Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fiver]

ust 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.

I'm not ignoring those facts, just pointing out that they are not evidence against Charles Lechmre or anyone else.

You're the one ignoring facts.
* Pinchin Street was only one of Lechmere's childhood homes.
* Pinchin Street was home to a lot of people that weren't named Lechmere.
* There is no known connection between the Torso Killer and any of the places he left body bits.

It also shows your double standard. You don't claim that the killer must have lived or worked at Scotland Yard or any of the other dump sites of the Torso Killer.

[Fiver]

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...?

Feel free to show that Paul Begg said that about the "evidence" provided to Scobie in the documentary.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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.

The Lloyds Weekly article is absolutely not "evidence". It is proven to be false. It was not being ignored, its numerous errors were being pointed out to you. Your refusal to "strike it off the list" or even accept its many gross exaggerations does your case no favours.

[Fiver]

'Certainly somebody who had reason to be out in the street at that time and wouldn't have seemed out of place at that time.'

(Dr Gareth Norris, criminologist)


What reason did Lechmere have to be in Berner Street at 1 a.m. on a Saturday night or Mitre Square at 1.40 a.m. on a Saturday night or in Dorset street from about 4 a.m. to 5.45 a.m. on his day off (or even if he were working that day)?

The theory contradicts itself. We're supposed to suspect Lechmere because Nichols body was found on Lechmere's route to work during a time he would have been walking to work. Yet every other victim either wasn't on his route to work and/or wasn't during a time he would be walking to work.

For Berner Street, they point out his mother lived in the area. But the timing makes no sense. Who would stay up 23+ hours straight or get up 3+ hours early to visit their mother?

'But a much more vague message of 'there's a woman lying in the street', coupled with the information that a police officer is already there, would lower the police officer's response.'

(Dr Andy Griffiths, former Detective Superintendent)

Sounds like Scobie wasn't the only one who was given a list of bullet points instead of the eyewitness testimony. Charles Lechmere told PC Mizen that the woman might be dead. Robert Paul told PC Mizen that the woman was dead.

The documentary abounds with false statements and accusations.

Here is an example:

'Lechmere said that he was never alone with the body.'

That is a blatantly false statement.

It's not only false, it's proof that people involved weren't just given incomplete information, they were given false information.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The theory contradicts itself. We're supposed to suspect Lechmere because Nichols body was found on Lechmere's route to work during a time he would have been walking to work. Yet every other victim either wasn't on his route to work and/or wasn't during a time he would be walking to work.

I have previously put forward the same argument but slightly differently, and if I remember correctly I put it directly to Christer Holmgren.


My point was that with the double murder occurring on Lechmere's day off (and at such times that even if he were working that day, it would have been too early for him to be making his way to work) there are already two murders in the series which could not have occurred when Lechmere was on his way to work.

Wishing no doubt not to transform Lechmere from 'the man who commits murders while on his way to work' to 'the man who commits murders on his days off', Christer tried his best to argue that Lechmere could have murdered Kelly on his way to work, mutilated her in no more than half an hour, and thereby fulfilled the requirements for the Kelly murder to be included in the list of murders committed on his way to work.

But Christer could not pull it off.

There was no way that Lechmere could have completed his tasks and managed not to arrive at work late, a risk he obviously could not take having already come to the attention of the police.

And it was at this point that Christer suggested that Lechmere may have had the day off.

The irony is that when I myself suggested that to his collaborator, Edward Stow, Stow accused me of ignorance!

Having suggested that Lechmere may have had the day off, Christer was admitting that his suspect, who had been billed as the man who murdered women on his way to work, may have killed most of his suspects on his days off.

What does that tell you?

It tells you that Lechmere's accusers are nothing if not inconsistent.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now I am going to sign off for some time; life is too short to spend in the company of people who are not able to conduct a serious debate, and there are a few of those out here.
I will sign off by a last post to Fiver.

As those who have been subjected to the matter will remember, Fiver has claimed as a fact that all the houses of Bucks Row WERE called upon, in an inquiry mentioned in a paper that spoke about how a house to house search was made in the streets adjoining Bucks Row. The matter was mentioned on the 3rd of September.
Of course, when it is said that the streets that were searched were the ones ADJOINING Bucks Row, that does not mean that Bucks Row itself was subjected to the same house to house inquiry. In fact, the wording seems to specifically point ut how this was not the case.

But Fiver would not have that. He inferred that if the adjacent streets were subjected to a house to house inquiry, then that MUST have entailed Bucks Row too.
And it SHOULD have.
But it didn't.

Fiver does not like to be proven wrong. He is willing to read selectively and alter the meaning of what is said in order to try and flee from that fate, as shown by the above.

I took some little time to research the matter myself, and that led me to the Echo of the 1st of September 1888. In that paper, it says:

"In Brady-street, Thrawle-street, and other small thoroughfares in the low locality where the deceased was discovered the police have made an almost house-to-house investigation themselves, and caused secret inquiries to be conducted by persons known amongst the force as "nosea," in the hope of finding some link to enable them to unravel the hideous and mysterious crime."

So here we have that house to house investigation again. But this time over, we are supplied with names of the streets, like Brady Street and Thrawle Street! What becomes clear here is that a wide net was cast in this effort. Equally, it is clear that not all of the houses in these streets were investigated, it was an "almost house to house investigation". And it only took place in the small thorough fares of the general locality of Bucks Row, whereas it is again NOT said that it took place in Bucks Row itself!

It therefore applies that when coroner Baxter complained about how not all of the households in Bucks Row had been interviewed, after inspector Spratling having owned up to this matter, it was not Spratling himself who was criticized and told to do a house to house investigation in Bucks Row himself, as Fiver rather exotically suggests - it was of course the lax work of the police on the whole that Baxter gave a kick in the bum.

It is not that I am saying that the streets where the murders take place need not be investigated in depth. They DO. And that is the whole crux here - the police failed to do so, and were accordingly criticized by coroner Baxter.

And here, with Fiver trapped on the banks of his own river of invention, I take my leave for some time. If my absense could be used to do something else than misrepresent what I am saying, so much the better.

But I am not holding my breath, of course. The past terrifies.

Come back when you’ve learned to answer a straightforward question honestly.

[John Trent]

It has been a joy to read these 105 pages. (That's not really true) But it is educational to see that Christer is still using misleading information or withholding information, as he has continued to do since he first started his campaign to frame Charles Allen Cross. I always suppress a chuckle when I see yet another reworded repetition of "I dare not answer questions that I have studiously avoided because they show my 'evidence' to be total nonsense; so now I'm taking my ball away so you can't play anymore".

Elsewhere the claim of Cross not using his legal name has been disproved.
Ditto - the claim of Christer's 'experts' that Nicholls must have be killed in the few minutes before Paul arrived to be accosted by Cross.
Ditto - James Scobie's claim of 'Prima Facie' meaning anything but 'the outline is OK but now bring me actual evidence'.
Ditto - The time of Cross walking from home to Bucks Row (using an ex-policeman as an expert and not actually using the route that Cross would have walked - because it no longer exists).

There's so much more - perhaps someone could write a book - perhaps "What's the point?"

I am truly amazed that anyone can still be convinced by Christer's case - except those who read it and never investigate further. Of course, there's also the idiotic videos perfomed (and I use the word loosely) by the ex-communications officer of the National Front which have presented such joys as the conversations that 'Lech' had with prostitutes. (Note the cunning abbreviation of 'Lech' to imply lechery in these non-existant conversations).

The ONLY fact that can incriminate Cross is that he was at the scene of the discovery of a body. There is literally nothing else. And there is a gap of at least 20 minutes prior to that where the murder could have taken place and the killer vanishing. All of the recorded inquest evidence, if considered sensibly, indicates that Cross was just an innocent passerby.

I have never been able to understand the idea that Cross lied to Mizen by saying 'You are wanted by a policeman' when obviously Paul was with him. Paul must have been there because he complained about Mizen continuing to knock up after he had been told he was wanted. Why would Paul not say something about that? Why would Cross say Mizen was wanted by a policeman? There was no policeman there when Cross and Paul left the scene and no indication that one would have arrived by the time MIzen got there. So, saying that he was wanted by a policeman and Mizen turning up to find no policeman there would have been much more suspicious. I don't think Mizen lied. I beleive Cross said "You are wanted" and when Mizen arrived he formed the opinion that Cross had meant "by a policeman" because Neil was there. But the dichotomy is that if Mizen must have been telling the truth then Mizen's claim of meeting Cross and Paul at 3:45 must also be true. Or is it OK for Mizen to lie once just to support Christer's theory?

I'll check back when the thread is at 200 pages. Carry on

[A P Tomlinson]

It has been a joy to read these 105 pages. (That's not really true) But it is educational to see that Christer is still using misleading information or withholding information, as he has continued to do since he first started his campaign to frame Charles Allen Cross. I always suppress a chuckle when I see yet another reworded repetition of "I dare not answer questions that I have studiously avoided because they show my 'evidence' to be total nonsense; so now I'm taking my ball away so you can't play anymore".

Elsewhere the claim of Cross not using his legal name has been disproved.
Ditto - the claim of Christer's 'experts' that Nicholls must have be killed in the few minutes before Paul arrived to be accosted by Cross.
Ditto - James Scobie's claim of 'Prima Facie' meaning anything but 'the outline is OK but now bring me actual evidence'.
Ditto - The time of Cross walking from home to Bucks Row (using an ex-policeman as an expert and not actually using the route that Cross would have walked - because it no longer exists).

There's so much more - perhaps someone could write a book - perhaps "What's the point?"

I am truly amazed that anyone can still be convinced by Christer's case - except those who read it and never investigate further. Of course, there's also the idiotic videos perfomed (and I use the word loosely) by the ex-communications officer of the National Front which have presented such joys as the conversations that 'Lech' had with prostitutes. (Note the cunning abbreviation of 'Lech' to imply lechery in these non-existant conversations).

The ONLY fact that can incriminate Cross is that he was at the scene of the discovery of a body. There is literally nothing else. And there is a gap of at least 20 minutes prior to that where the murder could have taken place and the killer vanishing. All of the recorded inquest evidence, if considered sensibly, indicates that Cross was just an innocent passerby.

I have never been able to understand the idea that Cross lied to Mizen by saying 'You are wanted by a policeman' when obviously Paul was with him. Paul must have been there because he complained about Mizen continuing to knock up after he had been told he was wanted. Why would Paul not say something about that? Why would Cross say Mizen was wanted by a policeman? There was no policeman there when Cross and Paul left the scene and no indication that one would have arrived by the time MIzen got there. So, saying that he was wanted by a policeman and Mizen turning up to find no policeman there would have been much more suspicious. I don't think Mizen lied. I beleive Cross said "You are wanted" and when Mizen arrived he formed the opinion that Cross had meant "by a policeman" because Neil was there. But the dichotomy is that if Mizen must have been telling the truth then Mizen's claim of meeting Cross and Paul at 3:45 must also be true. Or is it OK for Mizen to lie once just to support Christer's theory?

I'll check back when the thread is at 200 pages. Carry on

I think it's probably even simpler than that John, "A policeman is wanted down Bucks Row..."

[Lewis C]

It has been a joy to read these 105 pages. (That's not really true) But it is educational to see that Christer is still using misleading information or withholding information, as he has continued to do since he first started his campaign to frame Charles Allen Cross. I always suppress a chuckle when I see yet another reworded repetition of "I dare not answer questions that I have studiously avoided because they show my 'evidence' to be total nonsense; so now I'm taking my ball away so you can't play anymore".

Elsewhere the claim of Cross not using his legal name has been disproved.
Ditto - the claim of Christer's 'experts' that Nicholls must have be killed in the few minutes before Paul arrived to be accosted by Cross.
Ditto - James Scobie's claim of 'Prima Facie' meaning anything but 'the outline is OK but now bring me actual evidence'.
Ditto - The time of Cross walking from home to Bucks Row (using an ex-policeman as an expert and not actually using the route that Cross would have walked - because it no longer exists).

There's so much more - perhaps someone could write a book - perhaps "What's the point?"

I am truly amazed that anyone can still be convinced by Christer's case - except those who read it and never investigate further. Of course, there's also the idiotic videos perfomed (and I use the word loosely) by the ex-communications officer of the National Front which have presented such joys as the conversations that 'Lech' had with prostitutes. (Note the cunning abbreviation of 'Lech' to imply lechery in these non-existant conversations).

The ONLY fact that can incriminate Cross is that he was at the scene of the discovery of a body. There is literally nothing else. And there is a gap of at least 20 minutes prior to that where the murder could have taken place and the killer vanishing. All of the recorded inquest evidence, if considered sensibly, indicates that Cross was just an innocent passerby.

I have never been able to understand the idea that Cross lied to Mizen by saying 'You are wanted by a policeman' when obviously Paul was with him. Paul must have been there because he complained about Mizen continuing to knock up after he had been told he was wanted. Why would Paul not say something about that? Why would Cross say Mizen was wanted by a policeman? There was no policeman there when Cross and Paul left the scene and no indication that one would have arrived by the time MIzen got there. So, saying that he was wanted by a policeman and Mizen turning up to find no policeman there would have been much more suspicious. I don't think Mizen lied. I beleive Cross said "You are wanted" and when Mizen arrived he formed the opinion that Cross had meant "by a policeman" because Neil was there. But the dichotomy is that if Mizen must have been telling the truth then Mizen's claim of meeting Cross and Paul at 3:45 must also be true. Or is it OK for Mizen to lie once just to support Christer's theory?

I'll check back when the thread is at 200 pages. Carry on

Hi John, welcome to Casebook,

Another thing about Mizen's claims is that what he said about Cross' words is completely uncorroborated, whereas the time of 3:45 that he gives fits perfectly with the times given by 2 other witnesses. So it's much more likely that he got the time right than that he got Cross' words right.

I think it's very likely that Nichols was very recently killed when Paul got there, but that would be true whether Cross killed her or Cross' approach frightened away the man who killed her. The timings of those 2 scenarios would be so close to the same that time estimations and blood evidence are of no help in judging how likely each scenario is.

[John Trent]

I think it's very likely that Nichols was very recently killed when Paul got there, but that would be true whether Cross killed her or Cross' approach frightened away the man who killed her. The timings of those 2 scenarios would be so close to the same that time estimations and blood evidence are of no help in judging how likely each scenario is.

I really ought not to keep on this - I have a life to lead. BUT it was recently pointed out on one of the Facebook groups that Christer's experts qualified their timings by saying that "they could have been wrong". It's apparently in his book. It is possible to deduce from what they say that the killing could have taken place any time after Neil passed at 3.15 and before Cross and Paul met at the scene at around 3.40. Christer reports his experts as saying there were no cases to compare from and since every case is unique neither professor could exclude the possibility that Nicholls could have bled for longer than the times Christer keeps reporting and thus allow for another killer prior to Cross's finding the body. Strangely, Christer ignores that. It is my understanding, from conversations with police men in my family, that forensic experts will never give a time of death closer than a 30 minute window. Clearly, such a time encompasses the whole 3.15 to 3.40 space. It also seems that expert opinion was that the minimum amount of time necessary to actually do the murder and mutilation would be 3-5 minutes. As there was 25 minutes available the probability that Cross was guilty becomes very low.

One thing I have noticed is Christer's continued use of 'freshly killed body' but 'freshly' is meaningless. Was someone killed 25 minutes ago 'freshly' killed? Quite possibly compared to someone killed 2 hours ago. And as it is entirely possible that the murder commenced 25 minutes before Cross found the body is 'freshly killed' an appropriate description?

[A P Tomlinson]

I really ought not to keep on this - I have a life to lead. BUT it was recently pointed out on one of the Facebook groups that Christer's experts qualified their timings by saying that "they could have been wrong". It's apparently in his book. It is possible to deduce from what they say that the killing could have taken place any time after Neil passed at 3.15 and before Cross and Paul met at the scene at around 3.40. Christer reports his experts as saying there were no cases to compare from and since every case is unique neither professor could exclude the possibility that Nicholls could have bled for longer than the times Christer keeps reporting and thus allow for another killer prior to Cross's finding the body. Strangely, Christer ignores that. It is my understanding, from conversations with police men in my family, that forensic experts will never give a time of death closer than a 30 minute window. Clearly, such a time encompasses the whole 3.15 to 3.40 space. It also seems that expert opinion was that the minimum amount of time necessary to actually do the murder and mutilation would be 3-5 minutes. As there was 25 minutes available the probability that Cross was guilty becomes very low.

One thing I have noticed is Christer's continued use of 'freshly killed body' but 'freshly' is meaningless. Was someone killed 25 minutes ago 'freshly' killed? Quite possibly compared to someone killed 2 hours ago. And as it is entirely possible that the murder commenced 25 minutes before Cross found the body is 'freshly killed' an appropriate description?

There's also the issue of what "bleeding" means.
Lividity starts almost immediately the heart stops. And as the blood is no longer getting pushed around the body two important things happen to it (There are more, but these two for our purposes...) Gravity begins to take over and the blood heads to its lowest achievable point. Also because the motion of the force of being pushed around the body is what causes the elements of the blood to mix freely during life, when this stops the blood begins to separate into the heavier red cells, and the lighter plasma. The red blood cells move down faster and as the vessels that hold the blood begin to collapse, that blood follows the natural paths laid out for it via gravity.
This is what leads to the pronounced "lividity" that we see on the lower extremes of the body post mortem. (Death Bruising or whatever people call it wherever they live...)
But if the blood has another route it can take... such as through a bloody great big hole where the neck used to be... guess where it is going?
Down Bucks Row! It;s not going to pour out like normal bleeding because it is mainly the thick, heavy red blood cells and it coagulates fairly quickly.
It OOZES...
Now, this means that under the right circumstances,"bleeding" (as far as you or I are likely to consider it) can go on for hours after death, but if you ask a Doctor when bleeding stops they will have a very specific set of criteria that they can refer to.

Victorian coppers and doctors not so much. "Is there blood coming out?" "Yes" "Then its still bleeding!"

[Hair Bear]

so i was driving to work yesterday morning and noticed a body on the side of the road, in the grass between the sidewalk and a fence. i pulled over, put my hazards on and got out and checked on it. at tje same time a guy walking his dog came up. it was the body of a middle aged man, and at first we couldnt tell if he was even alive, but shortly determined he was. i called 9-11 and we both waited until the police and paramedics arrived which was about ten minutes. the guy was alive but we couldnt tell what was wrong with him, he was not responding or moving. once the police and ambulance showed up they thanked us and actually asked us to move on, which we did.
both our actions were what any normal citizen would do.

so next time i see someone say that lech behaved normally, was a good citizen and or to stop picking on poor ole lech think ill efffing puke.

oh still waiting for all the threads on those better than lechmere suspects? lol!!!

thats all carry on.

Hello Abby. Apologies for being super late to this party. Firstly, props to you for helping- it's always nice to know that people care. I would, though, be grateful if you could answer some of the many questions floating in my not-too-bright mind (sorry if they have been covered already, I did look).

1. "at first we couldnt tell if he was even alive, but shortly determined he was"/"he was not responding". How did you determine he was alive? Did you check for a pulse? Feel his face? Listen for breathing? Please be specific about the course of events that went from thinking he was dead to knowing he was alive.

2. Did you or the other man prop him up? If not, why not?

3. You were asked previously if other cars pulled up but I could not find an answer. Did they?

4. On the same note, do you know how long he had been there? I'm wondering why you pulled over but nobody before you did.

5. "once the police and ambulance showed up they thanked us and actually asked us to move on, which we did" I'm assuming they took yours and the dog walkers details since you were right there - if not, please say so. Did they ever get back to you about the incident?

Thanks.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Abby. Apologies for being super late to this party. Firstly, props to you for helping- it's always nice to know that people care. I would, though, be grateful if you could answer some of the many questions floating in my not-too-bright mind (sorry if they have been covered already, I did look).

1. "at first we couldnt tell if he was even alive, but shortly determined he was"/"he was not responding". How did you determine he was alive? Did you check for a pulse? Feel his face? Listen for breathing? Please be specific about the course of events that went from thinking he was dead to knowing he was alive.

2. Did you or the other man prop him up? If not, why not?

3. You were asked previously if other cars pulled up but I could not find an answer. Did they?

4. On the same note, do you know how long he had been there? I'm wondering why you pulled over but nobody before you did.

5. "once the police and ambulance showed up they thanked us and actually asked us to move on, which we did" I'm assuming they took yours and the dog walkers details since you were right there - if not, please say so. Did they ever get back to you about the incident?

Thanks.

Hi Hair Bear,

You hadn’t noticed but unfortunately Abby is currently serving a ban so you’ll have to wait a while for a response. Or you could pm him on JtRForums if you’re a member?

[Hair Bear]

Hi Hair Bear,

You hadn’t noticed but unfortunately Abby is currently serving a ban so you’ll have to wait a while for a response. Or you could pm him on JtRForums if you’re a member?

Will message, thanks.

[Geddy2112]

I guess its good that Edward conned the Lechmere family at outset of this little farce of theirs. Having a respectable, hard working, family oriented, ancestor isn't nearly as noteworthy as having Jack the Ripper in the family. It's disgusting.

Sorry for asking at this late stage but he did what? Apologies I've missed the boat on this one.