Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Colin Roberts]

This fascinates me. The way I read it, the killer himself selects hunting grounds in an attempt to create variability and disguise his home location. To what extent is this a conscious decision?

... Given enough kills the region could be potentially discovered by the boundaries, but unless the dope (which he wouldn't be if he did this) created the region to center around his location the hunting grounds would not yield any information as to his home base.

In the absence of geographic, (potential-victim) demographic and time constraints, but in the knowledge that their trade was illegal, I would think that most hunters would instinctively and therefore subconsciously radiate in sequentially alternating directions.

It is the ones that come into the area from somewhat far afield, and who then radiate from some sort of anchor that keep us all guessing.

... the murderer's dwelling place would be more likely to be in the red zone, but that isn't necessarily the case.

The red isopleth represents ten percentage points of the overall probability distribution, as do each of the others: orange, yellow, yellow-green, green.


Accumulation of Probability Distribution (Elliptical): Murder-Site Mean-Center, to Extent of Fifty Percent Accumulation (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2010
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2011[/QUOTE]

50%

The model would therefore suggest that 'Jack the Ripper' was just as likely to have lived within the area that is color-shaded by the outer green isopleth as he was to have lived within the area that is color-shaded by the inner red isopleth. But as the inner red isopleth is much smaller, the model would suggest that a particular dwelling that was situated therein would have been a more likely place of residence for our perpetrator than would a particular dwelling that was situated within the outer green isopleth.

Put simply: the suggested probabilities are the same for each of the color-shaded isopleths, but the suggested probability densities are greatest in the center.

Put more simply (I hope): the total volume of rainfall is the same in each of the color-shaded regions, but the concentration of rainfall is greatest in the center.


Accumulation of Probability Distribution (Elliptical): Murder-Site Mean-Center, to Extent of Seventy Percent Accumulation (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2010
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2011

70%


Accumulation of Probability Distribution (Elliptical): Murder-Site Mean-Center, to Extent of Ninety Percent Accumulation (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2010
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2011

90%


Accumulation of Probability Distribution (Elliptical): Murder-Site Mean-Center, to Extent of Fifty Percent Accumulation [Plus Contour Depiction of Extent of Two Standard Deviations from Murder-Site Mean-Center (Yellow)] (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2010
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2011

Yellow Contour: The extent of two standard deviations from the murder-site mean-center
Yellow Dot: The 1888 residence of Charles Lechmere; 22 Doveton Street, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town

Lechmere's 1888 residence would fall just within the 58th-60th percentile of the overall probability distribution.

That said: It would be foolhardy to write him off on the basis of geography; especially when considering the fact that he traversed the major axis of the observed killing field as a matter of daily routine.

I must now excuse myself from the discussion.

Thank You All & Good Luck!

[Patrick S]

Agreed. And here´s something to ponder:

We all, you, me and Colin, think (if I am not very mistaken) that Charles Lechmere is an interesting bid for the killers role.

I don't think many people with a genuine interest in the murders would disagree with this statement, Fish. However, this is certainly not how you and your charming associate, Eddie "Lechmere", have represented things, is it? The reality is that you have explicitly stated that its a near certainty: Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper (and the Torso Killer, for that matter). Going further, I don't think it stretches credulity to say that you and your gun moll (or visa versa), the endlessly considerate and patient, Edward "Don't Call Him Cross or I'll be Cross" Stow, have conducted debate in a way that might lead one to believe that Lechmere was - without a shadow of doubt - guilty of nearly every murder committed in the East End from 1875 through 1920.

Its really too bad. This whole business you're on about is fascinating, and you and your underling (or visa versa) Ed "Don't Call me Jack" The Knife, have done commendable work. Sadly, you two have refused to be patient in drawing conclusions (which research of this kind absolutely requires) while conducting yourselves in such a confrontational, brutish manner as to alienate even those who came to this subject interested and open.

[Fisherman]

Fish,

And to complicate things even further, if a lair is a place of refuge, then Lech had two, home and Pickfords.

MrB

True. I´d go so far as to say that these lairs - Pickfords and his home at Doveton Street - were mainly just places of refuge, and not the true centres of his actions. That would instead have been the working trek routes. That, I think, was where he would have felt at ease, out of his domestic zone and in his killing comfort zone.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

And to complicate things even further, if a lair is a place of refuge, then Lech had two, home and Pickfords.

MrB

[Fisherman]

oops. So the idea of a lair is secondary to the kill zone. But it is sensible and a very useful profile.

Mike

Yup. I think that the special circumstances attaching to Lechmere - his having moved to Doveton Street just a few weeks earlier, not least - must be weighed in.
The "lair" as such would - if I am correct - not be best represented by his Doveton Street lodgings, but instead by his routes to work. His comfort zone stretched out around Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street.

Further, if we for theories sake work from the assumption that he left home at a time that was roughly tied to his need to get to Pickfords when work started, I don´t see him having all that much time to stray far from his working trek routes.

We assume that he wished to hide what he did from his wife as best as he could (as implicated by how he presented himself at the inquest, both vocally and clothes-wise), and walking off an hour earlier than he needed to would not sit well with such a wish.

I therefore reason that he did not have very much time on his hands, and so he needed to find his victims along streets that allowed him to keep up.

A lot of supposition, I know, but supposition that is logical enough to me.

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

oops. So the idea of a lair is secondary to the kill zone. But it is sensible and a very useful profile.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Fish,

I don't think that's correct. It's an ellipsis based on the idea that most serial killers didn't (or don't) stray too far from their comfort zone. I would say that's especially true for those times. Colin has configured the ellipsis based upon the canonical kills, and even if one throws in Tabram and Horsnail, it doesn't change very much. Of course the murderer's dwelling place would be more likely to be in the red zone, but that isn't necessarily the case. The killer would have been most comfortable killing within all the zones and the idea of radiating out from a central area as if they were spokes on a wheel, would have to do with many factors including his familiarity of an area (which would be more than likely equitably spread out in principle), and the access to areas via streets, alleys, lanes, and courts. It would have nothing to do with going to and from work for a serial killer most likely.

If I misrepresented Colin, I apologize. I am no expert (or even beginner) on this kind of modeling.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Putting it differently, I would prefer a map with the red areas following his working routes, drifting off into yellow and green as we move away sideways from these routes.

The circle shape is based on the thought that the killer had a lair he worked from, walking off in all directions from this centre to make it harder to detect him.

But with somebody who killed en route to work, a circle will not represent the true centre of such a killers actions, since that centre would be street-shaped and as long as his work trek was.

And I don´t think he made an effort to obfuscate this street centre of his.

If that makes sense?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ultimately, comfort and familiarity with locations, as well as hot spots for victims and cold spots for police presence, which are not random, means a great deal and probably trumps randomness in eluding detection.

Agreed. And here´s something to ponder:

We all, you, me and Colin, think (if I am not very mistaken) that Charles Lechmere is an interesting bid for the killers role.

If he was the killer, then we can place him very precisely in Bucks Row at 3.45 on the 31 of August alongside the body of Polly Nichols. On his route to work, that is.

Now, let´s assume that he would otherwise, as Colin puts it, "intentionally radiate from his base in sequentially alternating directions, in order to create an illusion of a randomness."

Such a behavior predisposes that the killer from the outset has a vision of himself killing multiple times, and equally it predisposes that he recognizes that killing in a way that creates a pattern that the police can follow, thus identifying him geographically, would be detrimental to his wish to stay undetected.

Going one step further, it could be said that the model needs to respond to two demands on behalf of the killer:

1. The murder series should on no occasion clearly indicate where the killer is based or how he thinks geographically, and

2. If the police contacts the killer, they should not be able to deduce that he is guilty by any pattern given away by the killings.

If this is the kind of thinking Lechmere applied, then I think we must accept that he made a hash of things. If the police contacted him and found out about him, then they would also be able to identify which routes he would probably use to go to work - just as we have done. And they would equally be able to see that these routes and the murder spots correlate.

I would argue that if Lechmere killed on his spare time (which is not in line with the Nichols killing and not in line with the approximate times of death, since they seemingly all occur close to the time when he walked to job),then he would have had every possibility in the world to do so in places that were inside the circle Colin provided us with, but incredibly much more useful in hiding the potential connections to him.

As it is, the spots chosen were an obvious giveaway if he was the killer.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Barnaby]

To surmise and then attempt to rationalize the routes that were taken by a hunter whilst on the prowl is absolute fool's play.

The probability distribution that I have proposed is based entirely on the locations of the six depicted murder-sites, and a perception of the probability that a serial perpetrator would intentionally radiate from his base in sequentially alternating directions, in order to create an illusion of a randomness.

Hi Colin,

This fascinates me. The way I read it, the killer himself selects hunting grounds in an attempt to create variability and disguise his home location. To what extent is this a conscious decision?

If it is, today's sophisticated killer could just Google Earth a region and select coordinates at random! Given enough kills the region could be potentially discovered by the boundaries, but unless the dope (which he wouldn't be if he did this) created the region to center around his location the hunting grounds would not yield any information as to his home base.

I'm not sure that this is the optimal strategy, however. Ultimately, comfort and familiarity with locations, as well as hot spots for victims and cold spots for police presence, which are not random, means a great deal and probably trumps randomness in eluding detection.

[Colin Roberts]

A final point, Mr. Barnett,

The immediate vicinity of the killing field of 'Jack the Ripper': an area within which I perceive a 50% probability that our perpetrator's 1888 residence is to be found.


Accumulation of Probability Distribution (Elliptical): Murder-Site Mean-Center, to Extent of Fifty Percent Accumulation (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2010
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2011

"an area within which I perceive a 50% probability that our perpetrator's 1888 residence is to be found."

Are you able to see that my model would suggest a probability of more than 60% that 'Jack the Ripper' did not reside within the boundaries of his observed killing field?

[Colin Roberts]

'The probability distribution that I have proposed is based entirely on the locations of the six depicted murder-sites, and a perception of the probability that a serial perpetrator would intentionally radiate from his base in sequentially alternating directions, in order to create an illusion of a randomness.'

Doesn't this assume the perpetrator thinks of himself as a serial killer and fears the authorities may catch on and try to detect a pattern in his crimes?

"a perception of the probability that a serial perpetrator would intentionally radiate"

Probabilities can be as little as 0% and as great as 100%, Mr. B. I don't believe that I have revealed the probability that I have factored into my model.

Perhaps I should have said "a perception of a particular probability that a serial perpetrator would intentionally radiate"

Would a late Victorian carman have thought like that? Isn't it more likely that he would assume his attacks would be considered part of the everyday random violence in the area?

Why not? I would think that a fair few late Norman carman would have thought like that as well. Self-preservation is instinctive and can manifest in a variety of behaviors.

I've heard a lot of conjecture regarding "the everyday random violence in the area", but I haven't seen much evidence of its existence.

Sorry for so many questions, but I occasionally struggle to see the relevance of modern day techniques being applied to historical events, particularly when they assume a certain modern mindset on the part of the historical people involved.

My model does not assume anything, Mr. B., as that would be tantamount to incorporating a 100% probability. In any case, I fail to understand why the need for self-preservation should be considered a "modern" mindset.

Various scenarios are demanded by the critics.

And by giving in to those demands you have made a suicidal error.

But you yourself have actually proposed an alternative, and I think less likely scenario. Namely that the killer endlessly roamed out from a central point - or a point of some sort - like a tethered dog.
However, my presumption is that the victims would have been found in certain known locations – the main roads. My presumption is that the killer would have focussed on these locations to find his prey.
In animal terms it would be like a pride of lions focusing on the waterhole, rather than randomly wandering the savannah.

I have not proposed anything!

I have explained that my model does not assume direct travel to and from each of the murder-sites. And that "central point - or a point of some sort" to which you refer is called a residence.

Incidentally it isn’t claimed that Charles Lechmere dispatched any of the victims on his mother’s doorstep.

A figure of speech.

[The Good Michael]

I think you confused him because he wasn't in the middle of the road.

Rob

Undoubtedly.

Mike

[Lechmere]

Rob

On the evening of the murder Robert Paul described Charles Lechmere as ‘standing where the woman was‘ (Lloyds Weekly News, 2nd September 1888).
Several weeks later Robert Paul marginally amended this when he appeared at the inquest, to ‘he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road’. (Daily Telegraph, 18th September 1888).
This testimony was given after he had been dragged out of his house in the middle of the night by the police and he also had the benefit of Lechmere’s testimony, given on 3rd September 1888, where Lechmere had claimed ‘He walked into the middle of the road’ (Daily Telegraph, 4th September 1888).
Charles Lechmere’s testimony was of course itself given immediately after – and almost certainly in response to - the publication of Paul’s 2nd September ‘Remarkable Statement’.

When the ‘middle of the road’ is given as a positional indication, it is clearly a rough estimate. It is a colloquialism. To pretend otherwise is more than a little ludicrous.
The actual position would most likely to be a little nearer to either pavement than plumb in the middle.
When Paul’s two positional indicators are taken together:
‘standing where the woman was‘ and ‘standing in the middle of the road’,
the sensible estimate would be that Charles Lechmere was, if anything, likely to have been nearer the southern pavement (which contained the gateway in which Nichols lay) than the northern one.

Even if it is insisted that Charles Lechmere crossed the road and approached the body at an extreme oblique angle (rather than from directly opposite the body) and even if for some equally obtuse reason it is insisted that ‘the middle’ meant a location slightly nearer to the northern pavement, then, given the narrowness of the street, whichever way you look at it…
Charles Lechmere was close to the body when seen by Paul.

The significance is that he was so close that it would only – hypothetically – have taken him a maximum of three seconds (I’m being generous there) to move away from the body (if he was the murderer) to the position where he was seen by Paul. Possibly only one second.

Being three seconds from the body is close to the body.
‘By the body’ even!
But whether one second or three seconds, it makes zero difference to the theory.
Any disinterested observer would appreciate this.
So there is absolutely no attempt to deceive.

There is a very clear attempt to obfuscate here though.

With one breath Rob quibbles over a few feet or an expression which he feels doesn’t put enough yardage between Lechmere and Nichols, which is in any case of no significance whatsoever.
With the next he concedes that Lechmere should have been suspected by the police as he was ‘first seen near the body of a murdered woman’, but the police must have investigated and cleared him.
That is called having your cake and eating it.

But now you mention it, the issue of whether the police would have looked at Charles Lechmere – the evidence to suggest whether or not they did – is a relatively under-discussed (if anything to do with Charles Lechmere is under discussed) topic.

The Allen issue has been dealt with before (inevitably). So I have cut and pasted this from an earlier thread:

The extant internal police reports just gave his name as Charles Cross.
At the inquest his name was reported as follows:
Daily News - Charles A. Cross
Daily Telegraph - Chas. Andrew Cross
East London Observer - Charles A. Cross
Eastern Argus Charles & Borough of Hackney Times – Charles A. Cross
The Echo - Charles A. Cross
The Evening Standard – confusingly called him both George Cross and Charles Allen Cross
Illustrated Police News - Charles A. Cross
Lloyds Weekly Newspaper - Charles Andrew Cross
Morning Advertiser – also confusingly called him both George Cross and Charles Allen Cross
Penny Illustrated Paper (a weekly) - Charles Allen Cross
The Star – Cross
The Times – George Cross
Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian – George Cross
Woodford Times – Charles Cross
It is odd that the correct – unusual – spelling of Allen was reported by the Evening Standard. I would suggest that the Morning Advertiser (generally a trade paper) and the weekly Penny Illustrated took their information from the Evening Standard.
No newspaper spelt his middle name as Alan.
George seems to have been a common mishearing - and Andrew.
Most newspapers simplified it as A.
My explanation is that he mumbled his Christian names.
I think the Evening Standard reporter must have got his middle name from the court witness list.
Just as the Star must have got his home address from the witness list (the Star were the only newspaper to report his home address).
My guess is that after having given his statement in the name simply as Chares Cross to the police (upon which the later police reports were compiled) – he entered his name formally as Charles Allen Cross when he was given his summons.
Is this a sign of innocence?
I would suggest it doesn’t suggest one thing or another.
As an intentional fake name the insertion of Allen would have helped him if he was checked out (which he would have hoped and expected not to be – but the use of Cross rather than Coco the Clown was an insurance policy against the eventuality of his being checked out – remember.)
Or he may have not been able to resist using the name Allen for his own perverse reasons.

The home address has also been dealt with numerous times. It was only reported in the Star, the inference being that their reporter took the details from the clerk at the inquest and Charles Lechmere didn’t give his address in open court – no other paper even got an approximation of it.
It would have been unavoidable to give his workplace. But as the supposition is that he wanted to avoid his wife finding out about his presence at the inquest, the home address would be the more significant detail.

PS
I think you will find that the expression ‘standing over the victim’ or something similar – was used by a journalist.

[Lechmere]

Colin
I have to say that it is a very strange to claim that a suspect’s potential candidacy is undermined by anyone’s debating skills. If the Archangel Gabriel came down and spoke of the Lechmere theory in the most honeyed tones, all sweetness and light, then what difference would that actually make to the details of the theory? Conversely if the devil himself came and proposed Lechmere how could that actually make him an improbable suspect?
I would suggest that the muddying of the water has occurred due to every minor issue (such as the distance of Lechmere from Nichols’s body) being argued over to a ridiculous degree.
Various scenarios are demanded by the critics. The primary scenario is that Charles Lechmere was on the streets in the early hours as it is presumed that this was the general time when he went to work. Accordingly it is not unreasonable (I think) to suggest that a guilty Charles Lechmere would have utilised this time.
But you yourself have actually proposed an alternative, and I think less likely scenario. Namely that the killer endlessly roamed out from a central point - or a point of some sort - like a tethered dog.
However, my presumption is that the victims would have been found in certain known locations – the main roads. My presumption is that the killer would have focussed on these locations to find his prey.
In animal terms it would be like a pride of lions focusing on the waterhole, rather than randomly wandering the savannah.
Incidentally it isn’t claimed that Charles Lechmere dispatched any of the victims on his mother’s doorstep. In fact there is a fairly uniform ‘cordon sanitaire’ between the murder scenes and his places of safety (his house, his mother’s house, his place of work).

You could have joined the debates in at any time to lend a semblance of sanity to the proceedings. Although I suspect you would have been turned on quite quickly.
Unfortunately you are probably right that discussing these subjects on these forums is a waste of time as they are by their nature adversarial. As there is a degree of anonymity people often use that as an excuse for rudeness that they would not dream of conducting themselves in that manner in person. This means that a sensible discussion is all but impossible.
But against that some useful refinement has resulted from the thousands of otherwise wasted words.