Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;376483]

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.

I disagree. In my opinion the graffiti is either a pointer to Bury being the Ripper or a copycat.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=John Wheat;376557]

I disagree. In my opinion the graffiti is either a pointer to Bury being the Ripper or a copycat.

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

[Columbo]

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.

I would say that is a possibility, but why? It's just strange he would think of that during a few moments with a constable. Possible none the less.

[GUT]

I would say that is a possibility, but why? It's just strange he would think of that during a few moments with a constable. Possible none the less.

Which constable did he use the name with after just a few minutes?

[Columbo]

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.

[harry]

Fisherman,
You say if he didn't normally use the name Cross it would be misleading.We do not know that he didn't.The fact that Lechmere was used on official business,in no way indicates Cross was not used at other times.He used it in the Nichols murder,he used it at the inquest,reporters used it.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?
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.

[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.

[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!

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

[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.

[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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk