Thank you very much for posting this fascinating article. Having stumbled upon your channel last week, I've watched every video you've uploaded, and believe you have an exceptionally good case for Lechmere being The Ripper; In fact I'm fully convinced you're right.

@TiaMargarita

2 жыл бұрын

Lechmerians unite!

@walkawaycat431

2 жыл бұрын

@@TiaMargarita Yes! He's JTR

All your videos are very well researched and thought out, very interesting indeed, thank you for very valuable contribution to this subject. I might add that in 1888 one of my father's uncles, who was a fishmonger selling off a handcart, lived in Hanbury street. He and his wife, who was born in a court just off Hanbury street, lived on the opposite side of the road to the murder site about ten doors down. I have often wondered if either of them were in the crowd that assembled that morning. My whole family lived in Whitechapel and Bethnal Green at that time, i have a general interest in East End culture and history and so thanks again. Any chance of a future book?

@thehouseoflechmere9407

Жыл бұрын

Very interesting!

@Liz-sn1mm

3 ай бұрын

I wish someone had collected stories handed down by grandparents etc. who were alive at the time and had some connection, like policemen, neighbours near crime scenes etc.

I'm 100 percent convinced lechmere committed the ripper murders thanks to your videos and Jack the ripper the missing evidence. I would like to see you do a video on lechmeres time frame starting from where he lived on doveton street to all the murder sites. I really believe a lot more people would be convinced. Use his house as a starting point and travel his routes to Pickford. It would be very interesting to say the least. God bless and thank you for all your videos.

You can see the street and backyard as it was in the 1967 documentary " The London nobody knows" presented by James Mason. Bear in mind, this was the late 1960s and the street was virtually unchanged at that time.

@Mr.56Goldtop

8 ай бұрын

I saw that, how unbelievable! And I love James Mason!

@silverstuff182

7 ай бұрын

I saw it years ago but now it’s not on KZread. Do you know where I can find it?

@Mr.56Goldtop

7 ай бұрын

​​@@silverstuff182I only saw the part where James Mason is walking on Hanbury street up to the house. He went inside and out into the yard. It has a lot of trash but other than that unchanged from the 19th century. He spent a good amount of time back there. On YT I searched James Mason on Hanbury street, it came right up. But it is short.

@robertgraves2321

7 ай бұрын

it does appear on Amazon prime video. Apart from that I don't know. I suspect it was on YT at some time but things can disappear from YT , possibly due to legal reasons. It's also available on DVD.@@silverstuff182

@galesal1109

2 ай бұрын

Sad to see most of the buildings gone. We should try and preserve and modernize historic buildings

I just shared this video on Facebook. The old age of Jack the Ripper supposition and opinions is gone forever. The new age of facts, research and reason has been ushered in. I encourage everyone to examine these verifiable facts. Lechmere alias Cross is Jack the Ripper.

@TiaMargarita

2 жыл бұрын

@@gppgpz it’s like a rabbit digging in the soil throwing out the dirt. JTR was digging for organs. He had absolutely no interest in the intestines which were simply in the way. He simply threw them over the shoulder out of his way to get to the organs. Problem solved quickly and conveniently. He was efficient in his time management economized his physical actions. He ever learned to incapacitate quickly and cleanly. He had a time schedule of thirty minutes between compulsive timed police rounds so timing and reduced effort were crucial. The last victim was his Coup de Gras. A room where he could take his time to fulfill every sick craving.

@TiaMargarita

2 жыл бұрын

@@gppgpz Most of Ripperology is tainted by supposition and opinion. Folks spin elaborate “maybes” when the common sense answer is right in front of them. Many old school JTR buffs scoff at the thought of Lechmere being a suspect. I respect Edward Stow because he gives facts based on research. They are verifiable. Anyone can look up his information and ascertain its truth for themselves. Christer Holmgren, author of the book Cutting Point, gives credit to Edward Stow for “ firing the starting gun”. !

@historywithanders

Жыл бұрын

@@TiaMargarita I think this "theory" is weak at best. Nothing actually suggest that Lechmere was the killer.

@TiaMargarita

Жыл бұрын

@@historywithanders You believe that this is a weak theory. It is your opinion and you have a right to speak your mind. There are 335 JTR suspects, 334 were not at the crime scene and many were not even in the country. As you consider this to be a weak theory, who do you believe JTR was. What is your theory?

@historywithanders

Жыл бұрын

@@TiaMargarita I am working on the research for a video that I will publish soon about my analysis of the Lechmere theory. I don't believe the actual killer has been identified. Most "suspects" are just random people or famous people that lived at that time where no actual evidence exist. There is nothing that actually can prove that Lechmere was more than a witness in the case. Nothing links him to the other crime scenes. Especially not at Millers court. Lechmere does not fit the profile for the killer neither. The case is unsolvable and the real evidence is lost in time. That is my opinion.

I think it's extremely plausible that Lechmere killed Annie Chapman at this venue for those reasons. It gives me the chills just thinking about a human being that has such a warped mind.

@TiaMargarita

2 жыл бұрын

Absolutely. In forty years of my JTR fascination, Lechmere is the only suspect I cannot discount. Everyone else can be removed as a suspect simply by researching the facts of these Whitechapel murders and researching the facts surrounding each suspect. I am now a deliberate Lechmerian.

@Jay-tk7ib

2 жыл бұрын

@@TiaMargarita Why did he mutilate the victims in that way? There are facts you do seem to discount.

@TiaMargarita

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jay-tk7ib He grew up slaughtering horses for horse meat for his family. I’m sure that is what sparked his internal organ fascination. As a cart man, he delivered meat so it never left his mind. Like how modern day serial killers start out killing small animals when they are kids. They just escalate. Fantasizing about innards led him to contemplate the “dregs” of society. Mutilating older alcoholic sex workers made sense, serial killer wise. He was taught to kill horses quickly. He killed the ladies as quickly as possible because it wasn’t the killing that was his focus, mutilation was his focus. Once incapacitated, he got down to business. Disgustingly to us, he sickly enjoyed carving, touching and investigating his gory interest.

@Jay-tk7ib

2 жыл бұрын

@@TiaMargarita So, being a horse slaughterer made him want to mutilate women and throw their intestines over their shoulder? There actually was a method to the madness, a reason for him doing things in the exact manner he did them.

@TiaMargarita

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jay-tk7ib Hell no! If being a horse slaughterer made folks want to mutilate women then we’d have a zillion ex horse slaughterer women mutilators in Victorian London! 🤣. There is a utilitarian reason why he threw the intestines over their shoulder. Let me know when you figure it out. (Hint: act it out)

Thank you, I love how you work things out very interesting.

Good video Ed, excellently put together

I really enjoy what you do as you do it so well! Thank you!!

Thank you for yet another well researched and informative video regarding Jack.

Nice one Ed!!! Keep them coming.

So well done. The research and history and the visuals are really great, it is good to see where these places are and what they looked liked by in those days and then today. Thank you and God Bless.

@thehouseoflechmere9407

11 ай бұрын

Thank you very much!

I am very impressed with your knowledge of the crimes and the crime scenes. I think you have a great case for Lechmere. I look forward to your next video. Kind regards

@gb3007

2 жыл бұрын

@@mathewlawton8944 the only person to see his face testified he was Jewish, yet the Goulston street Graffito states otherwise. Why? Solve this and you might just find his story, the truth.

@walkawaycat431

2 жыл бұрын

@@mathewlawton8944 He is stating a scenario. He did not say that it was a fact! Prove that Lechmere is innocent? Better than that, show us a better suspect? I demand proof!

@walkawaycat431

2 жыл бұрын

@@mathewlawton8944 He is constructing a scenario, you have to admit the all the paths that Lechmere took led to murder victims, he's either very unlucky or a murderer.

@walkawaycat431

2 жыл бұрын

@@mathewlawton8944 Show a better suspect? I've asked you multiple times, you can't even name one! Yet, you can't prove Lechmere is innocent either.

@walkawaycat431

2 жыл бұрын

@@mathewlawton8944 As we say in Texas, you're full of HORSESHIT. And you're easily riled up. I'm enjoying my day off arguing with a numbskull.

Just got into jack the ripper in the last month or so. Travelled down from Birmingham to visit all the death sites this weekend. 10 Bells down to Hanbury is incredible and was my favourite area of all the sites. Still really old buildings

@thehouseoflechmere9407

Жыл бұрын

Check out the rest of my videos!

Dr. Phillips describes a high degree of precision -" the uterus was removed with one sweep of the blade " he states . This implies a reasonable degree of lighting . I suspect the time was just after sunrise. Compare this to Mitre square when we know for certain it was pitch black and the butchered description of the removal of body parts. Thanks for your interesting video.

great job once again

Excellent video thankyou hope to see more when your free :)

Tuesday night treat! 😁🍷

Your spot where 29 Hanbury Street used to be is a bit off. The actual spot where it is is a bit further left.

Even though I disagree with your supposition that Lechmere was the killer, I still greatly appreciate that you take so much time and effort to cover the murder sites in such lingering detail. Not many of the other researchers or tour guides will really concentrate upon a single site in their videos for such a length of time.

@TiaMargarita

2 жыл бұрын

You were so very respectful about disagreeing with Edward Stow about Lechmere. Refreshing as online posting is usually so harsh. Kudos! Who is your favorite suspect?

he might not of done it but he has more going for him than any of the other suspects

Looking forward to more videos!

Very interesting. Never seen the photo at 7.04 before.

Excellent as always. Totally with the logical conclusion that the murder happened at the earlier time, for the reasons you cited. The doctor's multiple (4) stated assertions. Not only that, the Ripper just didn't kill in the daylight. The alleged witnesses, who don't even tally up with each other, were almost certainly mistaken or saw/heard nothing to do with the murder. Cheers.

@Jay-tk7ib

2 жыл бұрын

Ah yes, cherry-pick the evidence to fit your theory. There you go. I, too believe Annie Chapman was killed at the earlier time, but not because that would put Lechmere walking by the scene at the time of the murder. As for that, did he kill while on his way to work, or did he kill when he didn't have to go to work, or was it while he was working, delivering meat? This theory has it all and we get to chose which version we like best. How nice.

@walkawaycat431

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jay-tk7ib Why don't you ask yourself that for the other suspects? It's very strange that not another suspect can be placed at one single crime scene? But, everyone tries to pick apart everything to do with Lechmere. Show us one shred of evidence that someone else could have committed these murders?

@Jay-tk7ib

2 жыл бұрын

@@walkawaycat431 I don't take any suspect as a 100% given. The one with the most evidence would be the Masonic angle, with the murders/mutilations following Masonic ritual, and that's undeniable. There is no real evidence for Lechmere.

@walkawaycat431

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jay-tk7ib Oh yea, what Mason was found standing over a body? It's all conspiracy, now with Lechmere we have someone standing over a body (not quite dead) lied about his name, lied to a police officer, and lots more circumstancial evidence, when coincidences pile up, he's either very unlucky or a murderer. Show physical evidence of a Masonry murder? In this day and age, Lechmere would have definitely been indicted to stand trial by a grand jury. No other suspect would be indicted according to the non evidence I've heard about other suspects.

@historywithanders

2 жыл бұрын

@@walkawaycat431 You are automatically assuming that the actual killer has been identified. I think it is very likely that none of the witnesses or the "suspects" was the killer. It is not even conclusively proved that "Jack the ripper" killed all the canonical five. The name "Jack the Ripper" was invented by the press.

That was great. Thank you.

Interesting as always

What about John Richardson as the ripper. He said he was in his mothers yard 29 Hanbury st. at 430 am cutting leather from his boot with a knife. You couldnt cut leather with the dull knife he produced at the inquest. The doctor on the scene at 630 said Chapman was dead for 2 hours. His recently washed apron was laying in the yard.

Great to see another clip so soon. It’s interesting that Lechmere would have walked past several murder sites around the time they took place.

@Jay-tk7ib

2 жыл бұрын

Ah, but there's a way to make him guilty, even if he wasn't walking by at the time of death. We have to make Lechmere guilty at all costs, regardless of the evidence.

@albertross2022

2 жыл бұрын

And the facts show that - he wouldn't.

@Jay-tk7ib

2 жыл бұрын

@@albertross2022 As someone pointed out earlier, the Lechmere believers apparently don't put a lot of stock in believing he walked by the murder sites at the time of death, because they say that even if he didn't, well, he was a carman, so he would have been out roaming the areas anyway. I guess they don't really trust their own theory.

@lyndoncmp5751

2 жыл бұрын

Jerry Bee, Regardless of what evidence? What evidence is there to place him elsewhere around the time of the deaths? We already have him nailed for one of them. He was seen by someone else lingering alone right by the body of one of the victims at or near the time of death and with nobody else in sight or sound. Thats evidence against him right away.

@Jay-tk7ib

2 жыл бұрын

@@lyndoncmp5751 For one thing, the evidence of Robert Paul stating that Polly Nichols was dead and her hands were already cold. She couldn't have been freshly killed. What happens to evidence when it goes against a favorite theory? I guess it just vanishes. Let me ask you, do you think Lechmere killed these women while on his way to work, or did he kill them later, while out on his deliveries? The people who own this theory seem to be a bit confused about that.

Richardson initially said he popped his head round the door to check the cellar door. Sitting on the step cutting leather from his boot was added on later.

Now "Corbet Place" not "Cobbet Place". I grew up on Hanbury St. in the fifties.

Around 6:00, what is that green laser shining on you?

If only Caddosch looked over the fence.

I’ve seen a lot of Good Reviews about Poppy’s Fish n Fish ✅👍

I never knew Robert Paul did not attend Mary Ann Nichols inquest wow this goes someway to explaining how Lechmere escaped any suspition by coming forward himself

@thehouseoflechmere9407

Жыл бұрын

Paul did but much later as he didn't come forward

Thank you, Ed. It is interesting how many people like Eliz Long stated that it is a "foreign-looking" man, meaning Jewish. could Lechmere have put on something to make him look more Jewish as a slight disguise to blame Jews? If so his coworkers would have noticed him looking unusual at work. Or were the comments merely a reflection of contemporary prejudice, assuming the criminal was Jewish as a local murder had been committed a year before by a Jewish person. Immigrants are generally vilified across history. Eye witness testimony is the least reliable evidence. Annie Chapman was dying of TB, would have lived only 3 more weeks? If that is the case, her systems would not have been functioning well, she might have been cold sooner? Her extremities would have been cooler to begin with. I lean towards an earlier time because I think Lechmere killed earlier. Would he have been cheeky enough to kill while on the job, increasing his likelihood of being caught? He was very cold- it would have taken a lot to have raised his blood pressure. Lechmere was a very bright fellow, throwing suspicion on Paul. He knew when and where Paul went to work.

Interesting video, think the case against Lechmere is very strong..... surprised the other Ripperologists don't take it seriously, maybe they want to rebel and create their own myths

@Jay-tk7ib

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, create their own myths instead of swallowing this one.

@lyndoncmp5751

2 жыл бұрын

Jerry Bee, Only ONE suspected is physically tied to being seen by someone else lingering alone right by the body of one of the victims at or near the time of death and with nobody else in sight or sound. If Lechmere as a potential suspect is a myth then so are every others even moreso because NONE of them have even any circumstantial evidence against them.

@Jay-tk7ib

2 жыл бұрын

@@lyndoncmp5751 You're just as wrong now as you were the first 50 times you made that statement. You choose to ignore the facts of the case in favor of your pet theory. One fact you ignore is that Robert Paul stated that Polly Nichol's hands were already cold. That means she couldn't have been freshly killed. That is real evidence, not circumstantial, though I'm sure you'll try to explain it away. Just because there's no irrefutable proof against other suspects, that doesn't mean we should take the bogus evidence against Lechmere, especially when we have good evidence to the contrary.

@lyndoncmp5751

2 жыл бұрын

Jerry Bee, I am certainly not wrong at all. I am correct. Paul actually said he thought he detected a slight breath from Nichols, although very little. This tells us she was not long dead. Cold hands mean nothing. Absolutely nothing. It was unseasonably cool that night. My girlfriend has cold hands as the norm even indoors sometimes 😂. Its a FACT that Lechmere is the ONLY suspect to have been seen by someone else lingering alone and acting suspiciously right by the body of one of the victims at or near the time of death and with nobody else in sight or sound and this is something you will NEVER be able to dismiss. It takes just a few seconds to go to the side of the road and check out what you think is a tarpaulin. Yet Paul never saw or even heard Lechmere walking just ahead of him. He only came across Lechmere when he saw him by the body. Ask yourself why Lechmere was hanging around there for a considerable time? May I ask you why it only seems to be the Lechmere theory that upsets you? I do not encounter you vehemently arguing against the more baseless theories of Kosminski, Druitt, Tumblety etc etc. At least Lechmere can actually be linked to one of the bodies. No other suspect can. Im not even convinced he was the Ripper, but the fact he was lingering and acting suspiciously by a body and his work routes took him past where two, possibly three, other victims were found and two others were found in places not far from where he would have visited his family and possibly old drinking haunts when he perhaps didn't have to go into work the next day is very very interesting. He would have walked from his old home en route to Pickfords and known prostitutes hung around St Botolphs, probably where Eddowes picked up her 'client' (ie the Ripper). Lechmere is very much linked to the Ripper case. Fact.

@Jay-tk7ib

2 жыл бұрын

@@lyndoncmp5751 Yes, Robert Paul did say he THOUGHT he detected a slight breath from Nichols. Do you want to believe in a theory built around what someone THOUGHT they saw? Ask anyone who spends time around dead people about nerve movements and even sounds from the deceased. You might be surprised by what they tell you. Now let's look at what Robert Paul actually did see and feel. What did he say when he touched Polly's wrist and hands? He said she was dead and her hands were cold. He wasn't referring to the weather, he was stating that she was dead and therefore cold. Read his statement for yourself. As for the weather, Catherine Eddowes was killed a month after Polly, at the end of September, when the weather would have been much colder, and the doctor said that she was still warm. He said she had been dead for half an hour or less. How much time did it take for Eddows' body to be discovered, then for someone to go after the doctor, then for the doctor to wake up and get dressed, then to go to the scene and do the examination? Eddows' body was still warm, and that was the end of September. You can also read that for yourself in the medical report. As I've said many times, Lechmere was not the only man to find a Ripper victim, so he could not have been the only one who was alone with a victim. Give that some thought. As for acting suspiciously, you only think that because of the deceivers who have you believing in lies. Look how you keep saying that Robert Paul thought he saw Polly take a slight breath. I'm sorry, but a criminal case has to be based on better evidence than someone thinking they saw a slight breath. You can't incriminate someone on that. How could you possibly know how long Lechmere would have taken to look at what he thought was a tarpaulin, and then to examine the woman? You have no way of knowing that. Silly, insignificant things like this are largely why people second guess this theory. Kosminski, Druitt, Tumblety. First of all, I don't believe either of those three was the Ripper. Why then do I not vehemently stand against them? Because each of them has at least a little common sense evidence, though circumstantial, for their case. I can see where people could believe in the possibility of either of them being the killer, much more so than for Charles Lechmere. I'm sorry, but when I hear that Jack the Ripper was walking to work one morning and just happened to see a prostitute on a busy street and decided he had enough time to kill her and rip her open, that makes my head shake. No forethought, no planning...all random. A killer like that would not go unnamed for more than 130 years. On a couple of the murders, you say Lechmere looks suspicious because they were committed close to where his mother once lived, or maybe he had old drinking buddies in that area. Are you serious? Are you actually going to let yourself be duped by such ignorant explanations as that? Even if that made any sense at all, which it doesn't, how then do you keep claiming that Lechmere was walking by the victims at the times of their death on his way to work, as with Nichols? If some of the victims were killed because Lechmere didn't have to go to work the next morning, then the story changes. His means and opportunity change. So which is it, he killed when he didn't have to go to work, or he killed while on his way to work, or he killed while working, delivering meat? This theory has a choose your own ending flavor. Which one do you actually believe?

There's a picture of pilly Nichols while she was working as a maid and a picture of liz Kelly and also one of Catherine eddows which all looks very much like the women. Are you saying those are fake? In what way fake? Are they of someone else who resemes them and claiming to be them when it's not or are they fake as in computer generated images? They look very much like genuine photographs from that period. How do you know chapmas is real but the others aren't?

@thehouseoflechmere9407

2 жыл бұрын

None of the ones purporting to be the other victims are actually of them. They are random pictures from the same era but if other people. The Chapmsn one ud genuine, from the family.

@cutekanjii

2 жыл бұрын

@@thehouseoflechmere9407 can I ask how do you know they are of other people?

@thehouseoflechmere9407

2 жыл бұрын

@@cutekanjii It is well known

@thehouseoflechmere9407

2 жыл бұрын

@@cutekanjii www.jtrforums.com/forum/photographs/the-fake-photographs-section/28654-fake-photos-of-victims-and-occasional-suspect-of-the-whitechapel-murderer

@cutekanjii

2 жыл бұрын

@@thehouseoflechmere9407 oh OK I see, thanks

Background noise annoying don’t need to go on location as nothing like as it once was.

Lechmere fits even for Mary Kelly and the ladies would of been at ease to be picked up .As the ladies would of seen lechmere every day and morning

Out of the two carmen my candidate for JTR would be Robert Paul. All it needed was for Robert Paul to win a game of hide and seek for thirty seconds against Cross and he’s got away with it. I think Paul was hiding 40 yards away on the same side of the street as the Nichols’ body (hoping Cross would walk past on the other side of the road and not notice him). That’s why he says he tried to give Cross a wide berth. He wouldn’t have needed to alter his course if he was on the other side of the street, the side he should have been on, given we know which side he would have entered the street, from his house, and what side he would have exited the street on his usual walk to work. Thus he should have said “the guy who was by the body came across the road and was going to block my way, that’s why I tried to give him a wide berth”. By wide berth I interpret it as almost saying “I crossed the street to get past”. Again there should be no reason for Paul to be on the same side of the road as the body as he’s walking up to Cross. Also note he’s in a “hurry”, so less chance of him casually meandering from one side of the pavement to the other. Charles Cross also says at the inquest “he started to one side”, to me this means he crossed the road. It’s not as if he started to one side means Robert Paul ran up against the nearest wall. Then they moved “ACROSS” to the body, meaning they walked back over the road, again indicating Paul was on the same side of the road as the body to begin with. This also explains why Cross only heard him coming from 40 yards away, that’s because that’s exactly where Paul was the whole time from the body when Cross walked into the street. So why did Paul come out of the shadows? He basically says to himself “s##t he’s noticed her and he’s not going to just walk on past”. Cross basically says he stops to look at the body and the next thing he knows he hears Paul coming (no time for Cross to properly observe and also handy for Paul to say “that guy was first to find her, he’ll have to answer most, if not all of the questions”). Paul had no idea how Cross was going to react if he ascertained that Nichols was dead, he just couldn’t risk it. Also, maybe because there was a chance that Cross would soon start shouting for help and wake up the neighbours and someone would have opened their door and discovered Paul just standing there, outside their door, too risky. Also Paul knew P.C. Neil would be back soon and there was no guarantee Cross would not just wait by the body until a policeman came. Again, meaning that at some point he might have to interact with Cross anyway, the choice was do it now before the police come, or if he waits he’ll be discovered by Cross / Neill when / if they start looking around the crime scene. He pulls the dress down when he hears Cross coming as best he can and rushes to the nearest dark spot, hoping Cross won’t even notice the body and think it is tarpaulin and just ignore it so that he can come back and continue his mutilation. Remember he’s desperate to pull the dress down further while with Cross. You may say this is an act of respectfulness, but if so why doesn’t he show the same respect by offering himself for the inquest? Also, why doesn’t he show the same consideration by prioritising finding a policeman, instead of prioritising arriving on time for work? I’m sure his boss would have accepted him being 10 mins late if the excuse was “Boss, I just found a dead body I had to tell the police”. He comes back that night to the scene of the crime even though he’s described the street as scary, and especially now that he knows there’s been a murder, (I know it’s just next to where he lives, so he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t, but still so soon after, you’d think he would be a bit scared for a few days) why wouldn’t you change your route home that night? Why does Paul give a newspaper statement if he’s the ripper? The reason might be that he thinks “well if I’ve been stopped by a journalist asking if I knew anything then maybe that other guy (Cross) has been stopped and asked too.... “. “I better talk because that guy knows I’m a carman working out of Corbett’s Court, because he saw me turn in there as we parted. It won’t be hard for him to describe me to people around that area if the police ask him to find me again”. He’s just hedging his bets and trying to make sure the papers know he spotted Cross “first” with the body, trying to beat Cross first to the punch so to speak. He contradicts himself in almost every statement. She’s barely alive to she’s been dead a long time. She was so cold, not true, she was just VERY recently murdered. The moving the body thing I don’t get.... I personally, if I thought there was a dead body would not touch it, let alone move it. The strange thing is neither men attempt to vocally arouse the women lying, as I would think almost 99% of people’s natural reaction to someone lying on the floor to initially assess and interact would be “hey, are you O.K?, wake up, what’s your name?” He says he talked to police, no he never, if anything he was hiding in the background trying to avoid the policeman Mizen while Cross was talking to him. Cross says at the inquest that Paul said he would go for a policeman but he’s running late “No, sir. He merely said that he would have fetched a policeman but he was behind time. I was behind time myself." Paul is basically saying “I would go to try to find help but I’m late for work”, not really the actions of a concerned man eager to alert the police, if anything he’s saying “I’m not going to make an effort to alert the police”. Is this the same chivalrous Paul that pulled the dress down and wanted to move the body? He claimed he was the first and foremost of the two carmen willing to try and find a policeman in his reports to the newspaper? He says he’s running late for work, false. If anything he arrives EARLY. We know this because Cross said bye to him as he entered Corbett court where he worked. Cross had at least a couple of minutes to go, and Cross said he arrived to work at 4, on time. Paul says he left home / or entered Bucks Row at 3.45, wrong, Cross was talking to Mizen at that time, while he (Paul) was lurking in the background. Also P.C. Neill was with the body at 3.45. That means that if we believe Paul’s time he was turning into Bucks row on his way to work when P.C. Neill was with the body, false. Paul can’t be leaving his home at 3.45 whilst also standing across the road from Mizen and also at the same time running into P.C. Neill who was by the body. Who do we believe more with times? P.C. Mizen, his whole job that night was to be a walking human alarm clock, knocking people up. He would have to be the most accurate out of all the witnesses that night with regards to times. Neill’s times, Mizen’s times and Cross’ times all match up, of all four only Paul’s doesn’t fit in with all fours’ accounts. So why is Paul giving so many contradictory statements? It’s because he’s making the story up every time as he goes along. His frenzied attack on Nichols has left him confused as to details and recollections. He’s not properly registering things. He comes across as having a chip on his shoulder against police. Does this lead to any potential letters from him to the police provoking and ridiculing them? In a census it shows Paul living with his family. One of his brothers is a ginger beer maker....... Another brother is a Peak Cap maker...... was Paul given items from them throughout the years so he had a few different types of hats to wear? Paul and Cross were not working together. If they were they would have easily just walked past Mizen without needing to say anything and none of this would be discussed. Also there was a reward offered, one of the two would have framed the other (which is more or less what Paul was trying to do to Cross from the start in his newspaper statement). An important point is that a carman was never witnessed at any of the other murders. So if it was Paul he’s no longer wearing work clothes to hide any blood. He’s using the shadows and probably is never seen, ducking in to doorways, dark spots while making his way to and from the murders, perhaps changing hats each time (gifts from his brother) to change his description each time if he is ever seen. Cross’ name. This can be explained by looking at some things. Cross says at the inquest he had been working for Pickford’s for over 20 years. Look at his name in the census 20 years before when he would have been called Cross. He would have been known as Cross at the time he started working there. He’s just socially known as Cross, so if someone wanted to find him, “ask for Cross”. There’s so many examples of people known as other names in society other than the real ones it’s not even worth mentioning. Just one very quick example, how many women don’t change their surname once they’re married on their social media account which would take less than 10 seconds..... So Cross has to go around everyone he’s been working with for a few years and his social circles and say “It’s not Cross anymore it’s Lechmere”.

@Jay-tk7ib

2 жыл бұрын

Robert Paul is just as good of a suspect as Charles Lechmere, but really, are we going to believe this happened randomly while strolling into work on a relatively busy street?

@andy5xcool

2 жыл бұрын

I agree, it’s unlikely that either of these two carmen are JTR. However, in my opinion Annie Chapman’s murder was the most audacious of the ‘Canonical Five’. For me whoever did it had a bolt hole / hide away nearby that they could escape to. People say Cross murdered here to plant it on Paul, but I believe Paul murdered here because his safe house (workplace) was near (especially compared to Cross), also he wouldn’t have ran into as many people as Cross (Cross worked at a large depot, Paul worked for a market stall). You have to note that whoever did it is leaving with a uterus too, that doesn’t just fit into your pocket, it’s not like you could walk too far with that in your possession, but if you were stopped / caught with that in your possession by the police you would have to have a good explanation for it, which again is a good reason to have a safe place nearby. Also at this point Cross/ Lechmere has appeared at an inquest, I think that that alone would be enough to put Cross from murdering again so soon. Where as Robert Paul at this stage was still under the radar to the police force allowing him to commit another murder.

@norbertalbertz7259

2 жыл бұрын

My theory was JTR was Robert Paul too, the fact lechmere only heard Robert Paul's footsteps until Robert was close to him makes me think Robert Paul was already there before lechmere and that he was hiding in the dark then he pops out! It's all very strange.

@Jay-tk7ib

2 жыл бұрын

@@andy5xcool You never know. Personally, I'm not sure the police weren't in on it, at least some of them.

@andy5xcool

2 жыл бұрын

Yes! Exactly my thoughts. Robert Paul, if he could hide in the darkness before Cross finds the body then everything makes sense…. everyone’s else’s account makes sense, the policemen and Cross’s accounts. He seems to be the only one that’s very “Jittery” on that night, scared of Charles Cross (his evidence in the newspaper). All I ask is, could Robert Paul have been hiding 40 yards away from Charles Cross when Cross found the body? Robert Paul kills Polly Nichols, hears Cross coming, finds the nearest safe dark place before Cross discovers the body (40 yards away from the body). I also believe Paul was on the same side of the street as the body which he shouldn’t have been on (please read my previous comments on that).

That dot is very annoying

Twice the same pattern in JTR, which again points a little to Lechmere: if Lechmere deliberately committed the murder of Annie Chapman around Robert Paul's corner to throw suspicion on Paul, it's consistent with JTR's bloody apron under the "Jew writing". There too, JTR tried to blame his crime on others. And probably wrote the "Jew slogan" himself. Twice the same behaviour, diverting attention from himself to others. In addition Lechmere's collection of lies during the interrogation. Alleged name Cross, Polly allegedly found together with Paul etc. Lechmere, a notorious liar.

If Robert Paul was considered by Police, how did they miss Lechmere?

@thehouseoflechmere9407

2 жыл бұрын

Probably because he came forward and sounded convincing.

@isobelswan

2 жыл бұрын

@@thehouseoflechmere9407 using the superficial charm of a psychopath to fool them.

Would Lechmere’s clothes not be covered in blood on returning to his van once it had been unloaded.

@thehouseoflechmere9407

2 жыл бұрын

If he killed in broad daylight? No more than any other suspect, who would have also been put in a similarly awkward situation - which is one reason why a daylight murder is less likely. But Lechnere at least had the cover of working in an environment where a lot of butchered meat was transported from Broad Street to trade customers, which meant a little of the pink stuff smeared over his overalls would not attract attention.

@Jay-tk7ib

2 жыл бұрын

@@thehouseoflechmere9407 But wait, I thought he killed Nichols while on his way INTO work, not while he was working, or on his way home. Which is it? This destroys everything else you have said about Lechmere, as having to do with the testimony of Robert Paul.

@thehouseoflechmere9407

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jay-tk7ib Err no it doesn't

@Jay-tk7ib

2 жыл бұрын

@@thehouseoflechmere9407 Why can't you explain it instead of simply saying, no it doesn't? You can't have it both ways.

@Jay-tk7ib

2 жыл бұрын

@@mathewlawton8944 Thank you for that. Can you tell us more about the accident you refer to?

It was so obviously Lechmere I just can’t fathom how the police missed him !! Should have been caught after Polly Nichols

@lyndoncmp5751

2 жыл бұрын

They missed Peter Sutcliffe over a dozen times before he was caught by happenstance. It happens. Moreso back then when they had no clue about serial killer profiles.

@marieheyes1911

2 жыл бұрын

@@lyndoncmp5751 Sutcliffe was basically caught red handed and the police were shockingly woeful it that case. I’ve just started reading Cutting Point so getting an idea how policing worked in 1888 but still Lechmere was caught red handed and still managed to fool them

@lyndoncmp5751

2 жыл бұрын

Marie, Well as I said, Sutcliffe was only caught by lucky happenstance and not by narrowing him down and singling him out via great detective work. He just had stolen number plates while with a prostitute and they pulled him in for that, not because they thought he was the Ripper. I'll have to get that book. Cheers.

@Jay-tk7ib

2 жыл бұрын

Marie Heyes, the police didn't "miss" Lechmere. One big reason why they dismissed him was probably due to the statement of Robert Paul: "The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen here, for she was plain enough to see." It seems the police knew, by witness statement, that the body was cold enough to have been dead too long for the killer to have been Lechmere. Of course, a lot of people want to dismiss witness statements when they don't support their favorite theory, but this is real evidence, and it's not going away.

@marieheyes1911

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jay-tk7ib Charles Allen Lechmere /Cross was Jack the Ripper !! The case has been solved.

Lechmere and Hutchinson are good suspects

Why does the camera man use a laser pointer it's very distracting.

@thehouseoflechmere9407

2 жыл бұрын

It was a reflection

This bloke gives me ex copper vibes

@thehouseoflechmere9407

Жыл бұрын

Inaccurate vibes

@dorkbrandon4422

Жыл бұрын

@@thehouseoflechmere9407 OK ex convict then ?

@thehouseoflechmere9407

Жыл бұрын

@@dorkbrandon4422 Cat A

@dorkbrandon4422

Жыл бұрын

@@thehouseoflechmere9407 Uhh! Feck knows! Is this game , let me see now ........uh! Dog B?

So, no matter which time Chapman was killed, you have Lechmere placed at that exact spot at that exact time. There's a way to make Lechmere guilty, no matter the circumstance. I think it's obvious that Annie Chapman was not killed where she was found, otherwise, she would have been seen by John Richardson. Here is Richardson's statement at the inquest: "I was there about a minute and a half or two minutes at the outside. It was beginning to get light but not thoroughly. I could see all over the place. I couldn't have failed to notice the dead woman if she'd been lying there." Unless John Richardson was blind, he would have noticed a dead, mutilated woman lying basically at his feet.

@lyndoncmp5751

2 жыл бұрын

Richardson is all over the place with his statements. And the door closed itself. If he sat on the steps to cut his boot (not even a fact that he did as he claimed) its possible he was facing the cellar and the door was resting on his left side, blocking the view of anything on that side by the fence, especially in the semi gloom of the morning. Richardsons contradictory statements, which actually sound like he's making things up, do not argue for his veracity.

@Jay-tk7ib

2 жыл бұрын

@@lyndoncmp5751 Oh yes, cherry-pick the evidence. As always, any evidence against your case is because the witness is unreliable. Always. This kind of foolishness is the reason why I would question this theory, even if it made half sense, which it doesn't. These silly statements are not helping people to believe this theory. People are smarter than you seem to think. Every witness statement that goes against this theory requires proof, but any statement that you think supports the theory doesn't require proof. Why is this?

@peteclarke9416

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jay-tk7ib There could be a number of reasons for this.. He might have liked to listen behind the gate at the many prostitutes who went there.. Like some voyuer having a private moment before work... He probably never opened the gate.. He never mentioned this to the officer at the scene which was brought up at inquest

@Jay-tk7ib

2 жыл бұрын

@@peteclarke9416 "Might have" is all we have for Lechmere. It's not enough.

@peteclarke9416

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jay-tk7ib It never is in this case but there is a pattern that makes logical sense