Scenarios for other murders with Lechmere as culprit

[DVV]

"no difference between the Lloyds and the inquest (have I have to add : in this respect ?) : neither in the Lloyds nor at the inquest did Paul alluded to Cross having said that a policeman was waiting for a constable in Buck's Row."

Ah! Well, THAT is correct. There is in fact only one man who claims this - guess who? And after that, guess why?
My own guess is that you will score one out of two - and quibble.

Fisherman

Hi Fish

what don't you express yourself more clearly on this ?
If you mean : "only Cross claimed this", that's just your take, but evidence says otherwise. Only Mizen said Cross had alluded to a policeman waiting for him in Bucks Row.
But the carmen didn't see any constable in Bucks Row, and no constable saw any carman in Bucks Row.
And Paul made it clear that when they met Mizen, they only told him what they had seen : a woman lying there, probably dead.
You have argued that you chose to believe Mizen because Lechmere presented himself as Cross.
What about Paul ? Did he use an alias also ?

[Lechmere]

Here is an initial map that summarises how Charles Lechmere East End, circa 1888-89, coincided with the Whitechapel murders.

The blue A is his new house at Doveton Street, where he moved in mid June 1888.
The blue B is his previous house in James Street, where he lived until mid June 1888
The blue C is his workplace at Pickfords, Broad Street.
The blue D is his mother’s house (where one of his daughters also lived) on Cable Street.

The victims found within this area are:
1 Martha Tabram
2 Polly Nichols
3 Annie Chapman
4 Liz Stride
5 Catherine Eddowes
6 Mary Jane Kelly
7 Alice Mackenzie
8 Pinchin Street Torso

The only piece of physical evidemce left – the apron (and graffiti) is marked by the yellow blob.

The Red Line is the shortest route from Doveton Street to Pickfords.
The Blue Line is the route taken on the morning of 31st August (the part after Hanbury Street is conjecture).
The Green Line is the presumed old route to work from James Street to Pickfords

The Purple Lines are to illustrate the fairly uniform distance (comfort zone) between any of the crime scenes and any of Charles Lechmere’s main centre’s of gravity at the time the murders were committed – his house, his mother’s house and his workplace.
The exception is the placing of the Pinchin Street Torso, but that is slightly different as it would be a disposal rather than the scene where the crime was committed.

My presumption is that the victims were picked up on the main thoroughfares – Whitechapel Road, Whitechapel High Street, Commercial Street, and then took their killer to the eventual crime scene. In which case when he went looking for a victim he did not take his normal route to work but diverted to the locations where at that hour he would find a potential victim – the main thoroughfares where at that early hour in the morning, some prostitutes would still be plying for trade.
The slight difference is Stride. She was soliciting on a secondary street – not a purely residential street but still one with shops, clubs and pubs – and it was comparatively early when she was killed.

[caz]

I am a bit surprsied the thread got so long so quickly when it is on a specific theme that has barely been addressed by anyone - but I guess some are very keen for Charles Lechmere to be dropped as a potential suspect and put in their derail attempts early!

Hi Lechy,

I think that's rather unfair. Most of us who post on the subject accept that Lechmere should not be dropped as a potential suspect. But that's a very long way from justifying his treatment as an actual suspect, in the absence of any evidence that he was involved in the Buck's Row murder, let alone any of the others.

In the court of history, based on current knowledge there is no good reason why anyone should not be happy to presume his innocence. He can far more easily and reasonably be defended than accused. So my question to you would be, given your personal connections with the family Lechmere (and the lovely Sue - say hi to her from me ), why on earth are you so very keen for this particular man to go down in history as Jack the Ripper? I find it quite extraordinary. If there was proof, or even strong indication of his guilt, I could understand you reluctantly acknowledging the fact, along with everyone else. But you really must have it in for the poor devil, to want to build a case against him from so little, when he could be resting in peace, unmolested.

So what's the story behind your own keenness to see the Lechmeres tainted with such bad blood? I genuinely don't get the 'Uncle Jack' syndrome. Hell, even Mike Barrett pulled the plug when Paul Feldman was going down the 'descended from Jack' route.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi lech
Thanks so much for providing this-it really helps one get a sense of how close most of the victims were along his work routes.

Tabram, nichols, chapman and kelly were not only along his work routes but also tie in with the approx. times he would have left for work and the probable(possible time with Chapman) times of there murder.

Stride and Eddowes-interesting that these two who were killed much earlier than the others in the evening also fall somewhat south of the others. Perhaps in this case it was after visiting his mother? and then after eddowes, dropping the apron in Goulston on his way back to his house?
Ditto with mckenzie.

Thanks again for providing this-must mull it over some more.

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"that's a very long way from justifying his treatment as an actual suspect, in the absence of any evidence that he was involved in the Buck's Row murder, let alone any of the others. "

Using these parameters, who do you think can be treated as an actual suspect, Caz? Or should other parameters govern the choice, to your mind?

"He can far more easily and reasonably be defended than accused."

That is YOUR stance, Caz - but as you will realize, I do not agree. Not at all, in fact. There are so many details that suggest a possible guilt on his behalf that it would be strange in the extreme to let him "rest in peace" as you so charmingly put it, painting me and Edward out as graverobbers, more or less.

The pulled down dress over the wounds - why here and in no other case?
The name? Why?
The odd statement about another PC? Why?

None of these things speak of innocence, do they?

The left out address at the inquest, pointed to by Moonbegger (adding another point) - why?
The refusal to prop her up? Not very humanitary. Why?
The total correlation in geography - a perfect fit for the killings, more or less. I regard this as the litmus test AFTER all the OTHER anomalies - and it does not clear him in any fashion, on the contrary.

What you seem to have, Caz, is reoccuring statements that most carmen were nice people.
They were. But it helps not in this case.
That the correlation in geography was just coincidental.
It COULD have been - but it is there. It does not detract from the accusations, it ADDS to them.

Likewise, the clothing, the propping up, the left-out address, the nameswop - you claim that this need not be anything sinister - but surely you realize that it tallies extremely well with a possible guilt? It is not as if the case is built on air, is it? These are solid things, all represented in the evidence.

To say that more speaks of innocence than guilt is simply not true. I have spent thirty-odd years studying the Ripper, and I have never seen any suspect that comes even close to Lechmere in terms of the number of things that seemingly point to guilt.

And if we are to disturb somebody´s eternal rest, Caz, then why not disturb the man who has the most details pointing in his direction? If it´s a case of keeping a clean conscience, why not do it properly? Why would we want to disturb men like Kosminsiki, Druitt and Tumblety, who we have no genuine reason to place at any of the murder sites, and of whom we know of no suspicious detail at any of the murder nights? How does that work?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Abby,

Tabram, nichols, chapman and kelly were not only along his work routes but also tie in with the approx

But where's the evidence that Cross took work routes, plural? In the absence of any evidence that he ever took Old Montague Street to work, there is absolutely no "tie" to the Tabram murder scene, and the central light red line in the above map is thus wholly redundant. The point is that he took Hanbury Street to work on the morning of the murder despite in being somewhat longer. Why? Well, two reasons have been suggested. The first is that he was Jack the Ripper and hoped that by taking Hanbury Street he'd somehow be implicating Paul and not implicating himself (despite letting every newspaper-reading member of the public know that he himself took Hanbury Street to work that morning). The second, infinitely more plausible explanation, is that an innocent Cross was new to the area, had not explored other routes, and took Hanbury Street because it was an obvious, logical, crow-flies route to the Liverpool Street area.

Given how overwhelmingly more plausible the second of those two options is, it isn't just a case of having no evidence for more than one work route. There is also absolutely no good reason to think he had one.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"But where's the evidence that Cross took work routes, plural?"

It does not exist! There is not a scrap of evidence that tells us that Lechmere ever set foot on Old Montague Street.

All we know is that it was the fastest route to work for him, that he was a carman with twenty-plus years of experience, meaning that he would know EXACTLY which streets offered the more convenient routes.

From there, Edward and I have the audacity to extrapolate that Lechmere, like all logically thinking people, may have used the fastest route to work.

Our suggestion really is that meagre.

"The second, infinitely more plausible explanation, is that an innocent Cross was new to the area"

New to the area? After twenty years of traversing the East end in Pickford´s service. New to the area??

He had spent his entire life, more or less, 500 yards from Old Montague street, and he would have been in the street in a professional capacity on perhaps thousands of occasions.

It´s not as if he came fresh from Cambridge, is it, Ben?

Your claim that there is absolutely no good reason to believe that Lechmere - like 99,9 per cent of us - would favour the shortest route to work occasionally if not habitually, is not a very good one, I have to say.

Strange post, all in all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Fisherman

The pulled down dress over the wounds - why here and in no other case?

That was Robert Paul who pulled the dress down not Cross

The name? Why?

What's that got to do with Buck's row?, as I have explained to you he didn't give his name to Mizen on the morning in question.

The odd statement about another PC? Why?

You have convoluted explanation of Cross saying something to Mizen that Paul couldn't hear, as Paul would have known Cross was lying, again you have no evidence for any of this, other than a clip from the Echo, which alludes to Paul going up Hanbury Street alone, which you keep editing out the men appeared to be working together line that follows it

Here's the full line from the Echo, for the benefit of those not familiar with it

'By the Coroner - 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.' - Echo 3rd Sept. 1888

Why Mizen would think the men worked together if they had split up?

The left out address at the inquest, pointed to by Moonbegger (adding another point) - why?

1) As I keep pointing out to you he did give his address at the inquest, it's in the Star of the 3rd
2) I would appreciate it if you didn't keep trying to attribute something I've discovered to someone else.
3) As the fact that the star journalist is the only one present at the inquest who records his address is central to my version of events, you could at least wait until you've read my version before trying to attack it.

You claim to have studied this for thirty years yet you had to ask Monty (on an other thread) where Mrs Lilley lived ? Ehh ?

You've got the right man, Fisherman, but the wrong theory.

Best wishes

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

"That was Robert Paul who pulled the dress down not Cross"

Yes, that´s true - but it was already pulled down to below the abdomen as Paul saw her. And THAT was not Paul´s doing, was it?

"What's that got to do with Buck's row?"

Who said it had ...? It has to do with his potential guilt.

"Why Mizen would think the men worked together if they had split up?"

If they arrived together, and Lechmere said "you go along, and I´ll talk to the PC!", and then Lechmere set off after Paul, the Mizen would have had a VERY good reason to think so.
If they arrived together in Baker´s row, speaking together, that may have been more than enough.
And they were both carmen, seemingly.
It is not any harder than that.

"You claim to have studied this for thirty years yet you had to ask Monty (on an other thread) where Mrs Lilley lived ? Ehh ?"

I asked, but not specifically Monty. And I was unsure since the numbering of the Goad map had it otherwise.

But there will be more things I don´t know. And there will be other things you don´t know. And Monty. And Edward. And anybody. Unless you disagree?

The address bit, I have already stated how I see it. I won´t go there again.

"You've got the right man, Fisherman, but the wrong theory."

That, my friend, remains to be seen! Your take on the Star is not promising, I can say that much! But I am more than willing to have it all laid out in detail, clinching the case - and I am very curious what it is you have that I ALSO missed to pick up during these thirty years...

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Mr Lucky
Paul pulled the dress down further but the dress had already been left by the perpetrator in a position that covered the abdominal wounds rather than leaving them on display – and this could be taken to suggest that the perpetrator was disturbed.

Mizen testified that Charles Lechmere said he was wanted by another policeman. It is quite possible that Paul did not hear this part of the conversation. We can base this on the likelihood that Paul did not himself speak to Mizen - which means he needn’t have been too close. Also we know that Paul was anti-police and may have wanted to keep his distance from Mizen.
Then we have the Echo story which suggests that Paul may have gone off first down Hanbury Street. Clearly Paul and Cross/Lechmere turned up together. Charles Lechmere had a brief conversation with Mizen. If Paul did go off ahead while this conversation was taking place, and he was late for work don’t forget, then why would it suggest to Mizen that they weren’t together? It needn’t at all.
All we need for Paul to fail to hear that part of the conversation properly is a few feet.

In any case, (and this is obviously pure speculation) while they were walking away from Polly’s body but before they had bumped into Mizen, Charles Lechmere may have said to Paul something like – ‘look we are both late for work, if we see a policeman I’ll tell him there’s a policeman already here, as otherwise he’ll keep us waiting for ages’.

As has been pointed out – there is a very rational explanation as to why only the Star got Charles Lechmere’s exact address while not a single other paper even got an approximation for it – and that is that the Star journalist asked for that detail during the lunchtime recess before he filed his copy for that evening’s edition.

But I do look forward to reading your theory.... WHEN???

[Lechmere]

Caz
I’m never unfair.
But your post seems to be way off topic.
Suffice it to say that I don’t think serial killing runs in the family and I think it is slightly ridiculous to make ‘rest in peace’ and ‘what about the descendants’ claims. They apply to all potential suspects. No one alive today need feel guilty. That should be obvious.
In my opinion Charles Lechmere is the best suspect out there – by quite a long margin.
Finally it is natural for a proponent of a theory to be somewhat more enthusiastic about it than a casual observer. This naturally goes for all Ripper based suspect theories – and other historical theories.... and other non historical theories!

[Lechmere]

Here’s another way of looking at Charles Lechmere’s comfort zones.

These are Charles Lechmere’s known East End addresses up to 1889

In Blue

1 Holloway Street – bigamous marriage of mother to first step father 1858.
2 Sion Square – baptism 1859.
3 Thomas Street (later Pinchin Street) - 1861 census
4 Mary Ann Street – 1869 death of step father, 1870 marriage, 1871 census.
5 James Street (later Burslem Street) – 1881 census, school records up to mid June 1888
6 Doveton Street – mid June 1888 school records, electoral register 1890, census 1891 etc

Besides the Broad Street depot, Pickfords also had an office at White Swan Yard, just off Whitechapel High Street, and another at the end of Bethnal Green Road.
These offices are marked with a P in green.

What of Charles Lechmere’s mother?
In light blue...
1 She lived at Pinchin Street at the time of the 1881 census
2 She had moved to Cable Street by 1889 when her third husband died

To keep our eye on the ball, for ease of reference I have again entered the murders, 1 to 8 in red.
I have re-entered as a yellow blob the apron location.
I have also shown Charles Lechmere’s most direct route to work in red.

Given that he was a carman, who’s business it was to know the quickest distance from A to B
Given that he had lived all his life (apart from a few infant years) in the East End and not very far from Old Montague Street.
Given that I immediately knew that the Hanbury Street route involved a detour and I have never lived at Doveton Street nor have I ever worked at Broad Street.
The notion that Charles Lechmere would not have known that the Old Montague Street route was shorter and quicker is utterly ludicrous.
That is not to say that we have proof that he regularly used it. However if he is claiming to be in a hurry and late for work, it is reasonable to assume he would chose the quickest and shortest route.
Old Montague Street was no less law abiding than Bucks Row – or Hanbury Street for that matter.

This map also illustrates that in many ways the area Charles Lechmere would have been most at home in would have been the streets surrounding Berner Street.

[Fisherman]

Of course, as regards the killing and dumping grounds in St George´s, Lechmere COULD have had a background in the Mansell Street/ Prescot Street area, 300 yards WEST of the striking zone. Or he could have had a background in the Stepney Way/Nelson Street area, 2-300 yards EAST of it.

But no, his old addresses are smack, bang right in the middle of the striking zone.

Once again, we find he is unfairly dealt with by a bitter fate. There really seems to be no end to all of these coincidences.

The best,
Fisherman

[Scott Nelson]

Of course. There seems to be no end to these "coincidences."

[Lechmere]

Saturday 29th to Sunday 30th September 1888.
The Double Event complete with apron drop and graffiti scribble.

Here is my conjecture for what may have happened with Charles Lechmere as the culprit.

It is Saturday evening. The only evening when most workers could let their hair down and have a night out unworried about having to get up next day to go to work.

Charles Lechmere goes to visit his mother, Maria, at her house on Cable Street. He does this regularly as one of his daughter’s, Mary Jane (aged 13), lives there. Mary Jane was his second eldest surviving child. Maria was to live with her grand-daughter right up until her death in 1901.

However these visits were uncomfortable as his mother lives with his ailing second step father, Joseph Forsdike (he died a little over a year later).

Charles Lechmere had always lived with his mother or very close to her and she had been a major influence on his own family. He had just three and a half months before moved away to another quite different East End district with his eight children (besides Mary Jane) – including the sickly baby Harriet, who had been born that March (and was to die in December 1890)

After an evening at Cable Street (Red A on map) and a pint in a local pub, at about 12.30 am Charles Lechmere made his way home – the route he would probably have followed is shown Green on the map.

Soon after he left, he saw a prostitute soliciting.
He approached her, and she took him to Duffield’s Yard (Blue S on the map). He knew this was next to a club that was predominantly used by the numerous local Jewish community.

He was slightly uncomfortable as there was a lot of noise coming from the club, although the yard itself was dark. He incapacitated her, then cut her throat. As he did so he heard a noise outside (this could be the altercation Schwartz says he saw, or the approach of Deimschutz with his cart, or something emanating from the International Working Men’s Club).

He stopped and hid in the shadows until it was clear and then fled. He could not afford to be compromised after what had happened at Buck s Row.
He had not had the time to slash her abdomen and felt fundamentally dissatisfied.
He needed to find another victim.
He did not want to continue on his way home. He knew that the area around St Botolph’s Church in Aldgate was favoured by prostitutes. He was more than familiar with the way there as it was until June his route to work (the Red Line).

He walked quickly to the Aldgate area (the Yellow Line) and after a short search found another suitable victim. She took him to Mitre Square. He felt more secure there and after subduing his victim killed her and fully satisfied himself. He cut off part of her apron and rapidly left the scene making directly for home.
Once he was a safe distance away he found a doorway into a quiet stairwell (the Yellow Blob) and left the bloodied apron piece on the floor. He fished into his pocket and retrieved a piece of chalk, that his daughter had from her school.
He wrote a message above the apron – the meaning was clear to him. It was a reference to the interruption that he had experienced while next to the Jewish Club in Berner Street. He placed the blame for him feeling compelled to kill twice in none night on the Jews. It was always someone else’s fault.

He then carried on his way, quickly following his normal route home from work (the Orange Line back to his house the Red B).

If it is necessary for the apron to be left after a delay, then Charles Lechmere could have first gone back to his workplace at Broad Street (Red C). He may have hidden his latest victim’s kidney in his stable area, among the tack and other equipment.