Charles Lechmere interesting link

[moonbegger]

Fish ,

That was also, by the way, why he went to the inquest in his working gear - he kept it from his wife, and so he could not go away that morning in his Sunday best.

Speculation based on conjecture , I thought we put this ole chestnut to bed some time back .. The Inquest was on Monday , Cross dressed for work , you really don't have to be a rocket scientist to conclude he was either going to work or at work and was either hunted down or decided to volunteer his statement . ( Unless I am totally unaware , and you now have proof that he had Monday off work )

As for the rest of the conundrum Fish, I fear you are not fully getting it ,
your reach may exceed your grasp on this particular point sir , so I will leave it for others to ponder .

Lech ..

Hence the use of the Cross name - he could come up with an explanation for its use if the name swap was exposed as it would have been if the police had visited his house.

Ah so we finally get to the meat & veg .. Cross does indeed have some legitimate reason to use the name Cross !! and further more , what is to stop Lechmere using that same explanation at the police station , and save himself having to worry about the Police finding out ? .. especially if some one knew him at the local inquest and happened to mention it ..

Oh and Fish ..

Request: Do NOT claim again that I have said that a visit to his house on behalf of the police would not reveal his right name!!!

I think you will find that your team man Lechmere posted that .. and my response was to the argument , not you personally .. but you do like to jump in with both feet before testing the water .. so what can I say ???
Cheers

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Moonbegger,

I think that you raise a really good point about why not lie about the time he left given he had no qualms lying about his name.

The case against seems a very precise and exact science , but I feel the above scenarios , which if fact play out as one big scenario , are contradictions of each other .. unless of course he had nothing to hide on both counts !

I follow most of your argument but if he had nothing to hide on both counts why didn't he use his real name? This was rather official business.

Hello Barnaby ,

I think that Lechmere just answered that one for me .. As I have always believed Lechmere did indeed have some legitimate reason or excuse to use the name Cross ..
cheers
moonbegger

[Fisherman]

moonbegger:

Fish ,

Speculation based on conjecture , I thought we put this ole chestnut to bed some time back .. The Inquest was on Monday , Cross dressed for work , you really don't have to be a rocket scientist to conclude he was either going to work or at work and was either hunted down or decided to volunteer his statement . ( Unless I am totally unaware , and you now have proof that he had Monday off work )

As for the rest of the conundrum Fish, I fear you are not fully getting it ,
your reach may exceed your grasp on this particular point sir , so I will leave it for others to ponder .

I am "getting" every single bit of your conundrum - and I just presented how it is untangled. He could not give the real departure time to the inquest for fear that his wife would give him away if the police payed them a visit, something that was entirely on the cards.

If there is somebody here that fails to comprehend, it´s not me.

Ah so we finally get to the meat & veg .. Cross does indeed have some legitimate reason to use the name Cross !!

Finally...? What on earth are you going on about? We have for three years been saying that he used the name Cross since it would have some legitimacy tied to it.

Where were you those three years?

and further more , what is to stop Lechmere using that same explanation at the police station , and save himself having to worry about the Police finding out ?

His wife. If he gave the name Cross, but said that he actually was called Lechmere, then he would
A/ Have been given as Cross A K A Lechmere in the police reports.
B/ Not have been able to keep it from his wife that he was the witness.

Like I have said ninetyfive times now, as long as the police did not pay his wife a vist, he would be fine with them knowing all about him, name included. But he could NEVER bank on the police stayng away from him.

.. especially if some one knew him at the local inquest and happened to mention it ..

If that had happened, we would know - he would have been down as Cross A K A Lechmere in the reports.

Oh and Fish ..

Yeah...?

I think you will find that your team man Lechmere posted that .. and my response was to the argument , not you personally .. but you do like to jump in with both feet before testing the water .. so what can I say ???

You can say "I´ll go take a look again". Myself, I will not do so however, since I know that Edward is also of the opinion that a police visit to his house would in all probability give his true identity away. It goes without saying.

What more can you get wrong, Moonbegger?

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Lech ,

(Get that? If the police had visited his house, where his wife lived, then Lechmere would not have been able to mask his true identity and his wife would have discovered that he had been involved and called himself Cross).

I may well have misread your point about his identity being still masked during a police visit , I cant be assed to trawl through the boards , but the fact that you post this leads me to no other conclusion other than I was mistaken ..

Cheers
moobegger .

[moonbegger]

Fish ,

"Speculation based on conjecture , I thought we put this ole chestnut to bed some time back .. The Inquest was on Monday , Cross dressed for work , you really don't have to be a rocket scientist to conclude he was either going to work or at work and was either hunted down or decided to volunteer his statement . ( Unless I am totally unaware , and you now have proof that he had Monday off work )'

Failure to answer !!!

"Finally...? What on earth are you going on about? We have for three years been saying that he used the name Cross since it would have some legitimacy tied to it."

So where is the big crime or drama with him using a Legit name ?

and further more , what is to stop Lechmere using that same explanation at the police station , and save himself having to worry about the Police finding out ?

His wife. If he gave the name Cross, but said that he actually was called Lechmere, then he would
A/ Have been given as Cross A K A Lechmere in the police reports.
B/ Not have been able to keep it from his wife that he was the witness.

A/ Not Necessarily .
B/oh yeah , his deaf , dumb , blind , illiterate , unsociable , non gossiping wife

Cheers

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Lech ,



I may well have misread your point about his identity being still masked during a police visit , I cant be assed to trawl through the boards , but the fact that you post this leads me to no other conclusion other than I was mistaken ..

Cheers
moobegger .

Well, THANK GOD for that!

If you do not wish to "trawl through the boards", then please be a bit more discerning about what you suggest on my and Edwards behalf.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

moonbegger:

Fish ,

"Speculation based on conjecture , I thought we put this ole chestnut to bed some time back .. The Inquest was on Monday , Cross dressed for work , you really don't have to be a rocket scientist to conclude he was either going to work or at work and was either hunted down or decided to volunteer his statement . ( Unless I am totally unaware , and you now have proof that he had Monday off work )'

Failure to answer !!!

Here it is then - you are wrong. The police did NOT put any faith at all in Pauls story. Pauls story is the only way they would have known about "Cross". Ergo, they never spent a second in search of him, but instead believed that John Neil was the one who had found the body.

Incidentally, my "failure to answer" was to some extent led on by the fact that I have answered this a hundred times before.

So where is the big crime or drama with him using a Legit name ?

To begin with, it is NOT a "legit name", legally speaking. Only one name is legit when speaking to the police and an inquest - your true one. And the drama lies in the false name being part of the revelation that Charles Lechmere was a liar and quite probably the killer of Nichols - and Jack the Ripper. So BOTH crime and drama.

A/ Not Necessarily .

Yes, necessarily.

B/oh yeah , his deaf , dumb , blind , illiterate , unsociable , non gossiping wife

She was not deaf, she was not dumb and she was not blind. We cannot know whether he was unsociable or non gossiping.

She was illiterate. But that should not mean that she be castigated by someone like you for anything else.

Thank you for the debate. I will not participate any more in it with you until further notice.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Evening all

the gap in his timings was not noticed - innocent or guilty.

Or Maybe it was , and he had a perfectly acceptable explanation ( there really is no proof either way), just like the explanation he had regarding his name ?

And on that note .. He raises the (look at me , I'm guilty , red flag) with his timing issues , on the slim chance that his wife may contradict him . But we are led to believe that he would not have had a ready made excuse and explanation ready for the lost minutes should it come to light .. and really there is no reason it should come to light , unless of course it is he (Lechmere) who brings it to light by not aligning his statement with Paul .. So why would he not simply conform with Pauls timing , and deal with time contradiction should it arise .. and there really is no reason it should have .
He has the whole name change explanation ready to go , so why jeopardize everything by not conforming with Pauls times ?

Not even the double lie excuse would make much sense .. because if he's prepared to tell one lie (his name) then he is forced automatically to tell the 2nd lie to cover the first one ! But he does not .. rings of nothing to hide to me .

Cheers

Moonbegger

[Barnaby]

So, way back at the beginning of this thread there was a picture of his great-great granddaughter.

Does anyone know anything about what became of Lechmere's kids? There is a genetic component to being antisocial (and other diagnoses common with serial killers) and I wonder if any of his kids or grandkids ran afoul of the law. Not that this would prove anything one way or the other but still I am interested.

[Lechmere]

I don't know of any evidence to suggest that the mental abnormalities that create a psychopathic serial killer are genetic or hereditary.

[Barnaby]

Hi Lechmere,

There is a strong genetic component to criminality, especially more severe forms such as aggression. Here is one link I found by googling.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02239409#page-1

Also, this TED talk is a good one showing differences in brain functioning (that are in part genetic) between psychopaths (including serial killers) versus controls.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jim_fallon_exploring_the_mind_of_a_killer

That's not to say that being a serial killer is genetic. Genetic factors account for a good chunk of the variance, but usually less than 50%. So, it is a risk factor, a predisposition. The environment clearly matters just as much. The two are inextricably woven.

Having said this, biological offspring of Lechmere would share 50% of his genes and some commonalities in shared environment. If he was a psychopath, I'd like to know what happened to his kids.

In the United States, for example, 70% of kids with a parent in jail end up incarcerated at some point in their lives themselves. That's a huge number. So genetic AND environmental, these things tend to run in families.

[Barnaby]

To add, I share a quarter of my genes with my brothers, and we were all raised in the same house, and outsiders would say that we are very similar. Yet people close to us know that we are actually very different. Anyone with siblings knows this. Why the differences? As it turns out, the unshared environment takes center stage. Different ages. Different classrooms. Different friends, etc.

Clearly, Lechmere's formative years occurred long before his kids were born, and to the extent something happened here that produced his psychopathology, his offspring might (or may not - no clue about mom) have a genetic risk factor that never manifested itself due to unidentified environmental factors.

[Fisherman]

In the United States, for example, 70% of kids with a parent in jail end up incarcerated at some point in their lives themselves. That's a huge number. So genetic AND environmental, these things tend to run in families.

Let´s not forget, Barnaby, that there is also a clear link inbetween poverty and crime - those who have nothing tend to steal more often than those who are well off. For understandable reasons!

I think this social factor will colour very much why there many times seems to be a "hereditary" factor involved in crime.

The last time over I suggested a thing like this, I was more or less attacked by people yelling that crime is the business of every single man or woman and that poverty has nothing to do with it.

Sadly, it has.

I´ll give your links a read!

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Here is a rhetorical post

She was not deaf, she was not dumb and she was not blind. We cannot know whether he was unsociable or non gossiping.

She was illiterate. But that should not mean that she be castigated by someone like you for anything else.

I do believe it is not Someone like me me who is suggesting all of the above .. ( I see you didn't take on my "refrain from your arrogant , Ignorant and belittling comments " suggestion ! I guess with someone like you , its less than I had hoped for but more than I expected .

The very same Mrs Lechmere that would have been blind to his being out of the house every single time a murder was committed . (especially as she apparently paid mucho attention to his leaving times )

The very same Mrs Lechmere who would also be Deaf to all the local gossip regarding a certain Charles Allen Cross who lived at 22 doveton street ..

The very same Mrs Lechmere , who would never speak to anyone regarding the biggest Murder hunt in history happening on her doorstep , be it at the shops , market , backyard !

The very same Mrs Lechmere , who would have let the abundance of circumstantial evidence pointing towards her Husband wash over her without her even raising an eyebrow .

Not to mention the Children !! repeating what they hear at school , or playing in the streets with their neighbors kids .. yep thats the Local Doveton community that have a celebrity witness living amongst them ..

One final note regarding your ignorant , arrogant , and incredibly naïve , and offensive comment

But that should not mean that she be castigated by someone like you

I could go into an equally offensive rant about how someone like you should be thankful of someone like me .. but quite frankly its beneath me .

I do believe that , if this woman and her family are being castigated .. everyone on these boards knows the true culprit ..

Cheers

Moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

I do believe that , if this woman and her family are being castigated .. everyone on these boards knows the true culprit ..

Cheers

Moonbegger .

Fine. So tell me how I am castigating Elizabeth Lechmere. Or her family, bar her husband.

Fisherman