Tweet
I am starting this thread to discuss the points raised by Stewart Evans on Mr Lucky’s ‘Cross Theory II’ thread.
These are the issues raised by Stewart Evans…
Post 1
I thought it might be an idea to revive this thread in view of recent comments regarding the 'Lechmere was Jack the Ripper' theory.
Those proposing the Nichols inquest witness Charles Lechmere (Cross) as Jack the Ripper seem to have been convinced by the fact that the 1888 press reports and the police reports refer to him as Charles Cross and not Lechmere, his given name. This they regard as highly suspicious, they see it as Lechmere 'hiding' his true identity. They support the idea with suggestions that he deliberately lied both to the police and at the inquest, thus bolstering the suggestion that he was the murderer.
When addressing the Lechmere as the Ripper theory there are many points to be considered. For instance, the theory seems to demand that the police were never aware of his true identity and that they failed to properly investigate both him and his story. This, of course, can only be speculation as the majority of the contemporary documentation; his original statement, full details of the investigation, etc., are all missing.
In addition to the police documents, the inquest papers are also missing and cannot be assessed. That leaves only the various press reports of the time and they don't always agree. There are also many variables and unknown factors which would have had a bearing on the whole story.
Post 2
The witness Robert Paul, who was also on his way to work at the same time as Lechmere/Cross and came upon him in Buck's Row, was interviewed by the press and gave his story. This appeared in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper of Sunday 2 September 1888, when the incident was still fresh in his mind.
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 in 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 know 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 this 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.'
It will be noted that this report has apparently been 'slanted' to increase Paul's importance as it does not mention the fact that Lechmere/Cross accompanied Paul and found the police officer (Mizen) with him. It also takes the opportunity to have a 'pop' at the police.
Post 3
It will be seen from the foregoing that, as with so many aspects of this case, timing is very important. In 1888 times given cannot be assumed to be very accurate. They were often estimated and should not be taken as precise. Yet we see that times are quoted as accurate by theorists even when the record casts doubt upon this. In the case of Lechmere/Cross and Paul we are generally given a time of 3.45 a.m. for the discovery of Nichols' body. And they were at the scene before the beat police constable, PC Neil. The police reports, however, state that PC Neil found the body at 3.45 a.m. (Swanson HO 144/221/A49301C ff129-132), 30 minutes after he had last passed the scene (when the body was not there) on his beat. PC Neil could not have been anywhere in sight of the murder scene when Lechmere/Cross, and then Paul, arrived and they must have been in Buck's Row for at least a few minutes. Thus it is not surprising to read in Inspector Abberline's report (MEPO 3/140 ff242-243) - "...about 3.40 a.m. 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, "carman" of 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green was passing through Buck's Row, Whitechapel (on his way to work) he noticed a woman lying on her back on the footway (against some gates leading into a stable yard) he stopped to look at the woman when another man (also on his way to work) names Robert Paul of 30 Foster St., Bethnal Green came up, and Cross called his attention to the woman, but being dark they did not notice any blood, and passed on with the intention of informing the first constable they met, and on arriving at the corner of Hanbury St. and Old Montague St. they met P.C. 55H Mizen and acquainted him of what they had seen, and on the Constable proceeding towards the spot he found that P.C. 97J Neil (who was on the beat) had found the woman and was calling for assistance.'
By taking the times given in the summary police reports as being the most accurate we find that they state the body was found by PC Neil at 3.45 a.m., thus meaning that the body was probably found by Lechmere/Cross around 3.40 a.m., allowing a few minutes for the discovery, Paul joining him, the conversation and looking at the body and eventual walk along the remainder of Buck's Row, before PC Neil's patrol along Buck's Row and discovery of the body after the two men had departed. As previously stated, timing simply cannot be exactly ascertained given the variables and caveats involved. All time, in my opinion, should be preceded by the qualifier 'about'.
Post 4
Mizen was in the process of awakening persons, at different addresses, to get up for work ('knocking up') when approached by the two carmen. In his reported statement Paul said, "I saw one [police officer] 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." Paul said that the woman had been lying there for some time as she was so cold and that "...it shows 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." If we accept PC Neil's report, and there appears to be no reason why we shouldn't, he passed through Buck's Row every thirty minutes, and had last done so at 3.15 a.m., thirty minutes before discovering the body at 3.45 a.m. (just after Lechmere/Cross and Paul).
This pointed criticism of the police in the report is emphasized and was probably stressed by the newspaper as many of them indulged in attacking the police. A report of PC Mizen's inquest evidence carried in the Illustrated Police News of Saturday 8 September 1888 read as follows –
'At about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning, while he was at the corner of Hanbury-street and Baker's-row, a carman passing by, in company with another man, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row by a policeman. A woman is lying there." The witness then went to Buck's-row, and Police-constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. Nobody but Neil was with the body at that time. - In reply to a juryman, witness said that when the carman spoke to him he was engaged in knocking people up, and he finished knocking at the one place where he was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buck's-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else.'
From this it is obvious that the criticism of Mizen carried in the press report was generally known and was an uncomfortable factor for Mizen. Thus it is not strange to see that he tries to minimize his lack of immediate response in attending Buck's Row and also states that the carman had told him that there was already a police officer there (thus reducing the urgency) a fact of which neither Lechmere/Cross nor Paul were aware, and would certainly have not stated as Mizen suggested. An inquest juryman had obviously picked up on the point. Another report gave the exchange as follows, Juryman, "Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?" Mizen, "No; I finished knocking up one person." When Lechmere/Cross gave his evidence a juryman, presumably the same one, said, "Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?" Lechmere/Cross replied, "No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row," and this, of course, was a fact confirmed separately by Paul.
The Lechmere/Cross theorists turn this aspect around and say that Mizen was spoken to by Lechmere/Cross who told him that 'a fellow PC awaited his arrival.' The reason for this, they speculate, was that Lechmere was the killer and was 'still carrying the murder weapon on his person' and was therefore keen not to be searched and did not want to be 'forced back to the murder site'; 'that was why he invented a fictive PC, something that made Mizen accept that the carmen had already been cleared.' This idea obviously does not make sense. First Lechmere/Cross had plenty of time to run off when he heard Paul approaching, which he did not do and he even brought the situation to the attention of the other man. Secondly he could have left the scene in a different direction to Paul stating he would also look for a PC to alert, and thirdly he would hardly have told PC Mizen that there was another policeman already at the scene in front of Paul who would have immediately contradicted it. No, it is obvious that the claim that there was another PC with the body (which there was by the time Mizen arrived) suited Mizen in minimizing his lack of immediate action, which had already been prominently noted in the press and also, no doubt, by his superiors.
Post 5
The theorists then, amazingly, go on to claim that Lechmere/Cross gave the false surname of Cross instead of his real name to avoid identification. Many people, especially in Victorian times, used alternative names for many reasons. And, despite the name Lechmere appearing in all the surviving records (census, baptism, marriage, address/trade directories etc.) there may have been many reasons why Lechmere used (even for a short time) the surname of Cross, which was the name of his step-father of several years when he was young, and at which time he may well have adopted the name for a few years.
Although he gave the police the name Cross, he also gave his correct address and the name of his employers, surely an odd thing to do if he was trying to avoid identification. They would have had no trouble (and probably didn't) in tracing him. Indeed it might well be that he mentioned to Paul when they chatted as they walked away from the scene that he was also a carman and worked for Pickfords, thus allowing him to be identified as the other witness. Be that as it may, the inquest was open to the public and held in Whitechapel Road, and anyone attending could have recognized him and pointed out that his real name was Lechmere and not Cross.
The theorists, however, claim that the police failed to check him out, merely accepting what he said, despite the fact that he had been the first person upon a murder scene, such a person always being looked upon, initially, with some suspicion. And the investigation was headed up by the hugely experienced Abberline. The lack of full police and employer records of the time unfortunately makes it impossible to answer this one definitively.
The official written statement made by Lechmere/Cross has not survived, but who knows, it may have carried a police note to the effect that Lechmere wanted his (old) alternative surname to be used as he didn't want his family pestered by the press or anyone else. He wanted to avoid public identification. As we see, Paul was soon traced by the press and interviewed, so if this was Lechmere's reasoning it obviously worked. The report on Paul's interview started, '...Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement...", indicating that the press had got hold of his address and were waiting for him there in order to interview him.
Post 6
Why should a cart driver, already employed by Pickfords for many years, suddenly embark on a short killing spree, then stop suddenly and live out the rest of his life normally, eventually becoming a greengrocer with his own business, and dying peacefully as late as 1920 at the age of 71? It simply makes no sense.
However, having established the guilt of Lechmere/Cross our theorists go on to define him as a 'serial killer'. He was also responsible for the murder of Martha Tabram, murdered about 2.30 a.m. in George Yard Buildings, on 7 August, as it was 'at the approximate time' that he went to work (and on a varying route); as well as the murders of Chapman (8th September 1888) and Kelly (9 November 1888). With regard to Stride and Eddowes (30 September 1888) the time and location of the murders, rather inconveniently, do not tie in with Lechmere's assumed work pattern. Rather oddly, the theorists see this as 'confirmation of Lechmere's culpability'. They were committed on 'the night leading to Sunday [i.e. the early hours of Sunday morning], Lechmere's day off.' Of course Lechmere also knew the Berner Street area where he had grown up and Berner Street was 'a thoroughfare leading to Cable Street, where Charles Lechmere's mother and one of his daughters were living!' Pretty damning that, a definite indicator of his guilt.
The Mitre Square location is addressed by the fact that as he was disturbed in Berner Street he went seeking another victim and Mitre Square was 'alongside his old working route from James Street to Pickfords!' Well that just about seals it, he must have been guilty.
The old chestnut of Ripperologists being into making money with their speculation (how terrible) is aired, but now they have identified 'a rationally functioning, everyday, grey suspect' which 'is not something all Ripper researchers have wished for'. Oh, but never mind, Lechmere/Cross (complete with rough sack apron) 'actually has a glamorous family history, counting an archbishop and one of Admiral Nelson's closest men.'
However, because he had a 'waster' for a grandfather, 'who threw away his fortune' Charles Lechmere 'had good reason to feel a strong urge for revenge as he wandered the streets of the East End together with prostitutes, pimps and robbers, carrying the insight that he was made up of another material altogether than they were.' Now, let me get this straight, Lechmere's forebear threw away a fortune and 'in revenge' Lechmere brutally murdered a few down and out casual prostitutes as he was better than they were? No doubt, his urge for revenge sated after a few of these murders, he settled down to normal family and business life for the next thirty two years. And silly old Abberline, who failed to check his facts properly, missed this most elusive of 'serial killers'.
Sorry to Abbey, Good Michael, Wickerman, Scott Nelson and Fisherman who also contributed to the discussion on Mr Lucky’s ‘Cross’ thread where Stewart Evans posted the above.
They did raise some interesting issues in my opinion that hopefully we can cover, such as:
Did Lechmere have time in his daily routine to commit the known murders?
Do serial killers always carry on until they get caught?
Is Lechmere no better as a suspect than the other witnesses who appear in the case (e.g. Richardson or McCarthy) or indeed better than any of a random sample of 10,000 faceless East Enders?
I also hope that Stewart Evans does not stay away from this discussion, as he initiated it, and is someone who’s opinion does obviously carry weight.
These are the issues raised by Stewart Evans…
Post 1
I thought it might be an idea to revive this thread in view of recent comments regarding the 'Lechmere was Jack the Ripper' theory.
Those proposing the Nichols inquest witness Charles Lechmere (Cross) as Jack the Ripper seem to have been convinced by the fact that the 1888 press reports and the police reports refer to him as Charles Cross and not Lechmere, his given name. This they regard as highly suspicious, they see it as Lechmere 'hiding' his true identity. They support the idea with suggestions that he deliberately lied both to the police and at the inquest, thus bolstering the suggestion that he was the murderer.
When addressing the Lechmere as the Ripper theory there are many points to be considered. For instance, the theory seems to demand that the police were never aware of his true identity and that they failed to properly investigate both him and his story. This, of course, can only be speculation as the majority of the contemporary documentation; his original statement, full details of the investigation, etc., are all missing.
In addition to the police documents, the inquest papers are also missing and cannot be assessed. That leaves only the various press reports of the time and they don't always agree. There are also many variables and unknown factors which would have had a bearing on the whole story.
Post 2
The witness Robert Paul, who was also on his way to work at the same time as Lechmere/Cross and came upon him in Buck's Row, was interviewed by the press and gave his story. This appeared in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper of Sunday 2 September 1888, when the incident was still fresh in his mind.
'Remarkable Statement
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 in 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 know 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 this 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.'
It will be noted that this report has apparently been 'slanted' to increase Paul's importance as it does not mention the fact that Lechmere/Cross accompanied Paul and found the police officer (Mizen) with him. It also takes the opportunity to have a 'pop' at the police.
Post 3
It will be seen from the foregoing that, as with so many aspects of this case, timing is very important. In 1888 times given cannot be assumed to be very accurate. They were often estimated and should not be taken as precise. Yet we see that times are quoted as accurate by theorists even when the record casts doubt upon this. In the case of Lechmere/Cross and Paul we are generally given a time of 3.45 a.m. for the discovery of Nichols' body. And they were at the scene before the beat police constable, PC Neil. The police reports, however, state that PC Neil found the body at 3.45 a.m. (Swanson HO 144/221/A49301C ff129-132), 30 minutes after he had last passed the scene (when the body was not there) on his beat. PC Neil could not have been anywhere in sight of the murder scene when Lechmere/Cross, and then Paul, arrived and they must have been in Buck's Row for at least a few minutes. Thus it is not surprising to read in Inspector Abberline's report (MEPO 3/140 ff242-243) - "...about 3.40 a.m. 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, "carman" of 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green was passing through Buck's Row, Whitechapel (on his way to work) he noticed a woman lying on her back on the footway (against some gates leading into a stable yard) he stopped to look at the woman when another man (also on his way to work) names Robert Paul of 30 Foster St., Bethnal Green came up, and Cross called his attention to the woman, but being dark they did not notice any blood, and passed on with the intention of informing the first constable they met, and on arriving at the corner of Hanbury St. and Old Montague St. they met P.C. 55H Mizen and acquainted him of what they had seen, and on the Constable proceeding towards the spot he found that P.C. 97J Neil (who was on the beat) had found the woman and was calling for assistance.'
By taking the times given in the summary police reports as being the most accurate we find that they state the body was found by PC Neil at 3.45 a.m., thus meaning that the body was probably found by Lechmere/Cross around 3.40 a.m., allowing a few minutes for the discovery, Paul joining him, the conversation and looking at the body and eventual walk along the remainder of Buck's Row, before PC Neil's patrol along Buck's Row and discovery of the body after the two men had departed. As previously stated, timing simply cannot be exactly ascertained given the variables and caveats involved. All time, in my opinion, should be preceded by the qualifier 'about'.
Post 4
Mizen was in the process of awakening persons, at different addresses, to get up for work ('knocking up') when approached by the two carmen. In his reported statement Paul said, "I saw one [police officer] 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." Paul said that the woman had been lying there for some time as she was so cold and that "...it shows 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." If we accept PC Neil's report, and there appears to be no reason why we shouldn't, he passed through Buck's Row every thirty minutes, and had last done so at 3.15 a.m., thirty minutes before discovering the body at 3.45 a.m. (just after Lechmere/Cross and Paul).
This pointed criticism of the police in the report is emphasized and was probably stressed by the newspaper as many of them indulged in attacking the police. A report of PC Mizen's inquest evidence carried in the Illustrated Police News of Saturday 8 September 1888 read as follows –
'At about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning, while he was at the corner of Hanbury-street and Baker's-row, a carman passing by, in company with another man, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row by a policeman. A woman is lying there." The witness then went to Buck's-row, and Police-constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. Nobody but Neil was with the body at that time. - In reply to a juryman, witness said that when the carman spoke to him he was engaged in knocking people up, and he finished knocking at the one place where he was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buck's-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else.'
From this it is obvious that the criticism of Mizen carried in the press report was generally known and was an uncomfortable factor for Mizen. Thus it is not strange to see that he tries to minimize his lack of immediate response in attending Buck's Row and also states that the carman had told him that there was already a police officer there (thus reducing the urgency) a fact of which neither Lechmere/Cross nor Paul were aware, and would certainly have not stated as Mizen suggested. An inquest juryman had obviously picked up on the point. Another report gave the exchange as follows, Juryman, "Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?" Mizen, "No; I finished knocking up one person." When Lechmere/Cross gave his evidence a juryman, presumably the same one, said, "Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?" Lechmere/Cross replied, "No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row," and this, of course, was a fact confirmed separately by Paul.
The Lechmere/Cross theorists turn this aspect around and say that Mizen was spoken to by Lechmere/Cross who told him that 'a fellow PC awaited his arrival.' The reason for this, they speculate, was that Lechmere was the killer and was 'still carrying the murder weapon on his person' and was therefore keen not to be searched and did not want to be 'forced back to the murder site'; 'that was why he invented a fictive PC, something that made Mizen accept that the carmen had already been cleared.' This idea obviously does not make sense. First Lechmere/Cross had plenty of time to run off when he heard Paul approaching, which he did not do and he even brought the situation to the attention of the other man. Secondly he could have left the scene in a different direction to Paul stating he would also look for a PC to alert, and thirdly he would hardly have told PC Mizen that there was another policeman already at the scene in front of Paul who would have immediately contradicted it. No, it is obvious that the claim that there was another PC with the body (which there was by the time Mizen arrived) suited Mizen in minimizing his lack of immediate action, which had already been prominently noted in the press and also, no doubt, by his superiors.
Post 5
The theorists then, amazingly, go on to claim that Lechmere/Cross gave the false surname of Cross instead of his real name to avoid identification. Many people, especially in Victorian times, used alternative names for many reasons. And, despite the name Lechmere appearing in all the surviving records (census, baptism, marriage, address/trade directories etc.) there may have been many reasons why Lechmere used (even for a short time) the surname of Cross, which was the name of his step-father of several years when he was young, and at which time he may well have adopted the name for a few years.
Although he gave the police the name Cross, he also gave his correct address and the name of his employers, surely an odd thing to do if he was trying to avoid identification. They would have had no trouble (and probably didn't) in tracing him. Indeed it might well be that he mentioned to Paul when they chatted as they walked away from the scene that he was also a carman and worked for Pickfords, thus allowing him to be identified as the other witness. Be that as it may, the inquest was open to the public and held in Whitechapel Road, and anyone attending could have recognized him and pointed out that his real name was Lechmere and not Cross.
The theorists, however, claim that the police failed to check him out, merely accepting what he said, despite the fact that he had been the first person upon a murder scene, such a person always being looked upon, initially, with some suspicion. And the investigation was headed up by the hugely experienced Abberline. The lack of full police and employer records of the time unfortunately makes it impossible to answer this one definitively.
The official written statement made by Lechmere/Cross has not survived, but who knows, it may have carried a police note to the effect that Lechmere wanted his (old) alternative surname to be used as he didn't want his family pestered by the press or anyone else. He wanted to avoid public identification. As we see, Paul was soon traced by the press and interviewed, so if this was Lechmere's reasoning it obviously worked. The report on Paul's interview started, '...Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement...", indicating that the press had got hold of his address and were waiting for him there in order to interview him.
Post 6
Why should a cart driver, already employed by Pickfords for many years, suddenly embark on a short killing spree, then stop suddenly and live out the rest of his life normally, eventually becoming a greengrocer with his own business, and dying peacefully as late as 1920 at the age of 71? It simply makes no sense.
However, having established the guilt of Lechmere/Cross our theorists go on to define him as a 'serial killer'. He was also responsible for the murder of Martha Tabram, murdered about 2.30 a.m. in George Yard Buildings, on 7 August, as it was 'at the approximate time' that he went to work (and on a varying route); as well as the murders of Chapman (8th September 1888) and Kelly (9 November 1888). With regard to Stride and Eddowes (30 September 1888) the time and location of the murders, rather inconveniently, do not tie in with Lechmere's assumed work pattern. Rather oddly, the theorists see this as 'confirmation of Lechmere's culpability'. They were committed on 'the night leading to Sunday [i.e. the early hours of Sunday morning], Lechmere's day off.' Of course Lechmere also knew the Berner Street area where he had grown up and Berner Street was 'a thoroughfare leading to Cable Street, where Charles Lechmere's mother and one of his daughters were living!' Pretty damning that, a definite indicator of his guilt.
The Mitre Square location is addressed by the fact that as he was disturbed in Berner Street he went seeking another victim and Mitre Square was 'alongside his old working route from James Street to Pickfords!' Well that just about seals it, he must have been guilty.
The old chestnut of Ripperologists being into making money with their speculation (how terrible) is aired, but now they have identified 'a rationally functioning, everyday, grey suspect' which 'is not something all Ripper researchers have wished for'. Oh, but never mind, Lechmere/Cross (complete with rough sack apron) 'actually has a glamorous family history, counting an archbishop and one of Admiral Nelson's closest men.'
However, because he had a 'waster' for a grandfather, 'who threw away his fortune' Charles Lechmere 'had good reason to feel a strong urge for revenge as he wandered the streets of the East End together with prostitutes, pimps and robbers, carrying the insight that he was made up of another material altogether than they were.' Now, let me get this straight, Lechmere's forebear threw away a fortune and 'in revenge' Lechmere brutally murdered a few down and out casual prostitutes as he was better than they were? No doubt, his urge for revenge sated after a few of these murders, he settled down to normal family and business life for the next thirty two years. And silly old Abberline, who failed to check his facts properly, missed this most elusive of 'serial killers'.
Sorry to Abbey, Good Michael, Wickerman, Scott Nelson and Fisherman who also contributed to the discussion on Mr Lucky’s ‘Cross’ thread where Stewart Evans posted the above.
They did raise some interesting issues in my opinion that hopefully we can cover, such as:
Did Lechmere have time in his daily routine to commit the known murders?
Do serial killers always carry on until they get caught?
Is Lechmere no better as a suspect than the other witnesses who appear in the case (e.g. Richardson or McCarthy) or indeed better than any of a random sample of 10,000 faceless East Enders?
I also hope that Stewart Evans does not stay away from this discussion, as he initiated it, and is someone who’s opinion does obviously carry weight.
Comment