Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Try that on James Scobie. And don't forget to tell him that you are the better judge of the two of you on matters legal, Fiver.

The fact that there was a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, of (sic) which he is linked - geographically and physically - ... the prosecution have the most powerful material the courts use against individual suspects.

(James Scobie, QC, criminal barrister)


No barrister should make a statement like that about a person accused of having committed six murders, when he was working 14 to 18 hours per day, living with his wife and nine children, when the first supposed murder in the series (Tabram's) occurred at a time before he would have set out for work, when two of the murders occurred on his day off, when the last murder occurred on a day on which either he was on holiday or, at the time that the mutilations were committed, would have been at work.

How on earth could Lechmere have been linked geographically and physically to Mitre square?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are as likely to be able to prove that the Phantom killer existed as you are to prove that I am a liar, Herlock.

If your assessment is limited to ‘well if you can’t name him then he can’t have existed’ then no more need saying on this particular point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Paul Begg put it otherwise. He said that it was a completely legal and working way of doing things. But what does he know that you don't know better...?

Moreover, the fact that it was the evidence against Lechmere that Scobie got was very clearly pointed out in the documentary.

So zero points to you, Fiver. Again.

With the ‘about 3.30’ part deliberately omitted of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

And after all of your desperate wriggling you still cannot give an explanation how you managed to count up those few newspaper reports and erroneously conclude that the majority said ‘3.00’ when the reality was that the majority said ‘around 3.30.’ It’s noticeable that you managed to include the one that mentioned 3.20 though.

Thats point proven. It’s there in black and white and you cannot give any reason for this. Wriggle all that you want Fish. Everyone can read this and see the truth.

[Fisherman]

Now I am going to sign off for some time; life is too short to spend in the company of people who are not able to conduct a serious debate, and there are a few of those out here.
I will sign off by a last post to Fiver.

As those who have been subjected to the matter will remember, Fiver has claimed as a fact that all the houses of Bucks Row WERE called upon, in an inquiry mentioned in a paper that spoke about how a house to house search was made in the streets adjoining Bucks Row. The matter was mentioned on the 3rd of September.
Of course, when it is said that the streets that were searched were the ones ADJOINING Bucks Row, that does not mean that Bucks Row itself was subjected to the same house to house inquiry. In fact, the wording seems to specifically point ut how this was not the case.

But Fiver would not have that. He inferred that if the adjacent streets were subjected to a house to house inquiry, then that MUST have entailed Bucks Row too.
And it SHOULD have.
But it didn't.

Fiver does not like to be proven wrong. He is willing to read selectively and alter the meaning of what is said in order to try and flee from that fate, as shown by the above.

I took some little time to research the matter myself, and that led me to the Echo of the 1st of September 1888. In that paper, it says:

"In Brady-street, Thrawle-street, and other small thoroughfares in the low locality where the deceased was discovered the police have made an almost house-to-house investigation themselves, and caused secret inquiries to be conducted by persons known amongst the force as "nosea," in the hope of finding some link to enable them to unravel the hideous and mysterious crime."

So here we have that house to house investigation again. But this time over, we are supplied with names of the streets, like Brady Street and Thrawle Street! What becomes clear here is that a wide net was cast in this effort. Equally, it is clear that not all of the houses in these streets were investigated, it was an "almost house to house investigation". And it only took place in the small thorough fares of the general locality of Bucks Row, whereas it is again NOT said that it took place in Bucks Row itself!

It therefore applies that when coroner Baxter complained about how not all of the households in Bucks Row had been interviewed, after inspector Spratling having owned up to this matter, it was not Spratling himself who was criticized and told to do a house to house investigation in Bucks Row himself, as Fiver rather exotically suggests - it was of course the lax work of the police on the whole that Baxter gave a kick in the bum.

It is not that I am saying that the streets where the murders take place need not be investigated in depth. They DO. And that is the whole crux here - the police failed to do so, and were accordingly criticized by coroner Baxter.

And here, with Fiver trapped on the banks of his own river of invention, I take my leave for some time. If my absense could be used to do something else than misrepresent what I am saying, so much the better.

But I am not holding my breath, of course. The past terrifies.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Now I am going to sign off for some time; life is too short to spend in the company of people who are not able to conduct a serious debate, and there are a few of those out here.
I will sign off by a last post to Fiver.

I suppose I should not be surprised that you intend to make no attempt to answer my # 1546 about the completely baseless statement made by Scobie.

[Fiver]

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.

You accused him of inventing something. So while you did not use the word "liar", you clearly were accusing rj of lying.

And your accusation was clearly false. He posted the article yet another time to show your accusation was false.

[Fiver]

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

You're the one who falsely accused RJ of inventing things.

[Fiver]

Again, I am not ignoring the inquest evidence.

It is you who wish to ignore the Lloyds Weekly evidence.

I acknowledge them both and have no desire to strike any one of them off the list, the way you seem to want to do.

Furthermore, the inquest reports about Pauls time of departure are not in any way in conflict with the Lloyds Weekly version; they are instead in support of it.

I am not ignoring the Lloyd's account. That is yet another false accusation on your part as I have quoted it extensively to show that Lloyd's sensationalized the news.

The Lloyd's account has Paul saying "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row".

The key word is "exactly" as has been clearly, repeatedly pointed out to you. None of the accounts of Paul's inquest testimony support an exact timing.

And of course you ignore the inquest testimony. You have to to create your mythical gap.

[Fiver]

You are as likely to be able to prove that the Phantom killer existed as you are to prove that I am a liar, Herlock.

You don't mock the idea that someone else was there before Alfred Crow saw Martha Tabram's body.
You don't mock the idea that someone else was there before Albert Cadosch found Annie Chapman's body.
You don't mock the idea that someone else was there before Louis Diemschutz found Elizabeth Stride's body.
You don't mock the idea that someone else was there before PC Edward Watkin found Catherine Eddowes' body.
You don't mock the idea that someone else was there before Thomas Bowyer found Mary Jane Kelly's's body.
You don't mock the idea that someone else was there before PC William Pennett found the Pinchin street Torso.

All this proves is you apply a different standard to Charles Lechmere than you do to everyone else who found a body.

[Fiver]

If it isn a fact and not a coincidence, then it is evidence of Lechmere being responsible.

And here you use the Excluded Middle Fallacy.

Being a fact does not make bloody apron found near the St Phillips Street Church evidence, let alone make it evidence against anyone.

* The St Phillips apron was one of at least three bloody garments found after the Pinchin Street Torso was found.
* There is no evidence that any of them had anything to do with the Pinchin Street Torso.
* There is no evidence that any of them had anything to you with Charles Lechmre.

Your Ley Line theory is evidence that you will deliberately ignore thousands of other possibilities in order to draw an imaginary line pointing at Charles Lechmere.

[Fiver]

Try that on James Scobie. And don't forget to tell him that you are the better judge of the two of you on matters legal, Fiver.

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

As someone named Christer Holmgren said - "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information."

Scobie was not given whole picture.

[Fiver]

Nope, that is not "it". he DID give an alias....

Alias is a loaded word. Charles Lechemre was not the only person to use an "alias" at a Ripper inquest. Charles Lechemre wasn't trying to hide his identity.This is an example of your double standards, not evidence that Lechmere was the Ripper.

...he DID disagree with Mizen....

Robert Paul also disagreed with PC Mizen. In fact, Robert Paul disagreed with PC Mizen more that Charles Lechmere disagreed with PC Mizen. Lechmere and Paul agreed that Mizen continued knocking up after they spoke to him. Paul also contradicted Mizen's time estimate.

Which by your reasoning is stronger "evidence" against Robert Paul than against Charles Lechmere. This is an example of your double standards, not evidence that Lechmere was the Ripper.

...the wounds WERE hidden from sight....

You repeating a false statement doesn't not make it true. Even if it were true, it would not be evidence against Charles Lechmere or anyone else.

..., his work trek DID pass through Spitalfields, he DID have his mother living nearby the Berner Street murder site and so on.

These are not additional points. I already said Lechmere lived in the area, just like all of the other witnesses and almost all of the hundreds of suspects. This is an example of your double standards, not evidence that Lechmere was the Ripper.

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]

That line, however, does not ignore the straight trip from the arch to 22 Doveton Street. It nails it.

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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

As someone named Christer Holmgren said - "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information."

Scobie was not given whole picture.

Scobie appeared in the documentary, together with Christer Holmgren, Gareth Norris, who suspects Lechmere because the murderer must have been


'Certainly somebody who had reason to be out in the street at that time and wouldn't have seemed out of place at that time.'

(Dr Gareth Norris, criminologist)


What reason did Lechmere have to be in Berner Street at 1 a.m. on a Saturday night or Mitre Square at 1.40 a.m. on a Saturday night or in Dorset street from about 4 a.m. to 5.45 a.m. on his day off (or even if he were working that day)?


Andy Griffiths, who insinuated that Lechmere reported his discovery in such a way that the police would not treat it as an urgent case:


'But a much more vague message of 'there's a woman lying in the street', coupled with the information that a police officer is already there, would lower the police officer's response.'

(Dr Andy Griffiths, former Detective Superintendent)


That is obviously untrue because not only did Lechmere report his discovery of the body, but he told the policeman that he was 'wanted' at the murder scene.


The documentary abounds with false statements and accusations.

Here is an example:



'Lechmere said that he was never alone with the body.'


That is a blatantly false statement.

Lechmere's evidence, according to the inquest record, was:

'He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. he walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-Row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from.'

There is nothing in the inquest record to substantiate the allegation made against him.


The documentary is nothing short of an exercise in character assassination.