Charles Lechmere - The Case For The Prosecution With Christer Holmgren.

[@markstothard630]

What a brilliant researcher Christer Holmgren is...He has put forward the most compelling case I've seen so far for these horrific killings.

[@JoshYouA-x7k]

Honestly - I've seen Christer's account of his case for Lechmere being the Ripper and it is more compelling to me than any other hypothesis. What a brilliant piece of investigative work.

[@brandonk8948]

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

[@jamesbowman6925]

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

[@seankinnane12]

So you would kill someone on the way to your workplace

[@walkawaycat431]

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

[@andrewtomlinson5237]

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

[@fionafinch348]

For years I'd always thought Jack the Ripper was a night owl, out drinking in pubs to meet his victims, but it makes better sense that it was a man who, on his way to work, went after prostitutes who had already spent a night in pubs & were inebriated at 3:30 am.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@paulanthony5274]

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

[@NoddyTron]

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

[@walkawaycat431]

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

[@ItsSVO]

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

[@mattkaustickomments]

I’ve been on board with Holmgren since the first documentary on his theory appeared. By far the most compelling to me.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@MosheAlvarez]

Fantastic video! Christer Holgren did an amazing job researching this case and I'm on board with him for Lechmere being Jack the Ripper

[@Pingthescribe]

This channel gives such a fair and balanced perspective on the case, there's no attempts to propagate an argument, just lays out the facts (or in this case, the one side of two) and lets viewers decide for themselves.

[@JF59122]

I hope one day, those women get the justice that they long deserved...

[@hellooohowareudoing]

Absolutely brilliant video. This is what should be shown on TV not the current over-hyped rubbish!

[@downix]

I first heard of Lechmere as a suspect awhile ago, but today is when I sat down to actuality look into it. Fascinating theory, and you did an excellent job presenting the evidence.

[@christerholmgren335]

Many thanks for that! In actual fact, it is quite easy to make an excellent case for the carman. How it was overlooked for such a long time is a tougher question.

[@Chardonbois]

As the person who found the 'first' body at the start of the series of murders, Lechmere should have been an obvious suspect. Why do you think he was so quickly eliminated?

[@walkawaycat431]

​@Chardonbois I believe they thought Robert Paul was literally behind him, which was not the case at all.

[@lordofthemound3890]

@@Chardonbois In Holmgren’s book, he goes into considerable detail about the “criminal anthropology” mentality of the time-the prevailing opinion was that someone who was capable of heinous murders looked and acted a certain way, and was from a certain class. Lechmere’s cool demeanor and steady work basically ruled him out (in police minds) as the “unhinged animal” who could, to them, perform this type of crime.

[@doriennelewis3698]

I'm so glad you were able to speak with Mr. Holgren! I watched his video from years ago that detailed his theories about Lechmere being the killer and felt then that his exhaustive research was very convincing. The both of you together in one video was FANTASTIC! Thank you for allowing him so much time to speak and letting him connect the Torso murders to Lechmere as well. I don't say this lightly, but I think together you finally solved this mystery of who Jack really was. Great work!!

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@martybaggenmusic]

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

[@christerholmgren335]

@@martybaggenmusic My heartfelt thanks for your kind words!

[@henrypercy9457]

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

[@samhain1894]

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

[@nicktatters7523]

Brilliant video with the two top Lechmere experts. I originally watched the Christer Holmgren documentary years ago, and it makes sense , like the documentary says,Lechmere is either the ripper or the most unlucky man in Whitechapel 👍

[@TiaMargarita]

I agree!

[@addie_is_me]

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

[@paulanthony5274]

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

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@paulanthony5274]

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

[@infamousaudio409]

I cannot believe Jack the Ripper, hearing Lechmeres approach would waste time pulling Polly Nichols skirt down and making her look as normal as possible. The other victims were 'displayed' and Polly Nichols was not, this clearly indicates the killer being disturbed. Lechmere heard Robert Pauls approach and decided to clean up as best as he could and act innocent. Why would you draw someone's attention to a woman on the floor and then refuse to help her up? Too many connections with Lechmere, most definitely Jack The Ripper.

[@davekeating.]

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

[@ftumschk]

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

[@otisdylan9532]

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

[@otisdylan9532]

I wouldn't want to touch her either.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

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

[@passionforlust]

Lechmere has been my favorite suspect for sometime, thanks to Mr. Holmgren

[@351clevelandmodifiedmotor4]

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

[@walkawaycat431]

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

[@someoneunseen5168]

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

[@Aria-wl2ve]

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

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Aria Excellent riposte.

[@EternaResplandiente]

Of the many theories that exist out there, Charles Allen Lechmere being the Ripper makes absolute sense to me, and I am convinced that he was Jack the Ripper. There's no doubt this man solved the mystery.

[@ItsSVO]

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

[@douglasboyd8475]

But why did he stop killing people? He lived to be 70 something years old, and all of a sudden he just stops killing? That makes no sense.

[@edwardkenway4360]

​@@douglasboyd8475maybe he was in a guilt after what he did to Mary Jane Kelly. We will never know about jack the ripper, just theories

[@rickjensen2717]

Serial killers often just stop for no reason - quite a few ecamples out there.

[@CT99234]

So the only evidence is that he was at the site of a murder. This would apply to whoever found and of the bodies. He may have walked near other crime scenes. Along with god knows how many other men in Whitechapel. Pretty flimsy stuff.

[@vortex_1336]

The first time I read that someone walked up on someone crouched over the body I was confused over why that guy was never a suspect.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@feliscorax]

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

[@johnjones-eu1rv]

@@christerholmgren335The Ripper was Maybrick…. Case closed

[@walkawaycat431]

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

[@janicebillington2633]

​@@johnjones-eu1rvMontague John Druett.

[@MEME-qe4ze]

all the circumstantial evidence, makes Lechmere a very interesting character indeed. awesome video. thank you.

[@kellybogues]

Thanks for sharing the interview with us. I own the book Cutting Point and I recommend it for other people to check out too.

[@avondalemama470]

This argument is logical and reasonable. Mr. Holmgren has done an excellent job of research here. Really have enjoyed hearing him. Great video.

[@Chardonbois]

Congratulations on a fascinating interview. What a breath of fresh air to be taken through a forensic examination of these murders backed up by meticulous research delivered with objectivity. It is also rare to have an interviewer that allows his guest time to deliver their hypotheses without interruption. A compelling case for the prosecution and I must now read the book!

[@22leggedsasquatch]

Huge point: Lachmere told Paul that her hand was cold... however, Constable Paul said that she was still warm when he arrived in the scene.

[@ThePrinceOrtmayer]

If Lechmere isnt JTR then why was he against waiting for a police officer? Why did he point her out but not touch her? And why did he vaguely point out to the police officer that he was needed at Bucks Row instead of leading the officer to the body? Why did getting to work become such a big deal, whilst previously he'd apparently taken some time to stare at a person lying supine on the ground but not help them? Why point out either a drunk or dying person and not help them? Why not voluntarily give testimony, rather than after someone has mentioned you were present.

[@elbladel]

Yep. This is it ☝

[@daveboss2994]

Thank you for this Richard, too many people have been writing Mr Holmgren's theory off, I have always thought he makes a good strong case about Lechmere. Now more people should appreciate his theory now. Fun fact.... I've learned a new word... Eviscerate.

[@katesleuth1156]

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

[@maureenjacobs3697]

Agreed. He is the most plausible suspect without direct evidence

[@ImCaptainCabbage]

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

[@paulchristodoulou7973]

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

[@MidnightIsolde]

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

[@feliscorax]

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

[@localbod]

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

[@mikeseibert4889]

I think he is one hell of a reporter cause I think he has the best argument for who Jack the Ripper was.

[@nigelsouthworth5577]

Fascinating. Thank you for such a good presentation.

[@JUSTICEK]

Lechmere wouldn't have heard the other man coming because he was busy killing the victim and the other man didn't hear Lechmere because he wasn't walking and so would have no boot fall. This guy makes sense

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@ThePrinceOrtmayer]

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

[@walkawaycat431]

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

[@OoxB505]

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

[@shellyseymore6249]

I think the most simple and actually quite obvious answer to the great question of "Why didn't Lechmere (assuming he *was* Jack the Ripper) attempt to kill Paul?" ... Is because it would have been *SO* risky almost to the point where he would know that there would have been an *extremely* high risk of getting himself caught if he had of attempted to, which would have ultimately led to his immediate arrest and eventually his execution... He'd just had a close call when Paul had only just interrupted him during Polly's murder; if he'd then began to attack Paul, without the advantage of being able to surprise him with a "blitz attack", meaning that he'd have to have found a way of killing him, head on, and so quickly that Paul wouldn't have able to shout out, attracting the attention of all the residents on Bucks Row, and the on duty police officers very near by... Like Christer started to explain during the interview; it's one thing swiftly attacking and killing, a very drunk, sickly, petite, and unsuspecting woman, before she'd have the opportunity to scream out and defend herself, but it's an entirely different thing to be able to do the same to a *fully grown man,* who we have no reason to believe, wasn't fit, strong (assuming by his approximate age and Job) and who was already on guard, which we know because he had stated as much in the Newspaper article and under oath at the Polly Nichols inquest.

[@walkawaycat431]

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

[@Tsumami__]

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

[@all-s0rts]

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

[@rebelrouser184]

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

[@awotnot]

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

[@weilandiv8310]

My favorite Jack and Victorian channel. Next, would be Prash's Murder Maps, which has many vintage crime radio-like drama shows, an excellent Jack series as well.

[@mathewlawton8944]

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

[@xr6lad]

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

[@vjc2270]

Wow! I’m firmly in the ‘Lechmere done it’ camp, and am now increasingly persuaded that the Thames Torso murders were a continuation of his crimes. If so, he must have found a ‘safe’ place to carry out more extensive evisceration and dismemberment of his victims… The ‘cat meat’ business angle has also always fascinated me - I wonder what level of involvement Lechmere had in this and whether, as his mother aged, the premises would have provided him with the perfect ‘workshop’ for his grisly activities… 🤔

[@Pawsk]

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

[@williamarnold9821]

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

[@OoxB505]

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

[@walkawaycat431]

​@@OoxB505Exactly. They can't place another suspect at a crime scene. Hutchinson and Richardson literally place themselves at a crime scene. Lechmere was discovered at a crime scene.

[@antonywarriner6002]

I find it odd that if Lechmere was not the killer, from the evidence the killer of Polly was disturbed. Lechmere neither stated he saw or heard anything in Bucks Row prior to him noticing what he refers to as a tatporlin lying in the entrance to the yard.

[@OoxB505]

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

[@karolinejones3407]

Thank you for an amazing interview!

[@garybarnett583]

An excellent video. Lechmere has to be a top contender for the Ripper title.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@ItsSVO]

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

[@rickjensen2717]

​@@christerholmgren335I think you are absolutely correct Christer - excellent presentation 👏

[@alexandermacdougall7873]

I've watched ,and read, just about everything you can on Jack The Ripper. This theory is the one that makes the most sense to me. I won't say 100% convinced (as it's never been definitively solved) but I'm as convinced as you can be when you don't know for sure.

[@christerholmgren335]

Welcome on board!

[@alexandermacdougall7873]

@@christerholmgren335 glad to be here.

[@shellyseymore6249]

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

[@feliscorax]

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

[@cjcrrazy]

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

[@garrypullen5711]

Christer Holmgren certainly knows how to put forward a balanced and compelling theory in respect of his man ! No other suspect (up to now !) can stand up against Lechmere. Excellent film Richard.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@leslierock5005]

Thouroughly enjoyed christer holmgrens interview .thank you.

[@deniseelsworth7816]

Really glad you have done this.

[@jaw0608]

Thanks again for this wonderful content.

[@ruiseartalcorn]

Many thanks for this excellent interview. After watching your interview with Steven Blomer, I was of the opinion that Lechmere wasn't the killer. However, after your talk with Christer Holmgren I am now leaning the other way. Fascinating stuff indeed!

[@TiaMargarita]

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

[@kenzopeypers738]

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

[@TiaMargarita]

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

[@wacojones8062]

"Cutting point" hardcover ordered. Very good interview.

[@themobseat]

I think Charles uses the last name as "Cross" to name drop the fact he has family in the Police Dept. in hopes of leniency.

[@jackiewilson8772]

Either that or thinking that no one would find him if he gave a fake name. Or he was scared to have his name in the papers.

[@dr.christopherfaria6688]

Excellent! One question: Did I understand that Lechmere (in approaching Roberts) said "she's cold?" but that one of the PC's touched the body. "She was warm" . It makes me think that comment was to put Roberts off from touching the body (exposing the wounds) at first. THEN he refused the suggestion to sit her up when Robert Paul suggested they sit her up. I don't know

[@brenmanock]

Excellent discussion. Gotta get holmgrens book

[@SusieStanton-vf4he]

Really informative and enjoyable listen. I’ll place my bet on Charles Lechmere having listened to and ready many many books on the subject, the socio economic period, employment, the Law as it stood in the nineteenth century including medicine and human biology etc

[@SMC01ful]

I think Lechmere is my number one guy. Low key, blended in, nothing noticeably weird going on. His work and proximity to butchers, skinners, slaughtermen, gave him plenty of access to weapons, bloody, clothing. He had lived within the hunting radius, if not bang on "Flower and Dean," a few times. Doveton Street where he lived is, incidentally, within the radius and his commute to work took him past their daily. Moreover, he'd have been making deliveries frequently around the red-zone.

[@shaunpenne1840]

I remember reading a Daily Mirror two page spread on Jack the Ripper in 1988 (at the tender age of 12!) During the 100th anniversary of the Ripper murders and the final lines of the extensive article saying "Someday in the future when the real Jack the Ripper steps forward and announces his name, experts will say WHO!!???"

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@brianbommarito3376]

Very good video, a fine interview, this channel deserves praise for looking at both perspectives of this controversy and interviewing authors and enthusiasts from both sides to get the best range of all the evidence. And, just personally, I think Mr. Holmgren has been a gentleman and I think may very well be right about Lechmere. I’m surprised the police at the time did not look more carefully at him. If this were all happening today, the authorities would definitely be paying more attention to him. It’s like the old Columbo TV series where the detective says to the killer, “Oh, just one more thing…” and then whatever he says next is what unravels the killer’s whole plan. Too many bits and pieces of Lechmere’s account, as quoted in the papers, doesn’t add up if looked at carefully. And in a “murder by person or persons unknown,” you can’t just say, “He’s inconsistent, but I think he’s an honorable guy,” the inconsistencies have to be addressed before you can seriously look elsewhere. It’s sad really that Lechmere can’t defend himself anymore, as he and everybody involved in the case has been dead for roughly century, give or take a few years. I know Lechmere was one of the last.

[@walkawaycat431]

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

[@OoxB505]

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

[@clayallison7321]

Interesting video yet again. Richard Jones never fails to deliver good content. Some surprising (new) views from Christer Holmgren too I would say.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@walkawaycat431]

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

[@MrMaximus38]

Brilliant presentation from two experts on Jack The Ripper. I have read Christers book and favour Lechmere as the killer. Christer has very good theories on why Lechmere was Jack.

[@TiaMargarita]

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

[@richardholmgren9525]

Great work Christer! A question. Do you think that the reason Lechmere presented himself with the surname of his stepfather, who was a constable, was to play on the cohesion of the police - "esprit de corps" - and thus to tone down any suspicion against him?

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@richardholmgren9525]

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

[@ItsJustAwesomeDOTcom]

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

[@feliscorax]

Related?

[@PEMBYSGAMINGWORLD]

What do you suppose would have happened if Lechmere simply told PC Mizen about the body without saying anything about another Police Officer? What would Mizen have done with Lechmere? - Let him go off into the night, or make him accompany him? If Lechmere said what Mizen stated then i can understand because it would have taken the focus off him surely, thus allowing him to get on his way. That sort of job would allow you to know and judge the movements of anybody active during those times of the morning and i personally think that Lechmere was willing to take that kind of risk just to do one and lay low for a while. Mizen must have been told about another Police Officer in my honest opinion just to see Lechmere and Paul as nothing but messengers so they could avoid being detained.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@jack_knife-1478]

Love this! More jack the ripper stories please👍

[@Danondriska]

There is Not anyone other Name that can be linked Better than Lechmere. I would almost say you Nailed him.

[@infamousaudio409]

Charles Lechmere no doubt had intimate knowledge of the local streets, not only from his travels to work but also his job as a Carman. I also believe Lechmere knew a lot of the prostitutes due to being out late at night/early morning and he most likely said good morning to some of them on his way to work and was surely propositioned also. Killing on his way to work was his only real option, it gave him a place to clean himself up and didn't have to return home with blood stains and have to make excuses. People can question details all they like, the simple fact is he stands out among the many suspects (some of which are laughable) due to his strange behaviour around a freshly murdered body and his lies and refusal to help Robert Paul prop Polly Nichols up after bringing Robert Pauls attention to her. He would have had a decent knowledge of butchery from his job and the Cat meat business. Whilst Jack The Ripper is a fascinating case due to the mystery of it all, sometimes it is the simple answer that's correct. Lechmere is most definitely Jack The Ripper.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@infamousaudio409]

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

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@damianbowyer2018]

Awesome Analysis from Christer....The Evidence for The Prosecution is Very Compelling in This Case.😊🤲

[@yorkyfozzy2867]

If this was a modern murder, Charles Letchmere would almost certainly have been arrested as the number 1 suspect for all the reasons Christer points out. He's either the first person to find the body or more likely the last person to see her alive. His actions at the scene are suspicious, to say the least. I think he was an opportunist murderer, certainly in the early crimes and as with most serial killers today they have good knowledge of the areas they operate. It's clear to me that the murderer had clear local knowledge of the area, and he would certainly have had a case to answer. It looks like Letchmere thinks quickly on his feet when Paul arrives and he employs a classic piece of misdirection to divert Paul enough to get clear of the area. If he had been arrested, it would have given police the opportunity to get into his address to look for weapons and clothing.

[@feliscorax]

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

[@walkawaycat431]

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

[@lordofthemound3890]

Yes, there is some evidence, circumstantial of course, that “Cross” tried to withhold his address.

[@simonjames4984]

Why wasn't Lechmere investigated further at the time? It's usual practice that detectives will treat any individual who is first on the scene/discovers the body as a suspect until that person can be eliminated from enquiries. Lechmere should have been put under 24hr surveillance and his property should have been searched. Either the police were completely incompetent or for one reason or another they didn't think Lechmere was a credible suspect.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@lyndoncmp5751]

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

[@MackerelCat]

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

[@thomashahn631]

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

[@walkawaycat431]

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

[@sjj39]

Great video. I have always been concerned about the sudden start and of the murders. There is usually an escalation.

[@christerholmgren335]

I think he started out no later than 1873. I believe the Torso vicim found in the Thames that year was a Ripper murder.

[@Ken_Scaletta]

Sometimes the guy standing over the still warm body is the one that did it. It seems more improbable to me that he just missed the killer by seconds than that he WAS the killer. Also "Charles Allen Lechmore totally sounds like a serial killer name. John Wayne anything would be a red flag too.

[@feliscorax]

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

[@RobertSaget-iv4wv]

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

[@PaulWherry]

Im impressed , good work guys . A very compelling case and im at 95 % certain it's our man . Again well done and a well presented piece

[@PEMBYSGAMINGWORLD]

Thanks for this and it would be nice for this interview to stop the nasty exchanges i see all the time when Lechmere is put forward as the potential killer. I add to the nastiness sometimes but it is only in defense and never the opposite. You cannot disrespect this man who has spent so long looking into this (Holmgren) and you cannot say his findings are without extensive research and you can just politely just aggree to disaggree.If they would have Investigated without prejudice back in 1888 then perhaps they might have at least found out his name was really Lechmere and questioned exactly why he used his old stepfather's surname, even though it may still have enabled him to walk away from it. The problem i think is that the police were convinced that only a foreigner could have commited such a crime.

[@TiaMargarita]

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

[@PEMBYSGAMINGWORLD]

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

[@triggerskull]

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

[@lyndoncmp5751]

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

[@TiaMargarita]

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

[@PlayerGuyPlays]

There are also two things that happened in 1888 that would have sent a psychopathic Lechmere barreling down the fulfilment of his alleged fantasies: The separation from his oldest daughter, and the birth of Harriet, who died two years later. If Harriet was born with health problems that would have made things even more stressful at the Lechmere home. The family did conceive again after Harriet, whom they also named Harriet and seemingly never had kids again, suggesting that this 1888 birth and child was traumatic for the couple.

[@christerholmgren335]

Actually, the two last children Lechmere had, bore the same name: Harriet Emma. You are correct in saying that there was a Harriet Emma born in 1888 (in March), and who died in December of 1890, but she was not the last child. Another girl was born in March of 1891 and given the same name, and she lived on all the way until April of 1980, reachin an impressive 99 years of age.

[@philipinchina]

I do not wish to sound patronising but I complement Mr. Holmgren on the quality of his English. His explanation of the term "ooze" was excellent.

[@philipinchina]

May auto correct rot! Compliment not complement.

[@ggghhjd]

im wondering why he gave a false name but the correct address....perhaps this was in case further questioning was deemed necessary or in case somebody recognised him at the inquest...using his stepfather's name was something he could've talked himself out of, since he had been registered in the census under that name when aged 12, but giving a false address was too suspicious. So he gambled well but ultimately it is this address that gave the vital clues, albeit 100 years too late

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@NoddyTron]

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

[@ginabataille1796]

I watched Mr Holmgran's video some years ago. I found his theory very cogent. The only thing I felt that he didn't (or couldn't ) explain was why Lechmere suddenly stopped killing (the police seem to have thought it did). This video expounds on the progression of the Whitechapel murders. As a woman, I look at this case from the victims' perspective. It would be nice to hear his views on whether Mary Kelly voluntarily let the murderer into her room and if Lechmere looked innocuous enough for her to do so. According to some, she was scared of JR, and I tend to dismiss the theory that JR is Kosminski, who was said to be a filthy & crazy man. Even if Mary Kelly were desperate for a few shillings, I wouldn't think she would have been happy to be alone with Kosminski in her room. Thank you for a very very interesting video.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@visala4495]

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

[@simonyip5978]

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

[@feliscorax]

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

[@rogemsilva3802]

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

[@ErikVananrooij]

what everybody ignores is this : if i [ i don,t know about you ] walk somewhere ''dangerous'' i see and hear everybody and everything , because i would be on my guard . so if i was paul i would have heard AND spotted lechmere the second i walked into bucksrow even if he was on the other end ,, let alone 30 or 40 yards in front of me . i mean if a policeman hears his coworker at 100 yards away to signal him so could have the killer ,,, paul and lechmere . so i think lechmere did hear paul the second he entered that street ,,, but paul heared nobody walking BECAUSE there was NOBODY walking in front of him . the only person in front of him was reordering the clothes of his victim on his knees to there would also be no silhouette from that lone weak streetlight

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@chris7685]

This is totally off topic, but as a non native speaker it is my goal to master English like Christer Holmgren. Hats off to you Sir! Also, I enjoy all your research of this suspect a lot. Thanks for this interview and Merry Christmas!

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@Craig-wk1kz]

I think the answer to why he didn't kill Paul is purely kill type he didn't meet his need also Paul was obviously stressed I think he was enjoying his reaction, imagine being able to hear and see the reaction of those hunting you hear their thoughts learn their mistakes. It's known they like to turn up to see what has been discovered I believe this is why he turned up at the hearing .he killed in one name and lived in another to separate maybe two personalities . What is interesting is he touched the body and witnessed Paul touch her body I bet this infuriated him as it would have been seen as a violation I'd hate to have been his next victim imagine his fury

[@patdainel9037]

I think Lechmere must have been very good at not alerting suspicion. It seems no one, at any point, including Paul, suspected him.

[@mrendo4742]

This is a great video, I can't wait to get it to read cutting point got it for Christmas.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@LucasLucas-ne4xs]

Excellent video and interesting interview. Richard Jones being the gentleman and asking not too many prickly questions but enough to give Mr. Holmgren the chance to develop his theory. And Christer Holmgren being not too dogmatic and giving his view with some references to the arguments of the defence. (Credit to him) Imho there still remain quite a lot of holes in the theory but CAL is a better suspect than any Royal, famous painter or American culprit. 2 major problems with what happend in Bucks Row tho (not going into all the psychopath/Mother/other crimes) : a. the Mizen scam never happend (Paul was standing next to CAL when they spoke to Mizen) - not of major importance in my view but that has always been a big part of the theory. b. the timings remain a major problem for the Lechmere theorists : if CAL left home at about 3:30 he simply had no time to kill poor Polly. The 3 separate Police Officers gave their time as 3:45 when they were at the body (Neil and Thain) or spoke to the 2 carmen (Mizen) this is in direct conflict with Paul who claims he entered Bucks Row only at 3:45. I was surprised to learn Mr. Holmgren now suggests the 3 PCs conferred at the murder site and decided 3:45 was the time they would give. (He obviously forgets Thain was already on his way to fetch the doctor when Mizen arrived and then he left to get an ambulance). I fully understand the 3:45 all three give is problematic to the theory, but to have them now start a little conspiracy and give a faulty time (and stick with it in their statement at the inquest) in order to be able to use Paul's time (the odd one out and the least likely to have a pocket watch on him) seems to me a bridge too far. Having Coroner Baxter say things he never said doesn't help either nor claiming the time Dr. LLewellyn gives confirms Pauls, when it obviously does not (it confirms Thain was sent to alert him around 3:46, unless the good doctor was sleeping in his boots or was already dressed and ready to go what looks to me highly unlikely in the middle of the night) Anyways, nice to hear the whole "CAL was found standing (or crouching) over a freshly killed body" is not too important (any more) to Christer Holmgren. Apart from being factually wrong it always made poor Charles look guilty as could be before the story even began. I really like this channel.

[@andy5xcool]

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

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@lyndoncmp5751]

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

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@bilindalaw-morley161]

With the timings of Polly Nichol's murder, imo it's important to remember that a policeman's beat was a measured beat. A very distictive pace and "beat". That's how the officer could say he heard his colleague 160 yards away. He knew straight away that he could hear another policeman The beat walk was literally measured. It was regulated at a certain speed. They met other beat officers at certain corners at certain times in their beat. Watches were luxury possessions. Universal timings were important for reports and for beat safety. If a policeman was using his beat pace, as regulated except in emergency, times could be calculated accurately. As far as Mizen's lack of speed, he hadn't heard a police whistle. If an officer needed urgent assistance he blew a distinctive whistle in regulation ways, and an urgent request, of repeat rapid outbursts, would have had every policeman from every beat, and area within earshot hurrying to his aid. No whistle = no urgency

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@Liz-sn1mm]

Very interesting, new information for me.

[@andrewholland7712]

Great Interview It clearly makes the most sense and Im glad Mr Holmgren explained this in more Detail. If it was someone else , it would have been within minutes of Lechmere Paul meet up Plus Lechmere was there likely several minutes before Pauls arrival. The blood flowing after they both left the Murder scene too me Clearly points to Lechmere. Add in that it was hard to escape, its highly unlikely it was someone else. Lechmere was on all these Routes, theres just to0 many Coincidences. Im surprised the Police didnt Investigate Lechmere Further, What a Massive Mistake. Well done I loved this Interview ))) RIP to the poor innocent Victims.

[@davekeating.]

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

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@leslierock5005]

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

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@susanclapp1721]

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

[@peterdixon7734]

Lechmere's comment to the policeman to the effect that "another policeman wants you" is a good example of the sort of clever manipulation which psychopaths often display.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@thomashahn631]

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

[@feliscorax]

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

[@jameshogan6142]

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

[@randygandhi]

if Lechmere is innocent,What it means is that Polly Nichol's blood didn't form in a pool on the ground for atleast 5 minutes after she was murdered .And as Lechmere claims he saw no one in Buck's Row .Surly there simply no time for somebody else to murder her & escape.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@mathewlawton1362]

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

[@elizabethelliott3175]

What a wonderful episode! Thank you to the two lovely and well-spoken gentlemen. I keep wondering one thing: how could he have killed Annie Chapman? As we know, she was killed at or before 4:30 am - 5:30 am on Saturday - but Saturday was a workday for Lechmere, who started work at 4 am. So it couldn't be him unless he skipped work that day. What do you think is true?

[@christerholmgren335]

I am quite convinced that Chapman was not a medical unicum, growing totally cold in an hour only. Dr Phillips said that she had been dead for at least to hours AND PROBABLY MORE at 6.30, when he examined her. I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. Chapman likely died at the approximate same hour as Nichols.

[@markwolfshohl6562]

Lechmere went to work at 4 am. All other murders were at - 1am, 12:30am, 1:15am and 7-10am. What about that????

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@melissamcfarlin6840]

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

[@fiachramaccana280]

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

[@chriscummins2423]

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

[@deanodog3667]

Kelly was murdered by barnett

[@jameshogan6142]

How did Paul know it was exactly 3:45? Usually people would say approximately 3;45 even today when time pieces are more accurate.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@jakehammond12345]

seems kind of obvious but ... why would a killer who had run away upon Letchmere disturbing him cover up the abdominal and neck wounds before running upon realising he's been disturbed ? He wouldn't of course. Lethcmere ( or anyone else) did not disturb a killer who ran away. To clarify .... if Letchmere was innocent then he either must have disturbed the killer (but he didn't see or hear anyone )OR there was a killer previously in the street, who was disturbed by another man who never came forward, never went to find police and disturbed him not quite enough to prevent him making Polly presentable before fleeing.... Now polly was pretty fresh by all accounts and the killer had obviously been disturbed ( but didn't run because he covered the wounds) so if we go back earlier than Letchmere, previous person (PP) 1 and PP2 into PP3,4,5 then not only are we pushing her death back somewhat ( the street was deserted and quiet at that time) we are just increasing the mental gymnastics needed in order to pretend that several men passed the dead body and didn't come forward posthumously to either police or media. In addition none of the PP'S found a police officer. Get it ?! He's guilty.

[@clayallison7321]

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

[@lyndoncmp5751]

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

[@jakehammond12345]

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

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@clayallison7321]

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

[@andy5xcool]

Hi Christer, I wanted to ask this question to Edward but he doesn't seem to be as active as you in replying to people's questions. In your view what was the distance from the North side to the South side between the terraced houses in Buck's Row (basically how wide was the road)? I'm going somewhere with this question.

[@christerholmgren335]

25 feet.

[@andy5xcool]

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

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@andy5xcool]

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

[@Tellhimhesdead-m1y]

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

[@IG7799-c4u]

I would love to see a civilised debate between Christer and a prominent anti-Lechmere advocate.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@username-zj9id]

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

[@dwade1367]

I believe they have more facts on this suspect then all the others. Just one question, what about all the Ripper letters and the one in particular, which writes about the kidney? I would love to read a book by this gentleman, but not sure the title.

[@ckhthd]

The blood clotting evidence in the Nichols murder is extremely compelling. It--along with some other things--makes Lechmere, while not definitively the murderer, the very likely murderer. The remaining evidence must by definition be circumstantial but he is logically placed at and extremely familiar with every murder location. The logic and near transparency of the various approach and escape routes is hard to ignore. In all probability Lechmere was a prolific serial killer--very probably the author of some 14 murders.

[@Ettrick8]

The case for the defence. No actual evidence to tie my client to these murders

[@jane.c.c]

I've seen Christers documentary and makes a very interesting point indeed.

[@ROY-COLLEY]

When we are talking about the running of blood. It would also depend on the amount of Alcohol she had been drinking. I'm also a little confused, about Paul and Cross. One of them said at one time ,that she was cold ,yet Paul said . He thought he could feel her chest moving. But when the policeman arrived he said her arm was still warm.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@ROY-COLLEY]

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

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@jameshogan6142]

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

[@richhughes7450]

I have always thought that there were 2 killers that worked together.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@walkawaycat431]

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

[@ohmy4275]

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

[@blazbratovic2724]

Regarding "if only police would be cleverer" ironic anti-lechmere argument, it is good to read FBI's profile of JTR from 1988, when psychology of serial killers was much better understood than in 1888. "Investigators would have interviewed him during the course of the investigation and he was probably talked to by police on several occasions. Unfortunately at this time, there was no way to correlate this type of information; therefore, he was overlooked. Investigators and citizens in the community had a preconceived idea or picture of what Jack the Ripper would look like. Because of the belief that he would appear odd or ghoulish in appearance, he was overlooked and/or eliminated as a potential suspect." Those are words from the FBI report. It helped Lechmere that Polly Nichols was first canonical (but likely second) victim of JTR so police also couldn't distinguish the significance of her wounds being covered. And it also helped Lechmere that, despite arriving on the second day of inquest, he arrived before Robert Paul who had to be searched by police and brought up to the inquest (his dislike for police being the likely reason). So it looked like as Lechmere was the one trying to help the police, not Paul. So there's that.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@ErnaldtheSaxon]

Here is some food for thought. If constable Neil could hear constable Thane in Brady street crossing the bottom of Bucks Row, surely the killer would be able to hear Robert Paul or Lechmere approaching to? I've timed Edwards walk from the bottom of Brady street to the murder site which takes about 1 minute. The killer on hearing approaching footsteps would have had just enough time to vacate the scene. I think this statement by Harriet Lilley holds the key. ""MOANS HEARD BY A NEIGHBOUR A statement that may throw some light on a point hitherto surrounded with some uncertainty - the time the crime was committed in Buck's-row, or the body deposited there - was made on Thursday afternoon by Mrs. Harriet Lilley, who lives two doors from the spot where the deceased was discovered. Mrs. Lilley Said: "I slept in the front of the house, and could hear everything that occurred in the street. On that Thursday night I was somehow very restless. Well, I heard something I mentioned to my husband in the morning. It was a painful moan - two or three faint gasps - and then it passed away. It was quite dark at the time, but a luggage train went by as I heard the sounds. There wee, too, a sound as of whispers underneath the window. I distinctly heard voices, but cannot say what was said - it was too faint. I then woke my husband, and said to him, "I don't know what possesses me, but I cannot sleep tonight." Mrs Lilley added that, as soon as she heard of the murder, she came to the conclusion that the voices she heard were in some way connected to it. The cries were very different from those of an ordinary street brawl." "It has been ascertained that on the morning of the date of the murder, a goods train passed on the East London Railway at about half-past three - the 3.7 out from New Cross." Numerous witness statements state that it was "unsually quiet" that night so, you would think that the killer must have heard Paul (Lechmere) approaching. If that was the case, Jack may have ran around the front of the board school into Winthrop street and down Queens passage where he would almost certainly of bumped into PC Neil patrolling along Whitechapel Road. He could not of ran down Winthrop street to Brady street because the gate was open to the horse slaughter yard further on. Three witnesses were "working quietly" according to their statements and Jack almost certainly would have been seen or heard There was also a night watchmen at the rail yard who heard nothing unusual. Alternatively, Jack may have made his escape in the opposite direction towards Bakers row, again, he would be risking bumping into PC Mizen on his beat.. My guess is the killer could not have heard Robert Paul approaching because of the noisy goods steam train. This goods train may have been going under the bridge situated right next to where Nicholls was slain. I doubt it was going through the rail yard parallel to Whitechapel road as it was a dead end in 1888. This could be the reason why Lechmere did not hear Robert Paul approaching until he was 30 or 40 yards away. Just enough time to adjust her clothing and " step back" into the middle of the road.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@PEMBYSGAMINGWORLD]

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

[@usernamemadness]

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

[@leslierock5005]

Alice mckenzie inquest,the times july 17 1888.p.c andrews.'about 12:50 castle alley i noticed a woman lying on pavement i noticed blood running from her neck'. Inspector reid' i received a call to go to castle alley.around 105 am i arrived and noticed blood running into the gutter'.so thats around 15 minutes of bleeding out. If p.c thain sees blood running from pollys neck at around 354,go back 15 minutes,then its entirely possible that her neck was cut at 339/340.enough time for polly to be strangled to death/mutilated before her body was discovered at 345.another point,why robert paul didnt see the neck wounds even in the darkness,a dark gash on white skin. Mckenzie inquest,inspector reid,times, july 19,' the darkness was so great that it was necessary to use a constables lamp TO SEE THAT THE THROAT WAS CUT though it was near a lamp'. Now imagine what it was like in bucks row with no lamp near the stable gates.lastly,when p.c neil sees pollys neck wound he doesnt mention the wounds being covered by the top of her dress or collar,either does dr llewellen.why wasnt this detail not mentioned by the police.."the neck wounds were covered by her dress but the collar wasnt cut,"im hypothetically speaking of course. So why didnt detectives not detect an attempt by the killer to conceal the wounds in her neck?

[@christerholmgren335]

The damage done to MacKenzie was far less extensive that that done to Nichols. The two do not compare.

[@leslierock5005]

@@christerholmgren335 yes mckenzies neck wounds were less extensive than pollys,yet alice bled for 15 minutes after death which agrees with the medicos u spoke to,that it is possible,not to mention polly was drunk that night her blood alchohol level must be included as alcohol thins the blood aswell.thank you

[@christerholmgren335]

@@leslierock5005 What I am trying to say is that depending on the character and severity of the wound/s, incombination with the surrounding circumstances, a person can bleed for very varying lenghts of time. If, for example, the position of the body hampers the ability of the blood to run out freely, that will have a huge impact. The same goes, of course, for the question of which vessels are cut and if they are completely severed and so on. There are vessels that will contract when severed, proloning the bleeding time immensely. Taking all of these matters into account, it becomes of little use to compare unless we have damage and conditions we know are more or less exactly similar. The important thing to keep in mind is that we now have two forensic medico professors who both have been informed as closely as possible about the details of the Nichols murder, and they both arrived at the same conclusion - she should reasonably have stopped bleeding after three to five minutes, although it may be that she could have bled for some minutes longer. Thiblin put the maximum to ten to fifteen minutes of bleeding. This all means that we have a powerful addition to the accusation act, pointing to Lechmere as the likely cutter.

[@leslierock5005]

@@christerholmgren335 indeed,the prosecution will say shouldve bled for 3-5 the defence will say yes 15 min is possible. How long would it have taken to kill and mutilate polly?

[@christerholmgren335]

@@leslierock5005 Actually, the prosecution is the side saying both things: She was most likely to bleed for 3-5 minutes, but she could perhaps, as an extreme, bleed for up to 10-15 minutes. What the defence tends to say is that she could have bled forever and we cannot know if she did or not. The time it would have taken to kill and mutilate her does not enter this discussion, and I find it disinteresting in many ways, since we do not know when Lechmere first came into contact with her.

[@drbigmdftnu]

Was it ever mentioned if police checked if Lechmere had an alibi during the other murders? Doesn't seem like it, since he wasn't a suspect at the time. Also, the later murders where abdomen was cut open and organs removed would have required light to see by. It was postulated on & off that JTR had surgical or butchery skills, but he also would have had a lamp or something- even a skilled surgeon would require being able to see what they're doing. Unless there were 2 killers, one holding a match repeatedly. Doubt that one killer could have lit and held matches while doing one-handed butchering of these women. Uteri and a kidney removed

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@TiaMargarita]

Excellent question. Christer gives an excellent answer.

[@TiaMargarita]

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

[@otisdylan9532]

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

[@lyndoncmp5751]

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

[@time_machine7013]

😮 excellent discussion. Been on the case for 50 years and this has always bothered me. Location is everything, but the blood evidence and rearranging of clothing is highly suspicious

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@feliscorax]

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

[@DogMechanic]

Personally, I think that while it's hard to say with certainty that Lechmere is Jack, he is the most likely of the known suspects (that is, whether you think he's 90% likely or 20% likely, it's still far more than the others).

[@christerholmgren335]

There must be some learoom for doubt. But if he was not the killer, then he managed to rack up the most astounding collection of strange coincidences and flukes in criminal history.

[@feliscorax]

@@christerholmgren335 Your second sentence: I think this actually makes more sense the other way. There must have been many Victorian men living in the Whitechapel area whose comings and goings also fit the mould, were filled with such coincidences everyday, etc. It’s just that Lechmere is the only one we know about who does fit. Any man living within +/- 5 minutes of Flower and Dean Street is a potential suspect, but as you say, Lechmere is the only one who was found near a body where both his own behaviour and the timing make him suspicious from our own vantage point. Nevertheless, from everything you’ve argued in your interviews and replies, my consideration is that he is both a highly plausible candidate AND ALSO that there is a certain insufficiency still which makes the case against him less than categorical. What I would say is that you have almost got me convinced, but that there are still some anomalies that need to be clarified (principally the question of the supposed Jewishness of the suspect based on contemporaneous witness statements) before I think he could move from “probable” to “almost certain”. I’d love to hear your thoughts on these, though.

[@alexblack6804]

I do wonder how this could tie into the writing on the wall, and if they are even linked?

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@davidwalker3626]

As someone new to the details of this case, I must say Steve Blomer's argument and logic from the previous video are far more convincing than Christer Holmgren's in this video. Thanks for this wonderful series of videos!

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@luke125]

I read Holmgren’s book and I enjoyed it very much. Highly recommended. PS: Yes the Pickford’s in England are related to my family.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@ThomasMcGauley-m7z]

Stepfather was a cop. His way of saying. I'm one of you. I'm from a cop family.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@Baz-Ten]

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

[@philiprobinson9015]

I'm always puzzled by the length of time he lived after the last murder. Was Mary Kelly the last murder ? And Letchmere lived to be an old man

[@christerholmgren335]

I am confident that Kelly was not the last Ripper murder, and that the Thames Torso murders also belonged to the tally.

[@peteclarke9416]

Great in depth interview. I think having guests on that give a very detailed and broad knowledge of the case helps concentrate the mind . Just a quick point on the Harriet Lilley earwitness account that appeared in the Echo dated 6 Sept, 1888, which I find too accurate to have been a fabrication. She gives information that she heard a painful groan, , followed by two or three faint gasps. Then a luggage train passed on the East London line ( Later found to be the 3.30 coming out of New Cross) and it passed away. She then heard voices as of whispering, but she could not at once make out what they were saying. She then woke her husband and said "I don't know what possesses me but I cannot sleep tonight" I think the main point about this statement is that it appears to tie in with the method of how Polly Nichols was attacked. And, as far as I could tell, no information about the breathing being interfered with was ever mentioned before the date of this statement - Dr Lewellyn does mention bruising around the jaw that may have been caused by a blow from the fist, or pressure from the thumb, but no further details arose at that early stage as far as I'm aware. The Post Mortem assessment pointing towards manual strangulation was given further on down the line by Bagster Phillips as far as I know. Then it's worth noting that on census reports that can often be found on casebook or ancestry websites Mrs Lilley can be found right there in proximity - within two dwellings of the murder spot We can speculate why she wasn't called to the inquest, and it could be right, but really we don't know. I'm in the camp that it probably wasn't Cross /Lechmere.. But I find it interesting all the same. When it comes to coincidences, there are many in the case.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@peteclarke9416]

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

[@lyndoncmp5751]

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

[@lyndoncmp5751]

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

[@TiaMargarita]

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

[@sueherrod5817]

No mention of blood on his hands or a apron. ???

[@christerholmgren335]

He cut what may hav e been a strangled woman open, meaning that there was no arterial spray. He did not take out any organs, so he would not have put hius hands inside her. So there is. No reason why he would have had any blood visible on his person.

[@brograb898]

Lechmere doesn’t make sense if only because he lived a full, seemingly successful life. He seems to have chosen to give the name that wouldn’t draw attention to his family. He showed up in his apron because he was working. He asseverated that he did not tell the constable there was another constable at the scene. Just a guy whom you’re dragging through the muck.

[@christerholmgren335]

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

[@thekitowl]

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

[@jameshogan6142]

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

[@willenhallred7057]

I agree guys ' the evidence is circumstantial at best , also if this man had found a murder victim in addition to his route to work taking him close to the other murder scenes , WHY OH WHY , did the police not see hin as a potential suspect ? surely with the increased police presence in the whole of Whitechapel, surely he was stopped on numerous occasions & maybe even searched or at the very least he would have been checked out

[@MrWickedpaul]

Something I’ve always wondered is what would have happened if they were late for work. Would they have been sent home as they were late? Doct wages? Given a warning? Today I don’t think employees would mind but we can phone in and say we’re going to late which of course they couldn’t have done back then.

[@christerholmgren335]

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