Charles Lechmere interesting link

[MrBarnett]

Colin ,

'The probability distribution that I have proposed is based entirely on the locations of the six depicted murder-sites, and a perception of the probability that a serial perpetrator would intentionally radiate from his base in sequentially alternating directions, in order to create an illusion of a randomness. '

Doesn't this assume the perpetrator thinks of himself as a serial killer and fears the authorities may catch on and try to detect a pattern in his crimes?

Would a late Victorian carman have thought like that? Isn't it more likely that he would assume his attacks would be considered part of the everyday random violence in the area?

Sorry for so many questions, but I occasionally struggle to see the relevance of modern day techniques being applied to historical events, particularly when they assume a certain modern mindset on the part of the historical people involved.

MrB

[Fisherman]

To surmise and then attempt to rationalize the routes that were taken by a hunter whilst on the prowl is absolute fool's play.

The probability distribution that I have proposed is based entirely on the locations of the six depicted murder-sites, and a perception of the probability that a serial perpetrator would intentionally radiate from his base in sequentially alternating directions, in order to create an illusion of a randomness.

The likelihood that a particular point on the ground played host to the 1888 residence of our perpetrator is assessed on the basis of its elliptically proportional proximity to a single point of central tendency, i.e. the murder-site mean-center. Any point along any of the white elliptical contours, for example, would therefore be equally likely to any other point along the same contour.

The more intricate geographic profile models used by Kim Rossmo, David Canter, Ned Levine, et al, would assess the likelihood that a particular point on the ground played host to the 1888 residence of our perpetrator on the basis of its direct proximity to each of the depicted murder-sites. They therefore inherently assume an unobstructed mode of direct travel (i.e. through walls) to and from each of the murder-sites, and in so doing generate irregularly shaped and totally impractical contours.

My model on the other hand, allows for the endless wanderings and prowls that we might expect of a dog that has been anchored to a point of central tendency by a 100-foot leash.

Charles Lechmere's routes to here, and routes to there, … would not be a factor in anyone's geographic profile probability distribution.

---

Stop!

Stop surmising and rationalizing his every move. You are digging yourselves more and more deeply into holes out of which you will never be able to climb.

He was quite possibly in the presence of Polly Nichols for several minutes prior to Paul's arrival; he identified himself in an inexplicable manner; there are perhaps some inconsistencies in his testimony; he knew the area. Leave it at that!

Focus on the wealth of factual information regarding his life that Edward has deftly uncovered, and carry on.

And above all else, stop allowing yourselves to be dragged into the ridiculously senseless debates that occur on this message board.

As I said earlier today, in another thread:

Casebook used to be a repository for meaningful research. Now it's just a cheap chat room.

Thanks for the advice, Colin!

I would like to say that nobody is laying down as absolutes that Lechmere must have done things in a certain way, so I don´t think that there is any fear of us digging ourselves into holes.
We are pointing to possibilities and we are acknowledging that the murders did happen along the two thoroughfares we have identified. Nothing can be proven as such, and therefore we cannot be held accountable for having stated that there IS any proof one way or another when it comes to the carmans movements.

In the Nichols case, he was found by the victim, dressed - one must surmise, going on Jonas Mizens testimony - in a carmans working gear. He stated that he went to Pickfords afterwards, and he must have known that this could potentially have been checked out. We should therefore accept that the more credible thing is that he killed en route to his job in this case - if he was the killer.

The timings of the other cases also invite the thought that he did the same thing on those occasions, but there is nothing to tie him to the places as such apart from the overall credibility that one man was responsible for all the murders characterized by the same type of MO and our knowledge that he started work at around 4 AM if what Lechmere said at the Nichols inquest was something we may go by.

That is not digging us into holes. It is looking at the cases and recognizing that there are certain signs that attach to them all. It would be odd not to acknowledge that.

There´s a lot of senseless debating going on, just like you say. I feel that we have been very consequent throughout and given answers to the questions asked - it is the path we´ve chosen, and although it is claimed by people that serious objections to the theory have been raised, I think we both know that this is not true.
The worst cases are people that we no longer debate with. That won´t change for my part, at least.

All in all, we shall hopefully be fine. Thanks for your concern, but in the end we must all choose our own paths.

the very best,
Fisherman

[Colin Roberts]

To surmise and then attempt to rationalize the routes that were taken by a hunter whilst on the prowl is absolute fool's play.

The probability distribution that I have proposed is based entirely on the locations of the six depicted murder-sites, and a perception of the probability that a serial perpetrator would intentionally radiate from his base in sequentially alternating directions, in order to create an illusion of a randomness.

The likelihood that a particular point on the ground played host to the 1888 residence of our perpetrator is assessed on the basis of its elliptically proportional proximity to a single point of central tendency, i.e. the murder-site mean-center. Any point along any of the white elliptical contours, for example, would therefore be equally likely to any other point along the same contour.

The more intricate geographic profile models used by Kim Rossmo, David Canter, Ned Levine, et al, would assess the likelihood that a particular point on the ground played host to the 1888 residence of our perpetrator on the basis of its direct proximity to each of the depicted murder-sites. They therefore inherently assume an unobstructed mode of direct travel (i.e. through walls) to and from each of the murder-sites, and in so doing generate irregularly shaped and totally impractical contours.

My model on the other hand, allows for the endless wanderings and prowls that we might expect of a dog that has been anchored to a point of central tendency by a 100-foot leash.

Charles Lechmere's routes to here, and routes to there, … would not be a factor in anyone's geographic profile probability distribution.

---

Stop!

Stop surmising and rationalizing his every move. You are digging yourselves more and more deeply into holes out of which you will never be able to climb.

He was quite possibly in the presence of Polly Nichols for several minutes prior to Paul's arrival; he identified himself in an inexplicable manner; there are perhaps some inconsistencies in his testimony; he knew the area. Leave it at that!

Focus on the wealth of factual information regarding his life that Edward has deftly uncovered, and carry on.

And above all else, stop allowing yourselves to be dragged into the ridiculously senseless debates that occur on this message board.

As I said earlier today, in another thread:

Casebook used to be a repository for meaningful research. Now it's just a cheap chat room.

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett: Hi Fish,

I hope I haven't lured you into your comfort zone. I think the actual murder sites are not particularly relevant. Believing as I do that it was probably the victims who chose the locations, the key is where he found them.The classic example of this is Nichols. The chances are he did not stumble upon her in Bucks Row. It's much more likely that he found her in the Whitechapel Road, don't you think ?

Likelier, yes - but no certainty.

Along the route he had used to work for 20-odd years and which had a Lechmere groove worn into it. Old Monty doesn't need to come into it, and isn't necessary to explain the earlier murders in terms of his work route. And as for a 'short cut' through Dorset Street to explain Kelly, I don't buy it. In the early hours of the morning, Commercial Street would be my bet. And what about Chapman, was she wandering up and down Hanbury Street as the **** crowed?

Not the simplest of questions to answer. What we are left with is a close to 100 per cent correlation with the working treks anyhow. The Dorset street route IS a shortcut from Hanbury Street, by the way.

All in all, these are hard things to determine. Maybe he saw Nichols as he crossed Brady Street, passing down in Whitechapel Road. Who knows?

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Hi Fish,

I hope I haven't lured you into your comfort zone. I think the actual murder sites are not particularly relevant. Believing as I do that it was probably the victims who chose the locations, the key is where he found them.The classic example of this is Nichols. The chances are he did not stumble upon her in Bucks Row. It's much more likely that he found her in the Whitechapel Road, don't you think ? Along the route he had used to work for 20-odd years and which had a Lechmere groove worn into it. Old Monty doesn't need to come into it, and isn't necessary to explain the earlier murders in terms of his work route. And as for a 'short cut' through Dorset Street to explain Kelly, I don't buy it. In the early hours of the morning, Commercial Street would be my bet. And what about Chapman, was she wandering up and down Hanbury Street as the **** crowed?

MrB

[Fisherman]

Colin,

Great post. Just one observation, question. Would this hold true if Lech had only recently, within a matter of a few weeks, moved to his residence at the time the murders began? Surely the basis for such a conclusion is the idea of familiarity/comfort. If you are unfamiliar with where you live and your comfort zone is actually a cross between your previous residence and your route to work of 20+ years wouldn't the most likely area of activity be skewed by that? Almost too complex to calculate I would have thought.

MrB

I think you´ve got a point there, as you will understand, Mr Barnett. What I think may also be telling when it comes to the did-he-kill-en-route-to-work issue, is that the murder spots are smack, bang on the Old Montague and Hanbury lines.
If he did not kill en route to job (apart from Nichols where we seemingly DO have that exact kind of a murder if he was responsible), but instead traversed the whole area circumscribed by Colins representation - then why is it that the murders so closely follow these two treks and the short cut provided from Hanbury to Broad Street, through Dorset Street? Why not two, three, four or five blocks in, if he was not heading to work? Why would he spend his free time walking his working treks?

To me, the proximity to the working treks whispers of him having been pressed for time to a significant extent, not wishing to journey too far from his road to job.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Colin,

Great post. Just one observation, question. Would this hold true if Lech had only recently, within a matter of a few weeks, moved to his residence at the time the murders began? Surely the basis for such a conclusion is the idea of familiarity/comfort. If you are unfamiliar with where you live and your comfort zone is actually a cross between your previous residence and your route to work of 20+ years wouldn't the most likely area of activity be skewed by that? Almost too complex to calculate I would have thought.

MrB

[Fisherman]

Having played a small part in the discovery of Lechmere's true identity, I am rather intrigued by the possibility that he was 'Jack the Ripper'.
Unfortunately, Lechmere's candidacy has been horribly undone by the very people that have been attempting to promote it. Consequently, an intriguing person of interest has effectively become a very improbable 'suspect'.

Why, oh why, Christer and Edward, did you have to cheapen the case against Lechmere with suggestions that he preyed upon his victims whilst in route to and from his place of employment?

All that ever needed to be said was that he traversed the major axis of the killing field of 'Jack the Ripper'¹ as a matter of daily routine, and that he was therefore intimately familiar with its immediate vicinity. He could have preyed upon his victims - for the most part - whilst on his own time.

Peter Sutcliffe didn't prey upon his victims whilst in route to and from his place of employment, but he makes a damn good candidate for having been the 'Yorkshire Ripper'. He didn't pass through the 'red light' portions of Manningham, Chapeltown and Moss Side whilst on his way to work each day, but instead prowled those areas at night, after having gone home from his routine day-trips and then back out again. Perhaps Lechmere could have found a way to do the same. Perhaps not.

Peter Sutcliffe didn't dispatch one of his victims on his mother's doorstep either, but …

So on, and so on, and …

You have allowed your imaginations to run wild Christer and Edward; and in turn you have created a host of scenarios that are plainly and simply too specific, and in many instances rather unrealistic. Consequently, you have muddied the water.

¹ The immediate vicinity of the killing field of 'Jack the Ripper': an area within which I perceive a 50% probability that our perpetrator's 1888 residence is to be found.


Accumulation of Probability Distribution (Elliptical): Murder-Site Mean-Center, to Extent of Fifty Percent Accumulation (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2010
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2011

Colin! Long time no see!

You will know that the first man to speak of the correspondance with the routes to work was Connor, not us.

But he did have a very good point, and still has, I believe.

Lechmere was a family man. He left his family to go to work early in the mornings. That was where he had a window of opportunity that we can realize was there. The victims seemingly died early in the mornings. The correspondance is there.

More pertinently, the victim we know he was found by WAS killed as he was on his way to job.

Edward holds the opinion that Chapman could have died later in the day than when he made his morning trek. I instead think that Phillips may have been correct, and I do count Chapman in as a possible work trek victim. I know Edward does not exclude the possibility.

I cannot see why it would muddy the waters, to go along with the evidence like this. Of course, if he did not work on the days when Tabram, Chapman and Kelly died, then he could have killed them when being off work. But since they were working days, I think the better presumption must be that he went to work on these days.

The fact that an intimate knowledge about the area would have followed with his work trek goes without saying, methinks.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Rob Clack: This is why it is pointless debating with you. If I said I was in the middle of the road. Guess what. I am in the middle of the road.
So your saying that because he said he was standing in the middle of the road he was actually standing near the kerb?

Unbelievable.

It only becomes unbelieveable when you put words into my mouth!

Did I say that he was near to the kerb?

No.

I said that we cannot posit that he must have been in the exact middle of the road.

That road was five yards wide or so. If he had two yards to one side and three to the other, he could well have been described as being in the middle of the road just the same. Easily!! Look at the pics I pointed to, listen to what Mike says. And two yards from the kerb and a corpse is close! And if you move him that half yard further away, he is STILL close.

You are seemingly just trying to avoid the real issue, Rob. He was close, he could have stepped back from the body into the road, he was alone with the body and there is nothing that tells us that he did not do the deed - at least nothing that can be measured in two feet of Bucks Row!

Unless you can come up with anything new there is no point in continuing this as we have been through it before.

Agreed. I was not the one who stepped in to comment about it, it was you.

I will point out that you conveniently ignored my point about using 'Allen' and that he gave the correct home and work address.

Then I will point out that I have given my answer to that dozens of times on these boards. I am certain that you know my answer, even. If you wish, I can explain it again, just tell me.

If you want to save me the trouble, it is easy enough to find.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rob Clack]

I do remember a time when a little kid was on the side of the road and I was driving along. I yelled, "Hey get out of the middle of the road!" scared the hell out him and confused him because he had done no wrong.


Mike

I think you confused him because he wasn't in the middle of the road.

Rob

[Colin Roberts]

Having played a small part in the discovery of Lechmere's true identity, I am rather intrigued by the possibility that he was 'Jack the Ripper'.

Unfortunately, Lechmere's candidacy has been horribly undone by the very people that have been attempting to promote it. Consequently, an intriguing person of interest has effectively become a very improbable 'suspect'.

Why, oh why, Christer and Edward, did you have to cheapen the case against Lechmere with suggestions that he preyed upon his victims whilst in route to and from his place of employment?

All that ever needed to be said was that he traversed the major axis of the killing field of 'Jack the Ripper'¹ as a matter of daily routine, and that he was therefore intimately familiar with its immediate vicinity. He could have preyed upon his victims - for the most part - whilst on his own time.

Peter Sutcliffe didn't prey upon his victims whilst in route to and from his place of employment, but he makes a damn good candidate for having been the 'Yorkshire Ripper'. He didn't pass through the 'red light' portions of Manningham, Chapeltown and Moss Side whilst on his way to work each day, but instead prowled those areas at night, after having gone home from his routine day-trips and then back out again. Perhaps Lechmere could have found a way to do the same. Perhaps not.

Peter Sutcliffe didn't dispatch one of his victims on his mother's doorstep either, but …

So on, and so on, and …

You have allowed your imaginations to run wild Christer and Edward; and in turn you have created a host of scenarios that are plainly and simply too specific, and in many instances rather unrealistic. Consequently, you have muddied the water.

¹ The immediate vicinity of the killing field of 'Jack the Ripper': an area within which I perceive a 50% probability that our perpetrator's 1888 residence is to be found.


Accumulation of Probability Distribution (Elliptical): Murder-Site Mean-Center, to Extent of Fifty Percent Accumulation (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2010
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2011

[Fisherman]

The Good Michael: Cross:


He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement."


To paraphrase, Cross was in the middle of the road. He could see the body off to the side on the pavement. It was in the middle of the road that he met Paul.
Now, he didn't say he was next to the body. In fact, he said he wasn't.

No, he never said he wasn´t next to the body, Mike. You infer it and you may be right or wrong. Plus "the middle of the road" is inexact.



Paul:

30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway.

To paraphrase, Paul saw Cross standing in the middle of the road and wanted to walk past. The man (Cross) interrupted him and pointed to the corpse way over on the side of the road.

Yes, at that stage they would have been closer to the northern side of the road. But where exactly Lechmere was from the outset, we don´t know. Not is it very important as such, for we DO know, just as you say that...

"... it doesn't mean that Cross didn't kill Nichols and then move to the middle of the road."

That is all that matters. The side quibbles about yards, feet and road middles is just a convenient way to avoid discussing the core matter. I´m glad you didn´t join in.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

I do remember a time when a little kid was on the side of the road and I was driving along. I yelled, "Hey get out of the middle of the road!" scared the hell out him and confused him because he had done no wrong.


Mike

[Rob Clack]

He still never said anything about "several yards away" - when you use that expression, you work from a certainty that Lechmere was in the exact middle of the road or even further away from the body. You therefore apply your thoughts to what Paul said and you put words into his mouth that he never uttered.

"In the middle of the road" is an expression that is normally used by people who have not measured any distances. It can mean anywhere out in the road.

The best,
Fisherman

This is why it is pointless debating with you. If I said I was in the middle of the road. Guess what. I am in the middle of the road.
So your saying that because he said he was standing in the middle of the road he was actually standing near the kerb?

Unbelievable.

Unless you can come up with anything new there is no point in continuing this as we have been through it before.

I will point out that you conveniently ignored my point about using 'Allen' and that he gave the correct home and work address.

Rob

[The Good Michael]

Cross:


He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement."


To paraphrase, Cross was in the middle of the road. He could see the body off to the side on the pavement. It was in the middle of the road that he met Paul.
Now, he didn't say he was next to the body. In fact, he said he wasn't.



Paul:

30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway.

To paraphrase, Paul saw Cross standing in the middle of the road and wanted to walk past. The man (Cross) interrupted him and pointed to the corpse way over on the side of the road.

This is pretty clear stuff, but it doesn't mean that Cross didn't kill Nichols and then move to the middle of the road.


Cheers,

Mike