The Chapman murder and Charles Lechmere

[Lechmere]

OK Scott I will get back on topic

[MrBarnett]

Hi All,

Apologies if in my newbie enthusiasm I have gone a little off topic. Before I start considering the very interesting fact that the second murder was committed on Paul's (work) doorstep could someone tell me where (if) the research into Lechmere has been published. Is it on casebook? Is there a more general Lechmere thread where I can learn more about him?

Regards,

MrB

[Lechmere]

Mr B
There are quite a few Lechmere/Cross treads - on here and on JTR forums - the early parts tend to have useful info and they then usually degenerate into slagging matches.

[MrBarnett]

Lechmere,

Yes, I have already waded through a few of the slagging matches. Not my cup of tea at all.

What I specifically wanted to know about were the 100 plus records suggestive of a controlling nature. I'm happy to plough through all the Lech/Cross threads to search for nuggets of info, but if someone could point me to a particular thread or article that might save me a lot of time wading through the conflict zones.

Regards,

MrB

[Lechmere]

Scott to answer your questions – before getting into the detail of Lechmere’s potential involvement in the Chapman murder…

We have no idea whether Lechmere and Paul ever met again.
They walked a similar route every day at similar times.
Actually the fact that they had never met before 31st August 1888 perhaps suggests that Lechmere usually walked the shorter Old Montague Street route to work, rather than the longer Hanbury Street route that he took on the morning of 31st August.
Or it could be that Paul usually left earlier – he said he was late that day.
Lechmere also said he was late, but said his start time was 4.00 am and that he left at 3.30 am. It is a very comfortable 30 minute walk from Doveton Street to Broad Street.

Lechmere almost certainly went to the police on the Sunday evening to give his statement and his version of events. My guess is that this was his only interview and was given on his terms.
As for what he said, we have his inquest testimony to go on. The coroner would have had his written statement in front of him so it is unlikely that is inquest testimony strayed too far from what he told the police.
We also, less reliably, have Dew’s memoirs, where Paul’s behaviour at the crime scene is described as being suspicious and if this was what the police believed at the time (and not recreated memory by Dew) this information can only have come from Lechmere.

It would only take a few moments for Lechmere to decide that he would look for his next victim near to Paul’s workplace.
At the inquest he could quite easily have picked up on irritation on the part of the police that Paul had not come forward but had instead chosen to go to the press. The police were probably doubly irritated by Paul as he had slagged them off publicly.
If Lechmere was the culprit he would also probably have harboured a grudge against Paul for disturbing him and then going off to the press.

Lechmere must have passed policemen in the Bucks Row area daily that week and may have picked up extra gossip. How Paul avoided them is a good question. Maybe he avoided Buck’s Row after giving his interviews.

Anyway I would suggest that Lechmere didn’t want to give the police time to find Paul prior to his having killed near to Paul’s workplace, hence the short lapse of time between the Nichols and Chapman murders.

[Lechmere]

Mr B
All the records haven't been published.
They consist of about 40 electoral register entries, 33 birth, baptism and death or marriage entries for his kids, seven census returns, his own birth, baptism, marriage death and funeral entries, about fifteen school entries for his kids, some rate returns and about ten trade directory entries.

It probably adds up to nearer 120 entries than 100.

[MrBarnett]

The problem I have with this idea is that if the police fall for the set up and become suspicious of Paul, they will naturally revisit the details of the Nichols murder with the idea in mind that one of the witnesses could actually be the murderer. They might then start looking at times and positioning of witnesses, who said what to whom etc in more detail. Surely that would be riskier for Lech as JTR than allowing both himself and Paul to fade into history as innocent witnesses.

MrB

[MrBarnett]

Lechmere,

Thanks for the info about the records. Nothing there in my view that marks Lech out as unusual.

Regards,

MrB

[curious]

Lechmere almost certainly went to the police on the Sunday evening to give his statement and his version of events. My guess is that this was his only interview and was given on his terms.


Lechmere must have passed policemen in the Bucks Row area daily that week and may have picked up extra gossip. How Paul avoided them is a good question. Maybe he avoided Buck’s Row after giving his interviews.

Good Morning, Lechmere and Mr. B,
Hope all is well and that you're both having a good holiday.

Because Mr. B is quite new, I just felt the need to point out that while Lechmere the poster believes that "Lechmere almost certainly went to the police on the Sunday evening to give his statement and his version of events", not everyone believes that it is almost certainly how it happened. There is another and far simpler explanation.

I also want to thank you, Lechmere, for "Lechmere must have passed policemen in the Bucks Row area daily that week and may have picked up extra gossip. How Paul avoided them is a good question."

I don't recall your ever having conceded that before.

You see, Mr. B, I personally believe that Cross/Lechmere never went to the police.

It makes sense to me that once the Sunday article informed the police about the two carmen who had discovered the body that the beat policemen were instructed to be on the alert along that route for carmen on their way to work on Monday morning. Charles Cross/Lechmere was likely just on his way to work, taking the same route he had taken on Friday and was thus accosted by a PC and questioned. Once Cross/Lechmere acknowledged that he was indeed one of the two men who had discovered the woman's body on Friday, he was rerouted to the station and the inquest.

Thus, the reason Cross/Lechmere wore his work clothes to the inquest was simply that he was on his way to work when he was re-routed by one of the policemen along his normal route to his job.

Like you, Mr. B, I think that Cross/Lechmere's very stable life argues against him being JtR.

regards, gentlemen,

curious

[MrBarnett]

Hello Curious,

I am enjoying the holiday, thank you. What we call Boxing day here: turkey leftovers, endless repeats on the telly and the floor strewn with already broken or soon to be broken toys. Bliss!

As you can see from my post tally, and probably some of my silly questions, I am new to casebook, although I have been reading about JTR in a random way for many years.

As for C/L I haven't really formed an opinion either way. As far as I can see there isn't enough concrete evidence for anyone to do so. I just don't get the sinister overtones that are attributed to his use of his stepfather's name and the fact that he appears on the usual public records suggests only that in that respect he was a responsible citizen. That doesn't preclude him from being a serial killer, but then neither does it suggest a sinister controlling nature.

Regards,

MrB

[Lechmere]

Curious
The question as to why Paul was never accosted in the street by a policeman (rather than being dragged out of his bed) has never really come up before.
I would suggest that it argues against the police accosting people in the street in the manner you suggest happened to Lechmere.
For the purposes of my theory, if Lechmere was accosted in the street by a policeman, then taken to a police station and hence to the inquest on the same morning (a tight schedule as his evidence would have to have been evaluated) then that is not a bad possibility as it would mean that this man was totally lacking in any public spirit in voluntarily coming forward. That would, in terms of guilt, compensate for his wearing of his work clothes.
It still doesn’t explain why he kept his apron on.
I think the more likely explanation is that he went to the police the night before, voluntarily.

Why would the police fall for the Paul-Chapman set up and why would they not revisit Lechmere in that context, and why would he be confident that they would not?
This is similar to the objection raised before that, why would the second man at the Nichols murder scene be a suspect and not they first man?

Lechmere wouldn’t have been a suspect as he (I believe almost certainly) voluntarily came forward instead of being accosted in the street and taken to a police station. This also explains why the police never discovered his true (Lechmere identity).
If Lechmere was guilty he would have been a psychopath and probably had a controlled personality. Such people are glib, believable and practised liars.
He shows his character when he was disturbed. He went to meet Paul instead of running away into the unknown. He took control of the situation. Then he got Paul to touch the body. When they left it was Lechmere who took the lead role in talking to PC Mizen. Then, I would suggest, when Paul’s newspaper story blew the gaff, he proactively came forward and gave a statement. Lechmere’s version of events became accepted.
Lechmere will have taken this in – someone of his character (if I am right about him obviously) picks up on such things instinctively. He will have sensed that he was totally believed and at the same time disregarded as an oikish carman of no importance. He will have put on a humble act (as he did at the inquest with plentiful ‘yes sirs’ and ‘no sirs’). He will have empathised with the police, mirroring their concerns and been very helpful. That I what psychopaths do.
If we believe Dew then he also subtly incriminated Paul – saying he acted suspiciously.

Theoretically Paul could have murdered Nichols, retreated down Bucks Row back east towards his house and re-emerged as the innocent witness when Lechmere passed him.
According to Lechmere, Paul acted suspiciously, then he failed to come forward.
Then another murder happen yards from where the innocent and harmless looking Lechmere left him just eight days before.
It is no wonder the police went looking for Paul – just as it is not surprising that they did not bother with Lechmere.

But once they interrogated Paul he would be in the clear. They would not find any bloody clothes in his house and his wife and employers would no doubt have given a good account of him. Maybe he had an alibi for the Chapman murder.
Either way, I doubt that Lechmere would have anticipated that Paul would actually be charged with either murder as he would have known that Paul was innocent. He would not have regarded it as a risk to himself as he was perfectly in the clear and any investigation into Paul would rapidly run out of steam – as happened.
For him it would have been an opportunity to control events, to cause annoyance to Paul and to waste police time and derail the investigation.

[MrBarnett]

Lechmere

So to summarise: having convinced the police with his ever-so-umble act that he was an innocent 'oik', Lechmere commits a second murder as near as he can to Paul's place of work to temporarily throw suspicion on Paul, who he suspects will be cleared of the crime when the police investigate further.

But when the police tried then to match Paul's movements to both murders, wasn't there a real risk that it might click that the second murder was also on Lech's route to work. And when they inevitably revisited the details of Nichols' discovery and both Paul and Mizen describe how ever-so-umble Lechmere took control of the situation might they not see Lech in a new light? And if Paul is then exonerated through an alibi or whatever our insinctively cunning psychopath has pointed the finger at himself.

MrB

[Lechmere]

Mr B
If you look at the actions of serial killers they rarely follow the strict laws of logic as might apply to normal people.
A characteristic of psychopaths is that they have supreme confidence in their ability to bamboozle normal people. They take that ability for granted based on years of experience.

The police would not be able to link Paul's movements to the murders until after they interrogated him. I would guess that Lechmere would anticipate that Paul would pass that interrogation (as he did) and so this aspect would not arise.
In any case, if for some reason things had worked out differently and Paul had not been able to account for his movements under interrogation, it would not be the first time that an unanticipated consequence resulted in the downfall of a criminal.

I would suggest that Lechmere's motivation (in addition to his standard motivation for killing) was to cause inconvenience and embarrassment to Paul and to confuse the police investigation. I would suggest that of this were the case, then he was successful.

We can also say with a fair degree of confidence that Lechmere was not revisited by the police after the Chapman murder, so if he was responsible then his calculation was accurate.

[Bridewell]

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

Are you saying that Lechmere wasn't closely looked at?

[Lechmere]

Yes
(oh - you need five characters for a posting!)