Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Mark J D]

I concur with this

However, my initial point is that the term "around" 3.30am MUST also be applied to a few minutes BEFORE 3.30am for the sake of balance and objectivity.

If 'balance and objectivity' were the aim -- as opposed to simply getting Lechmere off the table so Ripperology can go back to what it was before it ended -- the newspapers that say 3:20am would also be considered. As it is, group psychology seems to have dictated that this earlier time -- however it came about -- should now be ignored altogether.

M.

[Doctored Whatsit]

What would be more relevant, is whatever Lechmere said in his witness statement at the time, and not errors made by newspapers. We don't have the original statement, but that is what the police considered as evidence at the time. I can't help thinking that if he told them he started off at 3. 20 am and arrived in Buck's Row at 3. 40 am they would have been very suspicious!

As a carman starting work at 4 am, Lechmere would almost certainly have been "knocked up" by a police officer, and that PC's evidence would then have been available as a guide, presumably.

[Elamarna]

If 'balance and objectivity' were the aim -- as opposed to simply getting Lechmere off the table so Ripperology can go back to what it was before it ended -- the newspapers that say 3:20am would also be considered. As it is, group psychology seems to have dictated that this earlier time -- however it came about -- should now be ignored altogether.

M.

You should consider it yes, and then decide if you believe it is more reliable than the other reports.
it's repeated in two papers, using the same words, both papers also mention hearing a policeman, which does not appear in any other reports.

It is reasonable to conclude that the same reporter supplied the report to both papers.

So we have 2 reports ( probably be single reporter) saying 3.20, and ALL the rest saying about or at 3.30.( about being by far the more numerous).

Paul makes no mention of hearing a policeman before they left the body, either in his Lloyds account, or at the inquest.

It seems reasonable to conclude that the 3.20 and hearing a policeman is in all probability a misreporting by the journalist.

We see various interpretations of this, some claiming that he normally left at 3.20, which I am afraid is not what the reports say.

I see no reason to believe that what appears to be, in reality, a single report, which also mentions issues not reported by other papers, should be chosen as being reliable over the the rest of the reports of the inquest.

Steve

[FrankO]

... and I believe most quoted times can be read as give or take at least 5 minutes .

That's how I see it as well, Steve.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I concur with this

However, my initial point is that the term "around" 3.30am MUST also be applied to a few minutes BEFORE 3.30am for the sake of balance and objectivity.

While I don't believe that Lechmere was the killer for a multitude of reasons, I still believe that the term "AROUND 3.30AM" has to include minutes before and after 3.30am.

For example...

Cross leaving his house at 3.29am finding the body at 3.37am = questionable
Cross leaving his house at 3.28am finding the body at 3.36am = He's the killer

I only ask why Anti-Lechmere folk always start their "around 3.30am" leaving time at 3.30am and then move to timings AFTER 3.30am i.e. 3.31am, 3.32am etc...

And Pro-Lechmere folk always state 3.30am at the latest.

The term "around" is an approximate that has to be given scope for movement both ways prior and after 3.30am.

The fact remains that Lechmere was seen standing in the road, with a murdered woman lying a few feet away.
For him to be innocent, Robert Paul has to arrived at the murder site no more than a couple of minutes after Lechmere arrived, because Lechmere or any innocent person wouldn't have been standing stationary in the road contemplating the difference between a tarpaulin and a dead body for more than a couple of minutes.

Ascertaining the most likely time that Paul arrived is more important than focusing on Lechmere's timings. All we know from him is that he states he left home around 3.30am...BUT that could just as equally have been 3.27am as it could 3.33am.

To suggest that "around" 3.30am can only mean AFTER 3.30am is nonsensical because 3.27am is also "around 3.30am"

Personally, I believe Lechmere was innocent and missed the murder by no more than 3 minutes and that Paul arrived less than 2 minutes after Lechmere stopped in the road to look over at the heap on the floor.

The timings fit for Lechmere leaving around 3.30am (3.33am) and arriving around 3.41am...but that's beside the point.

The point is that he could have easily left "around 3.30am" (3.27am) and then murdered Nichols.

But Lechmere isn't innocent because we play around with timings to fit him being so, he's innocent because he would have needed to leave his family home on the way to work with a huge knife and murder on his mind on the way to work, despite having no history of violence whatsoever and no known motive to kill. THAT is why he is innocent.

RD

I’ve said numerous times on here RD that when considering a margin of error then it has to work both ways. So if Cross said “about 3.30,” then 3.25 is as likely as 3.35. But ‘earlier’ throws up more issues for Cross. If he left the house at 3.25 then he’d have got to Bucks Row around 3.32.

Could anyone believe he left it so near to clocking in time to go looking for a victim?
Can anyone believe that he picked Polly up elsewhere and took her back to his route to work so that he could kill her in such an open and risky spot (and not found some doorway or passage somewhere?)
Can anyone believe that he arrived in Bucks Row and stood around waiting on the off chance that a victim might show up?
Can anyone believe that he met her in Bucks Row at 3.32 or 3.33 or 3.34, took 1 or 2 minutes to kill her and then stood around waiting for a passerby to show up?

[Abby Normal]

for me, taking all the sources into account, the best we can determine is that lech left home about 3:30 and that paul entered bucks row about 3:45. if it took lech about 8 minutes to walk from his house to bucks row, then thats about 7 minutes gap. in which surely he could have killed nichols. although really, if he was the ripper, the timing is a moot point for me. because if he was, he probably left earlier than he stated if he was killing on his way to work, or he actually wasnt working on the days he killed.
i part ways with the lechmerians on this regard i think.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If 'balance and objectivity' were the aim -- as opposed to simply getting Lechmere off the table so Ripperology can go back to what it was before it ended -- the newspapers that say 3:20am would also be considered. As it is, group psychology seems to have dictated that this earlier time -- however it came about -- should now be ignored altogether.

M.

Can you really make a comment like this about ‘balance and objectivity) and keep a straight face? Have you read the ridiculous, desperate, embarrassing and frankly dishonest lengths that some have gone to simply due to an obsession (no other way of describing it) with Charles Cross? So much so that you get people editing the evidence in books and documentaries? So much so that you get someone on here suggesting that Cross’s actions are too much like the actions of an innocent man so it points to his guilt? Fiver has posted a list of the hysteria that’s gone on to promote this suspect. I think that Ripperologists have been more than patient.

Name one piece of valid evidence that points to his guilt. You have ‘he was there’ that’s all. Like the thousands other men who have found bodies in the street - and I’m yet to hear of one of them who turned out to have been the killer.

[Fiver]

Investigating person X does not make one beholden to prove person X was JtR, proving they were not is also useful. Research is about looking for information that provides an answer that is of yet unknown, not looking for information in order to twist it into a predetermined answer.

- Jeff

Some people alter their views to fit the facts. Some people alter the facts to fit their views.

And that's the difference between someone who thinks Charles Lechmere makes a good suspect and the Cult of Lechmere.

The Cultists take an ambiguous minority statement about standing where the body was and twist it into meaning Lechmere was seen hovering over the body of Polly Nichols. They then ignore the majority of accounts that say Lechmere was standing in the middle of the road. The non-cultist accepts the facts, but feels that finding the body is enough reason to investigate Lechmere.

The Cultists manufacture a time time gap by ignoring the time estimations of PC Mizen, PC Thain, and PC Neil in favor of the time estimation of Robert Paul. They ignore that Inspector Abberine took those estimates and concluded that Nichols body was found at 3:40am. They selectively quote the coroner saying the body was found around 3:45am and ignore that the coroner said she was killed before 3:45am. The non-cultists accept that Lechmere could have lied about when he left home.

The Cultists claim that Lechmere's actions were unique and that proves he was the Ripper. The non-cultist recognizes that Lechmere was not the only person find a victim who contacted someone else before going to the police, Lechmere was not the only witness to wear work clothes to an inquest, Lechmere was not the only witness to use a different surname in court from the one written on his marriage license, Lechmere was not the only witness to contradict PC Mizen, Lechmere was not the only witness to say he walked down the right side of the street before he found the body.

And even the standard Cult of Lechmere is more grounded in reality than the Misogyny Sect, that constantly demeans the abandoned single mother who raised Charles Lechmere to try to cram her into the 1988 FBI Ripper profile. The same Misogyny Sect frequently excuses, when it doesn't exalt as a prize catch, John Lechmere, an alcoholic bankrupt bootmaker who abandoned his family to shack up with a teenage orphan.

Or the other extreme even for the Cult of Lechmere - the Ley Line Sect. They claim a line between Mitre Square and the Gouston Street Graffito points directly to Lechmere's house, when that line runs nowhere near. Or trying to claim that a bloody rag found near the London Hospital the day after the Pichin Street Torso points to Lechmere. Even if you were to accept their assumptions that the Ripper was the TorsoMan and that the rag had anything to do with the Pinchin Street Torso and that another bloody rag found a block to the west of the Torso a couple hours later had nothing to to with it, the Ley Line still doesn't point to Charles Lechmere.

[Herlock Sholmes]

for me, taking all the sources into account, the best we can determine is that lech left home about 3:30 and that paul entered bucks row about 3:45. if it took lech about 8 minutes to walk from his house to bucks row, then thats about 7 minutes gap. in which surely he could have killed nichols. although really, if he was the ripper, the timing is a moot point for me. because if he was, he probably left earlier than he stated if he was killing on his way to work, or he actually wasnt working on the days he killed.
i part ways with the lechmerians on this regard i think.

If Mizen, Thain and Paul were right though Abby Paul couldn’t have entered Bucks Row at 3.45 because he says that no more than 4 minutes passed before they got to Mizen (so that’s 3.41) These are approximates of course.

That said…..there’s no way of eliminating him on this point because all he needed was around 2 minutes to kill her. It’s not impossible but I see nothing apart from ‘he had time to do it’ to make me see him as suspicious. He has to be considered though and he cannot definitively be exonerated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Some people alter their views to fit the facts. Some people alter the facts to fit their views.

And that's the difference between someone who thinks Charles Lechmere makes a good suspect and the Cult of Lechmere.

The Cultists take an ambiguous minority statement about standing where the body was and twist it into meaning Lechmere was seen hovering over the body of Polly Nichols. They then ignore the majority of accounts that say Lechmere was standing in the middle of the road. The non-cultist accepts the facts, but feels that finding the body is enough reason to investigate Lechmere.

The Cultists manufacture a time time gap by ignoring the time estimations of PC Mizen, PC Thain, and PC Neil in favor of the time estimation of Robert Paul. They ignore that Inspector Abberine took those estimates and concluded that Nichols body was found at 3:40am. They selectively quote the coroner saying the body was found around 3:45am and ignore that the coroner said she was killed before 3:45am. The non-cultists accept that Lechmere could have lied about when he left home.

The Cultists claim that Lechmere's actions were unique and that proves he was the Ripper. The non-cultist recognizes that Lechmere was not the only person find a victim who contacted someone else before going to the police, Lechmere was not the only witness to wear work clothes to an inquest, Lechmere was not the only witness to use a different surname in court from the one written on his marriage license, Lechmere was not the only witness to contradict PC Mizen, Lechmere was not the only witness to say he walked down the right side of the street before he found the body.

And even the standard Cult of Lechmere is more grounded in reality that the Misogyny Sect, that constantly demeans the abandoned single mother who raised Charles Lechmere to try to cram her into the 1988 FBI Ripper profile. The same Misogyny Sect frequently excuses, when it doesn't exalt as a prize catch, John Lechmere, an alcoholic bankrupt bootmaker who abandoned his family to shack up with a teenage orphan.

Or the other extreme even for the Cult of Lechmere - the Ley Line Sect. They claim a line between Mitre Square and the Gouston Street Graffito points directly to Lechmere's house, when that line runs nowhere near. Or trying to claim that a bloody rag found near the London Hospital the day after the Pichin Street Torso points to Lechmere. Even of you were to accept their assumptions that the Ripper was the TorsoMan and that the rag had anything to do with the Pinchin Street Torso and that another bloody rag found a block to the west of the Torso a couple hours later had nothing to to with it, the Ley Line still doesn't point to Charles Lechmere.

I agree Fiver. There’s a big difference between someone like Abby and someone who says “Cross’s testimony sounds too much like an innocent man so he must have been lying!”

[Fiver]

If 'balance and objectivity' were the aim -- as opposed to simply getting Lechmere off the table so Ripperology can go back to what it was before it ended -- the newspapers that say 3:20am would also be considered. As it is, group psychology seems to have dictated that this earlier time -- however it came about -- should now be ignored altogether.

M.

If you paid attention to what other people said, you would know that the two newspapers that said Lechmere left at 3:20am have been discussed, not ignored. And that the reasonable people, whether or not they think Lechmere was the Ripper, feel the most likely explanation was that those two newspapers got the time wrong and that Lechmere said he left home at around 3:30am.

As opposed to the Cult of Lechmere, who insist that the majority of the newspapers got the time wrong and that the police who were at the inquest were too stupid to notice that it shouldn't have taken Lechemre 20 minutes to get to Bucks Row. Some Cultists even claim that Lechmere changed his story in open court from 3:20am to 3:30am and none of the papers bothered to mention it.

[Mark J D]

What would be more relevant, is whatever Lechmere said in his witness statement at the time, and not errors made by newspapers. We don't have the original statement, but that is what the police considered as evidence at the time. I can't help thinking that if he told them he started off at 3. 20 am and arrived in Buck's Row at 3. 40 am they would have been very suspicious!

As a carman starting work at 4 am, Lechmere would almost certainly have been "knocked up" by a police officer, and that PC's evidence would then have been available as a guide, presumably.

Here we go again:

'The police would surely have [[insert imaginings here]]...'
(Rinse and repeat until Lechmere fades away...)

Uh, no.

M.

[Fiver]

As a carman starting work at 4 am, Lechmere would almost certainly have been "knocked up" by a police officer, and that PC's evidence would then have been available as a guide, presumably.

Lechmere's wife could have been a witness as well. Being illiterate doesn't mean you can't hear the clocks chime or the "Knocker upper" banging at the door.

[Fiver]

Here we go again:

'The police would surely have [[insert imaginings here]]...'
(Rinse and repeat until Lechmere fades away...)

Uh, no.

M.

Again you misrepresent what other people say.

I am assuming that Coroner Baxter, Inspector Helson, Inspector Spratling, Inspector Abberline, and possible even PC Mizen were capable of calculating that 40 - 20 = 20.

You are the one assuming that experienced police inspectors were incapable of doing simple subtraction.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Here we go again:

'The police would surely have [[insert imaginings here]]...'
(Rinse and repeat until Lechmere fades away...)

Uh, no.

M.

Either a) the police had nothing suspicious in the relative statements, or,

b) to have it your way, the police had all the evidence they needed to implicate Lechmere, but the entire Metropolitan force were all too stupid to notice it.

Logical or illogical probabilities, you pick and choose.

What we absolutely know as facts, is that they had statements from Paul and Lechmere, and the Coroner, Swanson and Abberline were all totally satisfied. You don't have any of the evidence that they had, but reckon they were all wrong. Good luck with that!

So I suggest that the evidence indicates that "the police would surely have..." and you keep insisting that is wrong.