Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[wigngown]

Thanks Fisherman,
Best regards.

[Fisherman]

Hi harryD
I think Fish may be leaning in the direction (as I am) that the ripper and torso man might have been the same...

Iīm not only leaning, Abby - Iīve already fallen over, more or less.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Fisherman

What makes you think the police didn't check Lechmere out?

The fact that his real name did not reach the police protocols. The fact that there is not one word about him being checked out in the papers or in the memoirs written by police top dogs. If anything, Dew points to how low-profile Lechmere seemed to be, a rough simpleton and nothing more.

Do you think the police were such bumbling incompetents that they would've overlooked Lechmere without good cause?

That is a much harder question to answer than you may think. Todays demands for a competent police force would not have been the same back in 1888. As I have pointed out before, if we back down in time from 1888 as far as we are today removed forwards in time, we will end up at a period where people were being legally accused of being witches. And when the witch hunts were on, they were "competent" according to the order of the day. In 1888, it was competent to consider long fingers pointing to being a thief, and a thick neck being the same as being a potential rapist.
I do think the police missed out rather badly. Just like you say, they should have looked closer on Lechmere, but the evidence tells us that they never did. That must tell us that they were not up to scratch, but just how badly they lagged behind is relative to the knowledge and methodology of the era.
It must also be weighed in that the police knew that Lechmere had sought them out - seemingly by his own free will - on not only one, but TWO occasions.

You will probably argue that a man like Lechmere didn't conform with the Victorian police's prejudices.

And I would be correct in doing so.

In truth, the police were desperate to catch the Ripper and would've explored any avenue that availed them...

Perhaps so - but where would they start? With the working class of the East End, family men with regular employment - or with mentally challenged foreigners with a link to the butchering business? And how long would it take them to check all of these men out?
There is a practical side to policing too, Harry. There will only be so much resources, and when they are emptied...

[harry]

Colombo,
I would believe that every person who kills with intent has a reason to kill,and most who are caught state a reason. In addition most convicted killers admit their crime,so there is no reason for mind reading.
Alternately,innocent witnesses state a reason for being being near a body.Cross is such a person and his reasons were stated,and so far no evidence has been supplied that show those reasons aren't truthfull.

[Fisherman]

innocent witnesses state a reason for being being near a body.Cross is such a person and his reasons were stated,and so far no evidence has been supplied that show those reasons aren't truthfull.

Actually, it has - we know that the bleeding and coagulation is consistent with Lechmere being the killer, and that it is less likely that somebody who preceded him did the cutting.
That is evidence pointing to him not being truthful.
We know that he gave a name that he otherwise did not use in combination with the authorities.
That is evidence pointing to him not being truthful.
We know that he should have been way past Bucks Row at 3.45 if he started out from home at 3.30, as he said he did.
That is evidence pointing to him not being truthful.

So the evidence is clearly there. It is just a matter of how we weigh it.

[John Wheat]

Probably not. The guys who turn themselves in pathologically like Bury appears to have done usually do i immediately after an escalation. So, two murders, third murder adds mutilation, they turn themselves in within a short period of time. Bury's wife is not an escalation of the Ripper murders, so it actually points to him possibly having a different series of murders. I'm sure there's more to it, I noted the trend, but didn't delve too deeply in it. It's probably worth a look, but gut for me says no. It was an escalation, just not from the Ripper killings.

So now your saying Bury's a serial killer just not the Ripper? Okay. I suggest had Bury mutilated Ellen to the same extent of Mary Kelly. He would have been hung as the Ripper which is exactly why Ellen Bury's mutilations are less extensive than the C5.

[wigngown]

Bury is one of my favoured suspects.
Best regards.

[Fisherman]

So now your saying Bury's a serial killer just not the Ripper? Okay. I suggest had Bury mutilated Ellen to the same extent of Mary Kelly. He would have been hung as the Ripper which is exactly why Ellen Bury's mutilations are less extensive than the C5.

U-huh. So, he killed her, decided to go to the police afterwards, and took care not to make the murder look to much like the Ripper murders? Is that what you are saying, or am I misunderstanding you?

[John Wheat]

U-huh. So, he killed her, decided to go to the police afterwards, and took care not to make the murder look to much like the Ripper murders? Is that what you are saying, or am I misunderstanding you?

No I'm saying it looks like a Ripper murder e.g. strangulation, post mortem mutilation but Bury didn't go overboard with the mutilations for fear of being hung as the Ripper.

[Columbo]

Colombo,
I would believe that every person who kills with intent has a reason to kill,and most who are caught state a reason. In addition most convicted killers admit their crime,so there is no reason for mind reading.
Alternately,innocent witnesses state a reason for being being near a body.Cross is such a person and his reasons were stated,and so far no evidence has been supplied that show those reasons aren't truthfull.

I'm sorry did you write most convicted killers admit their crimes? I'd like to know your source on that one because I don't think that is correct.

If it's true that Cross gave a different name other than what he regularly goes by, that usually means he's hiding something and/or doesn't want to be connected to the event in which he was asked for his name in the first place. So that would be an un-truth, yes? Now the reason may not be he killed anyone but there is a reason.

Druitt drowned himself for a reason, but people think it was because he was JTR. Why do they think this? Because a contemporary to the case said so many years later. There is no reason to suspect Druitt, but because Cross was alone with Nichols body he is a strong person of interest.

Again this is all speculation since we can't go back in time, but an interesting thread none the less.

[Fisherman]

No I'm saying it looks like a Ripper murder e.g. strangulation, post mortem mutilation but Bury didn't go overboard with the mutilations for fear of being hung as the Ripper.

So he was able to work with constraint, and all the while, he worked from the assumption (or knowledge) that he would face the police and tell them what he had done?

[Errata]

So now your saying Bury's a serial killer just not the Ripper? Okay. I suggest had Bury mutilated Ellen to the same extent of Mary Kelly. He would have been hung as the Ripper which is exactly why Ellen Bury's mutilations are less extensive than the C5.

No. I'm saying that if Bury were a certain type of serial killer, than the only way for him to remain true to type would be for him to be a completely different serial killer than the Ripper. Which is so many "ifs" it can hardly be claimed that I'm saying anything at all with any kind of authority. Just passing on some observations. Not pronouncing anything.

[John Wheat]

So he was able to work with constraint, and all the while, he worked from the assumption (or knowledge) that he would face the police and tell them what he had done?

Bury's actions are strange after strangling his wife Ripper or not. However it's worth noting Bury nearly avoided the hangman.

[Fisherman]

Bury's actions are strange after strangling his wife Ripper or not. However it's worth noting Bury nearly avoided the hangman.

Yes, it is an odd case if we are to reason that he was the Ripper. If it was a wife-slaying and his only murder, then it fits the bil a lot better to my mind.

Letīs reason that Bury was the Ripper. We would then have a very clear deviation in victim. He went from what seems to have been anonymous prostitutes to killing his own wife. And he decreased the violence instead of escalating it. He didnīt cut the neck. And he cut his own killing carreer short by going to the police.

How can we make him fit? To me, it would require a mental breakdown of sorts, more or less. Which can happen, of course.

The ordinary Ripper, always able to leave his victims without being detected, he was not. That man specialised in the killing of strangers, and in the evasion of the police. Bury excelled in the exact opposite.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;376358]Actually, it has -

we know that the bleeding and coagulation is consistent with Lechmere being the killer,

No, Fisherman. Use the correct expression. The bleeding can not be consistent with Lechmere being a killer. It can only be consistent with your hypothesis for Lechmere being the killer.

and (1) that it is less likely that somebody who preceded him did the cutting.
That is (2) evidence pointing to him not being truthful.
We know that he gave a name that he otherwise did not use in combination with the authorities.

OK. I put the figures into your text to be able to discuss it, hope it is OK:

As you very well understand, there are historical reasons for the hypothesis that Lechmere saw the killer:

1. Less likely - so more likely there was another person there at the same site at the same time.
2. Lying about his name = not getting it in the paper = not getting himself and his family known to the killer.

And why do I say that "there are historical reasons for the hypothesis that Lechmere saw the killer"?

1. Because according to Mizen, at the inquest, = sworn policeman (!), said that Lechmere ("Cross") saw a policeman at the murder site.

2. Because at the inquest, Lechmere took his statement back.

3. The murder sites became more secluded after Nichols. Because he had gotten himself a witness (Lechmere).

4. No extensive mutilations - sign of the killer being interrupted.

5. Skirt pulled down. Who did it? Are there any conflicting statements here? Reliable sources? (Newspapers...).

These are the historical reasons for not believing in "the Mizen scam". And what can you do about it?

Regards, Pierre