Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fisherman]

Note to Fiver:

You write heaps of posts (and in between, you take time to tell me that I write long posts), but I have not been able to find anything at all of interest that I have not already answered you about.

I mean, we have been over the exact line from the arch up to Doveton Street a dozen times by now, and nothing at all has changed. I am saying that it is a matter that is either an absolutely astounding coincidence, coupled to another absolutely astounding coincidence (how the killer chose Pinchin Street of all streets), whereas you are keen to tell people "Move along, please, nothing to see here!"

Until something new is added to that - and a large array of others - matter, it looks to me to be a waste of time and space to spin like a rag - or an apron, sorry, R J - in a centrifuge about it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I donat have to give an "explanation", Herlock, because I am not the one who has claimed to be able to prove my opponent a liar. You are.

And, of course, as I have pointed out a zillion times, you HAVE no proof. You have made claims about me that you are totally unable to substantiate. So far, you best effort is "because I think so".

Does that work?

I donīt think so.

It works absolutely perfectly as you well know.

If you know NOW that the majority said ‘around 3.30’ then why didn’t you know that THEN? What allowed you to state the opposite of was was true?

Questions can’t get simpler and yet you appear to be stumped by it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But have you listened?

Yes. More for the Drivel Bin.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes, either he did or he did not have reason to be on Poplar High Street on the morning in question. But the evidence does not allow for claiming either side as a fact. What we do know is that Pickfords had premises in the vicinity and that Lechmere was a Pickfords carman. Identifying matters like these is how any real investigation works. Asking the question "could he have had a reason to be there" must be asked and answered to the best of our abilities.

Does the evidence allow anyone to claim that Lechmere visited his mother's house on the night of 29/30 September 1888 - a few hours after having arrived home following a 14-18 hour shift - and left it at such a time and took such a route home that would have taken him down Berner Street at such a time that he could have murdered Stride?

And does the evidence allow anyone to claim that Lechmere went to work on the morning of 9 November at Broad Street (rather than Poplar) and arrived late at work, having butchered Mary Kelly, without arousing any suspicion?

And does the evidence allow anyone to claim that Lechmere would have gone to Dorset Street that morning even if, as you have suggested, it may have been his day off, on one of his routes to work but on a day when he was not even working?

It looks as though the case against Lechmere is contrived in such a way as to allow far-fetched scenarios to override the evidence we have.

[Fisherman]

It works absolutely perfectly as you well know.

If you know NOW that the majority said ‘around 3.30’ then why didn’t you know that THEN? What allowed you to state the opposite of was was true?

Questions can’t get simpler and yet you appear to be stumped by it.

And you have proven me a liar ... how?

Because, you se, Herlock, THAT is what this is all about.

You have never answered that question other than in the form "but surely I must be correct".

And as a fair few of us know, that is not necessarily the case.

So lets see your proof now, Herlock. It's been weeks.

A minor detail: Saying that Lechmere said that he left home at 3.30 is NOT the "opposite" of saying that he said he left home at around 3.30. It is in fact very, very, very far from the opposite.

Unless I lie about it.

[Fisherman]

Does the evidence allow anyone to claim that Lechmere visited his mother's house on the night of 29/30 September 1888 - a few hours after having arrived home following a 14-18 hour shift - and left it at such a time and took such a route home that would have taken him down Berner Street at such a time that he could have murdered Stride?

No. What the evidence allows for is making the SUGGESTION that Lechmere was the killer. It also allows us to point out that his mother lived very nearby the murder sit with his daughter. And it allows for pointing out that the area as such was one where Lechmere likely had a good many acquaintances.

And does the evidence allow anyone to claim that Lechmere went to work on the morning of 9 November at Broad Street (rather than Poplar) and arrived late at work, having butchered Mary Kelly, without arousing any suspicion?

No. It does not even allow for stating that he did go to work. But it DOES allow for pointing out that Lechmeres likely morning trek to his work would have taken him close by the murder site, and possibly even right past Millers Court. As for raising suspicion at work, the evidence does not involve any fixed version of how Lechmere looked as he arrived to his work on the morning - IF he arrived there.

And does the evidence allow anyone to claim that Lechmere would have gone to Dorset Street that morning even if, as you have suggested, it may have been his day off, on one of his routes to work but on a day when he was not even working?

See the above.

It looks as though the case against Lechmere is contrived in such a way as to allow far-fetched scenarios to override the evidence we have.

As you can see in the above, no claims are made along the line you suggest they are, making your post redundant.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As you can see in the above, no claims are made along the line you suggest they are, making your post redundant.

On the contrary!

Your answers to my post render the case against Lechmere unsupportable.

Edward Stow admitted to me that he cannot say whether Lechmere went to work on the days when either Chapman or Kelly were murdered.

Yet he claimed that it is significant that they were murdered on Lechmere's alleged routes to work.

That is once again a contrived case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And you have proven me a liar ... how?

Because, you se, Herlock, THAT is what this is all about.

You have never answered that question other than in the form "but surely I must be correct".

And as a fair few of us know, that is not necessarily the case.

So lets see your proof now, Herlock. It's been weeks.

A minor detail: Saying that Lechmere said that he left home at 3.30 is NOT the "opposite" of saying that he said he left home at around 3.30. It is in fact very, very, very far from the opposite.

Unless I lie about it.

Simply responding to a question with a question won’t work.

When you researched you book what led you state that the majority of newspapers said ‘3.00’ when they obviously didn’t?

[Fisherman]

Simply responding to a question with a question won’t work.

When you researched you book what led you state that the majority of newspapers said ‘3.00’ when they obviously didn’t?

None of them said 3.00, as you should be aware. But a majority of them did mention a timing, namely 3.30. That timing was - generally - supplied with a "around": "I left hoe at around 3.30".

That more or less translates to "I cannot say exactly when I left home, but my best guess is 3.30. Since I am not sure, it may have been some time before or after 3.30, but if you need me to name an approximate time, then that time is 3.30".

I have explained this a thousand times by now, but it seems utterly lost on you. You somehow believe that the opposite of "I left home at around 3.30" is not "I did not leave home at 3.30" but instead "I left home at around 3.30".

If it had not been for this exchange, I am sure I could well have answered "3.30" if anybody asked me "What time did he say he left home?", and I would have had no nefarious intentions at all in doing so. Nor would I have contemplated which options I had for deceiving people before I gave my answer. It could also be that I answe3red the question "around 3.30".

Any which way, I would not consider any of the two answers very controversial, for the reasons given above. And above. And above. And above. And above. And above.
And above that.

Nor would I have presented a lie in saying so.

What I would have done would have been to miss out on giving the full picture, and it should preferably be given. I have stated that too in the above. And above. And above. And above. And above. And above.
And above that.

If you think that amounts to giving you there right to claim that I am dishonest, it only tells me that you are the one who is dishonest.

If you claim that you have proved me a liar, it is instead yourself you have proven a liar.

If you have any further complaints at all about something that I have already explained a thousand times, take your complaints elsewhere.

[Fisherman]

On the contrary!

Your answers to my post render the case against Lechmere unsupportable.

Edward Stow admitted to me that he cannot say whether Lechmere went to work on the days when either Chapman or Kelly were murdered.

Yet he claimed that it is significant that they were murdered on Lechmere's alleged routes to work.

That is once again a contrived case.

No, my answers to your post do not render the case against Lechmere unsupportable at all. It leaves the case where it always was, with lots and lots of circumstantial evidence supporting the take that Charles Lechmere was the killer, but with no absolute proof that he must have been.

When I answered no to your questions if a number of parameters could be claimed as facts, that was the exact reason: They cannot, they appear indicative of guilt, not least by their sheer numbers, but that is as far as it goes. Even the most brilliant of cases can be purely circumstantial.

Have a look at this one, and you will see what I mean.

Edward Stow is also quite aware of how the case, although a very strong one, cannot be conclusively proven. You proudly state that he "admitted" to you that he could not say with certainty that Lechmere went to work on the Chapman and Kelly murder mornings.
As if he or anybody else with case insight would have claimed something else?
What did you think he was going to say?
That he could prove it?

If you have nothing more to offer than the bleeding obvious, you might as well not offer anything at all. You are merely wasting time by these kinds of posts.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I wonder how many people would agree with you, Christer, that I am wasting time by daring to express my opinion!

You claim that there are lots and lots of circumstantial evidence supporting the take that Charles Lechmere was the killer and which appear indicative of guilt.

That is obviously exaggeration.

There is no evidence that Lechmere was in Whitechapel, Spitalfields, or the City of London on the night of 29/30 September 1888, let alone, as Stow claims, at a Pickfords depot on the same night.

The case against him is extremely weak.

[Abby Normal]

On the contrary!

Your answers to my post render the case against Lechmere unsupportable.

Edward Stow admitted to me that he cannot say whether Lechmere went to work on the days when either Chapman or Kelly were murdered.

Yet he claimed that it is significant that they were murdered on Lechmere's alleged routes to work.

That is once again a contrived case.

wrong. nothing contrived about it. it is significant that they were killed on or near his route to work.
Think about it. it dosnt matter if you can prove or not that he worked on days of the murder, whats important is that murder sites are near his daily track back and forth from work. hes physically near the victims. in other words, did he see them before, did he have passing knowledge of who they were, did know them even? speak with them before? did they proposition him before? all these ideas become more in the realm of possibility, or even probable when you realize. its not that he neccessarily killed on his way to work, but they happened along his work route.
no other suspect comes even close in terms of proximity then lech.

[rjpalmer]

And a discarded piece of cloth - regardless if it is an apron, part of an apron or any other fabric or attire - IS a rag.

Hello Christer.

Alas, this will probably be my last response to you, as I find that when I challenge your interpretations on any given point you have an annoying habit of becoming unduly huffy as if I have accused you of dishonesty, which I did not accuse you of. These sorts of games have a real dampening effect on any attempt at reasonable debate or discussion.

Earlier you argued that a 'portion of a woman's attire' indicates that it was only a partial piece of cloth and thus a rag, and I then pointed out that you were misusing the word 'attire' as a single piece of clothing, which it is not.

You now justify calling it a rag because it was 'discarded' under a plank.

So, if I decide to hide my heavy coat or my new pants or any other article of clothing under a plank, it becomes a 'rag,' does it?

And you feel justified in calling it a rag even if the apron was otherwise brand spanking new---which, as far as we know, it could have been?

Thank you, Christer, for explaining this most inventive use of the English language.

As for me, I will continue to call 'the suspicious garment' what the contemporaries called it: "a coarse apron, such is usually worn by the poorer classes of the East End"---without the slightest hint that it wasn't the complete apron.

It really does leave me wondering why you are so insistent in not calling it what it was.

---

You ask: do I consider this apron, and its location, to be a coincidence?

No. I consider to be one of the many articles of bloody clothing discovered by ordinary citizens during the murder cluster of 1888-1891 and then described in the press---only one of which--Kate Eddowes' partial piece of apron--has any conclusive relevance to our inquires.

There were at least three bloody articles of clothing mentioned in the press during the flap over the Pinchin Street case alone.

Thus, you took the one article of clothing among these many articles of clothing mentioned in 1888-1891 that seemed appropriate to your prosecution of Charles Lechmere and noticed that it was in found along a straight path--as the crow flies---between the railway arch and Doveton Street.

If that excites you, so be it. I don't find it exciting for several reasons, one of which is that you have never explained, to my knowledge, why you think a man would bring the bloody apron to his murderous 'dump site' in the first place¹ only to carry it away again, traipsing this large and blood-soaked apron half a mile through highly populated streets only to hide it under a plank at a building site, after presumably climbing over the wooden hoarding. If this is your scenario, it seems quite improbable and entirely unexplained.

Perhaps if you could give a coherent explanation why the murderer would have done this your theory would seem less like a case of confirmation bias. Or are you suggesting the apron was the murderer's? Or are you suggesting that the dismemberment occurred at St. Phillip's Church? Because, as member of the 'jury,' I fail to see how you think this 'works.'

_{1. An apron is generally worn over the top of a chemise (among other articles of clothing) and even the chemise found with the Pinchin Street victim had been cut away and removed by the culprit to cover the neck wound and shoulder, thus the apron, had it belonged to the victim, would have been also removed during the dismemberment long before 'dumping' the corpse in Pinchin Street. Thus, I am left to ponder why you think the apron would have been taken to Pinchin Street from the scene of the crime and then take way again to St. Phillip's Church.}

[Herlock Sholmes]

None of them said 3.00, as you should be aware. But a majority of them did mention a timing, namely 3.30. That timing was - generally - supplied with a "around": "I left hoe at around 3.30".

That more or less translates to "I cannot say exactly when I left home, but my best guess is 3.30. Since I am not sure, it may have been some time before or after 3.30, but if you need me to name an approximate time, then that time is 3.30".

I have explained this a thousand times by now, but it seems utterly lost on you. You somehow believe that the opposite of "I left home at around 3.30" is not "I did not leave home at 3.30" but instead "I left home at around 3.30".

If it had not been for this exchange, I am sure I could well have answered "3.30" if anybody asked me "What time did he say he left home?", and I would have had no nefarious intentions at all in doing so. Nor would I have contemplated which options I had for deceiving people before I gave my answer. It could also be that I answe3red the question "around 3.30".

Any which way, I would not consider any of the two answers very controversial, for the reasons given above. And above. And above. And above. And above. And above.
And above that.

Nor would I have presented a lie in saying so.

What I would have done would have been to miss out on giving the full picture, and it should preferably be given. I have stated that too in the above. And above. And above. And above. And above. And above.
And above that.

If you think that amounts to giving you there right to claim that I am dishonest, it only tells me that you are the one who is dishonest.

If you claim that you have proved me a liar, it is instead yourself you have proven a liar.

If you have any further complaints at all about something that I have already explained a thousand times, take your complaints elsewhere.

Thoroughly disgraceful obfuscation. You simply will not answer the question will you? Will I give in and let it go? Nope.

Please stop talking about the usage of ‘around. This is not the issue and you know it.

In Cutting Point you said:

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

So you read the various Press reports and counted them so that you could arrive at “most papers.”

I hope that you’re grasping this?

So how did you manage to do that Fish? How did you manage to count the reports to decide how many said ‘3.30’ and how many said ‘around 3.30,’ and manage to arrive at the totally wrong conclusion that ‘most papers’ said ‘3.00.’

How could you have possible counted incorrectly?


Stop wriggling and answer this childishly simple question. I’ll help you. Try beginning your answer with the words……I read those reports and counted them incorrectly due to…..

[Fiver]

There were at least three bloody articles of clothing mentioned in the press during the flap over the Pinchin Street case alone.

I see I'm not the only one who noticed that.

A "coarse apron" found near the St Phillip's Church.

"Some bloodstained clothing" found in Batty Street

A "bloodstained undergarment found at half-past seven in a vacant yard in Hooper-street."

Fisherman's repeated, deliberate ignoring of all except the one found last and farthest from the Pinchin Street Torso tells us far more about Fisherman than it does about the case.