Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Fisherman]

Columbo:

I agree it is important and of interest of who finds the body. It should always be the first person checked out if it was done in suspicious circumstances. Having said that, Lechmere did not act suspicious in the least to Paul, Mizen or the inquest. Just throwing that out there.

If he was lying, it would be a priority NOT to act suspiciously - succesful lying predisposes no suspicious behaviour.
Myself, I consider the manner in which Lechmere refused to help prop the body up is totally suspicious. And I think it is highly suspicious to mislead a PC...

I also think that it is very suspicious that the wounds in the abdomen were hidden. A killer who had fled the scene would not profit from that. Only a killer still present at the scene would.

The distance between Bucks Row and Mitre Square is around 1,1 miles. If we go northeast from Bucks Row for 1,1 miles, we end up close to Victoria Park.
If we go south from Mitre Square for 1,1 miles, we end up in Southwark, on the southern side of the Thames.
Of course, if any of the victims were there, it would be way out of Lechmere´s working trek zone.
So the correlation between Lechmere´s logical working routes and the murder spots remain of the utmost interest.
That is, if somebody is entertaining another idea for whatever reason.

As I've previously posted it's entirely possible that the routes work in favor of lechmere being a suspect but it's a jump to suspect that he would walk away from his cart and horse full of meat to take Annie Chapman to the back of Hanbury street that late in the morning, unless you can provide evidence that Lechmere was derelict in his duties on other occasions that would warrant that suspicion.

I think Chapman was slain in the dark hours around Lechmere´s working trek. I think Phillips was correct on the TOD. Cadosch and Long, both very sure of the times, contradict each other and Richardson is all over the place testimonialwise.

We don't know enough about the man. We do know he could've killed one poor prostitute but that's not enough because that has not been proven.

Jason Payne-James tells me that the body would not bleed for many minutes, and he says that Lechmere is caught in the eye of the storm, timewise. That is as close as anybody has ever come to nailing the Ripper. It´ll do for me.

[Patrick S]

Columbo:

I agree it is important and of interest of who finds the body. It should always be the first person checked out if it was done in suspicious circumstances. Having said that, Lechmere did not act suspicious in the least to Paul, Mizen or the inquest. Just throwing that out there.

If he was lying, it would be a priority NOT to act suspiciously - succesful lying predisposes no suspicious behaviour.

But why lie? Why not just LEAVE? Why wait for Paul? Why go to him, tap his shoulder and ask him to come see? Why GO with Paul to find a PC? Why show at the inquest when you've not been compelled, named, identified, or described in any way beyond being called "a man".

Myself, I consider the manner in which Lechmere refused to help prop the body up is totally suspicious.

Why? In your scenario, he'd just killed and mutilated Nichols. Literally seconds before Paul came into Buck's Row. It's "very dark". He hides the murder knife in his clothing. And he completely unconcerned that he may have blood on his clothing? Paul gives him an opportunity to EXPLAIN any blood that may have gotten on his person during the cutting of the throat, mutilation of the abdomen, or the stowing of the knife in his coat. The fact that you see this as suspicious highlights the issue with how you view this "theory" of yours.

And I think it is highly suspicious to mislead a PC...

I think it's been made clear that Mizen "misled". His testimony was designed to obscure the fact that he DID, in fact, behave just as Paul had described in Lloyd's and just as Lechmere described in his testimony. Why would Paul be so harsh in his criticism of Mizen's reaction and response to having been told of a woman lying - likely dead - in Buck's Row? For those of you new to this theory, hold onto your hats because you may not know this bit: It's because Paul - according to Fisherman, et al - is a police-hating grandstander with an ax to grind against the police. Thus, Paul has (an invented) reason to lie. Lechmere has (an invented) reason to lie. And only Mizen, good, honest, noble Jonas, is telling the God's honest truth.

I also think that it is very suspicious that the wounds in the abdomen were hidden. A killer who had fled the scene would not profit from that. Only a killer still present at the scene would.

Again. We don't know to what extent the abdomen was mutilated and we don't know to what extent Paul and Lechmere pulled the clothing down. I'll give credit here, though. This is something new you've added. It needs work, though. Keep at it.


The distance between Bucks Row and Mitre Square is around 1,1 miles. If we go northeast from Bucks Row for 1,1 miles, we end up close to Victoria Park.
If we go south from Mitre Square for 1,1 miles, we end up in Southwark, on the southern side of the Thames.
Of course, if any of the victims were there, it would be way out of Lechmere´s working trek zone.
So the correlation between Lechmere´s logical working routes and the murder spots remain of the utmost interest.
That is, if somebody is entertaining another idea for whatever reason.

As you once famously stated: Try looking at the case with an EYE ON LECHMERE BEING GUILTY. And that's what must be done for what you've written above to carry any weight whatever.

I think Chapman was slain in the dark hours around Lechmere´s working trek. I think Phillips was correct on the TOD. Cadosch and Long, both very sure of the times, contradict each other and Richardson is all over the place testimonialwise.

Wait. So you've changed on this? You once believed that he left his cart in the market and walked over to Hanbury street, killed and mutilated Champman, then hopped back on his cart, not worried about blood because he - in your supposition - hauled meat, and went about his work. Beyond this comment I've no response.


Jason Payne-James tells me that the body would not bleed for many minutes, and he says that Lechmere is caught in the eye of the storm, timewise. That is as close as anybody has ever come to nailing the Ripper. It´ll do for me.

The eye of the storm. Remind us where you get your 'blood evidence' again? Ah, yes. Quotes in newspapers. Adjectives like 'oozing'. Eye of the storm, indeed.

Above bold italics.

[Columbo]

Columbo:

I agree it is important and of interest of who finds the body. It should always be the first person checked out if it was done in suspicious circumstances. Having said that, Lechmere did not act suspicious in the least to Paul, Mizen or the inquest. Just throwing that out there.

If he was lying, it would be a priority NOT to act suspiciously - succesful lying predisposes no suspicious behaviour.
Myself, I consider the manner in which Lechmere refused to help prop the body up is totally suspicious. And I think it is highly suspicious to mislead a PC...

I also think that it is very suspicious that the wounds in the abdomen were hidden. A killer who had fled the scene would not profit from that. Only a killer still present at the scene would.

The distance between Bucks Row and Mitre Square is around 1,1 miles. If we go northeast from Bucks Row for 1,1 miles, we end up close to Victoria Park.
If we go south from Mitre Square for 1,1 miles, we end up in Southwark, on the southern side of the Thames.
Of course, if any of the victims were there, it would be way out of Lechmere´s working trek zone.
So the correlation between Lechmere´s logical working routes and the murder spots remain of the utmost interest.
That is, if somebody is entertaining another idea for whatever reason.

As I've previously posted it's entirely possible that the routes work in favor of lechmere being a suspect but it's a jump to suspect that he would walk away from his cart and horse full of meat to take Annie Chapman to the back of Hanbury street that late in the morning, unless you can provide evidence that Lechmere was derelict in his duties on other occasions that would warrant that suspicion.

I think Chapman was slain in the dark hours around Lechmere´s working trek. I think Phillips was correct on the TOD. Cadosch and Long, both very sure of the times, contradict each other and Richardson is all over the place testimonialwise.

We don't know enough about the man. We do know he could've killed one poor prostitute but that's not enough because that has not been proven.

Jason Payne-James tells me that the body would not bleed for many minutes, and he says that Lechmere is caught in the eye of the storm, timewise. That is as close as anybody has ever come to nailing the Ripper. It´ll do for me.

I agree with Payne-James. Not on the blood because there are too many factors involved for him to give an accurate statement on how long this particular person would bleed, but on Lechmere being in the eye of the storm.

On the whole I would say you definitely have a very good person of interest for Nichols. The others I'm still not so sure.

I admire your tenacity. Stick to your guns!

I would still like to see more of the man then the suspicions though. So if you find out anything new please post!

Columbo

[Columbo]

QUOTE=Columbo;398579



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



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.



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

Hi Pierre,

A motive is not necessary to convict someone of a crime, if you can prove the person did it. There are hundreds if not thousands of motiveless crimes, or least motiveless to the police and victims. Keep in mind most murders like this are motivated by sexual fantasies and hatred. What we need to know is whether Lechmere harbored these motivations.

What you're asking of Fisherman is a little absurd. Almost no murder case requires or even needs all the items on your list. Even historical cases such as the Lindbergh kidnapping don't require it, and in this case NO ONE can provide that information. It would be interesting to be able to fulfill your list but we know it can't be done with any certainty.

Columbo

[Henry Flower]

I agree with Payne-James. Not on the blood because there are too many factors involved for him to give an accurate statement on how long this particular person would bleed, but on Lechmere being in the eye of the storm.

On the whole I would say you definitely have a very good person of interest for Nichols. The others I'm still not so sure.

I admire your tenacity. Stick to your guns!

I would still like to see more of the man then the suspicions though. So if you find out anything new please post!

Columbo

I agree Columbo. The evidence and arguments about times, routes, statements and lies have been done to death. Clearly, some people find them compelling, others merely interesting, while others seem strangely angered by the very notion that the man found alongside the only Ripper victim who may even have been technically alive at the time of her discovery, and who gave his usually unused alternative name in his testimony, should be considered a person of interest.

So this evidence takes us only so far. Until we know more about the man I don't think we can go much further.

[Fisherman]

Columbo: I agree with Payne-James. Not on the blood because there are too many factors involved for him to give an accurate statement on how long this particular person would bleed, but on Lechmere being in the eye of the storm.

And indeed, Jason Payne-James never claims that there can be any exact times established - it would be utter folly to do so. What he does is to say that if all things were normal - and there is nothing pointing to anything NOT being normal - then Lechmere seems to have been with the victim at the approximate time she was cut. After that, any number of deviations may apply, allowing for another killer - but that does not detract from how Lechmere fits the bill, timewise.

On the whole I would say you definitely have a very good person of interest for Nichols. The others I'm still not so sure.

I don´t think anybody is. Of course the Nichols case is by far the strongest reason to investigate Lechmere.

I admire your tenacity. Stick to your guns!

Putting it shortly: I will.

I would still like to see more of the man then the suspicions though. So if you find out anything new please post!

That sort of information is much more likely to come from Edward than from me. He is the one who has made by far the strongest effort to get under the skin of Lechmere. It has proven a hard thing to do, however, since much time has passed, so to what extent Edward will succeed, I can´t say.

[Henry Flower]

Hi Pierre,

A motive is not necessary to convict someone of a crime, if you can prove the person did it. There are hundreds if not thousands of motiveless crimes, or least motiveless to the police and victims. Keep in mind most murders like this are motivated by sexual fantasies and hatred. What we need to know is whether Lechmere harbored these motivations.

What you're asking of Fisherman is a little absurd. Almost no murder case requires or even needs all the items on your list. Even historical cases such as the Lindbergh kidnapping don't require it, and in this case NO ONE can provide that information. It would be interesting to be able to fulfill your list but we know it can't be done with any certainty.

Columbo

Columbo, the trouble is Pierre thinks he's special and has special Historian powers. That's why he thinks he can set the rules for what would constitute a 'valid' mode of research. He is deluded of course, and the notion that an all-encompassing motive is necessary when hunting someone who may likely have been a sexually motivated serial murderer is laughable. But he wouldn't understand that, because he is just another huckster currently busy selecting evidence that supports his chosen suspect in the hope that he can write some dreadful case-solving paperback that will be forgotten within a month of its publication.

Or will it be published in a peer-reviewed academic journal?

(Nope.)

[Elamarna]

Hi Pierre,

A motive is not necessary to convict someone of a crime, if you can prove the person did it. There are hundreds if not thousands of motiveless crimes, or least motiveless to the police and victims. Keep in mind most murders like this are motivated by sexual fantasies and hatred. What we need to know is whether Lechmere harbored these motivations.

What you're asking of Fisherman is a little absurd. Almost no murder case requires or even needs all the items on your list. Even historical cases such as the Lindbergh kidnapping don't require it, and in this case NO ONE can provide that information. It would be interesting to be able to fulfill your list but we know it can't be done with any certainty.

Columbo

Columbo

The thing you must understand is Pierre will tell you he can answer all of those questions/points positively, the only problem is that of course he will tell you that he can give you no details.


Steve

[John Wheat]

I agree Columbo. The evidence and arguments about times, routes, statements and lies have been done to death. Clearly, some people find them compelling, others merely interesting, while others seem strangely angered by the very notion that the man found alongside the only Ripper victim who may even have been technically alive at the time of her discovery, and who gave his usually unused alternative name in his testimony, should be considered a person of interest.

So this evidence takes us only so far. Until we know more about the man I don't think we can go much further.

Hi Henry

I agree the evidence or lack of it about times, routes and statements have been done to death. I disagree with the anger point. Personally what angers me is the pompous attitude from some Lechmere Theory supporters. And the way they expect everyone else to believe there bullshit and I'd have thought others are annoyed by this.

Cheers John

[Henry Flower]

Hi Henry

I agree the evidence or lack of it about times, routes and statements have been done to death. I disagree with the anger point. Personally what angers me is the pompous attitude from some Lechmere Theory supporters. And the way they expect everyone else to believe there bullshit and I'd have thought others are annoyed by this.

Cheers John

Okey dokey John.

[Abby Normal]

Columbo

You to my mind are a great example of a reasonable and thoughtful poster/contributor to this site.

Has you point out to all, and what has always been clear to me, you support the Lechmere hypothesis as an hypothesis.
You have certainly not been carried away with the hype as some supports of it have.

My post last week, in which I outlined my position has not changed, I think he is a viable suspect for the Nichols murder, but that is it.

Even in that case I am not convinced, but accept it is possible.

What I find a great shame is that those who do not agree are verbal attacked and deemed to be stupid.

Can I thank you for your continued valued input.



Steve

What I find a great shame is that those who do not agree are verbal attacked and deemed to be stupid.

the vitriol and personal attacks coming from the other side is quite a shame too, and there is more off it.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Columbo;398777]

Hi Pierre,

A motive is not necessary to convict someone of a crime, if you can prove the person did it.

Hi Columbo,

radically different methods are ruling this case. It is a cold case from 1888-1889. Therefore it is an historical case. We use historical methods and historical sources.

There is no conviction.

There are hundreds if not thousands of motiveless crimes, or least motiveless to the police and victims.

Those are not the object for research here. There could be thousands of such crimes through time and today. We have one single historical case here. It calls for using idiographical methods.

Keep in mind most murders like this are motivated by sexual fantasies and hatred. What we need to know is whether Lechmere harbored these motivations.

Motivations do not make a serial killer. Serial killing does. But an historically well established and relevant motive is historically needed if you write history.

What you're asking of Fisherman is a little absurd. Almost no murder case requires or even needs all the items on your list.

I think that all these items are required if you want to make an historical case. Otherwise your case will be very weak.

Even historical cases such as the Lindbergh kidnapping don't require it, and in this case NO ONE can provide that information. It would be interesting to be able to fulfill your list but we know it can't be done with any certainty.

I have all the items in the fulfilled list and still I am not finished:

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.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Double posted.

[GUT]

Hi Columbo,

radically different methods are ruling this case. It is a cold case from 1888-1889. Therefore it is an historical case. We use historical methods and historical sources.

There is no conviction.



Those are not the object for research here. There could be thousands of such crimes through time and today. We have one single historical case here. It calls for using idiographical methods.



Motivations do not make a serial killer. Serial killing does. But an historically well established and relevant motive is historically needed if you write history.



I think that all these items are required if you want to make an historical case. Otherwise your case will be very weak.



I have all the items in the fulfilled list and still I am not finished:

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.

Regards, Pierre

You say you've got them, but haven't ever revealed one, so to be frank why would anyone believe you.

When you first decided to pester people here, you said you'd reveal all, when you had that last bit if "data" (remember when you were pretending to be a scientist, before you decided to pretend to be a historian), now you say you have all the answers to your 9 points, but still you have told us the grand total of nothing.

Why would anyone be surprised?

[Pierre]

You say you've got them, but haven't ever revealed one, so to be frank why would anyone believe you.

When you first decided to pester people here, you said you'd reveal all, when you had that last bit if "data" (remember when you were pretending to be a scientist, before you decided to pretend to be a historian), now you say you have all the answers to your 9 points, but still you have told us the grand total of nothing.

Why would anyone be surprised?

Dear GUT,

I am thinking about people like you when I say I must be finished. I want to give you a piece of real gold.

I do not want to give you a piece of rubbish.

And I do not at all expect you to believe me already. The interesting thing is that the list is there. But is it all spurious? Is it a long list of trash?

That is what I want to find out.

Regards, Pierre