Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fisherman]

Out of curiosity--and I think I've asked you this before--why do you persist in calling this a 'rag' when it was identified as a 'rough apron'?

Shouldn't we try to be precise?

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.

So who shall I please? You or Fiver?

Or do I choose my own way?

That is quite a cliffhanger!

[Fisherman]

You aren't quoting the whole picture of what Frank said or of what Baxter said. Because if we were to quote everything Baxter said it would undermine your theory.

Yes, accepting that Baxter said that the body was found not far off 3.45 is a tough blow for me, I have to admit that.

[Fisherman]

I see you are unfamiliar with the history of the labor movement. The London Carmen's Trade Union was founded in 1888 and by 1889 had over 6000 members by 1889.

Actually, there were carmen at work before that date. And actually, the working hours would have been a topic of discussion then too.

You also appear not to have read the article I posted as it shows Pickfords treated its carmen better than carmen working for some of the other major employers.

I pointed this out myself. You may have missed it. Ehrm.

We're still waiting for you to provide anything but your own opinion that harsh working conditions can lead to someone becoming a serial killer.

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

NCJ Number

122280
Journal

Federal Probation Volume: 53 Issue: 4 Dated: (December 1989) Pages: 41-45
Author(s)

F H Leibman
Date Published

1989
Length

5 pages
Annotation
This article explores the psychological profiles of four serial murderers to determine their common emotional and environmental characteristics and to develop criteria to identify persons with such tendencies and early treatment programs for these individuals.

Abstract
The underlying psychological motivations for homicide generally are frustration, fear, and depression combined with the murderer's interaction with environmental factors such as stress, parental repression, or rejection. When these factors interact, the individual's ego-protective mechanisms fail and he acts out violently; this situation may be aggravated by certain circumstances or people. Experts describe three types of murderers: the ego disharmonious or ego-dystonic, whose conflict between ego and conscience leads to a dissociative reaction; the psychotic, who suffers from a mental illness that causes a complete break from reality; and the ego harmonious, whose commission of murder seems to him rational and acceptable. All three types share characteristics of helplessness, impotence, desire for revenge, irrational hatred of others, suspiciousness, hypersensitivity to rejection, self-centeredness, an inability to tolerate frustration, uncontrollable emotional outbursts, and a need to retaliate through destruction. Serial murderers are ego disharmonious, disassociating themselves from their actions; they have experienced cruel and violent parenting, parental rejection and rejection by members of the opposite sex, previous contact with the criminal justice system, commitment to a mental health institution, aberrant sexual behaviors, and a loner personality. There are commonalities between serial killings: the victims are usually similar physically, the relationship between perpetrator and victim is that of an acquaintance or stranger, and the murderer exhibits an obsessive-compulsive behavior. Most of the killers are between 25 and 35 years old, male, and Caucasian. The victims are female, of any age, and also Caucasian. The article includes case histories of four serial killers -- Theodore Bundy, Albert De Salvo, Edmund Kemper, and Jerome Brudos. 1 appendix, 22 references.

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!

[Fisherman]

There certainly is a moral issue and you are STILL ducking the point. Do you really think that people reading this can’t see this? Do you assume that everyone on here is just too stupid to see and understand the very obvious point that I’m making. A point that is extremely simple and yet you keep sending over a deluge of words none of which address the point. Connor is irrelevant, as you well know, because I’m not talking about you using ‘3.30’ instead of ‘around 3.30.’ Can you let that sink in Fish…..I’m not talking about you using ‘3.30’ instead of ‘around 3.30.’ Have you understood that or will you still be responding to a point that I’m not currently talking about?

Ill try again by making it as short and simple as I can……


HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WHEN READING THE VARIOUS REPORTS OF THE INQUEST TESTIMONY YOU ARRIVED AT THE POSITIVE CONCLUSION THAT THE MAJORITY OF THEM HAD SAID ‘3.30,’ CONSIDERING THAT YOUVE RECENTLY ADMITTED THAT THE MAJORITY VERY OBVIOUSLY SAID ‘AROUND 3.3O.’

HOW DID YOU MANAGE TO ‘MISCOUNT?’ HOW DID THAT ‘MISTAKE’ OCCUR?

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.

[Doctored Whatsit]

... until we read the next line of the summary. And do the math.

So waaayyyyy of the target - and no cigar.

A long winded answer as always, and as usual, little attempt to deal with the subject. Baxter clearly indicated that the body was found "less than an hour and a quarter" after 2.30 am, and therefore before 3. 45 am, and you can waffle for as long as you wish. That is what he said. So "not far off" can only mean shortly before 3. 45 am. It cannot mean 3. 45 am because that is not "less than an hour and a quarter". The only reason that this discussion is continuing is because you refuse to accept that "less than an hour and a quarter" means less than an hour and a quarter!

[FrankO]

Oh, sorry, I have just been answering posts from a less discerning crowd, so I am perhaps a bit on edge.

Sorry about that Frank! I will try to get it right forthwith.

No problem, Christer.

I hope we can stay on friendly terms, Frank. I really do. I know we both have the ability to disagree in style, so I hope that is what will come of our exchange.

Don’t worry about that either, I’m not a spiteful guy. Otherwise, I might have already stopped discussing things with you.

I KNOW your take, Frank. But as I said, I don't think it works with the facts other than if we stretch them a good deal.

And there’s the problem right there, the way I see it. We’re not disagreeing on the facts, but on the interpretation of those facts, because Baxter said something that could be interpreted in different ways. So, I don’t stretch the facts, I just attach another meaning to it than you. I say the 3.45 refers to Neil’s discovery time and, so, not far from it could have been a matter of 3, 4, 5 minutes; you say the 3.45 is the time Lechmere found Nichols, give or take a minute.

I’ve expressed my critical notes to your view and you’ve now made your rebuttal, which, to be honest, hasn’t convinced me. But that's okay. So, as you propose at the end of your post, let’s disagree. I really think that’s the best offer, I don’t see any need in going over all of your post. Let’s call it a day - at least for now.

The best,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

The only thing that’s clear is that you’ve given no explanation. As I expected. Just the usual climbing onto the high horse with a bit of fake outrage thrown in.

Point 100% proven.

[rjpalmer]

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.

So who shall I please? You or Fiver?

Or do I choose my own way?

That is quite a cliffhanger!

It's not a cliffhanger. I think you should choose the historical record instead of your own subjective wording of it. Indiscriminately referring to it as a 'rag' has already led to confusion on JTR Forums.

I wouldn't normally feel the need to press you on this point but seeing that you spent three days hairsplitting the difference between a 'gap' and the 'suggestion of a gap,' I would think you would appreciate the necessity of being precise.

No one ever referred to the complete apron found at the building site of St. Philip's Church as anything other than an apron. The journalist made the awkward comment that the apron "had apparently contained human remains" but this does not allow is to call it a 'rag' any more than calling it a satchel or a stretcher or a coffin. You seem to wish to imply that this event parallels the Mitre Square murder but there is no reason to draw this conclusion. Most blatantly, the Mitre Square murder was committed where Eddowes was found, whereas the Pinchin Street victim was brought to the railway arch from an undisclosed location, so the parallel that that you seem to be insinuating is strained.

I'm not suggesting that you have ulterior motives, but the 'rough apron' worn by the women of East London was a large affair and referring to it as a 'rag' makes the idea of someone lugging it half a mile through the streets of East London along a curiously straight path more palatable than referring to it as what it actually was: an apron.

That's my two cents, Christer.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I would have thought that if stress brought along by harsh working conditions was one of the reasons for serial murderers to start a killing spree the east end of 1888 would have been full of them.
Of course we can't totally rule it out completely but to me Lech had been , as stated, in employment with Pickford's a very long time with , as far as I am aware , apart from the earlier accidental death of a young boy which Lech was totally cleared of, a clean record. If he hadn't a good record it is hard to see how he kept in the same job all that time. He must have been reliable at the very least . So him finding another job as a carman with better working conditions if needs be wouldn't have been insurmountable if he felt a total sense of helplessness .
I am no clinical psychologist and this is a bit old hat but I would speculate Jack had a deep rooted psychological hatred [ and perhaps fear ], of females in general, possibly brought on with the feelings he had towards his Mother. And that's where his killing spree came from within his psyche , so to speak.
Why he started said spree when he did, who knows ? But one example could be the loss of his job and livelihood which I would personally favour over being stuck in a rut within his job. There are many other possible reasons why , rejection off a woman , catching a sexually transmitted disease etc

Regards Darryl

[John Wheat]

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.

Someone's getting a bit touchy.

[Fisherman]

A long winded answer as always, and as usual, little attempt to deal with the subject.

I dealt extensively with the subject, so don't try to claim otherwise, please.

Baxter clearly indicated that the body was found "less than an hour and a quarter" after 2.30 am, and therefore before 3. 45 am, and you can waffle for as long as you wish. That is what he said. So "not far off" can only mean shortly before 3. 45 am. It cannot mean 3. 45 am because that is not "less than an hour and a quarter". The only reason that this discussion is continuing is because you refuse to accept that "less than an hour and a quarter" means less than an hour and a quarter!

"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.

[Fisherman]

Frank O:

And there’s the problem right there, the way I see it. We’re not disagreeing on the facts, but on the interpretation of those facts, because Baxter said something that could be interpreted in different ways. So, I don’t stretch the facts, I just attach another meaning to it than you. I say the 3.45 refers to Neil’s discovery time and, so, not far from it could have been a matter of 3, 4, 5 minutes; you say the 3.45 is the time Lechmere found Nichols, give or take a minute.

I’ve expressed my critical notes to your view and you’ve now made your rebuttal, which, to be honest, hasn’t convinced me. But that's okay. So, as you propose at the end of your post, let’s disagree. I really think that’s the best offer, I don’t see any need in going over all of your post. Let’s call it a day - at least for now.

The best,
Frank

I am perfectly fine to disagree about this. I would not change a syllable in my take.

[Fisherman]

The only thing that’s clear is that you’ve given no explanation. As I expected. Just the usual climbing onto the high horse with a bit of fake outrage thrown in.

Point 100% proven.

No, Herlock, you have proven nothing, so stop claiming that you have. For you to know my reasoning, you would have to be able to read my mind. And since you are not, your claim of lies and deception on my behalf is nothing but a sad invention on your behalf.

That is what you are flaunting.

[Fisherman]

It's not a cliffhanger. I think you should choose the historical record instead of your own subjective wording of it. Indiscriminately referring to it as a 'rag' has already led to confusion on JTR Forums.

The historical record tells us that the apron found up at St Philips had blood on it. Anybody who found it and said "Look, a rag!" would be perfectly entitled to do so. Similarly, anybody who found it and said "Look, an apron" would be perfectly in his right to say so too.
I understand now that your worries are all bout how people may accept that the piece of cloth (hope you don't mind that description) was used as a rag, and thereby was in many ways similar to the Goulston Street rag. We KNOW that the apron piece there WAS used as a rag, and so you would likely prefer that one to be called a rag, and the St Philips one an apron with blood on it.
Is that about correct, R J?
You see, you also run the risk of people accepting your bid that the St Philips cloth should be called an apron - but maybe they also start calling the Goulston Street rag an apron. Which it WAS, or part of an apron to be more exact.
So you see, any which way you try to damage limit, you run a risk of people seeing a likeness in between the two pieces of cloth.

I wouldn't normally feel the need to press you on this point but seeing that you spent three days hairsplitting the difference between a 'gap' and the 'suggestion of a gap,' I would think you would appreciate the necessity of being precise.

The information about the suggested gap is a very necessary one, make no mistake. There are posters out here that claim it as a fact that there was no gap, you see. That is not hairsplitting, admittedly, but instead an invention of a fact. But it needs to be pointed out anyway, I think.

No one ever referred to the complete apron found at the building site of St. Philip's Church as anything other than an apron.

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.
But wait a moment! Have we defined what a rag IS, R J?
I donat think so.
Here is a little help, from Merriam-Websters dictionary:
1
a
: a waste piece of cloth
b
rags plural : clothes usually in poor or ragged condition
c
: CLOTHING
the rag trade

Now, to which category would the apron up at St Philips have belonged? Note, if you will, that the category "Cloth used to wipe hand on" is not among the alternatives. Personally, I would say that " a waste piece of cloth" covers it nicely. If you disagree, just tell me.

The journalist made the awkward comment that the apron "had apparently contained human remains" but this does not allow is to call it a 'rag' any more than calling it a satchel or a stretcher or a coffin. You seem to wish to imply that this event parallels the Mitre Square murder but there is no reason to draw this conclusion. Most blatantly, the Mitre Square murder was committed where Eddowes was found, whereas the Pinchin Street victim was brought to the railway arch from an undisclosed location, so the parallel that that you seem to be insinuating is strained.

I'm not suggesting that you have ulterior motives, but the 'rough apron' worn by the women of East London was a large affair and referring to it as a 'rag' makes the idea of someone lugging it half a mile through the streets of East London along a curiously straight path more palatable than referring to it as what it actually was: an apron.

That's my two cents, Christer.

Well, now you have MY two cents. And Merriam-Websters. If you think they have "ulterior motives", you need to contact the company.

Njut I concur that the curiously straight line can look curious to some. To others, I bet it will look more like a confirmation.

That too is a question of different takes on different things. But if we all keep calm and don't panic when items surface that can look as if they point a very clear finger at Charles Lechmere, we may be able to have a better discussion.

[Fisherman]

I would have thought that if stress brought along by harsh working conditions was one of the reasons for serial murderers to start a killing spree the east end of 1888 would have been full of them.

That would predispose that anybody could become a serial killer. But that is not so. Only the fewest of people are wired in that way, which is a very lucky thing.

Of course we can't totally rule it out completely but to me Lech had been , as stated, in employment with Pickford's a very long time with , as far as I am aware , apart from the earlier accidental death of a young boy which Lech was totally cleared of, a clean record. If he hadn't a good record it is hard to see how he kept in the same job all that time. He must have been reliable at the very least . So him finding another job as a carman with better working conditions if needs be wouldn't have been insurmountable if he felt a total sense of helplessness .

Speculation. We just dont know, although I agree that he would perhaps have been likely to be able to find an alternative work. But as long as we don't know, we don't know.

I am no clinical psychologist and this is a bit old hat but I would speculate Jack had a deep rooted psychological hatred [ and perhaps fear ], of females in general, possibly brought on with the feelings he had towards his Mother. And that's where his killing spree came from within his psyche , so to speak.

That is a possibility. But what I am pointing to is how surrounding conditions can make that kind of powder explode, as a setting off factor.

Why he started said spree when he did, who knows ?

Nobody, actually.

But one example could be the loss of his job and livelihood which I would personally favour over being stuck in a rut within his job. There are many other possible reasons why , rejection off a woman , catching a sexually transmitted disease etc

Regards Darryl

Yes, absolutely. But I never said that the working conditions MUST have been the reason. What I said was that if he found the working conditions very stressful and putting him out of control, then they may - instead of having made him too tired to kill - actually have set off the business.