Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Chapman murder and Charles Lechmere

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Chapman murder and Charles Lechmere

    Oh no, not another Lechmere thread – but someone asked, a dangerous thing, and with being near Christmas it makes for a good story.

    Most of the Whitechapel murders have unusual features about them.

    The Annie Chapman murder was carried out much sooner after the previous killing than the rest. Just eight days. The Ripper struck again more swiftly.
    Was he impatient to kill again?
    Or did he merely get the opportunity and the longer gaps were perhaps caused by him not finding a suitable victim in a suitably secluded spot, possibly due to increased police vigilance and prostitute caution as the sequence evolved.
    Or was there something in his life that dictated the days when he could kill. Maybe he was not always in London because his work took him elsewhere.
    Or there could be some other reason.

    There is some dispute as to Annie Chapman’s time of death. The Doctor who examined the body gave a time of around 4.00 am, while if various witnesses are to be believed the time of death would have been nearer 5.30 am.
    The earlier time fits more closely the pattern observable in the other murders. The later time would put Chapman’s murder at quite a later hour than the others.
    Was there some reason for this?
    Was the killer stalking the streets all night and just, in his terms, ‘got lucky’ as dawn started to break?
    Or were his circumstances such that he could be flexible as to the time in the morning when he chose to kill.
    Or there could be another reason.

    The first two people, that we know about, to be at the crime scene for the Nichols murder (31st August) walked past the future Chapman crime scene (eight days away – 8th September) immediately afterwards.
    These were Charles Lechmere (who called himself Charles Cross when involved in the Nichols murder investigation) and Robert Paul.
    Robert Paul worked about 100 yards on from the Chapman murder scene and Lechmere and Paul separated at that point and so far as we known never met again.

    Robert Paul gave two accounts of his experience on the night of the Nichols murder to a reporter from Lloyds Weekly News. This story appeared on 2nd September and without naming him, put Lechmere ‘standing where the woman was’.
    Lechmere attended the Nichols inquest the next day (3rd September).
    However it is apparent from information released by the police the proceeding evening, that they did not know of his story.
    Accordingly Lechmere cannot have gone to the police to make a statement about his version of events with respect to the Nichols murder until Sunday evening.
    It is a fair guess that the Lloyds story prompted him to come forward.

    Robert Paul did not appear at the Nichols inquest until 17th September, when it reconvened after being adjourned on 3rd September. The next and final day the inquest sat was 22nd September.

    Lloyds reported that some time after they published their story on 2nd September, Robert Paul ‘was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days.’

    The only two days that Paul could have been obliged to attend the inquest can have been 17th (which we know about) and 22nd September.

    But when was he ‘fetched up’?
    We have the following account in ‘I caught Crippen’ by Walter Dew, then a Detective Constable. Dew largely wrote from memory so he made some errors.

    No better illustration of East-End conditions at the time could be afforded than by the behaviour of Charles ______ , a middle-aged carman, who was the first to see the body.
    The carman was on his way through Bucks Row to his day's work when he saw a huddled mass in the gateway of Essex Wharf. He crossed from one side of the street to the other to investigate.
    The light was just sufficient to show him that the form was that of a woman and that she had been mishandled. Her clothing had been disarranged and her bonnet had fallen from her head. There was something strange too about the position of the woman's head.
    In any other district of London such a discovery would have sent the man dashing for a policeman. But this was Whitechapel, where crimes of violence and outrage were of everyday occurrence.
    The carman shook the woman. She did not stir. He decided it was a case of a woman who had fainted following assault, and, making a mental note to report the matter to the first police constable he saw, he went on his way.
    A curious thing then happened. The carman had gone but a short distance when he saw another man on the opposite side of the street whose behaviour was certainly suspicious. The other man seemed to seek to avoid the carman, who went over to him, and said:
    "Come and look here. Here's a woman been knocked about."
    Together the two men went to the gateway where the poor woman was lying. The newcomer felt her heart. His verdict was not reassuring.
    "I think she's breathing," he told his companion, "but it's very little if she is."
    The couple parted, ________ promising, as he walked away, to call a policeman.
    All this was afterwards told in evidence by the carman. It never had the corroboration of the other man. The police made repeated appeals for him to come forward, but he never did so.
    Why did he remain silent? Was it guilty knowledge that caused him to ignore the appeals of the police?
    In any other district and in any other circumstances this would have been a natural inference, but in the East End of London at this time the man might have had a dozen reasons for avoiding the publicity which would have followed. He might have been a criminal; or he might have been afraid, as so many were, to risk the linking of his name with a Ripper-crime.


    The salient points are that Dew has Paul acting suspiciously, and despite attempts to track him down, he thought Paul was never found.

    This suggests that it actually took some time to find Paul and for whatever reason a degree of suspicion fell on his shoulders.

    I would suggest that this points to Paul being located by the police after the Chapman murder. The police did not have the resources to locate someone like Paul very rapidly and I would suggest the Chapman murder – taking place so close to where he worked, gave the police added impetus to find him.
    Last edited by Lechmere; 12-23-2013, 04:09 AM.

  • #2
    I would suggest the Chapman murder – taking place so close to where he worked, gave the police added impetus to find him.
    [/QUOTE]

    If they hadn't found Paul, how did they know that he worked close to the site of the Chapman murder ?

    Did he say so in Lloyd's weekly ?

    The journalists who interviewed him must have had a contact for him.

    Are you saying that it was Lechmere who told the Police that Paul worked near the site of the Chapman murder ?
    http://youtu.be/GcBr3rosvNQ

    Comment


    • #3
      With respect to Chapman.....

      " the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found....."

      If Cross committed the murder while his cart was being tended to at the market, what did he do with the above? I assumption is that it would have been a rather messy package. Do you contend that he took it with him back to Pickfords? Hidden in his lunchbox, perhaps?

      And if he killed Champman closer to 4am (Late for work, again!), you have the same problem, he's got a soggy, sticky, rather sizable bundle of bloody human organs to hide from his coworkers. How did he manage it?

      I don't think it can be suggested that he discarded it. Why go the trouble of removing the organs, carrying them away, only to ditch them?

      Comment


      • #4
        Ruby
        Lloyds didn't report where he worked or lived.
        It seems he bumped into their reporter in the street probably near Buck's Row.
        Lechmere gave an indication where he left him ie near Corbett's Court.
        If anyone gave the police a statement about Paul's demeanor at the crime scene it can only have been Lechmere.
        I would suggest the imprecise details of where Paul could be located was a cause of the delay in finding him.

        Comment


        • #5
          Patrick -almost any man who did the murder would have had to contend with the same problem. Unless you think that JTR was unemployed ? He might have been, but the days and times of the murder tend to suggest otherwise in my view.
          http://youtu.be/GcBr3rosvNQ

          Comment


          • #6
            Patrick
            We have no idea, whoever took the body parts, what was done with them. We do not know why he took them either. For all you know the removal was the important aspect rather than keeping them.
            Keeping them and walking off with them to wherever would be a problem for any culprit.
            How do you know that Lechmere didn't go equipped with some sort of canvass sack for the purpose?
            Broad Street is about 7 minutes walk from Hanbury Street. If he had a hidey hole there how do you know that Lechmere didn't pop back to the depot.
            Very often carts had to wait hours to be unloaded. Usually they were minded by a boy who accompanied the driver or by a boy at the destination.
            I'm not sure why you focus on his cart being unloaded at the market.
            There is nothing intrinsic to what we know of Lechmere, Broad Street, Pickfords, or Carmen to rule Lechmere out, despite your protestations.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
              Patrick
              We have no idea, whoever took the body parts, what was done with them. We do not know why he took them either. For all you know the removal was the important aspect rather than keeping them.
              Keeping them and walking off with them to wherever would be a problem for any culprit.
              How do you know that Lechmere didn't go equipped with some sort of canvass sack for the purpose?
              Broad Street is about 7 minutes walk from Hanbury Street. If he had a hidey hole there how do you know that Lechmere didn't pop back to the depot.
              Very often carts had to wait hours to be unloaded. Usually they were minded by a boy who accompanied the driver or by a boy at the destination.
              I'm not sure why you focus on his cart being unloaded at the market.
              There is nothing intrinsic to what we know of Lechmere, Broad Street, Pickfords, or Carmen to rule Lechmere out, despite your protestations.
              You are so married to the idea of Cross that there is nothing that you cannot rationalize away.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Rubyretro View Post
                Patrick -almost any man who did the murder would have had to contend with the same problem. Unless you think that JTR was unemployed ? He might have been, but the days and times of the murder tend to suggest otherwise in my view.
                Or unless he started work at 7am or later. Which we know for certain that Cross did not.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Patrick
                  I'll choose to take that as a back handed complement and that you acknowledge there is nothing to rule Lechmere out.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Dearest Ed,

                    But there is nothing to rule any suspect out. In the absence of hard evidence, no suspect can be eliminated from the realms of possibility.

                    Yes, you are correct, there is nothing that can rule Crossmere out: (there's a quote to cut out and keep) but it's a meaningless statement.

                    As for Paul being hauled up by the cops - I'm interested in the idea that he may not have been located until after Chapman was murdered. Perhaps you are right there.

                    That being the case; I'm not surprised that they were suspicious of Paul, considering his proximity to not one, but two dead women. Of course, Crossmere coul've dropped him in it; but as you will be aware, there are other explanations. As usual, unless there is something further, some inside information that you have in your possession, it all remains speculation.

                    On the plus side for you, I suppose that if the police were willing to entertain the possibility that Paul murdered so close to his place of work; the premise of a killer striking on his way to work was not considered untenable.

                    Incidentally, I must say again that I think you're wasted here - I hope you do write your book. At the very least, the time and effort that you've expended in pursuit of Crossmere probably merits something more substantial than a temporary archive of message board posts.

                    Anyhow, moving swiftly on from that uncharacteristically genuine comment...

                    Seasons Greetings!

                    Good Luck with your Ripper hunting for next year. Your dissenters will be waiting with their 'venom.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
                      Patrick
                      I'll choose to take that as a back handed complement and that you acknowledge there is nothing to rule Lechmere out.
                      No one can be ruled out at this point. With that, it's doubtful that anything can or will be uncovered to prove guilt to any degree of certainty. Most importantly, it's all good fun. Without threads like this one, we'd probably be stuck talking about Cornwell's new Sickert book.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        My dear Sally
                        Some 'suspects' can be ruled out - if they live somewhere that is under lock and key late at night for example.
                        All things are relative and I would tend to rule out people who were cleared by the police at the time or were closely looked at - and the raving mad.
                        Some are suspects now as they were suspects then - and understanding how or why they became suspects then can rule them out now (I'm thinking suspects like Tumblety or Druitt).

                        Patrick
                        I haven't really developed my theory regarding Lechmere and Chapman in this thread yet - though to do so will ruin yet another chapter in that book Sally speaks of.

                        I was doing some Christmas shopping and popped into a Waterstones and had a quick browse of the new Begg and Bennett book where they - correctly - bemoan the lack of a Lechmere book and here I am perpetuating that shortfall!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          My dear Sally

                          Some 'suspects' can be ruled out - if they live somewhere that is under lock and key late at night for example.


                          My dearest Ed, you never fail to amuse.

                          All things are relative and I would tend to rule out people who were cleared by the police at the time or were closely looked at - and the raving mad.
                          On the first point I agree. The other two I'd say were less clear cut. And of course it would be handy to discount Kosminski, since he's a pretty strong candidate. Or would you disagree?

                          Some are suspects now as they were suspects then - and understanding how or why they became suspects then can rule them out now (I'm thinking suspects like Tumblety or Druitt).
                          Here I'm with you. What we do have that the contemporary police did not is the benefit of hindsight and access to subsequent record sets. It is possible for us to get a longer view in some cases that enable an understanding that was impossible in contemporary terms. I think in some cases, modern suspicion is fuelled by the fact that we know very little about some people involved in the case. It is easier to resort to invention (speculation if you prefer) when there are big gaps in our knowledge.

                          One of my problems with Crossmere as a viable candidate is the fact that we do know about him and his life. There is nothing there that is even remotely suggestive of a serial killer. It's an objection that has come up time and again from posters on this forum and the other; and a problem you will need to overcome if you hope to convince a wider audience.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The irony of Kosminski as the culprit is that his leading advocates have to make the case that he wasn't so mad in 1888 and it came on later, when his madness is the key thing the police mentioned with respect to his potential guilt.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Sally

                              We know he wasn’t locked up for violence or sent to an insane asylum but does that mean he didn’t do it?
                              If the culprit was an unknown local – should we expect him to have died or been locked up for something else, to explain the cessation of the murders?
                              Should we expect him to have appeared in court on numerous occasions for crimes of petty violence?
                              I don’t think so.
                              The case was unsolved which is suggestive that the culprit may well have stopped and lived on.
                              Incidentally I would not rule out any unsolved murder from say 15 years before to 15 years after as being associated with the Whitechapel murders.

                              We don’t know anything much about Lechmere’s personality beyond what can be gleamed from his involvement in the Nichols case.
                              However we know he was very punctilious about form filling, registration and school attendance. This suggests an anal or controlling nature.
                              He ran businesses while working as a carman from the early to mid 1890s. When he retired as a carman focussed on running a shop. He must have been frugal and a successful businessman as he left a similar cash sum in his will to the estate of Donald Swanson.
                              We know about his background – father deserts the family, mother re-marrying a younger policeman etc.
                              We know that his grandfather was from a wealthy background and his branch sunk.
                              It is not uncommon for psychopaths to have this sort of background.
                              Clearly this doesn’t prove he did anything and doesn’t prove he was a psychopath. But it is a lot more useful to the case against Lechmere than had his mother and father lived together all his life and had he come from purely humble stock and had he just been a humble carman all his life, had he not been a successful businessman, had he missed the odd electoral register entry, or failed to get one of his kids baptised, or let them off a few days at school when they moved address.

                              Similarly had he told the police his name was Charles Lechmere and had there not been the discord between him and PC Mizen over what was said on the morning of 31st August the case against him would be weaker. And had he walked off when leaving Mizen on his shortest route to work down Old Montague Street and if one of the core murders taken place in an area where he had no cause to be.

                              There are big gaps in our knowledge about all suspects.
                              I would guess that Tumblety is the most recorded suspect. But he was such an outrageous character that much of what was said about him was misinformation!
                              With the ‘police suspects’ I am of the opinion that their suspicion was also fuelled by gaps in their knowledge.

                              (PS I was thinking of Mann being under lock and key - of course).
                              Last edited by Lechmere; 12-24-2013, 04:23 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X