Motive(s) of Lechmere-Cross

[Abby Normal]

A number of profilers have categorized JtR as a sexual murder, or lust murderer. For example, Keppel, Schlesinger, Roy Hazzlewood.

Hi JohnG
Yup.

and didn't actually many of the "sources" (pierre's word)-contemporary opinion- describe the ripper as being a sexual maniac? or words to that affect?

[John G]

Hi JohnG
Yup.

and didn't actually many of the "sources" (pierre's word)-contemporary opinion- describe the ripper as being a sexual maniac? or words to that affect?

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!

[Hercule Poirot]

Wasn't the expression "hatred for women" or "women hater" used in the past centuries to define gay men and not those who actually bahave in an agressive manner towards women? The mindset being that if it comes to a point where a man prefers having sex with other men, one must really hate women!!!

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[GUT]

Cynic

Or married?

[Fisherman]

Or married?

Why would one exclude the other...?

[Fisherman]

Wasn't the expression "hatred for women" or "women hater" used in the past centuries to define gay men and not those who actually bahave in an agressive manner towards women? The mindset being that if it comes to a point where a man prefers having sex with other men, one must really hate women!!!

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

In short: yes. "Woman-hater" was an often employed euphemism for "homosexual man".

[Patrick S]

Hi,

The sources of the Whitechapel murders donīt offer any conclusive evidence for a serial killer driven by a sexual motive.

So we have to keep the hypothesis that the killer had some other motive(s).

As far as Iīve understood, Fisherman believes that his suspect had some motives connected to a dominant mother and to the catīs meat business (please correct me if Iīm wrong).

Are there any historical sources containing evidence for this?

Regards Pierre

Hi, Pierre. What would such evidence look like? In light of the fact that the "Jack the Ripper" was never apprehended and interviewed, I am interested to know what would represent "conclusive" proof that the victims were killed by a "serial killer driven by sexual motive".

I think it's important to consider that we do not have "conclusive" evidence that "Jack the Ripper" (that is one man responsible for killing four or more of the "canonical" victims) existed at all. But, let's assume that the one man killed all five, even six or seven. Whatever floats your boat. Oh. Hold on. I said "man". We have no "conclusive" evidence that the killer was a man. Remember, the operative word is conclusive. We have "conclusive" evidence that the women were killed. And that's about it.

[Patrick S]

Let us discuss motives, shall we. We know a few things about what Lechmere did relative to the Nichols' murder. I know Christer won't respond to me as I - in doing just BIT of actual, unbiased research - have managed to reduce his silly little theory to the laughingstock it's destined to remain for time immemorial (of course he welcome to attempt to rehabilitate his farce by debating me - on my dime - in Baltimore this April!).

Now, I hate to do this, but let's use Occam's Razor (among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected) as our guide in determining Lechmere's motives the following:

1. Why did Lechmere approach Robert Paul and ask him to come view Nichols lying on the pavement?

2. Why did Lechmere embark on an errand - with Robert Paul - to find a policman?

3. Why did Lechmere voluntarily appear at the inquest?

Now, let's apply Occam's Razor to determine who was lying about what was said in Buck's Row.

In order for us form a hypothosis that Lechmere lied we must assume that:

1. Lechmere killed Nichols
2. Lechmere didn't flee the scene, rather he approached Paul as asked him to come see the dead woman
3. Lechmere - as part of his ruse - went with Paul to find a cop
4. Lechmere told Mizen that he was wanted in Bucks Row by a another cop
5. Paul either lies as well or does not hear this lie
6. Lechmere tells Mizen only that a woman is lying in Buck's Row, not that she's dead
7. Paul lies also

In order for us to form a hypothosis that Mizen lied we must assume that:

1. Both Paul and Lechmere are telling the truth
2. Mizen is not telling the truth

Hmmmm...... This is a tough one.

[Pierre]

Let us discuss motives, shall we. We know a few things about what Lechmere did relative to the Nichols' murder. I know Christer won't respond to me as I - in doing just BIT of actual, unbiased research - have managed to reduce his silly little theory to the laughingstock it's destined to remain for time immemorial (of course he welcome to attempt to rehabilitate his farce by debating me - on my dime - in Baltimore this April!).

Now, I hate to do this, but let's use Occam's Razor (among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected) as our guide in determining Lechmere's motives the following:

1. Why did Lechmere approach Robert Paul and ask him to come view Nichols lying on the pavement?

2. Why did Lechmere embark on an errand - with Robert Paul - to find a policman?

3. Why did Lechmere voluntarily appear at the inquest?

Now, let's apply Occam's Razor to determine who was lying about what was said in Buck's Row.

In order for us form a hypothosis that Lechmere lied we must assume that:

1. Lechmere killed Nichols
2. Lechmere didn't flee the scene, rather he approached Paul as asked him to come see the dead woman
3. Lechmere - as part of his ruse - went with Paul to find a cop
4. Lechmere told Mizen that he was wanted in Bucks Row by a another cop
5. Paul either lies as well or does not hear this lie
6. Lechmere tells Mizen only that a woman is lying in Buck's Row, not that she's dead
7. Paul lies also

In order for us to form a hypothosis that Mizen lied we must assume that:

1. Both Paul and Lechmere are telling the truth
2. Mizen is not telling the truth

Hmmmm...... This is a tough one.

Hi,

A lot of us have tried these arguments on Fisherman but heīs out to sea not hearing it.

Pierre

[Patrick S]

Hi,

A lot of us have tried these arguments on Fisherman but heīs out to sea not hearing it.

Pierre

That doesn't mean I'm going to stop doing it.

[Fisherman]

Hi,

A lot of us have tried these arguments on Fisherman but heīs out to sea not hearing it.

Pierre

Oh, I hear it alright, Itīs just that I have answered these matters a hundred times before you could spell "Casebook", Pierre. I sometimes get tired doing it, and the less receptive my opponent is, the less interested I will be in rehashing it.

I will, however, point a few things out before I leave you to solve the case on your own.

According to people who do not spend too much of their time thinking, Jonas Mizen came up with a set of lies he decided to present to the inquest.

-He decided to tell the inquest that he had been told by one of the carmen that another PC awaited himself in Bucks row.

-He decided to tell the inquest that he had not been informed about the seriousness of the errand.

-He decided to claim that just the one carman had spoken to him, not both of them.

-He decided to claim that Lechmere had stted that a woman had "been found" in Bucks Row, instead of admitting tht the carman had told him that he had found the woman himself.

These are rather elaborate lies. We need to ask ourselved what drove Mizen to produce them in the first place. Was he in imminent danger of loosing his job on account of some wrong-doing in combination with the crime? No, he was not. He had not broken any rules and he had acted in the exact manner that could be expected from a PC that had been informed by the carman in the way he claimed to have been informed by the carman. As Andy Griffiths said, he had no reason to lie at all.
More specifically, if he actually WAS lying, then why did he lie about Lechmere only speaking to him? What did he hope to reach or hide by using that lie?

Moving on, Jonas Mizen took the stand before Charles Lechmere did. He also took the stand before Robert Paul did.

He thus knew quite well that he would be contradicted or he must have expected so at any rate.

Being contradicted is something you can live with, if it is just the one person that does it. In such a case, it is word against word, and we must take our pick.

But what if Lechmere said that he never spoke of a policeman in Bucks Row, if he said that he had told Mizen that the errand was potentially very grave, and if he said that both he and Paul talked to Mizen? Just like Mizen must have known that he would (if Mizen was a dirty liar, that is )

Well, in that case, Mizen would be faced with a situation where the jury and coroner needed to put their trust in either man.

But when and if Paul surfaced, he would be able to deny or corroborate eht either man had said. He would be the decider.

And if he and Lechmere were honest, and Mizen was the liar, he would send Mizen down in flames. And Mizen must have known this - if he ever entertained any idea to lie at all.

I donīt think he ever did, though. and i think proposing that he would have is in direct conflict with how he would have been subjected to not one man who contradicted him but instead two.

In the end, Paul was never asked these questions. It had blown over by the time he took the stand. But Mizen would not have been able to bank on that when he took the stand himself. Plus he may well have been aware at that stage that Oaul was being searched for.

So would he risk being exposed as a liar? And if so - for what? He never did anything wrong at all, especially not if he was lied to himself.

Lo and behold, Pierre - there was a backside to the medallion! And that was the umpteenth time I pointed it out. Andy Griffiths, a hugely experienced murder squad leader, saw how it worked and he never doubted Mizen for a second.

The fact that a number of more or less ignorant posters disagree bothers me not.

[Patrick S]

Oh, I hear it alright, Itīs just that I have answered these matters a hundred times before you could spell "Casebook", Pierre. I sometimes get tired doing it, and the less receptive my opponent is, the less interested I will be in rehashing it.

Receptive? You mean so say that anyone who disagrees with your absurd theory? Which is everyone?

I will, however, point a few things out before I leave you to solve the case on your own.

You and Cornwell, Christer. Two peas. The case cannot and will not be solved. You can play witness bingo and pull the 'Ripper' off Wikipedia all you want.

According to people who do not spend too much of their time thinking, Jonas Mizen came up with a set of lies he decided to present to the inquest.

-He decided to tell the inquest that he had been told by one of the carmen that another PC awaited himself in Bucks row.

-He decided to tell the inquest that he had not been informed about the seriousness of the errand.

-He decided to claim that just the one carman had spoken to him, not both of them.

-He decided to claim that Lechmere had stted that a woman had "been found" in Bucks Row, instead of admitting tht the carman had told him that he had found the woman himself.

First off, let's point out that you have absolutely NO idea what Mizen said on the stand. Further, you have NO idea what Cross said on the stand, either. You rely on the papers. The same papers who call Paul 'Baul' and reference G. Mizen, George Cross, Thail, et al. Let's clarify that.

These are rather elaborate lies.

How elaborate was the lie of omission? You won't deal with that one. Not elaborate, but it's apparent and pretty hard to refute. Neil's testimony ensures that. After that, all of his verbal untruths are quite understandable.

We need to ask ourselved what drove Mizen to produce them in the first place. Was he in imminent danger of loosing his job on account of some wrong-doing in combination with the crime?

Really? You know that? Did HE know that? How were the police perceived around that time? Were they getting laurel wreaths in the press, Christer? I need my memory refreshed on that one.

No, he was not.

So you decided. Because you say so. Okay.....

He had not broken any rules and he had acted in the exact manner that could be expected from a PC that had been informed by the carman in the way he claimed to have been informed by the carman.

Again, you decided that. If that's true, WHY the lie of omission? Why is Neil on the stand telling a tell tale, uncorrected by Mizen or Neils superioros? If Mizen - good, honest, CHRISTIAN Mizen - has acted exactly as we'd expect at ALL times......why does NO ONE in an offial capacity KNOW about Paul and Cross?

As Andy Griffiths said, he had no reason to lie at all.

Poor Andy. I think you should invite him to our debate. I'd like for him to hear the facts as they are...NOT as you represent them!

More specifically, if he actually WAS lying, then why did he lie about Lechmere only speaking to him? What did he hope to reach or hide by using that lie?

Again. You rely on the papers and decided that there was only one carman. I'll go further with respect to Mizen's untruths. Its clear Mizen references ONE carman after Paul - in his statement - was identified as a carman. After Cross took the stand, Mizen simply made him the carman he spoke to. Christian or no, what's another fib, right?


But let me understand this, Christer, dear friend......you ask WHY Mizen would have only one carman speaking to him. As if logic and reason should be considered when analyizing one's actions based on 127 year old accounts? With MIZEN you ask why!?!

Okay....I'll play (again): WHY would Lechmere approach and touch Paul and ask him to come see the woman if he'd just killed her? He didn't know who the person approaching from 40 yards off was. WHY not just walk off? WHY would Lechmere go with Paul to find a cop? WHY not just go in the other direction? After all, WHY not part company as soon as possible? Lechmere knew where Paul came from. Paul didn't know where Lechmere was headed. He was stationary when Paul saw him. WHY not just say, "I go this way!" And GO that way? WHY stay with Paul until you find a cop? WHY not part company at the end of Bucks Row? Another good excuse to go another way ingored. WHY? WHY go voluntarily to the inquest? WHY give a "fake" name but real address and employer? WHY? WHY? WHY?
Moving on, Jonas Mizen took the stand before Charles Lechmere did. He also took the stand before Robert Paul did.

He thus knew quite well that he would be contradicted or he must have expected so at any rate.

Being contradicted is something you can live with, if it is just the one person that does it. In such a case, it is word against word, and we must take our pick.

Um...Okay. Another WHY would he? Yet all "why would he" as it relates to the absurd behavior you attribute to Lechmere are right out of bounds? Okay. I'll have a go again. This really is too easy....

Good, sweet, Christian Jonas would not have been the first or last policeman to pit his word againt a a non-cops and get away with it. Further, Mizen had no clue CROSS - NOT the carman (Paul) who's statement FINALLY compelled him to tell his tale would show up to testify that day. Mizen took the stand to refute what Paul said the papers. YOU YOURSELF have stated that Paul was discounted as a CRACKPOT by the Met. So why WOULDN'T Mizen lie!? His lie was the accepted version of the truth! AGAIN! YOU WANT IT BOTH WAYS! Does Andy know about your, uh, penchant for, uh, bending the truth to fit your narrative?


But what if Lechmere said that he never spoke of a policeman in Bucks Row, if he said that he had told Mizen that the errand was potentially very grave, and if he said that both he and Paul talked to Mizen? Just like Mizen must have known that he would (if Mizen was a dirty liar, that is )

IF LECHMERE FEARED BEING CAUGHT WHY GO WITH PAUL TO FIND A COP IN THE FIRST PLACE? HE HAD THREE OPPORUTNIES TO PART WAYS WITH PAUL BEFORE HE MET MIZEN!!!!! FURTHER, WHY SAY ANYTHING!?!?! WHY SHOW AT THE INQUEST AT ALL!!???????

He could have WALKED away (Paul was 40 yards off in the dark) after he killer Nichols. He could have gone the OPPOSITE way out of Bucks Row. He could have left Paul at the end of Bucks Row. Nope. His crystal ball told him that he'd better stick it out. Because he'd find a copper to pull the Mizen Scam on.

Well, in that case, Mizen would be faced with a situation where the jury and coroner needed to put their trust in either man.

But when and if Paul surfaced, he would be able to deny or corroborate eht either man had said. He would be the decider.

Jesus! Talk about Occam's Razor!?! Your participants need crystal balls and flow charts to make their decisions don't they? No easy, intuative path for you, Christer! NAH! That's too easy!

And if he and Lechmere were honest, and Mizen was the liar, he would send Mizen down in flames. And Mizen must have known this - if he ever entertained any idea to lie at all.

Yawn. Yeah. Why would a cop think he'd be believed. Especially when it was in the interest of his superiors and the situation as a whole that he be believed. Again, NOW you look for reason in actions...when you have Lechmere acting completely unreasonably....because he has no consciousness of guilt, of course.

I donīt think he ever did, though. and i think proposing that he would have is in direct conflict with how he would have been subjected to not one man who contradicted him but instead two.

In the end, Paul was never asked these questions. It had blown over by the time he took the stand. But Mizen would not have been able to bank on that when he took the stand himself. Plus he may well have been aware at that stage that Oaul was being searched for.

BINGO! IT HAD BLOWN OVER! And that was a good thing for MIZEN AND THE MET! No harm no foul. Mizen and the Met come out okay and no hard is done. Oh, wait.....its more likely that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.....yeah.

So would he risk being exposed as a liar? And if so - for what? He never did anything wrong at all, especially not if he was lied to himself.

Well then....WHY did he tell his lie of omission then? You cannot refute the fact that he told NO ONE about Bakers Row. Further, the police as a whole shared the risk. In my opinion, the police knew he wasn't honest. Notice a Juryman asks Cross the only question put to him about a policeman in Buck's Row, not the coroner. They didn't want or need the embarassment. Just as Thain CLEARLY lied about telling Tomkins about the body and told what amounted to an endorsed lie on the stand. THIS is much more feasible than your silly little theory.

Lo and behold, Pierre - there was a backside to the medallion! And that was the umpteenth time I pointed it out. Andy Griffiths, a hugely experienced murder squad leader saw how it worked and he never doubted Mizen for a second.

OH! ANOTHER HAYMAKER! Like the internationally sent documentary itself! God...I admire you!

You have all the punches Christer! You hold all the cards! Yet, you won't debate me and defend this tripe in person......THAT, my friend, is the final haymaker.

The fact that a number of more or less ignorant posters disagree bothers me not.

I know you're not responding to me because it ends in humiliation for you. But, you should be used to it! If you have such a strong case, make it in Baltimore, I'll make mine. Then we shall poll the crowd! Sounds fun. You in?

[DRoy]

Fisherman does not think that being a cats meat woman makes you a serial killer, or that your kids will become serialists. Maria Louisa is listed as a cats meat woman in the 1891 census, and Charles Lechmereīs family was deeply involved in the business.
Fisherman knows that sociological studies have been made, showing how working with dead bodies, carcasses, sometimes desensitizes those who do so. Fisherman also knows that there is a correlation between slaughteries and criminality - once a town gets involved in the slaughtery business, it seems the criminal rates of physical violence rises. Experts speculate that this is knit to the desensitizing earlier mentioned.

Hi Fish,

Do we know when she become a cats meat woman? Did any of his family who were involved in the business become 'desensitized' to any degree that you're aware of? Do we know that Lech was exposed to that sort of business prior to 1891?

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

Do we know when she become a cats meat woman? Did any of his family who were involved in the business become 'desensitized' to any degree that you're aware of? Do we know that Lech was exposed to that sort of business prior to 1891?

Cheers
DRoy

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 itīs 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.

[Patrick S]

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 itīs 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.

Its more likely that Tomkins and friends (the fellas who were caught up in the "Thain Scam" as I call it) took turns being Jack the Ripper, since they actually slaughtered the horses used for cats meat. Do you think that Mrs. Lechmere...er...Mrs. The Ripper actually brought the horses into their little shop, killed them, butchered them, and then headed out yelling, "Meat!"? Come on. This is about as bad as your bit about Mrs. The Ripper not being buried next to Mr. The Ripper.