Deadly occupations and serial murder

[Elamarna]

Nice one, Mr B

Steve,

The London Carmen's Trade Union was established in 1888, renamed the National Union of Vehicle Workers in 1914 and amalgamated with other unions to form the Transport and General Workers Union in 1922.

Joshua, Gareth and MrBarnett

Thanks for the info.
Nice to know my first suggestion ended up being the one they eventually amalgamated with. I was in ASTMS, which become MSG and finally merged with UNITE if memory serves right.

Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Is there a link between trades union membership and serial killing?

Anyone?

No?

Are you saying that all the lorry driving serial killers refused to join a union? Or were they blackballed by the other members?

[Elamarna]

Just for information.

Apart from Unite which the Carmen merged with it seems that lorry drivers, HGV , professional long distance drivers are covered by a few unions:

United Road Transport Union -URTU

USDAW

GMB

To name but 3.

Steve

[Fisherman]

... and now you are discussing unions?

I thought that was a non-issue? And "misleading"?

And Gareth has given it all some long hard afterthought and arrived at the conclusion that the killer did probably NOT arrive by lorry on his murderous expeditions.

Not even by cart, actually - it seems he WALKED on those occasions.

Maybe he arrived by train, Gareth? Since that is the better comparison to the truckers of today?

Perhaps I should once more clarify what I have been saying all along, since it seems to have gone absolutely and totally lost here:

There are 25 persons behind lock and bar in the US, who are formerly truckers. There are around 500 unsolved murders where the victims were dumped along the freeways of the US, and where there are 200 suspects who are truckers.

This does actually not tell us that when somebody steps into a truck, he becomes a serial killer.

Nor does it tell us that trucker serial killers will only kill when having access to a truck.

What it tells us is that there is an overrepresentation of serial killers among truckers.

Adam Leroy is one of the cases mentioned. He did not use his truck when killing, he got out of it and sought out open doors in private houses, looking for sleeping women.

So the 25 serial killers spoken of are NOT 25 men who have actually employed their trucks in order to kill - they are killers who all have a background as a trucker. Like Peter Sutcliffe, for example, who never used his truck in any manner at all when killing. He is nevertheless a trucker who killed.

Before these distinctions and implications are fully understood, we cannot debate the matter in a correct way. Trucking is for some reason tied to serial killing, and the reason as such is not fully understood.

Charles Lechmere was the equivalent of today truckers (first we had horses and carts driven by men who delivered goods, and then when the petrol and diesel engines were invented, they were put into the carts, thereby turning them into cars and lorries. The drivers remained in the same role as before), and I find that interesting.

Curious takes it upon herself to say that I found that the document was somehing I could latch onto to make Lechmere look more guilty or something such, and that is of course a very worthy way of debating matters, Bravo, Curious! That´s the way to go about it - whatever I say, whatever I do and whatever research I present, let´s make it our main objective to say that I do not do it to add potentially useful information, but instead to try and lure people into my evil net of misrepresenting the case in order to get Lechmere convicted.

I still have not said anything at all about how much faith I put in the idea that Lechmere was to any degree affected by his role as a carman when it comes to the chances that he was the Ripper.

I have in no shape or form made any claims.

I have pointed out that there is research pointing to how todays truckers sometimes become serial killers, and that there is a docu discussing why the particular trade seems to produce killers, since I find it an interesting material with a possible bearing on Lechmere.

I have also pointed out that there is academic work showing a link between butchery and abbatoirs and violent crime, and I have said that it seems likely that Lechmere was to a degree connected to this trade too. I therefore find this interesting too, for the same reason: It could possibly have a bearing on Lechmere.

I understand now that I was not in my right to do so, and I can only ruefully apologize for having had the cheek to do it anyway. Of course, things like these are the exact opposite from what these boards are supposed to be about. Out here, we are supposed to discuss the Ripper case, and material pertaining to it, preferably new findings and developments.

So sorry for this. I will of course take the consequences and immediately leave the thread.

[drstrange169]

>>One of the first reactions we had was from a very well established poster who accused us of having lined our own pockets with the money of the suffering descendants of victims of the Bethnal Green tube disaster, by having taken a small admission to the lecture we made in St Johns Church back then. It was said to be deeply immoral and it was added that we were being unforgivably cynical for not caring about the Lechmere descendants who would be distraught by our falsities.<<

If I recall correctly, the lecture and walk was well received by the majority of people. In fact I bet you’ll find positive comments from me about it back in the archives somewhere.

Wasn’t the accusation the result of some pre-existing animus between the poster and Ed? And wasn’t poster scathing on other threads of other theories?

No excuse for the rudeness, but not necessarily generated by the Xmere theory as such.


>>When the docu was presented, it was implied that the experts of it had been mislead and lied to. <<

I have no problem with a notion that the experts may have been misled, what they say in the TV suggests that might be the case. As to “lie” accusations, again wasn’t that just in the cut and thrust of a heated debate?

Either way, is there anybody on this thread who made those accusations taking money or lying to TV talent?


>>… it was par for the course to claim that the experts must have been lied to.<<

Since the vast majority did not say the experts were lied to, how can it be “par” for the course. We are talking about the exception not the rule.


>>If it had been found out that a certain brand of cigarette was prone to turn people to sereial killers, and that Kosminski smoked that particular brand, I have little doubt that it would be called a breakthrough and the Kosminskiytes would be congratulated.<<

You are clearly denying or turning a blind eye to the animus generated in threads like the Diary, Thompson or Tumberty et al. Have you checked out David and Simon’s posts lately?

It is the nature of these boards to criticize. If Lechmere receives more it is because you generate more post currently than other proponents.


>>When I say that Lechmere has ties to the two occupations that are tied to violent crime, it is rejected, knee-jerk fashion.<<

No, it is rejected because no links have been established, no more on less.


>>Gareth says that the equivalent of the 20th and 21st century truckers were the victorion train workers. In a sense, he has a point - they hauled goods for long distances.<<

There is no meaningful comparison with modern day American truckers and any Victorian East End profession. That’s the whole point.


>>So we should take our eye of the term long-haul truckers and instead look at people working in the transportation sector, regardless if the stretch is long or short and regardless of what commodity they transport.<<


Since none of the serial killer truckers were, by definition, were local delivery men, where is any form of correlation?


>>Dusty makes the point (seconded by Steve) that documentaries are notoriously untrustworthy or something such, and that may be correct. I can identify other sources that are much nore untrustworthy, like a number of posters out here. Be that as it may, I am asked if I have checked the information, and yes, I have. The docu was factually based on FBI material from 2009 that can be accessed here:https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/ne...yserial_040609<<


And good stuff it is too, which begs the question if you knew of it before you stated this thread, why didn't you lead with it, instead of choosing a tacky TV show? It still doesn’t have a correlation, but unlike the tv show, it does have some credibility.


>>If anything, the numbers are conservative in the docu. There is later material that speaks not of 500 unsolved freeway murders and 200 trucker suspects, but instead of 750 murders and 450 such suspects.<<

But yet again, how does that relate? Specific to American Truckers are the factors of isolation, the existence of a cab for privacy and the willingness of women to enter that cab.


>>As could be expected, I am asked whether people risk getting desensitized by buying a pork chop.<<

What is expected is actual evidence that Charles Allen Lechmere did in fact handle bloody carcasses and /or witness animals being slaughtered in 1888.


>>I think Lechmere was involved in hauling a lot of meat at Pickfords, and that it involved large chunks and parts of animals. <<

Pleased to see you are qualifying that you only think he might have carried meat.

If he did haul meat, and that is a massive if, he didn’t carry it.

That job was done by porters. The meat was in linen sacks which were, in turn, in wicker baskets. Carman were assigned fully loaded carts.


>>And I don´t think you need to handle it to become desensitized - it is the realization of how a living creature can be chopped into parts that lies behind this, as far as I understand, and not only the actual butchering. A far-fetched comparison is how the people in concentration camps in many instances have said that the dead people they rolled around in wheel barrels, stacked upon each other like dried branches of trees, became objects to them instead of real people.<<

With apologies to any vegans reading this, I don’t think anyone can seriously compare the horrors of a concentration camp with a pre-slaughtered, bloodless carcass wrapped in linen and hidden out of sight in wicker baskets.


>>Travelling the streets and roads alone, being exposed to prostitution, having the option to cage women and then to dump them - to me, that closely resembles the options open to Lechmere in the role of the Ripper/Torso killer.<<

I can’t talk about the Torso killer, but indisputably the McNaughton 5 were not caged or dumped.


>>He is tied to the transport business, he was the trucker of his age and he in all probability hauled huge dead parts of animals on an everyday basis.<<

How is this in anyway relevant? Bus drivers ar in the transport business, are they serial killers because of it or does bus driving attract serial killers? Transport is only a significant factor with American Truki killers because of the isolation, distance and access to a mobile private space, like bus drivers, Charles Lechmere had no access to those things. And none of those factors figured in the murder of jtr’s victims.


>>If that is of no interest to anybody but me and Abby, then so be it.<<

Sobeit

[John G]

... and now you are discussing unions?

I thought that was a non-issue? And "misleading"?

And Gareth has given it all some long hard afterthought and arrived at the conclusion that the killer did probably NOT arrive by lorry on his murderous expeditions.

Not even by cart, actually - it seems he WALKED on those occasions.

Maybe he arrived by train, Gareth? Since that is the better comparison to the truckers of today?

Perhaps I should once more clarify what I have been saying all along, since it seems to have gone absolutely and totally lost here:

There are 25 persons behind lock and bar in the US, who are formerly truckers. There are around 500 unsolved murders where the victims were dumped along the freeways of the US, and where there are 200 suspects who are truckers.

This does actually not tell us that when somebody steps into a truck, he becomes a serial killer.

Nor does it tell us that trucker serial killers will only kill when having access to a truck.

What it tells us is that there is an overrepresentation of serial killers among truckers.

Adam Leroy is one of the cases mentioned. He did not use his truck when killing, he got out of it and sought out open doors in private houses, looking for sleeping women.

So the 25 serial killers spoken of are NOT 25 men who have actually employed their trucks in order to kill - they are killers who all have a background as a trucker. Like Peter Sutcliffe, for example, who never used his truck in any manner at all when killing. He is nevertheless a trucker who killed.

Before these distinctions and implications are fully understood, we cannot debate the matter in a correct way. Trucking is for some reason tied to serial killing, and the reason as such is not fully understood.

Charles Lechmere was the equivalent of today truckers (first we had horses and carts driven by men who delivered goods, and then when the petrol and diesel engines were invented, they were put into the carts, thereby turning them into cars and lorries. The drivers remained in the same role as before), and I find that interesting.

Curious takes it upon herself to say that I found that the document was somehing I could latch onto to make Lechmere look more guilty or something such, and that is of course a very worthy way of debating matters, Bravo, Curious! That´s the way to go about it - whatever I say, whatever I do and whatever research I present, let´s make it our main objective to say that I do not do it to add potentially useful information, but instead to try and lure people into my evil net of misrepresenting the case in order to get Lechmere convicted.

I still have not said anything at all about how much faith I put in the idea that Lechmere was to any degree affected by his role as a carman when it comes to the chances that he was the Ripper.

I have in no shape or form made any claims.

I have pointed out that there is research pointing to how todays truckers sometimes become serial killers, and that there is a docu discussing why the particular trade seems to produce killers, since I find it an interesting material with a possible bearing on Lechmere.

I have also pointed out that there is academic work showing a link between butchery and abbatoirs and violent crime, and I have said that it seems likely that Lechmere was to a degree connected to this trade too. I therefore find this interesting too, for the same reason: It could possibly have a bearing on Lechmere.

I understand now that I was not in my right to do so, and I can only ruefully apologize for having had the cheek to do it anyway. Of course, things like these are the exact opposite from what these boards are supposed to be about. Out here, we are supposed to discuss the Ripper case, and material pertaining to it, preferably new findings and developments.

So sorry for this. I will of course take the consequences and immediately leave the thread.

I actually find the topic of this thread fascinating and I'm glad you started it. It's just that, for reasons given by myself and others, I'm struggling to see how it relates to Lechmere.

Now, if you could find research which indicates that nineteenth century carmen, or people driving horse and carts, were more likely to be serial killers that would be interesting. Similarly, if you can find research that indicates be merely a handler of meat, as opposed to, say, being a butcher for working in an abattoir, makes you more likely to be a serial killer...

However, at the moment your simply trying to read on via analogy. But this doesn't really work. For instance, a man driving a pony and cart in a highly congested area is not, as I see it, remotely comparable with a modern lorry driver driving a large truck on a highway; and that's before we address the is due of JtR being a marauder rather than a commuter killer (presumably modern truck drivers would fit into the latter category.)

And the fact that they're both involved in the transport industry doesn't help, because it's too general an argument: an aeroplane pilot is involved in the transport industry but presumably, on that basis, not more likely to be a serial killer than the norm.

[GUT]

Now my dad drove a truck for over 50 years, but no way would he classify as what Americans call a trucker, no long distance stuff at all, (unless you think 25 miles was long distance) he was a carrier, pretty much like Lechmere, carted general merchandise, parcels, flour, beer, furniture, ice cream, even meat at times.

But by no stretch a trucker, a truck driver perhaps, the American term trucker is normally reserved for long distance (even interstate) drivers.

And back when he carried meat, never once knew him to come home with blood on his clothes.

[John G]

Interestingly this thread reinforces my belief that Torso Man, assuming he existed, and who definitely would have been a commuter killer, may well have had the occupation of bargeman.

[John G]

Now my dad drove a truck for over 50 years, but no way would he classify as what Americans call a trucker, no long distance stuff at all, (unless you think 25 miles was long distance) he was a carrier, pretty much like Lechmere, carted general merchandise, parcels, flour, beer, furniture, ice cream, even meat at times.

But by no stretch a trucker, a truck driver perhaps, the American term trucker is normally reserved for long distance (even interstate) drivers.

And back when he carried meat, never once knew him to come home with blood on his clothes.

I think difficulties arise when you try and apply modern data to a nineteenth century problem. Thus, the issue shouldn't be whether the occupation of carman in the eighteenth century is analogous with that of a modern trucker-it clearly isn't; local delivery driver is a better comparator- but whether there's any evidence that nineteenth century carmen, or pony and cart drivers generally, such as Diemshutz, we're more likely to be serial killers.

[Elamarna]

... and now you are discussing unions?

I thought that was a non-issue? And "misleading"?

You raised the subject. Some just wanted to clarify the historical facts.
Yes it is irrelevant to saying a Carman was the 19th equivalent of a 20th/21st century US trucker.
The discussion is not misleading, it was the conclusion you attempted to draw which was.

Steve

[GUT]

I think difficulties arise when you try and apply modern data to a nineteenth century problem. Thus, the issue shouldn't be whether the occupation of carman in the eighteenth century is analogous with that of a modern trucker-it clearly isn't; local delivery driver is a better comparator- but whether there's any evidence that nineteenth century carmen, or pony and cart drivers generally, such as Diemshutz, we're more likely to be serial killers.

Which evidence doesn't exist, or if it does I've never seen it.

[Henry Flower]

As interesting as this thread has been, it was always bound to go nowhere. Given his evident touchiness about being accused of anything other than the honest presentation of information in search of the truth, it seems ironic (to put it kindly) that Christer is unwilling to accept the honesty or integrity of the majority of responses. This isn't a conspiracy of deniers, or a kneejerk and automatic attempt to rebut, it's an honest disagreement.

It's something you might just have to accept, Christer: the majority of people who've read your post and watched the trucker documentary find your comparison unpersuasive. Lechmere did not have a mobile private space, he did not work far from home, he did not spend periods away from home and family. It's likely that his work was not even especially nocturnal, and he went home to his family after work.

His job was not the equivalent of a long haul trucker, he was a local delivery man. The profession needs no equivalent: the profession of local delivery man still exists, and I've never come across any evidence that local delivery men are over-represented among serialists.

What we need instead are facts. What were Lech's working hours? Which days did he work? What were his delivery routes? We'd learn more from a few facts than from any speculative comparisons.

And that, Christer, is my honest opinion. It's not kneejerk. I have no desire to dismantle your candidate. I have no candidate, and no agenda.

[curious]

+
Curious takes it upon herself to say that I found that the document was somehing I could latch onto to make Lechmere look more guilty or something such, and that is of course a very worthy way of debating matters, Bravo, Curious! That´s the way to go about it - whatever I say, whatever I do and whatever research I present, let´s make it our main objective to say that I do not do it to add potentially useful information, but instead to try and lure people into my evil net of misrepresenting the case in order to get Lechmere convicted.

Fisherman,
You have more than 15,000 posts.

In them, you have established certain patterns -- patterns you apparently don't like others pointing out.

curious

[Sam Flynn]

And Gareth has given it all some long hard afterthought and arrived at the conclusion that the killer did probably NOT arrive by lorry on his murderous expeditions.

Not even by cart, actually - it seems he WALKED on those occasions.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? Unless he was driving an invisible horse and cart through Bucks Row, Hanbury Street, etc.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fisherman,
You have more than 15,000 posts.

In them, you have established certain patterns -- patterns you apparently don't like others pointing out.

curious

Hi Curious

I'm afraid that it works like this. Fisherman makes a point. Someone disagrees. Fisherman probably then restates it. Someone still disagrees. Fisherman tells them that they are being 'wilfully obtuse' or that they are misinterpreting the evidence or that they are biased against the 'obviously guilty CL.' With Fisherman it's a case of 'all roads lead to Lechmere.' He's done excellent research and genuinely believes CL to be guilty but sees everything as a sign of guilt. Hence the truckers/butchers point. CL was neither so it does hint at a desperation to convince. And to convince people who aren't 'just too blind to see.' People who have many, many years of interest in the case. Intelligent people who have also done research on the subject (not myself I hasten to add) who just don't see CL as the Ripper and, for the life of them, can't understand the level of certainty that Fisherman displays over CL's guilt.

Regards

Herlock