Tweet
I have been asked to – once again – compile a comprehensive list of the points I and Edward find odd or suspicious when it comes to Charles Lechmere.
I present a list below, where the different points are not chronologically sorted, but instead given as a number of caserelated details to be looked upon one by one.
I am quite accustomed to how people can, for example, isolate point number 25 – where I point to how Lechmere lacked a father figure - and state that many men have grown up with no father figure and still managed to stay away from serial killing.
That is of course correct, but the point nevertheless adds to the overall understanding of the case, since there IS a clear correlation betwen lacking father figures and serial killings.
My recommendation is that all of the points are taken in before any judgment is passed. Are all of these matters likely innocent coincidences, or was James Scobie correct in saying that when the coincidences mount up, it will sooner or later result in one coincidence too many?
I will not go into any prolonged debates over isolated points, other than to explain matters if they need be explained. The reason I post this is to update the Lechmere case and I do it on the specific request of poster Patrick S.
I have tried to present all the points, but I may have missed out on one or two nevertheless, since there are many to keep track of.
Number 1: Charles Lechmere happens to stumble over the dead body of Polly Nichols.
Number 2: The wounds to the abdomen were covered, whereas this does not apply in the other Ripper cases. Was that a coincidence, or did it serve the practical purpose of hiding from Paul what had really happened? If Paul had discovered that it was a murder, then Lechmere would not have been able to leave the premises without suspicion.
Number 3: As Lechmere approaches the body, he has Robert Paul walking right behind him, thirty to forty yards away, so they are on the same, absolutely silent street. In spite of this, neither man professes to have seen or heard the other. And we know that John Neil heard his colleague Thain walk past the Buck´s Row/Brady Street crossing – 130 yards away! Was it a coincidence that Paul did not hear Lechmere? Or was that due to Lechmere not having walked in front of Paul, but instead having been engaged in cutting away at Nichos as Paul entered the street?
Note how a remark from Paul that he saw and heard Lechmere in front of him, ”There was this man walking right in front of me who suddenly halted outside Browns...”, would have meant that there could be no viable case for Lechmere as the killer.
Number 4: Lechmere must have passed up at the Bath Street/Foster Street crossing at the more or less exact moment Paul exited his lodgings, thirty, forty yards down on Foster Street. There were large lamps outside the brewery situated in the crossing. In spite of this, Paul did not see Lechmere passing.
Had Lechmere already passed the crossing, a second or two before Paul stepped out into Foster Street? If so, why did not Paul at least hear Lechmere, perhaps only thirty yards away? John Neil heard John Thain one hundred and thirty yards off.
Number 5: Nichols bled from the wounds in the neck as Mizen saw her, around five, six minutes after Lechmere had left the body. A pathologist has told me that stretching the bleeding time beyond five minutes is not to be expected. If that is correct, then we are left with very little or no time for an alternative killer. It remains that there can always be deviations in bleeding time, but overall, it must be accepted that the longer time we must accept that the neck bled, the less credible the suggestion is.
Number 6: The blood in the pool under her neck was ”somewhat congealed” according to Mizen. Normally, blood congeals fully around minute seven whereas the congealing starts to show after three or four minutes.
A logical timing suggests that Mizen reached the body some six minutes after Lechmere had left it. This means that if the normal coagulation scheme applied, then it is very hard to see that anybody else than Lechmere could have been the killer.
Of course, deviations may apply here too, but we know that the blood had turned into a congealed mass, a clot, at the time it was washed away, so the blood had no problems to coagulate. We also know tgat much as alcohol can prolong the coagulation time, a more excessive intake of alchol, such as in alcoholism, will instead make the blood coagulate more easily.
Number 7: Lechmere called Paul to the body, as if he wanted to see what they could do for the woman. But when Paul proposed that they should prop her up, Lechmere suddenly refused to do so.
It can be argued that much as Lechmere wanted to look as a helpful man trying to do what he could for the woman, he also knew that propping her up would immediately give away that she had had her neck cut to the bone.
Number 8: Lechmere arrived to the inquest in working clothes, thereby deviating from all other witnesses.
Our suggestion is that he used a false name and avoided to give his adress before the inquest in order to avoid having it known amongst his family and aquaintances that he had been a witness in the Nichols case. If this emerged, then he may have reasoned that there was a risk that his family and aquaintances would be more wary of any future connections to the coming murders. For example, as long as his family and aquaintances did not know about his involvement in the Nichols case, they would not react very much about the Chapman case a week later. But if they had been alerted to his role in the Nichols murder, then it may have seemed odd to them that the next victim should fall along his working route.
In light of this, he may have decided to go to the inquest in working clothes, so that he could give his wife the impression that he was instead headed for work.
Number 9: Lechmere´s fastest routes to work were Old Montague Street and Hanbury Street. The former was arguably a minute or two faster than the latter. Four of the murders happened along these routes or on a short-cut trailing off from one of them (Dorset Street).
There are thousands and thousands of streets in the East End. Lechmere could have had logical routes that excluded one or more of the killings. Instead he seemingly matches them all. Coincidence or not?
Number 10: All of these four murders may well have taken place at removes in time when Lechmere was heading for Pickfords, as far as the medicos given TOD:s are concerned. Coincidence?
Number 11: The Stride and Eddowes murders did not take place along his working routes, ruling out that he committed these murders en route to Pickfords. Instead, they are the only murders to take place on his night off, Saturday night. Coincidence?
If any one of these murders were to change places, Lechmere would be more or less ruled out. If Stride had died on September 8 at 1 AM, it would destroy the pattern pointing to Lechmere. If Kelly had been killed at 1 AM, the same would apply. If Eddowes had been killed at around 2 AM in Hanbury Street on a working day, the theory would be disrupted. Etcetera, etcetera – the fact that the locations, times and victims are all in line with the theory is a strong pointer towards Lechmere.
Number 12: The Stride murder is perpetrated in St Georges in the East, in the midst of the many houses where Lechmere grew up. Once the killings shifted from the Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street area, they could go north, west or east. They did not. They went south. And as they did, they could have gone into any of the areas south of the earlier killing zone. But they didn´t. They went into the exact area where Lechmere grew up and stayed for decades, before moving to Doveton Street. Coincidence?
Number 13: Lechmere´s mother was at the time of the double event living in 1 Mary Anne Street, a stone´s throw away from Berner Street and directly to the south of the murder spot, meaning that if he had visited his mother, he would have to head north past the murder spot to get home.
It was earlier thought that she had lived in 147 Cable Street on this occasion, but she actually lived very much closer to the Stride murder site than so. We are dealing with less than a hundred yards, if I read the maps correctly.
Number 14: These two murders took place much earlier than the others, dovetailing well with the suggestion that he either visited his mother or searched out pubs in his old quarters – he had moved out a few weeks later only.
Number 15: The murders started in combination with how Lechmere moved away from the close proximity to his mother that had been a factor in all his life.
It can be argued that his mother was a dominant force in his life – she managed to bring her two children up singlehandedly until Lechmere was around ten year old (her husband, Charles´ father, had left the family), and then she married a ten year younger man. After his premature death, she remarried again,with a ten year older man. Both these marriages were bigamous. She also changed occupations on different occasions, all pointing to a strong and resourceful character.
It can be reasoned that the move to Doveton Street released dammed urges within Lechmere.
Number 16: Charles Lechmere gave the name Cross to the police, instead of using his real name. There are around 110 instances where we can follow the carman´s contacts with different authorities. In all of them but one, he used the name Lechmere.
Is it another coincidence that he should swop to Cross when contacting the police in a murder errand?
Number 17: Charles Lechmere´s family came to be involved in the horse flesh business. His mother was a cat´s meat woman, and his children opened a cat´s meat business in Broadway market, where Lechmere himself had a stand.
This means that Lechmere would have had a proximity to the butchery business for many a year. And we know that handling dead carcasses can desensitise people.
Number 18: During the time Lechmere had a stand in Broadway Market, two dead women were found floating in Regents canal, passing through the market. Neither death was fully explained and the causes of death were not established.
Number 19: Charles Lechmere did not raise any alarm at the Nichols murder site. He waited until Paul tried to pass him, and only then placed his hand on his fellow carmans shoulder, saying ”Come and look over here ...”
He did not call out to Paul as the latter approached, and neither man contacted any of the dwellers in Bucks Row. They instead left Nichols lying and set out to work, professing to wanting to find a PC on their way.
Number 20: Charles Lechmere was stated to have told PC Mizen that another policeman awaited Mizen in Bucks Row, whereas he himself denied having said this at the inquest.
It is apparent from Mizens actions that he was under the belief that another PC did wait for him in Bucks Row. If he had not been told about the waiting PC in Bucks Row, he would have accepted that the carmen had found the body. It would therefore have sounded odd to him when Neil stated that he had found the body himself.
Number 21: The things Lechmere say at the inquest mirrors the wordings Paul used in his newspaper report to a considerable extent, implying that having read the article was what made him come forward. Coincidence?
Number 22: Lechmere only came forward after Paul had outed him in the newspaper article. Coincidence?
Number 23: Paul saw no blood under Nichols´ neck in spite of kneeling by her side and checking for breath. He saw her clothes and her hat, though.
Could it be that the cuts were so fresh that the stream of blood towards the gutter had not yet formed?
Number 24: In spite of Old Montague street being the shorter route, Lechmere took the Hanbury Street route after having spoken to Mizen, perhaps implicating that he wanted to avoid the Smith/Tabram murder route when the PC watched.
Number 25: Serialists regularly lack a father figure growing up. That fits Lechmere´s life. Coincidence?
Number 26: Lechmere seems not to have given his address in open court during the inquest. Coincidence?
Number 27: The quickest road from Berner Street to Mitre Square is Lechmere´s logical old working route from James Street to Broad Street. Coincidence?
Number 28: The Pinchin Street torso was discovered in a street where Lechmere has lived earlier with his family, and a very short route from 147 Cable Street where his mother, who became a cat´s meat woman, had her lodgings. The body had been dismembered with a sharp knife and a fine-toothed bone saw, tools that were used by cat´s meat people to cut up horses. Coincidence?
Number 29: The implications are that the Pinchin Street torso was carried manually to the dumping site.
Number 30: Charles Lechmere stated that he had left home at 3.20 or 3.30 on the murder morning. It takes seven minutes to walk to Browns in Bucks Row. He was found by Paul at around 3.46, standing close to the body.
He should have been outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.37, not 3.46, especially since he professed to being late for work. The probable thing is that he normally walked off at 3.20 (the trek to Broad Street is an approximate 40 minute trek and he started work at 4 AM), but that he said that he was ten minutes later that morning, starting out at 3.30.
Why was he outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.46? Was that also a coincidence?
Number 31: Lechmere said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, but Mizen is clear in saying that ”a carman”, not ”two carmen”, contacted him on the murder morning.
I present a list below, where the different points are not chronologically sorted, but instead given as a number of caserelated details to be looked upon one by one.
I am quite accustomed to how people can, for example, isolate point number 25 – where I point to how Lechmere lacked a father figure - and state that many men have grown up with no father figure and still managed to stay away from serial killing.
That is of course correct, but the point nevertheless adds to the overall understanding of the case, since there IS a clear correlation betwen lacking father figures and serial killings.
My recommendation is that all of the points are taken in before any judgment is passed. Are all of these matters likely innocent coincidences, or was James Scobie correct in saying that when the coincidences mount up, it will sooner or later result in one coincidence too many?
I will not go into any prolonged debates over isolated points, other than to explain matters if they need be explained. The reason I post this is to update the Lechmere case and I do it on the specific request of poster Patrick S.
I have tried to present all the points, but I may have missed out on one or two nevertheless, since there are many to keep track of.
Number 1: Charles Lechmere happens to stumble over the dead body of Polly Nichols.
Number 2: The wounds to the abdomen were covered, whereas this does not apply in the other Ripper cases. Was that a coincidence, or did it serve the practical purpose of hiding from Paul what had really happened? If Paul had discovered that it was a murder, then Lechmere would not have been able to leave the premises without suspicion.
Number 3: As Lechmere approaches the body, he has Robert Paul walking right behind him, thirty to forty yards away, so they are on the same, absolutely silent street. In spite of this, neither man professes to have seen or heard the other. And we know that John Neil heard his colleague Thain walk past the Buck´s Row/Brady Street crossing – 130 yards away! Was it a coincidence that Paul did not hear Lechmere? Or was that due to Lechmere not having walked in front of Paul, but instead having been engaged in cutting away at Nichos as Paul entered the street?
Note how a remark from Paul that he saw and heard Lechmere in front of him, ”There was this man walking right in front of me who suddenly halted outside Browns...”, would have meant that there could be no viable case for Lechmere as the killer.
Number 4: Lechmere must have passed up at the Bath Street/Foster Street crossing at the more or less exact moment Paul exited his lodgings, thirty, forty yards down on Foster Street. There were large lamps outside the brewery situated in the crossing. In spite of this, Paul did not see Lechmere passing.
Had Lechmere already passed the crossing, a second or two before Paul stepped out into Foster Street? If so, why did not Paul at least hear Lechmere, perhaps only thirty yards away? John Neil heard John Thain one hundred and thirty yards off.
Number 5: Nichols bled from the wounds in the neck as Mizen saw her, around five, six minutes after Lechmere had left the body. A pathologist has told me that stretching the bleeding time beyond five minutes is not to be expected. If that is correct, then we are left with very little or no time for an alternative killer. It remains that there can always be deviations in bleeding time, but overall, it must be accepted that the longer time we must accept that the neck bled, the less credible the suggestion is.
Number 6: The blood in the pool under her neck was ”somewhat congealed” according to Mizen. Normally, blood congeals fully around minute seven whereas the congealing starts to show after three or four minutes.
A logical timing suggests that Mizen reached the body some six minutes after Lechmere had left it. This means that if the normal coagulation scheme applied, then it is very hard to see that anybody else than Lechmere could have been the killer.
Of course, deviations may apply here too, but we know that the blood had turned into a congealed mass, a clot, at the time it was washed away, so the blood had no problems to coagulate. We also know tgat much as alcohol can prolong the coagulation time, a more excessive intake of alchol, such as in alcoholism, will instead make the blood coagulate more easily.
Number 7: Lechmere called Paul to the body, as if he wanted to see what they could do for the woman. But when Paul proposed that they should prop her up, Lechmere suddenly refused to do so.
It can be argued that much as Lechmere wanted to look as a helpful man trying to do what he could for the woman, he also knew that propping her up would immediately give away that she had had her neck cut to the bone.
Number 8: Lechmere arrived to the inquest in working clothes, thereby deviating from all other witnesses.
Our suggestion is that he used a false name and avoided to give his adress before the inquest in order to avoid having it known amongst his family and aquaintances that he had been a witness in the Nichols case. If this emerged, then he may have reasoned that there was a risk that his family and aquaintances would be more wary of any future connections to the coming murders. For example, as long as his family and aquaintances did not know about his involvement in the Nichols case, they would not react very much about the Chapman case a week later. But if they had been alerted to his role in the Nichols murder, then it may have seemed odd to them that the next victim should fall along his working route.
In light of this, he may have decided to go to the inquest in working clothes, so that he could give his wife the impression that he was instead headed for work.
Number 9: Lechmere´s fastest routes to work were Old Montague Street and Hanbury Street. The former was arguably a minute or two faster than the latter. Four of the murders happened along these routes or on a short-cut trailing off from one of them (Dorset Street).
There are thousands and thousands of streets in the East End. Lechmere could have had logical routes that excluded one or more of the killings. Instead he seemingly matches them all. Coincidence or not?
Number 10: All of these four murders may well have taken place at removes in time when Lechmere was heading for Pickfords, as far as the medicos given TOD:s are concerned. Coincidence?
Number 11: The Stride and Eddowes murders did not take place along his working routes, ruling out that he committed these murders en route to Pickfords. Instead, they are the only murders to take place on his night off, Saturday night. Coincidence?
If any one of these murders were to change places, Lechmere would be more or less ruled out. If Stride had died on September 8 at 1 AM, it would destroy the pattern pointing to Lechmere. If Kelly had been killed at 1 AM, the same would apply. If Eddowes had been killed at around 2 AM in Hanbury Street on a working day, the theory would be disrupted. Etcetera, etcetera – the fact that the locations, times and victims are all in line with the theory is a strong pointer towards Lechmere.
Number 12: The Stride murder is perpetrated in St Georges in the East, in the midst of the many houses where Lechmere grew up. Once the killings shifted from the Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street area, they could go north, west or east. They did not. They went south. And as they did, they could have gone into any of the areas south of the earlier killing zone. But they didn´t. They went into the exact area where Lechmere grew up and stayed for decades, before moving to Doveton Street. Coincidence?
Number 13: Lechmere´s mother was at the time of the double event living in 1 Mary Anne Street, a stone´s throw away from Berner Street and directly to the south of the murder spot, meaning that if he had visited his mother, he would have to head north past the murder spot to get home.
It was earlier thought that she had lived in 147 Cable Street on this occasion, but she actually lived very much closer to the Stride murder site than so. We are dealing with less than a hundred yards, if I read the maps correctly.
Number 14: These two murders took place much earlier than the others, dovetailing well with the suggestion that he either visited his mother or searched out pubs in his old quarters – he had moved out a few weeks later only.
Number 15: The murders started in combination with how Lechmere moved away from the close proximity to his mother that had been a factor in all his life.
It can be argued that his mother was a dominant force in his life – she managed to bring her two children up singlehandedly until Lechmere was around ten year old (her husband, Charles´ father, had left the family), and then she married a ten year younger man. After his premature death, she remarried again,with a ten year older man. Both these marriages were bigamous. She also changed occupations on different occasions, all pointing to a strong and resourceful character.
It can be reasoned that the move to Doveton Street released dammed urges within Lechmere.
Number 16: Charles Lechmere gave the name Cross to the police, instead of using his real name. There are around 110 instances where we can follow the carman´s contacts with different authorities. In all of them but one, he used the name Lechmere.
Is it another coincidence that he should swop to Cross when contacting the police in a murder errand?
Number 17: Charles Lechmere´s family came to be involved in the horse flesh business. His mother was a cat´s meat woman, and his children opened a cat´s meat business in Broadway market, where Lechmere himself had a stand.
This means that Lechmere would have had a proximity to the butchery business for many a year. And we know that handling dead carcasses can desensitise people.
Number 18: During the time Lechmere had a stand in Broadway Market, two dead women were found floating in Regents canal, passing through the market. Neither death was fully explained and the causes of death were not established.
Number 19: Charles Lechmere did not raise any alarm at the Nichols murder site. He waited until Paul tried to pass him, and only then placed his hand on his fellow carmans shoulder, saying ”Come and look over here ...”
He did not call out to Paul as the latter approached, and neither man contacted any of the dwellers in Bucks Row. They instead left Nichols lying and set out to work, professing to wanting to find a PC on their way.
Number 20: Charles Lechmere was stated to have told PC Mizen that another policeman awaited Mizen in Bucks Row, whereas he himself denied having said this at the inquest.
It is apparent from Mizens actions that he was under the belief that another PC did wait for him in Bucks Row. If he had not been told about the waiting PC in Bucks Row, he would have accepted that the carmen had found the body. It would therefore have sounded odd to him when Neil stated that he had found the body himself.
Number 21: The things Lechmere say at the inquest mirrors the wordings Paul used in his newspaper report to a considerable extent, implying that having read the article was what made him come forward. Coincidence?
Number 22: Lechmere only came forward after Paul had outed him in the newspaper article. Coincidence?
Number 23: Paul saw no blood under Nichols´ neck in spite of kneeling by her side and checking for breath. He saw her clothes and her hat, though.
Could it be that the cuts were so fresh that the stream of blood towards the gutter had not yet formed?
Number 24: In spite of Old Montague street being the shorter route, Lechmere took the Hanbury Street route after having spoken to Mizen, perhaps implicating that he wanted to avoid the Smith/Tabram murder route when the PC watched.
Number 25: Serialists regularly lack a father figure growing up. That fits Lechmere´s life. Coincidence?
Number 26: Lechmere seems not to have given his address in open court during the inquest. Coincidence?
Number 27: The quickest road from Berner Street to Mitre Square is Lechmere´s logical old working route from James Street to Broad Street. Coincidence?
Number 28: The Pinchin Street torso was discovered in a street where Lechmere has lived earlier with his family, and a very short route from 147 Cable Street where his mother, who became a cat´s meat woman, had her lodgings. The body had been dismembered with a sharp knife and a fine-toothed bone saw, tools that were used by cat´s meat people to cut up horses. Coincidence?
Number 29: The implications are that the Pinchin Street torso was carried manually to the dumping site.
Number 30: Charles Lechmere stated that he had left home at 3.20 or 3.30 on the murder morning. It takes seven minutes to walk to Browns in Bucks Row. He was found by Paul at around 3.46, standing close to the body.
He should have been outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.37, not 3.46, especially since he professed to being late for work. The probable thing is that he normally walked off at 3.20 (the trek to Broad Street is an approximate 40 minute trek and he started work at 4 AM), but that he said that he was ten minutes later that morning, starting out at 3.30.
Why was he outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.46? Was that also a coincidence?
Number 31: Lechmere said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, but Mizen is clear in saying that ”a carman”, not ”two carmen”, contacted him on the murder morning.
Comment