Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

As Abberline noted, if Druitt had not committed suicide around the time he did, no-one would have suggested that he was the murderer: there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him.

That means that there could have been no evidence against him and he did not share Macnaghten's suspicions.

My own assertion that Druitt had a alibi for Nichols' murder has caused uproar, but where is the evidence that his alibi did not stand up?

If Druitt was really a suspect, where is the evidence that police enquiries uncovered the 'fact' that he went missing from the tour party in Dorset at such a time as to enable him to commit the murder in London?

Where is the evidence that someone fitting his description was seen boarding a train from Dorset to London, or seen on such a route, or seen returning from London with bloodstained hands, or seen returning to his teammates after having obviously been absent?

Why was no such evidence cited by Macnaghten?

Why was the best he could offer the supposed opinion of Druitt's relatives that he was the murderer - which, even if it were true, would of itself have counted for nothing in any police investigation.

How could Druitt's relatives, none of whom lived with him or saw him frequently, have had any reasonable grounds for suspicion?

There was no case against Druitt and never will be.

It’s a little surprising that the term ‘alibi’ appears to need explaining on a crime forum.

If an alibi is proposed in an attempt to exonerate a suspect then it has to undergo testing to see if it stands up to scrutiny. We can’t just assume an alibi, or ‘suspect’ that someone ‘possibly’ had one which is what you appear to be attempting to do in regard to Druitt.

I’m repeating the glaringly obvious here but for Druitt to have had an alibi for the Nichols murder (cast iron, concrete or otherwise) at least one of the following four circumstances would have to be proven:

1. That he was provably elsewhere at around 3.30-3.40 on the morning of August 31st.
2. That he was provably elsewhere before the murder and provably couldn’t physically have made it to Bucks Row by 3.30-3.40 on the morning of August 31st.
3. That he was provably elsewhere after the murder and provably could not physically have made it to that location (at the time that he could be proven to have been there) if he’d previously been in Bucks Row at 3.30-3.40.
4. Or that he was provably physically incapable of committing the murder due to injury, disability, illness, incarceration or death.

You’ve also said something about his friends noticing his absence? How would that have been an issue if he’d told them beforehand that he had to head back to London on business? No one at the time would have suspected him of being the ripper so no one would have given it a second thought. It’s yet another non-issue.

Constantly repeating this won’t make it true PI. It doesn’t work like that I’m afraid. You, Fishy and others should just satisfy yourselves with your personal opinions that you think that Druitt is a weak suspect. That’s fair enough. There’s nothing wrong with a divergence of opinion and everyone is entitled to one of course, some people agree with you and some don’t, but you should avoid trying to manoeuvre the evidence one way or another to bolster an opinion. People tend to spot things like that a mile off. However we, as individuals, rate Druitt as a suspect the fact remains….he had no alibi for any of the murders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

Why is it that you want any suspect that you don’t rate eliminated from the site (and not just suspects apparently)? And why is it that of all of the suspects that have been mentioned over the years (many of them ludicrous) the one that you focus on every single time for this treatment is Druitt? Even when there’s no active Druitt thread, or without him being mentioned by anyone else in a thread, you constantly contrive to bring him up to be singled out?

It’s always intrigued me that certain people appear determined that they should be the ones who should be made judge and jury in regard to the evaluation of suspects and in deciding which ones should or shouldn’t be discussed. None of us knows who the killer was and without a solid alibi we can’t just expect everyone else to eliminate those that you or any individual doesn’t rate. You often made the point on here about respecting other peoples opinions….I would hope that applies to you too or do you consider yourself exempt?

Also, as you’ve agreed with Fiver’s post on Lechmere (where he includes that he was at work at the time of Chapman’s murder) can we now take it that you agree with a later TOD?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

It appears that aprons at that time were generally white.

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

A married man could have had a workshop or an outhouse (or even one belonging to a family member) or any kind of space or bolt hole or abandoned building. Maybe he was married but his wife was bed-ridden due to illness so he had the freedom of the house? Who knows? None of us do. We can’t know so we can’t say that the killer must have lived alone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps we could ask the opinion of Trevor Marriott or anyone else who has read the biographical details of large numbers of serial murderers.

I have never come across the case of a serial killer who even played cricket, let alone played it on the day he committed one of a series of murders.

What a strange comment.

What would we have thought about a serial killer who dressed as a clown or a serial killer who was partial to a bit of origami (Charles Ng)? Many serial killers had what appeared to have been ‘normal lives’ (at least on the surface) which could have included various interests. Simply selecting Druitt’s cricket playing as an attempt at dismissing him because we can’t name another cricket playing serial killer is quite jaw-droppingly desperate PI. Would you dismiss a serial killer suspect if you found out that he collected stamps just because you couldn’t find another serial killer who also collected stamps? What if you couldn’t find a serial killer who suffered from Hay Fever? Would you eliminate a Hay Fever sufferer as a suspect on those same spurious grounds?

By the way, serial killer Randall Woodfield played American Football and was drafted to play for the Green Bay Packers. He killed up to 44 women.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well your certainly entiltled to put in the suspect sin bin whom ever you like ,however id go as far to say Sickert and Gull as stand alone suspects [without the royal conspiracy ] make better possible killers than Druitt and Maybrick . There has never been conclusive proof that Sickert was indeed in France while the murders took place.

He was fascinated with the murders and even made reference to them in his paintings , Gull ,despite the misconception that he was to old and had suffered a stoke that made him incapacitated which was not tru ,had the means being a physician , possible motive wanting to experiment on organ removal on live freah bodies ,or he was just mad , and the opportunity living in London.

I just dont see any means ,motive ,and opportunity with Druitt and Maybrick that puts them ''way'' ahead of Sickert and Gull ,just my opinion .

Perhaps you should try applying the same kind of scrutiny to Gull and Sickert though? Surely you don’t believe that we should apply a different standard for Druitt?

Other’s might be able to name someone older but from a quick look online it would appear that Gull would have had to have been the equal oldest serial killer in crime history which is hardly a great starting point.


So apart from his advanced age what about his health, older people can be pretty fit and healthy of course but it doesn’t look good for Gull on this score though does it (to put it mildly) as he had a series of strokes in 1887. He had further strokes up until the time of his death in 1890 so he was clearly in poor health from 1887 onwards. In his obituary in The Times of January 1890 they recorded that he “was seized with a severe attack of paralysis just over two years ago while staying at Urrard, Killiecrankie.” This ‘just over two years ago’ tells us that Gull had a severe attack of Paralysis at the end of 1887 and that he: “never sufficiently recovered to resume his practice” and that he had further strokes up until his death. Remember, Gull wasn’t a surgeon he was a Physician, which isn’t exactly a physically taxing job or one that requires any great level of physical dexterity and yet his stroke left him unable to continue to do even that. How would we expect a man who wasn’t up to the task of sitting at his desk to examine and advise a genteel patient or two due to a paralysing stroke to have taken up the role of serial killer perhaps 9 or 10 months later? Especially when further strokes had followed the first one and continued right up until his death? The suggestion is one that can’t and shouldn’t be taken seriously for a second.

It’s not an easy task to find a less likely ripper than Gull. Let’s compare him with Druitt…

1. A 71 years old multiple stroke victim who suffered paralysis in late 1887 and was forced to end his non-physically taxing career because of it. He was happily married, wasn’t known to be violent, had no known connection to prostitutes or Whitechapel, had no known mental health issues and wasn’t considered a suspect until the second half of the 20th century (due to a fable by a man who admitted that he’d made up the story before recanting when he realised that another book might be in the offing.)
2. A physically fit 31 year old unmarried man living alone, also with no known record of violence or any known connection to prostitutes or Whitechapel. He was man with mental health issues though which led him to commit suicide just after Kelly’s murder and he was a man who was suggested as the ripper (although not by name but it clearly referred to him) by Farquaharsen in 1891 and then in name by the Chief Constable of the Met three years later in 1894 followed by other senior police officers later.

A question for all (including those that believe Druitt to be a weak suspect) - would anyone on here be willing to stand up and say that they would discard Druitt as a suspect before they discarded Sir William Gull?

[Aethelwulf]

Sir William Gull?

Surely Gull is just one of the joke suspects? It isn't actually a serious proposal is it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Surely Gull is just one of the joke suspects? It isn't actually a serious proposal is it?

He is Wulf. There is only one poster who supports the Knight theory that I’m aware of.

[Aethelwulf]

He is Wulf. There is only one poster who supports the Knight theory that I’m aware of.

Bizarre. Actually, is that who the 1988 Michael Caine dramatization is based on/the royal surgeon? That was my first interest in the ripper - remember recording it (beta-max) and watching back as it was on quite late

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bizarre. Actually, is that who the 1988 Michael Caine dramatization is based on/the royal surgeon? That was my first interest in the ripper - remember recording it (beta-max) and watching back as it was on quite late

Yeah, there have been a few spin-off’s of the theory. The Knight theory came via Joseph Sickert.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No worries P.I

I think you cover that response pretty much spot on .

Theses boards would be better suited and if the likes of Lechmere Maybrick and Druitt were forever banished to the section of

" Former suspects who were believed at one time to be JTR but have been shown not to be the case "

We can all give opinions on how Ripper discussions could be improved….

1. If some people didn’t believe that they should be self-appointed judge and jury as to which suspects or theories should or shouldn’t be considered or discussed by others.
2. If some people proved that they understood what the word ‘alibi’ actually means.
3. If some people learned to differentiate between opinion and fact.
4. If some people didn’t assume that because they interpret something in one way then that interpretation should be accepted as correct by all.
5. If some people didn’t support bizarre, discredited theories then seek to deride others for suggesting other far more plausible, down-to-earth ones.
6. If some people didn’t arrive at a theory and then defend it at all costs by manipulating evidence, deliberately discrediting witnesses, twisting logic or using their own ‘version’ of the English language.
7. If some people didn’t sink into ‘victim mode’ every time someone happens to disagrees with them.
8. If some people didn’t apply different criteria or standards to different suspects/theories in an attempt to skew outcomes.
9. If some people actually admitted it when they were shown to be incorrect instead of resorting to obfuscation or silence or the changing of the subject.
10. If some people weren’t so reluctant to admit that there are things that we just don’t know the answer to in this case and probably never will be in a position to know.
11. If some people didn’t refuse to accept things that we know to be true - like the fact that not everyone in LVP Whitechapel owned clocks or watches. Or the fact that clocks weren’t synchronised anything like they are today. Or that witnesses can be inaccurate. Or that ‘experts’ didn’t have the knowledge and technology available to them that modern day experts do.
12. If some people refused to accept that estimations are exactly that…estimations, which means that we have to allow for reasonable margins for error.
13. If some people didn’t resort to clichés like…all senior police officers were liars or idiots.
14. If some people wouldn’t make unfounded assumptions like….”the killer wouldn’t have done that,” as if they have access to thought processes and so must be correct.
15. If some people resisted the lure of dismissing someone outright just because he/she said something that was proven to have been incorrect.

Wouldn’t it be nice?

[FISHY1118]

Why is it that you want any suspect that you don’t rate eliminated from the site (and not just suspects apparently)? And why is it that of all of the suspects that have been mentioned over the years (many of them ludicrous) the one that you focus on every single time for this treatment is Druitt? Even when there’s no active Druitt thread, or without him being mentioned by anyone else in a thread, you constantly contrive to bring him up to be singled out?

It’s always intrigued me that certain people appear determined that they should be the ones who should be made judge and jury in regard to the evaluation of suspects and in deciding which ones should or shouldn’t be discussed. None of us knows who the killer was and without a solid alibi we can’t just expect everyone else to eliminate those that you or any individual doesn’t rate. You often made the point on here about respecting other peoples opinions….I would hope that applies to you too or do you consider yourself exempt?

Also, as you’ve agreed with Fiver’s post on Lechmere (where he includes that he was at work at the time of Chapman’s murder) can we now take it that you agree with a later TOD?

I stand by my post .

''No'' i dont agree with a later T.O.D re Chapman . Im not sure why you would say that just because fiver said lechmere was at work for the chapman murder.

How was your break btw ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I stand by my post .

''No'' i dont agree with a later T.O.D re Chapman . Im not sure why you would say that just because fiver said lechmere was at work for the chapman murder.

How was your break btw ?

You agreed with Fiver’s post saying that Lechmere would have been at work when Chapman was murdered. This requires a later TOD.

[FISHY1118]

You agreed with Fiver’s post saying that Lechmere would have been at work when Chapman was murdered. This requires a later TOD.

I thought i just agreed that Lechmere wasnt Jack the Ripper .

[Herlock Sholmes]

I thought i just agreed that Lechmere wasnt Jack the Ripper .

No problem.

[Abby Normal]

We can all give opinions on how Ripper discussions could be improved….

1. If some people didn’t believe that they should be self-appointed judge and jury as to which suspects or theories should or shouldn’t be considered or discussed by others.
2. If some people proved that they understood what the word ‘alibi’ actually means.
3. If some people learned to differentiate between opinion and fact.
4. If some people didn’t assume that because they interpret something in one way then that interpretation should be accepted as correct by all.
5. If some people didn’t support bizarre, discredited theories then seek to deride others for suggesting other far more plausible, down-to-earth ones.
6. If some people didn’t arrive at a theory and then defend it at all costs by manipulating evidence, deliberately discrediting witnesses, twisting logic or using their own ‘version’ of the English language.
7. If some people didn’t sink into ‘victim mode’ every time someone happens to disagrees with them.
8. If some people didn’t apply different criteria or standards to different suspects/theories in an attempt to skew outcomes.
9. If some people actually admitted it when they were shown to be incorrect instead of resorting to obfuscation or silence or the changing of the subject.
10. If some people weren’t so reluctant to admit that there are things that we just don’t know the answer to in this case and probably never will be in a position to know.
11. If some people didn’t refuse to accept things that we know to be true - like the fact that not everyone in LVP Whitechapel owned clocks or watches. Or the fact that clocks weren’t synchronised anything like they are today. Or that witnesses can be inaccurate. Or that ‘experts’ didn’t have the knowledge and technology available to them that modern day experts do.
12. If some people refused to accept that estimations are exactly that…estimations, which means that we have to allow for reasonable margins for error.
13. If some people didn’t resort to clichés like…all senior police officers were liars or idiots.
14. If some people wouldn’t make unfounded assumptions like….”the killer wouldn’t have done that,” as if they have access to thought processes and so must be correct.
15. If some people resisted the lure of dismissing someone outright just because he/she said something that was proven to have been incorrect.

Wouldn’t it be nice?

welcome back Herlock!
and great posts, as usual!