Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

Barnaby: Hey Fisherman,

If we take Cross and Paul at their word (and no real reason to distrust Paul), this is what occurred:

Cross, while walking down the street, notices a body. At about the same time, he hears Paul coming from about 40 yards away. Neither Cross nor Paul report hearing each other beyond this distance, and Paul doesn't report hearing Cross at all until he is basically on top of him.

All very true, with just a slight correction - Paul does not hear Lechmere (I have chosen to call him that, since I am a bit pissed that he managed to keep his name from us for such a long period - itīs payback time now ) at all, he only sees him. There is nothing to hear, since Lechmere is standing still out in the street.

Maybe Paul doesn't hear Cross because Cross isn't walking but simply inspecting the body. But how long was he "inspecting the body." From Cross, not long at all. So Paul should have heard Cross prior to Cross finding the body.

Yes. He should have heard Lechmere all the way down Bucks Row. Actually, he should have heard him before that too, since when Paul stepped out of his house in Foster Street, he had Bath Street thirty, forty yards down to his right, and Lechmere would have walked down that street (it is probably the street Lechmere speaks of at the inquest as "Parson Street"; there is and was no Parson Street in the area, and I think the paper that wrote "Parson Street" misheard Lechmere saying Bath Street).
So we will have Lechmere passing the intersection Bath Street/Foster Street in more or less the exact second that Paul stepped out onto the pavement outside his dwellings.
Then, supposedly, the two walked in tandem down Bath Street, crossed Brady Street, and walked the whole length down Bucks Row, thirty, forty yards inbetween them that whole stretch, and nobody notices the other man ...? There is every chance that the two would have walked past a gas light somewhere along that trek too, and if so, Paul should reasonably have seen Lechmere passing under it.

But the two do not take notice of each other. Which is ridiculous.

So, to me, Cross lied about how long he was with the body. Either because he was the murderer or because poking around a dead body looks incriminating. In isolation, the latter is reasonable, but when combined with his other suspicious behavior one begins to wonder...

One began to wonder a long time ago by now . And yes, it is a decidedly strange thing. Moreover, as has been shown, if Lechmere left home at 3.20-3.30, what was he doing outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.45? He should have been long gone by then.

And what does he do as Paul approaches? Does he say "Hey, come over here and have a look, I think itīs a woman lying here! Dear God, see what you can do, and Iīll knock the people here up and see if I can call a copper!"

Nope. He stands quite still and totally quiet in the middle of the street as Paul approaches. He does not go over to the woman to help her, his priorities lie with Paul instead. Then he moves in on Paul, making it clear to the latter that he is going to block his path. And still, he says not a word.

And when Paul is scared and opts for trying to round the intimidating man blocking his way, the latter stretches his arm out and stops him by putting a hand on his shoulder. And STILL he has not said a single word. Itīs only when he has halted Paul that he finally speaks.

He raises no alarm, he does not suggest that they get help in the adjacent buildings, and when Paul says that he will fetch a copper, he does not stay with the body of what could be a woman in dire need of help. He instead joins Paul and leaves the body lying.

And Iīm told this is all very innocent and that there is nothing at all strange involved.

The best,
Fisherman

[miss marple]

So Where was the knife? If Letch had done the murder a few minutes before seeing Paul, he would have had the knife, or chucked it nearby. Where was the blood on Letch's clothes?
So this devious hardworking psychopath,[ who according to the' theory speculation' has to have been an oppressive father and husband, to bolster the theory, as there is no evidence that he engaged in criminal activity] decides on his way to work [ where he will probably be docked pay if he is late ] is the most convienient time to take a knife and murder a whore on the off chance he bumps into one.
If he wants to get on with his life without being bothered by publicity, and nosy people, giving the name Cross, which appears in the papers ensures his anounymity and his family's safety. There is nothing odd about that. He worked for the same company for many years. He seemed to be a creature of routine, leading an uneventful life and interruptions to that routine would be unwelcome, but being a concerned citizen, cant ignore a woman who might be ill, dead or dying.

I cant buy him somehow as a psychopath, it dos'nt smell right, but that is just my opinion.

Miss Marple

[Fisherman]

So Where was the knife? If Letch had done the murder a few minutes before seeing Paul, he would have had the knife, or chucked it nearby. Where was the blood on Letch's clothes?
So this devious hardworking psychopath,[ who according to the' theory speculation' has to have been an oppressive father and husband, to bolster the theory, as there is no evidence that he engaged in criminal activity] decides on his way to work [ where he will probably be docked pay if he is late ] is the most convienient time to take a knife and murder a whore on the off chance he bumps into one.
If he wants to get on with his life without being bothered by publicity, and nosy people, giving the name Cross, which appears in the papers ensures his anounymity and his family's safety. There is nothing odd about that. He worked for the same company for many years. He seemed to be a creature of routine, leading an uneventful life and interruptions to that routine would be unwelcome, but being a concerned citizen, cant ignore a woman who might be ill, dead or dying.

I cant buy him somehow as a psychopath, it dos'nt smell right, but that is just my opinion.

Miss Marple

The knife would have been on his person. It was not found when the place was searched, so with Lechmere as the killer, we can be certain that he did not leave it behind.

Where was the blood on Lechīs clothes? What a strange thing to ask. How do we know that there would have been any blood transferred? How do we know that his clothes were spotless as such? Who was to see any spots in a pitch dark place? Especially if his clothes were dark? And his feeling the hands and face of Nichols would have provided him with an alibi for the blood to a useful extent anyway.

To state that he must have been oppressive to his family is taken out of the blue, Iīm afraid. He MAY have been, but there can be no knowing. Not all psychopath serialists are oppressive to their close ones. Peter Kürten treated his wife with love and respect. Gary Ridgway was the best and most considerate man his wife had met.
Things like these are often misunderstood by posters, who very aggressively swing them as baseball bats without realizing they are empty-handed.

His working trek WOULD have been the most convenient time for him to kill. It was dark, he was alone, there were prostitutes around - thatīs as convenient as it was going to get for a family man killer.
And what is this about "the off chance" that there were prostitutes around? We KNOW that prostitutes were active at these hours, and it is not as if he killed on all working days, is it? He may well have looked for prey for weeks before he found Nichols.

And, as usual, there is "nothing odd" about a person hiding his true name from the police! No, thatīs common procedure, we ALL do that!

And yes, he worked for the same company for years - just like Ridgway, for example.

He seemingly lived a routine and uneventful life? How on earth do you know that? Do you have access to his everyday moves and doings? I know I donīt. To me, there is nothing at all to draw such a conclusion from.
But there ARE lots of examples of people who DID live what looked like routine lives and were serialists anyway. In fact, it is the everyday routine man that stands the best chance of staying undetected.

".. a concerned citizen, cant ignore a woman who might be ill, dead or dying."

But he can walk away from her, leaving her lying? He can avoid trying to help her as he waits for another man to arrive?
Have you really thought about what you are saying here?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Question
How long would the list be, of serial killers who do not conform to the stereotypes imagined by various posters on this forum?
Answer
Almost as long as the list of known serial killers.

[Fisherman]

Question
How long would the list be, of serial killers who do not conform to the stereotypes imagined by various posters on this forum?
Answer
Almost as long as the list of known serial killers.

Thatīs very true. The individual, organized serialist, will scout out which environment and opportunity fits his special circumstances best, and then he will work from that angle.

Dahmer - take them home and kill them there.
Bonin - pick them up along the highways.
Ridgway - seek them out on Sea-Tac and dump them in the river.
Hansen - fly them out to the wilderness and hunt for them.
Bittaker - get a van and turn it into a murder machine.
Carpenter - use the public park forests.
And so on and so forth.

Could Lechmere take his victims home? No.
Did he have a lorry to use? No.
Did he have a plane to fly them somewhere? No.
A van? No.
Could he reach recreational areas outside London? No.
He comes closest to Ridgway - he used the prostitute areas. But he had no car to bring the women along with him, so he had to settle for a secluded street, backyard or square. It was the best he could do.

Practicality rules the day.

All the best,
Fisherman

[miss marple]

Fish,
I throw the question back ' How do you know that Letch did not lead a uneventful life'
There is more evidence in the 'negative sense' that Letch's life was unremarkable apart from being a ripper witness, than that he led an eventful life. No appearances in the police courts, no travel to foreign parts, No reports in papers of arguments or disputes with neighbours, no violent brawls no political activity. His very ordinariness makes him typical of his time and place and unique.
It is up to you to prove him extradinary and psychopathic. In spite of all your detailed work on timings etc, it is all speculation.
It would be interesting if something turned up unrelated to the ripper incident, or some reference to him under the name Cross although I don't think that is significant as the change only affected his privacy. not an attempt to hide his indentity from the police, they had his work and address.
I think it is perfectly valid to examine Letch as he was actually present at a murder scene, unlike some of the more absurd speculations.
But it would not stand up in court.

Miss Marple

[Fisherman]

miss marple:
Fish,
I throw the question back ' How do you know that Letch did not lead a uneventful life'
There is more evidence in the 'negative sense' that Letch's life was unremarkable apart from being a ripper witness, than that he led an eventful life. No appearances in the police courts, no travel to foreign parts, No reports in papers of arguments or disputes with neighbours, no violent brawls no political activity. His very ordinariness makes him typical of his time and place and unique.

Actually, what we do know of Lechmere is that he featured in a very extraordinary event - the supposedly first Ripper killing. That is why we know of him at all.

Otherwise, we know nothing at all about his everyday existance. Itīs fine to suggest that he lived a drab life, but you have nothing to substantiate it with, do you?

He could have lived a very colourful life and he could not. It is not for us to say what applies, since we do not - neither of us - have the information it takes to bolster either suggestion.

It is up to you to prove him extradinary and psychopathic. In spite of all your detailed work on timings etc, it is all speculation.

Yes, of course itīs speculation, Miss Marple. And the diagnosis psychopath was not something that was available in 1888, so you can put full trust in my disability to find such a thing!

I have never said that my aim was to prove him a psychopath. What I am saying is that if he was the killer, then he answers to the general desription of a psychopath. That stands. It is not as if I have to prove him a psychopath in order to be able to make a case for him as the Ripper!

It would be interesting if something turned up unrelated to the ripper incident, or some reference to him under the name Cross although I don't think that is significant as the change only affected his privacy. not an attempt to hide his indentity from the police, they had his work and address.

Absolutely so, Miss Marple - and he had freely given it to them. Thatīs what I have been saying all along - his aim was not to hide his identity from the police. On the contrary, he wanted to be as truthful as possible when he spoke to them, but that desire did not entail using the name Lechmere.

Havenīt you read the threads? If you had, you would be quite aware that I have never made a case for Lechmere trying to hide his details from the police!

I think it is perfectly valid to examine Letch as he was actually present at a murder scene, unlike some of the more absurd speculations.
But it would not stand up in court.

I wouldnīt necessarily agree with that. But on the whole, try and make a case for Kosminski, Tumblety, Bury, Kelly, Levy, Issenschmidt, Chapman that would stand up in court. Or, to be more down to earth: try and make any case at all for them. Try to place them at the spots, try to find lies presented by them to the police, see if they lied about their identities etcetera.

Which suspect makes for the best case in this respect? Which case would come closest to a viable court case?

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hi fish
There are two major cracks in the theory for me.
One -that a serial killer would kill on his way to work with all that entails. Especially one who would be carrying body parts and a murder weapon.

Two-that a serial killer would confront a witness, but also a policeman shortly after a kill, with body parts and murder weapon still on his body, rather than leave especially when he clearly had a chance to do so.

But I guess it's what your definition of what a crack is because I can at least admit there is no factual mistakes, or even logistical errors in your theory. It's all on the interpretation of the facts, circumstances and evidence that one would have to call any kind of crack in the theory. Even the two I mentioned above could totally be possible (I just find them highly unlikely courses of action).

Lech is way down on my list of viable suspects. I think he was just a witness on his way to work who found the body. That being said, as you know, I have always maintained that he is exactly the type of person that should be looked at and I commend you and lech on your work.

While highly sceptical of your theory I am also somewhat sympathetic and have not only debated you guys on possible weakness in the theory, but have admitted when you have made a good point and even thrown out possible avenues for further research (like work attendance records pickfords to see if he was actually off the day of Polly's murder. Because if he was not scheduled to work that day, believe me he would way up to the top.)

Now, in your theories defense I do also see cracks in lechs story. Not so much the apparent Mizen scam, as I think Mizen, just misremembered, nor the name swap, though that's a little dubious, as I think he may have been known at pickfords as cross.

The one that really has my attention is the missing time we've just recently been discussing. Where was lech? What took him so long? It seems hard to beleive the anal lech, who apparently had a good work record, had a job that depended on being good with time, tells police that he left home at a time that clearly would leave a gap unaccounted for. Paul arrived in bucks row only what a minute or two behind lech according to lech so lech can't say the missing time comes from him dawdling about in bucks row for a long time wondering what to do about the woman.

Now the clincher. Lech says he's late for work. This means he knows what time he left home. There goes the he didn't know what time it was when he left excuse. The missing time. For me, if there's a red flag with lech, this is it.

Great post Abby ,

I agree totally with everything here , but would just like to throw a couple of scenarios out there regarding this one and only red flag ..

knowing full well he has 25 (apparently) unaccountable minutes , and doing nothing about it , he willingly raises that red flag , just in the ever so slight chance that the police may (for no reason whatsoever) pay his wife a visit and ask questions ..

Yet on the other hand, he knowingly gives them a false name (apparently), knowing full well there is an even higher risk now , due to his admitted 25 unaccountable minutes that the Police ( for good reason ) will pay his wife a visit and ask questions ?

Yet we are encouraged to believe , that a Police visit to his wife ( Mrs Lechmere ) would somehow not reveal his fake name , but would definitely reveal a fake leaving time ??

The case against seems a very precise and exact science , but I feel the above scenarios , which if fact play out as one big scenario , are contradictions of each other .. unless of course he had nothing to hide on both counts !

I , like you Abby , believe there is a stronger case against Lechmere if you scrap the whole name change malarkey , and focus on the missing 25 mins .

just my take ..

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Great post Abby ,

I agree totally with everything here , but would just like to throw a couple of scenarios out there regarding this one and only red flag ..

knowing full well he has 25 (apparently) unaccountable minutes , and doing nothing about it , he willingly raises that red flag , just in the ever so slight chance that the police may (for no reason whatsoever) pay his wife a visit and ask questions ..

Yet on the other hand, he knowingly gives them a false name (apparently), knowing full well there is an even higher risk now , due to his admitted 25 unaccountable minutes that the Police ( for good reason ) will pay his wife a visit and ask questions ?

Yet we are encouraged to believe , that a Police visit to his wife ( Mrs Lechmere ) would somehow not reveal his fake name , but would definitely reveal a fake leaving time ??

The case against seems a very precise and exact science , but I feel the above scenarios , which if fact play out as one big scenario , are contradictions of each other .. unless of course he had nothing to hide on both counts !

I , like you Abby , believe there is a stronger case against Lechmere if you scrap the whole name change malarkey , and focus on the missing 25 mins .

just my take ..

moonbegger

That went awry again, Moonbegger.

If I may untangle matters for you?

1. The unaccounted time is not 25 minutes. It is either around 8-9 minutes or around 18-19 minutes.
2. We do not know if he "willingly" told about the time - it could be that his wife knew when he went out.
3. A police visit to his wife would in all probability reveal his fake name.

Details, Moonbegger. Attention to details. Absolutely crucial!

Last time over, you claimed that I had problems with the question in which order Lechmere and Paul spoke to Mizen. I have said and will keep saying that I have no such trouble, since I am convinced that Paul did not say a single word to the PC.

If you read these things before you post, you will do a far better job. At least I hope so.

By the way, how does a case get better when you drop suspicious anomalies? In what way does it fortify the case against Lechmere if we say that the name change was nothing odd or unusual at all?

To me, that would be sheer idiocy. But maybe thatīs just me.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

That went awry again, Moonbegger.

If I may untangle matters for you?

1. The unaccounted time is not 25 minutes. It is either around 8-9 minutes or around 18-19 minutes.
2. We do not know if he "willingly" told about the time - it could be that his wife knew when he went out.
3. A police visit to his wife would in all probability reveal his fake name.

Details, Moonbegger. Attention to details. Absolutely crucial!

Last time over, you claimed that I had problems with the question in which order Lechmere and Paul spoke to Mizen. I have said and will keep saying that I have no such trouble, since I am convinced that Paul did not say a single word to the PC.

If you read these things before you post, you will do a far better job. At least I hope so.

By the way, how does a case get better when you drop suspicious anomalies? In what way does it fortify the case against Lechmere if we say that the name change was nothing odd or unusual at all?

To me, that would be sheer idiocy. But maybe thatīs just me.

The best,
Fisherman

I'm sorry Fish , I thought you had no business responding to me ??

But on your 3 points .. (1) I was using the 3.20 - 3.45 time frame .. (2) you are now claiming he did not willingly say 3.20 and (3) that was Lech's claim .

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

I'm sorry Fish , I thought you had no business responding to me ??

But on your 3 points .. (1) I was using the 3.20 - 3.45 time frame .. (2) you are now claiming he did not willingly say 3.20 and (3) that was Lech's claim .

moonbegger

Here you go again! I am not claiming that he "did not willingly say 3.20", Moonbegger!!!

There were paper accounts that mentioned BOTH 3.20 and 3.30. My guess is that Lechmere said that he NORMALLY left 3.20 (the trek to Broad Street took about 40 minutes) but on the murder morning he was ten minutes late and left 3.30.

However, if he DID leave 3.20, then he would be in Buckīs Row at 3.27 (you forgot the time it took to walk that distance!), and Paul said that he arrived there at 3.45. So itīs 3.45-3.27, leaving us with 18 minutes - like I said.

Please, PLEASE do not put words/opinions in my mouth that do not belong there. And DO read what I have said and try to understand it before you comment on it.

Once you do that, you are more than welcome to ask away.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Fisherman ,

Because we have no way of nailing the times down exactly I was simply using the extremes . The point I was making , and I fear is being buried in a mountain of procrastination and misdirection is that , the simple fact of the matter is the( Time discrepancy ) be it 20minutes 18 minutes 15 or 10 minutes , whatever it may be .. if he guilty , and he is knowingly raising that red flag by not slotting appropriately into Pauls well known time frame , There lies my problem ..

knowing full well he has 25 (apparently) or whatever unaccountable minutes , and doing nothing about it , he willingly raises that red flag , just in the ever so slight chance that the police may (for no reason whatsoever) pay his wife a visit and ask questions ..

Yet on the other hand, he knowingly gives them a false name (apparently), knowing full well there is an even higher risk now , due to his admitted 25 unaccountable minutes that the Police ( for good reason ) will pay his wife a visit and ask questions ?

Yet we are encouraged to believe , that a Police visit to his wife ( Mrs Lechmere ) would somehow not reveal his fake name , but would definitely reveal a fake leaving time ??

The case against seems a very precise and exact science , but I feel the above scenarios , which if fact play out as one big scenario , are contradictions of each other .. unless of course he had nothing to hide on both counts !

Now if you ever do find a credible answer to this conundrum Fish , I would be glad to hear it .. otherwise I do believe your arrogant and belittling attempts at sarcastic wit do you a great disservice ..

Cheers ,

moonbegger .

[Barnaby]

Moonbegger,

I think that you raise a really good point about why not lie about the time he left given he had no qualms lying about his name.

The case against seems a very precise and exact science , but I feel the above scenarios , which if fact play out as one big scenario , are contradictions of each other .. unless of course he had nothing to hide on both counts !

I follow most of your argument but if he had nothing to hide on both counts why didn't he use his real name? This was rather official business.

[Fisherman]

moonbegger:

Fisherman ,

Because we have no way of nailing the times down exactly I was simply using the extremes .

No you werenīt. We cannot suggest that he got from Doveton Street to Bucks Row in two seconds flat. And you DO use the 3.20 time, so you HAVE to add time to get to Bucks Row too.

The point I was making , and I fear is being buried in a mountain of procrastination and misdirection is that , the simple fact of the matter is the( Time discrepancy ) be it 20minutes 18 minutes 15 or 10 minutes , whatever it may be .. if he guilty , and he is knowingly raising that red flag by not slotting appropriately into Pauls well known time frame , There lies my problem ..

knowing full well he has 25 (apparently) or whatever unaccountable minutes , and doing nothing about it , he willingly raises that red flag , just in the ever so slight chance that the police may (for no reason whatsoever) pay his wife a visit and ask questions ..

Break it down like this:

1. My whole point in saying that he gave his address to the police but not his name, was because he did not want his wife to find out about him being involved in the inquest proceedings as a witness. That was also, by the way, why he went to the inquest in his working gear - he kept it from his wife, and so he could not go away that morning in his Sunday best.

2. If his wife was awake as he left, and if she knew quite well that he left at 3.20-3.30, then what would happen if the police came around asking about Lechmere - if the latter had told the police that he left at 3.40 and they asked his wife to confirm this?

3. He could not beforehand ask his wife to lie for him and inform the police that he left a lot later than he actually did, since his wife would reasonably get suspicious then, and that was precisely what he wanted to avoid from the outset.

Can you see the conundrum now?

Yet on the other hand, he knowingly gives them a false name (apparently), knowing full well there is an even higher risk now , due to his admitted 25 unaccountable minutes that the Police ( for good reason ) will pay his wife a visit and ask questions ?

See the above. Even if you are a clever person, planning things and being able to foresee a difficulty or two, you just cannot be prepared for everything that happens. He would have a lot to keep track of, adjusting the true version of events into something that seemed innocent, and so he may not have been able to always choose the best option.

Yet we are encouraged to believe , that a Police visit to his wife ( Mrs Lechmere ) would somehow not reveal his fake name , but would definitely reveal a fake leaving time ??

That was the second time you presented this outright lie, and I am getting tired of it. If the police DID visit the house he lived in, then they WOULD get his real name. That is why he chose the fake name "Cross" and not anything taken out of the blue: He KNEW that the risk was there that the police would come around, and he KNEW that such a thing WOULD reveal his correct name. So what he needed and what he employed was a name that was not his own - but where he could explain why he used it anyway.

Request: Do NOT claim again that I have said that a visit to his house on behalf of the police would not reveal his right name!!!

Now if you ever do find a credible answer to this conundrum Fish , I would be glad to hear it ..

You just did.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

To answer Moonbeggar's queries, when one lies it is usually best to stick to the truth as much as possible, have an explanation for the lie if possible, and where necessary obfuscate and be vague of possible. Not that I am an expert in lying I hasten to add.

Hence the use of the Cross name - he could come up with an explanation for its use if the name swap was exposed as it would have been if the police had visited his house. (Get that? If the police had visited his house, where his wife lived, then Lechmere would not have been able to mask his true identity and his wife would have discovered that he had been involved and called himself Cross).
But what of his leaving time?
He was vague about the route taken to Bucks Row. We have one non-existent street name, so we have no way of knowing, although if innocent one would have to presume upon the most direct route.
The 3.20 and 3.30 conundrum sounds like a bit of obfuscation, forced upon him because his wife knew roughly when he left and if, yes if, the police came calling and he had said 3.40, he could have been caught out.

My overriding suggestion is that he generally did not expect the police to come calling as he was confident in his abilities and his plausibility. But that would not stop him having insurance policies where possible.
The proof of the pudding is that his name swap was not noticed - whether he was innocent or guilty, and that the gap in his timings was not noticed - innocent or guilty.
Just as his dispute with Mizen was barely noticed.