The Chapman murder and Charles Lechmere

[MrBarnett]

Hi,

Do we know enough about Lechmere to be able to say he was a punctilious form filler?

MrB

[Lechmere]

Sally

We know he wasn’t locked up for violence or sent to an insane asylum but does that mean he didn’t do it?
If the culprit was an unknown local – should we expect him to have died or been locked up for something else, to explain the cessation of the murders?
Should we expect him to have appeared in court on numerous occasions for crimes of petty violence?
I don’t think so.
The case was unsolved which is suggestive that the culprit may well have stopped and lived on.
Incidentally I would not rule out any unsolved murder from say 15 years before to 15 years after as being associated with the Whitechapel murders.

We don’t know anything much about Lechmere’s personality beyond what can be gleamed from his involvement in the Nichols case.
However we know he was very punctilious about form filling, registration and school attendance. This suggests an anal or controlling nature.
He ran businesses while working as a carman from the early to mid 1890s. When he retired as a carman focussed on running a shop. He must have been frugal and a successful businessman as he left a similar cash sum in his will to the estate of Donald Swanson.
We know about his background – father deserts the family, mother re-marrying a younger policeman etc.
We know that his grandfather was from a wealthy background and his branch sunk.
It is not uncommon for psychopaths to have this sort of background.
Clearly this doesn’t prove he did anything and doesn’t prove he was a psychopath. But it is a lot more useful to the case against Lechmere than had his mother and father lived together all his life and had he come from purely humble stock and had he just been a humble carman all his life, had he not been a successful businessman, had he missed the odd electoral register entry, or failed to get one of his kids baptised, or let them off a few days at school when they moved address.

Similarly had he told the police his name was Charles Lechmere and had there not been the discord between him and PC Mizen over what was said on the morning of 31st August the case against him would be weaker. And had he walked off when leaving Mizen on his shortest route to work down Old Montague Street and if one of the core murders taken place in an area where he had no cause to be.

There are big gaps in our knowledge about all suspects.
I would guess that Tumblety is the most recorded suspect. But he was such an outrageous character that much of what was said about him was misinformation!
With the ‘police suspects’ I am of the opinion that their suspicion was also fuelled by gaps in their knowledge.

(PS I was thinking of Mann being under lock and key - of course).

[Lechmere]

The irony of Kosminski as the culprit is that his leading advocates have to make the case that he wasn't so mad in 1888 and it came on later, when his madness is the key thing the police mentioned with respect to his potential guilt.

[Sally]

My dear Sally

Some 'suspects' can be ruled out - if they live somewhere that is under lock and key late at night for example.

My dearest Ed, you never fail to amuse.

All things are relative and I would tend to rule out people who were cleared by the police at the time or were closely looked at - and the raving mad.

On the first point I agree. The other two I'd say were less clear cut. And of course it would be handy to discount Kosminski, since he's a pretty strong candidate. Or would you disagree?

Some are suspects now as they were suspects then - and understanding how or why they became suspects then can rule them out now (I'm thinking suspects like Tumblety or Druitt).

Here I'm with you. What we do have that the contemporary police did not is the benefit of hindsight and access to subsequent record sets. It is possible for us to get a longer view in some cases that enable an understanding that was impossible in contemporary terms. I think in some cases, modern suspicion is fuelled by the fact that we know very little about some people involved in the case. It is easier to resort to invention (speculation if you prefer) when there are big gaps in our knowledge.

One of my problems with Crossmere as a viable candidate is the fact that we do know about him and his life. There is nothing there that is even remotely suggestive of a serial killer. It's an objection that has come up time and again from posters on this forum and the other; and a problem you will need to overcome if you hope to convince a wider audience.

[Lechmere]

My dear Sally
Some 'suspects' can be ruled out - if they live somewhere that is under lock and key late at night for example.
All things are relative and I would tend to rule out people who were cleared by the police at the time or were closely looked at - and the raving mad.
Some are suspects now as they were suspects then - and understanding how or why they became suspects then can rule them out now (I'm thinking suspects like Tumblety or Druitt).

Patrick
I haven't really developed my theory regarding Lechmere and Chapman in this thread yet - though to do so will ruin yet another chapter in that book Sally speaks of.

I was doing some Christmas shopping and popped into a Waterstones and had a quick browse of the new Begg and Bennett book where they - correctly - bemoan the lack of a Lechmere book and here I am perpetuating that shortfall!

[Patrick S]

Patrick
I'll choose to take that as a back handed complement and that you acknowledge there is nothing to rule Lechmere out.

No one can be ruled out at this point. With that, it's doubtful that anything can or will be uncovered to prove guilt to any degree of certainty. Most importantly, it's all good fun. Without threads like this one, we'd probably be stuck talking about Cornwell's new Sickert book.

[Sally]

Dearest Ed,

But there is nothing to rule any suspect out. In the absence of hard evidence, no suspect can be eliminated from the realms of possibility.

Yes, you are correct, there is nothing that can rule Crossmere out: (there's a quote to cut out and keep) but it's a meaningless statement.

As for Paul being hauled up by the cops - I'm interested in the idea that he may not have been located until after Chapman was murdered. Perhaps you are right there.

That being the case; I'm not surprised that they were suspicious of Paul, considering his proximity to not one, but two dead women. Of course, Crossmere coul've dropped him in it; but as you will be aware, there are other explanations. As usual, unless there is something further, some inside information that you have in your possession, it all remains speculation.

On the plus side for you, I suppose that if the police were willing to entertain the possibility that Paul murdered so close to his place of work; the premise of a killer striking on his way to work was not considered untenable.

Incidentally, I must say again that I think you're wasted here - I hope you do write your book. At the very least, the time and effort that you've expended in pursuit of Crossmere probably merits something more substantial than a temporary archive of message board posts.

Anyhow, moving swiftly on from that uncharacteristically genuine comment...

Seasons Greetings!

Good Luck with your Ripper hunting for next year. Your dissenters will be waiting with their 'venom.

[Lechmere]

Patrick
I'll choose to take that as a back handed complement and that you acknowledge there is nothing to rule Lechmere out.

[Patrick S]

Patrick -almost any man who did the murder would have had to contend with the same problem. Unless you think that JTR was unemployed ? He might have been, but the days and times of the murder tend to suggest otherwise in my view.

Or unless he started work at 7am or later. Which we know for certain that Cross did not.

[Patrick S]

Patrick
We have no idea, whoever took the body parts, what was done with them. We do not know why he took them either. For all you know the removal was the important aspect rather than keeping them.
Keeping them and walking off with them to wherever would be a problem for any culprit.
How do you know that Lechmere didn't go equipped with some sort of canvass sack for the purpose?
Broad Street is about 7 minutes walk from Hanbury Street. If he had a hidey hole there how do you know that Lechmere didn't pop back to the depot.
Very often carts had to wait hours to be unloaded. Usually they were minded by a boy who accompanied the driver or by a boy at the destination.
I'm not sure why you focus on his cart being unloaded at the market.
There is nothing intrinsic to what we know of Lechmere, Broad Street, Pickfords, or Carmen to rule Lechmere out, despite your protestations.

You are so married to the idea of Cross that there is nothing that you cannot rationalize away.

[Lechmere]

Patrick
We have no idea, whoever took the body parts, what was done with them. We do not know why he took them either. For all you know the removal was the important aspect rather than keeping them.
Keeping them and walking off with them to wherever would be a problem for any culprit.
How do you know that Lechmere didn't go equipped with some sort of canvass sack for the purpose?
Broad Street is about 7 minutes walk from Hanbury Street. If he had a hidey hole there how do you know that Lechmere didn't pop back to the depot.
Very often carts had to wait hours to be unloaded. Usually they were minded by a boy who accompanied the driver or by a boy at the destination.
I'm not sure why you focus on his cart being unloaded at the market.
There is nothing intrinsic to what we know of Lechmere, Broad Street, Pickfords, or Carmen to rule Lechmere out, despite your protestations.

[Rubyretro]

Patrick -almost any man who did the murder would have had to contend with the same problem. Unless you think that JTR was unemployed ? He might have been, but the days and times of the murder tend to suggest otherwise in my view.

[Lechmere]

Ruby
Lloyds didn't report where he worked or lived.
It seems he bumped into their reporter in the street probably near Buck's Row.
Lechmere gave an indication where he left him ie near Corbett's Court.
If anyone gave the police a statement about Paul's demeanor at the crime scene it can only have been Lechmere.
I would suggest the imprecise details of where Paul could be located was a cause of the delay in finding him.

[Patrick S]

With respect to Chapman.....

" the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found....."

If Cross committed the murder while his cart was being tended to at the market, what did he do with the above? I assumption is that it would have been a rather messy package. Do you contend that he took it with him back to Pickfords? Hidden in his lunchbox, perhaps?

And if he killed Champman closer to 4am (Late for work, again!), you have the same problem, he's got a soggy, sticky, rather sizable bundle of bloody human organs to hide from his coworkers. How did he manage it?

I don't think it can be suggested that he discarded it. Why go the trouble of removing the organs, carrying them away, only to ditch them?

[Rubyretro]

I would suggest the Chapman murder – taking place so close to where he worked, gave the police added impetus to find him.

[/QUOTE]

If they hadn't found Paul, how did they know that he worked close to the site of the Chapman murder ?

Did he say so in Lloyd's weekly ?

The journalists who interviewed him must have had a contact for him.

Are you saying that it was Lechmere who told the Police that Paul worked near the site of the Chapman murder ?