Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      I already told you that the only rag that has any bearing for my reasoning is the St Philips rag - and it is either one of the greatest coincidences in criminal history, or a useful piece of evidence.
      Good to see you admitting that you accept or discard facts based on whether it fits your theory. Facts are only evidence if they can be shown to have some bearing on the case. The most likely explanation for the St Philips Church apron piece is that it is a random bit of rubbish. There is no evidence that ties it to the Pinchin Street Torso. Its location does not point towards anyone.

      In addition to you misusing the word "evidence", you also misuse the word "coincidence".

      Coincidence - a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance. - Dictionary.com

      Multiple bloodstained garments being found in the area is a coincidence.

      Your Ley Line is a series of deliberate choices.
      * You chose to draw a line, even though there are no examples in history or fiction of criminals dropping evidence on a direct line between the crime scene and their home.
      * You chose to not draw a line to the bloody garment found in Hooper Street.
      * You chose to draw a line to the bloody apron found near the St Philip's church, even though there is no evidence that they are connected.
      * You chose to ignore that we don't know exactly where on the property the bloody apron was found, which means that lines could be drawn to thousands of homes.
      * You chose to draw a line to Charles Lechemre's home, ignoring all of those thousands of other homes that you could have drawn a line to.

      And you chose to misrepresent your series of deliberate choices as a coincidence.
      "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

      "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        Nope. But lousy, biased criticism would want to sweep the rag under the carpet (see what I did there? Again!)
        You swept the bloody garment that didn't fit your theory under the rug - again.

        "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

        "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

          No, my words do not show that I have no evidence. My word claims that you need to look for the evidence yourself, since I am not going to do hours of work only to then have it pooped on by you. And if you can prove that stress and a feeling of lost control is not regarded as common factors in the starting up process for many a serial killer, then fine. But you can't.
          You have to settle for making false claims about how my reluctance to dig for hours on end in a leash you provided would somehow prove me wrong. It does not.
          If you had any evidence that work related stress could lead to serial killing, you would have provided it. Every time you dodge the question proves you have no evidence.
          "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

          "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            Every time I repeat the fact that the St Philips rag was found in an exact line between the arch and Lechmeres lodgings, I point to a circumstance that potentially has a very clear bearing on the case.

            Every time you claim that I would have claimed that there IS a proven link between the rag and Lechmere, you are lying - unless what you are saying is that the rag is PROVEN to have been found in a direct line between the arch and Lechmeres lodgings.

            Do not accuse me of any misleadings, Fiver. It always backfires.

            Like now.

            But by all means, go on trying to spread cowling about me - it provides me with excellent opportunities to show who it is that lives submerged in the stuff.

            Who, for example, falsely claims that I would have "refused to acknowledge" that the St Philips rag is not linked to Lechmere or the Pinchin Street murder. As I have provided conclusive proof for in the above, this is a false accusation of yours.
            Every time you repeat your Ley Line theory, you are claiming there is a connection between the bloody rag and Charles Lechmere.

            "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

            "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              What Baxter said was, and I am quoting the Morning Advertiser, "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data". But to be perfectly honest, Frank - does not "cannot have been far off 3.45" MEAN "at 3.45 or not far off it" ....? Or does the "not far off" mean that we should work from the assumption that it was off, only not far off...?
              Just as when we say "I left home at around 3.30", it means that 3,30 is the time we are suggesting as a likelihood, a suggestion meaning that 3.45 is our best guess, although we accept that we may be wrong about it to a degree?
              You selectively quote both Frank and Baxter - again.

              And repeatedly ignore that Baxter also said "What her exact movements were after this it was impossible to say; but in less than an hour and a quarter her dead body was discovered at a spot rather under three-quarters of a mile distant."

              Which means that Baxter was saying Nichols body was found before 3:45am.

              There is no evidence of a time gap.

              "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

              "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                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.
                Its a statement of fact that you haven’t been able to give an explanation for. Because there isn’t one.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  -So you fail to mention that Paul spoke about walking down Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 in Lloyds Weekly.
                  That's a deliberate misrepresentation on your part. No one is ignoring the time that Robert Paul gave. We are pointing out it doesn't fit with the timings given by the other witnesses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  It's clear that Robert Paul was estimating the time. You aren't just ignoring the times given by PCs Thain, Neil, and Mizen. You aren't just ignoring half of what Coroner Baxter said. You aren't just ignoring Inspector Abberline's report. You're ignoring Robert Paul's inquest testimony, where he did not say that 3:45am was "exact".​
                  "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                  "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    And only you would falsely lead on that I would have said that Lechmeres job implies that he was the Ripper.

                    Then again, you are masterful when it comes to these kinds of shenanigans.
                    You claimed that work related stress can lead to serial killing, You then suggested that Charles Lechmre's job was highly stressful. You also suggested that he "suddenly get a much more straining job by way of having working hours added".

                    Your attempt at gaslighting doesn't change the facts.
                    "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                    "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                    Comment


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

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

                      And we do not want Fiver getting upset about how I am pointing out that they both WERE apron cloth, do we? He could get it into his head that I am trying to make a point about it, if I do adjust to your wish.
                      Why should I get upset about you stating something accurately. I'm mildly surprised, but not upset.

                      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      So who shall I please? You or Fiver?
                      I'm baffled that you don't realize that rj and I are in agreement, not in conflict with each other.

                      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      Or do I choose my own way?

                      That is quite a cliffhanger!
                      I see we can add "cliffhanger" to the list of English words that you do not understand.

                      "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                      "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Try this; it is the only example I will provide. To provide some help for you, I have underlined the relevant bits I am pointing to.

                        Serial Murderers: Four Case Histories
                        Your source does not discuss work related stress, let alone support your theory that work related stress can lead to serial killing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                        "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                        "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                        Comment


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

                          If you can find me another academic study, where the authors specifically rule out stress derived from harsh working conditions, you will have solved this "conundrum" to your own advantage. Good luck with that!
                          It's your theory. The burden of proof is on you. So far you you have provided no proof that anyone besides yourself thinks that work related stress can lead to serial killing.

                          "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                          "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            Actually, they did. It was described as " a portion of a woman's attire" too. Not a whole apron, but a portion. The idea seems to have been that it was thought initially to be a part of something, like a torn off or cut away piece of cloth - like a rag.
                            You really do love these semantic games, don't you, Christer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

                            I hope this helps.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

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

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

                              And contrary to his protests, Fisherman obviously cares quite a bit that he is seen as a fringe faction of a fringe sect of a fringe theory in a fringe hobby. Every post of his shows that he wants to be accepted by Ripperologists, that he wants his theory to become the dominant theory. He says he's leaving, just like he has said dozens of times before, and yet he always comes back, seeking the widespread acceptance that he will never get.
                              "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                              "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                              Comment


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

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

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

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

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

                                Thanks for your future cooperation, Christer! Much appreciated.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X