Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fiver]

Obviously, Holland's timing, Lechmere's estimated time of departure from home, Paul's estimated time, the times quoted by the police officers, and that quoted by Llewellyn were all achieved using different time sources, and cannot be guaranteed to agree perfectly. But Baxter's "less than an hour and a quarter" is absolutely clear.

Baxter's "less than an hour and a quarter" has been pointed out to Fisherman multiple times. He deliberately ignores it, just like he ignores all the other evidence that doesn't fit his theory.

[Fiver]

I have already answered these questions, Fiver. Why would I do it again, just because you failed to notice it, or chose to try and make it out as if I had not?

You posted a textwall, but you didn't answer the questions.

Your theory is that the police did not make inquiries at all of the houses on Buck's Row, even though they were ordered to do so by Coroner Baxter and even though they reported making inquiries at all of the house adjoining Buck's Row.

Why would Inspector Spratling ignore Baxter's orders to make inquiries at all the houses in Bucks Row?

Why would the police make inquiries at all the houses adjoining Buck's Row and not make inquiries at all the houses in Buck's Row?

[Fiver]

Every time I repeat the fact that the St Philips rag was found in an exact line between the arch and Lechmeres lodgings, I point to a circumstance that potentially has a very clear bearing on the case..

Every time you draw your Ley Line, you are drawing a line to connect three things with no proven connection - Charles Lechmere, the St Phillips rag, and the Pinchin Street archway.

And deliberately ignoring the thousands of other lines that you could draw to thousands of other homes that didn't fit your theory.

[rjpalmer]

Every time I repeat the fact that the St Philips rag was found in an exact line between the arch and Lechmeres lodgings, I point to a circumstance that potentially has a very clear bearing on the case.

Out of curiosity--and I think I've asked you this before--why do you persist in calling this a 'rag' when it was identified as a 'rough apron'?

Shouldn't we try to be precise?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Baxter's "less than an hour and a quarter" has been pointed out to Fisherman multiple times. He deliberately ignores it, just like he ignores all the other evidence that doesn't fit his theory.

Quite so, Fiver. It is so clear a statement that I felt obliged to write that I didn't understand why it was still being debated. This is especially weird when we consider that the source of the "less than an hour and a quarter" is the same person, in the same summing up, who uttered the "not far off" 3. 45 am which is much quoted.

Wasn't there something said along the lines of "The full picture always needs to be given, When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information" .....

[Herlock Sholmes]

I liked it when Fish used to get things right. Like on February 14th 2014 on JTRForums talking about Nichols ToD:

“Yes, Elaine. I think that 3.40 will be very close to or spot on the TOD.”

[Fiver]

It may be that the harsh employment conditions mentioned in the article were not there as he set out as a carman.

I see you are unfamiliar with the history of the labor movement. The London Carmen's Trade Union was founded in 1888 and by 1889 had over 6000 members by 1889.

You also appear not to have read the article I posted as it shows Pickfords treated its carmen better than carmen working for some of the other major employers.

,,,my posts on this are simply meant to point out that harsh working conditions CAN be a reason for why a potential serial killer is set off.

We're still waiting for you to provide anything but your own opinion that harsh working conditions can lead to someone becoming a serial killer.

[Fiver]

What Baxter said was, and I am quoting the Morning Advertiser, "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data". But to be perfectly honest, Frank - does not "cannot have been far off 3.45" MEAN "at 3.45 or not far off it" ....? Or does the "not far off" mean that we should work from the assumption that it was off, only not far off...?
Just as when we say "I left home at around 3.30", it means that 3,30 is the time we are suggesting as a likelihood, a suggestion meaning that 3.45 is our best guess, although we accept that we may be wrong about it to a degree?

You aren't quoting the whole picture of what Frank said or of what Baxter said. Because if we were to quote everything Baxter said it would undermine your theory.

[Fiver]

nd when you have two independent sources like Paul and Llewellyn, once you know how accurate the timepieces from where their respective takes stemmed, you can fix a time with great certainty - although perhaps not to the exact minute as such.

Back in the real world.
* Llewellyn's timing does not support Paul.
* PC Mizen's timing contradicts Paul.
* PC Neil's timing contradicts Paul.
* PC Thain's timing timing contradicts Paul.

So it's three independent witnesses against one. Which you repeatedly, deliberately, ignore.

* Coroner Baxter did not fix an exact time that Nichol;s body was discovered.
* Baxter did clearly say he believed Nichols was killed before 3:45am. (It's in a part of his summation that you never quote,)
* Baxter showed no sign of thinking there was a time gap in witness testimony.
* The jury showed no sign of thinking there was a time gap in witness testimony.
* Inspectors Helson and Spratling, Detective Sergeant Enright, and and PCs Mizen, Thain, and Neil showed no sign of thinking there was a time gap in witness testimony.
* Inspector Abberline's report shows he believed that Lechemre found Nicols body around 3:40am.

There is no evidence for a time gap. Which you repeatedly, deliberately, ignore.

Because if people were to look at the whole picture, instead of just the bits you selectively quote, they'd see your theory was as sturdy as a soap bubble.

[Fisherman]

That’s not even worth a ‘nice try.’

An embarrassingly desperate attempt at obfuscation. Connors is a distraction tactic and an attempt to shake me off. Not happening Fish.

It has been proven. Categorically, without a solitary scintilla of a doubt. So I’ll keep trying.

—————————

You wrote Cutting Point and did the research - you wouldn’t deny that of course.

During that research you checked the inquest testimonies as reported in the various newspapers to get an overall view of what was actually said (eliminating the possibility of things like one or two newspapers repeating an error that wasn’t reported in 15 others - so to get a balanced overall view of what was actually said.)

As an experienced Journalist you would be as aware as anyone of the importance of getting facts correct. Opinions and interpretations can vary but basic facts have to be correct.

So during this period of research (when I assume that you read these newspaper reports more than once) it would have been the simplest thing in the world to do a bit of counting (after all were not talking hundreds of reports are we?)

So in Cutting Point you make this positive stamens of (what should easily have been) fact:

“Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at 3.30, but the time 3.20 is also mentioned in one paper.”

This isn’t an estimation….it’s a positive statement that more papers said ‘3.30’ than ‘3.20.’

On here you admitted that:

“We must however accept that since the absolute bulk of the papers spoke of ”around 3.30”, that is by far the likeliest wording to have been given.”

I’ll ask you again:

How is it remotely possible that you could have read those newspaper reports (numerous times) and not only did you wrongly state that the majority of them said ‘3.30’ but you also managed to completely omit any mention that some of them said ‘around 3.30,’ whilst remembering to mention the one mention of 3.20?

How could you have possibly done this unintentionally and how you even expect anyone to believe it?

This absolutely PROVES that this was done deliberately despite you’re obvious attempts at obfuscation. It cannot have been otherwise.

A "distraction tactic"? Connor (not "Connors).

I am showing you that he treats how the body was found by Lechmere and Paul at 3.45 as a fact.

I am showing you that in spite of how he knows that the papers used the wording "about 3.30", he still says that it should only have taken six minutes for Lechmere to do the trek to Bucks Row, and if he left home at 3.30, he would have arrived at 3.36.

So he is basically doing the exact same thing that I do.

Therefore, since you apparently are able to read my thoughts and tell that I am lying and misleading for doing the exact same things as Connor did, I am genuinely interested in finding out if you can also disclose how Michael Connor reasoned before writing "Did the Ripper Work for Pickfords".

If you can do it in one case, surely you can do it in another?

But let me help you out, Herlock. Neither one of us is lying. Neither one of us is deceitful. Neither one of us is doing something that is in any way disallowed. We are both doing the exact same thing, we are working from how we both believe that the body was found at 3.45 or not far off that time, as asserted by coroner Baxter, and we are both, knowing that Lechmere said that he left home at around 3.30, saying that if he DID leave home at 3.30, then he should have arrived in Bucks Row many minutes before Paul got there.

Furthermore, you have proven nothing at all in the way of any devious behavior on my behalf, but for your own unsubstantiated suggestion that this was so. And it is never good enough to claim deception on behalf of another poster if you cannot prove it.

This is why I am in the process of demanding proof from your good friend Fiver, who stated that I would have refused to accept that the St Philips rag is not proven to be in any way linked to Charles Lechmere. So far - I am in the process of catching up - he has not given my an answer. What he has done is to make the very odd claim that presenting how a line drawn from the railway arch to Lechmeres lodgings, passes right over St Philips church, is the same thing as claiming that the rag IS connected to Lechmere.

You don't seem very much interested in this matter, though, Herlock? Maybe your moral compass has only one point on it? Apart from being broken in all sorts of ways?

There IS a moral issue involved in al of this, you are correct in that. But it has nothing at all to do with me lacking moral. It is instead linked to how you make the false claim that you can somehow prove how I reasoned when I wrote Cutting Point - a book that you two years ago hailed as a very good one, with no leaps of faith. An effort you took your hat off to.

And now, it is the worst piece of devious deception that has ever infested ripperology?

Good luck with your tarnishing campaign. Me, I have had quite enough of it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A "distraction tactic"? Connor (not "Connors).

I am showing you that he treats how the body was found by Lechmere and Paul at 3.45 as a fact.

I am showing you that in spite of how he knows that the papers used the wording "about 3.30", he still says that it should only have taken six minutes for Lechmere to do the trek to Bucks Row, and if he left home at 3.30, he would have arrived at 3.36.

So he is basically doing the exact same thing that I do.

Therefore, since you apparently are able to read my thoughts and tell that I am lying and misleading for doing the exact same things as Connor did, I am genuinely interested in finding out if you can also disclose how Michael Connor reasoned before writing "Did the Ripper Work for Pickfords".

If you can do it in one case, surely you can do it in another?

But let me help you out, Herlock. Neither one of us is lying. Neither one of us is deceitful. Neither one of us is doing something that is in any way disallowed. We are both doing the exact same thing, we are working from how we both believe that the body was found at 3.45 or not far off that time, as asserted by coroner Baxter, and we are both, knowing that Lechmere said that he left home at around 3.30, saying that if he DID leave home at 3.30, then he should have arrived in Bucks Row many minutes before Paul got there.

Furthermore, you have proven nothing at all in the way of any devious behavior on my behalf, but for your own unsubstantiated suggestion that this was so. And it is never good enough to claim deception on behalf of another poster if you cannot prove it.

This is why I am in the process of demanding proof from your good friend Fiver, who stated that I would have refused to accept that the St Philips rag is not proven to be in any way linked to Charles Lechmere. So far - I am in the process of catching up - he has not given my an answer. What he has done is to make the very odd claim that presenting how a line drawn from the railway arch to Lechmeres lodgings, passes right over St Philips church, is the same thing as claiming that the rag IS connected to Lechmere.

You don't seem very much interested in this matter, though, Herlock? Maybe your moral compass has only one point on it? Apart from being broken in all sorts of ways?

There IS a moral issue involved in al of this, you are correct in that. But it has nothing at all to do with me lacking moral. It is instead linked to how you make the false claim that you can somehow prove how I reasoned when I wrote Cutting Point - a book that you two years ago hailed as a very good one, with no leaps of faith. An effort you took your hat off to.

And now, it is the worst piece of devious deception that has ever infested ripperology?

Good luck with your tarnishing campaign. Me, I have had quite enough of it.

There certainly is a moral issue and you are STILL ducking the point. Do you really think that people reading this can’t see this? Do you assume that everyone on here is just too stupid to see and understand the very obvious point that I’m making. A point that is extremely simple and yet you keep sending over a deluge of words none of which address the point. Connor is irrelevant, as you well know, because I’m not talking about you using ‘3.30’ instead of ‘around 3.30.’ Can you let that sink in Fish…..I’m not talking about you using ‘3.30’ instead of ‘around 3.30.’ Have you understood that or will you still be responding to a point that I’m not currently talking about?

Ill try again by making it as short and simple as I can……


HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WHEN READING THE VARIOUS REPORTS OF THE INQUEST TESTIMONY YOU ARRIVED AT THE POSITIVE CONCLUSION THAT THE MAJORITY OF THEM HAD SAID ‘3.30,’ CONSIDERING THAT YOUVE RECENTLY ADMITTED THAT THE MAJORITY VERY OBVIOUSLY SAID ‘AROUND 3.3O.’

HOW DID YOU MANAGE TO ‘MISCOUNT?’ HOW DID THAT ‘MISTAKE’ OCCUR?

[Fisherman]

Why are we discussing this at such length?

Presumably because we feel a need to. That is more often than not the reason. Once we feel no need to, I am sure the discussion will Peter out and disappear.

Baxter's summing up seems to me to be crystal clear. Holland saw Nichols at 2. 30 am, she recalled that the nearby clock struck while they were talking. Baxter when summing up, stated that "in less than an hour and a quarter after this she was found dead." So there we have it, Baxter clearly decided that she was found dead before 3. 45 am.

What the coroner said was :
" ...the unfortunate woman was last seen alive at half-past two o'clock on Saturday morning, Sept 1, by Mrs. Holland, who knew her well. Deceased was at that time much the worse for drink, and was endeavouring to walk eastward down Whitechapel. What her exact movements were after this it was impossible to say; but in less than an hour and a quarter her dead body was discovered at a spot rather under three-quarters of a mile distant."

So what you are suggesting is that the coroner allowed for a finding time of 3.44.59 but not 3.45.00? And if you do, precisely what obstacles are you suggesting Baxter identified for how the body could not have been found at 3.45?
More pertinently, how do you explain that the coroner you think was so crystal clear said specifically that "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.", if 3.45 was actually a time he would never allow for?

I will be interested to hear a crystal clear explanation from your side about this. If, of course, you can be asked to engage in an errand you find it strange that somebody is still discussing.


So what info did he use in his consideration? He had three police officers and Paul quoting events timed at or about 3.45 am. Paul walking to work, Neil finding the body, Thain being called by Neil, and Mizen meeting Paul and Lechmere. Paul suggested about four minutes to find Mizen. I think that Llewellyn's time is too far distant to be a useful source in estimating the discovery time. Baxter concluded that Neil "must independantly have found the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen." So Baxter, avoiding estimating to the minute, and having specified that the body was found before 3. 45 am, concluded that it was found "not far off" that time, which can only mean very shortly before that.

-So you fail to mention that Paul spoke about walking down Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 in Lloyds Weekly.
-You decide to treat Llewellyns timing - that does not suit your reasoning - as irrelevant, and too far removed in time to be of any interest, although Llewellyn is by far the likeliest witness to have owned a reliable timepiece.
-You reason that although baxter believed the body was found BEFORE 3.45, he felt the best way to explain this was to use 3.45 as the anchor point of his verdict.

And you wonder why people still discuss the matter?


The suggestion that the carmen were with Nichols for perhaps about one minute, and then took four minutes to reach Mizen, gave Abberline a suggested 3. 40 am time for the actual discovery.

It gave EVERYONE a suggested time of around 3.40 for the discovery if the body - but only initially. Once the timings were scrutinized (and Baxter would have scrutinized ALL the timings, he would not be as keen to dismiss Llewellyn as you are, for example), nobody believed that the carmen arrived at the body at 3.40, they all thought that they got there around 3.45. As Baxter says. As the October police reports say. As a paper commenting on Baxters summary says.
The thing is, you see, if Baxter thought that the body was found at circa 3.40 by the carmen, all he had to do was to SAY SO. He would not need to reason "Hmmm, let's see ... yeah, I've got it - if I say that the body was found not far off 3.45, people will understand that I actually think that bit was found at 3.40!"

That, you see, is how you reason, Doctored Whatsit.

And you wonder why people still discuss the matter?


Obviously, Holland's timing, Lechmere's estimated time of departure from home, Paul's estimated time, the times quoted by the police officers, and that quoted by Llewellyn were all achieved using different time sources, and cannot be guaranteed to agree perfectly. But Baxter's "less than an hour and a quarter" is absolutely clear.

... until we read the next line of the summary. And do the math.

So waaayyyyy of the target - and no cigar.

[Fisherman]

As Luke Skywalker would say- Amazing, every single thing you just said was wrong.

You again misrepresent my posting of the original article. You continue to do so in spite of my repeated explanations and direct links to what I actually said. This has to be deliberate on your part by now. I never said anything about the article having anything to do with how likely Lechmere was to be a murderer. I used it to point of that if he was the murderer, killing after work made far more sense than killing during or before work.

There is no evidence that any of the elements that can set off serial killing were present in Lechmere's case. Nobody but you even suggests that a stressful work environment can lead to serial killing. The sources you gave do not discuss work related stress. You have no evidence to support your theory.

Lechmere did not "suddenly get a much more straining job by way of having working hours added". He just continued working the job he'd been working for roughly the last two decades and would continue for roughly another decade afterwards. There is no evidence that being a carman was any more stressful for Lechmere than it was for any of the other roughly 68,000 carmen in the London area. There is no evidence that being a carman was more stressful than other period jobs.

Only Fisherman would try to use Lechmere having a job to imply he was the Ripper.

And only you would falsely lead on that I would have said that Lechmeres job implies that he was the Ripper.

Then again, you are masterful when it comes to these kinds of shenanigans.

[Fisherman]

You posted a textwall, but you didn't answer the questions.

Your theory is that the police did not make inquiries at all of the houses on Buck's Row, even though they were ordered to do so by Coroner Baxter and even though they reported making inquiries at all of the house adjoining Buck's Row.

My theory, supported by coroner Baxters question to Spratling, is that neither Spratling himself, nor the police force as a whole, had interviewed all the inhabitants of Bucks Row as that question was posed.

Why would Inspector Spratling ignore Baxter's orders to make inquiries at all the houses in Bucks Row?

When did I say that he ignored it? Never. So again a falsehood, led on by you.

Why would the police make inquiries at all the houses adjoining Buck's Row and not make inquiries at all the houses in Buck's Row?

Because - and as you know, I have answered this before, the initial search they did, was related to rumors that seems to point to how the murder could have taken place in Brady Street or any of the other adjoining streets, whereafter the body was carried to Bucks Row and dumped there. You quoted the Morning Post from the 3rd of September:
"A house-to-house investigation and inquiry has been made in all the streets adjoining Buck's-row, but with no tangible results." - 3 September 1888 Morning Post

As has been pointed out to you, it would be odd in the extreme if Bucks Row was part of this search, whereupon the paper would omit to mention it, instead very clearly stating that it was the streets ADJACENT to Bucks Row that had been the subject of house to house inquiries.
You should also be aware that the wording "house-to-house inquiry" only guarantees two houses being looked at, whether or not all the houses in the adjoining streets were part of these investigations are an unknown factor.

It may also be that - since a full house-to-house search in all the adjoining streets of Bucks Row would be a very time consuming affair - it was accepted that Nichols had been killed in situ before the search was completed, and that it was therefore stopped as a result of this.

We simply don't know.

But we DO know that you, on basis of the Morning Post quotation above, claimed in an earlier post as a fact that all the houses in Bucks Row had been contacted in the days leading up to the 3rd of September. And we DO know that you as a result of this claim of yours, resorted to suggesting that what the coroner was asking Spratling was not whether all the households in Bucks Row had been spoken to, but instead whether or not Spratling HIMSELF had spoken to all of the households in Bucks Row.

Which is one of the more strange suggestions I have ever seen made on the boards. And it is not as if there is a lack of competition, much of it having been supplied by yourself.

If you please, I would like to see the full article from which you have cut out the quotation above. I find it often helps when things are put in context. So please?

[Fisherman]

Every time you draw your Ley Line, you are drawing a line to connect three things with no proven connection - Charles Lechmere, the St Phillips rag, and the Pinchin Street archway.

And deliberately ignoring the thousands of other lines that you could draw to thousands of other homes that didn't fit your theory.

Every time I draw that line, I point to either an extremely weird coincidence or potential evidence that Charles Lechmere was the person who dumped the body in Pinchin Street.

And every time I do, you start complaining about it.

One has to wonder why?

I would have thought that it is up to everybody to decide for themselves what to make of it. I would never recommend sweeping it under the carpet on account of how there is a theoretical possibility that the rag is unconnected to the torso crimes and Lechmere, just as there is a theoretical possibility that it IS connected to them both. Put all the evidence on the table, that is how I look upon it, and then let people decide for themselves.

And if they should find that it would be odd it the torso killer was someone else than Lechmere, why just HAPPENED to dump that body in Lechmere´s boyhood street of all the East End streets available to him, and that the rag up at St Philips just HAPPENED to get thrown away in a perfectly exact, more than mile long line leading from the railway arch up to Lechmeres lodgings, then I reason that they should be perfectly free to those deductions.

You are of another meaning, perhaps?