Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fiver]

I think that Fiver was just saying that "she imagined the whole thing" is a possibility. It might be a rather remote possibility, but still a possibility. I think the two most likely possibilities are #1 (Nichols and an unidentified killer shortly BEFORE he killed her) and #5 (Lechmere and Paul AFTER having found Nichols).

Your two possibilities are the ones I consider most likely, but there is a chance that Lilley imagined the whole thing. The next morning, after thee was news of a murder, she might have subconsciously filled in vague sounds she heard (or dreamt before being woken by the train) turning them into something both more sinister and more interesting. There's also the possibility she just made the whole thing up - thats a real problem with high profile cases. Thats probably why they had PC Mizen ID Charlers Lechmere in court, to make sure he wasn't just a publicity seeker. Some have dismissed the testimony of Israel Schwartz, Matthew Packer, and George Hutchinson for this reason.

There's also the possibility of a reporter spicing up what a witness said to sell more papers. Robert Paul's newspaper account completely writes Lechmere out of the talk withe PC Mizen, erases any of Paul's doubts about her being dead, and strongly criticizes the police for how long the body had lain there. All of that changed when Paul gave evidence at the inquest.

[Lewis C]

Your two possibilities are the ones I consider most likely, but there is a chance that Lilley imagined the whole thing. The next morning, after thee was news of a murder, she might have subconsciously filled in vague sounds she heard (or dreamt before being woken by the train) turning them into something both more sinister and more interesting. There's also the possibility she just made the whole thing up - thats a real problem with high profile cases. Thats probably why they had PC Mizen ID Charlers Lechmere in court, to make sure he wasn't just a publicity seeker. Some have dismissed the testimony of Israel Schwartz, Matthew Packer, and George Hutchinson for this reason.

There's also the possibility of a reporter spicing up what a witness said to sell more papers. Robert Paul's newspaper account completely writes Lechmere out of the talk withe PC Mizen, erases any of Paul's doubts about her being dead, and strongly criticizes the police for how long the body had lain there. All of that changed when Paul gave evidence at the inquest.

Those are good points. Lilley imagining it or inventing it, while not what I think happened, is probably not as unlikely as I initially thought.

[ohrocky]

Not so long ago, I was walking home late one night when I came across what I initially thought was "stuff" that had been dumped in the street next to a churchyard wall. As I got closer I realised that it wasn't "stuff" but a young female who was totally unresponsive to my verbal attempts to rouse her. A woman coming home from a late shift entered the street and I sumoned her over. Whilst I had not thought it appropriate to touch the young woman or her belonings, my female compatriot had no such reservations. She poked and prodded the young woman and rumaged around in her bag. Whereupon she discovered a near empty bottle of vodka. She was incoherent and barely conscious. We called the emergency services.

Had the young woman been dead rather than just dead drunk, the Lechmerians would surely have had me hanged because:

1) I was walking a regular route (to home rather than to work but same thing)

2) I discovered a "bundle" that I initially thought was dumped rubbish but turned out to be a woman (who I thought may have been drunk or dead)

3) I summoned a passerby to see what I had discovered and they "touched the body"

4) We both called the emergency services (no point in seeking out a bobby on the beat in England now. We would still be looking)

There but for the grace of god goes Lech.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not so long ago, I was walking home late one night when I came across what I initially thought was "stuff" that had been dumped in the street next to a churchyard wall. As I got closer I realised that it wasn't "stuff" but a young female who was totally unresponsive to my verbal attempts to rouse her. A woman coming home from a late shift entered the street and I sumoned her over. Whilst I had not thought it appropriate to touch the young woman or her belonings, my female compatriot had no such reservations. She poked and prodded the young woman and rumaged around in her bag. Whereupon she discovered a near empty bottle of vodka. She was incoherent and barely conscious. We called the emergency services.

Had the young woman been dead rather than just dead drunk, the Lechmerians would surely have had me hanged because:

1) I was walking a regular route (to home rather than to work but same thing)

2) I discovered a "bundle" that I initially thought was dumped rubbish but turned out to be a woman (who I thought may have been drunk or dead)

3) I summoned a passerby to see what I had discovered and they "touched the body"

4) We both called the emergency services (no point in seeking out a bobby on the beat in England now. We would still be looking)

There but for the grace of god goes Lech.

The fact that you stood around to ‘bluff it out’ makes me suspicious Rocky.

I hope you gave your correct name?

[Aethelwulf]

Not so long ago, I was walking home late one night when I came across what I initially thought was "stuff" that had been dumped in the street next to a churchyard wall. As I got closer I realised that it wasn't "stuff" but a young female who was totally unresponsive to my verbal attempts to rouse her. A woman coming home from a late shift entered the street and I sumoned her over. Whilst I had not thought it appropriate to touch the young woman or her belonings, my female compatriot had no such reservations. She poked and prodded the young woman and rumaged around in her bag. Whereupon she discovered a near empty bottle of vodka. She was incoherent and barely conscious. We called the emergency services.

Had the young woman been dead rather than just dead drunk, the Lechmerians would surely have had me hanged because:

1) I was walking a regular route (to home rather than to work but same thing)

2) I discovered a "bundle" that I initially thought was dumped rubbish but turned out to be a woman (who I thought may have been drunk or dead)

3) I summoned a passerby to see what I had discovered and they "touched the body"

4) We both called the emergency services (no point in seeking out a bobby on the beat in England now. We would still be looking)

There but for the grace of god goes Lech.

i'm afraid the cult of lechmere has got too big to stop for mass of muppets out there. Just read the comments on some of the House of Lechmere videos. Clueless.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s little I find more embarrassing for the subject as a whole as the wholesale zealotry for a guilty Lechmere. It was a joke a few years ago but it’s got worse recently. Some will try absolutely anything to shoehorn this bloke into place. If it was as obvious as they try to make it sound the police would have slapped cuffs on him at the inquest.

[Dickere]

There’s little I find more embarrassing for the subject as a whole as the wholesale zealotry for a guilty Lechmere. It was a joke a few years ago but it’s got worse recently. Some will try absolutely anything to shoehorn this bloke into place. If it was as obvious as they try to make it sound the police would have slapped cuffs on him at the inquest.

They could hardly do that ahead of the other murders happening.

[John Wheat]

They could hardly do that ahead of the other murders happening.

The murders would have still occured though as Lechmere wasn't the Ripper.

[Fiver]

I watched the video, which is mostly about Lechmere's genealogy. The only real argument I could see for Lechmere's guilt was that since Lechmere's branch of the family was much less financially successful than other branches of the family, he may have been resentful. I don't find that convincing.

Not only is the motive unconvincing, it's based a false premise. Charles Allen Lechmere's branch of the family was less financially successful than some of the other branches, but there were other Lechmeres that were far worse off.

[Fiver]

They could hardly do that ahead of the other murders happening.

Press coverage shows that Polly Nichols was seen by many as the 2nd or even 3rd victim. And the other murders make Charles Allen Lechmere even less likely as a suspect - Chapman was killed after Lechmere started work, while the Double Event would have required Lechmere to stay up 23 hours straight or get up at least 3 hours early on his only day off.

[Fiver]

And those millions generally are considered suspects. The police in this case didn't seem to even consider Lech, ever: it's not like others, who the police suspected, and would have done a thorough checkup on their comings and goings, talking to others.

You are making an assumption. Most period records have been lost, so we have no idea if the police investigated Charles Lechmere or not.

You keep on drifting away from some uncomfortable things: he was evasive and dishonest on some very important points. How long was he out and about? I don't know. Why did he use Cross? Using that name disavailed him of the usefullness of family members and neighbors backing up his story. if the spot light was cast on him. that's taking an unnecessary chance. What if he was innocent, and suddenly became the object of suspicion by using Cross? That would ruin the families reputation.

You're drifting away from the facts. He was not evasive or dishonest with anyone.

His timing does disagree with Robert Paul's. His timing also agrees with the timings of PC Mizen, PC Thain, and PC Neil. The idea of a time gap is nonsense manufactured by the Cult of Lechmere.

At the inquest, he publicly identified himself as Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street who had worked for Pickfords at Broad Street Station for the last couple decades. The simple explanation is that most people knew him as Charles Allen Cross. The idea that he was trying to hide his identity is nonsense manufactured by the Cult of Lechmere.

[Fiver]

Whenever Lech left home, he most likely was not 50 yards in front of Paul, as he claimed. Pretty straight forward: focus on that.

That wasn't what Lechmere claimed, so your statement is anything but straightforward.

How much earlier did he leave home than 'around' 3:30 am - I haven't the foggiest. He would have wanted to avoid PC O'Neil between 3:10? and 3:20? heading down Buck's row. Where did he meet Polly Nichols? useless speculation. Probably not too far from the murder spot: she was drunk and the killer would have had to lead her to what he perceived to be the best location. Probably, not on White Chapel - but who knows? Jack the Ripper was an opportunist killer - most are, who passed up some opportunities because he felt it was not right. Friday morning was the right set up, evidently.

You're back to circular reasoning - assuming Lechmere is the Ripper to "prove" that Lechmere is the Ripper.

There is no evidence that Lechmere left home earlier than he claimed.

The issue is, and I can't repeat it strongly enough: if anyone is first to encounter a body, and everything about their story was verifiable as to their whereabouts, you would be damn sure to use family members and friends as witnesses, and not go by an assumed name.

Who would ever suspect that Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who had worked for Pickfords at the Broad Street Station for the past 20 years and whose shift started at 4AM might actually be the stepson of Thomas Cross, Charles Allen Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who had worked for Pickfords at the Broad Street Station for the past 20 years and whose shift started at 4AM?

What a puzzler? Who would ever figure it out?

Why does a middle aged married man use his childhood name?

His childhood name was Charles Lechmere. We have examples of him using the surname Cross in 1861 (age 11), 1876 (age 27), and 1888 (age 39).

The use of Cross clearly had nothing to do with the Ripper killings. If it was an attempt at deception, it wouldn't have fooled anyone with more brain cells than a house plant.

Why did he appear in court in his work clothes when he was not working that day? Explain it!

Why are you assuming he wasn't working that day? A half day's work pays better than no work at all and there were a lot of little Lechmeres to feed.

That's the simplest solution. Other possible answers might be:

* He was stopped by the police on the way to work and made to attend the inquest in what he was wearing at the time.
* He was asked to wear the same outfit he had worn before to make it easier for PC Mizen to identify him at the inquest. (PC Mizen doesn't impress me as having been the shiniest apple on the tree.)

Wearing a carman's uniform clearly wasn't an attempt at deception on Lechmere's part - he was a carman.

[Fiver]

Every paper, save one, failed to list his address. Every other witness (save two?), during the 4 days of the inquest, had their name and address mentioned starting their testimony. To say that he furnished his name is most likely wrong, unless most journalists missed it.

Your double standard is noted. Witnesses whose names are mentioned in none of the newspapers are not suspicious. Lechemre, whose address is listed in one, must be trying to hide something, even though it wasn't hidden.

Your double standard is also noted in your not questioning other things that only appeared in one newspaper, like the 40 yards estimate.

Charles Allen Lechmere gave his home address publicly at the inquest. The single newspaper, the Star, is enough to prove that. Supporting that is the the 4 September 1888 Morning Post, which while it does not directly mention Doveton, supports the Star account by also showing that Charles Lechmere testified about what streets he walked between his house and where he found the victim. The Coroner was legally required to get the name and address of all witnesses.

My point is that he didn't want family members and neighbors to know he was testifying. Certain other behaviors support that conviction.

Lechmere publicly gave his home and work addresses. He publicly gave his first and middle names. He gave his stepfathers surname. He testified the route he walked. He testified the name of his employer and when his shift started. He came forward voluntarily.

So either he wasn't trying to fool anyone or he was the luckiest idiot on the planet.

[Fiver]

It would be nice if you explained why you are asking why he wore his work clothes to the inquest. How does his wearing his work clothes point toward him being Nichols' killer in even the slightest way?

It doesn't. But facts never stopped the Cult of Lechmere.

In this case, they start with the lie that Lechmere was the only person to wear work clothes to one of the inquests. They then assume this "strange" behavior is "proof" that Lechmere was trying to hide something.

I guess they think that wearing a carman's uniform was going to trick someone into thinking a carman wasn't a carman.

[Herlock Sholmes]

They could hardly do that ahead of the other murders happening.

Not the best choice of phrase from me. Well spotted.