Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

For you, Miss Marple, a snippet from the article "My great great grandfather may have been Jack the Ripper"

(http://www.edp24.co.uk/lifestyle/my_...pper_1_1510610)

But new research 124 years later shows Cross gave a false name to police. He was only classed as a witness after claiming he must have disturbed the killer.

His real name was Charles Allen Lechmere, who lived at 22 Doveton Street off Cambridge Heath Road—five minutes’ walk from Buck’s Row.

After two years’ research, I discovered that Charles Lechmere was my great, great grandfather!

Lechmere escaped suspicion because he was just an ordinary working-class man with 11 children who no-one suspected. He didn’t wear a big top hat or cloak, nor carried a black bag, just ordinary working clothes, braces, waistcoat and cloth cap.

Susan Lechmere

Itīs a complicated world. I keep telling people that.

Fisherman

[Lechmere]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

Of course, the "real" miss Marple wouldnīt have apologized either - but in her case, that would owe to her having found out the facts before passing judgement ...

The best,
Fisherman

[miss marple]

The evidence against Lechmere [ sorry about the spelling saying it in my head] is ridiculous.

1 Lechmere wore his work clothes to the inquest. Saturday was not a holiday. He was probably going straight back to work after the inquest. He could not afford to lose pay. Cabmen worked all hours.

2 He or Paul or both covered up her wounds. That is a natural gesture of respect. To a Victorian mind set pulling down her skirt would be the normal thing to do and they were not positive she was dead. [ Miss Marple would get that]

3 His mother lived on a murder route. as did hundreds of others The area of Whitechapel was so small. So dragging in the Pinchin street torso is supposed to add weight to your case? Why not do a Cornwell and blame him for every murder going.

I have not made any personal attacks on any individual. I said you wanted an apology was pompous. Before that you accused me of 'calling us things' Which is rather odd as I have not

Once a theory is presented to the world people are going to be influenced by it

Miss Marple

[MrBarnett]

Hi Miss Marple,

Lechmere did not attend the inquest on Saturday and his mother didn't live in Whitechapel. But those quibbles aside, I find it odd when people find nothing suspicious in the coincidence of his being found by a body, other bodies littering his work route on the days he would have been there and, as the icing on the cake, a torso being found literally a few yards from where his family ran a horse butchery business.

MrB

[Lechmere]

Also he was a Carnan not a cabman.
And the wounds were covered prior to Paul's arrival.
And inquest witnesses were expected to attend all day in case they were recalled - although you may wish to argue he may not have been aware of this.
Besides that...
But in any case an experienced investigator such as the real fictitious Miss Marple would look for inconsistencies and behaviours outside the norm. Attending the inquest in work closes is behaviour outside the norm. Not in.itself a sign of guilt, such as small incremental point.

[Ben]

I find it odd when people find nothing suspicious in the coincidence of his being found by a body, other bodies littering his work route on the days he would have been there and, as the icing on the cake, a torso being found literally a few yards from where his family ran a horse butchery business.

The above is all nonsense, though, that's the trouble.

Bodies did not "litter" his work route. I'm afraid that if you've allowed yourself to be convinced of that, you are far too easily convinced. His only known work route involved passing two murder sites - Nichols and Chapman, but this is only worth investing any significance in if we had a) any evidence of other serial killers murdering and disposing of their victims en route to work, b) any evidence of a handy organ repository at Pickfords, and we have neither. There is no evidence that the torso murders had anything to do with the murders attributed to the ripper, and popular perception (for good reason) is that no connection exists.

Let's at least have a "cake" to put "icing" on in the first place.

[Lechmere]

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.
An investigator would have to be a buffoon to ignore the possibility that he would take the shortest route on occasion.
We are not in a position to suggest whether there was or wasn't a suitable organ repository at Pickford's so that point is neither here no there.
I would rank it as a potentially more suitable organ repository than a Hotel, Lodging House, Family Home or School Lodging.

The popular perception is that the torsos were not linked to the Ripper Crimes? Oh. So that means they cannot be connected? Even though the Pinchin Street Torso is included in the Whitechapel Murder file.

And Ben thinks it is impossible for the murderer to carry out these crimes while on his way to work - that providing an alibi and opportunity to be on the streets at that time. Oh well, just as well you aren't an expert.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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'.

[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

[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

[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