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

[Batman]

Yes, and you don´t know when he noticed Paul.

Only if we ignore the inquest where he tells us he heard Paul coming 40 yards away from the direction he came.

And the reasons I have no example are a few:
I haven´t looked for one.
The circumstances are what decides, and no two murders have the same circumstances.
Even if I found an example, you would go: Okay, but it is extremely rare. And so it would be an exercise in futility.

That's your opinion but professionally, criminology uses examples. It is not an exercise in futility. Examples are used to support claims.

The remaining half of your reply is just personal stuff and completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I stand by what I have said - Andy Griffiths is a lot better judge in my eyes than you. You are probably more competent and clever in your own eyes, but I am not all that impressed by it.

Are we done now? Or do you need me to correct you some more? Once again, it is a complete and utter waste of time to debate it any further. Once again, the sooner you realize that, the better.

[Batman]

I'm curious, why did you capitalise ROW?

A number of buildings in a straight line.

[MrBarnett]

A number of buildings in a straight line.

I wasn't asking for a definition of the word, I was asking why you capitalised it.

[Batman]

I wasn't asking for a definition of the word, I was asking why you capitalised it.

To highlight how long of a row it was.

https://wiki.casebook.org/images/e/ed/Bucks38.jpg

[MrBarnett]

To highlight how long of a row it was.

https://wiki.casebook.org/images/e/ed/Bucks38.jpg

The name Buck's Row wasn't given to the row of 20-odd small terraced houses which ran along the southeastern side of the street of that name in 1888.

[Harry D]

There is no use debating with suspect-based theorists, because all of their suspect's actions are viewed through a prism of guilt.

Lechmere...

* Alerted the first passer-by, who was yards behind him
* Accompanied said passer-by to find a policeman
* Attended the murder inquest of his own volition
* Volunteered his christian name, address and place of work. The only anomaly is the surname 'Cross', albeit his stepfather's surname. This may have been used by Charles in a professional capacity, thus it cannot be declared a completely bogus name.

These are not the actions of a guilty man. They are perfectly congruent with an innocent bystander. In suspect-based logic, however, innocent behaviour is indicative of hidden guilt. It's like Mr Marriott's rationale that the only victims whose organs were harvested by mortuary attendants were the victims that the Ripper carved open. You can't win against this fallacious reasoning.

What possible reason is there to suspect Lechmere, let alone accuse him as the Ripper? The man lived locally and his work route passed through the vicinity of one of the murders, if not two. There is a legit reason for Lechmere to find Nichols that morning in Buck's Row. We wouldn't even know of him if he hadn't been off to work that morning. Lechmere was not out of place. 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. Even though he'd been in the murder game since 1873, according to Fish. Tenuous links and speculations to the murder sites and familial ties are par for the course to (in MJ Trow's words) "build a framework of guilt and complicity".

[caz]

Yes, Lechmere is standing over the freshly killed Nichols when he hears footsteps approaching in the distance. Having done his dirty work in lowlight, not knowing if his clothes were bloodstained, and presumably still carrying the murder weapon, Lechmere decides to wait for this stranger (who might well be one of the patrolling bobbies) instead of making good his escape. You can perform all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify this move but common sense tells you it doesn't stack up.

And of course, every time this man, who voluntarily attends the inquest and identifies himself, goes out again with his knife looking for a fresh victim, he makes sure he has "ties" to whichever location they end up in, so he can explain for a second, third or fourth time what he's doing there.

Common sense, however, tells us he simply can't risk being seen on any subsequent occasion, wherever he kills. Next time, he'll have no option but to take his chances and scarper before Robert Paul's equivalent gets anywhere close, or else kill him too. After his close call in Buck's Row, would he not choose locations he had no ties with, so once he has scarpered he cannot be connected to the scene by his known movements or haunts?

The comfort zone and "ties" strategy might have continued to work well enough for someone like Lechmere, had he not come to public attention and identified himself as a witness after killing Nichols. Ironically, the fact that he did so, and of his own volition, before the series of murders had really got going, is the only reason he is available to be suspected today, but it's also why some of us can give no credence to the "ties" argument. If he has already tied himself to one crime scene, why in God's name would he give himself ties to all the others?

Love,

Caz
X

[Darryl Kenyon]

And of course, every time this man, who voluntarily attends the inquest and identifies himself, goes out again with his knife looking for a fresh victim, he makes sure he has "ties" to whichever location they end up in, so he can explain for a second, third or fourth time what he's doing there.

Common sense, however, tells us he simply can't risk being seen on any subsequent occasion, wherever he kills. Next time, he'll have no option but to take his chances and scarper before Robert Paul's equivalent gets anywhere close, or else kill him too. After his close call in Buck's Row, would he not choose locations he had no ties with, so once he has scarpered he cannot be connected to the scene by his known movements or haunts?

The comfort zone and "ties" strategy might have continued to work well enough for someone like Lechmere, had he not come to public attention and identified himself as a witness after killing Nichols. Ironically, the fact that he did so, and of his own volition, before the series of murders had really got going, is the only reason he is available to be suspected today, but it's also why some of us can give no credence to the "ties" argument. If he has already tied himself to one crime scene, why in God's name would he give himself ties to all the others?

Love,

Caz
X

Great post Caz, I would just like to add would he seriously kill just a week later using the same ruse after narrowly escaping the last time?

[caz]

There was no other Ripper. One suffices. And Lechmere said that in that silent night, he heard or saw absolutely noone up at the body as he stepped into Bucks Row, and asserted that if there HAD been anybody there, he would have noticed.
The fact of the matter is that we do not need to introduce any phantom killer.

So when you want him to be truthful, Fish, he's truthful - to a fault. Even when it would have done him much more good, and no possible harm, to fudge it:

"I thought I may have seen someone walking off in the distance/thought I heard faint footsteps retreating, but it was dark and I couldn't be sure. By then my attention was on what I took to be the tarpaulin, so I thought no more about it."

Not very good at shifting the blame, was he? A serial killer's number one rule. Lechmere would have had every reason to introduce a phantom killer, and the perfect opportunity. What a twit.

Love,

Caz
X

[MrBarnett]

There is no use debating with suspect-based theorists, because all of their suspect's actions are viewed through a prism of guilt.

Lechmere...

* Alerted the first passer-by, who was yards behind him
* Accompanied said passer-by to find a policeman
* Attended the murder inquest of his own volition
* Volunteered his christian name, address and place of work. The only anomaly is the surname 'Cross', albeit his stepfather's surname. This may have been used by Charles in a professional capacity, thus it cannot be declared a completely bogus name.

These are not the actions of a guilty man. They are perfectly congruent with an innocent bystander. In suspect-based logic, however, innocent behaviour is indicative of hidden guilt. It's like Mr Marriott's rationale that the only victims whose organs were harvested by mortuary attendants were the victims that the Ripper carved open. You can't win against this fallacious reasoning.

What possible reason is there to suspect Lechmere, let alone accuse him as the Ripper? The man lived locally and his work route passed through the vicinity of one of the murders, if not two. There is a legit reason for Lechmere to find Nichols that morning in Buck's Row. We wouldn't even know of him if he hadn't been off to work that morning. Lechmere was not out of place. 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. Even though he'd been in the murder game since 1873, according to Fish. Tenuous links and speculations to the murder sites and familial ties are par for the course to (in MJ Trow's words) "build a framework of guilt and complicity".

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.

[caz]

Great post Caz, I would just like to add would he seriously kill just a week later using the same ruse after narrowly escaping the last time?

Thanks Darryl.

I fear the fearless psychopath argument is being brushed up as I type, so Fish can try and give us the usual brush off.

I seem to recall someone arguing that Lechmere killed again that quickly, and in Hanbury Street, to get Robert Paul suspected. So after failing so miserably to introduce a phantom killer who narrowly escaped from Buck's Row, he ordered Serial Killing For Dummies but it evidently didn't arrive in time, so he shifted the blame onto the bloke who arrived after him, despite this being another physical impossibility according to Inspector Fish.

I'm off to inspect a steak or two - very rare with peppercorn sauce, chips and a smooth Italian red.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

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.

It didn't take long for his new circumstances to tip him over the edge, if that's what happened. He must have been a ticking bomb.

(Genuinely interesting stuff, by the way.)

[Batman]

Eldest daughter staying with grandparent = helping grandparent.

Obviously, Cross's sex life seems fine with 7-8 kids, for 1888 Whitechapel.

I don't see anything off about this, nor triggers.

In fact, 7-8 kids indicate he is likely not a lust murderer.

[MrBarnett]

Eldest daughter staying with grandparent = helping grandparent.

Obviously, Cross's sex life seems fine with 7-8 kids, for 1888 Whitechapel.

I don't see anything off about this, nor triggers.

In fact, 7-8 kids indicate he is likely not a lust murderer.

As I say, I don’t have access to my notes at the moment, but from memory there was a 5-year gap in child production between 1886 and 1891. What that might say about his sex life during that period, I couldn’t say.

Perhaps triggers was the wrong word. Would stressors be better? The trigger may have been the press coverage of the Tabram affair.

Another significant stressor might have been economic. This would have been the time in his life when he had the greatest number of dependents. He was only a lowly carman don’t forget. And yet, according to Charles Booth’s researcher, the family were ‘v. decent’. How did he manage that, I wonder? With the help of his mother, I would imagine. She had received an inheritance from her father who had been the butler of the Clive family (Clive of India’s relatives). So he may have been reliant on his mother’s largesse to maintain standards. And he may secretly have resented that.

[MrBarnett]

It didn't take long for his new circumstances to tip him over the edge, if that's what happened. He must have been a ticking bomb.

(Genuinely interesting stuff, by the way.)

It’s possible, but who knows, he might have been just a v. decent chap blessed with a supportive Ma, a loving wife and a happy brood of kiddies.