Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[The Rookie Detective]

Evening all


I must say that I find this thread absolutely fascinating.


I can understand how Lechmere is not a popular choice of suspect and the traditionalists discredit and discount him.

I can also understand how most of the case for him being JTR is based on hypothesis and conjecture.

The only absolute is that he was indeed found standing close to a murder victim who had recently been slain.


However, that fact alone; that he can be linked physically to a murder location, means that statistically, he is more likely to have been JTR than any suspect who cannot be linked to a physical crime scene.

That's a credible mathematical hypothesis.


Now, I'm in no way suggesting that Lechmere was JTR, I am merely saying that he is statistically more likely to be JTR than Maybrick, Sickhart, Tumblety, Kosminski, Ostrog etc...


This can also be applied to other suspect... i.e. Barnett knew MJK, McCarthy was her landlord etc...


Effective analysis has to begin with all those who had a physical link to a victim.

Even PAUL has more of a link to the murders, than any other suspect who can't be placed at a crime scene.


If Lechmere wasn't JTR and Nichol's was slain shortly before, then the real killer must have heard Lechmere the same way that Lechmere must have heard Paul approaching.
Because Lechmere never mentions about seeing anyone else around, then the real JTR must have fled in the opposite direction to where Lechmere had come from, because otherwise, Lechmere would have told someone he had seen another man.


There's a lot of circumstantial evidence but nothing can ever be proven apart from us knowing for sure that he was physically present just minutes after Nichols was killed.

[Abby Normal]

Evening all


I must say that I find this thread absolutely fascinating.


I can understand how Lechmere is not a popular choice of suspect and the traditionalists discredit and discount him.

I can also understand how most of the case for him being JTR is based on hypothesis and conjecture.

The only absolute is that he was indeed found standing close to a murder victim who had recently been slain.


However, that fact alone; that he can be linked physically to a murder location, means that statistically, he is more likely to have been JTR than any suspect who cannot be linked to a physical crime scene.

That's a credible mathematical hypothesis.


Now, I'm in no way suggesting that Lechmere was JTR, I am merely saying that he is statistically more likely to be JTR than Maybrick, Sickhart, Tumblety, Kosminski, Ostrog etc...


This can also be applied to other suspect... i.e. Barnett knew MJK, McCarthy was her landlord etc...


Effective analysis has to begin with all those who had a physical link to a victim.

Even PAUL has more of a link to the murders, than any other suspect who can't be placed at a crime scene.


If Lechmere wasn't JTR and Nichol's was slain shortly before, then the real killer must have heard Lechmere the same way that Lechmere must have heard Paul approaching.
Because Lechmere never mentions about seeing anyone else around, then the real JTR must have fled in the opposite direction to where Lechmere had come from, because otherwise, Lechmere would have told someone he had seen another man.


There's a lot of circumstantial evidence but nothing can ever be proven apart from us knowing for sure that he was physically present just minutes after Nichols was killed.

bingo rookie
hes totally in the frame for being nichols killer. not only that hes seen near her freshly killed body by paul before raising any kind of alarm or looking for help. ive been following true crime for a long time, and ive never heard of an innocent witness in a situation like this. its a point that seems too subtle for many. And as you point out, hes geographically, and physically connected to the victims like no other suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, Jeff and Fiver
your all great posters and know your stuff, and yes Lechmerians over egg the pudding.
But your ridicule of this suspect does you no favors.hes as good a suspect as any other and better than most.

Hi Abby,

Absolutely no issue with a differences of opinion on Lechmere of course.

I accept 100% that it’s physically possible that Lechmere could have been the killer and as a guy who spent some period of time alone with the body he has to be considered but I’ve never seen anything else that makes me think that he was anything other than a guy who found the body. I genuinely don’t get it but that’s life; we don’t always interpret stuff with the same outcome. We certainly can’t exonerate him entirely with solid evidence though. It’s less the suggestion that he might have been the killer though because that first happened years ago and more about the lengths that some (certainly not you) go to in trying to make him look guilty.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Evening all


I must say that I find this thread absolutely fascinating.


I can understand how Lechmere is not a popular choice of suspect and the traditionalists discredit and discount him.

I can also understand how most of the case for him being JTR is based on hypothesis and conjecture.

The only absolute is that he was indeed found standing close to a murder victim who had recently been slain.


However, that fact alone; that he can be linked physically to a murder location, means that statistically, he is more likely to have been JTR than any suspect who cannot be linked to a physical crime scene.

That's a credible mathematical hypothesis.


Now, I'm in no way suggesting that Lechmere was JTR, I am merely saying that he is statistically more likely to be JTR than Maybrick, Sickhart, Tumblety, Kosminski, Ostrog etc...


This can also be applied to other suspect... i.e. Barnett knew MJK, McCarthy was her landlord etc...


Effective analysis has to begin with all those who had a physical link to a victim.

Even PAUL has more of a link to the murders, than any other suspect who can't be placed at a crime scene.


If Lechmere wasn't JTR and Nichol's was slain shortly before, then the real killer must have heard Lechmere the same way that Lechmere must have heard Paul approaching.
Because Lechmere never mentions about seeing anyone else around, then the real JTR must have fled in the opposite direction to where Lechmere had come from, because otherwise, Lechmere would have told someone he had seen another man.


There's a lot of circumstantial evidence but nothing can ever be proven apart from us knowing for sure that he was physically present just minutes after Nichols was killed.

Hi RD,

Being alone with the body for whatever length of time would rightly make Lechmere of interest but the claim is that he was caught in the act, pulled down her skirts and then moved to the middle of the road to where he was seen by Paul. So the big question has to be - how, in a quiet otherwise deserted street, could Robert Paul have somehow ‘sneaked up’ on him? On a cobbled street by a man wearing heavy, hard soled boots? So for me, the fact alone that he didn’t simply walk away into the night points heavily in the direction of an innocent man. And he would have had the knife in his possession of course and couldn’t have been sure that he didn’t have blood on his person. How could anyone in that position have thought it likely that he could have talked his way out of that situation and avoided any scenario that involved a Constable?

A point that I haven’t raised before (someone else might have done of course) is that if he was caught in the act in a deserted street why didn’t he remove all risk of being outed by killing Paul? It would have been easy enough to do.

[The Rookie Detective]

A point that I haven’t raised before (someone else might have done of course) is that if he was caught in the act in a deserted street why didn’t he remove all risk of being outed by killing Paul? It would have been easy enough to do.

I think if Lechmere was JTR, he wouldn't have killed Paul because it doesn't fit with his ritual, his need to kill. Interestingly, if he was the killer, it actually strengthens his case as a psychopathic killer, because killing Paul serves no purpose other than to escalate matters and is messy. It also reduces the likelihood of him having been some kind of psychotic crazed killer, otherwise he would have most likely killed Paul.

There is maybe another reason why (if he was JTR) he didnt kill Paul... because Paul reacted in a way that didn't pose any threat to him being ousted. I can imagine Lechmere having grip of his handled blade and contemplating whether to slay Paul,but because Paul showed no indication that he suspected Lechmere, then why kill him? In a way, he needed Paul as part of his escape plan. Having Paul WITH him took the focus away from him when they approached the Police.


Perhaps Paul wasn't so much in his way, but rather Paul was his way out

[The Rookie Detective]

I also find it peculiar how it's meant to be a quiet deserted street and yet we have

A Policeman
Nichols
The Killer
Lechmere
Paul

all passing through in a short space of time.


The nature of the killing suggests an "Impulsive ritual"


The killer would have presented as a regular customer, unassuming and outwardly calm. But inside his fire was raging and i would anticipate that JTR had many more close calls when he was close to slaying a prostitute, but backed out at the last moment because the set up of ritual wasn't right. i.e. too much risk, too busy a location, restricted escape routes etc...


For me the killer was an unassuming family man who lead a seedy double life and an inner rage....and not a crazed lunatic known to have previous bouts of violence.

Just a hypothesis

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think if Lechmere was JTR, he wouldn't have killed Paul because it doesn't fit with his ritual, his need to kill. Interestingly, if he was the killer, it actually strengthens his case as a psychopathic killer, because killing Paul serves no purpose other than to escalate matters and is messy. It also reduces the likelihood of him having been some kind of psychotic crazed killer, otherwise he would have most likely killed Paul.

There is maybe another reason why (if he was JTR) he didnt kill Paul... because Paul reacted in a way that didn't pose any threat to him being ousted. I can imagine Lechmere having grip of his handled blade and contemplating whether to slay Paul,but because Paul showed no indication that he suspected Lechmere, then why kill him? In a way, he needed Paul as part of his escape plan. Having Paul WITH him took the focus away from him when they approached the Police.


Perhaps Paul wasn't so much in his way, but rather Paul was his way out

His way out was to leave the scene before Paul arrived.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I also find it peculiar how it's meant to be a quiet deserted street and yet we have

A Policeman
Nichols
The Killer
Lechmere
Paul

all passing through in a short space of time.

Its reasonable to assume that the street would have been deserted at the point that he decided to kill her. He would have done this if he’d have heard other people in the street. So we have a deserted street at 3.40 am. I’d assume fairly quiet. It’s difficult to see how, on a street with no obstructions, a man wearing boots could have interrupted a killer getting so close that he couldn’t escape.

The nature of the killing suggests an "Impulsive ritual"


The killer would have presented as a regular customer, unassuming and outwardly calm. But inside his fire was raging and i would anticipate that JTR had many more close calls when he was close to slaying a prostitute, but backed out at the last moment because the set up of ritual wasn't right. i.e. too much risk, too busy a location, restricted escape routes etc...

This was a man who was due to clock on at work in twenty minutes time. Would that not present risk? Wouldn’t killing a woman at a spot that he passed at around the same time 6 days a week have been a risk? What about waiting around for a complete stranger to arrive; a person that could have reacted in any number of ways. What if he’d been the nervous type who panicked and accused Lechmere of killing her? What if he’d just stood their shouting ‘Police! Murder!’ What if they had gone for a Constable together and Paul didn’t play ball and stood right next to Lechmere when he talked to Mizen making it impossible for him to have used his ‘scam?’

For me the killer was an unassuming family man who lead a seedy double life and an inner rage....and not a crazed lunatic known to have previous bouts of violence.

Just a hypothesis

Nothing wrong with speculating what type of person the killer might have been of course. Personally though I’d say that we have no way of deducing any details. One ‘type’ is perhaps no more or less likely than another.

[Fiver]

Ok. In blue. I think I have the location of the Pinchin Street Torso roughly correct (at the railway crossings of Pinchin Street and Back Church Lane) I could have it wrong. Was it to the east a bit of where I have it, more towards/at Pinchin and Christian Street? I've searched for maps that locate it, but the locations I've seen varies from map to map. I placed the marker for the Church in the middle of it.

- Jeff

Thanks for the work, but placing a marker in the middle of the church defeats my point, which was that we only know the (probably unrelated) piece of cloth was found somewhere around the perimeter of the church. We don't have a line, we have a cone.

[Fiver]

I’ve never known such effort to shoehorn such a feeble suspect into position in 37 years of interest in the case. It never ceases to amazes me that a non-existent case gets elevated without merit. Limbo dancing beneath the inconvenient, exaggerations, false assumptions, editing inconvenient evidence to suit. It’s nothing short of weird. Why do people feel the need?

What gets me is many aren't satisfied with doing this to Lechmere, they also do it to his mother, assuming the worst, being demeaning if not outright misogynistic. Meanwhile, the alcoholic bankrupt deadbeat dad who abandoned the family to shack up with a teenager is given a pass.

[GBinOz]

So the big question has to be - how, in a quiet otherwise deserted street, could Robert Paul have somehow ‘sneaked up’ on him? On a cobbled street by a man wearing heavy, hard soled boots? So for me, the fact alone that he didn’t simply walk away into the night points heavily in the direction of an innocent man..

Hi Herlock,

I can't argue the logic of your question, but doesn't it also support the contention that Paul couldn't have been walking 40 yards behind Lechmere without being aware of him? Why didn't he walk away is another good question. He had been walking this route for some months so was likely to have been aware that Neil's beat could have him approach from the direction of his escape route. Could he judge how long it would be until Paul had a chance to discover the body and raise an alarm, and how long before Neil appeared to respond to that alarm. Could he have been sure that the producer of the echoing footfalls had entered the Row from Brady St and not from the gateway some 60 yards away? How long would he have needed to make the decision between flight and bluff? Two men, unknown to each other, discovering a body would seem a better alibi that one man hurriedly leaving the scene of a murder. These are some of the considerations that, for me, set in balance the scales of possibilities.

Cheers, George

[Fiver]

I can also understand how most of the case for him being JTR is based on hypothesis and conjecture.

You forgot the parts of the case that are based on assumptions (bleed rates, taking Pauls time estimate over those of three police) or outright falsehoods like claiming Lechmere did no give his address at the inquest.

The only absolute is that he was indeed found standing close to a murder victim who had recently been slain.

However, that fact alone; that he can be linked physically to a murder location, means that statistically, he is more likely to have been JTR than any suspect who cannot be linked to a physical crime scene.

That's a credible mathematical hypothesis.

Mathematical? Feel free to give any example of a person who found a victim of a serial killer being that serial killer.

Now, I'm in no way suggesting that Lechmere was JTR, I am merely saying that he is statistically more likely to be JTR than Maybrick, Sickhart, Tumblety, Kosminski, Ostrog etc...

Feel free to show where you get your statistics.

[Fiver]

If Lechmere wasn't JTR and Nichol's was slain shortly before, then the real killer must have heard Lechmere the same way that Lechmere must have heard Paul approaching.
Because Lechmere never mentions about seeing anyone else around, then the real JTR must have fled in the opposite direction to where Lechmere had come from, because otherwise, Lechmere would have told someone he had seen another man.

If Lechmere was JTR, the simplest thing to do was just walk off when he heard Paul approaching.

The second simplest was to let Paul just keep walking past the body.

The third was to claim he had seen or heard someone rounding the corner ahead.

There's a lot of circumstantial evidence but nothing can ever be proven apart from us knowing for sure that he was physically present just minutes after Nichols was killed.

The only circumstantial evidence is that Lechemere he was physically present shortly after Nichols was killed. And shortly could mean 20 minutes or more, that's how long blood continued to flow from Alice Mackenzie's body after it was found.

[Fiver]

I can't argue the logic of your question, but doesn't it also support the contention that Paul couldn't have been walking 40 yards behind Lechmere without being aware of him?

The image of Paul walking along 40 yards behind Lechmere is not what anyone testified.

Lechmere, after slowing down, moving into the middle of the street, and likely stopping to try to figure out what was lying there, testified to hearing Paul about 40 yards behind him. We don't know how good Lechmere was at estimating distance, but if he was accurate, then Paul had been more than 40 yards behind him.

Paul never said if he heard Lechmere walking in front of him. He did see Lechmere standing in the middle of the street, but Paul never gave an estimate of how far away they were.

Lechmere and Paul were unlikely to have the same walking pace. If Paul, the younger man, was a faster walker, that would make for an even bigger gap between them before Lechmere slowed down and stopped.

[The Rookie Detective]

Perhaps the reason why Lechmere didn't just walk away, is because he was aware there was a policeman who had passed through shortly beforehand?


I'm still very much on the fence about Lechmere but there is an argument that if he was the killer, then he couldn't flee because..

A) He knew a Policeman had recently passed through
B) He wasn't sure if there was a policeman in the opposite direction to where Paul was coming from or vice versa.
C) He knew if he ran, then Paul would have been more likely to have shouted for help if he believed he was the first to discover the body.
D)He made a judgment call and by already being at the scene, Paul is less likely to have been alarmed because if Lechmere came across as calm, then why would Paul suspect him
E) He considered killing Paul, but as the scene played out he realized he could use Paul to his advantage. Leaving WITH Paul, the police were less likely to suspect him,, whereas by leaving the scene alone/fleeing alone, then that's more suspicious.