Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fisherman]

Maybe you should take the blinkers off and stop falling for other Lechmereians bullshit and downright lies.

Maybe he thinks the alternative on offer is way more intimidating.

[Fisherman]

Such a weak answer.

He had a job delivering stuff. He wasn’t Prime Minister or Head of the KGB.

The prime minister of KGB would be equally at risk to become stressed by many added working hours, just as it would be a factor that could make him feel that he was loosing control over part of his existence. It would therefore be as likely to cause him to tip over if he had the disposition of a serial killer, as it would be likely to tip Lechmere over as a carman.

In fact, people with large ambitions are - generally speaking - more likely to have a psychopathic disposition than those who have not.

That is how "weak" the answer is.

[Fisherman]

Why do you keep repeating that the absolute bulk is the majority?????

Of course it is. Who would say otherwise? I certainly haven’t.

Please stop dodging as you simply cannot be misunderstanding the point.



In Cutting Point on page 92 you said:

“Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at 3.30, but the time 3.20 is also mentioned in one paper.”

So, in your book, you are saying that the majority of newspapers said that Cross left home at 3.30 (I genuinely can’t believe that I’m having to repeat this)


And yet, much later on here, you said:

“We must however accept that since the absolute bulk of the papers spoke of ”around 3.30”, that is by far the likeliest wording to have been given.”

And so you are now saying that the majority of newspapers said ‘around 3.30.


So……and I’m keeping it simple……


How is it possible that when writing Cutting Point you came to the conclusion that the majority of papers said 3.30. But you NOW admit that the majority said ‘around 3.30.’ What information do you now have that wasn’t available to you when you wrote Cutting Point?

Surely even you can’t keep wriggling on this point?

Are you still on about that? I have already told you that I had no intention of deceiving anybody.

How are you going to prove that I did?

Furthermore, I encouraged the readers NOT to take 3.30 as gospel, since timings were not always very exact in the victorian days.

Furthermore, I quoted the "around 3.30" wording from ine of the papers, although I could have left that wording out, if I was the sinister devil you make me out to be.

Furthermore, when discussing the time gap in the book, I never said that a time gap was established. I said that IF he left home at 3.30, then he should have arrived in Bucks Row at 3.37.

You are quite welcome to point out that if I had added the "around", it would have made things clearer.

But that is as far as it goes. I never intended any foul play at all, I was reasoning theoretically which is a very uncontroversial thing to do, and I advised the riders to be wary about the timings - plus I PRINTED the "near 3.30" in the material where the reasoning was made.

How this all would permit you, or anybody else, to claim it proven that I purposefully tried to mislead my readers is something you have yet to explain. If you want to say that it leads you personally to that conclusion, then fine. But proving that your take is the correct one, Herlock, is a very, very different matter.

Again, if you do not have that proof, you would do better to acknowledge that. In my view, whatever "wriggling" there is, is all about you trying to get around the fact that you have made a claim you can never substantiate. And it is quite a claim too!!

[Fisherman]

Hi again, Fisherman,



You didn't buy it though when the Connor and Osborne articles were discussed here on Casebook in 2008:



You only hopped on board when the name thing arose. The "aha" moment. Yet for a decade now you continue to insist the police did not bother to inquire if Pickfords had a Charles Cross in the employ. But you have never proved it.

Back then, in 2008 to you, like all of us, Charles Cross was.. well, just Charles Cross. There was even a song about him in a move-

You must recall old Boss
A Cross is just a Cross

Yes, that is perfectly correct and well documented, I originally did not invest in Lechmere likely being the killer. Now, if you can tell me how and why that is interesting, I would be grateful.

What happened was that I took another look at him and read up a lot more, after having met Edward Stow - and changed my mind.

Is there anything about that you find remarkable?

Until you dug up the goalposts and took of in a westerly direction, 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?

[FrankO]

It is not about a horse. It is about a cow that has been CALLED a horse, R J. But I understand why you are reluctant to discuss the matter any further. And I am fine with that, there is absolutely no need, since the time was fixed to 3.45 by a collection of independent data, some of which must have been the timings of Paul and Llewellyn.

I am often enough quite willing to say that there can be no knowing. But that does not apply when there IS knowing, and there is in this case. I don't think it is a question of two equally good suggestions. I don't think we have to suggest anything at all, because it is a settled matter. Whether or not it was exactly 3.45 as the body was found can, to a degree, be discussed, but whether or not the findings of the coroner established the PCs or Paul/LLewellyn/Thain as the true version cannot.

Your ‘timing theory’ has a few debatable things, Christer.

First, the one that’s done to death, that Baxter was able to fix the time that Lechmere’s supposed to have found the body as 3.45, or a timing not far from it. I’m not going to discuss this again with you. All I’m going to say is that what you claim isn’t a given, but just your interpretation.

Then, that Baxter noted that there were two camps, and he therefore investigated the matter and found that camp 2 was the correct one. And this he could only have done with the help of one or two timepieces, those employed by Paul (who was able to nail an exact time) and Llewellyn (who in all probability owned a clock or two or three that could be checked in retrospect, just as Pauls given time source could).

In reality, there’s no evidence at all that Baxter investigated whether there were two camps or not, much less how he’s supposed to have done that. The two things you base your assumption on is Llewellyn, who first told newspapers that he was called by Thain at about 3.55 and then, at the inquest, stated “about 4 o’clock” (which doesn’t necessarily mean he thought Thain called him between 3.55 and 4:00); and on Thain, because of the timing Llewellyn gave at the inquest, seems to have taken far too long to fetch the doctor. But that’s it. Baxter never questioned any of the timings given. So, this point is really quite similar to “The other man, who went down Hanbury Street, appeared to be working with Cross.”, which is the evidence you use to show that Paul was out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen.

So, you claim that it was important for Baxter to discover the 5 minutes between 3.40 and 3.45 (or very close to it). But why, if he did actually find it so important to move Lechmere’s timing of finding the body from 3.40 to 3.45, didn’t he, as a result, find it important that Lechmere’s timing of leaving home must also have been wrong? Because after all, if Lechmere found the body at 3.45, he couldn’t have left home at about 3.30, but it should have been between 3.35 and 3.40 – a good 7 or 8 minutes later than he’d claimed? And why didn’t the police – or any journalist for that matter – make anything of that point?

And, if Baxter was as interested in the timings involved as you suggest, why didn’t he include Lechmere’s timing of when he stated he arrived at work? Because, after all, that’s really the only exact timing, given only as “at four o’clock”, so without “about”, “around” or “approximately”.

In this regard it’s interesting to know that the distance from where the carmen met Mizen to the entrance on Eldon Street to Broad Street Station/Goods depot was around 1750 meters or 1910 yards. Walking that distance at the rather brisk walking speed of 3.75 miles or 6.03 km per hour, it would have taken him almost 17 and a half minutes to arrive there from where he spoke to Mizen.

Or, in other words, if Lechmere found Nichols at 3.45, then he would have left the body together with Paul at around 3.46, would have arrived at Mizen at 3.49 and have left him, say, half a minute later. So, he would have arrived at work at 4.07-ish. And why, if he was as investigative as you suggest, would Baxter not have found these 7 or so minutes important?

These are the wonderings that come to mind when I see you seemingly claim things as given or established when they aren't.

The best,
Frank

[Fiver]

[B]Again "the absolute bulk" IS the majority, Herlock.

I see we can add "majority" to the list of English words you do not understand, along with "oozing", tottering", and your failure to understand the difference between "at the top" and "near the top".

A majority means more than half. "The absolute bulk" means almost all. The words are not interchangeable. "Almost all" is a majority. A "majority" could mean "almost all" or it could mean "barely more than half" or anything in between.

Saying that the majority of the newspapers said Lechmere left around 3:30am is technically correct, but it is much less accurate than saying that almost all of the newspapers said Lechmere left around 3:30am.

[Fiver]

Serial killing is often seen off by stress factors. Serial killers are very much about controlling their surroundings. If Lechmere got a schedule that gave him many more working hours, that would deprive him of control to some degree and it would likely cause stress for him.

Why are you mentioning Lechemre and ignoring the other 68,000 carman who were working in the area at the time?

And feel free to provide any evidence that anyone became a serial killer due to stress at work.

Making a loooong post without having anything to say does not change that.

You complaining about long posts is rather ironic. Perhaps you should take another look at the post by Fisherman that I was replying to.

And you dodging that facts doesn't change the facts. The source you listed in your textwall did not contain the quote you attributed to it. Neither the source you named, nor the source you quoted supported your theory that people could become killers due to work related stress. Both of the sources stated some characteristics of serial killers - characteristics that there is no evidence for, and in some cases strong evidence against Lechmee having. And these points against your theory were in parts of the sources that you didn't quote.

[Fiver]

He worked under Chief Inspector Swansong I think Roger.

Along with Inspector Abbey Road, perhaps?

[Fiver]

We don't need to. All we need to know here is that the operative principle is "Waaah! Just make Lechmere go away!"

The operative principal is insisting on facts before declaring Lechmere guilty.

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? With "Heh! A ley line! Look: now I've made it into a cone! Hurhurhur!"

I see your knowledge of the geography and Christer's actual claim are both fairly inadequate.

Lets start with Christer's actual claim.

It IS "just" a piece of bloodied rag, and it cannot be tied to the torso deed. But it does not hurt the Lechmere bid that a bloodied rag was found in a straight line between Pinchin Street and Doveton Street the day after the torso was found.

As Christer at least used to admit, there is no known connection between the bloody rag and the Pinchin Street Torso. As Christer refuses to admit, there is no known connection between the bloody rag and Charles Lechmere, either.

We also don't know exactly where the bloody rag was found. It was found inside the fence surrounding of the grounds of the St James Church, which was under construction at the time.

Christer's "staggeringly straight line" is staggering in its disconnect from reality. You could draw straight lines between the home of thousands of Londoners and the Pinchin Street Torso and have those lines pass over the grounds of the St James Church. The only reason to ignore those thousands of other possibilities is if you have already assumed Lechemre's guilt.

Another problem is that humans have to use streets. They can't just bound across the rooftops in a straight line like Springheeled Jack. And using streets does not take someone past St James Church without going several blocks out of their way.

Another flaw in Christer's theory is that there is no reason for Charles Lechmere to be going home at 5am on a Thursday.

And Christer's double standard is shown by his ignoring the bloody undergarment found in Hooper Street, only 500 yards from the torso and only about two hours after the torso was found. A "staggeringly straight line" between the torso and the Hooper Street garment doesn't pass anywhere near Charles Lechmere's home.

[Fiver]

No, Fiver, all the inhabitants of Bucks Row had not been questioned on the 17th of September. We have Sprawling telling us this in no uncertain terms:

Inspector Spratling. -- I have been making inquiries into this matter.

The Coroner. -- have you been to every house in Buck's-row?

Witness. -- No; but if anything had come to light down there we should have heard of it. I have seen all the watchmen in the neighbourhood, and they neither saw nor heard anything on the morning in question. The Board school ground has been searched, but nothing likely to throw any light on the matter was discovered.

Inspector Helson. -- We have had a constable in the street for a week, but nothing was gained by it.

Here we may see that Sprawling denied that every house had been visited, and Helson adding that what they instead did was to place a PC in Bucks Row, in case any of the inhabitants would come forward and add information. That, however, did not happen.

Inspector Spratling said that he had not visited every house on Buck's Row personally. Your interpretation only makes sense if you believe that Spratling was the only member of the police investigating the Nichols murder. which is clearly false.

I therefore conclude that the snippet you quoted from the Morning Post does not prove that the houses in Bucks Row had all been visited. To begin with, it does. not even speak of Bucks Row, it speaks of the adjoining streets:
"A house-to-house investigation and inquiry has been made in all the streets adjoining Buck's-row, but with no tangible results."

This you elevate to another status than it stands for:

"So the police did check every house and speak to the inhabitants in Buck's Row and the surrounding streets."

Ooops - suddenly Bucks Row is added. By you.

So you contend that the police who did a "A house-to-house investigation and inquiry has been made in all the streets adjoining Buck's-row" would not bother to do a house-to-house investigation and inquiry on Buck's Row? Even after the Coroner directly ordered Inspector Spratling to do it?

In what bizarro world would the police check every house in the streets near Buck's Row and ignore houses in Buck's Row? You theory is nonsensical.

But would the police not check Bucks Row if they checked the adjoining streets? Well, that depends on what the police were looking for. Inquiries and investigations were certainly made about rumors of a blood trail in Brady Street:

The quote I mentioned specified "house-to-house investigation and inquiry". That's going to the houses and talking to the people who live there.

The police were also looking for clues outside the houses, as I already quoted.

"About six o'clock that day he [Inspector Spratling] made an examination at Buck's- row and Brady-street, which ran across Baker's-row, but he failed to trace any marks of blood. He subsequently examined, in company with Sergeant Godley, the East London and District Railway lines and embankment, and also the Great Eastern Railway yard, without, however, finding any traces. A watchman of the Great Eastern Railway, whose box was fifty or sixty yards from the spot where the body was discovered, heard nothing particular on the night of the murder. Witness also visited half a dozen persons living in the same neighbourhood, none of whom had noticed anything at all suspicious. One of these, Mrs. Purkiss, had not gone to bed at the time the body of deceased was found, and her husband was of opinion that if there had been any screaming in Buck's-row they would have heard it. A Mrs. Green, whose window looked out upon the very spot where the body was discovered, said nothing had attracted her attention on the morning of Friday last." - 4 September 1888 Daily Telegraph

"About six o'clock that day he [Spratling] made an examination at Buck's- row and Brady-street, which ran across Baker's-row, but he failed to trace any marks of blood. He subsequently examined, in company with Sergeant Godley, the East London and District Railway lines and embankment, and also the Great Eastern Railway yard, without, however, finding any traces. A watchman of the Great Eastern Railway, whose box was fifty or sixty yards from the spot where the body was discovered, heard nothing particular on the night of the murder. Witness also visited half a dozen persons living in the same neighbourhood, none of whom had noticed anything at all suspicious. One of these, Mrs. Purkiss, had not gone to bed at the time the body of deceased was found, and her husband was of opinion that if there had been any screaming in Buck's-row they would have heard it. A Mrs. Green, whose window looked out upon the very spot where the body was discovered, said nothing had attracted her attention on the morning of Friday last." - 4 September 1888 Daily News

The idea that the coroner was only interested in Spratlings doings and that Sprawling would not have informed the coroner that full investigations had been done in Bucks Row if that was the case, is not up to scratch.

Agreed, but that is not what I said. Again you put words in my mouth.

Lets look at another bit of the exchange between Baxter and the police.

"The Coroner: We cannot do more. (To the police): There was a man who passed down Buck's-row when the doctor was examining the body. Have you heard anything of him?
Inspector Abberline: We have not been able to find him. Inspector Spratley, J Division, stated he had made inquiries in Buck's-row, but not at all of the houses.
The Coroner: Then that will have to be done.
Witness added [Spratling] that he made inquiries at Green's, the wharf, Snider's factory, and also at the Great Eastern wharf, and no one had heard anything unusual on the morning of the murder. He had not called at any of the houses in Buck's-row, excepting at Mrs. Green's. He had seen the Board School keeper.
The Coroner: Is there not a gentleman at the G.E. Railway? I thought we should have had him here.
Witness: I saw him that morning, but he said he had heard nothing.
The witness added that when at the mortuary he had given instructions that the body was not to be touched.
The Coroner: Is there any other evidence?
Inspector Helson: No, not at present." - 18 September, 1888 Daily Telegraph

This shows:
* The Coroner was interested in an unknown man who had a passed through Buck's Row while Dr Llewellyn was examining Nichols body. That's an indication of the police were trying talk to anyone related to the case, no matter how weakly.
* Inspectors Abberline and Spratling both answered the Coroner's question. Inspector Helson would also answer some of the Coroner's questions.
* Spratling was not the only person investigating the Nichols murder.
* Spratling was giving an account of his personal investigations, not the investigations of the whole force.
* The Coroner told Inspector Spratling to make inquiries at all the houses in Buck's Row.

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

So what's your theory on why Spratling would deliberately ignore the Coroner's orders and try to sabotage the investigation?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who the heck is Inspector Sprawling?

He worked under Chief Inspector Swansong I think Roger.

[rjpalmer]

Who the heck is Inspector Sprawling?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi again, Fisherman,



You didn't buy it though when the Connor and Osborne articles were discussed here on Casebook in 2008:



You only hopped on board when the name thing arose. The "aha" moment. Yet for a decade now you continue to insist the police did not bother to inquire if Pickfords had a Charles Cross in the employ. But you have never proved it.

Back then, in 2008 to you, like all of us, Charles Cross was.. well, just Charles Cross. There was even a song about him in a move-

You must recall old Boss
A Cross is just a Cross

A classic find Paddy.

A bit of nostalgia. Back in the days when Christer got it right

[Herlock Sholmes]

We don't need to. All we need to know here is that the operative principle is "Waaah! Just make Lechmere go away!"

Thus the police go to Scotland to investigate W H Bury. They come back empty-handed -- but that doesn't mean he wasn't the Ripper, okay!

Meanwhile, we have no evidence that the police ever paid the slightest attention to obsequious white Christian working man Lechmere, and a few indications that they didn't. So people outright pretend that they did ("Surely/undoubtedly/inevitably the police would have...") -- and, miraculously, that proves him innocent! "Yaay! Lechmere's gone! Back to Kozminski! and Druitt, everyone!"

I wasn’t talking about Cross as is perfectly obvious to all, except you, from my question.

You know, the people in all those other internet groups who get ridiculed on here for "not having read even one book about the case"' are able to see what goes on in these desperate online attempts to get Lechmere off the table -- and you can take it from me that it disgusts them.

People get ‘ridiculed’ if that’s what you want to call it because of the over-the-top promotion of Cross as a suspect. They get ‘ridiculed’ for saying stuff like - the fact that Cross acted perfectly normally is highly suspicious and indicative of guilt - as was claimed by one of your crowd on here. That’s what the debate has come to. That someone claims that it’s somehow indicative of guilt that Cross went to the inquest in his work clothes! That’s why there’s ridicule. That we get important words deliberately left out of documentaries and books purely to promote the case. That’s what makes people on here annoyed. Buy you’re completely blind to this of course because you’re apparent on a mission. I have no suspect or theory to promote zealously or to defend at all costs. How many of those who propose Bury or Kosminski or Barnett or Levy or Hutchinson or Kelly resort to the same kind of tactics? Only for a man for whom there’s not a shred of evidence of guilt.

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? With "Heh! A ley line! Look: now I've made it into a cone! Hurhurhur!"

Because it’s utterly irrelevant. It means zero. It’s a humongous ‘so what.’

This simply isn't good enough -- to the extent, indeed, that it's even making outsiders assume that the blanket misandrist criticisms of Rubenhold, Joan Smith et al must be right. Well done.

Why use the word ‘misandrist?’ - “a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against men.”

If a person writes a book they have to expect criticism. No one that I know has, as far as I know, said anything misogynistic against Halle Rubenhold (I know nothing about Joan Smith but looking online I’m guessing that this is more gender hysteria. A subject that I’m not interested in and would prefer to avoid. If such comments have been made, and I’m not doubting that they have, why are they assumed to have been by Ripperologists? The title is a pointless one anyway so it’s easy to label any idiot making nasty comments a ‘Ripperologist.’ Rather than just random unpleasant blokes on the net.

M.

Ok. Now that you finished throwing your toys out of the pram perhaps you can explain how you got any anti-Cross sentiment from me asking an entirely genuine question - Do we know who the police did or didn’t speak to?

How can the possibly merit your rant? I was simply asking, as those who can read will see, if we knew who the police did or didn’t interview apart from those mentioned at the inquest. Now I don’t expect or particularly want an apology but your response is utterly baffling.

————————

Your claim the some of us want to make Cross ‘go away’ is pointless to put it as politely as I can. No one expects him to go away. No one has said that he shouldn’t be considered. And the opinion of people in other groups about contributors on here couldn’t matter less to me because their zealotry disgusts most of us equally. A constant wave of evidence manipulation, ludicrous exaggerations, the twisting of the language and the promotion of the most tenuous of supposed links. If Christer, Stow, yourself and others have restrained yourself from acting like excited children that suspect that they’ve discovered Santa’s house then there would be no need for any kind of reaction. Cross appears to be the only ‘suspect’ who has gathered together this kind of enthusiastic fan club and THATS what isn’t good enough. That’s what drags the subject through the mud.

If those that proposed Cross didn’t talk as if he was found standing over the body with a dripping knife in his hand then there wouldn’t be any need for such harsh reactions. But of course you’ll see it all one way. Let’s blame the so-called ripperologists. People love a label that they can use to direct their hysteria against.

[John Wheat]

We don't need to. All we need to know here is that the operative principle is "Waaah! Just make Lechmere go away!"

Thus the police go to Scotland to investigate W H Bury. They come back empty-handed -- but that doesn't mean he wasn't the Ripper, okay!

Meanwhile, we have no evidence that the police ever paid the slightest attention to obsequious white Christian working man Lechmere, and a few indications that they didn't. So people outright pretend that they did ("Surely/undoubtedly/inevitably the police would have...") -- and, miraculously, that proves him innocent! "Yaay! Lechmere's gone! Back to Kozminski! and Druitt, everyone!"

You know, the people in all those other internet groups who get ridiculed on here for "not having read even one book about the case"' are able to see what goes on in these desperate online attempts to get Lechmere off the table -- and you can take it from me that it disgusts them. 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? With "Heh! A ley line! Look: now I've made it into a cone! Hurhurhur!"

This simply isn't good enough -- to the extent, indeed, that it's even making outsiders assume that the blanket misandrist criticisms of Rubenhold, Joan Smith et al must be right. Well done.

M.

Ridiculous post. The Police may well have looked into Lechmere we simply don't know. Lechmere found a body with nothing else against him he is clearly innocent. Lechmere is a terrible suspect whereas Bury may well have been the Ripper. Bury is the best suspect we have by a country mile. Maybe you should take the blinkers off and stop falling for other Lechmereians bullshit and downright lies.