Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fiver]

Let me try to remember the others:

5. Not only was he in the white chapel area, but the murders took place in areas right next to one of two possible routes he would take to work, or next to his mother's house on a weekend; and for the 2nd murderer that night, the fleeing murderer traveled along one of Lechmere's old routes to work (from when he was living near his mother)

6. One of the Ripper's undisputed bloody rags, abandoned after committing the Catherine Eddows murder, was deposited in a location that is in a direct line between the murder site and Lech's home. There were 3 - 4 times in which some thing could have exonerated Lech, but it didn't break his way.

7. He gave the surname of Cross instead of Lechmere, which was the name of his deceased step father. Some find that curious. By itself, it is not damning.

8. There was a dispute between what Lech said to the beat cop: something to do with him not being clear to the cop that he came across the body of a woman who appeared to be murdered. He used very curious language...language that by the surface appearance seemed geared towards not having the cop take him back to the murder site. At the very least, it was an odd sentence construction.

9. His description of encountering Polly Nichols body, given at the inquest (note: what exactly he said varies between newspapers), includes the circumstance of a man trailing behind him, a short undetermined distance. The lack of either party seeming to hear the other marching forward in boots on a cobbled street in the black of night in a very dangerous neighborhood, strikes some as extraordinarily odd. It seems to defy the laws of physics: the street would have acted as a wave guide, and the human auditory system is geared towards focusing on unexpected changes to the repetitive sounds of one's own feet. Some here still believe that is a valid argument: but it runs contrary to all studies on how the neurosystem works in processing sounds. Lech claimed that he noticed the supine body, moved to the center of the street and then turned around when he heard footsteps .... footsteps that were very convenient in explaining what he was doing standing in the middle of the street next to a murder victim, and yet footsteps he was entirely ignorant of a few seconds earlier. The trailing person also didn't seem to hear anything.

10. Included in his testimony seems to be the statement that he wasn't sure if the Polly Nichols was dead or not. At the very least, that means he wasn't the nice guy that he's made out to be - but somewhat of a creep.

11. No one in Lechmere's family seemed aware that he testified at the inquest: it is not in the family history. Why did Lech keep it a secret from his family?

12. He looks ******* scary in his photo. Actually, I read somewhere, someone analyzing the photo pointing out the drooping left (right?) side of his face. He claimed it indicated a possible stroke or other medical condition. Lech might of had a stroke well before that photo.

13. There was a family business that Lech's mother maintained that could have allowed Lech a place in which to store his favorite purloined organs.

14. There's more .... but none of this (save the scary photo description - he's a sweet heart) is disputable. These are odd facts that require an explanation grounded in human psychology. They are curious items, but by themselves cannot lead to anything absolutely conclusive. That is the nature of this site for all candidates.

5) Lewis already dealt with that in his point 2.

6) The bloody apron piece was not on a direct route between Eddowes body and Lechmere's home. It is not evidence against anyone.

7) Was already dealt with by Lewis.

8) Charles Lechmere disagreed with PC Mizen, but so did Robert Paul. This is not evidence that CAL was the Ripper. Nothing in what CAL said to PC Mizen was odd, let alone incriminating.

9) Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul were walking down the pavement, not the cobbled street. Neither of them was heard by Emma Green and her family, Harriet Lilley, Patrick Mulshaw, or Walter Purkiss and his family. Clearly the street did not act as a wave guide.

There is nothing suspicious in Lechmere hearing a man approaching from behind him before seeing him. Lechmere hearing Paul approach did not explain why he was in the middle of the street. Seeing the body explained why Lechmere was standing in the middle of the street. The fact people try to use this as "evidence" against Lechemre shows how weak the evidence is.

10) How is seeking out a policeman who might be able to help Nichols a sign of Lechemre being a creep, let alone the Ripper? Again, you show how weak the case against Lechmere is.

11) Charles Lechmere did not keep his testifying at the inquest secret from anyone. He publicly stated his first and middle names, his stepfather's surname, his home address and his work address. His great-great grandchildren not remembering that is evidence that the story wasn't considered important enough to pass down by his children and grandchildren, not that CAL was hiding anything.

12) You reading things into a photo is not evidence against Charles Allen Lechmere.

13) Cat's meat was boiled horseflesh served. The horses entrails were fed to pigs. The Ripper tore out raw internal organs. There is no evidence of Maria Forsdyke being a cats meat dealer before 1891, and even if she had been one her entire adult life, it is not evidence that her son was the Ripper.

14) None of this is evidence that Charles Allen Lechmere was the Ripper. None of this even implies that he was the Ripper.

[Fiver]

So aside from Catherine we have all the victims' names. Hmmm, a clue !

Unless you meant that seriously, in which case )

[Fiver]

Could you refer me to the c5 document?

By docu he meant documentary, as in one of them that tries to fit up Lechemre as the Ripper.

[Fiver]

I was last here wasting time arguing about sensory perception with someone who claimed to be an expert. Turns out he didn't know much.

You not only mischaracterize what Jeff said, he served you up on a platter.

[Newbie]

5) Lewis already dealt with that in his point 2.

6) The bloody apron piece was not on a direct route between Eddowes body and Lechmere's home. It is not evidence against anyone.

7) Was already dealt with by Lewis.

8) Charles Lechmere disagreed with PC Mizen, but so did Robert Paul. This is not evidence that CAL was the Ripper. Nothing in what CAL said to PC Mizen was odd, let alone incriminating.

9) Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul were walking down the pavement, not the cobbled street. Neither of them was heard by Emma Green and her family, Harriet Lilley, Patrick Mulshaw, or Walter Purkiss and his family. Clearly the street did not act as a wave guide.

There is nothing suspicious in Lechmere hearing a man approaching from behind him before seeing him. Lechmere hearing Paul approach did not explain why he was in the middle of the street. Seeing the body explained why Lechmere was standing in the middle of the street. The fact people try to use this as "evidence" against Lechemre shows how weak the evidence is.

10) How is seeking out a policeman who might be able to help Nichols a sign of Lechemre being a creep, let alone the Ripper? Again, you show how weak the case against Lechmere is.

11) Charles Lechmere did not keep his testifying at the inquest secret from anyone. He publicly stated his first and middle names, his stepfather's surname, his home address and his work address. His great-great grandchildren not remembering that is evidence that the story wasn't considered important enough to pass down by his children and grandchildren, not that CAL was hiding anything.

12) You reading things into a photo is not evidence against Charles Allen Lechmere.

13) Cat's meat was boiled horseflesh served. The horses entrails were fed to pigs. The Ripper tore out raw internal organs. There is no evidence of Maria Forsdyke being a cats meat dealer before 1891, and even if she had been one her entire adult life, it is not evidence that her son was the Ripper.

14) None of this is evidence that Charles Allen Lechmere was the Ripper. None of this even implies that he was the Ripper.

Good heavens, you are a stubborn little cuss. You can practically draw a straight line from mitre square to doveton street, and the line will damn near cross through the site on Ghoulston; more importantly, that site is right next to his main route to and from work. If we can't agree on that, what's the point of communicating anything?

How is Lech a creep? He abandoned a woman who he claimed to not have been certain as to her state: dying or dead, because he says that he was late. You approve of this type of behavior? My God! He bloody well could have gone to the business across the street and spoken to an employee before running off.

Okay, pavement - not a big difference. Buck's row was a narrow street with stone buildings running down both sides: great acoustics. The energy of the sound wave front would reflect off the sides and not dissipate much as it propagated down the street. It was a dangerous neighborhood and as Paul testified, very few people would walk down it, early morning, without being on the alert. Evidently, you would argue with Paul about that. There is everything suspicious about Paul neither hearing Lechmere's boot steps or seeing Lechmere , some 40 yards ahead of him, unless Lechmere was not walking just ahead of him. Maybe, he was distracted thinking about the hot sex he had with his wife that morning.


His name was Charles Lechmere, everyone knew him by that name .... not Charles Cross. As for his address, it is doubtful that he furnished it at his testimony. Read my, or others, previous discussion on it. I don't want to waste my time attempting to rehash the details.

On my impression of the MFers scary face not being evidence, I think that's the only thing that you got right.

Explain your definition of evidence. It's really tiring hearing you bleat that line, as if it constitutes a clinching argument.
Or better yet, don't: it's tedious responding to your laundry lists punctuated with the old its not evidence line.

[Newbie]

You not only mischaracterize what Jeff said, he served you up on a platter.

Do you remember the discussion or arguments? I'll give you a hint: his main point was that old repetitive sounds mask new novel sounds.

[Newbie]

By docu he meant documentary, as in one of them that tries to fit up Lechemre as the Ripper.

Zounds ... they served to undermine their own arguments?

Here's a good documentary, going into detail Lech's merry jaunt from Doveton street down Buck's row and beyond.
The narrator is from the area.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rQFv6GJzsM&t=189s

[Fiver]

Good heavens, you are a stubborn little cuss.

Facts are stubborn things.

You can practically draw a straight line from mitre square to doveton street, and the line will damn near cross through the site on Ghoulston;

Springheeled Jack could have bounded straight over the rooftops. Mere mortals have to actually use streets.

You're also really, really bad at geometry. A straight line drawn from Mitre Square through the Goulston Street location doesn't come within a half mile of Charles Lechmere's home.

more importantly, that site is right next to his main route to and from work. If we can't agree on that, what's the point of communicating anything?

The Goulson Street Graffito was 1/3 of a mile from the route Charles Lechmere took to work on the morning Nichols was killed. That was also the same route that Robert Paul took. It was close to the routes that thousands took every day, since it went by Spitalfields Market.

The GSG was far closer to Commercial Street, Algate High Street, Whitechapel High Street, Whitechapel Road, and East Commercial Road down which more thousands passed every single day.

How is Lech a creep? He abandoned a woman who he claimed to not have been certain as to her state: dying or dead, because he says that he was late. You approve of this type of behavior? My God! He bloody well could have gone to the business across the street and spoken to an employee before running off.

Your double standard is noted. Charles Lechmere is a creep and probably the Ripper for going to get help for a dead or dying woman, but Robert Paul is not.

Nichols body was found around 3:40am. The only open business nearby was the horse slaughterers on Winslow street. Lechmere and Paul could have woken the neighbors, but that would require them to wake up, get dressed, and it still wouldn't have been any help since none of them were doctors.

Lechmere and Paul sought out the nearest police constable and passed the buck to them. Hanging around would have been no help to Polly Nichols, neither Lechmere nor Paul was a doctor.

Okay, pavement - not a big difference. Buck's row was a narrow street with stone buildings running down both sides: great acoustics. The energy of the sound wave front would reflect off the sides and not dissipate much as it propagated down the street.

It was so "loud" that Emma Green and her family, Harriet Lilley, Patrick Mulshaw, and Walter Purkiss and his family didn't hear Lechmere or Paul.

It was a dangerous neighborhood and as Paul testified, very few people would walk down it, early morning, without being on the alert. Evidently, you would argue with Paul about that.

There is no doubt that Robert Paul believed it was a dangerous neighborhood. He would have just walked by and ignored Nichols if Lechemre hadn't stopped him. None of which has anything to do with whether Lechmere was the Ripper.

There is everything suspicious about Paul neither hearing Lechmere's boot steps or seeing Lechmere , some 40 yards ahead of him, unless Lechmere was not walking just ahead of him. Maybe, he was distracted thinking about the hot sex he had with his wife that morning.

Robert Paul never said those things. He said he saw Lechmere in the middle of the road, but Paul never said what that distance was. Robert Paul never said anything about when he heard Lechmere.

His name was Charles Lechmere, everyone knew him by that name .... not Charles Cross.

That is an assumption on your part.

As for his address, it is doubtful that he furnished it at his testimony. Read my, or others, previous discussion on it. I don't want to waste my time attempting to rehash the details.

You ignoring evidence does not make it go away. Charles Allen Lechmere publicly gave his home and work address at the inquest, along with his first and middle names and his stepfather's surname. He was not hiding his identity from his family, his neighbors, the police, the press, his employers, or his coworkers.

Explain your definition of evidence. It's really tiring hearing you bleat that line, as if it constitutes a clinching argument.
Or better yet, don't: it's tedious responding to your laundry lists punctuated with the old its not evidence line.

You introduced the laundry list. It's not my fault that your laundry list is a mix of errors and assumptions instead of evidence.

[Fiver]

Do you remember the discussion or arguments? I'll give you a hint: his main point was that old repetitive sounds mask new novel sounds.

I'm not going on memory. Since you mentioned them, I reread the thread. You not only mischaracterize what Jeff said, he served you up on a platter.

[Fiver]

Zounds ... they served to undermine their own arguments?

Here's a good documentary, going into detail Lech's merry jaunt from Doveton street down Buck's row and beyond.
The narrator is from the area.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rQFv6GJzsM&t=189s

It's an interview with the fascist Edward Butler, known for his loony opinions about Charles Allen Lechmere.

[Fiver]

His name was Charles Lechmere, everyone knew him by that name .... not Charles Cross. As for his address, it is doubtful that he furnished it at his testimony. Read my, or others, previous discussion on it. I don't want to waste my time attempting to rehash the details.

In the interview with Butler that you link, he says Lechmere was identified because he gave his home address at the inquest.

[JeffHamm]

Pick your line, define close as necessary, and whatever you do, do not present any actual empirical studies that show connecting the dots in any of these ways is informative, or that your definition of close is objectively supportable.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I'm not going on memory. Since you mentioned them, I reread the thread. You not only mischaracterize what Jeff said, he served you up on a platter.

Thanks Fiver. I suspect, though, that if the summary of what I was trying to get at was mischaracterized that reflects in part of my inability to get my point across clearly. While I do resort to actual research to back up things, in my experience the findings of actual research often get rejected by those for whom the findings are problematic due to the fact that the experiments conducted somehow differ from the real world situation (i.e. not footsteps, or not night, or ...). While such differences could indeed be important, to show that they are requires presenting research that demonstrates those differences are important. We have to remember that research studies will always differ from the specific situations we find in the JtR case because experiments try to control everything, and vary one aspect of the situation to determine relationships between performance and that manipulated variable. Looking at events that occurred in the wild, can be extremely complicated, and often there are a number of lines of research that have to be considered because in the wild nothing is controlled, so there can be a huge number of different things going on at once.

That being said, with regards to whether or not someone walking to work might not hear someone else's distant footsteps, though, that's almost self evident. Research is about understanding why something happens, even if it is a common observation - in fact, a lot of research is about common observations and trying to understand why that observation is the common one.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve never known such effort to shoehorn such a feeble suspect into position in 37 years of interest in the case. It never ceases to amazes me that a non-existent case gets elevated without merit. Limbo dancing beneath the inconvenient, exaggerations, false assumptions, editing inconvenient evidence to suit. It’s nothing short of weird. Why do people feel the need?

[John Wheat]

I’ve never known such effort to shoehorn such a feeble suspect into position in 37 years of interest in the case. It never ceases to amazes me that a non-existent case gets elevated without merit. Limbo dancing beneath the inconvenient, exaggerations, false assumptions, editing inconvenient evidence to suit. It’s nothing short of weird. Why do people feel the need?

I agree Herlock it is very strange.