Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fisherman]

And you still can’t bring yourself to address the specific issue. Attempts to dismiss it as inconsequential with your “you’re not still on about that are you?” Won’t work. I will not be letting this go. So I’ll ask again….

How can it be even remotely possible that during the research for Cutting Point you looked through all of the newspaper accounts and came to the obviously erroneous (false) conclusion that the majority had said that Cross had said that he’d left his house at 3.30 when you now admit that the majority say that he said “around 3.30.”? On what planet could that be described as an ‘innocent’ error?

On the planet I and everybody else inhabit, Herlock, with a possible few exceptions.

What you need to do is to PROVE your suggestion that I deliberately misled. So far, what I have seen is an increased grade of text, combined with your assertion that you THINK you are right.

That is not proof.

Explain why I urged people to remember that victorian time keeping was not infallible, if I was trying to mislead.

Explain why I used the theoretical construction "IF he let hime at 3.30" instead of "SINCE WE KNOW that he left home at 3.30", if I was trying to mislead.

Explain why I quoted the wording "around 3.30" from a newspaper, if I was trying to maliciously HIDE this matter from the readers.

Again, prove your take or acknowledge that you cannot do so.

[Fisherman]

One of the most feeble suggestions in the history of ripperology. Cross was tipped over the edge into becoming a deranged serial killer due to the pressures of driving a cart around and delivering various items.

Of course, having understood that you have been shown to be wrong on this matter, you now falsely claim that it was his work as such that may have driven Lechmere over the edge.

What I said was that ANY line of work can become a stress factor in a life if a lot of extra working hours are added, putting pressure on you and depriving you of control over your life situation.

But do carry on along these lines, Herlock. It helps people understand which of the two of us is truthful and correct and who has to resort to misrepresentations.

[FrankO]

First, the one that’s done to death, that Baxter was able to fix the time that Lechmere’s supposed to have found the body as 3.45, or a timing not far from it. I’m not going to discuss this again with you. All I’m going to say is that what you claim isn’t a given, but just your interpretation.

First you say that you are not going to discuss it, and then you .. discuss it? What I would say is that Baxter may have lied or misunderstood what fixes a timing, so in that respect, there can be "interpretations" made that question him. But it cannot be claimed that he did not say that the time at which the body was found was 3.45 or not far from it, since it is fixed by many independent data. So either we trust him, or we do not.

No, I'm not discussing it, Christer. But perhaps I should have worded it better. What I meant not to discuss and ehat I not going to discuss is the interpretaion of Baxter's summing up and in particular the part around "it could not have been far from 3.45". You interpret it as "Lechmere found the body at 3.45, or very close to it (3.44 to 3.46, give or take another minute), while I think the "3.45" used by Baxter was a reference to Neil's estimate. We have profoundly discussed this and, therefore, I see no need to do it again.

[John Wheat]

Maybe he thinks the alternative on offer is way more intimidating.

I don't totally follow what you are trying to say here.

[A P Tomlinson]

Who the heck is Inspector Sprawling?

Chandler, before he got demoted to Sgt? (I'm not jumping on any "lets take the piss out of typos" wagon, by the way. I'd be neck deep in trouble if that's the case!)

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the planet I and everybody else inhabit, Herlock, with a possible few exceptions.

What you need to do is to PROVE your suggestion that I deliberately misled. So far, what I have seen is an increased grade of text, combined with your assertion that you THINK you are right.

That is not proof.

Explain why I urged people to remember that victorian time keeping was not infallible, if I was trying to mislead.

Explain why I used the theoretical construction "IF he let hime at 3.30" instead of "SINCE WE KNOW that he left home at 3.30", if I was trying to mislead.

Explain why I quoted the wording "around 3.30" from a newspaper, if I was trying to maliciously HIDE this matter from the readers.

Again, prove your take or acknowledge that you cannot do so.

The point is proven as your desperate dodging indicates. Perhaps an even simpler question might help you to admit the truth?


Question - Perhaps you might be so kind as to explain to the readers of this thread how you managed to look at the various newspaper reports of what Cross said at the inquest (as you undoubtedly did) while you were writing and researching Cutting Point and yet, when it was blatantly obvious that the majority said ‘around 3.30,’ you managed to claim that the opposite was in fact true. How could you possibly have managed to make an ‘innocent’ mistake of this kind?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course, having understood that you have been shown to be wrong on this matter, you now falsely claim that it was his work as such that may have driven Lechmere over the edge.

What I said was that ANY line of work can become a stress factor in a life if a lot of extra working hours are added, putting pressure on you and depriving you of control over your life situation.

But do carry on along these lines, Herlock. It helps people understand which of the two of us is truthful and correct and who has to resort to misrepresentations.

We know which one of us is untruthful already. I’ve proven that beyond any doubt.

Work can be a stress factor. As can many things. It can’t be used as evidence though unless you have more than just the ‘possibility.’

[Fiver]

Maybe you can explain to me how my focus on the rag up at St Philips shows that I have "double standards"?

It's glaringly obvious o everyone who hasn't swallowed your Ley Line nonsense.

"It IS "just" a piece of bloodied rag, and it cannot be tied to the torso deed." - Christer Holmgren

And yet you try to use that rag to connect Lechmere to the Pinchin Street Torso.

[Fiver]

Feel free to do the research and see if there is any coupling made by experts on the matter between stress factors and serial murder.

Thanks for admitting that you have no evidence to support your theory that stress at work leads to becoming a serial killer.

[Fiver]

Chandler, before he got demoted to Sgt? (I'm not jumping on any "lets take the piss out of typos" wagon, by the way. I'd be neck deep in trouble if that's the case!)

The first time was a typo. But the next 10 times?

Yet more evidence of Fisherman refusing to listen to anyone, refusing to admit or correct his mistakes.

[Fiver]

In reference to Christer's strange reliance on Wynne Baxter's statement about when the body was discovered, let's remind ourselves what Baxter said about the Tabram murder in the same summation:

"Martha Tabram was found at three a.m. on Tuesday, August 7th, on the first-floor landing of George Yard buildings, Wentworth Street, with thirty-nine punctured wounds on her body." --Wynne Baxter, Daily Telegraph, 24 September.


In reality, Martha Tabram was found at around 4:45 a.m. by John Saunders Reeves.

Might Baxter have been thinking of Albert Crow, who saw Tabram's body at 3:30am, but didn't know she was dead?

[Fiver]

Did he and his daughter reconcile and make amends shortly after the murders stopped, after he attended Mary Anne's wedding and signed as one of the 2 witnesses?

RD

The idea of there being a rift between Mary Jane Lechmere and her father is speculation, based on her starting living with her grandmother at some point in her childhood. Mary Jane was there 7 years before the Ripper murders. Her father was a witness at her wedding in 1899, over a decade after the murders ended. If the evens were in any way related, the killings would have started long before 1888 and ended long afterwards, not be crammed into a few months of a single year.

[Fisherman]

No, I'm not discussing it, Christer. But perhaps I should have worded it better. What I meant not to discuss and ehat I not going to discuss is the interpretaion of Baxter's summing up and in particular the part around "it could not have been far from 3.45". You interpret it as "Lechmere found the body at 3.45, or very close to it (3.44 to 3.46, give or take another minute), while I think the "3.45" used by Baxter was a reference to Neil's estimate. We have profoundly discussed this and, therefore, I see no need to do it again.

There is even need to go over this many times, I feel, Frank. And for good reasons.

The fact that one of the papers wrote that the crime must have been committed between 3.15 and 3.45 rules out any suggestion that they would have gone on your line. They very clearly came away with the impression that Neil was wrong. They accepted that the body was found at 3.45 by Lechmere, and accordingly, the murder could have taken place at any minute leading up to 3.45.
The idea that Baxter, who was extremely aware at this stage that the body was found by Lechmere and not by Neil, would use Neil as the reference point for when the body was found is a suggestion that lacks credibility, I find.
There is other pointers to how this would not have been true. One such pointer lies in how we know that the police wrote in their September report, BEFORE Baxter summed up the inquest and delivered his words on how the body was found not far off 3.45, that a carman found the body at around 3.40. Then, AFTER Baxters summary had been given, their October report stated that Lechmere found the body at around 3.45.
Wynne Baxter had been presiding over the proceedings on the 3rd of September, most likely arriving at the inquest room in Whitechapel Road with the idea that PC Neil was the finder of the body, only to then learn, alongside the jury, the police and the public, that the police had been wrong on the matter. it was in fact a carman who had found the body, a carman who must have preceded Neil by around five minutes.

So Baxter KNEW who found the body, the police KNEW who found the body, the press KNEW who found the body and wrote that the body must have been found between 3.15 and 3.45, not before 3.40 - but you believe that Baxter, when speaking in his summary about the time at which the body was found, was referring back to Neil, still thinking that the PC had found the body at 3.45? Although Baxter said that the body was found at 3.45 or not far off it?

Or are you suggesting that Baxter accepted that Baxter was at this stage quite aware that Lechmere had found the body at or not far off 3.45 - but chose to speak in his summary of when Neil arrived at the spot, and then, when he said that when Neil got there, which he knew was not at 3.45 but instead five minutes earlier, he felt that since he had said "or not far off" 3.45, it was okay to speak about Neil finding the body at not far off 3.45 since 3.40 is not far off 3.45?

Maybe I am missing out on an option here, but it would be interesting to know which of the two options on offer you believe is the correct one. The third option, that Baxter said that the body was found at 3.45 or not far from it because he had checked and knew that the body was found at 3.45 or not far off it by Lechmere, seems to be a possibility that you want to rule out, regardless of how we know that at least one of the newspapers came away with the impression that this was the correct version.

[Fisherman]

I don't totally follow what you are trying to say here.

That's just fine, John - it happens.

[Fisherman]

The point is proven as your desperate dodging indicates. Perhaps an even simpler question might help you to admit the truth?


Question - Perhaps you might be so kind as to explain to the readers of this thread how you managed to look at the various newspaper reports of what Cross said at the inquest (as you undoubtedly did) while you were writing and researching Cutting Point and yet, when it was blatantly obvious that the majority said ‘around 3.30,’ you managed to claim that the opposite was in fact true. How could you possibly have managed to make an ‘innocent’ mistake of this kind?

Again, no proof, but instead just your own convictions. They never amounted to proof in any way, nowhere near it.