Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[erobitha]

I find the cult of Lechmere rather strange.

Then, that's from a Maybrickian.

[John Wheat]

I find the cult of Lechmere rather strange.

Then, that's from a Maybrickian.

Neither Lechmere or Maybrick were the Ripper. I suggest if you think either were then re-evaluate things and maybe look at more serious suspects.

[erobitha]

Neither Lechmere or Maybrick were the Ripper. I suggest if you think either were then re-evaluate things and maybe look at more serious suspects.

Thanks for that in-depth analysis. I now question all I have ever believed based on your two line post.

Thank you.

[John Wheat]

Thanks for that in-depth analysis. I now question all I have ever believed based on your two line post.

Thank you.

No problem.

[FrankO]

Whenever Lech left home, he most likely was not 50 yards in front of Paul, as he claimed.

Yes, Lechmere claimed he saw Paul when he was 30 to 40 yards away from him and, let's not forget, that he would have heard anybody leaving the body after he’d turned into Buck’s Row, if that would have been the case.

Stating both these things wasn’t the smartest thing to say if he was guilty, if you ask me. Because both but certainly in combination, obviously, might very well have provoked some further questions. Like, to Lechmere: so, why didn’t you hear Paul walking a short distance behind you then? And to Paul: did you hear someone walking in front of you or was the street ahead of you dead silent and, if you did hear someone, how far ahead would you have put him?

Would it have been a good move or a bad one on the part of a guilty Lechmere stating things like that?

[Newbie]

[QUOTE=Fiver;n813591]

This is another point against Lechmere being the Ripper. The Ripper was capable of cleaning up on the move. Charles Lechmere took multiple actions that would have exposed himself to being detected before he had a chance to clean up.

* He didn't just walk off.
* He stopped Robert Paul when Paul tried to just walk by without getting involved.
* He spent time with Paul, discussing the woman.
* He did not pull down Nichols clothing, which would have been an excellent way to provide an innocent excuse for blood on his hands or clothes.
* He walked together with Paul to look for a policeman instead of splitting up.
* He talked to PC Mizen, who carried a lantern that provided far better lighting than the street lamps.
* He continued to walk with Paul along Hanbury Street nearly to Spitalfield's Market.

Any one of those would have been stunningly stupid for a man with blood on his hands, blood on his clothes, and a bloody knife in his pocket.

Either Lechmere was one of the stupidest murderers in all of history or he was innocent.



You imagining something does not make it a fact. Even if a supervisor wasn't going to chew him out for being later, he wasn't going to get paid for time he didn't work and there were a lot of little Lechmeres to feed.

A 2nd interpretation of your point (I'm not certain whether you intended this - but it is a good point from my perspective) is that Lech (as the killer) could have arrived only a few minutes before Paul, encountered Polly Nichols standing right there, and after negotiating for her services, quickly killed her, so that he did actually leave home around 3:30 am; or, even better for Lech, if he did arrive a few minutes earlier, maybe he discovered the dead body, heard Paul's foot steps, and positioned himself in the middle of the street to pretend that he just arrived, fearful that he would be unduly blamed.[/quote[

So Charles Lechmere had the ninja skills to move from kneeling over the body on the side of the road, facing Robert Paul to shift to the middle of the road, standing, facing away from Robert Paul? If he was that good at moving unseen and unheard, he could have just walked off completely undetected by Robert Paul.



Your assumptions are not facts. We don't know if his friends, family, and neighbors knew him as Cross or Lechmere, but he had used his stepfather's surname before.



At the inquest he publicly identified himself as Charles Allen Cross, a carman who lived at 22 Doveton Street and had worked for Pickfords at the Broad Street Station for the last couple decades.

(Sarcasm) Clearly nobody would suspect that he was Charles Allen Lechmere, a carman who lived at 22 Doveton Street and had worked for Pickfords at the Broad Street Station for the last couple years. What a stunning clever deception - certain to fool his family, his neighbors, his employers, his coworkers, the police, and the press.(/Sarcasm)

You missed the conversation.

I was told that Lech couldn't possibly have been the killer because if Lech was disturbed in the act of killing by Paul, he would not have had the time to clean complete the act, clean up and make it to work on time.

I disagreed, and furnished reasons why.

As to the consistent argument that Lech had blood all over him, and should have been discovered, two points:

Point #1: Lech was not an IBM executive heading to the main office, he was a carman who would be expected to have spots of blood and grime on him.
Below is a website on Victorian washing habits of the working class in Victorian England. It claims that washings were typically done on Mondays,
and I would imagine that having soiled, blood stained clothing for carmen was to be expected by Friday.

Point #2: It was dark outside and there was not much lighting

Point #3: London streets smelled something awful - lot's of horse urine and crap and other delightful things permeating into the street.

Point #4: after the strangulation, and the stoppage of the heart, blood would be pulled by gravitation towards the slashed throat; some have claimed that that was the very reason why he slashed victim's throats. And since JtR didn't really get started on disemboweling his victim, there wasn't sufficient blood to worry about on him.

https://www.museumofcambridge.org.uk/resources/family-fun/victorian-wash-day/

[Newbie]

"Your assumptions are not facts. We don't know if his friends, family, and neighbors knew him as Cross or Lechmere, but he had used his stepfather's surname before.



At the inquest he publicly identified himself as Charles Allen Cross, a carman who lived at 22 Doveton Street and had worked for Pickfords at the Broad Street Station for the last couple decades.

(Sarcasm) Clearly nobody would suspect that he was Charles Allen Lechmere, a carman who lived at 22 Doveton Street and had worked for Pickfords at the Broad Street Station for the last couple years. What a stunning clever deception - certain to fool his family, his neighbors, his employers, his coworkers, the police, and the press.(/Sarcasm)"

Why do you keep on insisting he gave his address at the inquest? This is a very tenuous assertion - quite frankly, it seems a bit dishonest.
Since you claim to be driven by facts; well, what are the facts here?

Every paper providing descriptions of witness testimony over the 4 separate days of the inquest, routinely starts out with the name and address of the witness - save Lechmere and one or two other people. Every paper!!! Lech had only one paper write down his address, while all the rest for some mysterious reason broke away from their habit and failed to do so. That's more than 30 witnesses. You can say that Lech is also unique in that he furnishes an alias. Huh! that's strange, what is going on here?

So, answer me this: why did only one paper put down his address (and correctly I might add), while all the other papers missed it? There were tons of misspellings of names and addresses during the inquest ... using phonetics to guide them.

The old 'every one of his neighbors knew that Lech worked at Pickford's' doesn't cut it; he just moved to Doveton street a month beforehand, remember?
Reading about a Charles Cross, who works at Pickford's wouldn't ring a bell.

Of course, I'm not expecting an explanation from you about it. I always seem to be responding to your questions, and you never respond to mine.

Another fun fact: nobody in the Lechmere family knew that Lech was involved in discovering the body. Would you not call that fooling the family?

[Newbie]

Yes, Lechmere claimed he saw Paul when he was 30 to 40 yards away from him and, let's not forget, that he would have heard anybody leaving the body after he’d turned into Buck’s Row, if that would have been the case.

Stating both these things wasn’t the smartest thing to say if he was guilty, if you ask me. Because both but certainly in combination, obviously, might very well have provoked some further questions. Like, to Lechmere: so, why didn’t you hear Paul walking a short distance behind you then? And to Paul: did you hear someone walking in front of you or was the street ahead of you dead silent and, if you did hear someone, how far ahead would you have put him?

Would it have been a good move or a bad one on the part of a guilty Lechmere stating things like that?

Lechmere needed to explain why he was standing in the middle of the street, facing the approaching Paul.
It was suddenly convenient to hear Paul from 40 yards away, as opposed to 50 yards away.

Lechmere had 5 opportunities to prove himself innocent:

1. Paul mentioning having seen Lech or having heard him, before Lech arrived at Polly Nichols body
2. Giving a clear, unambiguous description to PC Mizen of what just had happened: primarily, that he had discovered Polly Nichols body
3. Doing the same thing Paul had done on the Friday afternoon, after Nichol's murder, while on his way home: interacting with a reporter or policeman who were at the murder site seeking witnesses.
4. Furnishing his actual name to the inquest: the one he used in everyday life and on official documents - Charles Lechmere
5. Catherine Eddowes apron not being abandoned right next to a road that Lech likely would use to get back home.

How many suspects had 5 chances to prove themselves innocent and failed each time?

[FrankO]

Lechmere needed to explain why he was standing in the middle of the street, facing the approaching Paul.
It was suddenly convenient to hear Paul from 40 yards away, as opposed to 50 yards away.

Lechmere had 5 opportunities to prove himself innocent:

1. Paul mentioning having seen Lech or having heard him, before Lech arrived at Polly Nichols body
2. Giving a clear, unambiguous description to PC Mizen of what just had happened: primarily, that he had discovered Polly Nichols body
3. Doing the same thing Paul had done on the Friday afternoon, after Nichol's murder, while on his way home: interacting with a reporter or policeman who were at the murder site seeking witnesses.
4. Furnishing his actual name to the inquest: the one he used in everyday life and on official documents - Charles Lechmere
5. Catherine Eddowes apron not being abandoned right next to a road that Lech likely would use to get back home.

How many suspects had 5 chances to prove themselves innocent and failed each time?

OK, let me go into the above.

1. If he was innocent, then that was just his bad luck. Lechmere had no influence over what Paul would or wouldn’t mention. Just it would have been his good luck in case he was guilty, that Paul didn’t mention hearing or seeing him move around the body and then away from it to take up his position in the middle of the road.
2. Apart from the fact that Mizen didn’t state much of anything in clear and unambiguous terms either and that it would have been in order for him to have asked the men some questions to try and establish their veracity as they were calling him away from his beat, the very fact that Lechmere didn’t mention to Mizen that he had found the body would have been good reason for the police to ask him some serious questions.
3. That’s mere speculation. We have no way to know if there were reporters or policemen when Lechmere returned home, nor even if he passed through Buck’s Row again. For all we know, he may well have taken a completely other route back home on account of a legitimate and checkable reason.
4. Surnames were hardly as important as they are now. It was commonplace for poor people not to have a fixed abode or a passport and many used an alias, which was completely allowed. In fact, you could use any name you wished. There are many examples in the Old Bailey of the day of people using another name than their birthname or official name. There are examples of cases filed under the alias (stepfather’s name, for instance), even though their official name was known at the time their case went to Old Bailey’s. A number of them also gave their official or birthname during Old Bailey or similar procedures of their own volition, just as a number of them only also gave it after being asked about it and some were only disclosed or discovered after their deaths. One example is a Norton Schauffenhaussen, who took the alias or alternative name of Norton Coulander because Schauffenhaussen was generally too difficult to pronounce. Just as a Minnie Groser, a German woman, called herself Valet Brown as it looked better. Some were known under the alias by one specific group of people or town or even street, and under his or her official name by another group in other places. Using an alternative name apparently didn’t have any legal consequences for the people using one, as simply there was no obligation to give your official name. And then there was Charles Alan Lechmere, who called himself Charles Alan Cross, after his late stepfather. As far as we all know, he never gave his official name, but there is at least one other man who did that. That was Charles Jones, who used the name Taylor in some court appearance without telling his birthname was Jones. So, apparently, there were people who did that and we have now discovered 2 who didn’t tell their official name during an inquest or other type of official proceedings and there’s no reason to think that they were these two. So, in short, the name issue is heavily overrated, as far as I’m concerned.
5. Yes, this might support the notion that Lechmere was the killer, but it doesn’t go any further than that. In and by itself the location of where the apron was found really doesn’t tell a thing about where the killer lived, it just tells us that he went in a certain direction after the murder, but beyond that, he could have gone in any direction.

However, none of your points make the point I made in post #620 go away.

[FrankO]

So, answer me this: why did only one paper put down his address (and correctly I might add), while all the other papers missed it? There were tons of misspellings of names and addresses during the inquest ... using phonetics to guide them.

There can be little doubt that he did give his address at the inquest. Or else you'd have to believe that this newspaper was able to track him down based on his 'false' name and his employer's name & address. But how could they have done that, if he wasn't known as Cross there?

How only one paper included his home address in his statement is indeed an interesting question, though. Possible answers, either way, can only be speculation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Your assumptions are not facts. We don't know if his friends, family, and neighbors knew him as Cross or Lechmere, but he had used his stepfather's surname before.



At the inquest he publicly identified himself as Charles Allen Cross, a carman who lived at 22 Doveton Street and had worked for Pickfords at the Broad Street Station for the last couple decades.

(Sarcasm) Clearly nobody would suspect that he was Charles Allen Lechmere, a carman who lived at 22 Doveton Street and had worked for Pickfords at the Broad Street Station for the last couple years. What a stunning clever deception - certain to fool his family, his neighbors, his employers, his coworkers, the police, and the press.(/Sarcasm)"

Why do you keep on insisting he gave his address at the inquest? This is a very tenuous assertion - quite frankly, it seems a bit dishonest.
Since you claim to be driven by facts; well, what are the facts here?

Every paper providing descriptions of witness testimony over the 4 separate days of the inquest, routinely starts out with the name and address of the witness - save Lechmere and one or two other people. Every paper!!! Lech had only one paper write down his address, while all the rest for some mysterious reason broke away from their habit and failed to do so. That's more than 30 witnesses. You can say that Lech is also unique in that he furnishes an alias. Huh! that's strange, what is going on here?

So, answer me this: why did only one paper put down his address (and correctly I might add), while all the other papers missed it? There were tons of misspellings of names and addresses during the inquest ... using phonetics to guide them.

The old 'every one of his neighbors knew that Lech worked at Pickford's' doesn't cut it; he just moved to Doveton street a month beforehand, remember?
Reading about a Charles Cross, who works at Pickford's wouldn't ring a bell.

Of course, I'm not expecting an explanation from you about it. I always seem to be responding to your questions, and you never respond to mine.

Another fun fact: nobody in the Lechmere family knew that Lech was involved in discovering the body. Would you not call that fooling the family?

I’m afraid that it’s your response that’s dishonest. David Orsam put this nonsense to bed in his Crossing The Line article. It’s yet another example of viewing evidence with the Lechmere Goggles on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lechmere needed to explain why he was standing in the middle of the street, facing the approaching Paul.
It was suddenly convenient to hear Paul from 40 yards away, as opposed to 50 yards away.

Lechmere had 5 opportunities to prove himself innocent:

1. Paul mentioning having seen Lech or having heard him, before Lech arrived at Polly Nichols body
2. Giving a clear, unambiguous description to PC Mizen of what just had happened: primarily, that he had discovered Polly Nichols body
3. Doing the same thing Paul had done on the Friday afternoon, after Nichol's murder, while on his way home: interacting with a reporter or policeman who were at the murder site seeking witnesses.
4. Furnishing his actual name to the inquest: the one he used in everyday life and on official documents - Charles Lechmere
5. Catherine Eddowes apron not being abandoned right next to a road that Lech likely would use to get back home.

How many suspects had 5 chances to prove themselves innocent and failed each time?

He proved himself innocent by not being so mind-numbingly stupid as to murder a woman on his way to work when he was twenty minutes away from clocking in and with walking still to do. And then by standing around, bloodied knife in his pocket, waiting for some random bloke to arrive at the scene after which they went together looking for a Constable.

He couldn’t have acted more innocently if he’s tried. I started a thread on JTRForums called The Framing Of Charles Lechmere and that’s exactly what it is. There isn’t a smidgeon of evidence against him. It begins with a complete lie - that there was an unaccounted for gap of time, then an utter non-issue is added - that he gave his stepfathers name (and correct middle name and correct address - after which Lechmere zealots have still tried to manufacture something dodgy out of this) Then we can add the preposterous joke that is the Mizen Scam adding to the desperation.

Never has so much effort been put into proposing such a weak suspect. I find the whole Lechmere thing to be an embarrassment to the case.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

[COLOR=#8e44ad]

Why do you keep on insisting he gave his address at the inquest? This is a very tenuous assertion - quite frankly, it seems a bit dishonest.
Since you claim to be driven by facts; well, what are the facts here?



So, answer me this: why did only one paper put down his address (and correctly I might add), while all the other papers missed it? There were tons of misspellings of names and addresses during the inquest ... using phonetics to guide them.

Good question. It does however, work both ways. One side says he gave his address, because it's in the paper, the other says he didn't, because it's only in one. Why's that then? Charles certainly didn't have influence over the collected journalists. The correct address came from somewhere, what's your best guess?



Another fun fact: nobody in the Lechmere family knew that Lech was involved in discovering the body. Would you not call that fooling the family?

How do we know this?

Hi Newbie, just an idle thought while reading your post.

[FrankO]

I’m afraid that it’s your response that’s dishonest. David Orsam put this nonsense to bed in his Crossing The Line article. It’s yet another example of viewing evidence with the Lechmere Goggles on.

Hi Mike,

I should have added that what I wrote under 4. in post #624 was thanks to the work of David Orsam and poster Kattrup, who unearthed many examples of people using an alternative name without any consequences.

Two of the more interesting ones, to me, are that of Henry David Reynolds, who used the alternative Henry David Scott and, although his official name was revealed during the case by his mother, the case was filed under his alternative name (16 September 1889) and that of Charles Jones, who gave an alternative name Charles Taylor at some court appearance on 6 May of 1878 without also revealing his official name was Jones. The former, obviously, shows how important an official name actually was to authorities in those days. The latter is, obviously, similar to Lechmere's in that he only gave his alternative name at some court appearance without revealing his official name.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

It was suddenly convenient to hear Paul from 40 yards away, as opposed to 50 yards away.

I'm far from convinced it would have appeared convenient to hear him only from that distance, in case he was guilty. The closer he would put Paul in the story he would tell, the more unbelievable it would sound. In that respect, 50 yards away would actually have sounded better than 40 or even less. And let's not forget, if he was guilty, he would have had time to think about what he was going to say. And he could have read in, at least, the Lloyd's Weekly News of Sunday 2 September that Neil had been able to hear a constable passing Brady-street. The LWN of this date, of course, being the same newspaper that carried the statement Paul made on his return from work to a representative of the LWN.