Charles Lechmere interesting link

[MrBarnett]

It wasn't a football pools coupon, was it ?

[Lechmere]

No, her bingo book

[Barnaby]

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

Absolutely, Fisherman. I was just lumping poverty into environmental variables. This is one of the more important ones, along with a stable family environment.

[Barnaby]

Barnaby

Psychopathic serial killers are clearly much rarer than ‘normal criminals’, so it is more difficult to establish patterns.
But is it found that it runs in the family?
Do we find families of serial killers across generations?
Should we expect to find serial killers in the generations before or after a suspect in order to enhance that suspect’s status?
I don’t think so.
I have never seen any evidence for this.

I agree with your first statement. Thankfully, it is rare and that makes the research difficult. If for instance, having a parent serial killer triples the likelihood of one also being a serial killer (I completely made this up to make the point), that increase might be too small to detect given small sample sizes and a low base rate of occurence. Most kids of serial killers simply won't be serial killers. That doesn't mean that there is not a genetic link.

If the Lechmere clan before and after Charles had a penchant for criminality and especially violent acts, then yes I would say that this is just another piece of circumstantial (albeit inadmissible in a court) evidence as to his guilt. Doesn't mean he did it. The absence of such a pattern doesn't mean he is innocent. Given the problem of low base rates, in my opinion the presence of this type of behavior in other family members is more evidence for his guilt than the absence of such behavior is evidence for his innocence.

[moonbegger]

Ok , so now that we are all friends again .. anyone fancy having a stab at this ..

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 this first class pathological liar would not be able to come up with something on the spot, or for that matter, 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 IMHO .

Cheers

Moonbegger

[miss marple]

It just goes on.
An entire fiction has been created and enlarged about the life of old Charlie. His family are dragged in, a back story has been invented about the treatment of his wife, comments are made about whether his wife knew of his murderous habits. His children are analysed.
Its all lies, in the sense that you have invented a charactor Letchmere to fit in with a theory
You know nothing about Letchmere and his family apart from what is on record.
If I was a descendant of Letchmere, I d be bloody angry that you made all this stuff up and talk about it as though it was literal truth.

If you want to know about his family, contact the descendants.

Miss Marple

[Fisherman]

miss marple:

It just goes on.

It should. And it will.

An entire fiction has been created and enlarged about the life of old Charlie. His family are dragged in, a back story has been invented about the treatment of his wife, comments are made about whether his wife knew of his murderous habits. His children are analysed.

No back story has been created about the treatment of his wife, at least not by me. People speculate and ask away, and I simply respond as best as I can. I am not saying that he treated his wife in any special manner, but I am saying that he MAY have done X or Y, when people do not understand how a psychopath works, for example. The analysis of his children was not led on by me or Edward. And we cannot discuss the implications without "dragging his family in", I´m afraid.
The more interesting thing is why somebody should be upset by and opposed to it. Like you.

Its all lies, in the sense that you have invented a charactor Letchmere to fit in with a theory.

Don´t be silly - it is not until we know the thruth that we can tell what is lies. It is not a lie to say that Lechmere was the killer - it is a guess. And an educated one at that.

You know nothing about Letchmere and his family apart from what is on record.

Yes, we do, actually, since there have been extensive contacts between the Lechmere family and Edward.

If I was a descendant of Letchmere, I d be bloody angry that you made all this stuff up and talk about it as though it was literal truth.

Then again, you are not a descendant of Lechmere, are you? And the ones that are, are perfectly fine with it. To some degree, they are actually fascinated.

If you want to know about his family, contact the descendants.

As you may have found out by now, that has been taken thoroughly care of. So the one who is creating scenarios out of thin air is actually you. You claim things on behalf of the Lechmeres that we know not to be true, and you are totally uninformed about the matters you accuse us of.

Did you know what Edwards partners name is, by the way? No? Search the boards, Miss Marple, and you shall find!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Patrick S]

It just goes on.
An entire fiction has been created and enlarged about the life of old Charlie. His family are dragged in, a back story has been invented about the treatment of his wife, comments are made about whether his wife knew of his murderous habits. His children are analysed.
Its all lies, in the sense that you have invented a charactor Letchmere to fit in with a theory
You know nothing about Letchmere and his family apart from what is on record.
If I was a descendant of Letchmere, I d be bloody angry that you made all this stuff up and talk about it as though it was literal truth.

If you want to know about his family, contact the descendants.

Miss Marple

Great points that have been made here many times. 'Round and 'round we go. For the Lechmerians, all signs point to 'Yes!'. The absurdities have driven many of us from the boards. Arguments like 'view the 'evidence' with an eye on Lechmere being guilty' are presented as rational. Myriad assumptions are made, one built upon another. I hope it runs it's course soon.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S:

For the Lechmerians, all signs point to 'Yes!'.

No, Patrick. For the Lechmereians, all signs point to "possible" or even "feasible", whereas - so far - not a single sign has pointed to "no". We constantly put the theory to the test, and what it has resulted in, is that no link in the chain has been broken. If it does not interest you, it interests me very much.

The absurdities have driven many of us from the boards.

Like who? Is it not more absurd to leave the boards because you dislike a particular theory?

Arguments like 'view the 'evidence' with an eye on Lechmere being guilty' are presented as rational.

Yes, and it is perfectly rational as long as you look at things from both sides. It would be absurd not to try the guilty approach on any subject to see if he fits the bill.

Myriad assumptions are made, one built upon another. I hope it runs it's course soon.

You can wave farewell to that hope, Patrick. Things will only get worse - from your point of view.

the best,
Fisherman

[Scott Nelson]

Then it's time to focus on David Conehead instead.

[GUT]

Patrick S:

For the Lechmerians, all signs point to 'Yes!'.

No, Patrick. For the Lechmereians, all signs point to "possible" or even "feasible", whereas - so far - not a single sign has pointed to "no". We constantly put the theory to the test, and what it has resulted in, is that no link in the chain has been broken. If it does not interest you, it interests me very much.

The absurdities have driven many of us from the boards.

Like who? Is it not more absurd to leave the boards because you dislike a particular theory?

Arguments like 'view the 'evidence' with an eye on Lechmere being guilty' are presented as rational.

Yes, and it is perfectly rational as long as you look at things from both sides. It would be absurd not to try the guilty approach on any subject to see if he fits the bill.

Myriad assumptions are made, one built upon another. I hope it runs it's course soon.

You can wave farewell to that hope, Patrick. Things will only get worse - from your point of view.

the best,
Fisherman

G'day Fisherman

The part I have highlighted above s to me the whole problem with Cross as the Ripper when I look at his actions as a guilty man I can see a glimmer of a possibility, when I look at them as the actions of an innocent man he is in the clear. Thus the case in my mind fails to get to committal let alone conviction. I've said t before and I'll say it again no prosecution service would bring a case on what we have.

[Barnaby]

It just goes on.
An entire fiction has been created and enlarged about the life of old Charlie. His family are dragged in, a back story has been invented about the treatment of his wife, comments are made about whether his wife knew of his murderous habits. His children are analysed.
Its all lies, in the sense that you have invented a charactor Letchmere to fit in with a theory
You know nothing about Letchmere and his family apart from what is on record.
If I was a descendant of Letchmere, I d be bloody angry that you made all this stuff up and talk about it as though it was literal truth.

If you want to know about his family, contact the descendants.

Miss Marple

I will deservedly take the blame for raising the quite established link between aggression and genetics (and if you doubt that, remember the Y chromosome is a genetic factor) and being curious about his children.

My questions regard matters of public record which I certainly could investigate, but before doing so I thought I'd ask the Lechmere experts.

It was not my intention to upset anyone on this rather academic matter. To those offended, are you equally offended by questions such as "What did Druitt's family know? or "What was the relationship between James Kelly and his mother-in-law?" Are you offended when we discuss the dating / social history of the victims and bring tangential characters into the mix as possible suspects? After all, there was only one (or a few) Jack the Ripper(s) and this website is thus full of deceased persons being falsely accused.

Or do you just not like this particular suspect and are using my inquiry to take an unfair shot at the entire theory?

[Barnaby]

To add, the only living descendant mentioned, Sue Lechmere, apparently thinks her great-great grandfather did it and, as such, I doubt she would be upset!

[Barnaby]

G'day Fisherman

The part I have highlighted above s to me the whole problem with Cross as the Ripper when I look at his actions as a guilty man I can see a glimmer of a possibility, when I look at them as the actions of an innocent man he is in the clear. Thus the case in my mind fails to get to committal let alone conviction. I've said t before and I'll say it again no prosecution service would bring a case on what we have.

Hi GUT,

I have that problem with lots of suspects! If you start with a "if they are guilty" mindset, one can see lots of things as suspicious. And I am most definitely prone to doing this when reading the latest suspect book, etc.

Having said that, I don't think anyone has claimed to have enough evidence on Lechmere to warrant prosecution. But even objectively, he seems a viable suspect: lived in the East end, had reason to be on the streets in the early morning hours, presented himself in such a manner to scare Robert Paul and just so happened to be standing by a very recently killed (still alive?) Ripper victim when doing so, did not give his real name to authorities, and contradicted PC Mizen on the witness stand. There are other points that are debatable (and more interesting) but these I think are accepted by most. Does this means he did it? No. But I like him as a suspect more so than others who WERE interviewed extensively as possible suspects by the police ( Hutch, Barnett). For these reasons, I think Lechmere deserves modern attention as a suspect.

Best,

Barnaby

[Roy Corduroy]

But that's just it, Barnaby, he had reason to be on the streets in the morning. In fact, he had reason to be on that particular street, Buck's Row. (Durward Street) In this map you see right to left he is walking from his home on Doveton Street, Bethnal Green, to Pickford's at Broad Street Station. The Coal Depot is directly astride his route. He must go around it. Apparently going north was out of his way. So he went south around it. Durward Street is the nearest way around. The X marks the spot where he found the body of Polly Nichols, immediately before crossing the railway bridge. In this 1897 map, the citizens have had the name changed from Buck's Row to Durward Street because of the notoriety of the crime. Charles Lechmere had a perfectly legitimate reason for being in that place at that time.