Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[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]

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

[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]

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.

[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]

I am confused. on the second it says in Lloyd's-"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative."
On the 30th, it says in Lloyd's-"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..."
That doesn't all happen on the same day, the evening of the morning that Nichols is found? I thought that it was, it isn't? Case is enough to drive someone to drink.

Hello Sleekviper ,

The way i read it is .. On the evening of the murder (Fri 31st) Paul tells his story to a press representative who is camped out in bucks row , probably looking for clues .. Paul See's him on his way back home from work as he heads back down the Row . He is approached or approaches the reporter and passes on his tale.. the following day (The 1st) he repeats it to a reporter.. Then on Sunday 2nd it appears in the paper . Then a week later after Chapmans murder he is dragged from his home .. Not happy about it he moans to the press .

cheers

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Double post ..

[moonbegger]

Lechmere ,

Logically this would have been Bethnal Green police station I think as that would have been the home station of a beat copper on Bucks Row. Then he would have to make his statement and be taken to the inquest..

Logically Bethnal Green, yes ( IF he was stopped and asked in Bucks row ) But not if it was somewhat closer to his work , or Hanbury street .. We have no way of knowing where he may have been approached . He may even have been pulled from work ? Any beat Copper would have been more than happy to march him down the station in light of Pauls Press the day before !

And all the while he was wearing his work apron for some obscure reason

Perhaps the same Obscure reason the Police officers at the inquest were wearing their Police uniforms ? Or the Coroner was sitting in the Coroners chair ? HE WAS IN WORK MODE !

And then there is the mystery of why they didn't find Robert Paul in the same prompt manner

.
Paul in his Lloyds article piled all the heat of suspicion on Cross " There where the woman was " so if there was a carmen they would be more interested in finding and extracting his story , it would have been Cross !
And besides it has already been pointed out on here , they had Pauls details from Lloyds , and they would have summonsed him to no avail .. hence the early morning call after the Chapman Murder .

Fisherman ,

The inquest would take it´s start REGARDLESS if the carmen were there or not, that is totally clear. Therefore, no matter if the coroner felt that he would have liked to have them there or not, it is obvious that he thought that what he had would be enough in any case.

There i was , on my way to buy 12 apples , with more than enough Pie+mash in my sky rocket ( cash in my pocket ) to buy the apples .. but there in the frog+toad ( road ) was a crisp ten pound note , But seeing as i had enough money already to by the apples i left the ten pound note there in the road !

See how unrealistic that sounds !!

cheers

moonbegger .

[Lechmere]

The interesting case that Dave brought up is of some bearing on the circumstances of Charles Lechmere's appearance at the inquest, but not I would suggest in the manner enthusiastically endorsed by curious and others.
I had a discussion with Monty recently relating to how Charles Lechmere ended up at the inquest. I suggested that the rules for summoning witnesses would necessarily have had a degree of flexibility as the inquests were invariably held quickly after the death. Such a case is Liz Stride's where she died in the early hours of Sunday morning and the inquest was on the Monday - and Whitechapel County court would have been shut on the Sunday. Clearly there were other ways of issuing a summonses - without a court actually sitting. The case mentioned by Dave illustrates this sort of Practise.
The witnesses were immediately in hand. This is quite different from the suggestion that a beat copper was told to look out for an unnamed carman in Bucks Row.
Fisherman disposed of the odd suggestion that the beat copper, afte stopping and questioning Charles Lechmere then accompanied him to his work place to reassure his boss he wasn't skiving , before taking him to a police station to make a statement. Logically this would have been Bethnal Green police station I think as that would have been the home station of a beat copper on Bucks Row. Then he would have to make his statement and be taken to the inquest. And all the while he was wearing his work apron for some obscure reason.
And then there is the mystery of why they didn't find Robert Paul in the same prompt manner.

So do we know of any other similar instances of a witness being called in this manner - the example given by Dave is not the same at all.
Is their any hint in the internal police records that curious's theory has an basis in reality? No.
Therefore it can't be taken very seriously.

[FrankO]

"Hope you don't mind my butting in, Fish..."

Never did, never will

Thanks, Fish!

Actually, no. I just suggest it as a possibility. But to be totally honest, we don´t know what his mindset was on that morning, do we? And that means that we cannot say that he would have run even if he heard Paul as he rounded the corner up on Brady Street. Maybe he welcomed the challenge? Maybe he decided to kill the newcomer, who had the audacity to interrupt his work - but changed his mind and decided to bluff him, just for jolly. Maybe he was amazed that it worked, having anticipated to need to kill Paul.

Aha! But looking at the evidence of the whole Ripper case, we don’t see any evidence to support the Ripper liked such challenges, liked just the jolly that such a bluff would give him. The Ripper took huge risks, yes, but only to be able to mutilate his victims. There’s nothing in the case evidence to support that he took risks for something other than that. 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.

There are many uncertain factors here, Frank, and I do not need to have him in that bubble at all, thus. It´s just the suggestion I find appeals best to me.

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).

But we don´t even know that he WAS eager not to get caught, do we? Heirens was very eager to get caught, remember? And other serial killers have turned themselves in since they wanted an end to their sprees. Of course, it is a very reasonable thing to suggest, but it is no certainty.

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. 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. In other words, it would simply not be the most logical thing for such a criminal to not be as alert as you can be or, as you’ve suggested, to work in a sort of bubble.

Absolutely - and that is why I favour a solution that has him in that bubble - I think he would have been facing the Schoolhouse end of the street, since that was potentially more dangerous to him; somebody could come up from Winthrop street and happen upon him in very short time, and that imminent danger was not there from the Brady Street direction, which is why I think he may have given a bit too much slack there.

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.

You see, your logic takes you in one direction, whereas mine takes me in another one - but both sets of logic work admirably and are totally viable.

I think we have to agree to disagree here, because, for the reason mentioned above, I really see the ‘bubble’ as a rather weak offer.

Cross was accompanied by another man, thus. Distance inbetween them? Does not say. Could have been a yard. Could have been two. Or twenty.

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

Nothing in this text rules such a scenario out.

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?

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.

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.

I hope you see what I mean, Frank - I don´t need to change what is said in the Star at all. It is fully compatible with my take.

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.

But Cross the killer would have pulled it down to conceal the wounds, Frank, if I am correct. And that would have served the purpose of not giving him away at the feeling of Nichols together with Paul.

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.

All the best, Fish!
Frank

[Fisherman]

The relevance, Jon, lies in disproving the surfacing thoughts that men that seem unconspicious cannot be serial killers. It lies in showing that serial killers can hold down jobs, entertain family relations, live a normal life outwardly while killing behind the scenes, be unknown to the police, etcetera.

In that respect, they carry relevance.

Otherwise, every single serial killer is a unique creation. If somebody had said that that a family man, a pillar of society who even works for free on his spare time to entertain children, would not be a man who dug down corpses below the floorboards in his house, I would say that Gacy was just such a man.

But that is because I know Gacy has existed. If had not, the ones who claimed that such men did not exist, could cork up the champagne and celebrate. Without Gacy, I have no such examples.

And that is why we will never dig up a perfect parallel to Charles Lechmere, the serial killer - if he was that. But we can see the respective traits he represents (from what we can gather), one by one, in other killers.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

"But all 100 years later and nothing like the Ripper, as far as murderers go."
Yes. And ...?

.... so what is the relevance of mentioning them?

[Fisherman]

Sleekviper:

"I am confused. on the second it says in Lloyd's-"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative."
On the 30th, it says in Lloyd's-"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..."
That doesn't all happen on the same day, the evening of the morning that Nichols is found? I thought that it was, it isn't? Case is enough to drive someone to drink."

You need to read the whole quotation: "...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."

The only thing that speaks of a date is when it says "the next day". And that next day would arguably be connected to the Chapman murder. Chapman was killed close to where he worked, and that would have given rise to some afterthought with the police.

He was raided "after" the Lloyds Weekly article, but I think this more should be read like "as a consequence of".

This all may actually also have some bearing on the proposal that Lechmere was hauled in off the street. Paul was raided in his bed, apparently meaning that he vas visited at 30 Foster Street, in his home, in the middle of the night.

So he was to be found at home.

Dew tells us that Paul was called upon to come forward, but rejected to do so: "The police made repeated appeals for him to come forward, but he never did so." Nothing is said about any active search, just that appeals were made. They had his address (they knew where to raid him), and so they would have tried to summon him that way.

But if they really wanted to get in touch with him, then why not just let some PC haul him in down at Buck´s Row? Especially if they had had such success with Lechmere, doing the same?

Maybe they did not do things that way, quite simply.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"Ridgeway was just 16 when he took a 6 year old boy into the woods and stabbed him. "

Correct. I had missed that.

But I fail to see how it changes the overall premise: there are serial killers who do not have any earlier record with the police before they start their sprees. Some of them ought to have had, while other have behaved nicely all along.

"He never exhibited rage, cruelty to animals or other children, or any type of aggressiveness typically associated with conduct-disordered boys who become killers later in life. In fact, he was horrified by cruelties that he witnessed by others."

That´s a description of one serial killer, Dennis Nilsen.

What we must keep in mind when discussing these things, is that we know extremely little about Lechmere in many ways. We can take a look at a killer like Baumeister, and we will find a man who was a respected businessman and a family father. But he had also proven a man that was regarded as somewhat odd by others, who generally put it down to a weird sense of humour.

What if Lechmere displayed the same traits - would we know that today?

Bela Kiss, the hungarian, killed many women, and then apparently stopped. He was never caught. There is no previous story on deviations on his behalf, but that is not to say that they were not there. But he shares the distance in time with Lechmere, and therefore he may also share in the lost informations department. Even if he DID do some stuff before his spree, it apparently was not enough to keep him off the streets. And that goes for all serialist, each and every one of them. But Kiss was regarded as an admirable man, good-looking and extremely good-mannered.

Dean Corll, "always neat and well behaved", what about him? He worked as an electrician and helped his mother with her candy factory - and killed.

John Eric Armstrong - model sailor with an unblemished record. Family father, held high in esteem by the men he served under in the navy, an inconspicious man - and a killer.

The bottom line is that they are there; the serialists with no previous records. But we also need to realize that we don´t have on Lechmere what we have on many killers - a pre-story.

Joel Rifkin, if I have gotten it right, had no story with the authorities. We know, however, that he was a weird young man, scorned and spat upon by his classmates.
When it comes to Lechmere, we don´t know how HIS classmates treated him. We don´t know if he killed animals as he grew up, like Dahmer did. We don´t know if he enjoyed looking at fires, like Kürten. We don´t know if he knicked womens underwear, like some serialists have done. We don´t know if he had problems bonding to people like other serialists have had - some of them who still went on to form families.

We cannot treat Charles Lechmere as a man with an impeccable past for the simple reason that we know nothing about it. Baumeister once urinated on his principals table, and we know this since it lies close to us in time.
If Lechmere urinated on his stepfathers desk, how would we know this?

I missed out on Ridgways early life crime, yes. Made you a field day, if nothing else. But that should not encourage anybody to miss out on the fact that we do not know enough about Lechmere to dub him faultless and unflawed. Likewise, there are other people that I could have chosen instead of Ridgway, to point to an unblemished record, a status as a family man, an ability to hold down a job for a long period etcetera.

You now call me desperate and ludicrous, but I prefer not to answer in the same tone. I find it better to use reality-based information to show you what I am speaking of, and I think it would be a shame if what ought to be a useful discussion should descend into mockery and personal insults only.

"Dave comes on here with two examples, in the same year and just a month later, of people being taken off the street to an inquest, and you ignore it."

Do I? I thought I answered it. You know, Curious, not accepting that it would have happened to Lechmere too is not the same as ignoring it. It is instead giving another view and bolstering it with arguments.
The inquest would take it´s start REGARDLESS if the carmen were there or not, that is totally clear. Therefore, no matter if the coroner felt that he would have liked to have them there or not, it is obvious that he thought that what he had would be enough in any case. The one and only realistic conclusion from this, is that IF Lechmere had not been in contact with the police before, then the inquest did not think his presence essential enough to warrant any delay in the proceedings. And why would they bother to try to pick people up in the street that they did not even think crucial to the proceedings?

Likewise, if they DID do this, why not pick Paul up too? They would have been able to secure information of HIS whereabouts, but they did not seek him out until two weeks later. What does that tell us about the amount of interest they awarded the carmen, Curious?

"it has occurred to me that possibly Lechmere would have needed to inform his boss why he would not be at work and the policeman went with him to make sure the boss understood it was "official business" thereby being sure where Cross/Lechmere worked."

Much occurs to you, Curious! So now you propose that a PC picked Lechmere up in Buck´s Row at 3.35 on Monday morning, told him that he was needed at the inquest, whereupon Lechmere begged him to go along to Broad Street to verify to his boss that this was all true and not something that Lechmere had dreamt up in order to get an extra, unpayed day off? And the PC obliged, spending an hour or so to help out?
Do you think this was common practice? Or do you think that the authorities simply requested people to report in to the inquest, leaving it to the involved parties to straighten the job bit out themselves? From day one, the papers were crammed with articles from the inquest. It was not as if his boss could not have checked things out, if he felt the need to.

And you are sure that I am the desperate one ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[sleekviper]

I am confused. on the second it says in Lloyd's-"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative."
On the 30th, it says in Lloyd's-"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..."
That doesn't all happen on the same day, the evening of the morning that Nichols is found? I thought that it was, it isn't? Case is enough to drive someone to drink.