Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere The Psychopath

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    My point is that how often are serial killers witnesses or related to someone involved in the case? One of the main reasons that serial killings are so tough to solve is that they're seemingly random, motiveless crimes with no established link between murderer and victim. Most of the time serial killers are rumbled by forensics or plain luck, the former of which was not an option during 1888. So, the Ripper world is left grasping at straws, elevating witnesses to suspect status (Hutchinson, Lechmere) when there isn't the slightest evidence that they were the killer because the faceless phantom remains ever elusive.
    Hi Harry
    got it and thanks-point taken.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Hi Abby

    Conversely, in the case of CL in my opinion, a 'known connection' can be used to turn a witness into a suspect. So we get Robert Mann and Albert Bachert for eg. I understand your point though. All options are rife with pitfalls. I used Bury as an example earlier (although I'm definately not promoting him)
    So, in that case we can give ourselves a choice:

    Cross/Lechmere- can definately be placed, for a period, alone with the victim at the time of her death / but no other evidence against him. Or:

    Bury - cannot be placed with any of the suspects / but was known to be violent, used prostitutes, lived within easy access to the murder sites and was a proven murderer of a woman using a knife.

    Regards
    Herlock
    Hi herlock
    You make a good point re your conversely argument-Mann and Bachert. I do see people trying to fit them up and people like them, so I totally see what your saying. they do have a connection to the case but its so peripheral I don't rally see these types as valid suspects. One reason is that they really don't have any "red flags" in connection to the case, unlike lech, IMHO who has several.

    re bury vs lech. I actually have Bury on my first tier of valid suspects-for all the reasons you mention, and also because at the very least he was a person of interest. so that's the type of connection I also look for.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    Originally posted by IchabodCrane View Post
    Ah I found it
    http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6187

    It seems I got confused by the title of the book 'The Bank Holiday Murders'. It seems Aug 31st was neither a bank holiday, nor other festive day, nor weekend, and thus stands out in the C5, as well as the extended C5+ of 1888.
    As was stated by Patrick S more comprehensively, 'on the way to work' could not have applied to all dates, so I was interested to learn about the theories of Lechmere proponents regarding the dates of the murders.
    OK!

    Cheers, Pierre

    Leave a comment:


  • IchabodCrane
    replied
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    Hi,

    What do you mean by

    "invariably bank holidays?

    Cheers, Pierre
    Ah I found it
    http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6187

    It seems I got confused by the title of the book 'The Bank Holiday Murders'. It seems Aug 31st was neither a bank holiday, nor other festive day, nor weekend, and thus stands out in the C5, as well as the extended C5+ of 1888.
    As was stated by Patrick S more comprehensively, 'on the way to work' could not have applied to all dates, so I was interested to learn about the theories of Lechmere proponents regarding the dates of the murders.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    I think harry might have meant to say "KNOWN connections to the case". Because the way he wrote it makes really no point- as I responded, obviously they all do!!

    if he did mean KNOWN connection to the case before they were caught, then I would say some of them did even. they were witnesses or at least persons of interest and there they would have probably stayed if something else didn't break the case.

    The main point I was trying to make is that IMHO unless someone has an actual physical, at the time documented connection to the case-they can never really be a viable candidate, because you could basically fit any one up for the ripper ad nauseum.
    My point is that how often are serial killers witnesses or related to someone involved in the case? One of the main reasons that serial killings are so tough to solve is that they're seemingly random, motiveless crimes with no established link between murderer and victim. Most of the time serial killers are rumbled by forensics or plain luck, the former of which was not an option during 1888. So, the Ripper world is left grasping at straws, elevating witnesses to suspect status (Hutchinson, Lechmere) when there isn't the slightest evidence that they were the killer because the faceless phantom remains ever elusive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Hi All,

    This thread has gone so far from it starting point, that i have started a new thread on the nature of evidence, which seems to be what most of the recent debate is about.

    That leaves hopefully this thread clear for the purpose it was designed for. to discuss if Lechmere was a psychopath.


    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
    Hi, Steve,

    Best to throw logic out. I'll explain.

    If memory serves the theory is that Cross may have been visiting his mother and young daughter near Berner Street, or visiting pubs in the area when he killed Stride. He then went in search of another victim around St. Boltoph's, retiring to Mitre Square with Eddowes, then perhaps popping in at Pickford's in Broad Street to wash up - on a Sunday - before heading home to Bethnal Green.

    Thus, it seems to me if we make Cross the Ripper, then he's a killer with no real modus operandi, at least as it pertains to when he stalks and kills his victims. And that's an issue when a cornerstone of the "case" against "the carman" is that the murders occurred along his "route" to work, a route that took him through the "killing zone".

    The "double event" occurred on a Sunday, as we know. Stride was killed around 1am, Eddowes between 1:35 and 1:45. Clearly, these women were not killed while Charles Cross walked his "route to work" through the "killing zone". Thus, we must divert from the damning fact that his route to work was near "all the murder sites" and we must accept Cross killing - not while strolling along that incriminating route to work - but while visiting and pubbing on a night off near Berner Street. So, that means Stride and Eddowes weren't killed as Cross strolled tow work. So, that's two of the five (canonical) victims NOT killed while Charles Cross was made that incriminating walk to work.

    So, let's look at Chapman. This was Saturday. We'll assume Cross was due at work at 4am. Richardson was in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street at 4:45. He saw nothing. Elizabeth Long says she saw Chapman talking to a man at 5:30am. Thus, we have two witnesses telling us that Chapman was alive and not in the back of 29 Hanbury before 4:45am. So, now we have Chapman not killed while Cross was on his route to work because he was already AT work when she was killed. It should be noted that there was - at one time - an attempt to suggest that Cross drove a cart to the market near Hanbury Street and, while it was being unloaded, slipped off to meet, proposition, murder, and extensively mutilate Chapman, returning to fetch the cart and go about his business. One can debate the plausibility of this (and that's been done) but the point here is simple: Annie Chapman was not killed while Charles Cross was on his route to work. She was very likely killed while he was AT work.

    That brings us to Kelly. She was killed on a Friday morning. So, it was a working day for Cross. According to Mary Ann Cox, Kelly is singing at 1am. If she didn't go out again and was in the company of her killer then - again - it wasn't Cross on is route "through the killing zone to work" in that he wasn't due at work until 4am. According to Hutchinson she was talking to a man 2am. If Hutchinson is correct and that man was her killer then it wasn't Cross on his way to work, either. Cox tells us she heard someone go out at 3am. If this was the killer then it wasn't Cross on his way to work. At 4am Elizabeth Prater hears someone cry out "Oh! Murder!" If this was the end of Kelly then she wasn't done for by Cross on his way to work because he had just ARRIVED at work. If we choose to believe Caroline Maxwell, that she saw Kelly at 830am then she was alive while Cross was on the clock, not on his route to work. The same is true if we believe that Maurice Lewis saw her with Barnett at 10am.

    This is why I struggle when Cross' route to work is used as damning evidence. The only (canonical) victim killed while the man was ON his route to work is the woman he FOUND lying in Buck's Row ON HIS ROUTE TO WORK.
    I bet Fisherman never presented those points to Scobie.

    "When the coincidences mount up...and they do in his case". Not.

    And there is the bye bye to the "support" from Scobie. The Queen´s barrister.

    Pierre
    Last edited by Pierre; 07-18-2017, 04:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    The main point I was trying to make is that IMHO unless someone has an actual physical, at the time documented connection to the case-they can never really be a viable candidate, because you could basically fit any one up for the ripper ad nauseum.
    Hi Abby

    Conversely, in the case of CL in my opinion, a 'known connection' can be used to turn a witness into a suspect. So we get Robert Mann and Albert Bachert for eg. I understand your point though. All options are rife with pitfalls. I used Bury as an example earlier (although I'm definately not promoting him)
    So, in that case we can give ourselves a choice:

    Cross/Lechmere- can definately be placed, for a period, alone with the victim at the time of her death / but no other evidence against him. Or:

    Bury - cannot be placed with any of the suspects / but was known to be violent, used prostitutes, lived within easy access to the murder sites and was a proven murderer of a woman using a knife.

    Regards
    Herlock

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Abby

    I took it to mean that certain connections may only have come to light after guilt had been established. Investigators might not have had things like 'this guy passed this site every day.' Just because it can be made to appear that CL could have been in certain areas it doesn't imply guilt.

    To be honest I may have misinterpreted Harry's meaning

    Regards
    Herlock
    I think harry might have meant to say "KNOWN connections to the case". Because the way he wrote it makes really no point- as I responded, obviously they all do!!

    if he did mean KNOWN connection to the case before they were caught, then I would say some of them did even. they were witnesses or at least persons of interest and there they would have probably stayed if something else didn't break the case.

    The main point I was trying to make is that IMHO unless someone has an actual physical, at the time documented connection to the case-they can never really be a viable candidate, because you could basically fit any one up for the ripper ad nauseum.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
    Hi, Steve,

    Best to throw logic out. I'll explain.

    If memory serves the theory is that Cross may have been visiting his mother and young daughter near Berner Street, or visiting pubs in the area when he killed Stride. He then went in search of another victim around St. Boltoph's, retiring to Mitre Square with Eddowes, then perhaps popping in at Pickford's in Broad Street to wash up - on a Sunday - before heading home to Bethnal Green.

    Thus, it seems to me if we make Cross the Ripper, then he's a killer with no real modus operandi, at least as it pertains to when he stalks and kills his victims. And that's an issue when a cornerstone of the "case" against "the carman" is that the murders occurred along his "route" to work, a route that took him through the "killing zone".

    The "double event" occurred on a Sunday, as we know. Stride was killed around 1am, Eddowes between 1:35 and 1:45. Clearly, these women were not killed while Charles Cross walked his "route to work" through the "killing zone". Thus, we must divert from the damning fact that his route to work was near "all the murder sites" and we must accept Cross killing - not while strolling along that incriminating route to work - but while visiting and pubbing on a night off near Berner Street. So, that means Stride and Eddowes weren't killed as Cross strolled tow work. So, that's two of the five (canonical) victims NOT killed while Charles Cross was made that incriminating walk to work.

    So, let's look at Chapman. This was Saturday. We'll assume Cross was due at work at 4am. Richardson was in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street at 4:45. He saw nothing. Elizabeth Long says she saw Chapman talking to a man at 5:30am. Thus, we have two witnesses telling us that Chapman was alive and not in the back of 29 Hanbury before 4:45am. So, now we have Chapman not killed while Cross was on his route to work because he was already AT work when she was killed. It should be noted that there was - at one time - an attempt to suggest that Cross drove a cart to the market near Hanbury Street and, while it was being unloaded, slipped off to meet, proposition, murder, and extensively mutilate Chapman, returning to fetch the cart and go about his business. One can debate the plausibility of this (and that's been done) but the point here is simple: Annie Chapman was not killed while Charles Cross was on his route to work. She was very likely killed while he was AT work.

    That brings us to Kelly. She was killed on a Friday morning. So, it was a working day for Cross. According to Mary Ann Cox, Kelly is singing at 1am. If she didn't go out again and was in the company of her killer then - again - it wasn't Cross on is route "through the killing zone to work" in that he wasn't due at work until 4am. According to Hutchinson she was talking to a man 2am. If Hutchinson is correct and that man was her killer then it wasn't Cross on his way to work, either. Cox tells us she heard someone go out at 3am. If this was the killer then it wasn't Cross on his way to work. At 4am Elizabeth Prater hears someone cry out "Oh! Murder!" If this was the end of Kelly then she wasn't done for by Cross on his way to work because he had just ARRIVED at work. If we choose to believe Caroline Maxwell, that she saw Kelly at 830am then she was alive while Cross was on the clock, not on his route to work. The same is true if we believe that Maurice Lewis saw her with Barnett at 10am.

    This is why I struggle when Cross' route to work is used as damning evidence. The only (canonical) victim killed while the man was ON his route to work is the woman he FOUND lying in Buck's Row ON HIS ROUTE TO WORK.
    As you'd probably expect, you get no arguements from me there Patrick. An excellent post. The reason that you struggle when CL's route is used as damning evidence is that it's not damning evidence. It's not even evidence. It's a tortuous attempt to make CL fit.

    Regards
    Herlock

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    why is it a good point?
    Abby

    I took it to mean that certain connections may only have come to light after guilt had been established. Investigators might not have had things like 'this guy passed this site every day.' Just because it can be made to appear that CL could have been in certain areas it doesn't imply guilt.

    To be honest I may have misinterpreted Harry's meaning

    Regards
    Herlock

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
    Hi, Steve,

    Best to throw logic out. I'll explain.

    If memory serves the theory is that Cross may have been visiting his mother and young daughter near Berner Street, or visiting pubs in the area when he killed Stride. He then went in search of another victim around St. Boltoph's, retiring to Mitre Square with Eddowes, then perhaps popping in at Pickford's in Broad Street to wash up - on a Sunday - before heading home to Bethnal Green.

    Thus, it seems to me if we make Cross the Ripper, then he's a killer with no real modus operandi, at least as it pertains to when he stalks and kills his victims. And that's an issue when a cornerstone of the "case" against "the carman" is that the murders occurred along his "route" to work, a route that took him through the "killing zone".

    The "double event" occurred on a Sunday, as we know. Stride was killed around 1am, Eddowes between 1:35 and 1:45. Clearly, these women were not killed while Charles Cross walked his "route to work" through the "killing zone". Thus, we must divert from the damning fact that his route to work was near "all the murder sites" and we must accept Cross killing - not while strolling along that incriminating route to work - but while visiting and pubbing on a night off near Berner Street. So, that means Stride and Eddowes weren't killed as Cross strolled tow work. So, that's two of the five (canonical) victims NOT killed while Charles Cross was made that incriminating walk to work.

    So, let's look at Chapman. This was Saturday. We'll assume Cross was due at work at 4am. Richardson was in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street at 4:45. He saw nothing. Elizabeth Long says she saw Chapman talking to a man at 5:30am. Thus, we have two witnesses telling us that Chapman was alive and not in the back of 29 Hanbury before 4:45am. So, now we have Chapman not killed while Cross was on his route to work because he was already AT work when she was killed. It should be noted that there was - at one time - an attempt to suggest that Cross drove a cart to the market near Hanbury Street and, while it was being unloaded, slipped off to meet, proposition, murder, and extensively mutilate Chapman, returning to fetch the cart and go about his business. One can debate the plausibility of this (and that's been done) but the point here is simple: Annie Chapman was not killed while Charles Cross was on his route to work. She was very likely killed while he was AT work.

    That brings us to Kelly. She was killed on a Friday morning. So, it was a working day for Cross. According to Mary Ann Cox, Kelly is singing at 1am. If she didn't go out again and was in the company of her killer then - again - it wasn't Cross on is route "through the killing zone to work" in that he wasn't due at work until 4am. According to Hutchinson she was talking to a man 2am. If Hutchinson is correct and that man was her killer then it wasn't Cross on his way to work, either. Cox tells us she heard someone go out at 3am. If this was the killer then it wasn't Cross on his way to work. At 4am Elizabeth Prater hears someone cry out "Oh! Murder!" If this was the end of Kelly then she wasn't done for by Cross on his way to work because he had just ARRIVED at work. If we choose to believe Caroline Maxwell, that she saw Kelly at 830am then she was alive while Cross was on the clock, not on his route to work. The same is true if we believe that Maurice Lewis saw her with Barnett at 10am.

    This is why I struggle when Cross' route to work is used as damning evidence. The only (canonical) victim killed while the man was ON his route to work is the woman he FOUND lying in Buck's Row ON HIS ROUTE TO WORK.
    Patrick,
    You have no argument from me on any of that, you make the point well I think.

    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    Originally posted by IchabodCrane View Post
    Hello to the forum,

    since I admit I am not that well read in what must now be thousands of pages of publications and public discussion on Lechmere as a suspect, can you recollect whether the following question was ever answered by the Lechmere proponents:

    If he killed on his way to work, why invariably choose bank holidays for his hobby?
    Assuming he had to work on those holidays, what difference would it make from any other day of the calendar?

    Clues are scarce in the Ripper mystery. The GSG is one clue, the pattern of holidays is another. Any proponent of a suspect would need to find some explanation for both of them to fit his theory.

    Thanks and regards
    IchabodCrane
    Hi,

    What do you mean by

    "invariably bank holidays?

    Cheers, Pierre

    Leave a comment:


  • John G
    replied
    Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
    Hi, Steve,

    Best to throw logic out. I'll explain.

    If memory serves the theory is that Cross may have been visiting his mother and young daughter near Berner Street, or visiting pubs in the area when he killed Stride. He then went in search of another victim around St. Boltoph's, retiring to Mitre Square with Eddowes, then perhaps popping in at Pickford's in Broad Street to wash up - on a Sunday - before heading home to Bethnal Green.

    Thus, it seems to me if we make Cross the Ripper, then he's a killer with no real modus operandi, at least as it pertains to when he stalks and kills his victims. And that's an issue when a cornerstone of the "case" against "the carman" is that the murders occurred along his "route" to work, a route that took him through the "killing zone".

    The "double event" occurred on a Sunday, as we know. Stride was killed around 1am, Eddowes between 1:35 and 1:45. Clearly, these women were not killed while Charles Cross walked his "route to work" through the "killing zone". Thus, we must divert from the damning fact that his route to work was near "all the murder sites" and we must accept Cross killing - not while strolling along that incriminating route to work - but while visiting and pubbing on a night off near Berner Street. So, that means Stride and Eddowes weren't killed as Cross strolled tow work. So, that's two of the five (canonical) victims NOT killed while Charles Cross was made that incriminating walk to work.

    So, let's look at Chapman. This was Saturday. We'll assume Cross was due at work at 4am. Richardson was in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street at 4:45. He saw nothing. Elizabeth Long says she saw Chapman talking to a man at 5:30am. Thus, we have two witnesses telling us that Chapman was alive and not in the back of 29 Hanbury before 4:45am. So, now we have Chapman not killed while Cross was on his route to work because he was already AT work when she was killed. It should be noted that there was - at one time - an attempt to suggest that Cross drove a cart to the market near Hanbury Street and, while it was being unloaded, slipped off to meet, proposition, murder, and extensively mutilate Chapman, returning to fetch the cart and go about his business. One can debate the plausibility of this (and that's been done) but the point here is simple: Annie Chapman was not killed while Charles Cross was on his route to work. She was very likely killed while he was AT work.

    That brings us to Kelly. She was killed on a Friday morning. So, it was a working day for Cross. According to Mary Ann Cox, Kelly is singing at 1am. If she didn't go out again and was in the company of her killer then - again - it wasn't Cross on is route "through the killing zone to work" in that he wasn't due at work until 4am. According to Hutchinson she was talking to a man 2am. If Hutchinson is correct and that man was her killer then it wasn't Cross on his way to work, either. Cox tells us she heard someone go out at 3am. If this was the killer then it wasn't Cross on his way to work. At 4am Elizabeth Prater hears someone cry out "Oh! Murder!" If this was the end of Kelly then she wasn't done for by Cross on his way to work because he had just ARRIVED at work. If we choose to believe Caroline Maxwell, that she saw Kelly at 830am then she was alive while Cross was on the clock, not on his route to work. The same is true if we believe that Maurice Lewis saw her with Barnett at 10am.

    This is why I struggle when Cross' route to work is used as damning evidence. The only (canonical) victim killed while the man was ON his route to work is the woman he FOUND lying in Buck's Row ON HIS ROUTE TO WORK.
    Excellent analysis Patrick, which clearly undermines a key part of the Lechmere theory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
    They all have "connections" to the case. It's just a matter of believing that the "connections" are real.
    What connections did they have to the case?
    I meant actual physical documented connection to the case, obviously.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X