Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[rjpalmer]

"Multiple sources"?

I have never seen it before, so I am grateful for your posting this snippet.

It's also in the Nottingham Evening Post, but no doubt this comes from the Pall Mall Gazette originally.

What I actually wrote is "multiple sources have Paul deposing at the inquest that he walked through Buck's Row at 3.45 or that he left home shortly before 3.45, which for all intents and purposes means the same thing."

Considering Paul proximity to Buck's Row, if he believed that he left home at 'shortly before 3.45' we can be confident that he would also believe that he had passed through Buck's Row at 3.45, which gels with both the PMG version and his earlier statement in Lloyd's.

There's no point in quibbling about it. We are in agreement about what he said. We disagree about how confident we should be about his accuracy.

Any chance that you could comment on my post 1231 on this thread?

Actually, I don't see any crying need to comment further.

I made my position known, and you made your rebuttal over on this thread, which seems a bit off-topic to me.

Simply put, I don't agree with your assessment, and you don't agree with mine, but I'm happy to give you the last word.

In conclusion, I believe Charles Cross gave a reasonably accurate time of departure and there is nothing suspicious in his account. It is impossible to know, but I think he probably left home around 3.32 or 3.33, arriving at the scene of the murder around 3.40 or 3.41, which would coincide with Abberline's analysis, and meshes nicely with the accounts and timings given by Mizen, Thain, and Neill.

I see Robert Paul as off about 5 minutes in his reckoning. What he said cannot be correct unless all the other witnesses (and the most trustworthy contemporary commentator, Inspector Abberline) were all wrong. Considering it’s only a matter of being off by 3 or 4 minutes and we have no idea on what Paul based his statement, it becomes a fool’s errand to obsess over it or to give it undue weight.

Common sense tells us that when there are four other witnesses, and a contemporary commentator (Abberline) whose accounts can all mesh nicely, it is the odd man out who must be considered the untrustworthy source.

Paul may have been simply mistaken or misremembering, but beyond this there are subjective elements that cannot be entirely ignored because human beings are profoundly social creatures. We care about what other people think, and Paul would have been aware that this episode was not a 'good look' for him. He left a woman on the pavement, and it turned out that she had been brutally murdered. As such, his excuse is that he was running late for work would seem more plausible in his own mind and to his own conscience if he stretched the truth and claimed he didn't enter Buck's Row until 15 minutes before 4 o'clock---which, as I already explained--is wildly unlikely considering the accounts of Mizen, Thain, and Neill, and the analysis by Inspector Abberline.

People who do shift work--including police constables--become more and more aware of the time as their shifts are coming to an end. Like, everyone else, they want to go home. And Mizen, who was knocking people up, would have been acutely aware of the time, also. I see no reason to give Paul more weight than Mizen or anyone else.

I'll hold off commenting further until something interesting comes up. This is well-trod ground. The horse has been flogged.

[FrankO]

I think it's probably true that Patrick S. isn't a Lechmerian. In his opening post of the thread, he said that Lechmere was married when he was 20, stayed married to the same woman until he died 50 years later, and had 11 children with her. The title of the thread appears to be intentionally ironic.

He indeed isn't, Lewis (& Fiver).

PS I see Herlock beat me to it...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, I elevate the "he was there" argument. And guess what? That is the first focus of any police investigation. And it is so for a reason, and that reason is not that they like to deal in crap. If they did, it seems they would be better suited to argue against their own methods out here, than to do police work.

The finder becomes a person of interest until eliminated. Cross became a person of interest. We’ve investigated him and found zero suspicious about him. So we can safely place him in the ‘No way’ category.

The rest of your post is too puerile to interest me, I'm afraid. But I CAN help out by telling you that "the absolute bulk" of something is also "most of" that same something.

Goodnight for now, Herlock.

That last part is rather pathetic I have to say. ‘Absolute bulk’ and ‘most of’ are the same I agree but you used them on two opposing positions.

Can you really believe that this gets you off the hook?

You deliberately made a false claim on your book. There’s no getting away from it.

[Fisherman]

More crap.

Again you elevate the ‘well he was there’ argument. If that puts him ahead of Bury then you aren’t worth listening to. Take away Cross being present and you are left with absolutely nothing but you’re own manipulations. This is why you, Von Stow and the acolytes are reduced to talking about his mother and other irrelevancies.

The whole case against Cross is a dishonest, reprehensible example of manipulation, exaggeration and the wilful and deliberate twisting of the English language. It stinks. He’s a feeble suspect with nothing going for him. He’s better than Gull is about all that I’ll say. Everything that he did that night speaks of an entirely innocent man. And as for you acolytes who are such delicate flowers that they won’t debate on Casebook the less said the better. They clearly only want to hear from those who worship at the altar.

So….for them I’ll repeat:



In Cutting Point on page 92 he says:

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


And yet on post # 138 on here he says:

“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.”


So what has changed between then and now? What newspapers are available to him now that weren’t available then? Or was his abacus missing a few beads so that he couldn’t count properly?

How could this ‘absolute bulk’ not only have escaped his attention at the time that he was researching then writing his book but they were so well hidden that it led him to state the exact opposite?! He apparently had no problem finding and counting the one newspaper that mentioned 3.20 and was keen to mention it though. But this ‘absolute bulk’ apparently and very mysteriously eluded him.

100%, cast-iron, rock solid, take-it-to-the-bank PROOF that you deliberately misled your readers in Cutting Point.

Tell your response to them…..they’ll believe anything.

Yes, I elevate the "he was there" argument. And guess what? That is the first focus of any police investigation. And it is so for a reason, and that reason is not that they like to deal in crap. If they did, it seems they would be better suited to argue against their own methods out here, than to do police work.

The rest of your post is too puerile to interest me, I'm afraid. But I CAN help out by telling you that "the absolute bulk" of something is also "most of" that same something.

Goodnight for now, Herlock.

[Fisherman]

This is a curious statement. Multiple sources have Paul deposing at the inquest that walked through Buck's Row at 3.45 or that he left home shortly before 3.45, which for all intents and purposes means the same thing.

For instance, the PMG of 18 September.

"Multiple sources"?

I have never seen it before, so I am grateful for your posting this snippet.

All the sources I have looked at have said that he claimed to have left home "just before 3.45", while some say that he left home "about a quarter to four o'clock". I know of no other source than the one you posted that leaves out his leaving home when giving the timing. It seems to me that the Gazette muddled what he said - but if you could name the other sources where we have it claimed that he only said that he passed through Bucks Row at 3.45, without mentioning his leaving home in relation to his estimation (it IS an estimation this time), I would be grateful.

Any chance that you could comment on my post 1231 on this thread?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So he is right at the top of the lists? Like I said?

Good.

He should be on a witness list, not a suspect one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A simple answer: He is proven to have been found alone with the victim at one of the murder sites.

It really is that simple. Having been proven to have a violent streak and being capable of murder does not trump that single parameter.

If the two had been hauled in by the police, and if the knowledge of the police did not extend to more than we know today, it applies that Lechmere could be convicted of the crime of killing Nichols, whereas there would not be any case against Bury at all. And even IF there had been a case, built on, say, a confession by Bury, it would still be a question of how he could no be convicted on account of it being impossible to prove his presence at the site. Many people confessed to the crimes of the Ripper, it is a common thing in these kinds of cases.

You may personally think that Bury is a better fit for the killers role, based on how he killed his wife and cut her abdomen open. And if we are to solely go on the parameter of having a record of violent crime, then Bury would win that battle. But no such battle is based on one parameter only. It also needs to be said that there are a number of factors that speak against the idea of Bury being related to the Ripper interns of methodology:

Serial killers with a number of victims they did not know, are very, very unlikely to kill their spouses. Bundy did not kill his girlfriends, Ridgway made his wife feel she lived with the best guy in universe, Armstrong did not kill his wife, Rader did not kill his wife, De Angelo did not kill his wife, Gillis did not kill his girlfriend, Chikatilo did not kill his wife, Peter Kürten did not kill his wife ... For some weird reason, it seems the safest place to be when in close proximity to a serial killer is in his marital bed.

There may be some example of some sort of exception, I don't know - but killing your spouse is not a favorite serial killer pastime. And if you are going to tell me that the lack of examples of serial killers who stay put and bluff it out somehow proves that they won't do that, Herlock, then how about me telling you about how they will not kill their wifes!

Kemper killed his mother. Why should a wife be any different?

George Smith killed 3 wives as did Chapman.

John Christie killed 8 including his wife.


Moreover, there were not the typical Ripper features in his domestic murder. There was a gash to the abdomen, but not the long, confident one we see in the Ripper cases. There was no cut throat. There was no organ retrieval.

What there WAS, was graffito speaking about the Ripper on his lodgings - but my personal take is that he wrote that himself. I believe that he was darkly fascinated by the Ripper deeds, and it seems he spent the time leading up to his domestic murder discussing the Ripper with a friend, or something along those lines. I cannot remember the whole picture.

Anyways, what we have on Bury seems to point away from any true connection to the Ripper. In many ways, the Beadmore case is a better likeness to the real thing, but that killer - again a spouse, a jilted lover - was caught. And was able to admit that a dark fascination with the Ripper was what made him do it.

If Bury had killed Ellen BEFORE the Ripper murders, he would have been much elevated in my view. After? Nah.

And we cat put him at a murder site or anywhere near it, whereas we CAN put Lechmere on one, and we can point to a large array of things that do not look right.

It is not in any ways a tight run, Bury would not be out of the starting blocks as Lechmere crossed the line.

And that - not deceitful propaganda, as you will have it, is the reason that loads of people say that after having looked at the Ripper case for decades, they now feel the solution has been presented.

More crap.

Again you elevate the ‘well he was there’ argument. If that puts him ahead of Bury then you aren’t worth listening to. Take away Cross being present and you are left with absolutely nothing but you’re own manipulations. This is why you, Von Stow and the acolytes are reduced to talking about his mother and other irrelevancies.

The whole case against Cross is a dishonest, reprehensible example of manipulation, exaggeration and the wilful and deliberate twisting of the English language. It stinks. He’s a feeble suspect with nothing going for him. He’s better than Gull is about all that I’ll say. Everything that he did that night speaks of an entirely innocent man. And as for you acolytes who are such delicate flowers that they won’t debate on Casebook the less said the better. They clearly only want to hear from those who worship at the altar.

So….for them I’ll repeat:



In Cutting Point on page 92 he says:

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


And yet on post # 138 on here he says:

“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.”


So what has changed between then and now? What newspapers are available to him now that weren’t available then? Or was his abacus missing a few beads so that he couldn’t count properly?

How could this ‘absolute bulk’ not only have escaped his attention at the time that he was researching then writing his book but they were so well hidden that it led him to state the exact opposite?! He apparently had no problem finding and counting the one newspaper that mentioned 3.20 and was keen to mention it though. But this ‘absolute bulk’ apparently and very mysteriously eluded him.

100%, cast-iron, rock solid, take-it-to-the-bank PROOF that you deliberately misled your readers in Cutting Point.

Tell your response to them…..they’ll believe anything.

[Fisherman]

You don't get to the truth by taking opinion polls.

But lets look at some online opinion polls.

* Kosminski first, Lechmere second.

* An older Casebook poll goes with Unknown. Druitt is second, Le Grand third. Lechmere isn't listed.

* A recent JTr Forum poll goes with an unnamed local. Second palce is a tie between Kosminski and Lechmere.

So he is right at the top of the lists? Like I said?

Good.

[Fisherman]

What I was really just asking you, Christer, is whether you were suggesting that Mizen asked Lechmere any other questions than "What's the matter?" when they spoke on the night of the murder. Or that you, instead, were referring to when Mizen had found out that the woman was actually murdered or had committed suicide. But it's now clear to me that you meant the latter and that we at least agree on that . So, thanks for clearing that up. And I don't think you left out any possibilities.

Great, Frank, many thanks!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it's probably true that Patrick S. isn't a Lechmerian. In his opening post of the thread, he said that Lechmere was married when he was 20, stayed married to the same woman until he died 50 years later, and had 11 children with her. The title of the thread appears to be intentionally ironic.

I’ve shared many a discussion with Patrick S and he definitely thought Cross was a very poor suspect Lewis.

[Fisherman]

I’ll ask a simple question.

What makes Cross a likelier ripper than Bury?

A simple answer: He is proven to have been found alone with the victim at one of the murder sites.

It really is that simple. Having been proven to have a violent streak and being capable of murder does not trump that single parameter.

If the two had been hauled in by the police, and if the knowledge of the police did not extend to more than we know today, it applies that Lechmere could be convicted of the crime of killing Nichols, whereas there would not be any case against Bury at all. And even IF there had been a case, built on, say, a confession by Bury, it would still be a question of how he could no be convicted on account of it being impossible to prove his presence at the site. Many people confessed to the crimes of the Ripper, it is a common thing in these kinds of cases.

You may personally think that Bury is a better fit for the killers role, based on how he killed his wife and cut her abdomen open. And if we are to solely go on the parameter of having a record of violent crime, then Bury would win that battle. But no such battle is based on one parameter only. It also needs to be said that there are a number of factors that speak against the idea of Bury being related to the Ripper interns of methodology:

Serial killers with a number of victims they did not know, are very, very unlikely to kill their spouses. Bundy did not kill his girlfriends, Ridgway made his wife feel she lived with the best guy in universe, Armstrong did not kill his wife, Rader did not kill his wife, De Angelo did not kill his wife, Gillis did not kill his girlfriend, Chikatilo did not kill his wife, Peter Kürten did not kill his wife ... For some weird reason, it seems the safest place to be when in close proximity to a serial killer is in his marital bed.

There may be some example of some sort of exception, I don't know - but killing your spouse is not a favorite serial killer pastime. And if you are going to tell me that the lack of examples of serial killers who stay put and bluff it out somehow proves that they won't do that, Herlock, then how about me telling you about how they will not kill their wifes!

Moreover, there were not the typical Ripper features in his domestic murder. There was a gash to the abdomen, but not the long, confident one we see in the Ripper cases. There was no cut throat. There was no organ retrieval.

What there WAS, was graffito speaking about the Ripper on his lodgings - but my personal take is that he wrote that himself. I believe that he was darkly fascinated by the Ripper deeds, and it seems he spent the time leading up to his domestic murder discussing the Ripper with a friend, or something along those lines. I cannot remember the whole picture.

Anyways, what we have on Bury seems to point away from any true connection to the Ripper. In many ways, the Beadmore case is a better likeness to the real thing, but that killer - again a spouse, a jilted lover - was caught. And was able to admit that a dark fascination with the Ripper was what made him do it.

If Bury had killed Ellen BEFORE the Ripper murders, he would have been much elevated in my view. After? Nah.

And we cat put him at a murder site or anywhere near it, whereas we CAN put Lechmere on one, and we can point to a large array of things that do not look right.

It is not in any ways a tight run, Bury would not be out of the starting blocks as Lechmere crossed the line.

And that - not deceitful propaganda, as you will have it, is the reason that loads of people say that after having looked at the Ripper case for decades, they now feel the solution has been presented.

[Fisherman]

The majority of those who ‘support’ Cross do so because the guy now has his own TV channel and social media groups. It’s a wonder that you and Von Stow don’t engage a PR company to promote him. It’s simply a bandwagon. The social media ‘followers’ are likely to be people who have spent almost no time researching the case. So, like Scobie, they have just heard the Stow/Holmgren version and assume guilt. With all of the proven manipulation of evidence, the gross exaggerations and the twisting of language we can see that this has degenerated into nothing more than a propaganda campaign. He’s not just a poor suspect, he’s a non-existent one. Take away the ‘well he was there’ desperation and we have nothing left. John Richardson is not a good suspect by any means, but he’s a better one than Cross.

A whole lot of the people who like Lechmere as a suspect have many, many years in ripperology behind themselves. I rank many of them as way better read up on the case than for example you.
It is another matter that they are averse to the idea of debating on Casebook. If there had only been quality posting and a good debating climate out here, I am sure there would have been those who would have have reasoned otherwise.

Trying to make generalist claims like the ones you are pushing here does not work, I'm afraid.

[rjpalmer]

This is the only occasion where we have the 3.45 timing given by Paul, and it is from Lloyds Weekly of the 2nd of September, not from the inquest.

This is a curious statement. Multiple sources have Paul deposing at the inquest that walked through Buck's Row at 3.45 or that he left home shortly before 3.45, which for all intents and purposes means the same thing.

For instance, the PMG of 18 September.

[Lewis C]

You don't get to the truth by taking opinion polls.

But lets look at some online opinion polls.

* Kosminski first, Lechmere second.

* An older Casebook poll goes with Unknown. Druitt is second, Le Grand third. Lechmere isn't listed.

* A recent JTr Forum poll goes with an unnamed local. Second palce is a tie between Kosminski and Lechmere.

Here's another one: https://www.jack-the-ripper-tour.com...you-voted-yet/
1. Kosminski
2. Tumblety
3. Cross

[Fiver]

He is an excellent suspect. That is supported by how he is right at the top of all lists of viable suspects these days.

You don't get to the truth by taking opinion polls.

But lets look at some online opinion polls.

* Kosminski first, Lechmere second.

* An older Casebook poll goes with Unknown. Druitt is second, Le Grand third. Lechmere isn't listed.

* A recent JTr Forum poll goes with an unnamed local. Second palce is a tie between Kosminski and Lechmere.