Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As you can see in the above, no claims are made along the line you suggest they are, making your post redundant.

On the contrary!

Your answers to my post render the case against Lechmere unsupportable.

Edward Stow admitted to me that he cannot say whether Lechmere went to work on the days when either Chapman or Kelly were murdered.

Yet he claimed that it is significant that they were murdered on Lechmere's alleged routes to work.

That is once again a contrived case.

[Fisherman]

Does the evidence allow anyone to claim that Lechmere visited his mother's house on the night of 29/30 September 1888 - a few hours after having arrived home following a 14-18 hour shift - and left it at such a time and took such a route home that would have taken him down Berner Street at such a time that he could have murdered Stride?

No. What the evidence allows for is making the SUGGESTION that Lechmere was the killer. It also allows us to point out that his mother lived very nearby the murder sit with his daughter. And it allows for pointing out that the area as such was one where Lechmere likely had a good many acquaintances.

And does the evidence allow anyone to claim that Lechmere went to work on the morning of 9 November at Broad Street (rather than Poplar) and arrived late at work, having butchered Mary Kelly, without arousing any suspicion?

No. It does not even allow for stating that he did go to work. But it DOES allow for pointing out that Lechmeres likely morning trek to his work would have taken him close by the murder site, and possibly even right past Millers Court. As for raising suspicion at work, the evidence does not involve any fixed version of how Lechmere looked as he arrived to his work on the morning - IF he arrived there.

And does the evidence allow anyone to claim that Lechmere would have gone to Dorset Street that morning even if, as you have suggested, it may have been his day off, on one of his routes to work but on a day when he was not even working?

See the above.

It looks as though the case against Lechmere is contrived in such a way as to allow far-fetched scenarios to override the evidence we have.

As you can see in the above, no claims are made along the line you suggest they are, making your post redundant.

[Fisherman]

It works absolutely perfectly as you well know.

If you know NOW that the majority said ‘around 3.30’ then why didn’t you know that THEN? What allowed you to state the opposite of was was true?

Questions can’t get simpler and yet you appear to be stumped by it.

And you have proven me a liar ... how?

Because, you se, Herlock, THAT is what this is all about.

You have never answered that question other than in the form "but surely I must be correct".

And as a fair few of us know, that is not necessarily the case.

So lets see your proof now, Herlock. It's been weeks.

A minor detail: Saying that Lechmere said that he left home at 3.30 is NOT the "opposite" of saying that he said he left home at around 3.30. It is in fact very, very, very far from the opposite.

Unless I lie about it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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. What we do know is that Pickfords had premises in the vicinity and that Lechmere was a Pickfords carman. Identifying matters like these is how any real investigation works. Asking the question "could he have had a reason to be there" must be asked and answered to the best of our abilities.

Does the evidence allow anyone to claim that Lechmere visited his mother's house on the night of 29/30 September 1888 - a few hours after having arrived home following a 14-18 hour shift - and left it at such a time and took such a route home that would have taken him down Berner Street at such a time that he could have murdered Stride?

And does the evidence allow anyone to claim that Lechmere went to work on the morning of 9 November at Broad Street (rather than Poplar) and arrived late at work, having butchered Mary Kelly, without arousing any suspicion?

And does the evidence allow anyone to claim that Lechmere would have gone to Dorset Street that morning even if, as you have suggested, it may have been his day off, on one of his routes to work but on a day when he was not even working?

It looks as though the case against Lechmere is contrived in such a way as to allow far-fetched scenarios to override the evidence we have.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But have you listened?

Yes. More for the Drivel Bin.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I donat have to give an "explanation", Herlock, because I am not the one who has claimed to be able to prove my opponent a liar. You are.

And, of course, as I have pointed out a zillion times, you HAVE no proof. You have made claims about me that you are totally unable to substantiate. So far, you best effort is "because I think so".

Does that work?

I donīt think so.

It works absolutely perfectly as you well know.

If you know NOW that the majority said ‘around 3.30’ then why didn’t you know that THEN? What allowed you to state the opposite of was was true?

Questions can’t get simpler and yet you appear to be stumped by it.

[Fisherman]

Note to Fiver:

You write heaps of posts (and in between, you take time to tell me that I write long posts), but I have not been able to find anything at all of interest that I have not already answered you about.

I mean, we have been over the exact line from the arch up to Doveton Street a dozen times by now, and nothing at all has changed. I am saying that it is a matter that is either an absolutely astounding coincidence, coupled to another absolutely astounding coincidence (how the killer chose Pinchin Street of all streets), whereas you are keen to tell people "Move along, please, nothing to see here!"

Until something new is added to that - and a large array of others - matter, it looks to me to be a waste of time and space to spin like a rag - or an apron, sorry, R J - in a centrifuge about it.

[Fisherman]

Well, even if it had been open in 1888, where is the evidence that Lechmere used to go to work in 1888 at two different depots?

Here is how Edward Stow presents the case for Lechmere having murdered Rose Mylett:


So Lechmere, potentially, had reason to be on Poplar High Street.


Notice his use of the word potentially, so commonly used in current American English, especially in could potentially.

Either he could or he could not.

Either he had reason or he did not have reason.

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. What we do know is that Pickfords had premises in the vicinity and that Lechmere was a Pickfords carman. Identifying matters like these is how any real investigation works. Asking the question "could he have had a reason to be there" must be asked and answered to the best of our abilities.

[Fisherman]

Rose Mylett, who has been included by Lechmere's accusers in his list of victims, was murdered in a yard off Poplar High Street.

Lechmere would have had to make a detour south in order to commit that murder.

If Lechmere was capable of setting out in completely the wrong direction on his way to work, then what does that do for his accusers' argument that he committed murders on his regular routes to work?

There were Pickfords premises nearby. We cannot know if that played a role. It may be that he was there in a line of duty. Myles ws found dead on a Thursday morning, around 4.30 AM.

Of course, there is no certainty that Myles was a Ripper victim in the first place. She belongs to the overall picture, though, and must therefore be looked into as a potential victim of the Whitechapel killer.

[Fisherman]

I really do think that I’ve heard it all now.

But have you listened?

[Fisherman]

That was my best guess too, Lewis.

As you say, the Lechmerians seem to deny that the murderer stalked prostitutes and claim instead that he just happened upon them.

I think it has always been generally accepted that some stalking must have been involved.

Personally, I believe that passing an unfortunate in the street, and noting that there was nobody about, would have been all the stalking needed before the killer initiated a deal with his intended prey.

Are you envisaging him following prostitutes along the East End streets, ducking into doorways and suchlike?

[Fisherman]

This has been repeatedly pointed out to Fisherman.

Many things have, Fiver. And depending on where the pointings out come from, I can normally immediately deduce what value to ascribe to them.

[Fisherman]

Hi, Christer. Something that has often crossed my mind is the way a clinically narcissistic personality -- hyper-aware of increasing age, and obsessed by the unrealistic idea that he matters, dammit! -- would react to something like an endlessly lengthening walk to work in the wee hours. Maryann Street to Haydon Square: 650m. James Street to Haydon Square: 810m. James Street to Broad Street: 1.6km. Doveton Street to Broad Street: 2.1km. Doveton Street to Poplar High Street: 3.2km. For someone in the grip of, inter alia, narcissistic personality disorder, this is a progression in absolutely the wrong direction. (You will be aware of the speculative elements in the preceding.) We may even hypothesise that the mid-1888 move out to Doveton Street -- an astonishing development, on the face of it! -- was forced on him for some reason, making it even more of a triggering experience for someone with serious personality disorders of the type we imagine.

Bests,

Mark D.

You ARE aware that these kind of lucid ponderings are not welcomed by many out here ...?

[Fisherman]

What I would like to know is how someone who was working 14 to 18 hours per day and lived with his wife and nine children, and presumably had to sleep some time at home, could possibly have found the time to stalk prostitutes.

The very fact that he stands accused of murdering women while on his way to work does seem to suggest that he was remarkably short of time in which to look for victims.

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 is all there is to it.

As for your suggestion that him killing en route to work would owe to how he was not able to find any other window of time, my own take is quite simply that the morning work trek offered many advantages to him. It gave him a reason to be out on the streets at hours when very few people were around, it offered darkness to work in, and there was prey to be found, streetwalkers who were drunk and all alone.

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

[Fisherman]

Sometimes you get what you deserve.

Lets hope so.