that the majority of people would play any association with the JTR phenomenon for all it was worth.
It would be interesting to learn if Paul’s family knew of his connection too
The myriad of escape routes cited by Steven is like a metaphor for the likelihood of pinning the 'Jack the Ripper' murders on one man - or woman. Step aside from the 'JTR' tourist attraction monicker red herring for a moment and consider the facts: five individual murder cases (arguably fewer / arguably more) x 1,000 potential culprits per case. Try picking five match bet outcomes from this weekend's League One / League Two fixtures, three possible outcomes (win, lose or draw) per match, as much form and statistical breakdown available as you can be bothered to click a mouse. Home bankers are lines of enquiry, not points of elimination.
Predict the correct scores and all goal-scorers in those matches and you're some way toward defying the accumulated odds of clearing Inspector Abberline's desk.
I'm not knocking enthusiasts or scholars of Victoriana macabre. This is a thoughtful discussion and Steven and Richard are circumspect about critical thinking and source evidence. However, clearly crucial evidence has been either overlooked or unrecorded.
Fast forward eighty-odd years and the pompous berk leading the 'Yorkshire Ripper' investigation was found to be chronically prone to the red herring. Is it possible that the Victorian era police force was similarly afflicted by a corrupt system of internal promotion? There's another variable.
Even today, in the age of CCTV saturation, I know people who, complacently at best, conflate eavesdropping with all-seeing. Unfortunately there are a lot of dimwits in positions of effluence.
Absolutely. The police didnt have a clue back then, just as they didn't have a hundred years later in Yorkshire.
Thats why they almost certainly never bothered to look closely at Lechmere. If they had, he wouldn't have been known as Cross until recently.
They dropped the ball.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Because his stepfather was a policeman it's highly likely that the local police knew him and knew he used his stepfather's name. The fact he used Cross and not Lechmere makes not an iota of difference. He was present at the inquest and gave his name, address and place of work. Hardly the actions of someone trying to mislead.
I’m of the belief that it was not a corrupt system but it was a fledgling police force that had not dealt heights a serial murder before.
@@albertross2022 First, Cross wasn’t his legal stepfather. Two guys went through the motions of marrying Ma Lechmere. Bigamy means no husband, no stepfather. The only thing we know about Cross is that he was a liar. The Lechmere children were robbed of their last name when cunning Cross lied about their names on the census.
@@TiaMargarita - B does not preclude A. Victorian society was spectacularly corrupt from the top down: institutionalised murder and child abuse; empirical, war mongering exploitation; opium wars. It would be wilfully obtuse to suggest corruption didn't permeate any institution.
Given all the facts that were known and other factors, Lechmere ticks all the boxes we have and obviously without all that we have in todays abilities to solve murders and all the others that have been brought up have all been disapproved, so unless JTR was someone who we have never heard of, Lechmere is the most likely tho he may not be able to be proved, alas it will always remain a mystery because more evidence will never be brought.
I dont think it was Lechmere. He was around 40 at the time of the killings. Police officers thought the ripper was mid or late twenties. Lechmere was no jewish either, and police officers were almost certain that the ripper was. Ripper also propably had an accent. Paul who was at the same time in the Nichols murder scene with Lechmere did not see a knife or blood or anything too suspicious about Lechmere. He was in his way to work as normally. Also two last killings were in different direction as Lechmeres way to the work .Lechmere also had about dozen children and was working hard to feed his family. There were something suspicious about Lechmere like using both names Cross and Lechmere, but police could easily find Lechmere did he had use either of the names. He lived in Whitechapel so it was normal to live in not very good environment. For me, Lechmere is not very likely suspect of being the ripper.. Few interesting circumstantial points like most of the suspects but nothing concrete. I dont feel that Lechmere were woman hater or psychopathic killer. More logical was that he would hate men because hi did not know his biological father. Aaron Kosminski, Nathan Kaminski aka David Cohen and Jacob Levy were all jewish and known to have homicidal tendencies, hatred towards women and all have mental health problems. All those men very more likely to be the ripper.
Some boxes that he doesn't tick: There's no evidence in his life of any violence, criminality, or insanity. He has no known connection at all to any Ripper murder besides the Nicolls murder. He lived free for many years after the murders ended. He lived close enough to the crime scenes that he could have done it, but not close enough to be an ideal candidate. The 3 names that Jani mentioned, all of whom I consider stronger suspects than Lechmere, all lived closer to the middle of the crime area than Lechmere, as did George Chapman and George Hutchinson, 2 other suspects that I consider stronger than Lechmere.
@@otisdylan9532 Annie Chapman was killed about 5:30 cross was at work at 4 then Stride not ripper Eddows was away from his home Kelly was killed on a public holiday have u herd those so called experts tell u this information NO that coz every 1 that believes it was Cross r stupid 2 look up everything they r told
@@otisdylan9532serial killers often don't show violence outside their killings.
Finally. Been waiting for you to address this. Well done 👍
What a great video !
Glad you liked it!
Very interesting as always Mr. Jones, particularly since Lechmere/Cross is, or should I say, has been my favorite suspect up until now. It’s always good to get one’s bias views contested with facts.
However, I have a few points and questions regarding the murder of Mary Nichols.
1. I still think it’s quite suspicious Lechmere used the name Cross at the inquest due to the fact that he seemingly didn’t go by that name in his daily life. As far as we know, the only other time Lechmere himself used the name Cross (if that indeed was him) was also at a coroner’s inquest regarding the accident that resulted in a dead child. Isn’t it possible that Lechmere used his stepfather’s name because he was a policeman, and therefore lended a certain amount of credibility to Lechmere’s statements, or so he believed? Even though it was ruled as an accident, Lechmere was undoubtedly involved in the child’s death (again, provided it’s the same person).
Now, what would make Lechmere use the name Cross again at an inquest?
That is very odd to say the least. Could he have had something to hide and used the policeman’s name again to lend credence to his version of events and reliability? Could he have dropped the information that he was related to Police Constable Thomas Cross to the police and the coroner Wynne Baxter off the record, and they bought it? That could possibly explain why the coroner accepted Lechmere’s denial that he allegedly had lied to PC Mizen at face value.
It’s speculation of course, however it may be a possible explanation to Lechmere’s decision that I haven’t seen anyone else express.
2. Paul and Lechmere my not have seen each other at first due to the poorly lit street, but I imagine they would have heard each other on a completely empty street surrounded by buildings echoing hurrying footsteps of boots on cobblestone. Had Lechmere been walking only 40 yards ahead, Paul surely would have heard Lechmere at some point, which would have caught his attention due to the spot being known for robberies. But he didn’t, which means Lechmere could have been at the scene of the crime way before Paul came down the street. And that brings me to my next point.
3. Lechmere claims that he left the opposite pavement and moved to the middle of the street. But the question is which pavement he was on? Could he have backed away from the body when he became aware of Paul? The Daily News reported from the inquest that “He [Lechmere] stepped back and waited for the newcomer [Paul]”
Playing on the assumption that Lechmere did kill Nichols he couldn’t be sure how much Paul actually had seen. The statement that he left the pavement and went to the middle of the street could have been a quite clever way of technically telling the truth, that didn’t conflict with Paul’s testimony, and yet avoiding the whole truth.
4. The fact that Lechmere wasn’t seen or mentioned in connection to the other murders does not necessarily mean anything, simply because the Whitechapel murderer never was caught. Lechmere knew the area like the back of his hand and could easily have slipped away. I personally find it highly likely that the killer was someone local. A quite ordinary person who didn’t raise suspicion and knew the streets, alleyways, nooks and crannies of Whitechapel very well.
5. Mr. Blomer raised the question why Lechmere simply didn’t kill Paul if Lechmere was the killer. The answer may very well be that killing a drunk woman is one thing, but killing a fully grown sober man is a completely different thing. Lechmere may have realized that if he tried to kill Paul and failed, he would without a doubt become prime suspect in the Nichols murder as well, so instead he improvised.
6. Lechmere may not have been covered in blood. The Rippers MO was to strangle his victims which effectively stops the heart, meaning there will not be a lot of blood since there is no blood pressure. Being a delivery man he may have carried gloves that he tucked away before Paul reached the murder scene.
7. The Daily Mail also reported from Lechmere’s testimony that he should have said "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm.” That of course contradicts Paul’s later statement that she was cold and had been dead for some time, but rather suggest that the murder happened just prior to the discovery of the body.
Hi Magnus. All very valid points, and the truth is we can't answer with certainty. The purpose of the video is to present the case against Lechmere's having been Jack the Ripper. But, as we stress, he is a valid suspect, and he was found close to the body of a victim not long after she had been murdered. But as I say in all the suspect videos, we can not be certain either way unless he is tried and found guilty.
@@JackTheRipperTours The fact that we don’t know is, of course. a huge part of the charm regarding the Whitechapel murders and Jack the Ripper. It captivated me for 46 years, and yet I’m still just a novice.
Do you have a suspect that you favor?
Hi Magnus. To be honest, I find problems with all of them. We simply do not have any evidence.
I agree with you. There are 114 documents that verify that CAL used his legal name in dealings with authorities. The exception happens twice. One when he accidentally kills a child. The second where he is found standing looking at a freshly killed and mutilated corpse.
I also agree that if both RP and CAL were walking, boot sounds would have been significant. CAL standing at the freshly killed and mutilated corpse is attested to by RP. He saw CAL. His suspicions were raised seeing CAL standing still.
An interview with a pro-lechmere theorist should be next to keep it fair, and so far you have been.
I'm happy to do an interview. The video doesn't dismiss Lechmere as a viable suspect, so the other view would be welcome.
@@JackTheRipperTours would you agree to do a interview with Christer or Edward? That would be very interesting and I'm sure would attract a great amount of interest as Lechmere is fast becoming a very popular talked about suspect.
This is a really sober analysis of this alleged suspect. I have read too many comments on this and other threads that are too ready to accept Lechmere as suspect number one based on his proximity to the first victim when discovered. How many cases over the last 134 years have police all over the world made in mutilple cases against prime suspects which later turned out to be wrong?
I'm not sure what you're stating here. Lechmere was never a prime suspect. Your argument actually works for Lechmere supporters. How many times has the killer been right under everyone's nose but escaped suspicion?
Well what point are you making? Nobody had their eye on him. He completely escaped detection, whether guilty or not. But you've got to admit there was some very decided shadiness in his subsequent behavior. Otherwise he would have likely seen Robert Paul's newspaper interview and thought nothing of it, why come forward if you don't have a story you very much wish to establish for the record. You wouldn't care, and you certainly wouldn't rename yourself. The fact that Crister Holmgren and others located well over 100 official documents and records where his name was Lechmere and he was only Cross two other times, and once when he was 11 and had nothing to do with it
@@Frenchblue8 Spot on
and equally how many cases where the person who found the body was not suspected and so got away with it.......
your argument is easily countered and doesn't amount to much.
Marvelous, I've really been looking forward to this episode.
Great video, although I thought there is quite a bit of supposition in here as well. For example, Lechmere received a summons and appears at the inquest. How? The police had no name, and only after Robert Paul's Lloyd's newspaper interview was it revealed that there was a man standing over the body.
He wasn't standing over the body.
If Cross/Lechmere received a summons it is because he went to the police himself (Friday or Saturday after work or on Sunday) and after his interview at the Police Station was invited to come to the inquest on Monday.
If not, he presented himself at the inquest on Monday immediately, was interviewed by the police (where he explained how he found the body) and was then invited to give his testimony at the inquest itself.
Those are the only 2 possible scenarios imho.
Naw, no summons was made. Lechmere was free and clear and wouldn’t have had to come forward except that Robert Paul was interviewed by the newspaper. Lechmere had to clear his name before the police started looking for him. Smart man.
@@clayallison7321 Yep, I'm going with your 2nd premise. Either way, it was Lechmere who instigated his appearance at the inquest, which is different to what this video suggests
@@paulsparks4564 Interesting. I would think it would be more logical if he went to the police after work on Friday or Saturday or on his day off on Sunday, rather than showing up out of the blue on his working Monday.
Looking on how he was called to give his witness statement right after PC Mizen (so he could be confirmed by the latter as one of the carmen he spoke to) just before the inquest break, it seems to me Coroner Wynne Baxter was informed about him beforehand and planned this order of witnesses.
I think that was the suggestion in the video too : he received his summons to appear at a certain time at the inquest on Monday after he went to the police somewhere during the weekend.
Knowing what I know about criminology, and having studied a plethora of criminal cases, over the years, I would say that Charles Allen Lechmere was, very likely, "Jack The Ripper."
There's no way that we will ever know, for sure, but everything seems to point to Lechmere.
The ridiculous theories about someone related to the Royal Family, or this doctor or that doctor, are all pure conjecture ... by amateurs.
Lechmere is certainly suspicious as he were at the Nichols murder scene. He did use both names Cross and Lechmere and was raised in broken home. But i have not been able to find anything pointing that he was psychopathic killer or had serious mental health problems or homicidal tendencies. Ripper was certainly a homicidal maniac. There is not much to show Lechmere was the ripper. And he was in his normal route to work in the Nichols murder time. He might know more concerning Nichols murder or maybe even killed her, but there is nothing else pointing he was the ripper killing all those prostitutes. Lechmere lived up to 71 and these serial killers tend to continue killings until they are get caught or killed.
I think the key point that was not discussed in detail is the time that Polly Ann Nicholls was murdered. A woman who lived close by heard the sound of a woman crying out at 3.15. Charles Cross (Lechmere) claims that he arrived at the scene at 3.30 am. It is very unlikely that the killer would murder someone and then hang around for 15 mins. Therefore based on the witness statement Polly was killed at 3.15am and the killer fled down one of the many escape routes you did discuss in detail and 5 - 10 minutes later Cross was the man who found the body.
This would make Cross completely innocent, and like you said if it was not the police then someone has to find the body.
Also like Richard said it is very sad that an innocent man's family is tarnished with the name Jack The Ripper. This fact is true of any of the number of suspects which seem to appear each week.
Yes, if that witness (Harriet Lilley) overheard the murder, then Lechmere is an unlikely suspect. Then again, if she did not, it is another matter. And Lilleys observations are not compatible with the blood evidence. Nor was coroner Baxter impressed with her, since she was not called to the inquest, although her evidence - if correct and relevant - would be of the utmost importance. These matters need to be weighed in before we lament how an innocent man has been tarnished. It may be a case of a guilty man having been untarnished for more than a hundred years.
Very informative and interesting
Glad you enjoyed it
I am finding this quite troubling. First is the insistence on what is concrete and fact based versus subjective or circumstantial. Of course! The whole issue is that the police and inquest failed to investigate a guy at the location of a murder with unaccounted time and who gave a wrong name likely deliberatively...the only one history has found with these things to be true. To argue that things a circumstantial is the whole issue. The police and inquest made it so.
Sadly nobody will ever know. But there is nobody else who is at the scene, with time unaccounted for when caught at the scene, and who gave a name that is different than he was known by.
I still think there are other possible people, like Nathan Kaminsky (AKA, David Cohen), Hyam Hyams, and Jacob Levy could have been Jack. I dont find any others who are realistic options. But even these three were never found at a crime scene with unaccounted for time, and giving misleading names.
So all this arguing it is all circumstantial, interpretation, speculative is laughable. There is nothing here that dismisses him as the most likely suspect. All it shows is how badly the police and inquest screwed up.
Jeff Schultz,
Great post. The police were as clueless as they were a hundred years later in Yorkshire. Of course, investigating such crimes back then would have been extremely difficult, but still.......
@@jeffschultz2242 It’s hard for me to criticize the police. The police force was new. They did not have years of experience investigating these types of murders. They would have contacted the reporter who interviewed RP to identify Lechmere. That newspaper interview was crucial. Nowadays, it would have been regarded as a hot lead. With experience, inquest officials would have confirmed witness names and addresses. It would have been discovered that he rented under the name of Lechmere. Further investigation would have uncovered the records that we have now revealing that he used the name Lechmere in dealing with authorities.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Are you speaking of the Yorkshire ripper? Where the police disregarded the witness statements as to accents. I can’t remember all of it. Would you please post more?
I'm so glad to see this, even though I've just begun watching. As so often happens, when a suspect is put forward some people rush to say he is definitely the killer.
For me it's a bit ironic as for nearly three decades if wondered why Ripperologists didn't at least considered that a man found at the body wasn't viewed as a suspect. You'd think that people walking on the same road at the same time would've been aware of the other's footsteps. Yet apparently they were not.
All that aside, being convinced on such circumstantial evidence as proximity to ctime scenes is, in my opinion, a bit misplaced. In a small area like Whitechapel, with its warren of dark, tiny side streets and dead-end courts, there are only so many paths people will take in the dark of early morning.
If Cross had been the murderer, I'd think the policeman he'd encountered wouldn't noticed fresh blood on his hands or clothing from a murder committed minutes earlier. A cartman on his way to work wouldn't have an excuse for that.
Let's keep him on the list, but not jump to conclusions as so many TH-cam comments do.
If Mizen had noticed the bloodstains in the dark, he likely wouldn’t have been able to tell the difference from all the old bloodstains. I’m thinking that he wouldn’t have seen the new or the old bloodstains.
Yup, I agree that folks rush to the newest theory. Your thirty years has shown this and I join in with my forty. I have to confess that in the seventies, I was easily and thoroughly convinced by the Royal Theory. 😅. I’m somewhat embarrassed but at the same time I can give myself some slack because I was at the beginning of my JTR journey. I fell for others along the way. Like Kosminski! I’m really embarrassed about that one.
"being convinced on such circumstantial evidence"
But NO OTHER suspect even has any circumstantial evidence against them. Only Lechmere was actually seen by someone else lingering alone right by the body of one of the victims at or near the time of death and with nobody else in sight or sound.
I don't say he definitely was the Ripper, but he has a black mark against him that nobody else named has.
The police were as clueless as they were a hundred years later in Yorkshire.
Yes they used to call it a lynching - in regard to your first sentence ? .
Regarding blood, the Ripper strangled his victims. The wounds were post-mortem. So her heart wasn't beating to pump blood on him as he started mutilating her. Also, the Holmgren documentary claimed that he delivered meat. So much for not having an excuse. He could just say the blood got on him when he checked her for signs of life...
Well watching the "Jack the Ripper The Case Reopened" starring Emilia Fox (Silent Witness) near the end where they speak to a lady about the method of deducing the area where the Ripper lived. Charles Allen Lechmere lived in the area and had intimate knowledge of the roads, alleys and lest used paths.
Along with 20,000 others?
Lechmere lived in the periphery of the area. Jacob Levy, Nathan Kaminsky/David Cohen, George Chapman, Aaron Kosminski, and George Hutchinson all lived closer to center of the area that geographic profiling says that he likely lived in.
This is very poor reasoning, living in the area and knowing how to move around an area does not make you a good suspect for a crime.
@@probablynotmyname8521 No, but it makes one be given a second or third look. If I were the detective,. I'd put that name in the stack of decent leads and proceed to pick his life apart.
I don't think it was Charles, my belief is that the killer was hiding in the yard and Charles just missed him, the killer slipped out when Charles And Robert left to find the police, he then slit her throat to make sure she was dead and left the scene, hence the lack of blood when Charles And Robert found her, the killer used the same tactic again later (hiding in a yard) during the 3rd murder, Both times the killer was disturbed before he could complete the mutilations by a passer by, the pattern for the killer shows an attempt to find privacy which culminated with the 5th murder, I believe the killer must of died or left england by 1891,
I would love to see someone do an extensive look into men who died or were jailed from the area around 1890-1891 and were between the ages of 20 - 35 with backgrounds in medicine or butchery
WELL SAID & WELL THOUGHT OUT! Mr RODNEY HARRIS FRASER. ps, OR CONFINED TO A LUNATIC ASYLUM OR PRISON.
If you were on your way to work why would you care about a tarpaulin on the side of the road? I guess you could feel it's your civic duty to move an obstruction from a gateway, but really?
He said he was already running late, you'd just walk right past a tarpaulin.
That being said I'm also not sold on the 'comit a little murder on my way to work' thing, and the amount of time he would have had to do it. (Although admittedly a shocking characteristic of the ripper case is how in a very small window of time the ripper was able to kill his victims quite brazenly and relatively publicly.)
Otherwise he could have found her passed out and opportunistically attacked her and was interrupted. (Negating the need for the lead up time of accosting / persuading the victim.)
One would wonder about his impulse control then, which could actually point to how a serial killer behaves, don't they usually have poor impulse control.
A tarpaulin would have been worth money.
When we discuss the suspects, we inevitably damage their reputations based on scant evidence, whether it's Kosminsky, Sickert, or Feigenbaum.
None of those you mentioned have even circumstantial evidence against them. Lechmere does.
Never mind
@@kevinkenny6975 Yes, so sad that so many innocent people had their names dragged through the mud in connection with this case forever to be suspected of being Jack the Ripper. In today's world suspects would have been cleared in a timely manner. Ridiculous that even members of the royal family were made suspects. There is only one JTR and too many suspects that should have had their names cleared long ago. I believe whoever it was lived and worked in the area...knew the Whitechapel area very well and attracted no attention from the locals.
This was both informative and entertaining. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Now watch his video with Christer Holmgren.
I also believe it could have been Lechmere
This has been my favored suspect for a while.
Me too! I’ve been on the JTR journey for forty years and Lechmere is the only suspect I can’t rule out. Prettiest exciting