Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Aethelwulf]

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?

If lech is leaving home 'around' 3.30 and the train passed at 'about' 3.30 it is unlikely that he is in bucks row at 'about' 3.30.

[John Wheat]

There is only one problem with Lechmere as a suspect. A lack of evidence.

[Fiver]

I introduced the laundry list because a previous poster inquired as to the arguments Lechmerites pose as to a belief in his guilt.
So, I obliged .... his list was incomplete.

Two of your points were things that Lewis had already mentioned. That gives the impression you either didn't read or didn't understand his post and just regurgitated a list of Cult of Lechmere claims.

I'd rather focus on one of these 'errors' at a time; anything else would be a superficial exchange of sound bites.

You were the one who chose to introduce the laundry list.

[Lewis C]

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?

Instead of talking about minimum and maximum times, I'd prefer to talk about most likely times. I figure that the 2 times we have been given that are most likely to be accurate are the train at 3:30, And PC Mizen's time of 3:45 for the time that he talked to Lechmere and Paul. I think that if anyone know what time it was, it would be Mizen, as he was getting people up for work. So let's work backward form 3:45. What is the best estimate of the amount of time it would take from when Lechmere spotted Paul to when the two of them met with Mizen? During this period of time, Paul approached Lechmere, the two of them examined Nichols' body, and they walked to Mizen. I welcome others' thoughts on this, but I would estimate that all of that would have taken about 8 minutes, meaning that Lechmere first spotted Paul at about 3:37. I think it likely that the murder occurred when the train passed at 3:30.

Under this scenario, Lechmere cannot be excluded as the possible murderer of Nichols, but given everything else we know, I think that what is more likely is the killer fled when he heard Lechmere approach from the distance, or he was spooked by something else that happened at about the same time. I don't see any problem with the killer becoming aware of Lechmere without Lechmere becoming aware of the killer. He would have probably initially fled to the west, but might have soon turned north or south.

[Lewis C]

Two of your points were things that Lewis had already mentioned. That gives the impression you either didn't read or didn't understand his post and just regurgitated a list of Cult of Lechmere claims.



You were the one who chose to introduce the laundry list.

That's right, and "What arguments do Lechmerites pose as to a belief in his guilt" isn't quite what I asked. I thought it was clear from my post that I was familiar with many arguments that Lechmerites make, so instead of asking that all of them be repeated, I asked, "What's the best reason for suspecting Lechmere besides the 4 that I've listed above?" I thought it almost inevitable that if a lot of reasons were listed, most would be weak, but if one were to limit oneself to what one thinks is the best reason, it might be a decent one.

[Fiver]

How about the 'error' that Lechmere and Paul did not know of the other's existence until Lechmere was at the point of Polly Nichols body?

That is an error - on your part.

Lechmere testified he heard Paul approaching about 40 yards behind him.

Paul testified that he saw Lechmere standing in the middle of the street. Paul did not testify how far away that was. Paul did not testify if he heard Lechemre before he saw him, nor did Paul testify at what distance he heard Lechmere.

[B][COLOR=#e74c3c]"It looked like a tarpaulin sheet, but walking to the middle of the road he (Lechmere) saw that it was the figure of a woman. At the same time, he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's Row in the direction that the witness had come from." - East London Observer

So if Lechmere was walking about 50 yards ahead of Paul for quite some time, how did either not notice the other?

You repeat your error. We don't know how far away they were when Paul noticed Lechmere. At 50 yards distance, Lechmere only would have been visible to Paul after Paul entered Bucks row. And we don't know how far Paul could see down Buck's Row. Based on Jeff Hamm's animations, which assume only a 40 yard difference, it seems Paul would have had 40 to 45 seconds to notice Lechmere in front of him.

1. Would they have been paying attention to their surroundings - maybe they were just inattentive? Common sense will tell you that that can't be true - Buck's row was a dangerous street. Paul, in his interview with Loyd's of London reporter said:

"Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about."

Robert Paul clearly felt in danger going through the area. Charles Lechmere clearly did not - he immediately approached a complete stranger, Robert Paul.

There is no evidence that Paul or Lechmere was inattentive.

2. Did Paul's/Lechmere's footsteps pass a certain decibel threshold? And the answer would be absolutely. PC O'Neil testified at the inquest that, while standing next to Polly Nichols body, he heard the other PC's footsteps down at the intersection of Brady - some 120 + yards away.

" I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him." - Loyd's weekly

There is more to perception than decibel level - our brains filter out sensory information that we consider unimportant. Also, we heard things better when they are in front of us. PC Neil heard PC Thain at 120 yards. Lechmere heard Paul at 40 yards behind him. We don't know how far away Lechmere was when Paul heard him in front of him.

Since neither Paul nor Lechmere indicated as to being aware of the (some claim that certain locations had lighting) the other, it is not credible that Lechmere was some 50 yards ahead. The conclusion is that either Lechmere was lying or both had hearing problems (and since they seemed to respond to the questions at the inquest without problems, we can rule the latter out).

You repeating a false claim does not make it true. Lechmere noticed Paul at a distance of 40 yards behind him. We don't know what distance Paul noticed Lechmere at.

Lechmere lied; there is no way of avoiding that conclusion. If he was not about 50 yards ahead, as he claimed, the next question is how much sooner did he arrive at the location of Polly Nichols body?

And when did he start telling the truth?

Since you started with a false premise, it is unsurprising that you came to a false conclusion. There is no evidence that Charles Lechmere lied.

[Fiver]

Flee where?

Coroner: Whitechapel-road is busy in the early morning, I believe. Could anybody have escaped that way?
PC Neil: Oh yes, sir. I saw a number of women in the main road going home. At that time any one could have got away.

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.

Based on the positioning of Nichols body, her killer would have been facing east. He would have been able to tell if someone was approaching from in front or behind.

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.

You are using circular reasoning - assuming Lechmere's guilt to "prove" Lechmere's guilt.

Lechmere had an excuse for being there. He did not have an excuse for blood on his hands, blood on his clothes, or a bloody knife in his pocket.

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.

Walking past a hypothetical stranger in the darkness where you might be seen for a few moments is a small hypothetical danger.

Hailing Paul and spending an extended time with him is a greater and certain danger. So is walking with Paul to find PC Mizen. Talking to Mizen is an even greater risk - he has a lantern. Continuing to walk with Paul almost to Spitalfield's Market is yet more danger.

So either Charles Lechmere was innocent or the most stunning stupid serial killer to walk the face of the earth.

And why would the killer go onto Winthrop Street?

Coming to a consideration of the perpetrator of the murder, the Coroner said: It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection, for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person. If, however, blood was principally on his hands, the presence of so many slaughter-houses in the neighbourhood would make the frequenters of this spot familiar with blood- stained clothes and hands, and his appearance might in that way have failed to attract attention while he passed from Buck's-row in the twilight into Whitechapel-road, and was lost sight of in the morning's market traffic.

Maybe he runs into someone at the moment in which the newcomer arrives at the body and starts yelling "murder!".

Bluffing your way past a hypothetical individual would be a lot easier than spending an extended period of time with Robert Paul and talking to PC Mizen.

By staying put, he knew that he had a good alibi.

Staying put would not give Nichols killer an alibi, but would greatly increase his risk of getting caught.

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.

Your scenario doesn't have the Ripper barely getting away on Bucks Row. It has the Ripper brazenly fooling Paul and bluffing his way past a policeman with a lantern even though he has blood on his hands, blood on his clothes, and a bloody knife in his pocket. It then has the Ripper brazenly identifying himself to the police, bluffing his way through the inquest, and fooling the police, the coroner, and the press.

A killer who barely got away would likely try to reduce his risk in the future.

A killer who took repeated, unnecessary risks, and fooled everyone would have no reason to become more cautious. An ego that size would probably lead to even bigger risks being taken in the future.

The Ripper changing to more secluded locations for killing is further evidence that Charles Lechmere was not the Ripper.

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.

Most of what you have said is highly speculative, when it wasn't completely false.

Why would the Ripper spend any time casing the area?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why would Lechmere have needed to case an area that he’d passed at the same time 6 days a week for years?

Why would he have found a prostitute elsewhere and then brought her to that spot?

If Lechmere had been looking for a prostitute to kill why would he have left it until 20 minutes or so before he was due at work. Why not 2am or 2.30 or even earlier. The idea that Lechmere killed Nichols at that spot at that time puts him at the extreme end of unlikeliness.

[Fiver]

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.

The only things that don't add up are the theories posted by the Cult of Lechmere.

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?

So much for your claim that you would stop using sound bite laundry lists.

* We don't know what distance Paul saw or heard Lechmere at. It is not evidence of his guilt.

* Why do you ignore Robert Paul's testimony? Paul supported Lechmere's version of the conversation and contradicted PC Mizen's version.

* Why did one of the Eddowes witnesses furnish the name Lawende to the authorities when he'd been using the name Joseph Lavender since 1871 in official records? Is that evidence of Lawende's guilt? Of course not. Charles Allen Lechmere using his stepfather' surname is not evidence of his guilt either.

* Why does the Cult of Lechmere keep repeating this lie? The newspaper accounts show that he gave his home and work addresses in his inquest testimony. He also gave his name as Charles Allen Cross, a name that he had been listed under before. Lechmere was not trying to hide his identity.

* Why does the Cult of Lechmere think that what he wore to the inquest is evidence of guilt? It's also false to claim that Lechmere was the only one to appear at the inquest in work clothes.

* Why are you assuming that Lechmere didn't tell his family about attending the inquest? Lots of great grandchildren and great great grandchildren don't know every detail of their ancestors' life. A lot wouldn't even know his name.

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.

He gave his work address at the inquest. He gave his home address at the inquest. He didn't just give his name as Charles Cross, he gave his name a s Charles Allen Cross. He had used his stepfather surname of Cross before.

A neighbor would have read of Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who worked for Pickfords at Broad Street Station and started his shift at 4am.

(Sarcasm)Clearly nobody would have ever suspected that this was the same person as Charles Allen Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who worked for Pickfords at Broad Street Station and started his shift at 4am. {/Sarcasm)

Charles Allen Lechmere wasn't trying to hide is identity from his family.

Charles Allen Lechmere wasn't trying to hide is identity from his neighbors.

Charles Allen Lechmere wasn't trying to hide is identity from his employers.

Charles Allen Lechmere wasn't trying to hide is identity from his coworkers.

Charles Allen Lechmere wasn't trying to hide is identity from the police.

Charles Allen Lechmere wasn't trying to hide is identity from the press.

In fact, if anybody knew him as Lechmere and not Cross, using the name Charles Allen Cross at the inquest would have drawn more attention and more questions, not hidden anything.

[Fiver]

Why would Lechmere have needed to case an area that he’d passed at the same time 6 days a week for years?

To be fair, Lechmere had only been walking that route to work for a couple months, but the idea that he needed to case the area is laughable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be fair, Lechmere had only been walking that route to work for a couple months, but the idea that he needed to case the area is laughable.

I didn’t realise that Fiver. I thought he’d worked there for years.

[The Rookie Detective]

He's only been walking that particular route for a few months, because he had moved dwellings a few months earlier. Same workplace but a different route to work.

[FrankO]

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

Besides the good point Fiver already brought up in his post #548 regarding your question above, how would this witness know it had actually been 3:38 am when he was there? And by whose/which clock would that have been? Neil's? Paul's? Lechmere's? Or was it just a guestimate? If so, how much would it be worth to the police? I'm sure Lechmere was familiar with the problem with knowing the time and could have figured that he could take his chances saying that he heard someone walking away ahead of him. In the end, it would be his word against the witness' word - if he would ever come forward.

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

It would seem likely that Mrs Lilley heard the murder taking place.

The killer needed a 10 minute period of time...

Arrival with Nichols
Interaction with Nichols
Attack Nichols through strangulation
Subdue and bring to the floor
Cut and mutilate
Check his work/himself,
Leave the scene
Clear the street.

This requires a minimum of 10 minutes.

I had initially been working under the assumption he had waited for PC Neil to pass through at 3.15am.
Meaning from arrival with Nichols to the point he cleared the street would have commenced no later than 3.18am (after PC Neil had passed through)

That would be 3.18 - 3.28am and would put to bed any claims that Lechmere was the killer with his alleged arrival at around 3.37am.

However, when you factor in Mrs Lilley's statement, it implies she heard the murder at the same time the train passed at approximately 3.30am.

If the train was on time of course

That would mean that the killer may have arrived at 3.25am with Nichols and based on the same time frame as above, he was in the middle of subduing Nichols as the train passed at 3.30am.
He would have then checked his work/himself and left the scene and cleared the street by 3.35am, which i approximately 2 minutes before Lechmere arrived.

I now believe that Lechmere missed the killer by no more than 2 minutes and possibly even disturbed the killer in some way.

But if that train was running late and the train passed at 3.35am, then there would be no time for the killer to leave the scene before Lechmere arrived..meaning Lechmere would be the killer.

The train timing is crucial because it's significant.

If we really look into Mrs Lilley's statement, it gives us a window into the scene.

She said she heard voices or whiseprs under the window, as in PLURAL. She heard more than one voice by her own admission.

So, does she specify if these faint voices she heard outside happened AFTER she heard the unusual moan? (Nichols suffering stab wounds to the throat)

If she heard voices BEFORE the moan, then she heard the killer and Nichols BEFORE he attacked her.

If she heard the voices AFTER the moan, then did she hear Lechmere and Paul talking after having discovered the body?

Or did she hear voices, or whispers under the window...but from the killer?

To me, hearing faint whispers outside may have even been when the killer was mutilating Nichols, as that may have been part of his sadistic ritual. And to hear VOICES as she claims, she may have heard the killer speaking in different tongues, ergo, did he talk to her in different voices and did he have what may be referred to as Split Personality disorder?

If Mrs Lilley heard those voices AFTER she heard the unusual moan, then she must have heard the killer speaking in different tongues or heard Lechmere and Paul talking about the body they'd just discovered.
It can't have been Nichols she heard talking, because the moan that was heard by Mrs Lilley, was the point Nichols was being murdered.

Knowing the correct order of what occurred is crucial to determine the facts of the timeline.

So what came first, the moan or the talking voices?

[Fiver]

I didn’t realise that Fiver. I thought he’d worked there for years.

As Rookie noted, Lechmere had been working a the Broad Street Station for a couple decades, but he had only moved to 22 Doveton a couple months before the murder.