Proving that Charles Lechmere is a very good suspect

[Christer Holmgren]

...my comments are not meant as an argument against Lechmere being considered at least a person of interest in this mother of all cold cases.

And little would it help if they were - the threefold checkout used in this thread proves that Lechmere is much, much more than a person of interest.

I would prefer to have seen the emphasis on seeking to eliminate Lechmere as a suspect, as the police would be doing today with anyone in similar shoes.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, today, what the police would seek to do would be to try and eliminate Lechmere as a suspect. Then again, the police asserting that this is what they always do inititally, only moving on to treating people as suspects if they cannot be cleared, is much about going through the motions in some cases. Policemen do not differ from the rest of us when it comes to how a wealth of evidence leads them to immediate suspicion - although it is not expressed like that from the outset.
In that respect, what Scobie says is informative: A jury would not like Charles Lechmere.

Looking at it from another angle, I´d say that Druitt, Kosminski, Levy, Tumblety - all the rest of the suspects or so called suspects, should be glad to have Lechmere in the mix. Because as Andy Griffiths succinctly put it, "Certainly, in our age, noone else could be prosecuted before Lechmere is cleared". It is a matter that is self-evident, but it does not work the other way around. None of the other suspects form an obstacle to prosecuting Lechmere.

Again, the man is unique.

[Christer Holmgren]

It's a fair point, Ed.

That's why we should have learnt by now that the best way to test how good a case can be made against one's 'favourite' suspect in 2022 is by trying one's level best to eliminate him first, by any and every means - not by trying one's level best to put a noose round his neck.

Even Jack the Ripper had/has the right to a fair trial.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, absolutely - but a fair trial is not the same as letting people walk if we can think up other explanations to the various points of suspicion than guilty ones. In actual fact, the very definition of circumstantial evidence is that it is evidence where innocent alternative explanations ALWAYS can be provided.

That is good to keep in mind when discussing these matters. I am totally unimpressed by how people are able to come up with the idea that the clothing could have blown up over the wounds, that Lechmere said he left home at around 3.30 whereas it in actual fact perhaps was 3.38, that Mizen could have misheard the three matters that allowed the carmen to pass him by, that he may have wanted to honour his dead father by calling himself Cross, that Nichols may perhaps have bled longer than expected for various reasons, that it is can be a sheer coincidence that Lechmeres morning trek took him past the murder sites or close to them and so on and so on. It is not how these matters can be provided with all sorts of innocent alternatives that is in any way a revelation. It is instead that people seem not too understand that there comes a time when we pass the coincidence acceptance border. And as James Scobie said, the coincidences MOUNT up in Lechmeres case, and consequently it becomes a coincidence too many.
Or two.
Or ten.
Or fifteen.

A fair trial when it comes to people who pass the line when coincidences can be accepted is actually a trial that convicts them. A fair trial is not a trial where an unending amount of coincidences are accepted , as long as we can think up innocent alternative explanations. Becasue we ALWAYS can!

So in all fairness - convict such a person. We need to consider the honest people in society too, who would not think it very fair to let killers loose although there is a large heap of incriminating circumstantial evidence against them.

[Chris Phillips]

Looking at it from another angle, I´d say that Druitt, Kosminski, Levy, Tumblety - all the rest of the suspects or so called suspects, should be glad to have Lechmere in the mix. Because as Andy Griffiths succinctly put it, "Certainly, in our age, noone else could be prosecuted before Lechmere is cleared". It is a matter that is self-evident, but it does not work the other way around. None of the other suspects form an obstacle to prosecuting Lechmere.

Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense to me. Someone else could be prosecuted if there were enough evidence against them, regardless of how suspicious you may think Lechmere is.

Of course you can say that we don't know of enough evidence against any suspect that would justify a prosecution, which I think most people would agree with. But that doesn't make Lechmere unique, unless you can persuade us that he's different.

[Christer Holmgren]

Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense to me. Someone else could be prosecuted if there were enough evidence against them, regardless of how suspicious you may think Lechmere is.

Of course you can say that we don't know of enough evidence against any suspect that would justify a prosecution, which I think most people would agree with. But that doesn't make Lechmere unique, unless you can persuade us that he's different.

In this discussiom it is not a case of me finding Lechmere suspicious - it is a case of a seasoned murder squad leader resoning along that line. I think the point Griffiths makes is that legally, if there was not conclusive evidence against somebody else, Lechmere would always have stood in the way of a case against any other person. It would have been a simple thing for any defence lawyer to point out the circumstances surrounding the carman, and so reaonable doubt would always have been there for any other accused party. And knowing that, there could be no prosecution other than against Lechmere. That, at least, is how I read Griffiths.

If you look at the three points presented in this thread, you will see one of the reasons that Lechmere is unique. If you can provide us with any other suspect who ticks the three boxes of a proven presence with a potential opportunity to kill at one or more of the murder sites, a record of anomalies/lies/contradictions/inconsistencies and a geographical link or links to the murder area/s, I´d be interested to hear about it. If you are instead saying that we cannot be sure that there is no such person, so far undisclosed to us, it becomes another matter - but not a matter that takes away from how Lechmere fits the bill.

[Christer Holmgren]

Here´s the full matter, as per Griffiths:
"From a police point of view, a person who finds a body in circumstances like this, is always going to be significant to an inquiry." After having pointed out that the police would initially try to eliminate that person from the inquiry, he goes on to say: "Certainly, in the modern age, you could not prosecute anybody without eliminating him first, becasue obviously, you´ve got someone who´s been with the body very close to the point of death and who possibly is the person who caused the death."

The prosecution will act upon whichever person they find likely to be convicted as presented by the investigating police force. It is their efforts that is set off as a prosecution, if they are able to identify a person who is the likely killer. The prosecution does not act on its own in this regard, seeking out somebody they like as a suspect. It all rests in the investigative efforts of the police, who then hand the case over to the prosecution, once they have one.
So what Griffiths says is basically that Lechmere stands in the way of any other case of prosecution until evidence can be revealed that provides equal or stronger support for a prosecution case against somebody else that Lechmere. It is not a good idea to prosecute a weak suspect when there is a strong suspect around. If I am not misreading Griffiths, this is what he points to.

Technically, just as you say, if we were to be presented with another person to whom more/better circumstantial evidence was clinging, then that other person could be prosecuted. I think the reason Griffiths does not mention this option, is because he rules it out as a practical possibility. It would be very, very hard to surpass Charles Lechmere in terms of suspect viability. Found alone with the victim at the approximate TOD, giving an alias he otherwise never gave to authorities, disagreeing with the police about three matters that ALL served to allow him to pass by the police, the hidden wounds, Pauls failure to recognize Lechmeres presence until he arrived at the spot, the correlation with the work trek and -times and so on. The idea that another suspect would trump that borders on the bizarre, or so Griffiths seems to reason.

PS. We may also see that far from applying the old canard "Well, somebody had to find the victim", Griffiths points out that when somebody finds a victim IN CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THE ONES WE HAVE HERE, then such a person will always be significant to the inquiry.

[Chris Phillips]

I think the point Griffiths made was that legally, if there was not conclusive evidence against somebody else, Lechmere would always have stood in the way of a case against any other person. It would have been a simple thing for any defence lawyer to point out the circumstances surrounding the carman, and so reaonable doubt would always have been there for any other accused party. And knowing that, there could be no prosecution other than against Lechmere. That, at least, is how I read Griffiths.

If you look at the three points presented in this thread, you will see one of the reasons that Lechmere is unique. If you can provide us with any other suspect who ticks the three boxes of a proven presence with a potential opportunity to kill at one or more of the murder sites, a record of anomalies/lies/contradictions/inconsistencies and a geographical link or links to the murder area/s, I´d be interested to hear about it. If you are instead saying that we cannot be sure that there is no such person, so far undisclosed to us, it becomes another matter - but not a matter that takes away from how Lechmere fits the bill.

I don't think there are any "very good" suspects, so whether it's possible to find a "better" one than Lechmere wouldn't really prove anything as far as I'm concerned.

No doubt the people who advocate suspects all have different reasons for finding them plausible. I think you're being a bit over-optimistic if you expect other suspectologists to let you set the criteria. They will probably come up with different lists of criteria and challenge you to prove that Lechmere fits them better than their suspect does!

[R. J. Palmer]

What 'reason' did Lechmere have for being in Mitre Square at 1:45 a.m. in the morning?

He didn't have one. Unless, one is going to go after the employees of Kearley & Tongue, or the coppers walking the beat around the Square, the analysis falls at the first hurdle.

The only reason the murderer would have had for being in Mitre Square was to commit murder, and if that was true of Mitre Square, it was very likely true of the other murder sites.

Robert Black's petrol receipts don't enter the equation.

One criteria the police use is to trace registered sex offenders in the area. What were Lechmere's known sex offenses? He doesn't have any. He gets a zero.

At least with Druitt, a senior policeman, who had the resources of the Met at his disposal, is claiming that his suspect had a history of sexual insanity. We can argue over the meaning of that phrase, but we don't know that it is inaccurate.

The criteria can be carefully crafted to achieve the preferred result.

[Christer Holmgren]

I don't think there are any "very good" suspects, so whether it's possible to find a "better" one than Lechmere wouldn't really prove anything as far as I'm concerned.

No doubt the people who advocate suspects all have different reasons for finding them plausible. I think you're being a bit over-optimistic if you expect other suspectologists to let you set the criteria. They will probably come up with different lists of criteria and challenge you to prove that Lechmere fits them better than their suspect does!

Clearly, Andy Griffiths and James Scobie disagrees with you, both of them legally and criminologically versed. Plus we know that Lechmere does tick the three boxes the police will take an interest in, flushing out their suspect/s. So there is the proof you ask for. I invite anybody to measure their suspects along this scale and we’ ll see who comes out on top.

I am used to others disagreeing, but I am going with the facts and experts.

[Chris Phillips]

Clearly, Andy Griffiths and James Scobie disagrees with you, both of them legally and criminologically versed. Plus we know that Lechmere does tick the three boxes the police will take an interest in, flushing out their suspect/s. So there is the proof you ask for. I invite anybody to measure their suspects along this scale and we’ ll see who comes out on top.

I am used to others disagreeing, but I am going with the facts and experts.

On the whole, I am happy to leave discussion of the pros and cons of suspects to others.

[Christer Holmgren]

What 'reason' did Lechmere have for being in Mitre Square at 1:45 a.m. in the morning?

He didn't have one. Unless, one is going to go after the employees of Kearley & Tongue, or the coppers walking the beat around the Square, the analysis falls at the first hurdle.

The only reason the murderer would have had for being in Mitre Square was to commit murder, and if that was true of Mitre Square, it was very likely true of the other murder sites.

Robert Black's petrol receipts don't enter the equation.

One criteria the police use is to trace registered sex offenders in the area. What were Lechmere's known sex offenses? He doesn't have any. He gets a zero.

At least with Druitt, a senior policeman, who had the resources of the Met at his disposal, is claiming that his suspect had a history of sexual insanity. We can argue over the meaning of that phrase, but we don't know that it is inaccurate.

The criteria can be carefully crafted to achieve the preferred result.

There is no crafting of the criteria, though. The triumvirate I present is the exact method the police works with. And anyone who meets that criteria is automatically a very good suspect. Go ask your local detective if I am right or crafting the criteria, R J.

You would prefer to have them check for previous violent offenses. Have a look at the many serial killers who have been arrested over the years, and you will find a number of such creatures who did not have any such record when caught.

Those are all men that you would set free, I take it?

Name?
Joachim Kroll.
Record of violence?
None.
Okay, you are free to go, have a nice day!

One of the many features that is common among serial killers are that they are good at keeping up a facade of being good guys. As I have pointed out many, many times, Robert Ressler described the archetypical serial killer not as a man with a record of violence, but as a family man in his thirties with kids and a steady job,

Druitt et al are second hand suspects. They are the sort of suspects the police will turn to if they cannot find a credible suspect among the ones that have a proven presence at a murder site. THAT is when the polie turn to looking for people with records of violence and who has committed crimes similar to the ones they are investigating. It is a wise thing to do, but only when you have investigated and cleared the people that were present at or close by the murder site. Becasue, believe it or not, it was one of those people who was the killer. Every time.

Lechmere fits the triumvirate of police checking points. That makes him a far better suspect than any othere named person. End of.

PS. Claiming that Lechmere has no points for violence equals claiming to know that he was not violent. In actual fact, we are not in a position to gauge him on that scale, we only know that we have no records of any violence. He either was or he was not. Like Joachim Kroll, for example.

[Christer Holmgren]

On the whole, I am happy to leave discussion of the pros and cons of suspects to others.

If that´s your choice, Chris, then you are free to do so. What I would point out before you leave is that if Griffiths said that no other person could be prosecuted and based it on how he thought that Lechmere was a suspect that could arguably not be surpassed, than that says a whole deal of his assessment.

[Edward Stow]

The presumed 'reason' Lechmere was in Mitre Square was because he had been thwarted at Berner Street (having visited his old stamping grounds on his free night, not having work the next day). On being thwarted he went to the closest place where he knew he would find a ready supply of potential.victims - the area around St Botolph's - an area he was familiar with as it was on his route to work when he lived at James Street - prior to his move to Doveton Street that June.
I presume he bumped into the unfortunate Catherine Eddowes in that vicinity and she took him to Mitre Square.
That is a fairly straightforward rationale.

Her apron was left in a direct line betwern Mitre Square and Doveton Street.

[Edward Stow]

Druitt (or substitute another name if you prefer) went to Berner Street for no apparent reason. Then he went to Mitre Square for no apparent reason. Then he dropped the apron in the opposite direction he should have taken... for no apparent reason.

[Michael Banks]

That would be odd, since it is harder to exaggerate his candidacy than it is for any other suspect. There is less room left for exaggerations in Lechmeres case. Compare, if you will, to a man like Druitt, where there is absolutely nothing linking him practically to the murders - to make a suspect out of him, a colossal amount of exagerration (and inventiveness) is required.

On Scobie: how do you know how the time that Lechmere left home was presented to him? Is it not true that you just made your allegation up? Invented it? Without being familiar with the material Scobie was given? Plus, of course, the timings given by Lechmere ARE in line with guilt, regardless of how they should not be taken as exact. You want it to go away, but any prosecutor would use them to some significant effect. And rightly so; if he left home at ”around 3.30” he should have been in Bucks Row around 3.37, not around 3.45.

Charles Lechmere fits every bit of the threefold method the police will use trying to flush out their suspect and likely killer. It does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was the killer, but it DOES prove that he is a very good suspect. And that is what this thread is about. I know it provokes you, I said so in my first post. But there is nothing you can do about it, unless you refuse to accept the validity of genuine police work.

It’s hard to credit but you still keep repeating the same falsehood. The falsehood that ‘about 3.30’ means ‘3.30.’ Let’s talk about facts.

Its a fact that in the documentary it’s stated that Lechmere left the house at 3.30.
Its a fact that in your book it’s stated that Lechmere left the house at 3.30.
it’s even a fact that in Bob Mills Ripperologist article he stated that Lechmere left the house at 3.30.

Lechmere supporters clearly have an aversion to the word ‘about’ when discussing their suspect. In the English language (and i assume in any language) ‘about 3.30’ could very easily mean ‘3.33’ or ‘3.34’ or ‘3.35.’ It could also of course mean 3.25 but the point is that ‘about’ indicates an estimation and an estimation cannot and should not be stated as a fact. And the word ‘about’ certainly shouldn’t be omitted completely when everyone is fully aware of it (apart of course from a Barrister who would have taken 3.30 as a fact.

And so if such information is presented to a Barrister he would have to have been a complete buffoon not have heard alarm bells going off. But would those alarm bells have gone off if he’d learned that this wasn’t true?

You can’t say - if x occurred (and it might have done) then y would be the case. So we can now state y as a fact. This is exactly what you are trying to do with Lechmere and this completely mythical gap. It’s black and white. The missing time ‘gap’ has to be eliminated because it’s only a gap that might have occurred if he’d left the house at 3.30 for certain.

This point is the only thing that is ‘provoking’ Christer and it’s you that gets provoked on a subject that is so obvious that it shouldn’t require discussion.

[Michael Banks]

Yes, today, what the police would seek to do would be to try and eliminate Lechmere as a suspect. Then again, the police asserting that this is what they always do inititally, only moving on to treating people as suspects if they cannot be cleared, is much about going through the motions in some cases. Policemen do not differ from the rest of us when it comes to how a wealth of evidence leads them to immediate suspicion - although it is not expressed like that from the outset.
In that respect, what Scobie says is informative: A jury would not like Charles Lechmere.

Looking at it from another angle, I´d say that Druitt, Kosminski, Levy, Tumblety - all the rest of the suspects or so called suspects, should be glad to have Lechmere in the mix. Because as Andy Griffiths succinctly put it, "Certainly, in our age, noone else could be prosecuted before Lechmere is cleared". It is a matter that is self-evident, but it does not work the other way around. None of the other suspects form an obstacle to prosecuting Lechmere.

Again, the man is unique.

Lechmere probably is unique. Never has such a work of exaggeration and invention gone into to promoting a man who simply found a body on the way to work and who the Police at the time didn’t find in the remotest bit suspicious. He was there. That’s all that you have. He was there.

I started a tongue-in-cheek tread over on casebook about John Richardson.

He found a body and was completely alone when he did it.
His evidence conflicts with Dr Phillips TOD.
Inspector Chandler said that Richardson hadn’t mentioned sitting on the step when Richardson said that he’d told him.
He admitted to having a knife to cut leather on his shoe but when he produced it at the Inquest it wasn’t sharp enough for the job.
A local man, who knew the area and was in the habit of carrying a knife.
He mentioned turfing out prostitutes and their clients so maybe he had an issue with them.
I believe that Roger Palmer showed that his mother held prayer meetings so he might have been repeatedly told about the immorality of prostitutes.

Richardson has more going for him than Lechmere.