Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fisherman]

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

Columbo

It should be added here that at the inquest, Mizen identified Lechmere as the man he had spoken to on the murder night. So if there was any fear on behalf of Lechmere that he could be identified, then that fear was clearly justified.

[harry]

Could he keep his identiy a secret?Very unlikely.When he gave his evidence at the inquest,he was thereafter known as Cross the carman who found the body of Nichols,who lived at a certain address,and worked at Pickfords.Wouldn't the numerous friends,neighbours, and work mates Know him.Mizen,at the inquest,recognised him,and not from name,as the person telling him(Mizen) of his finding the body.The police would have a description to compare with future suspects.It would have been difficutl to merge back into the unknown.

[Fisherman]

harry: Could he keep his identiy a secret?Very unlikely.
When he gave his evidence at the inquest,he was thereafter known as Cross the carman who found the body of Nichols,who lived at a certain address,and worked at Pickfords.

He was all of that to the police. To the press, he was not all of that - he never gave his address in open court, if I am correct.

Wouldn't the numerous friends,neighbours, and work mates Know him.

Would they know Charles Cross of Pickfords if he normally called himself Lechmere? And if he did not give the address to the inquest?

I think you are forgetting that there are levels in all of this. As I said before, he would be wary to be as honest as possible with the police, in case he was investigated. If he gave false infomation on all counts, an investigation would in all probability hang him.

Can we agree on that?

After that, if he wanted to stay as unidentified as possible to those who lived close to him, he would need to ditch not one, but two of the parameters: The name and the address. And strangely enough, the material implies that he did just that.

So, if he decided to try and obscure his participation in the murder and it´s aftermath from his close ones, he would need to do exactly what is seems he did. He did NOT however, try to hide hiself from the police, since it would have carried great danger with itself. He gave the wrong name, yes, but he did not give a name to which he had no connection.

Mizen,at the inquest,recognised him,and not from name,as the person telling him(Mizen) of his finding the body.

Which goes to show that he had little alternative but to go to the inquest, even if he was the killer. Otherwise, he could be in great trouble.

The police would have a description to compare with future suspects.It would have been difficutl to merge back into the unknown.

Yes - so any more murders would need to be done in a fashion that left the police clueless. He had used up the bluff card after Nichols.

[harry]

Fisherman,
He surely would have told his employers as to where he was going and why,and the later publicity of the murders,irrespective of the press,would have revealed a discrepancy,if there was one.
Still we come back to the was he or wasn't he known as Cross outside of official sources,and we do not have the answer to that.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
He surely would have told his employers as to where he was going and why,and the later publicity of the murders,irrespective of the press,would have revealed a discrepancy,if there was one.
Still we come back to the was he or wasn't he known as Cross outside of official sources,and we do not have the answer to that.

"Surely" is a word we may need to avoid. He may and he may not have. If he did, he may or he may not have told his colleagues afterwards that he had decided to call himself Cross.

As for the name, plentiful evidence has been provided to prove that he called himself Lechmere when speaking to different authorities. If we are to accept that he called himself Cross when at work, that too is going to take evidence. And I have seen no such evidence.

If it ever surfaces, mind you, we will STILL be faced with the fact that an inquest is is not the same as being at work - it is a very official proceeding, involving authority contacts.

Either way, you loose. But it is nevertheless interesting to see how the defence is putting all their eggs in a basket that is made up of thin air.

[Columbo]

It should be added here that at the inquest, Mizen identified Lechmere as the man he had spoken to on the murder night. So if there was any fear on behalf of Lechmere that he could be identified, then that fear was clearly justified.

Learned something new. Thanks.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well. I wonder where he found the time.

He could not have!

He was working between 14 and 18 hours per day, as recorded at the time in a report, a copy of which was provided some months ago by Fiver in # 1 Working conditions for Pickfords carmen.

A man working between 14 and 18 hours per day and living with a wife and nine children was obviously not in a position to wander the streets after work, looking for women to murder.

In order for Lechmere to have been the Whitechapel Murderer, he would have had to come across Nichols, coincidentally walking down Buck's Row at the same time as he was when on his way to work, come across Annie Chapman either while on his way to work or during his working hours, arrive home after 3 a.m. with the knife with which he had killed Eddowes and bloodstained hands, without his wife or nine children noticing anything out of the ordinary, and spend about two hours during work hours mutilating Kelly without his employers noticing his absence.

When I put this last point to Christer, he replied that maybe Lechmere had a holiday that day.

Indeed.

Maybe Lechmere was in bed with his wife that morning.

According to Stow, there is no evidence that Lechmere had a holiday that day, which leaves my point unanswered and unanswerable.

[John Wheat]

Ridiculous thread. There is zero evidence Lechmere was a serial killer.

[FISHY1118]

Totally agree , ludicrous thread , like ike with Maybrick ,those who spend their life convinced they have found JTR in Charles lechmere, have wasted their time.

[Aethelwulf]

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.

It's disgusting.

Couldn't agree more. Should be ashamed of themselves TBH.

[FISHY1118]

Couldn't agree more. Should be ashamed of themselves TBH.

[Dickere]

He could not have!

He was working between 14 and 18 hours per day, as recorded at the time in a report, a copy of which was provided some months ago by Fiver in # 1 Working conditions for Pickfords carmen.

A man working between 14 and 18 hours per day and living with a wife and nine children was obviously not in a position to wander the streets after work, looking for women to murder.

In order for Lechmere to have been the Whitechapel Murderer, he would have had to come across Nichols, coincidentally walking down Buck's Row at the same time as he was when on his way to work, come across Annie Chapman either while on his way to work or during his working hours, arrive home after 3 a.m. with the knife with which he had killed Eddowes and bloodstained hands, without his wife or nine children noticing anything out of the ordinary, and spend about two hours during work hours mutilating Kelly without his employers noticing his absence.

When I put this last point to Christer, he replied that maybe Lechmere had a holiday that day.

Indeed.

Maybe Lechmere was in bed with his wife that morning.

According to Stow, there is no evidence that Lechmere had a holiday that day, which leaves my point unanswered and unanswerable.

You could similarly ask how someone working 14-18 hours a day could manage to have nine children, assuming he was permanently exhausted.

He did though, so you can't rule out a bit of extra-marital serial killing on that basis.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You could similarly ask how someone working 14-18 hours a day could manage to have nine children, assuming he was permanently exhausted.

He did though, so you can't rule out a bit of extra-marital serial killing on that basis.

The question is how someone working 14-18 hours per day and having between five and nine hours per day to sleep as well as spend time with his wife and nine children could also find time to wander the streets looking for women to murder.

There is also the question of how he could have murdered Chapman either on his way to work or during working hours, and how he could have spent two hours mutilating Kelly without anyone noticing his absence.

If he could not have murdered Chapman during work hours, then that means he must have murdered both Nichols and Chapman while on his way to work.

How can anyone believe that?

[John Wheat]

The question is how someone working 14-18 hours per day and having between five and nine hours per day to sleep as well as spend time with his wife and nine children could also find time to wander the streets looking for women to murder.

There is also the question of how he could have murdered Chapman either on his way to work or during working hours, and how he could have spent two hours mutilating Kelly without anyone noticing his absence.

If he could not have murdered Chapman during work hours, then that means he must have murdered both Nichols and Chapman while on his way to work.

How can anyone believe that?

They can believe that if they are stupid.

[DJA]

A wife and nine children could send someone crazy