Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

May I refer you to the short documentary


CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE AND THE MISSING EIGHT MINUTES


at

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

[Fiver]

The evidence SUGGESTS a time gap, is what I have said. Nothing else.

You seem very insistent for a mere suggestion.

The evidence suggests that Robert Paul's timing was less accurate.

To achieve your time gap you need to:
* Assume Lechmere was giving a precise instead of an approximate time.
* Take a sensationalized news story over Robert Paul's inquest testimony.
* Ignore the time estimates of PC Mizen, PC Thain, and PC Neil.
* Quote only part of Baxter's timing estimation.
* Ignore Inspector Abberline's report.
* Assume that Swanson was giving a precise, not an approximate time estimate.
* Ignore that none of the police thought there was a suggested time gap.

And even then, the gap is only a suggestion because you suggested it, not because there is any evidence for it.

[Fiver]

Yes Herlock, and then it was necessary to hypothesize that the move to Doveton Street was forced on him, because one would think that if walking a longer distance was so traumatic for him, he wouldn't have made the move if he had a choice.

Like many things, we can know that Lechmere moved, but not why. Walking distance to work was longer for Lechmere, but walking distance to school for his children appears to be significantly shorter. Other considerations might be the size and quality of the house, the price to live there, and the safeness of the neighborhood. And I doubt we can get information on those factors.

But the idea that having to walk a slightly longer distance to work would turn him into a serial killer remains laughable.

[Fiver]

And I love the way you skilfully diagnose Cross as clinically narcissistic. Quite an achievement with a man that died over 100 years ago and for whom we have not a shred of a hint of his mental well-being or character.

There's not enough to build a complete picture, but we do have hints about Charles Lechmere's character.

Testimony about the 1876 accident shows that Charles Lechmere was driving slowly and well clear of the curb. This is in contrast to the general reputation of van drivers for excessive speed and endangering the public. That implies above average prudence and possibly above average empathy. It stands in contrast with his father who at best showed negligence by giving another man so much alcohol that the other man died.

Lechmere appears to have gotten on well with his mother. He was a witness for her third wedding and entrusted one of his children into her care. Lechmere also appears to have gotten on well with his children, he was a witness at that daughter's wedding and the weddings of several of his other children. Records show that all of his children became literate, in contrast to their mother and many others living in the area. The sheer number of children implies relations between Lechmere and his wife were reasonably cordial. Unlike his birth father, he did not abandon the family and all of his children were born while he was married. They also appear to have an above average rate of surviving to adulthood, which implies above average housing and nutrition, though luck could have also been a factor.

Lechmere appears to have gotten on well enough with his first stepfather to at least sometimes use Cross as a surname. Lechmere got on well enough with his second stepfather to be a witness at the wedding.

Most of Lechmere's children appear to have been named after his wife's relatives, his mother's siblings, and his father's female siblings. One may have been named for his first stepfather. None were named for his birth father or his father's brothers.

Roughly thirty years at the same job implies stability and trustworthiness. The 1901 Census lists him as also being a railway agent, which would indicate increased responsibilities and likely a promotion. Switching to running his own business as a grocer implies both planning and thrift. This stands in contrast to his birth father going bankrupt. Charles Lechmere leaving a significant amount of money to his widow and children also implies planning and thrift. It again stands in contrast to his birth father, who abandoned the family.

Lechmere's encounter with Robert Paul implies a certain level of courage. Paul was significantly younger and they were in the worst part of a street known for being dangerous. For that matter, regularly walking to work down a street known to be dangerous implies a certain level of confidence and courage. And while we can fault him for not staying with Nichols body, the press and the press and the public did not seem to and one of the police specifically supported their decision to seek out the police. We should also consider that Robert Paul probably would have just walked past Nichols' body if Lechmere hadn't stopped him.

Lechmere's initial mis-identification of the body as a tarpaulin points towards him being mentally normal. The human mind tends to shy away from having to deal with death and there are plenty of examples of people who find dead bodies mistaking them for a bundle of clothes or a mannequin. A sociopath or psychopath wouldn't have this subconscious flinching away from death and would lack the empathy to consider this reaction in other people.

Unlike Robert Paul, Charles did not talk to the press, which implies a more private, less self-important man. Also unlike Paul, Lechmere went to the police rather than having to be tracked down. That implies a sense of conscientiousness and civic duty. It implies a certain level of self-sacrifice in his willingness to lose a day's wages to do that. Also unlike Paul and several other witnesses, Lechmere didn't complain about it to the press.

[Fiver]

He LEFT OUT the about!!

He's proved you left out the "about", your post admits it.

The question whether you did that deliberately is a harder one to prove, but we can look for a pattern. Have you repeatedly left out information that would point against Charles Lechmere being the killer? Have you continued to do this after the information has been repeatedly pointed out to you?

[Fiver]

-Again, I have never said that I can connect him to the other four canonical victims. But the victims are accepted as being connected (and wisely so), therefore it applies that I don’t HAVE TO connect him to those murders. It is sufficient that we know that he is a suspect for the Nichols murder, becasue that ALSO makes him a suspect for the other ones. And, believe it or not, that works for ALL suspect. And ”suspects”.

People believing the murders are connected does not prove that someone connected to one murder has any connection to the other murders. By your "logic" every witness can be "proven" to be the Ripper.

Back in the real word, Charles Lechmere has no connection to any of the murders except for Nichols, and the evidence is strongly in favor of him being an innocent witness.

[Fiver]

To think, all the insights that will now go to waste on account of my stubborness!

You've offered theories and selective quoting. You have misrepresented the original sources, modern experts, and other posters. You have ignored the dictionary and much of the evidence.

And now you're claiming those as "insights".

I guess it's time to point you back to the dictionary.

[Fiver]

-You are adding a phantomkiller and drawing conclusions that he existed. That cannot be done. Such a man must not have existed at all, because we have Lechmere. We don’t need another killer per se.

You don't apply this reasoning to the men who found any of the other victims. All you have proved is that you are deliberately ignoring all options other than Charles Lechmere.

[Fiver]

And your repeated cry "Nothing to see here, move on, please" tells us all we need to know about you.

Afraid your the one trying to say "Nothing to see here, move on, please" as you repeatedly ignore facts that don't foy with your theory.

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

[Fiver]

[B]I just told you that neither of us would claim for a fact what we cannot claim for a fact. The case against Lechmere is mainly built on how he was found all alone close to the freshly killed body of a Ripper victim, and how thereafter anomaly after anomaly is added to the list.

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

I would add to that the timings of the Kelly murder and mutilations.

[Fiver]

wrong. nothing contrived about it. it is significant that they were killed on or near his route to work.

Stride wasn't killed on or near his route to work. Neither was Eddowes. The Pinchin Street Torso wasn't dropped on or near his route to work.

And the other victims were killed on or near Robert Paul's route to work. And the routes of dozens of other man that worked in or near Spitalfield's Market or Broad Street Station.

[Fiver]

It leaves the case where it always was, with lots and lots of circumstantial evidence supporting the take that Charles Lechmere was the killer, but with no absolute proof that he must have been.

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

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)