Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Fisherman]

Frank:

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

Never did, never will

" To get your scenario into the saddle, you have to add a few things of your own first which either aren’t particularly supported by any evidence or aren’t the most logical things to suppose."

Absolutely. This equipage wonīt get on the road without help. But I think I can safely say that none of the suggestions I make are in conflict with the known evidence or in any manner illogical. But letīs see what youīve got!

"Not that I suppose Paul did wore worn-down shoes, but you have to suppose Cross the killer was in a ‘bubble’, cutting away at Nichols in order for him not to notice Paul too soon."

Actually, no. I just suggest it as a possibility. But to be totally honest, we donīt 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.

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

"Not paying attention to his surroundings would not be the best and most logical thing to do for a killer who sets out to kill out in the open in the way the Ripper did and who was eager not to get caught."

But we donīt 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.

"we do have rather strong evidence to support that Neil heard Thain at the Brady Street end of Buck’s Row."

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.

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.

"First, I have to correct you on that one, Fish: it’s not the Star but the Echo of 3 September. "

Yep. I do that exact mistake often for some reason. Thanks for correcting me on that score, Frank!

"Secondly, you have to look away from the Star, the Times and the Walthamstow & Leyton Guardian, who on Mizen’s behalf claim that both men walked on down Hanbury-street instead of just Paul."

Aha? Well then, letīs look at the Star (if nothing else, it should teach me to remember what was printed there and not in the Echo... ) Here goes:
"Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street."

Cross was accompanied by another man, thus. Distance inbetween them? Does not say. Could have been a yard. Could have been two. Or twenty. If they arrived together, perhaps chatting, and if then Lechmere broke away from Paul to talk with Mizen, it would still apply that Lechmere was accompanied by another man at that stage.

Both went down Hanbury Street. Yes. We KNOW they did. But where does it say that they did so arm in arm? What in this text precludes that the carmen rounded the Bakerīs Row corner, saw Mizen, Lechmere said to Paul "You walk on ahead and Iīll notify the PC", Paul did so, opening up a gap of, say, twenty yards, Lechmere notified Mizen and said "We are running late", letting the "we" strengthen Mizenīs thoughts that the two were accompanying each other (he said he thought they were working comrades), and then he hurried along down Hanbury Street, catching up with Paul.

Nothing in this text rules such a scenario out. The Echo, though, is clear in saying that there was another man with "in company with" (accompanying, thus!) Lechmere, and that other man went down Hanbury Street. The exact wording: "There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross."
Now, if Paul was in company with "Cross", why is it that it is stated that he went down Hanbury Street, as if he did so alone? He could not have BOTH participated at the discussion AND gone down Hanbury Street at the same time, could he? No, he could not. But he COULD walk down Hanbury Street AND be in obvious company with "Cross" just the same, having proven that by arriving together with him and probably also by Lechmereīs telling PC Mizen about how the two of them were running late. He would thus have spoken of Paul as a man he knew, and a man travelling in his company.

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

"Or others just think that if Cross was not the killer, the actual killer may have left the dress that way for the same reason Cross the killer may have left it."

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. If Jack the killer was disturbed by Cross the innocent carman, then Cross the carman would have heard him slip away, most probably. Therefore, Cross the innocent carman was probably not the man who scared Jack the killer off. And even if he WAS and failed to notice that there was a man running away out of Buckīs Row in that silent night, then it still applies that Jack the killer had a flair for leaving his victims on display, spread-eagled and cut up for the whole world to see. Apparently, he did not want to do this with Nichols? Straight legs and the clothing carefully pulled down to conceal things, although there was nobody who had seen him? He hid his work, with no need to do so, since he was already gone when Lechmere arrived on the scene?

I firmly believe logic and consequence and the other victims speak very much in favour of my take in this instance - though it cannot be ruled out that the killer - if not Lechmere - took other decisions in this one case and made other calls than otherwise.
I can accept that there could have been a different MO at work here - as long as it is very clear that the MO WOULD have been different.

"Others have to come up with reasons why Cross couldn't have legged it or why it would have been very risky, but I think especially Eddowes' murder shows that this man was perfectly able to get away without drawing any attention to himself."

That it does! But letīs not forget that after Nichols, he would have been forced to make his escape at every kill. The bluffing-out opportunity was no longer available to him.

All the best, Frank!
Fisherman

[curious]

Hello Curious,
Sometimes it is not only that events are forgotten, sometimes it just is a desire to not spread tragic events. My grandmother is rare these days, less than a handful like her are left. She was the youngest child to a man that was in his 70's when she was born, and he lived well into her early years, Go Great gramps! Anyway, this places her into an extremely tiny group; she is the child of a slave, a slave set free in his teens, and he remembered the life as a slave until the day that he died. That is all that she will say about it, and I respect that. It is a monster of a bridge in American history, but it is her bridge to do with as she wants.

Thanks, sleekviper,
Yes, different people feel differently about passing on the past to their descendants.

Thanks for sharing this part of your story. Your grandmother is indeed in a very tiny group still alive and it is her bridge to do with as she likes.

Some families talk about the way things used to be, others don't. Some individuals in some families talk, others don't. I've learned that in my genealogy work as years ago, when I had uncles and aunts and great-uncles and great-aunts still alive I attempted to talk to them. Some passed on memories and others did not. Some individuals collect family stories, others seem not to.

I appreciate your respect and caring and pride that I feel you have for your grandmother and your ancestors.

I sincerely hope that we all manage to safely cross that terrible bridge someday.

[curious]

Hi Lechmere,

"Can you point to any other examples of a witness being brought to an inquest on the same day as they were plucked from the streets in some sort of dragnet."

If you don't mind my sticking my head in here for a moment, I've got examples of that very thing happening in Roderick Macdonald's court on October 4 1888.

Two bodies in two unrelated cases were found in Wood Green that afternoon--the bodies were reported a couple of hours apart. Since Macdonlad happened to be there nearby already holding an inquest with a jury, the police took the bodies and the witnesses over to where Macdonald was. He's there, his jury's there, everyone's there, and he opened inquests on each body, with the witnesses giving their testimony and making references to "today". One body was reported at 12.30 that afternoon, the second at 2.40 on the same, so it's very soon after these times that the inquests were opened.

These are two inquests that no one could have predicted, and the witnesses were rounded up and brought to the coroner immediately. I don't see Macdonald having time to prepare summonses, but I should say that Macdonald's officer in Wood Green was a police sergeant who was involved at the scene of one of these cases. In any case, these inquests opened very, very quickly.

I think these two cases may be extraordinary due to Macdonald being in the vicinity with a jury, but they do show that it was possible to bring in a witness off the street and have him directly produced at an inquest all on the same day.

However, I don't claim to know that it happened in the case you're discussing here.

Best,
Dave

Hi, Dave,
thank you for those instances that show it is possible that Cross/Lechmere could in some way have been detoured from going to work to testify at the inquest on the same day.

This makes so much more sense to me than that he went to the police station on Sunday and volunteered himself, there is absolutely no evidence of that.

It appears to me that his wearing his work clothes to court is evidence that he was on his way to work and got detoured.

I very much appreciate your coming up with these examples.

curious

[caz]

Maybe, Caz, I am not the taliban here ...?

Steady on, old bean.

I have said that I think he was the killer. That is not a position from which you vehemently argue his innocence, Iīm afraid. Itīs a position from which you take on all criticism that comes along and check whether your theory holds fast against whatever can be thrown at it. So far, it works eminently, apparently so much so as to discourage you from battling on.

I can't discourage you from thinking that if you must. But let me put it this way. If you thought the moon was made of cream cheese, and no arguments to the contrary were holding water for you, the fact that few people would bother 'battling on' would not be due to your theory holding fast, my friend.

In short, it's not for you to check if your own theory works, but for your peers. If all but one or two end up voting with their feet, do you seriously believe your millions of words on the subject will have proved you right about Cross's guilt?

Love,

Caz
X

[curious]

And remember the newspaper story that gave rise to this stop and check process had only appeared the evening before the early morning dragnet.

If it were true - and I think it is far fetched - then it is hardly a pointer to Charles Lechmere's innocence anyway.

Of course it is, Lechemere, and all of us on here realize that, but don't expect either you or Fisherman to see it that way.

You have made a great deal of Lechmere appearing at the inquest in his work clothes and how that points to his guilt.

If he appeared at the inquest in his work clothes because he was on his way to work when he was detoured to the inquest, that part of your argument, and one of the cornerstones, is totally destroyed.

And perhaps it was not a dragnet at all, but the patrolling PCs just keeping their eyes out after the briefing when they went on duty -- I suppose policemen check in and are updated on what's going on before their shifts start. All I know about that is TV and recognize that can be wrong. The story was read and talked about,then Cross/Lechmere encountered a PC on his way to work. See how simple and easy that is?

Add to the fact that Paul admitted to pulling down the dress, and poof -- there's another part gone. If it was too dark for Cross/Lechmere and Paul to have seen the cut throat, it was too dark to see the abdominal wounds.

Cross/Lechmere should have been checked out and you and Fisherman have done that -- but . . .

Everything I see points to him being a steady, hardworking good guy.

curious

[curious]

On the proposition that Lechmere was hauled in on his way to job on the Monday, Curious: Iīve been giving it some more thought, and I really donīt think it works.

To begin with, the inquest had the purpose to establish the cause of death. And that could be taken care of without the participation of Lechmere.

All the best,
Fisherman

Ah, Fisherman,
The coroner in this case was Wynne Baxter. There was recently a very fine article in one of the publications that discussed Baxter and how in his inquests he went far beyond the scope of establishing the cause of death.

I wish I could recall the writer of the piece. I believe it was Cris Malone but could be wrong, and if I am I apologize to the writer.

oops, just looked at the clock and I'm very late!

[caz]

Everything I see points to him being a steady, hardworking good guy.

curious

Me too, curious.

No known criminal record, no known addictions, held down the same job for over two decades - and must have been able to quit killing and resume a 'normal' family life if he was the ripper.

Nothing seems to fit, but no doubt we will now get a long list of known serial killers that fit each of these criteria. Will we get one that fits them all, I wonder? Apart from Cross himself?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sally]

Hi Curious

If he appeared at the inquest in his work clothes because he was on his way to work when he was detoured to the inquest

Or perhaps he'd got up, dressed, and was ready to leave for work when the police turned up on his doorstep?

There are several possibilities - but personally I think the idea that he was trying to fool his wife by pretending to go to work has been pretty much put to bed.

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"Everything I see points to him being a steady, hardworking good guy."

Caz:

"Me too, curious."

Could that be because everything you see is everything you look at?

"No known criminal record, no known addictions, held down the same job for over two decades"

Right, Caz, have a look at Ridgway, the Green River Killer, one of the most prolific serial killers of all time. Criminal record? No. Known addictions? No. Had painted cars at the same firm for THIRTY years. That is a very steady job, and it blows THAT particular "argument" of yours to kingdom come.

Surely HE could not be guilty of anything?

"and must have been able to quit killing and resume a 'normal' family life if he was the ripper."

Ridgways spree was concentrated to the early 80:s, when dozens of women were killed. After that, he killed once in 1990 and once in 1998. Two slayings in fifteen years or so, that is.

The monster of Florence - same thing. Dennis Rader - quit completely.

Besides, who says that Lechmere did NOT kill beyond Kelly? I think that MacKenzie is a very good bid and the Pinchin Street Torso, found some thirty yards from his motherīs house, must be regarded as a very good bid too if he was the killer. Thing is, why say that he stopped in November 1888 when we donīt know anything about this?

"Nothing seems to fit"

Fit with WHAT? Your preconceived notions of what a serial killer will or will not do? Or with Ridgway, with the monster of Florence, with Rader? Realistically, if I must choose between your map and the reality, then - much as I recognize your insights and knowledge - Iīm afraid Iīll choose the reality ten times out of ten.

"no doubt we will now get a long list of known serial killers that fit each of these criteria. Will we get one that fits them all, I wonder?"

Yes, you did - Ridgway is a carbon copy on the points you asked for, but for the two slayings in 90 and 98. In the meantime, he "resumed his ordinary family life."

But I expect you will ask for somebody who was 38 years, lived in the East End in the late 19:th century, was married (Ridgway was ...) and worked in the delivery business. If so, let me tell you that if these criteria are what must be met to create a serial killer, then letīs rejoice in the knowledge that the world has NEVER seen a serial killer - for they are ALL individually different in some regard/s. However hard that particular pill is to swallow.

Have you decided that all serial killers are transients, unfit to hold down a job? Wrong. Have you gotten it into your head that they are not able to sustain family relations? Dead wrong too. Do you think that serial killers all have criminal records ...? Oh my ...!

Back to the drawing board, Caz. Criticize, by all means - but do it rationally.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

Surely, if we insist on serial killer comparisons we need a prostitute mutilator (preferably Victorian) who does the deed there and then (not take them home to kill them and dump the body later)

[Fisherman]

I forgot about that, Jon. Must he have a sacking apron too...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

By the bye, Jon: Ridgway killed some of his victims outdoors though most were dispatched at his place. Rader killed where he found his victims and the Monster of Florence killed out in the open.

But none of them wore sacking aprons. Bugger!

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Right, Caz, have a look at Ridgway, the Green River Killer, one of the most prolific serial killers of all time. Criminal record? No. Known addictions? No. Had painted cars at the same firm for THIRTY years. That is a very steady job, and it blows THAT particular "argument" of yours to kingdom come.

Just the one then - apart from Cross. Lovely.

Besides, who says that Lechmere did NOT kill beyond Kelly? I think that MacKenzie is a very good bid and the Pinchin Street Torso, found some thirty yards from his motherīs house, must be regarded as a very good bid too if he was the killer. Thing is, why say that he stopped in November 1888 when we donīt know anything about this?

Where did I say anything about the killer quitting in November, or quitting after Kelly? Nope, I don't think I did. If nothing else, this shows your gift for reading between the lines and coming up with pure invention. I always keep a very open mind about who was his last victim, but it's pretty obvious that if the ripper was alive and living in England long after February 1891 there has to be a reason why killing didn't float his boat any more. Have you any evidence to suggest such a reason in Cross's case? Leg amputation perhaps?

...Iīm afraid Iīll choose the reality ten times out of ten.

Then you'll be leaving no stone unturned to confirm your idea of reality, with some real evidence that Cross was, during a very brief period of his life (3 years max, during his late thirties?) into prostitute murder and mutilation. Glad to hear it.

Have you decided that all serial killers are transients, unfit to hold down a job? Wrong. Have you gotten it into your head that they are not able to sustain family relations? Dead wrong too. Do you think that serial killers all have criminal records ...? Oh my ...!

No to all those questions, but most will have led lives that can be shown to have been dysfunctional in SOME way or another. You KNOW this, and you also know it would help your case enormously to find something - anything - dysfunctional about Cross in the records. Why else did we have to read all that speculation about his probable resentment and low self-esteem at being low down the Lechmere ladder, for example? Why bother looking for such signs, or pulling them out of thin air, if you really don't think they make a blind bit of difference to your case?

Even family man and Mr. Bedside Manner himself, GP Harold Shipman had been in trouble in his younger years over his addiction to prescription drugs. I'd say it's highly unusual to find a serial killer with no Achilles' heel in his past: no trouble at home; no cheating or fighting at school; no problems at work; no dishonesty over money and so on; no 'oddball' tendencies that become clear when he is finally under suspicion, as Cross is now.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

By the bye, Jon: Ridgway killed some of his victims outdoors though most were dispatched at his place. Rader killed where he found his victims and the Monster of Florence killed out in the open. But none of them wore sacking aprons. Bugger!

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

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"Just the one then - apart from Cross. Lovely. "

What did you expect? Hundreds? Youīre the one constantly stepping in it here, Caz. You claim "that would not happen", I tell you that it would - and has - and you say "not enough".

Sorry, but it IS enough. And you need to learn from that.

"Where did I say anything about the killer quitting in November, or quitting after Kelly?"

Where did I say that you did? Whooops, Caz ...!
Then again, you said that Lechmere "must have been able to quit killing and resume a 'normal' family life if he was the ripper." Which is why I pointed out that he perhaps did NOT resume a normal family life even if he was the Ripper. Me oh my, how you get things wrong. And how hard you have to admit that!

" it's pretty obvious that if the ripper was alive and living in England long after February 1891 there has to be a reason why killing didn't float his boat any more."

No, Caz, there need not be any such reason at all. He may have gone on to kill, but in a different way. Likewise, if he DID stop, there may be many reasons for that, but how am I to tell you what they would have been. Itīs not as if we have his whole life on record, is it?
Poster Lechmere has suggested that the death of his child could perhaps have had an impact, and I think we must realize that this could have been a major turning point in his life. It is a very emotional thing, and can dig deep holes in peopleīs souls.
... but donīt tell me that I must find another Victorian carman serial killer who quit killing after having one of his kids die on him, please!
So, Caz, you were dead wrong this time too. You opt for one scenario and forget the many others that are potentially there. I thought you were accusing ME of this?

"Then you'll be leaving no stone unturned to confirm your idea of reality, with some real evidence that Cross was, during a very brief period of his life (3 years max, during his late thirties?) into prostitute murder and mutilation. Glad to hear it."

I will leave no stone unturned to confirm OR contradict it. I look at both sides, and so far, the guilty side has the much better players on itīs team. So you were half right, this time. And half wrong.

"No to all those questions, but most will have led lives that can be shown to have been dysfunctional in SOME way or another. You KNOW this, and you also know it would help your case enormously to find something - anything - dysfunctional about Cross in the records."

Correct, Caz - MOST serialists will have something like this on record. But how on earth would we be able to find out if Lechmere was a bedwetter? 124 years have passed. Likewise, he could have harassed people - but how are we to know. He could have been abusive to his wife. How many uncharged wife-abusers can we nail, 124 years after their misconduct?

Anyhow, there is a very fair number of serial killers who did NOT have a record when going down, and there are things that point to Lechmere being a man who was very anxious to be in control. He never missed fiiling out a voting list, etcetera. And that sounds a bit like Rader, who was extremely controlfreakish. Such people very often abide by the law extremely strictly until they snap. John Ausonius, heard of him? If not, read up - he is a VERY good example.
In conclusion, I donīt expect that we would find anything on Lechmere, even if we lived back in 1888. I think we would find a man who seemed to be a very correct man, striving hard to fill his role in society and complaining very much about the whores, pimps and villains that did not share this conviction - but thatīs just me.

"Even family man and Mr. Bedside Manner himself, GP Harold Shipman had been in trouble in his younger years over his addiction to prescription drugs. I'd say it's highly unusual to find a serial killer with no Achilles' heel in his past: no trouble at home; no cheating or fighting at school; no problems at work; no dishonesty over money and so on;"

Itīs hard to find ANYONE without some sort of track record, Caz. I beat up a guy badly when I was twenty; broke his nose etcetera. If I had proceeded to become a serial killer, Iīm sure somebody would have coupled the two things.
But I didnīt become a killer - but for one of bad theories. I did, however, gain the insight that having some sort of record does not mean that you are a potential killer. That goes for an addiction to prescription drugs too - that is not something that dictates that you will kill in the future. 99,9 of the drug addicts donīt do that.
So, guess what, Caz? Exactly, wrong again ...

All the best,
Fisherman