Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Lewis C]

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,

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.

[John Wheat]

I would suggest that whIle it feels clear that Lechmere was innocent, I would always class anyone who finds or who is with a body BEFORE the police arrive should automatic be classed as a person of interest in the first instance.
While not being a suspect, Lechmere is absolutely a person of interest because he was with the body before the police.
The same would apply to Robert Paul.

Likewise, Bowyer in the MJK killing is also a person of interest because he found the body/spent time with the body before the police arrived. He also states he visited the fountain outside 13 Miller's Court at 3am and saw noone and heard nothing and yet this likely around the time she was murdered.

And so even though they are unlikely to be considered viable suspects, it is also the case that denying the fact that there's a chance that they COULD have been the killer, then they will always remains persons of interest in the case, no matter how much that's unpopular

Ths A B C of detective work

ACCEPT Nothing
BELIEVE Noone
CHALLENGE Everything

Now I don't believe Lechmere was the killer, but I can't write him off completely because there is still a statistical chance he was the killer, whether we like it or not.

He leaves at 3.33am he innocent
He leaves at 3.27am he's the killer

He left AROUND 3.30am and so it's unfair on Pro Lechmere supporters to push the time he left 3 minutes later and not accept that it could easily have been 3 minutes earlier.

The reason why I don't think he's the killer is because nothing else fits and not because he was the first person to find the body.
Anyone who finds a body BEFORE the police secure the site has to be considered a person of interest. To say otherwise goes against all principles of detective work.


There has to be a balance and there has to be an acceptance by us all that we are probably all wrong about what we think we know about the case.

Pro Lechmere or Anti Lechmere, the man is a person of interest because he was found to be the first person to see the body of a woman who had just been murdered.

We often talk about Kosminski, Druitt, Tumblety, Bury, Maybrick and Co....but at least Lechmere, Bowyer, Richardson, Barnett, Kidney, Barnardo, McCarthy etc...had a connection with either a victim or a murder site.

These men should all be considered persons of interest and ARGUABLY suspects in the case.

I don't have a prime suspect and I think that helps to be more objective, balanced and open-minded.


RD

Bury atleast is a much better suspect than Lechmere.

[Elamarna]

I would suggest that whIle it feels clear that Lechmere was innocent, I would always class anyone who finds or who is with a body BEFORE the police arrive should automatic be classed as a person of interest in the first instance.
While not being a suspect, Lechmere is absolutely a person of interest because he was with the body before the police.
The same would apply to Robert Paul.

Likewise, Bowyer in the MJK killing is also a person of interest because he found the body/spent time with the body before the police arrived. He also states he visited the fountain outside 13 Miller's Court at 3am and saw noone and heard nothing and yet this likely around the time she was murdered.

And so even though they are unlikely to be considered viable suspects, it is also the case that denying the fact that there's a chance that they COULD have been the killer, then they will always remains persons of interest in the case, no matter how much that's unpopular

Ths A B C of detective work

ACCEPT Nothing
BELIEVE Noone
CHALLENGE Everything

Now I don't believe Lechmere was the killer, but I can't write him off completely because there is still a statistical chance he was the killer, whether we like it or not.

He leaves at 3.33am he innocent
He leaves at 3.27am he's the killer

He left AROUND 3.30am and so it's unfair on Pro Lechmere supporters to push the time he left 3 minutes later and not accept that it could easily have been 3 minutes earlier.

The reason why I don't think he's the killer is because nothing else fits and not because he was the first person to find the body.
Anyone who finds a body BEFORE the police secure the site has to be considered a person of interest. To say otherwise goes against all principles of detective work.


There has to be a balance and there has to be an acceptance by us all that we are probably all wrong about what we think we know about the case.

Pro Lechmere or Anti Lechmere, the man is a person of interest because he was found to be the first person to see the body of a woman who had just been murdered.

We often talk about Kosminski, Druitt, Tumblety, Bury, Maybrick and Co....but at least Lechmere, Bowyer, Richardson, Barnett, Kidney, Barnardo, McCarthy etc...had a connection with either a victim or a murder site.

These men should all be considered persons of interest and ARGUABLY suspects in the case.

I don't have a prime suspect and I think that helps to be more objective, balanced and open-minded.


RD

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

[The Rookie Detective]

I would suggest that whIle it feels clear that Lechmere was innocent, I would always class anyone who finds or who is with a body BEFORE the police arrive should automatic be classed as a person of interest in the first instance.
While not being a suspect, Lechmere is absolutely a person of interest because he was with the body before the police.
The same would apply to Robert Paul.

Likewise, Bowyer in the MJK killing is also a person of interest because he found the body/spent time with the body before the police arrived. He also states he visited the fountain outside 13 Miller's Court at 3am and saw noone and heard nothing and yet this likely around the time she was murdered.

And so even though they are unlikely to be considered viable suspects, it is also the case that denying the fact that there's a chance that they COULD have been the killer, then they will always remains persons of interest in the case, no matter how much that's unpopular

Ths A B C of detective work

ACCEPT Nothing
BELIEVE Noone
CHALLENGE Everything

Now I don't believe Lechmere was the killer, but I can't write him off completely because there is still a statistical chance he was the killer, whether we like it or not.

He leaves at 3.33am he innocent
He leaves at 3.27am he's the killer

He left AROUND 3.30am and so it's unfair on Pro Lechmere supporters to push the time he left 3 minutes later and not accept that it could easily have been 3 minutes earlier.

The reason why I don't think he's the killer is because nothing else fits and not because he was the first person to find the body.
Anyone who finds a body BEFORE the police secure the site has to be considered a person of interest. To say otherwise goes against all principles of detective work.


There has to be a balance and there has to be an acceptance by us all that we are probably all wrong about what we think we know about the case.

Pro Lechmere or Anti Lechmere, the man is a person of interest because he was found to be the first person to see the body of a woman who had just been murdered.

We often talk about Kosminski, Druitt, Tumblety, Bury, Maybrick and Co....but at least Lechmere, Bowyer, Richardson, Barnett, Kidney, Barnardo, McCarthy etc...had a connection with either a victim or a murder site.

These men should all be considered persons of interest and ARGUABLY suspects in the case.

I don't have a prime suspect and I think that helps to be more objective, balanced and open-minded.


RD

[Elamarna]

The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data[/I]."

So Wynne Baxter's conclusion was that Nichols was killed shortly before 3:45am.

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

[John Wheat]

Lechmere found a body. With no other evidence against him. Then he is a witness not a suspect.

[Fiver]

And now the Evening Standard, which has the most complete statement.

"On Friday evening, the 31st of August, she was seen by Mrs. Holland (who knew her well) at the corner of Osborn-street and Whitechapel-road, nearly opposite the parish church. It was then half-past two. The deceased woman was then much the worse for drink, and was staggering against the wall. Her friend endeavoured to persuade her to come home with her, but she declined, and was last seen endeavouring to walk eastward down Whitechapel. She said she had had her lodging money three times that day, but that she had spent it; that she was without money; that the lodging-house deputy refused to trust her; that she was going to look about and get some money to pay her lodgings; and that she should soon be back. What her exact movements were after this it was impossible to say. At all events, in less than an hour and a quarter after this she is found dead at a spot rather under three-quarters of a mile distant. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data."

So Wynne Baxter's conclusion was that Nichols was killed shortly before 3:45am.

[Fiver]

The Daily News supports the Times account.

"On Friday evening, August 31, she was seen by Mrs. Holland (who knew her well) at the corner of Osborn street and Whitechapel road, nearly opposite the parish church. It was then half past two. She was much the worse for drink and was staggering against the wall. She was last seen endeavouring to walk eastward down Whitechapel. What her exact movements were after this it is impossible to say. The condition of this main thoroughfare leaves little doubt that she must have met many persons afterwards; but no one has been found who saw her. In less than an hour and a quarter she was found dead at a spot rather under three quarters of a mile distant."

[Fiver]

In reference to Christer's strange reliance on Wynne Baxter's statement about when the body was discovered, let's remind ourselves what Baxter said about the Tabram murder in the same summation:

"Martha Tabram was found at three a.m. on Tuesday, August 7th, on the first-floor landing of George Yard buildings, Wentworth Street, with thirty-nine punctured wounds on her body." --Wynne Baxter, Daily Telegraph, 24 September.


In reality, Martha Tabram was found at around 4:45 a.m. by John Saunders Reeves.

The Times confirms the Tabram error - "Martha Tabram was found at 3 a.m. on Tuesday, the 7th of August, on the first-floor landing of George-yard-buildings, with 39 punctured wounds on her body."

The Times also differs from the Daily Telegraph's timing for Nichols body being found - "On Friday evening, the 31st of August, she was seen by Mrs. Holland - who knew her well - at the corner of Osborn-street and Whitechapel-road, nearly opposite the parish church. The deceased woman was then much the worse for drink and was staggering against the wall. Her friend endeavoured to persuade her to come home with her, but she declined, and was last seen endeavouring to walk eastward down Whitechapel. She said she had had her lodging money three times that day, but that she had spent it, that she was going about to get some money to pay her lodgings, and she would soon be back. In less than an hour and a quarter after this she was found dead at a spot rather under three-quarters of a mile distant."

So according to the Times, Nichols was found before 3:45am.

[Aethelwulf]

I wondered how long it would take. I see the stow has latched on to Rex H in his latest video. I wonder why?

[Herlock Sholmes]

From memory, wasn't it that 3:44 has to be more likely than 3:43 and so on backwards ?

That’s right. Of course the nearer to 3.45 he can get plus the closer to 3.30 for Cross leaving the house, minus the 7 or 8 minutes walk and….hey presto…a mysterious gap. But if ‘about’ was 3.33 and ‘cannot have been far from 3.45’ was 3.41 then the gap was zero. It’s all pointless anyway because no one can prove that he didn’t have time to kill Nichols. It just means the same as for 99% of people that have found a body.

[Dickere]

It one of Christer’s now famous interpretations of the English language.

In Lechmere World ”…cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m,” can’t have meant 3,40 or 3.41….it must have meant 3.45 or 3.44.

From memory, wasn't it that 3:44 has to be more likely than 3:43 and so on backwards ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It one of Christer’s now famous interpretations of the English language.

In Lechmere World ”…cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m,” can’t have meant 3,40 or 3.41….it must have meant 3.45 or 3.44.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In reference to Christer's strange reliance on Wynne Baxter's statement about when the body was discovered, let's remind ourselves what Baxter said about the Tabram murder in the same summation:

"Martha Tabram was found at three a.m. on Tuesday, August 7th, on the first-floor landing of George Yard buildings, Wentworth Street, with thirty-nine punctured wounds on her body." --Wynne Baxter, Daily Telegraph, 24 September.


In reality, Martha Tabram was found at around 4:45 a.m. by John Saunders Reeves.

Come on Roger, it’s only an hour and three-quarter difference. Stop nitpicking.

[rjpalmer]

Once we add in how coroner Baxter later moved the finding of the body out of the 3.40 time slot into the 3.45 ditto, we get another picture.

In reference to Christer's strange reliance on Wynne Baxter's statement about when the body was discovered, let's remind ourselves what Baxter said about the Tabram murder in the same summation:

"Martha Tabram was found at three a.m. on Tuesday, August 7th, on the first-floor landing of George Yard buildings, Wentworth Street, with thirty-nine punctured wounds on her body." --Wynne Baxter, Daily Telegraph, 24 September.


In reality, Martha Tabram was found at around 4:45 a.m. by John Saunders Reeves.