Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

All roads lead to Lechmere.

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

  • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post


    I hate to rain on people, but I have checked that paper on BNA.
    I found the report mentioning Robert Paul, but could see no mention of his working clothes Herlock.
    That's not a good start on her book.
    Maybe I.have missed it.

    Steve
    No problem Steve. Getting at the facts is the most important thing.

    The full quote from the book is - Like Cross, he appeared in court in his work clothes, rough sacking apron, and recounted his uncertainty as to whether the woman was dead or alive, as he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very feint. He had seen non one running away, nor did he notice anything whatever of a suspicious nature.

    Maybe the quote just confirmed that he saw no one running away or anything suspicious? It still doesn’t answer where she got the info about Paul’s attire as it’s not something that could be stated by mistake. Slightly concerning.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      No problem Steve. Getting at the facts is the most important thing.

      The full quote from the book is - Like Cross, he appeared in court in his work clothes, rough sacking apron, and recounted his uncertainty as to whether the woman was dead or alive, as he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very feint. He had seen non one running away, nor did he notice anything whatever of a suspicious nature.

      Maybe the quote just confirmed that he saw no one running away or anything suspicious? It still doesn’t answer where she got the info about Paul’s attire as it’s not something that could be stated by mistake. Slightly concerning.
      Yes, it just gives his account , it is concerning I agree.
      I only checked, because the 4th Edition is due out this week, and I sensed an emergency update .

      Steve

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

        I hate to rain on people, but I have checked that paper on BNA.
        I found the report mentioning Robert Paul, but could see no mention of his working clothes Herlock.
        That's not a good start on her book.
        Maybe I.have missed it.

        Steve​
        ----------------------------------------------------

        No problem Steve. Getting at the facts is the most important thing.

        The full quote from the book is - Like Cross, he appeared in court in his work clothes, rough sacking apron, and recounted his uncertainty as to whether the woman was dead or alive, as he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very feint. He had seen non one running away, nor did he notice anything whatever of a suspicious nature.

        Maybe the quote just confirmed that he saw no one running away or anything suspicious? It still doesn’t answer where she got the info about Paul’s attire as it’s not something that could be stated by mistake. Slightly concerning.
        That is concerning. Given there appears to be 2 sources listed ("After another three lines the source is quoted as the Congleton & Macclesfield Mercury, and Cheshire General Advertiser, 22nd September 1888."), were you able to check both? They may be the same article re-printed in both papers, in which case there is definitely something troubling.

        Good work to go back and check the original sources Steve. Hopefully it's not an example of creative license, which shouldn't enter into covering an historical case like this with regards to statements of facts.

        - Jeff

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

          That is concerning. Given there appears to be 2 sources listed ("After another three lines the source is quoted as the Congleton & Macclesfield Mercury, and Cheshire General Advertiser, 22nd September 1888."), were you able to check both? They may be the same article re-printed in both papers, in which case there is definitely something troubling.
          Hi Jeff,

          although it's a mouthful, The Congleton & Macclesfield Mercury and Cheshire General Advertiser was just one newspaper.

          Click image for larger version

Name:	Congleton.jpg
Views:	259
Size:	27.7 KB
ID:	817737


          I had a look at the issue in question, too, and there was no description of Robert Paul.


          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

            Hi Jeff,

            although it's a mouthful, The Congleton & Macclesfield Mercury and Cheshire General Advertiser was just one newspaper.

            Click image for larger version

Name:	Congleton.jpg
Views:	259
Size:	27.7 KB
ID:	817737


            I had a look at the issue in question, too, and there was no description of Robert Paul.

            Oh, it looked like two papers to me! That is a long title for a paper. I wonder if it was the result of a merger at some point? Regardless, there is something odd going on. Either the sources listed (being a few sentences on), are sources for some other bit of information and the claim about Paul being in his work clothes is presented unsourced (which is not good practice, but leaves open the possibility that there is a source somewhere), or the author's notes got confused at some point and they've mistakenly thought that both Cross/Lechmere and Paul testified in their work clothes (so a mistake), or this is creative writing (which, in the case of covering historic events would be a no-no, to put it lightly).

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • There's a few regional papers covering the Macclesfield and Congleton area, it's possible it's from a different paper and the titles incorrect I suppose. It definitely needs looking into though as it's either an important variation of the reports or a serious error. Might be worthwhile someone contacting the Andrew Lownie literary agency to request a clarification.
              Thems the Vagaries.....

              Comment


              • I suggest unless other mistakes are found we asdume this is a mistake.
                Maybe it's just poorly worded and that he was in work clothing was not intended to be the part the source refered to.
                The Author may not be aware of the Lechmere was wearing work cloths to imply hard working argument , and therefore didnt realise thr importance of this comment.



                Steve

                Comment


                • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
                  Actually here’s a summary of the profile. Profiles are of course subjective. Sometimes it comes down to personal interpretation or even a confirmation bias about a favourite suspect. However, when we look at Lechmere, and we do know a wee bit about him. A few interesting points pop up. I think he’s a surprisingly good fit for the profile.

                  Broken home. Absent or weak father and a domineering mother.

                  Lechmere’s was born in 1849 and in the 1851 census his father is absent. As a child he lived at 6 different addresses ✅

                  Mother would be a drinker and would enjoy the company of many men.

                  Unknown about the drinking although her husband did abandon her. She married a 23 year old when she was 32. I have read on the Casebook Forum that he could have been as young as 21. So his stepfather is more in the age group of a big brother than a father for Lechmere. She married again after that. Both were bigamous marriages. Quite close to the profile but not an exact match.❓

                  He wouldn’t have had positive male role models.

                  He didn’t have any male role models at all from birth until he was 9. His dad left when he was a baby. His stepdad was 23 (or 21) so more like a big brother than a father. So no role models during childhood, then a young stepdad. Again the profile isn’t far off but it’s not an exact match.❓

                  He might not have received insufficient care or attention from his mother.

                  We can’t say. Although his mother remarrying when he was 9 may have meant less attention for him, and competition for her affections. Having somebody young enough to be a brother enter the household would be a huge change on the homefront. And it would undoubtedly meant sharing his mother with a stranger. Possibly, but not an exact match.❓

                  He could have become withdrawn and internalised his anger.

                  Another one we can’t say. He ditched his stepfathers name the minute he was old enough. He always went by his birth name despite never knowing his father. I don’t think there’s much of a connection between Lechmere and his stepdad. Was there a tension there, did he feel rejected by his mother and resentful of her youthful husband❓

                  He would have a diminished social response to his fellow man.

                  Another one we can’t say. He did run over a child in an accident. It would be interesting to see his response to that. Did he express remorse or sorrow, or did he only think of himself ?❓

                  Might have some sort of minor disability, a speech impediment, pock marked face from childhood illness, bad skin, poor complexion or suchlike.

                  We have a picture of Lechmere. A colourised photo shows what looks like a blotchy / ruddy complexion, especially on his cheeks. It looks like he has grown a beard over this. ✅


                  He wouldn’t have been married, or if he was it wouldn’t have lasted long.

                  He married at 20 and they were still married 50 years later. ❌

                  Would have a solitary job. Would be a bit of a loner.

                  A carman, the modern equivalent of a lorry driver, was a solitary job. He was out on his own all day doing deliveries. ✅

                  He would be employed. Saturday or Sunday would be his days off.

                  He was employed. Saturday was his only day off. ✅

                  Before the killings he would drink in local pubs.

                  He killed on his way to work. The Kelly murder happened on a likely day off, and Eddowes and Stride on his Saturday off. We can’t say whether he drank in local pubs or not for those murders. However, I feel he killed on his way to work. It was his cover and his excuse to be out. ❌

                  He would be in the 28 to 36 age range - a high degree of psychopathy at the crime scenes, an ability to converse with victims until they were in place, and an ability to avoid detection.

                  He was 38 at the time of the murders, I suspect there were attacks before the C5. The FBI profile tends towards a more mature killer. Like Lechmere. ✅

                  He would be a white male.

                  He would be local to Whitechapel.

                  He lived in Whitechapel all his life. 5 different addresses. ✅

                  He wouldn’t look out of the ordinary.

                  He has an unremarkable appearance. As a carman walking to work you wouldn’t take a second look at him. ✅

                  He wouldn’t wear his usual clothes. He would want to project an image that he had money so victims would approach him.

                  An interesting one that caught my attention. Lechmere even wore his work uniform and apron to the inquest. Lechmere would be wearing his work clothes, not his day to day attire, when he killed. ✅


                  He would appear as shy, being neat and orderly in appearance.

                  We have a photo of Lechmere. He is neat and tidy in his dress. ✅


                  Time of death early morning hours.

                  This was noted by the profiler and commented on. Lechmere would walk to work anywhere between 03.20 and 04.00 which is the generally accepted time of several of the murders ✅

                  Suspect was able to maintain control of victims during initial ‘blitz style’ attack.

                  He was a male of 38 with a blue collar type job. Pickford’s historians say it would be a tough, physical and even messy job. Lechmere would be strong enough to subdue and control his victims. ✅

                  Nose, kidney and other body parts removed post mortem. Had a rough anatomical knowledge.

                  Lechmere was a carman and delivered from Pickford’s depot to local butchers. His job would give him rough anatomical knowledge, and he might be used to blood and guts too.✅

                  He would probably have been talked to by police on several occasions.

                  Lechmere was spoken to by police at least once. Walking through Ripper territory, night after night at the height of the killings, he would have been challenged by both policeman and the vigilance committee’s. Of course his job gave him the perfect excuse. ✅

                  He would have been overlooked and missed because he did not appear odd or ghoulish. Police had a preconceived idea of what JTR looked like.

                  Lechmere’s appearance as a carman on his way to work was perfect. It was more than perfect. Nobody would ever suspect him. ✅

                  He had the sense to know where and when to attack his victims.

                  Lechmere knew the area like the back of his hand. He grew up there, he walked the same streets night after night. He would have the knowledge required. There would be few around who knew the back streets of Whitechapel better. ✅

                  After the attacks he would go somewhere where he could wash his hands and clothes.

                  Pickford’s had a large area where the messy workmen could wash themselves and their equipment down. After arriving at work Lechmere would have ample opportunity to clean himself. ✅

                  He would not have committed suicide, and it is unlikely he would have stopped after the last murder (Kelly).

                  Lechmere didn’t commit suicide. And I think he killed both before and after the C5. ✅

                  He would carry a knife around. He would be slightly paranoid and have a knife in case he was attacked.

                  My understanding is that carmen were obliged to carry a knife with them. They had to be able to cut the horses reins in the event of an accident. When walking through the back streets of Whitechapel at night he would have been armed. ✅
                  I'm a bit late on this one - sorry - but I don't know why these (in red) would be ticked, perhaps it's me being dumb. If, as the profiler suggests, the killer wants to physically present himself as having money (such as someone poor wearing a shabby gentile kit) then how on earth would wearing a cloth sack apron get a tick?

                  Also, when the profiler suggested "He would appear as shy, being neat and orderly in appearance," is that not a reference to what he would look like to his victims (i.e. what he is wearing on the photo is, again, not the carman's outfit he wore on the way to work - which we know he wore because that's how Mizen described him). I also do not think he looks "shy" on that photo.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Hair Bear View Post

                    I'm a bit late on this one - sorry - but I don't know why these (in red) would be ticked, perhaps it's me being dumb. If, as the profiler suggests, the killer wants to physically present himself as having money (such as someone poor wearing a shabby gentile kit) then how on earth would wearing a cloth sack apron get a tick?

                    Also, when the profiler suggested "He would appear as shy, being neat and orderly in appearance," is that not a reference to what he would look like to his victims (i.e. what he is wearing on the photo is, again, not the carman's outfit he wore on the way to work - which we know he wore because that's how Mizen described him). I also do not think he looks "shy" on that photo.

                    I agree on both counts. Also, I don't think that it's known whether he had anatomical knowledge.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Hair Bear View Post

                      I'm a bit late on this one - sorry - but I don't know why these (in red) would be ticked, perhaps it's me being dumb. If, as the profiler suggests, the killer wants to physically present himself as having money (such as someone poor wearing a shabby gentile kit) then how on earth would wearing a cloth sack apron get a tick?

                      Also, when the profiler suggested "He would appear as shy, being neat and orderly in appearance," is that not a reference to what he would look like to his victims (i.e. what he is wearing on the photo is, again, not the carman's outfit he wore on the way to work - which we know he wore because that's how Mizen described him). I also do not think he looks "shy" on that photo.

                      If you check, many, probably most of SuperShodan's "points" are speculation or false. In other cases, he manipulates the profile to fit Lechemre.

                      Lets just look at the first - "Lechmere’s was born in 1849 and in the 1851 census his father is absent. As a child he lived at 6 different addresses."

                      SS ignores Lechemre's stepfather. He provides no evidence that Lechmere's mother was domineering. SS is flat out wrong when he claims 6 different addresses as a child. And moving doesn't prove anything about his mother's personality.

                      Or there's his nonsense about being a van driver would give him anatomical knowledge.
                      "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                      "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                        If you check, many, probably most of SuperShodan's "points" are speculation or false. In other cases, he manipulates the profile to fit Lechemre.

                        Lets just look at the first - "Lechmere’s was born in 1849 and in the 1851 census his father is absent. As a child he lived at 6 different addresses."

                        SS ignores Lechemre's stepfather. He provides no evidence that Lechmere's mother was domineering. SS is flat out wrong when he claims 6 different addresses as a child. And moving doesn't prove anything about his mother's personality.

                        Or there's his nonsense about being a van driver would give him anatomical knowledge.
                        Yes, I did find THAT one particularly odd. (Not that many of the others WEREN'T odd, just that this one jumped out in particular as a reach even by "Lechmere Did It" standards.)
                        Cross may have occassionally delivered processed meat so that would help him remove a human kidney? TICK!
                        It's like saying someone buys a lot of gammon, therefore knows how to butcher a pig, except even sillier.

                        Comment


                        • Here's the actual FBI Ripper profile, so people can see how badly SS distorted it to try to fit up Lechmere.

                          For example, SS selectively quoted the profile saying the Ripper would seek a job where he could work alone.

                          Here's the full quote on employment - "For employment, he would seek a position where he could work alone and vicariously experience his destructive fantasies. Such employment would include work as a butcher, mortician's helper, medical examiner's assistant, or hospital attendant."

                          Van driver might be a solitary assignment, assuming there was no van boy also assigned. But it would give no opportunity to engage in destructive fantasies.
                          "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                          "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fiver View Post
                            Here's the actual FBI Ripper profile, so people can see how badly SS distorted it to try to fit up Lechmere.

                            For example, SS selectively quoted the profile saying the Ripper would seek a job where he could work alone.

                            Here's the full quote on employment - "For employment, he would seek a position where he could work alone and vicariously experience his destructive fantasies. Such employment would include work as a butcher, mortician's helper, medical examiner's assistant, or hospital attendant."

                            Van driver might be a solitary assignment, assuming there was no van boy also assigned. But it would give no opportunity to engage in destructive fantasies.
                            Here's another one: "He would not have committed suicide, and it is unlikely he would have stopped after the last murder (Kelly).​" For one thing, I don't think this rendering even makes sense. There's no such thing as someone committing murder after their last murder.

                            Here's what the profile really says: "Jack the Ripper would not have committed suicide after the last homicide. Generally, when crimes such as these cease, it is because he came close to being identified, was interviewed by police, or was arrested for some other type of offense. As stated previously in this report, we would be surprised if Jack the Ripper would suddenly stop​." So it says more than just that he wouldn't have committed suicide. What Ripper suspect besides Druitt committed suicide anyway? Vincent Van Gogh doesn't count.

                            Cross wouldn't have been stopped by arrest or any other absolute barrier, and the only time he was interviewed by the police or arguably came close to being identified was after the Nichols murder, which of course was an early one. However, this point got a green checkmark.
                            Last edited by Lewis C; 09-27-2023, 01:28 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post
                              Here's the actual FBI Ripper profile, so people can see how badly SS distorted it to try to fit up Lechmere.

                              For example, SS selectively quoted the profile saying the Ripper would seek a job where he could work alone.

                              Here's the full quote on employment - "For employment, he would seek a position where he could work alone and vicariously experience his destructive fantasies. Such employment would include work as a butcher, mortician's helper, medical examiner's assistant, or hospital attendant."

                              Van driver might be a solitary assignment, assuming there was no van boy also assigned. But it would give no opportunity to engage in destructive fantasies.
                              Quite right.
                              It's not even that solitary a job.

                              We've had this "Carman was the equivalent of a lorry driver" description, and people seem to have evolved that into the life of a long distance or trans continental lorry driver where geat lengths of time are spent in isolation on the roads.

                              These guys either sat atop or walked alongside a box on wheels pulled by horses, through the busy streets of London making numerous deliveries on a daily basis to PEOPLE at the other end. They weren't in a cab - isolated, they were out there in the open with everyone else. There would have been nods and words of greeting as they passed on the roads, shouts of "Girrout the way!" at people crossing in front of them and the ocassional moment of Victorian road rage where a fellow street user would be told exactly what the driver thought of them.

                              They weren't like modern Amazon style delivery men either, they didn't get rid of the goods as fast as they could, to get back in the van at high speed. They helped unload and had to have their notebooks signed, and when they were done go back to the depot, probably several times a day, report their deliveries, and often would have an assistant with them who watched the car to prevent people stealing from it, when they were inside dealing with the customers.
                              (All those dripping meat carcasses Cross is supposed to have hauled round the city would have made a lucrative target for a few daring street thugs...)

                              There are plenty of jobs where you can have a bunch of colleagues yet largely "work alone" (such as those mentioned in the list you showed or anything that involves a production line approach, or where the work is too loud to talk) those jobs where you spend most of the day inside your own head... and jobs where you can have no colleagues yet still come into contact with lots of people, such as a street vendor, or... carman.

                              What the profile is talking about is the sort of job where muscle memory and repetition or simple monotony allow time to fantasise. That's not happpening driving a horse and delivery cart through the East End of London in 1888.
                              Unless,of course the Lechmere Did It adherents believe that he was too busy fantasising about future murders in 1876 and that's why he ran over a child in the street... at this point very little would surprise me.
                              Last edited by A P Tomlinson; 09-27-2023, 07:37 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by A P Tomlinson View Post
                                They weren't like modern Amazon style delivery men either, they didn't get rid of the goods as fast as they could, to get back in the van at high speed. They helped unload and had to have their notebooks signed, and when they were done go back to the depot, probably several times a day, report their deliveries, and often would have an assistant with them who watched the car to prevent people stealing from it, when they were inside dealing with the customers.
                                And all of those people would have a chance to see in full daylight if the carman had fresh unexplained bloodstains.

                                Originally posted by A P Tomlinson View Post
                                Unless,of course the Lechmere Did It adherents believe that he was too busy fantasising about future murders in 1876 and that's why he ran over a child in the street... at this point very little would surprise me.
                                Considering the Ley Lines, it wouldn't surprise me. I'm waiting for the day they use his naming a son Albert Edward as an excuse to replace John Netley with Charles Lechmere in the Royal Conspiracy.

                                "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                                "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X