Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Fisherman]

One thing though: it's not a fact that Lech found a body. It's a fact that he claimed to have found a body. And if he'd killed her, well, he would say that wouldn't he...?

I made the same argument, more or less, against David Orsam a while back. He said that Lechmere found the body, I said that he either did, or he killed her and CLAIMED that he did. I then had the audacity to say that my version of events was better, since it covered both possibilities, but David would have nothing of it. To him, my possibility was agenda-pushing, and his version was the better one.

Well, well - we are all different. Except, maybe, for David.

PS. Come to think of it, perhaps your take on things (the same as mine, admittedly) is okay, since you are not "pushing an agenda" - who knows?

[Fisherman]

anyway you look at it the blood evidence is a check mark in the favor of lech being the killer.

she had obviously been killed very recent to discovery. Its not like she had been killed hours or even a large amount of minutes before.

I think it possible that lech might have been heard/seen by the killer who then fled, but even Lech himself said he heard or saw no one leaving the scene.

Plus that phantom killer would have stretched the bleeding time to a significant amount, delving into Jason Payne James "Not-very-likely-land" (I was tempted to say "Not-bloody-likely-land" ).

[Jon Guy]

Plus that phantom killer would have stretched the bleeding time to a significant amount, delving into Jason Payne James "Not-very-likely-land" (I was tempted to say "Not-bloody-likely-land" ).

Hi Christer

Just wondering... how long would it take to walk quickly from Brown`s stable to around the corner of the Board school ?

[Elamarna]

Can I just ask you - you have said, I believe, that you donīt think Lechmere is a very good proposition for the killers role (I may be wrong on the wording, but not on the meaning of them, I think).
Given that you accept that Lechmere was there either as Nichols was cut or in very close proximity to it - why do you not consider the carman a very reasonable suggestion? Why do you think - as you obviously do - that somebody was there just a minute before Lechmere, who cut Nichols?

We know about the name business, we know how the clothes were pulled down, we know how Mizen tells a story that implies that Lechmere lied his way past him, etcetera.

Why then, do you not regard the carman as the very obvious number one suspect?

Interesting question indeed

I look at the surrounding issues

1. He approached Paul, that suggests he was aware Paul was approaching and in Bucks Row.

2. He certainly could have fled, It is unlikely given that it was dark that Paul could have identified him.

3. He could have silenced Paul there and then( a bit extreme I know )

4. He went with Paul and together they reported an incident to the first Police Officer they saw.

Those points do not suggest to me a man trying to hide his guilt, , indeed the attack if it was by Lechmere would seem to have been unplanned.

In such a case one would expect physiological changes in his body chemistry, which would make this concealment very hard.

The name business is very interesting and we have all been over it many times and those who believe he gave a deliberate lie, in order to hide and those who do not, are unlikely to agree at present.

Briefly from my standpoint.

1. Cross was a name he was entitled to use.

2. His step father was of course probably known to several police officers, it is possible that Charles was himself, and he may have been known by the name of his step father to the police.

Of course that is pure speculation and cannot be used in forming any solid argument, but it can be used as background information so to speak.

3. The details he gave would not have hidden him if the Police were really searching for him, it would have been far better to use another name surely?

We have all been over this so many times, and neither side can see the other sides viewpoint I think it is fair to say, or if they do they do just not agree with it.

Finally the issue with Mizen is less than fully convincing to me, I see a simple misunderstanding as a possible answer, I do not think there is any deliberate attempt to mislead by anyone in that issue , I know of course you disagree.


If You could seriously link him to another site, not just the route to work/work related theory then he must be considered a very strong candidate.

As I said in post #313 where I summed up my view, I consider him a viable suspect for the Nichols murder, high possibility? yes!

However ultimately the issues I have raised above lead me at present to conclude that he was a witness, not a killer.

hope that explains


steve

[Darryl Kenyon]

The trouble i have with Lechmere is surely the police would have questioned him closely, man seen near body shortly or very shorty after said body was murdered, they weren't dimwits, and if they had suspicions wouldn't they have kept close tabs on him ? Yet Annie Chapman was murdered just over a week later.
That's not to say i think he is a dead duck, just unlikely at present.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

Just wondering... how long would it take to walk quickly from Brown`s stable to around the corner of the Board school ?

Perhaps ten, fifteen seconds - but you could not start walking the second Lechmere arrived, if he was an innocent witness. So we must add the time before Lechmere got too close to enable the killer to flee.

You do it, Jon!

[Fisherman]

Interesting question indeed

I look at the surrounding issues

1. He approached Paul, that suggests he was aware Paul was approaching and in Bucks Row.

2. He certainly could have fled, It is unlikely given that it was dark that Paul could have identified him.

3. He could have silenced Paul there and then( a bit extreme I know )

4. He went with Paul and together they reported an incident to the first Police Officer they saw.

Those points do not suggest to me a man trying to hide his guilt, , indeed the attack if it was by Lechmere would seem to have been unplanned.

In such a case one would expect physiological changes in his body chemistry, which would make this concealment very hard.

The name business is very interesting and we have all been over it many times and those who believe he gave a deliberate lie, in order to hide and those who do not, are unlikely to agree at present.

Briefly from my standpoint.

1. Cross was a name he was entitled to use.

2. His step father was of course probably known to several police officers, it is possible that Charles was himself, and he may have been known by the name of his step father to the police.

Of course that is pure speculation and cannot be used in forming any solid argument, but it can be used as background information so to speak.

3. The details he gave would not have hidden him if the Police were really searching for him, it would have been far better to use another name surely?

We have all been over this so many times, and neither side can see the other sides viewpoint I think it is fair to say, or if they do they do just not agree with it.

Finally the issue with Mizen is less than fully convincing to me, I see a simple misunderstanding as a possible answer, I do not think there is any deliberate attempt to mislead by anyone in that issue , I know of course you disagree.


If You could seriously link him to another site, not just the route to work/work related theory then he must be considered a very strong candidate.

As I said in post #313 where I summed up my view, I consider him a viable suspect for the Nichols murder, high possibility? yes!

However ultimately the issues I have raised above lead me at present to conclude that he was a witness, not a killer.

hope that explains


steve

Frankly, I donīt see the points you make as any strong indicators of innocence. Take, for example the point that he accompanied Paul in search of a PC - to me, that could equally speak of guilt and a man who wanted an excuse to leave the premises, plus he found Pauls company to give him a better cover than if he walked alone.
Indeed, many of the points you make are not pro innocence for Lechmere, but instead against guilt, if you take my meaning: "It need not have been so", "There could be other explanations" etcetera.
In here, I donīt see any strong pointers to innocence at all. Only pointers to a potential innocence. You prefer not to regard the points I make as sininster for the simple reason that they MUST not have been, the way I see it. And doing so, you choose to allow for another killer in spite of the strained blood evidence (according to Payne-James) and you disregard how there were hundreds and hundreds of Whitechapel streets - but all of the working day victims died along what were his reasonable working routes. I would love for somebody to work out the likelihood of that happening!

Thanks anyway for your answer, Steve. Much appreciated!

[Henry Flower]

The trouble i have with Lechmere is surely the police would have questioned him closely, man seen near body shortly or very shorty after said body was murdered, they weren't dimwits, and if they had suspicions wouldn't they have kept close tabs on him ? Yet Annie Chapman was murdered just over a week later.
That's not to say i think he is a dead duck, just unlikely at present.

But what would questioning have elicited? Unless he bodged his story badly it would be no difficult task to leave the police believing that he merely stumbled across the body. They weren't dimwits? Well some were. Some are today. They're not all as razor-sharp as Trevor Marriott you know? Why would they have kept close tabs on him? This wasn't the height of Ripper mania, and he convinced them he was just a fairly minor witness. After all, most people here know that he was found with the still bleeding freshly killed woman, and that he gave a slightly misleading name to the police, yet they still dismiss him as a suspect; and yet they expect the police to have been highly suspicious of him... and followed his comings and goings for a week?

[Fisherman]

The trouble i have with Lechmere is surely the police would have questioned him closely, man seen near body shortly or very shorty after said body was murdered, they weren't dimwits, and if they had suspicions wouldn't they have kept close tabs on him ? Yet Annie Chapman was murdered just over a week later.
That's not to say i think he is a dead duck, just unlikely at present.

Others have the same problem, at least some posters.

So, Darryl, if that is the only trouble you have with him, what happens if you disregard it and allow for the name issue to conclude for us that he was NOT closely enough questioned to get found out?

[Fisherman]

But what would questioning have elicited? Unless he bodged his story badly it would be no difficult task to leave the police believing that he merely stumbled across the body. They weren't dimwits? Well some were. Some are today. They're not all as razor-sharp as Trevor Marriott you know? Why would they have kept close tabs on him? This wasn't the height of Ripper mania, and he convinced them he was just a fairly minor witness. After all, most people here know that he was found with the still bleeding freshly killed woman, and that he gave a slightly misleading name to the police, yet they still dismiss him as a suspect; and yet they expect the police to have been highly suspicious of him... and followed his comings and goings for a week?

I also think that the biggest favour Lechmere did himself if he was the killer, was to seek out the police twice on his own accord. I really think that weighed massively to his favour with the police, not least since it put him in stark contrast to the disappeared Robert Paul.
Walter Dew clearly shows this faith in him, whereas he (Dew) is very suspicious of Paul. In spite of this. Dew KNEW that Lechmere was the first to find the body.

[Trevor Marriott]

anyway you look at it the blood evidence is a check mark in the favor of lech being the killer.

she had obviously been killed very recent to discovery. Its not like she had been killed hours or even a large amount of minutes before.

I think it possible that lech might have been heard/seen by the killer who then fled, but even Lech himself said he heard or saw no one leaving the scene.

But the blood evidence is unsafe, as has been pointed out on this thread many times, but some dont seem to want to accept that fact.

Who was the first person who can give an accurate medical opinion with regards to the blood flow issue at the crime scene, and also the actual position of the victims neck? Because the position of the neck in relation to the body is all important.

There is every likelihood that she was killed some time before Lechmere found the body, because a precise time of death cannot be established no matter which way you look at the conflicting facts and evidence which surround the finding of the body, the position it was in and the various descriptions of blood flowing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: But the blood evidence is unsafe, as has been pointed out on this thread many times, but some dont seem to want to accept that fact.

Since when is your views fact and my views not? Payne-James is the only forensic expert to have commented specifically on the bleeding time with Nichols, and from a very well informed stance too.

Who was the first person who can give an accurate medical opinion with regards to the blood flow issue at the crime scene, and also the actual position of the victims neck? Because the position of the neck in relation to the body is all important.

There was a wide gap open. Thatīs the long and the short of it.

There is every likelihood that she was killed some time before Lechmere found the body, because a precise time of death cannot be established no matter which way you look at the conflicting facts and evidence which surround the finding of the body, the position it was in and the various descriptions of blood flowing.

No, there is not every likelihood - there is a possibility, but not a large one.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: But the blood evidence is unsafe, as has been pointed out on this thread many times, but some dont seem to want to accept that fact.

Since when is your views fact and my views not? Payne-James is the only forensic expert to have commented specifically on the bleeding time with Nichols, and from a very well informed stance too.

Who was the first person who can give an accurate medical opinion with regards to the blood flow issue at the crime scene, and also the actual position of the victims neck? Because the position of the neck in relation to the body is all important.

There was a wide gap open. Thatīs the long and the short of it.

There is every likelihood that she was killed some time before Lechmere found the body, because a precise time of death cannot be established no matter which way you look at the conflicting facts and evidence which surround the finding of the body, the position it was in and the various descriptions of blood flowing.

No, there is not every likelihood - there is a possibility, but not a large one.

As you were told yesterday, Jason gives a general opinion based on statistics not evidence from the Nichols crime scene because he didn't attend the crime scene, nor did he see any pictures of the body and its position, and the evidence from the crime scene is unsafe so any opinion he gives must simply be a general opinion and not specifically relative to the Nichols murder.

The only medical expert who attended the crime scene was the doctor, who gave an estimated time of death which has also now been proved to be unsafe. So taking all of the medical evidence into account there is little if anything to point to Lechmere being the killer other than your belief.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

As you were told yesterday, Jason gives a general opinion based on statistics not evidence from the Nichols crime scene because he didn't attend the crime scene, nor did he see any pictures of the body and its position, and the evidence from the crime scene is unsafe so any opinion he gives must simply be a general opinion and not specifically relative to the Nichols murder.

The only medical expert who attended the crime scene was the doctor, who gave an estimated time of death which has also now been proved to be unsafe. So taking all of the medical evidence into account there is little if anything to point to Lechmere being the killer other than your belief.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There is evidence from the Nichols murder scene. It can be found in the reports and in the inquest articles. It describes the position of the body, the damages etcetera. Jason Payne-James was aware of this evidence, and concluded from it. Of course, he has also a very wide experience of cases where physical violence has been inflicted to a body, so he can compare and deduct. He never said that he could be exact, but he was able to provide a rough picture of what he would have expected to happen. He is by far the best and most competent forensic expert to have commented specifically on the bleeding time expected for Nichols.

Yoi can goon forever abut how there is nothing to point to Lechmere, and you will still be faced with two major problems:

1. There are lots of stuff on record that points to Lechmere.
2. You are Trevor Marriott.

[Darryl Kenyon]

But what would questioning have elicited? Unless he bodged his story badly it would be no difficult task to leave the police believing that he merely stumbled across the body. They weren't dimwits? Well some were. Some are today. They're not all as razor-sharp as Trevor Marriott you know? Why would they have kept close tabs on him? This wasn't the height of Ripper mania, and he convinced them he was just a fairly minor witness. After all, most people here know that he was found with the still bleeding freshly killed woman, and that he gave a slightly misleading name to the police, yet they still dismiss him as a suspect; and yet they expect the police to have been highly suspicious of him... and followed his comings and goings for a week?

Hi Henry
I think you have answered your own question - found with the still bleeding freshly killed woman. Surely that would have set alarm bells off with anyone