Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

The inquest testimony in conflicting !!!!!!!!!!!!! and even comparing and deduction by Jason will not prove an accurate time of death, and thats where you fall at the first hurdle

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.

I congratulate you on your powers of observation. I was wondering who I was today

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

Originally Posted by Elamarna
2. He certainly could have fled, It is unlikely given that it was dark that Paul could have identified him.
I am no killer nor an expert in their behavior, but i feel that would be most likely his course of action.

[Fisherman]

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

I donīt think that there was such extensive knowledge about bleeding times bcak then as we have now. The one thing that the police will have relied upon would be Llewellyn, who said "within the half hour". And he seems to have arrived and examined Nichols at roughly aroundn 4.10, putting the time at 3.40 onwards.
Nota bene that 3.40 was the time included in the September 19 report for when Lechmere arrived at the body, whereas that has been altered to 3.45 in the October 19 report. Thereby, Lechmere was given ample time n ot to have been the killer. Whether this was the object of the alteration or not is written in the stars - overall, I think the later point in time jibes a lot better with wht happened - but it is at any rate a point in time that gets Lechmere of the hook. So apparently, the police offered learoom in spades for another killer.
And at the end of the day, we can see that IF the level of knowledge about bleeding times had been up to scratch, and Lechmere would have been hauled in and severely questioned. That apparently never happened, as we can tell by the name in the reports. We may therefore also suggest that the knowledge about bleeding schedules was not there in 1888, at least not to a degree that would secure Lechmere as the prime suspect - or indeed as any suspect at all.

[Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Elamarna
2. He certainly could have fled, It is unlikely given that it was dark that Paul could have identified him.
I am no killer nor an expert in their behavior, but i feel that would be most likely his course of action.

I usually say that we put ourselves in the killerīs role when we reason the way you do. Anyone of us out here would probably have fled.

When Jeffrey Dahmers victim-to-be, a young Thai boy, managed to escape from Dahmers lodgings, he fled naked down onto the street, unable to say anything comprehensive at all due to a combination of language difficulties and sheer terror.
Dahmer calmly went down to the policemen who had arrived on the scene and who were speaking to the Thai boy, to find out what had happened. He (Dahmer) then presented himself and said that the boy was his boyfriend and that the he would take him off the hands of the police and lead him back home again.
Which was exactly what he did, whereupon he killed the boy.

We are normally not able to imagine how these people think and act. They are to a very high degree psychopaths, and psychopaths are not familiar with the concept of panic. They also lack the startle reflex, fully or partly; the reflex that makes you and me jump high when something frightening happens right next to us. And their muscles do not prepare themselves for flight, as our muscles do, when we are subjected to severe danger. They are mentally and physically miles apart from "normal" people.

Intellectually, it was also clever not to run, since running persons in the vicinity of crime spots are immediately suspected of foul play.

If Lechmere was the killer, he posessed the same kind of cool composure as Dahmer did. Itīs really that easy. Either he was a psychopath and a killer, or somebody very silently killed Nichols very close in time to his arrival, and managed to sneak away unseen and unheard. Itīs either the phantom or the psychopath.

This has been said a million times out here, but you are new to the forums, so here we go again...!

[Pierre]

I usually say that we put ourselves in the killerīs role when we reason the way you do. Anyone of us out here would probably have fled.

When Jeffrey Dahmers victim-to-be, a young Thai boy, managed to escape from Dahmers lodgings, he fled naked down onto the street, unable to say anything comprehensive at all due to a combination of language difficulties and sheer terror.
Dahmer calmly went down to the policemen who had arrived on the scene and who were speaking to the Thai boy, to find out what had happened. He (Dahmer) then presented himself and said that the boy was his boyfriend and that the he would take him off the hands of the police and lead him back home again.
Which was exactly what he did, whereupon he killed the boy.

We are normally not able to imagine how these people think and act. They are to a very high degree psychopaths, and psychopaths are not familiar with the concept of panic. They also lack the startle reflex, fully or partly; the reflex that makes you and me jump high when something frightening happens right next to us. And their muscles do not prepare themselves for flight, as our muscles do, when we are subjected to severe danger. They are mentally and physically miles apart from "normal" people.

Intellectually, it was also clever not to run, since running persons in the vicinity of crime spots are immediately suspected of foul play.

If Lechmere was the killer, he posessed the same kind of cool composure as Dahmer did. Itīs really that easy. Either he was a psychopath and a killer, or somebody very silently killed Nichols very close in time to his arrival, and managed to sneak away unseen and unheard. Itīs either the phantom or the psychopath.

This has been said a million times out here, but you are new to the forums, so here we go again...!

Lechmere saw a policeman at the murder site according to the sworn testimony of PC Mizen.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;397852]

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.

So you want a strong indication against the idea that Lechmere was a serial killer:

The strong indication is the sworn testimony of Mizen: Lechmere told him he had seen a policeman at the murder site.


This indication is strenghtened by Lechmereīs refusal to give the true surname of his wife and children to the press.

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!

The likelyhood for one person from the population of passing carmen to find any one of the victims of Jack the Ripper, when they were passing through the streets where the victims were killed, was high.

Lechmere was one person from this population.

You have taken the sources from the past and made serious misinterpretations.

[Columbo]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No it's not as unsafe as you make it appear. the woman was cut to the spine which would cause loss of blood to accelerate. The direction of the blood spay is obvious because her clothes were soaked but only a small puddle next to her.

She obviously could've been killed earlier and what was seen by the police was residual dripping.

Here's something else that has yet to be pointed out as far as I know that supports your hypothesis:

People keep talking about oozing and dripping from the neck as an example that Lechmere had just committed the crime. Maybe, but it would take a lot longer for that blood to soak completely through the layers of clothes. Add to that the time it would take the blood to flow as far down as the waist.

Anybody what to take a shot at adding that to the timeline? I'm still experimenting with Trevor's theory about intestines shooting out of a body and landing by a shoulder

Columbo

[Columbo]

I usually say that we put ourselves in the killerīs role when we reason the way you do. Anyone of us out here would probably have fled.

When Jeffrey Dahmers victim-to-be, a young Thai boy, managed to escape from Dahmers lodgings, he fled naked down onto the street, unable to say anything comprehensive at all due to a combination of language difficulties and sheer terror.
Dahmer calmly went down to the policemen who had arrived on the scene and who were speaking to the Thai boy, to find out what had happened. He (Dahmer) then presented himself and said that the boy was his boyfriend and that the he would take him off the hands of the police and lead him back home again.
Which was exactly what he did, whereupon he killed the boy.

We are normally not able to imagine how these people think and act. They are to a very high degree psychopaths, and psychopaths are not familiar with the concept of panic. They also lack the startle reflex, fully or partly; the reflex that makes you and me jump high when something frightening happens right next to us. And their muscles do not prepare themselves for flight, as our muscles do, when we are subjected to severe danger. They are mentally and physically miles apart from "normal" people.

Intellectually, it was also clever not to run, since running persons in the vicinity of crime spots are immediately suspected of foul play.

If Lechmere was the killer, he posessed the same kind of cool composure as Dahmer did. Itīs really that easy. Either he was a psychopath and a killer, or somebody very silently killed Nichols very close in time to his arrival, and managed to sneak away unseen and unheard. Itīs either the phantom or the psychopath.

This has been said a million times out here, but you are new to the forums, so here we go again...!

Good example, but you forgot to mention that the young man was drugged and acting drunk, which made it easier for Dahmer to pull off his story.

I think Lechmere very well could've called Paul over to take the suspicion off himself. Any devious, quick thinker would probably do the same thing. The challenge is why go with Paul to find the police? Lechmere had no idea the PC would let them go on their way. He could very well have asked them to come back with him no matter if a PC was waiting there or not. He was free and clear with Paul.If he was that cunning he should've gone a different way, which also is mentioned a million times on this site.

Columbo

[John Wheat]

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.

Yes it's highly likely the Police looked at Lechmere.

[John Wheat]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well Trevor I'll except it as fact.

[John Wheat]

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.

1. No there isn't. Nothing on record points to Lechmere.
2. What has that got to do with this thread?

[John Wheat]

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...?

Hi Henry

Okay it is highly likely Lechmere found a body.

Cheers John

[Trevor Marriott]

No it's not as unsafe as you make it appear. the woman was cut to the spine which would cause loss of blood to accelerate. The direction of the blood spay is obvious because her clothes were soaked but only a small puddle next to her.

She obviously could've been killed earlier and what was seen by the police was residual dripping.

Here's something else that has yet to be pointed out as far as I know that supports your hypothesis:

People keep talking about oozing and dripping from the neck as an example that Lechmere had just committed the crime. Maybe, but it would take a lot longer for that blood to soak completely through the layers of clothes. Add to that the time it would take the blood to flow as far down as the waist.

Anybody what to take a shot at adding that to the timeline? I'm still experimenting with Trevor's theory about intestines shooting out of a body and landing by a shoulder

Columbo

Here is what Dr Biggs says

"Blood can leak out after death (and for quite some time). You can’t tell anything about time of injury / death by assessing the blood loss at the scene"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Henry Flower]

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

But Darryl, with respect, everything you say is pure, unadulterated, 100% supposition: surely the police thoroughly investigated him? Surely they were suspicious of him? Surely they would've kept tabs on him? Your argument is based on a lot of surelies! Show us evidence that any of that was actually true. Your suppositions are reasonable, but they are unsupported by any actual evidence.

Maybe they weren't dimwits, but they ended the investigation without a clue. I'm always reminded of Peter Sutcliffe when we have discussions like this: fairly normal guy, holding down a routine job, married, seemingly normal average guy to his friends and colleagues, able to go for long periods without killing, living a normal life, questioned numerous times by detectives during the investigation, but able several times to imitate the helpful, cooperative normal guy and allay any suspicion.

Yes, one detective was not satisfied and felt there was something wrong, but that was just one good copper out of several who interviewed him - the others weren't dimwits but they sensed nothing untoward at all about him or his alibis.

And you're still telling me that 'surely' Cross/Lechmere was thoroughly investigated by those outstanding LVE coppers and we should not therefore attach any suspicion to him? That doesn't cut it for me.

[Elamarna]

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.

Dear Fisherman, firstly sorry for the delay in replying, I have been on a five hour boat cruise in Barbados .

Lack of guilt, that is exactly where I am coming from, looking if anything argues against guilt, we all work in different ways.

The issue is you are searching for points of innocence, because you sincerely believe Lechmere is guilty.

I on the other hand am not looking for points which may or may not indicate guilty, it is different as you of course understands

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.

No I consider your points; but at present I do not consider them proven, that does not mean they may not be at a future date.

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!

Fisherman, I do not disregard it, I say it is not proven to sufficient degree to allow an unambiguous view.
Is it not true that not all the murder sites are on a direct route to his place of work from home? And as such the theory lacks strength.

Thanks anyway for your answer, Steve. Much appreciated!

Happy to answer.

It just it seems this post reinforces my view that there is no middle ground on the issue in your mind.

You are obviously fully convinced of his guilty, the issue is that at present you have not convinced others, maybe you Will, maybe not , time will tell.


Steve