Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    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?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
        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".

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          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.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
              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?
              Last edited by Fisherman; 12-18-2018, 02:22 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                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.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • 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.

                  Comment


                  • 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.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                      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".
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 12-18-2018, 11:31 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        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?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                          Wasn't Chikatilo fired from his teaching job for touching up students?
                          From Wikipedia:

                          In May 1973, Chikatilo committed his first known sexual assault upon one of his pupils. In this incident, he swam towards a 15-year-old girl and groped her breasts and genitals, ejaculating as the girl struggled against his grasp. Months later, Chikatilo sexually assaulted another teenage girl whom he had locked in his classroom.[40] He was not disciplined for either of these incidents,[41] or for the occasions in which fellow teachers observed Chikatilo fondling himself in the presence of his students. One of Chikatilo's duties at this school was ensuring his students who boarded at the school were present in their dormitories in the evenings; on several occasions, he is known to have entered the girls' dormitory in the hope of seeing them undressed.[42]

                          In response to the increasing number of complaints lodged against him by his students, the director of the school summoned Chikatilo to a formal meeting and informed him he should resign voluntarily, or be fired. Chikatilo left his employment discreetly and found another job as a teacher at another school in Novoshakhtinsk in January 1974. He lost this job as a result of staff cutbacks in September 1978, before finding another teaching position in Shakhty.[43]

                          Chikatilo's career as a teacher ended in March 1981 following several complaints of child molestation against pupils of both sexes.[44] The same month, he began a job as a supply clerk for a factory based in Rostov which produced construction materials.[45] This job required Chikatilo to travel extensively across much of the Soviet Union to either physically purchase the raw materials required to fulfill production quotas, or to negotiate supply contracts.

                          Apparently, Chikatilo was not legally accused (which was the point I made), he was instead fired, and so it would seem there was no criminal record on his account. Regardless, you may appreciate that the point I was making was that there are serial killers who have no criminal rap sheets?

                          Also, if we look at him from a Lechmere perspective, how many people would remember Chikatilos messing with the students after 130 years if he had remained undisclosed as a killer? Compare, if you will, with Druitt, who was dismissed as a teacher too - do we know why, Harry? And in Druitt´s case, there WAS suspicion, leading to an intense scrutiny. What if that suspicion had not been there, how much would we know today about his dismissal?
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 12-19-2018, 12:44 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            Apparently, Chikatilo was not legally accused (which was the point I made), he was instead fired, and so it would seem there was no criminal record on his account. Regardless, you may appreciate that the point I was making was that there are serial killers who have no criminal rap sheets?
                            Not squeaky clean though, was he?

                            Lechmere had a stable employment of 20 years at Pickford's. No dismissals with which to cast a shadow over, am I right?

                            There might well be skeletons rattling around in Mr Lechmere's closet, but until you coax them out, you are reduced to an argument from ignorance.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                              Not squeaky clean though, was he?

                              Lechmere had a stable employment of 20 years at Pickford's. No dismissals with which to cast a shadow over, am I right?

                              There might well be skeletons rattling around in Mr Lechmere's closet, but until you coax them out, you are reduced to an argument from ignorance.
                              I doubt that anybody is "squeaky clean", Harry - most people will have some little unwanted waste on their CV:s. And I never suggested that any of the examples I post were "squeaky clean" - although people like Shipman and Williams did not have any rap sheets, it is not unreasonable to assume that they had perpetrated acts that are not in accordance with the overall idea of a good society.

                              The point I am trying to get across is another one - that people can SEEM to have a squeaky clean background without actually having that.

                              There may well be skeletons in the Lechmere closet, just as you say. It is essential to understand that. We are too far removed from the 1880:s to have any chance to find out about it, though, and asking me to coax out examples of it is therefore not a reasonable thing to do. Then again, it is not necessary to do so to make a case for Lechmere as the killer. Contrary to all other suspects, we can point to anomalies in his case that are directly linked to one of the Ripper deeds, and so we have enough to point a finger at him as it is.

                              The idea that I would need examples of other nefarious matters is much the same as the demand to prove that Lechmere was present at other murder site than the Nichols one before he can become a credible killer - it would actually have him convicted in two seconds flat if we had that evidence and that would be a good thing. But it is not necessary at all to provide him with the status of a prime suspect - the only one, going on practical evidence.

                              We know where his working trek took him, and so we may with some certainty assume that he at the very least passed close to other murder sites at the relevant hours. That´s not good enough for those who cannot stand the idea of the carman being the killer, but it is good enough for any rationally reasoning student of the case to point a very grave finger in his direction. For the rest, it seems to be used as a convenient way out of the obvious.
                              Last edited by Fisherman; 12-19-2018, 04:23 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                We know where his working trek took him, and so we may with some certainty assume that he at the very least passed close to other murder sites at the relevant hours.
                                We have no certainty in that assumption at all.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X