Charles Lechmere interesting link

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[Lechmere]

No, her bingo book

[MrBarnett]

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

[Lechmere]

Dr Strange
It is not just the marriage certificate - there is a later document also with an X.

[Fisherman]

I could swear blind I read words to the extent of " If the police did pay his wife a visit what makes you so sure his name would be revealed " But I have had a stressful week myself , so I may well have misinterpreted something .

Cheers

moonbegger

It happens easily enough - once we are convinced we have got it right, we will read sentences in a way that confirms this. The words are there, but in another order, and we subconsciously rearrange them to make sense to us.
There is even a word for in in Swedish, "intressedominans" (dominance of interest), created by a scientist, Albert Eskeröd, who looked into matters like these many years ago.

I´ve done the exact same myself, as I suspect most of us have. It´s no big deal - at least it wasn´t until I lost my temper ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Well seeing as you ask Fish , I think I presented the deaf , dumb , blind , argument below .. but I will add, that its not actually me who subscribes to her being Deaf , dumb & blind on these issues .

I know Lech put in a valiant effort to dismiss all of the above .. but for my mind there is way too much going on here for his wife to remain clueless .

Cheers

Moonbegger .

I agree very much with Edward on this. Elizabeth Lechmere would not have any reason to feel suspicious because her husband left for work, would she?
And why would the neighbours gossip about the family? That would predispose that some of them had read the Star and picked up on the address, and since it said Cross, and since the family living in 22 Doveton Street were named Lechmere, all the nosy neighbours could do would perhaps be to accept that the paper had gotten it wrong. The family was new in the area, and would have been unknown to the neighbours, so there is no reason to suppose that they must have known that Charles worked at Pickfords.

I don´t think that Lechmeres wife was washed over with circumstantial evidence. If he kept the witness thing from her, he would take care to hide anything else too. As for blood, we don´t know if there was much blood on his clothes, do we? Besides, we know that his mother was in the cat´s meat business, and there is good reason to think that Charles may have helped out with that, earning him the odd bloodstain or two.

I think Elizabeth Lechmere may well have been seeing, hearing and speaking - and unaware of what was going on. Gary Ridgways wife was, for example - and he killed dozens and dozens of women, and the coppers came calling more than once at his house. Still Mrs Ridgway suspected nothing, and was severely shocked when the truth was revealed. Same thing with Mrs Dennis Rader, as I understand it.

There is also the apparent possibility that Mrs Lechmere DID feel suspicious - but did not act upon it. It takes a lot before you give your husband away - and before you admit to yourself that you have been deceived for twenty years.

Someone like me and you should realize that.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

In this case, you couldn´t. And don´t feel sorry for yourself - I was referring to the repeated mistakes and misinterpretations you have made (like when you stated that we had said that a police visit to Lechmere´s house would not give away his true identity) when I wrote that you should not castigate Lechmere´s wife.
I am sorry if it offended you, it was not a well chosen wording, but frustration got the better of me. I happen to think that you are a very nice bloke, all in all, so I should have been more patient. I normally am, but this time you first presented a flagrant fault and ascribed it to me/us, whereupon I corrected you - only to have it reiterated AGAIN. That was what made me blow my top. For that I apologize, unconditionally.

All the best,
Fisherman

Its all good Fish , I wasn't offended or feeling sorry for myself in the slightest, but I do appreciate the sentiment none the less .. I am however slightly confused how I could attribute something to Ed he clearly never expressed .. I could swear blind I read words to the extent of " If the police did pay his wife a visit what makes you so sure his name would be revealed " But I have had a stressful week myself , so I may well have misinterpreted something .

Cheers

moonbegger

[GUT]

>>That´s Edwards department, since he has the documents. What I DO know is that not only Elizabeth, but apparently also her parents put their marks on documents instead of signing them. <<

Thanks Fisherman, that's why I asked. Presumably she was never given the change to learn as nobodyelse in the family could read or write. You'd assume after 17 years in a a family that could read and write she might well have picked it up, but if there is another "X" knocking around after 1888, then I guess not.

Not strictly true there are plenty of people who, for one reason or another can do one but not the other.

[drstrange169]

>>That´s Edwards department, since he has the documents. What I DO know is that not only Elizabeth, but apparently also her parents put their marks on documents instead of signing them. <<

Thanks Fisherman, that's why I asked. Presumably she was never given the change to learn as nobodyelse in the family could read or write. You'd assume after 17 years in a a family that could read and write she might well have picked it up, but if there is another "X" knocking around after 1888, then I guess not.

[moonbegger]

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

Well seeing as you ask Fish , I think I presented the deaf , dumb , blind , argument below .. but I will add, that its not actually me who subscribes to her being Deaf , dumb & blind on these issues .

"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 , ect , ect "

"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 , bloodied shirts, trousers, ect ,ect "

"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 .."

I know Lech put in a valiant effort to dismiss all of the above .. but for my mind there is way too much going on here for his wife to remain clueless .

Cheers

Moonbegger .