So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel?

[Harry D]

None - that we know of. Then again, we knew of no crimes on account of Chikatilo, of Armstrong, of Edwards, of Yates before they were revealed as serial killers.

Wasn't Chikatilo fired from his teaching job for touching up students?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish. From wiki:

"On 5 March 1976, Peter Sutcliffe was dismissed for the theft of used tyres. He was unemployed until October 1976..."

Pete doesn't quite sound like a model employee, after all.

Like I said, Fish, once the psychologists know these guys are killers, that's all we ever hear about. I imagine most of these blighters were employees From Hell...but finding reliable information about their day-to-day lives is not always easy considering the focus is always on their sensational and disgusting crimes.

There are others who have a clean bill, though. And the problem with citing how Sutcliffe was dismissed for theft is that we have him so close in time, and because he was revealed as a serial killer, he could be - and WAS - scrutinized by his contemporaries and everything he had ever said and done that seemed in any way out of order would be remembered. Not so with Lechmere! He could have been involved in all sorts of bad businesses, and it could have been lost to the river of time a long time ago.
It would seem that Sutcliffe was let go, and that there was no legal record of it - if he was not a serial killer, who would have remembered it 130 years after the theft?

Lechmere could equally have been somebody of whom nothing nefarious at all was known during his lifetime, a grey man, a Joel Rifkin, if you like. Some of these men are truly meek on the surface, Rifkin, Geen, Kroll...

I keep saying that statistical arguments like "most serial killers have a rap sheet" is unapplicable in this discussion, and I think that is a very important point to make. Much as it is true, it is also true that SOMEBODY killed the C5, and in that context, a man who was found alone with one of the victims at a time tnat is consistent with being her killer MUST be looked long and hard at. The statistical arguments will apply less and less to such a character the more things there are that do not sound right, and there are such matters aplenty in Lechmere´s case. Once we take heed of that, we owe it to ourselves not to trip over arguments like "he seems such a nice guy".

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: You know how much I hate psychobabble, so I'd be the last to turn punctuality, reliability and devotion to duty (which probably characterised Cross's career) into an indicator of saintliness.

You know how much I hate it when people turn lofty and unsupportable suppositions into facts, wo I´d be the last to accept that Lechmere must have been about punctuality, reliability and devotion to duty any more than Bonin, Eyler, Sutcliffe and Jasperson.

Nothing wrong with statistical arguments when properly applied.

And everything wrong with statistical arguments when improperly applied. Like for example when we say that since most people are good eggs, Lechmere will never have been a bad one. That´s statistics at it´s most pathetic.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Fish. From wiki:

"On 5 March 1976, Peter Sutcliffe was dismissed for the theft of used tyres. He was unemployed until October 1976..."

Pete doesn't quite sound like a model employee, after all.

Like I said, Fish, once the psychologists know these guys are killers, that's all we ever hear about. I imagine most of these blighters were employees From Hell...but finding reliable information about their day-to-day lives is not always easy considering the focus is always on their sensational and disgusting crimes.

[Sam Flynn]

Meaning that the employers of Sutcliffe, Jasperson, Eyler, Bonin and the rest of the highway killers who hung on to their jobs for many years also thought that these men did their job well. As did Russell Williams, as did Gary Ridgway, as did Dennis Nilsen, as did...

Can you see how this point is of no value at all? It is more of the "he seems to have been a good guy" argument that is totally useless in the discussion about serial killers.

You know how much I hate psychobabble, so I'd be the last to turn punctuality, reliability and devotion to duty (which probably characterised Cross's career) into an indicator of saintliness.

It´s the statistical argument all over again and it must be disregarded.

Nothing wrong with statistical arguments when properly applied.

[Fisherman]

Neither. Only that he was dependable enough to have kept the same job for some twenty years.

Meaning that the employers of Sutcliffe, Jasperson, Eyler, Bonin and the rest of the highway killers who hung on to their jobs for many years also thought that these men "did their job well" and were "dependable". Like Russell Williams, Gary Ridgway, Dennis Nilsen, ...

Can you see how this point is of no value at all? It is more of the "he seems to have been a good guy" argument that is totally useless in the discussion about serial killers. It´s the statistical argument all over again and it must be disregarded, not least since it couples the words "well" and "dependable" to a man who may have been something entirely different.

Then again, that was the whole idea, right?

[MrBarnett]

Neither. Only that he was dependable enough to have kept the same job for some twenty years.

But in this context ‘dependable’ would have meant ‘can be relied upon to meet his delivery targets’ through the congested streets of London.

[Sam Flynn]

True! But how do we define "well"? Is it a question of being a charitable man, always having time to chat with the ones he deliver to, who pats kids on the heads and does his work with a smile - or are we talking about a man who whips the living daylights out of his horses, an intimidating character who stops at nothing to get his work done?

Neither. Only that he was dependable enough to have kept the same job for some twenty years.

[Fisherman]

The latter was what I had in mind, Fish.

Yes, I figured. Sutcliffe, Bonin, Jasperson, Eyler; they were all employed as lorry drivers for years, delivering goods and killing as side business. "Highway killers" are thirteen a dozen in the serial killer branch.

Presumably, their employers think they "do their jobs well".

[MrBarnett]

True! But how do we define "well"? Is it a question of being a charitable man, always having time to chat with the ones he deliver to, who pats kids on the heads and does his work with a smile - or are we talking about a man who whips the living daylights out of his horses, an intimidating character who stops at nothing to get his work done? More pertinently, what kind of worker would his employers prioritize?

The latter was what I had in mind, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Well, if a man holds on to his job for 20 years in the tough Victorian period, there's a fair chance he was doing it well.

True! But how do we define "well"? Is it a question of being a charitable man, always having time to chat with the ones he deliver to, who pats kids on the heads and does his work with a smile - or are we talking about a man who whips the living daylights out of his horses, an intimidating character who stops at nothing to get his work done? More pertinently, what kind of worker would his employers prioritize?

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, I know, Gareth, but you’re less likely to throw sprouts at me than Caz.😉

Coward! Hand back your O.B.E.!!!

(S Milligan, The Dreaded Batter-Pudding Hurler of Bexhill-on-Sea http://bloodnok.net/aac/coward.m4a)

[MrBarnett]

I was adding to Caz's post, which used the word "exemplary", presumably in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek manner.

Now that you mention it, though, I think we'd all welcome the discovery of Charles Cross's work records, shift rotas etc. Assumptions about where and when he worked are largely taken as read.

Yes, I know, Gareth, but you’re less likely to throw sprouts at me than Caz.😉

The assumption that CAL had only ever worked at Broad Street has nothing to support it. And neither does the idea that he worked Mon-Sat.

[Sam Flynn]

A perfect example of how not having any negative factors on record is confused with having an exemplary working record. Par for the course in some camps.

Well, if a man holds on to his job for 20 years in the tough Victorian period, there's a fair chance he was doing it well.

[MrBarnett]

And lest anyone is tempted to go down the ‘he worked hard all his life and accumulated enough money to start his own business’ route, let’s not forget that his old Ma seems to have had a few bob, and it wasn’t until after she died that he opened his shop. (I think that’s right?)