Proving that Charles Lechmere is a very good suspect

[Gary Barnett]

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.

Richardson said he wasn’t in the habit of carrying the knife, he’d been cutting up carrots for his pet rabbit and just popped the old, blunt dessert knife into his pocket that morning. Presumably that knife wasn’t up to the job of killing and ripping people either, so it doesn’t add anything to his potential guilt.

The theory is that he killed Polly some distance away from where he lived and was possibly disturbed by Lechmere? And then decided to commit his next murder in his mum’s back yard?

I’d back Lechmere’s adolescent warnings against prostitutes over Richardson’s any day.

And then there’s SGE and in particular Pinchin Street.

A commendable attempt, Mike. But I don’t rate your guy higher than Lechmere.

[R. J. Palmer]

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 understand all that, Ed, but that's hardly the point, is it?

Christer was looking at men who had a 'reason' for being in the area of a series of crimes--presumably delivery drivers and the like, or men commuting to work--hence his reference to Robert Black, who was connected to three murder sites due to his employer's habit of keeping detailed records of all his petrol receipts, showing Black had a 'reason' for being in the area at the time.

The thesis is immediately on shaky grounds because the 'Whitechapel' [sic] murders were committed in backstreets in the middle of the night, and it seems unlikely the perpetrator would have had a legitimate reason for being in the area of the crimes.

Then again, Pat Mulshaw, the nightwatchman, had a 'reason' for being near Buck's Row, and he also had a damn good reason for being near Berner Street on a Saturday night. He lived in SGE and had children living nearby.

But if we expand 'a reason' to include men merely trawling for prostitutes in order to commit murder, the argument starts to become ridiculous. This particular 'reason' could apply to anyone.

The delivery driver becomes just another John out on the town to fit this particularly murder site. A more likely fit for the Christer's scenario in Mitre Square would be someone connected to the tea factory or the gambling dens north of the square.

What you say about Lechmere could be true, of course, theoretically, but I don't see how it fits Christer's thesis.

But I can appreciate that this sort of 'naysaying' becomes tedious and unwelcome; on the other hand, Christer seems to have set up this thread in hopes of eliciting counterarguments, constructive criticism, or submission to his unassailable logic, so I thought I would oblige him with this one small observation.

Happy Hunting.

[Gary Barnett]

Mulshaw, the old man whose job it was to stay put in a particular spot all night?

Mmmm? No, I’m not feeling it, RJ.

If the attempts don’t improve, I might have to dust off the Tomkins boys and give old Foggy a cameo role in respect of Tabram.

[R. J. Palmer]

Mulshaw, the old man whose job it was to stay put in a particular spot all night?

Mmmm? No, I’m not feeling it, RJ.

If the attempts don’t improve, I might have to dust off the Tomkins boys and give old Foggy a cameo role in respect of Tabram.

Oh, I think he fits quite nicely.

But I'm not plumping for Mulshaw as the suspect, Gary. You misunderstand my reasoning and it doesn't matter to me whether you are "feeling it" or not.

I'm simply pointing out that we can manufacture a 'geographical argument' for various people connected to the crimes, including Mulshaw and Alfred Crow Some of these geographical connections (read: coincidences) are just as superficially startling as anything that can be drummed-up for Lechmere. Mulshaw lived in a court off Goulston Street for years and had relatives scattered around the streets near Dutfield's Yard. It was Mulshaw--not Lechmere--that would have necessarily passed through SGE in September 1888.

I'm not saying those geographical arguments prove the guilt of Mulshaw or Crowe.

Instead, these examples imply that the geographical coincidences that Ed and Christer and your own good self find so compelling are nothing more than standard fare in community that moved from place to place.

[R. J. Palmer]

Richardson said he wasn’t in the habit of carrying the knife, he’d been cutting up carrots for his pet rabbit and just popped the old, blunt dessert knife into his pocket that morning. Presumably that knife wasn’t up to the job of killing and ripping people either, so it doesn’t add anything to his potential guilt.

Why do you take Richardson's word for it, but not Lechmere's?

Richardson was told to go home and produce the knife and brought back one with a dull blade. Had he been the murderer, would you expect him to bring the still bloody, razor-sharp knife and place it in Wynne Baxter's hands?

Mike's argument, if I recall, is that a guilty Richardson in leaving Hanbury Street, remembered having shoved the murder weapon into his back pocket as he fled. Worried he may have been seen from an upstairs window, he knew he had to mention having a knife while in his mother's house. The bit about cutting up carrots was just a flimsy charade.

Richardson's mother is the one who held prayer meetings. A fanatic, no doubt, constantly warning her son of fallen women and the slippery slope to Hell!!!

[Gary Barnett]

Whoever the killer was, he will have had some geographical connection to the East End. Nothing is being manufactured at all. The connections exist.

As for the people of the area moving around. The Lechmere/Cross/Forsdike lot must have been a rare exception. Like the Kirbys.

[Gary Barnett]

Why do you take Richardson's word for it, but not Lechmere's?

Richardson was told to go home and produce the knife and brought back one with a dull blade. Had he been the murderer, would you expect him to bring the still bloody, razor-sharp knife and place it in Wynne Baxter's hands?

Mike's argument, if I recall, is that a guilty Richardson in leaving Hanbury Street, remembered having shoved the murder weapon into his back pocket as he fled. Worried he may have been seen from an upstairs window, he knew he had to mention having a knife while in his mother's house. The bit about cutting up carrots was just a flimsy charade.

Richardson's mother is the one who held prayer meetings. A fanatic, no doubt, constantly warning her son of fallen women and the slippery slope to Hell!!!

Mike made the simple claim that Richardson carried a knife. The only reference to a knife in his case is him saying he did not usually carry one.

When he got to work he had to borrow a knife to sort his boot out. Perhaps he mentioned the failed attempt with the blunt knife to whoever he borrowed the sharp one from.

What am I taking Lechmere’s word about?

[Edward Stow]

RJP
Lechmere had reason to be at Berner Street - at the time of the murder. And being thwarted there gave him readin to be at Mitre Square - at the time of the murder.

To play along with your game..
What was Mulshaw's reason to be in George Yard Buildings, Hanbury Street or Dorset Street?
Was he seen by someone else standing close to a freshly slain corpse? Did he withhold his true name? Did he get into a dispute with s policeman over what was said between them.
You do understand that the 'investigation' doesn't start with the geography. That comes after the other red flags are noted.

You bring up a potential red flag with Richardson' blunt knife, about which he volunteered the information unforced. The 'guilty' explanation relies on a totally invented witness who supposedly saw a big sharp knife on his back pocket, but didn't see him use it on Chapman. The Lechmere theory doesn't rely on such pure unsupported invention.

[Christer Holmgren]

Richardson has more going for him than Lechmere.

Okay. So lets put him to the threefold test I use on this thread, the police method if you will, and compare him to Lechmere. It should not need to be done, because it should be obvious to anybody walking through life without a blind mans cane that you are wrong. But I am always helpful, so here goes!

Presence:

Lechmere: Proven to have been alone a the murder spot in close proximity to a very freshly killed victim.
Richardson: Claimed to have been in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street at 4.45, meaning that those who feel sure that Chapman was not dead at that time have no point here. Like you.
If we do accept the inevitable, that Chapman died along the suggestions of Phillips, then she had been dead for more than fifteen minutes when Richardson arrived.
K O for Lechmere.

Lies/Inconsistencies/Anomalies:

Lechmere: Changed his name from his normal authority approach. Disagreed with the police on three points that all would have helped him pass them by. The failure by the carmen to notice each other. The pulled up clothes. The refusal to help prop Nichols up.
Richardson: Said that he cut leather from a boot at the scene, only to then admit that he actually did it later, because the knife he had used in the back yard was not sharp enough. Said one thing to Chandler and another to the inquest about his exact location in the back yard.
K O for Lechmere, since none of the two points for Richardson seems to have been made to evade responsibility for a murder in any way. He freely places himself at the murder scene with a knife.

The geography:

Lechmere: Had a work trek that took him through Spitalfields, right by or close by the Nichols, Chapman, Kelly and Tabram murder scenes in the early morning hours. Had his mother and daughter living a stones throw from Berner Street. The walk from Berner street to Mitre Square would go along Lechmeres work trek of many, many years, from James Street to Broad Street.
Richardson: Lived in John Street, Spitalfields. No trek established but for the one from his quarters to the markes via 29 Hanbury Street. No connections to St Georges or Aldgate established.
K O for Lechmere.

So from this, we can very clearly see that when you prefer Richardson to Lechmere, the triumvirate I point to is not what you use to make your call. Because on these grounds, it is abundantly obvious that Lechmere is the better candidate by a country mile.

So which sinister and blood curdling criteria is it that takes Richardson past Lechmere, Michael?

[Christer Holmgren]

Christer was looking at men who had a 'reason' for being in the area of a series of crimes--presumably delivery drivers and the like, or men commuting to work--hence his reference to Robert Black, who was connected to three murder sites due to his employer's habit of keeping detailed records of all his petrol receipts, showing Black had a 'reason' for being in the area at the time.

The thesis is immediately on shaky grounds because the 'Whitechapel' [sic] murders were committed in backstreets in the middle of the night, and it seems unlikely the perpetrator would have had a legitimate reason for being in the area of the crimes.

Then again, Pat Mulshaw, the nightwatchman, had a 'reason' for being near Buck's Row, and he also had a damn good reason for being near Berner Street on a Saturday night. He lived in SGE and had children living nearby.

But if we expand 'a reason' to include men merely trawling for prostitutes in order to commit murder, the argument starts to become ridiculous. This particular 'reason' could apply to anyone.

The delivery driver becomes just another John out on the town to fit this particularly murder site. A more likely fit for the Christer's scenario in Mitre Square would be someone connected to the tea factory or the gambling dens north of the square.

What you say about Lechmere could be true, of course, theoretically, but I don't see how it fits Christer's thesis.

But I can appreciate that this sort of 'naysaying' becomes tedious and unwelcome; on the other hand, Christer seems to have set up this thread in hopes of eliciting counterarguments, constructive criticism, or submission to his unassailable logic, so I thought I would oblige him with this one small observation.

Happy Hunting.

Hang on a sec here, R J. What is it you are saying? That we are more likely dealing with somebody with no reason to be in place, rather than somebody who DID have a reason?
And exactly what is it that I myself have said about a reason to be there?

I have said that anybody who had a reason to be in the area would be less suspicious to prostitutes and the police alike. Well, to anybody, to be fair. And in that respect, yes, Patrick Mulshaw should be regarded as ticking that box. But he ticks no other boxes. And just having a reason to be there is not enough to get suspected, is it? As Edward has succinctly pointed out to you, the geography is not the first calling port when it comes to suspicion. It is the last; if there is reason to suspect a character, THEN we check for geography. That is why I call the geography a litmus test in Cutting Point.

Moving on, I have also said that we must accept that the killer was actually somebody who was present at the murder site at the time of the murder (you seemed to doubt that in an earlier post).

But I don´t remember saying that the killer MUST have been somebody who had a legitimate reason to be in the area as such.

Help me out, will you; what on earth are you going on about?

[Christer Holmgren]

To those new to the thread, I will point it out again:

This is not a thread to prove that Lechmere was the killer. It is instead a thread that proves that he is a very good suspect, and the proof lies in the threefold method the police use to flush out suspects from a batch of witnesses linked to a murder site, as described in post nr 1.

The reason for the thread is simple enough: There are those who deny that Charles Lechmere is even a suspect at all, which is why I am glad to be able to prove my point that he is very much a suspect.

Of course, as expected, there are already those who say that with a skewed choice of criteria, anybody can be made to look guilty. This is why I do not use any skewed criteria, but instead the kind of method the police uses in cases like the one we are dealing with: Identify the ones who were there, check and compare their stories and look for people whose stories are not in sync with the others, and then check if the ones telling stories that are out of sync fit the overall geography of a crime series.
Ask you local police force if you are in any doubt about this.

[Michael Banks]

Okay. So lets put him to the threefold test I use on this thread, the police method if you will, and compare him to Lechmere. It should not need to be done, because it should be obvious to anybody walking through life without a blind mans cane that you are wrong. But I am always helpful, so here goes!

Presence:

Lechmere: Proven to have been alone a the murder spot in close proximity to a very freshly killed victim.
Richardson: Claimed to have been in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street at 4.45, meaning that those who feel sure that Chapman was not dead at that time have no point here. Like you.
If we do accept the inevitable, that Chapman died along the suggestions of Phillips, then she had been dead for more than fifteen minutes when Richardson arrived.
K O for Lechmere.

On what planet?

If Phillips was correct as you believe then we have to believe that Richardson descended the step by barely opening the door, he then sat down facing right with the door up against him and missed seeing a mutilated corpse around a foot away despite him saying that he saw the whole of the yard and couldn’t possibly have missed a corpse lying where it did.

Very obviously advantage Richardson.

Lies/Inconsistencies/Anomalies:

Lechmere: Changed his name from his normal authority approach. Disagreed with the police on three points that all would have helped him pass them by. The failure by the carmen to notice each other. The pulled up clothes. The refusal to help prop Nichols up.
Richardson: Said that he cut leather from a boot at the scene, only to then admit that he actually did it later, because the knife he had used in the back yard was not sharp enough. Said one thing to Chandler and another to the inquest about his exact location in the back yard.
K O for Lechmere, since none of the two points for Richardson seems to have been made to evade responsibility for a murder in any way. He freely places himself at the murder scene with a knife.

Lechmere used the name of his stepfather, plus his middle name plus he gave his address. The idea that this was done for reasons of subterfuge are non-existent.

Yet in a yard where a mutilated body lay Richardson denies he’d told Chandler that he’d sat on the step which might be viewed as an attempt at bolstering the suggestion that he wouldn’t have seen a body. He was at the scene with a knife and yet brought a knife to the Onquest which was unfit for the purpose it was allegedly for.

Advantage Richardson.

The geography:

Lechmere: Had a work trek that took him through Spitalfields, right by or close by the Nichols, Chapman, Kelly and Tabram murder scenes in the early morning hours. Had his mother and daughter living a stones throw from Berner Street. The walk from Berner street to Mitre Square would go along Lechmeres work trek of many, many years, from James Street to Broad Street.
Richardson: Lived in John Street, Spitalfields. No trek established but for the one from his quarters to the markes via 29 Hanbury Street. No connections to St Georges or Aldgate established.
K O for Lechmere.

The Kelly one is an obvious manipulation. He would have gone anywhere near. His mother and daughters houses are irrelevant. He was a local man with natural local connections, just like Richardson and thousands of others.

Point drawn.

So from this, we can very clearly see that when you prefer Richardson to Lechmere, the triumvirate I point to is not what you use to make your call. Because on these grounds, it is abundantly obvious that Lechmere is the better candidate by a country mile.

So which sinister and blood curdling criteria is it that takes Richardson past Lechmere, Michael?

I don’t for a minute think that Richardson was guilty but it shows how a suspect can be promoted by exaggeration.

….

Remove the clearly invented ‘time gap’ and what’s left? A man discovers a body.

…..

Another point. Lechmere said that he left the house at ‘about 3.30,’ (just thought I’d remind you of the fact) so we very obviously can’t be sure what exact time he left the house every day. There would have been some variation. So if we allow a very small, and very reasonable leeway of 5 minutes each way I think it’s within the bounds to say that he’d have left for work each day between 3.25 and 3.35. I don’t see an issue with this suggestion although you’ll probably try and find one.

And so in doing that for 6 days a week however many months a year I’d suggest that it would have been close to impossible that he wouldn’t have known that a Constable patrolled Bucks Row around 3.30. How would he have been sure that he didn’t return around 3.45? Also if Paul took the same route to work 6 days a week at around the same time how unlikely would it have been for them on occasion to have been within hearing distance of each other. So would Lechmere really have chosen to kill and mutilate a woman at a spot that he passed every day at the same time and around the time that another bloke passed and a Constable walked his beat. And surely he’d have known that a Constable would have been where Mizen was? So he also would have strongly suspected that he’d have been walking into a PC. Not a great spot for a murder for a regular like Lech.

[Christer Holmgren]

I don’t for a minute think that Richardson was guilty but it shows how a suspect can be promoted by exaggeration.

….

Remove the clearly invented ‘time gap’ and what’s left? A man discovers a body.

…..

Another point. Lechmere said that he left the house at ‘about 3.30,’ (just thought I’d remind you of the fact) so we very obviously can’t be sure what exact time he left the house every day. There would have been some variation. So if we allow a very small, and very reasonable leeway of 5 minutes each way I think it’s within the bounds to say that he’d have left for work each day between 3.25 and 3.35. I don’t see an issue with this suggestion although you’ll probably try and find one.

And so in doing that for 6 days a week however many months a year I’d suggest that it would have been close to impossible that he wouldn’t have known that a Constable patrolled Bucks Row around 3.30. How would he have been sure that he didn’t return around 3.45? Also if Paul took the same route to work 6 days a week at around the same time how unlikely would it have been for them on occasion to have been within hearing distance of each other. So would Lechmere really have chosen to kill and mutilate a woman at a spot that he passed every day at the same time and around the time that another bloke passed and a Constable walked his beat. And surely he’d have known that a Constable would have been where Mizen was? So he also would have strongly suspected that he’d have been walking into a PC. Not a great spot for a murder for a regular like Lech.

Why would you think that you need to show that a suspect status can be promoteed by exaggeration? Don´t you think everybody out here knows that? And what´s the problem with Lechmere in this case? Nobody is exaggerating anything about him. That is just something you are trying to lead on, with very little success.

He was found alone wityh a victim at a remove in time that is consistent with being the killer. he has all sorts of anomalies and possible lies clining to his testimony. And his overall geographical pattern is in line with the murder sites. And that is what we are looking at in this thread.

You try to make a mountain out of a midget mole´s hill about the timing, but you fail miserably. Lechmere seemingly said that he left home at about 3.30, and that is a time that is more or less consistent with the PC:s timings of 3.45. Reasonably, if he was the killer, then he would have adjusted the times he gave to fit the developments.
His real probem arises when coroner Baxter, Donald Swanson and the papers proclaim that the body was not found by Lechmere at 3.40 but instead at 3.45 - meaning that if he left home at AROUND 3.30, he should have been in Bucks Rpow at ARIUND 3.37, fitting aroundish with the PC:s timings - but NOT fitting in any way with a scenario where the body was found at 3.45 by Lechmere.
You seem to think that "around" can stretch to any time at all. It can´t, I´m afraid. Not that being informed about the facts will change your mind - you are not the type to be impressed by such things, it seems. Another post of yours has Druitts crammed schedule between cricket games and murders described as nothing out of the ordinary.

That cannot be said for your judgment, sadly.

[Christer Holmgren]

And this gem:

"Remove the clearly invented ‘time gap’ and what’s left? A man discovers a body."

And this from a poster who says that exaggerating the facts can make anybidy look guilty! How about how diluting the facts can make a guilty man look innocent?

What is left is:

Lechmere is with the body at a remove in time when Nichols goes on to bleed for many minutes.

Lechmere used the name Cross, leaving his registered name out.

Lechmere tells a policeman ...

Must I go on, or have you caught on by now?

[Chris Phillips]

Please can people bear in mind the posting guidelines, and avoid personal comments? Just stick to the topic of discussion:

(1) Please maintain a basic level of civility when posting. Talk about the topic of discussion rather than talking about the people you are discussing it with. Don't call people names and don't post personal criticisms, whether about people's intelligence, honesty, personality or whatever. Don't accuse people of lying or deliberately misleading. Any posts containing material like that are liable to be removed.