Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fisherman]

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.’

Another total misunderstanding on your behalf. I did not say that it is evidence, did I? Which goes some way to show if you are truthful or not. Then again, you may not have wanted to mislead. It is - as we both know - only I who mislead, and the proof for it is that you say so.

What I am ACTUALLY saying is that if the working burden of Lechmere grew heavier in the late 1880īs, then that will likely have carried stress with itself. And the fact that he had a simple enough job has nothing at al to do with that, although you apparently think so.
An increased working burden will have taken away from the time he could shape himself, and it would also likely physically tear him down, also resulting in greater stress.

We know quite well that stress factors are important markers in a serial killers life, and we also know that this is often linked to how the killer feels that he is deprived of control over his own life.

Therefore, Fiver may (MAY - see?) well have identified an important factor that could have contributed to the murder string of the late 1880īs.

Not that Fiver wanted to di that - but he nevertheless did. And I am grateful for it - every little bit helps.

[Fisherman]

I’ve proven that beyond any doubt.

Proving that you have no doubt is not the same as proving something beyond doubt. Speculating that they are one and the same amounts not to proof, but to arrogance.

[Fisherman]

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.

I am doing what any discerning researcher should do. I am pointing out that the day after the body was dumped in Pinchin Street, a bloody rag was found in an exact line between the arch where it was dumped and Lechmeres lodgings, a fair way up to the northeast. And I am adding the information that there can be no certainty that the rag is linked to Charles Lechmere.

That is the exact way in which a matter like this should be presented.

What should NEVER happen, is to suppress the matter.

But I believe that this is the exact thing you are trying your hand at.

So tell us, Fiver, how do we go about informing the readers about that rag?

Do we mention that it was found, but refuse to tell WHERE it was found?

Do we point out that it was found in an exact line between the railway arch and the Lechmerian home, or do we leave that information out?

Do we stay away from mentioning the rag at all?

Or do we add the information of its existence, point out where it was found and establish that it was found in a direct line between the railway arch and Lechmeres lodgings - and make it clear that no link to the carman has been proven as such?

Let's hear your take on how the matter should be presented, if it is to be presented at all.

[Fisherman]

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

That was not what I did, though. Again, you are twisting words and misinforming. I told you that the net is full of information and research confirming that stress factors can trigger serial murder, and that they can make a serial killer feel deprived of control. This is not any suggestion of mine, it is common knowledge. But I am not going to spend hours on providing material for you, on account of how we both know that you are given to misrepresenting, misinforming and twisting - as proven by the above.

[Fisherman]

Speaking about your misrepresentations, Fiver, I would like to direct you back to this exchange from yesterday:

Fiver: As Christer refuses to admit, there is no known connection between the bloody rag and Charles Lechmere, either.

When did I ever "refuse to admit" that there is no known connection between the St Philip rag and Charles Lechmere, Fiver? Please direct me to the quotation you are using for this claim of yours.

If you don't, I will persist.

... and here I am, persisting; tell us when and where I ever "refused to admit" that there is no known connection between the St Philips rag and Charles Lechmere!

The alternative is not telling - which is also telling.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Proving that you have no doubt is not the same as proving something beyond doubt. Speculating that they are one and the same amounts not to proof, but to arrogance.

Then all that you have to do is this…..

Give us all a reasonable explanation that explains how you read the newspaper reports of what Cross said at the inquest and came to the conclusion that the majority said that he’s said ‘3.30’ as opposed to ‘around 3.30’ which is what the majority actually said.

And could you make it a waffle-free answer and one that doesn’t have us all rolling around laughing please?

Im interested to see how long you can dodge this issue for?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another total misunderstanding on your behalf. I did not say that it is evidence, did I? Which goes some way to show if you are truthful or not. Then again, you may not have wanted to mislead. It is - as we both know - only I who mislead, and the proof for it is that you say so.

What I am ACTUALLY saying is that if the working burden of Lechmere grew heavier in the late 1880īs, then that will likely have carried stress with itself. And the fact that he had a simple enough job has nothing at al to do with that, although you apparently think so.
An increased working burden will have taken away from the time he could shape himself, and it would also likely physically tear him down, also resulting in greater stress.

We know quite well that stress factors are important markers in a serial killers life, and we also know that this is often linked to how the killer feels that he is deprived of control over his own life.

Therefore, Fiver may (MAY - see?) well have identified an important factor that could have contributed to the murder string of the late 1880īs.

Not that Fiver wanted to di that - but he nevertheless did. And I am grateful for it - every little bit helps.

And that staggeringly pointless point would apply to every single ripper suspect with a job. I’m waiting for you to claim the fact that he had arms as a point in favour of his guilt.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I would have thought that Lech being 20 odd years in the same job would be a pointer towards him being quite satisfied in his position of employment

Regards Darryl

[Paddy Goose]

Yes thank you again, Fisherman,

... what you and I discussed was your claim that I would have said that the police never went to Pickfords. I corrected you and told you that what I have said, is that I don't think that the police necessarily did that. I never said that I know that they did not. But YOU claimed that I DID say precisely that, which was why I requested proof. And now you reiterate that claim, again without backing it up.

Where is that proof, Mr Goose? You ARE aware what it implies if you cannot provide it, I hope?

No you are absolutely right. I can't prove it. You said what you said. You don't think the police necessarily checked if Pickfords had a Charles Cross in their employ. You are parsing words and I am okay with that. Put it however you want it, Mr. Fish.

This has been Your and Ed's Big Deal for as long as I can remember. He fooled the police and everyone by using an alias.

it's gone on for so long now, no one else seems to give a hoot except ole' Goose. But to me, it will always be your starting point, which I find sorely lacking. A dud for all the obvious reasons.

You must recall old Boss
A Cross is just a Cross

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would have thought that Lech being 20 odd years in the same job would be a pointer towards him being quite satisfied in his position of employment

Regards Darryl

You would think so Darryl. And then he took the money that he’d saved and started his own small business.

[A P Tomlinson]

I would have thought that Lech being 20 odd years in the same job would be a pointer towards him being quite satisfied in his position of employment

Regards Darryl

And I think the option to... just get another job...maybe go work for the railways - booming industry and all that? Even use some of the money you saved and maybe start working for yourself... would be a better solution than going straight to "Murder Rampage".
Maybe he only realised that he had that option just a little bit too late... and stopped killing people and started saving money?

"Stressed at work" is just another insubstantial "What IF..." and that's all there is to the theory.

[rjpalmer]

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?

Is there a link to this map?

[Fiver]

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.

Or that newspaper was rounding to the nearest quarter hour instead of trying to set an exact time.

And since when should we take a single newspaer's estimate over the estimates of three police constables and the offical report by inspector Abberline?

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.

Inspector Spratling gave a report on 31 August 1888 stating that PC Neil had found Nichols body at 3;45am.

Inspector Abberline's report was on 19 September 1888. PC Neil, PC Mizen, Charles Lechmere, PC Thain, and Robery Paul had testified in court, with Abberline being present for testimony. Abberline estimated that Lechmeme found the body around 3:40am. There is no evidence that Abberline ever changed that view.

Inspector Swanson gave a report on 19 October 1888 where he estimated that Lechmere and Paul found the body around 3:45am.

Which leads to two possibilities.
* Swanson discounted the testimonies of PC Mizen, PC Neil, and PC Thain, as well as Abberline's and Spratling's report's.
* Swanson was rounding to the nearest quarter hour.

The second seems much more likely and is reinforced by the fact that the coroner, the jury, the police, and the press did not see any time gap in the testimonies.

[Fiver]

Another total misunderstanding on your behalf. I did not say that it is evidence, did I? Which goes some way to show if you are truthful or not. Then again, you may not have wanted to mislead. It is - as we both know - only I who mislead, and the proof for it is that you say so.

What I am ACTUALLY saying is that if the working burden of Lechmere grew heavier in the late 1880īs, then that will likely have carried stress with itself. And the fact that he had a simple enough job has nothing at al to do with that, although you apparently think so.
An increased working burden will have taken away from the time he could shape himself, and it would also likely physically tear him down, also resulting in greater stress.

We know quite well that stress factors are important markers in a serial killers life, and we also know that this is often linked to how the killer feels that he is deprived of control over his own life.

Therefore, Fiver may (MAY - see?) well have identified an important factor that could have contributed to the murder string of the late 1880īs.

Not that Fiver wanted to di that - but he nevertheless did. And I am grateful for it - every little bit helps.

Only Fisherman would use Lechmere having a job to imply that Lechmere was a serial killer.

Back in the real world, Fisherman's source had nothing to do with work stress, Fisherman only provided his personal speculation that work stress could lead to becoming a serial killer. Fisherman has not shown that Lechmere's work stress was in any way different from the 10s of thousands of other carmen, or that the work stress of carmen was unique to the trade.

But why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good theory?

[Fiver]

Proving that you have no doubt is not the same as proving something beyond doubt. Speculating that they are one and the same amounts not to proof, but to arrogance.

You need to quote these words to yourself every day as you look in the mirror.