Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[John Wheat]

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.

Of course its worth noting Ellen Bury was a prostitute. I suggest Bury was having a mental breakdown. It seems strange that a one time wife murderer would leave his wife in a box for a week and then go to the police and the chalking's seem a massive coincidence if Bury wasn't the Ripper or a copycat. Also Bury mentioning the Ripper to the police again seems a massive coincidence if he wasn't the Ripper or a copycat.

[Fisherman]

Pierre: No, Fisherman. Use the correct expression. The bleeding can not be consistent with Lechmere being a killer.

Of course it can. You need to think that over again.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=John Wheat;376418]Of course its worth noting Ellen Bury was a prostitute. I suggest Bury was having a mental breakdown. It seems strange that a one time wife murderer would leave his wife in a box for a week and then go to the police and the chalking's seem a massive coincidence if Bury wasn't the Ripper or a copycat. Also Bury mentioning the Ripper to the police again seems a massive coincidence if he wasn't the Ripper or a copycat.[/QUOTE

Everybody spoke of the Ripper, so itīs no massive coincidence at all. A lot of people said they were the Ripper, itīs been recorded numerous times.

The chalking could well be the exact same thing.

Who do you imagine wrote the grafitti?

[Pierre]

Pierre: No, Fisherman. Use the correct expression. The bleeding can not be consistent with Lechmere being a killer.

Of course it can. You need to think that over again.

OK then. So letīs say the police came to the site and saw Lechmere standing in Buckīs Row and there was a dead woman lying, bleeding. What did they say?

"Look! She is bleeding! That man there is the killer!".

No inquest, no trial, no judge - just "Look and see - there he is!"

Like you said (drawn from my memory, so it may not be quiet correct now) in your documentary: "And it was then that I said: This must be him!".

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

OK then. So letīs say the police came to the site and saw Lechmere standing in Buckīs Row and there was a dead woman lying, bleeding. What did they say?

"Look! She is bleeding! That man there is the killer!".

No inquest, no trial, no judge - just "Look and see - there he is!"

Like you said (drawn from my memory, so it may not be quiet correct now) in your documentary: "And it was then that I said: This must be him!".

Regards, Pierre

How entertaining! No, I was more thinking that they would say: Look, she is bleeding - that is consistent with that man being the killer. It would not mean that he must be the killer, just that the bleeding is consistent with the idea that he was.

Because it is.

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;376426]

Of course its worth noting Ellen Bury was a prostitute. I suggest Bury was having a mental breakdown. It seems strange that a one time wife murderer would leave his wife in a box for a week and then go to the police and the chalking's seem a massive coincidence if Bury wasn't the Ripper or a copycat. Also Bury mentioning the Ripper to the police again seems a massive coincidence if he wasn't the Ripper or a copycat.[/QUOTE

Everybody spoke of the Ripper, so itīs no massive coincidence at all. A lot of people said they were the Ripper, itīs been recorded numerous times.

The chalking could well be the exact same thing.

Who do you imagine wrote the grafitti?

I imagine the graffiti was either written by Bury in the midst of a mental breakdown or by Ellen who I hypothesise believed Bury was the Ripper.

[harry]

Fisherman-Colombo,
Using the name Cross cannot be a lie as he was legally entitled to use it,nor can it be evidence of misleading authorities,because he gave a truthfull statement of both his home address and place of employment,at each of w hich he could be located and identified as the person who found Nichol's body.

The blood evidence is of little value,as has been explained by many other posters.It does not exclude another person having killed Nichols a short time before Cross arrived at the scene,which could have been a matter of seconds only.

Íntent' I notice is a subject you fail to answer,yet it is the most important,in my opinion,when considering Cross.

Would Cross,setting off for his regular daily walk to work that day,additionally form in his mind,before beginning that walk,at the time he began that walk,during that walk,or upon meeting Nichols,an intent to kill?
It's possible,but why? Is there something you know about Cross that would
explain such behaviour?

Colombo,
Statistics prove that most convictions for murder are obtained by confession.Only a minority are contested with a Not Guilty plea.
That goes also for most crime.

[GUT]

Colombo,
Statistics prove that most convictions for murder are obtained by confession.Only a minority are contested with a Not Guilty plea.
That goes also for most crime.

To be fair Harry, not really by confession, but yes by a pleas of guilty after being charged.

To be equally fair (especially in jurisdictions with a death penalty) there are sometimes pleas of guilty entered when the accused is innocent, just the evidence is such that a conviction is at least possible, maybe even probable, and a plea will keep them alive.

[Columbo]

Fisherman-Colombo,
Using the name Cross cannot be a lie as he was legally entitled to use it,nor can it be evidence of misleading authorities,because he gave a truthfull statement of both his home address and place of employment,at each of w hich he could be located and identified as the person who found Nichol's body.

The blood evidence is of little value,as has been explained by many other posters.It does not exclude another person having killed Nichols a short time before Cross arrived at the scene,which could have been a matter of seconds only.

Íntent' I notice is a subject you fail to answer,yet it is the most important,in my opinion,when considering Cross.

Would Cross,setting off for his regular daily walk to work that day,additionally form in his mind,before beginning that walk,at the time he began that walk,during that walk,or upon meeting Nichols,an intent to kill?
It's possible,but why? Is there something you know about Cross that would
explain such behaviour?

Colombo,
Statistics prove that most convictions for murder are obtained by confession.Only a minority are contested with a Not Guilty plea.
That goes also for most crime.

Hi,
I think we're nickpicking here. Of course if he were entitled to use Cross or Lechmere he could if he so desired, but if he was known as Lechmere to most of the world for a number of years it would seem a very strange decision to all of a sudden use a different, albeit a legal, name when it wasn't necessary. It also would be a little suspicious to me if it were done when reporting a body on the side of the road if he had nothing to do with it. It doesn't make him a killer, it's just a red flag that he should be looked at more closely.

I don't disagree with the last remark about the statistics because I don't have the inclination to look it up

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=John Wheat;376444]

I imagine the graffiti was either written by Bury in the midst of a mental breakdown or by Ellen who I hypothesise believed Bury was the Ripper.

But if Bury wrote it himself - which is what I think - that would not nail him as either the Ripper or a copycat. It could well be only a pointer to him being aware (as was 99,9 per cent of the population) of the Ripper and his deeds.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman-Colombo,
Using the name Cross cannot be a lie as he was legally entitled to use it...

It would perhaps not be illegal - but if he didnīt use it otherwise, then it WAS a lie.


,nor can it be evidence of misleading authorities,because he gave a truthfull statement of both his home address and place of employment,at each of w hich he could be located and identified as the person who found Nichol's body.

But Harry, he STILL misled about the name, if it was not the one he otherwise used.

The blood evidence is of little value,as has been explained by many other posters.

As has been wrongfully SUGGESTED by other posters.

It does not exclude another person having killed Nichols a short time before Cross arrived at the scene,which could have been a matter of seconds only.

No, it could not - since Lechmere would have made the person out. And as I keep saying, with every second we add, we remove ourselves from the probabilities. It is kind of desperate to try and cram another killer in when we already have a man who fits the evidence fair and square. But he MUST not be the Ripper, God forbid!

Íntent' I notice is a subject you fail to answer,yet it is the most important,in my opinion,when considering Cross.

Same intent as other serial killers - a wish to kill. And I fail to answer nothing. itīs just that I donīt provide the kind of answers you want me to.

Would Cross,setting off for his regular daily walk to work that day,additionally form in his mind,before beginning that walk,at the time he began that walk,during that walk,or upon meeting Nichols,an intent to kill?
It's possible,but why? Is there something you know about Cross that would
explain such behaviour?

Is there anything that would prohibit it? Like you say, itīs possible.

[c.d.]

I am sure that I will regret getting involved in this thread but with respect to using the name Cross, could it simply have been that he did not want his name appearing in the newspapers or police reports fearing it would become public and that he would somehow be associated with this ghastly deed?

c.d.

[Fisherman]

I am sure that I will regret getting involved in this thread but with respect to using the name Cross, could it simply have been that he did not want his name appearing in the newspapers or police reports fearing it would become public and that he would somehow be associated with this ghastly deed?

c.d.

Ah, C.D., you never regret chatting with me, do you? The suggestion you make is a possibility, but you must weigh in the fact that once he decided to use another name than the one he normally used, and to deliberately withhold his real name from the police, he took a huge risk, having been found alone with the body.
If they found out that they had been fooled, they would reasonably ask themselves why.

[Harry D]

I am sure that I will regret getting involved in this thread but with respect to using the name Cross, could it simply have been that he did not want his name appearing in the newspapers or police reports fearing it would become public and that he would somehow be associated with this ghastly deed?

Hello, CD. For me, it makes a lot more sense that Lechmere was simply trying to protect himself and his family from all the gossip and unwanted attention that comes from being caught up in a murder investigation.

[Fisherman]

Hello, CD. For me, it makes a lot more sense that Lechmere was simply trying to protect himself and his family from all the gossip and unwanted attention that comes from being caught up in a murder investigation.

It is interesting to note how people on the one side say that he was not trying to hide anything at all, since his address and working place would easily give him away, only to then say that he was effectively hiding his identity to save himself and his family from all that distress.

Would not the same smartypants who would have no trouble making him out in the first place do so in the second too? And if not, why?