Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Patrick S]

There's also the find by Gary Barnett of the 1876 newspaper report about a Pickfords carman name Charles Cross, who was quite possibly the same man.

Hi, Sam. I have either forgotten or missed this. Can you direct me to more information?

Thanks!

[Patrick S]

As for the potato, and digestion--I wasn't convinced. Chapman was thrown out in the middle of the night; she may have stashed a potato in her pocket to eat later. We don't know when she took her last meal, so the argument is dubious.

Others may be able to confirm... Didn't John Evans see her eating a baked potato between 1:30 and 1:45? Not that someone couldn't have assumed she was eating it then and she in fact consumed it later. I've just always thought she was seen EATING potato as she was, as I recall, in the kitchen.

[Sam Flynn]

We don't know how he was addressed at work, around then neighborhood, etc. We know that he was likely called Cross around the time he was listed as such on the census. This was likely around or shortly before he entered the workforce, if had not already. He likely went to work at Pickford's sometime around 1868, when he was 18, a few years after he was listed as Charles Cross in the census... It's not absurd or even unusual to think he was known as Cross by those who knew him and was addressed as such.

There's also the find by Gary Barnett of the 1876 newspaper report about a Pickfords carman name Charles Cross, who was quite possibly the same man.

[rjpalmer]

Now, that door and that experiment of yours...?

Hi Fish. Yes; I was just about to get to that. So at sunrise I tied my shoes on the back porch. I found it quite natural to allow the spring door to press against the side of my body as I sat down on the steps, particularly since I didn't want to step down into the yard in my stockings. The door blocked my view. It's not as barmy as it appears just reading it on a computer screen, and I suggest that interested parties try it if the opportunity arises. I will give your theory a pass, with the obvious caveat that Richardson himself claims he would have seen the body.

I like it better than Vanderlinden simply dismissing Richardson as a liar. What he failed to consider is that Chandler was simply the Duty Inspector and would not have interviewed Richardson while trying to protect what was a very chaotic crime scene; there is utterly no reason to believe Richardson changed his testimony as he claims or implies in the article.

As for the potato, and digestion--I wasn't convinced. Chapman was thrown out in the middle of the night; she may have stashed a potato in her pocket to eat later. We don't know when she took her last meal, so the argument is dubious. Still, I can see how one might accept it; it's at least internally consistent with the 2 a.m. theory. But the door is nowhere mentioned. What mythical creature left the door open between 5 a.m and 5.45? It was during that same span that Cadoche heard the slap against the fence. And Vanderlinden selectively quotes Cadoche in the article. Cadoche later states that he was CERTAIN that the noise came from No. 29. All the best.

[Patrick S]

You keep saying ‘with authorities.’

Another way of saying this is ‘in official, written form’

Simply being asked “name please” he would have seen nothing amiss by using a name that he did in everyday life. The name of his stepfather.

Lechmere appears as his name in all census information (save one when he was 14 (?) years old and living with Thomas Cross and his mother Marie Louisa. He used it in signing military paperwork for his son. It was used in the paperwork concerning his marriage in 1870 and his estate upon his death in 1920. Fisherman will provide more, I'm sure and I commend him on his work around this. This issue of the "false name" is, I think, one of the most interesting and substantial finds concerning the case, in my view, over the past twenty years. The same goes for the picture, be he Jack or just Charles Cross.

To your point, though... We don't know how he was addressed at work, around then neighborhood, etc. We know that he was likely called Cross around the time he was listed as such on the census. This was likely around or shortly before he entered the workforce, if had not already. He likely went to work at Pickford's sometime around 1868, when he was 18, a few years after he was listed as Charles Cross in the census (I'll get my notes and find the exact year if someone doesn't post it in the interim). It's not absurd or even unusual to think he was known as Cross by those who knew him and was addressed as such. Such a thing was certainly not unusual then and I can think of a few examples relative to people that I know today.

[caz]

No, crazed psychopaths would NOT tend to lie low, Caz. That is one of the things that tell them apart from us. They are often narcissists too, and thus not capable of understanding how anybody could catch them at all, regardless of who they kill, how they kill and when they kill.

Remarkable then, that Lechmere the psychopath didn't walk into the hangman's noose, on the grounds that he was simply incapable of understanding how he could have been caught, regardless of who, how or when he chose to kill!

He may as well have carried on mutilating Nichols in that case, right under Robert Paul's nose, if he was incapable of understanding how that could have got him buckled.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

And now Iīm off. In Technicolor.

[Fisherman]

^^^

It's very difficult to work out who said what in the enormous post above. Please edit and quote properly, or at least colour-code, in future.

Itīs not all that hard. I tried colour-code, but my computer, the old wretch, would have nothing of it.

[Fisherman]

You keep saying ‘with authorities.’

Another way of saying this is ‘in official, written form’

Simply being asked “name please” he would have seen nothing amiss by using a name that he did in everyday life. The name of his stepfather.

Many of the documents that bear the name Lechmere are documents that have been signed "Lechmere" by other people. People, that is, who asked him "Name, please?" and got the answer "Lechmere" from him. Always.

Guess this line of research just died out.

[Fisherman]

Caz - Many if not most of Fisherman's arguments were voiced by Wolf Vanderlinden in an article that appeared in Ripper Notes 12 or 14 years ago:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html

Maybe you'll be convinced hearing them from someone else? I seem to recall that Martin Fido was impressed by this line of argument and I have at least one "Ripperological" friend that also believes that Annie Chapman was murdered in the dead of night.

I don't share their opinion, but then I have a soft spot for circumstantial evidence, particularly when the "science" (?) is vague.

An interesting and key point, seldom considered, concerns the clock house of Truman's Brewery. What do we actually know about the clock's chimes or gongs? I've found nothing definitive, but someone must know. Whether we believe Long's estimate of the time is greatly dependent on what she would have heard at either 5.15 or 5.30. Best wishes.

I have pointed to Wolfs exellent dissertation myself, R J. Why anybody at all would find "someone else" than me more impressive, I really donīt know, though.

I always thought I was well loved and respected out here.

Now, that door and that experiment of yours...?

[Fisherman]

There - canīt be arsed to read any more suggestions of alternative innocent explanations right now, and so I will leave you all to it. Good luck!

[Fisherman]

Once a suspect has been named he cannot be unnamed and if they cannot be categorically ruled out (like Cream and Prince Eddy for example) they will endure to some extent. I’d suggest that some kind of case can be put forward for almost anyone around at the time as long as they had some kind of connection. If Robert Mann can be a suspect I’d suggest that almost anyone could be.

Iīll do the old "pick one thing" trick:

"The neck wounds were not hidden"

No? Paul pulled the clothing down. Exactly how do we know that the neck wounds were not hidden up to that point?

If you think it rude of me not to answer the other points, Iīll have you know that I have other things to do. If there is one specific matter where you feel you finally hit then head on the nail, then please notify me, and I will answer that particular point.

[Fisherman]

Surely Lechmere would have realised just how precarious it was, uniquely for him, if he had killed Nichols only the week before, and was now known by the authorities to have 'discovered' her body? What if he'd bumped into Robert Paul or a beat copper as he left the yard and re-entered Hanbury Street? Once the alarm was raised, he could easily have been tracked down from the information he had freely given about himself as a witness in Buck's Row.

No bluffing his way out a second time. Even crazed psychopaths would tend to lie low and give themselves a decent interval after such a close call. Isn't that the usual reason given for Hutchinson not showing his hand and committing more murders for a good long while after Mary Kelly?

Love,

Caz

X

No, crazed psychopaths would NOT tend to lie low, Caz. That is one of the things that tell them apart from us. They are often narcissists too, and thus not capable of understanding how anybody could catch them at all, regardless of who they kill, how they kill and when they kill.

[Patrick S]

It is true that most people who have a family, kids and a work are "good" people, in the sense that they are not serial killers.
But it is not true that they are not serial killers ON ACCOUNT of having a family, kids and a work.

Is that what I argued? Is that what ANYONE argued. Of course not.

Then why oh why have you, over and over again, spoken of how we should not expect a family man with kids and a steady job to be a killer? Why mention it at all if it is of no relevance at all? Any explanation to that?

Instead, having a family, kids and work is something that often serves as a platform for serial killers. The late Robert Ressler, who would be better suited than any of us to know about these things, said that the typical serial killer is a man in his thirties with a family, kids and a steady work.
Examples that leap to mind are Armstrong, Ridgway, Rader, DeAngelo...it is a common thing that serial killers have this background.
Saying that family men with kids and a steady job are normally not serial killers is therefore true only on a statistical level, and that level is useless since no matter which parameter we use, just about, we will get the same result. Sailors, school teachers and painters are normally not serial killers either, although each of these categories have produced serialists.

We all knew these examples were coming. It's like clockwork. And - again - no one is arguing that these are not examples of "family men" who were "serialists". Yet... we know something about these man that we don't know about Lechmere, don't we? Therefore we have reason to suspect, with the benefit of hindsight, that they were using their status as "family men" - to use your words - "as a platform for" serial murder.... We KNOW that they were - in fact - SERIAL MURDERERS. Your man managed to live an entire life without ever having been arrested for or suspected of... anything. Again, if you cannot see the fallacy in your approach here, nothing that I or anyone can say will do much for it. Instructive for others to read, however.


Why should these examples NOT come as clockwork, considering how you always point out that Lechmere was a family man with kids and a steady job? They come as clockwork in response to that point.
Now you try the somewhat exotic angle that Lechmere must have differed since he did not get caught...? Thatīs poppycock. He differed in not being caught, but NOT necessarily in being another and better sort of family man. The argument is absurd.


So we can see that you are not informed about what a serial killer is, or may be. You are instead leaning against misinformation.

Insulting. And false. I didn't propose anything like what you pretend I proposed. You twist words to fit meanings... either that or you're genuinely incapable of understanding them. Again, that's for those reading to decide.


And yet, just a few lines back, you say that Lechmere differed from the ones who had used the family man disguise - since he was not caught! So uncaught family men are good family men, apparently. Howīs that for desperation in the confirmation bias field?
And yet, you bring the matter of his status as a family man up over and over again, in spite of how you know profess to know that family men can and sometimes will be serialists. And you accuse ME of insulting? Itīs completley disingenious.
It was time that part of your arguments was disclosed for what it is - a misconception that has no place out here.
This leads us over to step two in a very pedagogical manner - your saying that I suffer from confirmation bias.

Letīs look at what confirmation bias looks like along the above suggested model:

-People with families, kids and a steady job are good people.

False. Absurd. Silly. Neither I nor anyone else has said this.

You have presented it as such, though, clearly trying to make it a counterweight. It didnīt work.

-Lechmere had a family, kids and a steady job.

All true. I'll just leave it at that. I'll leave it to you to cite Robert Ressler in order to further feed your confirmation bias that these facts are somehow an indictment of a man... all because he shares traits with men who were later proven (or admitted to being) serial murders. Which is the one crucial fact you cannot apply to Lechmere, isn't it.


You have the audacity to lead on that the Ressler quotation makes me think that Lechmere must have been a serialist. That is an utter delusion or a lie, Iīm afraid. Resslers words point to how family men can be serial killers and how that platform has been used to obscure that matter in many cases. That does not mean in any shape or form that it allows for using it aas anaccusation act against Lechmere, something I am not doing either. VīCan we have some honesty here, please?

-Lechmere was a good man.

I've no idea if Charles Lechmere was a good person. He may have been an awful person. They're everywhere and probably always have been. I'll I know is that I've not seen any evidence that he was a criminal, mentally, unsound, ill-tempered, and no fun at parties.

And all I know is that you have seen no evidence that he wasnīt either. The whole discussion ground of good and bad relating to the family status is a deranged one. It is a non-issue. It is irrelevant. It is uninteresting in factual terms.
We donīt know. Can we please accept that and move on WITHOUT leading on that family men are always good men?

That is a perfect example of confirmation bias.

Wonderful. Let's let those reading decide. You're really making this rather easy.


Oh, how you rally to try and win disciples, Patrick. Letīs hope they can see what you are about before they latch on.
Itīs typical you to try and turn a question of factual matters to one based on personality. Itīs not the thing to do on these boards, letīs just say that.


Now, what applies in MY case, do I suffer from confirmation bias?

To begin with, we must ask ourselves a question: What is it that is supposedly confirmed by my suggested bias? Well, it can be one of two things - or both of them:

-Lechmere was a psychopath.

-Lechmere was the killer.

Now, much as I am suggesting that both things may have applied, and much as I suggest that the former must follow if the latter is correct, it does not mean that I am saying that either matter is a proven thing.

Accordingly, I cannot have made myself guilty of any confirmation bias.

I see. So you maintain that because you've stated only that BELIEVE Lechmere was Jack the Ripper and stated that in your internationally sent documentary but allow some small chance that he was not... that you cannot be guilty of confirmation bias. Perfect!

Yes, it is perfect. I am perfectly free to think that he was the killer, there is nothing you can do about it. I am perfectly free to reason that the killer will have been a psychopath, there is nothing you can do about that either. No wait, there IS something you can do - you can lead on that I only say that because I am biased.
And my do you try that angle!
In a sense we can all be described as biased, Iīm sure. But simply saying that the acts of the killer bore psychopathic traits is fact-based, not bias-based and untrue. And saying that it may be wise to see if a suspect may fit that profile is working according to the facts. It has a whole lot to do with how investigative work must be conducted and nothihg at all to do with any confirmation bias. Such a bias comes into play, however, when you try to deny that it is a useful way to go about it.


This takes us over to the third and final step: So why am I speaking of psychopathy? And should my doing so be ruled out of the debate, as confirmation bias?

I have never said psychopathy should be ruled out of anything? Again, you're either pretending you cannot understand or you're incapable of understanding. In order to explain Lechmere's behavior as something other than the behavior of an innocent man then you must have him as a psychopath because you MUST have him as Jack the Ripper. Only then would he have so coolly performed the bluffs and scams that led to his going unsuspected for a century.


I must not have Lechmere as Jack the Ripper. My life revolves around other matters. But I am not willing to disallow speculating along logical lines when it comes to researching him or to have people shouting CONFIRMATION BIAS when I do - which is what you do on faulty grounds.
My gifts of comprehension are in no way inferior to your ditto, Patrick. Least of all because you say so. It says more about your shortcomings than of mine, Iīm afraid.

Well, that brings us back to point one: understanding what a serial killer is or may be. One main reason for my speaking of psychopathy is on account of how it is being said, for example, that family men with kids and a work are no likely serial killers.
This is true on a statistical level, but once we add the ingredient of psychopathy - and that ingredient is there in around 90 per cent of the serial killers - we get another picture.

Still don't get it? Aside from your idea that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper we have no reason to believe he was a psychopath. This leads us back to your idea that we must view this thing with "idea of Lechmere being guilty". It doesn't work. You'll never see that, clearly. I'm confident others will.


It was never about having to believe that Lechmere was a psycopath. It was always about how he will have been one IF HE WAS THE KILLER.
I noted before that this was always too subtle a distinctin for you to understand it. That stands. And once again, you want to refer the matter to a popularity contest. Sooooooo you, Patrick.

It is said - repeatedly - that Lechmere would have run. You are one of those saying it loudest. And much as that may be the reality for a non-psychopath, it is not so for a psychopath. They will not panick, and they very often enjoy playing games.

I completely understand this. I'll say this again, but not for you because you cannot get it: A man happened upon his body on his way to work would not have run either. You have him staying put because you need him to be Jack the Ripper and thus you need him to be psychopath.


No, I have the psychopathy angle mentioned because people very often voice the idea that if he was the killer, he MUST have run. I am pointing to how there is a trait - psychopathy - that is very common in serial killers and how that allows dor accepthing how he may have chosen to stay put. That does not equal that I need Lechmere to be Jack the Ripper. Frankly, any half-witted person would recognize that. It is nowhere near a subtle argument.

It is said - repeatedly - that Lechmere would never have gone to the police. You are one of those saying it loudest. And much as that may be the reality for a non-psychopath, it is not necessarily so for a psychopath. Such a personality may welcome an opportunity to pull the wool over our eyes, and they are often narcissists who cannot see any danger in it. They consider themselves so superior that they cannot be outsmarted.

A man who found a body on his way to work would have gone to the police also. Outside of the fantasy, we've no evidence he was a psychopath. Now clue, hint, suggestion. We have you needing him to be psychopath because you need him to be Jack the Ripper. You can't turn back now. I understand that.


See the above. Same miscomprehension or misleading on your behalf, same answer on my.

Now the risk we need to avoid here is you saying: "Look, you cannot say that Lechmere was such a man!".

And why must we avoid that? We must avoid it because it is not true. I am not saying that it is a proven thing that Lechmere was a psychopath. I am saying that it would be dangerous to rule him out on uninformed grounds.
Letīs not put more fire on the "confirmation bias" fire since it would be very wrong.

Good lord. We've all said this: We cannot RULE MUCH OF ANYONE OUT now, can we? Unless someone was dead, can be proven to have been out of the area with no change of having been at the scene of a crime at the time it was committed... can they be RULED OUT? If that's the metric you want... congratulations. You've done it. All I can say is that Lechmere is one of dozens, hundreds of people apparently ruled out 130 years ago. And while he can't be ruled out, there's not much there for us to suspect him.


I disagree. There are many factors that should make us suspect him, and most of all there are too many such factors involved for us not to suspect him. Claiming that I am wrong on that does not make you right. It only makes you look a tad silly.

Incidentally, this was the second fault I alluded to in the quotation we started out with.

I believe that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper. When somebody says that a man like Lechmere would not be the killer and that a man like Lechmere would not have done this or that, I am perfectly entitled to point out A/ that the reasoning is based on misconceptions and B/that Lechmere may well have been the killer, because the behaviour he showcased after the murder is entirely consistent with a condition that is present with the absolute majority of serial killers - psychopathy.

My hope and assumption is that regardless of how you answer this post, the issue of the good family man has now been laid to rest. And with it the issue of the good never caught family man...

Oh, and please try to stand for what you say yourself without leading on how people would cheer you if they only had the chance. Itīs that issue of a million flies not being able to be wrong all over again ...

Quite a rant. Same old stuff, though. Again... If others find it reasonable, good for you. The only thing interesting here is this:

"Oh, how you rally to try and win disciples, Patrick. Letīs hope they can see what you are about before they latch on."

My question is this: What do you think I'm about?

[Fisherman]

I can't say because I don't know who killed the victims. I don't even know if one man killed all the victims. Do you think that schitzophrenics and psychotics aren't capable of such things? I'm certain you do because I think we can reasonably suggest that Lechmere was not schizophrenic or psychotic, based on what we know of his life. So... of course you'll suggest that people suffering these illnesses cannot have committed any of these crimes... because Lechmere cannot have been schizophrenic or psychotic.

So let me help you along a little. Think "How many serial killers are diagnosed as pychopaths?" The think "How many serial killers are diagnosed as scizophrenics and/or psychotic".

Then ask yourself "How many schizophrenic and/or psychotic murders are quiet affairs, leaving no traces?"

Then, once you have the numbers, you do the math.

Yes, the Ropper COULD potentially be a schizophrenic and/or psychotic.

And yes, Chapman may have developed rigor in no time at all.

But no, none of these reasonings are logical and truly fact-based.