Lechmere The Psychopath

[Brenda]

.

Ah, if only we had access to the Pickfords shift roster and attendance register!

Does it even exist anymore?

[Abby Normal]

Does it even exist anymore?

apparently not-ive asked Fish and ed before.

if there could be records that he was off the day Polly was killed-I think that would be a huge check mark for his validity as a ripper suspect.

[Fisherman]

apparently not-ive asked Fish and ed before.

if there could be records that he was off the day Polly was killed-I think that would be a huge check mark for his validity as a ripper suspect.

There are Pickfords records, of course, but they do not extend that far back in time.
I am slightly curious as to why you would regard Lechmere having the day off when Polly Nichoks was killed as a check mark for his validity as a suspect - he worked that day, and clearly said so at the inquest.
If he had NOT worked, his fellow carmen and his superiors would surely have noted the discrepancy - if he called himself Cross at work, that is...

[Pierre]

apparently not-ive asked Fish and ed before.

if there could be records that he was off the day Polly was killed-I think that would be a huge check mark for his validity as a ripper suspect.

If there were records for all the people being off on the other murder dates, would that be a huge check mark for their validity as ripper suspects?

[Fisherman]

Abby, can you tell Pierre to go away, please - he wonīt listen to me, but maybe if you give it a shot...?

[Pierre]

Abby, can you tell Pierre to go away, please - he wonīt listen to me, but maybe if you give it a shot...?

This is actually my thread, Fisherman.

[Elamarna]

There are Pickfords records, of course, but they do not extend that far back in time.
I am slightly curious as to why you would regard Lechmere having the day off when Polly Nichoks was killed as a check mark for his validity as a suspect - he worked that day, and clearly said so at the inquest.
If he had NOT worked, his fellow carmen and his superiors would surely have noted the discrepancy - if he called himself Cross at work, that is...

Fish,

I assume Abby is reasoning that if he were not working he has no reason to be inBucks Row at the time he meets Paul. However I agree with you it's very clear he was working that day.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are Pickfords records, of course, but they do not extend that far back in time.
I am slightly curious as to why you would regard Lechmere having the day off when Polly Nichoks was killed as a check mark for his validity as a suspect - he worked that day, and clearly said so at the inquest.
If he had NOT worked, his fellow carmen and his superiors would surely have noted the discrepancy - if he called himself Cross at work, that is...

As I mentioned earlier in the thread surely it's unlikely that the killer would kill on his way to work.

a) he'd risk being late at a time when work was hard to come by and employers could dismiss employees without fear of tribunal. Also there would be people lining up to take his place.
b) a hurried kill on the way to work would increase the possibility of turning up for work with blood spots that he hadn't noticed. A colleague sees the blood, hears of the murder on Cross's route to work and .......

If, for whatever reason, he wasn't at work that day then the above risks would vanish.

Regards
Herlock

[Abby Normal]

Fish,

I assume Abby is reasoning that if he were not working he has no reason to be inBucks Row at the time he meets Paul. However I agree with you it's very clear he was working that day.

Steve

Hi Fish and El
yes it seems he was working of course. But if records were to show he was off...well of course that's a huge lie as obviously he was out looking for victims(probably) and not on his way to work.

Is there anything on record that the police checked with Pickfords on his story?


Piere go away..

[Abby Normal]

As I mentioned earlier in the thread surely it's unlikely that the killer would kill on his way to work.

a) he'd risk being late at a time when work was hard to come by and employers could dismiss employees without fear of tribunal. Also there would be people lining up to take his place.
b) a hurried kill on the way to work would increase the possibility of turning up for work with blood spots that he hadn't noticed. A colleague sees the blood, hears of the murder on Cross's route to work and .......

If, for whatever reason, he wasn't at work that day then the above risks would vanish.

Regards
Herlock

agree.. its one of my main issues with Lech as a suspect and one I hve also brought up in the past. and also one which fish had IMHO a pretty good response.

[Pierre]

Fish,

I assume Abby is reasoning that if he were not working he has no reason to be inBucks Row at the time he meets Paul. However I agree with you it's very clear he was working that day.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Of course Lechmere had a reason to be in Buckīs Row even if he wasnīt working, since he was there.

The reason seems to be that he was on his way to work.

If that was not the reason he had another reason to be there or he would not have been there.

It may seem clear to us that he was working since we know he said he was on his way to work.

However, he may have spent his night on some pub or with some woman. Who knows.

That may also be the reason he called himself by his other name, Cross.

So being a murderer is not the only possible reason for using that name.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Of course Lechmere had a reason to be in Buckīs Row even if he wasnīt working, since he was there.

The reason seems to be that he was on his way to work.

If that was not the reason he had another reason to be there or he would not have been there.

It may seem clear to us that he was working since we know he said he was on his way to work.

However, he may have spent his night on some pub or with some woman. Who knows.

That may also be the reason he called himself by his other name, Cross.

So being a murderer is not the only possible reason for using that name.

Cheers, Pierre

Let me rephrase.

If he was on his way to work that is a significant reason for him being in Bucks row at that time.

If however he was not working there must be another reason for his being there, the murder of Nichols being a significant possibility but not the only possible reason as you say.
In the case he was not working, one would need to look much more deeply into his reason for his location at that time.

So it should be "no known reason" rather than "no reason"

However the sources such as they are, appear to support the view he was working, at least there is no suggestion he was not.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;417813]

Let me rephrase.

If he was on his way to work that is a significant reason for him being in Bucks row at that time.

That is the causal explanation. He was in that street because he was on his way to work.

The motive explanation is that he wanted to get to work. He was in that street because he wanted to get to work.

If however he was not working there must be another reason for his being there, the murder of Nichols being a significant possibility but not the only possible reason as you say.

Indeed. He was a human and humans have motives. If he had any other motives than getting to work, he did not speak about any one of those motives at the inquest (if we think the sources are reliable). What we can learn from history is that:

We do not know the motive(s) of Lechmere. /
We know the motive(s) of Lechmere.

We do not know / we know the cause for him being in Buckīs Row.

If we think we know the motive, the motive was that he wanted to get to work. Then the causal explanation is in line with that motive explanation: He was in Buckīs Row because he was on his way to work, and his motive was directed forward (motive explanations are, but causal explanations are not): he wanted to get to work.

In the case he was not working, one would need to look much more deeply into his reason for his location at that time.

Was he late for work?
Did he seem to think he was late for work?
Was he in a hurry?
Did he, at the inquest, speak about wanting to go to work?
A person who wants to get to work has that motive. Was that his motive?

We should not discuss "reasons", Steve, but motives. "Reason" is not an historical tool.

However the sources such as they are, appear to support the view he was working, at least there is no suggestion he was not.

Perhaps someone who has dealt with the Lechmere-sources could answer the questions above.

Cheers, Pierre

[Herlock Sholmes]

agree.. its one of my main issues with Lech as a suspect and one I hve also brought up in the past. and also one which fish had IMHO a pretty good response.

Personally I've always felt that the same criteria was likely for all the murders which were all committed in the early hours of the morning. Surely this would speak against a man with an early morning, fairly menial job. He wouldn't have risked being late (perhaps having to lie low or spend more time than expected cleaning himself up) because he would probably have ended up being sacked and the workhouse would have loomed large. Also the other reasons that I mentioned in an earlier post would apply.
For me this would hint toward Jack being unemployed or otherwise have the kind of job, working alone, that gave him freedom of movement. I'm not proposing him for a single second but someone 'like' Diemschutz for eg. Off to some market in the early hours. Or coming back home in the early hours, 'what a day I've had love!'
I know this isn't exactly a Sherlock Holmes deduction (actually it's a Herlock Sholmes one) but, for me, it ways heavily against Lechmere (amongst other things). We cannot rule him out. But then again there aren't many suspects that we can conclusively rule out. We can only go on likelihood (and we'll still disagree with each other).
For me personally, with Lechmere, if you take away proximity, there's nothing left.

Regards
Herlock

[MrBarnett]

Was Lechmere a psychopath?

In an earlier thread (Lechmere a witness to the killer, # 18) Fisherman wrote to me:



If Lechmere was not a psychopath, then he was not the killer, according to Fisherman

OK, I will make this easy and try some simple article from Psychology today.

(http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...s-psychopath-0)

A psychopath is for example:

Uncaring
Irresponsable
Selfish
Inable to plan for the future
Violent

Now, letīs apply this on what I have heard about Lechmere:

Uncaring - raised a family, worked and provided for his family. Saw to it that one of his kids was cared for at his mothers place. Fetched a police constable when finding a woman lying on his way to work. Went freely to a murder inquest. Left money for his family.

Conclusion: Lechmere was not uncaring.

Irresponsable - raised a family, worked and provided for his family. Saw to it that one of his kids was cared for at his mothers place. Fetched a police constable when finding a woman lying on his way to work. Went freely to a murder inquest. Left money for his family.

Conclusion: Lechmere was not irresponsable.

Selfish - raised a family, worked and provided for his family. Saw to it that one of his kids was cared for at his mothers place. Fetched a police constable when finding a woman lying on his way to work. Went freely to a murder inquest. Left money for his family.

Conclusion: Lechmere was not selfish.

Inable to plan for the future - raised a family, worked and provided for his family. Saw to it that one of his kids was cared for at his mothers place. Fetched a police constable when finding a woman lying on his way to work. Went freely to a murder inquest. Left money for his family.

Conclusion: Lechmere was not inable to plan for the future.

Violent - raised a family, worked and provided for his family. Saw to it that one of his kids was cared for at his mothers place. Fetched a police constable when finding a woman lying on his way to work. Went freely to a murder inquest. Left money for his family.

Conclusion: There are no sources found showing that Lechmere was violent.

Summing up: Lechmere was not a psychopath and therefore, according to Fisherman, Lechmere was not Jack the Ripper.

Pierre

Pierre,

How do you know that Lechmere 'saw to it' that one of his children was cared for at his mother's place?

Lechmere did not 'fetch' a policeman. He simply informed one on his way to work.

I'm assuming you have a copy of his will. Who in his family were the beneficiaries? If he had been a psychopath, what do you think would have happened to his estate?


Gary