Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fiver]

-Again, I have never said that I can connect him to the other four canonical victims. But the victims are accepted as being connected (and wisely so), therefore it applies that I don’t HAVE TO connect him to those murders. It is sufficient that we know that he is a suspect for the Nichols murder, becasue that ALSO makes him a suspect for the other ones. And, believe it or not, that works for ALL suspect. And ”suspects”.

People believing the murders are connected does not prove that someone connected to one murder has any connection to the other murders. By your "logic" every witness can be "proven" to be the Ripper.

Back in the real word, Charles Lechmere has no connection to any of the murders except for Nichols, and the evidence is strongly in favor of him being an innocent witness.

[Fiver]

He LEFT OUT the about!!

He's proved you left out the "about", your post admits it.

The question whether you did that deliberately is a harder one to prove, but we can look for a pattern. Have you repeatedly left out information that would point against Charles Lechmere being the killer? Have you continued to do this after the information has been repeatedly pointed out to you?

[Fiver]

And I love the way you skilfully diagnose Cross as clinically narcissistic. Quite an achievement with a man that died over 100 years ago and for whom we have not a shred of a hint of his mental well-being or character.

There's not enough to build a complete picture, but we do have hints about Charles Lechmere's character.

Testimony about the 1876 accident shows that Charles Lechmere was driving slowly and well clear of the curb. This is in contrast to the general reputation of van drivers for excessive speed and endangering the public. That implies above average prudence and possibly above average empathy. It stands in contrast with his father who at best showed negligence by giving another man so much alcohol that the other man died.

Lechmere appears to have gotten on well with his mother. He was a witness for her third wedding and entrusted one of his children into her care. Lechmere also appears to have gotten on well with his children, he was a witness at that daughter's wedding and the weddings of several of his other children. Records show that all of his children became literate, in contrast to their mother and many others living in the area. The sheer number of children implies relations between Lechmere and his wife were reasonably cordial. Unlike his birth father, he did not abandon the family and all of his children were born while he was married. They also appear to have an above average rate of surviving to adulthood, which implies above average housing and nutrition, though luck could have also been a factor.

Lechmere appears to have gotten on well enough with his first stepfather to at least sometimes use Cross as a surname. Lechmere got on well enough with his second stepfather to be a witness at the wedding.

Most of Lechmere's children appear to have been named after his wife's relatives, his mother's siblings, and his father's female siblings. One may have been named for his first stepfather. None were named for his birth father or his father's brothers.

Roughly thirty years at the same job implies stability and trustworthiness. The 1901 Census lists him as also being a railway agent, which would indicate increased responsibilities and likely a promotion. Switching to running his own business as a grocer implies both planning and thrift. This stands in contrast to his birth father going bankrupt. Charles Lechmere leaving a significant amount of money to his widow and children also implies planning and thrift. It again stands in contrast to his birth father, who abandoned the family.

Lechmere's encounter with Robert Paul implies a certain level of courage. Paul was significantly younger and they were in the worst part of a street known for being dangerous. For that matter, regularly walking to work down a street known to be dangerous implies a certain level of confidence and courage. And while we can fault him for not staying with Nichols body, the press and the press and the public did not seem to and one of the police specifically supported their decision to seek out the police. We should also consider that Robert Paul probably would have just walked past Nichols' body if Lechmere hadn't stopped him.

Lechmere's initial mis-identification of the body as a tarpaulin points towards him being mentally normal. The human mind tends to shy away from having to deal with death and there are plenty of examples of people who find dead bodies mistaking them for a bundle of clothes or a mannequin. A sociopath or psychopath wouldn't have this subconscious flinching away from death and would lack the empathy to consider this reaction in other people.

Unlike Robert Paul, Charles did not talk to the press, which implies a more private, less self-important man. Also unlike Paul, Lechmere went to the police rather than having to be tracked down. That implies a sense of conscientiousness and civic duty. It implies a certain level of self-sacrifice in his willingness to lose a day's wages to do that. Also unlike Paul and several other witnesses, Lechmere didn't complain about it to the press.

[Fiver]

Yes Herlock, and then it was necessary to hypothesize that the move to Doveton Street was forced on him, because one would think that if walking a longer distance was so traumatic for him, he wouldn't have made the move if he had a choice.

Like many things, we can know that Lechmere moved, but not why. Walking distance to work was longer for Lechmere, but walking distance to school for his children appears to be significantly shorter. Other considerations might be the size and quality of the house, the price to live there, and the safeness of the neighborhood. And I doubt we can get information on those factors.

But the idea that having to walk a slightly longer distance to work would turn him into a serial killer remains laughable.

[Fiver]

The evidence SUGGESTS a time gap, is what I have said. Nothing else.

You seem very insistent for a mere suggestion.

The evidence suggests that Robert Paul's timing was less accurate.

To achieve your time gap you need to:
* Assume Lechmere was giving a precise instead of an approximate time.
* Take a sensationalized news story over Robert Paul's inquest testimony.
* Ignore the time estimates of PC Mizen, PC Thain, and PC Neil.
* Quote only part of Baxter's timing estimation.
* Ignore Inspector Abberline's report.
* Assume that Swanson was giving a precise, not an approximate time estimate.
* Ignore that none of the police thought there was a suggested time gap.

And even then, the gap is only a suggestion because you suggested it, not because there is any evidence for it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

May I refer you to the short documentary


CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE AND THE MISSING EIGHT MINUTES


at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BykE6e6yeTY

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Ed Stow told me it was Tuesday I’d check the calendar first.

[A P Tomlinson]

If Ed Stow told me it was Tuesday I’d check the calendar first.

He'd find a way to blame Charles Lechmere for it BEING Tuesday....

[Herlock Sholmes]

He'd find a way to blame Charles Lechmere for it BEING Tuesday....

Very probably AP.

[Fiver]

May I refer you to the short documentary


CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE AND THE MISSING EIGHT MINUTES


at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BykE6e6yeTY

Anything worth watching in it or is just a rehash of what Fisherman has been saying?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Anything worth watching in it or is just a rehash of what Fisherman has been saying?

Sorry for the misunderstanding, Fiver.

It's actually a refutation of the 7-8 minute gap claimed by Stow (sic).

[Fiver]

Or in James Scobies.

As you repeat the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Scobie was not given any of the witness statements or the coroner's summing up, just a list of bullet points.

Or as programmers put it "garbage in, garbage out".

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer.

Let me give you a further demonstration why I am no longer willing to discuss the case with you.

You wrote to me:



Can anyone imagine how you would have reacted if someone accused you of an invention?

In truth, we don't need to imagine it, because you turn even the most innocently worded post into an affront to your honesty. (I don't refer to those who are actually accusing you of dishonesty--I am referring to me and other posters who try to respond to you in a civilized manner).

What I wrote is not an invention. The hoarding was mentioned in the article. The plank was "within the hoarding."

Do the math!!






But no worries, Christer; although I am in the right, I won't spend three days bellowing about how you called me a liar, etc. as you are so eager to do.

Indeed, I won't be responding further.

Adios.

I of course never called you a liar. I despise posters calling others liars on no grounds at all. There is a good example to learn from very close by.

On the hoarding, you wrote something along the lines that you thought that there would have been a hoarding, and I don't think that is enough to prove a point. You now say that there WAS a hoarding, which is better - and what I supposed from the outset anyway.

You have already named your reason for not wanting to exchange with me - because I have not used the quotation function the way you would like me to. Which I find a very strange reason for not wanting to discuss the case. But it is of course your own choice, so I have no qualms with that point.

If you want ME to tell YOU what I dislike about your "civilized manner" of discussing the case with me, it boils down to things like how you write things like:

"...seeing that you spent three days hairsplitting the difference between a 'gap' and the 'suggestion of a gap,' I would think you would appreciate the necessity of being precise."

Calling me a hairsplitter for having given my view on this matter is perhaps not the best way of making friends.

"You seem to wish to imply that this event parallels the Mitre Square murder..."

Leading on that I wish to "imply things" for pointing out that an apron rag was found at St Philips the day after the dumping of the Pinchin Street torso does not help.

"...the parallel that that you seem to be insinuating is strained"

Again I am not "insinuating" anything for pointing out that an apron rag was found at St Philips. I leave it to those who take part of the information to assess it on their own.

"You really do love these semantic games, don't you, Christer?"

Need I comment on why I don't find this particularly "civil"?

"I'll attribute your mistake to English not being your native tongue"

Presenting as a fact that I am the mistaken one of us, and making comments about my grasp of the British language is not a very nice thing to do.

So all in all, R J, although you would probably have it that I am the one being uncivil, playing semantic games instead of looking at the case facts and loosing out on account of my poor understanding of the British language, I think a fair case can be made of how we are two guys throwing horse manure.

I have nothing against debating with you as such, and I would be happy to do so forthwith, but I reserve myself the right to comment on your posts without being castigated as the bad guy. A rag IS so much more than you allow for, and I have Merriam-Websters dictionary to prove it. If you dislike it, okay, fine - but being challenged by people who disagree with us is par for the course out here, is it not?

[Fisherman]

This is a lie, there is no proof what so ever that she was bleeding when they found the body.



The Baron

Neil said that the blood was oozing/running from the neck wound as he discovered her, and he examined her by way of his lantern before touching the body. That is proof of her bleeding as she was found. Mizen also said that she was bleeding, that the blood looked fresh and was running into the gutter from the pool that was somewhat congealed. That too is proof that she was bleeding as Mizen saw her.

To infer from that, that she was also bleeding as the carmen saw her would not count as a lie in my vocabulary. It would count as very reasonable deduction.

And that is all I will say on the matter, since I am not interested in wasting time about how she may have been sleeping it off as the carmen were there, allowing for another person to slip in between the carmen and Neil to do the cutting.

[Fisherman]

And you are being blatantly dishonest. What a pathetic answer!!

Its beyond belief that you have the unmitigated gall to try and pass that off as a response. Utter Rubbish!!!

What you mean is that you invented the ‘fact’ that the majority said ‘3.30’ when you knew that the majority said ‘around 3.30’ in a deliberate act to give the readers a completely false impression. It cannot have been otherwise.

As I said before, anybody who claims that somebody is a liar without being able to prove it, is himself a liar.
As I said before, anybody who cannot prove that somebody has been dishonest without being able to prove it, is himself dishonest.

That is all there is to it. Hysteria and wild accusations have tendency to fall back on the hysterics and accusers.