Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

-You are adding a phantomkiller and drawing conclusions that he existed. That cannot be done. Such a man must not have existed at all, because we have Lechmere. We don’t need another killer per se.

-;

More despicable twisting of the truth. How can an adult come on here and post such embarrassing falsehoods is simply staggering. Just because we can name Cross but we can’t name a person who was at the scene before him we have to dismiss that person. How can anyone state this?!! John Davies must have killed Annie Chapman then!

Your ‘phantom killer’ existed. He was the man that killed Polly Nichols. And he wasn’t called Cross or Lechmere. He was simply the man that found her like millions of other people have found millions of others bodies in the street (and none of them as far as we can say ever turned out to have been the killer) Your thinking is warped by bias.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

John Davies must have killed Annie Chapman then!

Your ‘phantom killer’ existed. He was the man that killed Polly Nichols. And he wasn’t called Cross or Lechmere. He was simply the man that found her like millions of other people have found millions of others bodies in the street (and none of them as far as we can say ever turned out to have been the killer) Your thinking is warped by bias.

We could also accuse Diemschutz of murdering Stride and saving his own behind by going to find a policeman.

We could also accuse Watkins of murdering Eddowes and saving his own behind by approaching a member of the public.

[Fiver]

My wording:

-So you fail to mention that Paul spoke about walking down Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 in Lloyds Weekly. zz0.geam4l6wdzzz



The factual errors are in no way connected to the issue at hand; there is correct and incorrect information in the article, but it remains that it quotes Paul as saying "exactly", and I can see no reason for the paper to invent it on Pauls behalf, regardless if they may or may not have invented other things. As for my ignoring how Paul did not use "exactly" in his inquest testimony, that is a ridiculous claim. I have pointed it out time and again.

You do love to go with the Lloyd's article, ignoring previous evidence that they often sensationalized the news and well as ignoring the actual inquest testimony of Robert Paul, PC Neil, Dr Llewellyn, etc.

"The throat had been cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done tracing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely." - Lloyd's

Inquest testimony showed the wound was not two inches wide and that the blood was "oozing" not "flowing profusely".

"The knife, which must have been a large and sharp one, was jobbed into the deceased at the lower part of the abdomen, and then drawn upwards twice." - Lloyd's

Inquest testimony said the cuts were made downwards.

"Early on Friday morning fresh blood stains were observed for quite a distance along the side walks. There would be drop after drop two or three feet, and sometimes six feet apart for a distance, and then a larger pool or splash. As soon as the murder became known a lively interest was taken in these blood-stains, and they began to be traced. They were soon found to be on both sides of the street, and it was afterwards seen that the bleeding person had travelled or been carried in a zig-zag line. The trail was easily followed down Brady-street for 150 yards to Honey's-mews. In front of the gateway there was a large stain, looking as if the bleeding person had fallen against the wall and lain there. From here to the foot of Buck's-row, in which the body was found, the trail of blood was clearly marked. It was wet on Friday morning, and at noon, although the sun had dried it, and there had been many feet passing over it, it was still plainly discernible. The zig-zag direction it took crossing and re-crossing the street was and is a matter of mystery. In the space of a hundred yards the woman crossed the narrow street twice, and whenever she crossed a larger stain of blood in place of the drops indicated that she had stopped." - Lloyd's

Inquest testimony contradicted this supposed dramatic blood trail and established that Nichols was killed where her body was found. You don't insist that this bit of Lloyd's must be true, after all, it contracts your theory.

"Although neither Mrs. Green nor Mr. Perkins heard any noise, there are a number of people who early on Friday morning heard the screams of the victim. None of them paid any particular attention to them, however, except Mrs. Colwell, who lives midway between Buck's-row and the next turning. She said, "I was awakened early on Friday morning by my little girl, who said someone was trying to get into the house. I listened, and heard screams. They were in a woman's voice, and, though frightened, were faint-like, as would be natural if she were running. She was screaming, 'Murder, police! Murder, police! Murder, police!' She screamed this five or six times, and seemed to be getting further and further away (toward the bottom of Buck's-row) all the time. I heard no other voice and no other steps. She seemed to be all alone. I think I would have heard the steps if anybody had been running after her, unless they were running on tiptoe." - Lloy's

Yet more melodrama from Lloyd's. Inquest testimony established that Nichols was killed where the body was found and Nichols would not have been able to run around screaming with a slit throat. You don't insist that this bit of Lloyd's must be true, after all, it contracts your theory.

"It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market" - Lloyd's

The word "exactly" does not occur in Robert Paul's inquest testimony.

"I saw a man standing where the woman was." - Lloyd's

Paul's inquest testimony makes it clear that he saw Lechmere was "standing in the middle of the road".

"I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seem" - Lloyd's

Paul's inquest testimony makes it clear that he and Lechmere left together and that they both spoke to PC Mizen.

"The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time." - Lloyd's

Inquest testimony established that both PC Thain and Sergeant Kirby had been down Bucks Row about 30 minutes before Neil found Nichol's body. You don't insist that this bit of Lloyd's must be true, after all, it contracts your theory. Lloyd's even contradicts itself here, have previously proclaimed that Nichols' blood was "flowing profusely" several minutes after her body was found.

[Fiver]

When the torso killer decided to dump a body in the East End of London, he settled on Pinchin Street. The exact street where Charles Lechmere grew up and spent his formative years.
There were hundreds and hundreds of streets to choose from. There were a thousand streets in Whitechapel. There were tens of thousands in the East End.
But the killer chose Charles Lechmeres boyhood street.

Is-that-not-an-ALMIGHTY-coincidence?

It's not a coincidence, it's a random fact with no bearing on the case.

But it is more evidence of your deliberately ignoring things that don't fit your theory.

The Torso Killer scattered body parts up and down miles of the Thames. There is no more reason to suspect he had a connection to Pinchin Street than he did to Scotland Yard or any of the other dump sites.

Charles Lechmere was not the only person to have ever lived on Pinchin Street. There is no reason to single him out and ignore the others. And calling it his childhood home is rather stretching it. Lechmere's s baptismal record shows that he was living at 14 Sion Square in 1859. By 1861 he was at 13 Thomas Street, which I have been told later became Pinchin Street. And by 1869, he was at 11 Mary Ann Street.

[Fiver]

The suggestion that Lechmere was the killer predisposes that his urge to kill was more important to him than to sleep, say, a quarter of an hour longer on his murder mornings.

That doesn't explain Stride and Eddowes, who would require Lechmere either staying up 23+ hours or getting up 3+hours early on his day iff.

I struggle to find any other period of time in a common carmans schedule that would offer as many advantages.

If killing on the way to work really offered the most advantages then why would Nichols be the only victim killed during Lechmere's walk to work? It's another self-contradiction in your theory.

[Fiver]

Yes, either he did or he did not have reason to be on Poplar High Street on the morning in question. But the evidence does not allow for claiming either side as a fact.

You talk as if both options were equally likely. And ignore that since it is your theory, the burden of proof is on you. And you have no proof.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Charles Lechmere was not the only person to have ever lived on Pinchin Street. There is no reason to single him out and ignore the others. And calling it his childhood home is rather stretching it. Lechmere's s baptismal record shows that he was living at 14 Sion Square in 1859.

Aaron Kosminski's sister lived at 3 Sion Square and it is thought that he himself lived there for a time.

Another coincidence.

Or is someone going to suggest that Lechmere and Kosminski were partners in the murders?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It's not a coincidence, it's a random fact with no bearing on the case.

But it is more evidence of your deliberately ignoring things that don't fit your theory.

Whatever I find about this man will go to confirm his guilt; it will not go to clear him.

I realise that - well - here he is: Jack the Ripper.

(Christer Holmgren)

[Fiver]

It leaves the case where it always was, with lots and lots of circumstantial evidence supporting the take that Charles Lechmere was the killer, but with no absolute proof that he must have been.

There is no circumstantial evidence supporting Lechmere killing anyone. There is no time gap. There is no Mizen scam. Lechmere's words and deeds repeatedly point towards him being innocent. The timings of the Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes murders point strongly against him being their killer.

[Fiver]

wrong. nothing contrived about it. it is significant that they were killed on or near his route to work.

Stride wasn't killed on or near his route to work. Neither was Eddowes. The Pinchin Street Torso wasn't dropped on or near his route to work.

And the other victims were killed on or near Robert Paul's route to work. And the routes of dozens of other man that worked in or near Spitalfield's Market or Broad Street Station.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is no circumstantial evidence supporting Lechmere killing anyone. There is no time gap. There is no Mizen scam. Lechmere's words and deeds repeatedly point towards him being innocent. The timings of the Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes murders point strongly against him being their killer.

I would add to that the timings of the Kelly murder and mutilations.

[Fiver]

[B]I just told you that neither of us would claim for a fact what we cannot claim for a fact. The case against Lechmere is mainly built on how he was found all alone close to the freshly killed body of a Ripper victim, and how thereafter anomaly after anomaly is added to the list.

Lechmere was spotted near a body and lived in the area. That's it. The supposed anomalies are a mix of selective quoting, unsupported theories, double standards, and the occasional bit of complete nonsense like the Ley Lines.

[Fiver]

And your repeated cry "Nothing to see here, move on, please" tells us all we need to know about you.

Afraid your the one trying to say "Nothing to see here, move on, please" as you repeatedly ignore facts that don't foy with your theory.

You drawing a Ley Lines on the map shows you deliberately ignoring all lines that don't point to Charles Lechmere, nothing more.

[Fiver]

-You are adding a phantomkiller and drawing conclusions that he existed. That cannot be done. Such a man must not have existed at all, because we have Lechmere. We don’t need another killer per se.

You don't apply this reasoning to the men who found any of the other victims. All you have proved is that you are deliberately ignoring all options other than Charles Lechmere.

[Fiver]

To think, all the insights that will now go to waste on account of my stubborness!

You've offered theories and selective quoting. You have misrepresented the original sources, modern experts, and other posters. You have ignored the dictionary and much of the evidence.

And now you're claiming those as "insights".

I guess it's time to point you back to the dictionary.