Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

A) But if he’d known that a Police Officer had passed down Bucks Row recently that would have been Neil at around 3.15. Surely we can’t suspect that Lechmere hung around in Bucks Row for 25 minutes or so in the hope that a woman might pass? Also why would he have gone on to kill in a street on a police beat? And one where the officer had passed 30 minutes earlier leaving an extremely high possibility that he was due back?
B) But that could be said about any of the crime scenes unless it’s being suggested that the killer new all the beats?
C) Paul could have shouted for help while he was at the scene with Lechmere.
D) and E) Fleeing the scene would have been a no-brainer. Waiting for Paul would have resulted in very obvious and very serious and totally avoidable risks. Once he has Paul with him Lechmere completely gave up control of his own destiny to a man he didn’t know from Adam. He’s placed himself in the company of a man who he’d have suspected would have suggested going for a Constable. This introduces risks like walking past street lamps which might illuminate any wet blood that he might have had on him (not to mention when in the presence of a Constable) Then how was Lechmere to have known that the Constable wouldn’t insist that they returned to the scene with him then, after seeing that she was dead, to submit to a search? It’s just so unlikely.

Fiver makes an excellent point when he asked why a guilty Lechmere (forward thinking enough t0 come up with the scam) didn’t lie and say that he’d heard a man running away? He could even have pretended to have been out of breath and said “I tried to run after him but he was to quick for me.”

Ill add another ‘why not.’ As the Mizen Scam has been suggested as a way that Lechmere could talk to the Constable out of Paul’s earshot why didn’t he just say to Paul “we will have more chance of finding a Constable if we split up. I’ll go this way….”

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Hello George,

Yes that’s a fair point. I think I can remember discussing it with Christer though I can’t recall the details of the conversation (well….argument) although I know that Steve Blomer (naturally) has done a lot of in-depth work on this.

“He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from.”

I know that we talk about the accuracy of estimates a lot on here but the only suggestion that I could make is that perhaps they were walking further apart than that. Lechmere then stops approaches the body (not far away I grant of course) maybe a little hesitantly for a closer look. I’m only speculating of course but in the time between Lechmere seeing the body to him hearing Paul 15 or 20 seconds might have elapsed which could have accounted for a few extra yards of gap. And if his 40 yard estimate was nearer 50 then the original gap between the 2 might have been 80-100 yards.

I tip the scales massively in favour of an innocent Lechmere (as you might have guessed). To be honest George there isn’t a single thing about his behaviour or about anything that we know about him or his family that even raises an eyebrow. I certainly wouldn’t dismiss anyone that does find him a possible though - he might have been and we can’t dismiss him on evidence or alibi. I just can’t see it though and the only irritating this is the way that certain people willing exaggerate and manipulate. Certainly not Abby or yourself. (They know who they are)

[Abby Normal]

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.

hi herlock
he might have not heard paul approaching sooner and been surprised by him because he was distracted by ripping open nichols abdoman.

[Abby Normal]

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.

hi fiver
totally agree with this. to me she seemed like a good mother and grandmother. a survivor and hard worker who seemed to be trying to keep her family together.

[JeffHamm]

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,

I'm not really sure what a "good suspect" means to be honest as I think people use it in different ways. I think some mean "they are worth investigating" and others mean "there is evidence that supports, or is suggestive, of his actual guilt", and others mean "I think they are actually guilty", and those are not all the same thing and someone could be good in one sense but not another. As I indicated earlier, I do think he was worth looking at more closely, so he's a "good suspect" in that sense, but as for the other senses I suggested, I wouldn't agree (I don't think there is evidence suggestive of his guilt in any sense; finding a body isn't evidence of guilt, but it does place him at the scene of the murder and so I agree that makes him of investigative interest, even if only to rule him out. Note, the police looked into Richardson as well, and although he didn't report finding the body, he placed himself there at a time of interest to the police, so he was similarly investigated and cleared. So, is Richardson, who was actually investigated by the police, a better suspect than Cross/Lechmere? Particularly if you think Annie was murdered closer to 4:30 ish?

However, Cross/Lechmere has been examined, and a lot of information about him has surfaced, which is great and interesting. But none of it suggests guilt and so the presentation of it resorts to spin, tortured logic, and incorrect claims. That indicates that no matter what information actually gets found there are some who will always spin it to indicate guilt.

It's not about following a trail of evidence that ends up leading to Cross/Lechmere, but rather a priori deciding on the end point and simply drawing an arrow pointing at him and then placing random bits of information on that arrow and claiming "Look, the evidence points at him"; but it is not the evidence that points at him, it's the arrow that was initially drawn and upon which the evidence is forced to balance.

So, it's not so much Cross/Lechmere as someone who might be interesting to investigate that I'm criticizing (i.e. not the starting point) but rather the bong cloud of a theory that is often presented as "proof of his guilt" (the spin, or what you called the "over egging").

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

hi herlock
he might have not heard paul approaching sooner and been surprised by him because he was distracted by ripping open nichols abdoman.

Hi Abby,

It’s possible but no matter how much I think about it I still keep coming back to the same thought. That Lechmere wouldn’t have been pressured by the circumstances into sticking around. He had a choice and in my opinion the first instinct would always be to leave and leave quickly. By the time that Paul arrived at the body Lechmere could have been 40-50 yards away in the dark. Then we would have to factor in Paul going over to the body, perhaps giving the body a prod to see if she stirred. So perhaps around 10 seconds which would have meant Lechmere being another 20 yards away keeping his eyes peeled for any inconvenient Constable. Alternatively we have Lechmere working out, on-the-hoof, that he would be able to come up with a plan to avoid police interest whilst covering the body, wiping and stashing the knife and moving away from the body.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one Abby. It’s not often that we do.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I'm not really sure what a "good suspect" means to be honest as I think people use it in different ways. I think some mean "they are worth investigating" and others mean "there is evidence that supports, or is suggestive, of his actual guilt", and others mean "I think they are actually guilty", and those are not all the same thing and someone could be good in one sense but not another. As I indicated earlier, I do think he was worth looking at more closely, so he's a "good suspect" in that sense, but as for the other senses I suggested, I wouldn't agree (I don't think there is evidence suggestive of his guilt in any sense; finding a body isn't evidence of guilt, but it does place him at the scene of the murder and so I agree that makes him of investigative interest, even if only to rule him out. Note, the police looked into Richardson as well, and although he didn't report finding the body, he placed himself there at a time of interest to the police, so he was similarly investigated and cleared. So, is Richardson, who was actually investigated by the police, a better suspect than Cross/Lechmere? Particularly if you think Annie was murdered closer to 4:30 ish?

However, Cross/Lechmere has been examined, and a lot of information about him has surfaced, which is great and interesting. But none of it suggests guilt and so the presentation of it resorts to spin, tortured logic, and incorrect claims. That indicates that no matter what information actually gets found there are some who will always spin it to indicate guilt.

It's not about following a trail of evidence that ends up leading to Cross/Lechmere, but rather a priori deciding on the end point and simply drawing an arrow pointing at him and then placing random bits of information on that arrow and claiming "Look, the evidence points at him"; but it is not the evidence that points at him, it's the arrow that was initially drawn and upon which the evidence is forced to balance.

So, it's not so much Cross/Lechmere as someone who might be interesting to investigate that I'm criticizing (i.e. not the starting point) but rather the bong cloud of a theory that is often presented as "proof of his guilt" (the spin, or what you called the "over egging").

- Jeff

hi jeff
yeah i should have used my preferred phrase..least weak, instead. because none of the suspects are good, some are just less weak than others. so imho lech is less weak than most.

and yes Richardson IMHO is also a possible suspect. but more weak than lech as he was cleared, and i think killing in his own mums backyard even more risky than killing on ones route to work.

re your last sentence.. I agree. But you should be more concise then because when you say things like... "the whole case against lechmere is built in a house of cards", it certainly dosnt seem like your talking about just the over egging.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

It’s possible but no matter how much I think about it I still keep coming back to the same thought. That Lechmere wouldn’t have been pressured by the circumstances into sticking around. He had a choice and in my opinion the first instinct would always be to leave and leave quickly. By the time that Paul arrived at the body Lechmere could have been 40-50 yards away in the dark. Then we would have to factor in Paul going over to the body, perhaps giving the body a prod to see if she stirred. So perhaps around 10 seconds which would have meant Lechmere being another 20 yards away keeping his eyes peeled for any inconvenient Constable. Alternatively we have Lechmere working out, on-the-hoof, that he would be able to come up with a plan to avoid police interest whilst covering the body, wiping and stashing the knife and moving away from the body.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one Abby. It’s not often that we do.

no its not often that we disagree. but then again, its not often that you're wrong. hehe
just kidding my friend, yes agree to disagree on this one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

no its not often that we disagree. but then again, its not often that you're wrong. hehe
just kidding my friend, yes agree to disagree on this one.

I was wrong once Abby. August 17th 1982 I think it was. I still have nightmares.

[JeffHamm]

hi jeff
yeah i should have used my preferred phrase..least weak, instead. because none of the suspects are good, some are just less weak than others. so imho lech is less weak than most.

and yes Richardson IMHO is also a possible suspect. but more weak than lech as he was cleared, and i think killing in his own mums backyard even more risky than killing on ones route to work.

re your last sentence.. I agree. But you should be more concise then because when you say things like... "the whole case against lechmere is built in a house of cards", it certainly dosnt seem like your talking about just the over egging.

Hi Abby,

Yah, I've seen you use the phrase "least weak" before and I think it's a good one.

While I'm sure you disagree, I stand by my phrase that the "case" against Cross/Lechmere is built on a house of cards. The way I think of things is that his being at the scene is not the case against him, it just places him at the scene but his roll there of either murderer or discoverer cannot be differentiated on that information alone. So simply being at the scene is not the "case" against him, it is just the information that raises the question "what was his roll?" By itself, being at the scene is no case at all (otherwise there's a "case", however weak, against Diemshutz, or PC Watkins, etc). However, if one believes that being the one to discover a body means there is, to some extent, a "case" against them, then we're using different definitions and that can lead to some miscommunications.

So, to make what I mean clear, when I talk about the "case" I mean all the over egging as you put it, or what I call spin. It's the arguments used to try and make the mundane information we have about Cross/Lechmere look sinister in order to claim his "roll" was that of murderer rather than discoverer. But once all the sophistry is stripped bare, it becomes clear that even though more information has been found about Cross/Lechmere than we may have had before he was put under the spotlight, all of the information is bland and typical of times. None of it is even in the least bit incriminating unless one dresses it up in a preordained suit of guilt first. Hence the "case" is built on nothing but the spin (the extra eggs), which in my view is fairly described by the phrase "built on a house of cards" - it falls over when put to even the slightest test.

It's proponents, however, are often built of far sterner stuff that can deflect any and all criticism. I'm not including you in that bit by the way, you're far more open to various possibilities and I know you have a list of suspects you think are better than others and so forth, rather than one that you push at any and all costs. Obviously we disagree on where Cross/Lechmere would be on that list as I would place him as "of no interest at this time, but if something new turns up, possibly worth a review." As such, of those listed as suspects, I would place him higher than the clearly fanciful ones (Lewis Carrol, William Gull, Prince Eddy, etc), which I suppose do greatly outnumber those who are worth researching, so perhaps in that sense I am agreeing that your "least weak" description applies after all?

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

no its not often that we disagree. but then again, its not often that you're wrong. hehe
just kidding my friend, yes agree to disagree on this one.

I was wrong once as I thought I was wrong but turned out to be right!

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

Butler says that every document involving Thomas Cross and Maria Louisa is "falsified in some way'. The 1861 Census gets his age wrong. That's the only one. The death record of Emily Charlotte Lechmere doesn't mention either Thomas or Maria Louisa Cross, unless Butler has clipped them out of what he posted online.

And Butler isn't telling the truth. The marriage record, which Butler posted online in 2013, gives the correct ages for both Thomas and Maria Louisa Cross.

His rational, in the 'Grave of Jack the Ripper' video is that she "lied" (Stow's word) about being a widow on the marriage record.

John Lechmere was still alive, but I fail to see how Stow can know with any certainty that she hadn't assumed the worst (or the best!) about her AWOL husband. Maybe it was an optimistic or convenient assumption--one that many abandoned women were glad to make--but Ed is merely guessing. It could be a good guess or a bad guess, but he hardly has any conclusive evidence.

Personally, I don't think it is a coincidence that the marriage took place 7 years after she can be seen living apart from John Lechmere in the 1851 census. (6 years and 11 months, but who knows how long before the 1851 census that they were Splitsville). A more nuanced observer might argue that she was trying to make a plausible effort to stay within the letter of the law or within what constituted generally acceptable behavior among her peers.

[John Wheat]

I don't get the fascination with Lechmere. He found a body and that's it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't get the fascination with Lechmere. He found a body and that's it.

The problem imo John is that there is a small group of people who are turning this into a crusade. They are looking at Lechmere’s inside leg measurement and spinning it into evidence of guilt and it’s snowballing. The more people who read this stuff (who had no previous knowledge of the case) the more ‘converts’ they get. These aren’t the people like Abby and a few others who just believe him to be a ‘possible’ or a person of interest, these are people who have close to a religious faith and are engaged in a propaganda exercise where facts can be manipulated, evidence can be edited to suit and outlandish conclusions can be drawn. I’m loathe to mention the JFK assassination but it sometimes reminds me of Jim Garrison’s obsession with ‘propinquity.’ If Mr X knew Mr.Y and Mr Y knew Mr. Z therefore Mr X must have known Mr. Z. Or Mr X lived at Thompson Street and a mere 3 streets away lived the killers former schoolteachers brother. Coincidence? At which point all sensible people shout “of course it’s a coincidence!”

Have you ever thought of getting together with Wulf and starting a ‘House Of Bury’ Channel to try and balance it up? Who’d believe that a murderer, in the area at the time, who left for Scotland just after Kelly could have been the killer though?

[John Wheat]

The problem imo John is that there is a small group of people who are turning this into a crusade. They are looking at Lechmere’s inside leg measurement and spinning it into evidence of guilt and it’s snowballing. The more people who read this stuff (who had no previous knowledge of the case) the more ‘converts’ they get. These aren’t the people like Abby and a few others who just believe him to be a ‘possible’ or a person of interest, these are people who have close to a religious faith and are engaged in a propaganda exercise where facts can be manipulated, evidence can be edited to suit and outlandish conclusions can be drawn. I’m loathe to mention the JFK assassination but it sometimes reminds me of Jim Garrison’s obsession with ‘propinquity.’ If Mr X knew Mr.Y and Mr Y knew Mr. Z therefore Mr X must have known Mr. Z. Or Mr X lived at Thompson Street and a mere 3 streets away lived the killers former schoolteachers brother. Coincidence? At which point all sensible people shout “of course it’s a coincidence!”

Have you ever thought of getting together with Wulf and starting a ‘House Of Bury’ Channel to try and balance it up? Who’d believe that a murderer, in the area at the time, who left for Scotland just after Kelly could have been the killer though?

I totally get what you're saying Herlock. It's a bit ridiculous how some posters twist things to imply Lechmere's guilt at every opportunity.