Lucky Lechmere List

[FrankO]

Following a post by A P Tomlinson over on the thread “The Darkness of Baker’s Row” I thought it was time to post about “Lechmere’s Levels of Luck” of what I called this thread “Lucky Lechmere List”. I mean, I find Lechmere a person of interest, I would have liked to have asked him and some of the people involved a number of questions, and in that sense I keep the door to 'Lechmere the Killer' just ajar, but right next to the list regularly posted by Christer I thought it was time to post a Lechmere’s Luck List. Might just be fun to see what you think should be deleted, or what might be added.

Perhaps his strokes of luck aren’t all evenly striking or strong, but do pick your favourite or add it. My top favourites are numbers 7 and 12.

So, here’s my Lucky Lechmere List. Your comments, questions or additions whatever they are, are welcome!

1. First off, there’s the luck that Paul apparently hadn’t seen or heard Lechmere move around the body and then away from it to the middle of the road. Lechmere simply couldn’t have known this, nor did he have much control over it, if any at all.
2. Then there’s, of course, Lechmere’s luck that it was Paul who came down Buck’s Row and not someone else. Someone else might have wanted to examine Nichols more thoroughly, be more persistent in wanting to prop her up, slap her in the face, discover the blood or the wounds, see the wide open eyes, propose for Lechmere to stay put while he fetched a policeman or vice versa, go knock on doors in Buck’s Row, not be late for work.
3. And the same sort of luck that Mizen didn’t ask any questions at all other than “What’s the matter?” after being told so very little.
4. And that Mizen either didn’t have his bull’s eye on or didn’t notice any blood on Lechmere’s person if he did.
5. And that Mizen was SO surprised to find out that the woman wasn’t just drunk, asleep or had fainted (but that it was actually a case of murder or suicide) that he DIDN’T talk to Neil or Spratling at all about the two carmen who’d only told him that “there was a woman lying in Buck’s Row”, giving him the impression that it was nothing serious.
6. And that Mizen wasn’t the beat copper. Or are we to assume Lechmere knew that or could in any way bank on that beforehand?
7. And that he didn’t walk into the actual beat copper Neil after he’d left the body together with Paul. That would have been quite a different kettle of fish than trying to scam Mizen. The arms of the same copper he was – according to some yeasayers - so afraid to run into just a few minutes before, when Neil was still a few minutes further away from the crime spot.
8. And that using another name than your birthname was all but uncommon back in those days, so that it wouldn’t be any problem at all if the police would ever find out that he had used a name that he wasn’t known by at work or anywhere else.
9. And that the police made nothing of him claiming he would hear anybody at the murder site, 130 yards off, while not hearing Paul until he was a mere 30 to 40 yards away from him. From a killer’s point of view, that would have been no smart thing to do.
10. And that Paul was on high alert, listening for sounds, but only until the moment arrived that Lechmere moved around the body and then away from it to take up his position in the middle of the road. Lechmere was very lucky that Paul went deaf at the right moment.
11. And that the police made nothing of him not having told Mizen that he was the one that found the body and that he & Paul had examined it before deciding the best thing they could do was to tell the first copper they’d meet.
12. And that Mizen did actually find Neil already at the crime scene, as Lechmere could not have known if Neil would arrive there long enough before Mizen. After all, Neil could just as well have turned into Buck’s Row from either Thomas Street or Queen Ann Street when Mizen had already turned into Buck’s Row.
13. And the luck that Mizen, knowing that he was possibly lied to by the man who was seen standing by the body, did nothing when more bodies started to turn up.
14. And the luck that the police either wasn‘t interested to know why he hadn’t told Mizen that he was the one who found the body, that he & Paul examined it and how Mizen could have heard Lechmere say that he was wanted by another policeman.
15. And the luck that the police either didn’t check at Pickford’s to see if he actually worked there and at what time he clocked in on the morning of the murder.

All the best,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Frank,

Good list. Might we add - that the police didn’t check at his home and find out, in some way, that he’d left home at 3.25. And that they didn’t walk the route and find out that he would have arrived in Bucks Row suspiciously early?

[Damaso Marte]

I don't think Lechmere was the Ripper, but whoever the Ripper was had a lucky list even longer than that. Simply saying that Lechmere needed a lot of luck to get away with the so-called Mizen Scam isn't doing much in a field that's about a guy who butchered people on the streets of one of the world's largest cities.

[Sam Flynn]

I don't think Lechmere was the Ripper, but whoever the Ripper was had a lucky list even longer than that.

If the Ripper had hailed a passerby, drawn attention to a victim, then accompanied that passerby to find a policeman, and - having found that policeman - proceeded to speak with the officer about the drunk/dead woman they'd found, we might be onto something. As it is, the Ripper did none of these things and simply slinked off into the shadows and anonymity of the Whitechapel slums. That's not luck, that's self-preservation.

[FrankO]

I don't think Lechmere was the Ripper, but whoever the Ripper was had a lucky list even longer than that. Simply saying that Lechmere needed a lot of luck to get away with the so-called Mizen Scam isn't doing much in a field that's about a guy who butchered people on the streets of one of the world's largest cities.

Hi Damaso,

Thanks for your feedback. Reading it, I think I should perhaps have given a little more background in the OP.

Like you, I don't think Lechmere was the Ripper and the aim of this thread isn't to do much or even something in the field you indicate. It was just to give some counterweight to the list of anomalies and coincidences that Christer Holmgren regularly posts. I've had my list lying on a shelf for quite some time and now that Lechmere's luck was mentioned on another thread, I thought it would be a good time, as an excercise, to brush up my list, add some things and delete some others and to post it here to see what others think of it and maybe add or delete some strokes. And the list doesn't concern just the Mizen scam, but Lechmere's decision, if guilty, to stay put and wait for Paul and everything that happened thereafter regarding the Nichols murder. That's it.

The best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

Good list. Might we add - that the police didn’t check at his home and find out, in some way, that he’d left home at 3.25. And that they didn’t walk the route and find out that he would have arrived in Bucks Row suspiciously early?

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your reaction. Yes, we might add those things, although, based on the evidence, I don't see a direct reason for the police to have checked Lechmere's route to Buck's Row. But that could have been a result of finding out some irregularities in checking at his home or work, of course.

Cheers,
Frank

[A P Tomlinson]

We can add that no reporter, after LLoyds getting such juicy morsels from Paul, decided to go round his house in search of a follow up, and ask for "Mr Cross" and be told "No Cross here... this is the Lechmere House!"
"Witness lies!" about either name or address would be easy inch filler for a tabloid.

Even if it were just one of the Papers that were taking an anti Police stand, hoping to get some more of what Paul had said about Mizen not hurrying to the scene, there was a very good chance someone outside of his immediate circle of acquaintances would take an interest and knock on his door asking for Mr Cross and catch him in that needless, pointless lie.

[Fisherman]

Following a post by A P Tomlinson over on the thread “The Darkness of Baker’s Row” I thought it was time to post about “Lechmere’s Levels of Luck” of what I called this thread “Lucky Lechmere List”. I mean, I find Lechmere a person of interest, I would have liked to have asked him and some of the people involved a number of questions, and in that sense I keep the door to 'Lechmere the Killer' just ajar, but right next to the list regularly posted by Christer I thought it was time to post a Lechmere’s Luck List. Might just be fun to see what you think should be deleted, or what might be added.

Perhaps his strokes of luck aren’t all evenly striking or strong, but do pick your favourite or add it. My top favourites are numbers 7 and 12.

So, here’s my Lucky Lechmere List. Your comments, questions or additions whatever they are, are welcome!

1. First off, there’s the luck that Paul apparently hadn’t seen or heard Lechmere move around the body and then away from it to the middle of the road. Lechmere simply couldn’t have known this, nor did he have much control over it, if any at all.
2. Then there’s, of course, Lechmere’s luck that it was Paul who came down Buck’s Row and not someone else. Someone else might have wanted to examine Nichols more thoroughly, be more persistent in wanting to prop her up, slap her in the face, discover the blood or the wounds, see the wide open eyes, propose for Lechmere to stay put while he fetched a policeman or vice versa, go knock on doors in Buck’s Row, not be late for work.
3. And the same sort of luck that Mizen didn’t ask any questions at all other than “What’s the matter?” after being told so very little.
4. And that Mizen either didn’t have his bull’s eye on or didn’t notice any blood on Lechmere’s person if he did.
5. And that Mizen was SO surprised to find out that the woman wasn’t just drunk, asleep or had fainted (but that it was actually a case of murder or suicide) that he DIDN’T talk to Neil or Spratling at all about the two carmen who’d only told him that “there was a woman lying in Buck’s Row”, giving him the impression that it was nothing serious.
6. And that Mizen wasn’t the beat copper. Or are we to assume Lechmere knew that or could in any way bank on that beforehand?
7. And that he didn’t walk into the actual beat copper Neil after he’d left the body together with Paul. That would have been quite a different kettle of fish than trying to scam Mizen. The arms of the same copper he was – according to some yeasayers - so afraid to run into just a few minutes before, when Neil was still a few minutes further away from the crime spot.
8. And that using another name than your birthname was all but uncommon back in those days, so that it wouldn’t be any problem at all if the police would ever find out that he had used a name that he wasn’t known by at work or anywhere else.
9. And that the police made nothing of him claiming he would hear anybody at the murder site, 130 yards off, while not hearing Paul until he was a mere 30 to 40 yards away from him. From a killer’s point of view, that would have been no smart thing to do.
10. And that Paul was on high alert, listening for sounds, but only until the moment arrived that Lechmere moved around the body and then away from it to take up his position in the middle of the road. Lechmere was very lucky that Paul went deaf at the right moment.
11. And that the police made nothing of him not having told Mizen that he was the one that found the body and that he & Paul had examined it before deciding the best thing they could do was to tell the first copper they’d meet.
12. And that Mizen did actually find Neil already at the crime scene, as Lechmere could not have known if Neil would arrive there long enough before Mizen. After all, Neil could just as well have turned into Buck’s Row from either Thomas Street or Queen Ann Street when Mizen had already turned into Buck’s Row.
13. And the luck that Mizen, knowing that he was possibly lied to by the man who was seen standing by the body, did nothing when more bodies started to turn up.
14. And the luck that the police either wasn‘t interested to know why he hadn’t told Mizen that he was the one who found the body, that he & Paul examined it and how Mizen could have heard Lechmere say that he was wanted by another policeman.
15. And the luck that the police either didn’t check at Pickford’s to see if he actually worked there and at what time he clocked in on the morning of the murder.

All the best,
Frank

All sorts of lists can be made in these contexts. I could compile an "Unlucky Lechmere list", where I list the many possibilities there were for Lechmere to help hinder him ending up as a main suspect on a public discussion more than a century after his playing a role in the Ripper drama. Unlucky as he was, he missed out time after time:

1. He could have walked another way to work, and so he would never have been found standing alone by the side of a very freshly killed Ripper victim.

2. He could have started work at another time, in which case the same would apply.

3. He could have found a woman who was not warm and bleeding but cold and with clotted blood.

4. He could have had Paul just a few yards closer to himself, and Paul would have been able to confirm that Lechmere walked in front of himself down Bucks Row until they arrived by the body.

5. He could have had the murders happen on the west side of Pickfords instead of the east.

6. He could have had his mother staying elsewhere than a block from the Berner Street murder site.

7. He could have had the Mitre Square murder happening somewhere that did not tally with his old work route from James Street.

8. He could have worked in a line that did not require wearing a knife at all times.

9. He could have helped propping Nichols up.

10. The wounds to the abdomen need not have been hidden from sight.

11. That rag could have been dropped north, west or south of Mitre Square, instead of east.

12. That other rag did not have to be foubd unban exact line from the railway arch up to his lodgings.

13. The Pinchin Street dumping did not need to happen in his childhood street.

14. Anybody could have seen another man leaving Bucks Row in a hurry before Lechmere got there.

15. He could have called himself by his registered name, or at least mentioned it, at the inquest.

There, Frank, is fifteen unlucky points offered as a counterweight to your fifteen lucky ones. I am not interested in any further discussion about it right now, but when I have debated with Fiver on the other thread, I will invite anybody to ask questions of me, and I will single out posters to answer, before I move on to the next poster. There will be an opportunity to speak about this then, but for now, it will have to suffice to show that the lucky list may not be as telling as it perhaps seems to be at first glance.
I will leave you to it, and Herlock to offer his "Good list" congratulations to me too.

[FrankO]

There, Frank, is fifteen unlucky points offered as a counterweight to your fifteen lucky ones. I am not interested in any further discussion about it right now, but when I have debated with Fiver on the other thread, I will invite anybody to ask questions of me, and I will single out posters to answer, before I move on to the next poster. There will be an opportunity to speak about this then, but for now, it will have to suffice to show that the lucky list may not be as telling as it perhaps seems to be at first glance.
I will leave you to it, and Herlock to offer his "Good list" congratulations to me too.

Thanks for your feedback, Christer. Aren't the points on your list just your 'usual' (which I don't mean in some degrading manner) anomalies, oddities & coincidences disguised as unlucky strokes? For instance, it seems that quite a number would go under the geographical point you often make. If I'm seeing that correctly, then your list is no new counterweight to my list, but rather your original list in another form, to which my list is a counterweight.

The best,
Frank

[FrankO]

We can add that no reporter, after LLoyds getting such juicy morsels from Paul, decided to go round his house in search of a follow up, and ask for "Mr Cross" and be told "No Cross here... this is the Lechmere House!"
"Witness lies!" about either name or address would be easy inch filler for a tabloid.

Even if it were just one of the Papers that were taking an anti Police stand, hoping to get some more of what Paul had said about Mizen not hurrying to the scene, there was a very good chance someone outside of his immediate circle of acquaintances would take an interest and knock on his door asking for Mr Cross and catch him in that needless, pointless lie.

Good one, A P - thanks!

[Fiver]

So Fisherman's regurgitating his tired, discredited nonsense again. None of these even imply Lechmere's guilt, and many are flatly wrong. Minus Fisherman's bias, they boil down to Charles Lechmere lived in the area and was the first to find one of the victims.

2. He could have started work at another time, in which case the same would apply.

Lechmere's work start time points against him being the Ripper or the Torsoman. Chapman was murdered after Lechemre started work. To murder Stride and Eddowes would have required staying up 23+ hours straight or getting up at least 3 hours early on his only day off. The Pichin Street Torso was deposited after he started work.

6. He could have had his mother staying elsewhere than a block from the Berner Street murder site.

I see your knowledge of the geography is fairly inadequate.

7. He could have had the Mitre Square murder happening somewhere that did not tally with his old work route from James Street.

I see your knowledge of the geography is fairly inadequate.

8. He could have worked in a line that did not require wearing a knife at all times.

I see your knowledge of the required gear for a van driver is fairly inadequate.

9. He could have helped propping Nichols up.

This continues to point towards Lechmere's innocence. A guilty man would have jumped at the chance for an innocent explanation for fresh blood on his hands or clothes.

10. The wounds to the abdomen need not have been hidden from sight.

I see your knowledge of witness testimony is fairly inadequate.

12. That other rag did not have to be foubd unban exact line from the railway arch up to his lodgings.

I see your knowledge of the geography, geometry, witness testimony, and serial killer behavior is fairly inadequate.

13. The Pinchin Street dumping did not need to happen in his childhood street.

I see your knowledge of the geography is fairly inadequate. According to Gary Barnett, James Street was not Pichin street.

14. Anybody could have seen another man leaving Bucks Row in a hurry before Lechmere got there.

This again points towards Lechmere's innocence. A guilty man would have claimed to have caught a glimpse of someone to divert suspicion.

15. He could have called himself by his registered name, or at least mentioned it, at the inquest.

I see your knowledge of period inquest procedures and declaring of names is fairly inadequate. And that you don't assign the same sense of guilt to other witnesses who didn't mention all of their surnames at a Ripper inquest.

And these points of ignorance and error are deliberate on Fisherman's part, since he's been shown the facts dozens of times.

[Herlock Sholmes]

1. He could have walked another way to work, and so he would never have been found standing alone by the side of a very freshly killed Ripper victim.

When are you going to stop using this lie? He was first seen standing in the middle of the road. And the fact is that if he had been over to the body then he’d have been taking a huge risk by not admitting to this fact as he couldn’t have known that Paul hadn’t seen him on the move.

[Pcdunn]

When are you going to stop using this lie? He was first seen standing in the middle of the road. And the fact is that if he had been over to the body then he’d have been taking a huge risk by not admitting to this fact as he couldn’t have known that Paul hadn’t seen him on the move.

YES! Absolutely untrue that this man was found "over the body"-- and very misleading! One of my pet peeves.

[A P Tomlinson]

YES! Absolutely untrue that this man was found "over the body"-- and very misleading! One of my pet peeves.

There is a poster on Youtube, an American Lady I believe, who seems to haunt me whenever I correct this misunderstanding on various comment sections. She posts the same thing every time "STANDING WHERE THE WOMAN WAS!!!!!"
I have come to consider her the Squeaky Fromme of the Cult of Lechmere...

[Fisherman]

There is a poster on Youtube, an American Lady I believe, who seems to haunt me whenever I correct this misunderstanding on various comment sections. She posts the same thing every time "STANDING WHERE THE WOMAN WAS!!!!!"
I have come to consider her the Squeaky Fromme of the Cult of Lechmere...

Actually, that was exactly how Robert Paul phrased himself when interviewed in Lloyds Weekly. He said that the man he saw in Bucks Row was standing where the woman was. So the woman you have come to consider a cult member for saying "standing where the woman was" is quoting actual evidence ascribed to Robert Paul.

If you are thinking that "where the woman was" does not dovetail with "in the middle of the road", you need to consider that the phrasing "he was standing in the middle of the road, right where the woman was" could well describe a scene where Lechmere was in line with the woman, but some way out in the street.

But hey, why not paint her out as a cult member, trying to elevate dubious information into facts? And compare her to a murderous Manson gang member? After all, that IS what these boards are for.

Or?

Keep on "correcting", A P, you seem well cut out for that role.