Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[caz]

Hi John,

This is a Lechmere thread, so why contaminate it with your well known, if unedifying diary views, which hardly need to be repeated here?

Anything to say about Lechmere while you are here? Personally, I'm still looking for something that ever warranted his suspect status.

[John Wheat]

Six month ban Fishy. For something said on one of the Diary threads.

Thought that was a joke thread? Didn't know you could get banned on that thread. In all seriousness although I don't always agree with Abby I find his posts largely interesting

[Geddy2112]

Six month ban Fishy. For something said on one of the Diary threads.

If I may ask when is Fisherman's ban up?

[FISHY1118]

Tough one . Sure we,ll see him later on then , thanks for the info Steve ,Herlock .

[Elamarna]

What happen to Abby ?

He's alive and well, posting occasionally on the other place.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Six month ban Fishy. For something said on one of the Diary threads.

[FISHY1118]

What happen to Abby ?

[Geddy2112]

I guess its good that Edward conned the Lechmere family at outset of this little farce of theirs. Having a respectable, hard working, family oriented, ancestor isn't nearly as noteworthy as having Jack the Ripper in the family. It's disgusting.

Sorry for asking at this late stage but he did what? Apologies I've missed the boat on this one.

[Hair Bear]

Hi Hair Bear,

You hadn’t noticed but unfortunately Abby is currently serving a ban so you’ll have to wait a while for a response. Or you could pm him on JtRForums if you’re a member?

Will message, thanks.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Abby. Apologies for being super late to this party. Firstly, props to you for helping- it's always nice to know that people care. I would, though, be grateful if you could answer some of the many questions floating in my not-too-bright mind (sorry if they have been covered already, I did look).

1. "at first we couldnt tell if he was even alive, but shortly determined he was"/"he was not responding". How did you determine he was alive? Did you check for a pulse? Feel his face? Listen for breathing? Please be specific about the course of events that went from thinking he was dead to knowing he was alive.

2. Did you or the other man prop him up? If not, why not?

3. You were asked previously if other cars pulled up but I could not find an answer. Did they?

4. On the same note, do you know how long he had been there? I'm wondering why you pulled over but nobody before you did.

5. "once the police and ambulance showed up they thanked us and actually asked us to move on, which we did" I'm assuming they took yours and the dog walkers details since you were right there - if not, please say so. Did they ever get back to you about the incident?

Thanks.

Hi Hair Bear,

You hadn’t noticed but unfortunately Abby is currently serving a ban so you’ll have to wait a while for a response. Or you could pm him on JtRForums if you’re a member?

[Hair Bear]

so i was driving to work yesterday morning and noticed a body on the side of the road, in the grass between the sidewalk and a fence. i pulled over, put my hazards on and got out and checked on it. at tje same time a guy walking his dog came up. it was the body of a middle aged man, and at first we couldnt tell if he was even alive, but shortly determined he was. i called 9-11 and we both waited until the police and paramedics arrived which was about ten minutes. the guy was alive but we couldnt tell what was wrong with him, he was not responding or moving. once the police and ambulance showed up they thanked us and actually asked us to move on, which we did.
both our actions were what any normal citizen would do.

so next time i see someone say that lech behaved normally, was a good citizen and or to stop picking on poor ole lech think ill efffing puke.

oh still waiting for all the threads on those better than lechmere suspects? lol!!!

thats all carry on.

Hello Abby. Apologies for being super late to this party. Firstly, props to you for helping- it's always nice to know that people care. I would, though, be grateful if you could answer some of the many questions floating in my not-too-bright mind (sorry if they have been covered already, I did look).

1. "at first we couldnt tell if he was even alive, but shortly determined he was"/"he was not responding". How did you determine he was alive? Did you check for a pulse? Feel his face? Listen for breathing? Please be specific about the course of events that went from thinking he was dead to knowing he was alive.

2. Did you or the other man prop him up? If not, why not?

3. You were asked previously if other cars pulled up but I could not find an answer. Did they?

4. On the same note, do you know how long he had been there? I'm wondering why you pulled over but nobody before you did.

5. "once the police and ambulance showed up they thanked us and actually asked us to move on, which we did" I'm assuming they took yours and the dog walkers details since you were right there - if not, please say so. Did they ever get back to you about the incident?

Thanks.

[A P Tomlinson]

I really ought not to keep on this - I have a life to lead. BUT it was recently pointed out on one of the Facebook groups that Christer's experts qualified their timings by saying that "they could have been wrong". It's apparently in his book. It is possible to deduce from what they say that the killing could have taken place any time after Neil passed at 3.15 and before Cross and Paul met at the scene at around 3.40. Christer reports his experts as saying there were no cases to compare from and since every case is unique neither professor could exclude the possibility that Nicholls could have bled for longer than the times Christer keeps reporting and thus allow for another killer prior to Cross's finding the body. Strangely, Christer ignores that. It is my understanding, from conversations with police men in my family, that forensic experts will never give a time of death closer than a 30 minute window. Clearly, such a time encompasses the whole 3.15 to 3.40 space. It also seems that expert opinion was that the minimum amount of time necessary to actually do the murder and mutilation would be 3-5 minutes. As there was 25 minutes available the probability that Cross was guilty becomes very low.

One thing I have noticed is Christer's continued use of 'freshly killed body' but 'freshly' is meaningless. Was someone killed 25 minutes ago 'freshly' killed? Quite possibly compared to someone killed 2 hours ago. And as it is entirely possible that the murder commenced 25 minutes before Cross found the body is 'freshly killed' an appropriate description?

There's also the issue of what "bleeding" means.
Lividity starts almost immediately the heart stops. And as the blood is no longer getting pushed around the body two important things happen to it (There are more, but these two for our purposes...) Gravity begins to take over and the blood heads to its lowest achievable point. Also because the motion of the force of being pushed around the body is what causes the elements of the blood to mix freely during life, when this stops the blood begins to separate into the heavier red cells, and the lighter plasma. The red blood cells move down faster and as the vessels that hold the blood begin to collapse, that blood follows the natural paths laid out for it via gravity.
This is what leads to the pronounced "lividity" that we see on the lower extremes of the body post mortem. (Death Bruising or whatever people call it wherever they live...)
But if the blood has another route it can take... such as through a bloody great big hole where the neck used to be... guess where it is going?
Down Bucks Row! It;s not going to pour out like normal bleeding because it is mainly the thick, heavy red blood cells and it coagulates fairly quickly.
It OOZES...
Now, this means that under the right circumstances,"bleeding" (as far as you or I are likely to consider it) can go on for hours after death, but if you ask a Doctor when bleeding stops they will have a very specific set of criteria that they can refer to.

Victorian coppers and doctors not so much. "Is there blood coming out?" "Yes" "Then its still bleeding!"

[John Trent]

I think it's very likely that Nichols was very recently killed when Paul got there, but that would be true whether Cross killed her or Cross' approach frightened away the man who killed her. The timings of those 2 scenarios would be so close to the same that time estimations and blood evidence are of no help in judging how likely each scenario is.

I really ought not to keep on this - I have a life to lead. BUT it was recently pointed out on one of the Facebook groups that Christer's experts qualified their timings by saying that "they could have been wrong". It's apparently in his book. It is possible to deduce from what they say that the killing could have taken place any time after Neil passed at 3.15 and before Cross and Paul met at the scene at around 3.40. Christer reports his experts as saying there were no cases to compare from and since every case is unique neither professor could exclude the possibility that Nicholls could have bled for longer than the times Christer keeps reporting and thus allow for another killer prior to Cross's finding the body. Strangely, Christer ignores that. It is my understanding, from conversations with police men in my family, that forensic experts will never give a time of death closer than a 30 minute window. Clearly, such a time encompasses the whole 3.15 to 3.40 space. It also seems that expert opinion was that the minimum amount of time necessary to actually do the murder and mutilation would be 3-5 minutes. As there was 25 minutes available the probability that Cross was guilty becomes very low.

One thing I have noticed is Christer's continued use of 'freshly killed body' but 'freshly' is meaningless. Was someone killed 25 minutes ago 'freshly' killed? Quite possibly compared to someone killed 2 hours ago. And as it is entirely possible that the murder commenced 25 minutes before Cross found the body is 'freshly killed' an appropriate description?

[Lewis C]

It has been a joy to read these 105 pages. (That's not really true) But it is educational to see that Christer is still using misleading information or withholding information, as he has continued to do since he first started his campaign to frame Charles Allen Cross. I always suppress a chuckle when I see yet another reworded repetition of "I dare not answer questions that I have studiously avoided because they show my 'evidence' to be total nonsense; so now I'm taking my ball away so you can't play anymore".

Elsewhere the claim of Cross not using his legal name has been disproved.
Ditto - the claim of Christer's 'experts' that Nicholls must have be killed in the few minutes before Paul arrived to be accosted by Cross.
Ditto - James Scobie's claim of 'Prima Facie' meaning anything but 'the outline is OK but now bring me actual evidence'.
Ditto - The time of Cross walking from home to Bucks Row (using an ex-policeman as an expert and not actually using the route that Cross would have walked - because it no longer exists).

There's so much more - perhaps someone could write a book - perhaps "What's the point?"

I am truly amazed that anyone can still be convinced by Christer's case - except those who read it and never investigate further. Of course, there's also the idiotic videos perfomed (and I use the word loosely) by the ex-communications officer of the National Front which have presented such joys as the conversations that 'Lech' had with prostitutes. (Note the cunning abbreviation of 'Lech' to imply lechery in these non-existant conversations).

The ONLY fact that can incriminate Cross is that he was at the scene of the discovery of a body. There is literally nothing else. And there is a gap of at least 20 minutes prior to that where the murder could have taken place and the killer vanishing. All of the recorded inquest evidence, if considered sensibly, indicates that Cross was just an innocent passerby.

I have never been able to understand the idea that Cross lied to Mizen by saying 'You are wanted by a policeman' when obviously Paul was with him. Paul must have been there because he complained about Mizen continuing to knock up after he had been told he was wanted. Why would Paul not say something about that? Why would Cross say Mizen was wanted by a policeman? There was no policeman there when Cross and Paul left the scene and no indication that one would have arrived by the time MIzen got there. So, saying that he was wanted by a policeman and Mizen turning up to find no policeman there would have been much more suspicious. I don't think Mizen lied. I beleive Cross said "You are wanted" and when Mizen arrived he formed the opinion that Cross had meant "by a policeman" because Neil was there. But the dichotomy is that if Mizen must have been telling the truth then Mizen's claim of meeting Cross and Paul at 3:45 must also be true. Or is it OK for Mizen to lie once just to support Christer's theory?

I'll check back when the thread is at 200 pages. Carry on

Hi John, welcome to Casebook,

Another thing about Mizen's claims is that what he said about Cross' words is completely uncorroborated, whereas the time of 3:45 that he gives fits perfectly with the times given by 2 other witnesses. So it's much more likely that he got the time right than that he got Cross' words right.

I think it's very likely that Nichols was very recently killed when Paul got there, but that would be true whether Cross killed her or Cross' approach frightened away the man who killed her. The timings of those 2 scenarios would be so close to the same that time estimations and blood evidence are of no help in judging how likely each scenario is.

[A P Tomlinson]

It has been a joy to read these 105 pages. (That's not really true) But it is educational to see that Christer is still using misleading information or withholding information, as he has continued to do since he first started his campaign to frame Charles Allen Cross. I always suppress a chuckle when I see yet another reworded repetition of "I dare not answer questions that I have studiously avoided because they show my 'evidence' to be total nonsense; so now I'm taking my ball away so you can't play anymore".

Elsewhere the claim of Cross not using his legal name has been disproved.
Ditto - the claim of Christer's 'experts' that Nicholls must have be killed in the few minutes before Paul arrived to be accosted by Cross.
Ditto - James Scobie's claim of 'Prima Facie' meaning anything but 'the outline is OK but now bring me actual evidence'.
Ditto - The time of Cross walking from home to Bucks Row (using an ex-policeman as an expert and not actually using the route that Cross would have walked - because it no longer exists).

There's so much more - perhaps someone could write a book - perhaps "What's the point?"

I am truly amazed that anyone can still be convinced by Christer's case - except those who read it and never investigate further. Of course, there's also the idiotic videos perfomed (and I use the word loosely) by the ex-communications officer of the National Front which have presented such joys as the conversations that 'Lech' had with prostitutes. (Note the cunning abbreviation of 'Lech' to imply lechery in these non-existant conversations).

The ONLY fact that can incriminate Cross is that he was at the scene of the discovery of a body. There is literally nothing else. And there is a gap of at least 20 minutes prior to that where the murder could have taken place and the killer vanishing. All of the recorded inquest evidence, if considered sensibly, indicates that Cross was just an innocent passerby.

I have never been able to understand the idea that Cross lied to Mizen by saying 'You are wanted by a policeman' when obviously Paul was with him. Paul must have been there because he complained about Mizen continuing to knock up after he had been told he was wanted. Why would Paul not say something about that? Why would Cross say Mizen was wanted by a policeman? There was no policeman there when Cross and Paul left the scene and no indication that one would have arrived by the time MIzen got there. So, saying that he was wanted by a policeman and Mizen turning up to find no policeman there would have been much more suspicious. I don't think Mizen lied. I beleive Cross said "You are wanted" and when Mizen arrived he formed the opinion that Cross had meant "by a policeman" because Neil was there. But the dichotomy is that if Mizen must have been telling the truth then Mizen's claim of meeting Cross and Paul at 3:45 must also be true. Or is it OK for Mizen to lie once just to support Christer's theory?

I'll check back when the thread is at 200 pages. Carry on

I think it's probably even simpler than that John, "A policeman is wanted down Bucks Row..."