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

[Batman]

Yes, I remember it quite well. And I stand by it - I would want to see examples of it before I believe it.
I also stand by what I always say in matters like these - they are not impossible as such, they are only different shades of unlikely. When it comes to Chapman, I find it unlikely in the extreme.

The highlight is mine. No examples, before you believe it. Yet you are trying to sell us something you have no examples of. Namely a serial killer hanging around a victim waiting for a witness to appear so they can show it to them.

Staying put at a crime scene is something we already have examples of, provided by Gary and Abby, who both have witnessed such events. You didn´t think this enough, but came up with the idea that specifically serial killers would not do such a thing. There would be some line of demarcation between other crimes and serial killings in this respect.

The argument was never that people won't do this. We know they do it. Netflix The Staircase pretty much solidifies it. What we asked for is an example of a serial killer hanging around a victim waiting for a witness to appear so they can show it to them.

I told you that I would not spend any time looking for examples, and for a very simple reason - we already know that it is a rare thing to stay put on crime scenes, and finding one or two examples would not change that one bit. Plus it would mean a very demanding task to go through all the cases of serial killings existing.

Finding evidence to support a claim is what people do. However here you are clearly clashing again with your position of examples before you believe it.

We know that serial killers and other murderers have at times approached the police and feigned a will to help out. That in itself tells us that such a person is ready and willing to bluff.

Completely different. We know they do this. Even the Zodiac wrote letters taunting police. BTK reached out also. Netflix The Staircase. Again, we know all this stuff. It isn't the question we are asking.

To me, that is quite enough to tell me that there would be nothing truly remarkable about it happening at the murder scene, not least if the circumstances surrounding it offered up such a possibility as a way to escape responsibility.

They are extremely different things. Snooker tables and food stalls.

Turning a poison killer after having been an eviscerator is something quite different, and it will not be governed by a need to take swift decisions, led on by how the circumstances at a murder scene are altered.

Special pleading as predicted. What's good for Chapman isn't good enough for Lechmere.

So much for double standards, Batman. It´s back to the drawing board again... Come to think of it, why leave that drawing board in the first place?

On my drawing board are several words for you to read "You can't have your cake and not eat it".

[MrBarnett]

You could take the random circumstances from anyone's life and construct a suspect out of them. Ripperology thrives on it.

The trigger for my post was that an uninformed poster wrote this:

However, we are supposed to believe that for the umpteenth time he passed that route to work, he decided to pickup a prozzie and murder her in cold blood.


As for your statement above, I doubt you could make a suspect out of anyone, but I bet JTR's back story is an interesting one. Lechmere has an interesting story, whether he was the ripper or not.

[Harry D]

Harry, are you deliberately ignoring the fact that Lechmere had only recently moved away from STGITE, where he had lived close by his mother all his adult life, to Doveton Street when the murders started? (I don’t have my notes to hand, but his children moved to their new school in early/mid 1888 I think? Fish?)

His route to work was therefore a new one and unlike his previous route took him through the heart of Spitalfields.

Why did he move, I wonder? Even though he had a growing family (7/8 kids?) he moved to a smaller house, 4 rooms compared to 6, and possibly as a consequence had to leave one of his children behind with his mother. It doesn’t appear he was upwardly mobile. It may not have been a particularly welcome move.

It seems to me there are potential triggers in all this: moving away from the influence of his mother; a possible unwelcome downsizing of his home and the leaving behind of his eldest daughter; finding himself in a new environment on his route to work and experiencing feelings of anonymity; coming into contact with a greater concentration of homeless women and being solicited by them.

The ‘coincidence’ of the timing of his move and the start of the murders doesn’t hurt the Lechmere theory in the slightest.

You could take the random circumstances from anyone's life and construct a suspect out of them. Ripperology thrives on it.

[Fisherman]

Fish you are misrepresenting me. I know the killer struck twice in a week and twice on the same night. What i am saying is i very much doubt Lech would kill victim number 2 so quickly after victim 1 after he had been seen with the dead body and spoke to a policeman shortly after. If Jack was anyone else bar Lech he would have no such qualms, as i said no witnesses, nothing.

Frankly your comment - "If Lechmere had been under suspicion, he would take a risk regardless of when he committed the next murder", Is silly. Were was his risk after Mary then? He wasn't incarcerated or anything. And if you say he was perhaps suspected by someone after Mary's killing, well didn't you just say he would carry on taking risks. So again, why didn't he after Kelly? You also say, "These were deeds that did not leave the police in any doubt about a common originator, so no matter if he kille on September 8 or in February next year, if he was under suspicion for murder one, he would be revisited for number two. If he was not under suspicion, then there was never any problem." The point is he wouldn't know if he was under suspicion or not after Polly's murder, That is the whole point.

I think he killed after Kelly, Darryl. And I know your stance, and I am not misrepresenting you.

Your whole point is that he could not have known if he was under suspicion.

My whole point is that psychopaths always work from the assumption that they are too clever to ever get under suspicion, and even if they end up as suspects, they believe that they will be able to talk their way out of it.

The whole problem with the "He would have run" argument and the "He would never dare to do that" argument, is that you are not researching the Ripper - you are researching Darryl Kenyon, and concluding that you would NEVER...! No, Sir - way too risky!

These people are not like you and me. Sutcliffe was interviewed NINE times. That should have put him off, right? But did it? No. And why? Because he worked from the assumption that he would not get caught. Or he did not even care, as long as he was free to kill. Experience told him he could go on. If they speak to you nine times and if they can´t nail you, then why stop?
Ridgway was suspected and kept killing.
Gacy was suspected and kept killing.
Bundy got caught and escaped from prison. Did he go to South America and stay calm? Or did he go to Florida and kill a whole bunch of women, leaving his teeth marks on the buttock of one victim?
That is what these guys do. There is no tomorrow for them, there is only here and now when they kill.

Here´s a question for you, Darryl - would you merrily spend an hour or two in a locked room with Carl Panzram, if he was under suspicion of murder? On account of how you could feel safe in that case?

I know I wouldn´t.

[Fisherman]

The biggest issue I have here, is not really with the Lechmere presentation, even though it has some glaring issues, but the double-standards and special pleading being used here.

For example, a few weeks back, Fisherman battled tooth and nail against the idea that Chapman as a poisoner could have been Jack the Ripper. Fisherman, went hell for leather asking for examples of serial killers turned poisoners. When he got examples, he changed the goal post to mutilators who were also poisoners. When he got examples, he changed the goal post to started with mutilation and turned to poison in the end. Then he disputed how they were poisoned when H.H.Holmes seemed to be causing his difficulties.

His conclusion was that there were no examples, not enough examples or bad examples and therefore Chapman is the wrong candidate.

Remember that, Fisherman?

Here, on this thread, I asked for one example of a serial killer who hung around his victim waiting for a witness to show up so he could show it to them and Fisherman then proceeds to explain why examples are not needed.

I can basically take all of Fisherman's criticisms levelled at Chapman as a candidate and use them right back on himself.

So I started with examples, and he has none.

By his own standards with Chapman, he should be rejecting his own 'suspect'.

Yes, I remember it quite well. And I stand by it - I would want to see examples of it before I believe it.
I also stand by what I always say in matters like these - they are not impossible as such, they are only different shades of unlikely. When it comes to Chapman, I find it unlikely in the extreme.

Staying put at a crime scene is something we already have examples of, provided by Gary and Abby, who both have witnessed such events. You didn´t think this enough, but came up with the idea that specifically serial killers would not do such a thing. There would be some line of demarcation between other crimes and serial killings in this respect.

I told you that I would not spend any time looking for examples, and for a very simple reason - we already know that it is a rare thing to stay put on crime scenes, and finding one or two examples would not change that one bit. Plus it would mean a very demanding task to go through all the cases of serial killings existing.

We know that serial killers and other murderers have at times approached the police and feigned a will to help out. That in itself tells us that such a person is ready and willing to bluff. To me, that is quite enough to tell me that there would be nothing truly remarkable about it happening at the murder scene, not least if the circumstances surrounding it offered up such a possibility as a way to escape responsibility.

Turning a poison killer after having been an eviscerator is something quite different, and it will not be governed by a need to take swift decisions, led on by how the circumstances at a murder scene are altered.

So much for double standards, Batman. It´s back to the drawing board again... Come to think of it, why leave that drawing board in the first place?

[Darryl Kenyon]

What do you want me to say? "Couldn´t have been him, then"? I think the very fewest would deny that Nichols and Chapman were killed by the same man, and so somebody did it in an eight-day period.

If Lechmere had been under suspicion, he would take a risk regardless of when he committed the next murder. These were deeds that did not leave the police in any doubt about a common originator, so no matter if he kille on September 8 or in February next year, if he was under suspicion for murder one, he would be revisited for number two. If he was not under suspicion, then there was never any problem.

Serial killers, not least the opportunistic type, kill when they want to kill, not when they think the police has cooled off. If you add psychopathy to that, you will find that such a man could not care much less about risktaking.

If you find it an impossibility for this kind of killer to strike twice within a week on account of how he should be wary of the police high alert, then maybe you should consider that he struck twice in a DAY the next time.

Fish you are misrepresenting me. I know the killer struck twice in a week and twice on the same night. What i am saying is i very much doubt Lech would kill victim number 2 so quickly after victim 1 after he had been seen with the dead body and spoke to a policeman shortly after. If Jack was anyone else bar Lech he would have no such qualms, as i said no witnesses, nothing.

Frankly your comment - "If Lechmere had been under suspicion, he would take a risk regardless of when he committed the next murder", Is silly. Were was his risk after Mary then? He wasn't incarcerated or anything. And if you say he was perhaps suspected by someone after Mary's killing, well didn't you just say he would carry on taking risks. So again, why didn't he after Kelly? You also say, "These were deeds that did not leave the police in any doubt about a common originator, so no matter if he kille on September 8 or in February next year, if he was under suspicion for murder one, he would be revisited for number two. If he was not under suspicion, then there was never any problem." The point is he wouldn't know if he was under suspicion or not after Polly's murder, That is the whole point.

[Batman]

The biggest issue I have here, is not really with the Lechmere presentation, even though it has some glaring issues, but the double-standards and special pleading being used here.

For example, a few weeks back, Fisherman battled tooth and nail against the idea that Chapman as a poisoner could have been Jack the Ripper. Fisherman, went hell for leather asking for examples of serial killers turned poisoners. When he got examples, he changed the goal post to mutilators who were also poisoners. When he got examples, he changed the goal post to started with mutilation and turned to poison in the end. Then he disputed how they were poisoned when H.H.Holmes seemed to be causing his difficulties.

His conclusion was that there were no examples, not enough examples or bad examples and therefore Chapman is the wrong candidate.

Remember that, Fisherman?

Here, on this thread, I asked for one example of a serial killer who hung around his victim waiting for a witness to show up so he could show it to them and Fisherman then proceeds to explain why examples are not needed.

I can basically take all of Fisherman's criticisms levelled at Chapman as a candidate and use them right back on himself.

So I started with examples, and he has none.

By his own standards with Chapman, he should be rejecting his own 'suspect'.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
Very interesting list of achievements,one wonders why he doesn't for instance,come onto this or other sites and teach,He did say though,didn't he,that the case against Cross,as it stands,would not succeed in a guilty verdict at trial?If he gave reasons why,I missed it.

Many very distinguished and knowledgeable academics would do anything not to end up out here, Harry. One wonders why that would be...?
Griffiths did not say anything at all about whether a court case against Lechmere would stand up, as far as I can remember. It was Scobie who commented on that part.

One thing you are wrong though,is experience in investigating all types of crime.He would not have have had the legal power to do so.Let me just quote one,crimes under the Customs and Excise Act.He or you can put me right if I am wrong.

Maybe he is not a customs expert, that is entirely possible. Whether that is pertinent to our interests is another matter.

96 per cent success rate.Well being that 90 per cent of solved crime is by confession of the offender,that leaves 6 per cent success by other means.Ho w much of that 6 per cent is by intelligent and dogged police work,one can only guess,and then there is the 4 per cent failure.What happened there?Perhaps those went down to undependable subordinates.

Wow. I mean...wow. I was not aware that it nags you like this, Harry. You need to take some time off, get a rest. The man had a 96 per cent clearing rate and that is a number most murder squads do not reach. Some are very far off that mark.
Personally, I think it is something that we should salute him for, but if you think that it is something that allows us to ridicule him, then go right ahead. It´s your choice and nobody elses.

Not exactly a Sherlock Holmes is he?

Sherlock Holmes never existed, to be frank - he was something Arthur Conan Doyle created as a larger than life fantasy figure. Griffiths will have spent his career under somewhat different circumstances; less clubs for redhaired people, more sordid crime, less gigantic dogs raised by murderous enthomologists, more guns, bats and knives if you take my meaning. It´s fiction versus the real world.

In that real world, Andy Griffiths has owned himself a reputation as a man well versed in crime and murder. And once we want somebody knowledgeable to comment on the Whitechapel murders, I would personally say that we cannot find many people better suited to do it than Andy Griffiths.

I´m sure he´s got shortcomings too, just like you and I have. I, for example, have a lacking patience with people at times, and you have an unsavoury talent for smearing and belittling very qualified professionals of the criminal field.

Oh, and did I tell you that I won´t be part of this kind of discussion fortwith?

[Fisherman]

Ridiculous. There's every reason to entertain doubts.

Gareth, whether it is ridiculous or not is something we must decide for ourselves. I am not saying that anybody must agree with me. If you read I bit more carefully, you will see that I am saying that I myself do not entertain any serious doubts. If you wish to doubt it, then go ahead and do so, but please allow me to hold whatever opinion I find the most likely one.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Very interesting list of achievements,one wonders why he doesn't for instance,come onto this or other sites and teach,He did say though,didn't he,that the case against Cross,as it stands,would not succeed in a guilty verdict at trial?If he gave reasons why,I missed it.

One thing you are wrong though,is experience in investigating all types of crime.He would not have have had the legal power to do so.Let me just quote one,crimes under the Customs and Excise Act.He or you can put me right if I am wrong.

96 per cent success rate.Well being that 90 per cent of solved crime is by confession of the offender,that leaves 6 per cent success by other means.Ho w much of that 6 per cent is by intelligent and dogged police work,one can only guess,and then there is the 4 per cent failure.What happened there?Perhaps those went down to undependable subordinates.

Not exactly a Sherlock Holmes is he?

[Sam Flynn]

and I entertain no serious doubt that the killer of the Ripper series was the same man who was responsible for the Torso murders.

Ridiculous. There's every reason to entertain doubts.

[Fisherman]

It should also be added here that not only do I think that the killer struck twice within a week when he killed Nichols and Chapman, I actually think he struck three times within that approximate period.
For it was on September 11 that a recently amputated arm was found floating in the Thames, and that arm belonged to the torso found later in the cellar vaults of the New Scotland Yard. There is every chance that this woman died on or about the same day as Annie Chapman died, and I entertain no serious doubt that the killer of the Ripper series was the same man who was responsible for the Torso murders.

So it´s not two and a brazen killer, it´s three and an even worse one.

[Fisherman]

Also, Lech had used his ace up the sleeve with Polly. Would he so readily commit another murder so soon after, without being dealt another hand first? Enquires to Polly's murder were still ongoing, for all he knows his name might have still been in the frame. Perhaps even being followed by an undercover Detective. If he was the killer [and don't forget Lech wasn't on the edge of insanity but a cool calculating murderer, or so his supporters say], I would hazard to guess he would have a cooling off period whilst rethinking how to strike next.

What do you want me to say? "Couldn´t have been him, then"? I think the very fewest would deny that Nichols and Chapman were killed by the same man, and so somebody did it in an eight-day period.

If Lechmere had been under suspicion, he would take a risk regardless of when he committed the next murder. These were deeds that did not leave the police in any doubt about a common originator, so no matter if he kille on September 8 or in February next year, if he was under suspicion for murder one, he would be revisited for number two. If he was not under suspicion, then there was never any problem.

Serial killers, not least the opportunistic type, kill when they want to kill, not when they think the police has cooled off. If you add psychopathy to that, you will find that such a man could not care much less about risktaking.

If you find it an impossibility for this kind of killer to strike twice within a week on account of how he should be wary of the police high alert, then maybe you should consider that he struck twice in a DAY the next time.

[Fisherman]

Andy Griffiths again.What was his most memorable piece of detective work?

How about a 96 per cent clearing rate as a murder squad leader, Harry? Or choose from this:

"Thirty-five years experience in law enforcement, specialising in investigation, interviewing and intelligence with wide experience of investigating all types of crime. Recognised as international subject matter expert in investigative interviewing and criminal investigation. Well versed in managing risk and achieving outcomes as evidenced by command of large major crime, intelligence and counter-terrorism units; leading both homicide investigations and serious crime operations. As a senior manager experienced in managing high numbers of staff, significant budgets and business change programmes.

Also extensive experience of criminal investigation training design, delivery and policy implementation. This includes development and delivery of specialist interview training, and a significant contribution to development of strategic interview policy both in the UK and abroad, including representing British policing in the USA, Australia, France, Canada and South Korea, and latterly independent work with police forces and government agencies in Armenia, Australia, China, Iceland, Ireland and the USA.

Awarded his doctorate by the University of Portsmouth for research into the real life efficacy of Investigative interviewing by British police officers in major crime cases, and is widely published on investigative interviewing through both books and peer reviewed academic papers. Spent time as a Visiting Professor at John Jay College, New York, and is now an Affiliated Scholar at New York University and a Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Portsmouth.

Specialties: Investigative Interviewing, Crime investigation, Management of crime investigation, Training.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Also, Lech had used his ace up the sleeve with Polly. Would he so readily commit another murder so soon after, without being dealt another hand first? Enquires to Polly's murder were still ongoing, for all he knows his name might have still been in the frame. Perhaps even being followed by an undercover Detective. If he was the killer [and don't forget Lech wasn't on the edge of insanity but a cool calculating murderer, or so his supporters say], I would hazard to guess he would have a cooling off period whilst rethinking how to strike next.