Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[GUT]

What do you make of Lechmere telling Mizen that a policeman was waiting for him in Buck's Row then?

Did he?

Isn't it Mizen's Word against Cross' on that point.

[Templarkommando]

Did he?

Isn't it Mizen's Word against Cross' on that point.

Maybe.

Mizen said at the Inquest that the carman (which I think is redundant because both Paul and Cross were carmen... if I recall correctly) said that there was a policeman waiting for him in Buck's Row. Cross later denied this at the inquest.

It's a little odd though because Cross apparently claimed that they heard a policeman coming - though he did not see him. It's a little confusing. I'm not sure what that means.

For quick reference: http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html

[CertainSum1]

Hi John,

So you don't think you're putting a little too much conjecture in this comparison? Not trying to be a smart a** but please don't fall into the trap where every little similarity means something. Domestic violence was commonplace and, although I can't verify it, I'm sure there were numerous slit throats by husbands, pimps, customers, robberies etc. I would even make a guess that some were inadvertently disemboweled(although probably with no parts taken)

I believe one of the victims used Mary Jane as an alias? And Chapman married someone named Annie Chapman didn't he?

So many ways to connect the pieces of this puzzle.
Columbo

I'd imagine most murders were either bludgeoning or stabbing in 1888 London's East End. Similarities were seen in so many murders that nobody seems to agree on exactly how many victims of JtR there were.

Before the days of city trash pick-up, I'd imagine most people burned whatever they could in their fireplace. Probably the first place people thought to get rid of anything.

With so many similarities in how people in the city lived, it seems one could connect many pieces together to make any picture puzzle!

[Harry D]

If Lechmere had given the name 'Joe Bloggs' or whatever, I still wouldn't consider him a suspect for the other marks against him, but admittedly that would be hella suspicious. But he didn't. He kept his Christian name and gave the surname of his stepfather. He may have been known in certain circles as 'Charles Cross', but regardless of that possibility, it wouldn't benefit the killer to only lie about his surname, but divulge his place of business and attend the inquest.

[GUT]

If Lechmere had given the name 'Joe Bloggs' or whatever, I still wouldn't consider him a suspect for the other marks against him, but admittedly that would be hella suspicious. But he didn't. He kept his Christian name and gave the surname of his stepfather. He may have been known in certain circles as 'Charles Cross', but regardless of that possibility, it wouldn't benefit the killer to only lie about his surname, but divulge his place of business and attend the inquest.

And his residential address.

Not real Goid at hiding his identity.

[Fisherman]

If Lechmere had given the name 'Joe Bloggs' or whatever, I still wouldn't consider him a suspect for the other marks against him, but admittedly that would be hella suspicious. But he didn't. He kept his Christian name and gave the surname of his stepfather. He may have been known in certain circles as 'Charles Cross', but regardless of that possibility, it wouldn't benefit the killer to only lie about his surname, but divulge his place of business and attend the inquest.

There were basically three possibilitites open to Lechmere in the killer´s role:

1. To stay away from the inquest, and go into hiding. The implication would be that he was the probable killer - a man who had been found alone with the victim, and who had since disappeared.

2. To go to the inquest and lie about his name, his working place and his address. Guess what the police think of people they find out in this respect? Any takers?

As everybody can see, both of these options carried great risk with them. So let´s look at option number ...

3. To go to the inquest and try and dissolve the picture of him as the killer before it took hold. And to serve the police and the press different amounts of information. The police asked about his name, his address and his working place. He gave them correct information on the address and the working place, and a name that he ordinarily not use when in contact with the authorities, but for which he could provide an explanation IF he was checked. The inquest - and therefore also the press - was provided with the correct working place, the name Cross and no address. That effectively hid him from being recognized by family and friends in the papers.

The fourth option is of course that he was innocent. In which case I would like to know why he withheld his address from the inquest and why he did not use the name by which he was registered and by which he otherwise always presented himself to the authorities.

He may have forgotten about the address. The Star reporter may have had the hearing of a bat. He may have wanted to honour his nineteen year dead stepdad. He may have wished to keep the name Lechmere out of the proceedings.

But until we know that any of these things apply, the name remains an anomaly and something the police would regard with the greatest of interest and rising suspicion, had they known. It is a large, looming red flag.

[John Wheat]

I'd imagine most murders were either bludgeoning or stabbing in 1888 London's East End. Similarities were seen in so many murders that nobody seems to agree on exactly how many victims of JtR there were.

Before the days of city trash pick-up, I'd imagine most people burned whatever they could in their fireplace. Probably the first place people thought to get rid of anything.

With so many similarities in how people in the city lived, it seems one could connect many pieces together to make any picture puzzle!

Yes but in the years leading up to 1888 there were very few reported . murders in Whitechapel. So any proven murderers who murdered in a similar fashion to the C5 should be looked at closely.

[Harry D]

There were basically three possibilitites open to Lechmere in the killer´s role:

1. To stay away from the inquest, and go into hiding. The implication would be that he was the probable killer - a man who had been found alone with the victim, and who had since disappeared.

2. To go to the inquest and lie about his name, his working place and his address. Guess what the police think of people they find out in this respect? Any takers?

As everybody can see, both of these options carried great risk with them. So let´s look at option number ...

3. To go to the inquest and try and dissolve the picture of him as the killer before it took hold. And to serve the police and the press different amounts of information. The police asked about his name, his address and his working place. He gave them correct information on the address and the working place, and a name that he ordinarily not use when in contact with the authorities, but for which he could provide an explanation IF he was checked. The inquest - and therefore also the press - was provided with the correct working place, the name Cross and no address. That effectively hid him from being recognized by family and friends in the papers.

The fourth option is of course that he was innocent. In which case I would like to know why he withheld his address from the inquest and why he did not use the name by which he was registered and by which he otherwise always presented himself to the authorities.

He may have forgotten about the address. The Star reporter may have had the hearing of a bat. He may have wanted to honour his nineteen year dead stepdad. He may have wished to keep the name Lechmere out of the proceedings.

But until we know that any of these things apply, the name remains an anomaly and something the police would regard with the greatest of interest and rising suspicion, had they known. It is a large, looming red flag.

Anomaly? Yes.

Large, looming red flag? Don't push it.

All I can see is a man trying to keep his name out of the public eye, which has been suitably justified as the actions of someone who doesn't want him and his family caught up in the gossip and rumourmongering that comes from finding a dead prozzy.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Anomaly? Yes.

Large, looming red flag? Don't push it.

I am not pushing it one millimeter. Are you aware of any police force anywhere in the world that will not regard a person keeping his registered name from them, instead using an alias, as a large, looming red flag? A man, who to boot has been found alone with a murder victim at the approximate time of the victim´s death? You are welcome to inform me of which police force that would be!

All I can see is a man trying to keep his name out of the public eye, which has been suitably justified as the actions of someone who doesn't want him and his family caught up in the gossip and rumourmongering that comes from finding a dead prozzy.

Yes, that is all you can see. I can see a lot more.
And how about you dubbing anybody who gives an alias together with his real address and working place a completeidiot for not understanding that he will be found out? That is your view, after all. How come it does not apply here too? Why would he not give a phony address and working place too when trying to keep his real name out of the public eye, if it was so very obvious to the world who he was anyway?

[CertainSum1]

There were basically three possibilitites open to Lechmere in the killer´s role:

1. To stay away from the inquest, and go into hiding. The implication would be that he was the probable killer - a man who had been found alone with the victim, and who had since disappeared.

2. To go to the inquest and lie about his name, his working place and his address. Guess what the police think of people they find out in this respect? Any takers?

As everybody can see, both of these options carried great risk with them. So let´s look at option number ...

3. To go to the inquest and try and dissolve the picture of him as the killer before it took hold. And to serve the police and the press different amounts of information. The police asked about his name, his address and his working place. He gave them correct information on the address and the working place, and a name that he ordinarily not use when in contact with the authorities, but for which he could provide an explanation IF he was checked. The inquest - and therefore also the press - was provided with the correct working place, the name Cross and no address. That effectively hid him from being recognized by family and friends in the papers.

He had to know that if he avoided the police and the inquest, he'd be looking over his shoulder daily and would likely be recognized eventually, since he had to be all over the streets all day every day.

If I was the killer in his shoes, I'd have done the same thing after finding myself where he did after the murder. He had time to consider the risks of showing up at the inquest vs not. And he shows up in full costume as the innocuous carman in his apron. Brilliant.

[wigngown]

That's the great thing with Ripperology, the killer could, quite literally be anyone! Not really, but everyone has their favoured suspect but in all probability I think the sum total involvement of Lechmere in the killings was to find a recently slain body. Having said that I don't suppose you can unequivocally rule Lechmere out and Fisherman has done an admirable job in research and presenting his case, but personally, & for what it's worth, I dont think Lechmere is a killer.

Best regards.

[Harry D]

He had to know that if he avoided the police and the inquest, he'd be looking over his shoulder daily and would likely be recognized eventually, since he had to be all over the streets all day every day.

If I was the killer in his shoes, I'd have done the same thing after finding myself where he did after the murder. He had time to consider the risks of showing up at the inquest vs not. And he shows up in full costume as the innocuous carman in his apron. Brilliant.

Ridiculous.

[Columbo]

He had to know that if he avoided the police and the inquest, he'd be looking over his shoulder daily and would likely be recognized eventually, since he had to be all over the streets all day every day.

If I was the killer in his shoes, I'd have done the same thing after finding myself where he did after the murder. He had time to consider the risks of showing up at the inquest vs not. And he shows up in full costume as the innocuous carman in his apron. Brilliant.

Hi CertainSum1,

What would the chances be that he would be recognized or even remembered by Paul or the Police? He didn't give his name to anyone so he probably could have altered his route to work and have been forgotten.

Columbo

[CertainSum1]

Hi CertainSum1,

What would the chances be that he would be recognized or even remembered by Paul or the Police? He didn't give his name to anyone so he probably could have altered his route to work and have been forgotten.

Columbo

It wouldn't be the first time a killer has inserted himself into the investigation when he's had the opportunity. It still seems entirely possible to me that a confident killer would think he's smarter than the police. At the time I assume he'd considered remaining anonymous, and decided against it because he always was visible in the streets of London, both going to and from work and while performing his work as a carman. It's entirely possible that he'd have remained unrecognized, but given how often he was up and down those streets he decided to stick with the "finding the body" position. It had worked for him thus far.

[Columbo]

It wouldn't be the first time a killer has inserted himself into the investigation when he's had the opportunity. It still seems entirely possible to me that a confident killer would think he's smarter than the police. At the time I assume he'd considered remaining anonymous, and decided against it because he always was visible in the streets of London, both going to and from work and while performing his work as a carman. It's entirely possible that he'd have remained unrecognized, but given how often he was up and down those streets he decided to stick with the "finding the body" position. It had worked for him thus far.

Very possible. I didn't consider his job did keep him out in the public during the day. Good Point.

Columbo