Follow the Ripper Murders as the happened…

[Lechmere]

The On-Line version of the East London Advertiser is having a daily updated page to follow the course of the Autumn of Terror.
It can be found here:

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/news/jack-the-ripper

[Damaso Marte]

To a less limited extent, I am doing this on my Facebook news feed. I am posting one fact about each of the murders on the anniversary. The facts will be things that I think are interesting, but that people who don't read the forums won't know.

Lechmere, you'll be pleased that my fact for the Nichols murder was that the man who discovered the body is, in modern times, considered a suspect!

[Lechmere]

Excellent!
Of course some people don't think he was suspicious at all!
And he hasn't got a suspect section on these boards...

[Stewart P Evans]

No...

Excellent!
Of course some people don't think he was suspicious at all!
And he hasn't got a suspect section on these boards...

No, but he does have a witness section...

[Fisherman]

No, but he does have a witness section...

As has Hutchinson. Who also has a suspect section. That´s suspect.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

The witness section is one big section with different threads.
It would be off topic to discuss a witness as a suspect - and we wouldn't want to go off topic... would we?
The suspect section is subdivided into separate sections on each suspect - except Charles Lechmere.

[Stewart P Evans]

Suspect

What is a suspect? The criteria seem very lax and few would warrant the description in police eyes.

However, it would be nice to see an iota of evidence worthy of the name to at least warrant the description being attached to some of the 'suspects' we have seen. The game seems to be to pluck the name of anyone mentioned in the story, be it a witness, someone merely referred to or even a police officer involved.

At the end of the day calling a witness, such as Hutchinson, Mann or Cross, a suspect is merely subjective and not based on factual evidence. The police of the day were not stupid and they knew much more than we ever will.

'Championing a suspect' seems to be a way of establishing some sort of niche recognition in Ripperology and it has reduced the subject to a parlour game - as my old friend Jonathan Goodman recognized many years ago.

[The Good Michael]

What is a suspect? The criteria seem very lax and few would warrant the description in police eyes.

However, it would be nice to see an iota of evidence worthy of the name to at least warrant the description being attached to some of the 'suspects' we have seen. The game seems to be to pluck the name of anyone mentioned in the story, be it a witness, someone merely referred to or even a police officer involved.

At the end of the day calling a witness, such as Hutchinson, Mann or Cross, a suspect is merely subjective and not based on factual evidence. The police of the day were not stupid and they knew much more than we ever will.

'Championing a suspect' seems to be a way of establishing some sort of niche recognition in Ripperology and it has reduced the subject to a parlour game - as my old friend Jonathan Goodman recognized many years ago.

All true stuff. People are snatched from newspaper clippings and because there is no evidence of any kind, forced into a mold that makes sense to the snatcher, daring anyone to disprove the theory. It's a game of BS and the cart before the horse. Often it's somewhat comical. Most of it has to deal with the thought that if it isn't in the newspaper saying so, all these people went without being investigated by the idiots that were police detectives, or they were under aliases...., or they couldn't be found. This often goes for the people who were closest to the victims who should have been the most suspect, but were too clever for the police. No names need be mentioned.

Mike

[Lechmere]

‘The police of the day were not stupid and they knew much more than we ever will.’
So the only valid suspects worthy of the name are those mentioned as being suspected by the Police around that time?
Considering other characters and discussing their merits (which is what happens on these boards in the ‘suspect section’) is not valid?
I would suggest that the late Victorian police did not understand serial killing and were ill equipped to ’profile’ the likely culprit.
Hence the thought that he would be Jewish or foreign, obviously mad or homosexual, or that he would come from the recognised ‘criminal class’ such as the inmates in common lodging houses.
I would argue that inclusion in the list of contemporary police suspects is a negative barometer of that suspects likely culpability.
It could be said that the police still do not understand this type of killer.

I watched a fascinating program about the Yosemite murderer Cary Stayner last night.
He was the caretaker in a motel where three women were murdered in 1999.
His younger brother had been kidnapped by a paedophile in 1972 and escaped after being presumed dead in 1980. This brother died in a motorbike accident in 1989. Stayner’s uncle was murdered in 1990.
Stayner was questioned about these murders but as he seemed law abiding he was not suspected.
The police arrested some local criminals and thought they had their culprits.
However another woman was killed shortly afterwards.
Stayner’s distinctive car was spotted outside her house and Stayner was arrested and confessed.

It was the chance sighting of his car that got him.
He had been there all along – hidden in clear sight. A fuller investigation would have saved the life of the last victim.

It was a similar story with the Yorkshire Ripper of course.

[Fisherman]

‘The police of the day were not stupid and they knew much more than we ever will.’
So the only valid suspects worthy of the name are those mentioned as being suspected by the Police around that time?

Well, since the original question was why Charles Lechmere is not categorized as a suspect on the boards, one may observe that those who made the choice cannot be held responsible for any such a generalization. We have Lewis Carroll, James Kenneth Stephen, Walter Sickert etcetera represented as suspects on here - all very entertaining suggestions...

The best,
Fisherman

[John Bennett]

Well, since the original question was why Charles Lechmere is not categorized as a suspect on the boards, one may observe that those who made the choice cannot be held responsible for any such a generalization.

Have a peek at the Ripper Wiki entry (at the bottom). It was written a long time ago...

[Fisherman]

Have a peek at the Ripper Wiki entry (at the bottom). It was written a long time ago...

... and in stone, apparently!

The best,
Fisherman

[John Bennett]

... and in stone, apparently!

The best,
Fisherman

It needn't be, Christer. It needs updating to take into account the developments in the Lechmere theory since that entry was written in November 2008. After all, that is the way the Wiki is supposed to work.

JB

[Stewart P Evans]

Suspects

‘The police of the day were not stupid and they knew much more than we ever will.’
So the only valid suspects worthy of the name are those mentioned as being suspected by the Police around that time?
Considering other characters and discussing their merits (which is what happens on these boards in the ‘suspect section’) is not valid?
I would suggest that the late Victorian police did not understand serial killing and were ill equipped to ’profile’ the likely culprit.
Hence the thought that he would be Jewish or foreign, obviously mad or homosexual, or that he would come from the recognised ‘criminal class’ such as the inmates in common lodging houses.
I would argue that inclusion in the list of contemporary police suspects is a negative barometer of that suspects likely culpability.
It could be said that the police still do not understand this type of killer.
...

I really am amazed at the amount of experts on 'serial killers' thrown up by these boards.

My remarks quoted do, of course, relate to the witness Cross (Lechmere) the person under discussion. My point being that as the first person to come across the body the police, naturally, would examine his story and question him closely about it. I am sure that they would have noted anything suspicious or any inconsistency. Today we do not even have the written statement, that he would have made at the time, to assess. According to the inquest evidence he left home at 3.20 a.m. and arrived at work at 4.00 a.m. (finding the body at about 3.40 a.m.). Plenty of time to fit a murder in then.

As regards suspects the police actually did not restrict their activities to finding someone Jewish or foreign, obviously mad or homosexual, or from the criminal classes. Indeed they looked at (inter alia) 76 butchers and slaughterers (and their employees), soldiers, medical students, as well as many others who were brought to their attention. They had suspicions about 'people in every class of society', including club men, dockers, members of Parliament, members of the nobility, and scientists.

We also know that Warren, via Anderson, requested Dr. Bond to supply the police with his opinion of the type likely to be the murderer. We know that this was given and Bond's analysis included the points that in his opinion he was 'a man subject to periodical attacks of homicidal and erotic mania', possibly satyriasis. He also believed the murderer was quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive looking man, probably middle-aged and neatly and respectably dressed. He would also probably be solitary and eccentric in his habits, most likely to be a man without regular occupation, but with some small income or pension and possibly living among respectable persons.

Hardly your stereotypical Jewish person, foreigner, madman, homosexual or common criminal. The record shows that the police did consider all possibilities. It is also impossible, given the dearth of surviving official records, to know all of the enquiries carried out, suspects questioned and theories considered by the police. So any modern criticism can hardly be informed. Warren himself seemed to have preferred the idea that the murderer was a member of a secret society.

In talking of suspects I prefer to refer to those under suspicion in 1888 (be they named or not), viable persons, or those with at least some credible reason for being considered. I am fully aware of the state of flux regarding suspects that has always existed in Ripper studies and it is to be regretted. It is reflected in the A to Z where they had to break the suspects down into sub-categories of 'suspect', 'alleged suspect', 'non-contemporaneously alleged suspect', and 'recently alleged suspect'. What a state of affairs! But most of the 'suspects' named on the boards are not what the police would consider to be suspects. But, of course, that is what Ripperology seems to be all about - the futile hunt for a killer who will never be identified. Jonathan Goodman's 'parlour game'. Which is fine if that is all you are about and that is your choice. You must do what you enjoy. But please don't pretend to be some wonderful profiler of criminals who can outdo the 1888 police based on your 'modern knowledge'.

Most modern police officers do not rate 'profiling' too highly and it is a subject that I discussed at some length with Bill Hagmaier, the ex-Chief of the FBI serial murder unit at Quantico when he stayed with us. So, please don't lecture me on profiling, I have discussed it with those with more knowledge. I have no doubt that the 'game' will continue and that this or that 1888 witness will have his name plucked out of a hat and advanced as none other than Jack the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

It needn't be, Christer. It needs updating to take into account the developments in the Lechmere theory since that entry was written in November 2008. After all, that is the way the Wiki is supposed to work.

JB

What was it he sung, that Irishman...Johnny Logan; "What´s another year?"

Thanks for your interest anyhow, John!

All the best,
Fisherman