Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Rubyretro]

no trouble at home; no cheating or fighting at school; no problems at work; no dishonesty over money and so on; no 'oddball' tendencies that become clear when he is finally under suspicion, as Cross is now.

Love,

Caz
X

[/QUOTE]

-Trouble at home ?
-Fighting at school ?
-Problems at work ?
-" and so on.." ?

Surely, you're talking about a typical feisty teenage boy ?

The use of the word 'oddball' enrages me somewhat:

I remember an argument with my mother over the arrest of the Landlord in the Jo Yeates case (a case that I've mentioned before because it was a case that I was very interested in, as it unfolded).

I was outraged by the treatment, meeted out by the Press, viz ā viz the Landlord, deemed 'guilty' on no evidence at all.

My mother was convinced that he was guilty "because he is an oddball"

Make no mistake -You, Me, Fish, Moonbegger, Lechmere, Curious etc etc are all 'oddballs', because we spend a lot of time arguing minute points about a 19th century mutilating Serial killer on an internet forum...it's neither here nor there...
we'd probably be hung by the Press for it though, if ever we found ourselves near a murder scene..

The real killer in the Yeates case, meanwhile, exhibited totally 'normal'
behaviour and was perfectly intergrated into Society.

Of course his inner fantasies were totally 'odd', but he never showed them to the outside world -it was only due to computer forensics that we could know that he was turned on by blond women being strangled and bundled into car boots..

In 1888 Vincent Tabak's sick pulsions would never -could never- be discerned and he would surely have killed again. People like you would have been proclaiming his innocence high and low (he was checked out ! He had a girlfriend, he had a regular job)..although logically he was the man closest to the body in the time frame;

Meanwhile many people would have fitted up the Landlord 'because he was a
suspect at the time' or 'because he was a oddball'.

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"The coroner in this case was Wynne Baxter. There was recently a very fine article in one of the publications that discussed Baxter and how in his inquests he went far beyond the scope of establishing the cause of death."

... but it still stands that if the inquest had not secured Lechmere for the witness stand when Monday morning broke, then they had the date fixed anyway. Ergo, they were ready to go ahead without the carmen.

Which, of course, goes to prove that they did not invest much faith in them having played any instrumental role at all. Which, of course, further reinforces what has been said for very long now: they did not see much of a need to check any of them out. Which, of course, is exactly in line with the result - they never found out "Crossī" correct name, and Swanson wrote in October that the body was found by TWO carmen.

Thatīs as straight a line as you are going to find in this business.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

If he appeared at the inquest in his work clothes because he was on his way to work when he was detoured to the inquest, that part of your argument, and one of the cornerstones, is totally destroyed.

And perhaps it was not a dragnet at all, but the patrolling PCs just keeping their eyes out after the briefing when they went on duty -- I suppose policemen check in and are updated on what's going on before their shifts start. All I know about that is TV and recognize that can be wrong. The story was read and talked about,then Cross/Lechmere encountered a PC on his way to work. See how simple and easy this is

Cross/Lechmere should have been checked out and you and Fisherman have done that -- but . . .

Everything I see points to him being a steady, hardworking good guy.

curious

Hello Curious ,

Great post , makes perfect sense .

moonbegger .

[CitizenX]

Ah, Fisherman,
The coroner in this case was Wynne Baxter. There was recently a very fine article in one of the publications that discussed Baxter and how in his inquests he went far beyond the scope of establishing the cause of death.

I wish I could recall the writer of the piece. I believe it was Cris Malone but could be wrong, and if I am I apologize to the writer.

oops, just looked at the clock and I'm very late!

It would be interesting to read that article.

It was thought quite strange at the time that Mary Kellys body was moved to Shoreditch and outside of Baxters jurisdiction, the resulting inquest being supervised by a police surgeon (Dr MacDonald). Maybe the powers that be also felt he tended to go beyond his scope...

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"But all 100 years later and nothing like the Ripper, as far as murderers go."

Yes. And ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"Just the one then - apart from Cross. Lovely. "

What did you expect? Hundreds? Youīre the one constantly stepping in it here, Caz. You claim "that would not happen", I tell you that it would - and has - and you say "not enough".

Sorry, but it IS enough. And you need to learn from that.

"Where did I say anything about the killer quitting in November, or quitting after Kelly?"

Where did I say that you did? Whooops, Caz ...!
Then again, you said that Lechmere "must have been able to quit killing and resume a 'normal' family life if he was the ripper." Which is why I pointed out that he perhaps did NOT resume a normal family life even if he was the Ripper. Me oh my, how you get things wrong. And how hard you have to admit that!

" it's pretty obvious that if the ripper was alive and living in England long after February 1891 there has to be a reason why killing didn't float his boat any more."

No, Caz, there need not be any such reason at all. He may have gone on to kill, but in a different way. Likewise, if he DID stop, there may be many reasons for that, but how am I to tell you what they would have been. Itīs not as if we have his whole life on record, is it?
Poster Lechmere has suggested that the death of his child could perhaps have had an impact, and I think we must realize that this could have been a major turning point in his life. It is a very emotional thing, and can dig deep holes in peopleīs souls.
... but donīt tell me that I must find another Victorian carman serial killer who quit killing after having one of his kids die on him, please!
So, Caz, you were dead wrong this time too. You opt for one scenario and forget the many others that are potentially there. I thought you were accusing ME of this?

"Then you'll be leaving no stone unturned to confirm your idea of reality, with some real evidence that Cross was, during a very brief period of his life (3 years max, during his late thirties?) into prostitute murder and mutilation. Glad to hear it."

I will leave no stone unturned to confirm OR contradict it. I look at both sides, and so far, the guilty side has the much better players on itīs team. So you were half right, this time. And half wrong.

"No to all those questions, but most will have led lives that can be shown to have been dysfunctional in SOME way or another. You KNOW this, and you also know it would help your case enormously to find something - anything - dysfunctional about Cross in the records."

Correct, Caz - MOST serialists will have something like this on record. But how on earth would we be able to find out if Lechmere was a bedwetter? 124 years have passed. Likewise, he could have harassed people - but how are we to know. He could have been abusive to his wife. How many uncharged wife-abusers can we nail, 124 years after their misconduct?

Anyhow, there is a very fair number of serial killers who did NOT have a record when going down, and there are things that point to Lechmere being a man who was very anxious to be in control. He never missed fiiling out a voting list, etcetera. And that sounds a bit like Rader, who was extremely controlfreakish. Such people very often abide by the law extremely strictly until they snap. John Ausonius, heard of him? If not, read up - he is a VERY good example.
In conclusion, I donīt expect that we would find anything on Lechmere, even if we lived back in 1888. I think we would find a man who seemed to be a very correct man, striving hard to fill his role in society and complaining very much about the whores, pimps and villains that did not share this conviction - but thatīs just me.

"Even family man and Mr. Bedside Manner himself, GP Harold Shipman had been in trouble in his younger years over his addiction to prescription drugs. I'd say it's highly unusual to find a serial killer with no Achilles' heel in his past: no trouble at home; no cheating or fighting at school; no problems at work; no dishonesty over money and so on;"

Itīs hard to find ANYONE without some sort of track record, Caz. I beat up a guy badly when I was twenty; broke his nose etcetera. If I had proceeded to become a serial killer, Iīm sure somebody would have coupled the two things.
But I didnīt become a killer - but for one of bad theories. I did, however, gain the insight that having some sort of record does not mean that you are a potential killer. That goes for an addiction to prescription drugs too - that is not something that dictates that you will kill in the future. 99,9 of the drug addicts donīt do that.
So, guess what, Caz? Exactly, wrong again ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

By the bye, Jon: Ridgway killed some of his victims outdoors though most were dispatched at his place. Rader killed where he found his victims and the Monster of Florence killed out in the open. But none of them wore sacking aprons. Bugger!

But all 100 years later and nothing like the Ripper, as far as murderers go.

[caz]

Right, Caz, have a look at Ridgway, the Green River Killer, one of the most prolific serial killers of all time. Criminal record? No. Known addictions? No. Had painted cars at the same firm for THIRTY years. That is a very steady job, and it blows THAT particular "argument" of yours to kingdom come.

Just the one then - apart from Cross. Lovely.

Besides, who says that Lechmere did NOT kill beyond Kelly? I think that MacKenzie is a very good bid and the Pinchin Street Torso, found some thirty yards from his motherīs house, must be regarded as a very good bid too if he was the killer. Thing is, why say that he stopped in November 1888 when we donīt know anything about this?

Where did I say anything about the killer quitting in November, or quitting after Kelly? Nope, I don't think I did. If nothing else, this shows your gift for reading between the lines and coming up with pure invention. I always keep a very open mind about who was his last victim, but it's pretty obvious that if the ripper was alive and living in England long after February 1891 there has to be a reason why killing didn't float his boat any more. Have you any evidence to suggest such a reason in Cross's case? Leg amputation perhaps?

...Iīm afraid Iīll choose the reality ten times out of ten.

Then you'll be leaving no stone unturned to confirm your idea of reality, with some real evidence that Cross was, during a very brief period of his life (3 years max, during his late thirties?) into prostitute murder and mutilation. Glad to hear it.

Have you decided that all serial killers are transients, unfit to hold down a job? Wrong. Have you gotten it into your head that they are not able to sustain family relations? Dead wrong too. Do you think that serial killers all have criminal records ...? Oh my ...!

No to all those questions, but most will have led lives that can be shown to have been dysfunctional in SOME way or another. You KNOW this, and you also know it would help your case enormously to find something - anything - dysfunctional about Cross in the records. Why else did we have to read all that speculation about his probable resentment and low self-esteem at being low down the Lechmere ladder, for example? Why bother looking for such signs, or pulling them out of thin air, if you really don't think they make a blind bit of difference to your case?

Even family man and Mr. Bedside Manner himself, GP Harold Shipman had been in trouble in his younger years over his addiction to prescription drugs. I'd say it's highly unusual to find a serial killer with no Achilles' heel in his past: no trouble at home; no cheating or fighting at school; no problems at work; no dishonesty over money and so on; no 'oddball' tendencies that become clear when he is finally under suspicion, as Cross is now.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

By the bye, Jon: Ridgway killed some of his victims outdoors though most were dispatched at his place. Rader killed where he found his victims and the Monster of Florence killed out in the open.

But none of them wore sacking aprons. Bugger!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I forgot about that, Jon. Must he have a sacking apron too...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

Surely, if we insist on serial killer comparisons we need a prostitute mutilator (preferably Victorian) who does the deed there and then (not take them home to kill them and dump the body later)

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"Everything I see points to him being a steady, hardworking good guy."

Caz:

"Me too, curious."

Could that be because everything you see is everything you look at?

"No known criminal record, no known addictions, held down the same job for over two decades"

Right, Caz, have a look at Ridgway, the Green River Killer, one of the most prolific serial killers of all time. Criminal record? No. Known addictions? No. Had painted cars at the same firm for THIRTY years. That is a very steady job, and it blows THAT particular "argument" of yours to kingdom come.

Surely HE could not be guilty of anything?

"and must have been able to quit killing and resume a 'normal' family life if he was the ripper."

Ridgways spree was concentrated to the early 80:s, when dozens of women were killed. After that, he killed once in 1990 and once in 1998. Two slayings in fifteen years or so, that is.

The monster of Florence - same thing. Dennis Rader - quit completely.

Besides, who says that Lechmere did NOT kill beyond Kelly? I think that MacKenzie is a very good bid and the Pinchin Street Torso, found some thirty yards from his motherīs house, must be regarded as a very good bid too if he was the killer. Thing is, why say that he stopped in November 1888 when we donīt know anything about this?

"Nothing seems to fit"

Fit with WHAT? Your preconceived notions of what a serial killer will or will not do? Or with Ridgway, with the monster of Florence, with Rader? Realistically, if I must choose between your map and the reality, then - much as I recognize your insights and knowledge - Iīm afraid Iīll choose the reality ten times out of ten.

"no doubt we will now get a long list of known serial killers that fit each of these criteria. Will we get one that fits them all, I wonder?"

Yes, you did - Ridgway is a carbon copy on the points you asked for, but for the two slayings in 90 and 98. In the meantime, he "resumed his ordinary family life."

But I expect you will ask for somebody who was 38 years, lived in the East End in the late 19:th century, was married (Ridgway was ...) and worked in the delivery business. If so, let me tell you that if these criteria are what must be met to create a serial killer, then letīs rejoice in the knowledge that the world has NEVER seen a serial killer - for they are ALL individually different in some regard/s. However hard that particular pill is to swallow.

Have you decided that all serial killers are transients, unfit to hold down a job? Wrong. Have you gotten it into your head that they are not able to sustain family relations? Dead wrong too. Do you think that serial killers all have criminal records ...? Oh my ...!

Back to the drawing board, Caz. Criticize, by all means - but do it rationally.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Hi Curious

If he appeared at the inquest in his work clothes because he was on his way to work when he was detoured to the inquest

Or perhaps he'd got up, dressed, and was ready to leave for work when the police turned up on his doorstep?

There are several possibilities - but personally I think the idea that he was trying to fool his wife by pretending to go to work has been pretty much put to bed.

[caz]

Everything I see points to him being a steady, hardworking good guy.

curious

Me too, curious.

No known criminal record, no known addictions, held down the same job for over two decades - and must have been able to quit killing and resume a 'normal' family life if he was the ripper.

Nothing seems to fit, but no doubt we will now get a long list of known serial killers that fit each of these criteria. Will we get one that fits them all, I wonder? Apart from Cross himself?

Love,

Caz
X

[curious]

On the proposition that Lechmere was hauled in on his way to job on the Monday, Curious: Iīve been giving it some more thought, and I really donīt think it works.

To begin with, the inquest had the purpose to establish the cause of death. And that could be taken care of without the participation of Lechmere.

All the best,
Fisherman

Ah, Fisherman,
The coroner in this case was Wynne Baxter. There was recently a very fine article in one of the publications that discussed Baxter and how in his inquests he went far beyond the scope of establishing the cause of death.

I wish I could recall the writer of the piece. I believe it was Cris Malone but could be wrong, and if I am I apologize to the writer.

oops, just looked at the clock and I'm very late!