Deadly occupations and serial murder

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

... 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.