PC Jonas Mizen

[Patrick S]

Well Mizen was knocking people up for a reason. Why risk everybody being late for work if he broke off to investigate? Whether the woman was dead or drunk she'd likely still be there when he finished what he was doing. Maybe he earned a bit of extra cash knocking up. In his place, what would you do?

Hard to say what I'd do as I think that life was so much different then and there. But your comment is an important one, I think. I don't believe that we should view PC Mizen in a negative light, even if he was less than honest in his Nichols' inquest testimony. Based upon what we know of his service record and his life after leaving the Met, it's reasonable to assume that Mizen was a good man. I think he did what many if not most would have done had they been in his shoes: he told what amounted to an insignificant lie, which had no real impact on the Nichols' investigation or the Whitechapel murders as a whole. He did so in order to protect his career, his income, his reputation. That's understandable. Further, I suspect that his superiors at the Met may well have understood that his testimony was less than truthful and allowed him to offer that testimony with at least their tacit approval.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the Nichols' murder came on the heels of several attacks/murders of women around Whitechapel. The Met had been under attack in the press for their lack of success in producing even plausible suspects. Clearly, Robert Paul's comments in Lloyd's did little to cast the Met in a better light.

"I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see."

So our chronology of events looks like this:

Friday, August 31: Nichols' is murdered.

Saturday, September 1: PC Neil testifies at the Nichols' inquest that he discovered the Nichols' body. He does not mention Mizen having spoken to two Carmen. His testimony was reported in the Telegraph:

"Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previously, and I saw no one then. I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the westward. On the opposite side of the road is Essex Wharf. Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards. Her eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was off and lying at her side close to the left hand. I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle. I said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn," and, seeing another constable in Baker's Row, I sent him for the ambulance. The doctor arrived in a very short time. "

Sunday, September 2: No inquest testimony. Robert Paul's comments appear in Lloyd's.

Monday, September 3: Mizen testifies at the inquest. Mizen stated that “at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.”

Also testifying that day was Charles Cross/Lechmere. Remember that Lechmere had not been asked his name by Mizen. He had not been described in any way by Paul in his comments in Lloyd's. Paul called him simply "a man". In fact, Paul diminished Lechmere's involvement in both Buck's Row and Baker's Row. He has himself as the prime actor and speaker. And this is what Christer calls a 'bombshell' that forced Lechmere to appear at the inquest 24 hours after it appeared in print?

I think not. I think it's clear that Lechmere came forward of his own accord because he felt that was the right thing to do. These actions fit with what we know of the man, as well. He maintained solid, steady employment throughout his life. At the time of the murder he'd been employed by Pickford's for 20 years. He and his wife had 11 children, 10 of which survived to adulthood. He and his wife were married for more than 50 years. He continually improved his family's circumstances throughout his life. After his retirement he became a business owner, opening a small shop and working there himself. He died in his bed, past the age of 70, leaving his wife a sizable inheritance. So far as anyone knows he was never arrested, institutionalized, or accused of being a man of ill-humor (despite Christer's hyperventilation at seeing his picture in his worldwide sent documentary).

[David Orsam]

Based upon what we know, it’s obvious that PC Mizen was not truthful about many details of what occurred in Baker’s Row. His reasons for being less than honest is understandable, albeit not the sinister reasons many researches may hope for. It’s clear the Mizen assumed that the two men he’d met in Baker’s Row had simply come across a woman lying drunk on the pavement. He continued “calling people up” for work. He reacted with no urgency whatsoever. He asked the men no questions. He didn’t ask their names. He was in no great hurry to report to Buck’s Row. Stating that he was told a PC was already on the scene absolves him somewhat. Stating that he not told the woman was dead, makes his lack of action somewhat more understandable. Mizen’s untruthful statements were made to protect his job and his reputation. It’s clear to anyone willing to see the obvious.

I find this analysis flawed.

Mizen’s evidence was not simply that "a PC was already on the scene". His evidence was that he was told that he was wanted by a policeman on the scene. How does that evidence "absolve" him from not reacting with urgency?

If Mizen was trying to excuse his delay in going to Bucks Row, surely the very last thing he would have done would have been to invent a policeman in Bucks Row in need of assistance.

But was Mizen even worried about criticism of his delay? To the extent that he was, he seems to have answered the point comprehensively. Thus:

In reply to a juryman, witness said that when the carman spoke to him he was engaged in knocking people up, and he finished knocking people up at the one place where he was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buck’s-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else.

Other versions of this evidence are as follows:

The witness was at the time in the act of knocking a man up….It is not true that before he went to Buck’s-row, witness continued "knocking people up". He went there immediately".

A juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you were wanted? Witness – No. I only finished knocking up one person".

That deals with the point and on its own exonerates Mizen from the charge of unnecessary delay.

In any case, we should not forget that there were two pressures on Mizen which would have kept him at Bakers Row.

Firstly, he was engaged in his duty of calling up. His failure to complete this duty would have meant people not being woken up and thus being late for work. According to police regulations in force at the time, any neglect by an officer in calling up people in the morning was to be reported and the offender punished.

Secondly, he was not supposed to leave his beat other than in an emergency.

So simply being told that a woman had been found in Bucks Row either dead or drunk was not necessarily sufficient for Mizen to have stopped his duty of calling up and left his beat. By all accounts, no mention was made that the woman had been murdered. The matter could have been dealt with by the beat constable who was responsible for patrolling Bucks Row.

Mizen had not been told there was any urgency so his actions were defensible without the need for any fabrication.

However, Mizen might have wanted to invent a policeman in Bucks Row to justify his leaving his beat. A fellow officer in need of assistance would have been good reason for him to stop his duties and go to Bucks Row.

Yet, that begs the question of why Mizen did go to Bucks Row. Absent being told that his assistance was required by another officer, he could, and probably should, have instructed Paul or Cross to go to a police station to report what they had found. Or he could have waited for his sergeant so he could report it to him. Not calling up and leaving his beat opened him up to the threat of disciplinary proceedings against him.

For that reason, I suggest that he was told that he was wanted in Bucks Row by a police officer or at least he genuinely believed that is what he had been told.

Consquently, it seems to me that it is most likely that it was Cross who was lying at the inquest (if anyone was lying).

His answer at the inquest to a juryman that he didn’t tell Mizen that he was wanted by another policeman because he didn’t see another policeman in Bucks Row strikes me as being a little too clever and fails to meet the point that he might have been lying.

[Fisherman]

I find this analysis flawed.

Mizen’s evidence was not simply that "a PC was already on the scene". His evidence was that he was told that he was wanted by a policeman on the scene. How does that evidence "absolve" him from not reacting with urgency?

If Mizen was trying to excuse his delay in going to Bucks Row, surely the very last thing he would have done would have been to invent a policeman in Bucks Row in need of assistance.

But was Mizen even worried about criticism of his delay? To the extent that he was, he seems to have answered the point comprehensively. Thus:

In reply to a juryman, witness said that when the carman spoke to him he was engaged in knocking people up, and he finished knocking people up at the one place where he was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buck’s-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else.

Other versions of this evidence are as follows:

The witness was at the time in the act of knocking a man up….It is not true that before he went to Buck’s-row, witness continued "knocking people up". He went there immediately".

A juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you were wanted? Witness – No. I only finished knocking up one person".

That deals with the point and on its own exonerates Mizen from the charge of unnecessary delay.

In any case, we should not forget that there were two pressures on Mizen which would have kept him at Bakers Row.

Firstly, he was engaged in his duty of calling up. His failure to complete this duty would have meant people not being woken up and thus being late for work. According to police regulations in force at the time, any neglect by an officer in calling up people in the morning was to be reported and the offender punished.

Secondly, he was not supposed to leave his beat other than in an emergency.

So simply being told that a woman had been found in Bucks Row either dead or drunk was not necessarily sufficient for Mizen to have stopped his duty of calling up and left his beat. By all accounts, no mention was made that the woman had been murdered. The matter could have been dealt with by the beat constable who was responsible for patrolling Bucks Row.

Mizen had not been told there was any urgency so his actions were defensible without the need for any fabrication.

However, Mizen might have wanted to invent a policeman in Bucks Row to justify his leaving his beat. A fellow officer in need of assistance would have been good reason for him to stop his duties and go to Bucks Row.

Yet, that begs the question of why Mizen did go to Bucks Row. Absent being told that his assistance was required by another officer, he could, and probably should, have instructed Paul or Cross to go to a police station to report what they had found. Or he could have waited for his sergeant so he could report it to him. Not calling up and leaving his beat opened him up to the threat of disciplinary proceedings against him.

For that reason, I suggest that he was told that he was wanted in Bucks Row by a police officer or at least he genuinely believed that is what he had been told.

Consquently, it seems to me that it is most likely that it was Cross who was lying at the inquest (if anyone was lying).

His answer at the inquest to a juryman that he didn’t tell Mizen that he was wanted by another policeman because he didn’t see another policeman in Bucks Row strikes me as being a little too clever and fails to meet the point that he might have been lying.

Ha! Bravo, David!! That last point you are making is one I have entertained for years, without wanting to put it out here on account of how I have always been aware of how it would be thrashed and ridiculed.

Now you did it instead, and I am grateful for it (if I am reading you correctly). It seems to me - who have always been convinced that Lechmere lied - that the carman was gloating a bit when he said that he hadn´t spoken to a PC in Bucks Row since there was no PC to speak to there. A bit too clever, just like you say.

If he was innocent, I would have wanted a simple "no" to that question. It would have been more in line with the otherwise rather sparse and rough answers he gave to the other questions. It´s of course impossible to prove, but it is one of those things that always added to my overall feeling.

I would also say that the suggestion that Lechmere was the more likely liar is to my mind reinforced heavily by how Mizen did not object to how Neil claimed to have been the finder of the body. Mizen´s ommission to do so only makes sense if he actually did think that Neil WAS the finder - that he was the PC Lechmere had spoken of.

[Pierre]

I find this analysis flawed.

Mizen’s evidence was not simply that "a PC was already on the scene". His evidence was that he was told that he was wanted by a policeman on the scene. How does that evidence "absolve" him from not reacting with urgency?

If Mizen was trying to excuse his delay in going to Bucks Row, surely the very last thing he would have done would have been to invent a policeman in Bucks Row in need of assistance.

But was Mizen even worried about criticism of his delay? To the extent that he was, he seems to have answered the point comprehensively. Thus:

In reply to a juryman, witness said that when the carman spoke to him he was engaged in knocking people up, and he finished knocking people up at the one place where he was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buck’s-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else.

Other versions of this evidence are as follows:

The witness was at the time in the act of knocking a man up….It is not true that before he went to Buck’s-row, witness continued "knocking people up". He went there immediately".

A juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you were wanted? Witness – No. I only finished knocking up one person".

That deals with the point and on its own exonerates Mizen from the charge of unnecessary delay.

In any case, we should not forget that there were two pressures on Mizen which would have kept him at Bakers Row.

Firstly, he was engaged in his duty of calling up. His failure to complete this duty would have meant people not being woken up and thus being late for work. According to police regulations in force at the time, any neglect by an officer in calling up people in the morning was to be reported and the offender punished.

Secondly, he was not supposed to leave his beat other than in an emergency.

So simply being told that a woman had been found in Bucks Row either dead or drunk was not necessarily sufficient for Mizen to have stopped his duty of calling up and left his beat. By all accounts, no mention was made that the woman had been murdered. The matter could have been dealt with by the beat constable who was responsible for patrolling Bucks Row.

Mizen had not been told there was any urgency so his actions were defensible without the need for any fabrication.

However, Mizen might have wanted to invent a policeman in Bucks Row to justify his leaving his beat. A fellow officer in need of assistance would have been good reason for him to stop his duties and go to Bucks Row.

Yet, that begs the question of why Mizen did go to Bucks Row. Absent being told that his assistance was required by another officer, he could, and probably should, have instructed Paul or Cross to go to a police station to report what they had found. Or he could have waited for his sergeant so he could report it to him. Not calling up and leaving his beat opened him up to the threat of disciplinary proceedings against him.

For that reason, I suggest that he was told that he was wanted in Bucks Row by a police officer or at least he genuinely believed that is what he had been told.

Consquently, it seems to me that it is most likely that it was Cross who was lying at the inquest (if anyone was lying).

His answer at the inquest to a juryman that he didn’t tell Mizen that he was wanted by another policeman because he didn’t see another policeman in Bucks Row strikes me as being a little too clever and fails to meet the point that he might have been lying.

The would-have-person is back.

[Fisherman]

The would-have-person is back.

And the should-not-have person never went away.

[Pierre]

Ha! Bravo, David!! That last point you are making is one I have entertained for years, without wanting to put it out here on account of how I have always been aware of how it would be thrashed and ridiculed.

Now you did it instead, and I am grateful for it (if I am reading you correctly). It seems to me - who have always been convinced that Lechmere lied - that the carman was gloating a bit when he said that he hadn´t spoken to a PC in Bucks Row since there was no PC to speak to there. A bit too clever, just like you say.

If he was innocent, I would have wanted a simple "no" to that question. It would have been more in line with the otherwise rather sparse and rough answers he gave to the other questions. It´s of course impossible to prove, but it is one of those things that always added to my overall feeling.

I would also say that the suggestion that Lechmere was the more likely liar is to my mind reinforced heavily by how Mizen did not object to how Neil claimed to have been the finder of the body. Mizen´s ommission to do so only makes sense if he actually did think that Neil WAS the finder - that he was the PC Lechmere had spoken of.

So Mizen and Niel did not speak to eachother and Niel did not tell Mizen what time he was at the murder site.

[Pierre]

Ha! Bravo, David!! That last point you are making is one I have entertained for years, without wanting to put it out here on account of how I have always been aware of how it would be thrashed and ridiculed.

Now you did it instead, and I am grateful for it (if I am reading you correctly). It seems to me - who have always been convinced that Lechmere lied - that the carman was gloating a bit when he said that he hadn´t spoken to a PC in Bucks Row since there was no PC to speak to there. A bit too clever, just like you say.

If he was innocent, I would have wanted a simple "no" to that question. It would have been more in line with the otherwise rather sparse and rough answers he gave to the other questions. It´s of course impossible to prove, but it is one of those things that always added to my overall feeling.

I would also say that the suggestion that Lechmere was the more likely liar is to my mind reinforced heavily by how Mizen did not object to how Neil claimed to have been the finder of the body. Mizen´s ommission to do so only makes sense if he actually did think that Neil WAS the finder - that he was the PC Lechmere had spoken of.

No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck´s Row.

Did not SEE. Lechmere was the witness who did not SEE anything.

Not SEEING, not knowing, not remembering, not being able to testify against anyone, not being a threat to a murderer, Cross not getting a visit at his home address when he is at work, not putting the lives of his wife and children at risk.

I did not SEE. I do not know. I do not remember. No.

Because I did not SEE a policeman.

[Henry Flower]

Sounds like Cross had inadvertantly discovered that a soon-to-be-infamous multiple killer was a policeman, and that the great powers were already involved in a conspiracy to hide the fact.

I'm not surprised he chose to attend the inquest and claim that he never saw nuffink guvnor, rather than just protecting his family by maintaining his anonymity.

[Fisherman]

Sounds like Cross had inadvertantly discovered that a soon-to-be-infamous multiple killer was a policeman, and that the great powers were already involved in a conspiracy to hide the fact.

I'm not surprised he chose to attend the inquest and claim that he never saw nuffink guvnor, rather than just protecting his family by maintaining his anonymity.

Baffling, is it not, how Lechmere spilled the beans about the police naughty boy to Mizen. And, not least, how Mizen was allowed to take the stand and divulge to the world that the carman had spoken of a policeman in Bucks Row, when all it would have taken to conceal him from the Pierres of this world would be to tell poor old Jonas "You got that wrong, laddie, so let´s not bother with it when you take the stand. There´s a good boy!"

[Fisherman]

Patrick S:
Based upon what we know, it’s obvious that PC Mizen was not truthful about many details of what occurred in Baker’s Row. His reasons for being less than honest is understandable, albeit not the sinister reasons many researches may hope for. It’s clear the Mizen assumed that the two men he’d met in Baker’s Row had simply come across a woman lying drunk on the pavement. He continued “calling people up” for work. He reacted with no urgency whatsoever. He asked the men no questions. He didn’t ask their names. He was in no great hurry to report to Buck’s Row. Stating that he was told a PC was already on the scene absolves him somewhat. Stating that he not told the woman was dead, makes his lack of action somewhat more understandable. Mizen’s untruthful statements were made to protect his job and his reputation. It’s clear to anyone willing to see the obvious.

What is lacking here is the full picture. Mizens statement differed from what Lechmere said on three points, not just the two mentioned here. Mizen also claimed that one of the carmen spoke to him, not two. He says nothing at all about any comment at all being made by Robert Paul. And that begs the question why.
If Mizen lied to protect his work and his reputation, as is claimed here, then why would he not have admitted that both carmen spoke to him - if they did? What did he stand to gain from hiding that he had been approached by both men, if that was what happened? Nothing at all, as far as I can tell.
Conversely, though, if Lechmere had spun a false tale when speaking to the PC, involving Paul in the proceedings would act as a guarantee that no foul play occurred.

Lying is always done for some sort of gain. Only one person stood to gain from lying about how Paul took part in the conversation. Nobody stood to gain from denying it.

That is how we can tell who was the liar, the way I see things.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S:
At the time of the murder he'd been employed by Pickford's for 20 years. He and his wife had 11 children, 10 of which survived to adulthood. He and his wife were married for more than 50 years. He continually improved his family's circumstances throughout his life. After his retirement he became a business owner, opening a small shop and working there himself. He died in his bed, past the age of 70, leaving his wife a sizable inheritance. So far as anyone knows he was never arrested, institutionalized, or accused of being a man of ill-humor ...

This information is presented to function as evidence that Charles Lechmere could/would not have been the Ripper.
Whenever information is presented in order to clear a suspect of a crime, in order for it to work, it must be information that is incompatible with having perpetrated the crime. For example, if a person has been thrown out of a window, and if it can be shown that the suspect does not possess the physical strenght aquired to do so, then this information is in confict with the suspect being the killer.

So let´s look at the arguments brought forward against Lechmere´s guilt, and see if they are incompatible with him having been the Ripper.

1. Lechmere had been able to keep a steady job for many years.
Counterargument: Many serialists have had steady jobs for many years, while at the same time killing. Examples are Gary Ridgway, Dennis Rader and John Wayne Gacy.

2. Lechmere had fathered children.
Counterargument: Many serialists have fathered children. Some examples would be Eric Armstrong, Dennis Rader, Keith Jesperson, Joseph Kallinger, Andrei Chikatilo, Gary Ridgway and Mikhail Popkov.

3. Lechmere was part of a long marriage.
Counterargument: Many serialists are parts of long marriages. Peter Kürten, Dennis Rader and Mikhail Popkov can serve as examples.

4. Lechmere enjoyed some economical success.
Counterargument: Many serialists have earned good money and risen to better circumstances during their carreers: Dennis Rader, John Wayne Gacy, Russel Williams, Dean Corrl, Gary Heidnick... Truly wealthy serialists are hard to find, but I would say that people who are extremely successful in any occupation are less likely to try and make their mark as serialists. That´s why famous authors, musicians, scientists etcetera make poor bids for the role of a serial killer. And Lechmere was not etremely wealthy either, he managed to amass a decent sum of money just like many serialists have done.

5. He was not arrested or institutionalized.
Counterarguments: Peter Sutcliffe, Alcibiades Mendez, Jeffrey Mailhot... Fyodor Beshnery is probably the latest addition, awaiting his trial in Israel.

6. Not being recorded as a man of ill-humor.
We will leave that point aside, as he is not recorded as a man of good humor either. Otherwise, men like Ridgway were known as good guys with lots of humor. The same goes for Lonnie Franklin, "The Grim Sleeper" and a good many other serialists.

Finally, a quotation from the FBI: "Serial murderers often seem normal; have families and/or a steady job." (Morton, Robert J. "Serial Murder". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved 2011-01-01) The former FBI chief Robert Ressler writes in his book "Whoever Fights Monsters: My Twenty Years Tracking Serial Killers For the FBI", that the classic serial killer is "a white male in his mid-to-late thirties with a stable home and steady job".

I hope this post once and for all sees off the idea that people with a polished surface cannot be serial killers. They most emphatically can.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S:
At the time of the murder he'd been employed by Pickford's for 20 years. He and his wife had 11 children, 10 of which survived to adulthood. He and his wife were married for more than 50 years. He continually improved his family's circumstances throughout his life. After his retirement he became a business owner, opening a small shop and working there himself. He died in his bed, past the age of 70, leaving his wife a sizable inheritance. So far as anyone knows he was never arrested, institutionalized, or accused of being a man of ill-humor ...

This information is presented to function as evidence that Charles Lechmere could/would not have been the Ripper.
Whenever information is presented in order to clear a suspect of a crime, in order for it to work, it must be information that is incompatible with having perpetrated the crime. For example, if a person has been thrown out of a window, and if it can be shown that the suspect does not possess the physical strenght aquired to do so, then this information is in confict with the suspect being the killer.

So let´s look at the arguments brought forward against Lechmere´s guilt, and see if they are incompatible with him having been the Ripper.

1. Lechmere had been able to keep a steady job for many years.
Counterargument: Many serialists have had steady jobs for many years, while at the same time killing. Examples are Gary Ridgway, Dennis Rader and John Wayne Gacy.

2. Lechmere had fathered children.
Counterargument: Many serialists have fathered children. Some examples would be Eric Armstrong, Dennis Rader, Keith Jesperson, Joseph Kallinger, Andrei Chikatilo, Gary Ridgway and Mikhail Popkov.

3. Lechmere was part of a long marriage.
Counterargument: Many serialists are parts of long marriages. Peter Kürten, Dennis Rader and Mikhail Popkov can serve as examples.

4. Lechmere enjoyed some economical success.
Counterargument: Many serialists have earned good money and risen to better circumstances during their carreers: Dennis Rader, John Wayne Gacy, Russel Williams, Dean Corrl, Gary Heidnick... Truly wealthy serialists are hard to find, but I would say that people who are extremely successful in any occupation are less likely to try and make their mark as serialists. That´s why famous authors, musicians, scientists etcetera make poor bids for the role of a serial killer. And Lechmere was not etremely wealthy either, he managed to amass a decent sum of money just like many serialists have done.

5. He was not arrested or institutionalized.
Counterarguments: Peter Sutcliffe, Alcibiades Mendez, Jeffrey Mailhot... Fyodor Beshnery is probably the latest addition, awaiting his trial in Israel.

6. Not being recorded as a man of ill-humor.
We will leave that point aside, as he is not recorded as a man of good humor either. Otherwise, men like Ridgway were known as good guys with lots of humor. The same goes for Lonnie Franklin, "The Grim Sleeper" and a good many other serialists.

Finally, a quotation from the FBI: "Serial murderers often seem normal; have families and/or a steady job." (Morton, Robert J. "Serial Murder". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved 2011-01-01) The former FBI chief Robert Ressler writes in his book "Whoever Fights Monsters: My Twenty Years Tracking Serial Killers For the FBI", that the classic serial killer is "a white male in his mid-to-late thirties with a stable home and steady job".

I hope this post once and for all sees off the idea that people with a polished surface cannot be serial killers. They most emphatically can.

You missed the point. It's a point that's been made on this board, by myself and others, many times: Lechmere's normality matters only because there's nothing to suggest he killed Nichols, or anyone else for that matter. When one has EVIDENCE, a suspect's normality or "polished" veneer becomes irrelevant. In the absence of EVIDENCE it's not used to suggest GUILT by comparison (specious as your comparisons are).

Many of the people you named were linked to their murders by DNA. Many confessed. Many took police to the their victims bodies. Thus, they were all confirmed "serialists" and we can say fairly confidently that they were NOT normal.

To deal with a few of these "normal" fellows you compare with Lechmere........I'm fairly well read on Kurten. You use him as an example of someone who was outwardly normal, married. In addition to having been married, Kurten was arrested and served multiple sentences for arson, theft. So we have something like that on Lechmere, right? Or, do we just have the marriage bit? That seems where your comparison with Kurten begins...and ends.

I'm also fairly well up on Andrei Chikatilo. You cite him as well. Normal guy, right? Married, a father, just like Lechmere. Two peas in a pod? Well, we know that his marriage was contrived, arranged by relatives, and that he was unable to maintain an erection. He did father two children, his wife collecting his semen and pushing it into her vagina with her fingers. I guess Lechmere's wife could have done this with each of their 11 kids. Do we know anything like this about Lechmere? I mean, since Chikalito's kids were conceived that way, who is to day Lechmere's weren't, as well? Andrei Chikatilo was a teacher. He was forced to resign his position because he committed multiple sexual assaults on students? Not that normal, in the end. Anything like that on Lechmere? Before or after Buck's Row? Are these the "dark stories" we were warned about a few years back?

I'll again say that I admire your work on this and I can even understand your dedication to the theory, your refusal to back away from it, regardless of how it's held up to scrutiny. In my view, you have invented a convoluted, logic defying narrative to fit Lechmere as Jack the Ripper (and - since he lived into the 1920s and was unlikely to have simply stopped killing - the Torso Killer, among others). Since his behavior in Buck's Row, Baker's Row, at the inquest shows no consciousness of guilt, no betrayal of some sinister deed or motivations, you ascribe to him preternatural ability to see several steps ahead, into the future, submitting himself to the police again and again for no rational reason because he knows he'll come out smelling like a rose, off scot free, free to continue his decades long avocation of murder.

We know that we'll likely not agree, unless you spring something new upon us in the coming months or years. More power to you and I'm interested in your work. I consider Lechmere as good a suspect as many. Alas, I don't thin that there are ANY good, realistic suspects out there.

[Fisherman]

You missed the point. It's a point that's been made on this board, by myself and others, many times: Lechmere's normality matters only because there's nothing to suggest he killed Nichols, or anyone else for that matter. When one has EVIDENCE, a suspect's normality or "polished" veneer becomes irrelevant. In the absence of EVIDENCE it's not used to suggest GUILT by comparison (specious as your comparisons are).

Many of the people you named were linked to their murders by DNA. Many confessed. Many took police to the their victims bodies. Thus, they were all confirmed "serialists" and we can say fairly confidently that they were NOT normal.

To deal with a few of these "normal" fellows you compare with Lechmere........I'm fairly well read on Kurten. You use him as an example of someone who was outwardly normal, married. In addition to having been married, Kurten was arrested and served multiple sentences for arson, theft. So we have something like that on Lechmere, right? Or, do we just have the marriage bit? That seems where your comparison with Kurten begins...and ends.

I'm also fairly well up on Andrei Chikatilo. You cite him as well. Normal guy, right? Married, a father, just like Lechmere. Two peas in a pod? Well, we know that his marriage was contrived, arranged by relatives, and that he was unable to maintain an erection. He did father two children, his wife collecting his semen and pushing it into her vagina with her fingers. I guess Lechmere's wife could have done this with each of their 11 kids. Do we know anything like this about Lechmere? I mean, since Chikalito's kids were conceived that way, who is to day Lechmere's weren't, as well? Andrei Chikatilo was a teacher. He was forced to resign his position because he committed multiple sexual assaults on students? Not that normal, in the end. Anything like that on Lechmere? Before or after Buck's Row? Are these the "dark stories" we were warned about a few years back?

I'll again say that I admire your work on this and I can even understand your dedication to the theory, your refusal to back away from it, regardless of how it's held up to scrutiny. In my view, you have invented a convoluted, logic defying narrative to fit Lechmere as Jack the Ripper (and - since he lived into the 1920s and was unlikely to have simply stopped killing - the Torso Killer, among others). Since his behavior in Buck's Row, Baker's Row, at the inquest shows no consciousness of guilt, no betrayal of some sinister deed or motivations, you ascribe to him preternatural ability to see several steps ahead, into the future, submitting himself to the police again and again for no rational reason because he knows he'll come out smelling like a rose, off scot free, free to continue his decades long avocation of murder.

We know that we'll likely not agree, unless you spring something new upon us in the coming months or years. More power to you and I'm interested in your work. I consider Lechmere as good a suspect as many. Alas, I don't thin that there are ANY good, realistic suspects out there.

I did not miss the point at all. You forwarded a number of traits as being incompatible with or unlikely to be found within a serialist, and I produced the evidence to disprove it. There is very little to misunderstand or miss out on, Patrick. Robert Resllers assessment is a very clear indication of what I am saying: The typical serialist hides behind a picture of being a normal family man with a steady job and he is in his mid- or late thirties.
If Lechmere was the killer, he responds to that exact picture with some gusto, wouldn´t you say?

[Patrick S]

I did not miss the point at all. You forwarded a number of traits as being incompatible with or unlikely to be found within a serialist, and I produced the evidence to disprove it. There is very little to misunderstand or miss out on, Patrick. Robert Resllers assessment is a very clear indication of what I am saying: The typical serialist hides behind a picture of being a normal family man with a steady job and he is in his mid- or late thirties.
If Lechmere was the killer, he responds to that exact picture with some gusto, wouldn´t you say?

I WOULD, in fact, agree. Although, I do feel that SUCCESSFULLY hiding behind that façade normality through 51 years of marriage, 20+ years stable employment, decades spent raising 11 children and moving upward though the socioeconomic structure without being suspected of anything is a different feat in that the thing makes one a killer is not "normal", after all.

[Fisherman]

I WOULD, in fact, agree. Although, I do feel that SUCCESSFULLY hiding behind that façade normality through 51 years of marriage, 20+ years stable employment, decades spent raising 11 children and moving upward though the socioeconomic structure without being suspected of anything is a different feat in that the thing makes one a killer is not "normal", after all.

If I am shown two family men with steady work, both of them 38 years of age, I do not work from the presumption that at least one of them is a serial killer...

Nor do I regard one single serialist as being "normal".

I am trying to make sense of my knowledge that so may revelations of people as being serial killers are greeted with total surprise by the ones having lived close to the perpetrator: friends, working comrades, wifes, children.

Of all the aspects involved in their heinous crimes, nothing frightens me more than the insight that somebody I think is a good man is instead something totally different.