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

[Sam Flynn]

I must have missed the discovery of CAL’s ‘exemplary’ work record.

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.

[MrBarnett]

Pickfords’ drivers were notorious for their recklessness. They were frequently involved in accidents and the company were criticised for allowing/encouraging them to disregard the safety of other road users in the pursuit of speed.

[Fisherman]

I must have missed the discovery of CAL’s ‘exemplary’ work record. I thought that all we knew was that, according to him, he had worked for them for 20-odd years. Oh, and that he possibly killed a child while driving one of his employers’ vans.

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.

[MrBarnett]

An exemplary, and very loooooong work record, even by today's standards.

I must have missed the discovery of CAL’s ‘exemplary’ work record. I thought that all we knew was that, according to him, he had worked for them for 20-odd years. Oh, and that he possibly killed a child while driving one of his employers’ vans.

[Fisherman]

I take the liberty to post an excerpt from Wikipedias page on serial killer, namely the "Characteristics" section. I think it is a risky thing to discuss characteristics as if they were general to all serialists, but the exercise could nevertheless be interesting if we apply it all to Lechmere. Here we go, my comments in red:

Characteristics
Some commonly found characteristics of serial killers include the following:

They may exhibit varying degrees of mental illness or psychopathy, which may contribute to their homicidal behavior.[35]
For example, someone who is mentally ill may have psychotic breaks that cause them to believe they are another person or are compelled to murder by other entities.[36]
Psychopathic behavior that is consistent with traits common to some serial killers include sensation seeking, a lack of remorse or guilt, impulsivity, the need for control, and predatory behavior.[16] Unlike people with major mental disorders such as schizophrenia, psychopaths can seem normal and often quite charming, a state of adaptation that psychiatrist Hervey Cleckley called the "mask of sanity".[37]

So! Serial killing psychopaths can seem normal and quite often charming, and they include sensation seeking. Such, perhaps, as staying put at a murder site and bluffing at an inquest?

They were often abused—emotionally, physically, or sexually—by a family member.[7]

An unknown factor in Lechmere´s case.

Serial killers may be more likely to engage in fetishism, partialism or necrophilia, which are paraphilias that involve a strong tendency to experience the object of erotic interest almost as if it were a physical representation of the symbolized body. Individuals engage in paraphilias which are organized along a continuum; participating in varying levels of fantasy perhaps by focusing on body parts (partialism), symbolic objects which serve as physical extensions of the body (fetishism), or the anatomical physicality of the human body; specifically regarding its inner parts and sexual organs (one example being necrophilia).[38]

No further comments needed - we can see how the Ripper fits in. Whether Lechmere did is written in the stars.

A disproportionate number exhibit one, two, or all three of the Macdonald triad of predictors of future violent behavior:
Many are fascinated with fire setting.[7]
They are involved in sadistic activity; especially in children who have not reached sexual maturity, this activity may take the form of torturing animals.[7]
More than 60 percent, or simply a large proportion, wet their beds beyond the age of 12.[7][39]

Another unknown factor for Lechmere.

They were frequently bullied or socially isolated as children or adolescents.[7] For example, Henry Lee Lucas was ridiculed as a child and later cited the mass rejection by his peers as a cause for his hatred of everyone. Kenneth Bianchi was teased as a child because he urinated in his pants, suffered twitching, and as a teenager was ignored by his peers.[7]

Lechmere moved many times, and he lacked a father, both factors that could speak for isolation and ridicule. Could - we don´t know.

Some were involved in petty crimes, such as fraud, theft, vandalism, or similar offenses.[40]

SOME were involved in petty crime. Not all by a long stretch.

Often, they have trouble staying employed and tend to work in menial jobs. The FBI, however, states, "Serial murderers often seem normal; have families and/or a steady job."[16] Other sources state they often come from unstable families.[7]

So this is no deciding factor - there is material speaking for both sides.

Studies have suggested that serial killers generally have an average or low-average IQ, although they are often described, and perceived, as possessing IQs in the above-average range.[7][16][41] A sample of 202 IQs of serial killers had a median IQ of 89.[42]

Another unknown factor for Lechmere.

There are exceptions to these criteria, however. For example, Harold Shipman was a successful professional (a General Practitioner working for the NHS). He was considered a pillar of the local community; he even won a professional award for a children's asthma clinic and was interviewed by Granada Television's World in Action on ITV.[43] Dennis Nilsen was an ex-soldier turned civil servant and trade unionist who had no previous criminal record when arrested. Neither was known to have exhibited many of the tell-tale signs.[44] Vlado Taneski, a crime reporter, was a career journalist who was caught after a series of articles he wrote gave clues that he had murdered people.[45] Russell Williams was a successful and respected career Royal Canadian Air Force Colonel who was convicted of murdering two women, along with fetish burglaries and rapes.[46]

And there´s Russell Williams again! Together with a number of other "pillars of society".
The suggestion of Lechmere being the killer is not at odds with any of these "characteristics", it would seem. It is wildly at odds with statistics, since 99 per cent of all men who are married with kids and have a steady job are NOT serial killers. But that point is - at least to my mind - absolutely ridiculous to try and apply to the Lechmere case or any other case where a suspect is evaluated. If we were to give it any impact, we may just as well give up on trying to catch any serial killer at all.

[Fisherman]

Fish - I'm not trying to be a wise-arse, but who is Russel(l) Edwards? The only Russell Edwards I've ever heard of is a Ripperologist. 'Naming Jack the Ripper' (2014).

The only 'serialist' named Edwards that I have studied was Ed Edwards and he had a long illustrious criminal career (armed robbery, jail break, fraud, etc etc) before he was identified as a murderer. Which goes entirely against your point.

Truly the man was a psychopath, and it showed long before he was arrested for a string of murders. All the best.

Got that wrong - Russell Williams is the name. Thanks for pointing out the error.

You will be able to find numerous examples of people who are in line with my point and who go against it. If we are to conclude on basis of statistics, then Lechmere was not the killer, simple as that. It takes for us to allow for deviations from statistics before a case can be made. But that was always so - serial killers are statistical anomalies from beginning to end.

[Fisherman]

But Fish, haven't you insisted that Lechmere had a choice, and chose - for reasons that remain unclear - not to leave the scene but to stay put and bluff his way out of any trouble? Just like an innocent witness would have had the choice to pass on by or wait for someone's assistance.

Yet you claimed that Griffiths was 'adamant' that a serial killer in those circumstances would 'never' have run away. In that case, how could Griffiths have agreed with you that it was a matter of choice, if he was adamant that all serial killers - every man Jack of them - would have done one thing and not the other? That's not a choice by any normal definition, is it? It would be akin to saying that people with a fear of heights have the choice to go to Beachy Head and jump off, but would never choose to do it. Except that all we are talking about here is the choice between two actions - to stay or to go - neither of which would be 100% risk free for a psychopathic killer with a knife and blood on his hands.

So who is right on this point, you or Griffiths? Or have you possibly misunderstood or misrepresented his position?

Love,

Caz
X

There WAS a choice, and both me and Andy Griffiths were mathematically able to see that. The choice was between running and not running.

Griffiths said that he would never run, meaning that he would make the choice to stay.

Isn´t it all very simple?

You are wasting time out here. And space.

[rjpalmer]

Fish - I'm not trying to be a wise-arse, but who is Russel(l) Edwards? The only Russell Edwards I've ever heard of is a Ripperologist. 'Naming Jack the Ripper' (2014).

The only 'serialist' named Edwards that I have studied was Ed Edwards and he had a long illustrious criminal career (armed robbery, jail break, fraud, etc etc) before he was identified as a murderer. Which goes entirely against your point.

Truly the man was a psychopath, and it showed long before he was arrested for a string of murders. All the best.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, Fish, so it's a shame for your theory that Lechmere tied himself to the case - and just the one case, the murder of Nichols - by volunteering his services as a witness, like everyone else who was first at the scene of one of the Whitechapel murders.

For all you know, the police may have taken an interest in his [and Robert Paul's] movements and found he had an alibi covering the entire period from when Chapman was last seen to when she was found dead. What you need to do is to tie him, without his full co-operation, to at least one of the other cases, otherwise your efforts are doomed to be a lost cause.

Love,

Caz
X

The only shame around here is linked to the inability to think a step further.

And "doomed to be a lost cause"? Because you entertain that hope? Dream on!

[Fisherman]

An exemplary, and very loooooong work record, even by today's standards.

I think Russel Edwards, Gary Ridgway, John Armstrong and a good many more could compete with him. They had looooong and exemplary records too.

But don´t let that worry you - I´m sure you are correct in thinking that peope who seem to be good are always good. And that Santa Claus exists.

Lucky us!

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

You directed the above at Batman, but it uncannily reflects your own very recent posting behaviour aimed in my direction.

Remind me what it is about Lechmere's known behaviour that indicates to you a psychopathic nature, now you have to concede that his exemplary work record doesn't count and would tend to indicate otherwise. Merely pointing out that examples exist which buck the trend is completely meaningless. You need your suspect's other character traits to be even stronger indicators to make up for this one not helping your cause.

Love,

Caz
X

Werewolf teeth? Killing toddlers and drinking their blood? Raping old ladies at will in the streets?
Yes, that would help my cause.
As it stands, I must make do with the excellent cause suggested by the Nichols murder case, where my suspect can be put on the spot at the correct time, where we know he used an alternative name, where the clothes had been pulled down, where he disagrees with the police in a way that is tailormade to take him past the police, where we have a working trek that will take him close to the other Spitalfields murder sites, where we have ties to St Georges...

Only a blind bat could miss the potential impact of these things. Sadly, there is the odd blind bat out here. No names necessary.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman-- I must correct you. Ted Bundy portrayed himself as a pillar of society. He had 'form.' He forged ski-lift tickets as a kid, stole cars, shoplifted, and engaged in exactly the kind of activity that a psychopath would engage in. That criminologists have merely focused on Bundy as a 'serial murderer' is their bad. He was a criminal regardless. Peter Kurten spent half his life in jail...not for killing, but for breaking and entering and arson.

What crimes did Lechmere commit? Druitt? Barnett? Maybrick?

Hutchinson was a choir boy down at the local church as far as anyone here knows. Quite possibly the blameless plumber that some think he was.

Not one of these popular suspects can be shown to be a psychopath or have committed any offense, not even jaywalking. Kosminski's great crime against humanity was forgetting to muzzle his dog.

NONE of the examples I posted were pillars of society. The whole point I am making is that they may well have been regarded as such pillars of society if they had not been caught, and if we allow for the same kind of erosion of information and memory that adhers to Lechmere.

What crimes did Lechmere committ? 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. I am all for agreeing that we know of no criminal record for Lechmere, but totally against regarding that as proof that he never committed a crime.
I often quote Ressler, who said that a man in his late thirties, with a family, kids and a steady job is the archetypical serial killer. A pillar of society, in other words.

You feel that it is not a proven thing that he was a psychopath. Good! We agree. What I keep saying is not that he was a psychopath, but that the Ripper was - the character of his deeds display a total disregard for other human beings, and he seems to have regarded his victims as slabs of flesh for him to cut into.
And if the Ripper was a psychopath, then it applies that if - IF! - Lechmere was the killer, then he must have been a psychopath. The actions from the murder night and the inquest are certainly totally in line with the suggestion, for example the invention of the second PC, something he would have had minutes only to concoct on his feet - if he was the killer.

[rjpalmer]

Hi again, Fisherman. I am not familiar with all the cases you cite, and perhaps it is possible that we have a few 'serialists' who have managed to completely stay off the radar until capture, but most the cases I am familiar with suggest otherwise. But part of the problem I have with 'profilers' and those who yammer on endlessly about serial murder is that once they find out Citizen X is guilty of killing a string of victims--take your pick, Chikatilo, Gacy, Bundy, etc--the profilers seem to be only interested in those crimes and spend little or no time analyzing the other aspects of the murderer's life. But surely it is the other aspects of their personality that might offer us a clue as to the 'nature of the beast'? How are we suppose to recognize a 'serialist' when confronted with him, if the only clue is that he kills women?


In other words, perhaps a 'serialist' could live an otherwise blameless life, as you say, but if that were the case, then Druitt, Kosminski, Joe Barnett and any random dude living on Whitechapel Road are now back in the frame.

By contrast, it is much harder to image a 'psychopath' living a blameless life, because the entire nature of the psychopath is someone who lies, cheats, and manipulates others. Few suspects have left a trail of those particular behaviors.

All good wishes. I will give your points some more thought.

[caz]

I am saying that Griffiths thoughts are in line with my own thinking, and so it is him who agrees with me, it´s not the other way around.

But Fish, haven't you insisted that Lechmere had a choice, and chose - for reasons that remain unclear - not to leave the scene but to stay put and bluff his way out of any trouble? Just like an innocent witness would have had the choice to pass on by or wait for someone's assistance.

Yet you claimed that Griffiths was 'adamant' that a serial killer in those circumstances would 'never' have run away. In that case, how could Griffiths have agreed with you that it was a matter of choice, if he was adamant that all serial killers - every man Jack of them - would have done one thing and not the other? That's not a choice by any normal definition, is it? It would be akin to saying that people with a fear of heights have the choice to go to Beachy Head and jump off, but would never choose to do it. Except that all we are talking about here is the choice between two actions - to stay or to go - neither of which would be 100% risk free for a psychopathic killer with a knife and blood on his hands.

So who is right on this point, you or Griffiths? Or have you possibly misunderstood or misrepresented his position?

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

No; the way I look at it, the intelligentsia has found it much better to focus on local choir boys, random witnesses, and the odd Jewish lunatic who likes his daily bread out of the gutter.

What about a Jewish lunatic with a criminal record?