Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Newbie]

A) But if he’d known that a Police Officer had passed down Bucks Row recently that would have been Neil at around 3.15. Surely we can’t suspect that Lechmere hung around in Bucks Row for 25 minutes or so in the hope that a woman might pass? Also why would he have gone on to kill in a street on a police beat? And one where the officer had passed 30 minutes earlier leaving an extremely high possibility that he was due back?
B) But that could be said about any of the crime scenes unless it’s being suggested that the killer new all the beats?
C) Paul could have shouted for help while he was at the scene with Lechmere.
D) and E) Fleeing the scene would have been a no-brainer. Waiting for Paul would have resulted in very obvious and very serious and totally avoidable risks. Once he has Paul with him Lechmere completely gave up control of his own destiny to a man he didn’t know from Adam. He’s placed himself in the company of a man who he’d have suspected would have suggested going for a Constable. This introduces risks like walking past street lamps which might illuminate any wet blood that he might have had on him (not to mention when in the presence of a Constable) Then how was Lechmere to have known that the Constable wouldn’t insist that they returned to the scene with him then, after seeing that she was dead, to submit to a search? It’s just so unlikely.

Fiver makes an excellent point when he asked why a guilty Lechmere (forward thinking enough t0 come up with the scam) didn’t lie and say that he’d heard a man running away? He could even have pretended to have been out of breath and said “I tried to run after him but he was to quick for me.”

Ill add another ‘why not.’ As the Mizen Scam has been suggested as a way that Lechmere could talk to the Constable out of Paul’s earshot why didn’t he just say to Paul “we will have more chance of finding a Constable if we split up. I’ll go this way….”

Flee where? If Lechmere was the killer, all he would know is the guy coming up Buck's row ain't a cop (no lantern), but he wouldn't know the proximity of the footsteps (& perhaps even the direction) upon first notice....being somewhat occupied. He also would know that he has a good excuse for being there at that time, and based on the Mary Kelly murder, we know he had good social skills, and must of had some confidence in his power to persuade. Mizen would have been close to the intersection of Buck's row and Baker, based on his route and where he would be 5 minutes later. If Lech flees and hangs a left on Winthrop street and doubles back, or tries to head to Whitechapel, he doesn't know who he might run into .... and that would also be a risk. Maybe he runs into someone at the moment in which the newcomer arrives at the body and starts yelling "murder!". By staying put, he knew that he had a good alibi.

Jack the ripper was no doubt a very cool customer. What no one has pointed out is that the Polly Nichols murder was the last time he chose a murder in so open a location. Why did he change to killing only in confined locations? Maybe because he barely got away on Buck's row.

My theory is that Lechmere spent some time casing the area, and wasn't expecting Paul to arrive at that time ... Paul, stating that the time was 3:45 am, was 5 minutes early ... his home clock was running fast. But, of course, that part is entirely speculative.

[Newbie]

I totally get what you're saying Herlock. It's a bit ridiculous how some posters twist things to imply Lechmere's guilt at every opportunity.

Posters are saying a lot of things are odd about the guy ...... and some things don't add up.
And there is quite a bit that is odd about him, that's a fact.

Why did he use the name Cross? He never used it, save perhaps when he ran over the boy (assuming that was him).
In that case it made sense, because he was availing himself of his employer's resources in his defense.
Since it was his step father who got him the job at Pickford's,
he most likely was entered into the company's administrative records as Charles Cross;
But in this case?

Why did Paul not notice him 50 yards ahead?
Why does his version of the conversation not conform to PC Mizen's? That's kind of important
Why did he furnish the name of Cross to authorities?
Why did he not furnish his address in his inquest testimony? Everyone else did, save 1 - 2 individuals, over the course of the inquest.
Why did he show up at the inquest wearing his work clothes? No one else was mentioned wearing work clothes.
Why did none of his descendants know of his discovering Polly Nichol's body ... why did he not tell his own family?


It all has the appearance of a guy who was trying to keep his family in the dark, no? Maybe he routinely left home at 3:15 am?
In that case, a neighbor or his wife might know otherwise. A neighbor, reading the morning paper and seeing a Charles Cross
from Pickford's testifying to leaving home at 3:30 am will think nothing of it. A neighbor, seeing a Charles Lechmere of Dutton street,
testifying to leaving home at 3:30 am, will talk to other neighbor's and wives about it, who might know otherwise.

That's what it looks like to me.

[Newbie]

As to Lechmere inventing someone running away:

Why would he do that?

He wants to give his testimony and fade away.
He doesn't want to bring attention his way

Maybe, there is a witness at the top of Buck's row at 3:38 am who will say otherwise?
How would he know?


Didn't Lech say that he could hear all the way up the street in that bit of testimony?

If Lechmere isn't the killer of Polly Nichols, and the Ripper (based on Lechmere's testimony) was already off of Buck's row,
one must then ask why did the Ripper not display the body?

He was disturbed by someone who didn't see the body when passing by, or didn't want to stop and help?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Flee where?

Away from the woman that he’d just murdered. As any murderer would have done. Name a serial killer who has murdered a woman and then stood around waiting for a spectator?

If Lechmere was the killer, all he would know is the guy coming up Buck's row ain't a cop (no lantern)
but he wouldn't know the proximity of the footsteps (& perhaps even the direction) upon first notice....being somewhat occupied.

Or we could suggest that this was a man on his first murder who would have been on high alert looking up at every noise?

He also would know that he has a good excuse for being there at that time, and based on the Mary Kelly murder, we know he had good social skills, and must of had some confidence in his power to persuade.

I’d say that that’s an exaggeration. Those women weren’t looking for Oscar Wilde. As long as the guy could talk, had cash and wasn’t foaming at the mouth then he’d have been ok.

Mizen would have been close to the intersection of Buck's row and Baker, based on his route and where he would be 5 minutes later. If Lech flees and hangs a left on Winthrop street and doubles back, or tries to head to Whitechapel, he doesn't know who he might run into .... and that would also be a risk. Maybe he runs into someone at the moment in which the newcomer arrives at the body and starts yelling "murder!". By staying put, he knew that he had a good alibi.

There was always a chance of the killer running into a Constable but he had eyes. It was nowhere near as suicidally risky as waiting for someone to arrive because he couldn’t have failed to have known of the likelihood of them seeking a Constable. And what if the guy shouted ‘murder’ while Lechmere was at the scene? Constable arrives and decides to search them. Knife in his pocket, potentially with blood on him etc?

Jack the ripper was no doubt a very cool customer. What no one has pointed out is that the Polly Nichols murder was the last time he chose a murder in so open a location. Why did he change to killing only in confined locations? Maybe because he barely got away on Buck's row.

Which would include someone killing Nichols and then hearing Lechmere approach. And what favours the unknown killer heavily is that he fled the scene.

My theory is that Lechmere spent some time casing the area, and wasn't expecting Paul to arrive at that time ... Paul, stating that the time was 3:45 am, was 5 minutes early ... his home clock was running fast. But, of course, that part is entirely speculative.

This still gives us a man killing a woman on his way to work which is unlikely in the extreme (and no other examples of this type of behaviour from crime history have ever been found as far as I’m aware.) Not only that, we know that the murder and mutilations could only have taken one or two minutes and so if he’d been disturbed then he’d only just killed her (no more than two minutes before Paul’s arrival) and twenty minutes before being due to begin work which would have potentially left him needing a clean up and, as per the other murders, if he hadn’t been interrupted he might have removed organs, so what would he have done with them in the 15 minutes or so between the completion and his arrival at work?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Posters are saying a lot of things are odd about the guy ...... and some things don't add up.
And there is quite a bit that is odd about him, that's a fact.

Why did he use the name Cross? He never used it, save perhaps when he ran over the boy (assuming that was him).
In that case it made sense, because he was availing himself of his employer's resources in his defense.
Since it was his step father who got him the job at Pickford's,
he most likely was entered into the company's administrative records as Charles Cross;
But in this case?

How do you know that he never used it?

What advantage did he gain from giving the name Cross when he gave his correct first names and his address. The name thing is a complete red herring.

Why did Paul not notice him 50 yards ahead?

As Steve Blomer has shown that is simply isn’t an issue.

Why does his version of the conversation not conform to PC Mizen's? That's kind of important

Miscommunication’s occur. It’s a fact of life. We can’t read anything into this. That Lechmere had a ‘Mizen Scam’ isn’t even close to feasible. It’s an invention to try and shoehorn Lechmere into the ripper’s shoes.

Why did he furnish the name of Cross to authorities?

A non-issue. If he was being deceitful why didn’t he call himself Fred Smith and give a false address and place of work?

Why did he not furnish his address in his inquest testimony? Everyone else did, save 1 - 2 individuals, over the course of the inquest.

Why did he show up at the inquest wearing his work clothes? No one else was mentioned wearing work clothes.

He probably intended to go straight back to work.

Why did none of his descendants know of his discovering Polly Nichol's body ... why did he not tell his own family?

How do you know that he didn’t tell someone but they just didn’t pass on the information?

It all has the appearance of a guy who was trying to keep his family in the dark, no? Maybe he routinely left home at 3:15 am?
In that case, a neighbor or his wife might know otherwise. A neighbor, reading the morning paper and seeing a Charles Cross
from Pickford's testifying to leaving home at 3:30 am will think nothing of it. A neighbor, seeing a Charles Lechmere of Dutton street,
testifying to leaving home at 3:30 am, will talk to other neighbor's and wives about it, who might know otherwise.

That's what it looks like to me.

It looks to me exactly what it was. A clearly innocent guy who did exactly what he said. He found a body on his way to work. Called another guy over to take a look and then went to look for a Constable. He then shows up at the inquest and gives an entirely plausible account of what went on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As to Lechmere inventing someone running away:

Why would he do that?

He wants to give his testimony and fade away.
He doesn't want to bring attention his way

Maybe, there is a witness at the top of Buck's row at 3:38 am who will say otherwise?
How would he know?


Didn't Lech say that he could hear all the way up the street in that bit of testimony?

If Lechmere isn't the killer of Polly Nichols, and the Ripper (based on Lechmere's testimony) was already off of Buck's row,
one must then ask why did the Ripper not display the body?

He was disturbed by someone who didn't see the body when passing by, or didn't want to stop and help?

Seriously? He missed out on the chance of claiming to have heard or seen the killer because someone might have been standing around at the corner of Bucks Row? I’m sorry Newbie but this is why some people (myself included) get a little irritated by some of those proposing Lechmere. Everything is seen with the guilty goggles on. What’s also noticeable is that the Police at the time saw nothing remotely suspicious about Lechmere’s behaviour.

The Lechmere ‘cottage industry’ is getting well out of hand. Lechmere gets considered such a great suspect just because he found a body (and then a mythical ‘gap’ is manipulated into being to create suspicion. Two men are responsible for this totally unjustified crusade I'm afraid. It’s a campaign of misinformation, exaggeration, selective editing, unlikely speculation and self-interest. Lechmere has to be ‘considered’ but that’s it. He’s no more likely that Hutchinson or other ‘around at the time’ suspects.

[Lewis C]

If Lechmere isn't the killer of Polly Nichols, and the Ripper (based on Lechmere's testimony) was already off of Buck's row,
one must then ask why did the Ripper not display the body?

Her clothes were raised almost to her stomach. Doesn't that constitute "displaying the body"? It might be a lesser degree of display than other murders, but he escalated in other ways, why not also an escalation in display?

[Fiver]

As to Lechmere inventing someone running away:

Why would he do that?

He wants to give his testimony and fade away.
He doesn't want to bring attention his way

This has already been explained. Claiming to have heard someone else means more attention would be spent looking for them. It would have been a smart thing for a murderer to do. Even an innocent man might have been tempted to lie and say he heard someone to divert attention to himself.

Maybe, there is a witness at the top of Buck's row at 3:38 am who will say otherwise?
How would he know?

If there was another person at the head of Buck's Row, that would support a claim to have heard someone else, because there really would be someone else.

Didn't Lech say that he could hear all the way up the street in that bit of testimony?

Hearing sounds in front of you better than sounds behind you is a basic fact of human anatomy.

"Since our pinnae face forward, you can hear sounds in front of you netter than sounds behind you."

And Lecheme was offering an opinion, not a certainty - "He thought that had anyone left the body after he had turned into Buck's-row he would have heard them."

If Lechmere isn't the killer of Polly Nichols, and the Ripper (based on Lechmere's testimony) was already off of Buck's row,
one must then ask why did the Ripper not display the body?

The question has no bearing on whether Lechmere killed Nichols.

It's also based on a false assumption. Polly Nichols body was displayed, but Robert Paul pulled her skirts down.

"She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged' - PC Neil

"The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down." - Robert Paul

"Before they left the body the other man tried to pull the clothes over the woman's knees, but they did not seem as though they would come down." - Charles Lechmere.

[Fiver]

Her clothes were raised almost to her stomach. Doesn't that constitute "displaying the body"? It might be a lesser degree of display than other murders, but he escalated in other ways, why not also an escalation in display?

The idea that Nichols clothes were not disarranged is one of the many falsehoods perpetrated by the Cult of Lechmere. Charles Lechmere testified that the other man [Robert Paul] tried to pull down Nichols clothing. When he testified, Robert Paul stated that he pulled down Nichols clothing.

[The Rookie Detective]

The only thing we can prove is that Nichols was killed and mutilated sometime BETWEEN the time PC Neil had walked passed the murder site and CLEARED the street, to the point that the killer had left the street BEFORE Lechmere arrives...

Key question 1 - What is the maximum possible time frame available between these 2 parameters?

(Lechmere himself testifies to having not heard anyone. And none of the policemen within the local vicinity neither saw or heard anyone either)

Key question 2 - Which direction did the killer go after the murder?

Key question 3 - Is there any evidence to suggest that the killer was interrupted?

If there is no evidence that the killer was interrupted, then the killer had time to leave the area without being detected, seen, or heard by anyone within the time frame available.
No evidence of interruption would indicate that Lechmere was innocent.

However, IF there is EVIDENCE that the killer was interrupted, then that would go against Lechmere, because...

...if no-one saw or heard anyone leave the murder site (even Lechmere himself) BUT the killer was interrupted, then the killer would have needed to have fled quickly.

Lechmere is the only person who could have interrupted the killer based on the time frame available, but because Lechmere heard no one leave, then that means the killer couldn't have been interrupted.

How can a killer be interrupted, but then have enough time to clear the murder site without being heard by Lechmere?

IF there's EVIDENCE that the killer was interrupted and the killer wasn't finished in his ritual, then Lechmere becomes the prime suspect.


Thoughts please?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The idea that Nichols clothes were not disarranged is one of the many falsehoods perpetrated by the Cult of Lechmere. Charles Lechmere testified that the other man [Robert Paul] tried to pull down Nichols clothing. When he testified, Robert Paul stated that he pulled down Nichols clothing.

Exactly Fiver. We have a created ‘gap’ and a created ‘guilty Lechmere concealing the injuries before Paul arrived’ plus the created issue of the name from which Lechmere gained absolutely no advantage (with the question - why didn’t he just invent a name not connected to himself in any way?) Adding the claim the Lechmere stood around waiting for a witness and the claim that he decided to ‘bluff it out’ on the strength that he’d somehow have been able to talk to a Constable out of the earshot of a man that was walking alongside him.

How has this stuff still being proposed as believable?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only thing we can prove is that Nichols was killed and mutilated sometime BETWEEN the time PC Neil had walked passed the murder site and CLEARED the street, to the point that the killer had left the street BEFORE Lechmere arrives...

Key question 1 - What is the maximum possible time frame available between these 2 parameters?

(Lechmere himself testifies to having not heard anyone. And none of the policemen within the local vicinity neither saw or heard anyone either)

Key question 2 - Which direction did the killer go after the murder?

Key question 3 - Is there any evidence to suggest that the killer was interrupted?

If there is no evidence that the killer was interrupted, then the killer had time to leave the area without being detected, seen, or heard by anyone within the time frame available.
No evidence of interruption would indicate that Lechmere was innocent.

However, IF there is EVIDENCE that the killer was interrupted, then that would go against Lechmere, because...

...if no-one saw or heard anyone leave the murder site (even Lechmere himself) BUT the killer was interrupted, then the killer would have needed to have fled quickly.

Lechmere is the only person who could have interrupted the killer based on the time frame available, but because Lechmere heard no one leave, then that means the killer couldn't have been interrupted.

How can a killer be interrupted, but then have enough time to clear the murder site without being heard by Lechmere?

IF there's EVIDENCE that the killer was interrupted and the killer wasn't finished in his ritual, then Lechmere becomes the prime suspect.


Thoughts please?

No one saw the killer leave any of the crime scenes but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t exist.

All that we would need to know….and we have no way of knowing it…..is at what distance did the sound of footsteps not carry? If it was, for example, 70 yards then the killer only had to have been 70 yards ahead of Lechmere. If he’d fled a minute or two before Lechmere he would have been a considerable distance away. We don’t know if the killer was interrupted or not. But if he was then we don’t know how soon the killer had heard Lechmere approach….

Maybe Lechmere was heavier footed or maybe his boots made more noise?
Maybe the killer had better hearing than Lechmere?
Maybe the killer was spooked by something other than Lechmere? A door slamming somewhere might have made him think that someone was leaving a building? A voice carried on the wind?
Maybe the killer wasn’t interrupted and that as this was his first murder he hadn’t come up with the idea of removing body parts yet?

[Aethelwulf]

About 3.30 am seems like a decent estimate of when Nicholls was attacked.

An important statement, throwing considerable light on a point hitherto surrounded with some uncertainty - the time the crime was committed in Buck's-row, or the body deposited there - was made this afternoon by Mrs. Harriet Lilley, who lives two doors from the spot where the deceased was discovered. Mrs. Lilley said: - I slept in front of the house, and could hear everything that occured in the street. On that Thursday night I was somehow very restless. Well, I heard something I mentioned to my husband in the morning. It was a painful moan - two or three faint gasps - and then it passed away. It was quite dark at the time, but a luggage went by as I heard the sounds. There was, too, a sound as of whispers underneath the window. I distinctly heard voices, but cannot say what was said - it was too faint. I then woke my husband, and said to him, "I don't know what possesses me, but I cannot sleep to-night." Mrs. Lilley added that as soon as she heard of the murder she came to the conclusion that the voices she heard were in some way connected with it. The cries were very different from those of an ordinary street brawl.

It has been ascertained that on the morning of the date of the murder a goods train passed on the East London Railway at about half-past three - the 3.7 out from New-cross - which was probably the time when Mary Ann Nicholls was either killed or placed in Buck's-row.

[The Rookie Detective]

Brilliant comments and viewpoint as usual Herlock.

I believe there may have been another man; the REAL killer.

He arrived with Nichols between 3.18am - 3.20am... a few minutes after PC Neil had cleared the area.

It took him 2 minutes to pick his spot and engage with her, giving her a false sense of security.

1 minute to strangle her (slow her pulse and blood pressure) and then get her to the floor

2 minutes to inflict all the injuries

1 minute to stand back, replace his knife, check himself for blood and then admire his work...

That's a MINIMUM TOTAL of 6 minutes.

and he left the body between 3.24am - 3.26am

He was completely clear of the street by 3.28am

That's a total arrival, killing, leaving and clearing time of 10 minutes.

it means that anyone arriving in the street AFTER 3.29am would have missed the killer escaping.

There's no way that ANY killer would have spent more than 10 minutes with their victim (including arrival and escape time) if they were OUTSIDE.

That's a 10 minute window as a minimum requirement for factoring in the killer arriving and escaping.

If the time between PC Neil leaving the street to the point when Lechmere enters the street (and hears no one) is more than 10 minutes, then Lechmere is NOT the killer.

If the time is less than 10 minutes...then Lechmere is likely to be the killer and was caught with his victim by Paul.

The ripper NEEDS 10 minutes, because you have to factor in his arriving, having a brief interaction, and then attacking his victim, before carrying out mutilations and then leaving and clearing the street before anyone saw or heard him.

Any less than 10 minutes is just unrealistic and just adds to the myth of someone who was just an ordinary man, who still needed time to come and go.

So, to summarize... If there is LESS than 10 minutes between PC Neil leaving the street and Lechmere about to enter the street, then Lechmere has to be in the running as the ripper.
I.e. If Lechmere arrives in the street BEFORE 3.29am, then he would have seen the killer, or he was the killer.

If however there was MORE than 10 minutes, then Lechmere is almost certainly innocent and the killer must have left just as Lechmere was about to enter the street.

So, what's the most ACCURATE time frame?

We know PC Neil passed through at 3.15am and so it's impossible for the ripper to have entered the street with Nichols before 3.15am. We also know that the killer had to of left the street BEFORE anyone else entered the street.

I find it unlikely that there was yet ANOTHER person who entered the street BETWEEN the killer leaving and Lechmere arriving; because there's no time to factor someone else in and there's no evidence to suggest there was another person who interrupted the killer.

It is therefore almost certain that Lechmere was the first person to enter the street AFTER the killer had left the street. Lechmere may or may not have interrupted the killer, but he was the first person to physically enter the street after the killer had left.

Thoughts please?

[The Rookie Detective]

About 3.30 am seems like a decent estimate of when Nicholas was attacked.

An important statement, throwing considerable light on a point hitherto surrounded with some uncertainty - the time the crime was committed in Buck's-row, or the body deposited there - was made this afternoon by Mrs. Harriet Lilley, who lives two doors from the spot where the deceased was discovered. Mrs. Lilley said: - I slept in front of the house, and could hear everything that occured in the street. On that Thursday night I was somehow very restless. Well, I heard something I mentioned to my husband in the morning. It was a painful moan - two or three faint gasps - and then it passed away. It was quite dark at the time, but a luggage went by as I heard the sounds. There was, too, a sound as of whispers underneath the window. I distinctly heard voices, but cannot say what was said - it was too faint. I then woke my husband, and said to him, "I don't know what possesses me, but I cannot sleep to-night." Mrs. Lilley added that as soon as she heard of the murder she came to the conclusion that the voices she heard were in some way connected with it. The cries were very different from those of an ordinary street brawl.

It has been ascertained that on the morning of the date of the murder a goods train passed on the East London Railway at about half-past three - the 3.7 out from New-cross - which was probably the time when Mary Ann Nicholls was either killed or placed in Buck's-row.

Now that IS fascinating...the timing of the train.

I believe the killer needed a minimum of 10 minutes to arrive, interact, attack, kill, mutilate, admire, leave and clear the area.

It essentially puts Lechmere in the clear because the killer could have arrived at 3.18am and been gone by 3.28am.

However, the train passing by is interesting because the killer may have used the sound of the passing train to mask the attack.

If the train took a minute of so to pass, that would have covered the duration of the attack. The attack itself would have taken no more than 3 or 4 minutes because the killer wouldn't have spent too long for fear of being caught.

I believe he was aware of the beats of the police and knew he would have a clear 10 minutes. He almost certainly had a pocket watch and timed himself. He was methodical, ritualistic and clinically precise in his methods and application. Hence the reason he was never caught at the scene.

If the murder was committed at the time the train passed then it doesn't help Lechmere's case because the later we push it back the more it implicates Lechmere's arrival time being suspect.

Underlining the word right TRACK is possibly a reference to the train.

Did he use the train as his way of muting the attack, or by a means of escape?

What was the depth of the drop from Buck Row down onto the train line?

If he wasn't spotted going east or west, maybe he went via the trainline over the fence?

Is that a viable means of escape?