Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

As Rookie noted, Lechmere had been working a the Broad Street Station for a couple decades, but he had only moved to 22 Doveton a couple months before the murder.

Cheers Fiver. That fact had passed me by for some reason.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It would seem likely that Mrs Lilley heard the murder taking place.

The killer needed a 10 minute period of time...

In my opinion RD i think that we might reduce that considerably.

Arrival with Nichols
Interaction with Nichols

If the killer entered Bucks Row with Nichols then all arrangements would have been done beforehand leaving no need for interaction. That said, it could be likelier that the killer met Nichols in Bucks Row…..perhaps if he had met her elsewhere they might have found a more secluded spot? I’m undecided on this though.

Attack Nichols through strangulation
Subdue and bring to the floor
Cut and mutilate

Compared with Chapman’s far more extensive injuries which Phillips said could have been achieved in 5 minutes I’d estimate somewhere between 1 and 2 minutes.

Check his work/himself,
Leave the scene

I’d tend toward any check of himself being done elsewhere. The lighting was too poor to see any possibly incriminating spots of blood and I think that as soon as it was ‘job done’ the killer would have wanted to be away from that location. Even if he wasn’t specifically aware of Bucks Row being on a police beat he’d have at least been aware that it was a possibility…..then factor in the occasional bloke going to work (even exiting a nearby building)

Clear the street.

A few seconds?

This requires a minimum of 10 minutes.

I think that he could have run into Nichols as they approached each other from opposite directions on Bucks Row which could have meant that the time from ‘meeting’ to ‘exiting Bucks Row’ could have been as little as 2-3 minutes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So to sum up we have……

The initial suspicion of Lechmere coming via this supposed ‘gap of time’ which has Lechmere in Bucks Row for a suspicious length of time.

Problem - we know that this is nothing more than an invention which required the editing of evidence by using 2 claims, 1) that Lechmere left that house at 3.30 when he’d actually said ‘around 3.30 (this is a vital point, he was simply estimating and so it could have been slightly later) 2) that the body was discovered, as near as dammit, at 3.45. Certain Lechmere proposers suggest (based on no real evidence) that this couldn’t have occurred at 3.40 or 3.41 or 3.42 or 3.43. So we have a clear manipulation of two unknown times to manufacture a suspicious ‘gap.’

The we have the name ‘issue.’

Problem - we know that this wasn’t an invented name, it was the name of his stepfather. We also know that if it was intended to gain some kind of advantage it failed miserably. He gave his correct two forenames and his correct address. Never has so much be made from so little.

Then we have the infamous ‘Mizen Scam.’

Problem - firstly it’s not remotely plausible of course. How could Lechmere have remained at the scene to ‘bluff’ his way out of the situation by somehow being confident that he could scam his way past a Constable in the company of another man. He left Bucks Row walking alongside Robert Paul (who later proved not to be shy about talking) so how could he have managed to have spoken to Mizen out of Paul’s earshot?

Then there’s the ‘stay rather than go’ point.

Problem - yes, it makes absolutely no sense that Lechmere would have taken this almost suicidally dangerous risk when his option for fleeing was obvious. No adult could have been unaware that a meeting with a Constable was then likely and this was a man allegedly in possession of a knife and who just couldn’t have been anything like sure that he didn’t have blood on him.

The ‘phantom killer’ point. (Christer repeatedly uses this phrase to describe an alternative killer)

Problem - this is the kind of thing that Fiver has mentioned. It’s propaganda for the cause. Just because we can’t put a name to an alternative killer he gets mockingly title ‘the phantom killer,’ as if the notion is somehow far-fetched.

The idea of killing on the way to work.

Problem - yes, it’s ludicrously unlikely. I’ve asked several times for an example of a serial killer who killed on his way to work and so close to his clock in time and as yet not one has been named (despite Christer regularly quoting serial killer history to make a point.) If he’d wanted to kill couldn’t he have found a victim earlier? And as he clearly intended further murders why choose a spot that, at some point in time, he could have been connected to.

The family locations in Whitechapel.

Problems - yes, it’s indicative of desperation. Do serial killers always kill near to familiar landmarks or family homes? Of course not. What was Lechmere going to say if questioned at 2.30 am near a murder scene? “Yes Officer I was just heading round to my mum’s for a cup of tea and a biscuit” The reddest of herrings.


Like millions of people, Lechmere found a body and spent some time alone with it. We can infer no more than that. It would certainly make him a person of interest. The police at the time clearly saw nothing about him that raised an eyebrow but 135 years later we try piling speculation on top of speculation. There’s nothing wrong with a bit of speculation of course (we all do it) but how can anyone achieve the level of confidence in Lechmere’s guilt than some have achieved by saying ‘if x was the case and y was the case and z was the case?’ The level of wilful manipulation employed by a few should give everyone pause for thought. A good suspect doesn’t need this. Lechmere isn’t a good suspect….in my opinion of course.

[FrankO]

I think that he could have run into Nichols as they approached each other from opposite directions on Bucks Row which could have meant that the time from ‘meeting’ to ‘exiting Bucks Row’ could have been as little as 2-3 minutes.

I think that would be closer to the truth, Mike.

[The Rookie Detective]

So to sum up we have……

The initial suspicion of Lechmere coming via this supposed ‘gap of time’ which has Lechmere in Bucks Row for a suspicious length of time.

Problem - we know that this is nothing more than an invention which required the editing of evidence by using 2 claims, 1) that Lechmere left that house at 3.30 when he’d actually said ‘around 3.30 (this is a vital point, he was simply estimating and so it could have been slightly later) 2) that the body was discovered, as near as dammit, at 3.45. Certain Lechmere proposers suggest (based on no real evidence) that this couldn’t have occurred at 3.40 or 3.41 or 3.42 or 3.43. So we have a clear manipulation of two unknown times to manufacture a suspicious ‘gap.’

The we have the name ‘issue.’

Problem - we know that this wasn’t an invented name, it was the name of his stepfather. We also know that if it was intended to gain some kind of advantage it failed miserably. He gave his correct two forenames and his correct address. Never has so much be made from so little.

Then we have the infamous ‘Mizen Scam.’

Problem - firstly it’s not remotely plausible of course. How could Lechmere have remained at the scene to ‘bluff’ his way out of the situation by somehow being confident that he could scam his way past a Constable in the company of another man. He left Bucks Row walking alongside Robert Paul (who later proved not to be shy about talking) so how could he have managed to have spoken to Mizen out of Paul’s earshot?

Then there’s the ‘stay rather than go’ point.

Problem - yes, it makes absolutely no sense that Lechmere would have taken this almost suicidally dangerous risk when his option for fleeing was obvious. No adult could have been unaware that a meeting with a Constable was then likely and this was a man allegedly in possession of a knife and who just couldn’t have been anything like sure that he didn’t have blood on him.

The ‘phantom killer’ point. (Christer repeatedly uses this phrase to describe an alternative killer)

Problem - this is the kind of thing that Fiver has mentioned. It’s propaganda for the cause. Just because we can’t put a name to an alternative killer he gets mockingly title ‘the phantom killer,’ as if the notion is somehow far-fetched.

The idea of killing on the way to work.

Problem - yes, it’s ludicrously unlikely. I’ve asked several times for an example of a serial killer who killed on his way to work and so close to his clock in time and as yet not one has been named (despite Christer regularly quoting serial killer history to make a point.) If he’d wanted to kill couldn’t he have found a victim earlier? And as he clearly intended further murders why choose a spot that, at some point in time, he could have been connected to.

The family locations in Whitechapel.

Problems - yes, it’s indicative of desperation. Do serial killers always kill near to familiar landmarks or family homes? Of course not. What was Lechmere going to say if questioned at 2.30 am near a murder scene? “Yes Officer I was just heading round to my mum’s for a cup of tea and a biscuit” The reddest of herrings.


Like millions of people, Lechmere found a body and spent some time alone with it. We can infer no more than that. It would certainly make him a person of interest. The police at the time clearly saw nothing about him that raised an eyebrow but 135 years later we try piling speculation on top of speculation. There’s nothing wrong with a bit of speculation of course (we all do it) but how can anyone achieve the level of confidence in Lechmere’s guilt than some have achieved by saying ‘if x was the case and y was the case and z was the case?’ The level of wilful manipulation employed by a few should give everyone pause for thought. A good suspect doesn’t need this. Lechmere isn’t a good suspect….in my opinion of course.

You make exceptionally valid points as always and I'm inclined to agree with regards to reducing that time down from 10 minutes, as upon reflection I feel that 10 minutes would be too long for any killer, and he would have been caught.

I'm willing to reduce that by half and state that the entire process of arriving, killing and clearing the area would have taken a minimum of 5 minutes, or 4 minutes an an absolute push...

I feel that 2 to 3 minutes is simply unrealistic. 2 to 3 minutes for the attack itself, but you also have to factor in the arrival and escape times which would take additional time either side of the attack.

Based on the witness Harriet Lilley, I believe the murder itself occurred at 3.30am or close to it...and i accept that he could have cleared the area by 3.33am... meaning that when Lechmere arrived in Bucks Row at 3.37am, the killer may have been gone for no more than 3 minutes.

I believe that there is no chance whatsoever, that there was another person BETWEEN the killer leaving and Lechmere arriving, because there isn't the time, quite literally.

Lechmere missed the killer by 3 minutes.


So, this is my humble hypothesis (NOT a theory)

JTR enters Bucks Row with Nichols/meets Nichols/checks coast is clear at 3.29am (60 seconds)

A minute after arriving, he suddenly attacks her at 3.30am, strangles her and gets her to the floor (60 - 90 seconds) - (train passes and witness hears unusual moans)

He then begins cutting and mutilating Nichols, whispering to her as he cuts her as part of his sadistic ritual (60 - 90 seconds) - (witness hears whispers/faint but distinct voices outside the window)

He then stops/ stands to admire his work/takes a memento/conceals his knife/checks coast is clear...and leaves Buck Row (60 seconds)


That's between 4 to 5 minutes.

It can't be done in under 4 minutes.

But it IS possible to do everything in under 5 minutes.

It would rule out Lechmere.

It's frustrating because if Lechmere had left on time for work, things may have turned out so much differently...



Just a thought as an aside...what are the chances that the whispers that were heard outside the window by the witness, were actually that of Lechmere and Paul?
How much do we know about their integrity when it comes to their statements?

[Newbie]

This still gives us a man killing a woman on his way to work which is unlikely in the extreme (and no other examples of this type of behaviour from crime history have ever been found as far as I’m aware.) Not only that, we know that the murder and mutilations could only have taken one or two minutes and so if he’d been disturbed then he’d only just killed her (no more than two minutes before Paul’s arrival) and twenty minutes before being due to begin work which would have potentially left him needing a clean up and, as per the other murders, if he hadn’t been interrupted he might have removed organs, so what would he have done with them in the 15 minutes or so between the completion and his arrival at work?

I don't dispute this .....

Your 2nd point being that the time of the murder, if committed by Lechmere, would have left him precious little time to make it to work on time, because he'd be staying at the scene cleaning up? Perhaps, but JtR was capable of cleaning up on the move, exhibited by the apron JtR deposited along Ghoulston street.

And, as a long time employee at Pickford's, one imagines that he had some liberties in arriving a bit late, without being immediately directed to a supervisor. I imagine arriving a tad late was a common occurrence then and now. It doesn't go into your employee records unless Pickford's had a clock in system of some type - which I doubt.

A 2nd interpretation of your point (I'm not certain whether you intended this - but it is a good point from my perspective) is that Lech (as the killer) could have arrived only a few minutes before Paul, encountered Polly Nichols standing right there, and after negotiating for her services, quickly killed her, so that he did actually leave home around 3:30 am; or, even better for Lech, if he did arrive a few minutes earlier, maybe he discovered the dead body, heard Paul's foot steps, and positioned himself in the middle of the street to pretend that he just arrived, fearful that he would be unduly blamed.

In either case, his time stated at the inquest would have jived with actuality, and he had nothing to fear with his testimony contradicting his known departure time by others. Hell, his wife or a neighbor could have been potential witnesses supporting his alibi: what difference does a few minutes make?

So, the question is: why didn't he use the name he always used, Charles Lechmere? Any suspicions entertained by authorities as to his conduct would have been quickly quelled by others at home who could support his departure time that morning (or his typical habits). Who, wouldn't want this? The reason for using Cross to avoid scandal by him being caught up in this tawdry affair in a unmentionable part of London: if so sensitive about his lower class upbringing, why not show up in your best duds? I know there are a few other arguments: I'm dissatisfied by them. In my opinion, every defense of his various stated actions, or what else we know, are ad hoc.

[Newbie]

It looks to me exactly what it was. A clearly innocent guy who did exactly what he said. He found a body on his way to work. Called another guy over to take a look and then went to look for a Constable. He then shows up at the inquest and gives an entirely plausible account of what went on.

That's fine!

It would be nice however if you explained:

1. why Paul didn't hear him or see him ahead (you just accepted Lechmere's testimony that he could hear all the way up Buck's row)

2. why Lechmere was not clear when describing a very simple event in his discussion with Mizen:

- why not just say 'we discovered the body of a woman on Buck's row who appears to be dead'.
- instead we have the unclear: 'she is either dead or drunk', and then 'you are wanted there' .... no mention of being the discoverer, strong suggestion that she is just another drunk. Why didn't Lechmere tell Mizen that he thought she might have been raped, as he did in his testimony?

3. why he used the name of Cross: it parallels his brief evasive discussion with Mizen.
4. why did he appear in court in his work clothes: he only had one pair of clothing?
5. why did he not inform the inquest of his address, like almost every other witness?

As for the part concerning nobody in the Lechmere family knowing of his participation in the affari: you might have asked yourself, why did not of one Lechmere's descendants correct the popular mistake? Personally, I read it from a person who claimed to be a relative attesting to the descendants not knowing about it.

The person lied? Maybe. But consider my highlighted question again.

But back to my issue: no one supporting Lechmere's innocents here addresses any, much less the entirety of those questions..... very frustrating.

In the past, we got very unsatisfactory responses - some of them of dubious scientific validity or fact:

#1. The loudness of both's footsteps block out the sounds of the other's; or, the footsteps were registered subconsciously by each.
#2. He would have been late getting to his job if he was forthright: Mizen would have detained him and they would have arrived late to work.
#3. It would have been scandalous to be associated with such a tawdry affair; the mom's inheritance could have been jeopardized.
#4. He had only one pair of clothing; or he was caught up in a dragnet during the morning heading to work (so they scheduled him that morning?)
#5. One paper listed his address; and besides, he mentioned that he worked at Pickfords.
#6. His descendants did know!

[Newbie]

Her clothes were raised almost to her stomach. Doesn't that constitute "displaying the body"? It might be a lesser degree of display than other murders, but he escalated in other ways, why not also an escalation in display?

I think its widely accepted that the Ripper did not complete what he wanted to do - he was disturbed by someone or something during the act.

The argument about the dress is that it was brought upwards to hide the big gash across her neck. So, it did not typify how he typically 'displayed' the bodies.

Ask Christer about the full meaning of 'displayed'; i've accepted the term without knowing what exactly it means.

My fault.

[Newbie]

Seriously? He missed out on the chance of claiming to have heard or seen the killer because someone might have been standing around at the corner of Bucks Row? I’m sorry Newbie but this is why some people (myself included) get a little irritated by some of those proposing Lechmere. Everything is seen with the guilty goggles on. What’s also noticeable is that the Police at the time saw nothing remotely suspicious about Lechmere’s behaviour.

The Lechmere ‘cottage industry’ is getting well out of hand. Lechmere gets considered such a great suspect just because he found a body (and then a mythical ‘gap’ is manipulated into being to create suspicion. Two men are responsible for this totally unjustified crusade I'm afraid. It’s a campaign of misinformation, exaggeration, selective editing, unlikely speculation and self-interest. Lechmere has to be ‘considered’ but that’s it. He’s no more likely that Hutchinson or other ‘around at the time’ suspects.

You are not alone in being frustrated Herlock.

I would guess you are not a very good liar. Let me help you!

A. when you lie, tell as little as possible .... any extra unnecessary items might come back to hurt you.

Lechmere didn't know what the police knew about witnesses and locations ... did they inform him before his testimony?

Come on Herlock! You can do better than that.

B. don't grab anyone's attention with your lie: stating that you heard footsteps leaving the murder scene would be a huge attention grabber.

Remember, I'm claiming that Lechmere wanted to keep his family and neighbors in the dark as to his involvement: primarily because he was leaving home earlier than he claimed. That's the only explanation that engages all the circumstances involving his conduct. Is there another? .... help me on that!

Lech isn't a suspect because he merely encountered the body.
Let me inform you again, he's a suspect because:

A. he was first to encounter the body

and,

B. he's known to have been disingenuous on one occasion (using Cross)
B. he's most probably disingenuous on a 2nd occasion (being 50 yards in front of Paul);
C. he has the appearance of being manipulative and evasive in his encounter with Mizen, after encountering Polly Nichols body.

Okay, why did Paul/Lechmere not hear the other? Some who know the history of those streets claim that their mutual pathway had sparse lighting in places. You guys never dare go there.

If you did, you'd have to come to the conclusion that he most probably lied. Insistence that everything is impertinent because Lechmere after all is innocent is absurd. Its like a talisman that you keep on stroking when you don't have a good response to something.

You think that using an alias before a court proceeding, when testifying about a murder, is a casual thing? Evidently, yes.

Failing to inform a PC that you discovered a dead body ... implying that someone else is there and that the woman might be drunk:
hey, perfectly natural. You then testify that you thought the woman might have been raped at the time. No problem! He's innocent after all.

[Newbie]

So to sum up we have……

The initial suspicion of Lechmere coming via this supposed ‘gap of time’ which has Lechmere in Bucks Row for a suspicious length of time.

Problem - we know that this is nothing more than an invention which required the editing of evidence by using 2 claims, 1) that Lechmere left that house at 3.30 when he’d actually said ‘around 3.30 (this is a vital point, he was simply estimating and so it could have been slightly later) 2) that the body was discovered, as near as dammit, at 3.45. Certain Lechmere proposers suggest (based on no real evidence) that this couldn’t have occurred at 3.40 or 3.41 or 3.42 or 3.43. So we have a clear manipulation of two unknown times to manufacture a suspicious ‘gap.’

The we have the name ‘issue.’

Problem - we know that this wasn’t an invented name, it was the name of his stepfather. We also know that if it was intended to gain some kind of advantage it failed miserably. He gave his correct two forenames and his correct address. Never has so much be made from so little.

Then we have the infamous ‘Mizen Scam.’

Problem - firstly it’s not remotely plausible of course. How could Lechmere have remained at the scene to ‘bluff’ his way out of the situation by somehow being confident that he could scam his way past a Constable in the company of another man. He left Bucks Row walking alongside Robert Paul (who later proved not to be shy about talking) so how could he have managed to have spoken to Mizen out of Paul’s earshot?

Then there’s the ‘stay rather than go’ point.

Problem - yes, it makes absolutely no sense that Lechmere would have taken this almost suicidally dangerous risk when his option for fleeing was obvious. No adult could have been unaware that a meeting with a Constable was then likely and this was a man allegedly in possession of a knife and who just couldn’t have been anything like sure that he didn’t have blood on him.

The ‘phantom killer’ point. (Christer repeatedly uses this phrase to describe an alternative killer)

Problem - this is the kind of thing that Fiver has mentioned. It’s propaganda for the cause. Just because we can’t put a name to an alternative killer he gets mockingly title ‘the phantom killer,’ as if the notion is somehow far-fetched.

The idea of killing on the way to work.

Problem - yes, it’s ludicrously unlikely. I’ve asked several times for an example of a serial killer who killed on his way to work and so close to his clock in time and as yet not one has been named (despite Christer regularly quoting serial killer history to make a point.) If he’d wanted to kill couldn’t he have found a victim earlier? And as he clearly intended further murders why choose a spot that, at some point in time, he could have been connected to.

The family locations in Whitechapel.

Problems - yes, it’s indicative of desperation. Do serial killers always kill near to familiar landmarks or family homes? Of course not. What was Lechmere going to say if questioned at 2.30 am near a murder scene? “Yes Officer I was just heading round to my mum’s for a cup of tea and a biscuit” The reddest of herrings.


Like millions of people, Lechmere found a body and spent some time alone with it. We can infer no more than that. It would certainly make him a person of interest. The police at the time clearly saw nothing about him that raised an eyebrow but 135 years later we try piling speculation on top of speculation. There’s nothing wrong with a bit of speculation of course (we all do it) but how can anyone achieve the level of confidence in Lechmere’s guilt than some have achieved by saying ‘if x was the case and y was the case and z was the case?’ The level of wilful manipulation employed by a few should give everyone pause for thought. A good suspect doesn’t need this. Lechmere isn’t a good suspect….in my opinion of course.

Like millions of people, Lechmere found a body and spent some time alone with it. We can infer no more than that. It would certainly make him a person of interest. The police at the time clearly saw nothing about him that raised an eyebrow but 135 years later we try piling speculation on top of speculation. ’ The level of wilful manipulation employed by a few should give everyone pause for thought. A good suspect doesn’t need this. Lechmere isn’t a good suspect….in my opinion of course.
The initial suspicion of Lechmere coming via this supposed ‘gap of time’ which has Lechmere in Bucks Row for a suspicious length of time.

And those millions generally are considered suspects. The police in this case didn't seem to even consider Lech, ever: it's not like others, who the police suspected, and would have done a thorough checkup on their comings and goings, talking to others. What you think is a strength absolving Lechmere is far from it. You keep on drifting away from some uncomfortable things: he was evasive and dishonest on some very important points. How long was he out and about? I don't know. Why did he use Cross? Using that name disavailed him of the usefullness of family members and neighbors backing up his story. if the spot light was cast on him. that's taking an unnecessary chance. What if he was innocent, and suddenly became the object of suspicion by using Cross? That would ruin the families reputation.

A big, unnecessary chance: is this how you would proceed in that situation?


Problem - we know that this is nothing more than an invention which required the editing of evidence by using 2 claims, 1) that Lechmere left that house at 3.30 when he’d actually said ‘around 3.30 (this is a vital point, he was simply estimating and so it could have been slightly later) 2) that the body was discovered, as near as dammit, at 3.45. Certain Lechmere proposers suggest (based on no real evidence) that this couldn’t have occurred at 3.40 or 3.41 or 3.42 or 3.43. So we have a clear manipulation of two unknown times to manufacture a suspicious ‘gap.’

You are a bit confusing here, but I guess you are responding to Christer, whose argument about the time of the murder is based on the rate of blood loss - i'm not. To me, its an imponderable how precise they, or anyone today, can be, with no access to the corpse. The doctor, who arrived at 4:15 am, claimed the murder to have taken place 30 minutes? earlier. I'm not fixated on this time: he's either correct or incorrect. PC'Neil arrived at 3:45 (on his watch), Lech should have left around 3:30 pm to get to work on time. This is what he alleged: it is not a fact. Paul claimed to have encountered Lech at 3:45 (his home clock was no doubt fast in comparison to O'Neil's).

Whenever Lech left home, he most likely was not 50 yards in front of Paul, as he claimed. Pretty straight forward: focus on that. How much earlier did he leave home than 'around' 3:30 am - I haven't the foggiest. He would have wanted to avoid PC O'Neil between 3:10? and 3:20? heading down Buck's row. Where did he meet Polly Nichols? useless speculation. Probably not too far from the murder spot: she was drunk and the killer would have had to lead her to what he perceived to be the best location. Probably, not on White Chapel - but who knows? Jack the Ripper was an opportunist killer - most are, who passed up some opportunities because he felt it was not right. Friday morning was the right set up, evidently.

The issue is, and I can't repeat it strongly enough: if anyone is first to encounter a body, and everything about their story was verifiable as to their whereabouts, you would be damn sure to use family members and friends as witnesses, and not go by an assumed name. People at work would be of help if you arrived on time, which was the case. However, they would be of no use to back up the 3:30 am departure claim, if suspicions popped up. Why does a middle aged married man use his childhood name? Why did he appear in court in his work clothes when he was not working that day? Explain it!


The we have the name ‘issue.’

Problem - we know that this wasn’t an invented name, it was the name of his stepfather. We also know that if it was intended to gain some kind of advantage it failed miserably. He gave his correct two forenames and his correct address. Never has so much be made from so little.
No one knew him as Cross

Every paper, save one, failed to list his address. Every other witness (save two?), during the 4 days of the inquest, had their name and address mentioned starting their testimony. To say that he furnished his name is most likely wrong, unless most journalists missed it. My point is that he didn't want family members and neighbors to know he was testifying. Certain other behaviors support that conviction.

His step dad died some 20 years beforehand. He got married and chose the name of Lechmere .... Cross was his childhood name. He became a married man since then, going by the name of Lechmere. His use of Cross (let's say that was him in 1876) during the investigation into his culpability into the boy's death made sense: he was known administratively as Charles Cross at Pickford's: his step dad getting him the job. It makes zero sense using it in 1889, and going back to a childhood name is not what married men do. By using Cross, he cut himself off from neighbors or family members backing up his story. If he was found out that he was using an alias, it would have created some suspicions. Any suspicion, especially in such matters, would have been something you would want to avoid - no?

Using the name of Cross previously, did give him an idea.

[Newbie]

Some things we know about Lechmere are solid inferences based on absences.

For instance, when & why did he go to the police to report his discovering the body of Polly Nichols?


We do know that police and journalists were hanging out in Buck's row, talking to pedestrians Friday afternoon of the Polly Nichol's murder.
One accosted Robert Paul, or Paull approached him.

But what about Lechmere?

We know that he talked to neither a reporter, or police representative, wandering down Buck's row back home.
How do we know that he didn't talk to a police representative? Because nobody was disabused of the notion that PC O'Neil first encountered the body at the inquest's first day, on Saturday.

He should have known that his discovery in the morning was of great interest on his return: he either claimed ignorance of the event when asked, avoided the throng of reporters and police; or maybe, he avoided Buck's row all together, and traveled along White chapel road?

Maybe he was wrapped in contemplation of the sounds of his footsteps on Buck's row as was his habit?

[Fiver]

Your 2nd point being that the time of the murder, if committed by Lechmere, would have left him precious little time to make it to work on time, because he'd be staying at the scene cleaning up? Perhaps, but JtR was capable of cleaning up on the move, exhibited by the apron JtR deposited along Ghoulston street.

This is another point against Lechmere being the Ripper. The Ripper was capable of cleaning up on the move. Charles Lechmere took multiple actions that would have exposed himself to being detected before he had a chance to clean up.

* He didn't just walk off.
* He stopped Robert Paul when Paul tried to just walk by without getting involved.
* He spent time with Paul, discussing the woman.
* He did not pull down Nichols clothing, which would have been an excellent way to provide an innocent excuse for blood on his hands or clothes.
* He walked together with Paul to look for a policeman instead of splitting up.
* He talked to PC Mizen, who carried a lantern that provided far better lighting than the street lamps.
* He continued to walk with Paul along Hanbury Street nearly to Spitalfield's Market.

Any one of those would have been stunningly stupid for a man with blood on his hands, blood on his clothes, and a bloody knife in his pocket.

Either Lechmere was one of the stupidest murderers in all of history or he was innocent.

And, as a long time employee at Pickford's, one imagines that he had some liberties in arriving a bit late, without being immediately directed to a supervisor. I imagine arriving a tad late was a common occurrence then and now. It doesn't go into your employee records unless Pickford's had a clock in system of some type - which I doubt.

You imagining something does not make it a fact. Even if a supervisor wasn't going to chew him out for being later, he wasn't going to get paid for time he didn't work and there were a lot of little Lechmeres to feed.

[QUOTE=Newbie;n813573]A 2nd interpretation of your point (I'm not certain whether you intended this - but it is a good point from my perspective) is that Lech (as the killer) could have arrived only a few minutes before Paul, encountered Polly Nichols standing right there, and after negotiating for her services, quickly killed her, so that he did actually leave home around 3:30 am; or, even better for Lech, if he did arrive a few minutes earlier, maybe he discovered the dead body, heard Paul's foot steps, and positioned himself in the middle of the street to pretend that he just arrived, fearful that he would be unduly blamed.[/quote[

So Charles Lechmere had the ninja skills to move from kneeling over the body on the side of the road, facing Robert Paul to shift to the middle of the road, standing, facing away from Robert Paul? If he was that good at moving unseen and unheard, he could have just walked off completely undetected by Robert Paul.

So, the question is: why didn't he use the name he always used, Charles Lechmere?

Your assumptions are not facts. We don't know if his friends, family, and neighbors knew him as Cross or Lechmere, but he had used his stepfather's surname before.

Any suspicions entertained by authorities as to his conduct would have been quickly quelled by others at home who could support his departure time that morning (or his typical habits). Who, wouldn't want this?

At the inquest he publicly identified himself as Charles Allen Cross, a carman who lived at 22 Doveton Street and had worked for Pickfords at the Broad Street Station for the last couple decades.

(Sarcasm) Clearly nobody would suspect that he was Charles Allen Lechmere, a carman who lived at 22 Doveton Street and had worked for Pickfords at the Broad Street Station for the last couple years. What a stunning clever deception - certain to fool his family, his neighbors, his employers, his coworkers, the police, and the press.(/Sarcasm)

[Fiver]

It would be nice however if you explained:

1. why Paul didn't hear him or see him ahead (you just accepted Lechmere's testimony that he could hear all the way up Buck's row)

Why do you keep repeated things already shown to be false?

Paul did see Lechmere ahead of him - he clearly said so in his testimony. We don't know how far away this was - Paul wasn't asked and didn't say. Paul also didn't say when her heard Lechemre nor what the distance between them was when he heard them.

2. why Lechmere was not clear when describing a very simple event in his discussion with Mizen:

- why not just say 'we discovered the body of a woman on Buck's row who appears to be dead'.
- instead we have the unclear: 'she is either dead or drunk', and then 'you are wanted there' .... no mention of being the discoverer, strong suggestion that she is just another drunk. Why didn't Lechmere tell Mizen that he thought she might have been raped, as he did in his testimony?

Why are you assuming the fault was Lechmere's when Robert Paul supported Charles Lechmere's version, not PC Mizens?

You been asked before. You won't answer, of course. Ignoring inconvenient facts is a central tenet of the Cult of Lechmere.

3. why he used the name of Cross: it parallels his brief evasive discussion with Mizen.
4. why did he appear in court in his work clothes: he only had one pair of clothing?

This nonsense again? Lechmere was not the only witness to use a different surname at the inquest of a Ripper victim. Lechmere was not the only one to wear work clothes to the inquest. These have been mentioned before - you ignoring facts doesn't make them go away.

5. why did he not inform the inquest of his address, like almost every other witness?

Charles Lechmere did give his home address at the inquest. It's the only reason that we know his actual surname was Lechmere, not Cross.

You ignoring facts doesn't make them go away.

As for the part concerning nobody in the Lechmere family knowing of his participation in the affari: you might have asked yourself, why did not of one Lechmere's descendants correct the popular mistake? Personally, I read it from a person who claimed to be a relative attesting to the descendants not knowing about it.

The person lied? Maybe. But consider my highlighted question again.

This nonsense again?

How many things can you tell us about what your great great grandfather did? If I can find a fact that you didn't know, does that mean your great great grandfather deliberately hid those events from descendants that were born long after his own death?

But back to my issue: no one supporting Lechmere's innocents here addresses any, much less the entirety of those questions..... very frustrating.

Your questions have been answered repeatedly. You've just ignored the answers.

In the past, we got very unsatisfactory responses - some of them of dubious scientific validity or fact:
#1. The loudness of both's footsteps block out the sounds of the other's; or, the footsteps were registered subconsciously by each.
#2. He would have been late getting to his job if he was forthright: Mizen would have detained him and they would have arrived late to work.
#3. It would have been scandalous to be associated with such a tawdry affair; the mom's inheritance could have been jeopardized.
#4. He had only one pair of clothing; or he was caught up in a dragnet during the morning heading to work (so they scheduled him that morning?)
#5. One paper listed his address; and besides, he mentioned that he worked at Pickfords.
#6. His descendants did know!

1) Nobody has said that "loudness of boths footsteps block out the sounds of the other's".
2) Nobody said that.
3) Nobody said that.
4) Nobody said that.
5) You completely misrepresent what others have said. At the inquest he publicly identified himself as Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doventon Street, a carman who had worked for Pickfords at the Broad Street Station for the last 20 years. He even told the court the route that he walked to get from his home to Buck's Row. (The Morning Post, September 4, 1888)
6) Nobody said that.

Between your claiming people said things that they didn't and repeating things that have been shown to be false or irrelevant, it appears that you either aren't reading what other people said or your reading comprehension skills are somewhat deficient.

[Fiver]

I think its widely accepted that the Ripper did not complete what he wanted to do - he was disturbed by someone or something during the act.

Widely accepted by who?

The argument about the dress is that it was brought upwards to hide the big gash across her neck. So, it did not typify how he typically 'displayed' the bodies.

You aren't even quoting the Cult of Lechmere correctly.They don't claim that the dress was pulled up to hide the neck would. They do claim that the dress wasn't pulled up to expose her, which is easily disproven by Robert Paul's testimony about how he tried to pull her skirts d

Ask Christer about the full meaning of 'displayed'; i've accepted the term without knowing what exactly it means.

Wading through Christers theories to find a fact is rather like wading through a sewer to find a diamond.

Lets try looking at analysis by the Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling.

"The victims were left in the open and on display in an effort to further degrade them and shock those who discovered the bodies. No efforts were made to hide or dispose of the victims. The first five victims were intentionally left in outdoor locations. In the Kelly case, he left her in her own room where she would be found by anyone searching for her. In fact, this killer obviously left the victims where others would find them."

"The characteristic of posing was evident in the Jack the Ripper murders. In all of the cases, except when the killer was interrupted in the Stride case, he left the bodies posed flat on their backs. Stride was dropped on her side initially, and then left lying flat on her back with her wounds exposed. He often left the victims’ legs splayed and their genitalia exposed in a sexually degrading manner, such as in the Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly murders. Each murder had some element of posing, from the arrangement of clothes,the placement of a thimble, the splaying of legs, to the arrangement of organs, intestines,and tissues. In each case a pattern of successive efforts to pose the body was obvious.These efforts to pose the body became more blatant as the series progressed."

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are not alone in being frustrated Herlock.

I would guess you are not a very good liar. Let me help you!

A. when you lie, tell as little as possible .... any extra unnecessary items might come back to hurt you.

Lechmere didn't know what the police knew about witnesses and locations ... did they inform him before his testimony?

Come on Herlock! You can do better than that.

B. don't grab anyone's attention with your lie: stating that you heard footsteps leaving the murder scene would be a huge attention grabber.

Remember, I'm claiming that Lechmere wanted to keep his family and neighbors in the dark as to his involvement: primarily because he was leaving home earlier than he claimed. That's the only explanation that engages all the circumstances involving his conduct. Is there another? .... help me on that!

Lech isn't a suspect because he merely encountered the body.
Let me inform you again, he's a suspect because:

A. he was first to encounter the body

Exactly….he found a body.

and,

B. he's known to have been disingenuous on one occasion (using Cross)

That’s just not being disingenuous if he used the name Cross and we have nothing to suggest that he didn’t.

B. he's most probably disingenuous on a 2nd occasion (being 50 yards in front of Paul);

So an imagined issue with absolutely nothing that proves him a liar.

C. he has the appearance of being manipulative and evasive in his encounter with Mizen, after encountering Polly Nichols body.

A typical exaggeration. There was a bit of communication which has been magnified into a silly plan which he couldn’t possibly have thought of in the time between hearing Paul approach and his arrival at the scene.

Okay, why did Paul/Lechmere not hear the other? Some who know the history of those streets claim that their mutual pathway had sparse lighting in places. You guys never dare go there.

Steve Blomer has gone there. Or do you only read pro-Lechmere stuff from Christer and Herr Obersturmbannführer Von Stow?

If you did, you'd have to come to the conclusion that he most probably lied. Insistence that everything is impertinent because Lechmere after all is innocent is absurd. Its like a talisman that you keep on stroking when you don't have a good response to something.

Really? You keep piling assumption upon assumption; speculation upon speculation and then you complain when others try to bring you back to reality.

You think that using an alias before a court proceeding, when testifying about a murder, is a casual thing? Evidently, yes.

Read David Orsam’s research instead of other people’s imaginings.

Failing to inform a PC that you discovered a dead body ... implying that someone else is there and that the woman might be drunk:
hey, perfectly natural. You then testify that you thought the woman might have been raped at the time. No problem! He's innocent after all.

Nothing remotely suspicious about it. Was Paul the killer too then?

Lechmere is a rubbish suspect entirely manufactured by those with an agenda. I’ve never in 35 years heard the kind of desperation employed in defending the nonsense.