Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perahps Mark could adapt his CoL (Cult of Lechmere) avataar into a palm for you for occasions such as this?

What about or or or for the Lech theory Wulf?

Or a heartfelt request to LechZealots…..please

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who's to say he presented himself like that at all ?

I just know our next-door neighbours first names. I assume they have the same surname but maybe not, my partner and I don't. Charlie the Pickfords carman would be enough.

Exactly Dickere. It’s a catalogue of desperate non-points.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So to sum up from the ‘case against Lechmere’ side.

Can we conclusively exonerate him as the killer?

Like most suspects we have to say no of course (like Mann, Hardiman, Hutchinson, Kelly, Lewis Carroll etc). It’s not physically impossible that he could have killed Nichols before Paul arrived so we are left to weigh up likeliness/unlikeliness based on the evidence available to us. So….


Could he have left the house earlier than he claimed?

Of course he could have but the evidence clearly points away from this because it raises some very obvious issues.

1. If he’d been out much earlier is it really believable that he couldn’t have found a victim long before he was twenty minutes from clocking on at work?
2. Is it remotely likely that he’d have picked up a victim elsewhere and brought her back to his route for work? And if he’d have been questioned at another crime scene how would he have argued against his route to work passing the Nichols crime scene too?
3. If he’d been at the scene longer (as claimed) why weren’t the mutilations more extensive? Remember that Phillips said that Chapman’s far more extensive injuries could have been achieved in only 5 minutes, so the act of killing and mutilating Nichols could easily have been achieved in a minute or two. If it’s claimed that he was at the scene longer what was he doing for that time?
4. Then the longer it’s suggested that he was in Bucks Row the more likely it would have been that Lechmere would have been gone before Paul turned up.
5. We know that the original cause for suspicion was the suggestion of an unexplained gap leaving Lechmere at the scene for 7 or 8 minutes and that this was why Scobie felt that he had a case to answer. Put bluntly we know that this is a fabrication of the evidence. Scobie was told that Lechmere said that he’d left the house at 3.30 when he’d actually said ‘about 3.30.’ Christer believes that we are somehow obliged to go with ‘3.30,’ when clearly it could have been 3.33 or 3.34 or 3.35 when he left the house. He also claims that Paul must have arrived at 3.45 (or perhaps 3.44) when this is an unknown. So it’s entirely plausible that, for example, Lechmere eft the house at 3.33 and arrived in Bucks Row at 3.41 with Paul showing up at 3.42. The evidence just can’t be used to claim a suspicious gap and yet these are the lengths that are gone to. The blatant manipulation of evidence to build a case.
6. There is absolutely nothing in the evidence that precludes or even casts a shadow of doubt on another man killing Nichols sometime before Lechmere arrived.
7. Then we have to add the sheer unlikeliness of Lechmere killing at that particular location and at that particular time and we have no evidence in history of a single serial killer acting in this way.

Lechmere’s behaviour.

1. One of the biggest pointers to his innocence is the fact that when faced with two options he chose the one that screams ‘innocent!’ He could have fled the scene in the dark with almost zero chance of being caught and yet he waited for Paul to arrive with the glaringly obvious risks that came with that. This was a killer who evaded capture of course and the way to avoid capture isn’t to take ridiculous and totally unnecessary risks. The suggestion that he somehow decided to ignore the easy and massively less risky option in favour of needlessly ‘bluffing it out’ is surely way beyond weak.
2. Any discrepancies in testimony are of course assumed to have been evidence of Lechmere laying but clearly this ignores the fact that he had Robert Paul (a complete stranger) standing next to him.
3. ‘As the evidence points to a later ToD in the case of Chapman we have to account for Lechmere stopping off while he was working to pick up and kill her leaving an unattended Pickford’s cart around to potentially be mentioned to the police or to have had its load ‘lightened’ whilst he was in the yard of number 29. It’s just not believable.

The name.

1. This has been done to death of course and is tedious and more than a little desperate. David Orsam put this to bed long ago. There is simply no mystery to only one newspaper recording his address as numerous examples of this have been found.
2. If he’d wanted to hide his identity only a complete halfwit would have given his correct forenames and address. When we require acts of unbelievable stupidity to back up a case we know that we’re on the thinnest of ice.

Then, as the case is so weak, Lechmere supporters have to resort to things like family locations in relation to crime scenes. I wasn’t aware that serial killers only killed on familiar ground? Clearly no one told Peter Sutcliffe or Ted Bundy this. Or are we expected to believe that these locations provide Lechmere with a plausible reason for being near to the murder sites? Tea with Aunty Mary perhaps?


———————



There really isn’t a case to answer. All that we have is that he was at the Nichols site and in theory he could have killed her but this applies to every single dog walker, hiker or passer-by who has discovered a body over the years. Apart from Maybrick (which let’s face it is a debate totally based on the content of the diary) I can’t think of a single suspect where so much effort has been expended, so much manipulation has been done, so many leaps of faith taken, in order to build a ‘case’ against this obviously innocent man. Why does Lechmere cause some to lose all sense of reason and balance? It’s baffling.

[Elamarna]

Lechmere, of course, counts too; and Lech said that he heard Paul when he was some 50 yards away, and that is why he turned around.
The turning around is a significant part of his testimony, because it gives him a reason to be standing there, in the middle of the road, waiting for Paul, instead of having come directly from Polly Nichol's body and waiting.

Are you telling me that Lech heard Paul all along? Then why the 'he then heard the footsteps' part in his testimony? That's awfully hard to reconcile with having heard footsteps all along. He didn't hear footsteps, and then he did hear footsteps. Either Lech is lying on one matter, or he's lying on another: which do you prefer?

NO, I suggest you reread what I have posted, not just on this thread but over the years.

At no.point do I suggest that Lechmere heard him before he slowed down, when he noticed Nichols on the opposite side of the road..

Not sure how you thing I am suggesting otherwise.

"He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. 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. " - the Daily telegraph



With Paul, let's go back and get both his articulations on the matter: hopefully, he contradicts Lech, and we can establish some semblance of hearing the other's footsteps in a timely fashion (before Lech arriving at the body)?

"Robert Baul [Paul], 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road." - the Daily telegraph

""It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but, as I knew the dangerous character of the locality, I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot." - Loyd's Weekly

The inquest testimony is thin; but both Paul's descriptions identify his first notice of Lechmere as visual .... no mention of footsteps whatsoever. I highlighted 'when' in the sentence from Loyd's weekly, because the grammatical function of 'when' in a sentence is to provide a temporal division between a before and after. I judge it to be a division between a knowing, and not knowing of Lechmere's presence; if you consider that to be unclear - that's fine. You then need to return to Lechmere's testimony.

Given that the article is written by a journalist, I find your conclusion again show a pre-determination of guilt.

At no point does he make any reference to when he is aware of Lechmere, and good methology says you should not assume, what is not said.

It's a shame he was not asked the question, "when we're you 1st aware of Lechmere?"

It would have stopped most of this speculation.

In a dark dangerous street, with murders and gangs, sounds are important for your survival. So it is very strange that Paul makes no mention of hearing anything ahead, and that he starts with a visual clue.

No matter, Lechmere hangs himself, and Paul doesn't bail him out.

You ignore the possibility that when he talks of location he means the actual location, outside Brown's Yard, not the whole street.

My belief is that Lech, like PC O'Neil, heard footsteps at Brady street from the location of Polly Nichols body, and went to the middle of the street to wait.

And that's the problem with most of your posts my friend, you put belief over evidence.

When i have time, i'll get to the rest.

Can't wait, hope it's harder than this as been.

[Fiver]

Why did an innocent Lechmere use Charles Cross?

He used Charles Allen Cross. The simple answer is he did that because that was the name he known by.

It was a murder, he was the first witness ….. typically a suspect that a police department needs to check out. Why add to your problems by creating needless suspicions? And why not readily avail yourself of a witness (Elizabeth Lechmere), if needed, as to your leaving the house at 3:30 am? Lech should have known that he was under some suspicion: hence, the emphasis on having worked at Pickford’s for 20 years.


To employ fivers language: Lechmere must have been the dumbest idiot on the planet.

It's only stupid if Lechmere was trying to conceal his identity.
* Contacting the police was stupid if he was trying to conceal his identity.
* Stating his middle name was stupid if he was trying to conceal his identity.
* Saying what Pickford's location he worked at was stupid if he was trying to conceal his identity.
* Saying how long he had worked for Pickfords was stupid if he was trying to conceal his identity.
* Not asking the court to be allowed to not give his address in public, which could be done, stupid if he was trying to conceal his identity.

So either Lechmere was an idiot or he wasn't trying to conceal his identity.

Various reasons have been proposed:

1. He was afraid of gangs in the area
2. It was scandalous to be associated, even as a witness, in a murder
3. Lechmer’s birth father would have recognized the name and sought out the family,

for some vague idea of financial gain.

1. His mother’s inheritance payments would have been jeopardized if Hertfordshire had known a Lechmere was a witness at the inquest of a murder.
2. His pregnant wife was sick and he did not wish to unduly stress her.
3. His wife might have just given birth, and the child was sickly.

Various reasons have been proposed - by you. No one else has suggested them, Even you realize they don't make any sense.

Why? Why take the chance that he did?

He was only taking chances if he was the Ripper.

[Fiver]

All right, while items were being unloaded at Spitalfields, with a young assistant staying behind, Lech went to Hanbury street and murdered Annie Chapman.

That is speculative of course, but the probable time of Annie chapman's death in no way rules out Lech.
It sure takes away from your conviction that he's innocent because serial killers don't kill on the way to work.

They kill based on when they have opportunities.

You contradict yourself - presenting Lechmere as both an opportunistic and a premeditated killer.

While the time of death doesn't rule out Lechmere, it does make it far less likely that he was the killer.

Killing while on the job would have been incredibly stupid. The van boy would be able to testify that he left the cart for no apparent reason during the time of the murder and came back with blood on his hands and clothes. And every delivery or pickup for the rest of the day would have been another witness for blood on his hands and clothes with no good explanation for it. It would also make his day longer, with every person spotting the blood taking additional time examining their merchandise to make sure there was no blood on it.

[Fiver]

hi el
great to see you on here again! refresh my memory please... when did lech and paul say respectively when they discovered the body?

Lechmere did not say when. Paul said he entered Buck's Row at 3:45am - a timing that contradicts the testimony of PC Neil, PC Thain, and PC Mizen. Based on the testimony of all three police officers, around 3:40am is a good estimate and the one that Inspector Abberline used.

[Fiver]

Lech does not give a time for discovery at all. At the inquest he says he leaves home at "about 3.30"

People then extrapolate this by adding speculative walking speeds.

Such is of course impossible to give accurately and certainly not to the pricise minute, but a range of 6 and a half minutes to 7 and a half is a fair estimate. Indeed even pushing that to 8 minutes is not unreasonable.

Google Maps gives a time of 10 minutes.

[Fiver]

Hi Fiver, while I agree with most of your comments on this subject, I strongly suspect Paul was traced much earlier than is generally believed .
The fact that he did not appear until 17th is used to argue there was a large gap. However, I suspect that he was located far earlier, possibly on Saturday night/ Sunday morning or on the Sunday night, but simply not called to the inquest until later.

I covered the arguments for this in the Rippercast online conference last autumn, and of course it's in "Inside Bucks Row".
And while we can't be certain, I think the arguments are sound.

I based my views on the Sept 30, 1888 Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper.

"Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd's, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days, and he had to pay a man 5s. each day to do his work, or he would have lost his place."

The edition they refer to is the September 2 edition. I had interpreted Paul being fetched up in the middle of the night as indicating the police being frustrated from having to spend a lot of time and effort tracking him down. The September 2 edition is fairly tame - it merely says Paul and another man discovered the body before the police - which the police already would know from PC Mizen.

The September 3 Evening News gives a lot more detail and is extremely critical of the police. So fetching Robert Paul up in the middle of the night might be frustration based on badmouthing the police and talking to multiple newspapers instead of talking to the police.

So Paul might have been questioned by the police as early as the night of Sunday September 2, though Monday the 3rd seems more likely. The latest it could have been was the night of Friday September 12. Either way, the police appear to have really not liked Robert Paul - summoning him on both September 17 and 22, but not even bothering to have him give testimony on the 22nd.

[Fiver]

You say that the facts I base my arguments on are wrong - all of them,
and then you don't bother to specify which ones, nor mention why they are wrong.

"Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong." = Luke Skywalker.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Your arguments are based on speculation when they aren't based on regurgitated Cult of Lechmere lies. When the occasion fact creeps into you arguments, it is usually irrelevant. I and others have consistently specified the numerous flaws in your arguments and repeatedly explained in detail why you are wrong.

To you, a fact is anything that remotely has a chance of being true and supports your own position.

Does anyone think that Lech presented himself as Charles Cross to his neighbors, and his wife was presented as Elizabeth Lechmere?

Congratulations, you have defeated another strawman.

While continuing to ignore what people actually said.

Sorry I didn't read the rest of your laundry list.

I was just replying to the laundry list that you introduced, so it's a bit late and more than a little hypocritical for you to start complaining about it.

[Fiver]

Have you forgotten fiver? Lechmere's own testimony said that he heard Paul, and then saw Paul emerge some 40 yards away.

All you have proved is that you have not read Lechmere's testimony.

"He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. 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."

Lechmere heard Paul at an estimated 40 yards behind him. He then saw Paul when he turned around, nit when Paul emerged from the darkness.

[Elamarna]

Google Maps gives a time of 10 minutes.

Seriously I would not quote Google maps for the time. It's remarkably unreliable.

10 minutes is simply unrealistic, unless you are walking at a slow pace, such a pace would mean that you could not arrive at Pickfords before sometime after 4am.

In my work, "Inside Bucks Row", I actually measure the various possible routes and then apply a series of walking speeds.

If you are interested in the Bucks Row Murder, you really should have a look at it.

[Elamarna]

I based my views on the Sept 30, 1888 Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper.

"Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd's, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days, and he had to pay a man 5s. each day to do his work, or he would have lost his place."

The edition they refer to is the September 2 edition. I had interpreted Paul being fetched up in the middle of the night as indicating the police being frustrated from having to spend a lot of time and effort tracking him down. The September 2 edition is fairly tame - it merely says Paul and another man discovered the body before the police - which the police already would know from PC Mizen.

The September 3 Evening News gives a lot more detail and is extremely critical of the police. So fetching Robert Paul up in the middle of the night might be frustration based on badmouthing the police and talking to multiple newspapers instead of talking to the police.

So Paul might have been questioned by the police as early as the night of Sunday September 2, though Monday the 3rd seems more likely. The latest it could have been was the night of Friday September 12. Either way, the police appear to have really not liked Robert Paul - summoning him on both September 17 and 22, but not even bothering to have him give testimony on the 22nd.

I use the same sources as you.

Paul also spoke to the press after the 1st day of the inquest, insisting he was the first to find the body, not Neil.

It's inconceivable that the police could not trace him, he is listed on the electoral register at the same address for a number of years.

Are you aware that Lloyds may have been available with the Paul account on Saturday 1st?

I suggest he was possibly summoned to appear on the 3rd, but was not called.

The arguments to support this are given in the Rippercast online conference last autumn, and in Inside Bucks Row.

[Fiver]

I suspect that in a year or so’s time people will start to abandon Lechmere as a suspect and he’ll be consigned to the same areas occupied by Mann, Hardiman and Endacott.

I see you have a more optimistic view than I do.

First I've heard of Mann, Hardiman and Endacott. Hardiman is the only one that makes a decent suspect - daughter recently dead of syphilis that she got from her mother, who would die of it before the killings were over. Hardiman died of TB three years after the murders - failing health could be a reason for the murders stopping.

Based on what I can find, that makes Hardiman one of the better suspects. Not a good suspect, just better than most.

[Fiver]

I use the same sources as you.

Paul also spoke to the press after the 1st day of the inquest, insisting he was the first to find the body, not Neil.

It's inconceivable that the police could not trace him, he is listed on the electoral register at the same address for a number of years.

Are you aware that Lloyds may have been available with the Paul account on Saturday 1st?

I suggest he was possibly summoned to appear on the 3rd, but was not called.

The arguments to support this are given in the Rippercast online conference last autumn, and in Inside Bucks Row.

As already noted, just the arguments that you have given here have made me reassess my position. It's a refreshing change to deal with someone using facts and logic.

The Lloyds account only gives Paul's surname. The first example of his first name being given (that I am aware of) is the September 3 Evening News. So I am doubtful that the police found him before the evening of the 3rd. Even then, the 4th seems more likely. The electoral registers don't seem to have listed occupation, and thee were at least 8 Robert Pauls living in London at the time of the 1891 Census.