Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

If 'balance and objectivity' were the aim -- as opposed to simply getting Lechmere off the table so Ripperology can go back to what it was before it ended -- the newspapers that say 3:20am would also be considered. As it is, group psychology seems to have dictated that this earlier time -- however it came about -- should now be ignored altogether.

M.

Can you really make a comment like this about ‘balance and objectivity) and keep a straight face? Have you read the ridiculous, desperate, embarrassing and frankly dishonest lengths that some have gone to simply due to an obsession (no other way of describing it) with Charles Cross? So much so that you get people editing the evidence in books and documentaries? So much so that you get someone on here suggesting that Cross’s actions are too much like the actions of an innocent man so it points to his guilt? Fiver has posted a list of the hysteria that’s gone on to promote this suspect. I think that Ripperologists have been more than patient.

Name one piece of valid evidence that points to his guilt. You have ‘he was there’ that’s all. Like the thousands other men who have found bodies in the street - and I’m yet to hear of one of them who turned out to have been the killer.

[Abby Normal]

for me, taking all the sources into account, the best we can determine is that lech left home about 3:30 and that paul entered bucks row about 3:45. if it took lech about 8 minutes to walk from his house to bucks row, then thats about 7 minutes gap. in which surely he could have killed nichols. although really, if he was the ripper, the timing is a moot point for me. because if he was, he probably left earlier than he stated if he was killing on his way to work, or he actually wasnt working on the days he killed.
i part ways with the lechmerians on this regard i think.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I concur with this

However, my initial point is that the term "around" 3.30am MUST also be applied to a few minutes BEFORE 3.30am for the sake of balance and objectivity.

While I don't believe that Lechmere was the killer for a multitude of reasons, I still believe that the term "AROUND 3.30AM" has to include minutes before and after 3.30am.

For example...

Cross leaving his house at 3.29am finding the body at 3.37am = questionable
Cross leaving his house at 3.28am finding the body at 3.36am = He's the killer

I only ask why Anti-Lechmere folk always start their "around 3.30am" leaving time at 3.30am and then move to timings AFTER 3.30am i.e. 3.31am, 3.32am etc...

And Pro-Lechmere folk always state 3.30am at the latest.

The term "around" is an approximate that has to be given scope for movement both ways prior and after 3.30am.

The fact remains that Lechmere was seen standing in the road, with a murdered woman lying a few feet away.
For him to be innocent, Robert Paul has to arrived at the murder site no more than a couple of minutes after Lechmere arrived, because Lechmere or any innocent person wouldn't have been standing stationary in the road contemplating the difference between a tarpaulin and a dead body for more than a couple of minutes.

Ascertaining the most likely time that Paul arrived is more important than focusing on Lechmere's timings. All we know from him is that he states he left home around 3.30am...BUT that could just as equally have been 3.27am as it could 3.33am.

To suggest that "around" 3.30am can only mean AFTER 3.30am is nonsensical because 3.27am is also "around 3.30am"

Personally, I believe Lechmere was innocent and missed the murder by no more than 3 minutes and that Paul arrived less than 2 minutes after Lechmere stopped in the road to look over at the heap on the floor.

The timings fit for Lechmere leaving around 3.30am (3.33am) and arriving around 3.41am...but that's beside the point.

The point is that he could have easily left "around 3.30am" (3.27am) and then murdered Nichols.

But Lechmere isn't innocent because we play around with timings to fit him being so, he's innocent because he would have needed to leave his family home on the way to work with a huge knife and murder on his mind on the way to work, despite having no history of violence whatsoever and no known motive to kill. THAT is why he is innocent.

RD

I’ve said numerous times on here RD that when considering a margin of error then it has to work both ways. So if Cross said “about 3.30,” then 3.25 is as likely as 3.35. But ‘earlier’ throws up more issues for Cross. If he left the house at 3.25 then he’d have got to Bucks Row around 3.32.

Could anyone believe he left it so near to clocking in time to go looking for a victim?
Can anyone believe that he picked Polly up elsewhere and took her back to his route to work so that he could kill her in such an open and risky spot (and not found some doorway or passage somewhere?)
Can anyone believe that he arrived in Bucks Row and stood around waiting on the off chance that a victim might show up?
Can anyone believe that he met her in Bucks Row at 3.32 or 3.33 or 3.34, took 1 or 2 minutes to kill her and then stood around waiting for a passerby to show up?

[FrankO]

... and I believe most quoted times can be read as give or take at least 5 minutes .

That's how I see it as well, Steve.

[Elamarna]

If 'balance and objectivity' were the aim -- as opposed to simply getting Lechmere off the table so Ripperology can go back to what it was before it ended -- the newspapers that say 3:20am would also be considered. As it is, group psychology seems to have dictated that this earlier time -- however it came about -- should now be ignored altogether.

M.

You should consider it yes, and then decide if you believe it is more reliable than the other reports.
it's repeated in two papers, using the same words, both papers also mention hearing a policeman, which does not appear in any other reports.

It is reasonable to conclude that the same reporter supplied the report to both papers.

So we have 2 reports ( probably be single reporter) saying 3.20, and ALL the rest saying about or at 3.30.( about being by far the more numerous).

Paul makes no mention of hearing a policeman before they left the body, either in his Lloyds account, or at the inquest.

It seems reasonable to conclude that the 3.20 and hearing a policeman is in all probability a misreporting by the journalist.

We see various interpretations of this, some claiming that he normally left at 3.20, which I am afraid is not what the reports say.

I see no reason to believe that what appears to be, in reality, a single report, which also mentions issues not reported by other papers, should be chosen as being reliable over the the rest of the reports of the inquest.

Steve

[Doctored Whatsit]

What would be more relevant, is whatever Lechmere said in his witness statement at the time, and not errors made by newspapers. We don't have the original statement, but that is what the police considered as evidence at the time. I can't help thinking that if he told them he started off at 3. 20 am and arrived in Buck's Row at 3. 40 am they would have been very suspicious!

As a carman starting work at 4 am, Lechmere would almost certainly have been "knocked up" by a police officer, and that PC's evidence would then have been available as a guide, presumably.

[Mark J D]

I concur with this

However, my initial point is that the term "around" 3.30am MUST also be applied to a few minutes BEFORE 3.30am for the sake of balance and objectivity.

If 'balance and objectivity' were the aim -- as opposed to simply getting Lechmere off the table so Ripperology can go back to what it was before it ended -- the newspapers that say 3:20am would also be considered. As it is, group psychology seems to have dictated that this earlier time -- however it came about -- should now be ignored altogether.

M.

[The Rookie Detective]

In general Steve what’s been suggested is that the coroner dismissed the testimony of three serving police officers on beats, that were set by time, in favour of Robert Paul - a man who none of us have a clue how he came by his time. Unless there was a clock at the corner of Bucks Row which has eluded yours (and everyone else’s) research. We’re all wary of making definite statements of course but in this case we can be as certain as possible that Baxter was referring to Neil, Thain and Mizen. Therefore the body was discovered not long before 3.45. Which would easily include 3.38, 3.39, 3.40, 3.41, 3.42 etc.

So just with those possible times we get..

Cross leaving his house at 3.30….finding the body at 3.38 = no gap
Cross leaving his house at 3.31….finding the body at 3.39 = no gap
Cross leaving his house at 3.32….finding the body at 3.40 = no gap
Cross leaving his house at 3.33…finding the body at 3.41 = no gap

We can postulate numerous versions, some give us a gap, some don’t. Those on the pro-Cross side have mystic powers which enable them to say…..GAP.

You know how it works by now Steve.

I concur with this

However, my initial point is that the term "around" 3.30am MUST also be applied to a few minutes BEFORE 3.30am for the sake of balance and objectivity.

While I don't believe that Lechmere was the killer for a multitude of reasons, I still believe that the term "AROUND 3.30AM" has to include minutes before and after 3.30am.

For example...

Cross leaving his house at 3.29am finding the body at 3.37am = questionable
Cross leaving his house at 3.28am finding the body at 3.36am = He's the killer

I only ask why Anti-Lechmere folk always start their "around 3.30am" leaving time at 3.30am and then move to timings AFTER 3.30am i.e. 3.31am, 3.32am etc...

And Pro-Lechmere folk always state 3.30am at the latest.

The term "around" is an approximate that has to be given scope for movement both ways prior and after 3.30am.

The fact remains that Lechmere was seen standing in the road, with a murdered woman lying a few feet away.
For him to be innocent, Robert Paul has to arrived at the murder site no more than a couple of minutes after Lechmere arrived, because Lechmere or any innocent person wouldn't have been standing stationary in the road contemplating the difference between a tarpaulin and a dead body for more than a couple of minutes.

Ascertaining the most likely time that Paul arrived is more important than focusing on Lechmere's timings. All we know from him is that he states he left home around 3.30am...BUT that could just as equally have been 3.27am as it could 3.33am.

To suggest that "around" 3.30am can only mean AFTER 3.30am is nonsensical because 3.27am is also "around 3.30am"

Personally, I believe Lechmere was innocent and missed the murder by no more than 3 minutes and that Paul arrived less than 2 minutes after Lechmere stopped in the road to look over at the heap on the floor.

The timings fit for Lechmere leaving around 3.30am (3.33am) and arriving around 3.41am...but that's beside the point.

The point is that he could have easily left "around 3.30am" (3.27am) and then murdered Nichols.

But Lechmere isn't innocent because we play around with timings to fit him being so, he's innocent because he would have needed to leave his family home on the way to work with a huge knife and murder on his mind on the way to work, despite having no history of violence whatsoever and no known motive to kill. THAT is why he is innocent.

RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

What is really extraordinary is how the independent data is taken NOT to be the 3 INDEPENDENT police officers by many pro Lechmere people.

That alone is a classic example of ignoring the obvious, the evidence of people other than Lechmere and Paul, because it does NOT fit the theory.

I have been told by various people that the independent data must be Llewellyn, but he is just one man, so not sure how it qualifies as "many".
In addition he of course give impricise times himself.
I have been told by other Lechmere people, that Baxter is refering to unknown people, who did not give evidence at the inquest. This is absolutely unrealistic.

However, any suggestion but the obvious must be dismissed to support the theory.

Steve

In general Steve what’s been suggested is that the coroner dismissed the testimony of three serving police officers on beats, that were set by time, in favour of Robert Paul - a man who none of us have a clue how he came by his time. Unless there was a clock at the corner of Bucks Row which has eluded yours (and everyone else’s) research. We’re all wary of making definite statements of course but in this case we can be as certain as possible that Baxter was referring to Neil, Thain and Mizen. Therefore the body was discovered not long before 3.45. Which would easily include 3.38, 3.39, 3.40, 3.41, 3.42 etc.

So just with those possible times we get..

Cross leaving his house at 3.30….finding the body at 3.38 = no gap
Cross leaving his house at 3.31….finding the body at 3.39 = no gap
Cross leaving his house at 3.32….finding the body at 3.40 = no gap
Cross leaving his house at 3.33…finding the body at 3.41 = no gap

We can postulate numerous versions, some give us a gap, some don’t. Those on the pro-Cross side have mystic powers which enable them to say…..GAP.

You know how it works by now Steve.

[Lewis C]

That's because the quote is truncated.
The bit before talks about not being able to establish if he used the name Cross at work. In reality that means is he the same Pickords Drive involved in the Fatal RTA in the 1870s. if so then the Name issue is for me irrelevant.

I believe he was the same man, and probably employed as "Cross"; but we can't prove it.

Likewise despite the efforts of the pro Lechmere people, they cannot prove it was not.
I suggest that the name issue is for some people more important than others, I personally do not think it's significant, but that's just me.

If we remove the speculation, we have a few solid facts.

1. He is the first to arrive at the body of Mary Ann Nichols.( in my view only 50 or so yards ahead of paul).

2. He uses two names, it seems probably that he used "Cross" at Pickfords.( If so the name issue disappears.)

3. He lived in the area, and so far as we know, he was there during the murders.

Everything else is speculation.

I hope that helps.

Steve

Yes, that does help. Thanks!

[Elamarna]

Hi Jeff & all,

I'd like to pick up on the last part of your sentense above. Re-reading many of the witness statements throughout the case, it seems that people who had to estimate the time, were generally thinking in quarters of an hour and not like people today, who are much more inclined to think in 5 minutes or even minutes. Many of them, when talking about a time, say either "half past w", "quarter to x", "y o'clock" or "a quarter past z". It sticks out to me.

Any thoughts?

Frank

I tend to agree, people were estimating.
Time keeping as I keep saying was rarely syncronizied, and I believe most quoted times can be read as give or take at least 5 minutes .

[FrankO]

Even if it never connects him any further to the case, the more we know about the lives of people in the area the better equipped we are to look at Whitechapel of 1888.

Hi Jeff & all,

I'd like to pick up on the last part of your sentense above. Re-reading many of the witness statements throughout the case, it seems that people who had to estimate the time, were generally thinking in quarters of an hour and not like people today, who are much more inclined to think in 5 minutes or even minutes. Many of them, when talking about a time, say either "half past w", "quarter to x", "y o'clock" or "a quarter past z". It sticks out to me.

Any thoughts?

Frank

[JeffHamm]

Completely correct RD.

I always say that while I don't consider CAL to be a strong "suspect" he is nevertheless a viable one.

" Ultimately, we are left with pure speculation, often flavoured by suspect bias. However, the name issue remains, despite various arguments for and against, and for that reason, as well as he is clearly in the area, that we cannot exclude him as a suspect."

From Inside Bucks Row.... Conclusions


Steve

Hi Steve,

I agree with this view, he's a good suspect in the sense he's worth looking into, but that's a very different thing from viewing the case against him, which in my view is currently is not worth the bandwidth. One has to separate out the idea of someone being worth investigating (a good suspect; Lewis Carrol, for example, is not a good suspect) from the evaluation of the case that is put up arguing for that person as actually being JtR. I would not suggest anyone who felt Cross/Lechmere's life was worth looking into was wasting their time, research is always worth the effort. Even if it never connects him any further to the case, the more we know about the lives of people in the area the better equipped we are to look at Whitechapel of 1888. And hey, who knows, maybe something might actually turn up that connects him to the murders after all - but I wouldn't hold my breath on that. Just because the "case" against a suspect is, for all intents and purposes, complete rubbish doesn't mean the individual isn't worth investigating or that the individual isn't a "good suspect." It just means the case is a poor solution, which may involve a good suspect. Investigating person X does not make one beholden to prove person X was JtR, proving they were not is also useful. Research is about looking for information that provides an answer that is of yet unknown, not looking for information in order to twist it into a predetermined answer.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

I have been told by various people that the independent data must be Llewellyn, but he is just one man, so not sure how it qualifies as "many".
In addition he of course give impricise times himself.

Quite right, Steve. The “many” data referred to by Baxter could only have been data gathered at the inquest and one of them would indeed be Llewellyn, but as you say, he gave imprecise times.

To the press he said that he was called at “about five minutes to four”, while at the inquest he deposed that this happened at “about four o’clock.” While I have very little doubt that the good doctor actually used the words “about five minutes to four” and don't think for a minute that he thought before giving his inquest deposition "oh no, it was around five minutes later, actually", we can be fairly sure that the doctor hadn’t consulted any time piece between being woken and arriving at the crime scene, or else we’d have known about it.

So, at best, one could say (even though there’s no evidence of that) that the doctor saw a time piece some time after he got woken and must have estimated how much time before that he was actually called.

Cheers,
Frank

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Would you explain what you mean by "the name issue remains"? It sounds like you're saying that his using the name "Cross" at the inquest is a good reason to suspect him.

That's because the quote is truncated.
The bit before talks about not being able to establish if he used the name Cross at work. In reality that means is he the same Pickords Drive involved in the Fatal RTA in the 1870s. if so then the Name issue is for me irrelevant.

I believe he was the same man, and probably employed as "Cross"; but we can't prove it.

Likewise despite the efforts of the pro Lechmere people, they cannot prove it was not.
I suggest that the name issue is for some people more important than others, I personally do not think it's significant, but that's just me.

If we remove the speculation, we have a few solid facts.

1. He is the first to arrive at the body of Mary Ann Nichols.( in my view only 50 or so yards ahead of paul).

2. He uses two names, it seems probably that he used "Cross" at Pickfords.( If so the name issue disappears.)

3. He lived in the area, and so far as we know, he was there during the murders.

Everything else is speculation.

I hope that helps.

Steve