Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Columbo]

wrong.

MO is the how of the crime. sig is the why.

MO is how the killer achieves his aim of the sig.

MO includes pre crime activity such as stalking, random attack, ruse etc. how the murder is committed-gun, knife etc. and how the killer gets away or covers up the crime-flees leaving body, disposal, hiding body etc.

but yes you can use MO as well as sig to link crimes.

The rippers MO was to ruse victims as being a client, get them to a secluded spot, sudden attack to incapacitate, probably via strangulation, cut the neck.
Flee leaving body before being discovered.

his sig was post mortem mutilation and the removal of internal and external body parts.

We don't know the torso mans full MO. I would venture however that it was pretty close to the ripper in that there was a ruse involved to get victim to a secluded spot (his bolt) hole. dismemberment was part of post murder MO to dispose of body.

neither the ripper nor the torso man made any overt attempts to hide the body, and one could argue that they both were actually displaying the body.

Torso mans sig was post mortem mutilation and removal of internal and external body parts. same as the rippers.

Motive is the why of a crime not signature. Signature is a characteristic of the crime. So you're incorrect.

Besides that on your other post. Do I know for sure if a victim that was flayed and the flesh sold as pork had large flaps of skin taken off? not positively but it's a pretty good guess. Does the number of flaps of skin mean anything concerning this hypothesis? Maybe, if the number 4 meant something to the killer.
My point being it's not uncommon in the annals of serial crime for killers to remove large pieces of flesh from a victim. That's all.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Just out of interest how many of the above posters believe that Lechmere was responsible for both sets of murders?

It's a possibility, but I'm not totally sold on the idea yet.

Columbo

[Abby Normal]

To be fair, John.
The recent research by Debra Arif, Jerry Dunlop, Christer and others into the Torso murders (and a possible link to some of the Ripper murders) seems a little more comprehensive than the research that has gone before (with respect to those authors).
Whether Lechmere was the Ripper and Torso murderer is another step, but I for one, am looking forward to the definitive investigation into both cases.

me too!

[Abby Normal]

Not *that* well argued....I believe Susan Peterson, the second victim, was shot three times, not once. And Albright was only convicted of one murder, so not legally proved to have murdered all three.

good lord. here we go with the dissimilar similarities and legal pendantics.

you know how many serial killers were convicted for each and evry one of their crimes. none of them.

[Abby Normal]

I will not put words in the mouths of others, so without tying it to names, I would say that based on my own take:

One of the posters thinks that this was definitely so.
Two have said that there may well be something to it.
One thinks it is an interesting suggestion, but wants more evidence.
One does not exclude it, but is more in favour of another killer.

just to put a name to it and full disclosure. I believe there is something to it.

If I tend to believe they are the same hand-then out of all the suspects-who could fit the bill? two that I know of-Lech and (Aussie) Hutch.

[Fisherman]

I am sorry but based on evidence to hand I see no conclusive connection to point to the same killer as being JTR and a mythical killer who you say was responsible for another seven murders, which you cannot even prove were murders. You cant keep making things up as you go along to suit this misguided theory.

You keep pointing to the panes of flesh, and you have been told this is a descriptive term and nothing more, because we haven't seen them and have no further information about them. Dr Biggs gave you a general explanation relating to panes of flesh yet you choose to reject it.

The cuts from pubes to sternum is a method adopted by medicos and by those performing post mortems. Again you have been told that in the absence of being able to prove murder in most cases. You reject other plausible explanations for this procedure along with other plausible medical explanations for the absence of heads when the bodies were found.

The WM have been glamorised over the years, partly because of the suggestion that the killer took the organs, you are doing exactly the same with these torsos. Now be a good boy and desist

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I AM a good boy - but for other reasons.

[Fisherman]

exactly. how many similarities do you have to keep chalking up to coincidence?
at some point too many coincidences equals no coincidence at all.

Itīs what is commonly known as circumstantial evidence, and yes, people can be tried and convicted on it.

[Fisherman]

Dear Fisherman,



I have been trying to construct a post to put the arguments about Lechmere, both being the killer known as JtR and the Torso killer togeather.

I do not want to go into interminable discussion on opinion, and that has forced me to cut right back to the bare facts.

So this is my hopefully reasonably unbiased view.


1. Lechmere was certainly in London at the correct time.


2. Lechmere was at one of the murder sites with the body of one of the victims close to the time of death.( no debate about if he was found near or with a body).


3. He gave what some believe was intentionally misleading information to the police, some do not see it has such.
However with out going into debate, it does mean questions need to be asked.


THERE IS A CASE AGAINST LECHMERE FOR THE NICHOLS MURDER.

I do not say it is strong or conclusive, but it is certainly stronger than many put forward and deserves careful consideration.


4. There appears to be no direct link to any of the other C5 murders, other than some of the sites may have been on his way to work. that is not particularly strong.

THE CASE AGAINST LECHMERE FOR THE OTHER C5 MURDERS IS AT BEST CIRCUMSTANTIAL

It appears to be based on the following premises:

All the C5 were killed by the same hand (which I agree, others do not) and if Lechmere killed Nichols he is therefore JtR.



5. There are some apparent similarities between the C5 murders and the Torso murders.


6. Some see these as being sufficient to claim that this proves the same hand.


7. Some argue, there is no link at all.


8. Some like myself argue that while there may be a possible link, it is far from established.


IT APPEARS THE CASE FOR BOTH SETS BEING BY THE SAME HAND IS VIABLE.

That means that it must be looked at and researched to see if there is any data which can be used to either prove of disprove the hypothesis



9. There appears to be no link to the Torso murders from Lechmere himself.

It would seem the logic being followed is clear

Lechmere killed Nichols, the same hand killed all of the C5, the killer of the C5 was the Torso killer( or at least took part in the case) Lechmere is therefore JtR.


THERE IS AT PRESENT NO HISTORIC DATA TO LINK LECHMERE TO THE TORSO'S. (Sorry if i sound like Pierre, don't mean to).


That does not mean that there will not be some found at some date.


Hope you see that I am not precluding the possibility of any of the above.


Steve

All in all, not far off the mark, Steve. I think, however, that one of the strongest pointers to Lechmere is the blood evidence. If I was to rewrite your work, I would include that.
Plus I would say that goven all the East End streets where Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly COULD have turned up murdered, the working routes and -times of Lechmere are actually a pretty strong piece of evidence.
To me, it was always the litmus paper: If a case can be made for somebody being the killer, then check his likely routes and times to see if there is a fit. And there is. Numerically speaking, the odds that all four would be distributed over the Lechmere working routes were always astronomical.

[Fisherman]

Motive is the why of a crime not signature. Signature is a characteristic of the crime. So you're incorrect.

Besides that on your other post. Do I know for sure if a victim that was flayed and the flesh sold as pork had large flaps of skin taken off? not positively but it's a pretty good guess. Does the number of flaps of skin mean anything concerning this hypothesis? Maybe, if the number 4 meant something to the killer.
My point being it's not uncommon in the annals of serial crime for killers to remove large pieces of flesh from a victim. That's all.

Columbo

Large pieces of flesh - yes.

The abdominal wall only - no.

And letīs not forget in this context, that much as serialists may remove large parts of flesh (very few of them do, but it happens), the overall concept of such a serialist existing in duplicates at the same place and time and working to the same overall scheme is never going to be anything else than an absolute fluke chance.

[Abby Normal]

Motive is the why of a crime not signature. Signature is a characteristic of the crime. So you're incorrect.

Besides that on your other post. Do I know for sure if a victim that was flayed and the flesh sold as pork had large flaps of skin taken off? not positively but it's a pretty good guess. Does the number of flaps of skin mean anything concerning this hypothesis? Maybe, if the number 4 meant something to the killer.
My point being it's not uncommon in the annals of serial crime for killers to remove large pieces of flesh from a victim. That's all.

Columbo

columbo
you are showing complete lack of knowledge or understanding on this.

Motive is the why of a crime not signature.

Now you are confusing "motive" with MO. motive and MO are different. motive goes more with sig.

the motive is also the why of the crime, the deep psychological reason, what gets the killer off, his true aim. Signature is the physical manifestation of the motive that exhibits itself at the crime scene and upon the victim.

MO is the how. How the killer carries out his crime to achieve his true aim (motive and subsequent sig)and tries to get away with it.

[Elamarna]

[B]All in all, not far off the mark, Steve. I think, however, that one of the strongest pointers to Lechmere is the blood evidence. If I was to rewrite your work, I would include that.

Fisherman,

Could you please elucidate on why you consider the blood evidence so important please?

From what I have read, it does no more than show that Lechmere was on the scene extremely close to the murder in time, if he was not the killer, than he must have been there within a very a few minutes of the attack at most.


I assume you read it differently?

Although of course it does give a fairly accurate time window for the attack.
It cannot pinpoint the exact time, there are too many variables involved in blood flow!


best wishes


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;397451]

Dear Fisherman,

I have been trying to construct a post to put the arguments about Lechmere, both being the killer known as JtR and the Torso killer togeather.

Hi Steve,

Great, I was waiting for you to do this. This will be good reading, and I hope you do not mind if I comment on it.

I do not want to go into interminable discussion on opinion, and that has forced me to cut right back to the bare facts.

"Bare facts" sounds good and simple but as any social researcher or historian knows, such a concept is a socially established fact and therefore not "bare" in terms of interpretation. That, on the other hand, does not mean that the interpretations are pure lies. On the contrary. So letīs see what you write here.

So this is my hopefully reasonably unbiased view.

Well done, you write "reasonably", so you are of course aware of the problem I mention above.

1. Lechmere was certainly in London at the correct time.

And so was a lot of people. And a lot of people was passing through the same streets as Lechmere in this time period.

And here is a serious problem with Lechmere: He is tied to the context of Whitechapel. The dismemberment cases are connected not only to Whitechapel (Pinchin Street) but to the West End.

So there must be a source showing that Lechmere had a reason for being in the West End, and it must be personal, not just general.

2. Lechmere was at one of the murder sites with the body of one of the victims close to the time of death.( no debate about if he was found near or with a body).

His finding of the victim coincided with his seeing a policeman there according to Mizen. If there was a policeman there and Lechmere took back the statement to protect his wife and children, it strenghtens the hypothesis that Lechmere was at the murder site at a time very close to the murder and the murderer.

3. He gave what some believe was intentionally misleading information to the police, some do not see it has such.
However with out going into debate, it does mean questions need to be asked.

He was misleading. But there are a set of possible motives for Lechmere being misleading. Two hypotheses here:

1. He was the killer
2. He saw the killer

Since these two have to do with the murder they have to be tested against his misleading comments, which may be:

A) Giving the name Cross
B) Taking back his statement to Mizen about the policeman

And since these two have to do with the murder they have to be tested against his motives for misleading - the misleading is the tendency in the source:

1) Giving his full address and workplace, therefore giving the police as well as the killer the possibility to find him by recognition

2) Not giving his correct name, therefore not giving the killer the possibility to find his wife and children.

THERE IS A CASE AGAINST LECHMERE FOR THE NICHOLS MURDER.

THE CASE IS MADE UP AS A NEWSPAPER STORY BY A JOURNALIST!

I do not say it is strong or conclusive, but it is certainly stronger than many put forward and deserves careful consideration.

It is weaker than many, since Lechmere was the finder of a victim and freely made contact with people around him and freely went to find a policeman and also attended the inquest.

4. There appears to be no direct link to any of the other C5 murders, other than some of the sites may have been on his way to work. that is not particularly strong.

It is a non existing "link", so it is no link. Being in the area is no link. All the people who lived at the doss houses could have done it, and some of them are much more plausible, since they knew the victims AND were living close to them.

THE CASE AGAINST LECHMERE FOR THE OTHER C5 MURDERS IS AT BEST CIRCUMSTANTIAL

When such an expression is used "the case against", it has no substance. With a case against we must mean that there is a case, firstly. But there is no case against that man. He was a finder of a victim and there are no "circumstances" connecting his existence or actions to the murders. Nothing!

It is not "a case against" to be in the area. If there was, we would have loads of such cases, the whole Whitechapel area would be filled with thousands of suspects!

It appears to be based on the following premises:

All the C5 were killed by the same hand (which I agree, others do not) and if Lechmere killed Nichols he is therefore JtR.

So if X > Y.

But since there is NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, NO SOURCES FOR X, there can be no Y. The Y is a pure invention.

5. There are some apparent similarities between the C5 murders and the Torso murders.

If there are - they have got nothing to do with Lechmere since there is no evidence for Y. There is only "IF X". And that is what you can say about thousands of people in Whitechapel in 1888.

6. Some see these as being sufficient to claim that this proves the same hand.

7. Some argue, there is no link at all.

I do not understand biological concepts so I never care to discuss items like "flaps" and such things. It simply is not my field of knowledge.

The only thing I use for hypothesizing about the dismemberment cases as being a part of the crimes done by Jack the Ripper is personal data. And right now I can say that there was a motive which is relevant both for the C-5 and for the Whitehall victim, Jackson and the Pinchin Street case. It also fits the time period for personal data. But I am rather ambivalent about this hypothesis, as I have said before. That is because the historical evidence for these crimes is not at all as clear as for the C-5.

8. Some like myself argue that while there may be a possible link, it is far from established.

Yes.

IT APPEARS THE CASE FOR BOTH SETS BEING BY THE SAME HAND IS VIABLE.

That means that it must be looked at and researched to see if there is any data which can be used to either prove of disprove the hypothesis

Indeed.

9. There appears to be no link to the Torso murders from Lechmere himself.

I strongly agree with this.

It would seem the logic being followed is clear

Lechmere killed Nichols, the same hand killed all of the C5, the killer of the C5 was the Torso killer( or at least took part in the case) Lechmere is therefore JtR.

But X is not established at all. It is just an hypothesis built on a very specific and biased interpretation of sources which we do not have in the original.

THERE IS AT PRESENT NO HISTORIC DATA TO LINK LECHMERE TO THE TORSO'S. (Sorry if i sound like Pierre, don't mean to).

Why sorry, it shows you have learned some historical thinking.

That does not mean that there will not be some found at some date.

But I think that is what it means.

Hope you see that I am not precluding the possibility of any of the above.

Steve

But possibilities will not do of course.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

Could you please elucidate on why you consider the blood evidence so important please?

From what I have read, it does no more than show that Lechmere was on the scene extremely close to the murder in time, if he was not the killer, than he must have been there within a very a few minutes of the attack at most.


I assume you read it differently?

Although of course it does give a fairly accurate time window for the attack.
It cannot pinpoint the exact time, there are too many variables involved in blood flow!


best wishes


Steve

Iīd be happy to oblige!

Hereīs the thing: Set the clock at 00.00.00 when Nichols has her neck cut. Make the assumption that she was cut by Mr X, not a carman.

Mr X is then disturbed by something and decides to leave the scene. going by the words of Charles Lechmere, he was not the one to disturb Mr X. Lechmere said that he would hear if anybody stirred down at Browns, from the moment he entered the street. So the killer will have left the street BEFORE Lechmere entered it. Lets say that he did so when he heard the echoing steps of Lechmere when the latter crossed Brady Street. We will therefore have around half a minute elapsing before Lechmere reached Bucks Row. After that, he had a 130 yard walk down to Browns, and that would take him a minute, at least. We are therefore at 00.01.30 when Lechmere arrives at the body.
Behind him, 30-40 yards away, walks Robert Paul. When Paul arrives at Browns, another half minute has elapsed. We are at 00.02.00.

Paul then says that it took no more than four minutes from the minute he first saw Nichols to when he and Lechmere reached Mizen. I think that must be a fair assumption, given how the two examined Nichols first, kneeling down, feeling the hands and the face, listening for breath, feeling the chest, discussing what to do and how they are late, pulling the clothes down, and then walked the long distance up to Mizen. So letīs go with four minutes. We are at 00.06.00.
Lechmere now leaves Paul and walks up to Mizen. He informs him that Mizen is needed in Bucks Row. The PC asks what is afoot, and is informed. He then proceeds to finish the knocking up of a person he had started to wake up earler, before heading East. Another half minute will have been added, at least. We are at 00.06.30.
Jonas Mizen now has a longish route to walk down to Browns. If he covered it in two minutes only, he was quick. Lets say he was. We are therefore then at 00.08.30.
After that, Mizen took a look at the body and saw that the blood was still running from the wound in the neck, and that it still appeared to be fresh. He saw that there was blood coagulating in the pool under the neck.

This is where we will end up, give or add the odd second. So Nichols bled eight and a half minutes after the cutting was done by Mr X.

Jason Payne-James, well aquainted with all the information there is on Polly Nichols and her wounds, says that he would expect the bleeding to be over in a matter of minutes. WHen I asked him if we were speaking of three, five or seven minutes, he said that the two first bids were more likely to be true than the seven minute bid. But he added that it was always going to be hard to pinpoint these matters - what he cpuld offer was only his professional opinion and his experience, and that in combination made the call that seven minutes would be asking for a lot.

If Lechmere did not kill her, we have around eight and a half minutes. If Lechmere DID kill her, we have around seven. Therefore, Lechmere becomes the more likely killer.

And that fits in with the rest:

He could have arrived mny minutes after Nichols was killed - he clearly arrived at a time that is consistent with him being the killer.
He could have said that he left home at 3.35-3.40 - but he did not.
Paul could have said that he saw or heard Lechmere - but he didnīt.
He could have had a working route that was niot compatibale with the other killings - but he didnīt.
He could have his mother living in Wensleydale - but he didnīt.
He could have helped to prop Nichols up - but he didnīt.
He could have told the coroner that his name was Lechmere - but he didnīt.

There are so many things that could have cleared him - nothing does. And the blood evidence is just another facet of that story. There is no need to accept that Nichols followed the normal schedule. But if we for some reason wanted to nail Lechmere for the murder, he is in fact in place at the exact time one would have wished for. There is nothing wrong with assuming that a normal schedule applied. Doing it the other way around is asking for trouble.

[Columbo]

Large pieces of flesh - yes.

The abdominal wall only - no.

And letīs not forget in this context, that much as serialists may remove large parts of flesh (very few of them do, but it happens), the overall concept of such a serialist existing in duplicates at the same place and time and working to the same overall scheme is never going to be anything else than an absolute fluke chance.

Absolutely agree.

Columbo

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;397488]

Iīd be happy to oblige!

Hereīs the thing: Set the clock at 00.00.00 when Nichols has her neck cut. Make the assumption that she was cut by Mr X, not a carman.

OK. I am doing that.

Mr X is then disturbed by something and decides to leave the scene. going by the words of Charles Lechmere, he was not the one to disturb Mr X. Lechmere said that he would hear if anybody stirred down at Browns, from the moment he entered the street. So the killer will have left the street BEFORE Lechmere entered it.

But who was the policeman that Mizen told everyone at the inquest about, the policeman seen by Cross in Buckīs Row, who had asked for assistance? Cross had told Mizen about this policeman, according to Mizen who was a policeman giving his testimony under oath. Who was the policeman?

And why was the dress of the victim pulled down?

And why did not Cross want to move the body?

Lets say that he did so when he heard the echoing steps of Lechmere when the latter crossed Brady Street. We will therefore have around half a minute elapsing before Lechmere reached Bucks Row. After that, he had a 130 yard walk down to Browns, and that would take him a minute, at least. We are therefore at 00.01.30 when Lechmere arrives at the body.

So it took 90 seconds for Cross to see and speak to the policeman who had pulled down the skirt and asked Cross for assistance?

Behind him, 30-40 yards away, walks Robert Paul. When Paul arrives at Browns, another half minute has elapsed. We are at 00.02.00.

And thereafter came Paul, when Cross was standing in the middle of the street, worrying about what he had seen?

Paul then says that it took no more than four minutes from the minute he first saw Nichols to when he and Lechmere reached Mizen. I think that must be a fair assumption, given how the two examined Nichols first, kneeling down, feeling the hands and the face, listening for breath, feeling the chest, discussing what to do and how they are late, pulling the clothes down, and then walked the long distance up to Mizen. So letīs go with four minutes. We are at 00.06.00.

And when Cross told Mizen about the policeman in Buckīs Row, he and Paul had already heard the steps of Neil so Paul did not suspect anything?

Lechmere now leaves Paul and walks up to Mizen. He informs him that Mizen is needed in Bucks Row. The PC asks what is afoot, and is informed. He then proceeds to finish the knocking up of a person he had started to wake up earler, before heading East. Another half minute will have been added, at least. We are at 00.06.30.

And there we are. Minutiae.

Jonas Mizen now has a longish route to walk down to Browns. If he covered it in two minutes only, he was quick. Lets say he was. We are therefore then at 00.08.30.

After that, Mizen took a look at the body and saw that the blood was still running from the wound in the neck, and that it still appeared to be fresh. He saw that there was blood coagulating in the pool under the neck.

Is this the best evidence for Cross seeing the killer in Buckīs Row?

This is where we will end up, give or add the odd second. So Nichols bled eight and a half minutes after the cutting was done by Mr X.

Seven minutes.

Jason Payne-James, well aquainted with all the information there is on Polly Nichols and her wounds, says that he would expect the bleeding to be over in a matter of minutes. WHen I asked him if we were speaking of three, five or seven minutes, he said that the two first bids were more likely to be true than the seven minute bid. But he added that it was always going to be hard to pinpoint these matters - what he cpuld offer was only his professional opinion and his experience, and that in combination made the call that seven minutes would be asking for a lot.

If Lechmere did not kill her, we have around eight and a half minutes. If Lechmere DID kill her, we have around seven. Therefore, Lechmere becomes the more likely killer.

But if you stop saying that Cross lied to Mizen, we have the killer in seven minutes and Cross being his witness.

That also explains why Cross did not give his name Lechmere at the inquest, so the papers could not give the killer the address to his wife and children.

Cross only lied ONCE, that is what you tell us - so it must have been important for him. And since he was not the killer, there is just one more hypothesis, isnīt there? Cross did it to protect his wife and children.

And that fits in with the rest:

But it fits in with a whole set of sources you do not research.

He could have arrived mny minutes after Nichols was killed - he clearly arrived at a time that is consistent with him being the killer.

No. He clearly arrived at a time that is consistent with him SEEING the killer. And the next choice for a murder site was a totally different type of choice! Because he had been seen!

He could have said that he left home at 3.35-3.40 - but he did not.
Paul could have said that he saw or heard Lechmere - but he didnīt.
He could have had a working route that was niot compatibale with the other killings - but he didnīt.

Because HE TOLD THE TRUTH. If he was a liar, and a killer, and would have wanted to get away with murder, he would also have lied about the time when he was leaving home!

He could have his mother living in Wensleydale - but he didnīt.

A very silly argument. There is not one single source showing us that there was a conflict with his mother, whatever you have made up yourself! And if there had been a conflict, it would not have mattered where the source of the conflict was living!

He could have helped to prop Nichols up - but he didnīt.

Because it was a crime scene attended to by a strange policeman?

He could have told the coroner that his name was Lechmere - but he didnīt.

Because he protected his wife and children.

There are so many things that could have cleared him - nothing does.

Silly again. He did not need to be "cleared", since he was never a suspect!

And the blood evidence is just another facet of that story. There is no need to accept that Nichols followed the normal schedule. But if we for some reason wanted to nail Lechmere for the murder, he is in fact in place at the exact time one would have wished for.

And he is in fact in place at the exact time when the unknown policeman is in place according to the police!

There is nothing wrong with assuming that a nrmal schedule applied. Doing it the other way around is asking for trouble.

YOU are asking for trouble when you do things with sources to make a suspect of an innocent man. The trouble = not being able to show that Lechmere was the Whitechapel murderer and instead showing us that the killer was a policeman.

Regards, Pierre