Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fisherman]

Like reading all the newspaper reports of the inquest quoting Cross. Counting them up. Seeing that the majority clearly said “around 3.30.” Then writing the opposite. Then wriggling around because you know that you can’t justify doing it.

I have no problems. But you do, having to prove a case of intentional misleading.

When is that going to happen, Herlock?

[Fisherman]

Clearly you're in the "never mention the rag at all camp"since you ignore the Hooper Street rag and give prominence to the St Phillips Church rag.

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. And to be frank, the naysayers coincidence account has been overdrawn for years now.
Can you think, Fiver, of any author presenting a theory about a suspect and finding this kind of stuff - a dumped murder victim in the suspects childhood street of all St Georges streets, placed in a railway arch that took tearing down his mothers old lodgings, and a bloody rag placed exactly on a straight line drawn from that dumping site up to the suspects lodgings - who would NOT point it out?
An "honest" author perhaps?
But I AM honest, and - in conflict with you dishonest claim that I would have refused to say that the rag was not connected to Lechmere - I did point this out very clearly, for example in Cutting Point: "Of course, this second apron cannot be conclusively linked to the Pinchin Street victim the way Catherine Eddowes´ apron was linked to her".
So why don't I mention the Hooper Street rag? Isn't that dishonest? No, it is not. I am presenting the case against Charles Lechmere, not the case for his innocence. If I was, it would A/ produce a book thicker than the Bible, and B/ take away from the clarity of the case I am making.
Make, if you will, the assumption that the police would have set up a cold case group in 1895, devoted to looking at the many people involved in the case. Then make the assumption that they came to suspect Lechmere.
If they then were alerted to the two rags found on the day after the dumping of the torso, would they go: "Oh, look, that rag was dumped in an exact line from the arch up to Mr Lechmeres lodgings - but no, on second thought, it can have no bearing on then case, since another rag was found in Hooper Street. Bugger!"

Your guess is not as good as mine, I believe.

A general coverage of the Pinchin Street Torso wouldn't mention either bloody rag, they're just random bits of rubbish.

Isn't that you claiming for a fact that the rags are proven not to be connected to the case? Tell us how you did that!
Myself, I would recommend not trying to sweep potentially very damning evidence under the carpet, they way you would prefer.

I tell you what, you are welcome to bang on about YOUR rag as much as you like to, and I will bang on about mine.

Deal?

A more detailed coverage would to mention that the Hooper Street rag was found a few hundred yards from the Pinchin Street Torso a couple hours afterwards, while the St Phillips Church rag was found the next day, nowhere near Pinchin Street. It would also mention that neither rag is proven to have anything to do with the Pinchin Street Torso.

My coverage DID mention that the St Philips rag is not proven to have had anything to do with the Pinchin Street torso, so you can have no complaint about that. But it WOULD be fair if you showed us the evidence for how I would have "refused to acknowledge" it!

You see, making those kinds of allegations comes with a duty.

And a little remark: It is not WHEN and WHERE the rags were found that tells us whether or not they were possibly linked to the crime. The "when" is just ridiculous, there are zillions of examples of evidence altering a case when they are found late in the process. And the "where" in this case is massively affected how one of the rags was found in an exact line from the dumping site to a suspects lodgings. If a killer can walk half a mile then he can also walk one and a half. And it would be equally "logic" to say that the St Philips rag seems to point to a killer who took care to throw away evidence at a fair distance from the crime site. Then again, I would not make those kinds of "points", because I would feel silly about it. But you don't seem to mind.

Any kind of good coverage would not mention Charles Lechmere in the context, since there is no evidence that he had anything to to with the Torso or either bloody rag.

Dont be ridiculous. Any kind of good coverage would never sweep the rag under the carpet (see what I did there?), while it would also need to point out that although the rag WAS found in an exact line from the arch to Lechmeres lodgings, it is not proven to have had anything to do with the torso.

Lousy, biased coverage would mention the St Phillips Church rag and ignore the Hooper Street rag. Lousy, biased coverage would draw a Ley Line to Lechmere while ignoring you could draw the same Ley Line to thousands of Londoners. Lousy, biased coverage would be to ignore that St James Church rag was not on any likely walking route between Pinchin Street and the Lechmere home. Lousy, biased coverage would be to ignore that Lechmere wouldn't be going home at 5:30am, he would be at work.

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

[Fisherman]

Oh, come on Fiver... what possible reason would Swanson have for even thinking that three constabless from two divisions and a reknowned Inspector and professional horrologist would have a better understanding of the timelines of the combined interwoven overlapping movements of those involved, when put aganst mouthy carman Robert Paul's estimate of "Ass-pull O'clock"

A good example of where the reasoning of the naysayers goes when faced with unsurmountable problems. To the pub.

[Fisherman]

Only Fisherman would use Lechmere having a job to imply that Lechmere was a serial killer.

Back in the real world, Fisherman's source had nothing to do with work stress, Fisherman only provided his personal speculation that work stress could lead to becoming a serial killer. Fisherman has not shown that Lechmere's work stress was in any way different from the 10s of thousands of other carmen, or that the work stress of carmen was unique to the trade.

But why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good theory?

See my posts to your friends.

[Fisherman]

Or that newspaper was rounding to the nearest quarter hour instead of trying to set an exact time.

They were gauging against the half hour trek of Neil. It is that simple.

And since when should we take a single newspaer's estimate over the estimates of three police constables and the offical report by inspector Abberline?

Since Baxter summed the case up, stating as a fact that the body was found at 3.45 or not far off. That is when.

Inspector Spratling gave a report on 31 August 1888 stating that PC Neil had found Nichols body at 3;45am.

... and at this stage, Charles Lechmeres role was not known.

Inspector Abberline's report was on 19 September 1888. PC Neil, PC Mizen, Charles Lechmere, PC Thain, and Robery Paul had testified in court, with Abberline being present for testimony. Abberline estimated that Lechmeme found the body around 3:40am. There is no evidence that Abberline ever changed that view.

...nor is there any evidence that he did not. The coroners summary did not arrive until September 22, well AFTER the 19th of September report, so we don't know Abberlines response to it. But it would be very, very odd if he opposed Baxters fixed timing.

Inspector Swanson gave a report on 19 October 1888 where he estimated that Lechmere and Paul found the body around 3:45am.

Which leads to two possibilities.
* Swanson discounted the testimonies of PC Mizen, PC Neil, and PC Thain, as well as Abberline's and Spratling's report's.
* Swanson was rounding to the nearest quarter hour.

The second seems much more likely and is reinforced by the fact that the coroner, the jury, the police, and the press did not see any time gap in the testimonies.

The second suggestion is ridiculous, since we all know that no "rounding off to the nearest quarter hour" would be helpful in telling two timings apart that were divided by five minutes only. Nobody, not the police, not the inquest, nor the papers, had any difficulty at all understanding that if Neil got to the body at 3.45, then Lechmere got there around 3.40. Similarly, none of them would have any difficulties to understand the implications for Neil et al when the coroner established that the body was found not around 3.40 but instead around 3.45.

[Fisherman]

And I think the option to... just get another job...maybe go work for the railways - booming industry and all that? Even use some of the money you saved and maybe start working for yourself... would be a better solution than going straight to "Murder Rampage".
Maybe he only realised that he had that option just a little bit too late... and stopped killing people and started saving money?

"Stressed at work" is just another insubstantial "What IF..." and that's all there is to the theory.

Yes, it is another "What if?". That is absolutely correct. But I have little doubt that we will in the future see posters out here claiming that I would have said that I am certain that this was what set Lechmere off.

That is how it goes out here, you see.

[Fisherman]

Yes thank you again, Fisherman,



No you are absolutely right. I can't prove it. You said what you said. You don't think the police necessarily checked if Pickfords had a Charles Cross in their employ. You are parsing words and I am okay with that. Put it however you want it, Mr. Fish.

This has been Your and Ed's Big Deal for as long as I can remember. He fooled the police and everyone by using an alias.

it's gone on for so long now, no one else seems to give a hoot except ole' Goose. But to me, it will always be your starting point, which I find sorely lacking. A dud for all the obvious reasons.

You must recall old Boss
A Cross is just a Cross

You may rest assured that I WILL "put it however I want it", Mr Goose. And thank you for acknowledging that you falsely claimed that I would have said things that I have never said.

Your efforts to try and tarnish me in retrospect will be, I'm sure, much welcomed in some camps, but that matters very little to me. What carries weight is that I can, over and over again, show that the ongoing charade out here is not truthful.

[Fisherman]

I would have thought that Lech being 20 odd years in the same job would be a pointer towards him being quite satisfied in his position of employment

Regards Darryl

Three buts:

We dont know how easy it would have been for him to change jobs.

It may be that the harsh employment conditions mentioned in the article were not there as he set out as a carman.

We have no idea whether Lechmere personally was affected by the conditions in which case Fivers suggestions were moot from the start, and in which case he may have had other factors that set him off killing. Which he may of course have had anyway - my posts on this are simply meant to point out that harsh working conditions CAN be a reason for why a potential serial killer is set off.

[Fisherman]

And that staggeringly pointless point would apply to every single ripper suspect with a job. I’m waiting for you to claim the fact that he had arms as a point in favour of his guilt.

Yes, bravo, Herlock! It would apply to every single Ripper suspect who suddenly got a much more straining job by way of having working hours added. You have, at long last, grasped what I am saying.

You are welcome to explain to us why it would be staggeringly pointless to point out that elements that can set off serial killing may have been there in Lechmeres case. Personally, I always thought that if such a thing could be pointed to, it would be of tremendous interest.

And it is of course noteworthy that it came up in a context that was aimed to prove how Lechmere was perhaps LESS likely to commit murder than other Eastenders.

[Fisherman]

Then all that you have to do is this…..

Give us all a reasonable explanation that explains how you read the newspaper reports of what Cross said at the inquest and came to the conclusion that the majority said that he’s said ‘3.30’ as opposed to ‘around 3.30’ which is what the majority actually said.

And could you make it a waffle-free answer and one that doesn’t have us all rolling around laughing please?

Im interested to see how long you can dodge this issue for?

It is not I who must disprove that your allegations are false, it is YOU who need to prove them right. And you cannot do that.

If you believe that making false allegations about a fellow poster being a liar, deceitful and dishonest is a reason to roll around laughing, I beg to differ. I consider it extremely rude and totally misleading, since I have never once sought to mislead anybody about anything in the Ripper saga.

What you need to prove that I would have tried to intentionally mislead, is any documentation that this was so. Suspecting it does not work, as anybody with any sort of functioning reason would be quite aware about.

Here is a snippet from Michael Connors dissertation on here "Did the Ripper Work for Pickfords?":

"The Star (3 September) wrote: ‘He [Cross] was employed by Pickfords. He left home on Friday at twenty minutes past three, and got to Pickfords’ yard at Broad-street at four o’clock.’ The Times agreed, reporting that Cross ‘stated that he left home on Friday morning at 20 minutes past three, and he arrived at his work, at Broad-street, at four o’clock.’ In 1888, Pickfords was a long-established British firm of carriers who are still in business today.

The statement in the Star and Times are incorrect. Cross was with Robert Paul in Buck’s Row at approximately 3.45 and with PC Mizen shortly after, so it would have been impossible for him to have reached Broad Street by 4am. Other newspapers—the Daily News (4 September) and Daily Telegraph (4 September)—said he left home about 3.30 and the Morning Advertiser (4 September) appeared to be offering Cross’s own words, which agreed with this later timing: ‘On Friday morning I left home at half past three.’ These discrepancies are explainable.

Walking time between Doveton Street, where Cross lived, and Broad Street, where he worked for Pickfords, is about 40 minutes. Cross may have told Coroner Wynne Baxter that he usually left home at 3.20 and arrived at Broad Street at four o’clock, but on Friday he was late and left home at 3.30. In the Daily News story, Cross claimed that he was ‘behind time’. If this is what happened, then the Star and The Times recorded his usual timetable, while the Daily News, Daily Telegraph and Morning Advertiser gave the time he claimed to have left home on the day of the murder. Cross may have been explaining why he was in Buck’s Row at a later time than usual.

Walking time between Doveton Street and the Buck’s Row murder site today is approximately six minutes—it would have been quicker in 1888. Even on the basis of this modern timing, if he left home on that morning about 3.30 then he would have been in Buck’s Row about 3.36."

Note how Michael Connor does not suggest that the finding time was around 3.45. He says that this was so, and uses this as the starting point for his reasoning.

He then quotes the Dn and the DT as both saying "about 3.30" and adds that the Morning Advertiser had it without the "about": "I left home at half past three". And then Connor says that the Dn and DT timings agree with the Morning Advertiser.
You don't think they agree at all, do you? You think they disagree.

And what happens then? Well, then Connor says that Cross may have told Coroner Wynne Baxter that he usually left home at 3.20 and arrived at Broad Street at four o’clock, but on Friday he was late and left home at 3.30.

The scoundrel!

He LEFT OUT the about!!

So, Herlock, was Connors aim to mislead and lie, to misrepresent and deceitfully lead his readers up the garden path?

Or was he simply reasoning theoretically about where it takes us if we work from the 3.30 timing? While supplying the information that the wording "about" was actually there in two named papers?

Which is it? When do people turn into liars in your eyes, for reasoning theoretically about these things and actually using the only time given when doing so? This is where you normally start claiming that Lechmere did NOT give the timing 3.30, he gave the timing "about" 3.30. But as you can see, people reasoning about it WILL use the 3.30 thing as the starting point of their thinking and reasoning anyway - becasue it IS the time Lechmere suggested he left home, REGARDLESS of how he garnished it with an "about".
As I have said a thousand times now, any theoretical reasoning will and must work from 3.30. No theoretical reasoning that worked from 3.29 or 3.31 would be as sound, and every added or detracted minute would make it worse.

Again, you have failed to provide any sort of evidence at all for how I would have tried to intentionally mislead my readers by way of not adding the "about" to the theoretical reasoning I - and Michael Connor - do about where we end up IF Lechmere left home at 3.30.

Again, you have failed to prove your allegations.

And you have now added the element that it would somehow lie upon ME to clear myself of YOUR unproven allegations?

And then you speak of rolling around laughing? When you time and time again make these kind of posts, the laughing is not on me, Herlock. The laughing - AND the crying - is all on you.

Proof, please! NOW!

[FrankO]

With the problem that everybody owned a clock or watch, especially in the poorer parts of town, and with clocks & watches not necessarily being synchronized, I think our modern sense of time is different than that of 1888 and to pinpoint things to the minute would simply be undoable. [/FONT][/FONT]

That should, of course, read: With the problem that not everybody owned a clock or watch...

[Fiver]

Your theory requires Spratling to ignore the Coroners order and not make inquiries at every house in Buck's Row.

No, as per the above, my theory does not require that at all. There is no problem at all with my theory, but I cannot say the same for yours - it predisposed that the coroner would have placed the task of interviewing all the inhabitants of Bucks Row on the shoulders of Spratling. And that is not credible in any shape or form.

Your theory is that the police did not make inquiries at all of the houses on Buck's Row, even though they were ordered to do so by Coroner Baxter and even though they reported making inquiries at all of the house adjoining Buck's Row.

Why would Inspector Spratling ignore Baxter's orders to make inquiries at all the houses in Bucks Row?

Why would the police make inquiries at all the houses adjoining Buck's Row and not make inquiries at all the houses in Buck's Row?

[Fiver]

If Baxter really was as focused on uncovering Lechmere’s finding time as you think he was, then why don’t we see anything similar in Stride’s case? After all, it’s clear that PC Smith’s timing of “about 1 am” arriving at the corner of Commercial Road and Berner Street doesn’t go with either Diemshutz (1 am) or Blackwell’s (1.16) or Lamb’s (1.04 to 1.06, based on Blackwell’s timing). According to his own account he saw PC’s Lamb and Collins when arrived in Dutfield’s Yard and he hadn’t seen PC 426 H running for the doctor. Just when Smith left the yard to go for the ambulance at Leman Street police station, he saw Blackwell’s assistant arrive. So, Smith’s timing was off by at least some 5 minutes. Yet, we see no evidence at all of Baxter being harsh on Smith or adjusting Diemshutz’s discovery time.

The best to you too, Christer.

Frank

Excellent post.

If Baxter was as focused on uncovering Lechemre's finding time as Fisherman thinks he was, then why don't we see it in the Nichols case? Lechmere wasn't asked what time he found the body, what time he found PC Mizen, or what time he parted company with Robert Paul near Spitalfield's Market. Paul wasn't asked what time he parted company with Lechmere. PC Mizen wasn't asked what time he reached Buck's Row. PC Neil wasn't asked what times he encountered PCs Thain and Mizen.

[FrankO]

There is even need to go over this many times, I feel, Frank. And for good reasons.

Maybe you need to go over it once more or many times, but I don't feel a particular need, Christer.

So Baxter KNEW who found the body, the police KNEW who found the body, the press KNEW who found the body and wrote that the body must have been found between 3.15 and 3.45, not before 3.40 - but you believe that Baxter, when speaking in his summary about the time at which the body was found, was referring back to Neil, still thinking that the PC had found the body at 3.45? Although Baxter said that the body was found at 3.45 or not far off it?

Yup. As I've said in previous exchanges between us on the subject, Baxter indeed referred back to Neil's timing, because that was the closest one he had and immediately before giving his "cannot have been far from 3.45" bit, he actually mentioned Neil discovering the body. I know you don't agree with it, but that's how I see and read it. And, again, Baxter didn't say "the body was found at 3.45 or not far off it"; he just said "not far from 3.45" - as below.

"Cross and Paul reported the circumstance to a constable at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, about 300 yards distant, but in the meantime Police constable Neil discovered the body. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from a quarter to four a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data."

So, while your "not far from 3.45" means "at 3.45 or perhaps give or take one minute", mine means that it might also have been 3.40.

I'll leave you to it.

The best,
Frank

[Fiver]

Is there a link to this map?

I don't think Fisherman has drawn one. Jeff Hamm has helpfully done this at my request.

The orange lines are between Mitre Square and the Goulston Street Graffito. They completely refute one tenet of the Ley Line school - the claim that the GSG was on a direct line between Mitre Square and Lechemre's residence at 22 Doveton Street.

The blue lines go from Pichin Street to the St Phillips Church. They are a cone, not a line, since we only know they were found inside the fence, somewhere around the perimeter of the block, since the church was undergoing construction at the time.




The cone passes over hundreds of houses, one of which was Charles Lechmere's. It doesn't point at anyone's house.

There's no evidence that the bloody rag had anything to do with the Pinchin Street Torso.

And real people use streets, they don't bound across the rooftops on straight lines like Springheeled Jack. Shortest walking routes between Pichin Street and the Lechmere residence would not pass by the St Phillip's Church.