Some questions re. Lechmere

[eighty-eighter]

I've watched the channel 5 documentary several times; congratulations on a thought provoking production. Certainly I believe had this been a one-off killing then this fellow would be prime suspect - at the time of course it could have been a one-off killing and its somewhat puzzling to me as to why the police didn't divert more attention towards him? I find myself in the somewhat odd position of believing that he could have killed Nichols but at the same time cannot bring myself to believe he was the perpetrator of the series of killings grouped into one as the "Whitechapel Murders". Perhaps with some more details about his post 1888 life this could change. Anyway perhaps the "authors" could answer a few questions I have:

1. It's mentioned that Lechmere went onto become "relatively wealthy" or something along those lines, which led to his photo being taken presumably for posterity. Do we know the reason or in which trade this occurred? Did he move out of the area and if so when?

2. Presuming him to be not only the killer of Nichols but also Jack the Ripper as the documentary surmises, for what reason do you believe he ceased killing?

3. What is known about his later life that may be relevant?

4. Are there any remaining vestiges of his handwriting?

5. Any evidence whatsoever that he used prostitutes (medical or otherwise)?

5. Is a book in the offing, in other words are you continuing research on him?


Thank you.

[Fisherman]

eighty-eighter: I've watched the channel 5 documentary several times; congratulations on a thought provoking production. Certainly I believe had this been a one-off killing then this fellow would be prime suspect - at the time of course it could have been a one-off killing and its somewhat puzzling to me as to why the police didn't divert more attention towards him? I find myself in the somewhat odd position of believing that he could have killed Nichols but at the same time cannot bring myself to believe he was the perpetrator of the series of killings grouped into one as the "Whitechapel Murders". Perhaps with some more details about his post 1888 life this could change. Anyway perhaps the "authors" could answer a few questions I have:

1. It's mentioned that Lechmere went onto become "relatively wealthy" or something along those lines, which led to his photo being taken presumably for posterity. Do we know the reason or in which trade this occurred? Did he move out of the area and if so when?

He had something like a general store in later years. He also traded in Broadway Market. He did not become rich, but he left a tidy sum behind when he died.

His addresses:

1890 22 Doveton Street
1894 22 Doveton Street
1896 46 Sceptre Street, Mile End
1898 46 Sceptre Street
1900 24 Doveton Street
1901 24 Doveton Street
1903 24 Carlton Road, Mile End
1904 24 Carlton Road
1905 24 Carlton Road
1906 24 Carlton Road
1907 24 Carlton Road
1908 24 Carlton Road
1912 24 Carlton Road
1914 24 Carlton Road
1915 24 Carlton Road
1918 2 Rounton Road, Poplar
1919 2 Rounton Road
1920 2 Rounton Road
1921 2 Rounton Road

2. Presuming him to be not only the killer of Nichols but also Jack the Ripper as the documentary surmises, for what reason do you believe he ceased killing?

I am not presuming that he did stop. I think he went on, although not Ripper style (unless we speak of MacKenzie, who I think may well have been Lechmere). There are many unsolved murders in London between 1888 and 1921!

3. What is known about his later life that may be relevant?

Nothing much, if you are speaking of pointers to criminality. On the surface, he lived a normal life. Then again, so do many serialists that the police have a hard time nailing.

4. Are there any remaining vestiges of his handwriting?

The signatures are all we have. A good deal of them were signed by himself.

5. Any evidence whatsoever that he used prostitutes (medical or otherwise)?

No.

5. Is a book in the offing, in other words are you continuing research on him?

Yes. And yes.

Thank you.

My pleasure! But I have a question of my own: If - as you say - you think that he may well be the killer of Nichols, then why are you having a hard time accepting that he could have killed the others too? Eviscerators are a rare breed.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

I have a question, Fish -

I am not presuming that he did stop. I think he went on, although not Ripper style (unless we speak of MacKenzie, who I think may well have been Lechmere). There are many unsolved murders in London between 1888 and 1921!

Eviscerators are a rare breed

Taking the above statements into consideration, do you then believe that Crossmere decided against the whole evisceration thing after a few tries?

Secondly [actually two questions] Are you suggesting that Crossmere was responsible for all the unsolved murders in London between 1888 and 1921?

[eighty-eighter]

Hello Fisherman, thank you for your detailed and prompt response which is very interesting.

In reply to your question; only because we know so much about his presence at the scene of Nichols death, which I must admit is suspicious to say the least, and you make a good case in my opinion relating to that. Had that been a solitary murder then I believe that he could have been either the perpetrator or extremely unlucky, along with an apparent ability to dig an ever deeper hole for himself and a remarkable chain of coincidences.....

However I need to know more about the man, especially his character and temperament before I label him Jack the Ripper. I fully realise that this is a clash of suspicions because Nichols is widely accepted to be the Ripper's first victim, but without more background of that type we are essentially left with just his place in time and space on one night, which is admittedly supported to his great detriment by his behaviour to pc Mizen.

What worries me is that there is nothing beyond that nights events to put him remotely in the frame for any of the other murders. I also find it hard to believe that the individual who performed carnage and turned 13 Millers Court into a charnel house could go on and live a full and presumably happy life as a store-keeper as though nothing had happened. Though of course its not impossible, but essentially at this point in time the man doesn't have any motive.

I must admit though that the photo gave me the creeps, but that's entirely irrational.

Certainly your suspect deserves the right to be added to any list as in just one night he has more going for him than many of the others.

I'm not a detractor in the true sense, your case for that night is chillingly possible and I'm with you inasmuch as I believe he should be a suspect on the evidence provided. The problem is whoever killed Nichols is believed to be the Jack the Ripper and currently I need more background on Lechmere to believe that, anyway I'll await the book and take it from there. Good luck with your work.

[Billiou]

The documentary

I was thinking of putting this on a new thread until I found this old one and thought this is probably a good place to put my question.

I saw the documentary on Lechmere when it came out in 2014 and once again when it was rerun last year.

Now, I may be wrong, but it is my impression/memory that part of the "suspicious" nature of Cross being found near the body was that when Cross and Paul where at the site they saw no blood, but a few minutes later when Neil happened on the body he saw blood coming from the neck.

Wasn't this presented as, if Cross had committed the murder, it was so fresh that no blood had the time to appear, but was there later when Neil arrived.

But now after having read the Inquest accounts and understanding more about the conditions that night, Cross and Paul did not notice any blood, and couldn't have because it was so dark, just as they didn't see any injuries. So the blood could have been there already, but they just didn't notice it, for they couldn't see it?

Can anyone please clarify this for me?

And also, did the doco mention at any time the light conditions for that night?

[Fisherman]

Hello Fisherman, thank you for your detailed and prompt response which is very interesting.

In reply to your question; only because we know so much about his presence at the scene of Nichols death, which I must admit is suspicious to say the least, and you make a good case in my opinion relating to that. Had that been a solitary murder then I believe that he could have been either the perpetrator or extremely unlucky, along with an apparent ability to dig an ever deeper hole for himself and a remarkable chain of coincidences.....

However I need to know more about the man, especially his character and temperament before I label him Jack the Ripper. I fully realise that this is a clash of suspicions because Nichols is widely accepted to be the Ripper's first victim, but without more background of that type we are essentially left with just his place in time and space on one night, which is admittedly supported to his great detriment by his behaviour to pc Mizen.

What worries me is that there is nothing beyond that nights events to put him remotely in the frame for any of the other murders. I also find it hard to believe that the individual who performed carnage and turned 13 Millers Court into a charnel house could go on and live a full and presumably happy life as a store-keeper as though nothing had happened. Though of course its not impossible, but essentially at this point in time the man doesn't have any motive.

I must admit though that the photo gave me the creeps, but that's entirely irrational.

Certainly your suspect deserves the right to be added to any list as in just one night he has more going for him than many of the others.

I'm not a detractor in the true sense, your case for that night is chillingly possible and I'm with you inasmuch as I believe he should be a suspect on the evidence provided. The problem is whoever killed Nichols is believed to be the Jack the Ripper and currently I need more background on Lechmere to believe that, anyway I'll await the book and take it from there. Good luck with your work.

I think that the geographical ties are very interesting. If, as you say, we accept that Lechmere is a good candidate for the murder of Polly Nichols, then the next step would be to ask ourselves if we can identify hos logical pathways. And in his case, we can: he would have been quite likely to use working routes that would have taken him very close to the murders of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly.
Stride was killed a stone´s throw away from where his mother and one of his daughters lived, in 1 Mary Ann Street. If Stride had been killed on a night leading up to a working day, it would have been illogical, but as it happens, she died on a night leading up to what was the working man´s normal day off. And the murder occurred at a time that is consistent with Lechmere having payed a vsisit to his mother or perhaps old friends from a neighbourhood he had leeft only weeks before.
The there is Eddowes, who did on the same night. If Lechmere was interrupted with Stride, then it seems he used his old working route from his former lodgings in James Street towards Pickfords in Broad Street, stopping at Mitre Square. Then he dropped the apron piece in Goulsto Street, which was more or less in a straight line between the murder site/Pickfords and his new lodgings in Doveton Street.
No other suspect comes anywhere even close to have ties like these to the murder sites and -times.

[Fisherman]

I was thinking of putting this on a new thread until I found this old one and thought this is probably a good place to put my question.

I saw the documentary on Lechmere when it came out in 2014 and once again when it was rerun last year.

Now, I may be wrong, but it is my impression/memory that part of the "suspicious" nature of Cross being found near the body was that when Cross and Paul where at the site they saw no blood, but a few minutes later when Neil happened on the body he saw blood coming from the neck.

Wasn't this presented as, if Cross had committed the murder, it was so fresh that no blood had the time to appear, but was there later when Neil arrived.

But now after having read the Inquest accounts and understanding more about the conditions that night, Cross and Paul did not notice any blood, and couldn't have because it was so dark, just as they didn't see any injuries. So the blood could have been there already, but they just didn't notice it, for they couldn't see it?

Can anyone please clarify this for me?

And also, did the doco mention at any time the light conditions for that night?

It was dark. That is all we can conclude. Some say it was too dark to see anything at all, but that was not so - the carmen did not feel their way down Bucks Row. Paul hurried along on the pavement, and so he was able to see where he was going. He saw Lechmere standing in the street, silently waiting, some yards away. They saw that the dress was pulled up to the hips. They noticed the bonnet lying some little way from the body - a black object on the dark pavement.

That is why I think that blood would have been visible if it as there to see. Not only would it be moving by running (and movement always makes things easier to observe), it would also reflect the light there was, since it is a fluid.

Another thing to note is that Neil says that there was a pool under the victim´s neck, whereas Mizen adds that there was a stream of blood travelling from the pool down to the gutter.

I think that the killer cut the abdomen first, something Dr Llewlellyn suggested. That is why there was very little blood under the neck - most of it had seeped into the abdominal cavity.

Then he cut the neck, when Nichols was already dead and when a lot of blood had already seeped into the abdomen. It would have caused a smallis, passive stream of blood, slowly beginning to fill up a cavity under her neck. That was when Paul and Lechmere was in place.

Then the pool grew larger, and Neil arrived, shone his light on the victim and reported that pool - but no stream towards the gutter.

When the pool was filled to the brim, it ran over the brim and started floating towards the gutter. That was when Mizen saw it and reported it. He added that the blood was somehat congealed, which it would have been since six or seven minutes had passed since she was cut - and coagulation begins to show after three to four minutes.

Paul knelt by the head of Nichols. If there had been blood running towards the gutter at that stage, he would have been likely to get that blood on his person.

[MrBarnett]

Re the handwriting, the 1911 Census provides a little more than just his signature.

Nice thread 88'er/Fish.

[Fisherman]

Re the handwriting, the 1911 Census provides a little more than just his signature.

Nice thread 88'er/Fish.

Thanks, Gary.

[Columbo]

I was thinking of putting this on a new thread until I found this old one and thought this is probably a good place to put my question.

I saw the documentary on Lechmere when it came out in 2014 and once again when it was rerun last year.

Now, I may be wrong, but it is my impression/memory that part of the "suspicious" nature of Cross being found near the body was that when Cross and Paul where at the site they saw no blood, but a few minutes later when Neil happened on the body he saw blood coming from the neck.

Wasn't this presented as, if Cross had committed the murder, it was so fresh that no blood had the time to appear, but was there later when Neil arrived.

But now after having read the Inquest accounts and understanding more about the conditions that night, Cross and Paul did not notice any blood, and couldn't have because it was so dark, just as they didn't see any injuries. So the blood could have been there already, but they just didn't notice it, for they couldn't see it?

Can anyone please clarify this for me?

And also, did the doco mention at any time the light conditions for that night?

The blood question is tricky and although I agree with Fisherman that there was enough light to see the skirt, bonnet etc, I don't agree he cut the throat last. If she was dead after the strangulation (which, according to some medical reports can take as long as 6-10 minutes to kill someone that way) there was no reason to cut her throat.
Also, as I pointed out in another thread cutting the throat almost to the spine causes a huge gap in the neck and would also cause the head to move in very awkward positions because of the weight. So we have to imagine that for Lechmere and Paul not to see the wound or the strange way the head probably was twisted, Nichols was most likely bundled to the neck with a scarf or something that hid that wound which in turn would hide any obvious blood flow from the neck.
For Lechmere to be the killer in Fisherman's theory we have to remember Lechmere would only have roughly 7 minutes to meet, strangle, and mutilate Nichols before Paul was heard coming onto bucks row, so I have to disagree with the opinion that the throat was cut after the abdomen.

Just my opinion, I'm no expert by any means.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

The blood question is tricky and although I agree with Fisherman that there was enough light to see the skirt, bonnet etc, I don't agree he cut the throat last. If she was dead after the strangulation (which, according to some medical reports can take as long as 6-10 minutes to kill someone that way) there was no reason to cut her throat.
Also, as I pointed out in another thread cutting the throat almost to the spine causes a huge gap in the neck and would also cause the head to move in very awkward positions because of the weight. So we have to imagine that for Lechmere and Paul not to see the wound or the strange way the head probably was twisted, Nichols was most likely bundled to the neck with a scarf or something that hid that wound which in turn would hide any obvious blood flow from the neck.
For Lechmere to be the killer in Fisherman's theory we have to remember Lechmere would only have roughly 7 minutes to meet, strangle, and mutilate Nichols before Paul was heard coming onto bucks row, so I have to disagree with the opinion that the throat was cut after the abdomen.

Just my opinion, I'm no expert by any means.

Columbo

I am with Llewellyn on this issue - he said that he thought the abdominal wounds had come first.
It would explain the dearth of blood under the neck, to begin with.
If the neck had been cut first, it would be like opening a bottle, and the larger part of the blood would escape that way. Instead, Llewellyn said that the blood had sunk into the abdominal cavity, which is why I think he concluded that the order was abdomen first, neck later.

I also think that Lechmere, even if he had throttled Nichols, may have been afraid that she was still alive when Paul came down the street. That´s why I think that he may have reasoned "Ooops, here comes somebody - now, is there any chance that this woman can give me away? Let´s put an end to that chance, and cut her neck. That should keep her quiet!"

These are no certain matters, but I think that the man most likely to have gotten it right must be Llewellyn.

[Patrick S]

I have some time on my hands! So, let's do this all over again, shall we?

Okay. Let's deal with this first: That Cross/Lechmere would have been/should have been considered a "prime suspect" for the killing of Nichols. I'll ask rhetorically, "Based upon what?" AH! Let's look at ONE "suspicious" aspect of we have that involves this "prime suspect" first, shall we?

He gave a false name to the police in an attempt to conceal his identity.

As most of us know this is not the case, as "Cross" was not a "false name" as his mother married a man called Cross. We know that his name was recorded in a census as "Charles Cross". We know he didn't give a false address. We know he gave the name of his employer. We know he gave his true occupation. Thus, we can surmise that he didn't make a particularly strenuous effort to conceal his identity. In fact, if take this "false name" foolishness out of the equation, we might say he made NO effort to conceal his identity.

Beyond this, all we can do is speculate about this "false name". For instance, we can speculate that he simply liked the name "Cross" better than he liked "Lechmere". I like it better. If I had my druthers, I'd like to be called "Cross", wouldn't you? Sounds strong and Anglo, right? CROSS! Perhaps he felt "Lechmere" sounded too "foreign". Perhaps he had been called "Cross" since his boyhood, thus he simply went by that name. We can speculate that he just didn't want get involved (though that's tough one in that he showed up at the inquest of his own accord but we'll get to that later) OR....we can speculate that he used the name "Cross" because he was Jack the Ripper (among other killers we may or may not know) and wanted to avoid detection as such.........

But then we have to ask.........

Why didn't he just WALK away? I use the word 'walk' deliberately because many like to speculate that he could not have RUN AWAY as there were police all over the place (though that didn't stop Nichols from being approached, murdered, and mutilated)! So, let's again talk about what we KNOW. We know it was so dark in Buck's Row that Robert Paul (who as far as I know is not currently accused of being Jack the Ripper) stood close to Nichols' body and could not see her wounds, any blood, etc. We know also that Paul entered Buck's Row from a distance that made his presence known to Lechmere before he himself saw either Lechmere or Nichols' body (40 yards is the most common estimate). So, why run? Why not just walk away, and disappear into the darkness. Ah! But he felt the best way "out" after having murdered Nichols was to pull this elaborate ruse. To pretend to have just found her rather than having just, you know, killed her.........

But then we have to ask..........

If Paul tried to walk by Lechmere (as Paul stated), why did Lechmere approach him (with the murder weapon hidden on his person), TOUCH him with the very hands he'd supposedly just used to nearly decapitate and dissect Nichols and ask him to "Come see this woman!"? The purpose of this "ruse" is to get away, correct? That's why he gave this "false name", right? Let's not loose sight of that fact this his AIM is escape! If he were the killer, his goal is ESCAPE! So, he forces a man who is trying to get by him to pay attention to him, and then invites him to come see the dead woman, his victim! But the goal - let's not forget - is escape! So then what does he do? He goes with the man to the body. This has taken an odd turn, don't you think? Still, this is a small matter, right? Clearly he's willing to kill. So, if things get dicey, he could just kill Paul and make a run for it. So, now what? They agree to continue on to work (Lechmere, murder weapon in tow). Together........

But then we have to ask.........

Why didn't Cross the Ripper take his leave then and there? He knew which direction Paul had come from. He knew that Paul had no idea which direction he (Cross) was headed. Why now simply say he worked in the direction from which Paul had come and say, "I'll find a copper this way. You try to find one that way! HURRY MAN! You yourself said she may be alive!"? Well, he didn't do that. He went with Paul (murder weapon and all). And at no point did he try to leave Paul. He stayed with him until he found a PC, Mizen, in Baker's Row. Now we come to the notorious "Mizen Scam"! I don't want to spend too much time on this because it's been debunked thoroughly and repeated on these pages. Let's just say that Paul (who as best I can tell STILL is not considered to be Jack the Ripper, or Jack's accomplice, or his best friend) tells us that Mizen, for lack of a better term, blew them off. The men told them they'd found a woman, told him she was likely dead, and Mizen 'continued calling people up' and didn't say whether he would go or not. Paul (not Jack the Ripper, still, right?) thought this a "great shame"? Okay. Okay....... Alas, Mizen himself admits he let the men go unsearched, unquestioned (one had the murder weapon ON him, according to the "theory"). He does not ask names. He let's then go on their way to work. And they do. But, Paul (still not a "suspect"?) gives an interview on his way home from work that very day. And he tells, essentially, the tale we see above. He paints Mizen's response in an unflattering light. If I am Mizen, I'm embarrassed. If I'm the Met brass, I'm angry...and embarrassed. Yet, "Lechemre" is.....not named. He's not described. In fact, he's relegated to a bit player with barely a cameo in Paul's story. Okay. I would think that if he'd killed Nichols he'd say, "You did it, Chuck! This guy wants the spotlight! Let him have it! You bluffed your way out! The "Mizen Scam" was an astounding success! No one knows who you are! If they come looking for you, bluff some more. But, for now.....LAY LOW! Well done!" But, that's not what Chuck did, is it...........

So then we have to ask.........

Why did Lechmere show up at the inquest? Paul's BOMBSHELL in Lloyd's that doesn't name Cross, doesn't call him a carman, tall, short, fat, skinny, bearded, not bearded, black, white, Asian, a pygmy...just a man. Yet it FORCES (?) him from hiding.....72 hours after the murder, to come and tell his tale? I'd like to pause her to remind the reader that his goal (if he killed Nichols).....was ESCAPE...which he achieved. Now, at the inquest - if we can get beyond why he's there in the first place - one might safely assume his goal might be to avoid suspicion. So what does he do? Shows up at the inquest of his own volition and contradicts a policeman, Mizen, who stated that he (Lechmere) told him a woman (not dead) was in Buck's Row where another PC was awaiting him (which was not true). Paul doesn't corroborate Mizen. Lechmere didn't even have to BE there....but this, folks, is the "Mizen Scam". And the very heart of the "Cross the Ripper" phenomenon.

And then Charles Allen Lechmere disappears. At least, he disappears as far as Jack the Ripper and the Torso Killer (he was him too, right?) is concerned. We know he continued on at Pickfords. We know he raised his ten children (one died as an infant). We know he moved up the socio-economic ladder. We know he opened a shop. We know he left a tidy sum to his wife of more than 50 years when he died past his 70th year. Of course, there is much we DO NOT know. For instance, we don't know if he was ever arrested. We DO know there is no record of that. We don't know if he was ever - in his life - a violent man. We DO know there is no evidence suggesting he was. You know, it's same old story we see with SO many "serialists". Stable employment records. Nearly a dozen kids. No criminal record. 50 year marriages. Small business owners. Dying in their beds at advanced ages, never suspected in their lifetimes of their, what, dozens, HUNDREDS of murders?

Yeah. Same old story.

[MsWeatherwax]

If she was dead after the strangulation (which, according to some medical reports can take as long as 6-10 minutes to kill someone that way) there was no reason to cut her throat.

Columbo

If you believe that more than one of the victims was killed or rendered unconscious by strangulation, then there was no need to cut any of their throats - yet this still happened in every case (assuming that you believe that there is an 'every case). Under the circumstances, it could be argued that strangulation was a purely utilitarian technique to prevent a struggle during the killers real objective, which was to mutilate.

All hypothetical of course, and I'm no expert either.

[Abby Normal]

If you believe that more than one of the victims was killed or rendered unconscious by strangulation, then there was no need to cut any of their throats - yet this still happened in every case (assuming that you believe that there is an 'every case). Under the circumstances, it could be argued that strangulation was a purely utilitarian technique to prevent a struggle during the killers real objective, which was to mutilate.

All hypothetical of course, and I'm no expert either.

HI Ms and columbo

I would posit the ripper strangled first to render the victim unconscious, then cut the throat to make sure they were dead and to bleed the victim, so when he started the mutilation there would be less spray/blood spurting.

If he strangles to death, it also means less spray when he cut the throat.

IMHO since I believe Tabram was a ripper victim, he hadn't refined this technique yet and her killing was a bit more messy and problematic for him to achieve his true aim-mutilation and removal of internal organs.

[Columbo]

If you believe that more than one of the victims was killed or rendered unconscious by strangulation, then there was no need to cut any of their throats - yet this still happened in every case (assuming that you believe that there is an 'every case). Under the circumstances, it could be argued that strangulation was a purely utilitarian technique to prevent a struggle during the killers real objective, which was to mutilate.

All hypothetical of course, and I'm no expert either.

True and I believe the cutting of the throat was to cause death while throttling the victim was to get her under control. It also caused the heart to quit pumping which in turn decreased the chance of an artery spraying JTR with blood.

As far as I can tell Nichols was the only victim a doctor said the mutilations were first. I don't know if that's correct, but it's possible although I think only slightly.

Columbo