Cross Theory II

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman and Lechmere,

Perhaps ...and this is in no way meant as an attack on Cross...perhaps you could take all your information regarding Cross and create a daily routine on the days of the murders that does not include murdering prostitutes. This can't be done with Tumblety or Kosminski, but it could be done with Druitt, Cross, and perhaps Hutchinson. What happens inevitably in these threads is each idea of culpability is discarded or refuted by the critics. That's an easy thing to do for all suspects because the critics don't have to build a case, only tear it down. I respectfully suggest that by building a routine of normalcy, you can find your own openings for murder and maybe, dare I say, find the openings too narrow for passage.

We should all do this before we favor a suspect.

Mike

[Scott Nelson]

I don't know whether Lechmere did live peacefully for 32 years.
Do you seriously think that all serial killers get caught, somehow locked up or die?

Yes, almost all of them do. With their past revealed.

[Stewart P Evans]

'Ripperology'

I don't know whether Lechmere did live peacefully for 32 years.
There were a whole series of unsolved deaths up to 1898 in areas he had close connections to.
Do you seriously think that all serial killers get caught, somehow locked up or die?
Is it impossible for them to stop - for whatever reason?
I don't here that objection raised to that semi ridiculous candidate Tumblety.
It is regrettable that a new thread wasn't stated for this discussion, which looks like will be a back to basics on Charles Lechmere.

As you may have guessed your theorizing fails to impress me. 'Profiling' impresses me even less.

It is your posts that prompted my analysis of the Cross/Lechmere material. You describe Tumblety as a 'semi ridiculous candidate', and that has been the tone of your past posts. Tumblety was a serious suspect named by ex-Chief Inspector Littlechild. As a suspect he has a historical foundation, something which Cross/Lechmere doesn't.

I am not really interested in arguing any further on this subject so I shall leave you to your online critics. I do apologise to 'Fisherman' if he found my posts insulting, I didn't intend them to be. They were merely in the 'spirit' of 'Lechemere's' posts on Tumblety.

However, this appears to be the depths that serious 'Ripperology' have now descended to and I am finished with it.

[Monty]

I admire your attempt to review this subject Stewart,

I trod these paths some 12 months ago, laying out the same points as you have but not as eloquently or as in much as specific detail as you.

It seems as if fact and logic are things of the past, we truly are dinosaurs.

Monty

[Fisherman]

I do apologise to 'Fisherman' if he found my posts insulting, I didn't intend them to be. They were merely in the 'spirit' of 'Lechemere's' posts on Tumblety.

However, this appears to be the depths that serious 'Ripperology' have now descended to and I am finished with it.

First and foremost: apology accepted.

I was disappointed by the tone in your post, yes. I find people sometimes seem to believe that Edward and I are one and the same, which we are not. We have cooperated to some extent, and we share the same suspect, but thatīs all. In consequence, I am not all that fond of being on the receiving end of any hostility that should have been directed another way.

There is an immense amount of hostility following in the tracks of any Lechmere debate, and that shrouds the points in fog, sadly. I would be very much more happy if the discussion could be kept at a less inflamed level - but have little hope of it. I am myself guilty of biting back when attacked in what I find an unfair manner, and that does nothing to help the matter either, of course.

I still think it is sad if you choose to leave the debate, since the points you brought up really deserve a better and deeper discussion. I will offer one suggestion for debating: The discrepancies inbetween how Lechmere and Mizen described the meeting between the carmen and the PC.

You make the assumption that Mizen invented the other PC, and brought him on stage in order to explain why he was late in going to Buckīs Row.

I donīt think that suggestion is a good one, since - as I said - Mizen testified before both Lechmere and Paul, who would both be in a position to refute the PC:s claims, thus exposing him as a liar. He would, to my mind, make matters very much worse by doing things this way.

Mizen said that he only finished knocking up an ongoing errand before leaving Buckīs Row. That would not have taken long - the odd second or two, perhaps. Why would he not settle for this version only? It would be his word against the carmenīs - and time is a factor that is sometimes hard to estimate. Saying "Yes, I did make the odd knock or two on that door, but then I left" and comparing it to Paulsī"It was a shame that he kept on knocking up people" would easily go down as a delaying of very few seconds, and it would not be possible to point to any lie.

The extra PC, though - that WOULD be exposed as a lie. There was no chance that the carmen would corroborate it if it was not true.

There is another point that may support both your view and mine - Mizen claims that the carman he spoke to only said that there was a woman lying in the street in Bucks Row, leaving out the potential seriosity of the matter.
When Lechmere speaks, he claims to have told Mizen that they could well have a casualty on their hands.

The discrepancy can speak for your version: Mizen played things down in retrospect, in order to explain why he made no rush.

It can also speak for my version: Lechmere never gave away how grave the errand could be, since he did not want to alert Mizen too much - better leave it as a routine errand with no sinister implications. And to ensure that it stayed that way, he said there was another PC in place. If that other PC had known that the woman had been killed, then the carmen would reasonably know that too. A PC would not conceal this and leisurely tell the carmen "Hey, boys, if you happen to see another PC this fine morning, why donīt you tell him to come around and see me here?"
So both versions function on this detail too.

Then what is there that may tell us who is right? Well, nothing conclusive - but there IS a useful pointer. Mizen says that "a" carman came up and spoke to him, a man that passed in company with another carman. At no stage does Mizen say that TWO carmen informed him what had happened - he says that just the one did.

Lechmere? He says that he AND Paul spoke to the PC.

Letīs say that Lechmere was truthful about this, and that he was innocent. Why, then, would Mizen keep quiet about the fact that it was two carmen that spoke to him, and not just the one?

Mizen could not hope to explain any tardiness on his behalf by withholding THAT information, could he?

But Lechmere, on the other hand, could obscure the fact that he alone spoke to Mizen, and that he told him about the other PC with Paul out of earshot - if this was what happened. And I believe it was the exact thing that went down.
If Lechmere could produce a picture where it was impossible for him to disinform Mizen due to Paul being within earshot and able to contradict any lie he produced, he stood to gain a lot.

And what happens when Paul witnesses? Does he say that he himself spoke to the PC? From the inquest: "The man (Lechmere; my remark) walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman."

So no, Paul says nothing about himself speaking to Mizen. The only man that does so is Lechmere. One has to wonder why.

If you wish to bite and give your view, Iīd be grateful. If not, I fully recognize that you have announced your withdrawal from the discussion. I believe option one will take us a lot longer than option two, but it is your own call.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Yes, almost all of them do. With their past revealed.

If we leave aside the many unsolved serial murder cases - and we really should not - the only thing you are left with is a statistical truth.

To those statistics belongs the fact that some killers do stop.

Meaning that the Ripper was an uncommon killer if he was Lechmere - but only if he DID stop killing after Kelly. If he went on killing, then he does not belong to the category of serialists who quit, but simply in the category of undiscovered serial killers.

The point you make is therefore one of little interest, I find, since we all know that most serial killers do get caught.

And in the end, just as there are common killers, there are uncommon killers too, right?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I admire your attempt to review this subject Stewart,

I trod these paths some 12 months ago, laying out the same points as you have but not as eloquently or as in much as specific detail as you.

It seems as if fact and logic are things of the past, we truly are dinosaurs.

Monty

Letīs see .. Do I feel sorry for you, Monty? Nope, I donīt.

Do I think that you have the prerogative to decide what is fact and logic? Good Lord, no!

Are you a dinosaur? No - you are very much up to date on most things Ripper, so that is totally wrong too.

As I remember it, you are very correct in stating that you were not as detailed or as eloquent as Stewart Evans when laying out your reasoning. Instead, it was the odd grunt and mockery, with no much effort to substantiate your misgivings, all topped off with the certainty that there was no need to discuss Lechmere at all, since , hrm, "facts" and "logic" dictated that he would have run for it in Buckīs Row. End of story.

I did not agree then, I do not agree now. But I would invite you to be more detailed and eloquent and perhaps give your view on the matter at hand - the encounter between the carmen and Mizen.

If we both can do that without hostility, we will both astound me. Could be worth a try, though!

Sincerely,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fisherman and Lechmere,

Perhaps ...and this is in no way meant as an attack on Cross...perhaps you could take all your information regarding Cross and create a daily routine on the days of the murders that does not include murdering prostitutes. This can't be done with Tumblety or Kosminski, but it could be done with Druitt, Cross, and perhaps Hutchinson. What happens inevitably in these threads is each idea of culpability is discarded or refuted by the critics. That's an easy thing to do for all suspects because the critics don't have to build a case, only tear it down. I respectfully suggest that by building a routine of normalcy, you can find your own openings for murder and maybe, dare I say, find the openings too narrow for passage.

We should all do this before we favor a suspect.

Mike

Mike! Hi!

You know, I donīt get what you are after here. "Take all your information regarding Cross and create a daily routine on the days of the murders that does not include murdering prostitutes."

and

"This can't be done with Tumblety or Kosminski, but it could be done with Druitt, Cross, and perhaps Hutchinson."

Why would we do that? It is already in place. The guy walked from Doveton Street to his job, end of story. Thatīs the murderless daily routine.

And?

Moving on:

"What happens inevitably in these threads is each idea of culpability is discarded or refuted by the critics."

You donīt say?

"That's an easy thing to do for all suspects because the critics don't have to build a case, only tear it down."

Yep-a-diddle-doo!

"I respectfully suggest that by building a routine of normalcy, you can find your own openings for murder and maybe, dare I say, find the openings too narrow for passage."

But we have done that already! We have taken it as far as the details allow for. We donīt know what happened on September 8, for example. Maybe he set out fifteen minutes earlier, his family sleeping, and killed Chapman at 3.30. Maybe he killed her at 5.35, after having picked up his cart and gear at Pickfordīs.
And maybe he had diarrhea that day, keeping him on the loo back home. Then he could not have been the killer.

But typically, he went to job early every morning, and the Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly killings happen along reasonable routes to Pickfords at hours that reasonably tally well with when he would have passed. Chapman seemingly deviates, but if Phillips was on the money she really doesnīt.

Stride and Eddowes, we have provided explanations to them too. None of the victims provide too narrow a passage in any way, and the geographical implications are extremely tantalizing. Look what happened when a tenous link could be established between Kos and Berner Street - a champagne party broke loose! For one tenuous link? This guy covers ALL the killing grounds, and not only that - he does it at the correct times too and at an hour when the streets are very nearly empty. Think of that!

And hey, what would happen if somebody could show that Kos spent time at a butchery? Whoa!! THAT would be ... huge, absolutely huge! But when we show that the Lechmeres had a catīs meat business to tend to, and that this ran in the family as far as up to the 1940:s, what happens? People yawn, thatīs what happens.

So I donīt catch your drift here. Or am I misreading you? Are you proposing something entirely different? Iīm all ears - you are a rational and clever man (oh yes, donīt listen to what the others say!), and so I hope you are onto something of interest here. Perhaps not being as clever myself, tell me what Iīm missing!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

I didn't realise this thread was reopened to get back at me for criticising aspects of Tumblety's candidature - on another forum altogether!
I know that in some quarters it is regarded as being 'bad form' to disagree with prominent 'Ripperologists' of long establish reputation.
However if some are thought to be beyond reproach then it does little good for this field of study. I can think of no other area of study (usually on more important subjects admittedly) where this sort of thinking prevails. This, if anything, is what pushes 'Ripperology' into 'the depths'.
If there is 'bad form' it is surely to open up a topic of debate and then to withdraw almost immediately in a sulk. It is the discussion forum version of 'knock down ginger' where you ring on a door bell and run away.
This is what happened with the aforementioned Tumblety discussion.
I will nevertheless answer the points raised here when I get a chance over the next few days as they deserve to be answered - (some will groan no doubt - yet again, yet again). But I will open a new thread to save Mr Lucky's one from further desecration.

[The Good Michael]

So I donīt catch your drift here. Or am I misreading you? Are you proposing something entirely different? Iīm all ears - you are a rational and clever man (oh yes, donīt listen to what the others say!), and so I hope you are onto something of interest here. Perhaps not being as clever myself, tell me what Iīm missing!

I'm suggesting that all suspectologists build a complete daily routine of normalcy for their suspects to see how that fits. If a person can fill in the blanks at will to include several murders in several locations, he/she may also fill in the blanks such as where was it likely they went for shopping, for drinking, for leisure. That is also gap-filling but in the opposite direction. It may be worthwhile for looking at suspects with a different set of eyes, something which can't be done if one is attempting to put a person in teh suspect role.

Cheers,

Mike

[Lechmere]

I think you have raised a valid issue there Mike - it also touches on why some serial killers stop - because their daily routine changes and becomes more crowded or they are distracted or satisfied with what they are doing.
I have opened a new thread out of respect for Mr Lucky's topic here.

[jmenges]

Then tell me what "sense" Dennis Rader makes to you? So little sense that he never existed? He embarked on a killing spree, and then retired to live an ordinary family life, something he managed to do for decades until his ego gave him away. Moreover, how do you know that it was just a "short killing spree"? If Lechmere lived until 1920, there are 32 years unaccounted for, years during which many women were killed in London. MacKenzie was one of them, Coles another, and there were many others in the years to come.
Must we accept that he only could kill by cutting necks and eviscerating? Or could he have wanted to try out other things, perhaps having gotten bored with his ascribed technique?
Or does that not make sense either?

Hi Fisherman,

I realize that you are open to either of these possibilities (stopped killing altogether/kept killing and remained undiscovered), but you might wish to find another example for the former and consider placing Dennis Rader in the later. There is ample evidence that he was actively stalking and making preparations to murder a few women in the months leading up to his arrest. Not only did he confess to these plans, but he recorded his intentions, along with the victim's names, in the secret diary he kept of his crimes. Also, there are a handful of unsolved home invasion homicides in the Wichita area spanning the entire length of his adult life which some believe resemble the handiwork of BTK. It is also known that Rader traveled far outside of the Wichita area to target potential victims. One of which was a young woman who worked in a grocery store in Topeka. The fact is, BTK only confessed to the murders he wanted to and those that the police had ample evidence of his guilt. The full scope of his activities have yet to be entirely revealed.

Now my question, which I'm sure you have answered in the past but I don't read all of the pertinent threads: If you find it equally possible for the killer to either remain active and undiscovered, or stop entirely and return to a "normal" life, what makes Lechmere any likelier a suspect than any 'unknown local'? Is there not a great potential that the murderer could be one or the other of thousands of men in the area? An individual who just happened to not stick around long enough to 'discover' a body?

JM

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I realize that you are open to either of these possibilities (stopped killing altogether/kept killing and remained undiscovered), but you might wish to find another example for the former and consider placing Dennis Rader in the later. There is ample evidence that he was actively stalking and making preparations to murder a few women in the months leading up to his arrest. Not only did he confess to these plans, but he recorded his intentions, along with the victim's names, in the secret diary he kept of his crimes. Also, there are a handful of unsolved home invasion homicides in the Wichita area spanning the entire length of his adult life which some believe resemble the handiwork of BTK. It is also known that Rader traveled far outside of the Wichita area to target potential victims. One of which was a young woman who worked in a grocery store in Topeka. The fact is, BTK only confessed to the murders he wanted to and those that the police had ample evidence of his guilt. The full scope of his activities have yet to be entirely revealed.

Now my question, which I'm sure you have answered in the past but I don't read all of the pertinent threads: If you find it equally possible for the killer to either remain active and undiscovered, or stop entirely and return to a "normal" life, what makes Lechmere any likelier a suspect than any 'unknown local'? Is there not a great potential that the murderer could be one or the other of thousands of men in the area? An individual who just happened to not stick around long enough to 'discover' a body?

JM

Letīs say that BTK did all sorts of planning and sinister stalking, in the years following his killings. That would of course differ a lot from a man who turned a saint after HIS streak of killings and started to sell candy.

Problem: How do we know that Lechmere did turn a saint?

How can we tell that he did not go on to stalk, plan and - indeed - perhaps kill away for a good many years? Just as Edward has pointed out, there are murders along the way up to may years after the Ripper deeds that seemingly had Lechmere in the vicinity too.

And letīs keep in mind that we know a heck of a lot more about Rader than about Lechmere. But it still applies that Rader did uphold a good guy picture after the killings. He was an annoying sucker though, and seemingly hellbent on order; he hated people who littered and so on, if I remember correctly. He was an overly orderly guy, making it his business to set people straight on such issues.

I donīt see why Lechmere could not have been the exact same. Itīs just that we donīt have any record of what sort of man he was in these areas of life.

What makes Lechmere more likely than any other man? No other man was found by Nicholsībody to begin with. He can be placed at a murder spot!

Letīs say that there were five murders only - the so called canonical ones. Letīs further assume that the man who found Nichols was not Lechmere, but instead Mr Harrington of Bakerīs Row (fictional, yes), on his way to Mile End, where HE worked. If so, it can be seen that it was natural for him to find Nichols - she lay dead on his road to work. But NONE of the other victims would have been logically placed along his working trek, would they? Similarly, we may find an endless line of suggestions of road stretches where it would be logical to find Nichols - but where no other victim would be placed along the trek. Why was it that they all tallied with Lechmereīs trek? And why did coincidence rule that when they did not, they had to be killed in his old quarters, where his mother lived? And on a Saturday night to boot! How large was that chance - that the two victims out of the five that were killed on times when he did NOT go to work, were killed when he did not work? Why were these two victims not Chapman and Kelly? Or Nichols and Eddowes? Or Stride and Chapman? The only way the victims fit into a timeline of everyday work and free Saturday nights is the exact way in which the murders went down. Coincidence? Again?

And how many men moved along the streets at this hour? The fewest, apparently. The PC:s and watchmen at Buckīs Row saw nobody. Lechmere met noone until Paul came upon him. So we donīt have an amount of thousands of men to choose from. We have very few men out and about in these quarters.

After that, there is a lot more that points to Lechmere, not least the Mizen scam. But you know this already!

Saying that he was just one man of many and no more suspicious than the others is putting a blindfold on. A thick one.

Thanks for your thoughtful questions! And thanks for the manner in which you presented them - you set an example for all to follow.

All the best,
Fisherman

[jmenges]

Reply deleted and moved to the other thread...

JM

[Monty]

Post 112 has been noted Christer.

And actioned.

Thanks

Monty