Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
A few schoolboy errors amongst the mockney rhyming slang.
First how did they find him at his work when they didn't know where that was.
Second it is unlikely he usually used the Hanbury Street route as it is longer but in any case the murder was in Bethnal Green's patch and Hanbury Street was in Whitechapel's patch.
Third there is no basis for suggesting Paul gave a second interview on the Saturday. I don't know where you got that from.
Forth why would the police be satisfied with Paul's press interview and so not want him as a witness? Paul's press interview did not feature in the inquest as it shouldn't.

[moonbegger]

A couple of interesting newspaper reports on Subpoena's and fee's ..

There is great indignation at the East-end over the shabby treatment of witnesses. On their summonses was printed in red letters across the subpoena:

N.B. - Bring this summons with you. All fees and expenses are required by the Act of Vic., cap. 68. sec. 1, to be advanced and paid by the coroner immediately after the termination of the inquest to such witnesses as the coroner may think fit to allow.

Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd's, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days, and he had to pay a man 5s. each day to do his work, or he would have lost his place. At the close of the inquest he got two shillings, being a shilling for each day. John Richardson lost four days' work, and he was paid for three days one shilling each day.

[moonbegger]

Lechmere ,

There is no basis for suggesting Paul gave a second interview on the Saturday. I don't know where you got that from.

Oh really Lech !! Try having a read of this , it is pretty much self explanatory

Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police.

Your 1st and 2nd point is irrelevant .. it doesn't matter where they come across him .. We know they did ! He was marched to the cop shop and then to the inquest ( in his work clothes )

it is unlikely he usually used the Hanbury Street route as it is longer

Holy Cow ! i thought that was one of of [team Lechmere's] Fundamental strongholds and points as to his guilt and why he should have been suspected back then. because "all the victims were killed along his route to work" So now all of a sudden , he never used Hanbury street after all ?

And what of them schoolboy errors ???

cheers

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

I also find it interesting that Paul was also summoned to attend the 4th day of the inquest on the 22nd ..

He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days, and he had to pay a man 5s. each day to do his work, or he would have lost his place. At the close of the inquest he got two shillings, being a shilling for each day.

cheers

moonbegger

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar my dear fellow
It clearly isn't irrelevant how they found him as there is zero proof or indication that they did find him.
I would suggest the Hanbury street route wasn't his normal route but he chose to go with Paul that way after leaving mizen - a small indicator of guilt for reasons which I don't repeat yet again - and where he chose to commit his next crime to incriminate Paul. Have you forgotten this so soon?
You have hot hopelessly confused just when I thought you had begun to see the light.

I must admit I haven't seen that report you quoted - can you provide a reference? It may well be of interest. ( the one where he repeated his story if the evening before)

[moonbegger]

That's your story and your sticking to it

It was Lloyds front page on the 2nd ( halfway down )

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Frank:

" The case evidence supports the notion of a compulsive killer who wasn’t much of a planner, but who was still eager enough not to get caught, who (probably with a good deal of luck) managed to get away on a number of occasions without attracting any attention. "

It can certainly be read that way. But the case evidence also suggest that he - for example - used the opportunities offered by the timings of the policemens´beats, Frank. And that sounds like planning to my ears. Could´ve been luck, of course, but like Ingemar Stenmark, the Swedish alpine skier put it: The more I train, the luckier I seem to get.

"The bottom line is, though, that you have to account for why he let Paul approach him, whether that be the ‘bubble’ or him liking the challenge, or just the jolly of bluffing; you suppose or add just the same as the ones who don’t necessarily see anything sinister in Cross’s actions (or lack thereof)."

He heard Paul from 30-40 yards, or so he said. That is not supposition, it´s inquest testimony. Neil heard Thain from 150 yards - same thing, testimony. There is a built in anomaly here. That is nothing I perceive by adding anything. And that´s what I am talking about. It´s much like the timings - they MAY have been off, but as it stands, the time seems to be there for him to kill. No addition, all accounted for in the inquest details.

"Since it’s a very reasonable thing to suggest, Christer, and since your whole theory is based on this very premise, we can go back to what I wrote: that for a killer who sets out to kill out in the open, the most logical and basic thing to do would be to keep an eye and ear out for his surroundings while committing his crime."

Yes, that is true. But it is also true that not all things go down according to the logic one would wish for. We must leave room for this, I think. And I don´t think suggesting some sort of bubble is in any way illogical. This was the first time he got to cut open a womans´abdomen, he clearly WANTED to cut up a womans abdomen, or so it would seem from what was to follow. If this had been a phantasy that had preooccupied him for the longest time, then I don´t think that all his senses were on the alert for any disturbances. It may well have been like some sort of weird sex to him, as I think you will agree - an act of sex about which he could have dreamt and become obsessed by for a long period of time. Would it be strange if he focused totally, more or less, on that?

"In fact, I think that’s basic stuff for any criminal who commits his crime outdoors and who is well aware that he’s doing something he shouldn’t. "

If he stole silverware, then it would be another thing. He would not have something that had grown from within him invested in such a thing. I trust you can see the difference!

"I would think it more logical for him to keep an eye and ear on both sides of the street; someone could come out of one of the houses, a night watchman could surface from Brown & Eagle, or, what actually happened, someone could turn into Buck's Row from Brady Street."

Brady Street offered him 150 yards. Winthrop Street offered, what, thirty? Just saying.

"A yard sounds pretty good to me. Or even two. Five? Disputable. Twenty? Nah."

I was in Barcelona last year, in company with (or accompanied by) my wife. I can assure you that we were a lot more than twenty yards away from each other at times, Frank. There is no way we can offer any credible upper limit here. Once Mizen had decided they were travelling together, he could say that Lechmere was in company with Paul, no matter how far apart they were physically. No five yard limit there!

"The text doesn’t rule out either that another man, a whole bunch of them or even an elephant for that matter, passed while they were speaking together, Fish, but is there reason to think that this occurred? "

Nope - but there is excellent reason to think the two were divided as Lechmere spoke to Mizen.

"The Times of 4 September and the Walthamstow & Leyton Guardian of the 8th are also very clear (and even clearer than the Echo version, if you ask me): “When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street.” This clearly suggests that Cross and Paul only continued down Hanbury Street after they had finished their short conversation with Mizen."

Says not a iota about the distance inbetween the men, as you will realize. And says just as little about whether they went down Hanbury Street arm in arm or not. And that´s final, I´m afraid.

I see the temptation to read it as if the two were intertwined all along, but this need not have been so, as I have already explained. Ponder this:

When Wyatt Earp Started firing in O K Corall, he was accompanied by his friends.

Does that say how close they were, geographically?

When they had won the shoot-out, they all went to the saloon.

Does that say that they did so in close contact? Or could they have arrived one by one?

"Besides, reading all the different versions of Mizen’s inquest testimony the picture emerges of a quick affair. Mizen was in the middle of knocking people up when Cross and Paul came around the corner. Cross addressed Mizen, a few sentences were spoken between them with possibly an addition from Paul and they were on their way again, while Mizen finished knocking up at one house. It was over before Cross could say "You walk on ahead and I'll notify the PC" and wait for the gap to have grown to 20 yards or so."


And you are sure of this? There is no chance that Lechmere can have told Paul this as they were approaching Mizen, say, twenty yards before? Paul says "Okay", and walks straight on, Lechmere takes a turn and steps onto the pavement "Excuse me, constable, but ...", swops two sentences or three with the PC, and steps off the pavement, quickens his step and catches up with Paul. All over in fifteen seconds or so.

Is that impossible? I totally fail to see how it could be.

"I do see what you mean and where you're coming from, but just like the ‘bubble bid’, I don’t think this a particularly strong point."

That´s your prerogative. I´m just happy we see eye to eye on point one here.

"What I’m suggesting is that if the pulling down of the skirts wasn’t done by Cross, then the Ripper, when hearing Cross approach from Brady Street some 100 yards away, may very well have done it to buy himself some extra time to get away before it was discovered what exactly was the matter with this woman lying there."

I know, Frank. But I think that it would have been nigh on impossible for the killer to leave unnoticed once Lechmere had come into the street. He says as much himself: "Witness did not hear any sounds of a vehicle, and believed that had any one left the body after he got into Buck's-row he must have heard him." And that means that he believed he would have heard anybody leaving all the way from Brady Street. The street was dead silent, apparently, and shoes would sound from a very long way, as witnessed about by Neil.
Incidentally, why do you think that Lechmere asserted that nobody could have sneaked out without his hearing it from 150 yards away - when he did not himself hear a man rushing down the street until he was 30-40 yards off...?
Lechmere´s story is full of holes and inconsistencies. But I think we can rely on Neil and accept that what Lechmere suggested was true. And if the killer DID hear Lechmere from 150 yards and took off unnoticed, then why would he spend some seconds hiding the abdominal wounds? He could never bank on the newcomer not seeing the cut to the throat instantly, could he?
So no, I am not buying the theory with Lechmere disturbing the killer. To my simple mind, the more logical explanation is that the clothes were pulled down since the killer was still in place when Paul arrived.

My regards, Frank!
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

I was in Barcelona last year, in company with (or accompanied by) my wife. I can assure you that we were a lot more than twenty yards away from each other at times, Frank. There is no way we can offer any credible upper limit here. Once Mizen had decided they were travelling together, he could say that Lechmere was in company with Paul, no matter how far apart they were physically. No five yard limit there!

Gawdalmighty Christer...whenever I get more than 5 yards from my wife I count it an enormous victory! Sadly she counts it as an enormous relief (which is probably nearer the truth)...So what did you expect to prove with this earth-shattering statement? Certainly nothing to do with Cross/Lechmere...

I say again Gawdalmighty...

Every good wish

Dave

[Lechmere]

LLOYD'S WEEKLY NEWSPAPER SUNDAY, SEPT. 2, 1888.
SPECIAL SUNDAY EDITION,
CONTAINING
ALL YESTERDAY NEWS.
LLOYD'S WEEKLY NEWSPAPER OFFICE,
SUNDAY MORNING.
On Page 1
Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Every word he had said was true.
On Page 7
On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.

The policeman referred to was PC Neil who stated that he found Polly's body at the first day of the inquest held on Saturday, 1st September. Paul clearly conducted a second interview on the evening of Saturday, 1st September - after the first day of the inquest. He repeated the same story that he had given on the evening of Friday, 31st August - the very day of the murder. This was after the appearance of various initial newspaper accounts but obviously before any account of the inquest had appeared.
The accounts were printed on Sunday morning in Lloyds Weekly Register - giving Charles Lechmere all day to digest them (I mistakenly thought it was an evening paper I must confess)
It seems likely that Paul bumped into reporters while on his way home from work, on both Friday and Saturday evening - probably in the vicinity of Bucks Row.
Two things
(1) Paul stuck to his story - i.e. placing Charles Lechmere as 'standing where the woman was'.
(2) The reporter found Paul twice quite easily. Yet we are to believe the police could only find Charles Lechmere while he walked to work down Bucks Row?
Paul was self agrandising and talkative to the press - to big himself up. In front of authority he went all bashful and quiet and was anti police - and avoided the police. Hence Charles Lechmere was left to do the talking with Mizen.

[sleekviper]

I have thought about it, for a few hours, and it occurs to me that it must speak of a time closer to the Nichols murder when Paul is "fetched up" by the police. Competition is fierce to sell papers, Lloyd's is using that Friday night interview as a frame of reference in terms of the Sept.30, report. If they, or anyone, had said," Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police,following the murder of Annie Chapman, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing." WOW!!! Would we have a connection to two consecutive murders in the witness Paul? Well no, but it would be the truth, and it would have people buzzing to buy the only paper with a headline,"Witness in Nichols Murder Taken After Chapman Murder". Throw Paul to the wolves to sell papers? I think they would.

[Cogidubnus]

Sleekviper, in that (limited) context I think you may well be right!

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

Sleek
That doesnt really work - there were no wolves to throw him to.
The police had already cleared him.

[FrankO]

It can certainly be read that way. But the case evidence also suggest that he - for example - used the opportunities offered by the timings of the policemens´beats, Frank. And that sounds like planning to my ears.

I'd agree that he probably relied on the prostitutes’ knowledge of the beats, Fish, but he needn’t have had actual knowledge of the beats himself. That’s what I mean with him not having been much of a planner.

And I don´t think suggesting some sort of bubble is in any way illogical.

I didn’t say that suggesting the bubble was illogical, just that it isn’t the most logical solution as far as I'm concerned.

Would it be strange if he focused totally, more or less, on that?

Of course, nothing is impossible, but actually, to me, yes, it would be strange.

Brady Street offered him 150 yards. Winthrop Street offered, what, thirty? Just saying.

Brady Street offered some 130 yards. To the corner of the board school was about 40 yards. Just answering. Still, this doesn’t deflect from my point. How could he be sure that nobody would emerge from one of the houses, or from Brown & Eagle? Since he couldn’t, the best thing to do would be to keep an eye but certainly an ear out for that side, especially when he was facing the board school. I trust you can see that, Fish.

I was in Barcelona last year, in company with (or accompanied by) my wife. I can assure you that we were a lot more than twenty yards away from each other at times, Frank. There is no way we can offer any credible upper limit here. Once Mizen had decided they were travelling together, he could say that Lechmere was in company with Paul, no matter how far apart they were physically. No five yard limit there!

Although I fear we’re on the verge of the territory of semantics here - you’re right, it’s not impossible to be in someone’s company and still physically not be all that close together. But the context here is not that these 2 men were having a nice weekend together in Barcelona or that they were at a shoot-out with their friends and afterwards went to a saloon together.

The context here is that these men were late for work, found a woman who was quite possibly dead, after which the men agreed that the best course to pursue was to tell the first policeman they met, that they walked on until they met a PC at the corner of Old Montague Street, that they briefly spoke to Mizen and that afterwards they walked on together.

Why, in this context, would they not walk quite closely together all the way from Buck’s Row to the point where they parted? From the Times and the Walthamstow & Leyton Guardian it's clear that Paul didn’t walk ahead alone down Hanbury Street, and the fuss he made in his press interview over the fact that Mizen continued knocking people up also suggest that he was right there. Was he one yard away from Mizen and Cross? Was it two? Was it three? I don’t know, but, other than the meager evidence the Echo phrase provides, there’s no evidence to suggest he was so far away that he was out of earshot.

"... It was over before Cross could say "You walk on ahead and I'll notify the PC" and wait for the gap to have grown to 20 yards or so."

And you are sure of this?

That last remark of mine was tongue in cheek, Christer, just to add to the picture of how quick the affair was.

Is that impossible? I totally fail to see how it could be.

It’s not a question of whether it’s impossible or not, it’s about whether or not there’s reason to believe this, whether or not there's something unambiguous in the evidence pointing this way.

But I think that it would have been nigh on impossible for the killer to leave unnoticed once Lechmere had come into the street. He says as much himself: "Witness did not hear any sounds of a vehicle, and believed that had any one left the body after he got into Buck's-row he must have heard him." And that means that he believed he would have heard anybody leaving all the way from Brady Street. The street was dead silent, apparently, and shoes would sound from a very long way, as witnessed about by Neil.

In the case of Neil, Neil himself wasn’t actually walking the moment he heard Thain, giving him better opportunity to hear Thain. Furthermore, there's reason to believe that Neil would be alert when he discovered the woman’s throat was cut while blood was still oozing from the wound. On the other hand, Cross was walking himself, his own footsteps therefore quite possily masking those of the Ripper, Cross had no particular reason to listen for sounds and the Ripper need not have run away, he may very well have just walked away rather softly and to the beat of Cross's footsteps in order not to alarm Cross.

Incidentally, why do you think that Lechmere asserted that nobody could have sneaked out without his hearing it from 150 yards away - when he did not himself hear a man rushing down the street until he was 30-40 yards off...?

I really haven't got a clue, Fish. The one thing I do find odd is that he stated that he only heard Paul until he was 30-40 yards away from him. That’s why I wish he’d been questioned more thoroughly on this point.

Lechmere´s story is full of holes and inconsistencies.

Not just Lechmere’s. There’s a lot of holes, inconsistencies and errors throughout the whole Ripper case. It could be interesting to try & list them all.

He could never bank on the newcomer not seeing the cut to the throat instantly, could he?

Neither could Cross as killer. And seeing that Paul felt her face, knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, it seems that Cross didn't do anything to prevent her from getting near her throat.

So no, I am not buying the theory with Lechmere disturbing the killer. To my simple mind, the more logical explanation is that the clothes were pulled down since the killer was still in place when Paul arrived.

I wasn’t expecting you would and, of course, that’s your prerogative, my Swedish friend.

All the best, Fish!
Frank

[Lechmere]

Frank
If I may...
We can deduce from Paul's two press interviews (OK Moonbeggar, three, but the second was a duplication of the first apparently) that he was quite anti police. It is also fairly clear that Paul did not speak to Mizen. Hence it is not unreasonable to postulate that he did not stand too close while Charles Lechmere had his brief conversation with Mizen and accordingly may not have heard what was said.

On the bubble issue. I would suggest it is dangerous to set too exact a view of what sort of person the Ripper was. How thorough, how meticulous and so on. He could have been a good planner who tended to get absorbed in his 'work'., for example. Psychopathic serial killers are not like you and me (I hope), yet they are human and do display many of the same vagaries of personality that can be observed amongst normal people. If a suspect theory makes the Ripper behave in a manner which is within normal bounds - such as being in a bubble and focussing his attention in the direction of most threat and being somewhat neglectful of the direction of least threat - then that really is all you can expect. To reject a theory because it doesn't adhere to your preconceived notion of what such a killer would or wouldn't do is very unrealistic.
Incidentally for the Ripper to conform to your expectation he would have simulaneously been looking easrtward, westward, to the north and to the south. He would have had no time to cut. Consider the wounds to Eddowes. Do you think he was looking all around him while performing those mutilations?

[FrankO]

If I may...

Of course you may, Lechmere...

We can deduce from Paul's two press interviews (OK Moonbeggar, three, but the second was a duplication of the first apparently) that he was quite anti police.

Quite possibly.

It is also fairly clear that Paul did not speak to Mizen.

It would indeed seem that Cross did at least the best part of the few sentences that were spoken, but I don’t preclude the possibility that Paul did add something here or there. Unfortunately, both Mizen and Paul weren’t thoroughly questioned on the point of whether Paul actually spoke.

Hence it is not unreasonable to postulate that he did not stand too close while Charles Lechmere had his brief conversation with Mizen and accordingly may not have heard what was said.

I don’t see the ‘hence’. Even if Paul actually didn't say anything, there’s no reason why he would step a couple yards away. And even if he did move away somewhat, would that necessarily mean that he couldn’t hear what was said?

On the bubble issue. I would suggest it is dangerous to set too exact a view of what sort of person the Ripper was.

I wasn’t talking specifically about the Ripper. I was talking about criminals in general and certainly the ones who commit major crimes in public/out in the streets. The basic thing for them would be to be as alert as you can be so that you can get away before you can be seen or caught.

To reject a theory because it doesn't adhere to your preconceived notion of what such a killer would or wouldn't do is very unrealistic.

Again, it’s not a preconceived notion of what such a killer would or wouldn’t do, it’s simply a basic survival strategy for criminals who commit their crimes out in the streets, unless they don’t care to be caught or are willing to kill anybody who might catch them in the act. Besides, judging by the case evidence, the Ripper seems to have been quite good at 'surviving' his crimes.

Incidentally for the Ripper to conform to your expectation he would have simulaneously been looking easrtward, westward, to the north and to the south. He would have had no time to cut.

What nonsense is this, Lechmere? Obviously and quite simply, he just had to listen for sounds and every now and then glance east and westwards.

Consider the wounds to Eddowes. Do you think he was looking all around him while performing those mutilations?

Do I really need to answer this? Well OK. Yes, I do think he was dividing his attention between his victim and his surroundings as described above. I don't think he would have 'survived' if he hadn't.

All the best,
Frank