Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Aethelwulf]

Good list, Fiver, although I think it missed out one of the key (false) tenets, namely:
* Paul found Lechmere standing/crouching over the body of Polly Nichols

I've lost count of the times I've see this nugget of distorted evidence regurgitated.

That is a good point. Recall how it is portrayed in the documentary? A person outlined in red crouching down near the body...

The documentary is good at sucking people in who don't question what they are being told/shown

[The Rookie Detective]

Robert Paul pulled her clothes down.

"The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down." - Robert Paul, 18 September Daily Telegraph

"Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach. Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead. It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood. They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met. He could not see whether the clothes were torn, and did not feel any other part of her body except the hands and face. They looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen. While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement." Rpbert Paul, 18 September Times

THank you for clarifying that Fiver.

So at least we know that Paul moved her skirt down to cover and that ties in with Lechmere not wanting to touch her.

It also means that he didn't see any wounds and assumed by the slight movement she may be still alive, although Lechmere believed she was dead.

And so maybe the reason why he changed his mind when subsequently given a statement to claim he thought she was dead, may be because he was worried that by touching her clothing and stating he thought she might still be alive, could in some way bring suspicion onto him.

I really believe that the reason why Mizen appears to lack any urgency to respond, it because both Paul and Lechmere never conveyed any urgency themselves.

Both men supply the other with an alibi and I would suggest that of the 2 men, that Paul acts more suspiciously.

Oddly, if they hadn't have bumped into Mizen, then Neil would have believed her skirt was at her knees and left by the killer that way.
When in reality the killer did leave her exposed and it was only Paul who had any contact with the body between the killer leaving and PC Neil arriving

I still find the pair very suspicious in the way they both missed her injuries.
Unless they did notice, but lied because they didn't want to be dragged into it.

You also have the unlikely scenario that Paul was there first and Lechmere bumped into Paul who was moving her skirt down. A curve ball, but anything is possible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So just to clarify, the likeliest position that Nichol's skirt was found was between her knees and waist, probably her thighs?

Lechmere and Paul never noticed her lower torso injuries.

But one of them claims they believed she had been outraged.1



Paul wants to move the body, but Lechmere refuses and wants to get a policeman 2

Paul initially thinks she's still alive but when subsequently speaking to the press, he changes his mind and concurs with the idea that he actually thought she was dead. 3

Both men go to find a policeman but the policeman's reaction lacks any urgency.

PC Neil finds Nichols skirt is at the level of her knees

Lechmere and Paul explain how her skirt didn't seem to want to come down, implying that they at least tried to move it, but it didn't come down... even though they never touched the body due to Lechmere not wanting to prop her up. 4

Neither men noticed her injuries...5

And so who moved her skirt from her thighs down to her knees? 6

PC Neil said knees, Lechmere and Paul never noticed her injuries, didn't want to move her, and tried to pull her skirt lower to give her a little dignity, because they thought she had been outraged, but it didn't seem to want to come down.7



So they moved her clothing but not her body physically? 8

If they moved her skirt, how did they not see any injuries? 9

If they didn't move her skirt, how did it move from her thighs to her knees when PC Neil saw her clothing? 10


Either I'm missing something here, or someone isn't being truthful. 11


Ironically, Lechmere seems to act more innocent than Paul, Neil and Mizen.


If noone saw her injuries, then her skirt must have been near her knees, which tallies with PC Neil. 12

If you think someone has been outraged, it would imply her skirt was exposing her private area, or her skirt was hitched up to her waist. 13

They didn't want to touch her, but someone must have moved her skirt and so how is that possible? 14


Something just doesn't add up here.

In reality, I think that Paul and Lechmere knew she was dead and moved her skirt down to give her a bit of dignity, but I also think they noticed her injuries as one of them moved her skirt and they realized that it was a more serious situation than they thought. They then were worried that they would be seen as suspects and because they knew she was dead, they casually walked off and found Mizen, who wasn't given the correct information by the pair of them because they would be detained by Mizen. Either that or Mizen was incompetent and couldn't be bothered to react with any urgency. Or maybe he was the killer and knew she was already dead.
Paul and Lechmere were more concerned about being late for work than they were for Nichols. 15

Any person with typical empathetic morals would have run and physically dragged the policeman to come to the scene, or at least have told him there was a murder victim laying in the road. They didn't want to be seen as suspects, they didn't want to hang around the scene or help the police in the first instance because they would be late for work and they lacked any urgency in their efforts get help to Nichols quickly. Of course, if they did tell Mizen the correct information with the correct amount of urgency, then Mizen would have run to the scene immediately. 16

I think Paul and Lechmere were cowards in the moment.

Interestingly, Paul reacts more suspiciously than Lechmere.


Something doesn't add up with the way that Paul, Lechmere and Mizen behaved, in terms of what they said they did and didn't do, and how they reacted to the situation.


Thoughts and clarification please?

The problem that we have RD is that we don’t have verbatim reports of what was said at the inquests (as you know of course) so we are looking at what was said via various newspaper reporters. So we have reporters perhaps mishearing things, perhaps misunderstanding things, perhaps writing them up incorrectly from their own notes, perhaps wording them unclearly, perhaps leaving bits out. We get something in one report that’s missing in another. A good example is the 2 newspapers who say that it was actual Robert Paul who refused to prop up Nichols and not Cross.

1 So in one report we get Cross saying that he thought that she might have been outraged. I’d say that all that we can deduce is that her skirt was raised to some extent and perhaps her legs were apart? She was lying on her back of course. It’s just a general observation from Cross.

2 It’s at least worth mentioning that two newspapers have Paul as the one that refused. As the majority said that it was Cross though then I’d say that he was the likelier.

3 I don’t have the quote handy to comment on that one RD.

4 An effort was made to pull down the skirts which implies a concern for dignity which doesn’t really align with suggestions of callousness. The fact that it wouldn’t come down fully implies that this was due to the fact that she was lying on it.

5 A skirt at the level of her thighs would still have concealed her abdominal injuries.

6 Paul, Cross or a combined effort. A suggestion might be that one of them suggested propping her in order to free her skirts so that they could pull them down fully but the other man was keen on handling her?

7 By the time that Neil saw her the skirts had been pulled down.

8 I can’t see an issue with this RD.

9 Because the initial position of the skirts (to the thighs) didn’t reveal any abdominal injuries and so pulling the skirts down even further wouldn’t have revealed her abdomen.

10 They did move her skirts just not all the way back down. Though they did attempt this.

11 I genuinely don’t get what you’re seeing that you find strange RD.

12 Yes, after Cross/Paul had pulled it down from her thighs (where her injuries would still not have been visible) to her knees.

13 I wouldn’t say that RD. in the Victorian era women didn’t show their legs so a skirt raised to any extent would have had sexual connotations. It was just a thought that came to Cross…a ‘perhaps she’s been raped?’

14 There’s a difference between handling the hem of her skirt in an attempt to pull it down and the actual handling of the body.

15 I can’t understand why you think that a skirt pulled up to the thighs would reveal abdominal injuries RD? So we have covered injuries then the skirt pulled down with the injuries remaining covered.

16 I think your suggesting an ideal world RD. Look at the examples that I posted. Not all people are like that. They act in self interest. As Fiver has said, if Paul hadn’t arrived I wouldn’t have been at all surprised if Cross had simply walked on to work. Paul would probably have just ignored her. Look at the couple that saw Tabram’s body on the landing. They didn’t check on her or anything. Their priority was getting indoors to eat their supper.

Nothing that Cross and Paul did was suspicious. All of the examples of people ignoring bodies would imply they’re guilt in some way but none of them were guilty of anything but a “it’s not my problem” kind of attitude. Thankfully not all people are like that, as the example of Abby’s actions show, but not all people are like Abby.

I just think that events were simple but often poorly/confusingly reported. Cross saw what he thought was a piece of tarpaulin. He walked over and then he halted as he began to realise that it looked like a person. He got to a position where he was certain that it wasn’t a tarpaulin. At that point he hears someone approach and realises that the man will be standing next to him in a very few seconds so he waits. What might he have been thinking? Perhaps he was just a bit squeamish about approaching what might have been a corpse? Perhaps he thought it might have been some drunk who would wake up angrily and go for him? Maybe he thought that it might have been ‘outraged’ woman and he didn’t want a confused woman screaming rape and pointing a finger at the first man that she saw? Also he might simply have thought that a wait of a very few seconds couldn’t have made any difference to the person lying in the street?

They check the woman. They pull her skirt down as far as they physically could. They are unsure if she was dead or alive although Paul felt that he might have detected signs of life but we don’t know the exact circumstances. What good would staying there have done? What good could one person staying there have done…the woman was unconscious and possibly dead. Self-interest had to be factored in so we have to recall that Cross and Paul’s priority was getting to work on time. So they decide to walk on and find a Constable. They worked at different places so there was an increased chance of finding one. They left Bucks Row together therefore we have no evidence that they were anything other than together when they spoke to Mizen. There’s an element of miscommunication/misunderstanding. Mizen is focused initially on his knocking up duties. Nothing that Cross said is contradicted by Paul and no one is suggesting that he was a co-conspirator in this murder.

- In any circumstances we can find things to quibble about (I’m not accusing you of quibbling btw RD) but how much more likely when we are relying on newspaper reports? My opinion hasn’t changed in that I see absolutely nothing, not a single thing even remotely or vaguely suspicious about the actions of Cross or Paul. If there was then we need positive evidence of it which doesn’t exist. Alternative interpretations aren’t enough. I honestly don’t get it. Why do people see suspicious behaviour here?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good list, Fiver, although I think it missed out one of the key (false) tenets, namely:
* Paul found Lechmere standing/crouching over the body of Polly Nichols

I've lost count of the times I've see this nugget of distorted evidence regurgitated.

Good point. That particular ‘classic’ has been casually dropped into many a debate.

[Elamarna]

So just to clarify, the likeliest position that Nichol's skirt was found was between her knees and waist, probably her thighs?

That's the best estimate based on the combined comments of Paul and Lechmere.

Lechmere and Paul never noticed her lower torso injuries.

But one of them claims they believed she had been outraged.

Correct

Paul wants to move the body, but Lechmere refuses and wants to get a policeman

Two press reports of Lechmere's testimony appear to say that it's Paul who refuses to move body. Balance of probabilities is this is a misreporting and it is Lechmere who will not

Paul initially thinks she's still alive but when subsequently speaking to the press, he changes his mind and concurs with the idea that he actually thought she was dead.

Actually he changes his view in the press report itself, at one stage saying she is just alive, at other points saying she is long dead.
So he appears unsure.

Both men go to find a policeman but the policeman's reaction lacks any urgency.

All we can say is that he admits he carries on knocking up one household. So it does appear he does not treat it as an emergency.

PC Neil finds Nichols skirt is at the level of her knees.

As described by Lechmere and pull to her knees.

Lechmere and Paul explain how her skirt didn't seem to want to come down, implying that they at least tried to move it, but it didn't come down... even though they never touched the body due to Lechmere not wanting to prop her up.

No Paul certainly said he touched her, her hands were cold.

Next few points you seem to be confused somewhat RD.

Neither men noticed her injuries...

And so who moved her skirt from her thighs down to her knees?

The carmen, they clearly say they attempted to pull her clothing down, but could only get it to knee level.

PC Neil said knees, Lechmere and Paul never noticed her injuries, didn't want to move her, and tried to pull her skirt lower to give her a little dignity, because they thought she had been outraged, but it didn't seem to want to come down.

So they moved her clothing but not her body physically?

If they moved her skirt, how did they not see any injuries?

Because her skirt was never high enough to expose the wounds.
She was severely cut, but the intestines were still inside the body cavity.
Remember Llewellyn did not notice the wounds, it was only Spratling at the mortuary who noticed while examining her clothing.

If they didn't move her skirt, how did it move from her thighs to her knees when PC Neil saw her clothing?

Either I'm missing something here, or someone isn't being truthful.

You really are confused, as stated above they clearly say they did move her clothing, but that it was difficult and they could only get it to the knees.

I suggest that she was laying with the rear of her clothing equally high, with the weight of her backside holding it in place, probably accident rather than design by killer.

Ironically, Lechmere seems to act more innocent than Paul, Neil and Mizen.

Paul gives the impression of someone with an issue with the police and of bigging himself up.

Mizen may lie, or he may simply have misunderstood. Or of course both Carmen lied.

I don't see Neil did anything wrong at all.

If noone saw her injuries, then her skirt must have been near her knees, which tallies with PC Neil.

If you think someone has been outraged, it would imply her skirt was exposing her private area, or her skirt was hitched up to her waist.

They didn't want to touch her, but someone must have moved her skirt and so how is that possible?

Something just doesn't add up here.

It would seem as I have said above you have got very confused.
So trying to clarify for you.

Her skirt was probably between her knees and waist when found by the carmen.
The wounds being higher than this, and with no intestines exposed at this point were covered by the dress and unseen.

It need not have been as high as you suggest, remember skirts were worn angle length if not longer. So up to her mid thighs could easily be interpreted as an attempt to rape her.
And of course Paul's account in Lloyds is far from perfect, it's full of apparent mistakes and exaggeration, one needs to treat it with caution.
I tend to only accept it when it corroborated by either Lechmere or Mizen.

The carmen both clearly that an attempt was made to pull her skirt down, but they could only get it to her knees.

Why you seem to think they didn't pull off when they say such happened in am lost RD.

In reality, I think that Paul and Lechmere knew she was dead and moved her skirt down to give her a bit of dignity, but I also think they noticed her injuries as one of them moved her skirt and they realized that it was a more serious situation than they thought.

To notice her wounds the skirt would need to be much higher than either man says.
At this stage her wounds were probably only two major cuts, there is NO indication that her intestines were poking out of the cuts at this stage, as they were after the body was moved to the mortuary.

They then were worried that they would be seen as suspects and because they knew she was dead, they casually walked off and found Mizen, who wasn't given the correct information by the pair of them because they would be detained by Mizen. Either that or Mizen was incompetent and couldn't be bothered to react with any urgency. Or maybe he was the killer and knew she was already dead.

I devote 4 chapters to the so called Mizen scam in Inside Bucks Row, what happened and why is far from clear, there are several different explanations. these range from both Carmen lied, to a misunderstand , to Mizen lied.
Sorry but it's far to complicated to put into a single post or even a series of posts.
Reading the book would certainly make things clearer for you.

Paul and Lechmere were more concerned about being late for work than they were for Nichols.

Yes, I do not find that at all surprising.

Any person with typical empathetic morals would have run and physically dragged the policeman to come to the scene, or at least have told him there was a murder victim laying in the road.

A common flaw people make here, we say that How we think we would behave in a set of circumstances is how everyone would behave.
Two issues, until we are in a particular situation we have no idea of how we would react, we might want to believe we would do the right thing , but we really don't know until it hapoens.

2nd point we cannot assume everyone will behave the same, responding different does not necessarily mean you are a bad person, simply that you have reacted differndifferently tly

(Abby gave an example of him behaving well, but Herlock posted examples of people who didn't.)

They didn't want to be seen as suspects, they didn't want to hang around the scene or help the police in the first instance because they would be late for work and they lacked any urgency in their efforts get help to Nichols quickly. Of course, if they did tell Mizen the correct information with the correct amount of urgency, then Mizen would have run to the scene immediately.

I think Paul and Lechmere were cowards in the moment.

Again, if we take what they said was said to Mizen, and that it was true, that there was a women lying in Bucks Row, either dead or drink, Mizen May well have acted as he thought was correct.

It was not on his beat.
It was not even in his Division. He was H , Bucks Row was J.
He may well have known a policeman until J division was due to be in Bucks Row around that time, it is even possible he had seen him around 10 minutes before.
It was actually an disciplinary offence to leave your beat without due course.

It seems that Mizen did not consider it an emergency.

Your view appears to be based on the idea that the two carmen had seen the injuries and knew it was murder.
Sorry RD that's just speculation, nothing wrong with that, but not only is it not supported by the evidence, it actually contradicts it.

Interestingly, Paul reacts more suspiciously than Lechmere.

Certain he exaggerates.

Something doesn't add up with the way that Paul, Lechmere and Mizen behaved, in terms of what they said they did and didn't do, and how they reacted to the situation.


Thoughts and clarification please?

RD, I suggest that it does not add up to you, because you have got confused over the skirt, and made an assumption that the carmen must have seen the wounds.
There is nothing to suggest that is correct, and plenty to counter it.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

- In any circumstances we can find things to quibble about... but how much more likely when we are relying on newspaper reports?

And, to make things worse, coverage of the Nichols case is pretty meagre compared to what we'll see from Chapman onwards.

[Elamarna]

And, to make things worse, coverage of the Nichols case is pretty meagre compared to what we'll see from Chapman onwards.

Hi my old friend.

That's the point I made in a podcast in 2019, which Stow disputed and denied.

Steve

[The Rookie Detective]

Thank you Herlock and Steve for clarifying my queries/uncertainties.

What I really respect about your posts is that they always seem measured and we'll thought out and when you combine both of your responses to my post, then you have a way of explaining everything to a point where everything seems to make sense.

I sincerely appreciate you both taking the time to respond to my queries because it is enlightening and educating to have your learned views on this case.

I appreciate your time and views as always.


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

And, to make things worse, coverage of the Nichols case is pretty meagre compared to what we'll see from Chapman onwards.

And it takes so little to alter a meaning. A missing word or two. One word mistaken for another. Then we factor in the scrupulous, non-sensationalism of The Press of course

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you Herlock and Steve for clarifying my queries/uncertainties.

What I really respect about your posts is that they always seem measured and we'll thought out and when you combine both of your responses to my post, then you have a way of explaining everything to a point where everything seems to make sense.

I sincerely appreciate you both taking the time to respond to my queries because it is enlightening and educating to have your learned views on this case.

I appreciate your time and views as always.


RD

No problem RD although not everyone would agree with you of course.

[Mark J D]

Has anyone who's interested in the case against Lechmere pondered the question of whether his mother knew about his murders -- and, if she did, at what point she first knew?

I find it hard to imagine Old Ma not knowing after September 30th, with Stride's murder taking place less than 180m from her front door. Unless, of course, Lech hadn't put in a personal appearance in Maryann Street that evening, and was simply cruising the area looking for opportunities in a location he knew extremely well. (Even so, she might have twigged...)

Years ago -- before the Ripperological earthquake of Lechmere's arrival -- I had wondered at odd moments whether the old question 'Why did he stop after Kelly?' might be answered 'Someone in his family was becoming suspicious'. What do people make of the idea that, as 'JtR', he stopped after Kelly because his mother told him to?

After all, a boy's best friend is his mother.

M.

[FrankO]

Hi TRD,

I know Michael (Herlock) and Steve have already given their answers to the questions you had, but I have some additions and thoughts of my own.

So just to clarify, the likeliest position that Nichol's skirt was found was between her knees and waist, probably her thighs?

Correct. When Neil found her clothes were a little above her knees.

Lechmere and Paul never noticed her lower torso injuries.

Correct.

But one of them claims they believed she had been outraged.

Also Paul said that in his Lloyd interview, so both Paul and Lechmere said it. So, they both might have thought it at the time and they may well have told each other that this was the impression they got. Perhaps they decided not to tell this to the policeman they would find, though, because it was either a delicate subject back in those days (I don’t know if this is true, so it’s just a thought) or they thought it might cause the policeman to take them back to the spot where she lay. Anyway, I think they thought the best thing was to send a policeman there, so that it was in the hands of the proper authorities and they could continue to their work.

Paul initially thinks she's still alive but when subsequently speaking to the press, he changes his mind and concurs with the idea that he actually thought she was dead.

Paul initially thinks she's dead, but then, when he touches her chest right before or while pulling down her dress, he thinks he feels a slight movement as of breathing. And then in the Lloyd’s interview he said he thought she was dead.

The interesting thing about how Paul came to feel a slight movement is that he seems to have felt it right before or while pulling down her dress.

Daily Telegraph of 18 September:
“The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint.”
Times of same date:
“While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement.”

This seems to imply that the hem of Nichols’ dress was lying on her chest, because what else was Paul doing on the chest area right before or while pulling down the dress? If true, it would challenge the notion that the killer had covered the abdominal wounds.

Both men go to find a policeman but the policeman's reaction lacks any urgency.

I think the carmen didn’t convey much, if any, sense of urgency and, so, Mizen reacted likewise.

All the best,
Frank

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi TRD,

I know Michael (Herlock) and Steve have already given their answers to the questions you had, but I have some additions and thoughts of my own.

Correct. When Neil found her clothes were a little above her knees.

Correct.

Also Paul said that in his Lloyd interview, so both Paul and Lechmere said it. So, they both might have thought it at the time and they may well have told each other that this was the impression they got. Perhaps they decided not to tell this to the policeman they would find, though, because it was either a delicate subject back in those days (I don’t know if this is true, so it’s just a thought) or they thought it might cause the policeman to take them back to the spot where she lay. Anyway, I think they thought the best thing was to send a policeman there, so that it was in the hands of the proper authorities and they could continue to their work.

Paul initially thinks she's dead, but then, when he touches her chest right before or while pulling down her dress, he thinks he feels a slight movement as of breathing. And then in the Lloyd’s interview he said he thought she was dead.

The interesting thing about how Paul came to feel a slight movement is that he seems to have felt it right before or while pulling down her dress.

Daily Telegraph of 18 September:
“The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint.”
Times of same date:
“While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement.”

This seems to imply that the hem of Nichols’ dress was lying on her chest, because what else was Paul doing on the chest area right before or while pulling down the dress? If true, it would challenge the notion that the killer had covered the abdominal wounds.

I think the carmen didn’t convey much, if any, sense of urgency and, so, Mizen reacted likewise.

All the best,
Frank

Thank you Frank, that clarifies things even further and adds to the realisation that there appears to be nothing untoward that happened and that the real killer had come, killed and gone before anyone had seen or heard anyone. (Apart from Mrs Lilley who I believe heard the killer and Nichols talking outside her window shortly before she was killed.

I believe that there's a clue as to which direction they were coming from (if they entered Bucks Row together) I'm that Mrs Lilley claims she heard distinct but faint voices outside her window.
She also heard moans which I believe was Nichols trying to fight for her life.
I also believe that the killer used the sound of the train passing to ensure she wasn't heard.

The fact she heard distinct voices would suggest that Nichols and her killer were talking BEFORE the train passed around 3.30am and then the moans were partially covered by the sound of the train.

The voices under her window is where Nichols and her killer were positioned BEFORE he attacks her and the distance between her window and the location she was found is a matter of yards and so they were walking past her window TOWARDS where she was killed.

The killer is then likely to have fled in the direction from which he was heading (because if he was spotted entering Bucks Row with Nichols and then leaving in the same direction, then it would increase the chances of him getting caught. And so I believe that the killer left in the direction opposite to Mrs Lilley's window.

And so they walk past her window talking and then moments later he attacks her when she was found and then he exits in the same direction he was walking towards in the first place because he couldn't be sure he hadn't been seen.

That's why I believe the murder took place around 3.30am.

ANd the killer was gone BEFORE 3.40am

Thoughts?

RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

Has anyone who's interested in the case against Lechmere pondered the question of whether his mother knew about his murders -- and, if she did, at what point she first knew?

I find it hard to imagine Old Ma not knowing after September 30th, with Stride's murder taking place less than 180m from her front door. Unless, of course, Lech hadn't put in a personal appearance in Maryann Street that evening, and was simply cruising the area looking for opportunities in a location he knew extremely well. (Even so, she might have twigged...)

Years ago -- before the Ripperological earthquake of Lechmere's arrival -- I had wondered at odd moments whether the old question 'Why did he stop after Kelly?' might be answered 'Someone in his family was becoming suspicious'. What do people make of the idea that, as 'JtR', he stopped after Kelly because his mother told him to?

After all, a boy's best friend is his mother.

M.

She would have been aware of the murder(s) as would every man and woman in the area but why would she assume that it was her son? And if she knew that he had killed Stride and Eddowes she had plenty of time to tell him to stop being a naughty boy in time to prevent the Kelly murder.

[rjpalmer]

* Lechmere's mom was a rigid moralist and/or completely promiscuous, which is why he hated prostitutes.

Perhaps, but another theorist, citing the use of "forensic astrology," argues that Lechmere's wife Elizabeth was to blame-- "a dominatrix who turned her unstable husband into a monster."

Forensic Astrology - The Adventurous Astrologer (weebly.com)

I'm assuming Christer would denounce this as a 'fringe' theory.