Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[The Rookie Detective]

Just wanted to throw a curve ball...

The witness Mrs Lilley who lived a couple of doors away from the murder site and who claimed to of heard distinct but faint whispers of VOICES (PLURAL) under the window; could she of heard the killer and Nichols?

Or did she hear Lechmere and Nichols?

Or Lechmere and Paul?

What i'm suggesting is...what are the chances that Lechmere and Paul acted together?

What if everything that transpired didn't really happen that way at all and they were giving each other an alibi?

It would then imply that there were 2 killers, which i know is unlikely...but what if they were in a pact together? Could that then explain why different eye witnesses have given different descriptions of men last seen with their respective victims?

We know a lot about Lechmere, but what about Paul?


I believe that Mrs Lilley heard the murder and the moans and voices she heard were significant. She refers to the train passing, which is accurate and so I believe she heard the killer.

The moans she heard are almost certainly Nichols after being attacked.

But did the witness hear the moans BEFORE or AFTER she heard the distinct but faint VOICES?

That is important to know because the moans are the point when she was being murdered OR just after the killer left and she's fighting for her life.

But the VOICES are equally important...but WHO was talking?

So let's look at all the possible combinations, because one of them has to be TRUE...

VOICES..

1 - Nichols and an unidentified killer shortly BEFORE he killed her
2 - Nichols and Lechmere shortly BEFORE he killed her
3 - An unidentified killer talking to Nichols in different voices/split personality disorder...as he's mutilating her as part of his ritual
4 - Lechmere and Paul AFTER having murdered Nichols
5 - Lechmere and Paul AFTER having found Nichols
6- Policemen?

One of those 6 has to be correct

We can't discount the witness evidence that she heard distinct but faint voices. The key word being VOICES and not one voice.

Thoughts please?

[FrankO]

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.

Your quite right about the inconsistency, Fiver. Paul is supposed to have paid attention to everything he could hear besides his own footsteps, so that he must have heard Lechmere walk ahead of him – if he was, in fact walking ahead of him – but only to stop listening altogether on the last stretch before seeing a man standing in the middle of the road. Or else there would have been a very good chance to say the least that he would have to have heard Lechmere move around the body and then towards the middle of the road to take up his position there. But Lechmere the killer on the other hand, who would have been the only one to have had every reason to listen for sounds, appearantly didn’t hear Paul turn into Buck’s Row or just decided to ignore him until he was too close for comfort.

Another good point is, of course, your last sentence.

[FrankO]

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

Indeed. If Lechmere was so vague, then why didn't ask Mizen any questions at all? These men were asking him to leave his beat, so some questions would have been in order. Or, why did he then go to Buck's Row anyway? Odd, very odd. Seems to me that Mizen didn't tell all that there was to tell.

[Fiver]

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.’

It's worse than that. Based on the times given by PC Mizen, PC Neil, and PC Thain; Nichols' body was found around 3:40am. That is the time that Inspector Abberline wrote in his report dated 19 September 1888.

[Fiver]

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!

There is no evidence that Lechmere was trying to keep his family and friends in the dark. There is the no evidence that Lechemre left home earlier than claimed. The most likely explanation that "engages all the circumstances involving his conduct" is that Charles Allen Lechmere was innocent.

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.

He identified himself as Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street a carman who had been working for Pickfords at the Broad Street Station for the last couple decades.

What a cunning deception! Who could possibly suspect that he was really the step-son of Thomas Cross, Charles Allen Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who had been working for Pickfords at the Broad Street Station for the last couple decades. It's an utter baffler! Holmes himself would be stumped!

There is no evidence that Lechemre was being disingenuous in any of these points.

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

So you believe Joseph Lawende was Jack the Ripper?

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.

Why do you repeatedly ignore Robert Paul's testimony? He supported what Lechmere said and contradicted PC Mizen.

[Fiver]

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.

Why would Charles Allen Lechmere be walking down Bucks Street in Friday afternoon? Pickfords shifts lasted 14 to 18 hours, so he would have been walking down Bucks Row some time between 6:20PM and 10:20pm.

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.

So you claim that Police Constable Jonas Mizen didn't talk to the police before in inquest on Saturday? Really? That's your theory?

Unless PC Mizen lied to the other police, the police knew on Friday that two anonymous carmen had told Mizen about finding Nichols body and that PC Neil was not the first to find Nichols body.

If there were police hanging about Bucks Row Friday afternoon, Robert Paul didn't tell them anything and they didn't stop him and question him. In fact, it took a couple weeks for the police to track down Robert Paul.

In contrast, Charles Allen Lechmere clearly chose to contact the police sometime on Saturday or Sunday, because he appeared in court to testify on Monday.

[Fiver]

VOICES..

1 - Nichols and an unidentified killer shortly BEFORE he killed her
2 - Nichols and Lechmere shortly BEFORE he killed her
3 - An unidentified killer talking to Nichols in different voices/split personality disorder...as he's mutilating her as part of his ritual
4 - Lechmere and Paul AFTER having murdered Nichols
5 - Lechmere and Paul AFTER having found Nichols
6- Policemen?

One of those 6 has to be correct

We can't discount the witness evidence that she heard distinct but faint voices. The key word being VOICES and not one voice.

Thoughts please?

Nice to see someone looking at multiple explanations. Another possibility is that Lilley imagined the whole thing.

The idea of Lechmere and Paul being in it together has been discussed. A major obstacle to this theory is that both men testified that they didn't know each other before that night. If that was a lie, then it would have been an obvious lie to many of their friends, relatives, and a neighbors.

It would also require them to come up with a needlessly complex story and both keep the story straight. A far simpler story would be - Of course I knew Charley (or Bob) we met in the pub, as our mates can tell you. In the mornings we meet up by Bob's place to walk to work together. It's safer than walking alone and talking helps pass the time.

And walking together would mean both men gave each other an alibi.

As to what we know about Robert Paul, he was born in 1856, the 7th of 9 children born to James ans Susannah Paul. He'd married Julia Hurler in 1879 and by 1888 he had 4 children (three still living) and his wife was heavily pregnant with another. The 1871 Census lists him as an errand boy, 1881 and 1891 a carman, 1901 a carter. After his wife's death, Paul shacked up with Caroline Gannon the widow (or wife) of John Gannon, had a couple kids, and eventually married her. Paul died in 1922.

[The Rookie Detective]

Nice to see someone looking at multiple explanations. Another possibility is that Lilley imagined the whole thing.

The idea of Lechmere and Paul being in it together has been discussed. A major obstacle to this theory is that both men testified that they didn't know each other before that night. If that was a lie, then it would have been an obvious lie to many of their friends, relatives, and a neighbors.

It would also require them to come up with a needlessly complex story and both keep the story straight. A far simpler story would be - Of course I knew Charley (or Bob) we met in the pub, as our mates can tell you. In the mornings we meet up by Bob's place to walk to work together. It's safer than walking alone and talking helps pass the time.

And walking together would mean both men gave each other an alibi.

As to what we know about Robert Paul, he was born in 1856, the 7th of 9 children born to James ans Susannah Paul. He'd married Julia Hurler in 1879 and by 1888 he had 4 children (three still living) and his wife was heavily pregnant with another. The 1871 Census lists him as an errand boy, 1881 and 1891 a carman, 1901 a carter. After his wife's death, Paul shacked up with Caroline Gannon the widow (or wife) of John Gannon, had a couple kids, and eventually married her. Paul died in 1922.

That's a brilliant post and very informative indeed.

So much focus is always put onto Lechmere, that Paul is somewhat overlooked in comparison.

I must admit, the only part of your post that i didn't agree with is the possibility that the witness Mrs Lilley imagined the whole thing.

I say this because there is no particular reason to doubt her, considering she heard the train which was real and not imagined. She claims to have been sleeping at the front of the house and she felt uneasy all night that she couldn't sleep. That would indicate her senses were heightened, which to me would suggest that she was more alert than usual. On that basis, I believe she did in fact hear the murder take place.

This reverts me back to my original question from my last post...

What VOICES did Mrs Lilley hear?

One of that list has to be correct


thoughts please?

[Lewis C]

That's a brilliant post and very informative indeed.

So much focus is always put onto Lechmere, that Paul is somewhat overlooked in comparison.

I must admit, the only part of your post that i didn't agree with is the possibility that the witness Mrs Lilley imagined the whole thing.

I say this because there is no particular reason to doubt her, considering she heard the train which was real and not imagined. She claims to have been sleeping at the front of the house and she felt uneasy all night that she couldn't sleep. That would indicate her senses were heightened, which to me would suggest that she was more alert than usual. On that basis, I believe she did in fact hear the murder take place.

This reverts me back to my original question from my last post...

What VOICES did Mrs Lilley hear?

One of that list has to be correct


thoughts please?

Hi Rookie Detective,

I think that Fiver was just saying that "she imagined the whole thing" is a possibility. It might be a rather remote possibility, but still a possibility. I think the two most likely possibilities are #1 (Nichols and an unidentified killer shortly BEFORE he killed her) and #5 (Lechmere and Paul AFTER having found Nichols).

[Lewis C]

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?

It would be nice if you explained why you are asking why he wore his work clothes to the inquest. How does his wearing his work clothes point toward him being Nichols' killer in even the slightest way?

[Dickere]

That's a brilliant post and very informative indeed.

So much focus is always put onto Lechmere, that Paul is somewhat overlooked in comparison.

I must admit, the only part of your post that i didn't agree with is the possibility that the witness Mrs Lilley imagined the whole thing.

I say this because there is no particular reason to doubt her, considering she heard the train which was real and not imagined. She claims to have been sleeping at the front of the house and she felt uneasy all night that she couldn't sleep. That would indicate her senses were heightened, which to me would suggest that she was more alert than usual. On that basis, I believe she did in fact hear the murder take place.

This reverts me back to my original question from my last post...

What VOICES did Mrs Lilley hear?

One of that list has to be correct


thoughts please?

Just because there was a train doesn't mean she heard it. She may have been asleep and dreamt of a train, real or imagined.

[Aethelwulf]

It would be nice if you explained why you are asking why he wore his work clothes to the inquest. How does his wearing his work clothes point toward him being Nichols' killer in even the slightest way?

I've asked this before. It shows the depth of the circumstantial case against Lech if this is somehow considered important.

[The Rookie Detective]

Just because there was a train doesn't mean she heard it. She may have been asleep and dreamt of a train, real or imagined.

I can understand that view, but I believe that if she had a dream or imagined a train at the same time a real train passes, it's too much of a coincidence.

When collating evidence from witnesses, the primary objective is to ascertain if they're reliable, credible and have benign intent. I can't see how Mrs Lilley would be considered as lacking any of those. A woman who is in her own home, unable to sleep and is positioned yards away from the murder site, is a far more credible witness than someone who gives conflicting accounts that contradict. Her statement is consistent and i believe she was a key witness.

She may well of imagined or had a dream of a train, but a real train passed at approximately 3.30am and she was awake during that time period because she states she couldn't sleep and so the chances of her day-dreaming of a train at the same time a real train passes is simply clutching at straws.

There comes a time when looking for evidence; circumstantial or non-circumstantial, has to be accepted or placed into the realms of being extremely unlikely.

The issue with so many great minds looking at this cold case; is that we all start looking for the most extreme excuses to not accept the most convincing and reliable evidence.

I see no reason to discount Mrs Lilley, no reason to assume she was day-dreaming or imagined a train passing at the same time a real train passes and no reason for her to create a fictional story. If we can't trust her statement, then we can't trust anyone's statements. It is likely that the majority of the witness statements have elements to key factual evidence that is simply overlooked because we look for ways to discredit and discard.

I can understand that in the modern-day concept of mulitverse, where every single possible option is possible and everything that can happen does happen and will happen etc... but the reality is, that the truth becomes saturated with nonsensical improbabilities that are so far removed from reality, that we lose track of what is possible and probable.

In terms of psychology, we all have a small part of us that never wants this case to be solved, because then it negates the need and desire for us to look for answers and investigate the unknown. It's in our human nature to try and solve mysteries, but also to want those mysteries to carry on and hold significance.

Can you imagine if tomorrow a piece of evidence came to light that was so damning towards one particular suspect that it effectively solved the case? I'd estimate at least half of us would be devastated if the case was ever solved; because then the reality of the killer being an average unremarkable man who's only significance is that he never got caught at the time.

For me, i'd like nothing better than to solve the case and break the stigma attached to him...and on that basis, I simply can't accept that a key witness like Mrs Lilley can be disregarded because her she may have been daydreaming about a train.


If we keep finding excuses to disregard everything, then all we are left with is the knowledge that JTR was a killer.

Because if we always make excuses, then after 135 years, all we know for sure is that JTR killed women and everything else can be discounted because somewhere in the multiverse anything could have happened.

Complete nonsense.


There's statistically more chance of Mrs Lilley having looked out the window and seen a policemen mutilating Nichols, but not saying anything through fear, than there is of her daydreaming/dreaming/imagining there was a train passing at exactly the same time a real train passed by.

She heard the real train around the same time she hears 2 or 3 moans outside. The train passed at 3.30am (approx) which would strongly indicate that this was around the time she was being murdered; or had just been mutilated and left for dead.

That may be circumstantial, but when you include Mrs Lilleys statement, the timing of the train, the sounds of moaning and the distinct but faint voices heard outside the window, then you start to build a picture. The time of 3.30am also fits in with the timings of Lechmere arriving and the policemen's beats and so then we are left with statistical likelihood.
Of course, if we had another witness that said they heard moans at 3.25am and heard the train, but also heard someone running at 3.45am.. then THAT is the point where we have to question witness statements that contradict each other because then we know there are inaccuracies somewhere.

This happened with the MJK case, witness statements contradicting each other and witnesses stating completely different scenarios of what they saw and heard. The witnesses in the MJK case are therefore wholly unreliable...

...but in the Nichols case, MRs Lilley's statement doesn't have any conflicting viewpoints and seems bereft of any agenda.

But of course, every viewpoint is valid and if there are people who want to believe that Mrs Lilley imagined the whole thing and was actually sleeping the whole time, then you're entitled to your view, regardless of how ridiculously improbable that scenario is.

[Aethelwulf]

I can understand that view, but I believe that if she had a dream or imagined a train at the same time a real train passes, it's too much of a coincidence.

I can't it sounds rediculous. Lilley said she was restless and couldn't sleep and woke her husband. She relates it being dark and the luggage train going by. I doubt Lech and Paul would be too shy about talking normally and need to whisper. Whispering means you don't want to attract attention. I think most likey it was the ripper and nicholls. Perhaps they had gone there assuming the yard gates would be open and Nicholls or the ripper mentioned going elsewhere.

[The Rookie Detective]

I can't it sounds rediculous. Lilley said she was restless and couldn't sleep and woke her husband. She relates it being dark and the luggage train going by. I doubt Lech and Paul would be too shy about talking normally and need to whisper. Whispering means you don't want to attract attention. I think most likey it was the ripper and nicholls. Perhaps they had gone there assuming the yard gates would be open and Nicholls or the ripper mentioned going elsewhere.

I agree completely.


For me, the whispers were either..


The killer and Nichol's prior to the attack

OR

The killer whispering to her as part of his sadistic ritual.


The only way to know for sure would have been to know in what order Mrs Lilley had heard the sounds...

If she heard the moans first and then the whispers then it was likely the killer talking to Nichols as he was killing her...

but if she heard the whispers/voices first and then the moans AFTER, then it was almost certainly as you suggest; the killer and Nichols talking shortly before he attacked her.

You are right when you say that Lechmere and Paul would have no need to whisper, neither would the police.

And so if she heard VOICES (mulitple) the only logically viable explanation is that it was the killer and Nichols talking just before he attacked her.

My hypothesis on him having a split personality disorder; where he's essentially several people in one body, may explain the different voices.

It may seem far-fetched that a person could speak in different voices, but I had an experience many many years ago when i was on a coach and i witnessed an elderly woman sitting across the aisle to me, suddenly begin to talk to herself in different voices...and not just a random chat, she appeared to have at least 4 different personalities and one of which was a man with a deep voice.. and then a few stops later, she got up, hobbled up to the exit and left the coach, similar to an elderly woman getting off a bus with shopping.

Now i can only relay what i experienced (it haunted me for years)

However, the fact that she spoke to herself in at least 4 distinctly different voices made me realize that anything is possible.

I believe that JTR had the same condition and was the reason why he eluded capture.

Not to say that he was an elderly woman of course, but that speaking in different voices and having multiple split personalities is an actual reality and so therefore a viable option in my opinion.


Oh and at the time i wasn't drunk, dreaming, daydreaming, hallucinating etc... i witnessed an elderly woman speak in a deep man's voice that felt cold, dark and menacing.

The ripper had that same inherent darkness that almost feels inhuman.