Charles Lechmere interesting link

[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]

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.

[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

[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!

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[drstrange169]

Hello Barnaby,

Here's a map showing the most likely (red), possible (orange) and perhaps (blue) routes for Crossmere, from Doveton to Buck's. The black circles are toilets where he could have stopped on the way. I don't know exactly where number 22 was, so I've started from the middle of Doveton.

[Fisherman]

Please note how Lechmere will have passed Foster Street where Robert Paul lived, and so the two will have walked in tandem, thirty, forty feet inbetween them for around 200 yards, without hearing or seeing each other.

Remarkable, that!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Wasn´t it said that the brewery in Bath Street was well lit by outside gaslights? I seem to remember having read that, but I may be wrong.

If so, then Robert Paul should have seen Charles Lechmere walking in front of him.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
I missed your point about why Lechmere would have said he left at 3.30 as that would allow a guilty looking window when combined with Paul’s newspaper account.
Obviously this is guess work – as I cannot see into his mind – but maybe Lechmere was taking more notice of, and conforming to, the much more widely publicised timings given by PC Neil.

Miss Marple
I am unaware of any fiction being created about Charles Lechmere’s life. I am unaware of any story being put forward in any way shape or form about his treatment of his wife. I am unaware of any negative analysis of his children. Beyond a couple of harmless questions from Barnaby.
I’m sure the ‘real’ fictional Miss Marple would pay more attention to the facts.

GUT
The point had been made that it was somehow illegitimate to look at Lechmere’s behaviours and see if a guilty interpretation could be put on them.
Clearly this is utter nonsense.
If I have previously said that his actions should be looked at both ways – to see of guilty or innocent explanations are available – then very clearly this is not a contradiction of the point that his actions should be looked at to see if there are guilty explanations. It is merely one half of the equation, raised in response to a ludicrous accusation.
I am aware of the innocent explanations. The innocent explanations do not come anywhere near to proving his innocence. And that is the task – to prove innocence so he can be eliminated.
Furthermore if there is a whole string of inter-related guilty interpretations then a strong circumstantial case is built. It remains to be seen (possibly) if such a string would have been enough to take a case to court.

Dr Strange seems to be suggesting that Lechmere bog hopped his way from urinal to urinal all the way from Doveton Street to Bucks Row to eat up those precious minutes. Perhaps like Cadosch he had some urinary condition and he had some prurient reason for not using his own privy.
Watch it Dr Strange, Miss Marple will be after you. Fancy accusing Charles Lechmere of such things with no foundation.

[Fisherman]

Dr Strange seems to be suggesting that Lechmere bog hopped his way from urinal to urinal all the way from Doveton Street to Bucks Row to eat up those precious minutes. Perhaps like Cadosch he had some urinary condition and he had some prurient reason for not using his own privy.
Watch it Dr Strange, Miss Marple will be after you. Fancy accusing Charles Lechmere of such things with no foundation.

Myself, I would be pissed.

Fisherman

[GUT]

G'day Lechmere

I am aware of the innocent explanations. The innocent explanations do not come anywhere near to proving his innocence. And that is the task – to prove innocence so he can be eliminated.

And I guess that's where we are coming at it from different perspectives, and please understand have a great deal of respect for you and Fisherman and the work you are doing on Cross, however I believe that the onus is to prove guilt not to prove innocence but that is probably because am an ardent supporter of Innocent until proven guilty.

Re taking the case to Court personally I would need to see a lot more, but good luck with finding it.

[Fisherman]

Wasn´t it said that the brewery in Bath Street was well lit by outside gaslights? I seem to remember having read that, but I may be wrong.

If so, then Robert Paul should have seen Charles Lechmere walking in front of him.

All the best,
Fisherman

Here we go, the Evening News of September 7 1888:

"It has been stated that the street is a dark one, but this is altogether wrong, for it is well lighted at all hours of the night by the great lamps outside the brewery of Messrs. Mann and Crossman, in addition to the ordinary street lamps, and it seems inconceivable that such a well-lighted street would be selected for the crime."

The paper mistook Bath Street for Bucks Row, apparently. But at any rate, we here have it on record that "the great lamps" outside the brewery made the street well-lit. At ALL hours of the night.
So here we have Robert Paul walking out into the well-lit Bath Street, where reasonably Charles Lechmere would have walked right in front of him - and still he says at the inquest, as per the Times, that he had not met any one before he reached Buck's-row, and did not see any one running away.

He could not possibly have missed Lechmere - and yet he does. Why? Because, I would suggest, that as Robert Paul walked down the well-lit Bath Street, crossed Brady Street and turned into Buck´s Row, Charles Lechmere was occupied subduing, throttling and cutting away at Polly Nichols.

Once again the evidence is against the carman. Once again there is an anomaly. Once again, it seems more credible that he lied than told the truth. Once again, we can add to the pile of evidence that goes against Charles Allen Lechmere being innocent.

The stretch from the corner where Foster Street joins Bath Street is some sixty yards long. It was well lit by great lamps outside the brewery. Why did not Robert Paul see his fellow carman walking down that stretch? Why was Bath Street empty? Why was Lechmere not walking thirty, forty yards in front of the hurrying Paul?

All the best,
Fisherman