Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[John Wheat]

John

To be honest Bury is far better than most, he is in the top quarter of my possibles,


Still no one in the probables.

steve

Fair enough Steve

Cheers John

[Abby Normal]

I think you're having your jollies with me.

I thought it was one of the better suspect ones, I was especially impressed with the mapping.

If I ever was to communicate with any of those involved I'd say "well done".

so did I. My only real problem with it is it depicted Lech crouching over the body.

[John Wheat]

so did I. My only real problem with it is it depicted Lech crouching over the body.

But Abby

The doc is extremely bias. And that is largely because Lechmere is such a weak suspect. So the makers are forced to make a bias doc. Which begs the questions. Is it a fair representation of Lechmere? And why make the doc in the first place?

Cheers John

[Columbo]

But Abby

The doc is extremely bias. And that is largely because Lechmere is such a weak suspect. So the makers are forced to make a bias doc. Which begs the questions. Is it a fair representation of Lechmere? And why make the doc in the first place?

Cheers John

He's not the strongest suspect. In my opinion the doc was missing any real depth to Lechmere the person that would cement together any motive he may have. Not that it was needed but I think its important. Right now there is no clear reason to suspect Lechmere outside of him being found with Nichols. that may be enough for some, but I think I need a little more.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Hi DirectorDave

Have you ever heard of WH Bury? The main argument against him is that he didn't mutilate his ex prostitute wife's abdomen enough to be JTR. Which is ludicrous when you consider the complete lack of Ripper suspects with any history of knife violence related murders. The only other suspect who is recorded to have used a knife in a murder is James Kelly.

Cheers John

I think I'm going to revisit Bury. I'm a little burned out on Lechmere. I keep hoping something new would be said but it's getting less and less.

Columbo

[John Wheat]

I think I'm going to revisit Bury. I'm a little burned out on Lechmere. I keep hoping something new would be said but it's getting less and less.

Columbo

Hi Colombo

That sounds very wise.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

Since the good old bad old argument "Somebody had to find her" has cropped up on this thread too, I thought I would present little something for the naysayers to bite into.

Charles Lechmere has been suggested as the Ripper. Right or wrong, the suggestion has been made, and the carman is looked upon as a possible Jack the Ripper.

Now, make this exercise:

Take a pair of dividers. Put one point in 22 Doveton Street. Then put the other on Mitre Square, the murder spot furthest away from Charles Lechmere´s home.

Now, draw the full circle, using 22 Doveton Street as the centre.

If we look at all the streets inside that circle, I would suggest that we are looking at a combined length of streets that surpasses 400 miles of streets.

If we look at the two suggested routes from Doveton Street to Broad Street, we are dealing with just a few miles.

So, broadly speaking, the suggested routes to work fror Charles Lechmere would make up no more than one hundreth of the routes incolved in the circle.

Now, if we make the assumption that Lechmere was the killer, then he matches the four suggested en-route-to-work murders (Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly) perfectly.

If we make the assumption that Lechmere was NOT the killer, then whoever WAs the killer is not more likely to kill along the Hanbury Street trek or the Montague Street trek than on any other street within the circle. Of course, if there WAS another killer, why would we use this particular circle? Well, if there was another (phantom) killer, any circle would be as viable as any other circle, as long as it is within the East End.
So, anyway, out of the 400 miles plus of streets, the four en-route-to-work victims all fall prey along the 4 or so miles used by Lechmere. Strictly statistically talking, it is a completely baffling correlation.

Does it prove that he was the killer? No, it does not.

Would it be an immensely strong point for the prosecution in a trial? Yes, it would.

In that capacity, just like James Scobie pointed out, the geographical correlation could very well be what had Lechmere convicted.

[Kattrup]

Since the good old bad old argument "Somebody had to find her" has cropped up on this thread too, I thought I would present little something for the naysayers to bite into.

Charles Lechmere has been suggested as the Ripper. Right or wrong, the suggestion has been made, and the carman is looked upon as a possible Jack the Ripper.

Now, make this exercise:

Take a pair of dividers. Put one point in 22 Doveton Street. Then put the other on Mitre Square, the murder spot furthest away from Charles Lechmere´s home.

Now, draw the full circle, using 22 Doveton Street as the centre.

If we look at all the streets inside that circle, I would suggest that we are looking at a combined length of streets that surpasses 400 miles of streets.

If we look at the two suggested routes from Doveton Street to Broad Street, we are dealing with just a few miles.

So, broadly speaking, the suggested routes to work fror Charles Lechmere would make up no more than one hundreth of the routes incolved in the circle.

Now, if we make the assumption that Lechmere was the killer, then he matches the four suggested en-route-to-work murders (Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly) perfectly.

If we make the assumption that Lechmere was NOT the killer, then whoever WAs the killer is not more likely to kill along the Hanbury Street trek or the Montague Street trek than on any other street within the circle. Of course, if there WAS another killer, why would we use this particular circle? Well, if there was another (phantom) killer, any circle would be as viable as any other circle, as long as it is within the East End.
So, anyway, out of the 400 miles plus of streets, the four en-route-to-work victims all fall prey along the 4 or so miles used by Lechmere. Strictly statistically talking, it is a completely baffling correlation.

Does it prove that he was the killer? No, it does not.

Would it be an immensely strong point for the prosecution in a trial? Yes, it would.

In that capacity, just like James Scobie pointed out, the geographical correlation could very well be what had Lechmere convicted.

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

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?

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

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.

[Rainbow]

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.

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

[Henry Flower]

Since the good old bad old argument "Somebody had to find her" has cropped up on this thread too, I thought I would present little something for the naysayers to bite into.

Charles Lechmere has been suggested as the Ripper. Right or wrong, the suggestion has been made, and the carman is looked upon as a possible Jack the Ripper.

Now, make this exercise:

Take a pair of dividers. Put one point in 22 Doveton Street. Then put the other on Mitre Square, the murder spot furthest away from Charles Lechmere´s home.

Now, draw the full circle, using 22 Doveton Street as the centre.

If we look at all the streets inside that circle, I would suggest that we are looking at a combined length of streets that surpasses 400 miles of streets.

If we look at the two suggested routes from Doveton Street to Broad Street, we are dealing with just a few miles.

So, broadly speaking, the suggested routes to work fror Charles Lechmere would make up no more than one hundreth of the routes incolved in the circle.

Now, if we make the assumption that Lechmere was the killer, then he matches the four suggested en-route-to-work murders (Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly) perfectly.

If we make the assumption that Lechmere was NOT the killer, then whoever WAs the killer is not more likely to kill along the Hanbury Street trek or the Montague Street trek than on any other street within the circle. Of course, if there WAS another killer, why would we use this particular circle? Well, if there was another (phantom) killer, any circle would be as viable as any other circle, as long as it is within the East End.
So, anyway, out of the 400 miles plus of streets, the four en-route-to-work victims all fall prey along the 4 or so miles used by Lechmere. Strictly statistically talking, it is a completely baffling correlation.

Does it prove that he was the killer? No, it does not.

Would it be an immensely strong point for the prosecution in a trial? Yes, it would.

In that capacity, just like James Scobie pointed out, the geographical correlation could very well be what had Lechmere convicted.

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!

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Columbo;398579

He's not the strongest suspect. In my opinion the doc was missing any real depth to Lechmere the person that would cement together any motive he may have.

Hi Columbo. That is not only in your opinion. There is not one single source showing us that Lechmere had a motive.

Not that it was needed but I think its important.

I think you are wrong. It is absolutely necessary that there are sources showing us that there was a distinct motive. What sort of history would you have otherwise? You would be allowed to put forth any person as a "suspect", anyone without any motive. That will not do historically.

Right now there is no clear reason to suspect Lechmere outside of him being found with Nichols. that may be enough for some, but I think I need a little more.

And this is what I need and what is not present in the ideas of Fisherman:

1. Time periods for starting, stopping, starting again and finally stopping.

2. A clear motive distinctly connected to these points in time.

3. A clear motive connected to the choice of murder dates.

4. Sources indicating that he was at the crime scenes.

5. Sources showing he had the skills to do what the killer did.

6. Historical sources explaining why he was not caught.

7. Historical sources explaining why the sources giving his motive, time periods, skills, and so on and so forth, exist.

8. Historical sources explaining the unexplained sources in the case.

9. It has to shed light on everything.

Fisherman has nothing of all this. He has sources showing us that Lechmere was a finder of one victim. And sources where Lechmere takes back his statement about seing a policeman and giving the name Cross.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

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!

Henry,

Not the theory , but the man is boring, and yes I am pretty sure the real killer was too.


Steve

[Pierre]

Henry,

Not the theory , but the man is boring, and yes I am pretty sure the real killer was too.

Steve

Steve,

According to my hypoothesis, Jack the Ripper was not at all boring. His life was very interesting and dramatic. People would love to read the history.

The problem is that I am not ready to do what Fisherman and other ripperologists do.

So I am the one who is boring in this case.

Regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

Steve,

According to my hypoothesis, Jack the Ripper was not at all boring. His life was very interesting and dramatic. People would love to read the history.

The problem is that I am not ready to do what Fisherman and other ripperologists do.

So I am the one who is boring in this case.

Regards, Pierre

But then, this thread isn't about you or your alleged suspect, is it Pierre?

[Henry Flower]

According to my hypoothesis, Jack the Ripper was not at all boring. His life was very interesting and dramatic. People would love to read the history.

Oh I see - so, not the Ripper then. Another 'dramatic' bs suspect to add to the decrepit list. As per your typo above, you are the man who puts the 'poo' in 'hypoothesis'.

Another cheap ripperologist, hijacking someone else's thread to publicize your own theory and the paperback you hope to publish once you've managed to collect enough slop to fill a bucket.

You're no historian.