Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

Having played a small part in the discovery of Lechmere's true identity, I am rather intrigued by the possibility that he was 'Jack the Ripper'.
Unfortunately, Lechmere's candidacy has been horribly undone by the very people that have been attempting to promote it. Consequently, an intriguing person of interest has effectively become a very improbable 'suspect'.

Why, oh why, Christer and Edward, did you have to cheapen the case against Lechmere with suggestions that he preyed upon his victims whilst in route to and from his place of employment?

All that ever needed to be said was that he traversed the major axis of the killing field of 'Jack the Ripper'¹ as a matter of daily routine, and that he was therefore intimately familiar with its immediate vicinity. He could have preyed upon his victims - for the most part - whilst on his own time.

Peter Sutcliffe didn't prey upon his victims whilst in route to and from his place of employment, but he makes a damn good candidate for having been the 'Yorkshire Ripper'. He didn't pass through the 'red light' portions of Manningham, Chapeltown and Moss Side whilst on his way to work each day, but instead prowled those areas at night, after having gone home from his routine day-trips and then back out again. Perhaps Lechmere could have found a way to do the same. Perhaps not.

Peter Sutcliffe didn't dispatch one of his victims on his mother's doorstep either, but …

So on, and so on, and …

You have allowed your imaginations to run wild Christer and Edward; and in turn you have created a host of scenarios that are plainly and simply too specific, and in many instances rather unrealistic. Consequently, you have muddied the water.

¹ 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

Colin! Long time no see!

You will know that the first man to speak of the correspondance with the routes to work was Connor, not us.

But he did have a very good point, and still has, I believe.

Lechmere was a family man. He left his family to go to work early in the mornings. That was where he had a window of opportunity that we can realize was there. The victims seemingly died early in the mornings. The correspondance is there.

More pertinently, the victim we know he was found by WAS killed as he was on his way to job.

Edward holds the opinion that Chapman could have died later in the day than when he made his morning trek. I instead think that Phillips may have been correct, and I do count Chapman in as a possible work trek victim. I know Edward does not exclude the possibility.

I cannot see why it would muddy the waters, to go along with the evidence like this. Of course, if he did not work on the days when Tabram, Chapman and Kelly died, then he could have killed them when being off work. But since they were working days, I think the better presumption must be that he went to work on these days.

The fact that an intimate knowledge about the area would have followed with his work trek goes without saying, methinks.

All the best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Colin,

Great post. Just one observation, question. Would this hold true if Lech had only recently, within a matter of a few weeks, moved to his residence at the time the murders began? Surely the basis for such a conclusion is the idea of familiarity/comfort. If you are unfamiliar with where you live and your comfort zone is actually a cross between your previous residence and your route to work of 20+ years wouldn't the most likely area of activity be skewed by that? Almost too complex to calculate I would have thought.

MrB

[Fisherman]

Colin,

Great post. Just one observation, question. Would this hold true if Lech had only recently, within a matter of a few weeks, moved to his residence at the time the murders began? Surely the basis for such a conclusion is the idea of familiarity/comfort. If you are unfamiliar with where you live and your comfort zone is actually a cross between your previous residence and your route to work of 20+ years wouldn't the most likely area of activity be skewed by that? Almost too complex to calculate I would have thought.

MrB

I think you´ve got a point there, as you will understand, Mr Barnett. What I think may also be telling when it comes to the did-he-kill-en-route-to-work issue, is that the murder spots are smack, bang on the Old Montague and Hanbury lines.
If he did not kill en route to job (apart from Nichols where we seemingly DO have that exact kind of a murder if he was responsible), but instead traversed the whole area circumscribed by Colins representation - then why is it that the murders so closely follow these two treks and the short cut provided from Hanbury to Broad Street, through Dorset Street? Why not two, three, four or five blocks in, if he was not heading to work? Why would he spend his free time walking his working treks?

To me, the proximity to the working treks whispers of him having been pressed for time to a significant extent, not wishing to journey too far from his road to job.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Hi Fish,

I hope I haven't lured you into your comfort zone. I think the actual murder sites are not particularly relevant. Believing as I do that it was probably the victims who chose the locations, the key is where he found them.The classic example of this is Nichols. The chances are he did not stumble upon her in Bucks Row. It's much more likely that he found her in the Whitechapel Road, don't you think ? Along the route he had used to work for 20-odd years and which had a Lechmere groove worn into it. Old Monty doesn't need to come into it, and isn't necessary to explain the earlier murders in terms of his work route. And as for a 'short cut' through Dorset Street to explain Kelly, I don't buy it. In the early hours of the morning, Commercial Street would be my bet. And what about Chapman, was she wandering up and down Hanbury Street as the **** crowed?

MrB

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett: Hi Fish,

I hope I haven't lured you into your comfort zone. I think the actual murder sites are not particularly relevant. Believing as I do that it was probably the victims who chose the locations, the key is where he found them.The classic example of this is Nichols. The chances are he did not stumble upon her in Bucks Row. It's much more likely that he found her in the Whitechapel Road, don't you think ?

Likelier, yes - but no certainty.

Along the route he had used to work for 20-odd years and which had a Lechmere groove worn into it. Old Monty doesn't need to come into it, and isn't necessary to explain the earlier murders in terms of his work route. And as for a 'short cut' through Dorset Street to explain Kelly, I don't buy it. In the early hours of the morning, Commercial Street would be my bet. And what about Chapman, was she wandering up and down Hanbury Street as the **** crowed?

Not the simplest of questions to answer. What we are left with is a close to 100 per cent correlation with the working treks anyhow. The Dorset street route IS a shortcut from Hanbury Street, by the way.

All in all, these are hard things to determine. Maybe he saw Nichols as he crossed Brady Street, passing down in Whitechapel Road. Who knows?

The best,
Fisherman

[Colin Roberts]

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.

The likelihood that a particular point on the ground played host to the 1888 residence of our perpetrator is assessed on the basis of its elliptically proportional proximity to a single point of central tendency, i.e. the murder-site mean-center. Any point along any of the white elliptical contours, for example, would therefore be equally likely to any other point along the same contour.

The more intricate geographic profile models used by Kim Rossmo, David Canter, Ned Levine, et al, would assess the likelihood that a particular point on the ground played host to the 1888 residence of our perpetrator on the basis of its direct proximity to each of the depicted murder-sites. They therefore inherently assume an unobstructed mode of direct travel (i.e. through walls) to and from each of the murder-sites, and in so doing generate irregularly shaped and totally impractical contours.

My model on the other hand, allows for the endless wanderings and prowls that we might expect of a dog that has been anchored to a point of central tendency by a 100-foot leash.

Charles Lechmere's routes to here, and routes to there, … would not be a factor in anyone's geographic profile probability distribution.

---

Stop!

Stop surmising and rationalizing his every move. You are digging yourselves more and more deeply into holes out of which you will never be able to climb.

He was quite possibly in the presence of Polly Nichols for several minutes prior to Paul's arrival; he identified himself in an inexplicable manner; there are perhaps some inconsistencies in his testimony; he knew the area. Leave it at that!

Focus on the wealth of factual information regarding his life that Edward has deftly uncovered, and carry on.

And above all else, stop allowing yourselves to be dragged into the ridiculously senseless debates that occur on this message board.

As I said earlier today, in another thread:

Casebook used to be a repository for meaningful research. Now it's just a cheap chat room.

[Fisherman]

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.

The likelihood that a particular point on the ground played host to the 1888 residence of our perpetrator is assessed on the basis of its elliptically proportional proximity to a single point of central tendency, i.e. the murder-site mean-center. Any point along any of the white elliptical contours, for example, would therefore be equally likely to any other point along the same contour.

The more intricate geographic profile models used by Kim Rossmo, David Canter, Ned Levine, et al, would assess the likelihood that a particular point on the ground played host to the 1888 residence of our perpetrator on the basis of its direct proximity to each of the depicted murder-sites. They therefore inherently assume an unobstructed mode of direct travel (i.e. through walls) to and from each of the murder-sites, and in so doing generate irregularly shaped and totally impractical contours.

My model on the other hand, allows for the endless wanderings and prowls that we might expect of a dog that has been anchored to a point of central tendency by a 100-foot leash.

Charles Lechmere's routes to here, and routes to there, … would not be a factor in anyone's geographic profile probability distribution.

---

Stop!

Stop surmising and rationalizing his every move. You are digging yourselves more and more deeply into holes out of which you will never be able to climb.

He was quite possibly in the presence of Polly Nichols for several minutes prior to Paul's arrival; he identified himself in an inexplicable manner; there are perhaps some inconsistencies in his testimony; he knew the area. Leave it at that!

Focus on the wealth of factual information regarding his life that Edward has deftly uncovered, and carry on.

And above all else, stop allowing yourselves to be dragged into the ridiculously senseless debates that occur on this message board.

As I said earlier today, in another thread:

Casebook used to be a repository for meaningful research. Now it's just a cheap chat room.

Thanks for the advice, Colin!

I would like to say that nobody is laying down as absolutes that Lechmere must have done things in a certain way, so I don´t think that there is any fear of us digging ourselves into holes.
We are pointing to possibilities and we are acknowledging that the murders did happen along the two thoroughfares we have identified. Nothing can be proven as such, and therefore we cannot be held accountable for having stated that there IS any proof one way or another when it comes to the carmans movements.

In the Nichols case, he was found by the victim, dressed - one must surmise, going on Jonas Mizens testimony - in a carmans working gear. He stated that he went to Pickfords afterwards, and he must have known that this could potentially have been checked out. We should therefore accept that the more credible thing is that he killed en route to his job in this case - if he was the killer.

The timings of the other cases also invite the thought that he did the same thing on those occasions, but there is nothing to tie him to the places as such apart from the overall credibility that one man was responsible for all the murders characterized by the same type of MO and our knowledge that he started work at around 4 AM if what Lechmere said at the Nichols inquest was something we may go by.

That is not digging us into holes. It is looking at the cases and recognizing that there are certain signs that attach to them all. It would be odd not to acknowledge that.

There´s a lot of senseless debating going on, just like you say. I feel that we have been very consequent throughout and given answers to the questions asked - it is the path we´ve chosen, and although it is claimed by people that serious objections to the theory have been raised, I think we both know that this is not true.
The worst cases are people that we no longer debate with. That won´t change for my part, at least.

All in all, we shall hopefully be fine. Thanks for your concern, but in the end we must all choose our own paths.

the very best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Colin ,

'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?

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?

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.

MrB

[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.

[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.

[The Good Michael]

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

Rob

Undoubtedly.

Mike

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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