Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another total misunderstanding on your behalf. I did not say that it is evidence, did I? Which goes some way to show if you are truthful or not. Then again, you may not have wanted to mislead. It is - as we both know - only I who mislead, and the proof for it is that you say so.

What I am ACTUALLY saying is that 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 al to do with that, although you apparently think so.
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 life.

Therefore, Fiver may (MAY - see?) well have identified an important factor that could have contributed to the murder string of the late 1880īs.

Not that Fiver wanted to di that - but he nevertheless did. And I am grateful for it - every little bit helps.

And that staggeringly pointless point would apply to every single ripper suspect with a job. I’m waiting for you to claim the fact that he had arms as a point in favour of his guilt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Proving that you have no doubt is not the same as proving something beyond doubt. Speculating that they are one and the same amounts not to proof, but to arrogance.

Then all that you have to do is this…..

Give us all a reasonable explanation that explains how you read the newspaper reports of what Cross said at the inquest and came to the conclusion that the majority said that he’s said ‘3.30’ as opposed to ‘around 3.30’ which is what the majority actually said.

And could you make it a waffle-free answer and one that doesn’t have us all rolling around laughing please?

Im interested to see how long you can dodge this issue for?

[Fisherman]

Speaking about your misrepresentations, Fiver, I would like to direct you back to this exchange from yesterday:

Fiver: As Christer refuses to admit, there is no known connection between the bloody rag and Charles Lechmere, either.

When did I ever "refuse to admit" that there is no known connection between the St Philip rag and Charles Lechmere, Fiver? Please direct me to the quotation you are using for this claim of yours.

If you don't, I will persist.

... and here I am, persisting; tell us when and where I ever "refused to admit" that there is no known connection between the St Philips rag and Charles Lechmere!

The alternative is not telling - which is also telling.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for admitting that you have no evidence to support your theory that stress at work leads to becoming a serial killer.

That was not what I did, though. Again, you are twisting words and misinforming. I told you that the net is full of information and research confirming that stress factors can trigger serial murder, and that they can make a serial killer feel deprived of control. This is not any suggestion of mine, it is common knowledge. But I am not going to spend hours on providing material for you, on account of how we both know that you are given to misrepresenting, misinforming and twisting - as proven by the above.

[Fisherman]

It's glaringly obvious o everyone who hasn't swallowed your Ley Line nonsense.

"It IS "just" a piece of bloodied rag, and it cannot be tied to the torso deed." - Christer Holmgren

And yet you try to use that rag to connect Lechmere to the Pinchin Street Torso.

I am doing what any discerning researcher should do. I am pointing out that the day after the body was dumped in Pinchin Street, a bloody rag was found in an exact line between the arch where it was dumped and Lechmeres lodgings, a fair way up to the northeast. And I am adding the information that there can be no certainty that the rag is linked to Charles Lechmere.

That is the exact way in which a matter like this should be presented.

What should NEVER happen, is to suppress the matter.

But I believe that this is the exact thing you are trying your hand at.

So tell us, Fiver, how do we go about informing the readers about that rag?

Do we mention that it was found, but refuse to tell WHERE it was found?

Do we point out that it was found in an exact line between the railway arch and the Lechmerian home, or do we leave that information out?

Do we stay away from mentioning the rag at all?

Or do we add the information of its existence, point out where it was found and establish that it was found in a direct line between the railway arch and Lechmeres lodgings - and make it clear that no link to the carman has been proven as such?

Let's hear your take on how the matter should be presented, if it is to be presented at all.

[Fisherman]

I’ve proven that beyond any doubt.

Proving that you have no doubt is not the same as proving something beyond doubt. Speculating that they are one and the same amounts not to proof, but to arrogance.

[Fisherman]

We know which one of us is untruthful already. I’ve proven that beyond any doubt.

Work can be a stress factor. As can many things. It can’t be used as evidence though unless you have more than just the ‘possibility.’

Another total misunderstanding on your behalf. I did not say that it is evidence, did I? Which goes some way to show if you are truthful or not. Then again, you may not have wanted to mislead. It is - as we both know - only I who mislead, and the proof for it is that you say so.

What I am ACTUALLY saying is that 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 al to do with that, although you apparently think so.
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 life.

Therefore, Fiver may (MAY - see?) well have identified an important factor that could have contributed to the murder string of the late 1880īs.

Not that Fiver wanted to di that - but he nevertheless did. And I am grateful for it - every little bit helps.

[Fisherman]

The point is proven as your desperate dodging indicates. Perhaps an even simpler question might help you to admit the truth?


Question - Perhaps you might be so kind as to explain to the readers of this thread how you managed to look at the various newspaper reports of what Cross said at the inquest (as you undoubtedly did) while you were writing and researching Cutting Point and yet, when it was blatantly obvious that the majority said ‘around 3.30,’ you managed to claim that the opposite was in fact true. How could you possibly have managed to make an ‘innocent’ mistake of this kind?

Again, no proof, but instead just your own convictions. They never amounted to proof in any way, nowhere near it.

[Fisherman]

I don't totally follow what you are trying to say here.

That's just fine, John - it happens.

[Fisherman]

No, I'm not discussing it, Christer. But perhaps I should have worded it better. What I meant not to discuss and ehat I not going to discuss is the interpretaion of Baxter's summing up and in particular the part around "it could not have been far from 3.45". You interpret it as "Lechmere found the body at 3.45, or very close to it (3.44 to 3.46, give or take another minute), while I think the "3.45" used by Baxter was a reference to Neil's estimate. We have profoundly discussed this and, therefore, I see no need to do it again.

There is even need to go over this many times, I feel, Frank. And for good reasons.

The fact that one of the papers wrote that the crime must have been committed between 3.15 and 3.45 rules out any suggestion that they would have gone on your line. They very clearly came away with the impression that Neil was wrong. They accepted that the body was found at 3.45 by Lechmere, and accordingly, the murder could have taken place at any minute leading up to 3.45.
The idea that Baxter, who was extremely aware at this stage that the body was found by Lechmere and not by Neil, would use Neil as the reference point for when the body was found is a suggestion that lacks credibility, I find.
There is other pointers to how this would not have been true. One such pointer lies in how we know that the police wrote in their September report, BEFORE Baxter summed up the inquest and delivered his words on how the body was found not far off 3.45, that a carman found the body at around 3.40. Then, AFTER Baxters summary had been given, their October report stated that Lechmere found the body at around 3.45.
Wynne Baxter had been presiding over the proceedings on the 3rd of September, most likely arriving at the inquest room in Whitechapel Road with the idea that PC Neil was the finder of the body, only to then learn, alongside the jury, the police and the public, that the police had been wrong on the matter. it was in fact a carman who had found the body, a carman who must have preceded Neil by around five minutes.

So Baxter KNEW who found the body, the police KNEW who found the body, the press KNEW who found the body and wrote that the body must have been found between 3.15 and 3.45, not before 3.40 - but you believe that Baxter, when speaking in his summary about the time at which the body was found, was referring back to Neil, still thinking that the PC had found the body at 3.45? Although Baxter said that the body was found at 3.45 or not far off it?

Or are you suggesting that Baxter accepted that Baxter was at this stage quite aware that Lechmere had found the body at or not far off 3.45 - but chose to speak in his summary of when Neil arrived at the spot, and then, when he said that when Neil got there, which he knew was not at 3.45 but instead five minutes earlier, he felt that since he had said "or not far off" 3.45, it was okay to speak about Neil finding the body at not far off 3.45 since 3.40 is not far off 3.45?

Maybe I am missing out on an option here, but it would be interesting to know which of the two options on offer you believe is the correct one. The third option, that Baxter said that the body was found at 3.45 or not far from it because he had checked and knew that the body was found at 3.45 or not far off it by Lechmere, seems to be a possibility that you want to rule out, regardless of how we know that at least one of the newspapers came away with the impression that this was the correct version.

[Fiver]

Did he and his daughter reconcile and make amends shortly after the murders stopped, after he attended Mary Anne's wedding and signed as one of the 2 witnesses?

RD

The idea of there being a rift between Mary Jane Lechmere and her father is speculation, based on her starting living with her grandmother at some point in her childhood. Mary Jane was there 7 years before the Ripper murders. Her father was a witness at her wedding in 1899, over a decade after the murders ended. If the evens were in any way related, the killings would have started long before 1888 and ended long afterwards, not be crammed into a few months of a single year.

[Fiver]

In reference to Christer's strange reliance on Wynne Baxter's statement about when the body was discovered, let's remind ourselves what Baxter said about the Tabram murder in the same summation:

"Martha Tabram was found at three a.m. on Tuesday, August 7th, on the first-floor landing of George Yard buildings, Wentworth Street, with thirty-nine punctured wounds on her body." --Wynne Baxter, Daily Telegraph, 24 September.


In reality, Martha Tabram was found at around 4:45 a.m. by John Saunders Reeves.

Might Baxter have been thinking of Albert Crow, who saw Tabram's body at 3:30am, but didn't know she was dead?

[Fiver]

Chandler, before he got demoted to Sgt? (I'm not jumping on any "lets take the piss out of typos" wagon, by the way. I'd be neck deep in trouble if that's the case!)

The first time was a typo. But the next 10 times?

Yet more evidence of Fisherman refusing to listen to anyone, refusing to admit or correct his mistakes.

[Fiver]

Feel free to do the research and see if there is any coupling made by experts on the matter between stress factors and serial murder.

Thanks for admitting that you have no evidence to support your theory that stress at work leads to becoming a serial killer.

[Fiver]

Maybe you can explain to me how my focus on the rag up at St Philips shows that I have "double standards"?

It's glaringly obvious o everyone who hasn't swallowed your Ley Line nonsense.

"It IS "just" a piece of bloodied rag, and it cannot be tied to the torso deed." - Christer Holmgren

And yet you try to use that rag to connect Lechmere to the Pinchin Street Torso.