Deadly occupations and serial murder

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

I can see the movie now Gareth.

'Black Beauty and His Saddle of Invisibility.'

I'd watch it

Regards

Herlock

[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

Hi, Herlock:

The MO that I have observed is:

Step 1: Fisherman finds something he decides will bolster his case for Lechmere as the killer.

In Post No. 1 of this thread, Fisherman states:

"But where is the applicability for the Lechmere case? Well, Lechmere was the equivalent of todays truckers, he too was in the goods transport business. He was exposed to prostitution along his routes. And he was involved with butchery, owing to his work, and possibly also to the Lechmere family tradition of processing horse meat.

"Of course, todays trucking is different from the carmanship of the East End in 1888. And of course, our society differs from theirs.

"But it seems that Lechmere was involved in the two occupations that are the only ones, as far as I can tell, that have been connected roughly to the types of crimes the Ripper made himself guilty of.

To me, it appears that his mind was already made up.

Step No. 2: He brings a discussion to the boards. What this accomplishes is to tell him where the flaws are. Throughout this phase, he is generally civil and appears to be hurt if anyone looks behind the thin veil.

Step No. 3: He disappears to take every dissenting point and figure out something he considers an answer to each.

Step No. 4: He adds his new points to his case against Lechmere, using his rebuttal to the opinions of Casebook posters to make his presentation stronger -- at least in his own eyes.

Step No. 5: He returns to the boards with his answers to the dissenting points.

Step No. 6: He gets riled when people find his answers inadequate and that the points can not be "fixed" in a bona fide way. He appears to refuse to consider that it is possible he started with something completely irrelevant.

Step No. 7: He attempts to pound that square peg into a round hole and if necessary into the heads of anyone not "smart" enough to accept his points.

Over and over and over, ad nauseam.

I have enjoyed this look into truck drivers as serial killers.

Fisherman and Ed Stow have done great research into something that deserved to be examined closely, and I understand that Fisherman is convinced of the guilt of Charles Lechmere.

However, he has established patterns in his thousands of posts.

Let's see if the pattern repeats . . . or if maybe just once . . . Fisherman will actually accept that Lechmere was NOT involved in either of what he calls the top two killing occupations -- not even marginally.

"But it seems that Lechmere was involved in the two occupations that are the only ones, as far as I can tell, that have been connected roughly to the types of crimes the Ripper made himself guilty of.

Time will tell.

curious

[Bridewell]

Suggesting that Lechmere's employment as a carman is, of itself, evidence of his being a serial killer (based on the number of truck drivers on death row in the USA), sounds a bit desperate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Suggesting that Lechmere's employment as a carman is, of itself, evidence of his being a serial killer (based on the number of truck drivers on death row in the USA), sounds a bit desperate.

Hi Bridewell

I'd only disagree 2 words of that statement......a and bit.

Regards

Herlock

[Fisherman]

I was not going to comment any further on this thread, but I have decided to do so anyway. There are a number of matters that all need to be clarified before I leave the issue - and leave it I will.

Mosy posters have not been able to grasp what it is I am saying. Whether that owes to these posters not being able/willing to understand or to me not being clear enough, I will not go into. There is too much bad blood already, and I am anxious not to have that colouring what I have to say. But it remains that my point/s have not been picked up on in the way they should have been.

I would like to begin with what Henry Flower writes - this thread "was never gonna go anywhere".

I beg to disagree. It could well have gone where I wanted it to go, if people said "Well, that´s interesting - of course, to what degree Lechmere was affected by all of this cannot be established, but it is interesting anyway".

That is how I presented the issue, so basically, the thread did not NEED to go anywhere at all - but it COULD have.

I thin that much of the problem can be seen in the exchange between Bridewell and Herloc Sholmes, who agree that "Suggesting that Lechmere's employment as a carman is, of itself, evidence of his being a serial killer (based on the number of truck drivers on death row in the USA), sounds a bit desperate." This was Bridewells analysis, seconded by Herlock Sholmes, who added that it did not only sound a bit desperate - he reccommended that the words "a bit" were removed, since he thought it was totally desperate.

I fully agree, and did so from the outset. I have never held another view - it would indeed be desperate to say that being tied to a job that resembles todays trucking would be evidence of being a serial killer.

If it DID apply, then we would be able to pinpoint every single trucker as potential serialists. They are not.

I actually took great care to point this out when I made my initial post. I said "please don´t give me the answer `so now every trucker is a serial killer`"

Alas, it did not help. Bridwell and Herlock fell into that precise trap.

The posts they exchanged contain the supposition that I am myself doing something I warned against.

I am not saying that being tied to these occupations is evidence of guilt. I am saying that it is interesting that Lechmere has ties to the two only occupations I know has been shown to produce a type of violence that resembels the violence represented in the Ripper killings. I am also saying that SINCE he has ties to these occupations, we need to keen an open eye on it, and accept that there MAY be a link.

I am saying nothing more than that. But that apparently was enough, either by the misunderstanding by other posters or by my way of wordning myself, to make people draw the wrong conclusions. Which is sad, because it was another thread down the drain.

Some have said that the material is interesting but it is wrong to say that Lechmere had ties to what is todays trucking business and the abbatoir business. Therefore, Lechmere is not affected by these matters, it is said.

The mot glaring example may be Curious, who says that "Lechmere was NOT involved in either of what he calls the top two killing occupations -- not even marginally."

This is a bit treacherous, since the word involved is used. And no, Lechmere was never a trucker - there where no trucks in 1888, and as far as we know, he did not work in abbatoirs.

But that was not what I said. I said that he had ties to both occupations. Todays truckers are the extension of the victorian carmen. They are men who use vehicles to transport goods on the roads. There are differences, of course, but by and large, the occupations are closely connected, and it can be said that todays trucker are descended from the carmen back then. Of course, it can also be said that a bargeman is a useful comparison, since he fits the bill better when it comes to distances and times spent away from home, but in other respects he fits the bill worse - he did not travel the streets and he was not exposed to prostitution in the same manner etctetera. Thses matters can of course be discussed ad nauseam, but it cannot be discussed that there is a link between carmen and truckers, that the two occupations are conneted.

We also know that Lechmere in all probability carried meat from Broad Street to abbatoirs in london, so there is a tie between him ant that business. It is not saying that he did any butchery himself, or that he got so and so much blood on his cuffs - but it is saying that he had ties to the business.
He may of course also have had ties to the cat´s meat business in 1888. We know his family was deeply involved in it, and we know that his mother was listed as a horse flesh dealer in 1891, meaning that she may have held down the same work in 1888. But these are not proven matters! All we can say is that it seems clear that he had a tie to the abbtoirs by way of carrying meat for them.
To what degree this will have affected him or not is not the issue. The only issue is that the link is there, just as the link is there to the trucking business.

The last post I would like to comment on before leaving, is this post by John G:
"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."

It is an absolutely brilliant post and the one post that presents the matter in EXACTLY the way it should be presented - we have a link between trucking and serial murder and another one betwen abbatoirs and violent crime. We have a carman who is a Ripper suspect and who has links to the trucking business and the abbatoir business. But the businesses have changed over the years, so to what if any degree can these links be relevant when we look at the potential guilt of Charles Lechmere?

The only logical answer is: We don´t know. But it is interesting that these links exist.

That is how I started out, and that is what I have been saying all along.

When that is suddenly changed to a discussion about how I am desperately claiming that there is suddenly evidence telling us that Lechmere was the Ripper, something has gone horribly wrong.

I am now withdrawing from this thread, and I think I will not be participating on Casebook for some time. I need some sort of detox, simple as.
Please do not take that as some sort of criticism - I simply feel that I need to do other things for a while.

I will probably take alook every now and then, not least on Steves work, but I will in all probability not comment and participate until further notice.

[Elamarna]

Hi Fish . You may not respond but just a few comments, none too critical

The mot glaring example may be Curious, who says that "Lechmere was NOT involved in either of what he calls the top two killing occupations -- not even marginally."
- he did not travel the streets and he was not exposed to prostitution in the same manner etctetera. Thses matters can of course be discussed ad nauseam, but it cannot be discussed that there is a link between carmen and truckers, that the two occupations are conneted.

It's is this point in particular that I at least and I guess other have an issue with.
I see the possible connection as being so tenuous that it just does not work. The supposed reasoning for the high number of trucker serial killers just does not apply to a local carman.
You disagree.

We also know that Lechmere in all probability carried meat from Broad Street to abbatoirs in london, so there is a tie between him ant that business. It is not saying that he did any butchery himself, or that he got so and so much blood on his cuffs - but it is saying that he had ties to the business.

Sorry that is surely a mistake. The meat he received on his cart had come from abbatoirs, why would he be then taking it back to them? For what possible reason?
Surely he is taking it from Broad street to end customers, be that institutions or individuals.

He may of course also have had ties to the cat´s meat business in 1888. We know his family was deeply involved in it, and we know that his mother was listed as a horse flesh dealer in 1891, meaning that she may have held down the same work in 1888.

This is a far better avenue for a link; however as you rightly say we have no data showing a connection. It is without doubt an avenue which may produce results; but would require research.

But these are not proven matters! All we can say is that it seems clear that he had a tie to the abbtoirs by way of carrying meat for them.
To what degree this will have affected him or not is not the issue. The only issue is that the link is there, just as the link is there to the trucking business.

No where is the link to the abbatoirs? His link is to Pickfords, and it is they who had the link to the suppliers not he. He merely drove a cart carrying the meat which we are told would be wrapped and in boxes or baskets.

The last post I would like to comment on before leaving, is this post by John G:
"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."

It is an absolutely brilliant post and the one post that presents the matter in EXACTLY the way it should be presented - we have a link between trucking and serial murder and another one betwen abbatoirs and violent crime. We have a carman who is a Ripper suspect and who has links to the trucking business and the abbatoir business. But the businesses have changed over the years, so to what if any degree can these links be relevant when we look at the potential guilt of Charles Lechmere?

The only logical answer is: We don´t know. But it is interesting that these links exist.

Yes Johns post was very good indeed and allowed for the possibility of taking the debate further.

However while you rightly say we do not know the answer to John's question, you finish off by again stating these links exist which John has not agreed with. And which only you appear to feel are clear.

I am now withdrawing from this thread, and I think I will not be participating on Casebook for some time. I need some sort of detox, simple as.
Please do not take that as some sort of criticism - I simply feel that I need to do other things for a while.

I will probably take alook every now and then, not least on Steves work, but I will in all probability not comment and participate until further notice.

I am sorry that you feel that way, but we all need breaks at times so I can understand.
The next section of my work is unlikely to need much comment unless you spot factual mistakes. If so please feel free to point them out.
Hope you return for the final part later in the year.

All the best

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Of course, one doesn't have to belong to any kind of transport/delivery industry. There are many serial killers, covering a wide range of professions, who relied on vehicles in order to pick up and/or dispose of their victims - Bundy, Rader, Fred West, Bittaker/Norris, von Einem, Ridgway, Bianchi, Shawcross... the list goes on. All heavily used vehicles in the commission of their crimes, but none of them were professional truckers.

Perhaps it's simply "mobility" that's the key, rather than the nature of the killers' jobs themselves.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Fisherman

My main issue with the link between the two occupations mentioned and serial killers is like the 'chicken and egg' scenario. I was concerned that it may have been suggested or hinted at that someone in those professions was more likely to 'become' a murderer. Whereas I would say that someone would already have that propensity and becoming a long distance lorry driver, like Sutcliffe, would help facilitate his need. As it doesn't appear to be suggested that CL killed whilst actually working I couldn't and still can't see a connection. Just the fact of being a Carman wouldn't influence CL.
As for being a butcher, yes I can perhaps see that cutting up meat could help an already 'unhinged' person to become desensitised to the task. Perhaps even more so for abattoir workers and Slaughtermen. Personally I've always wondered how trainee Surgeons deal with making those first cuts. That said, I think it's only reasonable to mention that CL wasn't a butcher. Yes he may have handled meat but most of us do at some point. You could say that we are all desensitised as we don't see the fluffy lamb in the field as we pop the joint in the oven.
It was an interesting point Fish but I don't think it was relevant to CL. And yes I'll hold my hand up to being sarcastic (it's habit that you might have noticed before )

Finally Fish, you mentioned 'bad blood.' You didn't single anyone out so I'm not descending into paranoia here. It's strange that a subject from so long ago still causes such passionate debate. It's easy to get frustrated and annoyed and some of us are, perhaps more inclined to do so. Perhaps some of us need to take more of a deep breath now and again? Perhaps some of us need to remember that the identity of Jack the Ripper isn't a matter of life and death. And yes, the 'us' definately includes myself.
For the record Fish I'd like to say that while it may sometimes appear to be, nothing said here by me is personal. If I sometimes, at my most strident and sarcastic, come over in that way I apologise. I have no problem saying that you are an intelligent man who has done excellent research. I also want to say that I do not doubt your honesty. You obviously genuinely feel that CL is the likeliest ripper. I just believe that you are mistaken (as you believe that I am.) I also appreciate that you are in a position a little like Davy Crockett at The Alamo, surrounded by people on this thread who disagree with your suspect. Like Crockett you certainly put up a good fight!

I hope that you enjoy your break Fish. I'll just stay here and argue with myself

Regards

Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Fisherman

My main issue with the link between the two occupations mentioned and serial killers is a like the 'chicken and egg' scenario. I was concerned that it may have been suggested or hinted at that someone in those professions was more likely to 'become' a murderer. Whereas I would say that someone would already have that propensity and becoming a long distance lorry driver, like Sutcliffe, would help facilitate his need. As it doesn't appear to be suggested that CL killed whilst actually working I couldn't and still can't see a connection. Just the fact of being a Carman wouldn't influence CL.
As for being a butcher, yes I can perhaps see that cutting up meat could help an already 'unhinged' person to become desensitised to the task. Perhaps even more so for abattoir workers and Slaughtermen. Personally I've always wondered how trainee Surgeons deal with making those first cuts. That said, I think it's only reasonable to mention that CL wasn't a butcher. Yes he may have handled meat but most of us do at some point. You could say that we are all desensitised as we don't see the fluffy lamb in the field as we pop the joint in the oven.
It was an interesting point Fish but I don't think it was relevant to CL. And yes I'll hold my hand up to being sarcastic (it's habit that you might have noticed before )

Finally Fish, you mentioned 'bad blood.' You didn't single anyone out so I'm not descending into paranoia here. It's strange that a subject from so long ago still causes such passionate debate. It's easy to get frustrated and annoyed and some of us are, perhaps more inclined to do so. Perhaps some of us need to take more of a deep breath now and again? Perhaps some of us need to remember that the identity of Jack the Ripper isn't a matter of life and death. And yes, the 'us' definately includes myself.
For the record Fish I'd like to say that while it may sometimes appear to be, nothing said here by me is personal. If I sometimes, at my most strident and sarcastic, come over in that way I apologise. I have no problem saying that you are an intelligent man who has done excellent research. I also want to say that I do not doubt your honesty. You obviously genuinely feel that CL is the likeliest ripper. I just believe that you are mistaken (as you believe that I am.)

I hope that you enjoy your break Fish. I'll just stay here and argue with myself

Regards

Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry guys.

I don't know how I managed to post the same message twice!

Regards

Herlock

[Sam Flynn]

I don't know how I managed to post the same message twice!

Relax, Herlock; it's a Lechmere thread. You'll probably find yourself posting something similar again in a few years' time

[John G]

Of course, one doesn't have to belong to any kind of transport/delivery industry. There are many serial killers, covering a wide range of professions, who relied on vehicles in order to pick up and/or dispose of their victims - Bundy, Rader, Fred West, Bittaker/Norris, von Einem, Ridgway, Bianchi, Shawcross... the list goes on. All heavily used vehicles in the commission of their crimes, but none of them were professional truckers.

Perhaps it's simply "mobility" that's the key, rather than the nature of the killers' jobs themselves.

Yes, regarding long distance lorry drivers, for example. I seriously doubt there's anything inherent in the profession that's apt to transform an erstwhile perfectly balanced individual into a maniacal serial killer.

A more viable explanation is that individuals pre-disposed to become serial killers are more likely to be drawn to that type of work, I.e. because of the opportunities it brings.

[Sam Flynn]

A more viable explanation is that individuals pre-disposed to become serial killers are more likely to be drawn to that type of work, I.e. because of the opportunities it brings.

Indeed, although that doesn't seem to have inspired Bundy, Rader (etc) to become long-haul truckers. They got along perfectly well on their own two feet, or four wheels as the case may be

[Henry Flower]

Just to clarify, I didn't state that this thread was "bound to go nowhere" just because it's Fisherman and it's Lechmere and everyone here has some clear anti-Lechmere agenda.

I said that it was bound to go nowhere because Lechmere was not the equivalent of a long distance lorry driver. There was no equivalent really. He was a local delivery man who went home to his family after work. There is no known correlation between local delivery men and serial killing, neither then nor now, as far as I've ever heard. Neither was Lechmere involved in butchery, any more than a newspaper boy is involved in journalism.

And if these very real distinctions were clear to me, with my weak eyesight and pornography-rotted faculties, then they were evidently going to be clear to the far cleverer, healthier, wiser chaps and ladies on the boards.

Hence, this thread was never gong to go anywhere.

And it's no good now trying to claim that it could have led to an interesting discussion regardless of the whole Lechmere angle: your first post was quite clearly written to propose an 'involvement' between Lechmere and 'the only two professions to have a known link to serial killing'.

Incidentally, have I missed it or has Christer acknowledged yet that local delivery men still exist, are a profession distinct from long-haul truckers, and have no recognized correlation with serial murderers?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to clarify, I didn't state that this thread was "bound to go nowhere" just because it's Fisherman and it's Lechmere and everyone here has some clear anti-Lechmere agenda.

I said that it was bound to go nowhere because Lechmere was not the equivalent of a long distance lorry driver. There was no equivalent really. He was a local delivery man who went home to his family after work. There is no known correlation between local delivery men and serial killing, neither then nor now, as far as I've ever heard. Neither was Lechmere involved in butchery, any more than a newspaper boy is involved in journalism.

And if these very real distinctions were clear to me, with my weak eyesight and pornography-rotted faculties, then they were evidently going to be clear to the far cleverer, healthier, wiser chaps and ladies on the boards.

Hence, this thread was never gong to go anywhere.

And it's no good now trying to claim that it could have led to an interesting discussion regardless of the whole Lechmere angle: your first post was quite clearly written to propose an 'involvement' between Lechmere and 'the only two professions to have a known link to serial killing'.

Incidentally, have I missed it or has Christer acknowledged yet that local delivery men still exist, are a profession distinct from long-haul truckers, and have no recognized correlation with serial murderers?

Hi Henry,

I can't help seeing the funny side of being on a thread where someone has just asked if someone else will admit to the existence of local delivery men. Those elusive, enigmatic, ghostly figures haunting the highways and byways of our towns and cities! You'll be suggesting that Postmen exist next!