Lechmere The Psychopath

[Elamarna]

Steve, I've just finished reading through part one. A great piece of research and a very exhaustive approach. You've pulled all the strands together and given reasonable, workable high and low estimates.

That map, with the overlay is brilliant. I wouldn't mind having that as an icon on my desktop for regular access. I clicked on the 'request desktop site' thing, as I though that might do it. Nothing happened though. Is there an easy way of access to the facility?

Anyway, great work. I look forward to part 2

Regards
Herlock

Thanks Herlock. As said if the protect had been a books parts 1 and to a lesser extent part 2 would be appendices. However my aim has always been to get other to respond to the threads and to incorporate this into the final part 3. However I have already reached conclusions on some areas.

With regards to the map. On Linux and Windows just save it as a favourite or bookmark.

On an android machine it depends on which Brower you use. I use Firefox open the page go to the 3 dot context menu top right, click on Page then add to home screen this gives you a link direct to the map on said home screen.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Herlock. As said if the protect had been a books parts 1 and to a lesser extent part 2 would be appendices. However my aim has always been to get other to respond to the threads and to incorporate this into the final part 3. However I have already reached conclusions on some areas.

With regards to the map. On Linux and Windows just save it as a favourite or bookmark.

On an android machine it depends on which Brower you use. I use Firefox open the page go to the 3 dot context menu top right, click on Page then add to home screen this gives you a link direct to the map on said home screen.

Steve

Conclusions that I agree with Steve. Youve gone into great detail. I'd simplify my own views as
a) if Lechmere actually set out to kill, he allowed himself nowhere near a 'reasonable' amount of time ( to find a victim, find a spot, do the deed, clean up or at least check himself over for blood and then get to work)
b) I still don't think that the killer would have pointlessly 'brazened it out' rather than simply have walked away.
c) I don't see a serial murderer killing on the way to work (too many issues) I wonder if there are any examples of organised serial killers killing on the way to work?
d) nothing about the 'Mizen scam' convinces me that anything suspicious went on.
e) I see nothing suspicious about the 'name' thing. Especially after reading David Orsam's work on it.
f) with the timings that you've shown, the 'blood issue' is a non issue.

Just my view but it would take some major new evidence to alter it.

I managed to bookmark the map. Really useful, especially when you on-the-ball researchers keep chucking out routes and scenarios! I'm so rusty on the minutiae that I have to keep saying to myself things like 'where was Thain again?' or 'where was 'so and so Street' in relation to....?'

Regards
Herlock

[RareEarther]

Conclusions that I agree with Steve. Youve gone into great detail. I'd simplify my own views as
a) if Lechmere actually set out to kill, he allowed himself nowhere near a 'reasonable' amount of time ( to find a victim, find a spot, do the deed, clean up or at least check himself over for blood and then get to work)
b) I still don't think that the killer would have pointlessly 'brazened it out' rather than simply have walked away.
c) I don't see a serial murderer killing on the way to work (too many issues) I wonder if there are any examples of organised serial killers killing on the way to work?
d) nothing about the 'Mizen scam' convinces me that anything suspicious went on.
e) I see nothing suspicious about the 'name' thing. Especially after reading David Orsam's work on it.
f) with the timings that you've shown, the 'blood issue' is a non issue.

Just my view but it would take some major new evidence to alter it.

I managed to bookmark the map. Really useful, especially when you on-the-ball researchers keep chucking out routes and scenarios! I'm so rusty on the minutiae that I have to keep saying to myself things like 'where was Thain again?' or 'where was 'so and so Street' in relation to....?'

Regards
Herlock

Hello,

I beg to differ on all counts.

I believe Lechmere did it.

From a policeman's view Lechmere is the only candidate who has a case to answer.

a) Whomever did the killings was supremely angry, skillful, quick and opportunistic.
b) Perhaps he knew exactly where the Bobbies were. I think I might if I were a homicidal killer.
c)You can't see it? I can.
d)The "Mizen scam" holds up if the killer knew the aproximate whereabouts of the Bobbies on their rounds as any serial killer worth his salt should do.
e)The use of the "Cross" name is suspicious especially as he gave his address as 22 Doveton St where he was known as Lechmere. It is highly suspicious.
f) The seperate & differing blood descriptions are highly significant and can't be dismissed easily, just like most of your assertions above.

Lechmere has been outed & come to light because the internet age has indexed all the pertinent records for us to be able examine at our modern leisure.

Anybody who doesn't believe that Lechmere isn't Jack the Ripper has a book to sell or has invested millions in advancing their theory and therefor has a dog in the race.

It was the age old question, who,
on judgement day, will stand up and say,
I was Jack the Ripper?

It will be Charles Allen Lechmere
not Cross.

[Varqm]

No, you can't be alleging that Mizen was remiss in his duties. Like you say, he only failed to take down the details of the two witnesses and continued knocking up while his presence was required elsewhere. Obviously, poor PC Mizen was yet another victim to the fiendish machinations of the sinister Lechmere!

Yes the Mizen scam.To be fair/clear Mizen was incompetent or the procedures were not in place as it should have been,possibly as it was the 1st murder in the series.But it does not matter,when it came to getting to the bottom of things,it was the police's job.
They should have frisked Lechmere,if it was the 5th murder they would have.It would have been the the best and only opportunity for Lechmere to prove he was clean and not carrying a weapon and for the police to find if he was the killer.But the police failed,in the end,regulations or not,it was their job to frisk not the witness volunteering.The police denied Lechmere the chance.This was not or can't be right.The rest of these arguments,including timing - which was not thouroughly questioned/worked through in the inquest (Lechmere found out it was 3:30 AM as he was leaving his door?,based on a clock/his watch?,innacurate or not, or from the church?),understandably,are near irrelevant.
It would take a "scientific evidence" to overturn the police failure.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello,

I beg to differ on all counts.

I believe Lechmere did it.

From a policeman's view Lechmere is the only candidate who has a case to answer.

a) Whomever did the killings was supremely angry, skillful, quick and opportunistic.
b) Perhaps he knew exactly where the Bobbies were. I think I might if I were a homicidal killer.
c)You can't see it? I can.
d)The "Mizen scam" holds up if the killer knew the aproximate whereabouts of the Bobbies on their rounds as any serial killer worth his salt should do.
e)The use of the "Cross" name is suspicious especially as he gave his address as 22 Doveton St where he was known as Lechmere. It is highly suspicious.
f) The seperate & differing blood descriptions are highly significant and can't be dismissed easily, just like most of your assertions above.

Lechmere has been outed & come to light because the internet age has indexed all the pertinent records for us to be able examine at our modern leisure.

Anybody who doesn't believe that Lechmere isn't Jack the Ripper has a book to sell or has invested millions in advancing their theory and therefor has a dog in the race.

It was the age old question, who,
on judgement day, will stand up and say,
I was Jack the Ripper?

It will be Charles Allen Lechmere
not Cross.

I have no book to sell. I don't have millions or anywhere near. I have no suspect to promote. So I'd say that was a pretty strange accusation. I suppose that the man who actually will have book to promote has no 'dog in the race' either?

a) so we know that those characteristics apply to Lechmere then?

b) perhaps....... maybe he went onto the Metropolitan Police Website and looked up all the beats! Just saying 'that's what I would do if I were a homicidal killer,' is hardly a point for 'team Lechmere.'

c) sorry, you'll have to explain 'it' if I can't see what you can.

d) the Mizen scam holds up 'if' ...... we suspend belief enough to accept that actions occurred for which there's not a shred of proof apart from semantic sleight of hand.

e) this is not suspicious. Read David Orsam's posts on the subject. The practice was pretty widespread. Let's face it, if he'd have disappeared you might have a point, but he didn't. He turned up at the inquest and lived a long life. It would have been suspicious if he'd have called himself Fred Smith, but he didn't.

f) the blood evidence (although I haven't looked into this deeply) appears to be totally inconclusive and therefore worthless.

One of the problems with framing Lechmere as the killer is that the pro-Lechmere camp have to work too hard to do it.

Lechmere has been 'outed' principally for the same reason that many others have been 'outed.' Because he was there at the time. Then what does the digging find? Lechmere wasn't his real name! That's it.

Now, as anyone who doesn't believe in Lechmere as the killer would say, we cannot categorically disprove him. But there are very few that we can with certainty. Even Christer would not say that Lechmere was definately the killer. Yet you seem to feel that it's case closed. That level of confidence on such flimsy and largely non-existant evidence should cause you concern. But it doesn't appear to.

There is evidence against Lechmere. He stands convicted. Of being a bloke who found a body, reported it to the police and then went to work. Hang him!

Herlock

[GUT]

Yes the Mizen scam.To be fair/clear Mizen was incompetent or the procedures were not in place as it should have been,possibly as it was the 1st murder in the series.But it does not matter,when it came to getting to the bottom of things,it was the police's job.
They should have frisked Lechmere,if it was the 5th murder they would have.It would have been the the best and only opportunity for Lechmere to prove he was clean and not carrying a weapon and for the police to find if he was the killer.But the police failed,in the end,regulations or not,it was their job to frisk not the witness volunteering.The police denied Lechmere the chance.This was not or can't be right.The rest of these arguments,including timing - which was not thouroughly questioned/worked through in the inquest (Lechmere found out it was 3:30 AM as he was leaving his door?,based on a clock/his watch?,innacurate or not, or from the church?),understandably,are near irrelevant.
It would take a "scientific evidence" to overturn the police failure.

But it wasn't considered to be the first murder in the series at the time. Then it was considered to be about the third in most press reports and seemingly in the police files.

[Bridewell]

The idea of you being able to see things from two angles does not work for me and never has.

Fish, in your original Rip article you were at pains to 'see things from two angles' yourself and gave a scenario in which Mizen, not Lechmere was the problem. It seems that now, however, you have moved away from that position to the extent that Mizen is above reproach.

Whenever I explain why Mizen might have been lying to cover his own back you contend that Mizen had a good track record as a policeman, which he did. Yet Charles Allen Lechmere had a good record at Pickfords didn't he? Why is that not evidence of his good character? Yes, if her was a serial killer Lechmere might have tried to bluff his way past Paul; he might have sought out a policeman in order to bluff his way past him too. He might then have turned up at the inquest and gone for three in a row. But is it not more likely that he would simply have gone round the corner onto Winthrop Street and got clean away - and more likely still that he just wasn't a serial killer at all?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who needs the Mizen Scam?

Fish, in your original Rip article you were at pains to 'see things from two angles' yourself and gave a scenario in which Mizen, not Lechmere was the problem. It seems that now, however, you have moved away from that position to the extent that Mizen is above reproach.

Whenever I explain why Mizen might have been lying to cover his own back you contend that Mizen had a good track record as a policeman, which he did. Yet Charles Allen Lechmere had a good record at Pickfords didn't he? Why is that not evidence of his good character? Yes, if her was a serial killer Lechmere might have tried to bluff his way past Paul; he might have sought out a policeman in order to bluff his way past him too. He might then have turned up at the inquest and gone for three in a row. But is it not more likely that he would simply have gone round the corner onto Winthrop Street and got clean away - and more likely still that he just wasn't a serial killer at all?

This is a telling point!

If Lechmere the killer wanted to 'disengage' himself from Paul what could have been simpler than to have just said to him: look, we'll have more luck finding a copper if we split up. You go that way and I'll go this.' So they split up. Any policeman that Lechmere sees he just passes by with no suspicion. He just takes a different route to work. All he'd want to avoid is bumping into Paul again which would have been no problem. No need to have to try and speak to a policeman on the quiet with Paul standing nearby. Simple. Obvious. But he didn't.
So much for the devious killer if he couldn't spot that simple plan!

Regards
Herlock

[Mike J. G.]

Hello,

I beg to differ on all counts.

I believe Lechmere did it.

From a policeman's view Lechmere is the only candidate who has a case to answer.

a) Whomever did the killings was supremely angry, skillful, quick and opportunistic.
b) Perhaps he knew exactly where the Bobbies were. I think I might if I were a homicidal killer.
c)You can't see it? I can.
d)The "Mizen scam" holds up if the killer knew the aproximate whereabouts of the Bobbies on their rounds as any serial killer worth his salt should do.
e)The use of the "Cross" name is suspicious especially as he gave his address as 22 Doveton St where he was known as Lechmere. It is highly suspicious.
f) The seperate & differing blood descriptions are highly significant and can't be dismissed easily, just like most of your assertions above.

Lechmere has been outed & come to light because the internet age has indexed all the pertinent records for us to be able examine at our modern leisure.

Anybody who doesn't believe that Lechmere isn't Jack the Ripper has a book to sell or has invested millions in advancing their theory and therefor has a dog in the race.

It was the age old question, who,
on judgement day, will stand up and say,
I was Jack the Ripper?

It will be Charles Allen Lechmere
not Cross.

Well, I neither have a "dog in the race," nor do I have a book to sell. I for one am not convinced by the so-called "Mizen Scam" and that was the first thing that struck me as nonsensical when I watched the documentary. Imho, Lechmere is only worth mentioning as a possible candidate for Nichols, and simply because he was there when she was found. With no real idea of what time she was killed, Lechmere could've been late to the scene, who really knows? Nobody does for sure.

To brazenly state that JtR was Lech is a bit silly, imo. There's just not enough actual evidence beyond suggestive reasoning and far-reaching explanations. Actual evidence is the only thing that will solve this case, not what a person feels in their belly when looking at a picture of Lech.

I enjoyed the documentary for several reasons, but as with all of the others, I wasn't convinced. I have no suspect.

[Rainbow]

Further, I suggest that Lechmere's reaction was almost identical the reaction Diemshutz had upon finding Stride in Dutfield's Yard. He struck a match and it was blown out. But he saw enough by it's light to determine that a woman was lying there. What did he do? Did be begin screaming for help? Of course not. He went to the club and told his wife and others what he'd found. And guess what he told them specifically? That he found a woman lying in the yard but he could not tell if she was "dead or drunk". Sound familiar?

The two reactions were NOT the same, even if you cried to make them so..

Whereas Diemshutz went himself and told his wife and the others about what he found there , Paul was hurrying to the scene of the murder when he spoted Lechmere standing where the still bleeding woman was.

That makes all the difference between the two cases, even if you cried making them the same.


Rainbow°

[GUT]

The two reactions were NOT the same, even if you cried to make them so..

Whereas Diemshutz went himself and told his wife and the others about what he found there , Paul was hurrying to the scene of the murder when he spoted Lechmere standing where the still bleeding woman was.

That makes all the difference between the two cases, even if you cried making them the same.


Rainbow°

Yep and when Paul tried to walk on bye our intrepid killer stopped him.

Sure....

[Rainbow]

This is a telling point!

If Lechmere the killer wanted to 'disengage' himself from Paul what could have been simpler than to have just said to him: look, we'll have more luck finding a copper if we split up. You go that way and I'll go this.' So they split up. Any policeman that Lechmere sees he just passes by with no suspicion. He just takes a different route to work. All he'd want to avoid is bumping into Paul again which would have been no problem. No need to have to try and speak to a policeman on the quiet with Paul standing nearby. Simple. Obvious. But he didn't.
So much for the devious killer if he couldn't spot that simple plan!

That is not a simple plan, that is a stupid plan.

He didn't run away at first place because he wanted everything to be under his control..

I will explain further, if they split up and Paul went on another way and found a policeman, what will Paul say ? he will say, I was hurrying to my work when I spoted a man standing where the woman was.. this man had told me that he will try to find a policeman too and vanished away

the policeman : do you know this man?

Paul: no, but I can recognise him again.

Do you see now how it will be a stupid plan, he will have completely no control on the situation . but more, he will turn in one second to the first police's suspect.


Rainbow°

[Elamarna]

Hello,

I beg to differ on all counts.

I believe Lechmere did it.

From a policeman's view Lechmere is the only candidate who has a case to answer.

Apparently not according to the senior officers involved, or those after.


a) Whomever did the killings was supremely angry, skillful, quick and opportunistic.

The first two points are guess work on your behalf the second two are probably true.


b) Perhaps he knew exactly where the Bobbies were. I think I might if I were a homicidal killer.

Given you are not a homicidal killer it's really impossible to speculate how one would think. In addition the last point in a) argues against such planning. And of course there is no evidence to suggest that Lechmere knew the police routes is there?


c)You can't see it? I can.

Each is entitled to their view.


d)The "Mizen scam" holds up if the killer knew the aproximate whereabouts of the Bobbies on their rounds as any serial killer worth his salt should do.

Again assumptions on what a serial killer would know and how one would be thinking.
Even if he knew the police routes that is a very tenuous link to say it supports the Mizen scam.

e)The use of the "Cross" name is suspicious especially as he gave his address as 22 Doveton St where he was known as Lechmere. It is highly suspicious.

No it's not. He gave a name which he had previously been legally recorded under. The use of his real address is anything but suspicious. Any other address could have been used and would have hidden his identity if that was the true objective.


f) The seperate & differing blood descriptions are highly significant and can't be dismissed easily, just like most of your assertions above.

Actually they can if one looks at them in detail and then applies medical science to test the suggestions.

Lechmere has been outed & come to light because the internet age has indexed all the pertinent records for us to be able examine at our modern leisure.

Many of the records which have been produced have not been digitised as far as I know. However I am sure Fisherman could give a far more autoritive answer on that.

Anybody who doesn't believe that Lechmere isn't Jack the Ripper has a book to sell or has invested millions in advancing their theory and therefor has a dog in the race.


Well I have no book. Have in invested no more than my internet subs each month.
That comment really is completely unsupported and demonstrates a degree of certainty that is certainly not supported by the sources.


It was the age old question, who,
on judgement day, will stand up and say,
I was Jack the Ripper?

It will be Charles Allen Lechmere
not Cross.

It could be, just as it could be Kosminski or Bury or Tumblety or someone else.

Steve

[Mike J. G.]

That is not a simple plan, that is a stupid plan.

He didn't run away at first place because he wanted everything to be under his control..

I will explain further, if they split up and Paul went on another way and found a policeman, what will Paul say ? he will say, I was hurrying to my work when I spoted a man standing where the woman was.. this man had told me that he will try to find a policeman too and vanished away

the policeman : do you know this man?

Paul: no, but I can recognise him again.

Do you see now how it will be a stupid plan, he will have completely no control on the situation . but more, he will turn in one second to the first police's suspect.


Rainbow°

A stupid plan is the one we're expected to believe; that Lech accompanied Paul to Mizen and within earshot talked a load of nonsense that Paul could've easily found strange and chimed in.

All of this "control" business is very overused. Lech is essentially a sorry sod caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and likely regretted ever stopping by the body at all.

[Mike J. G.]

At the end of the day, in reality, when a criminal is trying to avoid suspicion, he doesn't give his real bloody address, lol. Let's be real here, lads.

This Lechmere stuff hasn't half started to take the biscuit. It requires Maybrickesque mental gymnastics just to make the pieces fit.

He gave a different name.

Well, no, he gave another one of his actual names which could easily be traced back to him, not only that but he gave his actual address. Maybe this "in-control" killer, who was so attentive to the beats of the Bobbies and so skilled with a knife, was actually rather soft in the head and assumed that if the police came a'knocking, all he'd have to say is nah, mate, I'm Lechmere, Cross doesn't live here," and then the police would scratch their heads and think "seems legit."

Hardly a foolproof plan, and lacking in the supposed careful consideration we're expected to believe this man gave to everything.