Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[FrankO]

Hi Christer,

Before I’m going into this post of yours I have some remarks.

First off, I’m not R J; I’m Frank. Please don’t forget me.

Secondly, it would not only be courteous of you, but also more effective if you could 1) remember my view on what Baxter meant with his “not far from 3.45”, and 2) take off your “it’s an established fact that Baxter investigated all relevant timings and was, as a result, able to conclude that Lechmere had found the body at 3.45, give or take a minute” goggles off for a moment and try to see how things would look from my side. That way I wouldn’t need to rewrite how I see things every time I respond to something you write.

I have no trouble seeing things from your perspective and, in doing so, understand why you see certain things the way you do, so it would be nice if you’d extend me the same courtesy.

Having said that, let’s go into what you’ve written.

It was always extremely obvious that there were two suggestions of when the body was found, around 3.40 if the PCs were correct, and around 3.45 if Paul was correct. I am not going to accept that Baxter could have been unaware of this, generally speaking.

Yes, in theory there would be 2 suggestions of when the body was found and they would be extremely obvious to anybody who would be interested in getting to the bottom of when, exactly, the body was found by Lechmere. So, I’m not suggesting Baxter would have been unaware of anything, I just very seriously doubt that anybody, including Baxter, would be as interested in it as you are or I am. 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.

But his harsh questioning of Thain proves that he was aware of the matter.

The first things the coroner asked Thain were not about his timing but first about the blood and then about whether he had searched the neighbourhood. So this doesn’t fit very well with your suggestion that Thain’s timing was important to Baxter. Had that been the case, then the first thing to get cleared up was his timing and asking him some questions about it.

What’s also interesting is that it wasn’t the coroner who asked Thain about whether he’d passed the slaughterhouse on his way to the doctor but it was someone on the jury.

All in all, this doesn’t give me the impression of any harsh questioning in the sense of trying to get to the bottom of why it might have taken him so long to get to the doctor’s before anything else or whether his timing might have been off 5 minutes or so. Yes, he was asked a question about whether he had passed by the slaughterhouse on his way to the doctor, but not by the coroner and only near the end of his inquest appearance; it certainly wasn’t the first question he was asked.

I would also persist in saying that no coroner could have concluded what Baxter concluded without involving one or more timepieces. If he did not use that element, he would never be able to say that he could fix the time to 3.45 or not far off that mark.

I can understand that you’d persist that when you’re assuming it as fact that Baxter investigated the timings and concluded what you think he concluded. However, as far as I’m concerned, what you consider a fact is only your interpretation and can’t be anything other than that.

That I agree with. But there are matters that need not be stated out loud, if the evidence ensures that they were there. And it does in this case. Of course, you are free to disagree, but I cannot see how that would work. Which is perhaps an indications that ... well, that I am unable to see something you can see. If so, tell me about it.

It isn’t so difficult. I can see that, if you presume that your interpretation of Baxter’s summing up “could not have been far from 3.45” is the correct one, that you then can’t see how things would work. However, if you let go of that presumption, open your mind to the notion that Baxter, or anybody else for that matter, quite possibly didn’t look at the timings with our modern eyes (meaning that we think in matter of minutes), but rather that it would be undoable to try to pinpoint things to the minute (or two), then it would work.

From behind: I don't say that the "the other man ..." snippet proves anything, Frank, although it IS in line with what I am suggesting, as is the wording "I sent the other man for a policeman" in the Morning Advertiser. These are things I point out because they are potentially adding a measure of confirmation to my take on things.
The "not far off 3.45" matter is another thing, ...

If Mizen did actually say or tried to say that Paul continued to walk down Hanbury Street while he and Lechmere spoke, the snippet would really be a very awkward & vague way of saying it. There’s no way of going around it or denying it. But seeing the other two snippets (Star of 3/9 & Times of 4/9) of what was said, it should become clear that Mizen didn’t say that Paul continued while he spoke to Lechmere.
So, it should be clear that this snippet really is, at best, the thinnest and flimsiest of evidence to base your view on/to support your view. And as far as I’m concerned, the same goes for your “cannot have been far from 3.45” theory/evidence.

...and here, I am not saying that it potentially tells us that the timing of 3.45 is likely the correct one. I am saying that it establishes that this was so, although it has not been given that status before.
So why would my take seal it? Am I that arrogant?

So in post #191 on The Darkness of Baker’s Row” you say that you “don't say that it is necessarily the correct one”, referring to your interpretation of what Baxter meant by “it cannot have been far from 3.45”. But now you’re claiming that it is?

Whatever the case, as long as your interpretation is just one possible interpretation, it can never be a base to establish anything. So, your take doesn’t seal a thing. I’m not going to say that you are arrogant, but you sure can come off as such, Christer.

Nope, it was never a question of my take, it is a question of the coroners take, who says that he can prove that the body was found at 3.45 or not far off 3.45. That is what he says when he says that the time has been fixed to that point.

Except he didn’t say “at 3.45”, he said “not far from 3.45”; they are not the same thing.

Why did not a single Ripper researcher notice it until more than a hundred years after the murders?

I’m not asking about Ripper researchers and I’m not asking about ‘the Mizen scam’ and I’m not interested in some femur bone in John Christie’s case; I’m especially asking about what Baxter found, if he was – as you claim – as keen on getting to the bottom of when Nichols was first found and if he found a maximum of 5 minutes as important as you find it. All the things you add are nothing but smoke & mirrors.

And maybe he was late to work! Or maybe he arrived there, panting baldy after a brisk run! But would he tell the inquest about that if he was the killer - or would he try to give as grey and colorless a version of events? Yes, he ran the risk of the police checking it. But killing always come with risks.

Distraction!

BUT precisely the response I predicted in my post #190 on The Darkness of Baker’s Row. “By the way, it's interesting to see how the 3.30 in "about 3.30" is used to widen the gap, whilst the "he got to Pickford's yard at Broad-street at four o'clock", when used by us naysayer folk, is seen as useless (as in: we can't be certain that it was precisely four o'clock or even very close to it).”

Because, I would suggest, that what Baxter was looking for was the time at which the body was found - and he quickly found out that he had all he needed to establish that time.

And how could he do that, not having the whole picture? I cannot see how that would work. Which is perhaps an indications that ... well, that I am unable to see something you can see. If so, tell me about it.

As for Baxter being investigative, we have it on record that he was. We know that he researched the data, and found that independent parts of them established that 345 or not far off that time was when the body was found.

If you mean by this that we just have all the inquest statements and his summing up and that we don’t know anything he did – investigative-wise – outside any of the inquest sessions, then I agree. He listened to everybody and summed up based on what he’d heard during the inquest sessions. Other than the question put to Thain by the jury about passing by the slaughterhouse on his way to the doctor we have no evidence of him believing any one timing over any other(s) and never disputed any timing. That’s what I go by.

It was only if he asked other questions that he would have needed to look into Lechmeres timings. Apparently, he never asked those questions.

That doesn’t make sense at all. Wasn’t Lechmere the very one who’d found Nichols?? So, why wouldn’t he have been interested in the timings that Lechmere gave?? Especially if he was as bent on getting the finding time right as you think he was and seeing that his 4 o’clock timing was really the only precise timing given by those first 6 witnesses on the scene, it doesn’t make sense and is, therefore, unconvincing!

The writing is on the wall as far as I'm concerned, Frank. I am not changing my mind on the score for reasons given above. You are as welcome as ever to have a different view, but it is a very problematic one if you are going to speak for 3.40 as the likely finding time.

Well, I’m not so hung up on a time, Christer. I’d settle for around, maybe, 3.42, but am certainly not married to it. And my view is further that the only thing that would be problematic is trying to piece together to the minute the comings & goings of our 6 witnesses and that I don’t think Baxter or anybody else for that matter back then would have seen it very differently.

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.

Then again, since when does ripperology prohibit people from entertaining all sorts of views...?

The best to you too, Christer.

Frank

[Fiver]

Speaking about your misrepresentations, Fiver, I would like to direct you back to this exchange from yesterday:

Fiver: As Christer refuses to admit, there is no known connection between the bloody rag and Charles Lechmere, either.

When did I ever "refuse to admit" that there is no known connection between the St Philip rag and Charles Lechmere, Fiver? Please direct me to the quotation you are using for this claim of yours.

If you don't, I will persist.

... and here I am, persisting; tell us when and where I ever "refused to admit" that there is no known connection between the St Philips rag and Charles Lechmere!

The alternative is not telling - which is also telling.

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

[Fiver]

That was not what I did, though. Again, you are twisting words and misinforming. I told you that the net is full of information and research confirming that stress factors can trigger serial murder, and that they can make a serial killer feel deprived of control. This is not any suggestion of mine, it is common knowledge. But I am not going to spend hours on providing material for you, on account of how we both know that you are given to misrepresenting, misinforming and twisting - as proven by the above.

You will never directly admit to being wrong, but your previous post clearly shows that you have no evidence.

"Feel free to do the research and see if there is any coupling made by experts on the matter between stress factors and serial murder." - Christer Holmgren

If you had any evidence that work stress led to serial killing, you would have given it instead of trying to get me to do the research for you.

Your words show that you have no evidence that work stress leads to serial killing. Your words prove what you will never directly admit.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am doing what any discerning researcher should do..

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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?



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

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.

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.

You’re not allowing sufficient time for the ‘gap’ though Fiver. You know the rules by now.

[Fiver]

I am doing what any discerning researcher should do. I am pointing out that the day after the body was dumped in Pinchin Street, a bloody rag was found in an exact line between the arch where it was dumped and Lechmeres lodgings, a fair way up to the northeast. And I am adding the information that there can be no certainty that the rag is linked to Charles Lechmere.

That is the exact way in which a matter like this should be presented.

What should NEVER happen, is to suppress the matter.

But I believe that this is the exact thing you are trying your hand at.

So tell us, Fiver, how do we go about informing the readers about that rag?

Do we mention that it was found, but refuse to tell WHERE it was found?

Do we point out that it was found in an exact line between the railway arch and the Lechmerian home, or do we leave that information out?

Do we stay away from mentioning the rag at all?

Or do we add the information of its existence, point out where it was found and establish that it was found in a direct line between the railway arch and Lechmeres lodgings - and make it clear that no link to the carman has been proven as such?

Let's hear your take on how the matter should be presented, if it is to be presented at all.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[A P Tomlinson]

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

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?



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

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.

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.

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"

[Fiver]

Proving that you have no doubt is not the same as proving something beyond doubt. Speculating that they are one and the same amounts not to proof, but to arrogance.

You need to quote these words to yourself every day as you look in the mirror.

[Fiver]

Another total misunderstanding on your behalf. I did not say that it is evidence, did I? Which goes some way to show if you are truthful or not. Then again, you may not have wanted to mislead. It is - as we both know - only I who mislead, and the proof for it is that you say so.

What I am ACTUALLY saying is that if the working burden of Lechmere grew heavier in the late 1880īs, then that will likely have carried stress with itself. And the fact that he had a simple enough job has nothing at al to do with that, although you apparently think so.
An increased working burden will have taken away from the time he could shape himself, and it would also likely physically tear him down, also resulting in greater stress.

We know quite well that stress factors are important markers in a serial killers life, and we also know that this is often linked to how the killer feels that he is deprived of control over his own life.

Therefore, Fiver may (MAY - see?) well have identified an important factor that could have contributed to the murder string of the late 1880īs.

Not that Fiver wanted to di that - but he nevertheless did. And I am grateful for it - every little bit helps.

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?

[Fiver]

The fact that one of the papers wrote that the crime must have been committed between 3.15 and 3.45 rules out any suggestion that they would have gone on your line. They very clearly came away with the impression that Neil was wrong.

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

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?

There is other pointers to how this would not have been true. One such pointer lies in how we know that the police wrote in their September report, BEFORE Baxter summed up the inquest and delivered his words on how the body was found not far off 3.45, that a carman found the body at around 3.40. Then, AFTER Baxters summary had been given, their October report stated that Lechmere found the body at around 3.45.
Wynne Baxter had been presiding over the proceedings on the 3rd of September, most likely arriving at the inquest room in Whitechapel Road with the idea that PC Neil was the finder of the body, only to then learn, alongside the jury, the police and the public, that the police had been wrong on the matter. it was in fact a carman who had found the body, a carman who must have preceded Neil by around five minutes.

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

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.

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.

[rjpalmer]

Example: A Lechmereian comes up with a quite stunning map that shows how a bloodied rag was found literally on the shortest path beween Pinchin Street and Lechmere's address. And how does online Ripperology respond to the staggeringly straight line and all that it implies?

Is there a link to this map?

[A P Tomlinson]

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

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

You would think so Darryl. And then he took the money that he’d saved and started his own small business.

[Paddy Goose]

Yes thank you again, Fisherman,

... what you and I discussed was your claim that I would have said that the police never went to Pickfords. I corrected you and told you that what I have said, is that I don't think that the police necessarily did that. I never said that I know that they did not. But YOU claimed that I DID say precisely that, which was why I requested proof. And now you reiterate that claim, again without backing it up.

Where is that proof, Mr Goose? You ARE aware what it implies if you cannot provide it, I hope?

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

[Darryl Kenyon]

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