Lechmere versus Richardson.

[MrBarnett]

It looks like a mere three months after the marriage, the poor woman was dead.

Sarah Eleanor Towler


Web: UK, Burial and Cremation Index, 1576-2014

Sarah Eleanor Towler

Burial

abt 1893

6 May 1893

Newham, London, England

So soon, how tragic.

Died in childbirth perhaps?

[Aethelwulf]

For example, Dennis Neilson was a civil servant who had previously been a policeman. A model citizen if ever there was one. However, he had body parts in bags in his wardrobe, he flushed bits down the toilet and boiled peoples heads in pots. He still attracted no attention whatsoever and had a good job and an ordinary life. So Lechmere’s character isn’t a factor for me.

I'm not a fan of using modern examples (although i'm sure i've done it as well) as you can basically cherry pick whatever you want to support your case. I'm still unconvinced by Lech's background - large family and steady job/career. I can see one of those being the case e.g., large family and flitting from job to job, or married/ single no kids but steady job. I just think if Lech was doing all these truly evil things there would be some manifestation/record of it in his everyday life.

I do wonder about the move in June 1888 though. He moved his large family into just 4 rooms, and he moved away from where he had lived for many years. I think something happened, why else would he decant to a smaller home in Doveton Street ?

This is sort of nonsense I'm talking about. Surely if Lech moved his large family into a smaller house the obvious cause is a financial one? It doesn't make sense either. We are told over and over again Lech's life encompassed quite a small area. Why move from his old address to a new one if he is going to be traversing the same area? Implying he 'did something' and as a result moved his whole family implies a concern about being identified by a survivor and witnesses. If he is in the same general area, using the same/similar routes, he could easily come across them. As a minimum, I would expect him to move to the opposite side of his work place, that way he is crossing an area that would be safe. Also, such a serious offence to necessitate a wholesale move would have been covered in the press surely - is there any evidence of this?

There is a very good example of what you're implying, but it doesn't relate to Lech. Given what we've been discussing on 'Bury's Neck' I think it is highly likely it was Bury that attacked Farmer. Even if you disagree with that, her attacker created a tricky situation there - a survivor and witnesses able to ID him. The description carried by all the papers ended with the words 'can be identified'. What did Bury do next? Just over a week later, sells his horse and cart and no doubt abandoned whitechapel (we know he went there). Then started cooking up his phoney job offer letter and does a runner to the other end of the country. That sounds far more like the scenario you are suggesting.

The problem is that because you see suspicion in Buck's Row, you cook up all sorts of sinister plots that have no basis. The bottom line is,as has been pointed out lots of times, everything about Lech's behaviour in buck's row aligns far more reasonably with innocence.

[rjpalmer]

In 1893 a case-maker named Francis Towler married a woman named Sarah Gilbody at Christchurch, Spitalfields. Sarah’s address was 29, Hanbury Street and I believe she was related to the Richardsons.

It looks like a mere three months after the marriage, the poor woman was dead.

Sarah Eleanor Towler


Web: UK, Burial and Cremation Index, 1576-2014

Sarah Eleanor Towler

Burial

abt 1893

6 May 1893

Newham, London, England

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Now imagine if Lechmere's mother was called to the inquest and behaved like John Richardson's mother. First off--and evidently unlike anyone else--Mrs. Richardson put on a great show of kissing the bible on being sworn in:



Mrs. Richardson then tosses in an entirely irrelevant and gratuitous reference to having held a prayer meeting on Friday night!




God Gawd. Let's view this with the jaundiced eye of suspicion, shall we? What a phony act! All as if to say, "see how pious we Richardsons are?"

And, of course, Mrs. Richardson took the stand just before her son John was due to explain why he was in the backyard early in the morning with a knife and a dead unfortunate.

Using the standard methodology, we can draw one of two conclusions:

1) Mrs. Richardson was a phony who was putting on a front of religiosity to diminish any suspicions against her son.

2) Mrs Richardson was a religious fanatic who taught he son to detest the 'whores' of Whitechapel and Spitalfields. Indeed, while this might be entirely wrong, it seems more plausible than the similar accusations leveled at Maria Lechmere, who was not known to have spent her Friday nights giving prayer meetings.

One of three ...?

3) "I carry on business there, which includes taking money from 'guests' who wish to use the premises to engage in immoral acts."

[rjpalmer]

His mother was probably a stern taskmaster and Johnny got tired of building crates.

Amelia Richardson certainly had no issue with exploiting child labour. Francis Tyler/Towler who she refers to at the inquest as having worked for her for 18 years must have begun his apprenticeship at the grand old age of 7.

No wonder he signed his name with an X.

[MrBarnett]

Where on earth did Richardson’s 1891 occupation of
‘bricklayer’ spring from?

There are echoes of Thomas Bowyer, the former Bricklayer’s labourer and Indian Army pensioner building up here. And I’ve always wondered whether bricklaying was the thing that linked Bowyer to Jack McCarthy.

[Abby Normal]

good stuff on richardson all. keep it coming-eventhough i think lech makes a better suspect, ive always thought folks like richardson need more looking into!

[Abby Normal]

I can see by Abby's reference to 'bigamy' that he has drank deeply of the Lechmerean Kool-Aid. Yes, I am aware that Ed Stowe and Gary Barnett never lose the opportunity to 'slut shame' Maria Lechmere in hopes that some of the innuendo might rub off on young Charlie, but their efforts strike me as rather empty.

Beyond being a very simplistic take on the realities of Victorian law (women were frequently allowed to remarry after 7 years with little or no legal jeopardy in instances where their dead-beat husbands had done a runner), I also think it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Please show me how this has any coherent bearing on the idea that Lechmere was serial-murderer.

CAL's home life with Thomas Cross could have been entirely stable and loving. There is no indication that Maria Lechmere was sleeping around or that her 'bigamy' was anything more than a technicality. By all appearances, Tom Cross took in the lad when Charlie was still quite young and raised him to adulthood. They appear to have had a stable home. Show me otherwise. And when Maria married a third time (after her second husband's death--showing that there was nothing at all untoward about that) CAL was already an adult. Is this somehow supposed to have warped him?

In short, constantly calling Maria 'twice bigamously married' (note to Mark: is this an example of a 'white anglophone attitude'?) is just ol' fashioned Ripperology: smoke without any fire. Just a rather clumsy and transparent attempt to imply that Lechmere lived in an unstable, sexually perverse household when there is nothing to show that he did.

By contrast, there may well have been something amiss with Amelia Richardson, although I admit that we are just playing around and this is not entirely clear. As far as I can tell, all her children had stable homes by the turn of the 19th Century, yet they all left Dear Old Mom to wander homeless in the slums, bouncing from workhouse to workhouse. Its rather curious and doesn't say much about their love for the old gal. She is twice listed as a 'book folder' in the census returns. This is just a guess--but might this have involved cranking out religious tracts at some half-baked organization?

i dont drink any of the cool aid of lechmerians. as a matter of fact i disagree with them about alot of things, dont place as much emphasis on some of the ideas and frankly think there is alot of over egging the pudding re lech.

my reference to ma lechs marriages is in reference to the stress, perhaps trauma, that parental breakups and re marrying can have on their children. even the much beloved and quoted fbi profilers talk about serial killers coming from these types of situations.
personally to me she sounds like a tough and resilient woman, a survivor if you will, in tough times and neighborhood who cares alot about her family, enough so that she lets her grandaughter live with her, for one example.

[rjpalmer]

I see that Amelia Richardson's brother George Smil(e)y was a 'journeyman bookbinder' (their father was also a bookbinder), so this apparently explains her occupation as a book folder.

[MrBarnett]

Was John Richardson a two-time military deserter? I don't have a subscription to Fold3 so I have no further details, but two entries look interesting.


UK, Military Deserters, 1812-1927

John Richardson

20

Abt 1851

Lambeth, Surrey

24 Jun 1871

Chester

21 Jul 1871

1242

14th Foot

John Richardson

23

Abt 1852

St Luke

12 Apr 1875

Hounslow

11 Jun 1875

7891

4th Middlesx

Richardson is listed as a militiaman in the 1881 UK Census. His birth was registered 1Qt 1852 in Lambeth. The 1861 census has his birth in St. Lukes (Lambeth) He gives his age as 22 in 1873.

Judging by their physical descriptions, these appear to be two different men.

The Lambeth born man was 5’6”, had light brown hair and hazel eyes. The St Luke’s man was 5’7 1/2”and had brown hair and blue eyes.

[MrBarnett]

Pte Richardson served in India and was given a medical discharge in May, 1873 having been diagnosed as suffering from epilepsy stemming from ‘constl [constitutional] causes and climate’

[rjpalmer]

‘Called a liar’? Or was his evidence contradicted.

Why was his behaviour suspicious at the inquest? He volunteered the information about the knife, and the coroner had to do the police’s job for them and ask for it to be produced.

In case you are unaware of it, the bit about Richardson lying to the inquest originally came courtesy of Wolf Vanderlinden in the article that has been praised on many occasions by Christer Holmgren.

"Sugden states that Richardson was "the crucial witness" and that he "had nothing to hide" and "he stated his evidence clearly and unequivocally" ²⁶ which is not all together true. Richardson seems to have changed his story more than once so he was hardly "unequivocal." As for having nothing to hide, this is true insofar as he was probably (though who really can say) not actually involved in the murder. He does certainly seem to go from one story of very little import to another where he becomes "the crucial witness." He wouldn't be the first person who perjured themselves in order to appear more important than they actually were and he did become important."


Personally, I've never seen this as a particularly credible interpretation. Richardson made an initial statement to a duty inspector who had rushed to Hanbury Street in an attempt to secure a chaotic crime scene. This statement appears to have been misinterpreted. Richardson later gave a far more detailed account to the Inspector who was actually investigating the murder.

I hardly think that qualifies as 'changing his story' or are grounds for accusing him of perjury.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Re the cops, there are those who insist that Lechmere must have been thoroughly investigated, despite there being no evidence that he was. You aren’t one of them, but I do like to highlight any evidence of the police being less than efficient whenever it surfaces.

I suspect he was taken at face value as one of two innocent working men who found the body. Paul got under their skin somewhat by giving his Lloyds interview, but Lech flew under the radar.

It’s possible Gary

[MrBarnett]

Thanks Gary,

Okay on to the antisemitism speculated



And the date of June 1888 is supplied that he moved from St George in the East to Bethnal Green.

Okay, does this mean the Lechmerian camp has him pegged for the murder of Emma Smith in April? Therefore in June he is already "Jack the Ripper" and worthy of the "raging" adjective applied to antisemite? As opposed to a" plain old vanilla run of the mill" antisemite, a resident who moved when their neighborhood became too Jewish.

Is this speculation date specific, or are we moving into mass doxing of East Enders of yore here on Casebook? Same as the mass denunciation of all police here by Mark, but now moving to a much expanded group targeted?



-over to the Lechmere desk

When I used the word ‘droll’ earlier, I meant it in the sense of ‘irritating’.

There is no Lechmere camp or desk. My contribution to the changing demographics of SGE in the 1880s can be found here:

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-crime-scenes/584235-charles-lechmere’s-lair

[Paddy Goose]

Thanks Gary,

Okay on to the antisemitism speculated

I've speculated before that Lech might have been a raging antisemite desperate to get out of an increasingly Jewish area.

And the date of June 1888 is supplied that he moved from St George in the East to Bethnal Green.

Okay, does this mean the Lechmerian camp has him pegged for the murder of Emma Smith in April? Therefore in June he is already "Jack the Ripper" and worthy of the "raging" adjective applied to antisemite? As opposed to a" plain old vanilla run of the mill" antisemite, a resident who moved when their neighborhood became too Jewish.

Is this speculation date specific, or are we moving into mass doxing of East Enders of yore here on Casebook? Same as the mass denunciation of all police here by Mark, but now moving to a much expanded group targeted?

I never cease to be amazed at the way white anglophone attitudes to the police manifest all the irrational characteristics of a religion multiplied by an addiction. However much contradictory evidence is available about what the police are and always were, the fundamental faith is never impacted, and the craving comes back worse than before: they're sensible, honest, competent, law-upholding, fair-minded, dedicated, not at all the racist, misogynist boot-boys of private wealth and the violent state, and they definitely, definitely, definitely would have used hundreds of hours of scarce manpower to check out a white Christian working man with a respectable job at a big company...

Now, if the year had been 1988 and Lechmere had been black...

M.

-over to the Lechmere desk