Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If you'd like to re-write that without the straw-manning and the word-salad, it might be worth responding to. As it is, it doesn't even make proper sense.

M.

According to Google:


word salad

1. a confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words and phrases, specifically (in psychiatry) as a form of speech indicative of advanced schizophrenia.

I am waiting to see whether anyone agrees with your 'diagnosis', if that is indeed what you really meant.

I think what I wrote is perfectly intelligible and the vast majority of readers will agree with me.

[Mark J D]

What I would like to know is how someone who was working 14 to 18 hours per day and lived with his wife and nine children, and presumably had to sleep some time at home, could possibly have found the time to stalk prostitutes.

The very fact that he stands accused of murdering women while on his way to work does seem to suggest that he was remarkably short of time in which to look for victims.

If you'd like to re-write that without the straw-manning and the word-salad, it might be worth responding to. As it is, it doesn't even make proper sense.

M.

[John Wheat]

Yeah, you know, I was always like that; I always disliked being called a fraudster and a liar by people who had nothing at all to prove their accusations by but their personal convictions. It IS perhaps touchy, but we are all different - in many ways.

Sometimes you get what you deserve.

[Mark J D]

... if the working burden of Lechmere grew heavier in the late 1880īs, then that will likely have carried stress with itself. And the fact that he had a simple enough job has nothing at all to do with that [...]. An increased working burden will have taken away from the time he could shape himself, and it would also likely physically tear him down, also resulting in greater stress. We know quite well that stress factors are important markers in a serial killers life, and we also know that this is often linked to how the killer feels that he is deprived of control over his own lifeuite .

Hi, Christer. Something that has often crossed my mind is the way a clinically narcissistic personality -- hyper-aware of increasing age, and obsessed by the unrealistic idea that he matters, dammit! -- would react to something like an endlessly lengthening walk to work in the wee hours. Maryann Street to Haydon Square: 650m. James Street to Haydon Square: 810m. James Street to Broad Street: 1.6km. Doveton Street to Broad Street: 2.1km. Doveton Street to Poplar High Street: 3.2km. For someone in the grip of, inter alia, narcissistic personality disorder, this is a progression in absolutely the wrong direction. (You will be aware of the speculative elements in the preceding.) We may even hypothesise that the mid-1888 move out to Doveton Street -- an astonishing development, on the face of it! -- was forced on him for some reason, making it even more of a triggering experience for someone with serious personality disorders of the type we imagine.

Bests,

Mark D.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What I would like to know is how someone who was working 14 to 18 hours per day and lived with his wife and nine children, and presumably had to sleep some time at home, could possibly have found the time to stalk prostitutes.

The very fact that he stands accused of murdering women while on his way to work does seem to suggest that he was remarkably short of time in which to look for victims.

[Fiver]

"Attire" doesn't mean a single piece of clothing.

We can add that to the list of English words that Fisherman doesn't seem to understand, along with oozing, tottering, cliffhanger, evidence, coincidence, and at.

[Doctored Whatsit]

"Not far off" involves every time that is close to 3.45, including 3.44.59. That IS less than an hour and a quarter, I'm afraid.

It is another matter that I personally think that what the coroner was trying to say was "no more than an hour and a quarter afterwards, she was found dead", and worded himself badly. Of course, drawn to its harshest conclusion, "no more than" ALSO can be seen as saying "before 3.45", but what the coroner was in all probability trying to convey was not an exact positioning of the latest possible time of death, but instead he commented on how a life was cut short in a very brutal and quick way - one second, you are speaking to a friend, and the next, you are lying cold and dead in Bucks Row.

This is how I see it, and accordingly, if you are going to claim that the body, as per the coroner, must have been found before 3.45, in spite of how he said that the body must have been found "at a time not far off 3.45" - meaning that he used 3.45 as a CENTER suggestion, not a far extreme one, I am going to stick to how 3.44.59 IS before 3.45. And it is also the time that is CLOSEST to the coroners estimation, and so the likeliest time.

3.44.59 it is, then. Fine by me.

Lol. OK Christer, have it your way. When Baxter formally concluded in his summing up that the body was found before 3. 45 am, he obviously meant 3. 44 am and 59 seconds. What else!

Another cracker! It's the way you tell'em .....

[rjpalmer]

One small bit of housekeeping, Christer. Is it possible that you might take the time to learn how to use the 'quote' function properly? From time to time over the years, people have mentioned this to you, and you have simply ignored them.

The thing is--and I mean this in the nicest way possible--this sort of laziness really does a disservice to anyone who is trying to communicate with you. You might not realize it, but if a person tries to requote you in order to make a response to your response, nothing shows up, unless it is the last small stray bit you tagged on at the end of the post. This is because you have not used the quote function properly, and it becomes annoying.

It is also confusing to the readers of this forum to come across a long, highlighted quote, sometimes out of context, and then wade through it in order to try and figure out who said what because the respondent didn't use the function properly, but merely lazily copied out the entire original text and then made additions, often in bold or in colored ink, etc.

If you want to make interlineal comments on a long post, do as Fiver does in Post #1420 and everyone else does in their posts. Copy the entire original text and then cut-and-paste it onto the screen. Remove all the bits other than the section you wish to comment on.

Then rinse and repeat, doing this ad infinitum for each part you are commenting on, so the reader can instantly recognize there are two speakers and who said what.

Thanks for your future cooperation, Christer! Much appreciated.

[Fiver]

I am very certain that just about nobody else than you (and a few other Casebook participators like you-know-who) would get it into their heads to accuse me or Michael Connor - of having intentionally tried to mislead the ones reading our books and essays.
I am equally certain that my book has been greeted with lots of enthusiasm and people by the hundreds saying that they are now convinced that then killer has been found.
Finally, I remain utterly convinced that your accusations are incredibly rude, absolutely false and that the garbage found in a garbage bin would flee if they were to be mixed with these accusations in the reeking infestations at their mucky bottoms.

I hope that is clear enough for you, because I am done with this nonsense now.

Here was have Fisherman using the Bandwagon Fallacy - claiming that because his book is popular, it must be right. His argument is not only fallacious, it overestimates the popularity of his theory. Lechmerianism is a fringe theory and it is questionable whether Fisherman or Ed Butler is the main proponent. TorsoRipper Lechmerianism is a fringe sect of Lechemrianism. Ley-lineism is a fringe faction of the TorsoRipper sect.

And contrary to his protests, Fisherman obviously cares quite a bit that he is seen as a fringe faction of a fringe sect of a fringe theory in a fringe hobby. Every post of his shows that he wants to be accepted by Ripperologists, that he wants his theory to become the dominant theory. He says he's leaving, just like he has said dozens of times before, and yet he always comes back, seeking the widespread acceptance that he will never get.

[rjpalmer]

Actually, they did. It was described as " a portion of a woman's attire" too. Not a whole apron, but a portion. The idea seems to have been that it was thought initially to be a part of something, like a torn off or cut away piece of cloth - like a rag.

You really do love these semantic games, don't you, Christer?

Actually, you're wrong here, but I'll attribute your mistake to English not being your native tongue instead of any deliberate attempt at obfuscation.

"Attire" doesn't mean a single piece of clothing. That would be incorrect usage. It's one of those pesky English words that is a plural even though there is no 's' on the end of it. 'Attire' means multiple pieces of clothing--the entirety of what the person is or was wearing. Another definition of 'attire' is a 'genre of clothing'--as in Egyptian attire, wedding attire, a working woman's attire, etc. Think of it as their 'outfit.'

So, a woman's "attire' would be her outfit: her shoes, her slip, her girdle, her dress, her hat, etc. A 'portion of her attire' would mean one portion of her outfit--one item of clothing, in this case, her apron. In no shape or form does this mean to imply that this portion of her outfit was torn, incomplete, or a rag.

And by the way, in English, when we say someone is 'dressed in rags' it is meant as a metaphor. They aren't dressed in small dish towels or bits used to clean up around the dog's dish. It means that the person's clothing is so worn out that it is only fit to be torn into pieces and used as such.

In describing the constable removing the St. Phillip's apron from under the hoarding and turning it over to his superiors, it is described four times: a 'rough apron'; 'an apron'; a 'suspicious garment'; and 'a stained apron.'

At no time is there nary a hint that is anything other than whole--which, of course, is debilitating to your strange theory for the reasons already given.

I hope this helps.

[Fiver]

As I said before, you are of course going to claim that I do not understand what I read and all that reoccurring nonsense (which is why it will rest upon yourself to DISPROVE me, if you should feel so inclined), but this is one of many examples of academic papers telling us that stress (undefined such, as per the above) is an underlying psychological factor for cases of serial murder.

If you can find me another academic study, where the authors specifically rule out stress derived from harsh working conditions, you will have solved this "conundrum" to your own advantage. Good luck with that!

It's your theory. The burden of proof is on you. So far you you have provided no proof that anyone besides yourself thinks that work related stress can lead to serial killing.

[Fiver]

Try this; it is the only example I will provide. To provide some help for you, I have underlined the relevant bits I am pointing to.

Serial Murderers: Four Case Histories

Your source does not discuss work related stress, let alone support your theory that work related stress can lead to serial killing.

Lets try quoting from the actual article instead of the abstract.

"In brief, homicides occur as a result of an intense conflict emanating from a struggle between an internal need for self-preservation and the stresses pressuring the murderer from the external environment. The roots of this inner conflict are often found in the early childhood of those committing homicide."

"In general, the primary characteristics of a murderer are as follows: "Helplessness, impotence, a nagging feeling of revenge (all carried over from childhood), an irrational hatred of others, suspiciousness, hypersensitivity to injustices or rejection, self-centeredness, an inability to withstand frustration, an overpowering feeling of frequent uncontrollable emotional outbursts, a need to retaliate, destroy or tear down by killing"

"A review of the case histories of four serial murderers presented in the appendix indicates a certain commonality in their social and emotional
development prior to commission of the act of murder:
* Cruel and extremely violent parenting.
* A rejection in childhood by the parents.
* A rejection by a member of the opposite sex in adulthood.
* Contact with the criminal justice system- adult and/or juvenile.
* Commitment to a mental health facility.
* Aberrant sexual patterns.
* A loner."

And that's the pattern discussed in the article - work is not the cause of the negative feelings, nor is it the trigger for violence.

It also shows that Charles Lechmere is a very poor fit for this pattern. His father probably left the family before Charles was old enough to remember him. If his mother was abusive or rejected him, it seems odd that that he would be a witness for his mother's third marriage and almost inconceivable that he would let his mother have the care care of one of his daughters. If his stepfather, Thomas Cross, was abusive it seems odd that he would ever use the name Charles Cross, especially a couple decades after his stepfather had died.

There is no evidence of Charles Lechmere being rejected by a woman as an adult. He had no criminal record. He had been accused of negligence in an accident that killed a boy, but was cleared by multiple witnesses. He was not committed to an asylum. There is no evidence of aberrant sexual patterns. We have no idea if Charles Lechmere was a loner.

[Fiver]

Both pieces of cloth, the one found in Goulston Street and coming from the apron of Catherine Eddowes as well as the one found up at St Philips church were aprons (or part of an apron). And both these pieces of cloth had evidently been used as rags.

I donīt see why we would not be able to use both "rag" and "apron".

And we do not want Fiver getting upset about how I am pointing out that they both WERE apron cloth, do we? He could get it into his head that I am trying to make a point about it, if I do adjust to your wish.

Why should I get upset about you stating something accurately. I'm mildly surprised, but not upset.

So who shall I please? You or Fiver?

I'm baffled that you don't realize that rj and I are in agreement, not in conflict with each other.

Or do I choose my own way?

That is quite a cliffhanger!

I see we can add "cliffhanger" to the list of English words that you do not understand.

[Fiver]

And only you would falsely lead on that I would have said that Lechmeres job implies that he was the Ripper.

Then again, you are masterful when it comes to these kinds of shenanigans.

You claimed that work related stress can lead to serial killing, You then suggested that Charles Lechmre's job was highly stressful. You also suggested that he "suddenly get a much more straining job by way of having working hours added".

Your attempt at gaslighting doesn't change the facts.

[Fiver]

-So you fail to mention that Paul spoke about walking down Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 in Lloyds Weekly.

That's a deliberate misrepresentation on your part. No one is ignoring the time that Robert Paul gave. We are pointing out it doesn't fit with the timings given by the other witnesses.

You're deliberately ignoring that the Lloyd's Weekly contained several factual errors and that Paul did not use the word "exactly" in his inquest testimony.

"Robert Paul said he lived at 30 Forster street, Whitechapel. On the Friday he left home just before a quarter to four, and on passing up Buck's row he saw a man in the middle of the road, who drew his attention to the murdered woman." - 18 September 1888 Daily News

"Robert Paul, a carman, said on the morning of the crime he left home just before a quarter to 4. He was passing up Buck's Row and saw a man standing in the middle of the road." - 22 September 1888 East London Advertiser

"Robert Paul, Forster street, Whitechapel, said - I am a carman, and on the morning of the murder I left home just before a quarter to four. As I was passing up Buck's row I saw a man standing in the roadway," - 18 September 1888 Evening Standard

"John Paul, of 30, Foster-street, Whitechapel, said he was a carman. On Friday, August 31st, he left home at about a quarter to four o'clock to go to his work in Spitalfields." - 22 September 1888 Illustrated Police News

"Robert Paul said he lived at 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel. On the Friday, he left home just before a quarter to four...." - 23 September, 1888 Sunday Dispatch

"Robert Paul said he lived at 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel. On the Friday, he left home just before a quarter to four...." - 23 September, 1888 Sunday People

"Robert Paul, a carman, said that he was passing along Buck's-row at a quarter to four on the morning in question...." = 18 September 1888 Pall Mall Gazette

"Robert Paul, Forster-street, Whitechapel. -- I am a carman, and on the morning of the murder I left home just before a quarter to four." - 18 Spetember 1888 Morning Advertiser

"Robert Paul, a carman, said that he was passing along Buck's-row at a quarter to four on the morning in question, when a man stopped him and showed him the body of a woman lying in a gateway." - 18 September 1888 Pall Mall Gazette

"Robert Baul [Paul], a carman, of 30, Foster-street, Whitechapel, stated he went to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields. He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning and as he was passing up Buck's-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road." - 18 September 1888 Times

It's clear that Robert Paul was estimating the time. You aren't just ignoring the times given by PCs Thain, Neil, and Mizen. You aren't just ignoring half of what Coroner Baxter said. You aren't just ignoring Inspector Abberline's report. You're ignoring Robert Paul's inquest testimony, where he did not say that 3:45am was "exact".