Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
You make a proposition why a person would use a name,I use it,and you claim it as nonsense.Ah well!.

You are trying to be clever, Harry! A shame i does not work. What I wrote was "Oh yes, it is extremely clearly indicative of this. Once somebody gives his name, no matter what the context is, the supposition must be that he will give the same name the next time, no matter what the context is."

We only know of Lechmere using one name before the inquest, and that name is Lechmere.
The suggestion that he would have used the name Cross at work is sheer conjecture and nothing else. And - once more, and forever if I have to - he was NOT at work when giving the name Cross to the authorities. He was consciously making the choice to hide his real name and use an alias.

We have no evidence that Cross always used the name Lechmere either.

Kafkaesque, Iīm afraid.

Uninteresting. Well you make a song and dance over police involvement.

No, I simply stick with what we know.

Bucks row differed in no great way from other roads. Doesn't matter whether you or I were there,there is a great deal of information handed down from person's who were. More than enough in fact to make a sound judgement.

Guess what - our definitions of "sound" may vary. So there goes that methodology. It was dark, end of story. Exactly how dark, we donīt know.

Cross heard footsteps.He never claimed who they belonged to.

He heard APPROACHING footsteps. And they proved to belong to Paul. I donīt know just how weird we can make things, but let me tell you that you are way past the limit.

The police never knew which way the killer took. Cannot then apply to Cross,who's movements are well recorded.

Not worth answering. Ridiculous. And in line with the rest of the ramblings.

No, it's you who is wasting time.

Thatīs easily remedied. Goodbye.

[harry]

Fisherman,
You make a proposition why a person would use a name,I use it,and you claim it as nonsense.Ah well!.
We have no evidence that Cross always used the name Lechmere either.
Uninteresting. Well you make a song and dance over police involvement.
Bucks row differed in no great way from other roads.Doesn't matter whether you or I were there,there is a great deal of information handed down from person's who were.More than enough in fact to make a sound judgement.
Cross heard footsteps.He never claimed who they belonged to.
The police never knew which way the killer took.Cannot then apply to Cross,who's movements are well recorded
No,it's you who is wasting time. You who's spouting nonsense.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
We know he named himself both as Lechmere and as Cross.

We only know he used the name Cross in combination with having been found alone at a murder spot with a freshly killed victim, Harry. Itīs not as if we have it on record that he used that name on any other occasion. And that is the exact reason why it is something that should raise the red flag.

As you indicate ,a person is more likely to answer to a name that he had recently been using,hence his using of Cross. He used it because that was his normal and recent way of presenting himself.

Absolute nonsense. You have no idea that he used the Cross name at all, apart from in combination with the murder case.

You have made a good point that explains his use of the name,and he used it no less in his dealings with authority.

More nonsense - and more positing of wayward speculation passed off as fact.

Not the police,because before the inquest,the only policeman we have on record as speaking to him,,didn't ask for a name.

Totally uninteresting.

W ell you are wrong on road conditions.I speak from e xperience of such thoroughfares.

Iīve been in dark streets too, Harry. But I was not in Bucks Row on the 31:st of August 1888. So I freely admit that, and I admit that I do not know what the exact lighting condoitions were. I suggest you join me.

Why is it important to know? Oblviously the police believed the killer had gone that way,as Paul speaks of seeing no one.The footsteps Cross heard.Pauls's or someone elses?

The only footsteps Lechmere claimed to have heard were Pauls. And the police never knew which way the killer took.
You are wasting time here.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,
After Bury was sentenced to hang, two Scotland Yard Detectives were sent to Scotland. I'm unsure if those Officers were ever identified. Abberline could, as you say, have been one of them.
Best regards.

Well whoever went they clearly didn't suspect him of the Whitechapel murders so another suspect bites the dust !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Fisherman,
We know he named himself both as Lechmere and as Cross.As you indicate ,a person is more likely to answer to a name that he had recently been using,hence his using of Cross.He used it because that was his normal and recent way of presenting himself.You have made a good point that explains his use of the name,and he used it no less in his dealings with authority.Not the police,because before the inquest,the only policeman we have on record as speaking to him,,didn't ask for a name.

W ell you are wrong on road conditions.I speak from e xperience of such thoroughfares.Why is it important to know? Oblviously the police believed the killer had gone that way,as Paul speaks of seeing no one.The footsteps Cross heard.Pauls's or someone elses?

[wigngown]

Hi Trevor,
After Bury was sentenced to hang, two Scotland Yard Detectives were sent to Scotland. I'm unsure if those Officers were ever identified. Abberline could, as you say, have been one of them.
Best regards.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;376627]

If somebody else had written on his door and murdered his wife in a fashion that bore half a resemblance to a Ripper killing, would he ALSO be the Ripper in such a case? Mr Brown, who cut his wifes neck on the night of the double event - was HE the Ripper or a copycat? He used the hallmark element of neck-cutting that Bury missed out on.

The Ripper case is riddled with people who went to the police and said they were the Ripper, of people who bragged about being the Ripper in crowds (and who put themeselves at risk to get lynched), of people who wrote letters to the police, taking on the Ripper role. Dozens, probably hundreds, of people did this.
How is Bury any different from them? The point about the chalking is moot.

As for the murder of his wife, I have already gone into the differences. The Riper killed strangers, like serialists normally do, he ALWAYS cut the neck of his victims and bled them that way, he NEVER went to the police and turned himself in, he always took innards when there was time, he escalated the violence, resulting in facial mutilation from victim four.
Bury did a domestic murder, totally, totally different from the killing of strangers, he did NOT cut the neck and bleed his wife, he went to the police, he took no innards from the body, the crime was not an escalation from the violence inflicted on Kelly, though one must assume that there would have been time for it, and there was no facial mutilation.

Bury was not the Ripper, simple as.

I agree that Bury was not involved in any of the Whitechapel Murders, wasn't Abberline sent to Scotland to interview him?

On another point, again I have said it is wrong to try to compare a serial killer from 127 ago to modern day serial killers.

On another note John Reginald Christie, murdered his wife, he also murdered prostitutes who he brought to his house. He also murdered Beryl Evans and her daughter Geraldine Evans, who were lodging in the same house.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=John Wheat;376622]

Yes but no one else is known to have written on doors and murdered there wife in a Ripper like fashion. Strangulation followed by post mortem mutilation.

If somebody else had written on his door and murdered his wife in a fashion that bore half a resemblance to a Ripper killing, would he ALSO be the Ripper in such a case? Mr Brown, who cut his wifes neck on the night of the double event - was HE the Ripper or a copycat? He used the hallmark element of neck-cutting that Bury missed out on.

The Ripper case is riddled with people who went to the police and said they were the Ripper, of people who bragged about being the Ripper in crowds (and who put themeselves at risk to get lynched), of people who wrote letters to the police, taking on the Ripper role. Dozens, probably hundreds, of people did this.
How is Bury any different from them? The point about the chalking is moot.

As for the murder of his wife, I have already gone into the differences. The Riper killed strangers, like serialists normally do, he ALWAYS cut the neck of his victims and bled them that way, he NEVER went to the police and turned himself in, he always took innards when there was time, he escalated the violence, resulting in facial mutilation from victim four.
Bury did a domestic murder, totally, totally different from the killing of strangers, he did NOT cut the neck and bleed his wife, he went to the police, he took no innards from the body, the crime was not an escalation from the violence inflicted on Kelly, though one must assume that there would have been time for it, and there was no facial mutilation.

Bury was not the Ripper, simple as.

[Fisherman]

Trying to catch up on all the things on these forums can drive you nuts! So many repeats, so many questions asked and answered in so many different ways!

I haven't found a clear indication though if Mizen took names or not. Can someone point me in the right direction?

And how come if Stewart Evans passed, he's not in the obit section of the casebook?

Mizen did not take the names. He gueesed that the man that spoke to him was a carman, going by appearances. Then, at the inquest, it is reported that Mizen had had his hunch verified and that he now knew the man to be named Charles Cross.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
You say if he didn't normally use the name Cross it would be misleading.

Yes, I do. And I am correct in saying so.

We do not know that he didn't.

Nor do we know if he called himself von Schnurrenstein or de Dino. He could have used both, and a person was free to call himself what he wanted to. But to believe that he DID call himself von Schnurrenstein or de Dino, I would want evidence to that effect.
The fact that he called himself Cross at the inquest is in no way indicative that he called himself Cross on other occasions. Especially not when we know that he called himself Lechmere when dealing with the authoritites on all other occasions that have been recorded, around 110 examples of it.

The fact that Lechmere was used on official business,in no way indicates Cross was not used at other times.

Oh yes, it is extremely clearly indicative of this. Once somebody gives his name, no matter what the context is, the supposition must be that he will give the same name the next time, no matter what the context is.

He used it in the Nichols murder,he used it at the inquest,reporters used it.

And ONLY on that occasion, as far as we can tell. And we know, with a 100 per cent certainty, that he had a habit of calling himself Lechmere in the official context. So we can tell that he made a conscious decision NOT to use the name he ordinarily did in official contexts - and since we also know that he was not recorded by the police as using two names, we can tell that not only did he consciously choose to deviate from his normal habit of using the name Lechmere with authorities, he ALSO made a consious decision to hold his true name back.
If that does not rise a red flag, Harry, then you are dealing with the wrong hobby altogether. It is something upon which any police force would pounce immediately, had they known it. AFter that, it MAY be that he could give an explanation for the behaviour that was accepted - but the original reaction on behalf of the police would be to go into red alert mode. That is beyond discussion.

Now would a clever murderer persist in using it,when at any time the Lechmere name was there to find?,and what evidence is there none of these weren't aware?

But he does not have to BE a clever murderer, Harry. He may be a stupid one. Not that I believe so, but making the point that he would be too clever for it is moot. The only thing that matters is that we actually KNOW that he persisted in using it - and it begs an explanation. The evidence that the police were not aware of the Lechmere name has been stated 1.334.987 times: that name is not in the police reports.

As to visibility in Bucks row,I would say at 50 yards it was difficult to observe anyone,and where was Cross's attention directed anyway.Not in front of him if you read his testimony carefully.

What has that got to do with anything...? And how do we establish how far somebody could see? And in what direction Lechmere looked? Answer: we canīt.

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;376571]

Nonsense, John. Many people claimed they were the Ripper. Presumably, they were not.

Yes but no one else murdered there wife in a Ripper like fashion. And in no one else home is it known that chalk messages were present indicating the Ripper lived there.

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;376571]

Nonsense, John. Many people claimed they were the Ripper. Presumably, they were not.

Yes but no one else is known to have written on doors and murdered there wife in a Ripper like fashion. Strangulation followed by post mortem mutilation.

[Columbo]

Trying to catch up on all the things on these forums can drive you nuts! So many repeats, so many questions asked and answered in so many different ways!

I haven't found a clear indication though if Mizen took names or not. Can someone point me in the right direction?

And how come if Stewart Evans passed, he's not in the obit section of the casebook?

[Columbo]

But he Mizen didn't take his name, so this is nothing but guess work.

I preferred the answer you deleted.

I did too at the time!

[GUT]

I think he pretty much decided to lie when he and Paul came across Mizen. If asked his name (and I think Mizen probably asked him, although that's my opinion) so during his quick discussion he knew he would not give whatever name he was known by.

But he Mizen didn't take his name, so this is nothing but guess work.

I preferred the answer you deleted.