Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fisherman]

There is no circumstantial evidence supporting Lechmere killing anyone. There is no time gap. There is no Mizen scam. Lechmere's words and deeds repeatedly point towards him being innocent. The timings of the Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes murders point strongly against him being their killer.

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.

[Fisherman]

Whatever I find about this man will go to confirm his guilt; it will not go to clear him.

I realise that - well - here he is: Jack the Ripper.

(Christer Holmgren)

Yep. That was what I anticipated. I said a good deal more about it, but the film team cut away most of it.

But basically, what I am saying is that I think that the evidence against him is so overwhelming that I find it unlikely that he will ever be cleared by any matter - but I don't rule it out categorically. Conversely, I beleive that what is found about him in the future will either be of a neutral nature, or it will fit the suggestion that he was the killer - but I am not ruling out that I am wrong.

We need no drama about a very uncontroversial thing. I think he did it. I believe future finds will strengthen the suggestion. End of.

[Fisherman]

You talk as if both options were equally likely. And ignore that since it is your theory, the burden of proof is on you. And you have no proof.

Nope. Saying that he either did or he didn't does not mean that equal weight must be distributed to the suggestions. You may either be a good or a bad poster.

[Fisherman]

That doesn't explain Stride and Eddowes, who would require Lechmere either staying up 23+ hours or getting up 3+hours early on his day iff.

Nor does it prohibit Lechmere from having been the killer. Depending on the hours he worked, he will even quite likely have been able to take a nice nap before he went to St Georges. So there is no problem whatsoever in evidence.

If killing on the way to work really offered the most advantages then why would Nichols be the only victim killed during Lechmere's walk to work? It's another self-contradiction in your theory.

Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly may all have been killed "on Lechmeres route to work", of course. How he may potentially have left early on the days he looked for prey, further strengthens the suggestion.

[Fisherman]

It's not a coincidence, it's a random fact with no bearing on the case.

But it is more evidence of your deliberately ignoring things that don't fit your theory.

The Torso Killer scattered body parts up and down miles of the Thames. There is no more reason to suspect he had a connection to Pinchin Street than he did to Scotland Yard or any of the other dump sites.

Charles Lechmere was not the only person to have ever lived on Pinchin Street. There is no reason to single him out and ignore the others. And calling it his childhood home is rather stretching it. Lechmere's s baptismal record shows that he was living at 14 Sion Square in 1859. By 1861 he was at 13 Thomas Street, which I have been told later became Pinchin Street. And by 1869, he was at 11 Mary Ann Street.

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

Then again, I would not say that this was so. I am saying it was EITHER so, or it was a massive coincidence that a bloodied rag just happened to be found in an exact line between the arch and 22 Doveton Street. The two other rags mentioned are random facts, becasue they do not coincide with any of the suspects, but the St Philips rag does coincide with a straight line drawn from the arch to 22 Doveton Street.

Live with it.

[Fisherman]

You do love to go with the Lloyd's article, ignoring previous evidence that they often sensationalized the news and well as ignoring the actual inquest testimony of Robert Paul, PC Neil, Dr Llewellyn, etc.

"The throat had been cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done tracing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely." - Lloyd's

Inquest testimony showed the wound was not two inches wide and that the blood was "oozing" not "flowing profusely".

"The knife, which must have been a large and sharp one, was jobbed into the deceased at the lower part of the abdomen, and then drawn upwards twice." - Lloyd's

Inquest testimony said the cuts were made downwards.

"Early on Friday morning fresh blood stains were observed for quite a distance along the side walks. There would be drop after drop two or three feet, and sometimes six feet apart for a distance, and then a larger pool or splash. As soon as the murder became known a lively interest was taken in these blood-stains, and they began to be traced. They were soon found to be on both sides of the street, and it was afterwards seen that the bleeding person had travelled or been carried in a zig-zag line. The trail was easily followed down Brady-street for 150 yards to Honey's-mews. In front of the gateway there was a large stain, looking as if the bleeding person had fallen against the wall and lain there. From here to the foot of Buck's-row, in which the body was found, the trail of blood was clearly marked. It was wet on Friday morning, and at noon, although the sun had dried it, and there had been many feet passing over it, it was still plainly discernible. The zig-zag direction it took crossing and re-crossing the street was and is a matter of mystery. In the space of a hundred yards the woman crossed the narrow street twice, and whenever she crossed a larger stain of blood in place of the drops indicated that she had stopped." - Lloyd's

Inquest testimony contradicted this supposed dramatic blood trail and established that Nichols was killed where her body was found. You don't insist that this bit of Lloyd's must be true, after all, it contracts your theory.

"Although neither Mrs. Green nor Mr. Perkins heard any noise, there are a number of people who early on Friday morning heard the screams of the victim. None of them paid any particular attention to them, however, except Mrs. Colwell, who lives midway between Buck's-row and the next turning. She said, "I was awakened early on Friday morning by my little girl, who said someone was trying to get into the house. I listened, and heard screams. They were in a woman's voice, and, though frightened, were faint-like, as would be natural if she were running. She was screaming, 'Murder, police! Murder, police! Murder, police!' She screamed this five or six times, and seemed to be getting further and further away (toward the bottom of Buck's-row) all the time. I heard no other voice and no other steps. She seemed to be all alone. I think I would have heard the steps if anybody had been running after her, unless they were running on tiptoe." - Lloy's

Yet more melodrama from Lloyd's. Inquest testimony established that Nichols was killed where the body was found and Nichols would not have been able to run around screaming with a slit throat. You don't insist that this bit of Lloyd's must be true, after all, it contracts your theory.

"It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market" - Lloyd's

The word "exactly" does not occur in Robert Paul's inquest testimony.

"I saw a man standing where the woman was." - Lloyd's

Paul's inquest testimony makes it clear that he saw Lechmere was "standing in the middle of the road".

"I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seem" - Lloyd's

Paul's inquest testimony makes it clear that he and Lechmere left together and that they both spoke to PC Mizen.

"The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time." - Lloyd's

Inquest testimony established that both PC Thain and Sergeant Kirby had been down Bucks Row about 30 minutes before Neil found Nichol's body. You don't insist that this bit of Lloyd's must be true, after all, it contracts your theory. Lloyd's even contradicts itself here, have previously proclaimed that Nichols' blood was "flowing profusely" several minutes after her body was found.

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.

[Fisherman]

More despicable twisting of the truth. How can an adult come on here and post such embarrassing falsehoods is simply staggering. Just because we can name Cross but we can’t name a person who was at the scene before him we have to dismiss that person. How can anyone state this?!! John Davies must have killed Annie Chapman then!

Your ‘phantom killer’ existed. He was the man that killed Polly Nichols. And he wasn’t called Cross or Lechmere. He was simply the man that found her like millions of other people have found millions of others bodies in the street (and none of them as far as we can say ever turned out to have been the killer) Your thinking is warped by bias.

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.

[Fisherman]

And you are being blatantly dishonest. What a pathetic answer!!

Its beyond belief that you have the unmitigated gall to try and pass that off as a response. Utter Rubbish!!!

What you mean is that you invented the ‘fact’ that the majority said ‘3.30’ when you knew that the majority said ‘around 3.30’ in a deliberate act to give the readers a completely false impression. It cannot have been otherwise.

As I said before, anybody who claims that somebody is a liar without being able to prove it, is himself a liar.
As I said before, anybody who cannot prove that somebody has been dishonest without being able to prove it, is himself dishonest.

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

[Fisherman]

This is a lie, there is no proof what so ever that she was bleeding when they found the body.



The Baron

Neil said that the blood was oozing/running from the neck wound as he discovered her, and he examined her by way of his lantern before touching the body. That is proof of her bleeding as she was found. Mizen also said that she was bleeding, that the blood looked fresh and was running into the gutter from the pool that was somewhat congealed. That too is proof that she was bleeding as Mizen saw her.

To infer from that, that she was also bleeding as the carmen saw her would not count as a lie in my vocabulary. It would count as very reasonable deduction.

And that is all I will say on the matter, since I am not interested in wasting time about how she may have been sleeping it off as the carmen were there, allowing for another person to slip in between the carmen and Neil to do the cutting.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer.

Let me give you a further demonstration why I am no longer willing to discuss the case with you.

You wrote to me:



Can anyone imagine how you would have reacted if someone accused you of an invention?

In truth, we don't need to imagine it, because you turn even the most innocently worded post into an affront to your honesty. (I don't refer to those who are actually accusing you of dishonesty--I am referring to me and other posters who try to respond to you in a civilized manner).

What I wrote is not an invention. The hoarding was mentioned in the article. The plank was "within the hoarding."

Do the math!!






But no worries, Christer; although I am in the right, I won't spend three days bellowing about how you called me a liar, etc. as you are so eager to do.

Indeed, I won't be responding further.

Adios.

I of course never called you a liar. I despise posters calling others liars on no grounds at all. There is a good example to learn from very close by.

On the hoarding, you wrote something along the lines that you thought that there would have been a hoarding, and I don't think that is enough to prove a point. You now say that there WAS a hoarding, which is better - and what I supposed from the outset anyway.

You have already named your reason for not wanting to exchange with me - because I have not used the quotation function the way you would like me to. Which I find a very strange reason for not wanting to discuss the case. But it is of course your own choice, so I have no qualms with that point.

If you want ME to tell YOU what I dislike about your "civilized manner" of discussing the case with me, it boils down to things like how you write things like:

"...seeing that you spent three days hairsplitting the difference between a 'gap' and the 'suggestion of a gap,' I would think you would appreciate the necessity of being precise."

Calling me a hairsplitter for having given my view on this matter is perhaps not the best way of making friends.

"You seem to wish to imply that this event parallels the Mitre Square murder..."

Leading on that I wish to "imply things" for pointing out that an apron rag was found at St Philips the day after the dumping of the Pinchin Street torso does not help.

"...the parallel that that you seem to be insinuating is strained"

Again I am not "insinuating" anything for pointing out that an apron rag was found at St Philips. I leave it to those who take part of the information to assess it on their own.

"You really do love these semantic games, don't you, Christer?"

Need I comment on why I don't find this particularly "civil"?

"I'll attribute your mistake to English not being your native tongue"

Presenting as a fact that I am the mistaken one of us, and making comments about my grasp of the British language is not a very nice thing to do.

So all in all, R J, although you would probably have it that I am the one being uncivil, playing semantic games instead of looking at the case facts and loosing out on account of my poor understanding of the British language, I think a fair case can be made of how we are two guys throwing horse manure.

I have nothing against debating with you as such, and I would be happy to do so forthwith, but I reserve myself the right to comment on your posts without being castigated as the bad guy. A rag IS so much more than you allow for, and I have Merriam-Websters dictionary to prove it. If you dislike it, okay, fine - but being challenged by people who disagree with us is par for the course out here, is it not?

[Fiver]

Or in James Scobies.

As you repeat the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

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

Or as programmers put it "garbage in, garbage out".

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Anything worth watching in it or is just a rehash of what Fisherman has been saying?

Sorry for the misunderstanding, Fiver.

It's actually a refutation of the 7-8 minute gap claimed by Stow (sic).

[Fiver]

May I refer you to the short documentary


CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE AND THE MISSING EIGHT MINUTES


at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BykE6e6yeTY

Anything worth watching in it or is just a rehash of what Fisherman has been saying?

[Herlock Sholmes]

He'd find a way to blame Charles Lechmere for it BEING Tuesday....

Very probably AP.

[A P Tomlinson]

If Ed Stow told me it was Tuesday I’d check the calendar first.

He'd find a way to blame Charles Lechmere for it BEING Tuesday....