Charles Lechmere interesting link

[GUT]

The prize for the most ludicrous statement goes to the one complaining about looking at Lechmere's actions with a view to him being guilty. How would anyone every get caught otherwise?

G'day Lechmere

You are the one who said:

Yes, and it is perfectly rational as long as you look at things from both sides. It would be absurd not to try the guilty approach on any subject to see if he fits the bill.

Before you talk about ludicrous statements maybe you need to take your own advice and look at things from both sides and see that everything you accuse Cross of can just as easily be the actions of an innocent man.

[Lechmere]

In terms of a potential suspect, is such a person stronger or weaker if he has a reason to be round and about the locations where the crimes were committed, than someone who has no reason to be anywhere near at that time or place.
There's only one answer.
Come on you experienced sensible criminologist ripperologists - find another 'genuine' suspect who meets that criteria. Ideally a non witness, as experienced criminologists of course know that supposed witnesses never turn out to be guilty.

[Fisherman]

But that's just it, Barnaby, he had reason to be on the streets in the morning. In fact, he had reason to be on that particular street, Buck's Row. (Durward Street) In this map you see right to left he is walking from his home on Doveton Street, Bethnal Green, to Pickford's at Broad Street Station. The Coal Depot is directly astride his route. He must go around it. Apparently going north was out of his way. So he went south around it. Durward Street is the nearest way around. The X marks the spot where he found the body of Polly Nichols, immediately before crossing the railway bridge. In this 1897 map, the citizens have had the name changed from Buck's Row to Durward Street because of the notoriety of the crime. Charles Lechmere had a perfectly legitimate reason for being in that place at that time.

[ATTACH]16095[/ATTACH]

Eh - great detective work there, Roy!

Now, what was our point again? Ah, yes - the murders occurred in places where Charles Lechmere would reasonably be at those times in the mornings.

I am not sure what you are after here? A suggestion that Charles Lechmere is exonerated every time a killing goes down in a spot where the carman should reasonably have been at the approximate murder time?

Take a renewed look at your maps, Roy. Charles Lechmere had only one choice - he had to take Buck´s Row. That is correct. But Buck´s Row is uniteresting, sort of, when trying to establish if Lechmere could have been the killer. Buck´s Row does not leave us with any choice in that context either - we KNOW that Charles Lechmere was there at the exact correct time, and we KNOW that Polly Nichols was killed there. We may therefore conclude that to those who say that Lechmere may have been the Ripper, Bucks Row fits excellently and totally with the suggestion. We can actually place Charles Lechmere by the body. Alone, even! At a time that Llewellyn informs us would fit snugly into the frame.

No, Roy, it is the OTHER venues that are interesting. Emma Smith - corner of Osborne and Wentworth, Martha Tabram - thirty yards off Old Montague, Annie Chapman - straight on Hanbury, Mary Kelly - on a short cut from Hanbury to Broad Street. All of them on times that can be reasoned to tally with his working trek.

Imagine that his working place would have been north of the Hanbury Street outlet into Bishopsgate. Then he would not have had any reason to use Old Montague. Imagine that his working place would have been south of the Old Montague outlet into Bishopsgate. Then he would not have had any reason to use Hanbury.

The Broad Street depot is placed in a manner that meant that BOTH these thoroughfares were aptly situated to take him to work. They are just about equally long too, only the fewest of minutes tell them apart in that respect.

So what we are looking for is a man that had reason to be in Buck´s Row at the hour inbetween 3 and 4, and a man that had reason to be on Old Montague Street at the approximate same time and on Hanbury Street at the approximate same time. A man, as it were, who had a schedule that meant that he had reason to traverse this exact area along these exact streets at that exact time.

And you know what? We´ve found just such a man!

Moreover, when we found him, it turns out that he had lied to the police about his name.

It also turns out that he was claimed - by the police he encountered on one of the murder nights - to have blurted out something that would have formed the perfect lie to take him past that police unsearched.

And to boot, there are a number of strange anomalies tied to him that potentially all point to guilt on his behalf.

But you know, it is probably just smoke and mirrors, all of it. He must have been innocent. He just wanted to stay away from the whole business so it would not tarnish his good name. And the streets would have been absolutely crowded with other men anyway, all of them with a reason to be in the corner of Osborne and Wentworth at shortly before 4, in George Yard around 3, in Bucks Row at 3.45, in Hanbury Street at around 3.30 to 4 (as per Phillips), in Berner Street at 12.45 and in Dorset Street at around 4.

I´m sure you are right - there´s nothing to him.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

The prize for the most ludicrous statement goes to the one complaining about looking at Lechmere's actions with a view to him being guilty. How would anyone every get caught otherwise?

[Barnaby]

Much thanks, Roy.

It looks like going south around the Coal Depot has the added advantage of ultimately getting to Whitechapel Road (or Montague Street - that seems better but not as big of a road) and sticking to the major roads on his way to work. In any event going south appears the way to go!

[Roy Corduroy]

...as an objective piece of information I agree that he had a reasonable explanation for being there.

Thank you, Barnaby that is my point.

Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi, Barnaby, that's a good question. Here is the 1897 map again showing the Coal Depot directly astride his route, which channels him south through Buck's Row (Durward Street) the first street leading around it. It was physically necessary to go that way. He found the body of Polly Nichols at the X.



A wider view - 1 is Lechmere's home, Doveton Street, 2 the murder site, and 3 his workplace, Pickford's at Broad Street station. His destination is in a west/southwest direction. So no, I don't think he would take the northern route around the coal depot.

[Barnaby]

Roy,

Thanks for this information! I suppose the counter argument is that we would expect to find his victims en route to his work place if he were killing on his way to work, but as an objective piece of information I agree that he had a reasonable explanation for being there. And these maps really help me visualize things!

One question: You stated going north around the coal depot was apparently out of his way. I think you said this because he obviously didn't go north. From the map,however, it looks like it would be faster to go around it to the north. The map is cut off, however, and so I'm not sure how this would affect the time to his final destination. Does he get to work faster if he goes north, south, or is the difference negligible?

Best,

Barnaby

[Roy Corduroy]

But that's just it, Barnaby, he had reason to be on the streets in the morning. In fact, he had reason to be on that particular street, Buck's Row. (Durward Street) In this map you see right to left he is walking from his home on Doveton Street, Bethnal Green, to Pickford's at Broad Street Station. The Coal Depot is directly astride his route. He must go around it. Apparently going north was out of his way. So he went south around it. Durward Street is the nearest way around. The X marks the spot where he found the body of Polly Nichols, immediately before crossing the railway bridge. In this 1897 map, the citizens have had the name changed from Buck's Row to Durward Street because of the notoriety of the crime. Charles Lechmere had a perfectly legitimate reason for being in that place at that time.

[Barnaby]

G'day Fisherman

The part I have highlighted above s to me the whole problem with Cross as the Ripper when I look at his actions as a guilty man I can see a glimmer of a possibility, when I look at them as the actions of an innocent man he is in the clear. Thus the case in my mind fails to get to committal let alone conviction. I've said t before and I'll say it again no prosecution service would bring a case on what we have.

Hi GUT,

I have that problem with lots of suspects! If you start with a "if they are guilty" mindset, one can see lots of things as suspicious. And I am most definitely prone to doing this when reading the latest suspect book, etc.

Having said that, I don't think anyone has claimed to have enough evidence on Lechmere to warrant prosecution. But even objectively, he seems a viable suspect: lived in the East end, had reason to be on the streets in the early morning hours, presented himself in such a manner to scare Robert Paul and just so happened to be standing by a very recently killed (still alive?) Ripper victim when doing so, did not give his real name to authorities, and contradicted PC Mizen on the witness stand. There are other points that are debatable (and more interesting) but these I think are accepted by most. Does this means he did it? No. But I like him as a suspect more so than others who WERE interviewed extensively as possible suspects by the police ( Hutch, Barnett). For these reasons, I think Lechmere deserves modern attention as a suspect.

Best,

Barnaby

[Barnaby]

To add, the only living descendant mentioned, Sue Lechmere, apparently thinks her great-great grandfather did it and, as such, I doubt she would be upset!

[Barnaby]

It just goes on.
An entire fiction has been created and enlarged about the life of old Charlie. His family are dragged in, a back story has been invented about the treatment of his wife, comments are made about whether his wife knew of his murderous habits. His children are analysed.
Its all lies, in the sense that you have invented a charactor Letchmere to fit in with a theory
You know nothing about Letchmere and his family apart from what is on record.
If I was a descendant of Letchmere, I d be bloody angry that you made all this stuff up and talk about it as though it was literal truth.

If you want to know about his family, contact the descendants.

Miss Marple

I will deservedly take the blame for raising the quite established link between aggression and genetics (and if you doubt that, remember the Y chromosome is a genetic factor) and being curious about his children.

My questions regard matters of public record which I certainly could investigate, but before doing so I thought I'd ask the Lechmere experts.

It was not my intention to upset anyone on this rather academic matter. To those offended, are you equally offended by questions such as "What did Druitt's family know? or "What was the relationship between James Kelly and his mother-in-law?" Are you offended when we discuss the dating / social history of the victims and bring tangential characters into the mix as possible suspects? After all, there was only one (or a few) Jack the Ripper(s) and this website is thus full of deceased persons being falsely accused.

Or do you just not like this particular suspect and are using my inquiry to take an unfair shot at the entire theory?

[GUT]

Patrick S:

For the Lechmerians, all signs point to 'Yes!'.

No, Patrick. For the Lechmereians, all signs point to "possible" or even "feasible", whereas - so far - not a single sign has pointed to "no". We constantly put the theory to the test, and what it has resulted in, is that no link in the chain has been broken. If it does not interest you, it interests me very much.

The absurdities have driven many of us from the boards.

Like who? Is it not more absurd to leave the boards because you dislike a particular theory?

Arguments like 'view the 'evidence' with an eye on Lechmere being guilty' are presented as rational.

Yes, and it is perfectly rational as long as you look at things from both sides. It would be absurd not to try the guilty approach on any subject to see if he fits the bill.

Myriad assumptions are made, one built upon another. I hope it runs it's course soon.

You can wave farewell to that hope, Patrick. Things will only get worse - from your point of view.

the best,
Fisherman

G'day Fisherman

The part I have highlighted above s to me the whole problem with Cross as the Ripper when I look at his actions as a guilty man I can see a glimmer of a possibility, when I look at them as the actions of an innocent man he is in the clear. Thus the case in my mind fails to get to committal let alone conviction. I've said t before and I'll say it again no prosecution service would bring a case on what we have.

[Scott Nelson]

Then it's time to focus on David Conehead instead.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S:

For the Lechmerians, all signs point to 'Yes!'.

No, Patrick. For the Lechmereians, all signs point to "possible" or even "feasible", whereas - so far - not a single sign has pointed to "no". We constantly put the theory to the test, and what it has resulted in, is that no link in the chain has been broken. If it does not interest you, it interests me very much.

The absurdities have driven many of us from the boards.

Like who? Is it not more absurd to leave the boards because you dislike a particular theory?

Arguments like 'view the 'evidence' with an eye on Lechmere being guilty' are presented as rational.

Yes, and it is perfectly rational as long as you look at things from both sides. It would be absurd not to try the guilty approach on any subject to see if he fits the bill.

Myriad assumptions are made, one built upon another. I hope it runs it's course soon.

You can wave farewell to that hope, Patrick. Things will only get worse - from your point of view.

the best,
Fisherman