Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

Aaron Kosminski's sister lived at 3 Sion Square and it is thought that he himself lived there for a time.

Another coincidence.

Or is someone going to suggest that Lechmere and Kosminski were partners in the murders?

[Fiver]

Yes, either he did or he did not have reason to be on Poplar High Street on the morning in question. But the evidence does not allow for claiming either side as a fact.

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.

[Fiver]

The suggestion that Lechmere was the killer predisposes that his urge to kill was more important to him than to sleep, say, a quarter of an hour longer on his murder mornings.

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.

I struggle to find any other period of time in a common carmans schedule that would offer as many advantages.

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.

[Fiver]

When the torso killer decided to dump a body in the East End of London, he settled on Pinchin Street. The exact street where Charles Lechmere grew up and spent his formative years.
There were hundreds and hundreds of streets to choose from. There were a thousand streets in Whitechapel. There were tens of thousands in the East End.
But the killer chose Charles Lechmeres boyhood street.

Is-that-not-an-ALMIGHTY-coincidence?

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.

[Fiver]

My wording:

-So you fail to mention that Paul spoke about walking down Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 in Lloyds Weekly. zz0.geam4l6wdzzz



The factual errors are in no way connected to the issue at hand; there is correct and incorrect information in the article, but it remains that it quotes Paul as saying "exactly", and I can see no reason for the paper to invent it on Pauls behalf, regardless if they may or may not have invented other things. As for my ignoring how Paul did not use "exactly" in his inquest testimony, that is a ridiculous claim. I have pointed it out time and again.

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

We could also accuse Diemschutz of murdering Stride and saving his own behind by going to find a policeman.

We could also accuse Watkins of murdering Eddowes and saving his own behind by approaching a member of the public.

[Herlock Sholmes]

-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.

-;

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because 3.30 is the time that was suggested in the phrasing "around 3.30".

You are trying and failing to make a mountain out of a wormhole (forget the molehill, you haven got what it takes to get you that high off the ground), and it does not work.

I suggest you learn to live with it. After all, you miserably failed to notice this GLARING attempt at misleading when you read Cutting Point in 2021. And now you tell me that it is impossible to miss it.

You are being ridiculous, as so often.

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.

[The Baron]

If a man is found standing all alone in the street, close to a murder victim that is still warm and bleeding, and where another participator says that he is certain that he felt the victims chest move, then that man can not possibly be a very weak suspect

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



The Baron

[rjpalmer]

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:

"You then invent a wooden hoarding that may or may not have been there..."

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I refer you to my answers below.

-Yes, Charles Lechmere WAS found all alone close to a freshly killed Ripper victim. By Robert Paul.


That is patently not true.



-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 are not proceeding from the evidence but from a presumption of Lechmere's guilt.




-You say that the only reason that I can accuse him is becasue he was an honest man. That is mere speculation. My take is that it in all likelihood owes to how he was intent on saving his own behind after the Lloyds Weekly article.
See the difference?
Good.


If Lechmere had wanted to 'save his own behind' then he would have disappeared before anyone else could arrive on the scene, which is what the Whitechapel murderer did in the other four murder cases.



-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”.


You DO have to connect him to other murders if you are going to construct a case against him.



You then gab on about the 29-30 of September, but I have already answered you on that point. You are therefore wasting time. If you don't read my answers, then what's the point of answering you?


I repeat:

There is no evidence that he was in Whitechapel, Spitalfields, or the City of London, let alone in all three of them, on the night of 29 to 30 September 1888.

You have no answer to that.



-”The Whitechapel murderer was never found”? Not back then, no. How does that have an impact on the suggestion that Lechmere did it? That Lechmere cannot have done it, because the police did not find the killer? Or?
Did you really think that line over?

And "the police did not share my view"? I am sorry, but the police back then did not know a iot about my view in the first place. They lived in 1888, I live today. Meaning that they never voted about it.
If they had it presented to them back then, they may well have shared my view. We cannot know, can we? And accordingly, your point has less weight than a helium filled balloon.


I think most people can see that the idea of the murderer being a person who found the first body in the series, and who drew the attention of a passer-by to it, and who subsequently gave evidence at the inquest, is far-fetched.

The fact is that the police did not find Lechmere a credible suspect and they were in the best position to decide.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer. No. I won't "see above."

Until you correctly learn to use the 'quote' function, which is very simple to do, I can't be bothered to read your posts further.

Consider our conversation terminated. Have a nice day.

What a defeat I suffered there! R J Palmer will not read my posts any further!

It is not about him sensing that he has been deprived of any possibility to win the exchange, it is instead all about my unwillingness to use the quote function.

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

Thanks for you wishes of a nice day, R J. Consider it reciprocated. And by all means, don't hesitate to throw yourself back into the action the next time a resolve amongst gentlemen is called for. "Resolve Amongst Gentlemen" - see what I did there?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

oh i dont know--doing what serial killers do-out looking for victims??
and you do realize many serial killers were married and had families??

Your comment reminds me of one made to me by Christer when I posed a question as to why Lechmere would have said something he alleged to be untrue.

He replied (from memory): Well, you know what serial killers are like: they're liars.

That is a circular argument.


After finishing a 14 to 18 hour work shift and going home to his wife and nine children, Lechmere allegedly went to his mother's house, then went to Berner Street on his way home, then went westwards to the City of London, and then went northwards to Spitalfields, before going home.

That is ridiculously far fetched.

[Fisherman]

To "Private Investigator 1" (I would have thought he worked in another line of business):

-Yes, Charles Lechmere WAS found all alone close to a freshly killed Ripper victim. By Robert Paul.

-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 say that the only reason that I can accuse him is becasue he was an honest man. That is mere speculation. My take is that it in all likelihood owes to how he was intent on saving his own behind after the Lloyds Weekly article.
See the difference?
Good.

-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”.
You then gab on about the 29-30 of September, but I have already answered you on that point. You are therefore wasting time. If you don't read my answers, then what's the point of answering you?

-”The Whitechapel murderer was never found”? Not back then, no. How does that have an impact on the suggestion that Lechmere did it? That Lechmere cannot have done it, because the police did not find the killer? Or?
Did you really think that line over?

And "the police did not share my view"? I am sorry, but the police back then did not know a iot about my view in the first place. They lived in 1888, I live today. Meaning that they never voted about it.
If they had it presented to them back then, they may well have shared my view. We cannot know, can we? And accordingly, your point has less weight than a helium filled balloon.

[rjpalmer]

See the above.

Hi Christer. No. I won't "see above."

Until you correctly learn to use the 'quote' function, which is very simple to do, I can't be bothered to read your posts further.

Consider our conversation terminated. Have a nice day.