Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[John Trent]

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now I am going to sign off for some time; life is too short to spend in the company of people who are not able to conduct a serious debate, and there are a few of those out here.
I will sign off by a last post to Fiver.

As those who have been subjected to the matter will remember, Fiver has claimed as a fact that all the houses of Bucks Row WERE called upon, in an inquiry mentioned in a paper that spoke about how a house to house search was made in the streets adjoining Bucks Row. The matter was mentioned on the 3rd of September.
Of course, when it is said that the streets that were searched were the ones ADJOINING Bucks Row, that does not mean that Bucks Row itself was subjected to the same house to house inquiry. In fact, the wording seems to specifically point ut how this was not the case.

But Fiver would not have that. He inferred that if the adjacent streets were subjected to a house to house inquiry, then that MUST have entailed Bucks Row too.
And it SHOULD have.
But it didn't.

Fiver does not like to be proven wrong. He is willing to read selectively and alter the meaning of what is said in order to try and flee from that fate, as shown by the above.

I took some little time to research the matter myself, and that led me to the Echo of the 1st of September 1888. In that paper, it says:

"In Brady-street, Thrawle-street, and other small thoroughfares in the low locality where the deceased was discovered the police have made an almost house-to-house investigation themselves, and caused secret inquiries to be conducted by persons known amongst the force as "nosea," in the hope of finding some link to enable them to unravel the hideous and mysterious crime."

So here we have that house to house investigation again. But this time over, we are supplied with names of the streets, like Brady Street and Thrawle Street! What becomes clear here is that a wide net was cast in this effort. Equally, it is clear that not all of the houses in these streets were investigated, it was an "almost house to house investigation". And it only took place in the small thorough fares of the general locality of Bucks Row, whereas it is again NOT said that it took place in Bucks Row itself!

It therefore applies that when coroner Baxter complained about how not all of the households in Bucks Row had been interviewed, after inspector Spratling having owned up to this matter, it was not Spratling himself who was criticized and told to do a house to house investigation in Bucks Row himself, as Fiver rather exotically suggests - it was of course the lax work of the police on the whole that Baxter gave a kick in the bum.

It is not that I am saying that the streets where the murders take place need not be investigated in depth. They DO. And that is the whole crux here - the police failed to do so, and were accordingly criticized by coroner Baxter.

And here, with Fiver trapped on the banks of his own river of invention, I take my leave for some time. If my absense could be used to do something else than misrepresent what I am saying, so much the better.

But I am not holding my breath, of course. The past terrifies.

Come back when you’ve learned to answer a straightforward question honestly.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The theory contradicts itself. We're supposed to suspect Lechmere because Nichols body was found on Lechmere's route to work during a time he would have been walking to work. Yet every other victim either wasn't on his route to work and/or wasn't during a time he would be walking to work.

I have previously put forward the same argument but slightly differently, and if I remember correctly I put it directly to Christer Holmgren.


My point was that with the double murder occurring on Lechmere's day off (and at such times that even if he were working that day, it would have been too early for him to be making his way to work) there are already two murders in the series which could not have occurred when Lechmere was on his way to work.

Wishing no doubt not to transform Lechmere from 'the man who commits murders while on his way to work' to 'the man who commits murders on his days off', Christer tried his best to argue that Lechmere could have murdered Kelly on his way to work, mutilated her in no more than half an hour, and thereby fulfilled the requirements for the Kelly murder to be included in the list of murders committed on his way to work.

But Christer could not pull it off.

There was no way that Lechmere could have completed his tasks and managed not to arrive at work late, a risk he obviously could not take having already come to the attention of the police.

And it was at this point that Christer suggested that Lechmere may have had the day off.

The irony is that when I myself suggested that to his collaborator, Edward Stow, Stow accused me of ignorance!

Having suggested that Lechmere may have had the day off, Christer was admitting that his suspect, who had been billed as the man who murdered women on his way to work, may have killed most of his suspects on his days off.

What does that tell you?

It tells you that Lechmere's accusers are nothing if not inconsistent.

[Fiver]

'Certainly somebody who had reason to be out in the street at that time and wouldn't have seemed out of place at that time.'

(Dr Gareth Norris, criminologist)


What reason did Lechmere have to be in Berner Street at 1 a.m. on a Saturday night or Mitre Square at 1.40 a.m. on a Saturday night or in Dorset street from about 4 a.m. to 5.45 a.m. on his day off (or even if he were working that day)?

The theory contradicts itself. We're supposed to suspect Lechmere because Nichols body was found on Lechmere's route to work during a time he would have been walking to work. Yet every other victim either wasn't on his route to work and/or wasn't during a time he would be walking to work.

For Berner Street, they point out his mother lived in the area. But the timing makes no sense. Who would stay up 23+ hours straight or get up 3+ hours early to visit their mother?

'But a much more vague message of 'there's a woman lying in the street', coupled with the information that a police officer is already there, would lower the police officer's response.'

(Dr Andy Griffiths, former Detective Superintendent)

Sounds like Scobie wasn't the only one who was given a list of bullet points instead of the eyewitness testimony. Charles Lechmere told PC Mizen that the woman might be dead. Robert Paul told PC Mizen that the woman was dead.

The documentary abounds with false statements and accusations.

Here is an example:

'Lechmere said that he was never alone with the body.'

That is a blatantly false statement.

It's not only false, it's proof that people involved weren't just given incomplete information, they were given false information.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Again, I am not ignoring the inquest evidence.

It is you who wish to ignore the Lloyds Weekly evidence.

I acknowledge them both and have no desire to strike any one of them off the list, the way you seem to want to do.

Furthermore, the inquest reports about Pauls time of departure are not in any way in conflict with the Lloyds Weekly version; they are instead in support of it.

The Lloyds Weekly article is absolutely not "evidence". It is proven to be false. It was not being ignored, its numerous errors were being pointed out to you. Your refusal to "strike it off the list" or even accept its many gross exaggerations does your case no favours.

[Fiver]

Paul Begg put it otherwise. He said that it was a completely legal and working way of doing things. But what does he know that you don't know better...?

Feel free to show that Paul Begg said that about the "evidence" provided to Scobie in the documentary.

[Fiver]

ust like how the chosen dump site on Lechmeres childhood street ALSO offers a very intriguing possible link to the carman.

And THAT is why YOU are the one trying to sweep it under the carpet.

I'm not ignoring those facts, just pointing out that they are not evidence against Charles Lechmre or anyone else.

You're the one ignoring facts.
* Pinchin Street was only one of Lechmere's childhood homes.
* Pinchin Street was home to a lot of people that weren't named Lechmere.
* There is no known connection between the Torso Killer and any of the places he left body bits.

It also shows your double standard. You don't claim that the killer must have lived or worked at Scotland Yard or any of the other dump sites of the Torso Killer.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Scobie was not given any of the witness statements or the coroner's summing up, just a list of bullet points.

As someone named Christer Holmgren said - "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information."

Scobie was not given whole picture.

Scobie appeared in the documentary, together with Christer Holmgren, Gareth Norris, who suspects Lechmere because the murderer must have been


'Certainly somebody who had reason to be out in the street at that time and wouldn't have seemed out of place at that time.'

(Dr Gareth Norris, criminologist)


What reason did Lechmere have to be in Berner Street at 1 a.m. on a Saturday night or Mitre Square at 1.40 a.m. on a Saturday night or in Dorset street from about 4 a.m. to 5.45 a.m. on his day off (or even if he were working that day)?


Andy Griffiths, who insinuated that Lechmere reported his discovery in such a way that the police would not treat it as an urgent case:


'But a much more vague message of 'there's a woman lying in the street', coupled with the information that a police officer is already there, would lower the police officer's response.'

(Dr Andy Griffiths, former Detective Superintendent)


That is obviously untrue because not only did Lechmere report his discovery of the body, but he told the policeman that he was 'wanted' at the murder scene.


The documentary abounds with false statements and accusations.

Here is an example:



'Lechmere said that he was never alone with the body.'


That is a blatantly false statement.

Lechmere's evidence, according to the inquest record, was:

'He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. 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.'

There is nothing in the inquest record to substantiate the allegation made against him.


The documentary is nothing short of an exercise in character assassination.

[Fiver]

That line, however, does not ignore the straight trip from the arch to 22 Doveton Street. It nails it.

You drawing a Ley Lines on the map shows you deliberately ignoring all lines that don't point to Charles Lechmere, nothing more.

[Fiver]

Nope, that is not "it". he DID give an alias....

Alias is a loaded word. Charles Lechemre was not the only person to use an "alias" at a Ripper inquest. Charles Lechemre wasn't trying to hide his identity.This is an example of your double standards, not evidence that Lechmere was the Ripper.

...he DID disagree with Mizen....

Robert Paul also disagreed with PC Mizen. In fact, Robert Paul disagreed with PC Mizen more that Charles Lechmere disagreed with PC Mizen. Lechmere and Paul agreed that Mizen continued knocking up after they spoke to him. Paul also contradicted Mizen's time estimate.

Which by your reasoning is stronger "evidence" against Robert Paul than against Charles Lechmere. This is an example of your double standards, not evidence that Lechmere was the Ripper.

...the wounds WERE hidden from sight....

You repeating a false statement doesn't not make it true. Even if it were true, it would not be evidence against Charles Lechmere or anyone else.

..., his work trek DID pass through Spitalfields, he DID have his mother living nearby the Berner Street murder site and so on.

These are not additional points. I already said Lechmere lived in the area, just like all of the other witnesses and almost all of the hundreds of suspects. This is an example of your double standards, not evidence that Lechmere was the Ripper.

Lechmere was spotted near a body and lived in the area. That's it. The supposed anomalies are a mix of selective quoting, unsupported theories, double standards, and the occasional bit of complete nonsense like the Ley Lines.

[Fiver]

Try that on James Scobie. And don't forget to tell him that you are the better judge of the two of you on matters legal, Fiver.

Scobie was not given any of the witness statements or the coroner's summing up, just a list of bullet points.

As someone named Christer Holmgren said - "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information."

Scobie was not given whole picture.

[Fiver]

If it isn a fact and not a coincidence, then it is evidence of Lechmere being responsible.

And here you use the Excluded Middle Fallacy.

Being a fact does not make bloody apron found near the St Phillips Street Church evidence, let alone make it evidence against anyone.

* The St Phillips apron was one of at least three bloody garments found after the Pinchin Street Torso was found.
* There is no evidence that any of them had anything to do with the Pinchin Street Torso.
* There is no evidence that any of them had anything to you with Charles Lechmre.

Your Ley Line theory is evidence that you will deliberately ignore thousands of other possibilities in order to draw an imaginary line pointing at Charles Lechmere.

[Fiver]

You are as likely to be able to prove that the Phantom killer existed as you are to prove that I am a liar, Herlock.

You don't mock the idea that someone else was there before Alfred Crow saw Martha Tabram's body.
You don't mock the idea that someone else was there before Albert Cadosch found Annie Chapman's body.
You don't mock the idea that someone else was there before Louis Diemschutz found Elizabeth Stride's body.
You don't mock the idea that someone else was there before PC Edward Watkin found Catherine Eddowes' body.
You don't mock the idea that someone else was there before Thomas Bowyer found Mary Jane Kelly's's body.
You don't mock the idea that someone else was there before PC William Pennett found the Pinchin street Torso.

All this proves is you apply a different standard to Charles Lechmere than you do to everyone else who found a body.

[Fiver]

Again, I am not ignoring the inquest evidence.

It is you who wish to ignore the Lloyds Weekly evidence.

I acknowledge them both and have no desire to strike any one of them off the list, the way you seem to want to do.

Furthermore, the inquest reports about Pauls time of departure are not in any way in conflict with the Lloyds Weekly version; they are instead in support of it.

I am not ignoring the Lloyd's account. That is yet another false accusation on your part as I have quoted it extensively to show that Lloyd's sensationalized the news.

The Lloyd's account has Paul saying "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row".

The key word is "exactly" as has been clearly, repeatedly pointed out to you. None of the accounts of Paul's inquest testimony support an exact timing.

And of course you ignore the inquest testimony. You have to to create your mythical gap.

[Fiver]

That is all there is to it. Hysteria and wild accusations have tendency to fall back on the hysterics and accusers.

You're the one who falsely accused RJ of inventing things.