Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[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'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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[Fisherman]

Harry D: They use the criterion that because Lechmere was in the vicinity not long before Nichols' murder he is qualitatively the best suspect.

"In the vicinity not long before Nichols murder"?

Neil, Tomkins, Brittan, Mumford, Thain, the Purkisses, Mulshaw, James Green, Emma Green and all the rest of the Bucks row dwellers were all "in the vicinity not long before Nichols murder", Harry.
But Charles Lechmere was found alone, close to Nichols freshly killed body.

That goes way beyond being "in the vicinity not long before Nichols murder".

It is also totally misleading to say that Lechmere´s being "in the vicinity not long before Nichols murder" is what makes him the qualitatively best suspect. I have said a zillion times that there is nothing sinister at all in finding a dead body. Not even if that body is freshly killed.
His being on the spot roughly at the time of the murder is SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. If there was nothing else on him, there could be no real case against him. But there are numerous factors that point to him as the killer, and once those factors are pointed out, then the fact that he was found close to the body becomes a bother for Charles Lechmere.

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.

Yes. And that is absolutely true. Have you ever heard of a police force that begins by looking at criminals FIRST in a murder investigation, instead of beginning with the people who had a proven opportunity to be the murderer? I know I have not.

My response to that was that Bury can be definitively proven as a murderer/mutilator... while Lechmere cannot.

It does not matter in the least to those who investigate, I´m afraid. A man like Bury could only come into play in the investigation if there was no identified suspect who had opportunity to kill.

Which is the bigger leap of faith?

That has nothing at all to do with it, Harry. Bury is - on the surface of things - a more likely killer than Lechmere, yes. But once we put things in context, we notice that Bury seems totally unconnected to the case, whereas Lechmere is head over heels connected. You have to imagine the drama as if it had taken place in a closed room, with Lechmere, Paul, Neil, Purkiss - all the ones I mentioned before - INSIDE the room, and Bury OUTSIDE it. When you cannot be proven to have had opportunity, you are not a first-hand choice. You belong to the support troops, the ones who are called in as a secondary resource, if need be.

Feasibly anyone who can be placed in London or the East End at that time could have done it.

Yes, absolutely. But the closer you can place somebody to the victim, the likelier that person is to be the killer. If Bury was in Rotten Row at the murder time of Nichols, then he WAS in London. If he was on Heneage Street, then he WAS in WHitechapel. But he cannot be even remotely likely to be the killer nevertheless. He fills your loosely shaped criterion, but that is not nearly enough.
Lechmere was there. He had a proven opportunity. You are welcome to ask any police force in the whole wide world where they would start their investigation - with Lechmere or with any man who had a proven history of violence. A hint is what Andy Griffiths said: In a modern day investigation, nobody could be prosecuted before Lechmere was cleared.
I find it amazing that you are not au fait with this very basic fact.

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.

John Eric Armstrong was ostensibly little more than a hardworking man with a family. Peter Kurten was ostensibly little more than a hardworking man with a family. Gary Ridgway was ostensibly little more than a hardworking man with a family. Joachim Kroll was ostensibly little more than a nice neighbour. John Wayne Gacy was ostensibly little more than a hardworking man with a record of playing the clown for children.
Shall I go on?

[Fisherman]

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

... and thereare no sources of data prohibiting him from having been the killer. Just as there are no sources of data that go to show that serial killers consult any sources of data to get their killing right.

[Pierre]

... and thereare no sources of data prohibiting him from having been the killer. Just as there are no sources of data that go to show that serial killers consult any sources of data to get their killing right.

The silence of the sources is not speaking to us.

[Fisherman]

The silence of the sources is not speaking to us.

Oh yes, it is - if we care to listen.

[Pierre]

Oh yes, it is - if we care to listen.

That sounds really spooky

[CertainSum1]

Motive

Is there any real motive shown with any of the suspects? I'd proffer that if the motive isn't sexual, the murderer is much more likely to be able to suspend or even stop his killing.

[caz]

Well it would not have been a particularly wise decision to lure Nichols, or allow her to lure him, to a street patrolled by cops and used regularly by the killer himself as a route to work, at a time when other men were also feasibly on their way to work, if the aim was to overpower and kill her, and if possible try a spot of mutilation while he was at it.

Would an organised killer have relished the time and location under those circumstances, any more than a complete opportunist, finding himself doing the deed precisely when and where he could normally be found toddling off to start a long day's work?

Lechmere would have looked a sight more suspicious had he been 'found' by a witness who could see the woman's head was only hanging on by a thread, in any location that was not on a logical route between his home and work addresses.

Love,

Caz
X

[Errata]

Is there any real motive shown with any of the suspects? I'd proffer that if the motive isn't sexual, the murderer is much more likely to be able to suspend or even stop his killing.

Generally killers with a paraphilia actually have pretty good control. They may not get exactly what they want from a conventional sexual relationship, but it is extraordinarily rare that they get nothing at all. So they can tide themselves over. Also most humans are able to control themselves even in the face of no sexual activity at all. Else we would all be rapists during a dry spell.

It's not the paraphiliacs that are the real danger. It's the punishers.

[Fisherman]

caz: Well it would not have been a particularly wise decision to lure Nichols, or allow her to lure him, to a street patrolled by cops and used regularly by the killer himself as a route to work, at a time when other men were also feasibly on their way to work, if the aim was to overpower and kill her, and if possible try a spot of mutilation while he was at it.

Would an organised killer have relished the time and location under those circumstances, any more than a complete opportunist, finding himself doing the deed precisely when and where he could normally be found toddling off to start a long day's work?

Lechmere would have looked a sight more suspicious had he been 'found' by a witness who could see the woman's head was only hanging on by a thread, in any location that was not on a logical route between his home and work addresses.

Just a small reminder, Caz - it was NOT the time he normally went to work. He was late, having started out ten minutes later than usual, it would seem. And after that, he had for some reason decided to drag his feet in spite of the late departure. Odd, odd, odd - but there you are!

So he was in Bucks Row at 3.45 approximately, whe he normally would have passed Brown´s Stable Yard at 3.27, nigh on twenty minutes before.

You are correct, however, in pointing put that killing en route to work offers a really good chance to con people about just having had the bad luck of running into a murder victim on your way to job.

May I also take the opportunity to point out that you are once again reccomending smarter wiys of doing things on account of a man who - if he was the killer - got away clean with what he did. It is the outcome that counts, Caz, when we decide what is a useful methodology and what is not.