(74) Charles Lechmere, Jack the Ripper? Or not?

Comments · 1.9K

• TH

  @thehouseoflechmere9407 · 1 year ago · pinned

  Do you think the original film demolished the Lechmere theory?

  44

• DI

  @diogenesstudent5585 · 1 day ago

  Did he make note of Lechmire's living addresses?

• SI

  @silalumen643 · 5 days ago

  I was thinking; If people lying passed out drunk in the streets at night was not an uncommon sight in that period (also see Diemschutz&apos;s story about his wife), why would Lechmere draw attention to this and risk being late plus potentially drawing anger from another carman for bothering and delaying him with such a common occurence? <br>At first he thought it was a tarpulin, but then he got close enough to see it was a woman and also close enough to see she was not drunk but a victim of an attack. <br>But then he decides not to raise the alarm, not check up on the victim, but stay silent and wait for Paul to catch up to him. <br><br>Paul testified he saw him standing in the middle of the road.<br>Lechmere then walks towards Paul. It seems that Lechmere wanted to see who was coming to assess the situation, rather than actually calling anyone out for help.<br><br>An innocent and concerned person does not act like this.

• VO

  @vordman · 5 days ago

  I don&apos;t think Charles Lechmere is your man. He held down a steady job and was known to the police from day one. Wouldn&apos;t he have been at work when the other murders were done? And if he wasn&apos;t, wouldn&apos;t the police hae been down on him like a ton of bricks? Which suggests he was.

• MA

  @martingillette7613 · 7 days ago

  Good job. &nbsp;The facts as they were should always be used.<br><br>So, it makes so much sense that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. &nbsp;But here is a couple takes.<br><br>Timing: &nbsp;There is no reason to accept Lechmere&apos;s timing if he was the killer. &nbsp;He would&apos;ve had a good idea when PC Neil would be at the spot of the killing. &nbsp;He even could have waited with Polly until he when by and he would know he would have about 30 minutes. &nbsp;So he could have gotten to this spot with Polly much sooner. &nbsp;And he would lie about the timing. &nbsp;He would think he had plenty of time to strangle Polly, cut her throat and abdomen. &nbsp;But then heard footsteps and covered up what he was doing, then acted innocent.<br><br>Covering the wounds: If someone else was Jack the Ripper, who fled when he heard Lechmere coming, he wouldn&apos;t bother covering her wounds. &nbsp;He loved the display of his work and never covered any other victim.<br><br>The use of Cross: &nbsp;I believe the people at his job knew Lechmere as Cross (I heard this somewhere but can&apos;t recall where). &nbsp;If this is true, he wouldn&apos;t give his name as Lechmere. &nbsp; He would have given the name he was known as by others. &nbsp;If the police went to his work and asked for Lechmere there would be red flags when know one knew someone named Lechmere.

• LA

  @laura121684 · 9 days ago

  This is a really fantastic critique. &nbsp;I really like that you rebut arguments using facts, and cite your sources where you can. &nbsp;I also like the fact that you&apos;re able to also examine arguments <i>against</i> the Charles Lechmere theory. &nbsp;It takes a person of significant character, in my opinion, to be willing to entertain arguments against their preferred theory, and you&apos;ve not just done that, but also made entire videos to that end. &nbsp;That just shows that you&apos;re not pushing any agenda, you just genuinely want the truth, which is what ultimately matters in the end.

  2

• JE

  @JerryTremaine · 2 weeks ago (edited)

  Firstly, Great video, thanks! fascinating, we&apos;ll never know the truth sadly, which makes the case all the more compelling of course! 🤔<br>It seems to me that the Letchmere theory is a strong one....too many red flags to ignore, using the name Cross with the police and court, why? Guilty? Or maybe he used it for fear that the Letchmere family name being involved would cause unnecessary scandal? Suspicion etc, however his description of the scene along with inconsistencies which could point to him creating a narrative that distances him from any possibility or suggestion of him being guilty, also when someones testimony changes unnecessarily I not sure what conclusion to come to other than his guilt &nbsp;...plus the route he worked that passed all five victims is hard to ignore, and his intimate knowledge of the area and therefore poss ease of escape is also a cause for more red flag waving....

  2

• AL

  @alfiejohnchester8108 · 2 weeks ago

  I don&apos;t profess to be an expert on the Ripper murders but from the little research that I have done for a book I&apos;m writing I can&apos;t see how t can be anyone else. He lived almost in the centre of the killings; his job as a car-man meant that he knew the area in which they all happened very well. And the points that you&apos;ve raised again cements it in my mind that Cross/Lechmere must have been the killer.. The case against all the other suspects always falls flat at significant points; not so with Lechmere. There is always something that puts him at the head of the list somehow or somewhere. But again, I repeat, I&apos;m no expert on this subject. Thanks for this and your other videos.

  4

• NO

  @noeljegou-w9l · 3 weeks ago

  la culpabilité de lechmere me semble fort probable, les arguments développés par ceux qui n&apos;y croient pas sont faibles et la démonstration de cette faiblesse argumentaire est correctement faite dans<br>cette vidéo.

  1

• LU

  @luckysierra958 · 1 month ago

  I believe it’s Lechmere but the only thing I’m hoping everyone here can put to bed for me, was there time between Neil leaving Bucks Row and someone else coming in, killing get and getting out before Lechmere enters Bucks Row? Is there a definitive timeline that everyone agrees to?

  2

• TH

  @TheMarlinspike · 1 month ago

  Not

• AM

  @amyjayne3314 · 1 month ago

  Lechmere’s inquest testimony is intriguing because it sounds less like the shocked, uncertain account of a man who had just discovered a murder and more like a controlled, self-protective narrative. He gives a remarkably neat sequence of events: he was “by myself,” saw a woman lying in Buck’s Row, waited for Robert Paul, and then introduced Paul as “the other man.”<br><br>The most interesting detail is his claim:<br><br>“We then both went over to the body. He stooped one side of her, and I stooped the other, and took hold of her hand, which was cold.”<br><br>He then said:<br><br>“The other man pulled her clothes down before he left.”<br><br>That wording places Paul—not Lechmere—in direct contact with Nichols’s clothing, while Lechmere presents himself as the cautious witness who supposedly refused to touch her. It also provides a convenient explanation for the disturbed state of the body and shifts potentially suspicious physical contact onto Paul.<br><br>What makes the account especially debatable is Lechmere’s selective precision. He remembers Paul pulling down the clothes, yet claimed not to have noticed that Nichols’s throat had been cut:<br><br>“No, it was too dark, I did not notice that her throat was cut.”<br><br>A suspicious interpretation is that he was precise when describing details that helped establish his innocence, but vague about anything that might raise questions about his own involvement. His testimony seems carefully arranged to make him the responsible discoverer, Paul the corroborating witness, and the unknown killer someone who acted before they arrived.<br><br>None of this proves Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. Paul may simply have covered Nichols out of decency, and newspaper reports were not verbatim transcripts. But the testimony can reasonably be seen as unusually self-positioning: polished, chronological, and focused on controlling how the discovery—and Paul’s role in it—would be understood.

  4