Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[JeffHamm]

Personally, I have no problem with the initial idea of "Hey, what about that guy who found Nichols? Maybe we should look at him more closely." as a valid idea worthy of following up. It is not unheard of that the solution to a case was simply overlooked and that the offender was identified early and dismissed prematurely, or not recognized as someone worthy of further scrutiny.

However, Cross/Lechmere has been put to further scrutiny, and now that that has been done, nothing further has emerged that has lead to an indication of guilt. The arguments that are put forth are complicated and often self-contradictory (he's a clever, cool, manipulative psychopath who makes obviously stupid decisions; i.e. he can think on his feet fast enough to cleverly lie to PC Mizen to get PC Mizen to leave him immediately without checking him out to avoid risking PC Mizen finding blood on him or the knife, etc, but rather than allow Paul to just sidestep him and move on he calls him over to involve him in the situation and create a potential witness who discovers the murder and him at it - the "guilty explanation"? he's a psychopath, I can argue he can do anything!, to throw one example out off the top of my head. And yet, he's such a clever psychopath that there are not other indications from his life of his psychopathy). The entire case against Cross/Lechmere is a house of cards, built upon viewing everything through a lens that warps any any and everything to reach guilt as the conclusion, rather than evaluating the events and finding they most easily lead one to guilt. It is a case that exemplifies tunnel-vision and confirmation bias to such an extent it could be given as an example of both in text books.

Was he worth checking out? Absolutely. Did checking him out uncover anything that indicates his involvement? Absolutely not.

That doesn't mean there won't continue to be those who push "the solution", but there comes a point when one has to differentiate between the unconvinced and the unconvincable.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

As Dr. Phillips estimated that Annie Chapman’s far more extensive injuries could have been achieved by her killer in five minutes I’d say that it’s fair to assume that Nichols murder and mutilations could have taken no more than two minutes and possibly less. This means that if Lechmere was guilty and was pretty much caught in the act as claimed then he had to begun his assault on her no more than two minutes before Paul’s arrival.

So the first point that has to be dealt with is a man murdering and mutilating a woman not just on his walk to work but around twenty minutes before he was due to clock on and with a distance still to walk. I’ve asked many times in the past if there has ever been another serial killer who killed under these circumstances but I’m yet to be shown a single example. So killing under these circumstances alone seriously reduces the likelihood of Lechmere being the killer.

Then we have to consider the fact that on hearing Robert Paul’s approach Lechmere would have had ample time to walk, or even run away. Paul would still have taken a few seconds to reach the body giving Lechmere time. Paul might have simply walked passed (either not thinking it was a body or thinking that it was simply a drunk or a rough sleeper, he might even have just ignored it because he didn’t want to get involved and was only interested in getting to work on time) But if he did go and check on her (taking up a few more seconds of escape time for Lechmere) no one could have known Paul’s actions? What would have been the likelihood of him trying to chase after the distant footsteps of a man with a knife who has just killed a woman? But no, according to those that accuse Lechmere he simply stood around with a bloodied knife on him and, for all that he’d known, blood on his hands or clothing, just to show Robert Paul his handiwork realising full well that Paul might suggest that they go for a Constable (again, with Lechmere carrying a bloodied knife and perhaps with blood on him) I’ve also asked several times for any examples of serial killers murdering someone and then loitering around for a witness - as yet I’ve seen no example. This lack of flight when he had ample opportunity of doing so further reduces the likelihood of Lechmere being guilty.

It’s also worth asking about PC Neil who arrived at 3.45. How likely would it have been that, in all the years that Lechmere had walked to work, that he’d never once been running late for work and seen a Constable on the beat either in Bucks Row or heading towards it? Can we also say that a Constable might never on occasion have arrived at Bucks Row slightly earlier than he had that night? We can then add Paul into the mix. With men taking the same route to work 6 days a week (probably both due at work by 4.00) how likely could it have been that Lechmere had never previously seen Paul (even up ahead in the distance) or even heard his boots on the cobbles as he walked a distance behind him. Surely this makes the location even more unlikely for Lechmere as the killer.

Its also worth mentioning how interesting the police might have found it, had Lechmere been questioned at another murder scene, the he passed the very spot where Nichols was killed every day on the way to work at around the time that she was actually killed.

It’s also claimed that Lechmere came up with his ‘scam’ to bypass Mizen. But when did he come up with it? Surely not on the spot as Paul approached? He couldn’t have weighed up his options in such a short space of time? How could he have been remotely confident that he’d be able to manipulate the situation so as to speak to a Constable out of Paul’s earshot? He couldn’t have believed this possible. The ‘scam’ is a fantasy created to explain away reality. That Lechmere found a body then went to find a Constable before continuing on to work. He then turns up at the Inquest. The issue of the name is a complete non-issue magnified to appear sinister. He gained zero by giving his stepfather’s name therefore it’s not suspicious. It would have been if he’d given an entirely false name and address but he didn’t. Then we get this exaggerated nonsense about family locations in the area. Do serial killers usually murder on their way to tea with Auntie Mabel in the early hours? We’ll be getting star signs nexts. Or people will be looking for anagrams in street names.



It’s difficult to see how Lechmere could be less likely to have killed Polly Nichols in Bucks Row. There’s only so far that reason can be stretched.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing - 46 letters

4 x 6 = 24

There are 24 letters in Charles Allen ‘Jack’ Lechmere!

I think I might be on to something.

Add it to the list.

[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

Butler has several errors about the cat's meat business. The first example of any member of Charles Lechmere's family being involved was his mother in 1891, not 1890. (Butler omits that there is no record of Charles Lechmere ever being in the cats meat business.) Nobody was boiling up horseflesh in their back gardens, it was illegal and unsanitary, and the neighbors would have had them shut down for the stench. Horseflesh was boiled at the knackers. Nobody was carving up huge slabs of horseflesh in their back garden, for the same reason.

Butler also claims that Mara Lechmere took up with Thomas Cross, then moved to London to avoid scandal. While that might be true, it is speculation. If Maria was fleeing scandal, it could also have been that her husband, John Allen Lechmere,was a bankrupt alcholic who had gotten a man dead through negligence and deserted his wife to he had shack up with a teenaged orphan 14 years his junior.

Butler says that every document involving Thomas Cross and Maria Louisa is "falsified in some way'. The 1861 Census gets his age wrong. That's the only one. The death record of Emily Charlotte Lechmere doesn't mention either Thomas or Maria Louisa Cross, unless Butler has clipped them out of what he posted online.

And Butler isn't telling the truth. The marriage record, which Butler posted online in 2013, gives the correct ages for both Thomas and Maria Louisa Cross.

[Fiver]

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 can understand the ones selling books or publicizing their videos. And I'm not just talking profit, I'm talking being worried their reputations will take a hit for being wrong. They don't realize that they hurt their reputation more by not admitting the error. (And in the case of the fascist, they have no reputation to lose.)

[Fiver]

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

Your posts were clear, it's just some didn't want to accept anything that contradicted their theories.

What it comes down to is not just hearing something, but noticing it. We usually tune out background noise.

[Fiver]

The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing - 46 letters

4 x 6 = 24

There are 24 letters in Charles Allen ‘Jack’ Lechmere!

I think I might be on to something.

Add it to the list.

It's better than the ley lines to nowhere.

[JeffHamm]

Your posts were clear, it's just some didn't want to accept anything that contradicted their theories.

What it comes down to is not just hearing something, but noticing it. We usually tune out background noise.

Yes, that's probably the point I wasn't clear about, "hearing" and "noticing" are not the same thing. I admit I've not gone back to find the thread and re-read things, but I could see that as something I might not have clarified well so I appreciate you making that important distinction clear. Masking of sounds by ambient noise (i.e. our own footsteps), will interfere with the detection (which is the noticing part) of distant footsteps. There's all sorts of other aspects of human behaviour that come into play and tend to work against noticing such things as well. Not only that, there's lots of things that interfere with our memory of things and events, so even if one did "hear and notice" footsteps, by the time a few days have passed and they have to give their statement, they may not recall having heard/noticed the footsteps until the major events being discussed.

Anyway, I don't want to bore everyone by revisiting a discussion that concluded ages ago and is unlikely to conclude any differently now. But thanks again.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

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

Much thanks! This will be a big help when the Church of Lechmere starts drawing ley lines again.

Can you also do one with the Pinchin Street Torso, St Philip's Church (the block surrounded by Stepney Way, Turner Street, Newark Street, and New Road), and 22 Doveton?

[JeffHamm]

The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing - 46 letters

4 x 6 = 24

There are 24 letters in Charles Allen ‘Jack’ Lechmere!

I think I might be on to something.

Add it to the list.

Hi Herlock,

I think you might be, but consider this:

I am Jack the Ripper Aardvark = 24 letters

with the obvious implication that Aardvark is the signature, have we uncovered the key to the confessional?

As suggested by Hunter S. Thompson, it's time to think heavy, drink heavy, and make many heavy notes.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I think you might be, but consider this:

I am Jack the Ripper Aardvark = 24 letters

with the obvious implication that Aardvark is the signature, have we uncovered the key to the confessional?

As suggested by Hunter S. Thompson, it's time to think heavy, drink heavy, and make many heavy notes.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I keep forgetting the aardvark.

Hunter S. Thompson knew what he was talking about.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can understand the ones selling books or publicizing their videos. And I'm not just talking profit, I'm talking being worried their reputations will take a hit for being wrong. They don't realize that they hurt their reputation more by not admitting the error. (And in the case of the fascist, they have no reputation to lose.)

I know what you mean. The defence of the ‘gap’ was a jaw-dropper for me.

[JeffHamm]

Much thanks! This will be a big help when the Church of Lechmere starts drawing ley lines again.

Can you also do one with the Pinchin Street Torso, St Philip's Church (the block surrounded by Stepney Way, Turner Street, Newark Street, and New Road), and 22 Doveton?

Ok. In blue. I think I have the location of the Pinchin Street Torso roughly correct (at the railway crossings of Pinchin Street and Back Church Lane) I could have it wrong. Was it to the east a bit of where I have it, more towards/at Pinchin and Christian Street? I've searched for maps that locate it, but the locations I've seen varies from map to map. I placed the marker for the Church in the middle of it.

- Jeff

[GUT]

Personally, I have no problem with the initial idea of "Hey, what about that guy who found Nichols? Maybe we should look at him more closely." as a valid idea worthy of following up. It is not unheard of that the solution to a case was simply overlooked and that the offender was identified early and dismissed prematurely, or not recognized as someone worthy of further scrutiny.

However, Cross/Lechmere has been put to further scrutiny, and now that that has been done, nothing further has emerged that has lead to an indication of guilt. The arguments that are put forth are complicated and often self-contradictory (he's a clever, cool, manipulative psychopath who makes obviously stupid decisions; i.e. he can think on his feet fast enough to cleverly lie to PC Mizen to get PC Mizen to leave him immediately without checking him out to avoid risking PC Mizen finding blood on him or the knife, etc, but rather than allow Paul to just sidestep him and move on he calls him over to involve him in the situation and create a potential witness who discovers the murder and him at it - the "guilty explanation"? he's a psychopath, I can argue he can do anything!, to throw one example out off the top of my head. And yet, he's such a clever psychopath that there are not other indications from his life of his psychopathy). The entire case against Cross/Lechmere is a house of cards, built upon viewing everything through a lens that warps any any and everything to reach guilt as the conclusion, rather than evaluating the events and finding they most easily lead one to guilt. It is a case that exemplifies tunnel-vision and confirmation bias to such an extent it could be given as an example of both in text books.

Was he worth checking out? Absolutely. Did checking him out uncover anything that indicates his involvement? Absolutely not.

That doesn't mean there won't continue to be those who push "the solution", but there comes a point when one has to differentiate between the unconvinced and the unconvincable.

- Jeff

Very well put Jeff, plus the constant over egging of the pudding.

If they want to push a suspect I will have way more respect if they acknowledge the weaknesses in their case rather then try to deny them.

[Abby Normal]

Herlock, Jeff and Fiver
your all great posters and know your stuff, and yes Lechmerians over egg the pudding.
But your ridicule of this suspect does you no favors.hes as good a suspect as any other and better than most.