Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[caz]

Hi Geddy , Thanks for that , I guess im just tired of anything ,be it profiling or any other other sort of comparison that suggest or hints to Lechmere being a serial killer and or Jack the Ripper. The guy stumbled across a body in the earlier hours of the morning and reported it to the nearest police officer , thats all there is too it .

These boards are so full of page upon page of all sorts of theories regarding Lechmere ,not one with any evidence that points to him being the killer . Let me remind you of something about Charles Lechmere ,he lived and worked another 32years after the final ripper victim Mary Kelly , had ten kids and a wife to care and feed .

Look at the Mary Kelly death pic and ask yourself this question, could Lechmere given his long life and and circumstances do that to another human being and just stop killing and go back to his normal working class poverty strickin life ?? . Possibility v Probability . Its far easier to eliminate Lechmere than to find reasons to convict him as a killer .

Lechmere should only be considered a witness ,an important one at that , but never a 'suspect '. Those who place him in that catagory do so for their own indulgence Imo.

[And book sales if im any judge ]

Regards Fishy.

I agree, FISHY. Your post pretty much sums up what the originator of this thread designed it for. You were simply thrown by his choice of title.

Love,

Caz
X

[FISHY1118]

Jesus, Geddy, I envy you for getting through to FISHY, where I failed miserably to deliver the same, very simple to grasp message. Where is Patrick when I need him?

FISHY appears to react according to whose name is attached to a post and not the post itself.

Love,

Caz
X

I think your confused caz . I responded to your post accordingly

[Patrick S]

I think it’s important to point out that there has been nothing new presented to support or advance Holmgren’s claim that Cross/Lechmere killed Nichols… or The Pinchin Street Torso, or Tabram, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly, or anyone else for that matter.
There’s been nothing new presented here. Nothing in the myriad YouTube videos. There was nothing new in Christer’s book, “Cutting Point”.
We are still left with only the “fake” name issue and the fact that he was found next to a “freshly killed” Polly Nichols. We must ignore the fact that Cross/Lechmere waited for Paul to reach him (rather than simply walking away in the darkness). We must ignore the fact that he stopped Paul and asked him to “come see this woman”. We must entertain the absurd idea that he then, with the murder weapon on his person, set out with Paul in search of a policeman. We must believe that after speaking to Mizen in Baker’s Row, and having not been asked to identify himself, that he again voluntarily submitted himself the authorities, appearing at the inquest. We are asked to believe that this was all the grand plan of psychopath.
I recently read a book by Steven Keogh, who joined the Metropolitan Police in 1991. He spent most of his 30-year career as a detective. He became a member of Scotland Yard’s Anti-Terrorist team in 2002 before joining the Murder Investigation Team in 2009, remaining there for 12 years. Keogh gives special attention to Cross/Lechmere in his book, “Murder Investigation Team – Jack the Ripper: A 21^st Century Investigation”. He arrives at all the conclusions that many here arrived at years ago. He makes the same arguments many have made on these pages. And he dismisses him, completely, as a suspect. In fact, he doesn’t even include Cross/Lechmere in the “Suspects” chapter of the book. Instead discussing the absurdity of his “candidacy” in the chapter on Nichols’ murder.
I am sure that Keogh is an accomplished investigator and detective. But, I cannot attribute his conclusions regarding Cross/Lechmere to his years of experience and refined powers of deduction as much as to simple common sense.

[Geddy2112]

I am sure that Keogh is an accomplished investigator and detective. But, I cannot attribute his conclusions regarding Cross/Lechmere to his years of experience and refined powers of deduction as much as to simple common sense.

That is the whole problem with the Lechmere Theory, it relies on cherry picking information for example it does not believe Cross when he said what time he left home, they do not believe Cross when he said what he found, they do not believe Cross when he said there was no PC in Bucks Row. However in the same breath they believe he gave a false name, they also believe when he said he worked at Pickfords. They don't believe when Paul said he passed through Bucks Row at exactly 3:45, they do not believe Paul when he said he went alone to find Mizen. However they do believe Paul in relation to the 'many independent data.'

They completely ignore any COMMON SENSE. Thanks for your post.

[Patrick S]

That is the whole problem with the Lechmere Theory, it relies on cherry picking information for example it does not believe Cross when he said what time he left home, they do not believe Cross when he said what he found, they do not believe Cross when he said there was no PC in Bucks Row. However in the same breath they believe he gave a false name, they also believe when he said he worked at Pickfords. They don't believe when Paul said he passed through Bucks Row at exactly 3:45, they do not believe Paul when he said he went alone to find Mizen. However they do believe Paul in relation to the 'many independent data.'

They completely ignore any COMMON SENSE. Thanks for your post.

There are so many problems with Cross/Lechmere as Nichols' killer. I generally start here: We are told to view the "false name issue" as incriminating in some way. Alas, we must not think about why one might give a "false name". Of course, one does so to avoid identification in order to avoid the consequences of one's actions. Here we have Cross/Lechmere successfully avoiding identification on the night of the murder as he's not even asked his name by Mizen (or Robert Paul, for that matter). In fact, it appears he wasn't forced to reveal any personal information at all. Yet, after successfully escaping, unsuspected, he voluntarily contacts the authorities, gives the name of his employer, gives his address, and submits himself to interrogation, under oath, at Nichols' inquest. Doesn't this defeat the purpose of giving a "false name"? If the police know where to find him - both at his work and at his home - of what use was the alias?

[Geddy2112]

If the police know where to find him - both at his work and at his home - of what use was the alias?

Absolutely correct. I often use my 'bus ticket' analogy at this point. If, as a kid I was caught on the bus without a ticket I did not give the inspector my name and my mate's address or his name and my address as both would have easily resulted in me being found out. I certainly would have give my mate's name AND address to avoid being scuppered. I also can't every remember getting of the bus and volunteering to present myself at the bus depot a couple of days later to be questioned about the whole affair.

The other problem is legally he did nothing wrong, https://deedpolloffice.com/change-name/law/case-law tells us so. He also probably give the name he was know as at work. He more than likely was signed up to Pickfords when he was in his early teens which coincides with the name Cross being used.

Why the name thing, especially from Stow/Butler (got to love the irony) is seen as anything suspicious is beyond me, but no matter how many times this is pointed out they do not listen.

[A P Tomlinson]

There are so many problems with Cross/Lechmere as Nichols' killer. I generally start here: We are told to view the "false name issue" as incriminating in some way. Alas, we must not think about why one might give a "false name". Of course, one does so to avoid identification in order to avoid the consequences of one's actions. Here we have Cross/Lechmere successfully avoiding identification on the night of the murder as he's not even asked his name by Mizen (or Robert Paul, for that matter). In fact, it appears he wasn't forced to reveal any personal information at all. Yet, after successfully escaping, unsuspected, he voluntarily contacts the authorities, gives the name of his employer, gives his address, and submits himself to interrogation, under oath, at Nichols' inquest. Doesn't this defeat the purpose of giving a "false name"? If the police know where to find him - both at his work and at his home - of what use was the alias?

All of that is also supported by the fact that Mizen was in court to identify him as the man he met, so there sin't even a "Well it would have been hard to identify him at Pickfords if he had given a flase name as they employed a lot of people" straw to clutch at because they now know what he looks like.

The argument sometimes arises that he didn't give his address in court, that it was revealed only in the newspaper, at which point we are left with either him giving his full address to the court clerk who gave the information to a journalist, or he gave that information to a newspaper journalist directly.

Let's assume for a moment that he didn't do the obvious thing, and just give it to the court, and that he did give it to the reporter...
What did he think a journalist would do with that information?
What possible reason could a journalist have for wanting to know his address other than to either print it in the paper, or conduct further investigations into the "Man who was caught standing over the body" as the Cult of Lechmere would have us believe was the case.
And if he were willing to give his address to a reporter, why wouldn't he have given it to the court?

It doesn't matter if he lied about his name to conceal his identity at that point. The journalist (along with half the Met) now know what he looks like, and the whole world knows where he lives.

Every argument used to implicate him is measured against the (Simple minded moron/Criminal Genius/Luckiest man of the 19th century) scale and circling the appropriate one to form a link of continuous "What If" situations. These links can be spun into a convincing story to fool people into thinking that there is actually a grain of evidence to suppport such a convoluted theory. And they never, EVER stop people who support their madness when they say things lilke, "Why was he caught crouching over the body if he WASN'T the Killer?" "Why would he have lied about his name if he wasn't the killer" and correcting them on the part where neither him crouching over the body or lying about his name are rooted in TRUTH.

Then when faced with common sense arguments such as "Why WOULD he do this that or the other if he WERE the murderer?" they resort to semantic gymnastics and information outliers to "corroborate" their fairy tales.