Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fisherman]

Good morning Fisherman


Yes you have said exactly that - the police did not bother to inquire if Pickfords had a Charles Cross in their employ. You've been insisting on it for a decade now. Right here on Casebook every time it came up n debate.

But you've never proven it.

If I said that, why don't you copy and paste and prove your point? Would that not be the correct thing to do when I have told you that you are misrepresenting me?

Oh I see, since there are mostly new people here posting now, you have "moved to goalposts" as they say.

No the starting point was, of course, always the "name" thing. Before that, Charles Cross was ... well, he was just Charles Cross. The name thing was the "aha' moment. Turns out the name thing is a dud. You can't prove the police did not ascertain he was in fact known as Charles Cross at work.

Face it Fisherman, your theory, which begins with the "name" thing, never got liftoff. It's too bad really, because you thought you finally found your very own Hutch. With an assist from Ed, of course.

Lechmere was found alone in Bucks Row, close by the body of Polly Nichols. That precedes the name issue chronologically. Furthermore, when Michael Connor and Derek Osborne pointed a finger at him, the name swop was not even known about.

You are welcome to wallow in your own misconceptions. But don't try to ascribe them to me.

[Fisherman]

And here we see Fisherman quoting a source out of context instead of giving us the whole picture.

"A theory that has attempted to integrate cultural, developmental, psychological, and biological concepts is Stephen Giannangelo’s diathesis-stress model (1996). The theory states that all serial killers have a congenital propensity to behave and think in ways that lead to serial killing, if combined with environmental stressors. This combination leads to the development of self-esteem, self-control, and sexual dysfunction problems. These problems feed back on one another and lead to the development of maladaptive social skills, which moves the person to retreat into his private pornographic fantasy world. As he dwells longer and longer in this world, he enters a dissociative process in which he takes his fantasies to their moral limits. At this point, the killer seeks out victims to act out his fantasies, but the actual kill never lives up to his expectations or to the thrill of the hunt, so the whole process is repeated and becomes obsessive-compulsive and ritualistic."

So are there indications of Lechmere having self-esteem problems? Lechmere had the confidence to approach a stranger on a dark street in a known dangerous place. Fisherman's version of Lechmere has even less problems with self-esteem - repeatedly choosing to take unnecessary risks

How about indications of lack of self-control? Lechmere held a steady job for decades, later opened his own business, and left his family a significant sum of money. He had no known record of criminal behavior, either. Fisherman's version of Lechmere has the self-control to bluff Paul, the police and everyone else and to preplan his murders hours in advance so his timing will throw off the suspicions of people who weren't even born yet.

And sexual dysfunction seems rather unlikely for a man who had 11 children, with the last born to his wife in 1891.

Lets also note that Fisherman's source is not Nicola Malizia's "Serial Killer: The Mechanism from Imagination to the Murder Phases”.



The source Fisherman used does not discuss the sort of environmental stressors that could trigger serial killing. Malazia alludes to them in a way that appears to indicate that Malazia believes these stressors happen before adulthood.

"As a result of their reliance on fantasy, and as a result of childhood abuse, the future killer has developed a series of negative personality traits which results in only increased isolation. These traits include a preference for autoerotic activity, aggression, chronic lying, rebelliousness, and a preference for fetish behavior.The killer’s initial difficulty in distinguishing between reality and fantasy continues to grow. Fueled by the negative personality traits, and inability to distinguish fantasy from reality, the future killer fails to adequately develop social relationships. The early isolation, leading to antisocial acts, is fueled by the acts, and increased isolation results. The isolation and antisocial behavior build into a feedback cycle, resulting in more violent behavior on the part of the killer, and even greater isolation from society. The lack of punishment resulting from the future killer’s violent behavior is a type of reinforcement. The killer’s childhood fantasies and thinking patterns stimulate only themselves, and while reducing tension, serve only to further their alienation. The social isolation, the result of early antisocial behavior and fantasy, only increases the child’s reliance on fantasy. This isolation is reformed into even greater anger against society. The killer’s early reliance on fantasy leads to violent acts, and childhood abuse leads toward anger against society. Anger produces violent acts, which in turn increases the child’s isolation. The increased isolation leads to even more anger, antisocial acts, and a vastly increased dependence on fantasy. The self-feeding cycle of isolation, anger and fantasy only serves to catapult the future killer even farther away from what society views as normal, and even closer to the act of homicide. By the time of sexual development, and autoerotic experimentation, fantasy is well on its way to it’s final role, that of sole coping device." - Nicola Malizia, ”Serial Killer: The Mechanism from Imagination to the Murder Phases”

Very few people engage in full time work before the age of sexual development. Fisherman's theory that stress induced by harsh working conditions can lead to to serial killing is not supported by the source that Fisherman claimed or by the source that Fisherman actually quoted.

And even if it did, that doesn't point to any of the roughly 68,000 carmen working in the London area, let alone Charles Lechmere.

Serial killing is often seen off by stress factors. Serial killers are very much about controlling their surroundings. If Lechmere got a schedule that gave him many more working hours, that would deprive him of control to some degree and it would likely cause stress for him.

Making a loooong post without having anything to say does not change that. And you of all people should not speak about quoting things out of context.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again "the absolute bulk" IS the majority, Herlock. And it does not in any way prove any intention to mislead on my behalf. Far from it. It does not even prove that I meant different things! It would be doing the rounds in Cloud Cukoo land to claim otherwise.

Very obviously, somebody who is incapable of understanding how the absolute bulk is always the majority, never the minority, can get it into his head to start raving about lies and deception on account of that - we all know that by now. But embarrassing yourself does not alter the facts.

You are going to have to present something else to prove your claim, or retract it.

Why do you keep repeating that the absolute bulk is the majority?????

Of course it is. Who would say otherwise? I certainly haven’t.

Please stop dodging as you simply cannot be misunderstanding the point.



In Cutting Point on page 92 you said:

“Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at 3.30, but the time 3.20 is also mentioned in one paper.”

So, in your book, you are saying that the majority of newspapers said that Cross left home at 3.30 (I genuinely can’t believe that I’m having to repeat this)


And yet, much later on here, you said:

“We must however accept that since the absolute bulk of the papers spoke of ”around 3.30”, that is by far the likeliest wording to have been given.”

And so you are now saying that the majority of newspapers said ‘around 3.30.


So……and I’m keeping it simple……


How is it possible that when writing Cutting Point you came to the conclusion that the majority of papers said 3.30. But you NOW admit that the majority said ‘around 3.30.’ What information do you now have that wasn’t available to you when you wrote Cutting Point?

Surely even you can’t keep wriggling on this point?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Serial killing is often seen off by stress factors. Serial killers are very much about controlling their surroundings. If Lechmere got a schedule that gave him many more working hours, that would deprive him of control to some degree and it would likely cause stress for him.

Making a loooong post without having anything to say does not change that. And you of all people should not speak about quoting things out of context.

Such a weak answer.

He had a job delivering stuff. He wasn’t Prime Minister or Head of the KGB.

[Fisherman]

Fiver:

Originally posted by Fisherman
I am not ignoring his inquest testimony at all. I am saying that in his Lloyds interview, he said "exactly 3.45" and I am saying that he must have had a reason to say "exactly", because we do not use that phrasing without knowing the exact time.

You clearly said:

Originally posted by Fisherman
You are calling Robert Pauls 3.45 timing an "estimate" on three occasions in your post. But the 3.45 timing was never given as an estimate at all. It was instead given as an exact timing: "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market".

This is the only occasion where we have the 3.45 timing given by Paul, and it is from Lloyds Weekly of the 2nd of September, not from the inquest.

That's you saying that Paul never gave his timing at the inquest. Do you not understand what the English words "only" and "Not" mean?

That's me saying that Paul did not give his timing of having walked down Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 at the inquest - he gave it in the Lloyds interview. At the inquest, the timing he gave instead related to his departure from home, which was why he said thatg he left home at shortly BEFORE 3.45.

It is also you failing to understand what I said - or deliberately misinterpreting it.

I do understand what the terms only and not mean, by the way. Let me show you: You are perhaps the only poster who would try a scam like this one. But I can not exclude the possibility that one or two other posters would be willing to go along with this nonsense.

So how did I do, Fiver?

Once we look at the inquest testimony, it is clear that Robert Paul gave an estimate, not the exact timing that you claim.

I never claimed that he gave an exact timing at the inquest, though, did I? You just made that up, right now, again misrepresenting me. I was VERY clear about how Paul gave an estimate at the inquest, but an exact timing in Lloyds Weekly.

All you have shown is your deliberate selective presentation of the evidence.

All you intend to do is to deliberately selectively choose your favored evidence. It is YOU, not I, who are trying to get rid of half of the evidence. I am giving it ALL.

You ignore Robert Paul's inquest testiony, which makes it clear that his time was an estimate, not the exact timing you claim.

Again, I do not claim that Pauls inquest testimony was an exact timing. I am saying that the evidence from Lloyds Weekly - that you are desperately trying to sweep under the carpet - was an exact timing. And it is not as if the two are mutually excluding each other. They both fit perfectly - he knew that he left home at shorty before 3.45 BECAUSE he knew that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he passed down Bucks Row.

You ignore the three police officers time estimates, which disagree with Paul's time estimate.

Again no. Instead I say that Coroner Baxter investigated the matter thoroughly and arrived at the conclusion that the time that Paul described as "exactly a quarter to four" was the time at which the body was found. And the body was found at the time Paul passed down Bucks Row.

You selectively quote Coroner Baxter, who clearly said that Nichols body was found before 3:45am.

As you know, he said that the body was found at a time not far off 3.45. What he did NOT say was that it was found at a time not far off 3.40. And he also said that the time was fixed to not far off 3.45 by many independent date. So why don't you go tell HIM that HE is "ignoring there police officers estimates? And then you can tell me why three PCs would be a better source than a carman, a PC and a doctor, two of whom will have had access to time pieces.

You ignore Inspector Abberline's analysis of all of the testimony, where he concludes Nichols body was found about 3:40am.

Abberlines report was written before the last day of the inquest, and so he could actually not have pondered "all of the testimony" as you falsely claim. The decision on Baxters behalf was so late in time that Abberline would in all probability not have known how it looked until after the September report Abberline signed.

You deliberately don't give people all of the facts. If you were to present the whole picture, it would show the time gap exists only in your imagination.

It exists as a likelihood in many, many peoples minds, people who are just as aware of "all of the facts" as you are or much more so. As for giving all of the facts, we can take a look at how you chose the Pall Mall Gazette to quote Spratling, leaving out other papers who gave the matter another hue. And we can ponder how you claimed that a house to house investigation in the streets adjoining Bucks Row, actually INVOLVED Bucks Row. And then we can finish off by taking a look at how you "forgot" to give the full facts of what the police inquiries involved at the stage you quoted the Morning Post from - when Brady Street was investigated with the idea that the body of Nichols was perhaps taken from there into Bucks Row.
How is that giving people the full facts, Fiver? Do enlighten us!!

You should not throw stones in that frail glass house of yours. Thankfully, it is extremely transparent, the way glass houses always are.

[Mark J D]

Do we know who the police did or didn’t speak to?

We don't need to. All we need to know here is that the operative principle is "Waaah! Just make Lechmere go away!"

Thus the police go to Scotland to investigate W H Bury. They come back empty-handed -- but that doesn't mean he wasn't the Ripper, okay!

Meanwhile, we have no evidence that the police ever paid the slightest attention to obsequious white Christian working man Lechmere, and a few indications that they didn't. So people outright pretend that they did ("Surely/undoubtedly/inevitably the police would have...") -- and, miraculously, that proves him innocent! "Yaay! Lechmere's gone! Back to Kozminski! and Druitt, everyone!"

You know, the people in all those other internet groups who get ridiculed on here for "not having read even one book about the case"' are able to see what goes on in these desperate online attempts to get Lechmere off the table -- and you can take it from me that it disgusts them. Example: A Lechmereian comes up with a quite stunning map that shows how a bloodied rag was found literally on the shortest path beween Pinchin Street and Lechmere's address. And how does online Ripperology respond to the staggeringly straight line and all that it implies? With "Heh! A ley line! Look: now I've made it into a cone! Hurhurhur!"

This simply isn't good enough -- to the extent, indeed, that it's even making outsiders assume that the blanket misandrist criticisms of Rubenhold, Joan Smith et al must be right. Well done.

M.

[Paddy Goose]

Hi again, Fisherman,

Lechmere was found alone in Bucks Row, close by the body of Polly Nichols. That precedes the name issue chronologically. Furthermore, when Michael Connor and Derek Osborne pointed a finger at him, the name swop was not even known about.

You didn't buy it though when the Connor and Osborne articles were discussed here on Casebook in 2008:

No, Cross is not a very good suggestion as the Ripper. To begin with, at the inquest Cross stated that he heard the approaching footsteps of Paul from around forty yards away - but still waited for him to come up to the spot where Nichols lay. It was pitch dark - so dark that the two men did not see the blood running from her neck - and there must have been every chance to leave the scene unseen had he been the Ripper.
Also, if he WAS the Ripper, it would be a very strange thing to go looking for a policeman carrying the knife that killed Nichols on his person - for it was not found at the murder site.

I think that we can safely write off Cross as a contender.

The best,
Fisherman

You only hopped on board when the name thing arose. The "aha" moment. Yet for a decade now you continue to insist the police did not bother to inquire if Pickfords had a Charles Cross in the employ. But you have never proved it.

Back then, in 2008 to you, like all of us, Charles Cross was.. well, just Charles Cross. There was even a song about him in a move-

You must recall old Boss
A Cross is just a Cross

[John Wheat]

We don't need to. All we need to know here is that the operative principle is "Waaah! Just make Lechmere go away!"

Thus the police go to Scotland to investigate W H Bury. They come back empty-handed -- but that doesn't mean he wasn't the Ripper, okay!

Meanwhile, we have no evidence that the police ever paid the slightest attention to obsequious white Christian working man Lechmere, and a few indications that they didn't. So people outright pretend that they did ("Surely/undoubtedly/inevitably the police would have...") -- and, miraculously, that proves him innocent! "Yaay! Lechmere's gone! Back to Kozminski! and Druitt, everyone!"

You know, the people in all those other internet groups who get ridiculed on here for "not having read even one book about the case"' are able to see what goes on in these desperate online attempts to get Lechmere off the table -- and you can take it from me that it disgusts them. Example: A Lechmereian comes up with a quite stunning map that shows how a bloodied rag was found literally on the shortest path beween Pinchin Street and Lechmere's address. And how does online Ripperology respond to the staggeringly straight line and all that it implies? With "Heh! A ley line! Look: now I've made it into a cone! Hurhurhur!"

This simply isn't good enough -- to the extent, indeed, that it's even making outsiders assume that the blanket misandrist criticisms of Rubenhold, Joan Smith et al must be right. Well done.

M.

Ridiculous post. The Police may well have looked into Lechmere we simply don't know. Lechmere found a body with nothing else against him he is clearly innocent. Lechmere is a terrible suspect whereas Bury may well have been the Ripper. Bury is the best suspect we have by a country mile. Maybe you should take the blinkers off and stop falling for other Lechmereians bullshit and downright lies.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We don't need to. All we need to know here is that the operative principle is "Waaah! Just make Lechmere go away!"

Thus the police go to Scotland to investigate W H Bury. They come back empty-handed -- but that doesn't mean he wasn't the Ripper, okay!

Meanwhile, we have no evidence that the police ever paid the slightest attention to obsequious white Christian working man Lechmere, and a few indications that they didn't. So people outright pretend that they did ("Surely/undoubtedly/inevitably the police would have...") -- and, miraculously, that proves him innocent! "Yaay! Lechmere's gone! Back to Kozminski! and Druitt, everyone!"

I wasn’t talking about Cross as is perfectly obvious to all, except you, from my question.

You know, the people in all those other internet groups who get ridiculed on here for "not having read even one book about the case"' are able to see what goes on in these desperate online attempts to get Lechmere off the table -- and you can take it from me that it disgusts them.

People get ‘ridiculed’ if that’s what you want to call it because of the over-the-top promotion of Cross as a suspect. They get ‘ridiculed’ for saying stuff like - the fact that Cross acted perfectly normally is highly suspicious and indicative of guilt - as was claimed by one of your crowd on here. That’s what the debate has come to. That someone claims that it’s somehow indicative of guilt that Cross went to the inquest in his work clothes! That’s why there’s ridicule. That we get important words deliberately left out of documentaries and books purely to promote the case. That’s what makes people on here annoyed. Buy you’re completely blind to this of course because you’re apparent on a mission. I have no suspect or theory to promote zealously or to defend at all costs. How many of those who propose Bury or Kosminski or Barnett or Levy or Hutchinson or Kelly resort to the same kind of tactics? Only for a man for whom there’s not a shred of evidence of guilt.

Example: A Lechmereian comes up with a quite stunning map that shows how a bloodied rag was found literally on the shortest path beween Pinchin Street and Lechmere's address. And how does online Ripperology respond to the staggeringly straight line and all that it implies? With "Heh! A ley line! Look: now I've made it into a cone! Hurhurhur!"

Because it’s utterly irrelevant. It means zero. It’s a humongous ‘so what.’

This simply isn't good enough -- to the extent, indeed, that it's even making outsiders assume that the blanket misandrist criticisms of Rubenhold, Joan Smith et al must be right. Well done.

Why use the word ‘misandrist?’ - “a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against men.”

If a person writes a book they have to expect criticism. No one that I know has, as far as I know, said anything misogynistic against Halle Rubenhold (I know nothing about Joan Smith but looking online I’m guessing that this is more gender hysteria. A subject that I’m not interested in and would prefer to avoid. If such comments have been made, and I’m not doubting that they have, why are they assumed to have been by Ripperologists? The title is a pointless one anyway so it’s easy to label any idiot making nasty comments a ‘Ripperologist.’ Rather than just random unpleasant blokes on the net.

M.

Ok. Now that you finished throwing your toys out of the pram perhaps you can explain how you got any anti-Cross sentiment from me asking an entirely genuine question - Do we know who the police did or didn’t speak to?

How can the possibly merit your rant? I was simply asking, as those who can read will see, if we knew who the police did or didn’t interview apart from those mentioned at the inquest. Now I don’t expect or particularly want an apology but your response is utterly baffling.

————————

Your claim the some of us want to make Cross ‘go away’ is pointless to put it as politely as I can. No one expects him to go away. No one has said that he shouldn’t be considered. And the opinion of people in other groups about contributors on here couldn’t matter less to me because their zealotry disgusts most of us equally. A constant wave of evidence manipulation, ludicrous exaggerations, the twisting of the language and the promotion of the most tenuous of supposed links. If Christer, Stow, yourself and others have restrained yourself from acting like excited children that suspect that they’ve discovered Santa’s house then there would be no need for any kind of reaction. Cross appears to be the only ‘suspect’ who has gathered together this kind of enthusiastic fan club and THATS what isn’t good enough. That’s what drags the subject through the mud.

If those that proposed Cross didn’t talk as if he was found standing over the body with a dripping knife in his hand then there wouldn’t be any need for such harsh reactions. But of course you’ll see it all one way. Let’s blame the so-called ripperologists. People love a label that they can use to direct their hysteria against.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi again, Fisherman,



You didn't buy it though when the Connor and Osborne articles were discussed here on Casebook in 2008:



You only hopped on board when the name thing arose. The "aha" moment. Yet for a decade now you continue to insist the police did not bother to inquire if Pickfords had a Charles Cross in the employ. But you have never proved it.

Back then, in 2008 to you, like all of us, Charles Cross was.. well, just Charles Cross. There was even a song about him in a move-

You must recall old Boss
A Cross is just a Cross

A classic find Paddy.

A bit of nostalgia. Back in the days when Christer got it right

[rjpalmer]

Who the heck is Inspector Sprawling?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who the heck is Inspector Sprawling?

He worked under Chief Inspector Swansong I think Roger.

[Fiver]

No, Fiver, all the inhabitants of Bucks Row had not been questioned on the 17th of September. We have Sprawling telling us this in no uncertain terms:

Inspector Spratling. -- I have been making inquiries into this matter.

The Coroner. -- have you been to every house in Buck's-row?

Witness. -- No; but if anything had come to light down there we should have heard of it. I have seen all the watchmen in the neighbourhood, and they neither saw nor heard anything on the morning in question. The Board school ground has been searched, but nothing likely to throw any light on the matter was discovered.

Inspector Helson. -- We have had a constable in the street for a week, but nothing was gained by it.

Here we may see that Sprawling denied that every house had been visited, and Helson adding that what they instead did was to place a PC in Bucks Row, in case any of the inhabitants would come forward and add information. That, however, did not happen.

Inspector Spratling said that he had not visited every house on Buck's Row personally. Your interpretation only makes sense if you believe that Spratling was the only member of the police investigating the Nichols murder. which is clearly false.

I therefore conclude that the snippet you quoted from the Morning Post does not prove that the houses in Bucks Row had all been visited. To begin with, it does. not even speak of Bucks Row, it speaks of the adjoining streets:
"A house-to-house investigation and inquiry has been made in all the streets adjoining Buck's-row, but with no tangible results."

This you elevate to another status than it stands for:

"So the police did check every house and speak to the inhabitants in Buck's Row and the surrounding streets."

Ooops - suddenly Bucks Row is added. By you.

So you contend that the police who did a "A house-to-house investigation and inquiry has been made in all the streets adjoining Buck's-row" would not bother to do a house-to-house investigation and inquiry on Buck's Row? Even after the Coroner directly ordered Inspector Spratling to do it?

In what bizarro world would the police check every house in the streets near Buck's Row and ignore houses in Buck's Row? You theory is nonsensical.

But would the police not check Bucks Row if they checked the adjoining streets? Well, that depends on what the police were looking for. Inquiries and investigations were certainly made about rumors of a blood trail in Brady Street:

The quote I mentioned specified "house-to-house investigation and inquiry". That's going to the houses and talking to the people who live there.

The police were also looking for clues outside the houses, as I already quoted.

"About six o'clock that day he [Inspector Spratling] made an examination at Buck's- row and Brady-street, which ran across Baker's-row, but he failed to trace any marks of blood. He subsequently examined, in company with Sergeant Godley, the East London and District Railway lines and embankment, and also the Great Eastern Railway yard, without, however, finding any traces. A watchman of the Great Eastern Railway, whose box was fifty or sixty yards from the spot where the body was discovered, heard nothing particular on the night of the murder. Witness also visited half a dozen persons living in the same neighbourhood, none of whom had noticed anything at all suspicious. One of these, Mrs. Purkiss, had not gone to bed at the time the body of deceased was found, and her husband was of opinion that if there had been any screaming in Buck's-row they would have heard it. A Mrs. Green, whose window looked out upon the very spot where the body was discovered, said nothing had attracted her attention on the morning of Friday last." - 4 September 1888 Daily Telegraph

"About six o'clock that day he [Spratling] made an examination at Buck's- row and Brady-street, which ran across Baker's-row, but he failed to trace any marks of blood. He subsequently examined, in company with Sergeant Godley, the East London and District Railway lines and embankment, and also the Great Eastern Railway yard, without, however, finding any traces. A watchman of the Great Eastern Railway, whose box was fifty or sixty yards from the spot where the body was discovered, heard nothing particular on the night of the murder. Witness also visited half a dozen persons living in the same neighbourhood, none of whom had noticed anything at all suspicious. One of these, Mrs. Purkiss, had not gone to bed at the time the body of deceased was found, and her husband was of opinion that if there had been any screaming in Buck's-row they would have heard it. A Mrs. Green, whose window looked out upon the very spot where the body was discovered, said nothing had attracted her attention on the morning of Friday last." - 4 September 1888 Daily News

The idea that the coroner was only interested in Spratlings doings and that Sprawling would not have informed the coroner that full investigations had been done in Bucks Row if that was the case, is not up to scratch.

Agreed, but that is not what I said. Again you put words in my mouth.

Lets look at another bit of the exchange between Baxter and the police.

"The Coroner: We cannot do more. (To the police): There was a man who passed down Buck's-row when the doctor was examining the body. Have you heard anything of him?
Inspector Abberline: We have not been able to find him. Inspector Spratley, J Division, stated he had made inquiries in Buck's-row, but not at all of the houses.
The Coroner: Then that will have to be done.
Witness added [Spratling] that he made inquiries at Green's, the wharf, Snider's factory, and also at the Great Eastern wharf, and no one had heard anything unusual on the morning of the murder. He had not called at any of the houses in Buck's-row, excepting at Mrs. Green's. He had seen the Board School keeper.
The Coroner: Is there not a gentleman at the G.E. Railway? I thought we should have had him here.
Witness: I saw him that morning, but he said he had heard nothing.
The witness added that when at the mortuary he had given instructions that the body was not to be touched.
The Coroner: Is there any other evidence?
Inspector Helson: No, not at present." - 18 September, 1888 Daily Telegraph

This shows:
* The Coroner was interested in an unknown man who had a passed through Buck's Row while Dr Llewellyn was examining Nichols body. That's an indication of the police were trying talk to anyone related to the case, no matter how weakly.
* Inspectors Abberline and Spratling both answered the Coroner's question. Inspector Helson would also answer some of the Coroner's questions.
* Spratling was not the only person investigating the Nichols murder.
* Spratling was giving an account of his personal investigations, not the investigations of the whole force.
* The Coroner told Inspector Spratling to make inquiries at all the houses in Buck's Row.

Your theory requires Spratling to ignore the Coroners order and not make inquiries at every house in Buck's Row.

So what's your theory on why Spratling would deliberately ignore the Coroner's orders and try to sabotage the investigation?

[Fiver]

We don't need to. All we need to know here is that the operative principle is "Waaah! Just make Lechmere go away!"

The operative principal is insisting on facts before declaring Lechmere guilty.

Example: A Lechmereian comes up with a quite stunning map that shows how a bloodied rag was found literally on the shortest path beween Pinchin Street and Lechmere's address. And how does online Ripperology respond to the staggeringly straight line and all that it implies? With "Heh! A ley line! Look: now I've made it into a cone! Hurhurhur!"

I see your knowledge of the geography and Christer's actual claim are both fairly inadequate.

Lets start with Christer's actual claim.

It IS "just" a piece of bloodied rag, and it cannot be tied to the torso deed. But it does not hurt the Lechmere bid that a bloodied rag was found in a straight line between Pinchin Street and Doveton Street the day after the torso was found.

As Christer at least used to admit, there is no known connection between the bloody rag and the Pinchin Street Torso. As Christer refuses to admit, there is no known connection between the bloody rag and Charles Lechmere, either.

We also don't know exactly where the bloody rag was found. It was found inside the fence surrounding of the grounds of the St James Church, which was under construction at the time.

Christer's "staggeringly straight line" is staggering in its disconnect from reality. You could draw straight lines between the home of thousands of Londoners and the Pinchin Street Torso and have those lines pass over the grounds of the St James Church. The only reason to ignore those thousands of other possibilities is if you have already assumed Lechemre's guilt.

Another problem is that humans have to use streets. They can't just bound across the rooftops in a straight line like Springheeled Jack. And using streets does not take someone past St James Church without going several blocks out of their way.

Another flaw in Christer's theory is that there is no reason for Charles Lechmere to be going home at 5am on a Thursday.

And Christer's double standard is shown by his ignoring the bloody undergarment found in Hooper Street, only 500 yards from the torso and only about two hours after the torso was found. A "staggeringly straight line" between the torso and the Hooper Street garment doesn't pass anywhere near Charles Lechmere's home.

[Fiver]

He worked under Chief Inspector Swansong I think Roger.

Along with Inspector Abbey Road, perhaps?