Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Paddy Goose]

Hi again, Fisherman,

Lechmere was found alone in Bucks Row, close by the body of Polly Nichols. That precedes the name issue chronologically. Furthermore, when Michael Connor and Derek Osborne pointed a finger at him, the name swop was not even known about.

You didn't buy it though when the Connor and Osborne articles were discussed here on Casebook in 2008:

No, Cross is not a very good suggestion as the Ripper. To begin with, at the inquest Cross stated that he heard the approaching footsteps of Paul from around forty yards away - but still waited for him to come up to the spot where Nichols lay. It was pitch dark - so dark that the two men did not see the blood running from her neck - and there must have been every chance to leave the scene unseen had he been the Ripper.
Also, if he WAS the Ripper, it would be a very strange thing to go looking for a policeman carrying the knife that killed Nichols on his person - for it was not found at the murder site.

I think that we can safely write off Cross as a contender.

The best,
Fisherman

You only hopped on board when the name thing arose. The "aha" moment. Yet for a decade now you continue to insist the police did not bother to inquire if Pickfords had a Charles Cross in the employ. But you have never proved it.

Back then, in 2008 to you, like all of us, Charles Cross was.. well, just Charles Cross. There was even a song about him in a move-

You must recall old Boss
A Cross is just a Cross

[Mark J D]

Do we know who the police did or didn’t speak to?

We don't need to. All we need to know here is that the operative principle is "Waaah! Just make Lechmere go away!"

Thus the police go to Scotland to investigate W H Bury. They come back empty-handed -- but that doesn't mean he wasn't the Ripper, okay!

Meanwhile, we have no evidence that the police ever paid the slightest attention to obsequious white Christian working man Lechmere, and a few indications that they didn't. So people outright pretend that they did ("Surely/undoubtedly/inevitably the police would have...") -- and, miraculously, that proves him innocent! "Yaay! Lechmere's gone! Back to Kozminski! and Druitt, everyone!"

You know, the people in all those other internet groups who get ridiculed on here for "not having read even one book about the case"' are able to see what goes on in these desperate online attempts to get Lechmere off the table -- and you can take it from me that it disgusts them. Example: A Lechmereian comes up with a quite stunning map that shows how a bloodied rag was found literally on the shortest path beween Pinchin Street and Lechmere's address. And how does online Ripperology respond to the staggeringly straight line and all that it implies? With "Heh! A ley line! Look: now I've made it into a cone! Hurhurhur!"

This simply isn't good enough -- to the extent, indeed, that it's even making outsiders assume that the blanket misandrist criticisms of Rubenhold, Joan Smith et al must be right. Well done.

M.

[Fisherman]

Fiver:

Originally posted by Fisherman
I am not ignoring his inquest testimony at all. I am saying that in his Lloyds interview, he said "exactly 3.45" and I am saying that he must have had a reason to say "exactly", because we do not use that phrasing without knowing the exact time.

You clearly said:

Originally posted by Fisherman
You are calling Robert Pauls 3.45 timing an "estimate" on three occasions in your post. But the 3.45 timing was never given as an estimate at all. It was instead given as an exact timing: "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market".

This is the only occasion where we have the 3.45 timing given by Paul, and it is from Lloyds Weekly of the 2nd of September, not from the inquest.

That's you saying that Paul never gave his timing at the inquest. Do you not understand what the English words "only" and "Not" mean?

That's me saying that Paul did not give his timing of having walked down Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 at the inquest - he gave it in the Lloyds interview. At the inquest, the timing he gave instead related to his departure from home, which was why he said thatg he left home at shortly BEFORE 3.45.

It is also you failing to understand what I said - or deliberately misinterpreting it.

I do understand what the terms only and not mean, by the way. Let me show you: You are perhaps the only poster who would try a scam like this one. But I can not exclude the possibility that one or two other posters would be willing to go along with this nonsense.

So how did I do, Fiver?

Once we look at the inquest testimony, it is clear that Robert Paul gave an estimate, not the exact timing that you claim.

I never claimed that he gave an exact timing at the inquest, though, did I? You just made that up, right now, again misrepresenting me. I was VERY clear about how Paul gave an estimate at the inquest, but an exact timing in Lloyds Weekly.

All you have shown is your deliberate selective presentation of the evidence.

All you intend to do is to deliberately selectively choose your favored evidence. It is YOU, not I, who are trying to get rid of half of the evidence. I am giving it ALL.

You ignore Robert Paul's inquest testiony, which makes it clear that his time was an estimate, not the exact timing you claim.

Again, I do not claim that Pauls inquest testimony was an exact timing. I am saying that the evidence from Lloyds Weekly - that you are desperately trying to sweep under the carpet - was an exact timing. And it is not as if the two are mutually excluding each other. They both fit perfectly - he knew that he left home at shorty before 3.45 BECAUSE he knew that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he passed down Bucks Row.

You ignore the three police officers time estimates, which disagree with Paul's time estimate.

Again no. Instead I say that Coroner Baxter investigated the matter thoroughly and arrived at the conclusion that the time that Paul described as "exactly a quarter to four" was the time at which the body was found. And the body was found at the time Paul passed down Bucks Row.

You selectively quote Coroner Baxter, who clearly said that Nichols body was found before 3:45am.

As you know, he said that the body was found at a time not far off 3.45. What he did NOT say was that it was found at a time not far off 3.40. And he also said that the time was fixed to not far off 3.45 by many independent date. So why don't you go tell HIM that HE is "ignoring there police officers estimates? And then you can tell me why three PCs would be a better source than a carman, a PC and a doctor, two of whom will have had access to time pieces.

You ignore Inspector Abberline's analysis of all of the testimony, where he concludes Nichols body was found about 3:40am.

Abberlines report was written before the last day of the inquest, and so he could actually not have pondered "all of the testimony" as you falsely claim. The decision on Baxters behalf was so late in time that Abberline would in all probability not have known how it looked until after the September report Abberline signed.

You deliberately don't give people all of the facts. If you were to present the whole picture, it would show the time gap exists only in your imagination.

It exists as a likelihood in many, many peoples minds, people who are just as aware of "all of the facts" as you are or much more so. As for giving all of the facts, we can take a look at how you chose the Pall Mall Gazette to quote Spratling, leaving out other papers who gave the matter another hue. And we can ponder how you claimed that a house to house investigation in the streets adjoining Bucks Row, actually INVOLVED Bucks Row. And then we can finish off by taking a look at how you "forgot" to give the full facts of what the police inquiries involved at the stage you quoted the Morning Post from - when Brady Street was investigated with the idea that the body of Nichols was perhaps taken from there into Bucks Row.
How is that giving people the full facts, Fiver? Do enlighten us!!

You should not throw stones in that frail glass house of yours. Thankfully, it is extremely transparent, the way glass houses always are.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Serial killing is often seen off by stress factors. Serial killers are very much about controlling their surroundings. If Lechmere got a schedule that gave him many more working hours, that would deprive him of control to some degree and it would likely cause stress for him.

Making a loooong post without having anything to say does not change that. And you of all people should not speak about quoting things out of context.

Such a weak answer.

He had a job delivering stuff. He wasn’t Prime Minister or Head of the KGB.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again "the absolute bulk" IS the majority, Herlock. And it does not in any way prove any intention to mislead on my behalf. Far from it. It does not even prove that I meant different things! It would be doing the rounds in Cloud Cukoo land to claim otherwise.

Very obviously, somebody who is incapable of understanding how the absolute bulk is always the majority, never the minority, can get it into his head to start raving about lies and deception on account of that - we all know that by now. But embarrassing yourself does not alter the facts.

You are going to have to present something else to prove your claim, or retract it.

Why do you keep repeating that the absolute bulk is the majority?????

Of course it is. Who would say otherwise? I certainly haven’t.

Please stop dodging as you simply cannot be misunderstanding the point.



In Cutting Point on page 92 you said:

“Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at 3.30, but the time 3.20 is also mentioned in one paper.”

So, in your book, you are saying that the majority of newspapers said that Cross left home at 3.30 (I genuinely can’t believe that I’m having to repeat this)


And yet, much later on here, you said:

“We must however accept that since the absolute bulk of the papers spoke of ”around 3.30”, that is by far the likeliest wording to have been given.”

And so you are now saying that the majority of newspapers said ‘around 3.30.


So……and I’m keeping it simple……


How is it possible that when writing Cutting Point you came to the conclusion that the majority of papers said 3.30. But you NOW admit that the majority said ‘around 3.30.’ What information do you now have that wasn’t available to you when you wrote Cutting Point?

Surely even you can’t keep wriggling on this point?

[Fisherman]

And here we see Fisherman quoting a source out of context instead of giving us the whole picture.

"A theory that has attempted to integrate cultural, developmental, psychological, and biological concepts is Stephen Giannangelo’s diathesis-stress model (1996). The theory states that all serial killers have a congenital propensity to behave and think in ways that lead to serial killing, if combined with environmental stressors. This combination leads to the development of self-esteem, self-control, and sexual dysfunction problems. These problems feed back on one another and lead to the development of maladaptive social skills, which moves the person to retreat into his private pornographic fantasy world. As he dwells longer and longer in this world, he enters a dissociative process in which he takes his fantasies to their moral limits. At this point, the killer seeks out victims to act out his fantasies, but the actual kill never lives up to his expectations or to the thrill of the hunt, so the whole process is repeated and becomes obsessive-compulsive and ritualistic."

So are there indications of Lechmere having self-esteem problems? Lechmere had the confidence to approach a stranger on a dark street in a known dangerous place. Fisherman's version of Lechmere has even less problems with self-esteem - repeatedly choosing to take unnecessary risks

How about indications of lack of self-control? Lechmere held a steady job for decades, later opened his own business, and left his family a significant sum of money. He had no known record of criminal behavior, either. Fisherman's version of Lechmere has the self-control to bluff Paul, the police and everyone else and to preplan his murders hours in advance so his timing will throw off the suspicions of people who weren't even born yet.

And sexual dysfunction seems rather unlikely for a man who had 11 children, with the last born to his wife in 1891.

Lets also note that Fisherman's source is not Nicola Malizia's "Serial Killer: The Mechanism from Imagination to the Murder Phases”.



The source Fisherman used does not discuss the sort of environmental stressors that could trigger serial killing. Malazia alludes to them in a way that appears to indicate that Malazia believes these stressors happen before adulthood.

"As a result of their reliance on fantasy, and as a result of childhood abuse, the future killer has developed a series of negative personality traits which results in only increased isolation. These traits include a preference for autoerotic activity, aggression, chronic lying, rebelliousness, and a preference for fetish behavior.The killer’s initial difficulty in distinguishing between reality and fantasy continues to grow. Fueled by the negative personality traits, and inability to distinguish fantasy from reality, the future killer fails to adequately develop social relationships. The early isolation, leading to antisocial acts, is fueled by the acts, and increased isolation results. The isolation and antisocial behavior build into a feedback cycle, resulting in more violent behavior on the part of the killer, and even greater isolation from society. The lack of punishment resulting from the future killer’s violent behavior is a type of reinforcement. The killer’s childhood fantasies and thinking patterns stimulate only themselves, and while reducing tension, serve only to further their alienation. The social isolation, the result of early antisocial behavior and fantasy, only increases the child’s reliance on fantasy. This isolation is reformed into even greater anger against society. The killer’s early reliance on fantasy leads to violent acts, and childhood abuse leads toward anger against society. Anger produces violent acts, which in turn increases the child’s isolation. The increased isolation leads to even more anger, antisocial acts, and a vastly increased dependence on fantasy. The self-feeding cycle of isolation, anger and fantasy only serves to catapult the future killer even farther away from what society views as normal, and even closer to the act of homicide. By the time of sexual development, and autoerotic experimentation, fantasy is well on its way to it’s final role, that of sole coping device." - Nicola Malizia, ”Serial Killer: The Mechanism from Imagination to the Murder Phases”

Very few people engage in full time work before the age of sexual development. Fisherman's theory that stress induced by harsh working conditions can lead to to serial killing is not supported by the source that Fisherman claimed or by the source that Fisherman actually quoted.

And even if it did, that doesn't point to any of the roughly 68,000 carmen working in the London area, let alone Charles Lechmere.

Serial killing is often seen off by stress factors. Serial killers are very much about controlling their surroundings. If Lechmere got a schedule that gave him many more working hours, that would deprive him of control to some degree and it would likely cause stress for him.

Making a loooong post without having anything to say does not change that. And you of all people should not speak about quoting things out of context.

[Fisherman]

Good morning Fisherman


Yes you have said exactly that - the police did not bother to inquire if Pickfords had a Charles Cross in their employ. You've been insisting on it for a decade now. Right here on Casebook every time it came up n debate.

But you've never proven it.

If I said that, why don't you copy and paste and prove your point? Would that not be the correct thing to do when I have told you that you are misrepresenting me?

Oh I see, since there are mostly new people here posting now, you have "moved to goalposts" as they say.

No the starting point was, of course, always the "name" thing. Before that, Charles Cross was ... well, he was just Charles Cross. The name thing was the "aha' moment. Turns out the name thing is a dud. You can't prove the police did not ascertain he was in fact known as Charles Cross at work.

Face it Fisherman, your theory, which begins with the "name" thing, never got liftoff. It's too bad really, because you thought you finally found your very own Hutch. With an assist from Ed, of course.

Lechmere was found alone in Bucks Row, close by the body of Polly Nichols. That precedes the name issue chronologically. Furthermore, when Michael Connor and Derek Osborne pointed a finger at him, the name swop was not even known about.

You are welcome to wallow in your own misconceptions. But don't try to ascribe them to me.

[Fisherman]

My ‘claim’ is proven. It can’t be otherwise.

Actually, you CAN be wrong. Strange though it may sound.

You said on here that it was absolutely clear the the majority of newspapers said ‘around 3.30.’ In Cutting Point however you said that the majority said ‘3.30.’

This wasn’t an accidental omission of a word or the slight misquoting of a sentence it, was a positive statement that was the opposite of what was actually the case. Was it simply the worst example of counting ever?

So how, when you were writing Cutting Point, did you read all of the newspaper versions and come to the wrong conclusion (on something that wasn’t even close?)

Its a ‘mystery’ isn’t it?

Again "the absolute bulk" IS the majority, Herlock. And it does not in any way prove any intention to mislead on my behalf. Far from it. It does not even prove that I meant different things! It would be doing the rounds in Cloud Cukoo land to claim otherwise.

Very obviously, somebody who is incapable of understanding how the absolute bulk is always the majority, never the minority, can get it into his head to start raving about lies and deception on account of that - we all know that by now. But embarrassing yourself does not alter the facts.

You are going to have to present something else to prove your claim, or retract it.

[Fisherman]

You're probably basing your statement on the following.

"Inspector Spratling said he had been making inquiries into the matter. He had not been to every house in Buck's-row, but if anything had come to light down there he would have heard of it. He had seen all the watchmen in the neighborhood, and they neither saw nor heard anything. The board school ground had been searched, but nothing likely to throw any light on the matter was discovered." - 18 September 1888 Pall Mall Gazette.

So as of 18 September, Spratling had not personally visited every house in Buck's Row. But he was not the only person assigned to investigating Nichols death. It also seems unlikely that the police stopped investigating her death after 18 September. Unfortunately, the police records are lost, so we are dependent on the newspapers.

"A house-to-house investigation and inquiry has been made in all the streets adjoining Buck's-row, but with no tangible results." - 3 September 1888 Morning Post

So the police did check every house and speak to the inhabitants in Buck's Row and the surrounding streets. It's just that Spratling didn't do it all by himself.

Here's a few more bits on what the police did.

"Inspector Helson - We have had a constable in the street for a week, but nothing was gained by it." - 18 September 1888 Morning Post

"About six o'clock that day he [Inspector Spratling] made an examination at Buck's- row and Brady-street, which ran across Baker's-row, but he failed to trace any marks of blood. He subsequently examined, in company with Sergeant Godley, the East London and District Railway lines and embankment, and also the Great Eastern Railway yard, without, however, finding any traces. A watchman of the Great Eastern Railway, whose box was fifty or sixty yards from the spot where the body was discovered, heard nothing particular on the night of the murder. Witness also visited half a dozen persons living in the same neighbourhood, none of whom had noticed anything at all suspicious. One of these, Mrs. Purkiss, had not gone to bed at the time the body of deceased was found, and her husband was of opinion that if there had been any screaming in Buck's-row they would have heard it. A Mrs. Green, whose window looked out upon the very spot where the body was discovered, said nothing had attracted her attention on the morning of Friday last." - 4 September 1888 Daily Telegraph

"About six o'clock that day he [Spratling] made an examination at Buck's- row and Brady-street, which ran across Baker's-row, but he failed to trace any marks of blood. He subsequently examined, in company with Sergeant Godley, the East London and District Railway lines and embankment, and also the Great Eastern Railway yard, without, however, finding any traces. A watchman of the Great Eastern Railway, whose box was fifty or sixty yards from the spot where the body was discovered, heard nothing particular on the night of the murder. Witness also visited half a dozen persons living in the same neighbourhood, none of whom had noticed anything at all suspicious. One of these, Mrs. Purkiss, had not gone to bed at the time the body of deceased was found, and her husband was of opinion that if there had been any screaming in Buck's-row they would have heard it. A Mrs. Green, whose window looked out upon the very spot where the body was discovered, said nothing had attracted her attention on the morning of Friday last." - 4 September 1888 Daily News

No, Fiver, all the inhabitants of Bucks Row had not been questioned on the 17th of September. We have Sprawling telling us this in no uncertain terms:

Inspector Spratling. -- I have been making inquiries into this matter.

The Coroner. -- have you been to every house in Buck's-row?

Witness. -- No; but if anything had come to light down there we should have heard of it. I have seen all the watchmen in the neighbourhood, and they neither saw nor heard anything on the morning in question. The Board school ground has been searched, but nothing likely to throw any light on the matter was discovered.

Inspector Helson. -- We have had a constable in the street for a week, but nothing was gained by it.

Here we may see that Sprawling denied that every house had been visited, and Helson adding that what they instead did was to place a PC in Bucks Row, in case any of the inhabitants would come forward and add information. That, however, did not happen.

Your strange idea that the coroner would only have been interested in whether Sprawling personally had checked all the houses in Bucks Row, is an idea you have gotten from the Pall Mall Gazette. Other papers worded themselves differently, as for example the Morning Advertiser quoted above. There, the term "you" can be read as describing Sprawling himself OR the police. And when Sprawling answers, he is described as saying that "we" would have heard of it ("we", the police), if anything had come to light. As you know, the Pall Mall Gazette had Sprawling saying that "he" would have heard of it, if anything had come to light.

To understand what is going oin here, it needs to be pointed out is that you are suggesting that the coroner only asked if Spratling personally had been to all the houses in Bucks Row, that Spratlings answer only involved where he himself had been, but that all the houses HAD been visited - by somebody else that Sprawling.

That is your suggestion.

However, I would propose that when the coroner, having been told that the houses had not all been visited, said "Then that will have to be done", Sprawling would have told the coroner that it HAD been done, but by other policemen than himself. He would not want to leave the coroner with the impression that the houses had not been visited.

I therefore conclude that the snippet you quoted from the Morning Post does not prove that the houses in Bucks Row had all been visited. To begin with, it does. not even speak of Bucks Row, it speaks of the adjoining streets:
"A house-to-house investigation and inquiry has been made in all the streets adjoining Buck's-row, but with no tangible results."

This you elevate to another status than it stands for:

"So the police did check every house and speak to the inhabitants in Buck's Row and the surrounding streets."

Ooops - suddenly Bucks Row is added. By you.

But would the police not check Bucks Row if they checked the adjoining streets? Well, that depends on what the police were looking for. Inquiries and investigations were certainly made about rumors of a blood trail in Brady Street:

A very general opinion is now entertained that the spot where the body was found was not the scene of the murder. Buck's-row runs through from Thomas-street to Brady-street, and in the latter street what appeared to be bloodstains were found at irregular distances on the footpaths on either side of the way. Occasionally a larger splash was visible, and from the manner in which the marks were scattered it seems as though the person carrying the mutilated body had hesitated where to deposit his ghastly burden, and had gone from one side of the road to the other until the obscurity of Buck's-row afforded the shelter the shelter sought for. The street had been crossed twice within the space of about 120 yards. The point at which the stains were first visible is in front of the gateway to Honey's-mews, in Brady-street, about 150 yards from the point where Buck's-row commences. Some of the police investigating the case declare that very few bloodstains were seen when they first visited the spot.
(the Echo, September 1)

Equally, there were rumours of screams and commotion in the same street:
It is not unlikely that the deceased met her death in a house in or near Brady-street, for some persons state that early in the morning they heard screams, but this is a by no means uncommon incident in the neighbourhood, and, with one exception, nobody seems to have paid any particular attention to what was probably the death struggle of the unfortunate woman. The exception referred to was Mrs. Celville [Sarah Colwell], who lives only a short distance from the foot of Buck's-row. According to her statement she was awakened by her children, who said someone was trying to get into the house. She listened, and heard a woman screaming "Murder, Police!" five or six times. The voice faded away as though the woman was going in the direction of Buck's-row, and all became quiet.
(the Echo, September 1)

As we can see, Mrs Colville made a statement to the police, so we know that they took interest in the inhabitants of Brady Street.

The idea that the coroner was only interested in Spratlings doings and that Sprawling would not have informed the coroner that full investigations had been done in Bucks Row if that was the case, is not up to scratch.

But this is the way you do your homework, is it not? Picking and choosing carefully before you present your "truth".

[Fiver]

I am not ignoring his inquest testimony at all. I am saying that in his Lloyds interview, he said "exactly 3.45" and I am saying that he must have had a reason to say "exactly", because we do not use that phrasing without knowing the exact time.

You clearly said:

You are calling Robert Pauls 3.45 timing an "estimate" on three occasions in your post. But the 3.45 timing was never given as an estimate at all. It was instead given as an exact timing: "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market".

This is the only occasion where we have the 3.45 timing given by Paul, and it is from Lloyds Weekly of the 2nd of September, not from the inquest.

That's you saying that Paul never gave his timing at the inquest. Do you not understand what the English words "only" and "Not" mean?

Once we look at the inquest testimony, it is clear that Robert Paul gave an estimate, not the exact timing that you claim.

All you have shown is your deliberate selective presentation of the evidence. You ignore Robert Paul's inquest testiony, which makes it clear that his time was an estimate, not the exact timing you claim. You ignore the three police officers time estimates, which disagree with Paul's time estimate. You selectively quote Coroner Baxter, who clearly said that Nichols body was found before 3:45am. You ignore Inspector Abberline's analysis of all of the testimony, where he concludes Nichols body was found about 3:40am.

You deliberately don't give people all of the facts. If you were to present the whole picture, it would show the time gap exists only in your imagination.

[Fiver]

Serial murder is often set off by stress. Lets listen to what Nicola Malizia says in her thesis ”Serial Killer: The Mechanism from Imagination to the Murder Phases”:

”Becoming a serial killer is a long, drawn-out process, not a discrete event. A theory that has attempted to integrate cultural, developmental, psychological, and biological concepts is Stephen Giannangelo’s diathesis-stress model (1996). The theory states that all serial killers have a congenital propensity to behave and think in ways that lead to serial killing, if combined with environmental stressors. ”

And here we see Fisherman quoting a source out of context instead of giving us the whole picture.

"A theory that has attempted to integrate cultural, developmental, psychological, and biological concepts is Stephen Giannangelo’s diathesis-stress model (1996). The theory states that all serial killers have a congenital propensity to behave and think in ways that lead to serial killing, if combined with environmental stressors. This combination leads to the development of self-esteem, self-control, and sexual dysfunction problems. These problems feed back on one another and lead to the development of maladaptive social skills, which moves the person to retreat into his private pornographic fantasy world. As he dwells longer and longer in this world, he enters a dissociative process in which he takes his fantasies to their moral limits. At this point, the killer seeks out victims to act out his fantasies, but the actual kill never lives up to his expectations or to the thrill of the hunt, so the whole process is repeated and becomes obsessive-compulsive and ritualistic."

So are there indications of Lechmere having self-esteem problems? Lechmere had the confidence to approach a stranger on a dark street in a known dangerous place. Fisherman's version of Lechmere has even less problems with self-esteem - repeatedly choosing to take unnecessary risks

How about indications of lack of self-control? Lechmere held a steady job for decades, later opened his own business, and left his family a significant sum of money. He had no known record of criminal behavior, either. Fisherman's version of Lechmere has the self-control to bluff Paul, the police and everyone else and to preplan his murders hours in advance so his timing will throw off the suspicions of people who weren't even born yet.

And sexual dysfunction seems rather unlikely for a man who had 11 children, with the last born to his wife in 1891.

Lets also note that Fisherman's source is not Nicola Malizia's "Serial Killer: The Mechanism from Imagination to the Murder Phases”.

Stress is often something a budding serial killer experiences a something that robs him of the one quality serial killers are so very often addictive to: control

The source Fisherman used does not discuss the sort of environmental stressors that could trigger serial killing. Malazia alludes to them in a way that appears to indicate that Malazia believes these stressors happen before adulthood.

"As a result of their reliance on fantasy, and as a result of childhood abuse, the future killer has developed a series of negative personality traits which results in only increased isolation. These traits include a preference for autoerotic activity, aggression, chronic lying, rebelliousness, and a preference for fetish behavior.The killer’s initial difficulty in distinguishing between reality and fantasy continues to grow. Fueled by the negative personality traits, and inability to distinguish fantasy from reality, the future killer fails to adequately develop social relationships. The early isolation, leading to antisocial acts, is fueled by the acts, and increased isolation results. The isolation and antisocial behavior build into a feedback cycle, resulting in more violent behavior on the part of the killer, and even greater isolation from society. The lack of punishment resulting from the future killer’s violent behavior is a type of reinforcement. The killer’s childhood fantasies and thinking patterns stimulate only themselves, and while reducing tension, serve only to further their alienation. The social isolation, the result of early antisocial behavior and fantasy, only increases the child’s reliance on fantasy. This isolation is reformed into even greater anger against society. The killer’s early reliance on fantasy leads to violent acts, and childhood abuse leads toward anger against society. Anger produces violent acts, which in turn increases the child’s isolation. The increased isolation leads to even more anger, antisocial acts, and a vastly increased dependence on fantasy. The self-feeding cycle of isolation, anger and fantasy only serves to catapult the future killer even farther away from what society views as normal, and even closer to the act of homicide. By the time of sexual development, and autoerotic experimentation, fantasy is well on its way to it’s final role, that of sole coping device." - Nicola Malizia, ”Serial Killer: The Mechanism from Imagination to the Murder Phases”

Very few people engage in full time work before the age of sexual development. Fisherman's theory that stress induced by harsh working conditions can lead to to serial killing is not supported by the source that Fisherman claimed or by the source that Fisherman actually quoted.

And even if it did, that doesn't point to any of the roughly 68,000 carmen working in the London area, let alone Charles Lechmere.

[Paddy Goose]

Good morning Fisherman,

Nope, I have never said that the police did not bother to inquire if Pickfords had a Charles Cross in their employ.

Yes you have said exactly that - the police did not bother to inquire if Pickfords had a Charles Cross in their employ. You've been insisting on it for a decade now. Right here on Casebook every time it came up n debate.

But you've never proven it.

The starting point of the theory is how Charles Lechmere was found all alone in Bucks Row, standing close to a freshly killed Ripper victim that was still warm and bleeding.

Oh I see, since there are mostly new people here posting now, you have "moved to goalposts" as they say.

No the starting point was, of course, always the "name" thing. Before that, Charles Cross was ... well, he was just Charles Cross. The name thing was the "aha' moment. Turns out the name thing is a dud. You can't prove the police did not ascertain he was in fact known as Charles Cross at work.

Face it Fisherman, your theory, which begins with the "name" thing, never got liftoff. It's too bad really, because you thought you finally found your very own Hutch. With an assist from Ed, of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There IS no hook, and there never was. The claims from your side that I would intentionally have missed or tried to mislead, that I would be lying, that I would be deceitful, fraudulent and intent on fooling people into believing in Lechmere as the killer are all totally baseless and nothing but a very sad subjective suggestion.

If you can prove any of the above, then go ahead. But the fact of the matter is that all of it is your INTERPRETATION of my mindset, motives and engagement in the Ripper saga, nothing else. It is a figment of your imagination that I sat on my chamber and decided to try and keep people out of the know that Lechmere said that he left home at "around" 3.30, so that I could lull them into believing in my take on things, for example. I did nothing of the sort, I didn't give it a seconds afterthought, I simply acknowledged that 3.30 was the time he mentioned and I used in in a theoretical discussion to show where it takes us IF we work from that time. I even added that we need to be careful about the timings, since the clocks of the era were not always correct, just as I quoted the "near 3.30" from a newspaper in the book, supplying the readers with that piece of information. It is right there, in the book you claim I used to try and hide it away.

And the thing is, Herlock, if our brains are wired in that kind of a direction, we CAN perhaps anyway come up with the idea that I had sinister intentions with my book. The problem is that if our brains are wired differently, we would never make such an assumption at all. So in the end, how we look on it all boils down to what kind of people we are, if you take my meaning. But the salient point here is that regardless of which way our brains are wired in, nobody is going to be able to prove that I am either a villain OR a benevolent character by way of scrutinizing it in my book.

I could of course, as a consequence, start a discussion here about what is worst: having worked from the timing 3.30 in a theoretical construction clearly stating that IF he left home at 3.30, then ..., or having claimed that such a thing proves you a liar and a deceptive poster. Who can be proven to have worded himself that makes him a liar? You or me?

But I am not interested in conducting such a discussion, in spite of how I know that you cannot prove your claim. I genuinely do not want such things to be the focus of our discussion out here. And therefore I am not going to pursue it.

It's up to yourself to draw whichever conclusions you can think of from that.

My ‘claim’ is proven. It can’t be otherwise.

You said on here that it was absolutely clear the the majority of newspapers said ‘around 3.30.’ In Cutting Point however you said that the majority said ‘3.30.’

This wasn’t an accidental omission of a word or the slight misquoting of a sentence it, was a positive statement that was the opposite of what was actually the case. Was it simply the worst example of counting ever?

So how, when you were writing Cutting Point, did you read all of the newspaper versions and come to the wrong conclusion (on something that wasn’t even close?)

Its a ‘mystery’ isn’t it?

[Fisherman]

Good afternoon Fisherman,



Right, but not here on Casebook they haven't.

All we get here is you insisting the police didn't bother to inquire if Pickford's had a Charles Cross in their employ. You've been doing this for a decade now. Your theory still has no starting point.

Nope, I have never said that the police did not bother to inquire if Pickfords had a Charles Cross in their employ.

I have, however, always said that there is no law of nature that establishes that the police MUST have inquired if Pickfords had a Charles Cross in their employ, and I have added that I personally don't think that they did.

There is also the option that they DID check with Pickfords, only to find out that Pickfords confirmed that they did have a Charles Cross in their employ. There has always been a possibility that the carman did call himself Cross at work but Lechmere everywhere else. And what I cannot decisively rule out, I leave on the table.

However, if the police did go to Pickfords to check the carman out, then they must have taken an interest in him as a possible suspect. And they would accordingly have run him through the registers, only to find out that he was NOT called Cross, but instead Lechmere.
And that would have gone into the reports. But it did not do so.

The starting point of the theory is how Charles Lechmere was found all alone in Bucks Row, standing close to a freshly killed Ripper victim that was still warm and bleeding.

I can think of few better starting points, to be honest.

[Fisherman]

You are wrong. Robert Paul said when he left home at the inquest and he didn't use the word exactly in that testimony. His number was an estimate.

"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".

I am not ignoring his inquest testimony at all. I am saying that in his Lloyds interview, he said "exactly 3.45" and I am saying that he must have had a reason to say "exactly", because we do not use that phrasing without knowing the exact time.
I am furthermore saying that the coroner examined the matter in detail and was able to establish that Pauls timing was in line with how the body was found at 3.45, or not far off that time.
The inquest testimony is an example of Paul estimating when he left his home. And that estimation fits perfectly with the knowledge that he was in Bucks Row at exactly 3.45.