Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, Herlock, you have proven nothing, so stop claiming that you have. For you to know my reasoning, you would have to be able to read my mind. And since you are not, your claim of lies and deception on my behalf is nothing but a sad invention on your behalf.

That is what you are flaunting.

Its a statement of fact that you haven’t been able to give an explanation for. Because there isn’t one.

[Fiver]

What Baxter said was, and I am quoting the Morning Advertiser, "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data". But to be perfectly honest, Frank - does not "cannot have been far off 3.45" MEAN "at 3.45 or not far off it" ....? Or does the "not far off" mean that we should work from the assumption that it was off, only not far off...?
Just as when we say "I left home at around 3.30", it means that 3,30 is the time we are suggesting as a likelihood, a suggestion meaning that 3.45 is our best guess, although we accept that we may be wrong about it to a degree?

You selectively quote both Frank and Baxter - again.

And repeatedly ignore that Baxter also said "What her exact movements were after this it was impossible to say; but in less than an hour and a quarter her dead body was discovered at a spot rather under three-quarters of a mile distant."

Which means that Baxter was saying Nichols body was found before 3:45am.

There is no evidence of a time gap.

[Fiver]

Every time I repeat the fact that the St Philips rag was found in an exact line between the arch and Lechmeres lodgings, I point to a circumstance that potentially has a very clear bearing on the case.

Every time you claim that I would have claimed that there IS a proven link between the rag and Lechmere, you are lying - unless what you are saying is that the rag is PROVEN to have been found in a direct line between the arch and Lechmeres lodgings.

Do not accuse me of any misleadings, Fiver. It always backfires.

Like now.

But by all means, go on trying to spread cowling about me - it provides me with excellent opportunities to show who it is that lives submerged in the stuff.

Who, for example, falsely claims that I would have "refused to acknowledge" that the St Philips rag is not linked to Lechmere or the Pinchin Street murder. As I have provided conclusive proof for in the above, this is a false accusation of yours.

Every time you repeat your Ley Line theory, you are claiming there is a connection between the bloody rag and Charles Lechmere.

[Fiver]

No, my words do not show that I have no evidence. My word claims that you need to look for the evidence yourself, since I am not going to do hours of work only to then have it pooped on by you. And if you can prove that stress and a feeling of lost control is not regarded as common factors in the starting up process for many a serial killer, then fine. But you can't.
You have to settle for making false claims about how my reluctance to dig for hours on end in a leash you provided would somehow prove me wrong. It does not.

If you had any evidence that work related stress could lead to serial killing, you would have provided it. Every time you dodge the question proves you have no evidence.

[Fiver]

Nope. But lousy, biased criticism would want to sweep the rag under the carpet (see what I did there? Again!)

You swept the bloody garment that didn't fit your theory under the rug - again.

[Fiver]

I already told you that the only rag that has any bearing for my reasoning is the St Philips rag - and it is either one of the greatest coincidences in criminal history, or a useful piece of evidence.

Good to see you admitting that you accept or discard facts based on whether it fits your theory. Facts are only evidence if they can be shown to have some bearing on the case. The most likely explanation for the St Philips Church apron piece is that it is a random bit of rubbish. There is no evidence that ties it to the Pinchin Street Torso. Its location does not point towards anyone.

In addition to you misusing the word "evidence", you also misuse the word "coincidence".

Coincidence - a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance. - Dictionary.com

Multiple bloodstained garments being found in the area is a coincidence.

Your Ley Line is a series of deliberate choices.
* You chose to draw a line, even though there are no examples in history or fiction of criminals dropping evidence on a direct line between the crime scene and their home.
* You chose to not draw a line to the bloody garment found in Hooper Street.
* You chose to draw a line to the bloody apron found near the St Philip's church, even though there is no evidence that they are connected.
* You chose to ignore that we don't know exactly where on the property the bloody apron was found, which means that lines could be drawn to thousands of homes.
* You chose to draw a line to Charles Lechemre's home, ignoring all of those thousands of other homes that you could have drawn a line to.

And you chose to misrepresent your series of deliberate choices as a coincidence.

[Fisherman]

Someone's getting a bit touchy.

Yeah, you know, I was always like that; I always disliked being called a fraudster and a liar by people who had nothing at all to prove their accusations by but their personal convictions. It IS perhaps touchy, but we are all different - in many ways.

[Fisherman]

I would have thought that if stress brought along by harsh working conditions was one of the reasons for serial murderers to start a killing spree the east end of 1888 would have been full of them.

That would predispose that anybody could become a serial killer. But that is not so. Only the fewest of people are wired in that way, which is a very lucky thing.

Of course we can't totally rule it out completely but to me Lech had been , as stated, in employment with Pickford's a very long time with , as far as I am aware , apart from the earlier accidental death of a young boy which Lech was totally cleared of, a clean record. If he hadn't a good record it is hard to see how he kept in the same job all that time. He must have been reliable at the very least . So him finding another job as a carman with better working conditions if needs be wouldn't have been insurmountable if he felt a total sense of helplessness .

Speculation. We just dont know, although I agree that he would perhaps have been likely to be able to find an alternative work. But as long as we don't know, we don't know.

I am no clinical psychologist and this is a bit old hat but I would speculate Jack had a deep rooted psychological hatred [ and perhaps fear ], of females in general, possibly brought on with the feelings he had towards his Mother. And that's where his killing spree came from within his psyche , so to speak.

That is a possibility. But what I am pointing to is how surrounding conditions can make that kind of powder explode, as a setting off factor.

Why he started said spree when he did, who knows ?

Nobody, actually.

But one example could be the loss of his job and livelihood which I would personally favour over being stuck in a rut within his job. There are many other possible reasons why , rejection off a woman , catching a sexually transmitted disease etc

Regards Darryl

Yes, absolutely. But I never said that the working conditions MUST have been the reason. What I said was that if he found the working conditions very stressful and putting him out of control, then they may - instead of having made him too tired to kill - actually have set off the business.

[Fisherman]

It's not a cliffhanger. I think you should choose the historical record instead of your own subjective wording of it. Indiscriminately referring to it as a 'rag' has already led to confusion on JTR Forums.

The historical record tells us that the apron found up at St Philips had blood on it. Anybody who found it and said "Look, a rag!" would be perfectly entitled to do so. Similarly, anybody who found it and said "Look, an apron" would be perfectly in his right to say so too.
I understand now that your worries are all bout how people may accept that the piece of cloth (hope you don't mind that description) was used as a rag, and thereby was in many ways similar to the Goulston Street rag. We KNOW that the apron piece there WAS used as a rag, and so you would likely prefer that one to be called a rag, and the St Philips one an apron with blood on it.
Is that about correct, R J?
You see, you also run the risk of people accepting your bid that the St Philips cloth should be called an apron - but maybe they also start calling the Goulston Street rag an apron. Which it WAS, or part of an apron to be more exact.
So you see, any which way you try to damage limit, you run a risk of people seeing a likeness in between the two pieces of cloth.

I wouldn't normally feel the need to press you on this point but 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.

The information about the suggested gap is a very necessary one, make no mistake. There are posters out here that claim it as a fact that there was no gap, you see. That is not hairsplitting, admittedly, but instead an invention of a fact. But it needs to be pointed out anyway, I think.

No one ever referred to the complete apron found at the building site of St. Philip's Church as anything other than an apron.

Actually, they did. It was described as " a portion of a woman's attire" too. Not a whole apron, but a portion. The idea seems to have been that it was thought initially to be a part of something, like a torn off or cut away piece of cloth - like a rag.
But wait a moment! Have we defined what a rag IS, R J?
I donat think so.
Here is a little help, from Merriam-Websters dictionary:
1
a
: a waste piece of cloth
b
rags plural : clothes usually in poor or ragged condition
c
: CLOTHING
the rag trade

Now, to which category would the apron up at St Philips have belonged? Note, if you will, that the category "Cloth used to wipe hand on" is not among the alternatives. Personally, I would say that " a waste piece of cloth" covers it nicely. If you disagree, just tell me.

The journalist made the awkward comment that the apron "had apparently contained human remains" but this does not allow is to call it a 'rag' any more than calling it a satchel or a stretcher or a coffin. You seem to wish to imply that this event parallels the Mitre Square murder but there is no reason to draw this conclusion. Most blatantly, the Mitre Square murder was committed where Eddowes was found, whereas the Pinchin Street victim was brought to the railway arch from an undisclosed location, so the parallel that that you seem to be insinuating is strained.

I'm not suggesting that you have ulterior motives, but the 'rough apron' worn by the women of East London was a large affair and referring to it as a 'rag' makes the idea of someone lugging it half a mile through the streets of East London along a curiously straight path more palatable than referring to it as what it actually was: an apron.

That's my two cents, Christer.

Well, now you have MY two cents. And Merriam-Websters. If you think they have "ulterior motives", you need to contact the company.

Njut I concur that the curiously straight line can look curious to some. To others, I bet it will look more like a confirmation.

That too is a question of different takes on different things. But if we all keep calm and don't panic when items surface that can look as if they point a very clear finger at Charles Lechmere, we may be able to have a better discussion.

[Fisherman]

The only thing that’s clear is that you’ve given no explanation. As I expected. Just the usual climbing onto the high horse with a bit of fake outrage thrown in.

Point 100% proven.

No, Herlock, you have proven nothing, so stop claiming that you have. For you to know my reasoning, you would have to be able to read my mind. And since you are not, your claim of lies and deception on my behalf is nothing but a sad invention on your behalf.

That is what you are flaunting.

[Fisherman]

Frank O:

And there’s the problem right there, the way I see it. We’re not disagreeing on the facts, but on the interpretation of those facts, because Baxter said something that could be interpreted in different ways. So, I don’t stretch the facts, I just attach another meaning to it than you. I say the 3.45 refers to Neil’s discovery time and, so, not far from it could have been a matter of 3, 4, 5 minutes; you say the 3.45 is the time Lechmere found Nichols, give or take a minute.

I’ve expressed my critical notes to your view and you’ve now made your rebuttal, which, to be honest, hasn’t convinced me. But that's okay. So, as you propose at the end of your post, let’s disagree. I really think that’s the best offer, I don’t see any need in going over all of your post. Let’s call it a day - at least for now.

The best,
Frank

I am perfectly fine to disagree about this. I would not change a syllable in my take.

[Fisherman]

A long winded answer as always, and as usual, little attempt to deal with the subject.

I dealt extensively with the subject, so don't try to claim otherwise, please.

Baxter clearly indicated that the body was found "less than an hour and a quarter" after 2.30 am, and therefore before 3. 45 am, and you can waffle for as long as you wish. That is what he said. So "not far off" can only mean shortly before 3. 45 am. It cannot mean 3. 45 am because that is not "less than an hour and a quarter". The only reason that this discussion is continuing is because you refuse to accept that "less than an hour and a quarter" means less than an hour and a quarter!

"Not far off" involves every time that is close to 3.45, including 3.44.59. That IS less than an hour and a quarter, I'm afraid.

It is another matter that I personally think that what the coroner was trying to say was "no more than an hour and a quarter afterwards, she was found dead", and worded himself badly. Of course, drawn to its harshest conclusion, "no more than" ALSO can be seen as saying "before 3.45", but what the coroner was in all probability trying to convey was not an exact positioning of the latest possible time of death, but instead he commented on how a life was cut short in a very brutal and quick way - one second, you are speaking to a friend, and the next, you are lying cold and dead in Bucks Row.

This is how I see it, and accordingly, if you are going to claim that the body, as per the coroner, must have been found before 3.45, in spite of how he said that the body must have been found "at a time not far off 3.45" - meaning that he used 3.45 as a CENTER suggestion, not a far extreme one, I am going to stick to how 3.44.59 IS before 3.45. And it is also the time that is CLOSEST to the coroners estimation, and so the likeliest time.

3.44.59 it is, then. Fine by me.

[John Wheat]

I am very certain that just about nobody else than you (and a few other Casebook participators like you-know-who) would get it into their heads to accuse me or Michael Connor - of having intentionally tried to mislead the ones reading our books and essays.
I am equally certain that my book has been greeted with lots of enthusiasm and people by the hundreds saying that they are now convinced that then killer has been found.
Finally, I remain utterly convinced that your accusations are incredibly rude, absolutely false and that the garbage found in a garbage bin would flee if they were to be mixed with these accusations in the reeking infestations at their mucky bottoms.

I hope that is clear enough for you, because I am done with this nonsense now.

Someone's getting a bit touchy.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I would have thought that if stress brought along by harsh working conditions was one of the reasons for serial murderers to start a killing spree the east end of 1888 would have been full of them.
Of course we can't totally rule it out completely but to me Lech had been , as stated, in employment with Pickford's a very long time with , as far as I am aware , apart from the earlier accidental death of a young boy which Lech was totally cleared of, a clean record. If he hadn't a good record it is hard to see how he kept in the same job all that time. He must have been reliable at the very least . So him finding another job as a carman with better working conditions if needs be wouldn't have been insurmountable if he felt a total sense of helplessness .
I am no clinical psychologist and this is a bit old hat but I would speculate Jack had a deep rooted psychological hatred [ and perhaps fear ], of females in general, possibly brought on with the feelings he had towards his Mother. And that's where his killing spree came from within his psyche , so to speak.
Why he started said spree when he did, who knows ? But one example could be the loss of his job and livelihood which I would personally favour over being stuck in a rut within his job. There are many other possible reasons why , rejection off a woman , catching a sexually transmitted disease etc

Regards Darryl

[rjpalmer]

Both pieces of cloth, the one found in Goulston Street and coming from the apron of Catherine Eddowes as well as the one found up at St Philips church were aprons (or part of an apron). And both these pieces of cloth had evidently been used as rags.

I donīt see why we would not be able to use both "rag" and "apron".

And we do not want Fiver getting upset about how I am pointing out that they both WERE apron cloth, do we? He could get it into his head that I am trying to make a point about it, if I do adjust to your wish.

So who shall I please? You or Fiver?

Or do I choose my own way?

That is quite a cliffhanger!

It's not a cliffhanger. I think you should choose the historical record instead of your own subjective wording of it. Indiscriminately referring to it as a 'rag' has already led to confusion on JTR Forums.

I wouldn't normally feel the need to press you on this point but 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.

No one ever referred to the complete apron found at the building site of St. Philip's Church as anything other than an apron. The journalist made the awkward comment that the apron "had apparently contained human remains" but this does not allow is to call it a 'rag' any more than calling it a satchel or a stretcher or a coffin. You seem to wish to imply that this event parallels the Mitre Square murder but there is no reason to draw this conclusion. Most blatantly, the Mitre Square murder was committed where Eddowes was found, whereas the Pinchin Street victim was brought to the railway arch from an undisclosed location, so the parallel that that you seem to be insinuating is strained.

I'm not suggesting that you have ulterior motives, but the 'rough apron' worn by the women of East London was a large affair and referring to it as a 'rag' makes the idea of someone lugging it half a mile through the streets of East London along a curiously straight path more palatable than referring to it as what it actually was: an apron.

That's my two cents, Christer.