Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fisherman]

More despicable twisting of the truth. How can an adult come on here and post such embarrassing falsehoods is simply staggering. Just because we can name Cross but we can’t name a person who was at the scene before him we have to dismiss that person. How can anyone state this?!! John Davies must have killed Annie Chapman then!

Your ‘phantom killer’ existed. He was the man that killed Polly Nichols. And he wasn’t called Cross or Lechmere. He was simply the man that found her like millions of other people have found millions of others bodies in the street (and none of them as far as we can say ever turned out to have been the killer) Your thinking is warped by bias.

You are as likely to be able to prove that the Phantom killer existed as you are to prove that I am a liar, Herlock.

[Fisherman]

You do love to go with the Lloyd's article, ignoring previous evidence that they often sensationalized the news and well as ignoring the actual inquest testimony of Robert Paul, PC Neil, Dr Llewellyn, etc.

"The throat had been cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done tracing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely." - Lloyd's

Inquest testimony showed the wound was not two inches wide and that the blood was "oozing" not "flowing profusely".

"The knife, which must have been a large and sharp one, was jobbed into the deceased at the lower part of the abdomen, and then drawn upwards twice." - Lloyd's

Inquest testimony said the cuts were made downwards.

"Early on Friday morning fresh blood stains were observed for quite a distance along the side walks. There would be drop after drop two or three feet, and sometimes six feet apart for a distance, and then a larger pool or splash. As soon as the murder became known a lively interest was taken in these blood-stains, and they began to be traced. They were soon found to be on both sides of the street, and it was afterwards seen that the bleeding person had travelled or been carried in a zig-zag line. The trail was easily followed down Brady-street for 150 yards to Honey's-mews. In front of the gateway there was a large stain, looking as if the bleeding person had fallen against the wall and lain there. From here to the foot of Buck's-row, in which the body was found, the trail of blood was clearly marked. It was wet on Friday morning, and at noon, although the sun had dried it, and there had been many feet passing over it, it was still plainly discernible. The zig-zag direction it took crossing and re-crossing the street was and is a matter of mystery. In the space of a hundred yards the woman crossed the narrow street twice, and whenever she crossed a larger stain of blood in place of the drops indicated that she had stopped." - Lloyd's

Inquest testimony contradicted this supposed dramatic blood trail and established that Nichols was killed where her body was found. You don't insist that this bit of Lloyd's must be true, after all, it contracts your theory.

"Although neither Mrs. Green nor Mr. Perkins heard any noise, there are a number of people who early on Friday morning heard the screams of the victim. None of them paid any particular attention to them, however, except Mrs. Colwell, who lives midway between Buck's-row and the next turning. She said, "I was awakened early on Friday morning by my little girl, who said someone was trying to get into the house. I listened, and heard screams. They were in a woman's voice, and, though frightened, were faint-like, as would be natural if she were running. She was screaming, 'Murder, police! Murder, police! Murder, police!' She screamed this five or six times, and seemed to be getting further and further away (toward the bottom of Buck's-row) all the time. I heard no other voice and no other steps. She seemed to be all alone. I think I would have heard the steps if anybody had been running after her, unless they were running on tiptoe." - Lloy's

Yet more melodrama from Lloyd's. Inquest testimony established that Nichols was killed where the body was found and Nichols would not have been able to run around screaming with a slit throat. You don't insist that this bit of Lloyd's must be true, after all, it contracts your theory.

"It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market" - Lloyd's

The word "exactly" does not occur in Robert Paul's inquest testimony.

"I saw a man standing where the woman was." - Lloyd's

Paul's inquest testimony makes it clear that he saw Lechmere was "standing in the middle of the road".

"I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seem" - Lloyd's

Paul's inquest testimony makes it clear that he and Lechmere left together and that they both spoke to PC Mizen.

"The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time." - Lloyd's

Inquest testimony established that both PC Thain and Sergeant Kirby had been down Bucks Row about 30 minutes before Neil found Nichol's body. You don't insist that this bit of Lloyd's must be true, after all, it contracts your theory. Lloyd's even contradicts itself here, have previously proclaimed that Nichols' blood was "flowing profusely" several minutes after her body was found.

Again, I am not ignoring the inquest evidence.

It is you who wish to ignore the Lloyds Weekly evidence.

I acknowledge them both and have no desire to strike any one of them off the list, the way you seem to want to do.

Furthermore, the inquest reports about Pauls time of departure are not in any way in conflict with the Lloyds Weekly version; they are instead in support of it.

[Fisherman]

It's not a coincidence, it's a random fact with no bearing on the case.

But it is more evidence of your deliberately ignoring things that don't fit your theory.

The Torso Killer scattered body parts up and down miles of the Thames. There is no more reason to suspect he had a connection to Pinchin Street than he did to Scotland Yard or any of the other dump sites.

Charles Lechmere was not the only person to have ever lived on Pinchin Street. There is no reason to single him out and ignore the others. And calling it his childhood home is rather stretching it. Lechmere's s baptismal record shows that he was living at 14 Sion Square in 1859. By 1861 he was at 13 Thomas Street, which I have been told later became Pinchin Street. And by 1869, he was at 11 Mary Ann Street.

If it isn a fact and not a coincidence, then it is evidence of Lechmere being responsible.

Then again, I would not say that this was so. I am saying it was EITHER so, or it was a massive coincidence that a bloodied rag just happened to be found in an exact line between the arch and 22 Doveton Street. The two other rags mentioned are random facts, becasue they do not coincide with any of the suspects, but the St Philips rag does coincide with a straight line drawn from the arch to 22 Doveton Street.

Live with it.

[Fisherman]

That doesn't explain Stride and Eddowes, who would require Lechmere either staying up 23+ hours or getting up 3+hours early on his day iff.

Nor does it prohibit Lechmere from having been the killer. Depending on the hours he worked, he will even quite likely have been able to take a nice nap before he went to St Georges. So there is no problem whatsoever in evidence.

If killing on the way to work really offered the most advantages then why would Nichols be the only victim killed during Lechmere's walk to work? It's another self-contradiction in your theory.

Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly may all have been killed "on Lechmeres route to work", of course. How he may potentially have left early on the days he looked for prey, further strengthens the suggestion.

[Fisherman]

You talk as if both options were equally likely. And ignore that since it is your theory, the burden of proof is on you. And you have no proof.

Nope. Saying that he either did or he didn't does not mean that equal weight must be distributed to the suggestions. You may either be a good or a bad poster.

[Fisherman]

Whatever I find about this man will go to confirm his guilt; it will not go to clear him.

I realise that - well - here he is: Jack the Ripper.

(Christer Holmgren)

Yep. That was what I anticipated. I said a good deal more about it, but the film team cut away most of it.

But basically, what I am saying is that I think that the evidence against him is so overwhelming that I find it unlikely that he will ever be cleared by any matter - but I don't rule it out categorically. Conversely, I beleive that what is found about him in the future will either be of a neutral nature, or it will fit the suggestion that he was the killer - but I am not ruling out that I am wrong.

We need no drama about a very uncontroversial thing. I think he did it. I believe future finds will strengthen the suggestion. End of.

[Fisherman]

There is no circumstantial evidence supporting Lechmere killing anyone. There is no time gap. There is no Mizen scam. Lechmere's words and deeds repeatedly point towards him being innocent. The timings of the Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes murders point strongly against him being their killer.

Try that on James Scobie. And don't forget to tell him that you are the better judge of the two of you on matters legal, Fiver.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere was spotted near a body and lived in the area. That's it. The supposed anomalies are a mix of selective quoting, unsupported theories, double standards, and the occasional bit of complete nonsense like the Ley Lines.

Nope, that is not "it". he DID give an alias, he DID disagree with Mizen, the wounds WERE hidden from sight, his work trek DID pass through Spitalfields, he DID have his mother living nearby the Berner Street murder site and so on.
There is no "selective quoting", no unsupported theory", no "double standards" and no "nonsense" about it.

They are all proven facts, and you find them impossible to swallow - so you lie about them, calling them things they are not and never were.

It is standard Fiver stuff.

[Fisherman]

Afraid your the one trying to say "Nothing to see here, move on, please" as you repeatedly ignore facts that don't foy with your theory.

You drawing a Ley Lines on the map shows you deliberately ignoring all lines that don't point to Charles Lechmere, nothing more.

That line, however, does not ignore the straight trip from the arch to 22 Doveton Street. It nails it. And if we are looking at Lechmere as the likely killer, it is a piece of information that is either a mind-blowing coincidence or a matter linking Lechmere to the torso murders. Just like how the chosen dump site on Lechmeres childhood street ALSO offers a very intriguing possible link to the carman.

And THAT is why YOU are the one trying to sweep it under the carpet.

Are you going to have more tries on this, Fiver? It won't change, you see.

[Fisherman]

You don't apply this reasoning to the men who found any of the other victims. All you have proved is that you are deliberately ignoring all options other than Charles Lechmere.

Not at all. I have never done that. I have repeatedly said that there IS a window of opportunity for another killer.

How is that "ignoring all other options than Charles Lechmere", Fiver? Do explain it to us!

I FAVOR Lechmere as the absolute best suspect there has ever been and I DO think that he was the killer.

But you need to learn that this is another matter altogether. I am quite allowed to do so, and I would preferably do it without you claiming falsehoods on my behalf simultaneously.

[Fisherman]

You've offered theories and selective quoting. You have misrepresented the original sources, modern experts, and other posters. You have ignored the dictionary and much of the evidence.

And now you're claiming those as "insights".

I guess it's time to point you back to the dictionary.

I was referring to the insights of R J Palmer, not my own insights, Fiver.

And where does not understanding that put you in relation to me when it comes to language knowledge...?

Yes, exactly!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yep. That was what I anticipated. I said a good deal more about it, but the film team cut away most of it.

But basically, what I am saying is that I think that the evidence against him is so overwhelming that I find it unlikely that he will ever be cleared by any matter - but I don't rule it out categorically. Conversely, I beleive that what is found about him in the future will either be of a neutral nature, or it will fit the suggestion that he was the killer - but I am not ruling out that I am wrong.

We need no drama about a very uncontroversial thing. I think he did it. I believe future finds will strengthen the suggestion. End of.

Whatever I find about this man will go to confirm his guilt; it will not go to clear him.

I realise that - well - here he is: Jack the Ripper.

(Christer Holmgren)



That looks very much like a presumption of guilt.

[Fisherman]

People believing the murders are connected does not prove that someone connected to one murder has any connection to the other murders. By your "logic" every witness can be "proven" to be the Ripper.

You should not speak about proof, Fiver. What I am saying is that the logical outcome of identifying a suspect in one of the cases, is that a suspect for ALL the cases has been identified.

Back in the real word, Charles Lechmere has no connection to any of the murders except for Nichols, and the evidence is strongly in favor of him being an innocent witness.

According to you, yes. According to me, it is a very different matter.

We really should try to get a KC settle this for us.

[Fisherman]

He's proved you left out the "about", your post admits it.

The problem is that he is trying his very best (which really amounts to embarrassingly little) that I left it out with the intention of deceiving people.

The question whether you did that deliberately is a harder one to prove, but we can look for a pattern. Have you repeatedly left out information that would point against Charles Lechmere being the killer? Have you continued to do this after the information has been repeatedly pointed out to you?

I may certainly have said "If he left home at 3.30, then it applies .."

But that is not a deception. It is a theoretical construction.

Besides, even if I was to leave it out tomorrow, that does not in any way prove any intention of mine to deceive yesterday.

As it happens, I have never had any such intentions, and I never will have. Not am I a liar.

But if that enters into your equations is another thing, of course.

[Fisherman]

As you repeat the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Scobie was not given any of the witness statements or the coroner's summing up, just a list of bullet points.

Or as programmers put it "garbage in, garbage out".

Paul Begg put it otherwise. He said that it was a completely legal and working way of doing things. But what does he know that you don't know better...?

Moreover, the fact that it was the evidence against Lechmere that Scobie got was very clearly pointed out in the documentary.

So zero points to you, Fiver. Again.