I like Abberline, he was honest! A Riperologist sent me proof once that the Inspector was a Mason which he joined during the Ripper Investigation and then left them a few years after! Strange!
Think in the coming year you might make a piece on James Maybrick supposed diary? The diary does have the quirky saucy self-satisfied writing style akin to the dear boss letter . . . Though I imagine that was intentional to copy the advertised letters . . .
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 I think he was a good police officer but I think he and all the other policemen fell foul of going for the leather apron approach and not seeing what was right there in front of them Lechmere admitted he found the body and Robert Paul walked up behind him it’s right there glaring at them in the face that he should be at first treated as a suspect until cleared etc I think the police got it all wrong and that’s on the police including Abberline as to why they didn’t suspect Lechmere and investigate him as to guilt or innocence. I think Detective Andy Griffith was bang on in the great program Jack the Ripper the missing evidence he nailed it perfectly
@@jacktheripper-1888 the only thing nailed was Andy griffths statement Lechmere should have been investigated as the finder of the body that’s it everything else is open to debate
I've watched every video uploaded on this channel, and the quality of production and presentation is absolutely first class each and every time. Thoroughly entertaining and highly informative, too!!
I think Lechmere outsmarted them all and had the best disguise of all. He used the crime scene to paint a picture of the the suspect that beared no resemblance to the perpetrator. He was able to calmly stare them in the face as they ignored proper investigative technique because they were looking for a "raging mad man."
@davekeating. He slaughtered and disemboweled his victims. They were convinced the perpetrator had to be somebody that was foaming at the mouth mad. He used the carnage of the crime scene as a shield. He was standing right in front of them but the sheer horror of the act made it impossible for them to see that he was the one.
@ I don’t think the Metropolitan police ever caught a murderer who was “foaming at the mouth”. Why would they believe this one should be? Unless he was partial to the odd bar of soap 😀
@davekeating. At some point it might be better if you just ackowledge you are not the type that engages in constructive conversation. The lead suspect has, for years, been Aaron Kosminski. The most incriminating "evidence" against him is that he was, PRIMARILY, a psychotic that happened to be violent. If not for the ghastliness of the crime scenes he would have never made the list. Nevertheless, you have yet to add anything to the conversation at all, so just understand that although I'm responding to you, I'm actually speaking to the audience. Because, I do not think you are a serious person. I certainly don't think you're worth the time.
Imagine the Serials of today operating back then.. it would be a free-for-all. Yorkshire, green river, Dahmer, Gacy, Grim sleeper, Night stalker, Cotingham, Bundy, etc etc etc. These took so much time and evidence to catch, often decades, with the greatest tools and minds working together. They simply had no chance of catching the real guy back then. How awful for the investigators and public in general. To always live in fear with no closure or form of justice. 22:24 Says it all. They simply had no training and forensics was almost non existent. Thank you for another episode of quality investigation into this extraordinary phenomenon! 🥂 😎
I think you did an excellent job of summarizing the problems the police had in this type of investigation. The detective did his well as anyone could, and probably better. People don't realize the amount of work involved because they only watch movies which cut out all of the tedious parts. He did have his prejudices and biases but then so do police today.
My hubby and I stumbled upon your channel recently and we have really enjoyed your thoughts on this case. We are not Ripperologists but we have a small amount of literacy in the case. You bring a rich analysis and unique perspective to the case. Your research is exemplary. And we love the hats! And the maps! Thanks for your efforts and we are looking forward to more !
I thought Abberline was opium addicted psychic! lol The way the investigation keyed on “Leather Apron” reminded me of how the police keyed on the Geordie accent in the Yorkshire Ripper case. Well done pointing that out again Ed! Good video as always!
I forgot the other YT you uploaded in your opinion & provisional opinion’s of then & now would the killed NEED a good deal of knowledge on bodies ? If so the DR & Butcher is why people think that .
Great research as usual Edward. The Victorian police didn't know what they were dealing with. I still believe that the real killer committed suicide on 16th November 1888. His name was Edward Buchan.
Thanks for further exploring this fascinating history. I'd venture to suggest Abberline is the UK's most famous policeman, largely due to the efforts of another of course, yet we know so little about him.
Interesting to see the popular media portrayals of Abberline. I liked Michael Caine's Abberline in the 1988 TV miniseries; Johnny Depp's portrayal of him as an opium fiend was just ridiculous.
I always wondered about inspector aberlines work in this ,his name always comes up in numerous books documentarys etc,this is the first in depth information on aberlines work on the case.Brilliant video ed .x
Another brilliant presentation on people engaged in the Ripper search. What kind of education on such crimes did Abberline have? If the prejudice was widespread in the police and the judiciary, then many possibilities could be overlooked.
Excellent presentation Ed - I think Abberline did a reasonable job given the world in which he lived, and the understanding of criminality the police had at the time. He did make mistakes and spent a lot of time on dead end lines of enquiry, but we need to remember that our current knowledge of serial killers was not understood at the time.
The one thing that stands out in this and can’t be overlooked is how long was Lechmere standing there near the deceased before Robert Paul arrived. lechmere gave two times he left the house 3.20am in two accounts and 3.30am in another. But were those times accurate he could have left anytime before 3.20 or 3.30am The police missed a glaring opportunity to haul Lechmere in and investigate him to access guilt or innocence as detectives today would certainly have done right away had police did that we may well not be talking about Lechmere today as a suspect
Hear hear. The fact there was no blood then lots of it should have led to a deeper understanding of the time of death. The most compelling evidence is that of Dr llewellyn placing time of death as when Lechmere was there and no one else was. Also the covering of torso wound to hide the worst of it pulling clothes down to pelvic area. Jack always left the wounds on show therefore he was disturbed.
@@jacktheripper-1888 exactly there’s no accurate time for Lechmere which renders all times he gave or might have given as completely irrelevant as lechmere or anyone investigating can’t prove an exact time he left home so he should have been investigated there’s to many loose ends as they say
@@jacktheripper-1888 Lechmere and Robert Paul both said they saw no blood but they left the scene after mere minutes so your correct at that point the police officer PC Neil said there was blood but that’s after Lechmere and Paul had already left the scene
@@jacktheripper-1888 they need to get exact timings for Lechmere’s movements from the time he left the house to his arrival at bucks row all times are irrelevant as they can’t be nailed specifically he could have left the house at 3.35 thereby arriving three minutes ahead of Paul who said he entered bucks row at 3.45 there’s to many loose ends around it you can’t pin anything down as accurate up to that point of Lechmere finding the body nothing definitively says Lechmere is or was Jack The Ripper
@@jacktheripper-1888 bottom line, LECHMERE was alone with the dying Polly Nichols. The wounds covered by this notorious display killer. It doesn’t matter what time he says he left. He’s not reliable alibi and he will go on to be a known liar. This is difficult for you to accept. But when coincidences start accumulating in true crime, along with deception, it’s an indication of guilt. I recommend you study criminal psychology to better understand the nature of psychopaths.
Thank you for another interesting video! Just a small point: at 39:42 you say Abberline died in 1892 - this is clearly a slip of the tongue; the plaque and the tombstone confirm he died in 1929 By the way - I like your new hat!
I think Abberline was overwhelmed by incoming tips. He didn't have cctv, number plate recognition and computerised records. He was a very good copper of his day. I wonder what he thought of Lechmere
@@thehouseoflechmere9407Great work as always. You and Holmgren make a very convincing case for Lechmere but I really love Bruce Paley’s book naming Joseph Barnett. I can’t decide who the better suspect is but surely The Ripper is one of these two guys. Maybe Barnett killed Kelly and Lechmere the others?
It’s astonishing Helson and Abberline missed that Lechmere had been alone in Bucks Row with the victim prior to Pauls arrival. It’s even more so that the disagreement over what was said between Lechmere and PC Mizen was overlooked too. Lechmere lied to a policeman minutes after being found standing next to a freshly killed body down a deserted back street. Abberline didn’t appear to find this suspicious.
@@Ettrick8 Only 1 paper out of 10 or 12 got his address. They all got his name wrong, some even calling him “George Cross”. So he wasn’t that cooperative. And he didn’t turn up to the inquest until after he was mentioned in the papers by Paul.
@@davesmith7432 and 1 reporter got it wrong and another 10 reporters copied the mistake. However, the only address that matters is the one he gave to the police and at the inquest.
The research that Edward does for these videos seems incredibly extensive and with such depth. Another fascinating video. Edward said that Abberline joined the Met in 1863 and this got me thinking. Of course, Charles Dickens died eighteen years before these evens. However, it is know that Dickens had an absolute fascination for and admiration of this young police force and would 'hang around' (to loosely phrase it!) with its members when the opportunities arose. So, I just wonder if the author and Detective Abberline were ever in each others company between 1863 and 1870.
I think it's fair to say the police were incompetent and out of their depth. But I wonder if Abberline was hamstrung not only by theories but also by his bosses further up the chain of command. It's a shame that whilst modern investigators can envisage manifold theories justice for the victims was never achieved.
Like in the Yorkshire case, a hoaxer mailed in a tape 'man with a Jordy accent' that sent the whole government off in the wrong direction with bias coming out their ears. 🥂 😎
They should make a movie called Lechmere about this theory. Woild be fascinating. Dont have to say its exactly how it went down in real life, it's just a theory. But to have the ripper be under the polices noses the whole time would be so interesting for a movie
@@jacktheripper-1888 ‘Cross’ was an alias. Oh wait…I forgot about the 300 year old law that states you can use any name you want interchangeably. Remember, the one you told me about. 😉
Like The Irishman starring De Niro about Frank Sheeran. Some don't believe that is how it really went down in real life but it made an entertaining movie
Really interesting to find out so much about Inspector Abberline - I had no idea he had done a stint with the Pinkertons. He was obviously a good detective in his day (even though he made some mistakes and wrong assumptions) but clearly he was limited by the general lack of understanding about serial killing back then. It still seems shocking that Lechmere escaped all scrutiny though - especially when we hear that even then the police would initially consider the partners/husbands etc. as suspects. What a shame they didn’t also investigate people found or placing themselves at the crime scenes as a matter of routine.
Somebody could make a photo of that sketch these days. Policing very difficult in those days. They had to catch somebody doing the murder The police would have interviewed Jack at some point.
@@Ettrick8 pretty sure they would have. very difficult to prove a crime especially crimes like jack' he will be lying in state in a cemetery in London or maybe up north interesting, a supposed Jack letter was posted from Brunswick dock in Liverpool Brunswick Dock is not far from St. James cemetery. A milkman said that early one morning he saw a ghost leave the cemetery
@@Ettrick8 Continued from below leave the cemetery through a far gate. a man dressed in Victorian gentlemen's clothes. A constable in London found a doctor with blood on his shirt cuffs talking to a prostitute. He arrested him as Jack the Ripper. The sergeant told the constable off for arresting the doctor Shortly after the murders the doctor returned to the family home near to St.James cemetery and he died shortly afterwards and was buried in the cemetery
@@Ettrick8 The police are on the ball. They just don't pick anybody at random to be a suspect. They probably had a good idea who Jack was , but they had to be able to prove it. They could have had two different suspects for two different crimes with similarities, would they have called them copy cat killers then?
Aberline and any other competent detective of the era were in trouble with this case. Serial killers are hard to apprehend today even with our forensic capabilities and knowledge of serial killers. The fact he didn't ignore the fact most murder victims are killed by someone they know shows he knew what he was doing. The problem with serial killers is there the connection is basically random chance between the killer and the victim. With basically eyewitness accounts of wildly varying quality I'm not surprised he overlooked potential suspects. Even now, when a serial killer is caught it's not unusual for the killer to be someone who the police were not aware of or suspected in the case until much later.
I agree with you Ed, he was sound at doing his job with the basics of policing in the Victorian era, I'm surprised he didn't lose touch after all the theories and accusations that came about after the murders, all roads still lead to lechmere without a shadow of a doubt!
Deep investications continued... Thank you for your team's effort on these mysteries. Has anyone checked if some foreign sail ship and their crew appearance suits for the nights of terror in London, I think harbour tax-custom authorities would have kept a diario about who were departured in Harbour of London. Those wounds of victims were so horrific, that only butchers, sailors and soldiers could be capable doing it but being sadistic still. England was on war even during those years, so it could have been some enemy agent too to spread chaos and horror in the heart of Britain. Call-mcCall Caine was my hero actor in 80', oh, still is.
Inspector Abberline is mentioned in the "Museum Detectives" series written by Jim Eldridge. One of the main characters (Daniel Wilson) is a former Met police officer who served under Abberline in the Jack the Ripper investigation.
Another excellent vid Ed . Think we srill have the similar police issues today, as humans we are all subject to peer pressure culture or religious bias. I think given all that back in 1888 he looked and investigated thing pretty well . Apart from the Car man in Bucks Row . The fact we have his hand written statements and note's to his superiors it does really point to Lechmere & Paul slipping through the net. The fact no comment etc on pc Niel pc Mizen & Cross at the inquest strange . There for if he'd investigated Cross would still not have fitted the mad man profile they had then ie he was outwardly a hard working family man but like the Yorkshire Ripper would have been in the system and over looked not just over looked altogether. Love the deeper dives into this .🗡🎩
Kudos to Edward for pronouncing the letter "h" correctly. Almost everybody mispronounces it as haitch, not aitch. Aside from that, excellent video as always.
@Liz-sn1mm North Americans say it correctly. In Britain and Ireland loads of people say haitch, thinking that's right. It's one of those small things that don't mean much in the scheme of things that I find annoying!
Interesting Stuff, Edward...Detective Abberline did the best he could under difficult circumstances....He was overwhelmed by the sheer number of JTR Suspects, with virtually nothing being known at the time about Serial Killers and the psychology involved with such a perpetrator...Scotland Yard may well have held-back vital info from him as well, for whatever reason, but the task was too Gr8 for him, one feels. Cheers fm Damo.
The more I look into the matter, the more unremarkable is seems that the killer was never caught. As for being overdue another Jack the Ripper film, a first one that wasn't centered around a ludicrous hypothesis woudl be a good start.
Seeing “Charles Cross” written on that document really does bring it home that maybe Lechmere really did slip through the cracks. To be fair to Abberline if he didn’t know the discrepancy he couldn’t have been expected to have investigated it. To quote Alfie Solomons “if ya don’t know, then you don’t fucking know, do ya? “ Yes it can be argued that Lech gave his correct address so reasonably it would have to be assumed he was eliminated from inquiries, but I dunno seeing it written makes you think he really did just luck out. The Cross name not being known in the existing family is really creepy to me .
Potentially he could have been great, but he wasnt and I just think he was probably a very meticulous and methodical beat policeman who was held in high esteem from his subordinates, but in the end he was simply a product of his time and I couldn't/shouldn't compare him to modern crime detective merhods or standards.
Short of catching the ripper in the act, the police had little to no chance of catching him back then. Other than the fact that forensic science wasn’t available to them, I think this really is primarily because they (and society as a whole) didn’t yet know that psychopathic killers display as everyone else at face value - that they look “normal” and seem to have normal lives. I know you’ve mentioned this in several videos and dedicated a video to it, but it just can’t be overstated. We know it can’t be said enough because people in this day and age with the information at their fingertips STILL think the culprit was someone deemed insane with mental illness!?! I’ve no doubt Abberline, on the other hand, would have understood how silly that is if he’d had the privilege of today’s knowledge. It was simply and unfortunately unknowable then. Having said that, what the investigators in this case did get very wrong was not realising that one person WAS caught in the act…. he should have been cleared before they could even look at anyone else as a suspect. That really was a massive bungle.
@@jacktheripper-1888 except we know that they certainly weren’t exhaustive in their investigation into Cross, or they’d have at the very least uncovered that he wasn’t Cross - they did not. Lechmere wasn’t investigated thoroughly, but we can see why. Starting with the mistake of the policeman who thought he’d been the first to discover the crime. There was a series of unfortunate events and it’s understandable how it was bungled, but it was bungled nonetheless. You are right though, it wasn’t in Abberlines report, because it was overlooked. Edit; Lechmere was obviously the person caught in the act - by Paul. Paul maybe didn’t realise what he’d witnessed, but the police should have. Lechmere wasn’t cleared as he’d successfully hindered the investigation and covered his true identity.
Abberline didn't want to be recognized through photographs -- he was a detective after all -- and that should be the simple reason why there exist no photos of him. Already back then, everyone was aware that the sketches in newspapers only captured a superficial likeness.
Abberline had been in charge of Scotland Yard’s counter subversion section, monitoring Fenian (Irish/American republican) activities in Britain. He would have been aware of the likes of Francis Tumblety. No photographs was the policy. Didn’t want the be shot or bombed by Fenians!
Brilliant video as usual Mr. Stow. I thought your conclusion was quite charitable as during your presentation of events, Abberline seemed to make some straight forward erroneous assumptions. That said, the pressure must have been enormous. Are there any handwriting examples of Lechmere's?
@@bigmax4564 I believe the Pickfords records were destroyed as they are not available for review. So, we don't know if Lechmere was known as Cross or Lechmere at his place of work.
See, it's the image given out of him as the man who knew that I dispute. And it's the Mary Kelly case in which I see him not as bumbling, but as perhaps more of a career man, removed from the streets. I agree with your description of him as having a one track mind. He not only believed Hutchison's obviously ridiculous and suspicious story, but he sent that testimony with his full support to his superiors, and only withdrew his support when the newspapers started to poke holes in Hutchison's testimony. He held everyone at bay when he had been told how to easily enter Mary Kelly's room to wait for Warren's hounds, and then had the door broke down. None of this makes me think the man was as brilliant as he so often is made out to be. Everyone, even the finest professionals, make mistakes. But this was not Sherlock Holmes. For my money, the detective that I'd want to talk to most, because he was in fact boots on the ground from the beginning, is Reid. I find Reid's comment that the killer most likely would be familiar to these women from the pubs to be very cogent, given how many serial killers used alcohol and how quickly and easily these women seem to have gone off with this killer. This does not at all, by the way, eliminate your suspect. He strikes me as someone who, at the time, might well have been to the pubs, and would certainly have been familiar to these women.
After all this was something quite new .One could say the same about Ted Bundy ,where the detectives failed to conect the dots for a considerable amount of time.JTR was singing from his own song sheet ,thus the standard police procedures of the time were at pains to apprehend him.They were looking foe a man who displayed overt signs of violence in his everday life ,which of course we now know that serial killers rarely do this.They are invariably viewed by all & sundry as innocous members of sociey in their every day lives,who blend into their surroundings perfectly.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 Not a problem. I’m not convinced lechmere was JTR but you’ve certainly given me food for thought with your excellent videos. You’ve certainly convinced me Kosminski isn’t the great suspect I once thought he was. Best JTR channel on RUclips.
Abberline said in the Pall Mall Gazette that they never believed the Ripper was 'a lunatic, or anything of that kind' but they spent a lot of time pursuing mentally ill Jewish men. It defies belief that he talks of Charles Cross being by the body but never seeks him out to question him. Abberline was good at routine but was fixated on the wrong things. He wasn't up to the job but who would be? The Victorian police force didn't know much about serial killers.
Abberline was correct to dismiss Charles Cross, who was just a man who found a body on his way to work. Ed's theory never did make any sense. Cross (birth name Lechmere) brings a woman back to his own route to work and then times her murder so if he's caught by a passing pedestrian, he's killing her at the exact time he would have been there anyway? It's like the plot out of a bad Agatha Christie novel. Time to stop fitting up the 'dog walker' who found the body, Ed, and start looking for the real killer!! If Cross killed Nichols at 3:46 (based on the obviously mistaken Robert Paul) he's got less than 14 minutes to make it Pickford's in Broad Street. Researcher David Barrat timed the walk, and it took him 13 1/2 minutes at the pace of an Olympic race walker. No killer is going to leave himself that little of a window. If Cross had that small amount of emotive control over his violence, we'd know about it--instead he has a spotless record, a long work history, and a long successful marriage. Nice try, and I do admire your hands on approach, Ed, but you've got the wrong bloke. I do hope the people in the comment section never fall victim to a pernicious prosecution and find themselves sent down based on hunches, idle suspicion, and dime store psychology. JLP
@@shane19959 Paul's asinine estimate of entering Buck's Row at 3:45 clashes with every other witness. If he entered the street at that time, how could he have been talking to PC Mizen in entirely different street at that exact same time? Why didn't Paul see PC Neil, who deposed that HE found the body at 3:45? Why didn't he see PC Thain approaching the intersection? Either Paul's clock or his memory was flawed. No seasoned homicide detective would trust witness testimony that disagrees with four other witnesses whose own accounts are in full agreement. This is why Abberline correctly noted that Paul and Cross found the body at 3.40 a.m. Robert Paul was the odd man out and the only reason there is any alleged "missing time." Have fun with it--I'm off to find the real killer. JLP
Yes, and he fixated over Jacob Iscenscmid while he was in an asylum. His later comments were aimed as a slight on Sir Robert Anderson, who thought it was Kosminski.
The coroner must gave been assenine too, as he sided with Paul's time, as did Swanson, and we know Neil was confused about timings as he said he was at Buck's Row ans Winthrop Street at 3.15. Superintendent Andy Griffiths - who unlike you is a seasoned homicide detective, being in charge of Sussex Murder Squad didn't agree with any if your assessment.😃
Abberline did very well for an overworked Inspector at that time. It's a pity others did not take on some of the reposnibility and perhaps the case might have been solved.
I’ve always considered Lechmere to be the prime suspect. But (apologies as i’m sure you have been asked this many times before) why would he have stopped the killings? We know he continued to live in the area.
We know now that serial killers can and do stop killing. BTK and the golden state killer are two very recent examples. That being said, it’s likely Lechmere didn’t stop but changed his M.O and was responsible for the Thames torso murders aswell, a topic Ed covers on this channel.
I don't know if this will be a minefield, but I thought I'd ask. I went on a long road trip started listening to the They All Love Jack audiobook. It appears to focus on Charles Warren, rather than Abberline, as being in charge of the investigation - and it goes into a lot of detail about how testimony and questions may have been manipulated, distorted, ignored, etc. If you've read the book, I'd love to know what you think about it and if any of the evidence he points out could also point to Charles Lechmere.
Warren was the head of the entire Metropolitan Police. His personal involvement in this case was very limited. He appeared when the Juwes graffiti was discovered by part of Katherine Eddowes' bloody apron at Goulston Street and that was about it. Robinson's book is full of far fetched conspiracy theories
Abberline was tasked with oversight of both J and H police divisions. He dropped the ball on day one. Late Friday night or early Saturday morning he should have been reading all relevant on-the-ground police reports, critically, those of PCs Neill, Thain and Mizen. He missed PC Mizen and his investigation was comprised during those first three critical days. Anyway, by the end of 1888 Scotland Yard and the Metropolitan Police had all Ripper suspects detained in sundry Lunatic Asylums dotted across London. Job done!
It's clear the police were out of their depth in this case: the only way Lechmere would have been arrested is if he had been literally caught in the act (which *nearly* did happen, or we wouldn't know about him today!). With serial killer's it's been a long road to understanding how they operate, precisely because their behavior is so close to the norm in some regards and so far removed in others. If we didn't have DNA evidence, we wouldn't even know for sure that they may, in fact, eventually stop killing even if they are not caught.
I think you've made a fair assessment of Abberline: no Sherlock Holmes, but certainly no Barney Fife either. His later assertion that he never believed the culprit to be a lunatic seems at odds with the practice of keeping tabs on those recently admitted to or released from asylums. Maybe it wasn't completely daft though as a starting point. Long before she was brough to justice, Amelia Dyer had a habit of checking herself into an asylum whenever any suspicion fell on her, or when it was otherwise convenient. Psychopaths take particular pleasure in gaming the system. I posted a Lechmere-related question on another vid, but in case you see this one first: Would carmen normally have carried chalk?
I have no idea about the chalk. I've seen it posited. Regarding checking into an asylum to hide - I guess that has similarities to Sutcliffe claiming schizophrenia. It's possible Abberline thought Iscenschmit was faking it.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 Interesting, thanks for the reply. I feel it must have been the culprit who wrote that, probably in a fit of pique over being (at least once) disturbed in the act by passing Jewish men that night, and having screamed 'Lipski' at one of them. It seems a risky and impulsive act to pause to scrawl it on the wall, but not premeditated, as in I don't think he decided in advance to bring chalk along expressly for that purpose, to frame someone up. I suppose chalk would be handy for marking parcels to indicate their intended destinations if you had several stops to make.
Why did it make it awkward for modern day web sleuths that the detectives checked lodging house logs? Did they destroy them? Are there records of those logs still existing?
Yes pretty much only the Victoria Home kept proper registers. But the reason it's awkward for some modern sleuths is that some of their prefered suspects lived on lodging houses - their absence on murder nights would have been noticed or blood stains also noticed if they didn't absent themselves. The police checked the lodging houses after virtually every murder.
An interesting idea might be to compare the Jack Douglas FBI profile (eg see thr “The Morbs YT channel recently) against what we know or can deduce about Lechmere.
@ fair enough. I still think comparison between current analysis of serial killers and Ripper suspects is an interesting area for discussion although there is a lack of data regarding Jack. More interesting than the DNA “evidence”
Ed, I think you need to edit the last minute or so of your otherwise excellent video. Your dates around Abberline's last few years and death are very confusing.
Abberline did not much pursue either Charles Cross or Hutchinson. I feel like there are some interesting parallels and similarities between the two men both of whom were at or extremely near the crime scene of the respective murder. Both inserted themselves to some degree in the investigation and very possibly lied about their identities. Both gave statements that appear intended to misdirect attention. Is there any real chance they are the same man?
Hi Edward. For my 60th birthday last Saturday my wife booked us into the 5 star Landmark hotel in Marylebone. Then we went on a Ripper tour. Richard Jones one. Great to finally do it and see the Ten Bells. Unfortunately it's completely changed now around whitechapel. Also the tour didn't go in chronological order and they also missed out Nichols and Stride sites. The guide made a couple of errors. One was about dna from the apron of Nichols which i corrected him on. He also tried to debunk lechmere surprise surprise. Seems like these tours don't want it solved.
So was Inspector Abberline all that? What do you think?
I like Abberline, he was honest! A Riperologist sent me proof once that the Inspector was a Mason which he joined during the Ripper Investigation and then left them a few years after! Strange!
Think in the coming year you might make a piece on James Maybrick supposed diary? The diary does have the quirky saucy self-satisfied writing style akin to the dear boss letter . . . Though I imagine that was intentional to copy the advertised letters . . .
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 I think he was a good police officer but I think he and all the other policemen fell foul of going for the leather apron approach and not seeing what was right there in front of them Lechmere admitted he found the body and Robert Paul walked up behind him it’s right there glaring at them in the face that he should be at first treated as a suspect until cleared etc I think the police got it all wrong and that’s on the police including Abberline as to why they didn’t suspect Lechmere and investigate him as to guilt or innocence. I think Detective Andy Griffith was bang on in the great program Jack the Ripper the missing evidence he nailed it perfectly
@@jacktheripper-1888 the only thing nailed was Andy griffths statement Lechmere should have been investigated as the finder of the body that’s it everything else is open to debate
@@WerewolfJTG agreed
Just a comment to show support. You are my favorite Ripper channel. Keep them coming !
Thank-you
Another good one. I appreciate the work you put into produce these videos.
Thank you
Agree always a good watch
I've watched every video uploaded on this channel, and the quality of production and presentation is absolutely first class each and every time. Thoroughly entertaining and highly informative, too!!
Thank you
Cracking stuff! That's my Friday sorted! 😊
I think Lechmere outsmarted them all and had the best disguise of all. He used the crime scene to paint a picture of the the suspect that beared no resemblance to the perpetrator. He was able to calmly stare them in the face as they ignored proper investigative technique because they were looking for a "raging mad man."
What picture did Lechmere paint for the other four Ripper murders? Or did he simply just run out of paint?
@davekeating. He slaughtered and disemboweled his victims. They were convinced the perpetrator had to be somebody that was foaming at the mouth mad. He used the carnage of the crime scene as a shield. He was standing right in front of them but the sheer horror of the act made it impossible for them to see that he was the one.
@ I don’t think the Metropolitan police ever caught a murderer who was “foaming at the mouth”. Why would they believe this one should be? Unless he was partial to the odd bar of soap
😀
@davekeating. At some point it might be better if you just ackowledge you are not the type that engages in constructive conversation. The lead suspect has, for years, been Aaron Kosminski. The most incriminating "evidence" against him is that he was, PRIMARILY, a psychotic that happened to be violent. If not for the ghastliness of the crime scenes he would have never made the list. Nevertheless, you have yet to add anything to the conversation at all, so just understand that although I'm responding to you, I'm actually speaking to the audience. Because, I do not think you are a serious person. I certainly don't think you're worth the time.
@ The picture of binomial distribution.
Happy New Year Mr Stow! Can’t wait for another good film from you❤
Happy new year!
Happy new year!
Imagine the Serials of today operating back then.. it would be a free-for-all. Yorkshire, green river, Dahmer, Gacy, Grim sleeper, Night stalker, Cotingham, Bundy, etc etc etc.
These took so much time and evidence to catch, often decades, with the greatest tools and minds working together.
They simply had no chance of catching the real guy back then. How awful for the investigators and public in general. To always live in fear with no closure or form of justice. 22:24 Says it all.
They simply had no training and forensics was almost non existent.
Thank you for another episode of quality investigation into this extraordinary phenomenon!
🥂 😎
Much appreciated Edward , will watch over the weekend, thank you 👍
Another WONDERFUL production!! Thank you Mr.Stow!!
I think you did an excellent job of summarizing the problems the police had in this type of investigation. The detective did his well as anyone could, and probably better. People don't realize the amount of work involved because they only watch movies which cut out all of the tedious parts. He did have his prejudices and biases but then so do police today.
Thoughtfully and methodically presented, this humanizes Detective Abberline.and the overwhelming task he faced.
Thank you
Superb investigative reporting as usual, Edward!
Thank-you
My hubby and I stumbled upon your channel recently and we have really enjoyed your thoughts on this case. We are not Ripperologists but we have a small amount of literacy in the case. You bring a rich analysis and unique perspective to the case. Your research is exemplary. And we love the hats! And the maps! Thanks for your efforts and we are looking forward to more !
Welcome aboard!
Lovely, I got in nice and early for this one.
Enjoy!
Very welcome new insights on this.
I thought Abberline was opium addicted psychic!
lol
The way the investigation keyed on “Leather Apron” reminded me of how the police keyed on the Geordie accent in the Yorkshire Ripper case. Well done pointing that out again Ed! Good video as always!
Yes - these one tracked focuses are very common in police investigations - like also in the Jill Dando case.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407Except that Special Branch knows exactly what happened to Dando.
I forgot the other YT you uploaded in your opinion & provisional opinion’s of then & now would the killed NEED a good deal of knowledge on bodies ? If so the DR & Butcher is why people think that .
Yes that's a really good point!
Great research as usual Edward. The Victorian police didn't know what they were dealing with. I still believe that the real killer committed suicide on 16th November 1888. His name was Edward Buchan.
Thanks for further exploring this fascinating history. I'd venture to suggest Abberline is the UK's most famous policeman, largely due to the efforts of another of course, yet we know so little about him.
Great information. 🎩
THE MINUTE *@Edward "house of Lechmere" Stow* sends me a notification!!! .....🏃🏽♀️💨
Interesting to see the popular media portrayals of Abberline. I liked Michael Caine's Abberline in the 1988 TV miniseries; Johnny Depp's portrayal of him as an opium fiend was just ridiculous.
From Hell was a bloody awful film all around 😂
Johnny Depp probably IS an opium fiend.
I always wondered about inspector aberlines work in this ,his name always comes up in numerous books documentarys etc,this is the first in depth information on aberlines work on the case.Brilliant video ed .x
Another brilliant presentation on people engaged in the Ripper search. What kind of education on such crimes did Abberline have? If the prejudice was widespread in the police and the judiciary, then many possibilities could be overlooked.
Thank you for these great videos.
Glad you like them!
Still better then modern British police. They wait for someone to post a meme they don't like and arrest them.
Very interesting! Thanks very much for sharing 👏✌️
Glad you enjoyed it
Thanks for another great video. Always left with a lot to think about.
Excellent presentation Ed - I think Abberline did a reasonable job given the world in which he lived, and the understanding of criminality the police had at the time. He did make mistakes and spent a lot of time on dead end lines of enquiry, but we need to remember that our current knowledge of serial killers was not understood at the time.
The one thing that stands out in this and can’t be overlooked is how long was Lechmere standing there near the deceased before Robert Paul arrived. lechmere gave two times he left the house 3.20am in two accounts and 3.30am in another. But were those times accurate he could have left anytime before 3.20 or 3.30am The police missed a glaring opportunity to haul Lechmere in and investigate him to access guilt or innocence as detectives today would certainly have done right away had police did that we may well not be talking about Lechmere today as a suspect
Hear hear. The fact there was no blood then lots of it should have led to a deeper understanding of the time of death. The most compelling evidence is that of Dr llewellyn placing time of death as when Lechmere was there and no one else was. Also the covering of torso wound to hide the worst of it pulling clothes down to pelvic area. Jack always left the wounds on show therefore he was disturbed.
@@jacktheripper-1888 exactly there’s no accurate time for Lechmere which renders all times he gave or might have given as completely irrelevant as lechmere or anyone investigating can’t prove an exact time he left home so he should have been investigated there’s to many loose ends as they say
@@jacktheripper-1888 Lechmere and Robert Paul both said they saw no blood but they left the scene after mere minutes so your correct at that point the police officer PC Neil said there was blood but that’s after Lechmere and Paul had already left the scene
@@jacktheripper-1888 they need to get exact timings for Lechmere’s movements from the time he left the house to his arrival at bucks row all times are irrelevant as they can’t be nailed specifically he could have left the house at 3.35 thereby arriving three minutes ahead of Paul who said he entered bucks row at 3.45 there’s to many loose ends around it you can’t pin anything down as accurate up to that point of Lechmere finding the body nothing definitively says Lechmere is or was Jack The Ripper
@@jacktheripper-1888 bottom line, LECHMERE was alone with the dying Polly Nichols. The wounds covered by this notorious display killer. It doesn’t matter what time he says he left. He’s not reliable alibi and he will go on to be a known liar. This is difficult for you to accept. But when coincidences start accumulating in true crime, along with deception, it’s an indication of guilt. I recommend you study criminal psychology to better understand the nature of psychopaths.
Thank you for another interesting video!
Just a small point: at 39:42 you say Abberline died in 1892 - this is clearly a slip of the tongue; the plaque and the tombstone confirm he died in 1929
By the way - I like your new hat!
Absolutely love your films! I almost wish this case is never solved haha :) Keep it going!
Thanks so much!
Well done. Even today law enforcement can get locked into a particular scenario and fail to look outside that box.
Another great upload, can’t wait for the next!
More to come!
Great video Edward many thanks
Glad you enjoyed it
B@@thehouseoflechmere9407I did. You are the foremost historian in this subject
I think Abberline was overwhelmed by incoming tips. He didn't have cctv, number plate recognition and computerised records. He was a very good copper of his day. I wonder what he thought of Lechmere
I doubt he gave Lechmere two thoughts unfortunately
@@thehouseoflechmere9407Great work as always. You and Holmgren make a very convincing case for Lechmere but I really love Bruce Paley’s book naming Joseph Barnett. I can’t decide who the better suspect is but surely The Ripper is one of these two guys. Maybe Barnett killed Kelly and Lechmere the others?
It’s astonishing Helson and Abberline missed that Lechmere had been alone in Bucks Row with the victim prior to Pauls arrival. It’s even more so that the disagreement over what was said between Lechmere and PC Mizen was overlooked too. Lechmere lied to a policeman minutes after being found standing next to a freshly killed body down a deserted back street. Abberline didn’t appear to find this suspicious.
Yet he gave his actual address and turned up at the inquest and gave evidence.
@@Ettrick8 Only 1 paper out of 10 or 12 got his address. They all got his name wrong, some even calling him “George Cross”.
So he wasn’t that cooperative.
And he didn’t turn up to the inquest until after he was mentioned in the papers by Paul.
@@davesmith7432 and 1 reporter got it wrong and another 10 reporters copied the mistake.
However, the only address that matters is the one he gave to the police and at the inquest.
Yes - I think that’s an accurate and well balanced presentation on what Abberline and his associates were facing. Well done !
The research that Edward does for these videos seems incredibly extensive and with such depth. Another fascinating video. Edward said that Abberline joined the Met in 1863 and this got me thinking. Of course, Charles Dickens died eighteen years before these evens. However, it is know that Dickens had an absolute fascination for and admiration of this young police force and would 'hang around' (to loosely phrase it!) with its members when the opportunities arose. So, I just wonder if the author and Detective Abberline were ever in each others company between 1863 and 1870.
I really feel sorry for the police during this time. They were way in over their heads.
I think it's fair to say the police were incompetent and out of their depth. But I wonder if Abberline was hamstrung not only by theories but also by his bosses further up the chain of command.
It's a shame that whilst modern investigators can envisage manifold theories justice for the victims was never achieved.
True
Like in the Yorkshire case, a hoaxer mailed in a tape 'man with a Jordy accent' that sent the whole government off in the wrong direction with bias coming out their ears. 🥂 😎
Fascinating video, thanks. 23:09. I wonder if the "blood" they saw was red ink?
It is astonishing that no one even thought to look a little bit closer at that Cross Guy.
*picard facepalm gif here*
"picard facepalm gif here."
They did he gave statements he was investigated so was Robert they had no suspicion throughout the murders so let it go
They should make a movie called Lechmere about this theory. Woild be fascinating. Dont have to say its exactly how it went down in real life, it's just a theory.
But to have the ripper be under the polices noses the whole time would be so interesting for a movie
Yes it would
@@jacktheripper-1888
‘Cross’ was an alias. Oh wait…I forgot about the 300 year old law that states you can use any name you want interchangeably. Remember, the one you told me about. 😉
Like The Irishman starring De Niro about Frank Sheeran. Some don't believe that is how it really went down in real life but it made an entertaining movie
There are so many parallels to the Yorkshire Ripper case,their tunnel vision was Wearside Jack.
Fantastic research Ed even taking a trip down the coast
Glad you enjoyed it!
Really interesting to find out so much about Inspector Abberline - I had no idea he had done a stint with the Pinkertons. He was obviously a good detective in his day (even though he made some mistakes and wrong assumptions) but clearly he was limited by the general lack of understanding about serial killing back then.
It still seems shocking that Lechmere escaped all scrutiny though - especially when we hear that even then the police would initially consider the partners/husbands etc. as suspects. What a shame they didn’t also investigate people found or placing themselves at the crime scenes as a matter of routine.
This is a good birthday present
@@ryanvids1 Happy Birthday!
@@ryanvids1 yoo Happy Birthday 🥳
Somebody could make a photo of that sketch these days. Policing very difficult in those days. They had to catch somebody doing the murder The police would have interviewed Jack at some point.
Or maybe didnt
@@Ettrick8 pretty sure they would have. very difficult to prove a crime especially crimes like jack' he will be lying in state in a cemetery in London or maybe up north interesting, a supposed Jack letter was posted from Brunswick dock in Liverpool
Brunswick Dock is not far from St. James cemetery. A milkman said that early one morning he saw a ghost leave the cemetery
@@Ettrick8 Continued from below leave the cemetery through a far gate. a man dressed in Victorian gentlemen's clothes. A constable in London found a doctor with blood on his shirt cuffs talking to a prostitute. He arrested him as Jack the Ripper. The sergeant told the constable off for arresting the doctor Shortly after the murders the doctor returned to the family home near to St.James cemetery and he died shortly afterwards and was buried in the cemetery
@@davidhynes9683 or they didn't interview him/her/them. We just don't know and that is the only certainty.
@@Ettrick8 The police are on the ball. They just don't pick anybody at random to be a suspect. They probably had a good idea who Jack was , but they had to be able to prove it. They could have had two different suspects for two different crimes with similarities, would they have called them copy cat killers then?
Aberline and any other competent detective of the era were in trouble with this case. Serial killers are hard to apprehend today even with our forensic capabilities and knowledge of serial killers. The fact he didn't ignore the fact most murder victims are killed by someone they know shows he knew what he was doing. The problem with serial killers is there the connection is basically random chance between the killer and the victim. With basically eyewitness accounts of wildly varying quality I'm not surprised he overlooked potential suspects. Even now, when a serial killer is caught it's not unusual for the killer to be someone who the police were not aware of or suspected in the case until much later.
I agree with you Ed, he was sound at doing his job with the basics of policing in the Victorian era, I'm surprised he didn't lose touch after all the theories and accusations that came about after the murders, all roads still lead to lechmere without a shadow of a doubt!
Deep investications continued... Thank you for your team's effort on these mysteries.
Has anyone checked if some foreign sail ship and their crew appearance suits for the nights of terror in London, I think harbour tax-custom authorities would have kept a diario about who were departured in Harbour of London. Those wounds of victims were so horrific, that only butchers, sailors and soldiers could be capable doing it but being sadistic still. England was on war even during those years, so it could have been some enemy agent too to spread chaos and horror in the heart of Britain.
Call-mcCall Caine was my hero actor in 80', oh, still is.
Inspector Abberline is mentioned in the "Museum Detectives" series written by Jim Eldridge. One of the main characters (Daniel Wilson) is a former Met police officer who served under Abberline in the Jack the Ripper investigation.
Ah interesting
Well researched and presented as usual. Well done Ed. Ignore the pedants!
Always!
Another excellent vid Ed .
Think we srill have the similar police issues today, as humans we are all subject to peer pressure culture or religious bias.
I think given all that back in 1888 he looked and investigated thing pretty well .
Apart from the Car man in Bucks Row . The fact we have his hand written statements and note's to his superiors it does really point to Lechmere & Paul slipping through the net.
The fact no comment etc on pc Niel pc Mizen & Cross at the inquest strange .
There for if he'd investigated Cross would still not have fitted the mad man profile they had then ie he was outwardly a hard working family man but like the Yorkshire Ripper would have been in the system and over looked not just over looked altogether.
Love the deeper dives into this .🗡🎩
Yes exactly
Kudos to Edward for pronouncing the letter "h" correctly. Almost everybody mispronounces it as haitch, not aitch. Aside from that, excellent video as always.
I thought "aitch" was what everyone says. We do in Canada anyway,
@Liz-sn1mm North Americans say it correctly. In Britain and Ireland loads of people say haitch, thinking that's right. It's one of those small things that don't mean much in the scheme of things that I find annoying!
Interesting Stuff, Edward...Detective Abberline did the best he could under difficult circumstances....He was overwhelmed by the sheer number of JTR Suspects, with virtually nothing being known at the time about Serial Killers and the psychology involved with such a perpetrator...Scotland Yard may well have held-back vital info from him as well, for whatever reason, but the task was too Gr8 for him, one feels. Cheers fm Damo.
So Abberline was at inquiry and probably looked at JTR but had no idea, along with everyone else, that no idea it was him.
Amazing analysis!
The more I look into the matter, the more unremarkable is seems that the killer was never caught. As for being overdue another Jack the Ripper film, a first one that wasn't centered around a ludicrous hypothesis woudl be a good start.
Seeing “Charles Cross” written on that document really does bring it home that maybe Lechmere really did slip through the cracks. To be fair to Abberline if he didn’t know the discrepancy he couldn’t have been expected to have investigated it. To quote Alfie Solomons “if ya don’t know, then you don’t fucking know, do ya? “
Yes it can be argued that Lech gave his correct address so reasonably it would have to be assumed he was eliminated from inquiries, but I dunno seeing it written makes you think he really did just luck out. The Cross name not being known in the existing family is really creepy to me .
lucked out ?
He looked like Michael Cane and every 5 minutes he'd start shouting 😀
Potentially he could have been great, but he wasnt and I just think he was probably a very meticulous and methodical beat policeman who was held in high esteem from his subordinates, but in the end he was simply a product of his time and I couldn't/shouldn't compare him to modern crime detective merhods or standards.
If you are not an ex copper then you're doing a remarkable impersonation of one :)
Ha
Short of catching the ripper in the act, the police had little to no chance of catching him back then. Other than the fact that forensic science wasn’t available to them, I think this really is primarily because they (and society as a whole) didn’t yet know that psychopathic killers display as everyone else at face value - that they look “normal” and seem to have normal lives. I know you’ve mentioned this in several videos and dedicated a video to it, but it just can’t be overstated. We know it can’t be said enough because people in this day and age with the information at their fingertips STILL think the culprit was someone deemed insane with mental illness!?! I’ve no doubt Abberline, on the other hand, would have understood how silly that is if he’d had the privilege of today’s knowledge. It was simply and unfortunately unknowable then.
Having said that, what the investigators in this case did get very wrong was not realising that one person WAS caught in the act…. he should have been cleared before they could even look at anyone else as a suspect. That really was a massive bungle.
Good points
@@jacktheripper-1888 except we know that they certainly weren’t exhaustive in their investigation into Cross, or they’d have at the very least uncovered that he wasn’t Cross - they did not. Lechmere wasn’t investigated thoroughly, but we can see why. Starting with the mistake of the policeman who thought he’d been the first to discover the crime. There was a series of unfortunate events and it’s understandable how it was bungled, but it was bungled nonetheless. You are right though, it wasn’t in Abberlines report, because it was overlooked.
Edit; Lechmere was obviously the person caught in the act - by Paul. Paul maybe didn’t realise what he’d witnessed, but the police should have. Lechmere wasn’t cleared as he’d successfully hindered the investigation and covered his true identity.
@@jacktheripper-1888 Wrong again
They didn't even use the tools they did have available like common sense. lol
@@jacktheripper-1888 They were cleared without being investigated. A few questions, or just accepting the story given as is, is no investigation.
Abberline didn't want to be recognized through photographs -- he was a detective after all -- and that should be the simple reason why there exist no photos of him. Already back then, everyone was aware that the sketches in newspapers only captured a superficial likeness.
Maybe
He wasn't undercover. Police in those days didn't care if someone saw them or not.
@@LKMNOP Of corse they went "undercover" when that served their purposes. It is even documented, for examples in this channel.
Abberline had been in charge of Scotland Yard’s counter subversion section, monitoring Fenian (Irish/American republican) activities in Britain. He would have been aware of the likes of Francis Tumblety. No photographs was the policy. Didn’t want the be shot or bombed by Fenians!
Brilliant video as usual Mr. Stow. I thought your conclusion was quite charitable as during your presentation of events, Abberline seemed to make some straight forward erroneous assumptions. That said, the pressure must have been enormous. Are there any handwriting examples of Lechmere's?
Only signatures on marriage certificates and a bit more on the 1911 census.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 Thanks. What about the use of Lechmere's name at Pickfords? There's a new vid out trashing Lechmere as a suspect.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 ruclips.net/video/DvX5E2jMvDE/видео.html
@@bigmax4564 I believe the Pickfords records were destroyed as they are not available for review. So, we don't know if Lechmere was known as Cross or Lechmere at his place of work.
@bigmax4564
Yes I saw that. AI generated and surprisingly full of factual errors which shows how error prone AI is.
See, it's the image given out of him as the man who knew that I dispute. And it's the Mary Kelly case in which I see him not as bumbling, but as perhaps more of a career man, removed from the streets. I agree with your description of him as having a one track mind. He not only believed Hutchison's obviously ridiculous and suspicious story, but he sent that testimony with his full support to his superiors, and only withdrew his support when the newspapers started to poke holes in Hutchison's testimony. He held everyone at bay when he had been told how to easily enter Mary Kelly's room to wait for Warren's hounds, and then had the door broke down. None of this makes me think the man was as brilliant as he so often is made out to be. Everyone, even the finest professionals, make mistakes. But this was not Sherlock Holmes. For my money, the detective that I'd want to talk to most, because he was in fact boots on the ground from the beginning, is Reid. I find Reid's comment that the killer most likely would be familiar to these women from the pubs to be very cogent, given how many serial killers used alcohol and how quickly and easily these women seem to have gone off with this killer. This does not at all, by the way, eliminate your suspect. He strikes me as someone who, at the time, might well have been to the pubs, and would certainly have been familiar to these women.
Interesting points
After all this was something quite new .One could say the same about Ted Bundy ,where the detectives failed to conect the dots for a considerable amount of time.JTR was singing from his own song sheet ,thus the standard police procedures of the time were at pains to apprehend him.They were looking foe a man who displayed overt signs of violence in his everday life ,which of course we now know that serial killers rarely do this.They are invariably viewed by all & sundry as innocous members of sociey in their every day lives,who blend into their surroundings perfectly.
Yes and the police continue to make the same mistakes
Friendly, sensitive version where you go easier on late Mr Abberline plz.
A lot was missed, they were not used to serial killers and as it was high profile I should think a lot of ego`s got in the way.
Great video as always just a small error I'm sure you state he died in 1892 not 1929.
I know I said the wrong year at one point
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 Not a problem. I’m not convinced lechmere was JTR but you’ve certainly given me food for thought with your excellent videos. You’ve certainly convinced me Kosminski isn’t the great suspect I once thought he was. Best JTR channel on RUclips.
Think he said 1919 not 1929
I think the Whitechapel police were about as proficient as the Yorkshire Ripper police.
Abberline was better than Anderson. That's a fact. Great video Ed!
Agreed!
Abberline said in the Pall Mall Gazette that they never believed the Ripper was 'a lunatic, or anything of that kind' but they spent a lot of time pursuing mentally ill Jewish men. It defies belief that he talks of Charles Cross being by the body but never seeks him out to question him. Abberline was good at routine but was fixated on the wrong things. He wasn't up to the job but who would be? The Victorian police force didn't know much about serial killers.
Abberline was correct to dismiss Charles Cross, who was just a man who found a body on his way to work. Ed's theory never did make any sense. Cross (birth name Lechmere) brings a woman back to his own route to work and then times her murder so if he's caught by a passing pedestrian, he's killing her at the exact time he would have been there anyway? It's like the plot out of a bad Agatha Christie novel. Time to stop fitting up the 'dog walker' who found the body, Ed, and start looking for the real killer!! If Cross killed Nichols at 3:46 (based on the obviously mistaken Robert Paul) he's got less than 14 minutes to make it Pickford's in Broad Street. Researcher David Barrat timed the walk, and it took him 13 1/2 minutes at the pace of an Olympic race walker. No killer is going to leave himself that little of a window. If Cross had that small amount of emotive control over his violence, we'd know about it--instead he has a spotless record, a long work history, and a long successful marriage. Nice try, and I do admire your hands on approach, Ed, but you've got the wrong bloke. I do hope the people in the comment section never fall victim to a pernicious prosecution and find themselves sent down based on hunches, idle suspicion, and dime store psychology. JLP
@@rogerpalmer3522 So why is Robert Paul " obviously mistaken" ?
@@shane19959 Paul's asinine estimate of entering Buck's Row at 3:45 clashes with every other witness. If he entered the street at that time, how could he have been talking to PC Mizen in entirely different street at that exact same time? Why didn't Paul see PC Neil, who deposed that HE found the body at 3:45? Why didn't he see PC Thain approaching the intersection? Either Paul's clock or his memory was flawed. No seasoned homicide detective would trust witness testimony that disagrees with four other witnesses whose own accounts are in full agreement. This is why Abberline correctly noted that Paul and Cross found the body at 3.40 a.m. Robert Paul was the odd man out and the only reason there is any alleged "missing time." Have fun with it--I'm off to find the real killer. JLP
Yes, and he fixated over Jacob Iscenscmid while he was in an asylum. His later comments were aimed as a slight on Sir Robert Anderson, who thought it was Kosminski.
The coroner must gave been assenine too, as he sided with Paul's time, as did Swanson, and we know Neil was confused about timings as he said he was at Buck's Row ans Winthrop Street at 3.15.
Superintendent Andy Griffiths - who unlike you is a seasoned homicide detective, being in charge of Sussex Murder Squad didn't agree with any if your assessment.😃
Talking of Jack the Ripper films, have you seen the Limehouse Golem? It's very ripperesque. I really love it!
I saw it... but personally I didn't like it
Abberline did very well for an overworked Inspector at that time. It's a pity others did not take on some of the reposnibility and perhaps the case might have been solved.
I’ve always considered Lechmere to be the prime suspect. But (apologies as i’m sure you have been asked this many times before) why would he have stopped the killings? We know he continued to live in the area.
We know now that serial killers can and do stop killing. BTK and the golden state killer are two very recent examples. That being said, it’s likely Lechmere didn’t stop but changed his M.O and was responsible for the Thames torso murders aswell, a topic Ed covers on this channel.
One of my recent films is on this topic!
I don't know if this will be a minefield, but I thought I'd ask. I went on a long road trip started listening to the They All Love Jack audiobook. It appears to focus on Charles Warren, rather than Abberline, as being in charge of the investigation - and it goes into a lot of detail about how testimony and questions may have been manipulated, distorted, ignored, etc. If you've read the book, I'd love to know what you think about it and if any of the evidence he points out could also point to Charles Lechmere.
Warren was the head of the entire Metropolitan Police. His personal involvement in this case was very limited. He appeared when the Juwes graffiti was discovered by part of Katherine Eddowes' bloody apron at Goulston Street and that was about it. Robinson's book is full of far fetched conspiracy theories
Is that newspaper background the one you got from a pub that was throwing it out?
Yes, from the Ten Bells
Abberline was tasked with oversight of both J and H police divisions. He dropped the ball on day one. Late Friday night or early Saturday morning he should have been reading all relevant on-the-ground police reports, critically, those of PCs Neill, Thain and Mizen. He missed PC Mizen and his investigation was comprised during those first three critical days. Anyway, by the end of 1888 Scotland Yard and the Metropolitan Police had all Ripper suspects detained in sundry Lunatic Asylums dotted across London. Job done!
It's clear the police were out of their depth in this case: the only way Lechmere would have been arrested is if he had been literally caught in the act (which *nearly* did happen, or we wouldn't know about him today!). With serial killer's it's been a long road to understanding how they operate, precisely because their behavior is so close to the norm in some regards and so far removed in others. If we didn't have DNA evidence, we wouldn't even know for sure that they may, in fact, eventually stop killing even if they are not caught.
🙌🏼🙌🏼⭐️
I think you've made a fair assessment of Abberline: no Sherlock Holmes, but certainly no Barney Fife either. His later assertion that he never believed the culprit to be a lunatic seems at odds with the practice of keeping tabs on those recently admitted to or released from asylums. Maybe it wasn't completely daft though as a starting point. Long before she was brough to justice, Amelia Dyer had a habit of checking herself into an asylum whenever any suspicion fell on her, or when it was otherwise convenient. Psychopaths take particular pleasure in gaming the system.
I posted a Lechmere-related question on another vid, but in case you see this one first: Would carmen normally have carried chalk?
I have no idea about the chalk. I've seen it posited.
Regarding checking into an asylum to hide - I guess that has similarities to Sutcliffe claiming schizophrenia. It's possible Abberline thought Iscenschmit was faking it.
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 Interesting, thanks for the reply. I feel it must have been the culprit who wrote that, probably in a fit of pique over being (at least once) disturbed in the act by passing Jewish men that night, and having screamed 'Lipski' at one of them. It seems a risky and impulsive act to pause to scrawl it on the wall, but not premeditated, as in I don't think he decided in advance to bring chalk along expressly for that purpose, to frame someone up. I suppose chalk would be handy for marking parcels to indicate their intended destinations if you had several stops to make.
Why did it make it awkward for modern day web sleuths that the detectives checked lodging house logs? Did they destroy them? Are there records of those logs still existing?
Most lodging houses back then did not keep logs or records of who slept there each night.
Yes pretty much only the Victoria Home kept proper registers. But the reason it's awkward for some modern sleuths is that some of their prefered suspects lived on lodging houses - their absence on murder nights would have been noticed or blood stains also noticed if they didn't absent themselves. The police checked the lodging houses after virtually every murder.
Everyone criticising Abberline, like they could have done It better 137 years ago.
all it takes is a maverick who looks at the evidence differently...
but when cops make up their minds very little changes their minds lol
There was a lot of leather aproned men then
An interesting idea might be to compare the Jack Douglas FBI profile (eg see thr “The Morbs YT channel recently) against what we know or can deduce about Lechmere.
That FBI profile is way out of date so far as current FBI and other law enforcement thinking is concerned with regard to serial killer behaviour.
@ fair enough. I still think comparison between current analysis of serial killers and Ripper suspects is an interesting area for discussion although there is a lack of data regarding Jack. More interesting than the DNA “evidence”
@@nickbrough8335agreed
Ed, I think you need to edit the last minute or so of your otherwise excellent video. Your dates around Abberline's last few years and death are very confusing.
aberrline wasnt in charge of the investigation Donald Swanson was aberrline wasnt of senior enough rank
Swanson barely left Scotland Yard. He was in charge of the paperwork
he retired on a full pension at the age of 50 was that normal in those days
Yes
Life expectancy for men was 44.
Well according to Sherlock Holmes the yard was full of bumbling idiots ..(joke)
in the last place I lived I always had bumbling idiots wander into my back yard [also a joke]
@Red_Lanterns_Rage my fault for not capitalising it :)
Is there a slip of the tongue near the end … 41.00 saying Abberline died in 1892?
Yes it was 1929
thank you boss. needed some real ripperology content to hold back the present tsunami of DNA evidence nonsense re: JTR.
Watch my next film!
@@thehouseoflechmere9407 wonderful
Abberline did not much pursue either Charles Cross or Hutchinson. I feel like there are some interesting parallels and similarities between the two men both of whom were at or extremely near the crime scene of the respective murder. Both inserted themselves to some degree in the investigation and very possibly lied about their identities. Both gave statements that appear intended to misdirect attention. Is there any real chance they are the same man?
No chance they are the same. Someone would have recognised them. Also Hutchinson lived in a lodging house.
@ Recognition is iffy. But the lodging house residence is pretty conclusive,
My profile picture is still the what AI though Lechmere would look like in 1888.
You don't understand the corruption involved here.
What kind?
Bingo
He was good in the wolfman
Hi Edward. For my 60th birthday last Saturday my wife booked us into the 5 star Landmark hotel in Marylebone. Then we went on a Ripper tour. Richard Jones one. Great to finally do it and see the Ten Bells. Unfortunately it's completely changed now around whitechapel. Also the tour didn't go in chronological order and they also missed out Nichols and Stride sites. The guide made a couple of errors. One was about dna from the apron of Nichols which i corrected him on. He also tried to debunk lechmere surprise surprise. Seems like these tours don't want it solved.
Barnett was the Ripper. With the interview and questioning techniques used today, Abberline would have been able to expose him.
He had an alibi
Do a video about the male brothel 😅
Good idea