Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Pierre]

I'd wager it has something to do with the supercilious, authoritative tone that the certain Lechmerians adopt when discussing their favourite "suspect", which isn't supported at all by the paucity of evidence linking him to the murders.

They use the criterion that because Lechmere was in the vicinity not long before Nichols' murder he is qualitatively the best suspect. For example, Fisherman has said on numerous occasions that Lechmere is ahead of someone like Bury because he can definitively be placed at the crime-scene, while Bury cannot. My response to that was that Bury can be definitively proven as a murderer/mutilator... while Lechmere cannot. Which is the bigger leap of faith? Feasibly anyone who can be placed in London or the East End at that time could have done it. Far better to look at suspects with a known propensity for violence whose personal circumstances can account for the start and the cessation of the murders than someone like Lechmere, who was ostensibly little more than a hardworking family man who happened to find the first victim on his usual route to work.

Yes. And somebody must become the finder of Polly Nichols. She was lying in the street.

There are no sources with data indicating that Lechmere had any motive. There are no sources wit data indicating Lechmere was present at any of the other murder sites. There are no sources with data indicating that there was any trigger who set him off. There are no sources with data indicating why he should have stopped killing.

Regards, Pierre

[Harry D]

I've not posted on these boards much but, I've certainly been reading for months. I, too, am stumped by the open, mocking hostility towards Lechemere/Cross theorists and even the theory itself. Ironically, I'm sure there's a lesson in human psychology there somewhere.

There are many serial killers who maintain jobs for years, have no legal troubles, have the respect of their communities, etc. Not all serial killers are famous names. They're everywhere in every time, and when one begins to research their life stories, it's not hard to conclude that they're far more likely to seem average and good than they are to seem to be vicious, secret killers.

Lechemere non-believers often point to the fact that Cross seemingly places himself in the path of law enforcement and the inquest when, if he was the killer, he'd have been better off to stay silent and lay low. His behavior in the spur of the moment and the decisions he made at each junction of the Nichols case makes sense to me if he was the killer. He was not behaving, at the time, as Jack the Ripper. His behavior follows common sense of how a guilty man would act if he'd just killed a woman in the street, was caught practically in the act, and the entire city police force was not yet even looking for the famous JtR serial killer.

I admit I've got a lot to learn about the details of the JtR story, and maybe as I learn more I'll adjust my position, I'm always open to any ideas and have no real interest in one theory being accepted over another. But I'm still not seeing anything that rules out Lechemere, and I see plenty that circumstantially rules him WAY in.

I'd wager it has something to do with the supercilious, authoritative tone that the certain Lechmerians adopt when discussing their favourite "suspect", which isn't supported at all by the paucity of evidence linking him to the murders.

They use the criterion that because Lechmere was in the vicinity not long before Nichols' murder he is qualitatively the best suspect. For example, Fisherman has said on numerous occasions that Lechmere is ahead of someone like Bury because he can definitively be placed at the crime-scene, while Bury cannot. My response to that was that Bury can be definitively proven as a murderer/mutilator... while Lechmere cannot. Which is the bigger leap of faith? Feasibly anyone who can be placed in London or the East End at that time could have done it. Far better to look at suspects with a known propensity for violence whose personal circumstances can account for the start and the cessation of the murders than someone like Lechmere, who was ostensibly little more than a hardworking family man who happened to find the first victim on his usual route to work.

[CertainSum1]

I've not posted on these boards much but, I've certainly been reading for months. I, too, am stumped by the open, mocking hostility towards Lechemere/Cross theorists and even the theory itself. Ironically, I'm sure there's a lesson in human psychology there somewhere.

There are many serial killers who maintain jobs for years, have no legal troubles, have the respect of their communities, etc. Not all serial killers are famous names. They're everywhere in every time, and when one begins to research their life stories, it's not hard to conclude that they're far more likely to seem average and good than they are to seem to be vicious, secret killers.

Lechemere non-believers often point to the fact that Cross seemingly places himself in the path of law enforcement and the inquest when, if he was the killer, he'd have been better off to stay silent and lay low. His behavior in the spur of the moment and the decisions he made at each junction of the Nichols case makes sense to me if he was the killer. He was not behaving, at the time, as Jack the Ripper. His behavior follows common sense of how a guilty man would act if he'd just killed a woman in the street, was caught practically in the act, and the entire city police force was not yet even looking for the famous JtR serial killer.

I admit I've got a lot to learn about the details of the JtR story, and maybe as I learn more I'll adjust my position, I'm always open to any ideas and have no real interest in one theory being accepted over another. But I'm still not seeing anything that rules out Lechemere, and I see plenty that circumstantially rules him WAY in.

[Fisherman]

Damaso,
You can place hundreds of people in Whitechapel. Charlie was on his way to work, what he did everyday, not deviating from his usual routine, when he had the bad luck to see a woman dead or dying and stopped like a concerned citizen to check her out. They say no good deed goes unpunished and that is true of poor Letchmere.

Can you name any of these sucessful socially intergrated serial killers who worked at the same job for years, the same wife,with large families, and no criminal convictions?

Miss Marple

John Eric Armstrong, "the model sailor", worked at the same job in the army for many years, he had no previous convictions with the police, he had a wife and family with two kids, he had been married for a couple of years, he was socially integrated. And he was a serial killer.

Will he do?

[Damaso Marte]

I'm not here to argue that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. He's not my preferred suspect.

I'm here to say that Casebook posters are bizarrely hostile and nasty to Lechmere theorists, when in fact Lechmere is no less crazy of a suspect than many others who are discussed here without the same level of vitriol. All of the major suspects have major flaws like the ones you identify for Lechmere.

[miss marple]

Damaso,
You can place hundreds of people in Whitechapel. Charlie was on his way to work, what he did everyday, not deviating from his usual routine, when he had the bad luck to see a woman dead or dying and stopped like a concerned citizen to check her out. They say no good deed goes unpunished and that is true of poor Letchmere.

Can you name any of these sucessful socially intergrated serial killers who worked at the same job for years, the same wife,with large families, and no criminal convictions?

Miss Marple

[Damaso Marte]

I've said this a million times, I don't understand why 95% of Casebook is so mean to Lechmere and Fisherman.

Yes, Crossmere was probably not Jack the Ripper. No, Lechmere isn't the worst suspect ever produced or seriously defended on this forum: at least he can be placed in Whitechapel near the murders at the time of the crime spree, something we can't say for say Druitt or Maybrick, both of whom have defenders here.

[GUT]

These very traits are held by many serial killers. Many of the real sickos fool their co-workers, friends, and even wives (and families) for years. I've seen nothing yet that says Lechemere isn't the killer.

And most have seen nothing yet to say he is.

[CertainSum1]

Well. I wonder where he found the time. I know there are exceptions that prove every rule. And nothing in Lechmere's life can - on it's face - prove he was not a serial killer. But, I'm willing to bet he was likely the most well adjusted, successful, prolific procreator in the annals of serial killing.

Let's put aside all the mental gymnastics we have to go through in order to buy Lechmere as Jack the Ripper. I still contend that Christer discovered that 'Charles Cross' was, in fact, 'Charles Lechmere' and invented a highly improbable scenario by which he becomes JtR as a result. All fine and good. Further, let's not consider his behavior around the time of the Nichols killing. He behaved with no consciousness of guilt in Buck's Row. He came forward on his own...all that. But....let's just look at these factors:

Married at 21.
Married to the same woman for 50 years.
Had 11 children.
Maintained stable employment (at Pickfords) for more than 20 years.
Started as business ('General Shop') in his 60s.
Left his family roughly $5,000 in todays US dollars at a time and in a place where poverty was pervasive.
Had no criminal record that we know of.
Died at 71 of natural causes.
His children that survived to adulthood had families of their own and decent jobs (Railroad Clerk, etc.)

Anyone who has studied serial killers know that this is compulsion that consumes the serial killer. They live for it. It preoccupies them. It - to a great extent - rules their lives. Look at the list above one more time. Was that Charles Lechmere. The more I study the man. The more I find out about him and his life ,the more disgusted I am by what Christer and Edward and have done here. EVERYTHING you find tells you that this was a good man who strived to live a good life and do the right things for his family.

I guess its good that Edward conned the Lechmere family at outset of this little farce of theirs. Having a repectable, hard working, family oriented, ancestor isn't nearly as noteworthy as having Jack the Ripper in the family. It's disgusting. Did I mention I'd love to debate Christer on the subject?

These very traits are held by many serial killers. Many of the real sickos fool their co-workers, friends, and even wives (and families) for years. I've seen nothing yet that says Lechemere isn't the killer.

[Pierre]

Then again, who ever said that he had a "great hatred of women"..? That is a wording from the MacNaghten memoranda, and it does not have anything at all to do with Lechmere.

If you think that serial killers of women are disinterested in women, you are very, very wrong. Gary Ridgway had a voracious appetite for sex, and apart from having sex with his wife a number of times per day, he also engaged in sex with numerous prostitutes.
A good number of them, he killed.

Surely, you are just having a dig at me? You are not that that ignorant about how serialists are often sexually extremely interested and active, are you?

Either way, I fond it less and less appealing to answer posts like these.

But this one isn‘t in it for sex.

Pierre

[caz]

And, of course, JtR did take tremendous risks, which suggests to me that he had a particular problem in restraining his murderous/mutilating urges.

I agree, John, at least during the intense period from August to November 1888. If he enjoyed his Miller's Court experience he certainly never repeated it - anywhere or at any time - which could suggest he became ill afterwards, or had an accident, or died, or was given a long prison sentence for some other offence.

If Lechmere had killed Nichols, he'd have been pretty compulsive to do it again with great hairy knobs on the very next weekend in nearby Hanbury Street, after needlessly sticking his psychopathic bonce above the parapet in the wake of Buck's Row. Yet he would also need to have lost this urgent compulsion after November 9, and calmed right down again, only occasionally taking some knife exercise over subsequent years until old age or arthritis set in.

It just doesn't seem likely to me.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

Hello John

Perhaps it shows that compulsive serial killers are more prone to be caught, for obvious reasons ?

Hello Jon,

Very perceptive, Jon. However, I would have thought that some of the more non-compulsive types, assuming there are many/any, would get caught eventually. However, we don't really have much evidence of this type of serial killer, I.e one that goes long periods without the urge to kill, or at least is able to demonstrate self restraint.

And, of course, JtR did take tremendous risks, which suggests to me that he had a particular problem in restraining his murderous/mutilating urges.

[Jon Guy]

Hello Jon,

Whilst your post is obviously correct, isn't it also the case that, in respect of serial killers who have been caught, evidence indicates that they don't tend to stop their activities for lengthy periods? And doesn't this imply that for serial killers murder is something of a compulsion?

Of course, Dennis Rader is often cited as a rare example of a serial killer who managed to control his compulsion to kill for a long period, however, I believe even he said that he was planning to resume his activities.

Hello John

Perhaps it shows that compulsive serial killers are more prone to be caught, for obvious reasons ?

[John G]

The problem with your theory, Patrick, is that we would not be aware of any serial killers whose crimes remained undiscovered.

I guess that all the serial killer info you are referring to is with regard to serial killers who were caught

History could be lined with hundreds of old, happily married ex- serial killers.

Hello Jon,

Whilst your post is obviously correct, isn't it also the case that, in respect of serial killers who have been caught, evidence indicates that they don't tend to stop their activities for lengthy periods? And doesn't this imply that for serial killers murder is something of a compulsion?

Of course, Dennis Rader is often cited as a rare example of a serial killer who managed to control his compulsion to kill for a long period, however, I believe even he said that he was planning to resume his activities.

[Patrick S]

The problem with your theory, Patrick, is that we would not be aware of any serial killers whose crimes remained undiscovered.

I guess that all the serial killer info you are referring to is with regard to serial killers who were caught

History could be lined with hundreds of old, happily married ex- serial killers.

There very well could be. We can only attempt comparisons to what we know. Unlike Christer's Lechmere in Buck's Row, I have no crystal ball, or knowledge of the unknowable.

I have no theory. Only informaton. Christer shares his. I'll share what I find and make inferences, as Christer has done. Although, mine are more rooted in reality, I'd suggest.

I would suggest, also, that it's appropriate to counter the conjecture presented by Christer with conjecture supporting an opposing view - the more common sense view that Charles Lechmere was NOT Jack the Ripper.

I have an idea! A debate on the subject!