Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Exactly , if Druitt did have an alibi Abberline would have said so in the newspaper interview

If Druitt's Dorset alibi had not stood up, Abberline would not have said:

there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him.

[Darryl Kenyon]

If Druitt's Dorset alibi had not stood up, Abberline would not have said:

there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him.

"There is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him." Does not mean Druitt had an alibi , [ it means to me at least ], that there was no concrete against him [ Druitt ] . Again if Druitt had an alibi I am sure Abberline would have mentioned it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

"There is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him." Does not mean Druitt had an alibi , [ it means to me at least ], that there was no concrete against him [ Druitt ] . Again if Druitt had an alibi I am sure Abberline would have mentioned it.

If police enquiries had uncovered evidence that Druitt absented himself from his colleagues during his trip to Dorset, that would have constituted grounds for suspicion, yet Abberline was evidently unaware of any.

[Fiver]

first of all, we dont know anything about his character, or claims of being a "good man". from what i see he left a women in obvious need of help lying in the street. he also killed a child. dude sounds like bad news to me.

Lechmere left Nichols body, sought out a police officer, and told him about Nichols - the exact same thing that Robert Paul did. Since when is acting the same way as another witness a sign of guilt?

Over a decade before the Ripper killings, Lechmere did accidentally run over a child who darted in front of his cart. The courts decided that it was an unavoidable accident. Since when is an accident a sign of guilt?

he has no alibi, nor do we know his work schedule, so its absolutely ludicrous to say he didnt have time or that he would have to stay up for how many hours to kill certain victims. bonkers argument.

We know his work schedule based on his testimony. If Lechmere was lying about it, his family, friends, coworkers, and employers would have known he was lying.

Trains delivered goods to the Broad Street Station on set schedules. Delivery services, like Pickfords, scheduled work shifts based on those train schedules.

He was seen near a freshly killed victim before raising any kind of alarm.

Just like every other person who first found one of the victims.

He is clearly in the frame for being pollys killer.

Frame is an excellent word choice.

We're looking at several murders, not one. Timing makes it unlikely that Lechmere killed Chapman, Stride, or Eddowes.

Murder victims were killed along his work route and of course there is the Lech triangle. In terms of location, proximity and geograpic arguments hes better than any other suspect hands down.

Lechmere's location was he lived in the area - just like almost all of the 100s of suspects.

Two victims were killed along Charles Lechmere's route to work - just like Robert Paul. One of those was killed after Lechmere and Paul would have been at work.

The "Lechmre triangle" is nonsense created by people who do not understand geographical profiling.

hes as valid a suspect as any other, and moreso than most.

Charles Lechmere is one of the least likely Ripper suspects.

* Most of Lechmere's actions after finding Nichols' body would be acts of utter stupidity for a guilty man to do.

* Lechmere came forward as a witness of his own accord, even though neither PC Mizen nor Robert Paul knew who he was.

* Chapman was murdered while Lechmere was at work.

* Eddowes and Stride were murdered in a time frame that would have required Lechmere to stay up 23 hours straight or to get up three hours early on his only day off.

* The Ripper took organs from some of his victims. The idea that someone could keep them hidden in a house as full of people as the Lechmere household is ludicrous.

* Contrary to myth, Lechmere was not a meat cart driver. Pickfords was a general delivery service, not a slaughterhouse. And even a slaughterman would have raised eyebrows if he showed up for work covered in fresh blood.

[FISHY1118]

Lechmere left Nichols body, sought out a police officer, and told him about Nichols - the exact same thing that Robert Paul did. Since when is acting the same way as another witness a sign of guilt?

Over a decade before the Ripper killings, Lechmere did accidentally run over a child who darted in front of his cart. The courts decided that it was an unavoidable accident. Since when is an accident a sign of guilt?



We know his work schedule based on his testimony. If Lechmere was lying about it, his family, friends, coworkers, and employers would have known he was lying.

Trains delivered goods to the Broad Street Station on set schedules. Delivery services, like Pickfords, scheduled work shifts based on those train schedules.



Just like every other person who first found one of the victims.



Frame is an excellent word choice.

We're looking at several murders, not one. Timing makes it unlikely that Lechmere killed Chapman, Stride, or Eddowes.



Lechmere's location was he lived in the area - just like almost all of the 100s of suspects.

Two victims were killed along Charles Lechmere's route to work - just like Robert Paul. One of those was killed after Lechmere and Paul would have been at work.

The "Lechmre triangle" is nonsense created by people who do not understand geographical profiling.



Charles Lechmere is one of the least likely Ripper suspects.

* Most of Lechmere's actions after finding Nichols' body would be acts of utter stupidity for a guilty man to do.

* Lechmere came forward as a witness of his own accord, even though neither PC Mizen nor Robert Paul knew who he was.

* Chapman was murdered while Lechmere was at work.

* Eddowes and Stride were murdered in a time frame that would have required Lechmere to stay up 23 hours straight or to get up three hours early on his only day off.

* The Ripper took organs from some of his victims. The idea that someone could keep them hidden in a house as full of people as the Lechmere household is ludicrous.

* Contrary to myth, Lechmere was not a meat cart driver. Pickfords was a general delivery service, not a slaughterhouse. And even a slaughterman would have raised eyebrows if he showed up for work covered in fresh blood.

Very good post, this is why we should eliminate Charles Lechmere from this site and for being a suspect .

3 worse suspects ever ,Maybrick, Druitt, and Lechmere.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have been making similar points to some of Fiver's for some time, both here and elsewhere.

As far as I can remember, I have never had an encouraging response to my point that the Whitechapel Murderer must have been living alone - because he took organs as trophies from victims - and therefore could not have been Lechmere or Kosminski.

I would add Kelly to the list of victims whom Lechmere would not have had time - in this case about two hours during work - to meet.

I have also made the point that the theory - promoted in the documentary that featured Christer - that Lechmere wore overalls - for which there is no evidence - which may have been covered with blood - again for which there is no evidence - and that because of his work they would not have aroused suspicion around the time of a murder is invalid because there is obviously a difference between dried blood and fresh blood.

If Lechmere had approached Mizen while wearing overalls spattered with fresh blood, would not Mizen have noticed?

I have seen the riposte that Mizen wouldn't have noticed because it was dark.

It appears that aprons at that time were generally white.

Wouldn't a policeman be capable of noticing fresh bloodstains on a white apron, practically under his nose?

[Darryl Kenyon]

If police enquiries had uncovered evidence that Druitt absented himself from his colleagues during his trip to Dorset, that would have constituted grounds for suspicion, yet Abberline was evidently unaware of any.

Macnaughten said he had little doubt Druitt's own family suspected him . If he had an unshakable alibi they would know about it, and again Abberline would mention it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Macnaughten said he had little doubt Druitt's own family suspected him . If he had an unshakable alibi they would know about it, and again Abberline would mention it.

I think your latest response underlines what is wrong with so much comment about Druitt: it is not necessary to produce proof that Druitt had a cast-iron alibi.

What is necessary is to provide incriminating evidence against him.

There evidently is none.

[FISHY1118]

I think your latest response underlines what is wrong with so much comment about Druitt: it is not necessary to produce proof that Druitt had a cast-iron alibi.

What is necessary is to provide incriminating evidence against him.

There evidently is none.

Yes exactly.

[Lewis C]

Macnaughten said he had little doubt Druitt's own family suspected him . If he had an unshakable alibi they would know about it, and again Abberline would mention it.

It seems to me that the discussion about Druitt isn't getting very far because we're arguing over the definition of alibi. I think that to move the discussion forward, it would help to drop the word "alibi" from it. My take is that it isn't impossible for Druitt to have killed Nichols, but because of the tight frame, rather unlikely. I believe he also played cricket later in the day that Chapman died. If Druitt were JtR, how likely is it that he'd chose days to commit his crimes in which he'd have to hurry off to play cricket some distance away?

[Lewis C]

Very good post, this is why we should eliminate Charles Lechmere from this site and for being a suspect .

3 worse suspects ever ,Maybrick, Druitt, and Lechmere.

I agree with what Steve Blomer said on a Youtube video: Lechmere is a suspect, but not a particularly strong one. I agree with you that Maybrick is a poor suspect (regardless of which one you meant - both Maybricks are weak suspects), but I can name quite a few that are worse than Lechmere and Druitt: Lewis Carroll, Prince Albert Victor, Thomas Cream, Michael Ostrog, Walter Sickert, Mary Pearcy, William Gull, Arthur Conan Doyle, and perhaps worst of all, William Gladstone.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It seems to me that the discussion about Druitt isn't getting very far because we're arguing over the definition of alibi.

Some people have claimed that Druitt did not have an alibi, when he evidently did.

They are claiming that unless someone has a cast iron alibi, he has no alibi.

They are also implying that unless we know of an alibi or cast iron alibi, the supposed suspect did not have one.

That is obviously a fallacy.

Someone called my statement that it is likely that Kosminski had an alibi for at least one of the murders pure invention.

It is nothing of the kind.

It is likely that any so-called suspect had an alibi for at least one of the murders.

Piser was subjected to an identification procedure, even though he had alibis for the murders that had taken place.

The fact that the police were unaware of his alibis did not mean they were pure invention.

Macnaghten wrote to the effect that Ostrog could not produce alibis, even though he had the most solid alibi of all - he was in police custody for the duration of the murders.

The fact that Macnaghten was unaware of Ostrog's alibi did not mean he did not have one.

Prince Albert Victor was in Yorkshire or Scotland when each murder was committed.

Sickert was in France when some, and probably most, of the murders occurred.

The fact that Druitt was playing cricket in Blackheath hours after supposedly committing a murder in Spitalfields was dismissed as irrelevant.

Even when it came to light that Druitt was on a cricketing trip to Dorset when the previous murder took place, we were told that he had no alibi.

Being asked to produce an alibi after the passage of nearly 135 years may be considered unreasonable, but being told that one remains a suspect in a murder case when one can produce an alibi is beyond unreasonable.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I think your latest response underlines what is wrong with so much comment about Druitt: it is not necessary to produce proof that Druitt had a cast-iron alibi.

What is necessary is to provide incriminating evidence against him.

There evidently is none.

It was you who said he had an alibi not me

[Darryl Kenyon]

Some people have claimed that Druitt did not have an alibi, when he evidently did.

They are claiming that unless someone has a cast iron alibi, he has no alibi.

They are also implying that unless we know of an alibi or cast iron alibi, the supposed suspect did not have one.

That is obviously a fallacy.

Someone called my statement that it is likely that Kosminski had an alibi for at least one of the murders pure invention.

It is nothing of the kind.

It is likely that any so-called suspect had an alibi for at least one of the murders.

Show us Druitt' s alibi then . And were you have gotten the idea that Kosminski had an alibi for at least one of the killings is anyone's guess .

Cambridge Dictionary , Alibi - proof that someone who is thought to have committed a crime could not have done it, especially the fact or statement that they were in another place at the time it happened:

[Darryl Kenyon]

It seems to me that the discussion about Druitt isn't getting very far because we're arguing over the definition of alibi. I think that to move the discussion forward, it would help to drop the word "alibi" from it. My take is that it isn't impossible for Druitt to have killed Nichols, but because of the tight frame, rather unlikely. I believe he also played cricket later in the day that Chapman died. If Druitt were JtR, how likely is it that he'd chose days to commit his crimes in which he'd have to hurry off to play cricket some distance away?

For what it is worth I agree with you. I doubt Druitt was the ripper. But can we categorically rule him out because he had an alibi, [ like Ostrog ] as PI suggests , well no

Regards Darryl