Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

With a high degree of certainty, Lech arrived at Polly Nichols body earlier than he stated/implied at the inquest (around 3:38 am). How much earlier might he have arrived and who would know?

The Polly Nichol’s murder was the last JtR murder, that took place on a long open street, at a time when Lech would be heading for work: why?

Absolute nonsense.

Prove it.

[Newbie]

Why did an innocent Lechmere use Charles Cross?


It was a murder, he was the first witness ….. typically a suspect that a police department needs to check out. Why add to your problems by creating needless suspicions? And why not readily avail yourself of a witness (Elizabeth Lechmere), if needed, as to your leaving the house at 3:30 am? Lech should have known that he was under some suspicion: hence, the emphasis on having worked at Pickford’s for 20 years.


To employ fivers language: Lechmere must have been the dumbest idiot on the planet.


Various reasons have been proposed:

1. He was afraid of gangs in the area
2. It was scandalous to be associated, even as a witness, in a murder
3. Lechmer’s birth father would have recognized the name and sought out the family,

for some vague idea of financial gain.

1. His mother’s inheritance payments would have been jeopardized if Hertfordshire had known a Lechmere was a witness at the inquest of a murder.
2. His pregnant wife was sick and he did not wish to unduly stress her.
3. His wife might have just given birth, and the child was sickly.

Of course, stress, shame & scandal would have been turned up a few notches if the police found out he did not furnish them with his family name. His wife lived to the age of 90 & bore 11 children; one does not generally associate that type of person with being frail. She had given birth 9 times beforehand: she & Lech were old hands at it. I automatically dismiss the fear of gang reprisals.


The only possible reason is the one I highlighted: that a recently born child was sickly at birth. She died sometime in 1990, 1 ½ or 2 years later. It’s most likely the child caught a sudden illness like diphtheria and went quickly, so she would not have been sickly at the time … lot’s of that going around, but you never know.


But why take it so far? Lech didn’t kill anyone …. the news of attending an inquest shouldn’t have floored his wife. He didn’t need to tell her about its nature, and could have downplayed his importance to the event - the infamous JtR didn’t exist at that date. He could have even told her the entire affair and more than likely she would have been interested. “At 3:30 am I left here, as you know; at 3:38 am I encountered a body on Buck’s row.” What’s the problem?


Why? Why take the chance that he did?

[Newbie]

I’ve never heard such twisted logic. Well, that’s not true, I hear it all the time when this man is discussed.

The fact that Lechmere didn’t scarper is proof in itself that he was completely innocent of this murder. This was a killer who avoided capture by escaping the crime scene…..not loitering around for a chat with a passerby.

Name a single serial killer in the entire history of crime that, after killing a victim, simply stood around waiting for someone to turn up.

Name a single serial killer in the entire history of crime that killed a victim on the way to work and just 20 minutes before he was due to click on?

And as we know that Chapman was overwhelmingly likely to have been killed at 5.25/5.30 explain without giggling how he set off on his delivery route, stopped the cart (no doubt with the word PICKFORDS emblazoned on the side and full of highly valuable, easy-to-steal goods) picks up a prostitute, leaves the cart unattended in crime central, kills her, then jumps back on his cart to continue his round (possibly with blood on him) to make more deliveries. And I’m assuming that when he left on his round that his boss didn’t say “just take your time Charlie. You get back when you get back. No hurry!”

The whole case against Lechmere is an embarrassing litany of exaggeration, evidence manipulation, irrelevance, bias and fantasy.

Was he the ripper…..of course he wasn’t.

The same hysterical shrieks from you... the same failure to respond to oddities.
How incurious you are ..... It's amazing.

That he most probably lied about where he was in association with Paul doesn't concern you. Simply amazing!
If alone for 2 minutes, why did he not seek the assistants of others, like most people would and did do?
Why did he sit and wait for Paul. How about 1 minute?
And how calm he was when Paul approached .... 'it's a woman'.

Your shtick is to always demand responses to your positions, and never respond to mine.

Why did Lech show up at the inquest in his work clothes? You never respond, but get angry and indignant.
It's starting to be laughable.

All right, while items were being unloaded at Spitalfields, with a young assistant staying behind, Lech went to Hanbury street and murdered Annie Chapman.

That is speculative of course, but the probable time of Annie chapman's death in no way rules out Lech.
It sure takes away from your conviction that he's innocent because serial killers don't kill on the way to work.

They kill based on when they have opportunities.

[Newbie]

The name thing is a non-issue. Read David Orsam’s article. Roger’s already posted a link to a thread on the subject. It’s a dead duck that Lechmere zealots keep trying to breathe life into.

I'll search for it; but as you can imagine, i have very limited expectations on the level of reasoning I will encounter.

I'm always open to something good and interesting.

[Elamarna]

The 6 things we know that everyone avoids

(and makes zero effort in trying to piece together in a consistent theory):

1. Paul did not testify to having heard or seen Lechmere, walking some 50 yards in front, over the few minutes it would have taken. Lechmere, himself, testifies that he could hear all the way up Buck’s row from Brady Street.

2. Modern understanding of how the brain processes sounds is that self generated, repetitive sounds, like footsteps, are unconsciously canceled out by our auditory cortex.

3. According to all but one newspaper account, Lechmere started off his inquest testimony furnishing a former name, his vocation, and his place of work, along with being the only one to describe his length of service.

“Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years.”


Unless they were PCs, doctors, doss house residents or witnesses on the job at the time in which they recount their testimony (night watchman, etc), every witness furnished the inquest with their home address, save Lechmere.

For example:

Edward Walker deposed: I live at 15, Maidwell-street, Albany-road, Camberwell, and have no occupation

Henry Tomkins, horse-slaughterer, 12, Coventry-street, Bethnal-green

Robert Baul [Paul], 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman

• The Daily Telegraph, Saturday September 1rst/3rd

One newspaper account gave Lechmere’s address: 22 Doveton street.


4. Lechmere attended the proceedings dressed in his work clothes: he was the only one pointed out as doing so:

Charles Cross, carman, who appeared in Court with a rough sack apron on, said that he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for some years.

• East London Observer, Saturday the 8th September

5. Elizabeth Lechmere was illiterate, and would not have access to newspaper accounts of things like inquest testimonies directly, but would have to depend on the gossip/hearsay of neighbors.


6. No one among Lechmere’s descendants knew that Lechmere was the first to discover Polly Nichol’s body. None of them corrected the widely held belief that the first to discover the body was a Charles Cross - who evidently they didn’t recognize as Lech.

You talk of the 6 things everyone avoids.

Well I hate to tell you but these points have and are not avoided.
They have all been addressed many times, I suggest you read some old exchanges between myself and Fisherman.

That you don't like the answers given is clear.

I note in another post you constantly quote a pricise time of 3.38, this is pure speculation on your part. We can't use pricise absolute times, we have to use a range, so using the evidence of leaving home about 3.30, we have a range of say 3.27-3.33 at the very least, it could be larger.
That gives a range for Lechmere arriving at Brown's Yard at 3.34-3.40.
But of course we need to qualify this, as we have no idea of the speed he would walk at.
Nor do we know the exact route he would take, and finally we have no way at all of knowing how the time given by Lechmere compared to the time given by Paul, or the 3 police officers. to believe we can set absolute times for such events is to deceive ourselves and others.

Likewise to suggest it's highly likely Lechmere left home earlier than he claimed is nothing more than speculative fiction.
There are no facts, no evidence to support this idea.

Sadly it would appear you have a muddled understanding of the Bucks Row Murder, I can only suggest you have a look at "Inside Bucks Row"

[Abby Normal]

You talk of the 6 things everyone avoids.

Well I hate to tell you but these points have and are not avoided.
They have all been addressed many times, I suggest you read some old exchanges between myself and Fisherman.

That you don't like the answers given is clear.

I note in another post you constantly quote a pricise time of 3.38, this is pure speculation on your part. We can't use pricise absolute times, we have to use a range, so using the evidence of leaving home about 3.30, we have a range of say 3.27-3.33 at the very least, it could be larger.
That gives a range for Lechmere arriving at Brown's Yard at 3.34-3.40.
But of course we need to qualify this, as we have no idea of the speed he would walk at.
Nor do we know the exact route he would take, and finally we have no way at all of knowing how the time given by Lechmere compared to the time given by Paul, or the 3 police officers. to believe we can set absolute times for such events is to deceive ourselves and others.

Likewise to suggest it's highly likely Lechmere left home earlier than he claimed is nothing more than speculative fiction.
There are no facts, no evidence to support this idea.

Sadly it would appear you have a muddled understanding of the Bucks Row Murder, I can only suggest you have a look at "Inside Bucks Row"

hi el
great to see you on here again! refresh my memory please... when did lech and paul say respectively when they discovered the body?

[Abby Normal]

I'll search for it; but as you can imagine, i have very limited expectations on the level of reasoning I will encounter.

I'm always open to something good and interesting.

Hi Newb
lord orsams (aka david Barrat)reasoning is superb. i consider him the leading ripperologist in the field today, although he probably would notlike that label as he is the ultimate "outsider". I highly recommend you read as much of his stuff as possible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The same hysterical shrieks from you... the same failure to respond to oddities.
How incurious you are ..... It's amazing.

If 40 years of interest in the case means that I’m ‘incurious’ then how long do I have to be interested to be called ‘curious?’

That he most probably lied about where he was in association with Paul doesn't concern you. Simply amazing!

Because you gave zero evidence to support it and yet you use the word ‘probably.’ Now that’s simply amazing.

If alone for 2 minutes, why did he not seek the assistants of others, like most people would and did do?

Again, you have no reason to suggest this. How hard can this be?

Why did he sit and wait for Paul. How about 1 minute?
And how calm he was when Paul approached .... 'it's a woman'.

He was calm because he’d done nothing wrong!

Your shtick is to always demand responses to your positions, and never respond to mine.

Why did Lech show up at the inquest in his work clothes? You never respond, but get angry and indignant.
It's starting to be laughable.

How is this remotely relevant? I’m guessing that as he couldn’t know how long he’d be at the inquest he was intending to return to work. Less time away, less pay list. Again….this is not difficult stuff.

All right, while items were being unloaded at Spitalfields, with a young assistant staying behind, Lech went to Hanbury street and murdered Annie Chapman.

So you’re inventing a young assistant now. Ok. Can you name this person? Or is it another fantasy to help with the shoehorning?

That is speculative of course, but the probable time of Annie chapman's death in no way rules out Lech.

But it reduces the likelihood. Which is why we had Christer and others bending over backwards on here arguing with the world’s modern day forensic experts…..desperate for an earlier ToD.

It sure takes away from your conviction that he's innocent because serial killers don't kill on the way to work.

Ive bern asking those 2 questions for years and no one has provided a single example. Christer was forever using serial killer history to make points but there was a yawning silence whenever these two questions were raised. Nothing changes.

They kill based on when they have opportunities.

Do they? Or do they go out with the intention of killing. That’s what Bundy did, and Gacy and Sutcliffe and Bianchi and the zodiac. None of them simply bumped into a victim on the way to doing something else.

I never avoid answering questions btw. I leave that to a few others.

[Elamarna]

hi el
great to see you on here again! refresh my memory please... when did lech and paul say respectively when they discovered the body?

Hi Abby,
Drop in from time to time, but busy running another well known forum.

Lech does not give a time for discovery at all. At the inquest he says he leaves home at "about 3.30"

People then extrapolate this by adding speculative walking speeds.

Such is of course impossible to give accurately and certainly not to the pricise minute, but a range of 6 and a half minutes to 7 and a half is a fair estimate. Indeed even pushing that to 8 minutes is not unreasonable.

Paul gives different times, in Lloyds he says he entered Bucks Row at "exactly 3.45".
Such of course raises many questions, how did he fix the time?
A Watch, he may have had one, but was it syncronizied to that of anyone else that morning, if not the time given is of little use.

A public clock, I showed in my East End Conference talk last year 2022, that it's highly unlikely that Paul could have seen a clock at the Albion Brewery. This talk is available on Rippercast

A clock at home, does not fit with enters Bucks Row at exactly 3.45.

At the inquest, he amends his time, saying he left home just before 3.45, which of course is no more useful than Lechmere's "about 3.30 " for setting meaningful times.

[Newbie]

Jeesus Christ, a quarter way through "The Lechmere/Cross name issue" thread and you get gems like this:


"Hi All,

Christer always ignores the fact that nobody knows which name Crossmere went by at home or at work. Because there are no written records of either name being used in a social context, both are equally possible, equally reasonable."

"Is there any record of Lechmere being used outside of official records? In a social occasion for example."

The guys whole family, wife and children, go by Lechmere, and yet we are not quite certain if he uses Cross or Lechmere among his new neighbors.

The level of proof is insane ... maybe there is someone still alive who remembers .


Wasted pages of talk about which documents were validly signed Lechmere by Lechmere.
Getting beyond the nitty-gritty.

[Elamarna]

Why did an innocent Lechmere use Charles Cross?


It was a murder, he was the first witness ….. typically a suspect that a police department needs to check out. Why add to your problems by creating needless suspicions? And why not readily avail yourself of a witness (Elizabeth Lechmere), if needed, as to your leaving the house at 3:30 am? Lech should have known that he was under some suspicion: hence, the emphasis on having worked at Pickford’s for 20 years.


To employ fivers language: Lechmere must have been the dumbest idiot on the planet.


Various reasons have been proposed:

1. He was afraid of gangs in the area
2. It was scandalous to be associated, even as a witness, in a murder
3. Lechmer’s birth father would have recognized the name and sought out the family,

for some vague idea of financial gain.

1. His mother’s inheritance payments would have been jeopardized if Hertfordshire had known a Lechmere was a witness at the inquest of a murder.
2. His pregnant wife was sick and he did not wish to unduly stress her.
3. His wife might have just given birth, and the child was sickly.

Of course, stress, shame & scandal would have been turned up a few notches if the police found out he did not furnish them with his family name. His wife lived to the age of 90 & bore 11 children; one does not generally associate that type of person with being frail. She had given birth 9 times beforehand: she & Lech were old hands at it. I automatically dismiss the fear of gang reprisals.


The only possible reason is the one I highlighted: that a recently born child was sickly at birth. She died sometime in 1990, 1 ½ or 2 years later. It’s most likely the child caught a sudden illness like diphtheria and went quickly, so she would not have been sickly at the time … lot’s of that going around, but you never know.


But why take it so far? Lech didn’t kill anyone …. the news of attending an inquest shouldn’t have floored his wife. He didn’t need to tell her about its nature, and could have downplayed his importance to the event - the infamous JtR didn’t exist at that date. He could have even told her the entire affair and more than likely she would have been interested. “At 3:30 am I left here, as you know; at 3:38 am I encountered a body on Buck’s row.” What’s the problem?


Why? Why take the chance that he did?

You leave out the very real possibility that it was the name he used at work, at Pickfords.
Its very probably that he was the Pickfords Carman, involved in an RTA in 1876.

That would be a very good reason to use the name Cross, if it was the name he used at work.


You make assertions that CAL should have used his wife as a witness for what time he left home.
Are you suggesting she should have called to the inquest?
What about the Wife of Robert Paul?
How about the servant at Llewellyn's home?

Sorry that's completely unrealistic, an idea totally fuelled by belief in the guilt of CAL, that he needed to prove he was innocent.
Sorry but that's flawed methodology.

[Elamarna]

Jeesus Christ, a quarter way through "The Lechmere/Cross name issue" thread and you get gems like this:


"Hi All,

Christer always ignores the fact that nobody knows which name Crossmere went by at home or at work. Because there are no written records of either name being used in a social context, both are equally possible, equally reasonable."

"Is there any record of Lechmere being used outside of official records? In a social occasion for example."

The guys whole family, wife and children, go by Lechmere, and yet we are not quite certain if he uses Cross or Lechmere among his new neighbors.

The level of proof is insane ... maybe there is someone still alive who remembers .


Wasted pages of talk about which documents were validly signed Lechmere by Lechmere.
Getting beyond the nitty-gritty.

Sorry but many of the documents are not actually signed by CAL at all

Many of the documents are things like census returns and electoral roles. On such documents tgere is no signature, just a name added by an official

[Fiver]

The discoverer of Martha Tabrum’s body immediately ran to get a cop; the discoverer of Annie Chapman’s body (John Davis, carman) immediately informed neighbors and then went to a police station; the discoverer of Elizabeth Stride’s body went into an establishment to get help…with the lighting of the murder site being worse than on Buck’s row.


Lech? He just hangs out by the body. And then, he fails to be inquisitive when returning in the afternoon.

Let me suggest it again - try reading the inquest testimonies. You'll embarrass yourself less.

Charles Lechmere did not just hang out with the body. He grabbed the first available person, showed them the body, and went for the police. Just like John Davis did for the Chapman murder. Just like Louis Diemschutz did for the Stride murder. Just like Thomas Bowyer did for the Kelly murder.

Let me also suggest that you read what other people said. You'll embarrass yourself less.

Charles Lechmere couldn't have contacted police or reporters on Bucks Row that afternoon - Pickfords shifts meant he would have been there until sometime between 6:20pm and 10:20pm.

I have no idea if Lechmere was inquisitive when he did return home and that has no bearing on his guilt or innocence. Sometime that weekend, he contacted the police. As opposed to Robert Paul, had to be tracked down by the police, which took a couple weeks.

These points have already been mentioned multiple times.

[Fiver]

Unless you believe the nonsense of Lech marching 50 yards in front of Paul for a while, unnoticed - and then, once diverted by a body and half-way across the street, suddenly hears Paul’s footsteps - you have to accept the notion that Lechmere was alone with the body for an indeterminate amount of time: one minute? 5 minutes?

Why do you keep repeating false statements and claiming they are true?

We know Lechmere heard Paul approaching behind him and estimated the distance that he noticed Paul was about 40 yards.

We know Paul noticed Lechmere in front of him. We don't know how far that distance was. If it was only 50 yards, Paul could not have seen Lechmere in front of him until after Paul entered Buck's Row. We don't know if Paul heard Lechmere in front of him, let alone what distance.

Lechmere could have been alone with the body for longer than he claimed, but there is no evidence that he was.

[Fiver]

If innocent, why did Lechmere wait for Paul?

Based on that reasoning, PC Neil killed Polly Nichols and PC Watkins killed Catherine Eddowes.

There is no evidence that Lechmere waited for Paul.

Polly Nichol’s was almost decapitated … how long does it take to realize she was in trouble? Why not knock on doors, or go across the street to the horse slaughtering operation (was their lighting visible to Buck’s row pedestrians?)

Robert Paul didn't realize Nichols was decapitated and he felt the body. PC Neil didn't notice until he used his lantern.

Robert Paul didn't knock on doors. PC Neil didn't knock on doors.
'
Again, all you have proved is your double standard. Things are clear indications of guilt when Lechmere does them, but they aren't when other people do the exact same thing.

Also, the horse slaughterers was not on Bucks Row, it was on Winthrop Street. You'd know this if your read the inquest testimony.

Why not go for a cop right after quickly ascertaining that Polly Nichol’s was critically injured?

Neither Paul nor Lechmere was able to tell if Nichols was drunk, injured or dead. After which they immediately sought out a police constable.

Failing to hear each other’s footsteps is very much meaningful.

It might be meaningful if it was true.