Lechmere The Psychopath

[Sam Flynn]

We do not know that he used either route on the occasions of the deaths of Tabram, Chapman and Kelly, but we know that it is consistent with where he lived and worked to suggest that he did.

Stride? Eddowes? Besides, what is there to suggest that all these womens' killer(s) picked them up in the very streets where they died, and not on the main roads where streetwalkers - if such they were - would tend to hang out?

It is also probable that Tabram, Chapman and Kelly all died at roughly the time when he would have been en route to work

Not "probable" at all. In many cases, the time of death is still in dispute, and we just don't know what shifts Lechmere was working on the days in question, if he was working at all, or even if he was in London on those days.

There was no cctv that caught him, and there is no evidence that puts him there. All there is is a totally logical suggestion that fits with what we know.

But we don't KNOW most of these things. It's just speculation.

[Fisherman]

Always clear when you struggle to answer, it always this is "very old hat" or something similar.
Well it's not! And all can see that is the case. Particularly the issue over the statement that the Police disagreed with Lechmere which is has far as we know untrue.

Steve

Yawn.

Oh - now it REALLY shows how flustered I am by your brilliant criticism. Bugger!!

[Fisherman]

You've added another variable in the form of the smoking gun evidence, which is a far, far more significant indicator of guilt. It's the strength of the smoking gun evidence that's relevant, not the percentage of "ordinary men" who happen to be serial killers. Given the figures - and it's probably more like 0.00002% than 0.2% - the latter is nowhere near strong enough to be a remotely useful diagnostic tool.

You are probably talking about statistics and not about serial killing, so I will not join that particular discussion.

If you think you have established any likelihood of Lechmeres guilt, it´s another story altogether.

You need to let me know.

[Fisherman]

Stride? Eddowes? Besides, what is there to suggest that all these womens' killer(s) picked them up in the very streets where they died, and not on the main roads where streetwalkers - if such they were - would tend to hang out?
Not "probable" at all. In many cases, the time of death is still in dispute, and we just don't know what shifts Lechmere was working on the days in question, if he was working at all, or even if he was in London on those days.
But we don't KNOW most of these things. It's just speculation.

Doing it again, I see.

I just pointed out that we don´t know, but it is a fair speculation to make, putting the rest of the suspects in the shade in this respect.

Stride and Eddowes? Lechmere covers them too, geographically speaking. But - and listen now - we don´t KNOW that Lechmere was there. We can only see that there are viable geographical ties. And once again, he is unique in this respect amongst the suspects.

Have you read up on where Maria Louisa Lechmere lived when Stride died, by the way?

[Sam Flynn]

[The circumstantial evidence] is therefore a hell of a lot more than anybody could ask for. And it puts every other suspect in the shade by comparion. No wait, not in the shade - in total darkness.

A bit of a stretch, to put it mildly.

[Fisherman]

I think I will leave you to your party for now. Enjoy.

[Elamarna]

Yes, it tells us that I have provided all the material it takes to show that you were barking up the wrong tree. I need not go there again, therefore. Old hat, consequentially.

Oh no it does not work like that.
You accuse others of abusing you and then will not back up those accusations.

So be it.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Have you read up on where Maria Louisa Lechmere lived when Stride died, by the way?

I was aware of that, but as I don't believe that Stride was killed by the Ripper, it doesn't count for much in my estimation.

[Elamarna]

Yawn.

Oh - now it REALLY shows how flustered I am by your brilliant criticism. Bugger!!

My point is proven by that response , the refusal to partake in meaningful debate very clear.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

You know the exact answer to that question, Herlock. He lived in 22 Doveton Street, he worked at the Pickfords depot at Broad Street, the two simplest and fastest routes there were the Hanbury Street route and the Old Ontague Street route, both more or less equally timeconsuming. We know that he walked through Bucks Row at the night of the Nichols murder, he reasonably used it alwyas, since it was the only way through that made sense, and thereafter he would opt for the Hanbury Street route or the Old Montague Street route.
We do not know that he used either route on the occasions of the deaths of Tabram, Chapman and Kelly, but we know that it is consistent with where he lived and worked to suggest that he did. It is also probable that Tabram, Chapman and Kelly all died at roughly the time when he would have been en route to work

There was no cctv that caught him, and there is no evidence that puts him there. All there is is a totally logical suggestion that fits with what we know.

It was 1888. It is therefore a hell of a lot more than anybody could ask for. And it puts every other suspect in the shade by comparion. No wait, not in the shade - in total darkness.

It is a piece of circumstantial evidence that is breathtakingly interesting to anybody with an interest in the case, and a nail in the eye of the Lechmere naysayers.

And that is where it remains.

So we can say that CL, along with a thousand other blokes on there various ways to work, was in the general area of the 'killing ground' at roughly the times of the murders.

How is this a nail in the eye of the 'Lechmere naysayers?' CL is becoming the Frankenstein's monster of Ripperology! A lifeless corpse that you keep breathing life into by making statements such as the above one. No one has doubted that he could have been in the area. There's nothing breathtaking about it.
Looking at the times. Tabram was probably killed around 2.30. Kelly is debatable due to Maxwell and Eddowes was around 1.30. Chapman was 4.30 according to Phillips but could well have been later considering the evidence of Long and Cadosche. Was CL on flexi-hours?
You also see nothing strange about the idea of killing and mutilating on the way to work. 'I'm off to work love. Now, I must remember to buy a paper, get a packet of fags oh and kill and hideously mutilate a prostitute.'

Herlock the Naysayer

[Abby Normal]

You've added another variable in the form of the smoking gun evidence, which is a far, far more significant indicator of guilt. It's the strength of the smoking gun evidence that's relevant, not the percentage of "ordinary men" who happen to be serial killers. Given the figures - and it's probably more like 0.00002% than 0.2% - the latter is nowhere near strong enough to be a remotely useful diagnostic tool.

Hi sam
We could look at it from a different angle and ask how many serial killers had apparently normal work and/or family? A great many of them.
His having this as any indication of whether he could be a serial killer or not is basically useless.

[Pierre]

Please don´t try and paint it out as if I am saying that all people, psychopaths or not, always follow the same pattern of behaviour.

I am saying what I have always said: That Lechmere´s behaviour, if he was the killer, is perfectly consistent with psychopathy.

I would very much warn against oversimplifying matters on my behalf and pretend that I was the one making the suggestion. It is unfair and unethical.

The problem is that you have to try and prove SECONDS.

Your theoretical point (an extremely short point!) in time consists of SECONDS.

That is the point when Lechmere hypothetically stands up when having killed a woman and Paul arrives.

That point is a theoretical point of SECONDS.

This problem is that you CAN NOT PROVE SECONDS in the past with the sources you have.

There is no way of measuring those SECONDS.

And still you want to show everyone that there was "simoultaneity" IN those seconds.

Impossible!

Therefore the time historical point does not exist. It can NOT BE HISTORICALLY ESTABLISHED.

It is just and idea!

But still you draw a lot from it. You BUILD on it, as if it was a proven point in time. When it is not.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

I'm currently reading David's Camden Town Murder Mystery.

Highly recommended!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Highly recommended!

Hello David

I'm just over half way through it and I'm intrigued. All I've ever known about the case has come via the Sickert angle. As I would have expected you've given it the 'fine toothed comb' treatment. I also know nothing about the Islington case which I'll go for next. Just ordered Deconstructing Jack after reading your 'chats' with Mr Wood.

Regards
Herlock

[David Orsam]

Hello David

I'm just over half way through it and I'm intrigued. All I've ever known about the case has come via the Sickert angle. As I would have expected you've given it the 'fine toothed comb' treatment. I also know nothing about the Islington case which I'll go for next. Just ordered Deconstructing Jack after reading your 'chats' with Mr Wood.

Very good!

It's a little known fact that Simon pays me a small commission for every sale of his book, so I've having a great month.