Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Patrick S]

Columbo:

I agree it is important and of interest of who finds the body. It should always be the first person checked out if it was done in suspicious circumstances. Having said that, Lechmere did not act suspicious in the least to Paul, Mizen or the inquest. Just throwing that out there.

If he was lying, it would be a priority NOT to act suspiciously - succesful lying predisposes no suspicious behaviour.

But why lie? Why not just LEAVE? Why wait for Paul? Why go to him, tap his shoulder and ask him to come see? Why GO with Paul to find a PC? Why show at the inquest when you've not been compelled, named, identified, or described in any way beyond being called "a man".

Myself, I consider the manner in which Lechmere refused to help prop the body up is totally suspicious.

Why? In your scenario, he'd just killed and mutilated Nichols. Literally seconds before Paul came into Buck's Row. It's "very dark". He hides the murder knife in his clothing. And he completely unconcerned that he may have blood on his clothing? Paul gives him an opportunity to EXPLAIN any blood that may have gotten on his person during the cutting of the throat, mutilation of the abdomen, or the stowing of the knife in his coat. The fact that you see this as suspicious highlights the issue with how you view this "theory" of yours.

And I think it is highly suspicious to mislead a PC...

I think it's been made clear that Mizen "misled". His testimony was designed to obscure the fact that he DID, in fact, behave just as Paul had described in Lloyd's and just as Lechmere described in his testimony. Why would Paul be so harsh in his criticism of Mizen's reaction and response to having been told of a woman lying - likely dead - in Buck's Row? For those of you new to this theory, hold onto your hats because you may not know this bit: It's because Paul - according to Fisherman, et al - is a police-hating grandstander with an ax to grind against the police. Thus, Paul has (an invented) reason to lie. Lechmere has (an invented) reason to lie. And only Mizen, good, honest, noble Jonas, is telling the God's honest truth.

I also think that it is very suspicious that the wounds in the abdomen were hidden. A killer who had fled the scene would not profit from that. Only a killer still present at the scene would.

Again. We don't know to what extent the abdomen was mutilated and we don't know to what extent Paul and Lechmere pulled the clothing down. I'll give credit here, though. This is something new you've added. It needs work, though. Keep at it.


The distance between Bucks Row and Mitre Square is around 1,1 miles. If we go northeast from Bucks Row for 1,1 miles, we end up close to Victoria Park.
If we go south from Mitre Square for 1,1 miles, we end up in Southwark, on the southern side of the Thames.
Of course, if any of the victims were there, it would be way out of Lechmere´s working trek zone.
So the correlation between Lechmere´s logical working routes and the murder spots remain of the utmost interest.
That is, if somebody is entertaining another idea for whatever reason.

As you once famously stated: Try looking at the case with an EYE ON LECHMERE BEING GUILTY. And that's what must be done for what you've written above to carry any weight whatever.

I think Chapman was slain in the dark hours around Lechmere´s working trek. I think Phillips was correct on the TOD. Cadosch and Long, both very sure of the times, contradict each other and Richardson is all over the place testimonialwise.

Wait. So you've changed on this? You once believed that he left his cart in the market and walked over to Hanbury street, killed and mutilated Champman, then hopped back on his cart, not worried about blood because he - in your supposition - hauled meat, and went about his work. Beyond this comment I've no response.


Jason Payne-James tells me that the body would not bleed for many minutes, and he says that Lechmere is caught in the eye of the storm, timewise. That is as close as anybody has ever come to nailing the Ripper. It´ll do for me.

The eye of the storm. Remind us where you get your 'blood evidence' again? Ah, yes. Quotes in newspapers. Adjectives like 'oozing'. Eye of the storm, indeed.

Above bold italics.

[Fisherman]

Columbo:

I agree it is important and of interest of who finds the body. It should always be the first person checked out if it was done in suspicious circumstances. Having said that, Lechmere did not act suspicious in the least to Paul, Mizen or the inquest. Just throwing that out there.

If he was lying, it would be a priority NOT to act suspiciously - succesful lying predisposes no suspicious behaviour.
Myself, I consider the manner in which Lechmere refused to help prop the body up is totally suspicious. And I think it is highly suspicious to mislead a PC...

I also think that it is very suspicious that the wounds in the abdomen were hidden. A killer who had fled the scene would not profit from that. Only a killer still present at the scene would.

The distance between Bucks Row and Mitre Square is around 1,1 miles. If we go northeast from Bucks Row for 1,1 miles, we end up close to Victoria Park.
If we go south from Mitre Square for 1,1 miles, we end up in Southwark, on the southern side of the Thames.
Of course, if any of the victims were there, it would be way out of Lechmere´s working trek zone.
So the correlation between Lechmere´s logical working routes and the murder spots remain of the utmost interest.
That is, if somebody is entertaining another idea for whatever reason.

As I've previously posted it's entirely possible that the routes work in favor of lechmere being a suspect but it's a jump to suspect that he would walk away from his cart and horse full of meat to take Annie Chapman to the back of Hanbury street that late in the morning, unless you can provide evidence that Lechmere was derelict in his duties on other occasions that would warrant that suspicion.

I think Chapman was slain in the dark hours around Lechmere´s working trek. I think Phillips was correct on the TOD. Cadosch and Long, both very sure of the times, contradict each other and Richardson is all over the place testimonialwise.

We don't know enough about the man. We do know he could've killed one poor prostitute but that's not enough because that has not been proven.

Jason Payne-James tells me that the body would not bleed for many minutes, and he says that Lechmere is caught in the eye of the storm, timewise. That is as close as anybody has ever come to nailing the Ripper. It´ll do for me.

[John Wheat]

Ridiculous. The (4) murders were committed over a small geographic area. Close to one means close to all. If one of the murders were not along his route to work, he wouldn't have found Nichols and we'd never have heard his name(s). And he still wouldn't be Jack the Ripper.

Hi Patrick

Absolutely Patrick. I would imagine hundreds of people lived or worked near all the murders.

Cheers John

[Columbo]

It nevertheless applies that we cannot say that it is of no interest or consequence who finds a body. The implications are that four of the murders fell along or close by his working trek and at the approximate times he would have been there. It is that simple.

It does not mean that we can establish exactly where he was at any given time, but it DOES mean that things point to the carman being in the thick of things. And, once again, it is therefore of the very greatest interest who finds a dead body.

I agree it is important and of interest of who finds the body. It should always be the first person checked out if it was done in suspicious circumstances. Having said that, Lechmere did not act suspicious in the least to Paul, Mizen or the inquest. Just throwing that out there.

As I've previously posted it's entirely possible that the routes work in favor of lechmere being a suspect but it's a jump to suspect that he would walk away from his cart and horse full of meat to take Annie Chapman to the back of Hanbury street that late in the morning, unless you can provide evidence that Lechmere was derelict in his duties on other occasions that would warrant that suspicion. Same goes for the others. Was he prone to staying out at night with several kids at home? We don't know. Was he well know on the streets where he made his deliveries? We don't know.

We don't know enough about the man. We do know he could've killed one poor prostitute but that's not enough because that has not been proven.

Columbo

[Patrick S]

Columbo: It doesn't matter who found her. If not Cross it would've been Paul or someone else.

I disagree, Columbo. There are ties geographically and chronologically between Lechmere and the four en-route-to-work murders. It is therefore very interesting and quite possibly revealing that Lechmere was the "finder". If she had been fund by a man who traversed Bucks Row from Baker Street, going to work in Stepney, there would have been no further connection between finder and murder sites. As it stands the connections are there with Lechmere. So it matters a whole lot who found her!

Ridiculous. The (4) murders were committed over a small geographic area. Close to one means close to all. If one of the murders were not along his route to work, he wouldn't have found Nichols and we'd never have heard his name(s). And he still wouldn't be Jack the Ripper.

[Harry D]

Jacob Levy had a brother who lived in the Wentworth building (GSG). His cousin was Joseph Hyam Levy, one of the three Jews who saw Eddowes' potential murderer and apparently acted cagey. And Jacob lived and worked from Middlesex Street, which was right in the killer's hot zone. Does that mean he was the Ripper? Not at all. It does show, however, that Lechmere is certainly no exception when it comes to profiling a suspect through geographical overlap and local connections.

[Fisherman]

True but ties to the routes (mother's home, work etc) don't place him there at the time of the murders. He may have taken each of these routes on the days of the murder or he may have been diverted by conditions of weather, employers etc. The routes support the possibility of his involvement but they are not helpful unless you can prove he took those routes on those days at the estimated times of the murders. Since we can't prove that, they are only coincidental at this point.

The routes are a tenuous tie between Lechmere and the murders. You have to show he took those routes as described above.

You'll never be able to do that so we need to know more about the man himself. that's the only way to solidify him as the most likely candidate.

Columbo

It nevertheless applies that we cannot say that it is of no interest or consequence who finds a body. The implications are that four of the murders fell along or close by his working trek and at the approximate times he would have been there. It is that simple.

It does not mean that we can establish exactly where he was at any given time, but it DOES mean that things point to the carman being in the thick of things. And, once again, it is therefore of the very greatest interest who finds a dead body.

[Columbo]

Columbo

You to my mind are a great example of a reasonable and thoughtful poster/contributor to this site.

Has you point out to all, and what has always been clear to me, you support the Lechmere hypothesis as an hypothesis.
You have certainly not been carried away with the hype as some supports of it have.

My post last week, in which I outlined my position has not changed, I think he is a viable suspect for the Nichols murder, but that is it.

Even in that case I am not convinced, but accept it is possible.

What I find a great shame is that those who do not agree are verbal attacked and deemed to be stupid.

Can I thank you for your continued valued input.



Steve

Thank you Steve, I appreciate that.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Columbo: It doesn't matter who found her. If not Cross it would've been Paul or someone else.

I disagree, Columbo. There are ties geographically and chronologically between Lechmere and the four en-route-to-work murders. It is therefore very interesting and quite possibly revealing that Lechmere was the "finder". If she had been fund by a man who traversed Bucks Row from Baker Street, going to work in Stepney, there would have been no further connection between finder and murder sites. As it stands the connections are there. So it matters a whole lot who found her!

True but ties to the routes (mother's home, work etc) don't place him there at the time of the murders. He may have taken each of these routes on the days of the murder or he may have been diverted by conditions of weather, employers etc. The routes support the possibility of his involvement but they are not helpful unless you can prove he took those routes on those days at the estimated times of the murders. Since we can't prove that, they are only coincidental at this point.

The routes are a tenuous tie between Lechmere and the murders. You have to show he took those routes as described above.

You'll never be able to do that so we need to know more about the man himself. that's the only way to solidify him as the most likely candidate.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Columbo: It doesn't matter who found her. If not Cross it would've been Paul or someone else.

I disagree, Columbo. There are ties geographically and chronologically between Lechmere and the four en-route-to-work murders. It is therefore very interesting and quite possibly revealing that Lechmere was the "finder". If she had been fund by a man who traversed Bucks Row from Baker Street, going to work in Stepney, there would have been no further connection between finder and murder sites. As it stands the connections are there with Lechmere. So it matters a whole lot who found her!

[Elamarna]

It doesn't matter who found her. If not Cross it would've been Paul or someone else.

This is all probabilities and conjecture. Fisherman knows that and has mentioned it before. This is his belief. It doesn't make it true. You're of course welcome to share his belief.

And to refresh people's memory I totally support this as a theory but it's far from conclusive or concrete.

For instance the routes have been touted as evidence against Lechmere. The problem is there is no proof whatsoever that he took these routes (outside of Bucks Row of course) on the night of each murder. No one can place him anywhere near the other murder sites.

If the police at the time had thought he was a suspect he would've been questioned AFTER the second or third murder! He was known to them through the inquest so they knew where to find him. There is no evidence in the surviving records to indicate he was ever questioned beyond his inquest testimony. Why? Because they didn't think he was guilty of anything.

Say what you want about the police at the time, but I think they were sharper than people have given them credit for. One of the superior officers I think would've said "Let's revisit Lechmere and find out what his alibi was for each murder". As far as we know they didn't.

I also will point out that it doesn't matter what any legalese says about this case in our time and how they would take them to trial etc,etc. Until I see a certified letter from Scobie or whoever it was on the documentary that he totally agrees with the evidence AND what was presented in the documentary his opinion means nothing from a legal standpoint. It's complete conjecture. He knows it takes more than what is known about Lechmere to bring a case to court.

And while I'm ranting Rainbow, keep in mind Fisherman was not the originator of this theory. Lechmere was suggested as a suspect a decade ago and it didn't go anywhere then. Edward and Fisherman have brought it to this point and they will need to bring it alot further to convince alot of people totally of Lechmere's guilt.

Again a great theory, but so far that's all it is.

Columbo

Columbo

You to my mind are a great example of a reasonable and thoughtful poster/contributor to this site.

Has you point out to all, and what has always been clear to me, you support the Lechmere hypothesis as an hypothesis.
You have certainly not been carried away with the hype as some supports of it have.

My post last week, in which I outlined my position has not changed, I think he is a viable suspect for the Nichols murder, but that is it.

Even in that case I am not convinced, but accept it is possible.

What I find a great shame is that those who do not agree are verbal attacked and deemed to be stupid.

Can I thank you for your continued valued input.



Steve

[Columbo]

and was there anyone of those hundreds except him found standing by a freshly bleeding murdered woman?!

It doesn't matter who found her. If not Cross it would've been Paul or someone else.

This is all probabilities and conjecture. Fisherman knows that and has mentioned it before. This is his belief. It doesn't make it true. You're of course welcome to share his belief.

And to refresh people's memory I totally support this as a theory but it's far from conclusive or concrete.

For instance the routes have been touted as evidence against Lechmere. The problem is there is no proof whatsoever that he took these routes (outside of Bucks Row of course) on the night of each murder. No one can place him anywhere near the other murder sites.

If the police at the time had thought he was a suspect he would've been questioned AFTER the second or third murder! He was known to them through the inquest so they knew where to find him. There is no evidence in the surviving records to indicate he was ever questioned beyond his inquest testimony. Why? Because they didn't think he was guilty of anything.

Say what you want about the police at the time, but I think they were sharper than people have given them credit for. One of the superior officers I think would've said "Let's revisit Lechmere and find out what his alibi was for each murder". As far as we know they didn't.

I also will point out that it doesn't matter what any legalese says about this case in our time and how they would take them to trial etc,etc. Until I see a certified letter from Scobie or whoever it was on the documentary that he totally agrees with the evidence AND what was presented in the documentary his opinion means nothing from a legal standpoint. It's complete conjecture. He knows it takes more than what is known about Lechmere to bring a case to court.

And while I'm ranting Rainbow, keep in mind Fisherman was not the originator of this theory. Lechmere was suggested as a suspect a decade ago and it didn't go anywhere then. Edward and Fisherman have brought it to this point and they will need to bring it alot further to convince alot of people totally of Lechmere's guilt.

Again a great theory, but so far that's all it is.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

...you are the man who puts the 'poo' in 'hypoothesis'.

****. That´s funny!

[Fisherman]

The question would be, though, for how many other people could exactly the same thing be said? We are talking about an era and an area of high-density housing. Anyone who lived in the Mile End / Bethnal Green area (an awful lot of people) and worked further west (doubtless a similarly large number of people) might have walked those very same routes every week night.

I'm not dismissing the point, or Lechmere - just pointing out what are obvious difficulties. In all likelihood a considerable number of people walked those routes or routes through the same district for a 4am start at work. It's therefore a high probability that one of them would at some point discover a Ripper victim.

Or is it? Tabram was killed in a stairwell to a lodging house, Chapman in a back yard, Stride in a dark yard off the road, and Kelly in her own room. Only Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes were assaulted out in a genuinely public thoroughfare and it is quite possible that the killer was disturbed by members of the public during two of those three killings. (I think it highly likely either that Paul's approach disturbed Lechmere during the killing, or that Lechmere's approach disturbed another unseen killer), and then we have the various confusing shenanigans during the assault(s?) on Stride. All of which confirms me in the view that Eddowes is the greater outlier than Kelly, and that the killer was an opportunistic and rather lucky fellow, not some organised and meticulous genius.

I'm amazed to see the idea being bandied-about that the Lechmere theory is 'boring'. If and when we find this chap, you know what? - I bet he's going to be quite, quite boring. He's going to be Denis Rader boring. A normal family man with a house and a job, and nothing outwardly interesting about him at all. We'll all be so disappointed!

Not me...

As for the relevance of my scenario, please see my answer to Kattrup, mainly the point about Robert Black.

[Fisherman]

Kattrup: Why must the circle be within East End, if it's another killer?

Answer: It must not. But if we work from the presumption that Lechmere is the killer, then we get a fairly useful area to work from. The important thing to note is that all four weekday killings are palced along the very, very few trekking miles that look like his working route, whereas the collossal amount of mileage that was NOT included in his reasonable working treks is left without a single victim. It is either an extreme coincidence - or not.

Why include all the other streets, the "400" or so miles? Aren't the only streets that would matter those close to Lechmere/Cross' route to work?

No, not at all. Every other street where there was no victim is equally important, since any victim slain away from Lechmere´s route would make the suggestion that he was the killer less viable. As it stands, there is a 100 per cent correlation. If I was a prosecutor, and wanted to impress a jury, that would be a very useful card to play.
When we look only at the streets he would logically have walked, it is very easy to say "Many other will have walked those streets". But when we do it the other way around, when we look at Lechmere as a suspect, the correlation between the murder sites and his logical routes are astonishing.
Lechmere was present at the Nichols murder site in Bucks Row. After Nichols was killed, two more victims fell prey during working days, when he would reasonable have trekked to work. If it was another killer, then the odds that this killer would place both murder exactly along Lechmere´s logical routes are astronomical, given the collossal multitude of alternative killing spots away from Lechmere´s working route.
However, if Lechmere was the killer, the he killed en route to work, and then we should expect that working day victims killed around 3-4 AM should be placed on or near his logical working routes.
And guess what...?

His route to work is suggested, only. An assumption that he might have taken some routes. We don't know that he did.

True - but since most people will prioritize the shortest routes to work, it stands to reason that he employed either the Hanbury Street route or the Montague Street route. And as luck will have it, we actually know that he used the Hanbury Street route. And the only victim excluded by excluded the Montague Street route is Tabram, who is under much discussion anyway.

There's no correlation and it's not "completely baffling " until you have demonstrated that these "suggested" routes were not also used daily by hundreds of other commuters.

Wrong - for reasons given above. The fact that many others may/will/could hav e walked thses streets does not in any way detract from the correlation between the carmans logical working routes and the murder spots.
For your reasoning to be valid, I would either need to prove that the carman alone walked these streets, or I would need to accept that with every other accepted commuter, the siginificance of the correlation would fade more and more.
A 100 per cent correlation is a 100 per cent correlation, and if Lechmere used the routes suggested, then there IS a 100 per cent correlation.

The abductor Robert Black was suspected of having spirited many girls away and killed them. When his petrol bills were checked, it turned out that he had been in the same towns and villages as the victims, at the approxiate time of their abductions.
Did the judge and jury go "Bollocks - many people live in these toens and villages, and they are equally likely to be the killer" or diud they go "Okay, that clinches it - send him down"?
Exactly - they convicted, and called his presence circumstantial evidence of guilt.

The Lechmere case has the same ingredients to a large degree.