Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Abby Normal]

do we really need three active threads on lech? cmon anti lechers, tighten it up! lol

[The Rookie Detective]

Exceptional Fiver, absolutely exceptional work there, very much appreciated...


That's how it's done


Hats off to you sir!


RD

[Fiver]

Did his stepfather Cross have any connections to other police officers/officials that were active during the time of the murder?

RD

By the time of the murders, Thomas Cross had been dead for nearly two decades. Looking at the Nichols case.

Inspector Abberline didn't transfer to H Division until 1873, years after Thomas Cross died.
Sergeant Enwright joined the force in 1874.
Sergeant Godley joined the force in 1877
Inspector Helson joined the force in 1869, the year Thomas Cross died.
PC Mizen joined the force in 1873.
PC Neil joined the force in 1875.
Inspector Spratling joined the force in 1870.
PC Thain appears to have joined the force in 1881.

So a definite no for everyone but Spratling, who would be a probably not.

[Fiver]

Does his signature/handwriting on his marriage certificate/other written documentation resemble any of the alleged ripper letters?

RD

There were hundreds of Ripper letters. Most, possibly all, were fakes. A few signatures is not enough of a sample to make a handwriting match. If a full letter by Lechmere was found and proved to be authentic and determined to be a match by professional graphologists, then it would prove Lechmere was one of the dozens of hoaxers, not that he was the killer.

[Fiver]

Does his mother's work involving cat meat/horse flesh dealing, have anything to do with the location of Nichols murder being just yards away from a horse slaughter?

RD

No.

The knackers was not just a few yards away, it was around the opposite side of the block. Plenty of other buildings were at least as close. None of their residents have any known ties to the murder. The location was probably chosen by the victim for comparative privacy, not for easy access to a slaughterhouse. Cats meat dealers bought from wholesalers, not directly from a slaughterhouse. Maria Louisa Forsdike isn't known to be a horse flesh dealer until 1891 and probably didn't become one until after her third husband's death in late 1889. Records show Charles Allen Lechmere was working as a carman between 1871 and 1901, becoming a grocer in 1902. He was never a cats meat dealer.

[Fiver]

Was it significant that the Pinchin Street Torso was dumped under a train arch just a few yards away from where Lechmere's mother had lived recently?

RD

Maria Louisa Forsdyke moved to 23 Pinchin Street some time between 1872 and 1881. They moved away to Mary Ann Street sometime between 1881 and 1885. By the time of the Ripper killings she hadn't loved on Pinchin Street for at least 3 1/2 years. The Pinchin Street Torso was dumped a few blocks from her previous home, not a few yards.

There are lots of people who were relatives of people who used to live within a few blocks of the Pinchin Street railway arches. The location doesn't give us reason to suspect anyone. It's a weaker connection than suspecting a relative of someone who worked at Scotland Yard because a torso was found there in 1888.

[Fiver]

Could the fact Lechmere lost his oldest son and his wife gave birth to his daughter Mary Anne within a few DAYS of each other...and be the reason why Mary Anne was raised by her Grandmother, ergo, did Lechmere somehow blame her birth for him losing his son?...his wife wasn't around to nurse his dying son.

RD

Mary Jane Lechmere was born in January of 1875. Charles Allen Jr died some time in the first quarter of 1875. We have no idea if the death was days, weeks, or months away from his sister's birth. If there had been any resentment between Charles Allen Sr and Mary Jane, it seems odd that he would be a witness at her wedding in 1899.

In the end, we have no reason why Mary Jane was raised at her grandmother's. Any answer is speculation, which points us nowhere.

[Fiver]

Is it significant that Lechmere lived next door to a "Ginger Beer" dealer...and the alleged ripper letter references to "Ginger Beer Bottles" and those left in MJK's room?

RD

The 1881 Census shows that one of Charles Lechmere's neighbors was a George Hostler, a "Ginger Beer Maker", but that was on James Street. By 1891, when Lechmere was living on Doveton Street, Hostler was at 44 Princes Square (If I read the record correctly) and working as a "Confectioner".

The "Dear Boss" letter is supposedly written by someone who didn't understand that blood coagulates. Which sounds more like a hoaxer pretending to be someone uneducated than a letter from the actual killer. It appears that police thought it was the work of journalist for the Star, Fred Best. I do wonder if the red ink it was written in might be a clue to who wrote it.

The November 12, 1888 Pall Mall Gazette apparently says "The only attempts at decoration were a couple of engravings, one, "The Fisherman's Widow", stuck over the mantelpiece: while in the corner was an open cupboard, containing a few bits of pottery, some ginger-beer bottles, and a bit of bread on a plate. " There's not the slightest hint that any of that belonged to Kelly's murderer.

So this is random trivia, not clues to anything.

[Fiver]

Therefore, which is more likely...

They BOTH failed to NOTICE her eyes were open
They BOTH couldn't SEE her eyes were open
They BOTH didn't THINK TO CHECK her eyes were open
or...
Her eyes were closed...

Meaning that she couldn't have been dead when they checked her.

Unless of course there is a way in which her eyes could have opened Postmortem?


I think the eyes of Nichols is perhaps a tantalizing clue and something the killer may have slipped up on.


RD

Looking at probabilities, it seems most probable that Nichols was unsconcious when Paul and Lechmere examined her, which implies that she regained consciousness after they left, but died with her eyes open before PC Neil arrived. If that's what happened, it's even more horrible than "just" being murdered.

Leaving the victim alive would be an error on the killer's part, but I don't see how it's a a clue to anything.

Paul and Lechmere both said they touched Nichols hands and face. Both thought her hands were cold. Lechmere thought her face felt warm. Paul thought her face felt cold.

"The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." - Charles Lechmere
"While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement." - Robert Paul

[Fiver]

As I say, though, I am no expert in the field. Maybe you are? Or maybe you consulted somebody who is?

I wasn't claiming expertise, please read what I actually said. Unconscious people normally have their eyes closed. Accounts that I have read by war veterans have stated that war dead typically have their eyes open. One Korean War veteran stated that he never saw a dead man in Korea that had his eyes closed. Of course that may not mean that the eyes open at death, it may mean that someone killed while their eyes were open did not close their eyes when they died. It's not the kind of thing that could be ethically researched.

[Fiver]

You are forgetting the more specific option, an development of your middle option, that Lechmere may well have been aware that her eyes were open, but purposefully omitted to acknowledge this before the inquest and not least when talking to Mizen, with the intention of not giving him any information that could lead him to understand that it was likely a very severe errand.

This tells us more about you than it does about the case - your assumption of Lechmere's guilt, double standard when he does the exact same thing as Paul, poposing a theory that does not make sense, and ignoring that Paul also spoke to Mizen and at the inquest.

Of course, we already knew that about you.

[Fiver]

I cannot dictate who can discuss any point, Fiver. I can only establish as a fact that I myself will only discuss with the ones I choose to discuss with. You, and everybody else, can do the exact same. I have also pointed out why I have chosen this line of debating: Because I have not got the time to navigate the complete avalanche of criticism and questions that regularly follow in the tracks of all Lechmere threads.

And yet you demand certain posters, and only those posters, answer topics chose by you. If you can't handle criticism of your opinions from all posters on this forum, then perhaps you should retreat back to one of your safe spaces.

“If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” - Harry Truman

[Fiver]

[B]Of course I am not putting any words at all in Fivers mouth, that is an unsupported argument. And it is a reoccurring problem with Fiver - instead of offering a clear and concise debate about the issues raised by others, he tends to center on various attempts at character asassination. My presentation of the problem Fiver suggests is a fair one. But I concede that I don't do ripperology mainly as an exercise in interpreting smileys.

You were putting words in my mouth. I restated what I actually said and linked to it. The first time could have been a error on your part. You repeating the misrepresentation of my point begins to look like a deliberate act on your part. Calling you on your misrepresentations is not character assassination - it is stating facts.

[Fiver]

I am still waiting for Fiver to comment on my thoughts about his take on the 14-18 hour workdays and how it would have impacted Charles Lechmere. Let's see if he has gotten around to it tomorrow afternoon, when I will be back out here.

I already did. You even replied to it.

[John Wheat]

I am still waiting for Fiver to comment on my thoughts about his take on the 14-18 hour workdays and how it would have impacted Charles Lechmere. Let's see if he has gotten around to it tomorrow afternoon, when I will be back out here.

Don't bother if you've going to post more unsubstantiated bilge about Lechmere.