Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fisherman]

Can I just ask that people who have criticism to offer wait for their turn, as suggested before. Posting accusations that will go unanswered does not make for much of a debate. As I promised, I will give everybody space, and that way, answers can be provided and both sides heard.

[Aethelwulf]

Can I just ask that people who have criticism to offer wait for their turn

You proper crack me up with this nonsense. Perhaps you should do a teams event and we can all sit there on mute with the little ✋ sign.

[JeffHamm]

In addition, I've always felt that Lechmere and Paul's actions post discovery of Nichols is somewhat odd.

In all the other murders there was a real and normal sense of urgency to get help... But with Lechmere and Paul, they simply set off to work and hoped to tell a policeman.

What f they hadn't of bumped into Mizen?

A normal reaction would have been to of SHOUTED for help. By just leaving her there... THAT is suspicious in itself.

Considering Paul stated he thought she was still alive but then changing his story to state he thought she was dead is odd.
The reason is unknown but if Paul had of believed she was dead, it would explain both his and Lechmere's lackluster reaction to go and get help.
It then puts the focus onto the police and acts as a critique toward the police.

He originally stated he thought she was alive when he touched her and so WHY change the story?

If he truly thought she was alive then both his and Lechmere's reaction SHOULD have been more proactive.


BOTH Lechmere AND Paul are suspicious and something doesn't ring true about their accounts.

I don't believe for a second that saying they needed to get to work is a good enough reason to not get help audibly.

They were covering each others back, but why?

Hi The Rookie Detective,

Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20. However, we have to keep in mind that neither Cross/Lechmere nor Paul were aware that Polly was actually dead. They were not aware of her injuries (even Dr. Llewellyn didn't notice her abdominal wounds until she was at the morgue). Paul thought she may even have been breathing. Basically, given what they did not notice due to the darkness, and their subsequent decision to send a PC to her aid when they came across one on their way to work, it is rather apparent that they didn't really think it likely she was dead, but rather passed out from drink. Given their actions indicate they were not aware (at the time) that she was dead, shouting, or knocking on strangers doors, etc, would just not happen. People drunk in the street was not uncommon (even now homelessness is found everywhere, and the rates of drug/alcohol addiction is high amongst the homeless). Yes, they later both talk about telling PC Mizen she may have been dead, but given his rather unconcerned reaction, it is pretty clear they weren't convincing at the time. A PC, having two men, walk up to him and say there was a woman in the street, probably drunk, and one or even both suggesting "I think she may be dead", but clearly not convinced of that themselves, is going to be interpreted by the PC as "There's a drunk in the street", and the "maybe dead" would come across as them just being a bit overly dramatic or catastrophising. Obviously, in hind sight, they were correct, but neither of them knew that and both were probably shocked to find out that she was, and the extent of the injuries she had that they were completely unaware of.

Given neither knew Polly was actually dead (I know they mention it, but it is quite clear neither really believed it at the time - it would be just too improbable, while drunks in the street would be common), nor were they aware of her injuries, their actions are just what they seem, two fellows, heading to work, finding someone they think is probably drunk but possibly in need of assistance that they cannot provide, so they head off to work looking for the police on the way so they can take care of her as that is part of the police's job. There's nothing particularly odd about it. Watch people and you will see even today that people pass by homeless people sleeping in the street without a second look. Cross/Lechmere and Paul did more than 99% of people do when they seen someone "sleeping" in the street. Even Paul appears to side-step Cross/Lechmere and may have just walked on by had he not been stopped. Of course, his side-stepping was out of caution with regards to Cross/Lechmere's intentions; but if Cross/Lechmere were not there, Paul himself may have just walked on by. For all we know, other people may have passed by her ahead of Cross/Lechmere and took no notice, or showed no concern, and they never came forward and so are lost to mists of time.

- Jeff

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

As I have stated, I will not debate with anyone else than the named poster, but everybody who wants to will be given his or her chance along the line. So you need to bear with me.

Hi Christer, nice to see you back, hope all is well.

[Newbie]

1.How lucky was Lech that Paul didn’t see him moving back from the body to the middle of the road? He was already standing still, in the road. Would he have claimed not to have gone near to the body when he couldn’t have been sure that Paul hadn’t seen him walk back to the centre of the road? Conclusion….. Lechmere clearly told the truth.

2. The longer you claim the period was that Lechmere was at the scene the less and less likely it is that he’d have turned down the opportunity of fleeing.

Killing on the way to work makes him unlikely……killing 20 minutes from work makes him even unlikelier…… refusing to flee puts him on the outer fringes. For me, the fact that he stayed around makes him 99% certain to have been innocent. I don’t accept any of this ‘bluffing it out,’ stuff. This was a killer on alert. One that evaded capture partly because he had a sense of self-preservation. And let’s not forget that this was probably his first murder and so he was likely to have been more easily spooked.

I don't wish to appear to be rude, Herlock (except to fiver);

#1. Its' unclear to me what you are trying to say here. Lech tried to establish that he was never near the body. He came from the body and stood waiting in the middle of the road; or, he just happened to hear the footsteps, and then stopped, waiting in the middle of the road. That he identified the tarpaulin figure to be a recumbent woman, and then waits sometime (30 seconds?) to come to her aid is strange. Most people would mark the newcomer, assess where he is, then continue moving towards the body and give it a quick look ... check if it is responsive; then you hail the newcomer.

#2. I would think the opposite: how long does it take in the obscurity (and he said that he could identify it to to be the body of a woman, while standing in the middle of the street) to determine that someone dying is dead, or at the point of death.... one minute? I don't think so; 30 seconds?... not even that long. Once, quickly establishing that the woman is not responsive (nor drunk), what purpose does it serve to remain there any longer?

If you are the killer, and it so happens to be around 3:38 am, and some one comes unexpectedly, you'd be just as likely to stay put and bluff - there is nothing amiss in you being there at that time. A PC is near the top of Buck's row & Baker Street (you scoped out the place over the course of a few weeks, yes?) What if you flee? You don't know who you might encounter as you go around a corner. Newcomer comes across the body, quickly ascertains her condition, screams help!, murder!; you double a corner and walk past a stranger or two, hanging out there at that time, with a cop at the top of Buck's row/Baker Street. The issue, in my opinion, is this: did Lech, the killer, have an accurate sense of the time at that crucial point? I realize that exact time is a very slippery issue: you have Lech's household time, Paul's household time, and that of the PC's. Lech would be going by his time - probably synchronized to that of Pickford's. Big Ben was one universal time they could use to set their clocks, or reset them.

If he did, then I can see him staying put. JtR had good enough social skills to convince Mary Kelly to take him up to her room. She was as terrified of Jack the Ripper as any prostitute, and her vetting process was bound to be far greater at that fatal moment.

I find it far more likely that JtR stayed put, in comparison to Lechmere walking 50 yards in front of Paul, or innocent, untruthful Lech, staying with the body for some 90 seconds, and not running off for help.

[JeffHamm]

Can I just ask that people who have criticism to offer wait for their turn, as suggested before. Posting accusations that will go unanswered does not make for much of a debate. As I promised, I will give everybody space, and that way, answers can be provided and both sides heard.

Maybe you could start a thread for each debate, something like "Fisherman And XXX: Debate - Topic"? Then there could be a collection of threads, each containing just posts between the two of you, that people who are interested can read without all the interruptions that break the flow of the conversation?

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer, nice to see you back, hope all is well.

Thank you, Al! Yes, all is well with me, and I hope that is the case for you too!

[Fisherman]

Maybe you could start a thread for each debate, something like "Fisherman And XXX: Debate - Topic"? Then there could be a collection of threads, each containing just posts between the two of you, that people who are interested can read without all the interruptions that break the flow of the conversation?

- Jeff

I did consider that option, but preferred to keep it all in a single thread for a better overview. Thanks anyway.

[Newbie]

Please forgive my interjection, but may I ask what happened to PS Kirby?

He is hardly ever mentioned, which is baffling as he was said to have passed the murder site around the same time as PC Neil, ergo, approximately 3.15am.

However, where did he go between 3.15am and the time Nichols was slain?


It seems likely he and Neil passed by around the same time, but this is never seen as significant?

Mrs Lilley claimed she heard multiple voices outside the window at approximately 3.30am...was that the killer and Nichols? Was it Lechmere and Paul? Or was it Neil and Kirby?

It would seem that Nichols was murdered around 3.30am.

And it can take up to 20 minutes to bleed out

Just wanted to throw these into the mix


TRD

if true, and her time is correct, and she had heard the voice of the killer and Polly Nichols .... that pretty much rules out Lechmere.

There was a discussion about her elsewhere here ...... she wasn't called as a witness to the Polly Nichol's inquest;
so, from the perspective of the authorities, there was something unsatisfactory about her story.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi The Rookie Detective,

Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20. However, we have to keep in mind that neither Cross/Lechmere nor Paul were aware that Polly was actually dead. They were not aware of her injuries (even Dr. Llewellyn didn't notice her abdominal wounds until she was at the morgue). Paul thought she may even have been breathing. Basically, given what they did not notice due to the darkness, and their subsequent decision to send a PC to her aid when they came across one on their way to work, it is rather apparent that they didn't really think it likely she was dead, but rather passed out from drink. Given their actions indicate they were not aware (at the time) that she was dead, shouting, or knocking on strangers doors, etc, would just not happen. People drunk in the street was not uncommon (even now homelessness is found everywhere, and the rates of drug/alcohol addiction is high amongst the homeless). Yes, they later both talk about telling PC Mizen she may have been dead, but given his rather unconcerned reaction, it is pretty clear they weren't convincing at the time. A PC, having two men, walk up to him and say there was a woman in the street, probably drunk, and one or even both suggesting "I think she may be dead", but clearly not convinced of that themselves, is going to be interpreted by the PC as "There's a drunk in the street", and the "maybe dead" would come across as them just being a bit overly dramatic or catastrophising. Obviously, in hind sight, they were correct, but neither of them knew that and both were probably shocked to find out that she was, and the extent of the injuries she had that they were completely unaware of.

Given neither knew Polly was actually dead (I know they mention it, but it is quite clear neither really believed it at the time - it would be just too improbable, while drunks in the street would be common), nor were they aware of her injuries, their actions are just what they seem, two fellows, heading to work, finding someone they think is probably drunk but possibly in need of assistance that they cannot provide, so they head off to work looking for the police on the way so they can take care of her as that is part of the police's job. There's nothing particularly odd about it. Watch people and you will see even today that people pass by homeless people sleeping in the street without a second look. Cross/Lechmere and Paul did more than 99% of people do when they seen someone "sleeping" in the street. Even Paul appears to side-step Cross/Lechmere and may have just walked on by had he not been stopped. Of course, his side-stepping was out of caution with regards to Cross/Lechmere's intentions; but if Cross/Lechmere were not there, Paul himself may have just walked on by. For all we know, other people may have passed by her ahead of Cross/Lechmere and took no notice, or showed no concern, and they never came forward and so are lost to mists of time.

- Jeff

Brilliant post Jeff, well thought out and balanced. I really appreciate you putting that into context as I agree that based on their actions, it is almost certain that they thought she was merely drunk and had they of seen her wounds they would have reacted differently.

The way you describe the scenario in your post fits perfectly and I concur with that way of thinking.

Seeing as they weren't aware she was dead then it may also suggest...that she actually wasn't clinically dead.
When Paul touches her and thinks she's alive but Lechmere believes she's dead, it would appear that by Paul touching her and believing she was alive, was enough to convince Lechmere that she wasn't dead.

Paul's opinion seems to convince Lechmere and so they head on to work and if they meet a policeman so be it. There's no sense of urgency and so you're absolutely correct that they didn't believe she had been attacked.


That in turn brings about another issue...

If Paul thought she was alive and then they head off to work, then she may hav been dead or alive BUT it's clear that her injuries must have been concealed.

All of the other victims were displayed (except Stride due to interruption or a different killer) and the killer wanted to show his work to the world by exposing their internal organs etc...

Therefore because neither Paul or Lechmere etc... were unaware of her injuries, the killer tried to conceal what he had done.

That doesn't fit

And so why did he conceal her injuries?

The only explanation I can determine from his attempt to conceal her injuries is that he was interrupted and wasn't quite finished.

If he had of been finished and then walked off before Lechmere arrived, her body would have been displayed for all to see like Chapman, Eddowes and MJK etc...

In other words, if as you say they believed she was still alive and couldn't see the extent of her wounds, then that would surely mean the killer was interrupted.

Now at this juncture I must say that I'm on the fence about Lechmere because I believe the murder occurred some time between 3.30am - 3.38am... BUT...

If Paul found Lechmere yards away from her body and Lechmere claims he would have heard someone, then surely that doesn't fit with the killer being disturbed?

Either Lechmere interrupted the killer but didnt hear anything?
Or Paul interrupted Lechmere who quickly tried to conceal the wounds he had just inflicted because he heard Paul approaching and by doing so had NO TIME to escape an had to blag his way out of it.

OR there is another option...

Paul had just murdered Nichols but heard Lechmere approaching but he quickly hid in the shadows. Lechmere then walks past and notices Nichols and Paul waits for Lechmere to move on... But Lechmere doesn't and just stands there...and so Paul makes the decision to edge back...but as he does Lechmere hear and so Paul is forced to walk back towards the body and pretend he has just arrived on the scene.
He then convinces Lechmere she's still alive...and they move on to go to work...

Making Paul the ripper

But that's pretty thin...and it's more likely that Lechmere killed her and only had time to conceal the wounds and lost the time he needed to run.


Thoughts?

TRD

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't wish to appear to be rude, Herlock (except to fiver);

#1. Its' unclear to me what you are trying to say here. Lech tried to establish that he was never near the body. He came from the body and stood waiting in the middle of the road; or, he just happened to hear the footsteps, and then stopped, waiting in the middle of the road. That he identified the tarpaulin figure to be a recumbent woman, and then waits sometime (30 seconds?) to come to her aid is strange. Most people would mark the newcomer, assess where he is, then continue moving towards the body and give it a quick look ... check if it is responsive; then you hail the newcomer.

Im saying that Lechmere himself said that walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. From a position in the road. So if he’d actually have killed Nichols then he’d have had to have walked from the body back to the middle of the road with the very real possibility of Paul seeing him on the move. Why would he have taken that risk when his testimony at the inquest might have been exposed as a lie.

#2. I would think the opposite: how long does it take in the obscurity (and he said that he could identify it to to be the body of a woman, while standing in the middle of the street) to determine that someone dying is dead, or at the point of death.... one minute? I don't think so; 30 seconds?... not even that long. Once, quickly establishing that the woman is not responsive (nor drunk), what purpose does it serve to remain there any longer?

Who is claiming that Lechmere was there any longer? As soon as he saw that it was a body he heard Paul approaching. What could be clearer or less suspicious?

If you are the killer, and it so happens to be around 3:38 am, and some one comes unexpectedly, you'd be just as likely to stay put and bluff - there is nothing amiss in you being there at that time.

That’s simple not true. It’s a self-serving argument. Criminals flee the scene. That’s normal. They don’t stand around waiting for someone to arrive when they’d know for certain that this would mean a Constable getting involved. It’s a no-brainer. He stayed because he had nothing to worry about. He hadn’t done anything wrong.

A PC is near the top of Buck's row & Baker Street (you scoped out the place over the course of a few weeks, yes?)

No! You’re making an assumption again for self-serving reasons. Lechmere was on his way to work….doing exactly what he did at that time of the morning for 6 days out of 7. So we can make absolutely no assumptions except that he was going to work. That’s all.

What if you flee? You don't know who you might encounter as you go around a corner. Newcomer comes across the body, quickly ascertains her condition, screams help!, murder!; you double a corner and walk past a stranger or two, hanging out there at that time, with a cop at the top of Buck's row/Baker Street.

Again you’re trying to twist things by making the normal actions of an innocent man seem sinister. If he’d have walked past and Paul had called him back saying “mate, have you seen this,” you’d say that showed guilt. But he stays and calls Paul over and you still say that it points to guilt. This is what I mean about everything being twisted to conform to a guilty Lechmere.

The issue, in my opinion, is this: did Lech, the killer, have an accurate sense of the time at that crucial point? I realize that exact time is a very slippery issue: you have Lech's household time, Paul's household time, and that of the PC's. Lech would be going by his time - probably synchronized to that of Pickford's. Big Ben was one universal time they could use to set their clocks, or reset them.

We have no way of knowing if Lechmere owned a clock or watch. He might have done. He might not. He might have been ‘knocked up’ to go to work and so was reliant on the time that he was actually knocked up (which might vary slightly from day to day according to the Constable’s possible distractions) plus having to estimate the time between the knock up to leaving the house. We just can’t rely on exact times so there really is no point it saying x did this at 3.38 and y did this at 3.40 because we’re dealing with approximations. Fast clocks, slow clocks, poorly synchronised clocks.

If he did, then I can see him staying put. JtR had good enough social skills to convince Mary Kelly to take him up to her room. She was as terrified of Jack the Ripper as any prostitute, and her vetting process was bound to be far greater at that fatal moment.

Come on Newbie. The ripper hardly needed to be Noel Coward. As long as they could talk and weren’t foaming at the mouth. These women were desperate.

I find it far more likely that JtR stayed put, in comparison to Lechmere walking 50 yards in front of Paul, or innocent, untruthful Lech, staying with the body for some 90 seconds, and not running off for help.

So the killer leaves - at what risk? He might have seen a Constable but he might also have been able to have seen him in advance and give him a swerve. And if he had passed a Constable how much attention might he have payed a bloke walking to work head down? And how would that Constable have known that there had been a murder when they weren’t sure if Nichols was dead or not.

vs

So the killer stays - at what risk? Well he definitely knows a Constable will be involved rather than there being an outside chance of it if he’d fled. He’d also have realised the possibility that in the dark he might have gotten blood on him. Maybe only a little, but what if they’d got near a lamp and Paul had seen a small patch of wet blood on his jacket or shoe. Straight away he’d have pointed it out to the Constable. What if Mizen had asked them both to accompany him back to the body and then searched them both when he found that Nichols was dead. Lech has a bloodied knife on him. But in another ridiculous attempt to get around this we have the desperate Lechmere Scam. I’ve never heard such a ridiculous, desperate fantasy as this. As if, on the spur-of-the-moment, at the crime scene, with the knife in his pocket Lech is supposed to have thought up “I know, we’ll go for a Constable but when we get there I’ll find a way of splitting up from this other bloke so that I can lie about the woman only being drunk so that he’ll let us go!” And that is the kind of ‘thinking’ that we’re faced with here.

Flee or stay - no competition - not for a second - flee every single time. Lech stayed…..because he hadn’t done anything wrong. For me this is as close to exoneration as we can get without actually completely exonerating him.

[The Rookie Detective]

if true, and her time is correct, and she had heard the voice of the killer and Polly Nichols .... that pretty much rules out Lechmere.

There was a discussion about her elsewhere here ...... she wasn't called as a witness to the Polly Nichol's inquest;
so, from the perspective of the authorities, there was something unsatisfactory about her story.

Ah, if she wasn't called as a witness then that is particularly telling.
It would be interesting to know the reason why they thought she wasn't worth calling up as a witness.
As you say, her statement if correct absolutely helps put Lechmere in the clear.

There are a few reasons why they wouldn't have called her up...

She wasn't seen as reliable (not sure why)
She contradicts herself (not sure how)
She heard the killer who was there at 3.30am but it didn't fit with everyone else and so they didn't want to confuse matters
The killer was a policeman and they covered it up

[Elamarna]

I await comments from Steve Blomer, and I am ready to debate these matters before moving onto other topics and posters.

We have debated all these points, many times, we do not and will never agree.
I see no point in repeating these debates with you, when we both know that nothing will change, no views or opinions will alter.

I stand by the comments in my book, and the sources used to reach the conclusions.

You don't like that, That's something I have got use to.

[Fiver]

Letīs begin by moving back to the 31st of August 1888, where we have Charles Lechmere present at the murder site at 3.45.

That's your theory. It requires ignoring the evidence of the first three police officers on the scene and Inspector Abberline's report.

Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.

Police-constable John Thail [Thain] stated that the nearest point on his beat to Buck's- row was Brady-street. He passed the end every thirty minutes on the Thursday night, and nothing attracted his attention until 3.45 a.m., when he was signalled by the flash of the lantern of another constable (Neale). He went to him, and found Neale standing by the body of the deceased, and witness was despatched for a doctor.

Police constable John Neil deposed that on Friday morning at a quarter to four o'clock he was going down Buck's row, Whitechapel, from Thomas street to Brady street. Not a soul was about. He was round there about half an hour previously, and met nobody then.

"" beg to report that about 3.40am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, "carman" of 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green was passing through Bucks Row, Whitechapel (on his way to work) he noticed a woman lying on her back in the footway (against some gates leading into a stable yard) he stopped to look at the woman when another carman (also on his way to work) named Robert Paul of 30 Foster St., Bethnal Green came up, and cross called his attention to the woman, but being dark they did not notice any blood, and passed on with the intention of informing the first constable they met...." = Inspector Abberline, 19 October 1888.

So why are you ignoring the evidence of Mizen, Thain, Neil, and Abberline?

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's your theory. It requires ignoring the evidence of the first three police officers on the scene and Inspector Abberline's report.

Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.

Police-constable John Thail [Thain] stated that the nearest point on his beat to Buck's- row was Brady-street. He passed the end every thirty minutes on the Thursday night, and nothing attracted his attention until 3.45 a.m., when he was signalled by the flash of the lantern of another constable (Neale). He went to him, and found Neale standing by the body of the deceased, and witness was despatched for a doctor.

Police constable John Neil deposed that on Friday morning at a quarter to four o'clock he was going down Buck's row, Whitechapel, from Thomas street to Brady street. Not a soul was about. He was round there about half an hour previously, and met nobody then.

"" beg to report that about 3.40am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, "carman" of 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green was passing through Bucks Row, Whitechapel (on his way to work) he noticed a woman lying on her back in the footway (against some gates leading into a stable yard) he stopped to look at the woman when another carman (also on his way to work) named Robert Paul of 30 Foster St., Bethnal Green came up, and cross called his attention to the woman, but being dark they did not notice any blood, and passed on with the intention of informing the first constable they met...." = Inspector Abberline, 19 October 1888.

So why are you ignoring the evidence of Mizen, Thain, Neil, and Abberline?

Yup.

Baxter clearly said before 3.45 because Lech had to have found the body before Neil did at 3.45. Only in this world can sometime before 3.45 only mean 3.45 or a few seconds before and not 3.42 or 3.43 or 3.45. It’s much easier to make a point when you can fix the times to suit the theory.