Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[The Rookie Detective]

PC Neil specifically said Nichols' eyes were open. Does anyone specifically say that any of the other victims' eyes were closed? If so, that might point to an added behavior to the murderer's signature - closing his victims eyelids after killing them.

I see three possibilities for the Nichols case.

* It was too dark for Paul and Lechmere to tell if Nichols' eyes were open. While that seems odd, both did say it was too dark to see the throat wound.

* Paul and Lechmere did notice Nichols' eyes were open, but just didn't mention it. If I remember correctly, the other police and doctors didn't comment on whether or not Nichols' eyes were open.

* Nichols' eyes were closed when Paul and Lechmere saw her, but open when PC Neil saw her. That would imply that Nichols was unconscious when the Carmen examined her, but died before PC Neil arrived.

Brilliant post Fiver!

Your final point is potentially very significant.


IF PC Neil confirmed her eyes were open postmortem, then that is proven by the mortuary photo taken of her face in which we can all clearly see her eyes are OPEN.

Now unless there's a clinical/neurological way in which eyes can OPEN AFTER a person is deceased; through some sort of automated electrical brain function delay, then I would imagine that it would be impossible for her eyes to have opened after she had died.

I'm not sure what the statistical likelihood is of a person's eyes remaining open after having been murdered, but I wonder if this gives us a clue as to the duration/sequence/application of the attack on Nichols.

Now IF her eyes were closed when Lechmere and Paul observed her, then that would imply that she was still alive when they left the scene.

However, if they didn't notice her eyes, then it cannot be proven either way and I would suggest that on the balance of probability, her eyes were open throughout the entire ordeal.

If either Lechmere or Paul state anywhere in their respective testimonies/statements that her eyes were closed, then she was not dead when they left her and that would make their BOTH being by the body just that little bit more suspicious.

What i would also say is this...what are the most natural things that a person does to check for signs of life?

Check for breathing
Check for a Pulse
Look at the eyes for signs of dilation?

Is it therefore likely that BOTH men failed to notice her unresponsive AND her eyes staring into space? (a sure sign a person is deceased)

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

[Fisherman]

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.

[Fisherman]

I believe that eyes can open shortly after death, hence the old custom of putting pennies on the eyes to keep them closed.

I did a bit of reading on this, and the custom apparently dates back to the Greeks, who wanted to pay Charon, the ferryman by river Styx, for the fare. It has also been a common practice in many cultures to put coins on the eyelids to force them closed. The coins have been left in place until rigor sets in, it is said, but if that reflects a real risk of the eyes otherwise opening or if it is a superstitious thing, is another matter. A fairly new thesis on the subject says that "omplete eye closure at death suggests peacefulness, restfulness and a comfortable ‘closure of life’", whereas "the startled post-mortem appearance of fixed open eyes suggests a fearful, and not a peaceful judgement."

The closing and opening up of the eyes depends on muscular activity, and therefore on chemical and electric matters. I found another thesis, in which it was established that a partial eyelid opening could be initiated in a braindead woman, by way of inflicting pain on the body: "the patient presented partial bilateral eyelid elevation, after about two seconds, in response to painful stimulation of the left or right nipple. Immediately after cessation of the painful stimulation, the eyelid slowly returned to baseline."

It would be nice if there was somebody out there with medical insights who could provide the full answer to this.

[Doctored Whatsit]

PC Neil specifically said Nichols' eyes were open. Does anyone specifically say that any of the other victims' eyes were closed? If so, that might point to an added behavior to the murderer's signature - closing his victims eyelids after killing them.

I see three possibilities for the Nichols case.

* It was too dark for Paul and Lechmere to tell if Nichols' eyes were open. While that seems odd, both did say it was too dark to see the throat wound.

* Paul and Lechmere did notice Nichols' eyes were open, but just didn't mention it. If I remember correctly, the other police and doctors didn't comment on whether or not Nichols' eyes were open.

* Nichols' eyes were closed when Paul and Lechmere saw her, but open when PC Neil saw her. That would imply that Nichols was unconscious when the Carmen examined her, but died before PC Neil arrived.

I believe that eyes can open shortly after death, hence the old custom of putting pennies on the eyes to keep them closed.

[Fisherman]

PC Neil specifically said Nichols' eyes were open. Does anyone specifically say that any of the other victims' eyes were closed? If so, that might point to an added behavior to the murderer's signature - closing his victims eyelids after killing them.

I see three possibilities for the Nichols case.

* It was too dark for Paul and Lechmere to tell if Nichols' eyes were open. While that seems odd, both did say it was too dark to see the throat wound.

* Paul and Lechmere did notice Nichols' eyes were open, but just didn't mention it. If I remember correctly, the other police and doctors didn't comment on whether or not Nichols' eyes were open.

* Nichols' eyes were closed when Paul and Lechmere saw her, but open when PC Neil saw her. That would imply that Nichols was unconscious when the Carmen examined her, but died before PC Neil arrived.

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.

As for your third option, I must confess not to be any expert - but can a person who is so severely cut up as Nichols go into unconsciousness with the eyes closed, and then open them up as she dies? Genuine question. I would have thought that the likely thing was that she died with her eyes open as she was strangled/suffocated. Ted Bundy has given a vivid description of how that was a moment that made him feel godlike or something along those lines; when he saw the light die down in his victims eyes as he throttled the life out of them.
It would surprise me much if she was strangled, had her abdomen cut very deeply in a number of cuts, and had her throat severed down to the bone - and then, a minute or two - or many, as some will have it - later she woke up from her unconsciousness, opened up her eyes - and died?

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

[Fiver]

How did Lechmere/Paul evben consider thinking that Nichols could have been alive, when she was the only victim whose eyes were OPEN post-mortem?

PC Neil specifically said Nichols' eyes were open. Does anyone specifically say that any of the other victims' eyes were closed? If so, that might point to an added behavior to the murderer's signature - closing his victims eyelids after killing them.

I see three possibilities for the Nichols case.

* It was too dark for Paul and Lechmere to tell if Nichols' eyes were open. While that seems odd, both did say it was too dark to see the throat wound.

* Paul and Lechmere did notice Nichols' eyes were open, but just didn't mention it. If I remember correctly, the other police and doctors didn't comment on whether or not Nichols' eyes were open.

* Nichols' eyes were closed when Paul and Lechmere saw her, but open when PC Neil saw her. That would imply that Nichols was unconscious when the Carmen examined her, but died before PC Neil arrived.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, the time has now come for me to approach the poster ”Fiver” and have a chat with him. I am hoping that we both can keep the discussion as factual and non-aggressive as possible.

Back in November last year, Fiver posted an excerpt from The Standard, surrounding the working conditions of carmen, Pickfords carmen being among the ones mentioned. It is said in the article that the carmen, who were striving for a twelve hour working day, instead ”at present” (and the article hailed from June 1891) ”had to work from fourteen to eighteen hours per day with no allowance for overtime”.

This article has been used by Fiver to suggest that Charles Lechmere would have been so much occupied with work, as to make him a very poor bid for the killers role. This - and a few more angles of the affair - will be discussed further down this post, but I will begin by pointing out how I believe that the article is mostly about how one of the three hauling companies mentioned, The London Parcels Delivery Company, is the actual focus for the papers interest. The other two companies are Messrs. Carter, Paterson and Co., and then also Pickfords.

What is said in the article is that the meeting informed about in the article was ”to consider their present situation with regard to their demand for a twelve hours day, 6d. Per hour overtime, three days´ holiday in the year for men of twelve months´ service and the abolition of the Sick and Accident Funds. The chairman said the Union had asked them to agitate for an eight hours day, but that could never be applied to their business. They would be content to have a twelve hours day and overtime. At present they had to work from fourteen to eighteen hours per day with no allowance for overtime, and without any holidays during the year.”

Having read this far, it seems that all three hauling companies shared these hardships, and were deprived of the benefits mentioned. But there is reason to think this was not so; when we move a bit further down the article, we have the chairman quoted again, this time like this:

”He moved: -That, after having made repeated applications to be heard with regard to our grievances, and receiving no satisfactory answer, we again apply to Mr. Morley, the manager of the London Parcels Delivery Company, to receive us on Tuesday night, and we shall very much regret if this should not be granted, as in that event we shall be compelled to stop work on Wednesday morning, and wait at the gates until we see Mr Morley.”

So, what we have here is not a unanimous picture. There is just the one company who threatens to lay down their work if they are not granted a discussion with the manager of the company, and that is the London Parcels Delivery Company.

The article goes on to state that ”One of Messrs. Carter, Paterson and Co´s men said the company employed about 1500 men, and they were in entire sympathy with the men of the London Parcels Delivery Company. They intended to hold a meeting in support of their colleagues. Their firm had yielded to them in one point - that was the three days holiday for men of twelve months´ service. The same thing had been granted for Pickford, b ut they would not see their brethren of the London Parcels Delivery Company left out in the cold (cheers). The advance of 28s. Per week for double horsemen and 24s. Per week for single-horsemen had been granted surreptitiously to a number of the older servants, but they wanted it to be given all round, and if the Parcels Delivery men came out the other two firms would support them, and, if necessary, come out as well.”

What is immediately obvious here, is that the London Parcels Delivery Company was a company that was lagging behind the other two in terms of rights and benefits. What is also obvious, is that older servants of the companies had been given economical improvements, although it is not clear if that applied to all three companies or just the two.

Summing up, I think it must be recognized that there were significant differences in between the companies, and in between older and younger carmen, and so that makes me think that there may well have been differences when it comes to the 14-18 hour working days mentioned.

This means that we may of course have had a situation where the 14-18 hour working day was not a reality for Charles Lechmere. We cannot tell. But let’s work from the assumption that he did 14 hour working days in 1888, three years before the article was written and the problems described came to the surface - we can not know if the same situation prevailed in 1887-89, but again, since there is interest in scrutininzing the claims made that a long working day would likely prohibit Charles Lechmere from having killed Stride and Eddowes, I will go with the 14 hour suggestion.

The reason that the other murders in the series are not looked upon in this context is of course that they may all have been committed along Lechmeres way to work, in which case the length of the working day would have had no impact.

First of all, just as it is an assumption that Lechmere worked 14 hours, it is also an assumption that he worked at all on the Saturday leading up to the murders. As a matter of fact, he may well have not worked at all on that Saturday. People fell ill and got injured back then too, and that did not necessarily mean that they lost their jobs over it. And yes, people could also claim that they were ill back then, without this being the truth. That means, of course, that we cannot know for certain that Lechmere did a 14 hour working day before moving on to killing Stride and Eddowes.

But again, these are side remarks, and we will work from the assumption that he did work 14 hours before the two murders. And in the thread ”Evidence of Innocence”, Fiver described the problem he identified with it like this:

”* CAL had to be to work at 4am. He likely woke up at 3am, perhaps earlier.

* Elizabeth Stride was killed between 12:45am and 1am.

* Catherine Eddowes was killed between 1:35am and 1:45am.

So for CAL to be the Ripper he would have to have get up three hours early (on his day off, no less) or he would have to stay up for 23 hours straight. Neither seems likely for a man pushing forty.”

The long and the short of things is that it was never impossible to get up three hours early on a day off, and that it was equally never impossible to stay up for 23 hours straight.

Moreover, if we assume that Lechmere got up at 3 AM on that Saturday, and started working at 4 AM, doing 14 hours, we have him getting off at 6 PM, which should see him back in Doveton Street at roughly around 6.30 PM. If he then had supper to 7 PM and a two hour nap, he would be ready to set off for St Georges at around 9 PM, would he not? And as I have said before on many occasions, we must not rule out that his reason to go to St Georges was something else than to see his mother and daughter; he could equally well have gone there to drink with old friends from his old neighborhood, that he had left only a few months before.

Then, after having done whatever he did, a pub crawl, a double murder or both, he could go home, knowing that he had the rest of the day off, and was able to sleep as much as he desired.

I cannot see how this matter could in any way prohibit Lechmere from having been the killer. And saying ”but that must have made him tired” is not the best of reasons to call off a murder hunt.

But the reason I truly wanted to discuss this matter, is one of the other possible angles that I mentioned above! Because it may well be that Fiver has inadvertently stumbled over a possible reason behind the killing spree of the latter part of the 1880s.

Serial murder is often set off by stress. Lets listen to what Nicola Malizia says in her thesis ”Serial Killer: The Mechanism from Imagination to the Murder Phases”:

”Becoming a serial killer is a long, drawn-out process, not a discrete event. A theory that has attempted to integrate cultural, developmental, psychological, and biological concepts is Stephen Giannangelo’s diathesis-stress model (1996). The theory states that all serial killers have a congenital propensity to behave and think in ways that lead to serial killing, if combined with environmental stressors. ”

Stress is often something a budding serial killer experiences a something that robs him of the one quality serial killers are so very often addictive to: control.

So here we have a very interesting example of how it may be that Lechmeres work was something he felt left him without any possibility to shape his own life, eating away at his time and leaving nothing much to him to control himself.

We may well be looking at not so much a reason for why Lechmere would not have killed as an at least partial explanation for why he DID kill!

This is an interesting matter to me, and it is also how I believe ripperology benefits from discussions. Want I don’t think ripperology benefits from is baseless accusations between posters, and to show how I reason about it, I am going to use a few posts by Fivers hand that have failed to meet the mark, as per myself. My passages, if they are quoted, will be in blue below, and Fivers will be in red.

Originally posted by Fisherman

That is your reoccurring mantra, Fiver, and it is untrue. For example, you make the claim that I don't understand what my forensic witnesses say. Then you claim that I would not have understood that Jason Payne James spoke for another likely bleeding out time than Ingemar Thiblin did, and you say that Payne James suggested seven minutes.

The problem with this is that Payne James never did that. He very clearly suggested three to five minutes, and this is the exact thing I have stated in my book and presented on the boards. Thiblin then concurred with Payne James, so they are both promoting 3-5 minutes as the likeliest bleeding out time, although neither man is ruling out seven minutes. Or nine, for that matter.

It's not a mantra. It's the facts.

You misrepresent the forensic doctors. They are college professors, not crime scene investigators. They told you they had little or no data. And they did not agree on 3-5 minutes. You asked some vague questions of Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin, and interpreted them the way you wanted to.

For Jason Payne James:

Q. Just how quickly CAN a person with the kind of damage that Nichols had bleed out, if we have nothing that hinders the bloodflow, and if the victim is flat on level ground? Can a total desanguination take place in very few minutes in such a case.

A. Yes

Q. Do you know of any examples?

A. No

Q. Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?

A. I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic.


You appear to have made up the word "desanguination". You don't even appear to understand that to "bleed out completely' and to "stop bleeding" are not the same thing.

For Ingemar Thiblin you claim that Thiblin told you that there is "not much empirical data to go on"' as to how long "a seeping bleeding" could last, but that "ten to fifteen minutes'" possible.

So Thiblin stated that he had very little data and estimated 10 to 15 minutes.

James stated he had no data at all and estimated 3 to 7 minutes, based on your prompting.

The two professors disagreed on time and admitted they had little or no information to base their estimates on.

Here, Fiver makes up his own personal truth. I have always been extremely clear on how Payne James and Thiblin both agree that the bleeding would be most likely to stop after around 3-5 minutes. It then applies, and I have been equally clear on that score, that Thiblin and Payne James BOTH agreed that longer timings could apply, but that the were less likely and the more time that was added, the less likely the suggestion would be. And Thiblin offered 10-15 minutes as his absolute and unlikely extreme.

This Fiver claims adds up to Thiblin having suggested 10-15 minutes whereas Payne James estimated 3-7. And after having left out the all important fact that BOTH men suggested 3-5 minutes as their likeliest suggestion, he adds that I misrepresent the facts.

We cannot pick and choose parts to try and make up a faulty picture of our opponents.

Next:

Originally posted by Fisherman

You are welcome to present where Payne James would have suggested another likely time of bleeding out that the he we can check and see how truthful your claim is. It is the absolute best way of checking things like these, and getting to the core of them.

I have posted it repeatedly. You ignoring the facts does not make them go away.

So what you are doing is to claim things on my behalf that are simply not true. If they WERE true, they would make me look reckless/dumb/dishonest/misleading and so on and so forth, which may of course be the reason for your reoccurring misrepresentations of what I say. Or maybe you just were not able to read and understand what was said.

They are true. And you are quite correct about how your inaccurate posts make you look.

Here, faced with his methodology, Fiver simply denies. No attempt at any discussion along the lines, ”Oh, I may have misunderstood”. Which is kind of sad, if you ask me.

Next:

Fisherman's version of Lechmere would need to be inhumanly brave, stunningly stupid, and incredibly lucky. And Fisherman attempts to explain this by saying that psychopaths don't think logically.

This is how Fiver presents Lechmere. In actuality, what I think is that Lechmere was able to think on his feet, had a good deal of luck and was not stupid at all. The ”brave” thing is , I presume, Fivers way of saying that he PERSONALLY believes that no killer would stay put at a murder site in order to con oncoming people, and the ”stunningly stupid” propably relates to how Lechmere attended the inquest or something such - and if so, it is again just an interpretation made by Fiver with which I disagree. Many criminals can come forward to save their bacon, and that does not make them stunningly stupid at all. So Fivers description is - in my mind - a wild exaggeration, where it would have sufficed to acknowledge a disagreement..

Next:

Richard Jones’s tour website says "As to whether Jack the Ripper has actually been “unmasked”, the honest answer to that question has to be a resounding no. "

"It has to be said, that the concrete facts about Charles Lechmere’s involvement in the Jack the Ripper murders, end with his being present at the site of the murder of Mary Nichols as the discoverer of her body, and anything linking him to the other Whitechapel murders is nothing more than supposition and speculation. " - Richard Jones, 4 December 2022

"Attempts to depict him [Lechmere] as a psychopath, or to suggest that he had a domineering mother, or that he may have been a frequent user of prostitutes are nothing more than conjecture. If there is a case for him to answer, then it must be based on established facts and not on surmise." Richard Jones, 4 December 2022

These excerpts are in response to how I wrote that Richard Jones described my book as ”fantastic” in his interview with me, and Fiver now argues that Richard Jones actually thinks that any suggestion that Lechmere could have been the killer is nonsense. To make his case, Fiver sadly uses a collection of quotations from BEFORE when Jones read my book. And not only that, he has another explanation to why Jones called my book ”fantastic” in his video:

Fantastic, adj. & n.: Existing only in imagination; proceeding merely from imagination; fabulous, imaginary, unreal (obs.) - Oxford English Dictionary

So this is what Fiver suggests that Richard Jones meant when using the word ”fantastic”: a work of fiction, a figment of my imagination. ”You’ve put a fantastic case. The book, I highly recommend ”Cutting Point”, it is a fantastic book.”

These are the words of a ripperologist who has a very good reputation and whose word counts for a lot in ripperology. I am very pleased and proud about them, and much less happy about any effort to try and alter what Jones said and meant.

To finish off, a quotation made by Fiver in the ”Evidence of Innocence” thread, post 2746, in response to another poster than me:

”You continue to puts words in my mouth. Nothing in what you say matches anything I said and some of it is the complete opposite of what I said.”

It is good to see that Fiver acknowledges that we should not put words in other posters mouths!

Oh no, wait a minute, I believe I have also promised to comment on how Fiver likes to speak of the cult of Lechmere and the church of Lechmere. It of course suggests that those who believe in Lechmere as the likely killer, are not basing their thinking on facts, but on religion or cultism.

Religion is normally built on things that do not exist, etheric creatures referred to as gods. And while my research points to a carman whose existence will have been very mundane in most ways, and who is proven to have found alone at the murder site of Polly Nichols, Fiver prefers to rely on the etheric figure of the so called Phantom Killer, a person who people believe must have existed, but where there is not a iot of proof to go along with that suggestion.

It seems Fiver is propagating for a so far completely etheric solution to the Ripper riddle than I am, settling for the mundane solution.

I’ll leave it at that.

I welcome any response you have, Fiver, and you are welcome to ask any questions you like of me. If I can, I will answer them.

In the history of crime how many hundreds of thousands of people found a body in the street?

How many, that can be named, actually turned out to have been the killer?

The constant repetition of ‘well he was at the scene,’ is about as useful as saying ‘well he had arms so he could have been the killer.’

Finding a body is not evidence of anything apart from of finding a body. It’s desperation that this has to be repeated. It shows how non-existent the case against him is. This is my evidence has been manipulated, exaggerations have been made and wilful misuses of the English language have been employed. These things have been proven (even though Fisherman tries to slither past them.)

A desperately weak case and a desperately weak suspect requiring a dishonest approach to desperately shoehorn him into place.

[Fisherman]

... by taking the stance that he WAS the killer and no other suspect should be considered, is where things start to break down and unravel for those in favor of Lechmere.

RD

Just for information, I am not saying and have never said that no other suspect should be considered. As a matter of fact, I have often expressed how I am thankful that there are others who look at lines of research that I myself do not engage in, since that makes us cover a much broader field together.

I firmly believe myself that Lechmere was the killer, but that is quite another matter.

[Fisherman]

I appreciate you not regurgitating the same old tired, discredited ideas and for having the guts to not try to dictate who can discuss any specific point.

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.

[Fiver]

Just a few random questions...but the idea is that they are OPEN TO RESPONSE BY ANYONE...

Or you can get in line and wait your turn...ha ha

Seriously though, I welcome anyone to discuss and/or dismiss all my questions above; because that's what we should all be here for in the first place.

RD

I appreciate you not regurgitating the same old tired, discredited ideas and for having the guts to not try to dictate who can discuss any specific point.

[The Rookie Detective]

The biggest irony about this particular thread is that Lechmere; as a standalone killer of Nichols, is someone who should indeed be considered as a person of interest based on the fact he was seen standing close to the body very shortly after Nichols had been murdered.

That in itself is a reason to suspect Lechmere.

However, by taking the stance that he WAS the killer and no other suspect should be considered, is where things start to break down and unravel for those in favor of Lechmere.

The reason why I say this; is because at one time even I believed that Lechmere was MOST PROBABLY the killer, but this started to change once I began to read and re-read the variety of threads dedicated to Lechmere and the theories of him having been the ripper.

The irony is that the more that certain theories are pushed, and pushed to excess, they begin to have the opposite effect.

It's a bit like having a bag of chips (fries) and someone telling you they would taste better with some salt on...so you try them with some salt and experience the taste sensation & revelation that "yes" they do taste better with a pinch of salt... but then someone tells you that you need more salt...and you allow for that and add a little more...and the chips/fried still taste good...but just as you take ownership of having your chips/fries with a little more salt, you are then told that you need to have more salt because there really is no other option, and you need more salt because salt tastes better on everything and just fits with chips/fries..and even Ice Cream...and you really need to have more salt...

The end effect...is that the constant barrage of "Lechmere" "Lechmere" "Lechmere" ...has the opposite desired effect of what is intended to be pushed and pedaled by Lechmerians.

Over-saturation and Immovability over any given suspect is the best way to RUIN that suspect being considered or taken seriously.

Less is more and all that Jazz...

...and let's not forget that as usually, people don't like or appreciate having ideas forced down their throats.

Because that's just human nature...

It's a form of 'suspect extremism' and you know when an argument is lost; when people are told their posts are subject to limited response based on them being controlled by one person who "Dictates" to the rest.

Respectfully, the truth is, that unless you're part of the admin team on this site that polices the forum, then you have NO say on who can or who can't post or respond.

I've never been one to comply with being told what to do by someone who I share a seat at the table with.

The forum discussion table is ROUND. as I see it.

It's a shame that this thread has gone the way it has; because I for one have the utmost respect and admiration for EVERYONE on this site; regardless of differences of opinion.

And let's not forget...

"Great minds DON'T think alike"

But I digress...

The best way to promote Lechmere as a suspect...is to allow others to come to conclusions themselves.

Lechmerians have inadvertently and systematically helped to destroy their own suspect, by forcing the issue and not allowing for contextual moderation.

If for example we add little details and ask some random questions like...

How did Lechmere/Paul evben consider thinking that Nichols could have been alive, when she was the only victim whose eyes were OPEN post-mortem?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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

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

Did his knocking down and killing the boy on his cart a few years prior to the murders have a distinct negative psychological effect on him?

Did he and his daughter reconcile and make amends shortly after the murders stopped, after he attended Mary Anne's wedding and signed as one of the 2 witnesses?


Just a few random questions...but the idea is that they are OPEN TO RESPONSE BY ANYONE...

Or you can get in line and wait your turn...ha ha

Seriously though, I welcome anyone to discuss and/or dismiss all my questions above; because that's what we should all be here for in the first place.



RD

[Fisherman]

When are you going to stop dodging rjpalmer on the topic Charles Allen Lechmere--the Evidence of Psychopathy?

I have not even seen it, so I can't be dodging it, Fiver. Again, don't infer things when you don't know that there is reason to.

R J Palmer is welcome - as is anybody - to ask away on this thread when you and I are done with each other.

I would also like to hear more about your take that about an influence of the suggested 14-18 hour workday. So far, you have not answered about that (note how I am not saying that you are "dodging" it).

[Fisherman]

So, here we go, this is Fivers response to my post, his words in red, mine in blue. My answers are in bold blac text.


Originally posted by Fisherman
Back in November last year, Fiver posted an excerpt from The Standard, surrounding the working conditions of carmen, Pickfords carmen being among the ones mentioned. It is said in the article that the carmen, who were striving for a twelve hour working day, instead ”at present” (and the article hailed from June 1891) ”had to work from fourteen to eighteen hours per day with no allowance for overtime”.

This article has been used by Fiver to suggest that Charles Lechmere would have been so much occupied with work, as to make him a very poor bid for the killers role.

Anyone who reads what I actually posted, will see that Fisherman is putting words in my mouth again. And doesn't understand the use of smileys.

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.

Since I much prefer discussing the case to playing games, I am glad to see that Fiver then actually does turn to the issue at hand:

Here's my actual point, arguing against the idea that Lechmere would have killed Chaman or dropped the Pinchin Torso while on the job.

"It's a 14 to 18 hour shift. Pickford's vans typically had a van boy or van guard to prevent pilferage. Grabbing a bite or answering a call of nature takes a lot less time than finding a victim, going somewhere with them, mutilating the body, finding somewhere to clean up privately, cleaning up, and then heading back to the cart. And returning with obvious fresh blood on him would raise questions for every remaining customer and his coworkers when he returned to the Broad Street Station."

Yes, these are fairly obvious points. And I don't think anybody would argue against them. It is another matter altogether that they may not be applicable in the Ripper matter, though. We have Fiver here speaking about Lechmere "heading back to the cart", supposedly meaning that his criticism involves the Chapman murder, where Fiver seems to favor a late time of death. The problem here is that we cannot treat that late time of death as gospel, because a case can also be made for an early time of death. And when we duo not have the answer to that particular matter, it may well be that the scenery Fiver suggests was never there.
It all boils down to whether or not we are willing to take on board the possibility that we are perhaps not right, and the possible of an alternative solution that will remove the problems linked to the solution we ourselves believe in.
The same applies very much to the second point made here, about the problems with Lechmere arriving at his work with blood on his person. Here we have Jason Payne James saying that he would not expect the killer to have had much, if indeed any, blood on his person, when it comes to the Nichols murder. This is a good starting point to bear in mind when discussing the blood issue, not least if we couple it with Frederick Gordon Browns assertion that he would not expect the killer of Eddowes to have had much blood on his person.
Of course, the context given by Fiver above, relates mainly to the Chapman murder, where he suggests that the Killer of her struck at a late hour, and so he would be returning to his cart with blood on himself, and that would make returning to Pickfords a dangerous business. But again, if the Chapman murder went down at an early stage, before Lechmere was due at work, he may have had the opportunity to clean up before entering his working premises. And, again, doctor Brown suggests that there would not have been much blood to get rid of in the Eddowes case, and it is therefore likely that the same could have applied in the Chapman case.
So there are counter arguments to offer, that clears away Fivers problems.
Another question is what this all have to do with the suggested 14-18 hour workdays that I brought up in my post. Nothing, the way I see it - but that is no problems as such, I am happy to debate anything Fiver can think of.

I've also used the article to point out that if Charles Lechmere was the Ripper, it would make more sense to kill after work. He'd be getting off work sometime between 6pm and 10pm. That timing would mean he could kill after sunset. That level of time variation would give him hours to find a victim and still arrive home at a time he could blame on having more deliveries than usual. And give him hours to clean up before going home. And let him explain any missed stains as improperly packed meat or whatever leaking on him during his work day.

Yes, the 6-10 PM time space would offer darkness too, to a degree. But it would definitely not offer the seclusion offered by the abandoned back streets that were on offer at around 3 AM in the morning. So although the hunting grounds would have been filled with prey in the early evening, it would also be more or less impossible to carry out murders in the open street, which was what the Ripper engaged in.
It also applies that we can always find pros and cons coupled with any time period chosen, making it - at least to my mind - a fairly useless matter to try and claim that somebody is not a likely killer on account of how we personally perceive that he would have been better served with other circumstances than the ones chosen. We cannot dismiss theories on account of how we think that the optimal conditions were not present as the murders occurred, unless we can point to something completely extraordinary. And we can't but any effort in the department is welcome, and we will look at it.

It still wouldn't solve the problem of how he'd keep trophy organs, or in the case of Christer's TorsoRipper theory, entire decaying corpses, hidden in a house full of small children. But I never accuse the Cult of Lechmere of logic.

There is a lot of supposition going on here, about unestablished matters. Fiver is predisposing that the organs missing were taken as trophies, but this is an unestablished factor. The Kelly murder scene tells us that the Ripper was quite happy to cut out organs and leave them at the scene. Therefore, we cannot know that the killer took organs along with the intention to keep them.
Even if he did do just that, there is no reason to believe that he must have taken them home. And of course, the idea that he would have Brough carcasses to 22 Doveton Street, is a very lofty one, and certainly not something that I have suggested - speaking about putting words in each others mouths, Fiver. The suggestion I have made hundreds of times has not altered: he would likely have had access to some sort of bolthole in combination with the Torso murders.

I would appreciate if we can. over forward without the kind of remark you made when implying that I would have stated or believed that the killer brought the Torso victims to his own home, and how this would have been a very illogical thing to reason.

Since I have never reasoned that he did, but instead offered an alternative solution, it would be a lot better if you stuck with that, Fiver. That way, you would not have to infer unflattering things about me on false grounds. Offer criticism, by all means, but you need to be fair when doing so.

[Fisherman]

As stated before, I am not going to respond to anybody else than Fiver in this discussion. Others will have the possibility to ask questions of me if they feel so inclined, after I have finished my debate with Fiver. I will then choose one poster at theme to discuss with, and I will prioritize those who I have not debated with out here, meaning that Doctored Whatsit, Steven Blomer, Herlock Sholmes and Fiver will come last.

[Fiver]

I welcome any response you have, Fiver, and you are welcome to ask any questions you like of me. If I can, I will answer them.

When are you going to stop dodging rjpalmer on the topic Charles Allen Lechmere--the Evidence of Psychopathy?