An interesting fact about another Jack the Ripper murder, concerns No 29 Hanbury Street, where Annie Chapman was murdered. The ground floor front room of the house was being used by a Mrs Harriet Hardiman and her sixteen year old son as a shop selling cats meat. Given Lechmere's job as a carman delivering meat to butchers and cats meat shops it is highly likely that he would be familiar with the address, its layout etc.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that no one knows who the Ripper really is. There remains the distinct possibility that he’s never been identified as a suspect by anyone.
The thing for me is, how plausible is it that some other guy was there before Lechmere? Really? Not very. Experts in the medical field have given their opinion on the blood found oozing from Nichols’ neck wounds and they were still fresh and flowing by the time the policeman arrived on the scene. Blood had not yet started to pool and coagulate. If someone other than Lechmere had killed Nichols, the blood would’ve already started pooling on the ground beneath the body by the time PC Neil came across it.
As always well researched, thought out, concise and rational. No a + f = z logic. No steps skipped. No leaps over anything awkward. As I keep saying, i wish all presenters were more like you.
@@RadagastBrown420 Not true. When a Chameleon takes on the color, shape, and appearance of a tree branch, does that mean it is a tree branch? Of course not. It’s merely a predator masquerading as as one. Psychopaths may have a human body but their consciousness is anything but human.
I have a note to add.. if bucks row was truly a normal method for Lechemere to go to work (in the idea of him being innocent and really taking fast routes always) why didn’t he return back home the same way after work? Did a cart man always return to the same depot after cart deliveries, then walk home? Also did Robert Paul return home that way and see reporters or anyone I wonder on bucks row? I guess that information isn’t known, but considering their routes I would guess that both would go home that way too because of their involvement and curiosity of what became of the lady they “didn’t know what happened, or what was wrong with her” think about your curiosity after a wreck, death, or a disaster on your route.. you usually would pay attention to it on the way home out of your curiosity because of your integral involvement and to tell your family of involvement before it “hit the news” .. at least I would. Did either go home that way is my question? As a normal member of my community I would have wanted to know what became of that situation I stumbled upon and see it in daylight after my work shift if I had to walk home anyway. Being involved in that sort of scenario would be almost a buzz of fame for a guy like Robert Paul and a guy like Lechmere… considering how basic and normal their lives seemed in my opinion.also considering Robert Paul was in LLoyds paper soon after. We know Robert Paul sought out the media to brag/establish himself as a finder of body over Pc Neil, but in fact lechmere was the true discoverer of the body according to the testimony so why wouldn’t lechmere get a story with the paper too ? He would have been toted as the discoverer and probably been paid well. Yet he did not seek it out. Which makes him more suspicious. Moreover I think if you can place Robert Paul with a reporter at the scene that evening after work. Then it strengthens the case against lechmere, and depicts the man just interested in hiding in the background.
We have no idea what route Lechmere took going home. However Paul definitely went via Bucks Row as that was where he gave his interview on Friday evening - and he repeated it on Saturday evening!
So if Lechmere didn't go home that way it would be suspicious? Wanting to separate himself from the situation instead of getting more attention.That is an interesting point. Somene innocent might simply want to avoid drama though, especially if they already knew everything they could by their involvement and if it is after a hard days work. I'm like that. I avoid anything that looks like drama unless I can be of use.
While we don’t know the route he took home I’d be willing to bet he walked back home through Buck’s Row. I’d think he’d want to know what, if anything, was being said. Much like a murderer will some times attend a victim’s funeral or an arsonist will stay to watch a fire burn.
Lechmere didn't say he heard someone run off because that implies she was only just killed as Lechmere himself came across the body. He needed to put distance between him and the time of the murder
All objections answered clearly! 99.9% sure it was Lechmere. Adding to the argument against the first objection, I recently listened to a podcast about the Green River Murders and they told a story of a fisherman who had gone out early one morning and ran into someone who was wading through the reeds but had no fishing stuff or anything else. Apparently, the guy came over to him and engaged him in conversation for a bit before they went their separate ways. Not long after the fisherman found a body, just where he had initially seen the guy. Years later when Gary Ridgeway was caught, the fisherman apparently identified him as the guy that he saw. If that story is true, it's another example of the brass neck that these nutters have. Perhaps, they also get a thrill from coming so close to being caught and/or fooling people. Also, as to why the police didn't look into Lechmere properly, I think some people forget that at the time of the Polly Nichols murder, the police weren't looking for 'Jack the Ripper' and probably thought it was a one off or a case of robbery etc. so they wouldn't have initially been as alert to what they were really dealing with. If, instead, Lechmere had been found at one of the later scenes/claimed to find one of the later victims, as opposed to one of the first, the police might have looked into him more thoroughly.
Id not heard that about Gary Ridgway and the fisherman, despite having a passing interest in the case. If that is true yes it's very similar to Lechmere and Paul (if Lechmere was JTR of course).
Your rebuttal, in my opinion, is spot on! I believe Lechmere is Jack The Ripper and always have. For me to change my mind would take a lot. To that point, there is no other suspect in my mind.
At the very most there's some evidence he *could* have killed that first victim...but there's no shred of evidence against him in the other murders, so saying he's "definitely" JTR is pretty ludicrous.
At the very most there's some evidence he *could* have killed that first victim...but there's no shred of evidence against him in the other murders, so saying he's "definitely" JTR is pretty ludicrous.
At the very most there's some evidence he *could* have killed that first victim...but there's no shred of evidence against him in the other murders, so saying he's "definitely" JTR is pretty ludicrous.
At the very most there's some evidence he *could* have killed that first victim...but there's no shred of evidence against him in the other murders, so saying he's "definitely" JTR is pretty ludicrous.
I have said so many times that the reason serial Killers get away with multiple crimes is because they are unassuming normal looking guys. Often loners. You hear "he was a nice guy, kept himself to himself," etc. I never understand why people would think serial Killers are openly violent people. They would be known to police and everyone that knows them and therefore would be the first person suspected
You are repeating the company line it’s very easy to call people loners that they had no friends. I like to keep to myself and I stay away from drama that doesn’t mean I’m evil or a serial killer. People are products of their environment.
@bradmeeds1226 it's not the company line. It's fact. Nobody says everyone who is quiet and prefers their own company turns out to be a serial killer. But if you look at the evidence, the majority of serial Killers when caught neighbours or work colleagues always say "he was a nice person." Or "He was quiet, kept himself to himself." As I said, imagine if Jeffrey Dahma or Dennis Nielson had been rowdy bullies, known to have a temper. They'd have been caught a lot sooner
If I remember rightly it seems to me that BLOOD is a very important factor regarding Bucks Row! I think Paul said he could not see any blood at the site, suggesting it may have been too dark. I believe if there had been a pool of blood at the body he WOULD have seen it. Even on poorly-lit streets these days it is easy to spot a puddle after rain, and spotting a pool of blood would be just as easy. Decent lighting is not necessary. So I believe we can say that there was NO pool of blood there as Paul arrived, but when the PC came on the scene just a FEW minutes later he saw blood. To me this means just one thing - as Paul arrived on the scene the murder had only just taken place. This means either Cross/Lechmere has just disturbed the ripper and he ran off, in which case he would have told Paul this and the PC they met, OR the murder had just been committed by Cross/Lechmere!
The only true serious suspect in a category of his own Cat 1 Serious credible suspect Charles Lechmere .......all others are in a different category cat 2 Police Suspects , cat 3 Suspects of rumour , cat 4 Suspects considered by Authors
9:36 If Lechmere had claimed he saw or heard someone running away from “Polly” Nichols and afterwards found the woman lying there, he would not have been puzzled about the woman’s condition and quietly flagged down Robert Paul. Some inspector would’ve asked Lechmere later, “Why didn’t you cry out at that very moment?” Lechmere had to make his claimed motivations match his peculiar actions. If the alleged motives for doing such-and-such an act don’t match, the police will take note of the discrepancy. Seeing or hearing someone running away from a body lying in the street would have left no doubt as to what Lechmere should do next. He should suspect something foul had just happened and raised the alarm. Witnessing such an event and not raising the alarm wouldn’t make sense for an innocent person, only for a guilty person.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 Lots of serial killers stop. As psychopaths, they don't have an overwhelming urge to kill, just an inability to control their urges. So it could be merely a matter of getting bored and finding a new hobby.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 I don't believe they just phase out. Their thirst for blood becomes insatiable. Perhaps he became ill. But age? I don't think that by itself would be the deterrent.
@BetterOff735 some do just stop for a whole variety of personal reasons. Happier in their marriage, too busy with other things in their life and so on.
Another great video. Lechmere being found near the body is incriminating and any modern investigation would seek to eliminate him. It’s interesting to me that it’s impossible to do so. In fact when you try to extricate Lechmere it just gets worse and worse for him. He has no alibi, his version of events is demonstrably false and he outright lied to PC Mizen. The criticism of Lechmere is standard stuff but it totally missed the point. Lechmere was winging it, he had just seconds to make decisions. There was no time to weigh up the pro’s and con’s. Everything that happened after Paul turns up is risky, but not as risky as killing somebody yards from a row or houses. Everything that happened after Pauls arrival is Lechmere on survival mode, trying to regain control and take ownership of a situation that has spiralled out of control. Critics who analyse his actions, and second guess every decision he makes, misses the point.
Not all metropolitan police detectives were mugs. The names, addresses, places of work of witnesses, those who found the victims would be listed as people of interest. Cross/Lechmere would have been on that list. Every time there was another murder people of interest would be revisited for alibis. If they checked out, ie all ok, they would be removed from the list. Not all metropolitan police detectives were mugs.
@walkawaycat431 This simple fact - that the police were still calling him Cross on 19th October 1888 - does not sink in with those who have unrealistic faith in the capability of the police.
From the evidence which you`ve presented throughout this series Lechmere still looks like the strongest suspect .The calm way he conducted himself and his willingness to take risks that a more sound and rational person wouldn`t in the circumstances ,suggests that he suffered from Psychopathy. Interesting fact : the level of Psychopathy in prisons and among successful business men is roughly the same .On a more trivial note is that a medal or maybe a rather large button which Lechmere is shown to be wearing in the photograph you have of him ?
Great work as usual bud. I have never seen any other work naming letchmere as a suspect before i found your videos. After watching all of your video I cant imagine any other suspect now. I'll admit when i found the 1st video i was absolutely sure lechmere was not a good suspect. Seems people have their fav suspect and nothing will change their mind. Now i cant even watch any other jack ripper video without referring back to you thank you for that😂 jk now i get so excited when u post videos you're officially my go to thanks for the excellent work!
Lechmere and the Whitechapel murders all of them. Question 1 I agree with you 100% staying with the body and trying to shift pauls view was lechemere only option many killers have been able to talk their way out of bad situations relying on their ability to manipulate people and situations. Hell bundy and dahmer talked face to face with police and weasel their way out. Police even saw one of dahmers victims in bad shape and he convinced them otherwise. Lechmere did same
Cross is intriguing and I wish there were modern techniques available then, because we would probably know.. The problem is there’s no real evidence, but that’s true for all suspects.. My own personal objection is IMO this person was on a clear downward spiral, and Cross living to old age just doesn’t fit.. This is also why I’ve always been very interested in Druitt, but not necessarily because he was Jack.. However, because I believe Jack was on a similar trajectory as Druitt.. But, there’s probably at least a dozen people in White Chapel in that area at that time, with many lost to history completely.. Like I said, intriguing, but IMO not correct..
Compare, if you will, with Joseph James De Angelo, the so called Golden State Killer. He killed around a dozen people between 1979 and 1986, and then he stopped. He was caught by way of DNA when he was 72. If Lechmere must have been on a downward spiral, then so must De Angelo. And nevertheless ...
Ridiculous statement, the evidence is extremely weak and growing weaker, when this happens you are supposed to reevaluate not hold your position no matter what, that is not an academic approach but a dogmatic approach
Over the years I've read everything covering the Jack the ripper case .. I've come to the conclusion Letchmere is the one that over every suspect got my attention 💯
@@laurataylor8179 yes I have Hun I was very young when I first looked into the Jack the Ripper saga , lm now nearly 60yrs old and yes I'm still asking questions...but up till now being a British citizen the one I question the most is Letchmere...or should I say Cross...think about it WHY did he give his stepfather's name who was a ex police officer rather than his true name ????
Other points can also be made, such as, the first (canonical) victim was a prostitute so the police didn't even really care much about finding the culprit and didn't start getting serious about it only after the following murders. Moreover, and this is confirmed by the directions the inquiry took afterwards, police couldn't fathom a local man doing it, in their minds it could only have been an immigrant and someone clearly not in their right minds, not someone who was on his way to his workplace of 20 years. This being said, to our modern sensibility police not investigating him further is baffling even with all the excuses (the wrong name, the different divisions not being clear on who was in charge of the case, police wanting to take credit for finding the body...). But police messing up would hardly be a surprise.
The fact that the police never ever considered him a suspect speaks volumes. Abberline was too informed at every level of the case not to have considered him. And, would Lechmere, known to the police after the first murder, really go on a killing spree. No, he was not the murderer.
Excellent and fascinating - as ever. I wholeheartedly agree that the psychological aspects of The Ripper case - as far as we can reasonably deduce them from the records - are often overlooked or misinterpreted. This is certainly the case in the new ‘Edward Buckley’ theory, which points the finger at a career criminal and alcoholic because he attacked and beat his wife.
Yes exactly. Buckley is a very poor potential suspect, put in the frame purely because he was a local thug and useless pickpocket who kept getting nicked. Someone less like a psychopathic stealth serial killer couldn't be found.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 agreed. It’s highly unlikely he would get away with the more heinous crimes but caught for the petty crimes he committed. Lechmere/Cross has to be ruled out before anyone else is looked into.
I don't think we will ever find our who was Jack the ripper ,simply because there is no hard evidence .All we can say he knew rthe area very well and covered his tracks very well .
In my opinion, invented was used in the second question? Staged crime scenes, scripted ?never happened, a lonely spot quiet. If there was anything would only be some blood to mark the scene. If sherlock was there, he would have seen it for what it was ? It was obviously done at that frequently at the time, as it was mentioned in a sherlock Homes film? And a blood stained rag was found near one of the crime scenes? In the film 🎥 🎞 the scene had been staged? So, if that scenario is a plausible possibility , no noise, a jar of blood is all it would take as you walk by? That would mean that they were murdered somewhere else, in my opinion? What made me look at this was the sherlock scenario, which was the striking resemblance to the name Canonical has to Conan/ical (meaning of or pertaining to?) 5 ,didgits maybe 5 people or even his second name? He liked codes and crossword puzzles that's in one of his films as well? Anderson also mentioned sherlock in his memoirs? One of the detectives in a newspaper harkend, it was like being in the secret service? Was the fictional detectives brother supposedly in the secret service ? And in the recent series witch I'm an avid fan off the one with una in,he describes himself as a.functioning sociopath, witch is described by "psychopath" by someone, weird then you Dr.Hare , which reminds me of Burk and Hare? Convicted Grave robbers : from Edinburgh I think supplying body parts, re: the 1944 film the house of fear, they use the dug up bodies then mutilated the dressed them up and presented them as someone else ?insurance scam ? The 1945 film,the something claw the innkeepers daughter is called Marie Jurnett, Mary Kelly's working name? There's no connection to the torso murders though ? The body part that was found in Mary Shell's garden? Please fact-check everything, and please feel free to inform me if, if I'm wrong about anything ? I just like facts, thank you for your time?
@lyndoncmp5751 will that's hoe preposterous it is saying its Lechmere, Lyndon 😆 🤣!!!!! Pointers our dogs 🐕 by way Lyndon not evidence 🙄 I not 😳embarress you with semantics In Law 🗣🫵💬💬💬💬🧠🫂 or I will have you in knots lol! Your nive guy Lyndon but ✍️ writing some off that nonesense is just farcical , L Edward seems good 👍 guy as well 😉 👍 💯 but Holgrem is one ass 🕳 DONT LIKE HIM AT ALL HES SLECET MARE 🥊🥊🥊🥊🥋 LYNDON look at paleys book again and use your brain 😉 ffs man even j Douglas fbi profiler gets Barnett to a T !!!! Do u want jam on it man! Also rem the great c Holgrem thought jtr 🔪 was 6ft 7 🤔🤫🤫🤫🤫🫣🫣🫣🫣🫣🫣🫣🤐🫡 any way have nice 👍 evening, hi 👋 Edward 🤝 see you Holgrem thers a saying in Belfast and its you to a T 🤔 💭 fair dig 💪 anytime 😊 not Matthew Lawtown me 🥊🥋
@@christerholmgren335 I have. He's a good suspect, but there is no conclusive proof. You cannot rule out someone else killing Polly Nichols before he arrived. All the other evidence against him is little different from that of hundreds or possibly thousands of other Ripper suspects: there's nothing to rule him out.
@@nickd4310 there’s never “conclusive proof” in most murder cases. We use and weigh circumstantial evidence heavier because of this. The circumstantial evidence against Lechmere is much stronger than any other proposed perp.
Some good points, although I don't agree with everything mentioned. The first being that serial killers only select women because they're small and easy to overpower. Heterosexual serial killers target women, because women are the centre of their fantasies. Homosexual serial killers kill men, it's as simple as that really. It's about the desire and fantasy, selection is not being made based on potential physical threat. I would add that this is certainly not always the case as many serial killers have been quite willing to kill men as well if it fit their purpose or desires. The other point I would argue is that all serial killers are cowardly weaklings who live in the shadows and flee when potentially challenged. While this may certainly may be true in some cases, many serial killers have been quite willing to fight or kill when confronted, with one you mentioned here coming to mind, Joseph DeAngelo. They kill for fun, so killing one more person to preserve their identity is certainly not a stretch of the imagination.
I wonder,if it were dark on that road maybe Letchmere in the split second decision may have thought that the figure that approached him in the dark was a Policeman and decided that running would not have been a good idea ...plus he wouldn't have known who Paul was until he got close enough to tell the difference and by then it would have been too late to run
Let's face it: the way Lechmere acted after killing Polly was the most logical role to play, the best bet in order to maximize the chances not to get caught. And he did not. A psychopath can behave calmly and cool and stay collected and play his cards right. They don't feel the fear or feel nervous or stressed in situations like that.
True it’s hard to think like a killer.. when they caught sutcliff he had calmly just placed his weapons in the alley and was staging the killing grounds for an unsuspecting woman. Sad and sick
@@masan7452 And now Identified, he just carried on skulking around the streets in the early hours & continued the killings. You kids Really need to stick to the Cartoons.
@@bethryan9077 He wasn't identified as he gave a wrong name to police and inquest and never was a suspect, he lost from the radar so to say.. Or never really was in the radar in the first place
Greetings - this is Paul Sutton. For the record, I'm not a 'Ripperologist' and lasted about a week on the JtR Casebook site, before being hilariously informed I had a lifetime ban! All for a mildly mocking post saying I'd solved the case, after a ten-minute visit to Mitre Square. Apparently I'd 'insulted and defamed' the entire Ripperology world! Good - they're a fanatical bunch of bores. But I'm a Ripper obsessive and welcome Edward's video, whilst finding it unconvincing in places. I'll details those, if this gets read! My post was full of praise for the Lechmere work, whilst raising points that worried me. Some comments below are typical of the sort of nonsense that occurs on the Casebook site - which is why I took the piss so readily (and got banned). The sense of 'ownership' too many assert is pointless. There's no need for any personal feelings over this, let alone bruised egos. I think it's important to realise that raising objections to a theory is vital, not some form of attack. True, many on the appalling Casebook are dismissive and near-hysterical in their objections to Lechmere. As said, I got banned for slagging them all off - not least by saying that at least the Lechmerites had been both creative and interesting, unlike most of them who nit-pick over minute details but refuse to theorise, under the delusion that everything they do is 'evidence based'. But nobody can expect blind worship of a theory. I think it would be good if Edward/Christer - both of whom I applaud - were less defensive and seemingly outraged by perfectly valid points. I'd like to respond in depth, but a general observation. I'm VERY familiar with the point: 'But serial killers are just like that - accept it' - used as a trump card. The problem is people combine it with their own detailed logic, then say 'you can't get inside these people's heads'. It's an incoherent line of argument - how come YOU do seem to be capable of 'getting inside their heads'? In fact - to be pretentious - it's the fallacy of relativism, i.e. claiming all other views are 'relative not absolute', whilst making that claim as an absolute one.
Of course he did, as one wouldn’t expect someone who just cut someone else’s throat to come over and show you the body, like Cross/Lechmere did with Paul. Also, in interviews, Paul doesn’t come across as very bright.
We don't know that but what we know is Paul felt fear for Lechmere. My guess is that Paul had a hunch of Lechmere being the killer but had no balls to bring it up. Just speculation of course...
15:58 If you go to a coroner’s inquest and then start out the gate with lying about who you are or giving a false address or workplace, that would be stupid because it could easily backfire on you. All good liars put an indisputable truth in their lies to make it seem as though the fact corroborates the fiction. Lechmere was not running away at the inquest. To do so would have been foolish, and would have made his position as merely a witness questionable. The only thing he could do at that point was make it seem like he was a legitimate witness, and that his actions in finding the body were not viewed as suspicious.
Just out of curiosity, Lechmere lived till 1920. Is there another series of murders/disappearances in East London that might be connected to him? I find it hard to believe he just stopped killing. Maybe he covered his tracks more carefully a la the Torso Murders.
Yes, well rebutted, although they weren't very good arguments to begin with. I think we have already heard that there weren't any obvious escape routes from Bucks Row. It would have been pretty stupid to make a run for it and risk drawing attention to himself or being chased, if Paul shouted for help. Also, Lechmere could have left home earlier than he said. His route from Doveton Street presumably took him on to Commercial Street where he would have spent a few minutes transacting with the victim, en route to Bucks Row.
According to maps of the bucks row area. There were actually escape routes all around. By the school 🏫 and the stable or whatever where Nicols body was.. people have said that there wasn’t an escape route but it’s simply not true. You can look at the side roads into bucks row on a dated 1880 map. The fact is that it wasn’t as large a road as whiteschapel or others. So it was less traveled and tighter but it had many exits. It also was poorly lit that time.
@hownotto4067 Actually, those "exits" were people's yards or gateways. There were no direct exits out of the streets except the end of the streets. So, you're expecting us to believe that someone was hiding in a yard for hours? Remember, the body was never left alone. When did the supposed killer escape? Did they wait for hours until Polly Nichol's body was removed and the ruckus died down?
@@walkawaycat431 according to the “was Charles Allan lechmere really Jack the Ripper” video I’ve watched on “Jack the Ripper Tour channel.” The case of lechmere being a suspect is brought up and walked through similar to here on house of lechmere channel. The idea of bucks row having no exits was actually brought out as false in this video so you may want to watch it. It was a small road and narrow, but it did have an exit on both ends and also a turn off at the school not far from Nichols body. Which coincidentally is the opposite direction of Robert Paul, if it was lechmere then he would have known these routes well. But either way it doesn’t prove or disprove him as a suspect. Lechmere would have definitely been a top suspect in an American 🇺🇸 murder case in present day.
Lechmere could not take the risk of killing again, a man, which could be a lot riskier and messier, with PCs and vigilantes everywhere. Paul said when he first saw Lechmere, something about the man frightened him. He needed Paul alive. Paul was his ticket to safety as PCs would not pay to much attention to a couple of innocent workers on their way to work. Lechmere was trying to give the impression Paul was all the way walking behind him He only gave half lies in case things went sour. The half truths could help him prove he wasn't lying. Very smart. Any stone cold killer wouldn't be bothered about killing on his way to work. Quit the opposite. They get a high and feel confident, so ...Don't forget he's bold, ruthless, cunning and smart. A very dangerous combination.
I have got a theory as to why lechmere was insisting that Paul come and look at the body.. I think it was because, he would touch the body to check her and Paul would see this happen , and then had a good reason to explain any bloody on his hands or clothes , If he needed to and Paul would unknowingly back him up on it .. after all, it was dark
@@hownotto4067 yup, exactly. For any Ripper suspect to be viable, imo, there must be a 'why did they stop' solution/answer, otherwise your theory/suspect doesnt hold water
@@ByHookorbyNeedles I agree.. and if he continued his work of the delivery driver.. we can assume he was physically able as a workman so also able as a killer from a physical capability.. lechmere has a couple holes in the plot.. also I wonder about his method to be with this woman in bucks row as a “client” at this time. This means he would have taken her from another district and left much earlier for work that day. Also I wonder about blood stained and evidence of blood on him that Robert Paul would not have noticed also sometimes Jack the Ripper took body parts.. I will admit lechmere still is a possibility in my mind because of this information tho.also if he delivered butchering items regularly it would strengthen the case of lechmere imo.. but I want to know more about his work life and profession.. these killings were done like a butcher imo who was somewhat skilled. Did lechmere grow up cleaning game and butchering? So much more could be delved into if the information was there.. but how much of the back story is available is the question in time.
Another excellent video. Paul Sutton’s objections were reasonable, but I think you rebutted them all. He seems quite a reasonable and intelligent chap, which is probably why he’s no longer posting on Casebook. 😉
Yes - I thought I'd respond to him as he put his points in a rational and well intentioned manner - unlike most particularly on Casebook of course, where extreme angst rules the day. They say a fish rots from the head.
lechmere is a better suspect than most but i still dont think it was him hes the only you can really build a case agianst though though the evedence is weak at least there is evedence unlike a lot of the other suspects
One of the things that makes this so difficult is trying to imagine how people back in the 1880s thought, perceived and dealt with things because we're living in a totally different time that's nothing like how it was back then. The way people related to each other and the way they communicated was almost alien to how we go about it now. That said, my money is on Letchmere being JTR too. I think it is the one with the most comprehensive case behind it.
I’d think that where someone is in the habit of premeditating murder in public areas, that it would be extremely likely they would also have the premeditated excuse of coming across the victim innocently and by chance ready for just such an occasion as being seen. I cannot see where this isn’t blatantly obvious. It would be expected of a psychopath. Also, this type of serial killing or attacking psychopath killing or attacking people with their occupation being a help rather than a hindrance isn’t unheard of, for example lorry drivers and taxi drivers. Again, there’s no mystery there.
@thehouseoflechmere9407 I'm sorry, upon reading this again it looks like I'm really annoyed at your video, but it really is quite the opposite! I've been a follower of the Lechmere theory for years now (well, since we publicly knew he WAS called Lechmere, of course) and have been subscribed to your channel from the start(ish) - I'm annoyed at the ridiculous "arguments" against the one person caught red handed with a victim at the time of death having no more substance than " why doesn't he run away?".... seriously?! Because all psychopaths are narcissists - obviously. Why WOULDN'T he think "well I'll just pretend I came across the victim and how dare anyone not believe me" in the very manner of a narcissistic psychopath? Of course, the second you do put such "arguments" forward, then the first would HAVE to be "why would someone murder a stranger and then mutilate and/or gut them?" Well no one who is "normal" and would run away terrified upon being caught in the act! The culprit is not this type of "normal" - that's why he kills, mutilates and doesn't run away. Not running away is the LEAST of the odd behaviours here....but as per some of the comments, there's nowt as queer as folk.... Your videos take a lot of work and patience, and even if some people don't agree with them, they should have the morality to be intellectually honest in their objections and debate. Personally, I'm a cynical person (do not like conspiracy theories or even have the ability to believe in any gods), but understand that Lechmere isn't only the likely suspect, but is very unlikely to not be the culprit. I do not WANT him to be the culprit, as I didn't know him nor do I have any familial or geographical connection to him - he is Joe (or Jack) Blogs to me. He simply IS the likely culprit when looking at this case honestly and impartially.
In addition to being a psychopath, the Ripper was, obviously, a sexual sadist. This involves obsessive fantasies going back to a very young age. If Polly Nichols was, in fact, the Ripper’s first actual murder, it’s likely the first time realization of his goal of sexual sadism might make him inattentive to his surroundings. As you have said, Amy person in the grip of these psychological symptoms would not act in a rational manner. There are many examples of serial killers coming forward in similar circumstances, such as Jeffrey Dahmer and the case of the 14-year-old boy who escaped his apartment. He saw the boy in the presence of the police. He knew he had already drilled into the skull of the victim, rendering him stunned and unable to speak. He blithely came forward and talked his way out of trouble.
Nielsen talked his way out of a similar situation - the police preferred to accept his explanation of his being accused of an attack on a young man as part of a lovers' tiff rather than a murderous assault.
If Lechmere had been spotted early in the vicinity of any other crime scenes, it wouldve been GAME OVER. How would explain being at 2 separate crime scenes, the first being Bucks Row.. other by saying..he was 'walking on his normal usual route to work'
Paul Sutton's Views are not valid and shows that he hasn't looked at Charles Lechmere's Background, which Christer and Yourself have done, Edward.......Clearly, he fits the profile of a Serial Killer, which is identifiable today, but not in 1888...Lechmere was with Polly Nichol's Body at the time of death and yep, the fight or flight instinct wud have been prevalent...Lechmere was in a psychotic state, just as Robert Paul approached and decided to fight....Robert Paul must have suspected that Lechmere had killed Polly and wud have been very concerned for his own life, especially when Lechmere went with him to get the Police...He wud have had the knife on him and one false move from Paul, wud have meant copping a blade in the back, I'd say...Robert Paul wudn't have made the statement indicating another carman, who he didn't know, had found the body and was very near her when he arrived at the scene, if he didn't suspect him.....Lechmere made it clear he was late for work that morning of the murder, yet said he stopped because he thought he saw a tarpaulin and wanted it....Sounds like BS, as he wud have access to tarpaulins at work and it's surprising Cross's Statement didn't warrant an investigation...He slipped through, giving the impression he was an ordinary carman, family man and respectable citizen, when he was a psychopath....Cheers from Damo😆🤲
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 So True, Edward....No other suspect ticks all the boxes like Charles Lechmere/Cross and it is so obvious to most of us.....The Critics of The Lechmere Theory can offer no plausible alternative suspect and are playing Devil's Advocate, IMHO....Cheers fm Damo🤔🙌
Agreed. His stating he thought he saw tarpaulin is ridiculous and highly suspicious. Like you say he would have had coverings at work and also it was dark so hard to spot black tarpaulin.
Why would Lechmere tell Paul that he (Lechmere) saw someone running from the crime scene? There were no obvious injuries on Nichols and no evidence of an attack. Lechmere wanted to present a mundane scene with no criminals or anything.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 I've watched them all. I'm talking about actual EVIDENCE, not speculation and wild conjecture. Apart from being in Bucks Row, and finding a victim, what supports the accusation in terms of tangible actual evidence. Stuff you can show. Stuff that ACTUALLY happened. I know there isn't anything because I've had this conversation enough times with Christer to know that its all a smokescreen of insinuation and half-asred leaps of "If This then maybe That... and if THAT then MAYBE the other... OMG WE CAUGHT THE RIPPER!" If the evidence is, as this person says "Overwhelming" it should be a piece of cake...
@andrewtomlinson5237 Do you expect the case to be rehearsed to you in total here? I suggest you go back to each of the videos and point out one by one each point which is unsupported by evidence - including circumstantial evidence which I'm sure a student of criminology such as your good self will know is enough to convict. I'm sure it should be easy enough for you? Should be a piece of cake.
I fully agree with you that Letchmere could have left much earlier than he stated for maybe he had already been out on the hunt for a victim but failed to find one....plus he may well have come across her if she had just been with another customer at that location....
Question 6. Contemporary readers need to always keep in mind that LE of 1888 didn’t have fingerprinting, DNA, hair comparisons, photographic evidence, blood typing or anything except eye witness testimony and blood smears, traces and weapon identification. They were dealing with crime in a completely different world. And perps behaved accordingly.
After watching the missing evidence how anyone can think it was someone other then lechmere is beyond me. I guess it doesn’t fit there narrative on who they want there suspect to be. Edward you’ve done an amazing job laying the case against lechmere out. It’s definitely lechmere and nobody else.
Well you should always do your due diligence and hear all theories and all sides. However I totally agree with you. Lechmere makes sense when you actually look at the evidence and the more you know about serial killers. Lechmere might be innocent but he's the greatest suspect and always will be is because he was the only person seen at the scene which is just crazy when you actually look at the crime scenes and how public some of the murder sites were.
If you look at it from the other end that JTR was very cunning and bold in his attacks then I would think that he would be the same way if he was about to be discovered and would instinctively seize the initiative and steer the conversation and perception the way that lechmere apparently did😎
Picking up on #10, what are your thoughts on why the spree would have ended? In the case of the other killers, they didn’t stop and tended to spiral more out of control. I know you link him to a few others, but seems like the body count including pre/post cannon should be at least dozens.
If Lechmere was the Ripper, the murder of Mary Kelly does not fit his timeline as far as location, work hours, or day of the week. I personally believe Kosminski was the Ripper. Too many things always lead back and point to him. All the criminal profile knowledge we have today fits him perfectly!
It fits all of those criteria. It was in his route to work. It was proceeding a normal work day, the time of death was unknown to any degree of accuracy and could easily have been prior to 4.00 am if that was his start time - which we don't actually know. And Kosminski absolutely doesn't fit the profile.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 It's possible that her death was before 4:00 am, but much more likely that her death was around 5:30. John Richardson said he saw the yard at 4:45 or 4:50, and that the body wasn't there. It would have been nearly impossible for him to have missed it.
A point not discussed as far as I know is that if Lechmere is the killer he would have still had the knife in his possession. When he approached Robert Paul why would he touch him on the shoulder to entice him to the body unless his other hand is poised to strike him if necessary. I think that approaching a complete stranger like that is not a natural thing to do but if had a concealed weapon in the other hand then the hand on the shoulder becomes more sinister. Also in telling PC Mizen what he did is he still had the knife in his possession. The only opportunity to discard the weapon would have been when Lechmere and Paul separated later going to their respective employment. If Mizen had demanded both return with him then presumably both Lechmere and Paul may have been searched for a weapon.
If you're thinking of the killer acting in all these "logical" ways, he wouldn't have done anything to begin with. Also, you're assuming you know why he was doing any of this to begin with. Who knows what sort of thoughts drove such actions? Nothing a "normal" person would think was worth it, certainly.
@@lyndoncmp5751 well, it's kind of... Take a look at what this guy was doing, was he the logical, reasonable serial killer type?😄 It's almost arguing for argument's sake. Like wanting everything every which way - but still finding fault!
@loretta_3843 Yep. Some people just want to argue for the sake of arguing. If these people reject/dismiss Lechmere then they have to do the same with every single other named suspect too.
It's interesting that the subsequent murders took place in more secluded areas. If Lechmere was the killer, he might have learned to kill in a less public place.
actually there is one recent case where the suspect behaved in a way eerily similar to Lechemere, and that is Richard Allen (strangely even the name Charles Allen Lechemere has a lot of similarities with Richard Allen) in the Delphi double murder. Two fourteen-year-old girls were abducted on a bridge on a public trail in Indiana, and one of them secretly recorded a short video of the abduction on her cell phone. They were then killed by knife in a secluded space close to the old bridge, literally within earshot, and posed in a grotesque manner quite reminiscent of some canonical ripper victims, for the sexual arousal of the killer, or to shock the people who would discover the bodies. The killer also had to be very intimate with the place to evade capture, as this public trail was not widely known outside of town, and from there to know the paths through the woods, the places to conduct the murder without being seen, and the path back to the parking lot through the old cemetary could not have been improvised. The police recovered the phone and at first released just a still picture of "bridge guy", without saying where it came from, and just pretended they wanted to talk to this "potential witness". The picture (and the subsequent video) is unfortunaltly very grainy, and the suspect is wearing a scarf probably to try and conceal his identity on this public trail. The suspect R Allen is local, he took a tremendous risk on a public trail quite close to his house. He was possibly working later that day although it is unclear. more importantly at one point he decided to go talk to the police, quite possibly when the picture of him (on the bridge where the 2 victims were abducted) was released by the police, and they asked for this "potential witness" or anyone recognizing him to come forward. indeed we know that he called the tip line that was set up at that point in time, to arrange an informal meeting with a police officer by a grocery store. it is unlikely he went to the police at a later day when they released the video and the audio indicating that "Bridge guy" was the abductor (with the infamous phrase: "guys, down the hill!"). We can only assume that he recognized himself and thought everyone else would too so he went boldly to the police, saying he was exactly where the picture was taken and wore the same clothes, playing the innocent witness part that saw nothing, like Lechemere did at the inquest. He was probably quite evasive too regarding his name and address as the policeman took the name of his street as his last name... And for 5 years he evaded suspicion...it is sometimes hard for the police to take a guy coming forward by himself and pretending to help, as a suspect. And like Lechemere quite a few people believe he is innocent because he went by himself to the police who would otherwise never have been able to identify him. Only an innocent guy would go to the police...so they say... well if he obviously lied over and over again to the police and his testimony is only selfserving....while he believes the police would eventually knock at his door down the line....a player would probably try this action to stay free and mock the authorities.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 if you dont know about the murder of Libby and Abby, and you like criminal cases, this is a fascinating case, still ongoing. The trial was supposed to happen in january but the suspect's defense team just got booted out. And they now want the judge to reccuse herself...
@alainprostbis I have read the motion of the former defence team and it seems to me that the judge should be removed. The case has become of judicial mess.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 i believe so. Although i believe R Allen is bridge guy (with all implications this means, after all he described himeslf as on that bridge and wearing the clothes of the abductor at the time it happened...), since he is happy with his defense, he should keep both his lawyers. They are fighting hard for him. And this judge did play it dirty. She is obviously lying now that Rozzi withdrew while she was seen on camera saying that he has not withdrawn yet and will "submit his resignation in a couple of days, maybe". That's a mess... I can understand policemen lying during an interview, or one purposly playing the good one and the other the mean one, or sometimes working undercover... But a judge? No way.
It seems to me that you cant clear Lechmere as a suspect because the Police failed to do that for us. The situation makes him a suspect until he is investigated and cleared. This must be a fact even if you personally believe some other suspect is Jack, regardless of your reasons. Its Police investigation 101 for the reason that the person discovered with the Body must always be a suspect (just ass friends and family are). These questions are valid ones to ask, but can never eliminate his as a suspect over 100 years later.
Not all metropolitan police detectives were mugs. The names, addresses, places of work of witnesses, those who found the victims would be listed as people of interest. Cross/Lechmere would have been on that list. Every time there was another murder people of interest would be revisited for alibis. If they checked out, ie all ok, they would be removed from the list. Not all metropolitan police detectives were mugs.
@@davekeating. But the full records don't exist, so we don't know he was cleared. The confusion over his name is reasonable circumstantial evidence that any investigation was cursory.
@@nickbrough8335 If he handn't been cleared he would have remained a live police suspect. No copper then or afterwards ever mentioned Lechmere/Cross. QED
@@walkawaycat431 Sadly, most of the original police Ripper files have been destroyed. Each victim file would contain a list of names and addresses of family, associates, witnesses, persons of interest. They contained many persons of interest who’s names never became public - much to the annoyance of internet Miss Marples ; ) Engaging in a killing spree while going to or from work is a bit of stretch, don’t you think? Doing same, leaving no clues, practically unnoticed, before clocking-in, all in a days work, you might say! No matter how careful in the dark, in haste, there was always a risk of something going wrong, like scratches, blood splatter. This killer had an unoccupied place to return to, and it wasn’t his workplace or home. Do you know what surname Lechemere used to gain employment with Pickfords years earlier? It was Cross. You know yourself, son of a copper gets the job before son of a cobbler. Pickfords and the Cross surname were all over London papers, Christmas 1876, following the death of young boy, William Warner, in a Pickford van accident. Surely, Pickfords would be first to point out; Your Honour, we don’t have any carman called Charles Cross? Lechmere provided his address, his employer and most importantly his name as per company payroll, Charles Cross. Lechmere knew to do otherwise would create problems when/if the police visited Pickfords to verify his identity. He had learnt from his step-father, that normally the first police murder suspect is the person or persons who found the body. By 1888 Lechmere had been employed by Pickfords for over 20 years. He joined to company, as a teenager, sometime before 1868. He was living with his mother and step-father, policeman, Thomas Cross, who died late, 1869. Lechmere married 1870, and new beginning. Now he has family and future children to think about. What surname to use? The obvious choice is Lechmere, and a legal requirement for civil birth, death and marriage records. Christmas 1876, he used the name, Charles Cross, following the accidental death of young, William Warner, run over by his Pickford van. Therefore, he never told Pickfords to change his name from Cross to Lechmere. Is that crime? Does that make him Jack the Ripper? Lechmere stuck to his story. Robert Paul gave two versions. Hell, even the police couldn’t decide which of their officers “discovered” the body!
6:21 I'm coming to realize that he had this all figured out all along. We see the same thing with the Stride murder. He simply set up ahead of time that he would have a legitimate reason to be where he was at any given time while committing a murder and thus could stop at any time and simply say he came across it. It's hard to say if he had this from the beginning or if the success of this was cemented when he simply paired with Robert Paul as dual witnesses. As you describe, he wasn't going to do this unless he absolutely had to, since he had already been a part of one inquest. But as we see here I think it was always a part of his plan. 13:29 All these timings as to if Lechmere could or could not have had time to do the killing revolve heavily on when Lechmere himself said that he left. Not when he actually left. Having walked these routs many times previously he would have a very good idea of how long it would have taken him to reach any specific spot along his rout. All he needs to do is back calculate from that and make a reasonable guess... a guess that obviously had nothing to do with when he actually left his home. That's where witnesses would be important for him to nail down the time he DID leave and not simply the time he said he did. As in the first part, I'm going to say that if he planned to do a murder that he may have well left at... say 3am and walked very slowly on his rout observing closely for opportunity knowing full well that if a policeman saw him he could simply increase his gait, say hello and that even if stopped he would have a perfectly reasonable explanation for why he was ... EXACTLY where he was at EXACTLY the time he was "required" to be there.
Polly Nichols was not waiting for her killer at Buck’s Row. He had to find her on Whitechapel Road, chat her up, and then be taken to Buck’s Row, the place of Polly’s choosing. All in a day’s work, I’m sure you’ll say!
@@harcomou8395Exactly. Whenever someone tells me Lechmere has been "discredited" I answer back "not by law inforcement" some people are dense. He'll NEVER be discredited.
@@harcomou8395 Killers don't approach a witness & there was No reason at all to have done that. So, now Identified, he just kept prowling the streets in the early morning hours & killed more. Really?
Excellent responses to all these objections. It's amazing to me how so many people making these objections to Lechmere as a suspect don't seem to grasp A) the nature of serial killers B) the nature of late 19th century London and/or C) how ill-equipped the police of that time were to deal with what was then a very unusual type of criminal. Even in recent times, serial killers have been notoriously hard to catch until they made some mistakes or until enough evidence had been meticulously gathered to point towards the identity of the killer---and that's with our modern scientific policing methods. It seems difficult for people to grasp how inferior and primitive police methods were at the time of Jack the Ripper's "career" and how hard it would have been for the police of that era to grasp the nature of what they were dealing with. The fact is (as far as I can see) that Lechmere makes a *great deal of sense* as a suspect and a very strong one at that, once one becomes acquainted with the reasoning behind it. I'm not sure if it'll ever be *proven* that he was Jack the Ripper, but I have yet to see one single objection (let alone any evidence) that even remotely suggests that he shouldn't be considered a top suspect and quite likely the best suspect possible.
It’s not that all are making objections cause we feel Lechmere is innocent but I’m not convinced he’s guilty either. He could be, I’m just not sure! How could he have no blood on him? Also I find it just as likely he interrupted the real killer just as easy as Paul could have interrupted him. I feel he would have fled unless he only heard Paul too late and thought he was already identified which is entirely possible. I also find it odd that Lechmere continued “a normal life” after and no more murders.
The TOP and in my opinion the ONLY reason why Lechmere is most certainly not Jack, is simply that after the first murder and appearance in court he is at that point known to the police and court system, and yet we are supposed to believe that after this he was wondering whitechapel areas seeking 4 more victims, your own words "avoid the spotlight"
I'd just like to contribute a hypothesis ....The well used trope ' psychopathic serial killers never stop killing' therefore no Letchmere, may well be bad logic. It has come to my attention that there are many serial killers operating at any one time in the US and to lesser extents in other countries. Lots of these killings are never solved. Therefore it is logical to assume that many serial killers are never caught. You can also therefore assume that many if not all of these stop at some point, even if only due to age. It is true that the serial killers we know, catch and prosecute never stop. Of course it is, because we catch them before they can stop and therefore catch them mid cycle. It's simply bad logic to say that they don't stop. 'They' simply refers to the ones we catch / stop. ( Not) 'they' refers to all the ones we don't catch and therefore stop themselves at some point. The reason this is perpetuated may well be two fold - Firstly, It really doesn't suit anyone let alone police, governments and current heads of state to let the public know that there are serial killers on the loose and we won't catch them. Secondly, we often struggle to see what isn't, we tend not to think in the negative, the alternative or the reactive way. We tend to think of what is, and what we see is serial killers not stopping.
The truth 🙌 🤔 the whole truth ⚖️ 🗽 and nothing but the truth! What about pc mizzen 👮♂️ mizzen s truth 🤔 😤 😏 eh !? Wyn baxter ( coroner! U have been evasive twice ie lieing a 👮♂️ under oath 🙏 there won't be a thirdbbutbyou and chrisntake the piss don't address 😉 these FACTS! cops like wayne couzens David Carrick! Who knows maybe was mizzen ! Because wasnt Lechmere according to the law 🙄 🫣🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🫡🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥
@@jakehammond12345 have they no skin on there face ffs like 🙄holgrems real cheeky bastard if u disagree your point disappear s me him had lots run ins then he gets Edward to holdmhisnhand !!!! You ever see Edwards 10 red flags should be white only so serious 🏳🏳🏳🏳🏳🏳🏳🏳🏳🏳! Absolute 💯 joke ! I'm Belfast and 💯 killer would a shanked paul FACT killers don't hang about for the matinee 🫡 p s stand up these 2 man 👍 👏 they also give me dogs abuse calling me matthew Lawton never heard him in my Life!!!! Tbh ends OK 👍 👌 but CH is an impertinent cheeky bastard u were beside him be swift upper cut 🤣🥊 good luck , James T Belfast ! Iv commented a good bit on this video so tomorrow they both gang up on me lol 😆 Ch , gets Ed hold his hand a grown man all because in 🇬🇧 uk we have free speech these 2 think only applies to them then the don't like if other people can see obvious 🫡
Although looking at the suspect pool he has to be one on top three but then again still falls short in my opinion. Police werent as clueless back then as someone might think. Theres no blodd on him! It could be argued that he acctually interroped the killer by his footsteps sound or the killer wasnt at that mutilation mind set! Who knows?
1) Robert Paul wants to move body/ help lady -lechmere “I’m not touching her” 2) Robert Paul wants to go get police, lechmere tags along 3) Lechmere talks to mizen “Your wanted by a policeman on bucks row” (paraphrase) which is a lie from Robert Paul’s POV My question is.. why doesn’t Robert Paul at this point start to think Lechmere is not on the up and up? Wouldn’t that little lie be enough to set Robert Paul sideways? Or is it possible that Robert Paul just doesn’t notice/ thinks it doesn’t matter? It would matter to me if I was Robert Paul. Also I have a theory that mizen could have been told “your needed at bucks row there is a body there”.. I’m not sure that’s the case, but if he was too descriptive about a police officer being waiting on mizen to show then it could have triggered Robert Paul IMO
Robert Paul was described in the Echo as ”the other man, who went down Hanbury Street”. And Mizen never said he taked to two men, he was explicit about being approached by one man only. So there is likely your answer.
Yes Robert Paul was probably out of earshot, alternatively Lechmere had told him as they had walked along that he would get them both to work on time by making a suitable explanation to any policeman they saw. Paul was evidently hostile to the police so he likely would have gone along with this and/or kept his distance from Mizen
@@christerholmgren335 Ok this is interesting and makes since. The fact robert paul made a statement to reporters surprises me in honesty, and it probably surprised Lechmere!
The Whitechapel killer committed his crimes with a knife or some kind of surgical device. Your suspect would not have killed on his way to work because the actual murderer would have had blood on his shoes and clothes and almost certainly on his hands. A dead give away to his colleagues. He may even have had blood spatter on his face and would have been carrying organs removed from the bodies. Why did Paul not see this and give evidence to this effect? Once again, l must ask you to explain on video how your suspect ties into the last killing. This is vital to the case, assuming, as we all tend to do, it was only one killer who did the lot. Perhaps even as important as that, why did he stop?
As I mentioned in the film, Lechmere was in a far better position than any other known suspect to get away with blood on his person - yet despite your claims there is no reason why he should have blood on him. No organ was harvested with Polly Nichols. If you think Kelly was the last victim, this murder has been more than adequately covered in previous videos. Serial killers do stop, for a variety of reasons, as an serious student of this dubhevt knows. But in Lechmere's case - again watch all my films to understand this - he did not stop for some time after the Kelly murder - perhaps ten years after.
@@brianwilcox3478 it’s a complete waste of time. Just some forged diary that he was purported to own. I wish I never knew of him and I’ll never get the hour or two I spent learning about him back.
@@brianwilcox3478I couldn’t agree more. He was the supposed author of a Ripper diary hoax, which I read before it was finally debunked btw. Apart from the exposure of the forgery, what made him a ridiculous too-good-to-be-true suspect was that he was already famous/infamous for being a businessman victim in a very well known sensational murder case in Britain. It was super convenient and statistically outrageous for Maybrick to have been the Ripper.
@@mattkaustickomments I have read the book about Maybrick (which contains a copy of the dairy) and it seems very well researched. Was it him? I have no idea but I can't find any information about the dairy being debunked. After much forensic testing of the paper and ink, they were apparently very old. Also, after extensive testing of the watch, the conclusion was that the "scratchings/engravings" on the watch case would have been extremely difficult to age. So, please point me to where the diary has definitely been debunked.Yes, Lechmere maybe is a more likely suspect and maybe even Tumblety, after all, he collected wombs and was interviewed as a suspect.
I think it's ridiculous to criticize the Lechmere theory based on the fact that he didn't make a perfect snap decision. The commenter spends several questions asking 'Why didn't he just...' when, presuming Lechmere was the killer of Polly Nichols, he had mere moments to make a decision. And he was supposed to walk/run into the direction of a likely police patrol? Or kill Robert Paul, when the actual killer was mostly killing drunk prostitutes (possibly the weakest and most defenseless target imaginable) with police again minutes away? Also, Buck's Row was empty during this time of day. As far as I remember, by the time PC Mizen comes back with an ambulance only 2 people had joined PC Neil at the body. 2 People in ~30 minutes.
Also, it could be argued that it actually turned out to be a near perfect snap decision, given that it was over a century before anyone ever suspected him! 😏
I think the key here is that the killer, whether he was “Lech the Lech” or not, didn’t arrange Nichols in a way to shock and awe her finders. On the contrary, she was covered up though not fully. For whatever the reason, not only the killer couldn’t fully finish what he set out to do but also didn’t have the time to pull her skirt all the way down.. hmmm what could be the likely scenario indeed? 🤔 If he could run away, why bother wasting time covering her wounds? 🤔🤔 But nah, can’t be Lechmere… 🙄
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 When he heard footsteps it stopped him before he finished his intended display. He might have assumed they were a policeman's footsteps and stepped away. Running would set alarm bells off.
Please remember, suspects don't have to prove that they aren't the killer. This "who was it then" thinking is immediately disqualified. We have to prove who it was. They don't have to prove it wasn't them
Summing up: - Paul could have raised the alarm - Lechmere in his witness statement did not want to get too much attention - Times are only important in the sense that Lechmere did not have a witness and could have given as late a time as possible that he left his house to decrease the time he would have needed for the killing - victim probably led killer to quiet place - Lechmere left the P.C. giving no details about himself. Later, after Paul talked in the papers, he decided to come forward to prevent man hunt maybe at the inquest. To prevent the hunt he needed to give his working place address and the semi fake name (which could be explained if needed) - Lechmere stayed with Paul to influence him and control the narrative - Lechmere killed out of opportunity. He knew the streets. It is more logical he killed before and not after an exhausting day - Eye witness accounts could describe Lechmere. But in the end witness accounts are not dependable - The police never discovered his true name, hence they did not look at Lechmere. There are more things that corroborate that - None of the suspects were sexual killers. All serial killers seem normal
Drivel, nonsense, utter rubbish. How the Hell could he commit murder when for most of them he was at work. You really haven't thought this through, have you?
@jeffjeffreym1830 An intellectual approach I see. And he needn't have been at work for any. It has all been thought through. I recommend you watch all the videos as homework.
Here is my biggest reservation about Lechmere as a suspect. As you say, he would have almost certainly been a psychopath if he was the killer. However there isn't a single mark against his character, apart from the suggesting that he might have been the killer. In all other respects, he is exactly what you would expect him to be, if he had been a carman who had just stumbled across the body. Given what we know about him, you could say that he was the killer, but you could also say that he was the kindest and gentlest man in London, and in neither case could anybody prove you wrong. None of this proves that he is not the killer, but it makes me think that you should be casting the net wider. I am sorry if this is question ten expanded a bit, but personality disorders usually leave some sort of footprint, somewhere in teh persons lifespan. On a footnote, one of the traits of psychopathy, is lack of realistic long term goals. Lechmere comes across as a man who not only set realistic long term goals, but also followed them through, with considerable success.
Sorry, leading suspect...😆 The poor chap was simply walking to work, following the same route that he did every single day. There was a body. He discovered it. someone had to. End of...
Someone discovered Lechmere alone with the body... and then PC Neil found her. Thats 3 finders. Just how many people does it take to find a dead body? Lechmere is a leading suspect... like it or not.
bs. Nobody "discovered" him with the body. He was standing close to the centre of the road looking towards it as the second man arrived. The other chap had been walking behind him. This is utter drivel.@@susanclapp1721
You have totally missed the point. Lechmere didn't just 'discover' a body like Diemschutz and Davis did. Lechmere was literally SEEN BY SOMEONE ELSE lingering alone and acting suspiciously right next to the body of one of the victims at or near the time of death and with nobody else in sight or sound. Try and pay attention FFS.
I think your theory--and it's a strong one--that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper would be debated today even if he were caught and convicted. I think this is especially true after the Mary Kelly murder and all the hype surrounding the murders at that point. I think the public was expecting the Ripper to be a creepy, obvious monster or a "toff" and not ordinary Charles Lechmere. And he was English, not the foreigner some were expecting. The Victorian sensational press would have had a problem with him, too. This plain Englishman is Jack the Ripper?! Ordinary doesn't sell papers. I'm sure the conspiracy theories would have started even then.
An interesting fact about another Jack the Ripper murder, concerns No 29 Hanbury Street, where Annie Chapman was murdered. The ground floor front room of the house was being used by a Mrs Harriet Hardiman and her sixteen year old son as a shop selling cats meat. Given Lechmere's job as a carman delivering meat to butchers and cats meat shops it is highly likely that he would be familiar with the address, its layout etc.
Wow how many freaking cats did london have back in 1888 lol.. didn’t Charles mother own a cat meat business too? Weird
Yes she did
Who ate cats meat ?
@@BetterOff735 Cats. I do worry about the dogs though 😎
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that no one knows who the Ripper really is. There remains the distinct possibility that he’s never been identified as a suspect by anyone.
The thing for me is, how plausible is it that some other guy was there before Lechmere? Really? Not very. Experts in the medical field have given their opinion on the blood found oozing from Nichols’ neck wounds and they were still fresh and flowing by the time the policeman arrived on the scene. Blood had not yet started to pool and coagulate. If someone other than Lechmere had killed Nichols, the blood would’ve already started pooling on the ground beneath the body by the time PC Neil came across it.
That is true. And also Jack the Ripper may have been more than one person.
As always well researched, thought out, concise and rational. No a + f = z logic. No steps skipped. No leaps over anything awkward. As I keep saying, i wish all presenters were more like you.
Thank you
“Psychopaths are not human beings, they’re predators of human beings.”
- Dr. Robert Hare (Inventor of the Hare Psychopathic Checklist)
Yes
They are by definition human beings.
@@RadagastBrown420 Not true. When a Chameleon takes on the color, shape, and appearance of a tree branch, does that mean it is a tree branch? Of course not. It’s merely a predator masquerading as as one. Psychopaths may have a human body but their consciousness is anything but human.
Are they all predators? Aren't some just boring and faking emotions to the world?
All predators, but not all serial killers.
I have a note to add.. if bucks row was truly a normal method for Lechemere to go to work (in the idea of him being innocent and really taking fast routes always) why didn’t he return back home the same way after work? Did a cart man always return to the same depot after cart deliveries, then walk home? Also did Robert Paul return home that way and see reporters or anyone I wonder on bucks row? I guess that information isn’t known, but considering their routes I would guess that both would go home that way too because of their involvement and curiosity of what became of the lady they “didn’t know what happened, or what was wrong with her” think about your curiosity after a wreck, death, or a disaster on your route.. you usually would pay attention to it on the way home out of your curiosity because of your integral involvement and to tell your family of involvement before it “hit the news” .. at least I would. Did either go home that way is my question? As a normal member of my community I would have wanted to know what became of that situation I stumbled upon and see it in daylight after my work shift if I had to walk home anyway. Being involved in that sort of scenario would be almost a buzz of fame for a guy like Robert Paul and a guy like Lechmere… considering how basic and normal their lives seemed in my opinion.also considering Robert Paul was in LLoyds paper soon after. We know Robert Paul sought out the media to brag/establish himself as a finder of body over Pc Neil, but in fact lechmere was the true discoverer of the body according to the testimony so why wouldn’t lechmere get a story with the paper too ? He would have been toted as the discoverer and probably been paid well. Yet he did not seek it out. Which makes him more suspicious. Moreover I think if you can place Robert Paul with a reporter at the scene that evening after work. Then it strengthens the case against lechmere, and depicts the man just interested in hiding in the background.
Not everybody takes selfies.
We have no idea what route Lechmere took going home. However Paul definitely went via Bucks Row as that was where he gave his interview on Friday evening - and he repeated it on Saturday evening!
So if Lechmere didn't go home that way it would be suspicious? Wanting to separate himself from the situation instead of getting more attention.That is an interesting point. Somene innocent might simply want to avoid drama though, especially if they already knew everything they could by their involvement and if it is after a hard days work. I'm like that. I avoid anything that looks like drama unless I can be of use.
While we don’t know the route he took home I’d be willing to bet he walked back home through Buck’s Row. I’d think he’d want to know what, if anything, was being said. Much like a murderer will some times attend a victim’s funeral or an arsonist will stay to watch a fire burn.
@@melissamcfarlin6840 True, but then again - if guilty, he wouldn't want to run into Robert Paul again.
Extra points for quoting The CLASH. Love your vids!
Glad you like them!
Lechmere didn't say he heard someone run off because that implies she was only just killed as Lechmere himself came across the body. He needed to put distance between him and the time of the murder
@@johnjones-eu1rv Certainly wasn't Maybrick
@@johnjones-eu1rvEveryone knows it wasn't Maybrick... give it a rest.
@@susanclapp1721 every 1 knows it not lechmere JACK THE RIPPER NEVER KILLED ANY1
@@RubberDuck-u5wYou are talking BS as usual. IT WAS LECHMERE.
Mathew Lawtons back 😅😂😅
Well answered. They in general did not know anything about serial killers.
All objections answered clearly! 99.9% sure it was Lechmere.
Adding to the argument against the first objection, I recently listened to a podcast about the Green River Murders and they told a story of a fisherman who had gone out early one morning and ran into someone who was wading through the reeds but had no fishing stuff or anything else. Apparently, the guy came over to him and engaged him in conversation for a bit before they went their separate ways. Not long after the fisherman found a body, just where he had initially seen the guy. Years later when Gary Ridgeway was caught, the fisherman apparently identified him as the guy that he saw. If that story is true, it's another example of the brass neck that these nutters have. Perhaps, they also get a thrill from coming so close to being caught and/or fooling people.
Also, as to why the police didn't look into Lechmere properly, I think some people forget that at the time of the Polly Nichols murder, the police weren't looking for 'Jack the Ripper' and probably thought it was a one off or a case of robbery etc. so they wouldn't have initially been as alert to what they were really dealing with. If, instead, Lechmere had been found at one of the later scenes/claimed to find one of the later victims, as opposed to one of the first, the police might have looked into him more thoroughly.
Yes maybe - but Nichols was thought at the time to be the third in a sequence
Id not heard that about Gary Ridgway and the fisherman, despite having a passing interest in the case. If that is true yes it's very similar to Lechmere and Paul (if Lechmere was JTR of course).
Great comment.
Your rebuttal, in my opinion, is spot on! I believe Lechmere is Jack The Ripper and always have. For me to change my mind would take a lot. To that point, there is no other suspect in my mind.
Agreed. The only viable suspect besides Lechmere is, to my mind, Jacob Levy. But for me he's about 30% likely, compared to Lechmere's 70%.
At the very most there's some evidence he *could* have killed that first victim...but there's no shred of evidence against him in the other murders, so saying he's "definitely" JTR is pretty ludicrous.
At the very most there's some evidence he *could* have killed that first victim...but there's no shred of evidence against him in the other murders, so saying he's "definitely" JTR is pretty ludicrous.
At the very most there's some evidence he *could* have killed that first victim...but there's no shred of evidence against him in the other murders, so saying he's "definitely" JTR is pretty ludicrous.
At the very most there's some evidence he *could* have killed that first victim...but there's no shred of evidence against him in the other murders, so saying he's "definitely" JTR is pretty ludicrous.
That re creation of a young Lechmere was fantastic!!!🎉
I have said so many times that the reason serial Killers get away with multiple crimes is because they are unassuming normal looking guys. Often loners. You hear "he was a nice guy, kept himself to himself," etc. I never understand why people would think serial Killers are openly violent people. They would be known to police and everyone that knows them and therefore would be the first person suspected
Yes but that is still the assumption of many people
You are repeating the company line it’s very easy to call people loners that they had no friends. I like to keep to myself and I stay away from drama that doesn’t mean I’m evil or a serial killer. People are products of their environment.
@@bradmeeds1226
I'm not repeating the company line... I was agreeing that this is the company line, and it is invariably wrong!
@bradmeeds1226 it's not the company line. It's fact. Nobody says everyone who is quiet and prefers their own company turns out to be a serial killer. But if you look at the evidence, the majority of serial Killers when caught neighbours or work colleagues always say "he was a nice person." Or "He was quiet, kept himself to himself." As I said, imagine if Jeffrey Dahma or Dennis Nielson had been rowdy bullies, known to have a temper. They'd have been caught a lot sooner
If a serial killer looked like a serial killer they would only be a killer because they would be caught after their first one. Lol
If I remember rightly it seems to me that BLOOD is a very important factor regarding Bucks Row!
I think Paul said he could not see any blood at the site, suggesting it may have been too dark. I believe if there had been a pool of blood at the body he WOULD have seen it. Even on poorly-lit streets these days it is easy to spot a puddle after rain, and spotting a pool of blood would be just as easy. Decent lighting is not necessary. So I believe we can say that there was NO pool of blood there as Paul arrived, but when the PC came on the scene just a FEW minutes later he saw blood.
To me this means just one thing - as Paul arrived on the scene the murder had only just taken place.
This means either Cross/Lechmere has just disturbed the ripper and he ran off, in which case he would have told Paul this and the PC they met, OR the murder had just been committed by Cross/Lechmere!
Exactly
This, to me, is the most compelling data point!
Another reason why Lechmere was against moving her. 🚩
The only true serious suspect in a category of his own Cat 1 Serious credible suspect Charles Lechmere .......all others are in a different category cat 2 Police Suspects , cat 3 Suspects of rumour , cat 4 Suspects considered by Authors
Cat 1 Serious credible suspect in whose mind??? He is a cat 4 at best, Suspects considered by Authors.
9:36 If Lechmere had claimed he saw or heard someone running away from “Polly” Nichols and afterwards found the woman lying there, he would not have been puzzled about the woman’s condition and quietly flagged down Robert Paul. Some inspector would’ve asked Lechmere later, “Why didn’t you cry out at that very moment?” Lechmere had to make his claimed motivations match his peculiar actions. If the alleged motives for doing such-and-such an act don’t match, the police will take note of the discrepancy. Seeing or hearing someone running away from a body lying in the street would have left no doubt as to what Lechmere should do next. He should suspect something foul had just happened and raised the alarm. Witnessing such an event and not raising the alarm wouldn’t make sense for an innocent person, only for a guilty person.
Love the theory of Lechmere, I would love to know if it was him why did he give up killing?
He didn't until he got too old
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 Lots of serial killers stop. As psychopaths, they don't have an overwhelming urge to kill, just an inability to control their urges. So it could be merely a matter of getting bored and finding a new hobby.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 I don't believe they just phase out. Their thirst for blood becomes insatiable.
Perhaps he became ill.
But age? I don't think that by itself would be the deterrent.
@BetterOff735 some do just stop for a whole variety of personal reasons. Happier in their marriage, too busy with other things in their life and so on.
Another great video. Lechmere being found near the body is incriminating and any modern investigation would seek to eliminate him. It’s interesting to me that it’s impossible to do so. In fact when you try to extricate Lechmere it just gets worse and worse for him. He has no alibi, his version of events is demonstrably false and he outright lied to PC Mizen.
The criticism of Lechmere is standard stuff but it totally missed the point. Lechmere was winging it, he had just seconds to make decisions. There was no time to weigh up the pro’s and con’s. Everything that happened after Paul turns up is risky, but not as risky as killing somebody yards from a row or houses.
Everything that happened after Pauls arrival is Lechmere on survival mode, trying to regain control and take ownership of a situation that has spiralled out of control. Critics who analyse his actions, and second guess every decision he makes, misses the point.
Yes exactly
Not all metropolitan police detectives were mugs. The names, addresses, places of work of witnesses, those who found the victims would be listed as people of interest. Cross/Lechmere would have been on that list. Every time there was another murder people of interest would be revisited for alibis. If they checked out, ie all ok, they would be removed from the list. Not all metropolitan police detectives were mugs.
@davekeating. Lechmere OBVIOUSLY wasn't checked out. Otherwise, they'd be calling him Lechmere instead of Cross. DUH. He wasn't even suspected.
@@davekeating.Only one newspaper had his address as well.
@walkawaycat431
This simple fact - that the police were still calling him Cross on 19th October 1888 - does not sink in with those who have unrealistic faith in the capability of the police.
Look at how Sutcliffe took risks even after being interviewed by police
@@johnjones-eu1rv Hahaha
@@johnjones-eu1rv Jack the Ripper struck again within weeks. The Yorkshire Ripper took months, years to attack again.
Gary Ridgeway as well.
He was interviewed four times
From the evidence which you`ve presented throughout this series Lechmere still looks like the strongest suspect .The calm way he conducted himself and his willingness to take risks that a more sound and rational person wouldn`t in the circumstances ,suggests that he suffered from Psychopathy. Interesting fact : the level of Psychopathy in prisons and among successful business men is roughly the same .On a more trivial note is that a medal or maybe a rather large button which Lechmere is shown to be wearing in the photograph you have of him ?
No idea - but good points
Great work as usual bud. I have never seen any other work naming letchmere as a suspect before i found your videos. After watching all of your video I cant imagine any other suspect now. I'll admit when i found the 1st video i was absolutely sure lechmere was not a good suspect. Seems people have their fav suspect and nothing will change their mind. Now i cant even watch any other jack ripper video without referring back to you thank you for that😂 jk now i get so excited when u post videos you're officially my go to thanks for the excellent work!
Which was the first one you watched?
Lechmere and the Whitechapel murders all of them. Question 1 I agree with you 100% staying with the body and trying to shift pauls view was lechemere only option many killers have been able to talk their way out of bad situations relying on their ability to manipulate people and situations. Hell bundy and dahmer talked face to face with police and weasel their way out. Police even saw one of dahmers victims in bad shape and he convinced them otherwise. Lechmere did same
There is Nothing that points to him being the killer. Nothing.
Cross is intriguing and I wish there were modern techniques available then, because we would probably know..
The problem is there’s no real evidence, but that’s true for all suspects.. My own personal objection is IMO this person was on a clear downward spiral, and Cross living to old age just doesn’t fit..
This is also why I’ve always been very interested in Druitt, but not necessarily because he was Jack.. However, because I believe Jack was on a similar trajectory as Druitt.. But, there’s probably at least a dozen people in White Chapel in that area at that time, with many lost to history completely..
Like I said, intriguing, but IMO not correct..
Compare, if you will, with Joseph James De Angelo, the so called Golden State Killer. He killed around a dozen people between 1979 and 1986, and then he stopped. He was caught by way of DNA when he was 72. If Lechmere must have been on a downward spiral, then so must De Angelo. And nevertheless ...
You did an excellent job rebutting the questions raised, Ed. I see Lechmere as the culprit; no one else fits the bill as well.
Very true
Agreed
Agreed!
Ridiculous statement, the evidence is extremely weak and growing weaker, when this happens you are supposed to reevaluate not hold your position no matter what, that is not an academic approach but a dogmatic approach
Agreed
Over the years I've read everything covering the Jack the ripper case .. I've come to the conclusion Letchmere is the one that over every suspect got my attention 💯
Yes!
You have not read everything
And come to that conclusion
@@laurataylor8179 yes I have Hun I was very young when I first looked into the Jack the Ripper saga , lm now nearly 60yrs old and yes I'm still asking questions...but up till now being a British citizen the one I question the most is Letchmere...or should I say Cross...think about it WHY did he give his stepfather's name who was a ex police officer rather than his true name ????
I agree 💯% @tracyomalley9470
Other points can also be made, such as, the first (canonical) victim was a prostitute so the police didn't even really care much about finding the culprit and didn't start getting serious about it only after the following murders. Moreover, and this is confirmed by the directions the inquiry took afterwards, police couldn't fathom a local man doing it, in their minds it could only have been an immigrant and someone clearly not in their right minds, not someone who was on his way to his workplace of 20 years. This being said, to our modern sensibility police not investigating him further is baffling even with all the excuses (the wrong name, the different divisions not being clear on who was in charge of the case, police wanting to take credit for finding the body...). But police messing up would hardly be a surprise.
The fact that the police never ever considered him a suspect speaks volumes. Abberline was too informed at every level of the case not to have considered him. And, would Lechmere, known to the police after the first murder, really go on a killing spree. No, he was not the murderer.
You have considerable faith in the police.
Thank you for this video! Loved the explanation!
Glad it was helpful!
Excellent and fascinating - as ever. I wholeheartedly agree that the psychological aspects of The Ripper case - as far as we can reasonably deduce them from the records - are often overlooked or misinterpreted. This is certainly the case in the new ‘Edward Buckley’ theory, which points the finger at a career criminal and alcoholic because he attacked and beat his wife.
Yes exactly. Buckley is a very poor potential suspect, put in the frame purely because he was a local thug and useless pickpocket who kept getting nicked. Someone less like a psychopathic stealth serial killer couldn't be found.
@@johnjones-eu1rvMaybricks case is well and truly closed. Move over Rover Charles Lechmere's took over.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 agreed. It’s highly unlikely he would get away with the more heinous crimes but caught for the petty crimes he committed. Lechmere/Cross has to be ruled out before anyone else is looked into.
@@Dude0000 He's more than ruled out, he was never a starter.
I don't think we will ever find our who was Jack the ripper ,simply because there is no hard evidence .All we can say he knew rthe area very well and covered his tracks very well .
However you look at it Lechmere, apparently the person to find the body, would be very-much in the frame these days.
All of your videos are excellent, Edward. Thank you so much for all the work you put into them. Greetings from Texas!
Glad you like them!
In my opinion, invented was used in the second question? Staged crime scenes, scripted ?never happened, a lonely spot quiet. If there was anything would only be some blood to mark the scene. If sherlock was there, he would have seen it for what it was ? It was obviously done at that frequently at the time, as it was mentioned in a sherlock Homes film? And a blood stained rag was found near one of the crime scenes? In the film 🎥 🎞 the scene had been staged? So, if that scenario is a plausible possibility , no noise, a jar of blood is all it would take as you walk by? That would mean that they were murdered somewhere else, in my opinion? What made me look at this was the sherlock scenario, which was the striking resemblance to the name Canonical has to Conan/ical (meaning of or pertaining to?) 5 ,didgits maybe 5 people or even his second name? He liked codes and crossword puzzles that's in one of his films as well? Anderson also mentioned sherlock in his memoirs? One of the detectives in a newspaper harkend, it was like being in the secret service? Was the fictional detectives brother supposedly in the secret service ? And in the recent series witch I'm an avid fan off the one with una in,he describes himself as a.functioning sociopath, witch is described by "psychopath" by someone, weird then you Dr.Hare , which reminds me of Burk and Hare? Convicted Grave robbers : from Edinburgh I think supplying body parts, re: the 1944 film the house of fear, they use the dug up bodies then mutilated the dressed them up and presented them as someone else ?insurance scam ? The 1945 film,the something claw the innkeepers daughter is called Marie Jurnett, Mary Kelly's working name? There's no connection to the torso murders though ? The body part that was found in Mary Shell's garden? Please fact-check everything, and please feel free to inform me if, if I'm wrong about anything ? I just like facts, thank you for your time?
C'mon?
The guys questions are silly.
Hes overcomplicating every single issue.
True but that is typical of the criticisms
Havnt laughed like this Edward from del boy fell through the bar catch yourself on ffs 🧠 😊
@tuckewhite111
That scene was ripped off from Laurel and Hardy.
Just saying 😉
@lyndoncmp5751 will that's hoe preposterous it is saying its Lechmere, Lyndon 😆 🤣!!!!! Pointers our dogs 🐕 by way Lyndon not evidence 🙄 I not 😳embarress you with semantics In Law 🗣🫵💬💬💬💬🧠🫂 or I will have you in knots lol! Your nive guy Lyndon but ✍️ writing some off that nonesense is just farcical , L Edward seems good 👍 guy as well 😉 👍 💯 but Holgrem is one ass 🕳 DONT LIKE HIM AT ALL HES SLECET MARE 🥊🥊🥊🥊🥋 LYNDON look at paleys book again and use your brain 😉 ffs man even j Douglas fbi profiler gets Barnett to a T !!!! Do u want jam on it man! Also rem the great c Holgrem thought jtr 🔪 was 6ft 7 🤔🤫🤫🤫🤫🫣🫣🫣🫣🫣🫣🫣🤐🫡 any way have nice 👍 evening, hi 👋 Edward 🤝 see you Holgrem thers a saying in Belfast and its you to a T 🤔 💭 fair dig 💪 anytime 😊 not Matthew Lawtown me 🥊🥋
@@tuckewhite111You are nuttier then a fruit cake Mathew.
I agree with the points made. However, there's no evidence that Lechmere was the killer other than being first on the scene.
Read up!
@@christerholmgren335 I have. He's a good suspect, but there is no conclusive proof. You cannot rule out someone else killing Polly Nichols before he arrived. All the other evidence against him is little different from that of hundreds or possibly thousands of other Ripper suspects: there's nothing to rule him out.
@@nickd4310 there’s never “conclusive proof” in most murder cases. We use and weigh circumstantial evidence heavier because of this. The circumstantial evidence against Lechmere is much stronger than any other proposed perp.
Some good points, although I don't agree with everything mentioned.
The first being that serial killers only select women because they're small and easy to overpower. Heterosexual serial killers target women, because women are the centre of their fantasies. Homosexual serial killers kill men, it's as simple as that really. It's about the desire and fantasy, selection is not being made based on potential physical threat. I would add that this is certainly not always the case as many serial killers have been quite willing to kill men as well if it fit their purpose or desires.
The other point I would argue is that all serial killers are cowardly weaklings who live in the shadows and flee when potentially challenged. While this may certainly may be true in some cases, many serial killers have been quite willing to fight or kill when confronted, with one you mentioned here coming to mind, Joseph DeAngelo. They kill for fun, so killing one more person to preserve their identity is certainly not a stretch of the imagination.
I wonder,if it were dark on that road maybe Letchmere in the split second decision may have thought that the figure that approached him in the dark was a Policeman and decided that running would not have been a good idea ...plus he wouldn't have known who Paul was until he got close enough to tell the difference and by then it would have been too late to run
Let's face it: the way Lechmere acted after killing Polly was the most logical role to play, the best bet in order to maximize the chances not to get caught. And he did not. A psychopath can behave calmly and cool and stay collected and play his cards right. They don't feel the fear or feel nervous or stressed in situations like that.
True it’s hard to think like a killer.. when they caught sutcliff he had calmly just placed his weapons in the alley and was staging the killing grounds for an unsuspecting woman. Sad and sick
A good point! Makes sense. Afaik Buck's Row was VERY dark, just a couple of relatively dim gas light lampposts for the whole damn street.
@@masan7452 And now Identified, he just carried on skulking around the streets in the early hours & continued the killings. You kids Really need to stick to the Cartoons.
@@bethryan9077 He wasn't identified as he gave a wrong name to police and inquest and never was a suspect, he lost from the radar so to say.. Or never really was in the radar in the first place
Greetings - this is Paul Sutton. For the record, I'm not a 'Ripperologist' and lasted about a week on the JtR Casebook site, before being hilariously informed I had a lifetime ban! All for a mildly mocking post saying I'd solved the case, after a ten-minute visit to Mitre Square. Apparently I'd 'insulted and defamed' the entire Ripperology world! Good - they're a fanatical bunch of bores.
But I'm a Ripper obsessive and welcome Edward's video, whilst finding it unconvincing in places. I'll details those, if this gets read! My post was full of praise for the Lechmere work, whilst raising points that worried me. Some comments below are typical of the sort of nonsense that occurs on the Casebook site - which is why I took the piss so readily (and got banned). The sense of 'ownership' too many assert is pointless. There's no need for any personal feelings over this, let alone bruised egos.
I think it's important to realise that raising objections to a theory is vital, not some form of attack. True, many on the appalling Casebook are dismissive and near-hysterical in their objections to Lechmere. As said, I got banned for slagging them all off - not least by saying that at least the Lechmerites had been both creative and interesting, unlike most of them who nit-pick over minute details but refuse to theorise, under the delusion that everything they do is 'evidence based'.
But nobody can expect blind worship of a theory. I think it would be good if Edward/Christer - both of whom I applaud - were less defensive and seemingly outraged by perfectly valid points.
I'd like to respond in depth, but a general observation. I'm VERY familiar with the point: 'But serial killers are just like that - accept it' - used as a trump card. The problem is people combine it with their own detailed logic, then say 'you can't get inside these people's heads'. It's an incoherent line of argument - how come YOU do seem to be capable of 'getting inside their heads'?
In fact - to be pretentious - it's the fallacy of relativism, i.e. claiming all other views are 'relative not absolute', whilst making that claim as an absolute one.
This is TH-cam comment section. Someone forgot to inform you I guess?? Get a life!🤪🥴😴😴🥱🥱
@@stevenb427hes literally responding to a video which was made about him you complete moron 😂
Robert Paul completely believed Lechmere when he could have suspected the man had something to do with Polly Nichols' case.
Of course he did, as one wouldn’t expect someone who just cut someone else’s throat to come over and show you the body, like Cross/Lechmere did with Paul. Also, in interviews, Paul doesn’t come across as very bright.
We don't know that but what we know is Paul felt fear for Lechmere. My guess is that Paul had a hunch of Lechmere being the killer but had no balls to bring it up. Just speculation of course...
I think Lechmere dominated him from the outset, mentally and physically
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 Yes, he simply went along with Lechmere's suggestions.
@@ginabataille1796
He was 'suggestible'.
DNA is hard to extract from the victims and solving this case can be difficult. You might be able to solve this and put this case to a close.
Excellent rebuttal of the points made. Keep up the good work.
Thanks!
Thank you
15:58 If you go to a coroner’s inquest and then start out the gate with lying about who you are or giving a false address or workplace, that would be stupid because it could easily backfire on you. All good liars put an indisputable truth in their lies to make it seem as though the fact corroborates the fiction. Lechmere was not running away at the inquest. To do so would have been foolish, and would have made his position as merely a witness questionable. The only thing he could do at that point was make it seem like he was a legitimate witness, and that his actions in finding the body were not viewed as suspicious.
Just out of curiosity, Lechmere lived till 1920. Is there another series of murders/disappearances in East London that might be connected to him? I find it hard to believe he just stopped killing. Maybe he covered his tracks more carefully a la the Torso Murders.
Many serial killers just stop... but I think he carried on for another ten years... watch my other films - some have already been covered.
Not all serial killers stop. Predators don't. Bundy, Sutcliffe, couldn't stop. Jack the Ripper was of that kind
@ohmy4275 the golden state killer and long island serial killer and BTK were predators and all stopped.
There are no rules.
The arguments against Lechmere being Jack are laughable.
Yes, well rebutted, although they weren't very good arguments to begin with. I think we have already heard that there weren't any obvious escape routes from Bucks Row. It would have been pretty stupid to make a run for it and risk drawing attention to himself or being chased, if Paul shouted for help. Also, Lechmere could have left home earlier than he said. His route from Doveton Street presumably took him on to Commercial Street where he would have spent a few minutes transacting with the victim, en route to Bucks Row.
Steven Blomer said there were 20 escape routes. I asked him to name them. No answer, crickets. Blomer is full of 💩💩
According to maps of the bucks row area. There were actually escape routes all around. By the school 🏫 and the stable or whatever where Nicols body was.. people have said that there wasn’t an escape route but it’s simply not true. You can look at the side roads into bucks row on a dated 1880 map. The fact is that it wasn’t as large a road as whiteschapel or others. So it was less traveled and tighter but it had many exits. It also was poorly lit that time.
@hownotto4067 Actually, those "exits" were people's yards or gateways. There were no direct exits out of the streets except the end of the streets. So, you're expecting us to believe that someone was hiding in a yard for hours? Remember, the body was never left alone. When did the supposed killer escape? Did they wait for hours until Polly Nichol's body was removed and the ruckus died down?
@@walkawaycat431 according to the “was Charles Allan lechmere really Jack the Ripper” video I’ve watched on “Jack the Ripper Tour channel.” The case of lechmere being a suspect is brought up and walked through similar to here on house of lechmere channel. The idea of bucks row having no exits was actually brought out as false in this video so you may want to watch it. It was a small road and narrow, but it did have an exit on both ends and also a turn off at the school not far from Nichols body. Which coincidentally is the opposite direction of Robert Paul, if it was lechmere then he would have known these routes well. But either way it doesn’t prove or disprove him as a suspect. Lechmere would have definitely been a top suspect in an American 🇺🇸 murder case in present day.
@hownotto4067 That's exactly what I've said. The exits were at the end of the streets..
Lechmere could not take the risk of killing again, a man, which could be a lot riskier and messier, with PCs and vigilantes everywhere. Paul said when he first saw Lechmere, something about the man frightened him. He needed Paul alive. Paul was his ticket to safety as PCs would not pay to much attention to a couple of innocent workers on their way to work. Lechmere was trying to give the impression Paul was all the way walking behind him
He only gave half lies in case things went sour. The half truths could help him prove he wasn't lying. Very smart. Any stone cold killer wouldn't be bothered about killing on his way to work. Quit the opposite. They get a high and feel confident, so ...Don't forget he's bold, ruthless, cunning and smart. A very dangerous combination.
I have got a theory as to why lechmere was insisting that Paul come and look at the body..
I think it was because, he would touch the body to check her and Paul would see this happen , and then had a good reason to explain any bloody on his hands or clothes , If he needed to and Paul would unknowingly back him up on it .. after all, it was dark
I agree... I even suggested this in an earlier film!
Just one question. Why did he stop? From experience we know serial killers dont stop. Lechmere lived into his seventies, so why did he not reoffend?
Yes this intrigues me a lot as well and is a hole in the theory imo.
@@hownotto4067 yup, exactly. For any Ripper suspect to be viable, imo, there must be a 'why did they stop' solution/answer, otherwise your theory/suspect doesnt hold water
@@ByHookorbyNeedles I agree.. and if he continued his work of the delivery driver.. we can assume he was physically able as a workman so also able as a killer from a physical capability.. lechmere has a couple holes in the plot.. also I wonder about his method to be with this woman in bucks row as a “client” at this time. This means he would have taken her from another district and left much earlier for work that day. Also I wonder about blood stained and evidence of blood on him that Robert Paul would not have noticed also sometimes Jack the Ripper took body parts.. I will admit lechmere still is a possibility in my mind because of this information tho.also if he delivered butchering items regularly it would strengthen the case of lechmere imo.. but I want to know more about his work life and profession.. these killings were done like a butcher imo who was somewhat skilled. Did lechmere grow up cleaning game and butchering? So much more could be delved into if the information was there.. but how much of the back story is available is the question in time.
@@hownotto4067 💜👍👍
Actually it is now known that serial killers do stop... but I don't think Lechmere stopped for another ten years
Another excellent video. Paul Sutton’s objections were reasonable, but I think you rebutted them all.
He seems quite a reasonable and intelligent chap, which is probably why he’s no longer posting on Casebook. 😉
Yes - I thought I'd respond to him as he put his points in a rational and well intentioned manner - unlike most particularly on Casebook of course, where extreme angst rules the day. They say a fish rots from the head.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 I'm glad you believe you're smarter than the average bear, that's all that matters.
lechmere is a better suspect than most but i still dont think it was him hes the only you can really build a case agianst though though the evedence is weak at least there is evedence unlike a lot of the other suspects
Excellent Edward. One thing that puzzles me is do you know, regarding the time, if Lechmere was subject to 'knocking up; duties?
I doubt it. But there is no information on that issue.
It might shine a light as to which time Lechmere left Doveton St@@thehouseoflechmere9407
1:04 Manson didn’t kill anyone.
One of the things that makes this so difficult is trying to imagine how people back in the 1880s thought, perceived and dealt with things because we're living in a totally different time that's nothing like how it was back then. The way people related to each other and the way they communicated was almost alien to how we go about it now. That said, my money is on Letchmere being JTR too. I think it is the one with the most comprehensive case behind it.
I’d think that where someone is in the habit of premeditating murder in public areas, that it would be extremely likely they would also have the premeditated excuse of coming across the victim innocently and by chance ready for just such an occasion as being seen. I cannot see where this isn’t blatantly obvious. It would be expected of a psychopath.
Also, this type of serial killing or attacking psychopath killing or attacking people with their occupation being a help rather than a hindrance isn’t unheard of, for example lorry drivers and taxi drivers. Again, there’s no mystery there.
All very true
@thehouseoflechmere9407 I'm sorry, upon reading this again it looks like I'm really annoyed at your video, but it really is quite the opposite! I've been a follower of the Lechmere theory for years now (well, since we publicly knew he WAS called Lechmere, of course) and have been subscribed to your channel from the start(ish) - I'm annoyed at the ridiculous "arguments" against the one person caught red handed with a victim at the time of death having no more substance than " why doesn't he run away?".... seriously?! Because all psychopaths are narcissists - obviously. Why WOULDN'T he think "well I'll just pretend I came across the victim and how dare anyone not believe me" in the very manner of a narcissistic psychopath? Of course, the second you do put such "arguments" forward, then the first would HAVE to be "why would someone murder a stranger and then mutilate and/or gut them?" Well no one who is "normal" and would run away terrified upon being caught in the act! The culprit is not this type of "normal" - that's why he kills, mutilates and doesn't run away. Not running away is the LEAST of the odd behaviours here....but as per some of the comments, there's nowt as queer as folk....
Your videos take a lot of work and patience, and even if some people don't agree with them, they should have the morality to be intellectually honest in their objections and debate. Personally, I'm a cynical person (do not like conspiracy theories or even have the ability to believe in any gods), but understand that Lechmere isn't only the likely suspect, but is very unlikely to not be the culprit. I do not WANT him to be the culprit, as I didn't know him nor do I have any familial or geographical connection to him - he is Joe (or Jack) Blogs to me. He simply IS the likely culprit when looking at this case honestly and impartially.
@@LyraMickino apology needed!
In addition to being a psychopath, the Ripper was, obviously, a sexual sadist. This involves obsessive fantasies going back to a very young age. If Polly Nichols was, in fact, the Ripper’s first actual murder, it’s likely the first time realization of his goal of sexual sadism might make him inattentive to his surroundings. As you have said, Amy person in the grip of these psychological symptoms would not act in a rational manner. There are many examples of serial killers coming forward in similar circumstances, such as Jeffrey Dahmer and the case of the 14-year-old boy who escaped his apartment. He saw the boy in the presence of the police. He knew he had already drilled into the skull of the victim, rendering him stunned and unable to speak. He blithely came forward and talked his way out of trouble.
Yes that is a good example
Nielsen talked his way out of a similar situation - the police preferred to accept his explanation of his being accused of an attack on a young man as part of a lovers' tiff rather than a murderous assault.
@@johnjones-eu1rv says who? Maybrick, other than the faked memoir, is not a good suspect. He didn’t live in the area.
@@johnjones-eu1rv Maybrick was a feeble suspect. Case closed.
@@johnjones-eu1rv the only thing Maybrick’s guilty of is living in your head rent free.
If Lechmere had been spotted early in the vicinity of any other crime scenes, it wouldve been GAME OVER.
How would explain being at 2 separate crime scenes, the first being Bucks Row.. other by saying..he was 'walking on his normal usual route to work'
That's an occupational hazard with serial killers
Paul Sutton's Views are not valid and shows that he hasn't looked at Charles Lechmere's Background, which Christer and Yourself have done, Edward.......Clearly, he fits the profile of a Serial Killer, which is identifiable today, but not in 1888...Lechmere was with Polly Nichol's Body at the time of death and yep, the fight or flight instinct wud have been prevalent...Lechmere was in a psychotic state, just as Robert Paul approached and decided to fight....Robert Paul must have suspected that Lechmere had killed Polly and wud have been very concerned for his own life, especially when Lechmere went with him to get the Police...He wud have had the knife on him and one false move from Paul, wud have meant copping a blade in the back, I'd say...Robert Paul wudn't have made the statement indicating another carman, who he didn't know, had found the body and was very near her when he arrived at the scene, if he didn't suspect him.....Lechmere made it clear he was late for work that morning of the murder, yet said he stopped because he thought he saw a tarpaulin and wanted it....Sounds like BS, as he wud have access to tarpaulins at work and it's surprising Cross's Statement didn't warrant an investigation...He slipped through, giving the impression he was an ordinary carman, family man and respectable citizen, when he was a psychopath....Cheers from Damo😆🤲
Yes... well in my opinion all the criticisms you ever hear are without much value.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 So True, Edward....No other suspect ticks all the boxes like Charles Lechmere/Cross and it is so obvious to most of us.....The Critics of The Lechmere Theory can offer no plausible alternative suspect and are playing Devil's Advocate, IMHO....Cheers fm Damo🤔🙌
Agreed. His stating he thought he saw tarpaulin is ridiculous and highly suspicious. Like you say he would have had coverings at work and also it was dark so hard to spot black tarpaulin.
@@kevinkenny6975 It's unbelievable that Charles Cross's Statement wasn't questioned, Kevin🤔🤲
@@damianbowyer2018 Yes I agree, he should have been looked into after the inquest. Alot of failings by the police.
Why would Lechmere tell Paul that he (Lechmere) saw someone running from the crime scene? There were no obvious injuries on Nichols and no evidence of an attack. Lechmere wanted to present a mundane scene with no criminals or anything.
The evidence against Lechmere is overwhelming in my opinion.
Agreed! Naturally.
Such as?
@andrewtomlinson5237
Watch the films on this channel eg 'The Evidence for Guilt Parts 1 to 5'
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 I've watched them all. I'm talking about actual EVIDENCE, not speculation and wild conjecture.
Apart from being in Bucks Row, and finding a victim, what supports the accusation in terms of tangible actual evidence. Stuff you can show. Stuff that ACTUALLY happened.
I know there isn't anything because I've had this conversation enough times with Christer to know that its all a smokescreen of insinuation and half-asred leaps of "If This then maybe That... and if THAT then MAYBE the other... OMG WE CAUGHT THE RIPPER!"
If the evidence is, as this person says "Overwhelming" it should be a piece of cake...
@andrewtomlinson5237
Do you expect the case to be rehearsed to you in total here? I suggest you go back to each of the videos and point out one by one each point which is unsupported by evidence - including circumstantial evidence which I'm sure a student of criminology such as your good self will know is enough to convict. I'm sure it should be easy enough for you? Should be a piece of cake.
Psychopaths are not diagnosed as such. They are diagnosed with anti social behaviours. I am a psychopath’ but pretty harmless .
Let's hope so
I fully agree with you that Letchmere could have left much earlier than he stated for maybe he had already been out on the hunt for a victim but failed to find one....plus he may well have come across her if she had just been with another customer at that location....
Question 6. Contemporary readers need to always keep in mind that LE of 1888 didn’t have fingerprinting, DNA, hair comparisons, photographic evidence, blood typing or anything except eye witness testimony and blood smears, traces and weapon identification. They were dealing with crime in a completely different world. And perps behaved accordingly.
What they all do is totally out of despair.
Mr. T says: I pity them fools.
I eventually had to block the Maybrick guy as he was coming out with increasingly deluded statements.
Another great video - fascinating and interesting, thank you!👍
Glad you enjoyed it
After watching the missing evidence how anyone can think it was someone other then lechmere is beyond me. I guess it doesn’t fit there narrative on who they want there suspect to be. Edward you’ve done an amazing job laying the case against lechmere out. It’s definitely lechmere and nobody else.
Simple reply: Stupidity.
Well you should always do your due diligence and hear all theories and all sides. However I totally agree with you. Lechmere makes sense when you actually look at the evidence and the more you know about serial killers. Lechmere might be innocent but he's the greatest suspect and always will be is because he was the only person seen at the scene which is just crazy when you actually look at the crime scenes and how public some of the murder sites were.
Indeed!
@@johnjones-eu1rv MAYbe a BRick fell on ya head.
@@johnjones-eu1rvin ya dreams haha.
If you look at it from the other end that JTR was very cunning and bold in his attacks then I would think that he would be the same way if he was about to be discovered and would instinctively seize the initiative and steer the conversation and perception the way that lechmere apparently did😎
Yes exactly
Very interesting Edward, great work please continue 👍
Thanks, will do!
Picking up on #10, what are your thoughts on why the spree would have ended? In the case of the other killers, they didn’t stop and tended to spiral more out of control. I know you link him to a few others, but seems like the body count including pre/post cannon should be at least dozens.
Serial killers do stop
If Lechmere was the Ripper, the murder of Mary Kelly does not fit his timeline as far as location, work hours, or day of the week.
I personally believe Kosminski was the Ripper. Too many things always lead back and point to him. All the criminal profile knowledge we have today fits him perfectly!
It fits all of those criteria.
It was in his route to work. It was proceeding a normal work day, the time of death was unknown to any degree of accuracy and could easily have been prior to 4.00 am if that was his start time - which we don't actually know.
And Kosminski absolutely doesn't fit the profile.
@@johnjones-eu1rvLechmere dunnit.
I agree with your first sentence regarding timing, and Annie Chapman also was murdered after Lechmere was already at work.
@otisdylan9532
Annie Chapman's time of death may well have been before 4am but I have covered all these arguments in at least 3 previous videos.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 It's possible that her death was before 4:00 am, but much more likely that her death was around 5:30. John Richardson said he saw the yard at 4:45 or 4:50, and that the body wasn't there. It would have been nearly impossible for him to have missed it.
Ripper or not, I think Lechmere is still the most viable suspect (so far ….)
A solid case put forward here.
Indeed
@@johnjones-eu1rvNo it wasn't.
A point not discussed as far as I know is that if Lechmere is the killer he would have still had the knife in his possession. When he approached Robert Paul why would he touch him on the shoulder to entice him to the body unless his other hand is poised to strike him if necessary. I think that approaching a complete stranger like that is not a natural thing to do but if had a concealed weapon in the other hand then the hand on the shoulder becomes more sinister. Also in telling PC Mizen what he did is he still had the knife in his possession. The only opportunity to discard the weapon would have been when Lechmere and Paul separated later going to their respective employment. If Mizen had demanded both return with him then presumably both Lechmere and Paul may have been searched for a weapon.
🔪🎩
Nice image Jamie although lechmere wouldn't have worn a top hat.
@@johnjones-eu1rv Why Maybrick?
@@johnjones-eu1rvchange the tune.
@@johnjones-eu1rvit was a hoax. A proven one.is there no hope for rational thought in looking at these crimes!
Others are envious that Mr Stow has successfully solved the Ripper mystery. I'm one hundred percent convinced that Lechmere is the culprit.
Many thanks
If you're thinking of the killer acting in all these "logical" ways, he wouldn't have done anything to begin with. Also, you're assuming you know why he was doing any of this to begin with. Who knows what sort of thoughts drove such actions? Nothing a "normal" person would think was worth it, certainly.
Yes exactly
Absolutely. It's actually the critics of the Lechmere theory who aren't thinking logically 😂.
@@lyndoncmp5751 well, it's kind of... Take a look at what this guy was doing, was he the logical, reasonable serial killer type?😄 It's almost arguing for argument's sake. Like wanting everything every which way - but still finding fault!
@loretta_3843
Yep. Some people just want to argue for the sake of arguing. If these people reject/dismiss Lechmere then they have to do the same with every single other named suspect too.
It's interesting that the subsequent murders took place in more secluded areas. If Lechmere was the killer, he might have learned to kill in a less public place.
actually there is one recent case where the suspect behaved in a way eerily similar to Lechemere, and that is Richard Allen (strangely even the name Charles Allen Lechemere has a lot of similarities with Richard Allen) in the Delphi double murder.
Two fourteen-year-old girls were abducted on a bridge on a public trail in Indiana, and one of them secretly recorded a short video of the abduction on her cell phone. They were then killed by knife in a secluded space close to the old bridge, literally within earshot, and posed in a grotesque manner quite reminiscent of some canonical ripper victims, for the sexual arousal of the killer, or to shock the people who would discover the bodies. The killer also had to be very intimate with the place to evade capture, as this public trail was not widely known outside of town, and from there to know the paths through the woods, the places to conduct the murder without being seen, and the path back to the parking lot through the old cemetary could not have been improvised.
The police recovered the phone and at first released just a still picture of "bridge guy", without saying where it came from, and just pretended they wanted to talk to this "potential witness". The picture (and the subsequent video) is unfortunaltly very grainy, and the suspect is wearing a scarf probably to try and conceal his identity on this public trail.
The suspect R Allen is local, he took a tremendous risk on a public trail quite close to his house. He was possibly working later that day although it is unclear.
more importantly at one point he decided to go talk to the police, quite possibly when the picture of him (on the bridge where the 2 victims were abducted) was released by the police, and they asked for this "potential witness" or anyone recognizing him to come forward. indeed we know that he called the tip line that was set up at that point in time, to arrange an informal meeting with a police officer by a grocery store. it is unlikely he went to the police at a later day when they released the video and the audio indicating that "Bridge guy" was the abductor (with the infamous phrase: "guys, down the hill!").
We can only assume that he recognized himself and thought everyone else would too so he went boldly to the police, saying he was exactly where the picture was taken and wore the same clothes, playing the innocent witness part that saw nothing, like Lechemere did at the inquest. He was probably quite evasive too regarding his name and address as the policeman took the name of his street as his last name...
And for 5 years he evaded suspicion...it is sometimes hard for the police to take a guy coming forward by himself and pretending to help, as a suspect. And like Lechemere quite a few people believe he is innocent because he went by himself to the police who would otherwise never have been able to identify him. Only an innocent guy would go to the police...so they say...
well if he obviously lied over and over again to the police and his testimony is only selfserving....while he believes the police would eventually knock at his door down the line....a player would probably try this action to stay free and mock the authorities.
Interesting. I hadn't heard of that.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 if you dont know about the murder of Libby and Abby, and you like criminal cases, this is a fascinating case, still ongoing.
The trial was supposed to happen in january but the suspect's defense team just got booted out. And they now want the judge to reccuse herself...
@alainprostbis
I have read the motion of the former defence team and it seems to me that the judge should be removed. The case has become of judicial mess.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 i believe so. Although i believe R Allen is bridge guy (with all implications this means, after all he described himeslf as on that bridge and wearing the clothes of the abductor at the time it happened...), since he is happy with his defense, he should keep both his lawyers. They are fighting hard for him.
And this judge did play it dirty. She is obviously lying now that Rozzi withdrew while she was seen on camera saying that he has not withdrawn yet and will "submit his resignation in a couple of days, maybe".
That's a mess...
I can understand policemen lying during an interview, or one purposly playing the good one and the other the mean one, or sometimes working undercover...
But a judge? No way.
Great comment. I've heard of the case, of course, not in that much detail. Didn't know he called 5 years before.
Out of interest, is there any examples of Lechmere's handwriting on records to compare with the Ripper letters?
Only a few signatures on marriage certificates
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 It would be great to find a similarity. Brilliant channel by the way, looking forward to more videos 👌
I personally don’t think any of the Ripper letters were written by the killer. I think they were created to drum up more hysteria by a journalist.
It seems to me that you cant clear Lechmere as a suspect because the Police failed to do that for us. The situation makes him a suspect until he is investigated and cleared. This must be a fact even if you personally believe some other suspect is Jack, regardless of your reasons. Its Police investigation 101 for the reason that the person discovered with the Body must always be a suspect (just ass friends and family are).
These questions are valid ones to ask, but can never eliminate his as a suspect over 100 years later.
Not all metropolitan police detectives were mugs. The names, addresses, places of work of witnesses, those who found the victims would be listed as people of interest. Cross/Lechmere would have been on that list. Every time there was another murder people of interest would be revisited for alibis. If they checked out, ie all ok, they would be removed from the list. Not all metropolitan police detectives were mugs.
@@davekeating. But the full records don't exist, so we don't know he was cleared. The confusion over his name is reasonable circumstantial evidence that any investigation was cursory.
@@nickbrough8335 If he handn't been cleared he would have remained a live police suspect. No copper then or afterwards ever mentioned Lechmere/Cross. QED
@davekeating. He OBVIOUSLY wasn't checked out, otherwise they'd be using his legal name of Charles Allen Lechmere.
@@walkawaycat431 Sadly, most of the original police Ripper files have been destroyed. Each victim file would contain a list of names and addresses of family, associates, witnesses, persons of interest. They contained many persons of interest who’s names never became public - much to the annoyance of internet Miss Marples ; ) Engaging in a killing spree while going to or from work is a bit of stretch, don’t you think? Doing same, leaving no clues, practically unnoticed, before clocking-in, all in a days work, you might say! No matter how careful in the dark, in haste, there was always a risk of something going wrong, like scratches, blood splatter. This killer had an unoccupied place to return to, and it wasn’t his workplace or home.
Do you know what surname Lechemere used to gain employment with Pickfords years earlier? It was Cross. You know yourself, son of a copper gets the job before son of a cobbler. Pickfords and the Cross surname were all over London papers, Christmas 1876, following the death of young boy, William Warner, in a Pickford van accident. Surely, Pickfords would be first to point out; Your Honour, we don’t have any carman called Charles Cross? Lechmere provided his address, his employer and most importantly his name as per company payroll, Charles Cross. Lechmere knew to do otherwise would create problems when/if the police visited Pickfords to verify his identity. He had learnt from his step-father, that normally the first police murder suspect is the person or persons who found the body.
By 1888 Lechmere had been employed by Pickfords for over 20 years. He joined to company, as a teenager, sometime before 1868. He was living with his mother and step-father, policeman, Thomas Cross, who died late, 1869. Lechmere married 1870, and new beginning. Now he has family and future children to think about. What surname to use? The obvious choice is Lechmere, and a legal requirement for civil birth, death and marriage records. Christmas 1876, he used the name, Charles Cross, following the accidental death of young, William Warner, run over by his Pickford van. Therefore, he never told Pickfords to change his name from Cross to Lechmere. Is that crime? Does that make him Jack the Ripper? Lechmere stuck to his story. Robert Paul gave two versions. Hell, even the police couldn’t decide which of their officers “discovered” the body!
6:21
I'm coming to realize that he had this all figured out all along. We see the same thing with the Stride murder.
He simply set up ahead of time that he would have a legitimate reason to be where he was at any given time while committing a murder and thus could stop at any time and simply say he came across it.
It's hard to say if he had this from the beginning or if the success of this was cemented when he simply paired with Robert Paul as dual witnesses.
As you describe, he wasn't going to do this unless he absolutely had to, since he had already been a part of one inquest. But as we see here I think it was always a part of his plan.
13:29
All these timings as to if Lechmere could or could not have had time to do the killing revolve heavily on when Lechmere himself said that he left. Not when he actually left. Having walked these routs many times previously he would have a very good idea of how long it would have taken him to reach any specific spot along his rout. All he needs to do is back calculate from that and make a reasonable guess... a guess that obviously had nothing to do with when he actually left his home.
That's where witnesses would be important for him to nail down the time he DID leave and not simply the time he said he did.
As in the first part, I'm going to say that if he planned to do a murder that he may have well left at... say 3am and walked very slowly on his rout observing closely for opportunity knowing full well that if a policeman saw him he could simply increase his gait, say hello and that even if stopped he would have a perfectly reasonable explanation for why he was ... EXACTLY where he was at EXACTLY the time he was "required" to be there.
Polly Nichols was not waiting for her killer at Buck’s Row. He had to find her on Whitechapel Road, chat her up, and then be taken to Buck’s Row, the place of Polly’s choosing. All in a day’s work, I’m sure you’ll say!
we must continue to prove it was lechmere
In my opinion (honorary judge from 2019 - 2023 and law enforcement officer) it has been proven.
@@harcomou8395Exactly. Whenever someone tells me Lechmere has been "discredited" I answer back "not by law inforcement" some people are dense. He'll NEVER be discredited.
@@harcomou8395 Killers don't approach a witness & there was No reason at all to have done that. So, now Identified, he just kept prowling the streets in the early morning hours & killed more. Really?
Perhaps it was a sailor who, ya know, sailed away
Excellent responses to all these objections.
It's amazing to me how so many people making these objections to Lechmere as a suspect don't seem to grasp A) the nature of serial killers B) the nature of late 19th century London and/or C) how ill-equipped the police of that time were to deal with what was then a very unusual type of criminal. Even in recent times, serial killers have been notoriously hard to catch until they made some mistakes or until enough evidence had been meticulously gathered to point towards the identity of the killer---and that's with our modern scientific policing methods. It seems difficult for people to grasp how inferior and primitive police methods were at the time of Jack the Ripper's "career" and how hard it would have been for the police of that era to grasp the nature of what they were dealing with.
The fact is (as far as I can see) that Lechmere makes a *great deal of sense* as a suspect and a very strong one at that, once one becomes acquainted with the reasoning behind it. I'm not sure if it'll ever be *proven* that he was Jack the Ripper, but I have yet to see one single objection (let alone any evidence) that even remotely suggests that he shouldn't be considered a top suspect and quite likely the best suspect possible.
Good points
It’s not that all are making objections cause we feel Lechmere is innocent but I’m not convinced he’s guilty either. He could be, I’m just not sure! How could he have no blood on him? Also I find it just as likely he interrupted the real killer just as easy as Paul could have interrupted him. I feel he would have fled unless he only heard Paul too late and thought he was already identified which is entirely possible. I also find it odd that Lechmere continued “a normal life” after and no more murders.
The TOP and in my opinion the ONLY reason why Lechmere is most certainly not Jack, is simply that after the first murder and appearance in court he is at that point known to the police and court system, and yet we are supposed to believe that after this he was wondering whitechapel areas seeking 4 more victims, your own words "avoid the spotlight"
He did avoid the spotlight. Multiple serial killers carried on in similar circumstances... Christie, Sutcliffe, Dahlmer, Bundy...
Good work.
Thanks!
I swear your pumpkin was looking at me, also young Lechmere looks like Freddie Mercury (killer queen !!!!! ) ……….I’ll get my coat.
I'd just like to contribute a hypothesis ....The well used trope ' psychopathic serial killers never stop killing' therefore no Letchmere, may well be bad logic. It has come to my attention that there are many serial killers operating at any one time in the US and to lesser extents in other countries. Lots of these killings are never solved. Therefore it is logical to assume that many serial killers are never caught. You can also therefore assume that many if not all of these stop at some point, even if only due to age.
It is true that the serial killers we know, catch and prosecute never stop. Of course it is, because we catch them before they can stop and therefore catch them mid cycle. It's simply bad logic to say that they don't stop. 'They' simply refers to the ones we catch / stop. ( Not) 'they' refers to all the ones we don't catch and therefore stop themselves at some point.
The reason this is perpetuated may well be two fold - Firstly, It really doesn't suit anyone let alone police, governments and current heads of state to let the public know that there are serial killers on the loose and we won't catch them. Secondly, we often struggle to see what isn't, we tend not to think in the negative, the alternative or the reactive way. We tend to think of what is, and what we see is serial killers not stopping.
They do stop
You'd think u were eating a quarter wine gums ,Edward ffs he didn't want his step dash name ! End off mixer
The truth 🙌 🤔 the whole truth ⚖️ 🗽 and nothing but the truth! What about pc mizzen 👮♂️ mizzen s truth 🤔 😤 😏 eh !? Wyn baxter ( coroner! U have been evasive twice ie lieing a 👮♂️ under oath 🙏 there won't be a thirdbbutbyou and chrisntake the piss don't address 😉 these FACTS! cops like wayne couzens David Carrick! Who knows maybe was mizzen ! Because wasnt Lechmere according to the law 🙄 🫣🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🫡🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥
@@tuckewhite111 yes , exactly .
@@jakehammond12345 have they no skin on there face ffs like 🙄holgrems real cheeky bastard if u disagree your point disappear s me him had lots run ins then he gets Edward to holdmhisnhand !!!! You ever see Edwards 10 red flags should be white only so serious 🏳🏳🏳🏳🏳🏳🏳🏳🏳🏳! Absolute 💯 joke ! I'm Belfast and 💯 killer would a shanked paul FACT killers don't hang about for the matinee 🫡 p s stand up these 2 man 👍 👏 they also give me dogs abuse calling me matthew Lawton never heard him in my Life!!!! Tbh ends OK 👍 👌 but CH is an impertinent cheeky bastard u were beside him be swift upper cut 🤣🥊 good luck , James T Belfast ! Iv commented a good bit on this video so tomorrow they both gang up on me lol 😆 Ch , gets Ed hold his hand a grown man all because in 🇬🇧 uk we have free speech these 2 think only applies to them then the don't like if other people can see obvious 🫡
Although looking at the suspect pool he has to be one on top three but then again still falls short in my opinion. Police werent as clueless back then as someone might think. Theres no blodd on him! It could be argued that he acctually interroped the killer by his footsteps sound or the killer wasnt at that mutilation mind set! Who knows?
It is him or the killer (presumably one of your other two) silently slipped away unseen. Which means he is the best known suspect by a country mile.
1) Robert Paul wants to move body/ help lady -lechmere “I’m not touching her”
2) Robert Paul wants to go get police, lechmere tags along
3) Lechmere talks to mizen “Your wanted by a policeman on bucks row” (paraphrase) which is a lie from Robert Paul’s POV
My question is.. why doesn’t Robert Paul at this point start to think Lechmere is not on the up and up? Wouldn’t that little lie be enough to set Robert Paul sideways? Or is it possible that Robert Paul just doesn’t notice/ thinks it doesn’t matter? It would matter to me if I was Robert Paul. Also I have a theory that mizen could have been told “your needed at bucks row there is a body there”.. I’m not sure that’s the case, but if he was too descriptive about a police officer being waiting on mizen to show then it could have triggered Robert Paul IMO
Robert Paul was described in the Echo as ”the other man, who went down Hanbury Street”. And Mizen never said he taked to two men, he was explicit about being approached by one man only. So there is likely your answer.
Yes Robert Paul was probably out of earshot, alternatively Lechmere had told him as they had walked along that he would get them both to work on time by making a suitable explanation to any policeman they saw. Paul was evidently hostile to the police so he likely would have gone along with this and/or kept his distance from Mizen
@@christerholmgren335 Ok this is interesting and makes since. The fact robert paul made a statement to reporters surprises me in honesty, and it probably surprised Lechmere!
The Whitechapel killer committed his crimes with a knife or some kind of surgical device.
Your suspect would not have killed on his way to work because the actual murderer would have had blood on his shoes and clothes and almost certainly on his hands. A dead give away to his colleagues.
He may even have had blood spatter on his face and would have been carrying organs removed from the bodies.
Why did Paul not see this and give evidence to this effect?
Once again, l must ask you to explain on video how your suspect ties into the last killing. This is vital to the case, assuming, as we all tend to do, it was only one killer who did the lot.
Perhaps even as important as that, why did he stop?
As I mentioned in the film, Lechmere was in a far better position than any other known suspect to get away with blood on his person - yet despite your claims there is no reason why he should have blood on him.
No organ was harvested with Polly Nichols.
If you think Kelly was the last victim, this murder has been more than adequately covered in previous videos.
Serial killers do stop, for a variety of reasons, as an serious student of this dubhevt knows. But in Lechmere's case - again watch all my films to understand this - he did not stop for some time after the Kelly murder - perhaps ten years after.
Hi Ed, Great episode as always. I have never heard of James Maybrick as a ripper suspect. never heard of him
You don't want to hear of him!
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 LOL ok
@@brianwilcox3478 it’s a complete waste of time. Just some forged diary that he was purported to own. I wish I never knew of him and I’ll never get the hour or two I spent learning about him back.
@@brianwilcox3478I couldn’t agree more. He was the supposed author of a Ripper diary hoax, which I read before it was finally debunked btw. Apart from the exposure of the forgery, what made him a ridiculous too-good-to-be-true suspect was that he was already famous/infamous for being a businessman victim in a very well known sensational murder case in Britain. It was super convenient and statistically outrageous for Maybrick to have been the Ripper.
@@mattkaustickomments I have read the book about Maybrick (which contains a copy of the dairy) and it seems very well researched. Was it him? I have no idea but I can't find any information about the dairy being debunked. After much forensic testing of the paper and ink, they were apparently very old. Also, after extensive testing of the watch, the conclusion was that the "scratchings/engravings" on the watch case would have been extremely difficult to age. So, please point me to where the diary has definitely been debunked.Yes, Lechmere maybe is a more likely suspect and maybe even Tumblety, after all, he collected wombs and was interviewed as a suspect.
Clarifying as usual.
Year's and years ago when i first read the the first victim i thought Charles behaviour was suspicious 👍
kominski
I think it's ridiculous to criticize the Lechmere theory based on the fact that he didn't make a perfect snap decision. The commenter spends several questions asking 'Why didn't he just...' when, presuming Lechmere was the killer of Polly Nichols, he had mere moments to make a decision. And he was supposed to walk/run into the direction of a likely police patrol? Or kill Robert Paul, when the actual killer was mostly killing drunk prostitutes (possibly the weakest and most defenseless target imaginable) with police again minutes away?
Also, Buck's Row was empty during this time of day. As far as I remember, by the time PC Mizen comes back with an ambulance only 2 people had joined PC Neil at the body. 2 People in ~30 minutes.
🫵👏👏👏👏👏👏 him holgrem full crap 💩 holgrem actually thought he was 6ft7 ffs 😂
Also, it could be argued that it actually turned out to be a near perfect snap decision, given that it was over a century before anyone ever suspected him! 😏
I suggest you read "Secret History" and then get back to me with the Lechmere theory.
Ha
I think the key here is that the killer, whether he was “Lech the Lech” or not, didn’t arrange Nichols in a way to shock and awe her finders. On the contrary, she was covered up though not fully. For whatever the reason, not only the killer couldn’t fully finish what he set out to do but also didn’t have the time to pull her skirt all the way down.. hmmm what could be the likely scenario indeed? 🤔
If he could run away, why bother wasting time covering her wounds? 🤔🤔
But nah, can’t be Lechmere… 🙄
Ha - yes
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 When he heard footsteps it stopped him before he finished his intended display. He might have assumed they were a policeman's footsteps and stepped away. Running would set alarm bells off.
Please remember, suspects don't have to prove that they aren't the killer. This "who was it then" thinking is immediately disqualified. We have to prove who it was. They don't have to prove it wasn't them
Summing up:
- Paul could have raised the alarm
- Lechmere in his witness statement did not want to get too much attention
- Times are only important in the sense that Lechmere did not have a witness and could have given as late a time as possible that he left his house to decrease the time he would have needed for the killing
- victim probably led killer to quiet place
- Lechmere left the P.C. giving no details about himself. Later, after Paul talked in the papers, he decided to come forward to prevent man hunt maybe at the inquest. To prevent the hunt he needed to give his working place address and the semi fake name (which could be explained if needed)
- Lechmere stayed with Paul to influence him and control the narrative
- Lechmere killed out of opportunity. He knew the streets. It is more logical he killed before and not after an exhausting day
- Eye witness accounts could describe Lechmere. But in the end witness accounts are not dependable
- The police never discovered his true name, hence they did not look at Lechmere. There are more things that corroborate that
- None of the suspects were sexual killers. All serial killers seem normal
Yes! I could have cut it short!
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 😆
Drivel, nonsense, utter rubbish. How the Hell could he commit murder when for most of them he was at work. You really haven't thought this through, have you?
@@jeffjeffreym1830 Just summing up the video mate. I guess you've thought about it very much
@jeffjeffreym1830
An intellectual approach I see. And he needn't have been at work for any. It has all been thought through. I recommend you watch all the videos as homework.
Here is my biggest reservation about Lechmere as a suspect. As you say, he would have almost certainly been a psychopath if he was the killer. However there isn't a single mark against his character, apart from the suggesting that he might have been the killer. In all other respects, he is exactly what you would expect him to be, if he had been a carman who had just stumbled across the body. Given what we know about him, you could say that he was the killer, but you could also say that he was the kindest and gentlest man in London, and in neither case could anybody prove you wrong. None of this proves that he is not the killer, but it makes me think that you should be casting the net wider. I am sorry if this is question ten expanded a bit, but personality disorders usually leave some sort of footprint, somewhere in teh persons lifespan. On a footnote, one of the traits of psychopathy, is lack of realistic long term goals. Lechmere comes across as a man who not only set realistic long term goals, but also followed them through, with considerable success.
It is the same with many other killers. They seem beyond reproach until caught.
@bendavies8881 well said 👌
Sorry, leading suspect...😆
The poor chap was simply walking to work, following the same route that he did every single day. There was a body. He discovered it. someone had to. End of...
Yes, exactly - attitudes like that in the Metropolitan Police led to these murders not being solved in 1888.
Someone discovered Lechmere alone with the body... and then PC Neil found her. Thats 3 finders. Just how many people does it take to find a dead body? Lechmere is a leading suspect... like it or not.
bs. Nobody "discovered" him with the body. He was standing close to the centre of the road looking towards it as the second man arrived. The other chap had been walking behind him. This is utter drivel.@@susanclapp1721
Susan 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 💯 pc ❗️1️⃣0️⃣0️⃣0️⃣ percent house Lechmere a joke !!!!! Were this evidence 🤔 🙄 still see,a single piece 🤔 not one
You have totally missed the point. Lechmere didn't just 'discover' a body like Diemschutz and Davis did. Lechmere was literally SEEN BY SOMEONE ELSE lingering alone and acting suspiciously right next to the body of one of the victims at or near the time of death and with nobody else in sight or sound.
Try and pay attention FFS.
I think your theory--and it's a strong one--that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper would be debated today even if he were caught and convicted. I think this is especially true after the Mary Kelly murder and all the hype surrounding the murders at that point. I think the public was expecting the Ripper to be a creepy, obvious monster or a "toff" and not ordinary Charles Lechmere. And he was English, not the foreigner some were expecting. The Victorian sensational press would have had a problem with him, too. This plain Englishman is Jack the Ripper?! Ordinary doesn't sell papers. I'm sure the conspiracy theories would have started even then.
Yes you are probably right. However serial killers invariably turn out to be the bland normal guy.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 Yes, that's true.