Jack the Ripper - escaping Buck's Row
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ก.พ. 2024
- Welcome to the House of Lechmere
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE, LIKE AND SHARE!
In this episode Edward Stow looks at the possible escape routes available to a potential culprit - if Charles Lechmere or Cross was innocent. Is it viable to think that someone else was responsible? We will see...
In a recent film on the Richard Jones's TH-cam Channel, Jack the Ripper Tour, he discussed the same subject with Steve Blomer. There were so many inaccuracies, omissions and obfuscations involved in this film that the record had to be corrected.
If you wish to watch the original film it can be found here:
• How Did Jack The Rippe...
Most of the other films on Richard Jones's channel are well worth a watch.
Steve Blomer's has written an e-book that covers the same ground, called "Inside Buck's Row". If you wish to obtain a copy, please email Steve Blomer at insidebucksrow@gmail.com. I believe it is available for £5.99 in January 2024. There is also a Facebook page in the name Inside Buck's Row and you can also order it via there.
Thanks to Susan Stow for the camera work and to Mike Pemberton for the de-aging and colourisation of the Charles Lechmere photograph and the excellent animations of Lechmere.
Mike's TH-cam channel can be found here: / @pembysgamingworld
![บุษบา - เมนทอล [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IGnWPokSEis/mqdefault.jpg)
I was going to ponder why Steve Blomer didnt suggest two other possibilities.
1. Perhaps the killer didnt leave the scene at all but instead donned an 'invisibility cloak'.
2. The Starship Enterprise might have been passing overhead, and Scottie beamed the killer up. Energise.
🤣
No way, JTR was a ninja
😂😂😂👏👏👏
..or Spiderman. He clambered over the shrubbery & climbed up the school fire escape to the roof!
Some of his options were I grant pretty unlikely but to be fair he was listing all possibilities which can't be completely excluded. Whilst he probably entertains unlikely scenarios such as hiding in the board school or a domestic house do you not think it is possible that you too readily discount other options.
Example 1: Marshalling yard. You seem to discount this based on the presence of one police officer for the whole yard. I would argue that he was probably mostly occupied. Checking then stock stored there rather than being able to ensure that none slipped over the wall and skirted the site to exit elsewhere.
Example 2: Via Woods building. You say that the presence of the watchman makes this unlikely. I have asked on another comment if we have a firm account of where on the street he was. The turning for Woods building is only just past the Board School and the working lads Insitutute is further down the street. If he had been sleeping at other points of the night this suggested he wasn't just standing in the striped looking up and down. Where was he sitting?
I am so glad you did this, I watched this video a couple of weeks ago and felt it was lacking.
Me too!
Agree
Same lol
I'm going to be in Whitechapel in a couple weeks, I will be bring a tarpaulin to ensure that I'm not arrested for any crimes I might commit 😂
Sensible preparation
@@thehouseoflechmere9407It really needs a legal reference, like Tarp testimonial or paulin protection 😂
Lechmere thought it was a tarpaulin, yet the other witness said her legs were clearly visible? I've never seen a tarpaulin with legs... 🤣
Clearly the tarpaulin was caught in the act smothering the victim , we have a new suspect - the tarpaulin ripper , add the Tarp to the list .
lol
Good point!
What was he going to do with it if it was a tarpaulin? Lug it all the way into work? Take it home making himself 20 minutes late? 🤔
Don't forget he'd been called over to already by then. It doesn't get light till after six and life ended before the throat cut, shed been strangled.
I am really pleased you made this video as I watched Richard's and quickly felt Bloomer was taking people for idiots. To suggest the Ripper could easily hide in a conveniently placed friend's house with an unlocked door stank of incredulity. He passed off a lot of rubbish with superiority, and cast reason aside as if it was irrelevant. I wouldn't trust a word Bloomer says.
Steve Blomer is a bully. He thinks every word he sprouts is right. Disagree with him... him and his equally bully Kominski supporters will turn nasty.
@@susanclapp1721I do get the feeling that he appeals to the intellectually obscure, and will be snide at anything that makes his argument null and void.
And yet.... many people thought the idea of Lechmere being a Ripper suspect was a joke....
@@wattyler2994 Since when is it a joke to accept that a man found standing all alone by the side of a murder victim, bleeding and with a moving chest, is a credible suspect? If that is true, how much more of a joke are all the ”suspects” who cannot be linked to the murder series in any way? I think people need to ponder that question.
@@christerholmgren335 perhaps the answer to that Christer is that in the UK too many people in recent decades have found themselves convicted on "circumstantial evidence" hence the reluctance to draw conclusions without the "smoking gun". Having my self served on juries where sometimes the only evidence is circumstantial I know how difficult it is to judge on guilt of a suspect. I can even remember one instance where I was not convinced "beyond reasonable doubt" that a defendent was guilty but was outvoted by the rest of the jury. I still remain convinced an innocent person was sent to jail. The judge says the jury can make a reasonable inference of guilt in coming to their decision but that can still lead innocent people ending up in jail. I won't go into the numerous famous cases in UK legal history where absolute guilt turned out later to be absolute innocence suffice to say its a jolly good thing we don't have the death penalty in the UK. That is my starting point for this case. I hear what you say and respect it particularly the way you put the case, but for me serious doubts remain.
Really enjoy your videos Ed. So detailed but fair. There were options for an alternative killer but very few. I think Richard Jones channel is very good as a general historical background channel but falls down when it tries to deep dive on suspects.
Yes I agree
Oh my! I've never seen Edward so tiffied before! :) Bravo! Another informative and excellent video!
Thanks! 😃
I legitimately think that whoever was JTR was considered by the people around him as a 'sound' or 'stand-up' guy that would be the person you'd least expect to be a serial killer, a bit like Lucy Letby.
Mr stow is the man…..I really think he has come closest to solving this….really enjoy these videos great work Ed
Thank you kindly
I agree Mr Stow is a Legend I've watched all House of Lechmere videos and ALL of them are fantastic and a great watch..
Thank you Mr Stow Lechmere is JTR and I feel certain Lechmere is the Thames Torso Killer....
@@deancordery5935 If Lechmere is the ripper then he's also the Thames Torso killer due to the Pinchin Street connection - as quite rightly cited by Christer Holmgrem.
@@awotnot As much as I have respect for the way Stow and Lungren approached the Lechmere theory I am much much more sceptical about linkage to the "Thames Torso murders" not only because they really don't have the same JTR signature tunes but it's impossible to say where they died, what hour they died and where they lived.
Since Paul and Lechmere both worked similar hours and had a similar route to work, I wonder if they ever crossed paths again
It is not in the interests of any 'ripperologist' to have JTH solved, to do so may end one's potential book sales. Until observers and investigators like Christer Holmgren and Edward Stowe come along and show how straight forward the solution might be. Then roll out the obfuscation and nonsense to deflect away from the obvious.
That's actually a very very pertinent point. Bad for business to end the mystery.
It's great that these videos give us sensible and in depth rebuttals to counter arguments and (nowhere near as thoroughly researched) alternative theories.
Plus, being anal about details would be a necessity in court! 😄
Hi, I saw that interview and it came over to me that it was a case of making the facts fit the theory. As for Paul stating he felt the woman was still alive, I find that very interesting. I was once a male nurse - mainly doing accident and emergency work. It is possible for someone who is recently dead to start to 'breathe'. It is not the level of oxygen that triggers the brain to tell our body to breathe but it is CO2 (carbon dioxide). Put as simply as possible, when someone dies there is a build up of CO2 and this can trigger the brain to tell us to start breathing again. It lasts only a few seconds, stops and then it may start again. It's called the Cheyne-Stokes breathing phenomena (sorry, no pun on names intended!). To me, this further incriminates Cross for it only lasts a few seconds and the depth of the inhalation gets shallower with every breath. If Cross had found a body someone else had killed then it would have finished by then and Paul wouldn't have felt a thing. Thanks for another good video.
This is incredibly pertinent and relevant information that I'd not heard of before. It sounds like a very plausible reason for what Paul thought he detected. Thanks for posting.
the smoking gu*n
Very interesting
My only problem with the Cross theory is where did the knife vanish to? It wasn't found near the body and, if we hypothesise that he was PN's killer, the only plausible alternative is that he secreted it about his person. Would he really be approaching a policeman and telling them about a dead body if he had the murder weapon tucked in his coat?
I still think Cross is the most likely, by the way.
@peezebeuponyou3774
I presume he hid it in his jacket or apron. If he had to bluff it out with Mizen, he had to have it with him. The Yorkshire Ripper took his weapons out of the car he was in when he was apprehended, pretended he needed a pee, and hid them.
I think the whole process of the strangulation according to marks left by the killer's thumb as he was using one hand to muffle her and the other to strangle her should be explored. As she was overcome she would have been a "DEAD WEIGHT" and he would have had to hold her up while she was lifeless and then lowered to the ground with all his strength and then proceed to cut her throat etc. He then does his thing and then Robert Paul shows up as he walks into Buck's Row. Any actors willing to act this out?. I think this could further demonstrate the unlikeliness of another killer other than Lechmere. Great video Edward.
To reiterate Ed's point;
It's not about the tarpaulin per se - it's the scavenging of it and hence the reason for an approaching Lechmere crossing the road in order to investigate the bundle. It can be reasonably assumed that an innocent Lechmere approached the tarpaulin in order to scavenge it. But that is pure supposition or filling in gaps to provide a reason for approaching the bundle. Ergo, the fact Lechmere never mentioned scavenging the tarpaulin adds weight to the idea that scavenging the tarpaulin was not his real reason for being stood next to the body. Why did Lechmere not mention scavenging the tarpaulin at the inquest?
Moreover, although I'm not sure whether or not I have mentioned this detail before, but given that Robert Paul saw Lechmere stood in the road next to Polly, nevertheless, what Robert Paul did NOT see, according to his own testimony, is Lechmere crossing the road either toward or away from the body.
So why did Lechmere even use the word tarpaulin? What was his reason for approaching it?
The Jack the Ripper tour, ergo Richard Jones, narrative concerning Lechmere, dated Dec 28th 2023, does not even mention a tarpaulin. I will add the link below and quote here.
"As I got to Buck’s Row, by the gateway of the wool warehouse, I saw someone lying at the entrance to the gateway. It looked like a dark figure.
I walked into the centre of the road, and saw that it was a woman.
At the same time I heard a mam (sic man) come up behind, in the same direction as I was going. He was about thirty or forty yards behind me.
I stepped back to await his arrival."
...
Daily News September 1888
"On Friday morning he left home about half past three to go to work, and passing through Buck's row he saw on the opposite side something lying against a gateway. In the dark he could not tell at first what it was. It looked like a tarpaulin sheet, but walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman."
Polly's head was facing toward an approaching Lechmere. So he thinks it's a tarpaulin - in the dark - whilst not noticing her blatantly uncovered legs. He never noticed her hair. Or her bonnet. Just a tarpaulin shape. But gave no reason for approaching it. Other than it was a shape laying on the pavement.
It just doesn't add up. But then i would say that wouldn't I.
www.jack-the-ripper-tour.com/generalnews/charles-crosss-story/
Another excellent film Ed thanks ...good work
Glad you enjoyed it
Hello, great videos always. I was wondering whose picture did you posted at 27:44. In Ripperology misleading or even false information can get halfway around the world before the truth even gets its britches on. Is one of the greatest quotes in TH-cam history.
27.44 is one second before the end!
I think you mean 25.44 - James Kelly
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 Thank you
Another few points Ed which I never thought made sense: Blomer says the unseen, unheard killer is scared off by an approaching Lechmere and he leaves Nichols in haste. The clothes "naturally" fall down over the wounds (rather than are covered up) and the Ripper escapes in the shadows. Problem #1: Why? The Ripper left Chapman exposed in an area (Hanbury) that was much riskier in terms of him being seen and still le4ft her exposed. #2: If the unseen, unheard killer heard Lechmere approaching, wouldn't Lechmere hear the killer scurrying off? #3, If Lechmere was the killer and was at the Nichols' body doing his work then that explains why Paul wouldn't hear someone an "innocent" Cross walking ahead of him.
Yes, all good points
I've been watching your videos for a couple of years now and it really annoys me that people still dismiss letchmere as a suspect! Keep up the good work Ed I'm a firm believer in the letchmere theory now. Your videos are the best histories on the Ripper. It's only a matter of time until the rest of the world wakes up!
Thanks
I don't dismiss him just need something concrete, something more than suspicion for me.
Thanks Ed yet another amazing video. Love your content.
Thanks for watching!
The Yorkshire Ripper was a 'cart driver' as well. He drove a Lorry for a living.
He did. People in the transport business are by far the commonest exponents of the serial murder trade, comparing occupations. When I pointed this out some years back, it gave the naysayers fits ...
@@christerholmgren335
"it gave the naysayers fits ..."
I thought that was the joke about Leather Apron. 😝 😉
@@lyndoncmp5751 True, but to the naysayers, the transport link was no joke at all. It was a threat that needed to be disposed of.
@@christerholmgren335
It would be very ironic if both Rippers nearly a hundred years apart were local nondescript delivery drivers, with the police being quite clueless and looking for the wrong kind of suspects. Parallel patterns!!!
@@lyndoncmp5751 it would actually have been what to expect, statistically and empirically, if there was two killers. But there was not. in all likelihood.
You know you have just killed his book sales. He's now back doing his day job.
I hope you are proud of yourself 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Lol
We can only hope that you’re right! 😂😂😂
I hope not. He needs the dough.
Oh brilliant - been SO looking forward to this? Will be watching later
I imagine a lot of viewers were wondering how soon you would respond to the video mentioned. I must say, I think the host of "Jack the ripper tours" is very fair minded regarding the various theories, but this one was asking for a response. Regarding Lechmere's actions and utterances, apparently designed to create a credible distance between himself and the acts, your insight into the workings of such a mind are very acute.
Yes Richard Jones is a good guy and has been fair minded in having both Edward and Christer on his channel.
I was waiting for this response video, thank you!
Hope you enjoyed it!
I remain an agnostic. Mostly by choice. But I'm a big fan. You present and argue so well, and are so well researched. If everyone could approach this case the way you do, we may not come up with an answer that we all agree on, but at least we wouldn't all seem like cranks and fanatics.
Thank you very much!
Disagree with your conclusions though I do, I too am impressed by the adult fashion and seriousness of your presentations which is why I concede that Lechmere remains one of the most credible type of person to have committed the murders. It comes with provisos that a) We can't be 100% certain it was him b) there remain gaps and facts difficult to explain c) the fact that many records have been lost over the years that might steer in a different direction.
Joseph Barnett is a compelling suspect.
@wattyler2994
Naturally there will be gaps - its 135 years ago!
being a JTR enthusiast an having subscribed to both your channel and that of Richard Jones, i had seen the" escape from buck's row" video and in no way did I think that he or his guess trashed your work.
Richard Jones is a generalist ripperologist with an unusual openmindedness in this field.
in his video he clearly prefaced at some point that this video takes the point of view of Lechmere being a witness, mentionning there were also very good reasons to suspect him. Which means he would try to take his point of view. and rationalize why the fact he thought the body of Polly was a piece of tarpaulin had a meaning. His guess disagrees with you but that does not mean disinformation IMO.
Don't take it too personnaly Ed. it rather shows how much terrain you've gained.
even 5 years ago, well after the missing evidence documentary, you would not have had this preface and this mention. Lechemere is now a major Suspect, if not the most important one.
and i very much enjoyed your interaction with Mr Jones a few months back when you presented the EastEnd to him.
and i just enjoyed this video you just released. keep up the good work.
Brilliant riposte Edward. Im so glad you did this video to counter the other one, which I'm sure most of us have seen. The idea that there were lots of escape routes was a new one for me, so it's great that you've set the record straight.
I myself forgot about Mulshaw but then I'm not a Ripperologist so for Mr Blomer and Mr Jones to not mention him does appear odd.
Excellent points regarding the slowness of Mizen's beat/knocking up duty which should very much have restricted him to being in the general vicinity of that corner at the time, thus making it unlikely a northern escape route was doable.
So that's most of the proposals wiped out at a stroke, leaving really only the Court St portion.
The rest of the options were not logical (jumping onto the railway track, going in a house on Bucks Row or having a bolthole elsewhere close by).
Cheers. ✌️
Regarding Lechmere giving a fake name, I imagine most "dodgey" people would automatically do this when there was any involvement with the law.
When I was a teen (pre computers) I had a totally different name and address if plod ever stopped me lol.
Yes, didn't we all! And the important thing to note is the word 'dodgy'.
Paul didn't give a false name, but then again he was far from keen on talking to the police.
Great video i was hooked right from the witty Godfather and Auditor intro that had me laughing ... i must admit after watching How did JTR Escape it swung me a bit but as you say it was produced with so much bias and inaccuracies while omitting important facts . I can say that has been batted back with topspin . R.Jones is a decent man but has made a career and a good living out of the mystery and unsolvability of the case and would like that to continue for eternity . S.Bloomer obviously has a book or books coming out with his own theory on who JTR so has a vested interest in trying to debunk CL he even claimed he knows who JTR was at the end but wouldn't say because he knows it would get torn to shreds . I Agree CL saying he thought it was a Tarpaulin is total guff on his part and a smokescreen .
Steven Blomer is a devotee of the "Polish Jew" theory, alleged to be true by Robert Anderson in his memoirs. That means that the name he would put on the Ripper if asked would be Aaron Kosminski - but he would be quite willing to allow for another identity, as long as we all admit that the assistant commissioner of the Met was always likely to be correct. This in spite of how his successor, Melville MacNaghten, who must have gained the information he had on Kosminski by Anderson, dissed the suggestion on favor of Druitt! Both of these so called suspects are very weak ones, but they nevertheless belonged to the stronger ones in a VERY pitiful group of suspects. Until Lechmere came along, that is.
Maybe it was someone called Aaron Druitt...@@christerholmgren335
@@christerholmgren335 yes i thought so Christer . It was your timings that swung it for me PCNeil discovering the body around 3.51 that convinced me which was rounded down to 3.45 later with other PCs ... R.Paul's was spot on accurate as could be .Your blood congeal and bleed out part of your interview was especially oustanding .
@@grbdnksg Or Aaron Jacob James Michael Druitt, perhaps?
@@christopherwright4573 I believe so. Paul probably, knowing that he was late, checked the time on the brewery clock in Bath Street. And I also think that as coroner Baxter pieced it all together, Dr Llewellyns clock will have been checked. Once they knew that it was a solid and accurate timepiece, they had the "many independent data" that fixed the finding time of the body to 3.45 or very close to that time.
I really enjoyed this video. Fascinating and insightful! 😃👍
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thanks Ed brilliant post 👍
Glad you enjoyed it
I watched the video you're talking about. It was weird hearing people talk about Lechmere as if he really was just a bloke walking down the street, finding an "interesting" tarpaulin which turned out to be a barely deceased body! Also when they were discussing the possibility that the school may have been unlocked and he may have hidden in there! In an area where people were desperate for somewhere to sleep and the boys in blue rousted anyone trying to kip down the quietest alleys imagine how many would sleep in a warmish dry school building if the doors were left unlocked. It'd be like a fourpenny doss house in it's own right.
Excellent point. I never thought of that.
I enjoy this exploration very much, it made me think, so bear with me while I ponder out loud. I wonder how good Lechmere's eye sight was? As a short sighted person I would need to get up fairly close to an object, in the dark to make it out. Maybe the body presented as a blurry lump, hence the tarpaulin comment. And what exactly did he mean by the word tarpaulin? We think of a huge piece of material but they must have come in various shapes and sizes. It is possible that a bunched up medium size cloth could have been what Lechmere thought he was seeing at first glance. People would have definitely scavenged things off the street, we still do it, plenty of skip raiding goes on. I get that it might of been dirty and unwieldy but that doesn't stop human curiosity. I'm not saying he wasn't the perpetrator, just that the story he told isn't completely fanciful.
It would have to be a pretty big lump of tarpaulin to resemble a body. But that isn't the point. He said he thought the body was a tarpaulin.
That may or may not be believable.
But generations of Ripperologists have run with the ball that Lechmere figuratively kicked in the air. They caught that punt and ran further towards the touch line with their invented 'he wanted to scavenge the tarpaulin for his cart'. He created a scenario that Ripperologists instinctively added to, to make him totally innocent.
quality work as usual. thank you. you are looking more and more like lechmere with every video ha ha.
absolutely love the videos!!!
Glad you like them!
thank you for the video
You're welcome
I wonder if anyone has tried to compare a sample of Lechmere's handwriting with that in the "from Hell" letter?
Another interesting travelogue, Ed. And I look forward to a future episode featuring a confrontation with the security guards at that Sainsbury's branch.
A word in defence of the venerable Steve Blomer: you've not given due credence to the sliding scale of likelihood which characterises his hypotheses. Given that you have provided direct links, however, in your upload description, to both the relevant interview and Steve's book on the same theme - it's hard to begrudge your moment of hilarity.
Candid insight on your proclivities, by the way, but one might be assiduous about detail without cause for blunt description. Ha ha!
I will be banned from their premises
Thanks for doing this video Edward and debunking the Blomer nonsense.
Regarding lechmere and the tarpaulin, why didn't lechmere mention this to Paul? It was obviously an after thought by lechmere to use as a reason to say why he was on that side when Paul approached. He'd had days to think of this before the inquest.
Good point. Although not sure how much the two men actually discussed the events.
@@lyndoncmp5751 I agree, we'll never know but the tarpaulin story has never really stacked up for me. Did he need it that much that he would cross the road everytime he saw something? It could of been anything. In this case a body with legs exposed and sticking out. Also would he really be wanting to then carry tarpaulin to work?
@@kevinkenny6975
Exactly. Pickfords would have had tarpaulins. No need to pick up one in the street and lug it all the way to work (a cumbersome thing to have to do) or take it home, making himself 20 minutes late. It doesnt add up why he would bother even if it WAS a tarpaulin.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Exactly. Also it could have been weed on or anything.
@@kevinkenny6975
Yes very true. Who'd want to bundle up and carry a dirty old tarpaulin lying there. Especially being dark. You wouldn't be able to see what's been soiling it.
I knew this video was coming after watching that video😂 great video👍
So did I. Blomer talks alot but doesn't say anything
The really interesting thing here is the question asked by Edward in the finishing sentences: Even if we cannot exclude the possibility that the killer was somebody else, who managed to escape just before Lechmere arrived at the spot, why would anybody FAVOR such a suggestion over the logical solution that Lechmere did the cutting? Where is the allure (unless it lies in egotistical or economical weighings) of such a proposition? We have a man we KNOW was with the body at a remove in time when it was warm and bleeding, and the bleeding would go on for many minutes. We have an added witness who feels the chest of the victim moving. Short of Lechmere having stood around with a blood dripping knife as Paul arrived, the evidence is as good as it gets for guilt. And that is before we add in all the other strange matters involved - the obfuscation of his real and registered name, the disagreements with PC Mizen about what had been said, his failure to mention to Mizen that he himself was the finder of the body, the covered up wounds, the denial to help prop Nichols up, the failure of two men to note each other, 30 or 40 yards apart inside an accoustic tunnel in the dead of night, the fact that Lechmere said he left home at about 3.30, a timing that only fit with innocence as long as the coroner laboured under the misapprehension that Lechmere found the body at 3.40, but became a clear sign of guilt as that time was moved forward to 3.45. If the phantom killer suggested by Steve Blomer et all actually existed, one would want HIM to have all these kinds of matters pointing to HIS guilt. Instead, no phantom killer is on record, and Lechmere has all these matters pointing in HIS direction. As I wrote initially, it is not beyond possible that there CAN have been another killer, but it IS factually wrong to claim that such a man is in any way as likely or likelier a killer than the carman. That is were the reasoning of Steven Blomer and the likes of him derails capitally and conclusively, where the factually supported scenario is sidestepped in favor of trying to hang on to various myths. The cat is out of the bag, the game is up, and it is good to see how so many people are acknowledging this by now.
Christer, quick question why do YOU think no one heard the Rippers footsteps?
@@wattyler2994 In Bucks Row, it was in all probability because there was no walking to be heard from the soles of Lechmere. Otherwise, it was probably only a question of nobody paying attention. Take, for example, Hanbury Street. There, not only Lechmere but also Annie Chapman walked over the floorboards in the stairwell withoiut being noticed. And I don´t think they took of their shoes and tip-toed their merry way to the backyard…
What troubles me with accepting Lechmere as the killer if there was no one else who could of proceeded him was the state of the body. Accepting the throat wounds were not visible by Paul, and that the other cuts to the abdomen were not discovered until the body reached the mortuary, who covered up the body to disguise them? Logically it would have been Letchmere doing it to stop Paul viewing his handiwork, but why did he not do the same with Liz Stride since the killer there is generally accepted as having narrowly missed
discovery or with Cathy Eddowes or Annie Chapman where the time frame for the killings and potential discovery was very narrow? The killing of Mary Kelly on the other hand presented no risk or very little of discovery and so attempted disguise of the cuts was pointless. If we extend the accepted victims to Martha Tabram than then it would seem even more contrary to the killers "signature tune".
@@wattyler2994 If he was not going to be around at the murder site, what reason would he have to hide the wounds? He could not pull the ”I am just an innocent bystander” stunt more than once.
@@christerholmgren335 I will come back to you on that point in a day or so, its given me an idea I want to think through before replying...
Excellent Edward, will watch tonight 👍
Hope you enjoy
Excellent analysis!
mulshaw said he DIDNT BELEIVE he fell asleep so that means he could have been sleeping and if he admitted he was asleep he would have got the sack so Mulshaw unreliable
@user-dc4uk5gw8d If you read the text, Mulshaw DID say he'd slept but before 3 o'clock.
I like how he goes on site and walks around and gives us a feel for the area. I live in Ohio, I probably will never go to England.
Save your dollars. You will be welcome in the home country.
According to Phillip Sugden, Patrick Mulshaw started his shift that night at 4:45am which is some time after the murder was discovered. So presumably Mulshaw wouldn't have arrived on Winthrop Street before 4:15-4:30 at the earliest, after Lechmere and Paul had left the scene?
Mulshaw went on duty 445 PM ,the night before.
@@leslierock5005 OK my mistake. Yes you are right he did say 4:45pm 30 August
I think the Ripperologists have been snookered,Lechmere was hiding in plain sight & they didn't see him .If he wasn't JTR then he would have certainly had some explaining to do. With regards to the body ,head facing eastwards,perhaps he just came upon her from behind ,then once she was disabled lying on her back,he inflicted the other injuries whilst keeping an eye on the street.
"I think the Ripperologists have been snookered"
That's a pot black if ever I read one. ✌️
When it became evident that Neil hadn't asked Lechmere to send another copper round (Mizen), how the hell did the police or coroner not grab onto this? Mizen must have said "something" upon his arrival to which Neil would have said, "I didn't send for you." At that point, Mizen should have turned heel and run after Lechmere and/or Paul and the hunt would have been on. Either the "facts" as we believe them to be now are wrong, or this is the sloppiest bit of police work ever.
When Mizen arrived at the site, he would have been sure that Neil had sent for him, and so he would not ask ”Did you send for me?”. Likewise, Neil would have thoguht that he had flagged Mizen down himself, and so why would he ask Mizen ”Are you under the impression that I sent for you?”. It all pans out, sadly, and allowed the matter to go undetected. It was certainly appaling police work. Ot to see the possible implications, but the police of the day did not have the kind of insight that we do. They were quite prejudiced in many ways, and Lechmeres arrival had embarrassed them rather badly. They were not very likely to question the words of a man who had proven them wrong, perhaps.
And Mizen was immediately sent away for the ambulance - unfortunately removing any opportunity for a collaborative conversation.
Once again well done Sir
It's interesting that the phantom slayer knew exactly which street to escape down to elude anyone and everyone who may have been about!.......
That was case after all the other murders too
To my mind it's all about PC Neil discovering the body and reporting that the blood is still oozing out of the wound. And working backwords from this point using a few key facts. The times reported by different people don't even matter, it doesn't matter if they were accurate or inaccurate.
Key fact - bleeding out time. 5 minutes most likely, 10-15 minute outer limits of possibility. This info comes from two professors of forensic pathology interviewed by Christer Holmorgen. He mentioned this in an interview on Richard Jones' channel Jack The Ripper Tours.
The other key facts are:
From the east end of Buck's Row to the body the distance is around 150m
From the body to the corner of Buck's Row and Baker's Row is around 200m
From corner of Thomas Street and Buck's Row to the body is around 150m
PC Neil did not see CL and RP so they must have been round the above corner before he entered Buck's Row.
Walking speed is roughly 1.33m per second.
2 min - for PC Neil to walk from corner of Thomas Street to the body
2.5 min - for CL and RP to walk from body to round the corner of Baker's Row and Buck's row before PC Neil enters Buck's Row
2 min - rough time CL and RP spent with the body
2 min - time for Robert Paul to walk from beginning of Buck's Row to the body
0.5 min - time for Charles Letchemre to reach the body if he was only 40 yards ahead of Robert Paul.
2 min - for Jack the Ripper to walk away from the body unseen and unheard by Charles Lechmere
2 min - for Jack the Ripper to carry out other wounds after throat slit (from forensic scientist in Christer Holmorgen video)
Adding all those up we arrive at 13 minutes absolute minimum time if everything happened in a just-in-time perfect sequence, we are at the outer limits of possibility for bleeding out time according to two professors of forensic pathology.
So is another killer possible? Seems so, but very unlikely. Shorter bleeding out times being much more likely than the one above at the absolute limits of possibility.
You are right that the time o'clock is very much secondary to the time taken between events.
Brilliant. 👏👏👏 I watched the Bloomer interview and was amazed that he managed to get a book out of what was essentially a detailed study of the side-streets and alley-ways off Buck’s Row. “Yes, Mr Bloomer”, I thought to myself, “Polly Nichols’ murderer could indeed have left the scene any number of ways IF he’d had time to do so!” Bloomer’s entire thesis completely ignores the evidence that at the time of Paul’s arrival at the scene, Polly was very, very recently deceased, if not still dying, and yet nobody reports hearing a footfall. No matter which way the killer went, he would have had to run to one of these bolt-holes on the approach of Lechmere - and as one of your earlier videos demonstrated - there would have been audible footsteps. Surely if he HAD heard footsteps other than his own, Lechmere would have mentioned it. I’ve often wondered why Lechmere, if he were the killer, didn’t simply tell Paul and the police that he heard someone running away from the body. Your analysis of the police beats in this video explains it perfectly. There was no-one there with Polly Nichols but Lechmere. Paul’s approach down Buck’s Row, together with the situation with the patrols, made it impossible for Lechmere to claim with any credibility that there had recently been another person on the scene, so he didn’t even try. And so we have the Tale of the Tarpaulin, which must have seemed more credible to Lechmere at the time.
If Lechmere had said he heard something, he would immediately have become a witness of great significance and importance. He wanted to disappear into the woodwork as soon as possible
I've seen him a couple of times and I've never been convinced either. I do like the Ripper tour guy though, has an excellent narrating voice and usually presents good material by himself.
A very good point indeed.@@thehouseoflechmere9407
When i heard Richard Jones mentioning the "He thought it might be useful" bit i thought it was though his interview with you and Christer never happened. @4:25
Aw, heck yes! Excellent video.
Glad you enjoyed it!
what have they done with the site of bucks row what a mess
I remember it in the late 1980s. It was far more of a mess back then. While it's no longer anything like how it used to be it's clearly much cleaner, tidier and nicer today.
Yep Edward, all routes can be dismissed except for the route Lechmere and Paul took to get a Policeman (PC Mizen)....If it wasn't Lechmere, then he didn't see anyone ahead of him fleeing, when hearing his boots on Buck's Row....If he was genuine when giving Testimony at the Inquest, then he should have said he didn't see anyone fleeing ahead of him....He didn't and neither did Paul, who only saw Lechmere near the body....There is no way people in the houses wud have left their doors unlocked, as Paul said it was a dangerous area with muggings occurring in Buck's Row.....Too many Policemen about on the surrounding streets and wud have seen someone running or something strange happening like a horse & carriage going thru the area, re the Royal Theory...Court Street as an escape route is unlikely as PC Niel wud have been soon to come thru there and then onto Buck's Row....Lechmere and Paul wud have only just missed him, as they went to Baker Street and besides, the killer (Lechmere) was disturbed and hadn't finished what he was doing to Polly....I think Richard Jones needs to look at it logically and U can see that Lechmere was the Culprit and became JTR.. Cheers fm Damo🤔🤲
Oops, Baker's Row not Baker Street, Edward🤔🙏
Escape ?? He just walked away !!
The Jack the Ripper tour channel just loaded the repirts of witnesses who said they saw Mary Kelly after the assumed times of her murder, Maxwell being the one deemed most reliable.
Ed, I keep trying to move on from JtR but you keep showing up on my YT feed and I get drawn back by your logical presentation and in-depth research. Steve Bloomer should just give up, he is a poor presenter who does not seem credible in his assembly of evidence.
Funny moment. When I was watching this video, my wife came back in and I said that I'll stop it and come back later to watch the remainder alone. No, no, she said, she was a House of Lechmere fan and wanted to watch. That is a long road from her initial feelings when watching your early chess-piece videos. Another follower created. Keep up the good work.
She didn't like the chess pieces?
Every time you try to leave, I draw you back in.
I was watching that video but when he used the word 'Cross' and 'tarpaulin' I was reaching for the off button, and the guest appearing sunk it.
Ha, yes!
I agree. It’s annoying that JTR videos are still being produced calling Charles the wrong name. It’s deliberate or lazy research.
@@davesmith7432 It's deliberate, he's been on a walkabout around the sites with Ed.
To be absolutely fair, I think both Christopher Holgrem and yourself, gave good accounts of what happened on "Bucks Row" and including what lechmere more than likely probably, and for the most part *PROVABLY* did and didn't do.
And just to make it clear, I do really like and respect Richard Jones, and I don't think it's *necessarily* a bad idea to interview people with different opinions and even people who maybe sometimes dishonest... *as long as you challenge them, and call out their BS.* I understand that his channel is largely about interviewing different ideas, and maybe questioning who the ripper was, but I don't think it's right to allow an audience to hear misinformation without it being challenged if the host knows better.
Hope you're well, and thanks for another great video! 🤗
Yes in the main Richard Jones' channel is very good
@thehouseoflecmere9407 Another thing, regarding the two men, "finding" Polly's body, that often comes to mind...and that I think ALSO is more evidence that she clearly hadn't been bleeding for long at all, and that there wasn't "arterial spray" whilst committing her neck wounds...was that neither men commented on them smelling any blood. Now some may believe that this isn't really significant at all, but I can tell you, as the mother of three children who suffer with nosebleeds, that blood has a very strong smell of iron in it, and that I've also heard many forensic officers, and witnesses who've discovered victims, when being interviewed for murder documentaries, have commented on the "strong smell of blood."
I honestly believe, if polly had been lying there with a lot of blood, enough to be visible around her, when Lechmere and later Paul were standing both with her, they would have smelled that amount of blood.
What do you think, am I overthinking?
@@shellyseymore6249
Various people have mentioned to me that witnesses should be able to smell the blood. Yet in all they witness testimony there isn't a single reference to smelling blood by anyone.
i think mary was so drunk she passed out on the street she was a easy target for the killer If pc neil did it he would take the chance of charles and paul catching him in the act.
Was Richard Jones just being acquiescencent as he is with all his interviews.
Best yt channel ❤.
i don't think the time of death was able to be pinned down that accurately in those days. I don't think they could accurately say that the victim died near 3:45am. The methods used gave vague results.
No one will ever know with certainty who he was.
Having said that, Ed has put forward a strong case against Lechmere.
People often operate with consistent traits; which they show if closely observed.
What strikes me with JTR. He was clearly fleet of foot, good eyesight an possessed an excellent local (area) knowledge.
'Usually' their first act is often close to their residence.
Another excellent video.
You are right to correct these minor inaccuracies before they are recorded as fact and lore. I watched the video only yesterday and thought that at the time the content was poorly assembled and conveyed.
If it was Lechmere's appearance down the street that disturbed the Ripper then isnt it reasonable to assume the Ripper scurried away and turned the first corner he came to to get out of sight of Lechmere. He wouldnt have continued straight along Bucks Row and risk Lechmere discover the body and look up to see the Ripper in the distance. No, turn down the next road and flee.
Yes!
It was certainly lechmere. There is one thing I think, that incriminates Lechmere I think, that no one has mentioned, that seperates the Polly Nichols murder from the rest. It's that it's the only murder where the murderer went to the effort of hiding the wounds. All the other victims were slashed to pieces. But he went to the trouble of trying to hide the wounds on Nichols. Why? Because he was still there when Robert paul entered Bucks Row. Lechmere Heard Paul coming and realized he had no time to get away unseen. . So he did the only other thing he could. He straightened her up as best he could and hid her abdominal wounds, then he played dumb. If it wasn't Lechmere that killed her, there would have been no need to hide her abdominal wounds. The killer would ha e left her on display like the others. It was Lechmere.
ZERO evidence against Lechmere...Literally NOTHING
@@jimlewis2395You're right, it's all circumstantial. But that doesn't change the fact that Lechmere is the most probable suspect, and there really isn't anyone else that could have done it and not have been seen or heard by anyone. Take all that along with giving a false name at the inquest, and the twisted truth he told Mizen, snd it looks pretty bad for him lol
Seen standing where the body was is not evidence? Wow!!
@@Dman56377 With a knife and dripping blood now that would be evidence. Somebody had to find the body, don't you agree?
very good reply Edward
I saw that other film; well, most of it. It was rather difficult to watch it all the way through due to the reasons you mention. First premise: Lechmere did not do it and we will ignore anything that points to him as JTR.
I think we know every individual that was in the neighborhood. To me, the only other possibility besides Lechmere is if it is one of the officers or one of the guards that we know were close by. Not saying it was, but there were too many eyes around for someone else to NOT be seen.
Using absolute facts to debunk the nonsense. Ed, you do an excellent job as usual.
Thank you kindly
I think that other channels have a vested interest in trying to exclude Lechmere because they want to carry on doing what they have done for years, putting out videos on different 'suspects' and writing books. They don't want the actual Ripper to be found. Lechmere has to be the Ripper, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, unlike any other 'suspect' and he fits exactly what is now known about the profile of a serial killer. Ed, your research is impeccable and you need to get a book out as soon as you can.
I will...
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 I'd buy it not however because I am a supporter of the Lechmere theory, I remain sceptical but open minded enough to change my mind if for instance more evidence could be found to tie him to one of the other killings. I'd buy it because its a serious piece of research and deserves consideration and reflection. Its only since I read Philip Sugdens book in the late 90s that I started my interest in this fascinating conundrum. So i appreciate it when somebody like yourself sits down and writes about it in an adult way. Right or wrong you have many people thinking again from a different angle. Who knows what can yet still be discovered?
ZERO evidence against Lechmere NOTHING He was NOT "found with a body". That is a ridiculous LIE There is massive amounts of the very same "circumstantial evidence" for about 1000 other men who lived in the area at that time You can make the very same case for all of them
@@wattyler2994I think Lechmere is a plausible suspect however I agree all the evidence is circumstantial, although the same can probably be said about any suspect
The problem is that no one knows for sure who the ripper was . Lechmere is a very good suspect being seen with Polly Nicholls but the only way to be sure would be to go back in a Time Machine and see who the ripper really was - that would be some experience and adventure
Well obviously 😂 we’ll never know for sure, there’s no forensic evidence
If Charles Lechmere wasn't JTR then we might as well take a serious look at the idea that JTR was a phantom or some kind of a superhuman, because that's the only other explanation I can think of.
Other named suspects just don’t make sense. You can’t even put any of them at any of the crime scenes! There are far too many coincidences for it NOT to be Lechmere.
I was curious about the message written in the doorway about the "Juwes". It was written in chalk and I was curious if anyone knew if chalk was part of a Carman's kit that they carried with them?
I doubt it was part of their kit but it wouldn't be hard to obtain
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 Yeah, I always wondered about if the "Car men" of the those days carried chalk for possibly keeping track of deliveries and inventories. I was thinking if that were the case, then the writing in the doorway after "eddows" murder may have a closer connection to Lechmere. But I guess chalk would have been easlly available to anyone.
I think that was written by one of the market customers or a disgruntled customer of a shop of a Jew. Who perhaps was wronged by them and yet their complaint was unheard & righted. So they wrote those jews wont take the blame for anything in their semi literate Cockney lingo. Could be wrong but i doubt that the killer wrote it.
Walter Sickert used chalks
Think the message is a red herring, nothing to do with JTR. I also don’t put much stock into any of the ‘Ripper’ letters
Edward Stow VS Richard Jones sword flight on Bucks Row, the only way to settle this.
I dont think Ed has much of an issue with Mr Jones (he's largely complimentary about him)but rather Mr Blomer.
Today the 3rd of march is the anniversary of the Bethnal Green underground disaster and oddly enough Charles has a connection to it through his son Thomas, daughter in law Florence and grandson Thomas who all perished in the tragedy.
Yes I went to the ceremony
Interesting. The problem is that like the street women people would know the 15 min beat routines of the Bobbies, even general people would get to notice this. If up to something dodgy police could be avoided I reckon. East Enders were street wise clued up with the police, they kept mum too with the police. Yes its a tricky one to put down ....good stuff and interesting.
If the body wasn't left on display because the killer was interrupted before he had finished, then his planning and therefore timing around the police routines would be thrown into disarray.
30 minutes not 15, but your general point is correct. It required local knowledge. Who likely had that?
Hi, oh 30 mins! ..every book I have read claims 15 mins....thanks for telling me. Cheers.
It's not just Mr Jones - everyone mentions the "tarpaulin" bit.
It's not the tarpaulin - it's the scavenging of it and hence the reason for approaching it. It can be reasonably assumed that an innocent Lechmere approached the tarpaulin in order to scavenge it. But that is pure supposition or filling in gaps to provide the reason for approaching it. Ergo, the fact Lechmere never mentioned scavenging the tarpaulin adds weight to the idea that that was not his real reason. Why not mention it after all? Moreover, why even use the word tarpaulin? Polly's head was facing toward an approaching Lechmere. So he thinks it's a tarpaulin - in the dark - whilst not noticing her blatantly uncovered legs. He never noticed her hair. Or her bonnet. Just a tarpaulin shape.
The tarpaulin is an extraneous detail, Lechmere's testimony is full of it, to make him seem more innocent.
No matter how anyone slices these nuances -- Mulshaw asleep or not yet at his watch -- it's a guarantee Polly picked up Jack on Whitechapel and led him through Woods Buildings alleyway. And after the murder, Jack returned down same. What we know about Jack: he used hidden alleyways, passages a lot. Jack using Woods is a done deal.
No one knows what alleyways or routes Jack the Ripper used. Probably picked Polly up from Whitechapel rd because that's the way she was heading and last seen. But routes after the Ripper used after the murder no one knows so it's not a done deal. The murderer was probably Lechmere and we're sure what route and lies he took and told. If you look closely the Ripper was in plain sight... its just that naysayers can't see it.
Case solved
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 Ah... so dry I can decline vermouth in my next martini.
You make such an interesting theory . Thank you for the clarity and research . How on earth did the police not investigate Lechmere ?
In 1888, it was accepted science that a thick neck implicated a sexual offender, for example. It was an era in which so called criminal anthropology ruled the day. Today, we laugh at this nonsense, but back then, it was accepted facts. So in some ways, the police were not as slack as we may think today - they adhered to the science of the day, and thus they deprived themselve of any real chance to identify the killer.
Do we know for certain that the killer didn't actually live in Bucks Row or that having hidden in one of the houses he just appeared as an interested onlooker when crowds started, which apparently they did? It is said that the killer would not have had any tell-tale blood on him.
Just saying a phantom killer could have lived in this or that house holds no water until one of the known residents is put in the frame. It would have to be one of a handful of houses near Brown's Stable Yard as Lechmere was approaching.
I was merely inquiring as to whether anyone had explored the possibility....either at the time or later. Simply dismissing something as unlikely is not really analytic investigation, is it?
We don't know for certain whether he lived in Whites Row (the westward continuation of Thomas Street), in Court Street, the northern or southern parts of Thomas Street or any of the roads in the immediate vicinity of Buck's Row - Buck's Row is more awkward as Lechmere was approaching down that way.
I'm guessing there are 100 or so houses in that area and actually we know the police didn't knock on the doors.
But as I said, where does that get us beyond pondering it? Nowhere... unless someone wants to trudge through the electoral registers and censuses to identify a potential culprit.
Actually a list of Buck's Row residents has been formulated.
👏👏👏👏 brilliant as always
Thanks again!
Occam's razor!... the simplest explanation is often the correct one. The ripper didn't escape. Mr. Paul caught him 'red-handed'
Exactly
Strictly speaking no one "caught him" as was not charged with anything nor arrested under suspicion of anything. Indeed he wasn't even a police suspect...
@@wattyler2994
Nor was Paul a policeman. I rather think it was a figurative expression.
The police didn't catch anyone.
That's not Occam's razor. That's a hell of a supposition with no evidence.
@th8257 it's backed by compelling evidence. Polly had literally just been killed when Paul found Lechmere standing right there all alone.
An American journalist who visited Whitechapel in 1889, said that nobody in the are locked their doors, and that people often evaded the police by entering a house and exiting via the back door. We can't rule out this possibility if the killer was a local man. It is even possible that the killer simply lived on Bucks Row.
Robert Paul testified: "... I knew the dangerous character of the locality, .... Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. ..." I don't know the journalist's account, but that would give me pause to believe "nobody" locked their doors at night.
@@SomethingAwry Not as implausible as it might initially sound. My mum started teaching in the 70s, at one of the worst schools in London. On her first day the Headmaster took her to see where the children lived, to give her some preparation. for the ordeal. None of the apartments were locked, and some of them didn't even have doors. A sort of feral culture had become pervasive.
@@bendavies8881
Yet of the Ripper victims, which are the only accounts of a similar situation I know of, Mary kelly and liz stride both locked their doors.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 Yes the same journalist concedes this of Mary Kelly. I feel that where these events are concerned, there are things that you have to file under "unlikely but not impossible."
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 Given that serial killer purportedly often commit their first killing close to home, we can't completely rule out the possibility that the killer simply lived in one of the houses on Bucks Row.
Brilliant work Ed👏
no 1 knew about the murder so they wouldn't b looking 4 any 1
Ed, suppose we assume Lech wasn’t our man, would there have been any dark spots or shadowy overhangs where “Jack” could have retreated to and watched Lech find the body and wait until him and Paul had moseyed on? I suppose it could be conceivable as it was dark and with dark clothing. It would tie in with the Stride murder where I think Lech or “Jack” was hiding. Different terrain of course. Would be interested to hear your thoughts on that and if it has been suggested before? Can we know if there was any suitable hiding spots in 1888? I’m firmly in the Lechmere camp but I have to admit it’s a fascinating thought to think Jack might have been mere metres away.
Buck's Row was bare arsed. No hiding places
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 lol thanks for the reply. Wonder why Polly chose the location for business? I guess Browns Stable Yard afforded a bit of shadow but high chance of getting caught “in session”
Interesting theory. It has also been suggested that at Mitre Square the site of Kathy Eddowes murder that concealment in the darkest corner of the square may have been a reason why a PC whose beat took them to the edge of the square saw nothing. But as Ed says there really wasn't anything of that sort in the geography of Bucks row which would have allowed the killer that opportunity, hence the reason why they left the area as soon as they could. Whether as the current consensus is that this killer was Letchy or as a lesser number of people (quite plausibly) believe was someone else ( even by a whisker in time) it makes no difference.
If Polly did wander round there on her own which we think is the unlikely option then CL gave the correct time he left home and murdered her on an opportunist chance encounter definitely . It is more likely he lied and left home earlier and headed for the main drag .
@davidjohnson9132
The road was very quiet and afforded longish approach times particularly westwards.
Ed, do you think Lechmere went on killing for an extended period of time after the Ripper murders? I know we have cases (BTK, Zodiac etc) where serial killers do seem to be able to stop for extended periods of time but it seems to me the ripper had such a fetish/bloodlust that it would be difficult to just stop (or even slow down for that matter). Keep up the good work!
Yes!
3:10 ouch 😳 sounds like a bit of personal rivalry
I like the cgi Lechmere
Even if we skirt over the specifics of what Lechmere said to Mizen, he never made it clear he was the first finder. Even if he didn’t think Polly was dead, it seems natural to say “I found this woman in Bucks Row” if he had been detained on police business he would not have any worry explaining this to Pickfords. If you give him the benefit of the doubt, he talked his way past Mizen to be on time or he was indeed the killer.
Then again, why would we skirt over the specifics of what Lechmere said to Mizen? Apart from how he failed to inform the PC about being the finder himself, the two other matters where there was disagreement were that a/ Mizen said that he had been told by Lechmere that there was another PC in place in Bucks Row, and b/ while Mizen said that he was only told that there was a woman on her back, Lechmere claimed to have told the PC about how it was potentially an errand involving a dead body. And although there could have been disagreements about a whole array of things that would not have impacted on whether or not Mizen would allow Lechmere to pass him by, the areas of disagreement were for some reason tailormade to allow for this passage. To me, that is powerful evidence of foul play, not last when we couple it with how Lechmere claimed that Paul had told Mizen that he thought that Nichols was dead - a remark that gave Lechmere an alibi for having lead Mizen astray all on his own, with no Paul present. It is either a very cleverly thought out plan, or a mindboggling set of coincidences that for some unfair reason all seem to point out an innocent Lechmere. To me, the answer is easy enough to provide - he was a liar and a killer, and we were all fooled by him for more than a hundred years. But no longer!
@@christerholmgren335 Indeed Christer. I believe it was him, but in even trying to bend over backwards and give him the benefit of the doubt it still doesn’t add up. I know for a fact that when I have had instance to report something (To the police or otherwise) when I know, as can be reasonably known, that I came upon the situation first, it had not entered my head to say anything other than “I”. It is very natural to say this because i think people by default will talk in the first person if something happened only to them. If he truly found her alone and he wasn’t the killer, the inclination to say “I found” is the logical choice.
@@christerholmgren335 I think being as vague as possible to police can often be explained by fear of being blamed, whether innocent or no. Guilty or innocent, our Lechy had twelve kids to support, he'd have been terrified of losing his job no doubt.
@@franceshaypenny8481 whilst this is a very good point, I would put forward that being detained by the coppers and helping with inquiries into a possible murder is about as solid an excuse as they come
@@davidjohnson9132 Very much agreed. The alternative choice of "You are wanted in Bucks Row" is a very strange wording in the context, not least as it should have been "you are NEEDED in Bucks Row" if Lechmere was being to the point. But it was a wording that seemingly served it's purpose, one must admit that much!
Great video. I've seen the other one and, for me, it's interesting to compare both videos, as I think there's good points in both. One thing I wonder is if the murderer was disturbed, why didn't he look for another victim afterwards? As that's what he did in the 'Double Event' a few weeks later. Makes me wonder if he would have been linked to the Bucks Row killing if he did. So that edges me slightly more towards Lechmere I think.
The Stride killing was more incomplete. Also it was on a Sunday morning and a bit earlier and he, presumably, didn't have to go to work next day.
Thinking about it further - if it was Lechmere and he was on his way to work - he may not have had the time to look for another victim also. Depending on whatever time he started his work I guess.
@@michaelw8587
Yes and he was with Paul
Time of Death of Mary Ann Nichols Bucks Row Friday Aug 31st 1888 ..... sometime between 3.30 and 3.45 .........
The earliest time of death is 3.30 but that is the least likely time , every minute added increases the
likelihood of ToD until the midpoint 3.37.30 sec then after that decreases in probability until 3.45 . Charles Allen Lechmere is JTR .
Based on newspaper reports with timings of plus or minus 15 minutes. The same newspapers that gave us the Jack the Ripper letters, and hampered the police investigation no end!
Hi Ed what has intrigued me is the site of Polly’s murder Brown’s Stable Yard could Lechmere have had excess to that yard being he was a car man at Pickfords if he did he could have taken Polly there to have his way with her then committed his crime in the stable yard dump her outside to cover up his association with Browns yard locked the yards doors (that’s of course if he had a key) then about to make his way to work when of course he unexpectedly came into contact with Paul just a thought
Good idea but I very much doubt he had a key and in anycase I'm sure Polly decided on the location
If the identity of Jack The Ripper is ever revealed I'd bet it would be someone nobody has ever suspected
Do you know what your ancestors were up to in 1888? 😂
Nobody ever really suspected Lechmere until relatively recently.
@@lyndoncmp5751Good point.
@@feliscorax
Ha yes 20 years ago Lechmere was one of those someones who nobody knew of and didn't suspect.
@@lyndoncmp5751very much the same was said of the American Francis Tumbultey, but nothing came of that in the end..
I am sorry, but I keep gravitating to the way the lack of blood when Lechmere and Paul view a body, and when the others see it, it is all over the place. Sorry, that had to be the knockout blow of the argument . . .
Exactly
The real ripper might of been hiding in the wings and when Paul and Lechmere left he finished the job, I cannot see lechmeer as the ripper, his timetable with his job would have been unreal
Yes there was no blood. Paul would hardly have suggested propping up a woman with multiple knife wounds who was bleeding profusely.
Perhaps the lack of blood observed by PAUL was due to the fact Mary NICHOLS was strangled prior to her throat being most recently cut by LECHMERE. The circumstantial evidence pointing to LECHMERE being the Ripper is overwhelmingly convincing. If anything the initial lack of blood supports the theory that LECHMERE was most likely the Ripper. NICHOLS then bled out within the next 5 to 8 minutes so that by the time the Police observed the body a large pool of blood was visible. This appears logical and reasonable..
There is just one important piece of information that you have left out, practically opposite the murder site, on the north side of Buck's Row, was a lane leading to the Animal Charcoal Woks.
In that case Steve Blomer also missed it out! What was the name of this lane?
I checked. The animal charcoal works were accessed via Brady Street. It was separated from the north side of Bucks by the Browne and Eagle Wool warehouses which were gated off.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 Can we be sure it was gated off? If you look at maps around this time period it doesn't indicate it being a closed road, in fact Brady Street only shows access after 1910.
Do you know if any photos exist of opposite the murder site?
@woodybenjam
It was clearly gated from the maps. It certainly didn't lead through to the charcoal works.
If there was an open yard opposite the crime scene then the police and press didn't notice!
The beat constables checked locked gates.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 you say it is clearly gated by the maps.
This map here clearly shows it open:
maps.nls.uk/view/101201571
This map here also shows it clearly open:
maps.nls.uk/view/96805017
Both showing brady street as being blocked off.
For you to say that it is gated, you need to prove 100% that it was and that the gate was locked.
If you cannot, your whole conclusion to this event is worthless.
@@woodybenjamNo not at all, even though I an not a protagonist for Letchy Ed's theory is one of the top 3 if not the top one in last 20years.