Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Contrary to PI's claims, Druitt's cricket playing does not give him a "cast-iron alibi". But he if he had been investigated at the time, he might have had one.

I always find it exasperating when someone purports to disagree with me but the substance of his comment is actually in agreement with my own position.

I did not claim that Druitt had a cast iron alibi.

I did claim that had he been challenged to produce one, he would likely have been able to do so.

[Fiver]

Now you're contradicting yourself.

As I have stated, I believe that Druitt had a cast-iron alibi for that murder.

.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Now you're contradicting yourself.

I am not contradicting myself.

I wrote that I believe that Druitt had a cast-iron alibi.

I did not claim that Druitt had a cast iron alibi.

[Lewis C]

To me, that means Sickert did have an alibi. It's not 100% coverage - real life alibis seldom are - but it is multiple independent sources putting Sickert outside of England at the time. In a whodunnit, that could have been a clever ruse to throw off suspicion. In real life, pnly someone under suspicion would try to fake an alibi and Sickert was not under suspicion. A fake alibi would also be a premeditated act and I don't see how any of the crimes would have been, at least not on that level.

And if Sickert was going to fake an alibi for the first four, why didn't he for Kelly's murder?

If 100% coverage isn't required, then you're probably right. What's makes the scenario seem especially unlikely is that he would have had to come back to England not once, but 3 times. Or maybe I should say at least 3 times. There may have been a time or two that JtR was out looking for a victim and came up empty.

[Lewis C]

It may suprise you but for years I totally believed lech was the ripper. By chance I stumbled on the c5 docu and it seemed so obvious and simple. For years following that docu I regularly checked on casebook to see the latest thinking on lech, partly because I was uneasy about the actual case against lech. At that point the only other suspect name I could have told you was tumblety. It wasn't until the first lockdown that I was so unsure that I started going through each suspect case by case. So I was a fully signed up true believer of lech, not just a knee jerk reaction dismissing lech out of hand. And I believe I was right to dismiss lech because when all said and done the case is really wafer thin imo

I've been on a similar journey. After I first saw The Missing Evidence: Jack the Ripper, he became my #1 suspect. As I've looked closer at him, I still wouldn't rule him out as a suspect, but I don't think there's very much reason to think that it was him.

As I see it, the reasons for thinking it might be him boil down to:

1. He found the body of one of the victims.

2. He walked through the area where the murders occurred on the way to work, except for the double event locations, which weren't far from where his mother lived.

3. He was in the Whitechapel area the entire time that the murders occurred.

4. He didn't grow up in a stable 2-parent family.

What's the best reason for suspecting Lechmere besides the 4 that I've listed above? I've heard other reasons given: He used his stepfather's surname rather than the one on his birth certificate at the inquest. He was at the inquest on Monday rather than Saturday. He wore his work clothes to the inquest. His recollection of his conversation with the policeman was different from that of the policeman. (I find Lechmere's version more likely.) I don't find any of these reasons convincing.

[Fiver]

Cannot the same considerations be applied to Druitt?

Druitt was obviously not under suspicion before the first murder was committed, and why did he not contrive alibis for the other murders?

There is no evidence that Druitt had an alibi. There is plenty of evidence that Sickert had an alibi.

[Fiver]

On the basis of what we have, Lechmere is a vastly better suspect than the other two.

There is no evidence against Lechmere, so I am baffled why you would consider him a better suspect Druitt or Kosminski.

To imagine an unlikely itinerary just so you can ridicule it is straw-manning (again). And why stress 'the walk from his mother's house to Berner Street' when the distance walked is literally 250 yards and would likely take less than 90 seconds?

PI's post had nothing to do with the time needed to walk to Berner Street. Congrats on attacking something they didn't say.

The point is that in order to kill Stride and Eddowes, Lechmere would have to have stayed up at least 23 hours straight or gotten up at least three hours early on his only day off.

I hope that helps people navigate through the seemingly inevitable future garbage fields produced by Lechmere Derangement Syndrome.

Some of PI's ideas are pretty bad, but the majority of the garbage comes from people who claim Lechmere is a good suspect.

* Almost everything that Lechmere did from the moment Robert Paul saw him standing in the middle of the street to when they parted company would be extremely stupid for a murderer to do, but make sense for an innocent man.
* Neither Paul nor PC Mizen observed any blood on Lechmere's hands or clothes.
* Lechmere came forward voluntarily to give evidence.
* Chapman was killed after Lechmere started work.
* Killing Stride and Eddowes would have required Lechmere to stay up at least 23 hours straight or to get up at least 3 hours early on him only day off.
* The Ripper took trophy organs, which would have been extremely difficult to hide in a large household full of small children.

[Fiver]

I always find it exasperating when someone purports to disagree with me but the substance of his comment is actually in agreement with my own position.

If you think that, you did not understand what I said. I said that contrary to your claims, Druitt's cricket schedule did not give him an alibi for any of the killings. I also said that if he had been interviewed at the time, he might have been able to provide an alibi. I said that not having an alibi does not prove Druitt was the Ripper, it means we can't eliminate him as a suspect.

[FISHY1118]

There is no evidence that has been produced here that Sickert had and alibi .

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If you think that, you did not understand what I said. I said that contrary to your claims, Druitt's cricket schedule did not give him an alibi for any of the killings. I also said that if he had been interviewed at the time, he might have been able to provide an alibi. I said that not having an alibi does not prove Druitt was the Ripper, it means we can't eliminate him as a suspect.

Contrary to PI's claims, Druitt's cricket playing does not give him a "cast-iron alibi". But he if he had been investigated at the time, he might have had one.

(Fiver # 390)


I did not claim that Druitt had a cast iron alibi.

I did claim that had he been challenged to produce one, he would likely have been able to do so.

(PI1 # 406)


I did understand what you wrote.

And anyone reading our exchange above can see that what you claimed to be my position is not my position.

Neither of us has claimed that Druitt definitely had a cast-iron alibi and neither of us has claimed that he definitely did not have a cast-iron alibi.

I am not going to argue over a non-disagreement.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is no evidence against Lechmere, so I am baffled why you would consider him a better suspect Druitt or Kosminski.



PI's post had nothing to do with the time needed to walk to Berner Street. Congrats on attacking something they didn't say.

The point is that in order to kill Stride and Eddowes, Lechmere would have to have stayed up at least 23 hours straight or gotten up at least three hours early on his only day off.



Some of PI's ideas are pretty bad, but the majority of the garbage comes from people who claim Lechmere is a good suspect.

* Almost everything that Lechmere did from the moment Robert Paul saw him standing in the middle of the street to when they parted company would be extremely stupid for a murderer to do, but make sense for an innocent man.
* Neither Paul nor PC Mizen observed any blood on Lechmere's hands or clothes.
* Lechmere came forward voluntarily to give evidence.
* Chapman was killed after Lechmere started work.
* Killing Stride and Eddowes would have required Lechmere to stay up at least 23 hours straight or to get up at least 3 hours early on him only day off.
* The Ripper took trophy organs, which would have been extremely difficult to hide in a large household full of small children.

Of the six ideas you list, I have long been using five of them, since before I even joined this forum.

That's not bad for someone who has some 'pretty bad ideas.'

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is no evidence that Druitt had an alibi. There is plenty of evidence that Sickert had an alibi.

(Fiver # 411)


There is no evidence that has been produced here that Sickert had and alibi .

(FISHY1118, # 414)


They were both on trips to the coast and with companions at the same time - Druitt on the English coast and Sickert on the French coast.

There is no evidence that either of them was in London on the date of the first murder.

You can argue about the quality of the alibis, but they both had alibis and had they been questioned, it is likely that companions of theirs would have provided cast-iron alibis.

[FISHY1118]

There is no evidence that Druitt had an alibi. There is plenty of evidence that Sickert had an alibi.

(Fiver # 411)


There is no evidence that has been produced here that Sickert had and alibi .

(FISHY1118, # 414)


They were both on trips to the coast and with companions at the same time - Druitt on the English coast and Sickert on the French coast.

There is no evidence that either of them was in London on the date of the first murder.

You can argue about the quality of the alibis, but they both had alibis and had they been questioned, it is likely that companions of theirs would have provided cast-iron alibis.

There is no evidence that I've seen that he was actually in France during sept 1888 ,ive seen evidence he was holidaying in France on the 6th sept but the year to the best of my knowledge is has never been shown on the letter that some use to suggest it was that year .

Given the the fact sickert used to holiday there quite regularly over the years during the summer, it could well have been a previous or later year than 1888.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is no evidence that I've seen that he was actually in France during sept 1888 ,ive seen evidence he was holidaying in France on the 6th sept but the year to the best of my knowledge is has never been shown on the letter that some use to suggest it was that year .

Given the the fact sickert used to holiday there quite regularly over the years during the summer, it could well have been a previous or later year than 1888.

There is general agreement among art experts that it was dated 1888, so presumably at least some of them have seen the original and seen the year 1888 on it.

The letter in question is, furthermore, one of three letters dated 1888, which place Sickert in France on 6 September, 16 September, and 21 September 1888.

An entry in the diary of Daniel Halevy mentions a visit by Sickert to his mother during the summer of 1888 - supposedly in Paris.

There is general agreement among art historians that Sickert's holiday in France in 1888 lasted from early August until late September or early October.

His painting called 'October Sun' is generally dated 1888 although sometimes dated circa 1888.

According to Michael Palin, who bought the picture, it was painted in 1888.

We cannot see the dates on the letters but that does not mean that the art historians are wrong or that they are trying to deceive us!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I did not claim that Druitt had a cast iron alibi.

Post # 361 from you.

“As I have stated before, I believe that Druitt did have a cast iron alibi for the first murder.”