Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fiver]

And now the Evening Standard, which has the most complete statement.

"On Friday evening, the 31st of August, she was seen by Mrs. Holland (who knew her well) at the corner of Osborn-street and Whitechapel-road, nearly opposite the parish church. It was then half-past two. The deceased woman was then much the worse for drink, and was staggering against the wall. Her friend endeavoured to persuade her to come home with her, but she declined, and was last seen endeavouring to walk eastward down Whitechapel. She said she had had her lodging money three times that day, but that she had spent it; that she was without money; that the lodging-house deputy refused to trust her; that she was going to look about and get some money to pay her lodgings; and that she should soon be back. What her exact movements were after this it was impossible to say. At all events, in less than an hour and a quarter after this she is found dead at a spot rather under three-quarters of a mile distant. The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data."

So Wynne Baxter's conclusion was that Nichols was killed shortly before 3:45am.

[John Wheat]

Lechmere found a body. With no other evidence against him. Then he is a witness not a suspect.

[Elamarna]

The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data[/I]."

So Wynne Baxter's conclusion was that Nichols was killed shortly before 3:45am.

What is really extraordinary is how the independent data is taken NOT to be the 3 INDEPENDENT police officers by many pro Lechmere people.

That alone is a classic example of ignoring the obvious, the evidence of people other than Lechmere and Paul, because it does NOT fit the theory.

I have been told by various people that the independent data must be Llewellyn, but he is just one man, so not sure how it qualifies as "many".
In addition he of course give impricise times himself.
I have been told by other Lechmere people, that Baxter is refering to unknown people, who did not give evidence at the inquest. This is absolutely unrealistic.

However, any suggestion but the obvious must be dismissed to support the theory.

Steve

[The Rookie Detective]

I would suggest that whIle it feels clear that Lechmere was innocent, I would always class anyone who finds or who is with a body BEFORE the police arrive should automatic be classed as a person of interest in the first instance.
While not being a suspect, Lechmere is absolutely a person of interest because he was with the body before the police.
The same would apply to Robert Paul.

Likewise, Bowyer in the MJK killing is also a person of interest because he found the body/spent time with the body before the police arrived. He also states he visited the fountain outside 13 Miller's Court at 3am and saw noone and heard nothing and yet this likely around the time she was murdered.

And so even though they are unlikely to be considered viable suspects, it is also the case that denying the fact that there's a chance that they COULD have been the killer, then they will always remains persons of interest in the case, no matter how much that's unpopular

Ths A B C of detective work

ACCEPT Nothing
BELIEVE Noone
CHALLENGE Everything

Now I don't believe Lechmere was the killer, but I can't write him off completely because there is still a statistical chance he was the killer, whether we like it or not.

He leaves at 3.33am he innocent
He leaves at 3.27am he's the killer

He left AROUND 3.30am and so it's unfair on Pro Lechmere supporters to push the time he left 3 minutes later and not accept that it could easily have been 3 minutes earlier.

The reason why I don't think he's the killer is because nothing else fits and not because he was the first person to find the body.
Anyone who finds a body BEFORE the police secure the site has to be considered a person of interest. To say otherwise goes against all principles of detective work.


There has to be a balance and there has to be an acceptance by us all that we are probably all wrong about what we think we know about the case.

Pro Lechmere or Anti Lechmere, the man is a person of interest because he was found to be the first person to see the body of a woman who had just been murdered.

We often talk about Kosminski, Druitt, Tumblety, Bury, Maybrick and Co....but at least Lechmere, Bowyer, Richardson, Barnett, Kidney, Barnardo, McCarthy etc...had a connection with either a victim or a murder site.

These men should all be considered persons of interest and ARGUABLY suspects in the case.

I don't have a prime suspect and I think that helps to be more objective, balanced and open-minded.


RD

[Elamarna]

I would suggest that whIle it feels clear that Lechmere was innocent, I would always class anyone who finds or who is with a body BEFORE the police arrive should automatic be classed as a person of interest in the first instance.
While not being a suspect, Lechmere is absolutely a person of interest because he was with the body before the police.
The same would apply to Robert Paul.

Likewise, Bowyer in the MJK killing is also a person of interest because he found the body/spent time with the body before the police arrived. He also states he visited the fountain outside 13 Miller's Court at 3am and saw noone and heard nothing and yet this likely around the time she was murdered.

And so even though they are unlikely to be considered viable suspects, it is also the case that denying the fact that there's a chance that they COULD have been the killer, then they will always remains persons of interest in the case, no matter how much that's unpopular

Ths A B C of detective work

ACCEPT Nothing
BELIEVE Noone
CHALLENGE Everything

Now I don't believe Lechmere was the killer, but I can't write him off completely because there is still a statistical chance he was the killer, whether we like it or not.

He leaves at 3.33am he innocent
He leaves at 3.27am he's the killer

He left AROUND 3.30am and so it's unfair on Pro Lechmere supporters to push the time he left 3 minutes later and not accept that it could easily have been 3 minutes earlier.

The reason why I don't think he's the killer is because nothing else fits and not because he was the first person to find the body.
Anyone who finds a body BEFORE the police secure the site has to be considered a person of interest. To say otherwise goes against all principles of detective work.


There has to be a balance and there has to be an acceptance by us all that we are probably all wrong about what we think we know about the case.

Pro Lechmere or Anti Lechmere, the man is a person of interest because he was found to be the first person to see the body of a woman who had just been murdered.

We often talk about Kosminski, Druitt, Tumblety, Bury, Maybrick and Co....but at least Lechmere, Bowyer, Richardson, Barnett, Kidney, Barnardo, McCarthy etc...had a connection with either a victim or a murder site.

These men should all be considered persons of interest and ARGUABLY suspects in the case.

I don't have a prime suspect and I think that helps to be more objective, balanced and open-minded.


RD

Completely correct RD.

I always say that while I don't consider CAL to be a strong "suspect" he is nevertheless a viable one.

" Ultimately, we are left with pure speculation, often flavoured by suspect bias. However, the name issue remains, despite various arguments for and against, and for that reason, as well as he is clearly in the area, that we cannot exclude him as a suspect."

From Inside Bucks Row.... Conclusions


Steve

[John Wheat]

I would suggest that whIle it feels clear that Lechmere was innocent, I would always class anyone who finds or who is with a body BEFORE the police arrive should automatic be classed as a person of interest in the first instance.
While not being a suspect, Lechmere is absolutely a person of interest because he was with the body before the police.
The same would apply to Robert Paul.

Likewise, Bowyer in the MJK killing is also a person of interest because he found the body/spent time with the body before the police arrived. He also states he visited the fountain outside 13 Miller's Court at 3am and saw noone and heard nothing and yet this likely around the time she was murdered.

And so even though they are unlikely to be considered viable suspects, it is also the case that denying the fact that there's a chance that they COULD have been the killer, then they will always remains persons of interest in the case, no matter how much that's unpopular

Ths A B C of detective work

ACCEPT Nothing
BELIEVE Noone
CHALLENGE Everything

Now I don't believe Lechmere was the killer, but I can't write him off completely because there is still a statistical chance he was the killer, whether we like it or not.

He leaves at 3.33am he innocent
He leaves at 3.27am he's the killer

He left AROUND 3.30am and so it's unfair on Pro Lechmere supporters to push the time he left 3 minutes later and not accept that it could easily have been 3 minutes earlier.

The reason why I don't think he's the killer is because nothing else fits and not because he was the first person to find the body.
Anyone who finds a body BEFORE the police secure the site has to be considered a person of interest. To say otherwise goes against all principles of detective work.


There has to be a balance and there has to be an acceptance by us all that we are probably all wrong about what we think we know about the case.

Pro Lechmere or Anti Lechmere, the man is a person of interest because he was found to be the first person to see the body of a woman who had just been murdered.

We often talk about Kosminski, Druitt, Tumblety, Bury, Maybrick and Co....but at least Lechmere, Bowyer, Richardson, Barnett, Kidney, Barnardo, McCarthy etc...had a connection with either a victim or a murder site.

These men should all be considered persons of interest and ARGUABLY suspects in the case.

I don't have a prime suspect and I think that helps to be more objective, balanced and open-minded.


RD

Bury atleast is a much better suspect than Lechmere.

[Lewis C]

Completely correct RD.

I always say that while I don't consider CAL to be a strong "suspect" he is nevertheless a viable one.

" Ultimately, we are left with pure speculation, often flavoured by suspect bias. However, the name issue remains, despite various arguments for and against, and for that reason, as well as he is clearly in the area, that we cannot exclude him as a suspect."

From Inside Bucks Row.... Conclusions


Steve

Hi Steve,

Would you explain what you mean by "the name issue remains"? It sounds like you're saying that his using the name "Cross" at the inquest is a good reason to suspect him.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Would you explain what you mean by "the name issue remains"? It sounds like you're saying that his using the name "Cross" at the inquest is a good reason to suspect him.

That's because the quote is truncated.
The bit before talks about not being able to establish if he used the name Cross at work. In reality that means is he the same Pickords Drive involved in the Fatal RTA in the 1870s. if so then the Name issue is for me irrelevant.

I believe he was the same man, and probably employed as "Cross"; but we can't prove it.

Likewise despite the efforts of the pro Lechmere people, they cannot prove it was not.
I suggest that the name issue is for some people more important than others, I personally do not think it's significant, but that's just me.

If we remove the speculation, we have a few solid facts.

1. He is the first to arrive at the body of Mary Ann Nichols.( in my view only 50 or so yards ahead of paul).

2. He uses two names, it seems probably that he used "Cross" at Pickfords.( If so the name issue disappears.)

3. He lived in the area, and so far as we know, he was there during the murders.

Everything else is speculation.

I hope that helps.

Steve

[FrankO]

I have been told by various people that the independent data must be Llewellyn, but he is just one man, so not sure how it qualifies as "many".
In addition he of course give impricise times himself.

Quite right, Steve. The “many” data referred to by Baxter could only have been data gathered at the inquest and one of them would indeed be Llewellyn, but as you say, he gave imprecise times.

To the press he said that he was called at “about five minutes to four”, while at the inquest he deposed that this happened at “about four o’clock.” While I have very little doubt that the good doctor actually used the words “about five minutes to four” and don't think for a minute that he thought before giving his inquest deposition "oh no, it was around five minutes later, actually", we can be fairly sure that the doctor hadn’t consulted any time piece between being woken and arriving at the crime scene, or else we’d have known about it.

So, at best, one could say (even though there’s no evidence of that) that the doctor saw a time piece some time after he got woken and must have estimated how much time before that he was actually called.

Cheers,
Frank

[JeffHamm]

Completely correct RD.

I always say that while I don't consider CAL to be a strong "suspect" he is nevertheless a viable one.

" Ultimately, we are left with pure speculation, often flavoured by suspect bias. However, the name issue remains, despite various arguments for and against, and for that reason, as well as he is clearly in the area, that we cannot exclude him as a suspect."

From Inside Bucks Row.... Conclusions


Steve

Hi Steve,

I agree with this view, he's a good suspect in the sense he's worth looking into, but that's a very different thing from viewing the case against him, which in my view is currently is not worth the bandwidth. One has to separate out the idea of someone being worth investigating (a good suspect; Lewis Carrol, for example, is not a good suspect) from the evaluation of the case that is put up arguing for that person as actually being JtR. I would not suggest anyone who felt Cross/Lechmere's life was worth looking into was wasting their time, research is always worth the effort. Even if it never connects him any further to the case, the more we know about the lives of people in the area the better equipped we are to look at Whitechapel of 1888. And hey, who knows, maybe something might actually turn up that connects him to the murders after all - but I wouldn't hold my breath on that. Just because the "case" against a suspect is, for all intents and purposes, complete rubbish doesn't mean the individual isn't worth investigating or that the individual isn't a "good suspect." It just means the case is a poor solution, which may involve a good suspect. Investigating person X does not make one beholden to prove person X was JtR, proving they were not is also useful. Research is about looking for information that provides an answer that is of yet unknown, not looking for information in order to twist it into a predetermined answer.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

Even if it never connects him any further to the case, the more we know about the lives of people in the area the better equipped we are to look at Whitechapel of 1888.

Hi Jeff & all,

I'd like to pick up on the last part of your sentense above. Re-reading many of the witness statements throughout the case, it seems that people who had to estimate the time, were generally thinking in quarters of an hour and not like people today, who are much more inclined to think in 5 minutes or even minutes. Many of them, when talking about a time, say either "half past w", "quarter to x", "y o'clock" or "a quarter past z". It sticks out to me.

Any thoughts?

Frank

[Elamarna]

Hi Jeff & all,

I'd like to pick up on the last part of your sentense above. Re-reading many of the witness statements throughout the case, it seems that people who had to estimate the time, were generally thinking in quarters of an hour and not like people today, who are much more inclined to think in 5 minutes or even minutes. Many of them, when talking about a time, say either "half past w", "quarter to x", "y o'clock" or "a quarter past z". It sticks out to me.

Any thoughts?

Frank

I tend to agree, people were estimating.
Time keeping as I keep saying was rarely syncronizied, and I believe most quoted times can be read as give or take at least 5 minutes .

[Lewis C]

That's because the quote is truncated.
The bit before talks about not being able to establish if he used the name Cross at work. In reality that means is he the same Pickords Drive involved in the Fatal RTA in the 1870s. if so then the Name issue is for me irrelevant.

I believe he was the same man, and probably employed as "Cross"; but we can't prove it.

Likewise despite the efforts of the pro Lechmere people, they cannot prove it was not.
I suggest that the name issue is for some people more important than others, I personally do not think it's significant, but that's just me.

If we remove the speculation, we have a few solid facts.

1. He is the first to arrive at the body of Mary Ann Nichols.( in my view only 50 or so yards ahead of paul).

2. He uses two names, it seems probably that he used "Cross" at Pickfords.( If so the name issue disappears.)

3. He lived in the area, and so far as we know, he was there during the murders.

Everything else is speculation.

I hope that helps.

Steve

Yes, that does help. Thanks!

[Herlock Sholmes]

What is really extraordinary is how the independent data is taken NOT to be the 3 INDEPENDENT police officers by many pro Lechmere people.

That alone is a classic example of ignoring the obvious, the evidence of people other than Lechmere and Paul, because it does NOT fit the theory.

I have been told by various people that the independent data must be Llewellyn, but he is just one man, so not sure how it qualifies as "many".
In addition he of course give impricise times himself.
I have been told by other Lechmere people, that Baxter is refering to unknown people, who did not give evidence at the inquest. This is absolutely unrealistic.

However, any suggestion but the obvious must be dismissed to support the theory.

Steve

In general Steve what’s been suggested is that the coroner dismissed the testimony of three serving police officers on beats, that were set by time, in favour of Robert Paul - a man who none of us have a clue how he came by his time. Unless there was a clock at the corner of Bucks Row which has eluded yours (and everyone else’s) research. We’re all wary of making definite statements of course but in this case we can be as certain as possible that Baxter was referring to Neil, Thain and Mizen. Therefore the body was discovered not long before 3.45. Which would easily include 3.38, 3.39, 3.40, 3.41, 3.42 etc.

So just with those possible times we get..

Cross leaving his house at 3.30….finding the body at 3.38 = no gap
Cross leaving his house at 3.31….finding the body at 3.39 = no gap
Cross leaving his house at 3.32….finding the body at 3.40 = no gap
Cross leaving his house at 3.33…finding the body at 3.41 = no gap

We can postulate numerous versions, some give us a gap, some don’t. Those on the pro-Cross side have mystic powers which enable them to say…..GAP.

You know how it works by now Steve.

[The Rookie Detective]

In general Steve what’s been suggested is that the coroner dismissed the testimony of three serving police officers on beats, that were set by time, in favour of Robert Paul - a man who none of us have a clue how he came by his time. Unless there was a clock at the corner of Bucks Row which has eluded yours (and everyone else’s) research. We’re all wary of making definite statements of course but in this case we can be as certain as possible that Baxter was referring to Neil, Thain and Mizen. Therefore the body was discovered not long before 3.45. Which would easily include 3.38, 3.39, 3.40, 3.41, 3.42 etc.

So just with those possible times we get..

Cross leaving his house at 3.30….finding the body at 3.38 = no gap
Cross leaving his house at 3.31….finding the body at 3.39 = no gap
Cross leaving his house at 3.32….finding the body at 3.40 = no gap
Cross leaving his house at 3.33…finding the body at 3.41 = no gap

We can postulate numerous versions, some give us a gap, some don’t. Those on the pro-Cross side have mystic powers which enable them to say…..GAP.

You know how it works by now Steve.

I concur with this

However, my initial point is that the term "around" 3.30am MUST also be applied to a few minutes BEFORE 3.30am for the sake of balance and objectivity.

While I don't believe that Lechmere was the killer for a multitude of reasons, I still believe that the term "AROUND 3.30AM" has to include minutes before and after 3.30am.

For example...

Cross leaving his house at 3.29am finding the body at 3.37am = questionable
Cross leaving his house at 3.28am finding the body at 3.36am = He's the killer

I only ask why Anti-Lechmere folk always start their "around 3.30am" leaving time at 3.30am and then move to timings AFTER 3.30am i.e. 3.31am, 3.32am etc...

And Pro-Lechmere folk always state 3.30am at the latest.

The term "around" is an approximate that has to be given scope for movement both ways prior and after 3.30am.

The fact remains that Lechmere was seen standing in the road, with a murdered woman lying a few feet away.
For him to be innocent, Robert Paul has to arrived at the murder site no more than a couple of minutes after Lechmere arrived, because Lechmere or any innocent person wouldn't have been standing stationary in the road contemplating the difference between a tarpaulin and a dead body for more than a couple of minutes.

Ascertaining the most likely time that Paul arrived is more important than focusing on Lechmere's timings. All we know from him is that he states he left home around 3.30am...BUT that could just as equally have been 3.27am as it could 3.33am.

To suggest that "around" 3.30am can only mean AFTER 3.30am is nonsensical because 3.27am is also "around 3.30am"

Personally, I believe Lechmere was innocent and missed the murder by no more than 3 minutes and that Paul arrived less than 2 minutes after Lechmere stopped in the road to look over at the heap on the floor.

The timings fit for Lechmere leaving around 3.30am (3.33am) and arriving around 3.41am...but that's beside the point.

The point is that he could have easily left "around 3.30am" (3.27am) and then murdered Nichols.

But Lechmere isn't innocent because we play around with timings to fit him being so, he's innocent because he would have needed to leave his family home on the way to work with a huge knife and murder on his mind on the way to work, despite having no history of violence whatsoever and no known motive to kill. THAT is why he is innocent.

RD