Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[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.

[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 don´t 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!

[Fisherman]

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.

Exactly so. It seems probable that Lechmere told the inquest that he normally started his trek at 3.20 but on the murder morning, he was late and started only at 3.30. If he ordinarily started at 3.20, then he ordinarily passed Bucks Row at around 3.26-3.27. Paul too claimed to have been late on the murder morning, and said that he arrived in Bucks Row at 3.45. If he ordinarily passed Bucks Row ten minutes earlier, we would have 3.35, almost ten minutes after the ordinary Lechmere schedule.

There is nothing at all odd about the two never having met, not least because Lechmere had only moved to Doveton Street in June, leaving perhaps only some 60-70 working days when he had used the Bucks Row passage to work from.

[Columbo]

I think the only instance that truly cannot be reconciled is the fact Lechmere came forward when it wasn’t necessary. To bring attention to himself that early in the game just doesn’t make sense. Again this is all theory and no matter what your opinion this man is innocent as are all the suspects until proven otherwise, but coming forward is definitely a point in favor of innocence. I know Fisherman has explained why he came forward but to me it’s just too complicated to be plausible.

[The Baron]

I think the only instance that truly cannot be reconciled is the fact Lechmere came forward when it wasn’t necessary. To bring attention to himself that early in the game just doesn’t make sense. Again this is all theory and no matter what your opinion this man is innocent as are all the suspects until proven otherwise, but coming forward is definitely a point in favor of innocence. I know Fisherman has explained why he came forward but to me it’s just too complicated to be plausible.

He didn't just come forward, he stood in front of the coroner and the jury in a murder case, and denied telling Mizen that a policeman wanted him in Bucks Row, rising all the red questions marks upon himself, and went killing in 5 days!

If I was the police, I will not only suspect him, I will watch the mother of him and her dog too.

This is not only taking unnecessary risk, this is suicide.


finitio.


The Baron

[Fisherman]

He didn't just come forward, he stood in front of the coroner and the jury in a murder case, and denied telling Mizen that a policeman wanted him in Bucks Row, rising all the red questions marks upon himself, and went killing in 5 days!

If I was the police, I will not only suspect him, I will watch the mother of him and her dog too.

This is not only taking unnecessary risk, this is suicide.


finitio.


The Baron

But as you can see, the police never even took enough interest in him to secure his name. And psychopathy is to a very large degree about taking risks. We are dealing with a man who killed and eviscerated in the open streets, don´t forget that.

You may not like it, but it all fits.

[etenguy]

He didn't just come forward, he stood in front of the coroner and the jury in a murder case, and denied telling Mizen that a policeman wanted him in Bucks Row, rising all the red questions marks upon himself, and went killing in 5 days!

If I was the police, I will not only suspect him, I will watch the mother of him and her dog too.

This is not only taking unnecessary risk, this is suicide.


finitio.


The Baron

Hi Baron - for most people the sentiment you express would very likely be correct - unnecessary risk taking, but if I have properly understood Fisherman's argument, he suggests that Lechmere had psychopathic tendencies. I'm no psychologist but thrill seeking, sensation seeking, risk taking and a lack of empathy are commonly associated with psychopathic behaviour. A person such as this could very well behave as Fisherman has outlined.

However, we do not know that Lechmere did have psychopathic tendencies, it is a theory. I know little of Lechmere's life and behaviour. I think we would need to look into Lechmere's life more closely to try and establish whether these traits were manifested in areas of his life. I would also suggest we need to look at the other Ripper murders to try to establish if the murderer generally displayed psychopathic tendencies. Fisherman knows far more about Lechmere than most, and certainly much more than me, he may very well be able to point to such evidence.

[Fisherman]

Hi Baron - for most people the sentiment you express would very likely be correct - unnecessary risk taking, but if I have properly understood Fisherman's argument, he suggests that Lechmere had psychopathic tendencies. I'm no psychologist but thrill seeking, sensation seeking, risk taking and a lack of empathy are commonly associated with psychopathic behaviour. A person such as this could very well behave as Fisherman has outlined.

However, we do not know that Lechmere did have psychopathic tendencies, it is a theory. I know little of Lechmere's life and behaviour. I think we would need to look into Lechmere's life more closely to try and establish whether these traits were manifested in areas of his life. I would also suggest we need to look at the other Ripper murders to try to establish if the murderer generally displayed psychopathic tendencies. Fisherman knows far more about Lechmere than most, and certainly much more than me, he may very well be able to point to such evidence.

There is no evidence that Lechmere was a psychopath. If there was, then I believe the Ripper case would be a done deal for most people. Having had a proven psychopath at a murder scene, fitting like a glove with the blood evidence and seemingly lying his way out of it does not leave much room for other speculations, does it?

What there is, is the knowledge that Lechmere grew up under circumstances that are similar to what many psychopaths have endured: a missing father figure, a seemingly dominant mother and a nomadic lifestyle, moving inbetween different homes.

We also know that he was in close contact with the horse flesh business, although we cannot pin it exactly in time - and the butchery business is a desensitizing one, according to scientific studies made.

What we can say without hesitation is that whoever the Ripper was, he was doubtlessly a psychopath. The key element of a psychopaths mental disposition is the inability to empathize with others, and to realize the pain people go through in dangerous and lifethreatening situations. This lack of empathy is what allows the psychopaths to take lives as if it was a walk in the park. And the Ripper is a prime example, taking psychopathy to it´s extreme by simply using his victims as aquired pieces of flesh for him to cut up at will. This is something that reveals the underlying psychopathy in a very clear manner.

Once we make the assumption that Lechmere was the killer, we must therefore also make the assumption that he was a psychopath. I have said before, and I don´t mind repeating it, that if Charles Lechmere was not a psychopath, then he was not the killer.

But his whole demeanor in combination with the Nichols murder and ensuing inquest is totally in line with psychopathy. He did not care to come to the first day of the inquest, it was not until he was revealed by Pauls intereview that he arrived on the second day. And when he did, he calmly denied having conned Mizen, cool as you like.
Similarly, he was able to think on his feet without panicking as he joined Paul after the examination, concocting the lie about the second PC. Note how he apparently never mentions to Mizen that he himself was the killer, instead he positions himself so that Mizen simply accepts that he was a messenger sent by the true finder of Nichols. It all fits so very well, not a word about being the finder, obscuring that Nichols was likely dead and adding the one thing that could see him through: a second PC. And calmly setting about hiding the injuries as Paul was walking down the street!

If this is how the murder went down, then it is not something that any ordinary person would ever be likely to think up - but it is in perfect line with what a full-blown psychopath would present.

So there you are: No evidence that Lechmere was a psychopath, an early life in line with the kind of life that shapes many psychopaths and a behaviour at the murder scene and inquest that is in perfect line with psychopathy if he was the killer.

Some call that circular reasoning, I call it logical and consequential thinking. The alternative of a phantom killer who hid the wounds for no reason at all, who for once abstained from positioning his victim, who was able to sneak out soundlessly, who was never seen by anybody and who made the blood run even longer than is the case when we look at Lechmere as the killer is not a very logical one. I read up on sheep slaughter only this week, and it seems that a sheep will bleed out completely and go from running to dripping in around one and a half to two minutes. Nichols blood was still running as Mizen arrived, at least seven minutes after she was cut.

Much as we owe it to ourselves not to totally exclude the possibility of another killer, why would anybody make it a preferrred option? It is senseless and in conflict with the evidence.

[Columbo]

Hi Baron - for most people the sentiment you express would very likely be correct - unnecessary risk taking, but if I have properly understood Fisherman's argument, he suggests that Lechmere had psychopathic tendencies. I'm no psychologist but thrill seeking, sensation seeking, risk taking and a lack of empathy are commonly associated with psychopathic behaviour. A person such as this could very well behave as Fisherman has outlined.

However, we do not know that Lechmere did have psychopathic tendencies, it is a theory. I know little of Lechmere's life and behaviour. I think we would need to look into Lechmere's life more closely to try and establish whether these traits were manifested in areas of his life. I would also suggest we need to look at the other Ripper murders to try to establish if the murderer generally displayed psychopathic tendencies. Fisherman knows far more about Lechmere than most, and certainly much more than me, he may very well be able to point to such evidence.

Actually the word evidence is the problem here. There's no evidence against anyone. There is merely conjecture. How many men lived the same lives in that day and age as Charles Cross? Probably thousands. How many dealt with the slaughter business? Hundreds if not thousands including fish mongers, farmers, etc. Obviously not all turned into a serial killer.

Did the killer hide the wounds or did the interruption force him to leave in a hurry before getting the clothes situated for organ extraction? If this was his first, he may have been still fighting with the clothes when Lechmere (or Paul in this situation if we assume Lechmere was the killer) came ambling down the street and he jumped the fence.

Is there any indication that Lechmere was so quick on his feet that he would come up with the tarpaulin scenario? Is there any indication as to why he would've thought it was a good idea to lie to the one policeman by telling him another is already there? This one bothers me because Mizen had no reason to suspect Lechmere and Paul of anything other than reporting a possible drunk or death, which in that time it was not uncommon to come across a dead person who drunk themselves to death, or someone who just dropped dead. So Mizen probably wouldn't have asked them to come back anyway.

And what thrill would it be to come forward to an inquest, get on the stand and contradict a policeman with all the possible repercussions that could bring? That makes as much sense as suspecting Tumblety was Astrakhan man.

On a whole it doesn't add up. Lechmere finding the body makes him an interesting prospect. But he apparently was not considered a suspect by the police from the documentation that exists. And if he was suspected he would have surely come up somewhere in someones diary, memoirs etc. Just my opinion.

[etenguy]

There is no evidence that Lechmere was a psychopath. If there was, then I believe the Ripper case would be a done deal for most people. Having had a proven psychopath at a murder scene, fitting like a glove with the blood evidence and seemingly lying his way out of it does not leave much room for other speculations, does it?

What there is, is the knowledge that Lechmere grew up under circumstances that are similar to what many psychopaths have endured: a missing father figure, a seemingly dominant mother and a nomadic lifestyle, moving inbetween different homes.

We also know that he was in close contact with the horse flesh business, although we cannot pin it exactly in time - and the butchery business is a desensitizing one, according to scientific studies made.

What we can say without hesitation is that whoever the Ripper was, he was doubtlessly a psychopath. The key element of a psychopaths mental disposition is the inability to empathize with others, and to realize the pain people go through in dangerous and lifethreatening situations. This lack of empathy is what allows the psychopaths to take lives as if it was a walk in the park. And the Ripper is a prime example, taking psychopathy to it´s extreme by simply using his victims as aquired pieces of flesh for him to cut up at will. This is something that reveals the underlying psychopathy in a very clear manner.

Once we make the assumption that Lechmere was the killer, we must therefore also make the assumption that he was a psychopath. I have said before, and I don´t mind repeating it, that if Charles Lechmere was not a psychopath, then he was not the killer.

But his whole demeanor in combination with the Nichols murder and ensuing inquest is totally in line with psychopathy. He did not care to come to the first day of the inquest, it was not until he was revealed by Pauls intereview that he arrived on the second day. And when he did, he calmly denied having conned Mizen, cool as you like.
Similarly, he was able to think on his feet without panicking as he joined Paul after the examination, concocting the lie about the second PC. Note how he apparently never mentions to Mizen that he himself was the killer, instead he positions himself so that Mizen simply accepts that he was a messenger sent by the true finder of Nichols. It all fits so very well, not a word about being the finder, obscuring that Nichols was likely dead and adding the one thing that could see him through: a second PC. And calmly setting about hiding the injuries as Paul was walking down the street!

If this is how the murder went down, then it is not something that any ordinary person would ever be likely to think up - but it is in perfect line with what a full-blown psychopath would present.

So there you are: No evidence that Lechmere was a psychopath, an early life in line with the kind of life that shapes many psychopaths and a behaviour at the murder scene and inquest that is in perfect line with psychopathy if he was the killer.

Some call that circular reasoning, I call it logical and consequential thinking. The alternative of a phantom killer who hid the wounds for no reason at all, who for once abstained from positioning his victim, who was able to sneak out soundlessly, who was never seen by anybody and who made the blood run even longer than is the case when we look at Lechmere as the killer is not a very logical one. I read up on sheep slaughter only this week, and it seems that a sheep will bleed out completely and go from running to dripping in around one and a half to two minutes. Nichols blood was still running as Mizen arrived, at least seven minutes after she was cut.

Much as we owe it to ourselves not to totally exclude the possibility of another killer, why would anybody make it a preferrred option? It is senseless and in conflict with the evidence.

Hi Fisherman. I didn't think there was any diagnosis of psychopathy, but maybe some proxy evidence that suggested he might be. A long shot given the distance in time, but reports of him harming pets or poorly treating his family, lack of friends etc...

[etenguy]

Actually the word evidence is the problem here. There's no evidence against anyone. There is merely conjecture. How many men lived the same lives in that day and age as Charles Cross? Probably thousands. How many dealt with the slaughter business? Hundreds if not thousands including fish mongers, farmers, etc. Obviously not all turned into a serial killer.

Hi Columbo.

Evidence may be too strong a word - just looking for indicators that suggest Lechmere may have been a psychopath. If it existed, it would strengthen the case against him.

Did the killer hide the wounds or did the interruption force him to leave in a hurry before getting the clothes situated for organ extraction? If this was his first, he may have been still fighting with the clothes when Lechmere (or Paul in this situation if we assume Lechmere was the killer) came ambling down the street and he jumped the fence.

Is there any indication that Lechmere was so quick on his feet that he would come up with the tarpaulin scenario? Is there any indication as to why he would've thought it was a good idea to lie to the one policeman by telling him another is already there? This one bothers me because Mizen had no reason to suspect Lechmere and Paul of anything other than reporting a possible drunk or death, which in that time it was not uncommon to come across a dead person who drunk themselves to death, or someone who just dropped dead. So Mizen probably wouldn't have asked them to come back anyway.

We do not know for sure that Lechmere lied to Mizen, it could have been a misunderstanding. But if Lechmere was the murderer, he would know that Mizen would soon discover the murder and would want a statement from him.

And what thrill would it be to come forward to an inquest, get on the stand and contradict a policeman with all the possible repercussions that could bring? That makes as much sense as suspecting Tumblety was Astrakhan man.

It makes little sense to me either - I think it was more likely a misunderstanding. But if it was a deliberate lie, I think Fisherman's theory is a reasonable one.

On a whole it doesn't add up. Lechmere finding the body makes him an interesting prospect. But he apparently was not considered a suspect by the police from the documentation that exists. And if he was suspected he would have surely come up somewhere in someones diary, memoirs etc. Just my opinion.

Not being considered a suspect by the police is not in itself a sign of innocence. However, I agree with your general thrust, that Lechmere has the makings of a decent suspect but evidence to prove/support that is circumstantial and based on logical but inconclusive reasoning. It is why any additional information that either supports or detracts from his candidacy would be useful to unearth.

[Columbo]

Hi Columbo.

Evidence may be too strong a word - just looking for indicators that suggest Lechmere may have been a psychopath. If it existed, it would strengthen the case against him.



We do not know for sure that Lechmere lied to Mizen, it could have been a misunderstanding. But if Lechmere was the murderer, he would know that Mizen would soon discover the murder and would want a statement from him.



It makes little sense to me either - I think it was more likely a misunderstanding. But if it was a deliberate lie, I think Fisherman's theory is a reasonable one.



Not being considered a suspect by the police is not in itself a sign of innocence. However, I agree with your general thrust, that Lechmere has the makings of a decent suspect but evidence to prove/support that is circumstantial and based on logical but inconclusive reasoning. It is why any additional information that either supports or detracts from his candidacy would be useful to unearth.

I appreciate this. Very nicely put. Fisherman knows I support his belief and ideas towards Lechmere being a suspect. I find his arguments intriguing and I appreciate his insights overall. But at the end of the day we really have no reasons to suspect Lechmere anymore than George Hutchinson killing MJK. At least with the documentation available to us at this point. Several years after Lechmere was brought to our attention we have very little new. Maybe something will surface that will bolster these claims.

[Kattrup]

Hi Fisherman

What there is, is the knowledge that Lechmere grew up under circumstances that are similar to what many psychopaths have endured: a missing father figure, a seemingly dominant mother and a nomadic lifestyle, moving inbetween different homes.

A nomadic lifestyle? How do you figure?

We also know that he was in close contact with the horse flesh business, although we cannot pin it exactly in time - and the butchery business is a desensitizing one, according to scientific studies made.
.

Isn't the earliest mention of his "close contact" with the horse flesh business in 1891, his mother's occupation?
How does that relate him to the supposedly desensitizing butchery business? Also, would it be possible for you to mention which scientific studies you are referring to?

[Fisherman]

Actually the word evidence is the problem here. There's no evidence against anyone. There is merely conjecture. How many men lived the same lives in that day and age as Charles Cross? Probably thousands. How many dealt with the slaughter business? Hundreds if not thousands including fish mongers, farmers, etc. Obviously not all turned into a serial killer.

Maybe there is a difference between Sweden and the English speaking countries, but at least here, there is such a thing as circumstantial evidence. And circumstantial evidence may well suffice to sentence people in murder cases. Aren´t you speaking of proof, not evidence?

Did the killer hide the wounds or did the interruption force him to leave in a hurry before getting the clothes situated for organ extraction? If this was his first, he may have been still fighting with the clothes when Lechmere (or Paul in this situation if we assume Lechmere was the killer) came ambling down the street and he jumped the fence.

Fighting with the clothes? That fight had been won - she was cut from sternum to groin, more or less, and more cuts were added. The fact that the Nichols case is the only case where there were abdominal mutilations that were hidden points to the possibility that the killer was still in place as Paul arrived. If we include Tabram, there were five cases of abdominal mutilations, and the only case where these were hidden was the Nichols case. So it was a one in five option that Lechmere would have this feature pointing to potential guilt on his behalf.
In a sense, the case against Lechmere is a numerical one. How large was the chance that Paul would arrive at the exact time that meant that he did not see Lechmere stopping - but he was neverthless close enough to give Lechmere an alibi? How large is the chance that Mizen would be the one lying about the extra PC? Or that he would have misheard Lechmere? How large was the chance that out of the thousands of street in the East End, the four murders committed at around 3 - 4 AM all took place along Lechmeres logical routes to work? How large was the chance that Lechmere would stumble upon Nichols at a remove in time when she would still bleed from the neck for a further seven minutes or so? How large was the chance that he would call himself by another name than he otherwise always did in authority contacts?

It´s murder mathematics, and it does point very clealy in the carmans direction. As I keep saying, these things may, technically speaking, all be unlucky coincidences, and so there MAY just be another killer (although my personal conviction is that the chances are so slim as to be beyond the anorectic) - but how on earth can these figures result in the idea that another killer is somehow LIKELIER...???? The idea is preposterous. Lechmere must be the red hot top suspect - and in all likelihood also the killer.

Is there any indication that Lechmere was so quick on his feet that he would come up with the tarpaulin scenario?

How would that indication look? A recorded victory in the 1887 East End Think-on-your-feet challenge? I am in no way impressed by it. He had had three days to figure out what to say to the inquest, and other feats of his are more remarkable in my view, not least the second PC. In that case, there were no three days of pondering, he had to think that one up on the go.

Is there any indication as to why he would've thought it was a good idea to lie to the one policeman by telling him another is already there? This one bothers me because Mizen had no reason to suspect Lechmere and Paul of anything other than reporting a possible drunk or death, which in that time it was not uncommon to come across a dead person who drunk themselves to death, or someone who just dropped dead. So Mizen probably wouldn't have asked them to come back anyway.

The difference is that if Lechmere only said that there was a woman on her back in Bucks Row, then Mizen would have anticipated that Lechmere knew this on account of being the finder of the woman. In such a case, since there was no certainty WHY she was on her back, it could be anything from a case of drunkenness to murder, and Mizen would reasonably be obliged to take the name of the carman (and perhaps also detain Lechmere until it was cleared up). After that, if Mizen walked up to Bucks Row and found Nichols cut to pieces, he would reasonably get curious about why the carman had not seen what was afoot. By inventing the other PC and teaming up with Paul, Lechmere secured a minimum level of attention on Mizens behalf.
And don´t forget what a psychopath is about, Columbo! I do not rule out that he enjoyed tailoring this kind of solution, that it gave him a sense of being very clever.

And what thrill would it be to come forward to an inquest, get on the stand and contradict a policeman with all the possible repercussions that could bring? That makes as much sense as suspecting Tumblety was Astrakhan man.

If he did NOT come forward, what would that mean in terms of suspicions, Columbo? The more interesting thing is that the murder was the talk of the town, and on everybody's lips. So why did he not come forward on the first inquest day...?

On a whole it doesn't add up. Lechmere finding the body makes him an interesting prospect. But he apparently was not considered a suspect by the police from the documentation that exists. And if he was suspected he would have surely come up somewhere in someones diary, memoirs etc. Just my opinion.

Of course he was not suspected. And there is no reason to think that he must have been, if there was reason to. The state prosecutor in Sweden only just named the killer of Olof Palme, Swedens prime minister who was killed in 1986. The killer was probably Stig Engström, who was dressed as the killer, and who himself sought out the police and the papers and wanted as much participation as possible. The police quickly grew tired of him and ruled him out of the investigation in early 1987, only to realize in 2020 that they were wrong. Engström claimed that the witnesses who spoke of a man in a cap and an overcoat running up the stairs of Tunnelgatan and who thought this was the killer had actually seen him, Engström, who did the run to try and help the police!
And everybody bought it, even the scores of private investigators and amateur sleuths. The police bought it to the degree where they wrote in their 50 million pound investigation that the real killer would have looked like and have been dressed like Engström, a carbon copy, more or less!

That case goes a million miles to prove how everybody can get it wrong even if the evidence is there all the time, staring them in the eyes.

Lechmere was a family man, a steady worker and he reported himself to the police not once but twice. He was nothing like what the police, press and public outlined, and so he was overseen. It is that easy, and we should not think that easy is impossible. it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman. I didn't think there was any diagnosis of psychopathy, but maybe some proxy evidence that suggested he might be. A long shot given the distance in time, but reports of him harming pets or poorly treating his family, lack of friends etc...

That would be nice, but as you know, no such records exist. No records of good or bad behaviour is there, the river of time has floated that material out to sea long ago. But I somethimes ponder the 1876 incident when a carman named Charles Cross and working for Pickfords ran over and killed a young boy with his cart. It was decided that it was an accident - but from the outset, the father of the boy, who had spoken to bystanders, was apparently informed that the driver had acted recklessly.

These kinds of things stick in my mind. Why is it that this kind of accusations should surface when Charles Cross happens to run over a young kid and kill him? Bad luck? Then again, the carmen of Pickfords had a nasty reputation of being reckless, and so it could perhaps have been this that coloured people´s judgment.

It nevertheless dovetails with the rest of the evidence in the overall case against Lechmere. He doesn´t seem to be able to get a break, does he?