Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Fisherman]

Thanks Fisherman - a full, plausible and interesting answer and I don't doubt that some might enjoy the risk of flirting with fate, perhaps more than that they actually thrive on that thrill. It is quite possible Lechmere was one such character.

It is indeed. If he was the killer, a very clear pattern emerges where he visibly fit this kind of pattern to a tee.

So, taking that a stage further, if JTR was Lechmere and was such a personality type, we might see that behaviour in connection with the other murders too. Certainly, with the exception of MJK, all the murders were committed in risky places - that is places he might just get caught by a random person passing or patrolling officer - that certainly points to a level of risk taking - though I might suggest it was a necessary risk for his business of murder (whereas inserting himself into the investigation by interacting with the police while carrying the murder weapon, was a different type of risk - one which was not necessary in order to murder and mutilate his victims).

This is very true. The two kinds of risktaking are very different, but they may nevertheless be branches off the same tree. Killing in the open streets can be regarded as involving an insult to society, just as they can be regarded as a bare necessity for somebody who cannot contain his urges. Stayng put with the victim and conning Paul is a much clearer example of "game-playing" if you will, as is going to the inquest and lying his way past it. It may well be, though, that neither thing was easily avoidable - it boils down to the exact circumstances.

Clearly, as you point out, we do know other serial killers who have done just that. However, we do not see any unnecessary risks (that is risks that are not associated with committing the murder/mutilations) taken with any other JTR victim apart from Catherine Eddowes where the murderer leaves the scene with bloodied apron piece and possibly leaves a cryptic message on a door jamb and then potentially sends a letter and part-kidney to Lusk.

First: we donīt have the entire picture. For all we know, Lechmere could have stopped a PC and asked about what had happened, what al the commotion was about on any of the murder nights, just for the fun of it. The point being that it is hard to asess to what degree he played these kinds of games and took these kinds of risks. What we do know from studies of psychopaths is that it is an inherent trait with a fair number of them.

That was all a bit of a stream of consciousness prompted by your post, but it leaves me wondering if what we know about JTR suggests he would be such a brazen thrill seeker / risk taker.

There are two angles to look at it from. Your angle, to look at what examples there are of possible risk taking is one of them.

The other would be to look at it from an angle of theoretically accepted guilt on behalf of Lechmere, and to see what emerges in such a case. We then get the conning of Paul, we have Lechmere fooling the coroner and jury at the inquest, we have him approaching Mizen with the murder weapon in his pocket. And we have all sorts of little hints pointing at game-playing - and thoroughly enjoying it. One such example (that no doubt many people will find aggravating) is how Lechmere answered the question from a juryman about whether he had really told Mizen that there was another PC in Bucks Row.
If he was innocent, I find it a bit odd that he gave the answer "No - because there WAS no other PC in Bucks Row". Dew portrayed him as a rough man of few words, so what was the elaboration about? He could have just said "No, Sir", could he not?
Imagine if he was the killer, and see what happens to this seemingly innocent sentence. Suddenly, it looks like somebody gleefully rubbing it in, enjoying the possibility offered to have an extra laugh at the expense of Mizen.
Now, before somebody starts frothing at the mouth and telling me that this is in no way something that proves anything, let me deflate that particular balloon by saying that I am perfectly aware of this. I am simply pointing at an alternative way to look at Charles Lechmere - as a killer of a psychopathic disposition, something that is true of around ninety per cent of the sexual serial killers.

Thank you for your thoughtful, useful and interesting contributions to the debate. Much needed!

[drstrange169]

If Paul started at 4:00 a.m. and Cross was late, no reason they should normally meet. Had Cross not stopped, they wouldn't have met that night either.

[Simon Wood]

Hi MrBarnett,

I imagine you travelled during commuter hours; not at around 4.00 am when, even in 1888, the world was considerably quieter than it was during the later morning hours.

But thanks anyway.

Stay safe.

Simon

[etenguy]

None of the points he raises amounts to nothing much at all. When it comes to the knife, there are many possibilities, and one of them is actually that he may have thoproughly enjoyed speaking to a PC with the weapon in his pocket. Many of the serial killers (around 90 per cent of them) are psychopaths, and psychopaths enjoy playing games and lying. They are also people who have a sense of being more clever than the rest of us. And to a fair part of them, any suggestion that they may get caught is perceived as an uninformed insult.

That alone suffices - in my world, at least - to show us how Lechmere could have done what I suggest he did. As I have pointed out numerous times, a full blown psychopath is unable to panic. These people do not break a sweat when in a situation like the one Lechmere would have been in - on the contrary, they enjoy it. They fly past lie detectors.

But letīs walk you through the aspects of the matter; Iīve done the tour before, so I know it quite well.

1. Lechmere kills Nichols, and in doing so, he focuses so totally on what he is doing that he gets into a stage of tunnel vision. When he realizes that he is not alone in the street, he quickly decides that running would give away what had happened and he does not want to be the hare in a fox hunt. He realizes that he has ample time to con the oncomer, and so he cuts the throat of Nichols to ensure that she is dead, stashes the knife, covers the wounds and backs out into the street to measure up the new kid on the block. He has at this stage no idea that he will find himself speaking to PC, knife in pocket, less than ten minutes later.

2. He engages Paul in discussion and shows him the woman, whereupon Paul says that he is late and will go find a PC to send back to the spot. Lechmere now contemplates whether he should wave farewell to Paul to make his own escape after Paul has disapperared, but on weighing things up, he decides that would be a bad idea - once Nichols is found by a third party, Paul will be able to tell about the man he found on the scene, and Lechmere will potentially be in trouble. There were only so many carmen passing through Bucks Row, and if the streets are staked out by the police, he may suffer.

3. He realizes that once the hunt for a killer is on, the police will look for a killer, a single man, likely running away at speed. They will not look for two carmen, calmly walking together, seemingly on their way to work, so he decides to claim to Paul that he himself is also late, and far from staying in place, he will tag along with Paul. With any luck, no PC will show, and he will be able to get away scot free. But to be able to handle the situation IF a PC should show up, he starts to concoct a lie that will enable him to pass that PC by - a story of only being a messenger, sent on by the PC who found the body in Bucks Row. He aslo decides to play down the matter, so that any PC they meet is not told about possible death and foul play, but instead only of a woman who is likely drunk. He realizes that the best thing to do, if they should run into a PC, would be to get rid of Paul, and ponders how to do this.

4. Once they see Mizen on turning into Bakers Row, Lechmere tells Paul that he will inform the policeman and that Paul should walk on to work so that he does not get too late. He then quickly approaches Mizen alone, and gives him a very short and condensed information, including the lie about the second PC, and as Mizen says "Okay", he lenghtens his stride and catches up with Paul, and the two walk on together down Hanbury Street. This is actually why Mizen says that he was informed about things by "a" man, not by two men - something a fair number of posters will not accept.

This is how I see what probably happened. There are matters that can have different solutions or variations of the theme, but all in all, this will not be far off the mark, as I see things. And if somebody thinks that nobody would be that cool and able to think on his feet, then that somebody has simply not read up on psychopathic (90 per cent) and narcissistic (60 per cent) serial killers.
The idea that "he would never dare" is not a correct one. It may well be that he would choose to avoid it if he had the option, but once things turned out the way they did, the actions I suggest on behalf of Lechmere are perfectly logical and rational when dealing with a psychopath.

Our knighted co-poster tells me that I cannot compare what Dahmer did to what Lechmere did, but I not only can, but also WILL do so, and the comparison is totally relevant. Both men sought out the police in spite of how they could have chosen not to, both and both men took a risk by doing so. It is a very good example of why we should not expect psychopaths to panick and start shaking uncontrollably at the prospect of dealing with the police in direct combination with a murder. The Milwaukee policemen were charmed and persuaded by the glib and well spoken Jeffrey Dahmer, and charming and persuading people in order to fool them is part of the psychopathic nature. Moreover, if the opportunity to do so does not present itself, psychopaths are likely to get bored and actively seek out these possibilitites. And they do not do so in the face of great risk for the simple reason that they do not think there is any risk at all involved, on account of how they are convinced that they are so much more clever than the rest of us.

You see, etenguy, I think the suggestion that Lechmere would never have contacted a PC with a knife in his pocket is beyond ridiculous. It is a complete non-issue to me. But I can see how others, failking to be able to use the appropriate perspective and reasoning that a psychopath is nothing much different from the rest of us, have a hard time accepting what I say.

Iīve come to terms with it, but it is nevertheless a tad tiresome.

Thanks Fisherman - a full, plausible and interesting answer and I don't doubt that some might enjoy the risk of flirting with fate, perhaps more than that they actually thrive on that thrill. It is quite possible Lechmere was one such character.

So, taking that a stage further, if JTR was Lechmere and was such a personality type, we might see that behaviour in connection with the other murders too. Certainly, with the exception of MJK, all the murders were committed in risky places - that is places he might just get caught by a random person passing or patrolling officer - that certainly points to a level of risk taking - though I might suggest it was a necessary risk for his business of murder (whereas inserting himself into the investigation by interacting with the police while carrying the murder weapon, was a different type of risk - one which was not necessary in order to murder and mutilate his victims). Clearly, as you point out, we do know other serial killers who have done just that. However, we do not see any unnecessary risks (that is risks that are not associated with committing the murder/mutilations) taken with any other JTR victim apart from Catherine Eddowes where the murderer leaves the scene with bloodied apron piece and possibly leaves a cryptic message on a door jamb and then potentially sends a letter and part-kidney to Lusk.

That was all a bit of a stream of consciousness prompted by your post, but it leaves me wondering if what we know about JTR suggests he would be such a brazen thrill seeker / risk taker.

[MrBarnett]

Simon,

A few years ago I became acquainted with a man who lives about 5 houses away from me in the same street. It turned out the man had run a small travel agency in Marylebone Lane in London. It was his own business and he had operated out of that premises for 30+ years. His commute to work during that period started with a ten minute walk to Romford Station, passing our house on the way.

My commute to work during roughly that same period had been exactly the same. My workplace was a couple of minutes’ away from the travel agency and the sandwich which bar I regularly used was next door to it.

For 28/30 years we’d trudged the same morning route to the station at approximately the same time and yet we only became acquainted by accident after both of us had retired.

Charles Lechmere moved to Doveton Street sometime in 1888 (March/April?) and we have no idea what shifts he or Paul worked.

Hope that helps.

[Simon Wood]

I would like to know why the carmen, Cross and Paul, who presumably left home for work each day at approximately the same time, and took the same route to work at approximately the same walking rate, were strangers.

Why had they never before encountered each other.

[The Baron]

And don't forget to read your papers again.

You still miss many things.

Before going theorizing!

[Fisherman]

And so it goes. We have all witnessed how an uniformed poster who pretentiously calls himself the Baron has tried - and misreably failed - to prove that Lechmere could not have been the killer.

Nothing new there, Iīd say.

Now, anyone who feels like "debating" with this remarkably ignorant bag of farts is welcome to do so. Me, I have a tad too much self-respect to prolong the misery and so I will leave our gas inflated friend to his ramblings.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Bag of farts. Priceless!

It really is! Maybe Admin can set it as a new rank?

[Fisherman]

Didn't I advice you to study your case better before jumping and fishing


The Baron

I donīt care about any advice from a bag of farts. I donīt stoop to levels where I have no experience, see. I would be like a fish out of water.

The proof. Come now!!

[The Baron]

5 days Fisherman, do you hear it, 5 days!

Your first lesson before going fishing again


The Baron

[Fisherman]

Please donīt tell us that you passed on personal and uniformed opinion as facts!! And worse still, you refuse to admit it!!!

[The Baron]

We all know that, Iīm afraid. The distance between the murders is nevertheless eight days.

And this was your original statement:

"After disagreeing with Mitzen in front of the jury and the coroner, he wouldn't be sure that the Police will not suspect him and keep watching him, and go to kill again another woman in one week."

A week? Isnīt that 8-3+2 days? No?

Now, where on earth is the proof we are all waiting for? In that bag of yours?

Didn't I advice you to study your case better before jumping and fishing


The Baron

[Fisherman]

Come on now, baron! The proof!!

[Fisherman]

Smells Fishy doesnt it dear old Fisherman


The Baron

Another post avoiding to proved the proof.

How many more of those will there be, I wonder?