Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Motive(s) of Lechmere-Cross

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by DRoy View Post
    Did any of his family who were involved in the business become 'desensitized' to any degree that you're aware of?
    Hi DRoy,

    I don't think that Jack the Ripper needed any 'desentisizing' by an outside factor to do what he did.

    Just my to cents, of course.

    All the best,
    Frank
    "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
    Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      No, no and no.

      Maria Louisa was a cats meat woman in the 1891 census, and before that she was a dressmaker. The metamorphosis as such is so far undated.

      There is no chance that any of the family involved in the cats meat business would be diagnosed as desensitized by the work, since that research and itŽs conclusions came long after the Lechmere family withdrew from the niche (which was late, somewhere in the vicinity of WWII if memory serves me).

      We do not know that Lechmere was "exposed" to the cats meat business before 1891 . But we do know that handling meat would have been what he did to some extent at Pickfords.
      Thanks Fish!

      In regards to my question about being desensitized, I was just inquiring whether you were aware of any of his family members becoming 'off' after being in the business.

      I'm assuming we don't know what part of the business they were exposed to either do we? Who did the slaughtering, the butchering, the wrapping, the disposing, the selling, etc? Do we know if her business did it all?

      I can easily see how people could become desensitized being exposed to some aspects of the business. I can just as easily see why some people who have witnessed that sort of thing become vegetarian!

      Cheers
      DRoy

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by FrankO View Post
        Hi DRoy,

        I don't think that Jack the Ripper needed any 'desentisizing' by an outside factor to do what he did.

        Just my to cents, of course.

        All the best,
        Frank
        Hi Frank,

        Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps he was born to kill. Perhaps he became insane. Perhaps his rage and need for revenge made him temporarily insane. Perhaps he was drug or alcohol induced and didn't know what he was doing. Etc

        Cheers
        DRoy

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by FrankO View Post
          Hi DRoy,

          I don't think that Jack the Ripper needed any 'desentisizing' by an outside factor to do what he did.

          Just my to cents, of course.

          All the best,
          Frank
          Well, the general idea is that the butchery business "helps" to dissolve the moral boundaries. Just like you suggest it may well be that the killer was way past any such matter from the outset. But to what extent he may have been influenced at some stage by watching or performing butchery is of course impossible to say.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by DRoy View Post
            Thanks Fish!

            In regards to my question about being desensitized, I was just inquiring whether you were aware of any of his family members becoming 'off' after being in the business.

            I'm assuming we don't know what part of the business they were exposed to either do we? Who did the slaughtering, the butchering, the wrapping, the disposing, the selling, etc? Do we know if her business did it all?

            I can easily see how people could become desensitized being exposed to some aspects of the business. I can just as easily see why some people who have witnessed that sort of thing become vegetarian!

            Cheers
            DRoy
            I donŽt know if there is any such case in the Lechmere family - maybe Edeard has found something, but if he has, I have not heard about it.

            Exactly what Maria Lousia did is hard to say. Reasonably, she at least cut up large hunks of meat to cubes. I would think that the larger the parts she bought to transform to meat cubes, the more money she could make from the work.

            No matter what, it is impossible to say to what - if any - extent it had an impact in our case. The possibility is there, that is all we can say.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by DRoy View Post
              Thanks Fish!

              In regards to my question about being desensitized, I was just inquiring whether you were aware of any of his family members becoming 'off' after being in the business.

              I'm assuming we don't know what part of the business they were exposed to either do we? Who did the slaughtering, the butchering, the wrapping, the disposing, the selling, etc? Do we know if her business did it all?

              I can easily see how people could become desensitized being exposed to some aspects of the business. I can just as easily see why some people who have witnessed that sort of thing become vegetarian!

              Cheers
              DRoy
              Christer has no clue who did the slaughtering, the butchering, the wrapping, the disposing, the selling. None. He does know - though he's unlikely admit it - that it's highly unlikely that anyone in the Lechmere family slaughtered horses. Cat meat sellers were pervasive in Victorian London, so it's not at all unusual that one would be associated with someone in the trade. In the mid-1860s, for example, it was estimated that there were more than 1,000 cats meat sellers feeding the 300,000+ cats in London. One reason there were so many cats meat sellers is simple: It was a very inexpensive enterprise. Four pence typically paid for around a pound of horseflesh.

              Each year some 30,000 horses were determined to be either too old or injured to work around London. Owners took these horses to be "knackered" by horse slaughterers. The "knackers" then sold the meat to the "cats meat men/women" who sold the meat on the streets of London. The butchery required was quite minimal. Often, the sellers went to the horse slaughters with their barrows, purchased the desired quantity of meat, displayed it as they wished, and set about selling the meat, cutting it to order for each customer.

              Christer cannot, as much as he may wish to, tell your how Mary Loiusa (or Mom Ripper) ran her business. He has no idea. He has seen the same census I've seen (although the thought never occured to me that his mother running a pet food business at age 66 recomended him as Jack the Ripper and the Toro Killer) and that information is simply not there.

              What I can tell is this. The Lechmere family was - VERY clearly - an industrious lot. Charles maintained stable employment, supporting his large family, throughout his life. He and his wife raised nine children (two died in infancy). My research has shown that most of the Lechmere children had families of their own, working as clerks, craftsmen, etc. At the time of his death Charles Lechmere had at least five grandchildren, likely many more. He had improved his families station and put his children in the position to do the same, leaving his wife Ł262 when he died in 1920 at age 71.

              If I had to guess (and unlike Christer, I'll tell you when I'm guessing), I would say Charles learned something about life from his mother, Mary Louisa Roulson. Like her son she didn't seem to be one to sit idle, even in old age.

              I would say that it is far more likely that some of her older grandchildren assited Mary Louisa in her cats meat business. Charles was simply busy working himself. By the early 1890s the oldest Lechmere children (Elizabeth, Mary, Thomas, George, and James) ranged in age from 12 to 19, old enough to help out at home with the younger children (Harriet, Albert, and Charles Allen (also known as "Little Ripper"), and perhaps assist grandma in running her pet food business. It is very, very unlikely that there was anything other than very simple butchery associated with this business, akin to slicing meat from a spit (ala gyros, etc.).

              This is yet another Christer absurdity. Another red herring. Another diversion. I've been studying the Lechmere family - thanks to Christer having brought Charles Allen Lechmere to the fore - and a great deal is known. Recently I was speaking of this topic and my wife stopped me and observed that I'd begun to take this personally, that I somehow wanted to clear this man's name. I don't think that's true. But I do believe that what's right is right. First off, the theory - like so many others - is bunk, poorly assembled and based on assumption, leaps in logic, and requiring inexplicable behavior by those involved. Second, when you take the time to took beyond what Christer is peddling to the gullible and uninformed (or TV producers), you don't find a serial killer. In fact, you don't find even the hint of an arrest or violence. You find a law abiding family man who did the right things in life. You see a man who improved his life and the lives of his wife and children through decades for hard work in a hard place and hard time. For me to see Christer look at his photo and say - for the TV cameras - that this man was Jack the Ripper is, if I'm honest, infuriating.

              Comment


              • #37
                If you are a killer

                and want to commit murder you donŽt need your familys tools to do that. YouŽll get hold of them anyway.

                Pierre

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                  and want to commit murder you donŽt need your familys tools to do that. YouŽll get hold of them anyway.

                  Pierre
                  I am - as is so often the case - not sure what point it is you are trying to make here, Pierre. Maybe you could explain?

                  While you do, IŽll go to bed.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by John G View Post
                    Hi Abby,

                    Absolutely. Dr Bond, in his "profile" for Robert Anderson concluded, "he must in my opinion be a man subject to periodical attacks of Homicidal and erotic mania". He added, "The character of the the mutilation indicate that the man may be in a condition sexually, that may be called satyriasis".

                    Maybe Pierre needs to recheck his historical and modern data analysis machine for possible malfunctioning issues!
                    Or maybe we all need to read Freud to understand 19th century thinking about sexuality.

                    Regards Pierre

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                      and want to commit murder you donŽt need your familys tools to do that. YouŽll get hold of them anyway.

                      Pierre


                      G U T

                      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Not much to say that hasn't already been said, so just a quick correction.

                        >>... we do know that handling meat would have been what he did to some extent at Pickfords.<<

                        Of course we don't know anything of the sort. It is extremely doubtful, if not completely untrue that he "handled meat" in the physical sense.

                        I guess it would depend on the definition of "handled" for any other, rather misleading sense of the word. It is true, after the "ripper" murders, around 1890 Broad Street Station became increasingly involved meat transportation. Such meat was wrapped in muslin and contained in large wicker hampers.

                        Carmen did not load or unload their carts, that work was done by porters.

                        To date their is no evidence that Xmere had any contact with meat hampers up to and including the "ripper crimes. Or after, for that matter, although the odds of him doing so would have increased.
                        Last edited by drstrange169; 10-14-2015, 06:10 PM.
                        dustymiller
                        aka drstrange

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                          Not much to say that hasn't already been said, so just a quick correction.

                          >>... we do know that handling meat would have been what he did to some extent at Pickfords.<<

                          Of course we don't know anything of the sort. It is extremely doubtful, if not completely untrue that he "handled meat" in the physical sense.

                          I guess it would depend on the definition of "handled" for any other, rather misleading sense of the word. It is true, after the "ripper" murders, around 1890 Broad Street Station became increasingly involved meat transportation. Such meat was wrapped in muslin and contained in large wicker hampers.

                          Carmen did not load or unload their carts, that work was done by porters.

                          To date their is no evidence that Xmere had any contact with meat hampers up to and including the "ripper crimes. Or after, for that matter, although the odds of him doing so would have increased.
                          I'll go a step further and say that Broad Street continued to handle a huge range of general freight.

                          Those who support Cross as a suspect decry anyone who says he may have been known as Cross at work as speculation and then rely on the same sort of speculation to say he handled meat.

                          Can't have it both ways.
                          G U T

                          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            I am - as is so often the case - not sure what point it is you are trying to make here, Pierre. Maybe you could explain?

                            While you do, IŽll go to bed.
                            I agree, you need to rest a bit, my friend, after spending so much time explaining what seems obvious to you. I still can't understand why everybody can't accept seeing Lechmere as a viable suspect. Lechmere, compared to Tumblety (one of hte top contenders), has more reasons of being on the 'official' list.

                            Cheers,
                            Hercule Poirot

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Hercule Poirot View Post
                              I agree, you need to rest a bit, my friend, after spending so much time explaining what seems obvious to you. I still can't understand why everybody can't accept seeing Lechmere as a viable suspect. Lechmere, compared to Tumblety (one of hte top contenders), has more reasons of being on the 'official' list.

                              Cheers,
                              Hercule Poirot
                              At least police at the time mentioned (what was probably) Tumblety
                              G U T

                              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by GUT View Post
                                At least police at the time mentioned (what was probably) Tumblety
                                I believe Tumblety's name was only mentioned by one British police officer (Littlechild) as being a Ripper suspect ('a very likely one') some 25 years after the events without him giving any explanation why or how he came to that conclusion. The American press tried to link him with the murders but had nothing else in termes of evidence but the fact that he was arrested and charged with gross indecency during that period.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X