Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Framing Charles

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

  • Framing Charles

    There are numerous things surrounding Charles Lechmere that point to him as being the Whitechapel killer. I have many times said that they cannot possibly all be coincidental and therefore, none of them are likely to be. They are probably instead all pointers to his guilt, according to me.

    But we must realize that Charles being the killer or a stupendous amount of coincidences wrongfully pointing in his direction are not the only alternatives. There is also a third option - that somebody wanted to frame Charles Lechmere for the murders. To check this option out is - at least according to me - a very interesting exercise. So let┤s do just that now!

    Introducing the evil Mr X, who has his mind set on getting Charles Lechmere convicted of murder and executed. Mr X maps Charles life and sets about his business.

    He begins by killing Martha Tabram in George Yard buildings, righ beside one of the two logical routes for Charles Lechmere to work.

    That does not work - many people may have been around at the relevant hours, and so Mr X has to do better. He then comes up with the idea to place Charles Lechmere at an actual murder spot. He decides on Bucks Row, where he knows that Charles passes, and somehow manages to produce a freshly killed woman right in Lechmere┤s path, still bleeding for many a minute and all.
    However, when Lechmere together with the newcomer Paul contacts a PC, the PC annoyingly sends them on their merry way. More frustration!

    Then, as chance will have it, Robert Paul is interviewed by Lloyds Weekly, and the stand-up citizen Charles Lechmere comes forward. Mr X rubs his hands in joy - surely, now the police will send him down?

    But no! They inexplicably accept what Lechmere tells them, and let him loose! Disaster!!

    Mr X returns to the drawing board. He realizes that the police must be aware of Charles Lechmere┤s road to work by now, and so Mr X decides to return to killing along that road. On the 8th of September, he kills Chapman.
    And what does the police do? They go looking for Robert Paul!

    Okay, apparently the police will need more Lechmere-specific material, Mr X reasons. He decides to kill the next victim righ next to where Lechmere┤s mother and daughter live, and he comes up with the idea to also kill somebody in close proximity to Lechmere┤s working place on the same night. And Stride and Eddowes die.
    The frustrated Mr X has come up with a further idea by now - not only will he kill women close to spots linked to Charles Lechmere, he will also place a physical clue between one of the victims and Lechmere┤s Doveton Street home. That should do it! And so, he places half of Eddowes┤ bloody apron in Goulston Street and goes home and waits for the police to arrest Lechmere.
    What happens? Nothing!

    Back to the drawing board. Back to the working route murders, but let┤s make it truly horrific this time! On the 9th of November, he kills Mary Kelly and turns her room into a slaughterhouse.

    Nope. The police miss out. Again.

    Mr X now despairs. Nothing he does seems to work. The watertight plan has failed. For ten months, he ponders how to go get Lechmere nicked by the police, and then he realizes that there is another killer at large that may help him - the torso killer. Mr X now concocts a plan to make it seem as if Lechmere may be responsible of the torso murders too, and he kills a woman and places her in a railway arch in the very street the Lechmere┤s always returned to - Pinchin Street. And he once again decides to put a bloody apron between the murder site and 22 Doveton Street. This time over, he gets a map out and draws a line from the murder site all the way up to Doveton Street, and he picks a spot that is placed exactly on that line, St Philip┤s Church up at the hospital area. Not a litte to the left of the line, not a lttle to the right of it - straight on it!

    Of course, the police miss out this time too, and Mr X falls into a deep depression, ending his own life by drowning himself in the Thames. And although that fact should have had him suspected of being the killer himself, he is very unceremoniously pulled out of the water by a lighterman who reports the find to the police. They decide on a verdict of suicide caused by an unsound mind, and Mr X drifts out of history unnoticed.

    It is a very elaborate list of measures Mr X takes to frame Charles Lechmere, is it not? I think everybody out here would say that the scenario is completely and utterly unlikely.

    If so, then how is it in any way likely that the matters described were instead all flukes and coincidences ...? Where do we draw the line for such things? Or don┤t we draw a line at all?
    Last edited by Fisherman; 03-12-2021, 10:07 AM.

  • #2
    No bites yet Fish?
    "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
    - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

    Comment


    • #3
      Whoa I finally got into one of these threads before it turns into 40 pages of personal attacks.

      I don't think Cross is the Ripper, but the fact that he can be placed at the scene of a Ripper crime and in Whitechapel during the time of the murders makes him stronger than most other named suspects. You could say that this is a tallest midget contest, and you'd be right, but it's something.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post
        Whoa I finally got into one of these threads before it turns into 40 pages of personal attacks.

        I don't think Cross is the Ripper, but the fact that he can be placed at the scene of a Ripper crime and in Whitechapel during the time of the murders makes him stronger than most other named suspects. You could say that this is a tallest midget contest, and you'd be right, but it's something.
        Quick question, Damaso: Have you read the book?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

          Have you read the book?
          Yes. I will start by saying I really enjoyed it, thank you.

          In the book one of your key arguments is that Cross was over the body in Bucks Row before Robert Paul arrives. It is generally agreed that the road is dark, therefore Paul wouldn't of seen Cross until he was quite a way down the street, yet you argue, Cross would of heard him coming much earlier? Why would Cross therefore wait at the side of Nichols body after he had just murdered her? I just don't follow that logic, that he would do it for kicks and subsequently go to the inquest for kicks, when really he wouldn't of gone at all if he hadn't been named by Paul to begin with in the inquest?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by AlanG View Post

            Yes. I will start by saying I really enjoyed it, thank you.

            In the book one of your key arguments is that Cross was over the body in Bucks Row before Robert Paul arrives. It is generally agreed that the road is dark, therefore Paul wouldn't of seen Cross until he was quite a way down the street, yet you argue, Cross would of heard him coming much earlier? Why would Cross therefore wait at the side of Nichols body after he had just murdered her? I just don't follow that logic, that he would do it for kicks and subsequently go to the inquest for kicks, when really he wouldn't of gone at all if he hadn't been named by Paul to begin with in the inquest?
            So what are you saying, Alan? That the evidence that points to Lechmere goes away because he would never have stayed in Bucks Row as he heard Paul approaching...?

            I am not saying that he stayed by the body for the kick it gave him, by the way. I am saying that it may hav e given him a kick to stay by the body, but the primary reason that he did so was probably that he did not want any commotion. If he had run, then it is very likely that Paul would have heard his steps, and then, as Paul arrived to find a murdered woman, the chances were that he would raise the alarm and the hunt would be on. How was Lechmere to know that he would not run into the arms of an approaching PC, alerted by Pauls alarm, in such a case?

            If Lechmere did what I am suggesting that he did, then he secured a scenario where there was no commotion and where he managed to slip away from the murder site. And much as you and me would perhaps have run, we should not make the mistake to think that a psychopathic killer would have reacted in the same manner. A psychopath is much better suited to think on his feet and not panic.

            As I have pointed out before, Andy Griffiths had no doubt when he said that Lechmere would never have run in the situation that arose. He would have known a thing or two abvout how these characters work. One example I have mentioned is when Jeffrey Dahmer calmly walked out into the street outside his home when an Asian boy had managed to flee from his apartment and seek out two police officers. Dahmer walked up to the policemen, ensured them that the boy was in his care, and took him along back to the apartment - whre he killed him. The by could not speak English and so he was not able to inform the policemen what was afoot.

            If I was to suggest such a thing, most out here woukd say "Nah, of course the killer would never do such a thing, he would have run." To recognize what a psychopath is able to do and how it differs fro rhat we think people are able to do is absolutely vital in this context!

            I am glad you enjoyed the book - thank you!

            Comment


            • #7
              ...still waiting for my complimentary copy.

              Comment


              • #8
                I too have just finished the book and I really enjoyed it.

                It's well written, well structured and makes a very persuasive case.

                I'm busy with other reading for a course I am doing, so I've only been able to read a little bit at a time.

                When I'm less busy, I will go back, re-read it and give it the attention it deserves.

                Am I convinced that Lechmere is the Ripper?

                No, but I really don't know what it would take to convince me these days!!

                I will say that in terms of my Ripper Suspect Fantasy Football Team, Lechmere is off the bench and getting a game, so good work Fish!!!

                For what it's worth, I've never had a problem with Lech remaining at the scene to engage Paul, rather than running away.

                In fact after reading many debates on this point, and giving the topic some thought, I realised that I would likely do the exact same thing in his shoes!

                I'm a much better thinker / talker than I am a runner or a fighter so yeah, I'd front it out and play to my strengths.

                On that basis it has always struck me as a perfectly logical response, and I have never understood why people found it so implausible!

                I'm definitely not a psychopath though!








                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  Introducing the evil Mr X, who has his mind set on getting Charles Lechmere convicted of murder and executed. Mr X maps Charles life and sets about his business.

                  He begins by killing Martha Tabram in George Yard buildings, righ beside one of the two logical routes for Charles Lechmere to work.
                  Mr X is apparently a many of very tiny brain. There are hundreds of people who live in the area or pass near it. Nothing at the murder scene points to any one of them, let alone Charles Cross, so there is no chance whatsoever of Cross being arrested.

                  Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  That does not work - many people may have been around at the relevant hours, and so Mr X has to do better. He then comes up with the idea to place Charles Lechmere at an actual murder spot. He decides on Bucks Row, where he knows that Charles passes, and somehow manages to produce a freshly killed woman right in Lechmere┤s path, still bleeding for many a minute and all.However, when Lechmere together with the newcomer Paul contacts a PC, the PC annoyingly sends them on their merry way. More frustration!

                  Then, as chance will have it, Robert Paul is interviewed by Lloyds Weekly, and the stand-up citizen Charles Lechmere comes forward. Mr X rubs his hands in joy - surely, now the police will send him down?

                  But no! They inexplicably accept what Lechmere tells them, and let him loose! Disaster!!
                  This is risky, but significantly less stupid of Mr. X. It would at least put Charles Cross on the same level of suspect as Alfred Crow and John Reeves are on the Tabram murder. Unfortunately, Cross is not the methodical clockwork man of bad mystery novels - he is late for work. Had he been even a minute later and Robert Paul would have been the first to find Eddowes' body. Cross and Paul, like responsible citizens, report the body to the nearest police officer. Constable Mizen blunders in not getting the name of either man. The only way Cross or Paul will be tied to the murder is if they come forward as witnesses. Acting like responsible citizens, both men come forward, which ties them to the case, but puts them well towards the bottom of any police suspect list.

                  Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  Mr X returns to the drawing board. He realizes that the police must be aware of Charles Lechmere┤s road to work by now, and so Mr X decides to return to killing along that road. On the 8th of September, he kills Chapman.
                  And what does the police do? They go looking for Robert Paul!
                  Mr X makes the blunder of killing Chapman sometime between 4:45am and 5:30. Cross has been at work since 4am, and so would not be on his way to work at that time. As a carman, Cross will be making a series of pickups and deliveries, with witnesses for both and almost no chance that Cross would have the time to wander off, find, kill, and mutilate Chapman. With almost no chance of having committed this murder, Cross becomes even less of a suspect to the police.

                  Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  Okay, apparently the police will need more Lechmere-specific material, Mr X reasons. He decides to kill the next victim righ next to where Lechmere┤s mother and daughter live, and he comes up with the idea to also kill somebody in close proximity to Lechmere┤s working place on the same night. And Stride and Eddowes die.
                  The frustrated Mr X has come up with a further idea by now - not only will he kill women close to spots linked to Charles Lechmere, he will also place a physical clue between one of the victims and Lechmere┤s Doveton Street home. That should do it! And so, he places half of Eddowes┤ bloody apron in Goulston Street and goes home and waits for the police to arrest Lechmere.
                  What happens? Nothing!
                  Since Mr X hasn't provided any Lechmere-specific material, he'll need to do something. Again, hundreds of possible suspects live near or pass near the sites of the Stride and Eddowes murders. Nothing at either murder scene points to any one of them, let alone Charles Cross. Stride and Eddowes are killed a couple hours before Charles Cross would normally get up for work, which seems very unlikely on his one day off a week. Again, there is no chance whatsoever of Cross being arrested.

                  Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  Back to the drawing board. Back to the working route murders, but let┤s make it truly horrific this time! On the 9th of November, he kills Mary Kelly and turns her room into a slaughterhouse.

                  Nope. The police miss out. Again.
                  Hundreds of possible suspects live near or pass near the sites of the Kelly murder. Nothing at the murder scene points to any one of them, let alone Charles Cross.

                  Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  Mr X now despairs. Nothing he does seems to work. The watertight plan has failed.
                  The "plan" is about as watertight as a fishing net. Mr X hasn't provided even an anonymous letter accusing Cross, let alone testimony putting him at the site of any of the killings. Mr X has provided no physical evidence that points towards Cross, either, not even carving "CC" or "CL" on the handle of the murder weapon and leaving it at the scene of the crime.

                  Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  For ten months, he ponders how to go get Lechmere nicked by the police, and then he realizes that there is another killer at large that may help him - the torso killer. Mr X now concocts a plan to make it seem as if Lechmere may be responsible of the torso murders too, and he kills a woman and places her in a railway arch in the very street the Lechmere┤s always returned to - Pinchin Street. And he once again decides to put a bloody apron between the murder site and 22 Doveton Street. This time over, he gets a map out and draws a line from the murder site all the way up to Doveton Street, and he picks a spot that is placed exactly on that line, St Philip┤s Church up at the hospital area. Not a litte to the left of the line, not a lttle to the right of it - straight on it!
                  In the Eddowes case, you had two parts of a bloody apron, so this plan is inferior to that one as there is nothing clearly linking the apron to the Pinchin Street torso. Even if the police made the connection, it gives them a rough direction,not a distance. Hundreds of possible suspects live along this line. Nothing at the murder scene points to any one of them, let alone Charles Cross.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post
                    I too have just finished the book and I really enjoyed it.

                    It's well written, well structured and makes a very persuasive case.

                    I'm busy with other reading for a course I am doing, so I've only been able to read a little bit at a time.

                    When I'm less busy, I will go back, re-read it and give it the attention it deserves.

                    Am I convinced that Lechmere is the Ripper?

                    No, but I really don't know what it would take to convince me these days!!

                    I will say that in terms of my Ripper Suspect Fantasy Football Team, Lechmere is off the bench and getting a game, so good work Fish!!!

                    For what it's worth, I've never had a problem with Lech remaining at the scene to engage Paul, rather than running away.

                    In fact after reading many debates on this point, and giving the topic some thought, I realised that I would likely do the exact same thing in his shoes!

                    I'm a much better thinker / talker than I am a runner or a fighter so yeah, I'd front it out and play to my strengths.

                    On that basis it has always struck me as a perfectly logical response, and I have never understood why people found it so implausible!

                    I'm definitely not a psychopath though!







                    Good on you, Ms Diddles! Thank you for your kind words about the book!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                      Mr X is apparently a many of very tiny brain. There are hundreds of people who live in the area or pass near it. Nothing at the murder scene points to any one of them, let alone Charles Cross, so there is no chance whatsoever of Cross being arrested.



                      This is risky, but significantly less stupid of Mr. X. It would at least put Charles Cross on the same level of suspect as Alfred Crow and John Reeves are on the Tabram murder. Unfortunately, Cross is not the methodical clockwork man of bad mystery novels - he is late for work. Had he been even a minute later and Robert Paul would have been the first to find Eddowes' body. Cross and Paul, like responsible citizens, report the body to the nearest police officer. Constable Mizen blunders in not getting the name of either man. The only way Cross or Paul will be tied to the murder is if they come forward as witnesses. Acting like responsible citizens, both men come forward, which ties them to the case, but puts them well towards the bottom of any police suspect list.



                      Mr X makes the blunder of killing Chapman sometime between 4:45am and 5:30. Cross has been at work since 4am, and so would not be on his way to work at that time. As a carman, Cross will be making a series of pickups and deliveries, with witnesses for both and almost no chance that Cross would have the time to wander off, find, kill, and mutilate Chapman. With almost no chance of having committed this murder, Cross becomes even less of a suspect to the police.



                      Since Mr X hasn't provided any Lechmere-specific material, he'll need to do something. Again, hundreds of possible suspects live near or pass near the sites of the Stride and Eddowes murders. Nothing at either murder scene points to any one of them, let alone Charles Cross. Stride and Eddowes are killed a couple hours before Charles Cross would normally get up for work, which seems very unlikely on his one day off a week. Again, there is no chance whatsoever of Cross being arrested.



                      Hundreds of possible suspects live near or pass near the sites of the Kelly murder. Nothing at the murder scene points to any one of them, let alone Charles Cross.



                      The "plan" is about as watertight as a fishing net. Mr X hasn't provided even an anonymous letter accusing Cross, let alone testimony putting him at the site of any of the killings. Mr X has provided no physical evidence that points towards Cross, either, not even carving "CC" or "CL" on the handle of the murder weapon and leaving it at the scene of the crime.



                      In the Eddowes case, you had two parts of a bloody apron, so this plan is inferior to that one as there is nothing clearly linking the apron to the Pinchin Street torso. Even if the police made the connection, it gives them a rough direction,not a distance. Hundreds of possible suspects live along this line. Nothing at the murder scene points to any one of them, let alone Charles Cross.
                      First of all, I would like to know if you have read the book. It┤s not as if you are not allowed to have a view otherwise, of course, I am asking out of interest only. It provides answers to a lot of things where you have doubts.

                      Now, let┤s move on to your post, which I am very happy about - it represents a good many of the misconceptions that have marred the case over the years, and so it gives me an opportunity to explain a number of things.

                      First of all, commenting on how Mr X tried to frame Charles Lechmere, you say that he will have been a man "of very tiny brain". Now, Mr X distributed his dead bodies along Charles Lechmere┤s logical working trek (4 of them), close to his mothers and daughters house on a Saturday night (1 of them) and close by his working place (1 of them). Can you tell me how that speaks of a tiny brain? And can you tell me how he could have placed the bodies in a manner that would be more indicative of a link to Charles Lechmere?
                      I know that you use the term "tiny brain" in combination with the Tabram murder, at which stage there was still no suspicion against Lechmere, but it is nevertheless an example of a body placed exactly along the logical working trek of Charles Lechmere, and in retrospect, it allows us to see the connection.

                      You also ascribe to the idea that "there were hundreds of people" who lived or passed the area where Tabram was found, as if that in any way would clear Charles Lechmere. In actual fact, it is immaterial. What the police checks for when looking for a serial offender is whether their suspect can be geographically linked to the string of murders, not whether there were others living or passing there.
                      Let me try and clarify what we are dealing with here!

                      Get out a map of London. Get a nail and hammer it down at 22 Doveton Street. Then tie a piece of string to the nail. Pull the string out far enough to reach Pickfords at Broad Street. Then tie a pencil to the string in that end.
                      You have now mapped Lechmeres working trek, as the bird flies. Now, put the pencil against the map and, using the string, make a circle with 22 Doveton Street as the centre.
                      Once you have made that circle, you have established the area Lechmere┤s morning trek could cover, depending on which direction he walked in.
                      Of course, Charles Lechmere could have worked in any location in London, as I say in the book. He could have walked east, west, north or south as he left his home. The circle you made on the map encompasses tens of thousands of streets he could have used.
                      But in actual fact, the streets he would logically have used are the exact streets along which the four working day murders occurred.
                      In the book, I make the assumption that Lechmere walked on around twenty Whitechapel streets along the Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street routes. And there were roughly a thousand inhabited Whitechapel Streets to choose from. I therefore asked a professor of mathematics to calculate the likelihood that somebody else - out of pure coincidence - would happen to commit four murders along these twenty streets out of sheer coincidence. The answer was that the chances of an alternative killer just happening to kill four times, all of them along the twenty streets of Lechmere┤s logical morning routes, was one in five million.

                      Anybody who believes that such a thing goes away becaue "there were other people living in the area" is simply very, very wrong.

                      You claim that Chapman was killed at between 4.45 and 5.30. You are welcome to present that an an option, but not as the only existing one. What was believed in 1888 is mirrored in the Home Office files, stating that the testimony pointing to a late T O D for Chapman is "doubtful". And really, nothing more needs to be said. The idea that the three witnesses must be correct is a latter day invention and, for my money, completely wrong.

                      Finally, you also point out that the apron found the day after the Pinchin Street body was discovered is not linked to the victim. And that is of course true! It may be unlinked to the Pinchin Street murder. But if it is unlinked to it, it represents two very large coincidences:

                      1. It was found the very day after the body was found.

                      2. It was placed exactly on a line drawn from the dumping site to 22 Doveton Street.

                      That is two further coincidences we have to swallow to get Lechmere of the hook. And it is not as if we haven┤t had to swallow a whole lot of other coincidences already - the coincidence that he happened on Nichols when she would still bleed for many a minute, the coincidence that her clothes were pulled down, the coincidence that Lechmere did not want to help to prop her up, the coincidence that all the murders corresponded with Lechmere┤s logical routes, the coincidence that he gave another name than his registered one, the coincidence...

                      In cases like these, the accusation act rests against how there are too many coincidences - WAY too many of them - for it to be even remotely credible that they were actually all just coincidences. Therefore, picking them off one by one, providing them with alternative explanations becomes a useless exercise.
                      If a person goes into a room with twenty people on different occasions and if these people are all found dead in that room afterwards, saying that it could have been somebody else becomes a less viable option with every dead body. The exact same applies with Lechmere: one coincidence is fine, two is less fine, three troublesome - and we have scores of them. The indication is therefore very clear, and that is what James Scobie recognized in the documentary when he said that "it becomes one coincidence too many". Scobie also said that the material - before we add the Thames Torso murders - was enough for a court case that would suggest guilt. That is how cases built on circumstantial evidence work - the more coincidences we need to explain away, the smaller the chance of innocence. The more remarkable the coincidences, the smaller the chance of innocence.

                      What we of course do not have is the opportunity to put Lechmere on the stand and give him a chance to counter the accusations. But certainly, what we do have until such a thing happens (and it won┤t) is a legally very strong case. If we wish, we can regard this as unfair: the carman is not given a chance to exonerate himself. And of course, the case would be fuller if we had his comments. But it is what it is, there will be no such opportunity and so we can only build the case on the existing evidence. And it is highly indicative of guilt. Personally, I would not hesitate to pass a guilty verdict, and I am a stickler for how people need to be given a fair trial with high demands on the evidence before we can contemplating passing aguilty verdict. In Lechmere┤s case - an no other case naming the Ripper - that evidence is there in spades.

                      And that applies even though there were other people living in London in 1888.
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 03-18-2021, 07:23 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        So what are you saying, Alan? That the evidence that points to Lechmere goes away because he would never have stayed in Bucks Row as he heard Paul approaching...?

                        I am not saying that he stayed by the body for the kick it gave him, by the way. I am saying that it may hav e given him a kick to stay by the body, but the primary reason that he did so was probably that he did not want any commotion. If he had run, then it is very likely that Paul would have heard his steps, and then, as Paul arrived to find a murdered woman, the chances were that he would raise the alarm and the hunt would be on. How was Lechmere to know that he would not run into the arms of an approaching PC, alerted by Pauls alarm, in such a case?

                        If Lechmere did what I am suggesting that he did, then he secured a scenario where there was no commotion and where he managed to slip away from the murder site. And much as you and me would perhaps have run, we should not make the mistake to think that a psychopathic killer would have reacted in the same manner. A psychopath is much better suited to think on his feet and not panic.

                        As I have pointed out before, Andy Griffiths had no doubt when he said that Lechmere would never have run in the situation that arose. He would have known a thing or two abvout how these characters work. One example I have mentioned is when Jeffrey Dahmer calmly walked out into the street outside his home when an Asian boy had managed to flee from his apartment and seek out two police officers. Dahmer walked up to the policemen, ensured them that the boy was in his care, and took him along back to the apartment - whre he killed him. The by could not speak English and so he was not able to inform the policemen what was afoot.

                        If I was to suggest such a thing, most out here woukd say "Nah, of course the killer would never do such a thing, he would have run." To recognize what a psychopath is able to do and how it differs fro rhat we think people are able to do is absolutely vital in this context!

                        I am glad you enjoyed the book - thank you!
                        I just believe human/criminal psychology is such a tricky subject to 'put the mortgage on'. If you look at the case of James Fairweather for example. During his trial, three psychiatrists for both prosecution and defence, couldn't agree on a condition, after examining him and interviewing him for 6 weeks. I am obviously not a qualified psychiatrist, but I think to pin your argument on one/two or three Doctors that could be proven wrong down the line. I am not saying the people you have used are incorrect, I am saying I treat any psychological argument with extreme caution. From what I have read up on JTR, he doesn't seem, like someone who hung around at crime scenes for long (aside from Millers Court) I suppose you would quite correctly argue if Lechmere were caught at another scene then he would probably have hung.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by AlanG View Post

                          I just believe human/criminal psychology is such a tricky subject to 'put the mortgage on'. If you look at the case of James Fairweather for example. During his trial, three psychiatrists for both prosecution and defence, couldn't agree on a condition, after examining him and interviewing him for 6 weeks. I am obviously not a qualified psychiatrist, but I think to pin your argument on one/two or three Doctors that could be proven wrong down the line. I am not saying the people you have used are incorrect, I am saying I treat any psychological argument with extreme caution. From what I have read up on JTR, he doesn't seem, like someone who hung around at crime scenes for long (aside from Millers Court) I suppose you would quite correctly argue if Lechmere were caught at another scene then he would probably have hung.
                          I couldn┤t agree more about the argument you make about psychology - psychological reasoning has gone wrong for all of the 133 years since the Ripper murders, and I expect it to go on that way. One good example is Hebbert, who was very well qualified in practical matters, but who got things very badly wrong when trying his hand at psychology. Today, just about every argument used to say that Lechmere was probably not the killer is based on psychology too. You say that my argument about who he could well have stayed is a risky proposition, based on psychology, but you base your own take on the exact same thing, JTR does not seem to you to be the kind of guy who would hang around.
                          We all have our preconceinved notions and so the fewer such notions we base our arguments on, the better. In that respect, what I have got going for me and my "he-could-well-have-stayed" argument is that extensive tests have been made using serial killer materia, and it is a fact that just about all sexual serial killers are psychopaths, and most of them are narcissists too. So I do have an empirical basis to stand on. But after that, just as you say, caution must be applied when dealing in psychology. As you may have noticed in my book, in the psychology chapter I suggest a number of things that I personally think may apply for Lechmere - but I also admit in the next sentence that I am be wrong about just about everything I suggest.

                          Psychology is not going to solve the case the way I see it, it only leads to endless dicussions where noone can prove their points. He was like this. He was like that.
                          Facts and evidence is the one way forward.
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 03-18-2021, 06:59 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                            I couldn┤t agree more about the argument you make about psychology - psychological reasoning has gone wrong for all of the 133 years since the Ripper murders, and I expect it to go on that way. One good example is Hebbert, who was very well qualified in practical matters, but who got things very badly wrong when trying his hand at psychology. Today, just about every argument used to say that Lechmere was probably not the killer is based on psychology too. You say that my argument about who he could well have stayed is a risky proposition, based on psychology, but you base your own take on the exact same thing, JTR does not seem to you to be the kind of guy who would hang around.
                            We all have our preconceinved notions and so the fewer such notions we base our arguments on, the better. In that respect, what I have got going for me and my "he-could-well-have-stayed" argument is that extensive tests have been made using serial killer materia, and it is a fact that just about all sexual serial killers are psychopaths, and most of them are narcissists too. So I do have an empirical basis to stand on. But after that, just as you say, caution must be applied when dealing in psychology. As you may have noticed in my book, in the psychology chapter I suggest a number of things that I personally think may apply for Lechmere - but I also admit in the next sentence that I am be wrong about just about everything I suggest.

                            Psychology is not going to solve the case the way I see it, it only leads to endless dicussions where noone can prove their points. He was like this. He was like that.
                            Facts and evidence is the one way forward.
                            TouchÚ, though my main argument is psychology is not a subject to 'bet the mortgage on' which in fairness we agree on. I only said about not hanging around because its proven he 'vanished into thin air' after the killings (If your correct, then not Bucks Row of course)

                            Always good to chat with you Fish

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Lets look at those locations.

                              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              He begins by killing Martha Tabram in George Yard buildings, righ beside one of the two logical routes for Charles Lechmere to work.
                              George Yard buildings is about a block off from Whitechapel Road. That is one of many ways Charles Lechemere could have gone to work, and a block off is hardly "right beside". Nothing about the location points at Charles Lechmere.

                              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              Mr X returns to the drawing board. He realizes that the police must be aware of Charles Lechmere┤s road to work by now, and so Mr X decides to return to killing along that road. On the 8th of September, he kills Chapman.
                              Hanbury Street is another one of many ways Charles Lechmere could have gone to work, but he was at work long before she was killed. Nothing about the location points at Charles Lechmere.

                              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              He decides to kill the next victim righ next to where Lechmere┤s mother and daughter live, and he comes up with the idea to also kill somebody in close proximity to Lechmere┤s working place on the same night.And Stride and Eddowes die.
                              In 1881, Lechmere┤s mother and daughter lived at 23 Pinchin Street, several blocks from where Stride was killed. In 1891, Lechmere┤s mother and daughter lived at 18 St George Street, over 4 miles from where Stride was killed. In neither case is this "right next to" where they lived. Nothing about either location points at Charles Lechmere.

                              Lechmere worked at Pickfords, which is over four miles from Mitre Square, not in "close proximity". It's much closer to Lechmere's home which is about 2 miles away. Nothing about the location points at Charles Lechmere.

                              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              ...he will also place a physical clue between one of the victims and Lechmere┤s Doveton Street home. That should do it! And so, he places half of Eddowes┤ bloody apron in Goulston Street and goes home and waits for the police to arrest Lechmere.
                              The Ghouston Street Garffito was found about 1 1/2 miles from where Charles Lechmere lived. Nothing about the location points at Charles Lechmere.

                              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              Back to the working route murders, but let┤s make it truly horrific this time! On the 9th of November, he kills Mary Kelly and turns her room into a slaughterhouse.
                              Millers Court is a couple blocks off of one of the many routes Charles Lechmere could have gone to work. Nothing about the location points at Charles Lechmere.

                              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              Mr X now concocts a plan to make it seem as if Lechmere may be responsible of the torso murders too, and he kills a woman and places her in a railway arch in the very street the Lechmere┤s always returned to - Pinchin Street. And he once again decides to put a bloody apron between the murder site and 22 Doveton Street. This time over, he gets a map out and draws a line from the murder site all the way up to Doveton Street, and he picks a spot that is placed exactly on that line, St Philip┤s Church up at the hospital area. Not a litte to the left of the line, not a lttle to the right of it - straight on it!
                              The Pinchin Street Torso was found on a street Lechermere's mother used live on. Nothing proves the apron was related. Nothing about either location points at Charles Lechmere.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X