Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

Let’s play a little game called Victorian Cops and Serial Killers. I’ll be the Inspector and you can be the Chief Inspector.

As an experience DI, I am aware that a certain amount of suspicion naturally attaches to someone who is discovered by a murder victim, so I call the carman Cross in for questioning. He comes across as a harmless enough character, a family man with a good work record. But old Jo Mizen, who I know to be as straight as a die, insists he misled the coroner over the discussion they had on the morning of Nichol’s murder. In the circumstances, it would be silly not to check him out further.

When I do so, I discover his name isn’t Cross at all. It’s Lechmere. Interviewed a second time he seems a little sheepish, but explains that Cross was his stepfather’s name and he was still known in some quarters by it. Nothing much else to go on at this point, so I leave it at that.

A little over a year later I am called to Pinchin Street in St George in the East, where the torso of a woman has been discovered. The head and legs had been removed from the body and were never found. There was a deep gash to the abdomen. At the inquest Dr Bagster Phillips subsequently gave the opinion that the dismemberment had been carried out by someone ‘accustomed to cut up animals’.

There is a horrible smell in the area, more than can be explained by the decomposition of the torso, and when I mention it, my constable explains that it probably comes from the horse meat establishment just a few yards away. I look to where the constable is pointing and as I’m looking the door opens and who should come out, but the same Cross/Lechmere fellow who was discovered by the body of Polly Nicholls in ’88. ‘Ello, ‘ello’, I mutter to myself, the hairs rising on the back of my neck.

Back at the station I retrieve the file containing my interview with Lechmere and it dawns on me that the man had a reason to be walking East/West along either Whitechapel Road or Hanbury Street on the days and at around the times of the five murders carried out on working days. The double event doesn’t quite fit the pattern either geographically or in respect of time, but that was a weekend and if my memory serves, ah yes, his previous address was just a few streets away from Berners Street and his mother and daughter still lived there.

I call the man in for a third time. He arrives, apparently straight from work, wearing a grubby apron. During the interview he gives nothing away, and in particular he blithely bats away any suggestion that he tried to hoodwink Mizen or that there was anything sinister in his use of the name Cross. Either as innocent as a lamb or a very cool customer.

However, in the course of the conversation it is revealed that this dishevelled workman has, or believes he has, an illustrious ancestry. And had it not been for a wastrel grandfather his position in life would have been considerably better than that of a humble carman.

Obviously there’s no hard evidence. No bloody knife or mummified body parts found in his possession, but something doesn’t quite feel right.

I take my suspicions to the Chief and when I have finished his response is…

(Here’s where you get a chance to play. Choose one from the following: )

‘Absolutely absurd, don’t waste any more time on him.’ Or,

‘You may have something there, Old Boy, dig a little deeper and see what you can find’.

MrB

Letīs be biased enough to suggest that the latter alternative becomes the chosen one. If so, you will inevitably return in thought to the Nichols murder, since that was when the carman surfaced.

You and everybody else have been working from the assumption that the carman arrived only a few seconds ahead of Robert Paul, but since you have now begun to take an interest in Lechmere, you of course check whether this holds true.
To your amazement, you realize that it is only the carmans assertions that points to him not having had the time to committ the crime - strangely, Paul seems not to have heard or seen him in spite of having walked right behind him down Bath Street and Bucks Row.

You also note that Lechmere claims to have left home at 3.20 or 3.30, so you spend your lunch timing the walking distance and you find out that Lechmere should have been long gone at the stage when he "found" Nichols.

Then you think about the other victims that have surfaced. Werenīt they all put on display? Horrendous matters, with entrails spread over their bodies, splayed legs, explicite poses...?

So why was Nichols not posed like that, you ask yourself. And then you reealize that Lechmere could have conned Paul. He must have heard him as the latter entered Buckīs Row, you reason, and he must have decided not to run, but instead cover up what he did and take a chance. It is all beginning to make sense to you.

On the coffeebreak, you seek out Jonas Mizen. He is chewing at a bisquit when he answers your question if he really only spoke to Lechmere on that morning:

-Yeah, sure. That other weasly type sneaked away like a thief, he did, some way down Hanbury street before he stopped and waited for his mate.

But, you say, Lechmere said that both he and Paul spoke to you...?

-No, thatīs not true. But thereīs something wrong about that Lechmere bloke. All meek and quaint, but he didnīt remember things correctly. He told me about this other copper, see, and then he changed his mind although there WAS another copper in Bucks Row, that Neil fellow. It was all very odd.

-Thatīs why I didnīt rush off in a hurry. Why would I, if I had a colleague in place? Itīd been another matter if that carman had told me that it was a serious matter, that sheīd been cut, but he said nothing about that!

-He didnīt?

-Not a word. So there I was, trotting along at a gentle speed, and what happens? The woman proves to be more butchered than the average lamb in a slaughterhouse, and I look like a complete fool for not having rushed to Neils assistance.

-I mean, he MUST have known, mustnīt he?

+++++++++

After this, Iīd say you will begin to be pretty damn sure that youīve nailed your man.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

I presume you are referring to me as the toady Patrick. As ever your ignorance is manifest as is your inability to conduct yourself with a semblance of politeness. That is par for the course with you.. Enjoy your sad negative obsession.

[MrBarnett]

Let’s play a little game called Victorian Cops and Serial Killers. I’ll be the Inspector and you can be the Chief Inspector.

As an experienced DI, I am aware that a certain amount of suspicion naturally attaches to someone who is discovered by a murder victim, so I call the carman Cross in for questioning. He comes across as a harmless enough character, a family man with a good work record. But old Jo Mizen, who I know to be as straight as a die, insists he misled the coroner over the discussion they had on the morning of Nichol’s murder. In the circumstances, it would be silly not to check him out further.

When I do so, I discover his name isn’t Cross at all. It’s Lechmere. Interviewed a second time he seems a little sheepish, but explains that Cross was his stepfather’s name and he was still known in some quarters by it. Nothing much else to go on at this point, so I leave it at that.

A little over a year later I am called to Pinchin Street in St George in the East, where the torso of a woman has been discovered. The head and legs had been removed from the body and were never found. There was a deep gash to the abdomen. At the inquest Dr Bagster Phillips subsequently gave the opinion that the dismemberment had been carried out by someone ‘accustomed to cut up animals’.

There is a horrible smell in the area, more than can be explained by the decomposition of the torso, and when I mention it, my constable explains that it probably comes from the horse meat establishment just a few yards away. I look to where the constable is pointing and as I’m looking the door opens and who should come out, but the same Cross/Lechmere fellow who was discovered by the body of Polly Nicholls in ’88. ‘Ello, ‘ello’, I mutter to myself, the hairs rising on the back of my neck.

Back at the station I retrieve the file containing my interview with Lechmere and it dawns on me that the man had a reason to be walking East/West along either Whitechapel Road or Hanbury Street on the days and at around the times of the five murders carried out on working days. The double event doesn’t quite fit the pattern either geographically or in respect of time, but that was a weekend and if my memory serves, ah yes, his previous address was just a few streets away from Berners Street and his mother and daughter still lived there.

I call the man in for a third time. He arrives, apparently straight from work, wearing a grubby apron. During the interview he gives nothing away, and in particular he blithely bats away any suggestion that he tried to hoodwink Mizen or that there was anything sinister in his use of the name Cross. Either as innocent as a lamb or a very cool customer.

However, in the course of the conversation it is revealed that this dishevelled workman has, or believes he has, an illustrious ancestry. And had it not been for a wastrel grandfather his position in life would have been considerably better than that of a humble carman.

Obviously there’s no hard evidence. No bloody knife or mummified body parts found in his possession, but something doesn’t quite feel right.

I take my suspicions to the Chief and when I have finished his response is…

(Here’s where you get a chance to play. Choose one from the following: )

‘Absolutely absurd, don’t waste any more time on him.’ Or,

‘You may have something there, Old Boy, dig a little deeper and see what you can find’.

MrB

[Patrick S]

True. I cannot even prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was not known as Rotherhite by a onelegged Cuban mailman, that John Wilkes Booth was not known as Queequeg by a senile escimo residing next door to him at some stage in his life or that the female pharaoh Hatshepshut was not known as Mrs Biggins by a local cattlefarmer.

There are so many things that I canīt disprove! That is a really solid argument on your behalf. I havent even been able to disprove that Charles Lechmere was the Whitechapel killer. Try yourself, and you will see. Itīs infuriating.

Since I canīt disprove it, I guess I shall have to accept it as a truth. Bugger.

the best,
Fisherman

Fisherman - Are you so obtuse that you cannot understand that what you've posted here is exactly the problem. Use your estimable detecting skills to examine what you've written above. See if you can identify the issue as it relates to how you and your toady have approached the issue.

[Fisherman]

You cannot prove that he was not known as Cross by his workmates.
Miss Marple

True. I cannot even prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was not known as Rotherhite by a onelegged Cuban mailman, that John Wilkes Booth was not known as Queequeg by a senile escimo residing next door to him at some stage in his life or that the female pharaoh Hatshepshut was not known as Mrs Biggins by a local cattlefarmer.

There are so many things that I canīt disprove! That is a really solid argument on your behalf. I havent even been able to disprove that Charles Lechmere was the Whitechapel killer. Try yourself, and you will see. Itīs infuriating.

Since I canīt disprove it, I guess I shall have to accept it as a truth. Bugger.

the best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Hi Miss Marple,

Not having read your previous post, I am not entirely sure what Lechmere's duties were. I had imagined that getting into work by 4am he was one of the early birds and probably had to ready the horses and van and start loading within the confines of the goods yard prior to going out on his deliveries. I had imagined a cavernous goods yard full of nooks and crannies, crates, bales of hay dung piles etc etc. And with a plentiful supply of water for the horses.

All utterly ridiculous I now realise.

MrB

[Lechmere]

Hey!
Miss Marple.
You have put forward some pretty good, pretty damn good, reasons why this guy, (what was his name, Cross?) should be regarded as a leading suspect. I shall have to look into this in detail, but from what you have said it stacks up already. Better than any other suspect I have seen anyway. Thanks for the lead!

[MrBarnett]

Ben,

It's not that I'm easily convinced, because I ain't convinced so much as intrigued. The admittedly meagre facts we have about Lech seem to create a plausible scenario.

Perhaps littered was too melodramatic a term for the locations of the bodies near his work routes. But they were found close to routes that he might reasonably have used. Shortly after having moved to Doveton Street the earlier the murders occurred on a route with which he would have been very familiar i.e Whitechapel Road. And Bucks Row is also on that route from Doveton Street. What would be more normal than finding the quickest connection from his new home to his old route and then plodding along on in time honoured fashion? Only after he meets Paul and accompanies him along Hanbury Street do the murders shift northwards.

All supposition you may say, and you'd be right. But surely it's plausible?

MrB

[miss marple]

So Lech attended the inquest day 2 Monday 3d in his work clothes. That does not change anything. He had to go to work. What do you expect him to wear? An astrakhan coat?
His money would be docked if he did not work, so he would want to take the
minimum time off and get back to work after giving his statement.

You cannot tie him to any other murders. You have no evidence that would stand up in a court, not even circumstantial as he was legitimately going about his lawful business. He has no criminal history.There is no burden of proof.

The endless stream of ripper books with specious arguments continues unabated. There are produced to make a quick buck. Ripper sells.

The Lechmere theory at least has the advantage of a suspect who was involved in the case but nothing has come out of this apart from round and round, same o mustoff because he found a body, give a false name, his mum lives on a murder route, he goes to work on a murder route, he doesnt wear sunday best when attending an inquest.

You cannot prove that he was not known as Cross by his workmates. Names were far more flexible Lechmere was his official name but he may have got used to Cross growing up.

No new evidence has been produced to link Lech to these killings. As a carman for Pickfords Lech would have to be out waiting for deliveries all over London, there was a lot of standing around. He was not a furniture remover so would not be moving stuff inside Pickfords. As a carman he also had responsilbility for looking after the horses, as part of his job. I did write a post on this. The idea he was hanging around inside the Pickford's storage unit hiding body parts is ludicrous. His work was outside.

Miss Marple

[Fisherman]

I said you wanted an apology was pompous.
Miss Marple

Actually, miss Marple, I never said anything about wanting an apology. What I noted was that there never was such a beast around, in spite of your rather harsh attack on us, led on by a failure on your behalf to check the facts.

As such, I do not need or want any apology. I was just a bit baffled about it not arriving.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

But the police knew where he worked and knew where he lived, so are you now suggesting the police were "idiotic" not to find it suspicious?

You may need to ponder, Ben, that the moment in time at which Lechmere surfaced was in connection with the Nichols slaying. At that stage, it would not have worried the police that there were murders on Hanbury Street and Dorset Street too, since they had not yet taken place.
There was the Tabram slaying that spoke of a connection to Old Montague Street, but as far as the police knew, Lechmere used Hanbury Street. It would have taken an elevated interest in Lechmere for the police to start mapping his possible routes, and that interest was never there as per the fact that they never got to know his name.

The thousands of men who lived within the area circumscribed by the murders are more legitimately suspicious than Crossmere from a criminological point of view, because history and precedent tells us that a perpetrator committing his offences (murder and disposal of bodies, in this case) within easy walking distance of eachother is likely to live within that area.

This is poor quality work on your behalf, Ben.

Why do you suppose that this (far from guaranteed) "rule" applies?

Is it because serial killers want their victims to feel at home?

Or is it because they themselves have a comfort zone tied to the area where they live?

The living as such has nothing to do with this - all it does is to provide the killer with a sense of understanding the area, a sense of security about it, a feeling that he can master things better there than he would be able to do in an unknown area.

If a killer moves into a new area, completely unknown to him, from another area, where he has lived many years and knows every nook and cranny, then the new living area will not turn into his comfort zone overnight. And he would not be likely to use it to kill in until it HAD become a zone of comfort where he felt at ease.

Can you follow my reasoning? It is not the address of the home as such, it is the address of the heart that applies.

Letīs see what happens when we use this thinking and look at the killings along his working routes:
Tabram, early August - along Old Montague, a street he had been living close to for many, many years
Nichols, late August - Bucks Row - he has now stayed in Doveton Street for two months and has had time to settle in and get to know the new area and his new routes to work.
Chapman, September - Hanbury Street
Kelly, November - Dorset Street

So the first killing, when he will still have had much of his comfort zone towards the south and his old grounds in St Georges in the East, is the one that occurs closest to this very area. And Bucks Row is actually at the same approximate distance from James Street as is George Yard.

But Hanbury Street and Dorset Street are markedly further afield!

This is what happens when we take stock from the fact that it is where a killer has his comfort zone that will govern where he kills, and not where he has his home. Of course, the two normally overlap, but it is not a given, and Lechmere is interesting in this context, having moved into Doveton Street in mid June.

What we have, if Lechmere was the killer, is a murder map where the murders are committed in an order that acknowledges the "rule" of committing the murders in places where you are more at ease, given your earlier ties to the areas - interestingly, Lechmere starts out by killing as close to his old comfort zone as his new work routes allow for, only to move further north as time moves on and he settles into his new comfort zone, knit to his new roads to work.

What we have is a killer that answers perfectly to the rule you have sorely misunderstood by thinking that the actual home address of the killer must be the nave. It mustnīt.

...serial killers have never killed en route to work as far as anyone is aware.

Serial killers have always used the best windows of opportunity open to them, as far as everyone is aware.

If you live in an area in which murders are being committed, you are more likely to be the killer than a person who has occasion to take a "route" through that area, statistically and logically speaking.

That only applies when you have lived there long enough to establish a comfort zone knit to the living quarters. Until that happens, you are more likely to kill in your old comfort zone, if the possibility is open to you.

The bottom line is that a killer strikes where he feels at ease, and not where he lives. The two normally coincide, but the address is actually secondary in this respect.

The shortest route was almost certainly the one he took on the morning of the Nichols murder, and we have no evidence that he took any other.

"Almost certainly..." Where have I heard that expression before ...? Say no more, say no more...

I definitely wouldn't, and feel the likelihood is abysmally slim that there was anywhere suitable at Pickfords in which to stash freshly extracted viscera.

"Abysmally small". In a working place that was a colossus. Vast areas, lots and lots of rooms, corridors, waste spaces etcetera. Itīs like saying that there would not be a chance to hide anything inside the British Museum.

No, Ben, coupled to your apparent urge to try and debunk and belittle the Lechmere theory, there is a lack of understanding and insight into these matters that spells disaster. Apparently, you are out of your comfort zone.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Ben
Only the most simplistic geographic profiling models place the culprit within the area circumscribed by the murders.
Lechmere didn't have 'occasion' to walk through the murder zone at the general times they occurred. He likely did it every time, with the exception of the 'Double Event' for which he can be given geographic connection.
Statistically there would be one (two if I am being generous) person in the thousands in the East End who met that criteria. Lechmere and the murderer. Lechmere had an excuse to get there.
You may not be aware but the Victorian Metropolitan Police was a nascent organisation, unused to tackling serial crime, but actually quite experienced and efficient at tackling 'normal' crime and indeed solving murders. That explains their being blind sided by Lechmere as a potential suspect. All the evidence points to them failing to investigate him. In your exceptionally active imagination you may wish to assume that they did investigate him but the record tells us otherwise.
But the police them had an excuse - so no I wouldn't call them stupid.

Again having studied various accounts, plans and pictures of the Broad Street Goods Depot I can assure you the chances of his being able to secrete innards there would present considerably less problems than would have been experienced by any other named suspect in their 'lair'.

[Ben]

If we were investigating this case at the time and found that various of the bodies were found or had been attacked either on or just off (within a few yards) his route on the 31st or his shortest route (which plausibly he would be likely to take) then any investigator would have to be an idiot not to take notice of it.

But the police knew where he worked and knew where he lived, so are you now suggesting the police were "idiotic" not to find it suspicious? The suggestion is ludicrous. The thousands of men who lived within the area circumscribed by the murders are more legitimately suspicious than Crossmere from a criminological point of view, because history and precedent tells us that a perpetrator committing his offences (murder and disposal of bodies, in this case) within easy walking distance of eachother is likely to live within that area. Crossmere didn't, and serial killers have never killed en route to work as far as anyone is aware.

If you live in an area in which murders are being committed, you are more likely to be the killer than a person who has occasion to take a "route" through that area, statistically and logically speaking.

The shortest route was almost certainly the one he took on the morning of the Nichols murder, and we have no evidence that he took any other.

I would rank it as a potentially more suitable organ repository than a Hotel, Lodging House, Family Home or School Lodging.

I definitely wouldn't, and feel the likelihood is abysmally slim that there was anywhere suitable at Pickfords in which to stash freshly extracted viscera.

[Patrick S]

I'm not sure whether it's deliberate or not but the inappropriately named Miss Marple perhaps needs to be told it's Lechmere not Letchmere.
I suspect it isn't deliberate as she is under the impression the case hinges on the name swap.
The accusation has previously been made that it hinges on the abdominal wounds being covered, on the Mizen scam (cue hysteria Patrick), on the routes to work, on the proximity of Pinchin Street to his mother's house, on his attendance to the inquest in his work clothes, and so on and so on.

It's not hysteria as much as hilarity. I can see how you'd be confused. You've confused most everything else.

[Lechmere]

Miss Marple:
‘I have not made any personal attacks on any individual.’

What is this then?

‘Pardon my cynicism.I just wonder if the descendant of Lechmere thought he was the ripper before the 'case' was presented to her. Studying the case because you have an ancestor involved is not the same as being presented with a plausible theory and publicity.
‘There is always a book to be published out of ripper suspects.’

Are you addressing individual issues you have with the evidence as presented or the conjectural points raised?
No. You are suggesting a base and dishonest financial motive behind support for the theory.
And of course before that you attacked the Lechmere theorists for inventing things and lying about him and ignoring his descendants – ignorant and false on both counts

'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.'

So I am afraid Miss Marple your interventions on this thread can be characterised as being attacks on the Lechmere theorists rather than discussion of the theory. Although when you have discussed the theory you are invariably factually inaccurate.