Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[DJA]

Gull's protege,on the other hand .....

[John Wheat]

Gull's protege,on the other hand .....

Is another poor suspect.

[Aethelwulf]

Gull's protege,on the other hand .....

.....was a good man being slandered. Just embarassing - you should be ashamed.

Henry Gawen Sutton (1837–9 June 1891) was an English physician. He was born in Middlesbrough, England and obtained his medical training at Middlesbrough, but qualified at University College London, and practiced in London for the rest of his life, initially as a general practitioner but later, after gaining membership of the Royal College of Physicians, as a physician. He worked at the City of London Hospital for Diseases of the Chest, the London Hospital, and consulted at Poplar Hospital. He died of pneumonia after influenza aged 55.

He lent his name to the now outdated term "Gull-Sutton disease", described together with William Gull, to atherosclerotic chronic kidney disease. He also made contributions to the understanding of rheumatic fever and is credited with an early description of hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia (Rendu-Osler-Weber disease).

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Henry Gawen Sutton was Jack the Ripper.

He was being blackmailed by five of his patients.

(# 32 Who do you think Jack the Ripper was and why?)

And I suppose it is merely a coincidence that another theory has the Royal Family being blackmailed by five women and eliminated by Sir William Gull, Sutton's collaborator, or that an even earlier theory has all five women being patients of a Dr Pedachenko, who murdered them?

[Lewis C]

Well your certainly entiltled to put in the suspect sin bin whom ever you like ,however id go as far to say Sickert and Gull as stand alone suspects [without the royal conspiracy ] make better possible killers than Druitt and Maybrick . There has never been conclusive proof that Sickert was indeed in France while the murders took place.

He was fascinated with the murders and even made reference to them in his paintings , Gull ,despite the misconception that he was to old and had suffered a stoke that made him incapacitated which was not tru ,had the means being a physician , possible motive wanting to experiment on organ removal on live freah bodies ,or he was just mad , and the opportunity living in London.

I just dont see any means ,motive ,and opportunity with Druitt and Maybrick that puts them ''way'' ahead of Sickert and Gull ,just my opinion .

You may have slightly misunderstood my position. I was saying that I think that Druitt and Lechmere are better suspects than the others that I named, not Druitt and Maybrick. I agree with you that Maybrick is a very weak suspect. I don't think Druitt and Lechmere are among the strongest suspects, but I wouldn't completely rule them out. I don't really think much about motive when considering suspects for this case, because I think there's no telling who might have had the motive to do this.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I do not need to do so, because Druitt's alibi is known and I never claimed that Kosminski's is.

Just one of your posts - Even if it was not a holiday, there are reasons to think that Charles Allen Lechmere would have had no difficulty in providing an alibi for at least one of the murders.

The same, I believe, goes for Kosminski.



Show me a scintilla of evidence that Kosminski had an alibi for any of the murders. And for Druitt I believe that Herlock showed you that he could have killed Mary or Annie [ train times ] . You keep stating alibi's when you have not the slightest proof in one case and been shown to be incorrect in the other.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Just one of your posts - Even if it was not a holiday, there are reasons to think that Charles Allen Lechmere would have had no difficulty in providing an alibi for at least one of the murders.

The same, I believe, goes for Kosminski.



Show me a scintilla of evidence that Kosminski had an alibi for any of the murders. And for Druitt I believe that Herlock showed you that he could have killed Mary or Annie [ train times ] . You keep stating alibi's when you have not the slightest proof in one case and been shown to be incorrect in the other.

Show me a scintilla of evidence that either Lechmere or Kosminski failed to provide an alibi for any of the murders.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Show me a scintilla of evidence that either Lechmere or Kosminski failed to provide an alibi for any of the murders.

Answers with questions

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Answers with questions

A man who according to Swanson was under 24-hours-a-day surveillance and was so violent that he had to be placed under restraint, and was positively identified as the Whitechapel Murderer, could not possibly have produced an alibi for any of the murders, and yet there is not one word from Macnaghten, Anderson or Swanson about the 'suspect' failing to produce an alibi.

There is nothing about his whereabouts being incapable of being ascertained, nothing about surveillance revealing any association with prostitutes, no reference to any incriminating evidence being uncovered.

Macnaghten, who had access to all relevant files, mentions only the alleged existence of circumstantial evidence and nothing more.

No identification and absolutely nothing to connect him with the murders.

No evidence that he could not produce an alibi - just as happened with John Piser.

[Darryl Kenyon]

A man who according to Swanson was under 24-hours-a-day surveillance and was so violent that he had to be placed under restraint, and was positively identified as the Whitechapel Murderer, could not possibly have produced an alibi for any of the murders, and yet there is not one word from Macnaghten, Anderson or Swanson about the 'suspect' failing to produce an alibi.

There is nothing about his whereabouts being incapable of being ascertained, nothing about surveillance revealing any association with prostitutes, no reference to any incriminating evidence being uncovered.

Macnaghten, who had access to all relevant files, mentions only the alleged existence of circumstantial evidence and nothing more.

No identification and absolutely nothing to connect him with the murders.

No evidence that he could not produce an alibi - just as happened with John Piser.

John Pizer had an alibi for the murder of Polly . Where is Kosminski's for any of the C5 or Martha's ?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

John Pizer had an alibi for the murder of Polly . Where is Kosminski's for any of the C5 or Martha's ?

There is no evidence that he was ever challenged to produce one.

[Lewis C]

There is no evidence that he was ever challenged to produce one.

That could be an explanation for why Kosminski doesn't have an alibi, but not an argument for him having one.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That could be an explanation for why Kosminski doesn't have an alibi, but not an argument for him having one.

No ordinary person can be expected to produce an alibi after 135 years unless there were something peculiar about his circumstances at the time he is alleged to have committed the crime.

If he had been known at the time not to have had an alibi then one could reasonably expect Anderson, Macnaghten or Swanson to have mentioned it, but instead we have nothing amounting to anything more than insinuation.

A man who was allegedly a suspect and who was under police surveillance must have been seen doing something worthy of reporting IF he were guilty, but there is nothing of substance on record.

It is therefore likely that he had an alibi.

[Fiver]

I have been making similar points to some of Fiver's for some time, both here and elsewhere.

As far as I can remember, I have never had an encouraging response to my point that the Whitechapel Murderer must have been living alone - because he took organs as trophies from victims - and therefore could not have been Lechmere or Kosminski.

You're speaking in absolutes. The more people the Ripper was living with, the more likely another member of the household would discover them. So the Ripper probably lived alone, but might have lived with one or two other people who could be fooled or intimidated.

As to Kosminski, I don't think he was the Ripper, but a man living on the streets who never bathed, ate only discarded food, and drank out of the guttersmight be odiferous enough to mask the smell of rotting trophy organs.

I have also made the point that the theory - promoted in the documentary that featured Christer - that Lechmere wore overalls - for which there is no evidence - which may have been covered with blood - again for which there is no evidence - and that because of his work they would not have aroused suspicion around the time of a murder is invalid because there is obviously a difference between dried blood and fresh blood.

If Lechmere had approached Mizen while wearing overalls spattered with fresh blood, would not Mizen have noticed?

I have seen the riposte that Mizen wouldn't have noticed because it was dark.

It appears that aprons at that time were generally white.

Wouldn't a policeman be capable of noticing fresh bloodstains on a white apron, practically under his nose?

Lechmere appeared at court wearing a sacking apron, which was typical work wear for carmen. There are a couple examples in this thread.

PC Mizen, like other police would have been equipped with a lamp. Mizen doesn't seem to have been the brightest, but talking to him would have been a massive risk for a man with fresh bloodstains on his clothing.

[Fiver]

Perhaps we could ask the opinion of Trevor Marriott or anyone else who has read the biographical details of large numbers of serial murderers.

PC Marriott is not the best source.

I have never come across the case of a serial killer who even played cricket, let alone played it on the day he committed one of a series of murders.

That's not how logic works. Whether or not someone plays cricket has no bearing on whether they are a serial killer.