Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

Of course he could have run for it - not that he'd need to run, given his proximity to potential escape routes - and the idea that he "certainly" couldn't have done so is frankly baffling.

Read the post again, Gareth - Andy Griffiths said that he WOULD n ot have run, nt that he could not have done so. Nobody is suggesting that he couldn´t have, provided he had legs to move on.
The point Griffiths made was that Lechmere was not likely to run, not that he was not able to do so.

[Fisherman]

I've noticed that you use the word "errand" quite often - is this a translation of the Swedish "ärende" I wonder? I note from Google Translate that "ärende" appears to be a synonym for "matter", which would fit the way in which you use it (e.g. "if you're still in doubt about any aspect of the matter", as above). However, in English, an "errand" means a task or undertaking, often done on someone else's behalf; e.g. "he went on an errand to pick up his granny's newspaper from the shop". It's not a word that's used particularly often but, when it is, it's not in the sense in which you appear to use it.

Your English is excellent, as many have rightly observed, so I'm by no means nit-picking - just being helpful, I hope.

You are perfectly correct - I used "errand" as "ärende". And that is how it is translated in wordbooks too. But it seems that it is a wider expression in Sweden than in England.

Thanks for pointing it out, Gareth!

[caz]

The very idea that after a hard day's graft a working class East End man would have had the energy to indulge in violent behaviour is absurd. They were all tucked up in bed with a soothing cup of cocoa, surely?

Hi Gary,

When you put it like that, it's obviously very far from absurd. What I was trying to get at was that in the 19th century times were that much harder for working class men in the poorest areas, especially those with families to feed, which tended to be much larger too. Violent behaviour, such as gang fights, muggings or domestic abuse, often leading to a criminal record, would have been one thing. But the murder and mutilation of several penniless women over a period of weeks, for no apparent motive apart from the sheer hell of it, was surely quite another. Seems more akin to an indulgence, like a newly discovered hobby or pastime - one which involved going out on the hunt equipped with a newly sharpened knife, actively seeking out a suitable victim to go willingly to a suitable location, before his singular taste for violence could even begin. While the ripper was active, I doubt his thoughts strayed much beyond doing his thing and getting away with it. It's not as if there were long gaps of weeks, months or years between the main five murders, when he could have put his family and work higher up on his list of priorities.

This is why I would be looking for someone who had made damned sure his responsibilities were few and would not cramp his chosen lifestyle, or restrict his activities and freedom to come and go as he pleased: someone temporarily unemployed perhaps, or his own boss, or a casual labourer with only his own mouth to feed, who was free at night to roam the streets for as long as it took, without anyone to answer to. A likely user of prostitutes, whose thoughts would only turn to murdering and mutilating one when he didn't have to be anywhere else in a hurry, such as work, or home to the wife and kids.

That doesn't rule Lechmere out, but I would be very surprised if the killer was someone like him, with personal responsibilities he appeared to take seriously.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

The point Griffiths made was that Lechmere was not likely to run, not that he was not able to do so.

That is an equally baffling thing for him to have said; who is Andy Griffiths to decide what Cross wouldn't, or couldn't, do? Of course it's possible that Cross would have walked away, if he'd decided to do so.

[Fisherman]

Serial killers are risk-takers but are they unnecessary risk-takers? Dahmer only brazened it out because one of his victims had escaped and he needed to regain control of the situation. Not so in Lechmere's case. He could've slipped into one of the side-streets and been on his merry way before Paul was any the wiser.

Yes, serial killers often take unneccessary risks. By killing, for example.

Of course, it is logical to say that they will avoid getting caught if they can do so, but it also applies that many serialists get sloppy as they go along, owing to how the decide that they will never be caught anyway. They are very often narcissists.

Of course, from the serial killers point of view, they think that they are not taking too great risks, since they are confident that they will pull things off.

From our perspective, however, we are often amazed by how reckless they are, and we think they are taking extrealy large and unneccessary risks.

Plus, if we add psychopathy to the bill - and 90 per cent plus of serial killers are psychopaths - then we must also realize that these people enjoy playing games with the surrounding society.

When you combine that factor with narcissism, you have the explanation to why so many serialists communicate with the police/society. They want their crime sprees acknowledged, regardless of how it means taking a unneccessary risk.

An addition: Nichols was the only victim not to be found on display (but for Stride, where it seems the killer was disturbed and called it a day), and it seems clear that the clothing had been pulled down over the wounds as Paul arrived. That speaks to me of Lechmere having heard Paul from afar, and actively choosing to stay put, using the time he could have spent running to instead conceal the deed.

[Sam Flynn]

You are perfectly correct - I used "errand" as "ärende". And that is how it is translated in wordbooks too. But it seems that it is a wider expression in Sweden than in England.

Thanks for pointing it out, Gareth!

My pleasure, Fish.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, serial killers often take unneccessary risks. By killing, for example.

I think that the main risk is in getting caught.

[Fisherman]

That is an equally baffling thing for him to have said; who is Andy Griffiths to decide what Cross wouldn't, or couldn't, do? Of course it's possible that Cross would have walked away, if he'd decided to do so.

Yes, it was possible to walk or run away, and nobody has said anything else. If Lechmere was the killer, then he CHOSE to stay. What reasoning he based it on is hard to say, which can be exemplified by suggesting two options:

1. "Here comes somebody! Good! It will be fun conning him, and if he makes problems, I´ll kill him".

2. "Damn it! Some idiot is drawing close! Should I run? No, he will hear it, and if he raises the alarm, I will be in all sorts of trouble if a copper hears it and sees me".

As you will understand, there are many more wordings that can be suggested.

On the question of who Griffiths is to say that he would not have run, the answer is presented on the site of Portsmouth University:

A police officer with twenty seven years service. Has operational experience as a detective at all ranks. Also has extensive experience of criminal investigation training design, delivery and policy implementation. This includes development and delivery of specialist interview training, and a significant contribution to development of strategic interview policy both in the UK and abroad, including representing the National Policing Improvement Agency in France, Canada and South Korea. Completed his doctorate part-time supported by a Bramshill fellowship, and has since published several papers on investigative interviewing. He still trains police officers, as well as lecturing under and post-graduate students and is also advising on several international research projects. In 2010 he was awarded the Senior Practitioner award by the International Investigative Interview Research Group (iIIRG).

The whole site, giving insight into his writings and education and many more things is here: http://www.port.ac.uk/centre-of-fore...griffiths.html

Does all of this mean that he must have been right about Lechmere and if he would have run? No.

Does it mean that he is extremely well qualified to make a useful guess about it? Yes.

[Fisherman]

I think that the main risk is in getting caught.

Exactly so. And the best way not to get caught for killing is not to kill.

[Sam Flynn]

2. "Damn it! Some idiot is drawing close! Should I run? No, he will hear it, and if he raises the alarm, I will be in all sorts of trouble if a copper hears it and sees me".

No need to run, and why worry about being heard - which wasn't guaranteed - when there were escape routes so close at hand? Better to get away than remain with a woman whose throat and belly you've just ripped open, I'd suggest.

If Cross was in a position to have got up, rearranged Polly's clothing and distanced himself from the body on the approach of Paul, then the latter must have been much further away when Cross first became aware of him. That being the case, he'd have had even more of a head-start than 40 yards, making it even easier for him to get away.

As to Andy Griffiths, whilst I don't doubt his qualifications, I don't think he's any better placed to pronounce on whether Cross would/wouldn't have got the hell out of there than anybody else.

[Fisherman]

Hi Gary,

When you put it like that, it's obviously very far from absurd. What I was trying to get at was that in the 19th century times were that much harder for working class men in the poorest areas, especially those with families to feed, which tended to be much larger too. Violent behaviour, such as gang fights, muggings or domestic abuse, often leading to a criminal record, would have been one thing. But the murder and mutilation of several penniless women over a period of weeks, for no apparent motive apart from the sheer hell of it, was surely quite another. Seems more akin to an indulgence, like a newly discovered hobby or pastime - one which involved going out on the hunt equipped with a newly sharpened knife, actively seeking out a suitable victim to go willingly to a suitable location, before his singular taste for violence could even begin. While the ripper was active, I doubt his thoughts strayed much beyond doing his thing and getting away with it. It's not as if there were long gaps of weeks, months or years between the main five murders, when he could have put his family and work higher up on his list of priorities.

This is why I would be looking for someone who had made damned sure his responsibilities were few and would not cramp his chosen lifestyle, or restrict his activities and freedom to come and go as he pleased: someone temporarily unemployed perhaps, or his own boss, or a casual labourer with only his own mouth to feed, who was free at night to roam the streets for as long as it took, without anyone to answer to. A likely user of prostitutes, whose thoughts would only turn to murdering and mutilating one when he didn't have to be anywhere else in a hurry, such as work, or home to the wife and kids.

That doesn't rule Lechmere out, but I would be very surprised if the killer was someone like him, with personal responsibilities he appeared to take seriously.

Love,

Caz
X

If you look at the ones caught, I´d say that they can be roughly categorized in two groups:

1. Drifters with no ties, like Henry Lee Lucas, Ottis Toole, Carl Panzram, Danny Rolling and the likes of them.

2. Men who were seemingly well adjusted to society, like Russell Williams, John Wayne Gacy, Gary Ridgway, Peter Sutcliffe, Joseph De Angelo, Dennis Rader, John Eric Armstrong, Keith Hunter Jesperson, Andrei Chikatilo, Robert Yates, Robert Hansen and so on.

The latter group seems to me to be larger than the former, and in it, there are certainly people with evisceration interests.

Plus let´s keep Robert Resslers words about how he thought the typical serial killer was a family man in his thirties, with a steady job and kids, in mind.

I am certain that most of us picture "their" Ripper in many varying shapes and forms. And as long as we do not have him in custody, so to speak, none can be proven wrong - or right. But we CAN see that family men with steady jobs are not less likely at all to become serial killers than drifters and loners.

[Fisherman]

No need to run, and why worry about being heard - which wasn't guaranteed - when there were escape routes so close at hand? Better to get away than remain with a woman whose throat and belly you've just ripped open, I'd suggest.

If Cross was in a position to have got up, rearranged Polly's clothing and distanced himself from the body on the approach of Paul, then the latter must have been much further away when Cross first became aware of him. That being the case, he'd have had even more of a head-start than 40 yards, making it even easier for him to get away.

As to Andy Griffiths, whilst I don't doubt his qualifications, I don't think he's any better placed to pronounce on whether Cross would/wouldn't have got the hell out of there than anybody else.

You are welcome to suggest your take on things, as long as you realize that others are just as welcome to disagree.

I agree that Lechmere would have had much more time than what is afforded by a 40 yard distance. I think he had much more than so, going on how I think he took his time to (possibly) arrange the body and (decidedly) hide the wounds. And I still say that he was quite likely to stay put, and Griffiths still agrees with me.

And yes, I think Griffiths is much more qualified to judge these matters than the average person - that is the whole idea behind using experts, they have qualifications that surpass ours.
As I said, there is no certainty that he was correct, but let´s not try and put ourselves on par with him when it comes to insights into the behaviour of killers.

[Sam Flynn]

Plus let´s keep Robert Resslers words about how he thought the typical serial killer was a family man in his thirties, with a steady job and kids, in mind.

That might be true of 20th/21st Century killers, but I'd we should be wary of assuming that this profile applied to the poverty-stricken slums of Victorian Britain. These days, or at least during the latter half of the 20th Century, it was almost the norm for 30-somethings to have a steady job and a family to look after. It was a rather different picture for the denizens of 1880s Whitechapel.

[Sam Flynn]

As I said, there is no certainty that he was correct, but let´s not try and put ourselves on par with him when it comes to insights into the behaviour of killers.

How many killers do we know that have stood their ground, called attention to themselves and bluffed their way out? In contrast, how many killers do we know who killed and got the hell out of the way? I'd suggest that by far the larger group have invoked the latter strategy, thus making it by far the more likely behaviour. One doesn't need special qualifications to realise that, just a modicum of common sense.

[caz]

He may have wanted to keep his real name from those who knew his paths and could start suspecting him.

You see, Fish, this is what makes no sense in conjunction with your argument that he killed along those very paths so he'd have a provably innocent reason for being there. How did he think anyone could come to his aid and verify what that perfectly innocent reason was, if he kept his real name from those same people who 'knew his paths' and why he took them?

PC DAFT: We have a Mr Cross, who says that on x day at y time he was on his way to work for you via z street. You can verify this, can you?

BOSS: Cross, did you say? Who is he? The name doesn't ring a bell.

PC DAFT: Er, Mr Charles Allen Cross? A carman who says you can confirm his perfectly innocent reason for being near the scene of the latest murder.

BOSS: Nope, never heard of him.

PC DAFT: Fair enough. Sorry to have troubled you.

Love,

Caz
X