Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

welcome back Herlock!
and great posts, as usual!

Cheers Abby

[FISHY1118]

We can all give opinions on how Ripper discussions could be improved….

1. If some people didn’t believe that they should be self-appointed judge and jury as to which suspects or theories should or shouldn’t be considered or discussed by others.
2. If some people proved that they understood what the word ‘alibi’ actually means.
3. If some people learned to differentiate between opinion and fact.
4. If some people didn’t assume that because they interpret something in one way then that interpretation should be accepted as correct by all.
5. If some people didn’t support bizarre, discredited theories then seek to deride others for suggesting other far more plausible, down-to-earth ones.
6. If some people didn’t arrive at a theory and then defend it at all costs by manipulating evidence, deliberately discrediting witnesses, twisting logic or using their own ‘version’ of the English language.
7. If some people didn’t sink into ‘victim mode’ every time someone happens to disagrees with them.
8. If some people didn’t apply different criteria or standards to different suspects/theories in an attempt to skew outcomes.
9. If some people actually admitted it when they were shown to be incorrect instead of resorting to obfuscation or silence or the changing of the subject.
10. If some people weren’t so reluctant to admit that there are things that we just don’t know the answer to in this case and probably never will be in a position to know.
11. If some people didn’t refuse to accept things that we know to be true - like the fact that not everyone in LVP Whitechapel owned clocks or watches. Or the fact that clocks weren’t synchronised anything like they are today. Or that witnesses can be inaccurate. Or that ‘experts’ didn’t have the knowledge and technology available to them that modern day experts do.
12. If some people refused to accept that estimations are exactly that…estimations, which means that we have to allow for reasonable margins for error.
13. If some people didn’t resort to clichés like…all senior police officers were liars or idiots.
14. If some people wouldn’t make unfounded assumptions like….”the killer wouldn’t have done that,” as if they have access to thought processes and so must be correct.
15. If some people resisted the lure of dismissing someone outright just because he/she said something that was proven to have been incorrect.

Wouldn’t it be nice?

Well maybe , but then we,d all have to be those ''if some people '' including you i guess .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well maybe , but then we,d all have to be those ''if some people '' including you i guess .

I do none of the above.

[FISHY1118]

I do none of the above.

Nah of course not ..........

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nah of course not ..........

I’m not going to pursue it because we could go on for ever and I don’t want to go there but perhaps you could point out for example where I’ve ever suggested that a suspect should be eliminated from discussion on this or any other forum? Which was the point that elicited my comment in the first place.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What a strange comment.

What would we have thought about a serial killer who dressed as a clown or a serial killer who was partial to a bit of origami (Charles Ng)? Many serial killers had what appeared to have been ‘normal lives’ (at least on the surface) which could have included various interests. Simply selecting Druitt’s cricket playing as an attempt at dismissing him because we can’t name another cricket playing serial killer is quite jaw-droppingly desperate PI. Would you dismiss a serial killer suspect if you found out that he collected stamps just because you couldn’t find another serial killer who also collected stamps? What if you couldn’t find a serial killer who suffered from Hay Fever? Would you eliminate a Hay Fever sufferer as a suspect on those same spurious grounds?

By the way, serial killer Randall Woodfield played American Football and was drafted to play for the Green Bay Packers. He killed up to 44 women.

You cannot compare American football to cricket.

There is absolutely nothing in Druitt's background or upbringing to suggest that he might have become a serial killer.

He came from a long line of doctors, not ruffians.

He was a public school teacher who practised law and played cricket in his spare time.

He lived nowhere near the Whitechapel area and in the opposite direction of the route taken by the murderer following the double murder.

Maybe it is 'jaw-droppingly desperate' to suggest that Druitt may have commuted between London and Dorset during a very public visit to Dorset, without anyone noticing, and without Macnaghten knowing of it or mentioning it as one of 'many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.'

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below

You’ve also said something about his friends noticing his absence? How would that have been an issue if he’d told them beforehand that he had to head back to London on business? No one at the time would have suspected him of being the ripper so no one would have given it a second thought.

Is that a fact or just your opinion?


However we, as individuals, rate Druitt as a suspect the fact remains….he had no alibi for any of the murders.

Is that a fact or just your opinion?

How do you know that Druitt was not having a late night party with his friends at the very moment that Nichols was being murdered?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You cannot compare American football to cricket.

So people who play cricket can never be a serial killer but those that play American Football can? Thanks for the info.

There is absolutely nothing in Druitt's background or upbringing to suggest that he might have become a serial killer.

I didn’t know that you were in possession of an in-depth history of his childhood PI? Please share it. We know where he went to school and a few very general details.

He came from a long line of doctors, not ruffians.

So only ‘ruffians kill?’ The respectable are exempt?

He was a public school teacher who practised law and played cricket in his spare time.

Correct.

He lived nowhere near the Whitechapel area and in the opposite direction of the route taken by the murderer following the double murder.

Did Peter Sutcliffe live near to his victims?

Maybe it is 'jaw-droppingly desperate' to suggest that Druitt may have commuted between London and Dorset during a very public visit to Dorset, without anyone noticing, and without Macnaghten knowing of it or mentioning it as one of 'many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.'

‘Man catches train’ is hardly worthy of Phileas Fogg.

The ‘without anyone noticing’ is a red herring of course. If he’d told his friends beforehand that he was returning to London why would they have been suspicious when he went, unless you think that one of them might have said to another “I say Barclay old chap, I bet old Monty’s off to murder another prostitute.”

MacNaghten didn’t mention the contents of his private info so we can’t say what he did or didn’t know.


\

I responded to a specific point made by yourself.

”I have never come across the case of a serial killer who even played cricket.”

So unless you posted that for no reason you were making the point that it is significant that we can’t find another cricket playing serial killer. I pointed out that there’s nothing significant about that. I don’t know why you’re disputing something so obvious? I have to ask if you’ve ever read something that another poster has said and simply accepted it without dispute?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my replies below

The first point is a general one - you made the point that his friend would have been suspicious at his absence. Do you really think that he’d just have sneaked off leaving everyone thinking “where’s Monty.”

Second point. Because we have no evidence of any party. You can’t just pluck an imaginary alibi out of thin air.

Druitt has no alibi. This is simply a fact that requires no discussion PI. I’m not explaining what an alibi is to you again.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

The first point is a general one - you made the point that his friend would have been suspicious at his absence.


I did not.

I wrote:

Maybe it is 'jaw-droppingly desperate' to suggest that Druitt may have commuted between London and Dorset during a very public visit to Dorset, without anyone noticing, and without Macnaghten knowing of it or mentioning it as one of 'many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.'



Do you really think that he’d just have sneaked off leaving everyone thinking “where’s Monty.”


There is no evidence that he sneaked off anywhere.



Second point. Because we have no evidence of any party. You can’t just pluck an imaginary alibi out of thin air.


I did not.

I gave an example of an alibi which he may have had.

Your statement that he had no alibi is not a proven fact.



Druitt has no alibi. This is simply a fact that requires no discussion PI.


It is not a fact.

There is no proof that Druitt did not have an alibi for at least one of the murders.

Nor is there proof that Kosminski did not have an alibi for at least one of the murders.



I’m not explaining what an alibi is to you again.


I do not need anyone to explain to me what an alibi is.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In response to Herlock Shomes' # 353:

You mention Peter Sutcliffe.

Sutcliffe was a lorry-driver who could move about easily at any hour of the night.

Druitt would have had no transport of his own and would hardly have made his escape by going in the wrong direction.

Sutcliffe came from a violent and dysfunctional home, which is typical of that of serial killers.

He did not come from a line of doctors but a line of ruffians and he did not play cricket.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my replies below.

There is no proof that Druitt did not have an alibi for at least one of the murders.

If I employed that reasoning I could say that we have no proof that Druitt wasn’t abused as a child and that he’d kept the terrible knowledge to himself? Or that there’s no proof that Druitt, when playing alone as a child, didn’t torture small animals. I could also say that there’s no proof that Macnaghten didn’t receive his private information. Or that there’s no proof that his family didn’t actually suspect him. Or even that there’s no proof that he wasn’t the ripper.

There’s no proof that any suspect didn’t have an alibi unknown to us (apart from people like Neil Cream or PAV) but that’s not really the point is it PI? Surely you can understand this. We can’t exonerate a suspect on the off-chance that he might have had an alibi that we’re unaware of. It doesn’t work like that and I suspect that, even though many will agree with your opinion on Druitt’s value as a suspect, you won’t find anyone to support the statement quoted above. I don’t know why you are so unwilling to accept the obvious. This is not my opinion, it’s a fact that as far as the current evidence stands Druitt categorically has no alibi. I can also assure that by simply accepting this undoubted fact you won’t get labelled as a Druittist.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In response to Herlock Shomes' # 353:

You mention Peter Sutcliffe.

Sutcliffe was a lorry-driver who could move about easily at any hour of the night.

Druitt would have had no transport of his own and would hardly have made his escape by going in the wrong direction.

Sutcliffe came from a violent and dysfunctional home, which is typical of that of serial killers.

He did not come from a line of doctors but a line of ruffians and he did not play cricket.

His family background is irrelevant. You are trying to set rules again.

I’ll use the reasoning that you employed in the other post - you have no proof that Druitt didn’t have a room somewhere.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

His family background is irrelevant. You are trying to set rules again.


It is not irrelevant.

A violent and dysfunctional family background is a common denominator in the cases of the vast majority of serial killers.

We are not dealing with a lottery.



I’ll use the reasoning that you employed in the other post - you have no proof that Druitt didn’t have a room somewhere.


I do have proof that Druitt was on a trip to Dorset at the time of the first Whitechapel murder.

You do not have proof that he was in Whitechapel during that time.

[Fiver]

We can all give opinions on how Ripper discussions could be improved….

1. If some people didn’t believe that they should be self-appointed judge and jury as to which suspects or theories should or shouldn’t be considered or discussed by others.
2. If some people proved that they understood what the word ‘alibi’ actually means.
3. If some people learned to differentiate between opinion and fact.
4. If some people didn’t assume that because they interpret something in one way then that interpretation should be accepted as correct by all.
5. If some people didn’t support bizarre, discredited theories then seek to deride others for suggesting other far more plausible, down-to-earth ones.
6. If some people didn’t arrive at a theory and then defend it at all costs by manipulating evidence, deliberately discrediting witnesses, twisting logic or using their own ‘version’ of the English language.
7. If some people didn’t sink into ‘victim mode’ every time someone happens to disagrees with them.
8. If some people didn’t apply different criteria or standards to different suspects/theories in an attempt to skew outcomes.
9. If some people actually admitted it when they were shown to be incorrect instead of resorting to obfuscation or silence or the changing of the subject.
10. If some people weren’t so reluctant to admit that there are things that we just don’t know the answer to in this case and probably never will be in a position to know.
11. If some people didn’t refuse to accept things that we know to be true - like the fact that not everyone in LVP Whitechapel owned clocks or watches. Or the fact that clocks weren’t synchronised anything like they are today. Or that witnesses can be inaccurate. Or that ‘experts’ didn’t have the knowledge and technology available to them that modern day experts do.
12. If some people refused to accept that estimations are exactly that…estimations, which means that we have to allow for reasonable margins for error.
13. If some people didn’t resort to clichés like…all senior police officers were liars or idiots.
14. If some people wouldn’t make unfounded assumptions like….”the killer wouldn’t have done that,” as if they have access to thought processes and so must be correct.
15. If some people resisted the lure of dismissing someone outright just because he/she said something that was proven to have been incorrect.

Wouldn’t it be nice?

Excellent points, though for number 2, we have people using the same word in different ways.

To me, an alibi is a reasonable claim to have been somewhere else when the murder was committed. Sickert's letters indicate he was in France at the time of some of the killings. Lechmere's work schedule indicates he was somewhere else a the time of some of the killings.

Others use the word alibi as definite proof that the suspect was somewhere else when the murder was committed. Ostrog was in a French prison. Prince Eddy was seen in other locations by far too many witnesses for any reasonable person to believe he was the killer.

In real life, a claimed alibi is usually true. In a whodunnit, a claimed alibi is often a deception.

And that's a problem - a lot of people treat the case as a whodunnit. In a whodunnit you are given all the clues and can solve the case if you are clever enough. Barring deliberate deception, all information is accurate. This includes times, especially times of death. There is a direct link between the killer and the victims. There is a clear list of suspects. Alibis are either rock solid or further deceptions by the killer. Anything found is a clue or deliberate red herring.

None of this is true in a real case. We don't even have a clear list of victims, let alone a clear list of suspects. Human perception and memory are fallible. Eyewitnesses can contradict each other and not be lying. Objects found may just be random objects that have nothing to do with the case. Alibis are often soft and generally can't be proven or disproven this long after the events. Times given are usually estimates by people who didn't own a pocket watch. Estimated times of death are little more than guesswork, based on variables we are still trying to understand in the 21st century.