Tweet
Oh no, not another Lechmere thread – but someone asked, a dangerous thing, and with being near Christmas it makes for a good story.
Most of the Whitechapel murders have unusual features about them.
The Annie Chapman murder was carried out much sooner after the previous killing than the rest. Just eight days. The Ripper struck again more swiftly.
Was he impatient to kill again?
Or did he merely get the opportunity and the longer gaps were perhaps caused by him not finding a suitable victim in a suitably secluded spot, possibly due to increased police vigilance and prostitute caution as the sequence evolved.
Or was there something in his life that dictated the days when he could kill. Maybe he was not always in London because his work took him elsewhere.
Or there could be some other reason.
There is some dispute as to Annie Chapman’s time of death. The Doctor who examined the body gave a time of around 4.00 am, while if various witnesses are to be believed the time of death would have been nearer 5.30 am.
The earlier time fits more closely the pattern observable in the other murders. The later time would put Chapman’s murder at quite a later hour than the others.
Was there some reason for this?
Was the killer stalking the streets all night and just, in his terms, ‘got lucky’ as dawn started to break?
Or were his circumstances such that he could be flexible as to the time in the morning when he chose to kill.
Or there could be another reason.
The first two people, that we know about, to be at the crime scene for the Nichols murder (31st August) walked past the future Chapman crime scene (eight days away – 8th September) immediately afterwards.
These were Charles Lechmere (who called himself Charles Cross when involved in the Nichols murder investigation) and Robert Paul.
Robert Paul worked about 100 yards on from the Chapman murder scene and Lechmere and Paul separated at that point and so far as we known never met again.
Robert Paul gave two accounts of his experience on the night of the Nichols murder to a reporter from Lloyds Weekly News. This story appeared on 2nd September and without naming him, put Lechmere ‘standing where the woman was’.
Lechmere attended the Nichols inquest the next day (3rd September).
However it is apparent from information released by the police the proceeding evening, that they did not know of his story.
Accordingly Lechmere cannot have gone to the police to make a statement about his version of events with respect to the Nichols murder until Sunday evening.
It is a fair guess that the Lloyds story prompted him to come forward.
Robert Paul did not appear at the Nichols inquest until 17th September, when it reconvened after being adjourned on 3rd September. The next and final day the inquest sat was 22nd September.
Lloyds reported that some time after they published their story on 2nd September, Robert Paul ‘was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days.’
The only two days that Paul could have been obliged to attend the inquest can have been 17th (which we know about) and 22nd September.
But when was he ‘fetched up’?
We have the following account in ‘I caught Crippen’ by Walter Dew, then a Detective Constable. Dew largely wrote from memory so he made some errors.
No better illustration of East-End conditions at the time could be afforded than by the behaviour of Charles ______ , a middle-aged carman, who was the first to see the body.
The carman was on his way through Bucks Row to his day's work when he saw a huddled mass in the gateway of Essex Wharf. He crossed from one side of the street to the other to investigate.
The light was just sufficient to show him that the form was that of a woman and that she had been mishandled. Her clothing had been disarranged and her bonnet had fallen from her head. There was something strange too about the position of the woman's head.
In any other district of London such a discovery would have sent the man dashing for a policeman. But this was Whitechapel, where crimes of violence and outrage were of everyday occurrence.
The carman shook the woman. She did not stir. He decided it was a case of a woman who had fainted following assault, and, making a mental note to report the matter to the first police constable he saw, he went on his way.
A curious thing then happened. The carman had gone but a short distance when he saw another man on the opposite side of the street whose behaviour was certainly suspicious. The other man seemed to seek to avoid the carman, who went over to him, and said:
"Come and look here. Here's a woman been knocked about."
Together the two men went to the gateway where the poor woman was lying. The newcomer felt her heart. His verdict was not reassuring.
"I think she's breathing," he told his companion, "but it's very little if she is."
The couple parted, ________ promising, as he walked away, to call a policeman.
All this was afterwards told in evidence by the carman. It never had the corroboration of the other man. The police made repeated appeals for him to come forward, but he never did so.
Why did he remain silent? Was it guilty knowledge that caused him to ignore the appeals of the police?
In any other district and in any other circumstances this would have been a natural inference, but in the East End of London at this time the man might have had a dozen reasons for avoiding the publicity which would have followed. He might have been a criminal; or he might have been afraid, as so many were, to risk the linking of his name with a Ripper-crime.
The salient points are that Dew has Paul acting suspiciously, and despite attempts to track him down, he thought Paul was never found.
This suggests that it actually took some time to find Paul and for whatever reason a degree of suspicion fell on his shoulders.
I would suggest that this points to Paul being located by the police after the Chapman murder. The police did not have the resources to locate someone like Paul very rapidly and I would suggest the Chapman murder – taking place so close to where he worked, gave the police added impetus to find him.
Most of the Whitechapel murders have unusual features about them.
The Annie Chapman murder was carried out much sooner after the previous killing than the rest. Just eight days. The Ripper struck again more swiftly.
Was he impatient to kill again?
Or did he merely get the opportunity and the longer gaps were perhaps caused by him not finding a suitable victim in a suitably secluded spot, possibly due to increased police vigilance and prostitute caution as the sequence evolved.
Or was there something in his life that dictated the days when he could kill. Maybe he was not always in London because his work took him elsewhere.
Or there could be some other reason.
There is some dispute as to Annie Chapman’s time of death. The Doctor who examined the body gave a time of around 4.00 am, while if various witnesses are to be believed the time of death would have been nearer 5.30 am.
The earlier time fits more closely the pattern observable in the other murders. The later time would put Chapman’s murder at quite a later hour than the others.
Was there some reason for this?
Was the killer stalking the streets all night and just, in his terms, ‘got lucky’ as dawn started to break?
Or were his circumstances such that he could be flexible as to the time in the morning when he chose to kill.
Or there could be another reason.
The first two people, that we know about, to be at the crime scene for the Nichols murder (31st August) walked past the future Chapman crime scene (eight days away – 8th September) immediately afterwards.
These were Charles Lechmere (who called himself Charles Cross when involved in the Nichols murder investigation) and Robert Paul.
Robert Paul worked about 100 yards on from the Chapman murder scene and Lechmere and Paul separated at that point and so far as we known never met again.
Robert Paul gave two accounts of his experience on the night of the Nichols murder to a reporter from Lloyds Weekly News. This story appeared on 2nd September and without naming him, put Lechmere ‘standing where the woman was’.
Lechmere attended the Nichols inquest the next day (3rd September).
However it is apparent from information released by the police the proceeding evening, that they did not know of his story.
Accordingly Lechmere cannot have gone to the police to make a statement about his version of events with respect to the Nichols murder until Sunday evening.
It is a fair guess that the Lloyds story prompted him to come forward.
Robert Paul did not appear at the Nichols inquest until 17th September, when it reconvened after being adjourned on 3rd September. The next and final day the inquest sat was 22nd September.
Lloyds reported that some time after they published their story on 2nd September, Robert Paul ‘was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days.’
The only two days that Paul could have been obliged to attend the inquest can have been 17th (which we know about) and 22nd September.
But when was he ‘fetched up’?
We have the following account in ‘I caught Crippen’ by Walter Dew, then a Detective Constable. Dew largely wrote from memory so he made some errors.
No better illustration of East-End conditions at the time could be afforded than by the behaviour of Charles ______ , a middle-aged carman, who was the first to see the body.
The carman was on his way through Bucks Row to his day's work when he saw a huddled mass in the gateway of Essex Wharf. He crossed from one side of the street to the other to investigate.
The light was just sufficient to show him that the form was that of a woman and that she had been mishandled. Her clothing had been disarranged and her bonnet had fallen from her head. There was something strange too about the position of the woman's head.
In any other district of London such a discovery would have sent the man dashing for a policeman. But this was Whitechapel, where crimes of violence and outrage were of everyday occurrence.
The carman shook the woman. She did not stir. He decided it was a case of a woman who had fainted following assault, and, making a mental note to report the matter to the first police constable he saw, he went on his way.
A curious thing then happened. The carman had gone but a short distance when he saw another man on the opposite side of the street whose behaviour was certainly suspicious. The other man seemed to seek to avoid the carman, who went over to him, and said:
"Come and look here. Here's a woman been knocked about."
Together the two men went to the gateway where the poor woman was lying. The newcomer felt her heart. His verdict was not reassuring.
"I think she's breathing," he told his companion, "but it's very little if she is."
The couple parted, ________ promising, as he walked away, to call a policeman.
All this was afterwards told in evidence by the carman. It never had the corroboration of the other man. The police made repeated appeals for him to come forward, but he never did so.
Why did he remain silent? Was it guilty knowledge that caused him to ignore the appeals of the police?
In any other district and in any other circumstances this would have been a natural inference, but in the East End of London at this time the man might have had a dozen reasons for avoiding the publicity which would have followed. He might have been a criminal; or he might have been afraid, as so many were, to risk the linking of his name with a Ripper-crime.
The salient points are that Dew has Paul acting suspiciously, and despite attempts to track him down, he thought Paul was never found.
This suggests that it actually took some time to find Paul and for whatever reason a degree of suspicion fell on his shoulders.
I would suggest that this points to Paul being located by the police after the Chapman murder. The police did not have the resources to locate someone like Paul very rapidly and I would suggest the Chapman murder – taking place so close to where he worked, gave the police added impetus to find him.
Comment