Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Torso Killings: torso maps - by RockySullivan 15 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by harry 19 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Abby Normal 39 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Sam Flynn 4 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by jerryd 5 hours ago.
Witnesses: The mysterious Mrs Kennedy... - by rjpalmer 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (30 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (13 posts)
Witnesses: The mysterious Mrs Kennedy... - (3 posts)
Visual Media: A new BBC One documentary about one of the most infamous serial killers of all time. - (2 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11-29-2016, 01:50 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Ha! Bravo, David!! That last point you are making is one I have entertained for years, without wanting to put it out here on account of how I have always been aware of how it would be thrashed and ridiculed.

Now you did it instead, and I am grateful for it (if I am reading you correctly). It seems to me - who have always been convinced that Lechmere lied - that the carman was gloating a bit when he said that he hadnīt spoken to a PC in Bucks Row since there was no PC to speak to there. A bit too clever, just like you say.

If he was innocent, I would have wanted a simple "no" to that question. It would have been more in line with the otherwise rather sparse and rough answers he gave to the other questions. Itīs of course impossible to prove, but it is one of those things that always added to my overall feeling.

I would also say that the suggestion that Lechmere was the more likely liar is to my mind reinforced heavily by how Mizen did not object to how Neil claimed to have been the finder of the body. Mizenīs ommission to do so only makes sense if he actually did think that Neil WAS the finder - that he was the PC Lechmere had spoken of.
So Mizen and Niel did not speak to eachother and Niel did not tell Mizen what time he was at the murder site.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-29-2016, 01:55 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Ha! Bravo, David!! That last point you are making is one I have entertained for years, without wanting to put it out here on account of how I have always been aware of how it would be thrashed and ridiculed.

Now you did it instead, and I am grateful for it (if I am reading you correctly). It seems to me - who have always been convinced that Lechmere lied - that the carman was gloating a bit when he said that he hadnīt spoken to a PC in Bucks Row since there was no PC to speak to there. A bit too clever, just like you say.

If he was innocent, I would have wanted a simple "no" to that question. It would have been more in line with the otherwise rather sparse and rough answers he gave to the other questions. Itīs of course impossible to prove, but it is one of those things that always added to my overall feeling.

I would also say that the suggestion that Lechmere was the more likely liar is to my mind reinforced heavily by how Mizen did not object to how Neil claimed to have been the finder of the body. Mizenīs ommission to do so only makes sense if he actually did think that Neil WAS the finder - that he was the PC Lechmere had spoken of.
No, because I did not see a policeman in Buckīs Row.

Did not SEE. Lechmere was the witness who did not SEE anything.

Not SEEING, not knowing, not remembering, not being able to testify against anyone, not being a threat to a murderer, Cross not getting a visit at his home address when he is at work, not putting the lives of his wife and children at risk.

I did not SEE. I do not know. I do not remember. No.

Because I did not SEE a policeman.

Last edited by Pierre : 11-29-2016 at 01:57 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-29-2016, 03:59 PM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

Sounds like Cross had inadvertantly discovered that a soon-to-be-infamous multiple killer was a policeman, and that the great powers were already involved in a conspiracy to hide the fact.

I'm not surprised he chose to attend the inquest and claim that he never saw nuffink guvnor, rather than just protecting his family by maintaining his anonymity.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-29-2016, 11:13 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
Sounds like Cross had inadvertantly discovered that a soon-to-be-infamous multiple killer was a policeman, and that the great powers were already involved in a conspiracy to hide the fact.

I'm not surprised he chose to attend the inquest and claim that he never saw nuffink guvnor, rather than just protecting his family by maintaining his anonymity.
Baffling, is it not, how Lechmere spilled the beans about the police naughty boy to Mizen. And, not least, how Mizen was allowed to take the stand and divulge to the world that the carman had spoken of a policeman in Bucks Row, when all it would have taken to conceal him from the Pierres of this world would be to tell poor old Jonas "You got that wrong, laddie, so letīs not bother with it when you take the stand. Thereīs a good boy!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-01-2016, 02:13 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,179
Default

Patrick S:
Based upon what we know, it’s obvious that PC Mizen was not truthful about many details of what occurred in Baker’s Row. His reasons for being less than honest is understandable, albeit not the sinister reasons many researches may hope for. It’s clear the Mizen assumed that the two men he’d met in Baker’s Row had simply come across a woman lying drunk on the pavement. He continued “calling people up” for work. He reacted with no urgency whatsoever. He asked the men no questions. He didn’t ask their names. He was in no great hurry to report to Buck’s Row. Stating that he was told a PC was already on the scene absolves him somewhat. Stating that he not told the woman was dead, makes his lack of action somewhat more understandable. Mizen’s untruthful statements were made to protect his job and his reputation. It’s clear to anyone willing to see the obvious.

What is lacking here is the full picture. Mizens statement differed from what Lechmere said on three points, not just the two mentioned here. Mizen also claimed that one of the carmen spoke to him, not two. He says nothing at all about any comment at all being made by Robert Paul. And that begs the question why.
If Mizen lied to protect his work and his reputation, as is claimed here, then why would he not have admitted that both carmen spoke to him - if they did? What did he stand to gain from hiding that he had been approached by both men, if that was what happened? Nothing at all, as far as I can tell.
Conversely, though, if Lechmere had spun a false tale when speaking to the PC, involving Paul in the proceedings would act as a guarantee that no foul play occurred.

Lying is always done for some sort of gain. Only one person stood to gain from lying about how Paul took part in the conversation. Nobody stood to gain from denying it.

That is how we can tell who was the liar, the way I see things.

Last edited by Fisherman : 12-01-2016 at 02:22 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-01-2016, 04:44 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,179
Default

Patrick S:
At the time of the murder he'd been employed by Pickford's for 20 years. He and his wife had 11 children, 10 of which survived to adulthood. He and his wife were married for more than 50 years. He continually improved his family's circumstances throughout his life. After his retirement he became a business owner, opening a small shop and working there himself. He died in his bed, past the age of 70, leaving his wife a sizable inheritance. So far as anyone knows he was never arrested, institutionalized, or accused of being a man of ill-humor ...

This information is presented to function as evidence that Charles Lechmere could/would not have been the Ripper.
Whenever information is presented in order to clear a suspect of a crime, in order for it to work, it must be information that is incompatible with having perpetrated the crime. For example, if a person has been thrown out of a window, and if it can be shown that the suspect does not possess the physical strenght aquired to do so, then this information is in confict with the suspect being the killer.

So letīs look at the arguments brought forward against Lechmereīs guilt, and see if they are incompatible with him having been the Ripper.

1. Lechmere had been able to keep a steady job for many years.
Counterargument: Many serialists have had steady jobs for many years, while at the same time killing. Examples are Gary Ridgway, Dennis Rader and John Wayne Gacy.

2. Lechmere had fathered children.
Counterargument: Many serialists have fathered children. Some examples would be Eric Armstrong, Dennis Rader, Keith Jesperson, Joseph Kallinger, Andrei Chikatilo, Gary Ridgway and Mikhail Popkov.

3. Lechmere was part of a long marriage.
Counterargument: Many serialists are parts of long marriages. Peter Kürten, Dennis Rader and Mikhail Popkov can serve as examples.

4. Lechmere enjoyed some economical success.
Counterargument: Many serialists have earned good money and risen to better circumstances during their carreers: Dennis Rader, John Wayne Gacy, Russel Williams, Dean Corrl, Gary Heidnick... Truly wealthy serialists are hard to find, but I would say that people who are extremely successful in any occupation are less likely to try and make their mark as serialists. Thatīs why famous authors, musicians, scientists etcetera make poor bids for the role of a serial killer. And Lechmere was not etremely wealthy either, he managed to amass a decent sum of money just like many serialists have done.

5. He was not arrested or institutionalized.
Counterarguments: Peter Sutcliffe, Alcibiades Mendez, Jeffrey Mailhot... Fyodor Beshnery is probably the latest addition, awaiting his trial in Israel.

6. Not being recorded as a man of ill-humor.
We will leave that point aside, as he is not recorded as a man of good humor either. Otherwise, men like Ridgway were known as good guys with lots of humor. The same goes for Lonnie Franklin, "The Grim Sleeper" and a good many other serialists.

Finally, a quotation from the FBI: "Serial murderers often seem normal; have families and/or a steady job." (Morton, Robert J. "Serial Murder". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved 2011-01-01) The former FBI chief Robert Ressler writes in his book "Whoever Fights Monsters: My Twenty Years Tracking Serial Killers For the FBI", that the classic serial killer is "a white male in his mid-to-late thirties with a stable home and steady job".

I hope this post once and for all sees off the idea that people with a polished surface cannot be serial killers. They most emphatically can.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-05-2016, 01:39 PM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Patrick S:
At the time of the murder he'd been employed by Pickford's for 20 years. He and his wife had 11 children, 10 of which survived to adulthood. He and his wife were married for more than 50 years. He continually improved his family's circumstances throughout his life. After his retirement he became a business owner, opening a small shop and working there himself. He died in his bed, past the age of 70, leaving his wife a sizable inheritance. So far as anyone knows he was never arrested, institutionalized, or accused of being a man of ill-humor ...

This information is presented to function as evidence that Charles Lechmere could/would not have been the Ripper.
Whenever information is presented in order to clear a suspect of a crime, in order for it to work, it must be information that is incompatible with having perpetrated the crime. For example, if a person has been thrown out of a window, and if it can be shown that the suspect does not possess the physical strenght aquired to do so, then this information is in confict with the suspect being the killer.

So letīs look at the arguments brought forward against Lechmereīs guilt, and see if they are incompatible with him having been the Ripper.

1. Lechmere had been able to keep a steady job for many years.
Counterargument: Many serialists have had steady jobs for many years, while at the same time killing. Examples are Gary Ridgway, Dennis Rader and John Wayne Gacy.

2. Lechmere had fathered children.
Counterargument: Many serialists have fathered children. Some examples would be Eric Armstrong, Dennis Rader, Keith Jesperson, Joseph Kallinger, Andrei Chikatilo, Gary Ridgway and Mikhail Popkov.

3. Lechmere was part of a long marriage.
Counterargument: Many serialists are parts of long marriages. Peter Kürten, Dennis Rader and Mikhail Popkov can serve as examples.

4. Lechmere enjoyed some economical success.
Counterargument: Many serialists have earned good money and risen to better circumstances during their carreers: Dennis Rader, John Wayne Gacy, Russel Williams, Dean Corrl, Gary Heidnick... Truly wealthy serialists are hard to find, but I would say that people who are extremely successful in any occupation are less likely to try and make their mark as serialists. Thatīs why famous authors, musicians, scientists etcetera make poor bids for the role of a serial killer. And Lechmere was not etremely wealthy either, he managed to amass a decent sum of money just like many serialists have done.

5. He was not arrested or institutionalized.
Counterarguments: Peter Sutcliffe, Alcibiades Mendez, Jeffrey Mailhot... Fyodor Beshnery is probably the latest addition, awaiting his trial in Israel.

6. Not being recorded as a man of ill-humor.
We will leave that point aside, as he is not recorded as a man of good humor either. Otherwise, men like Ridgway were known as good guys with lots of humor. The same goes for Lonnie Franklin, "The Grim Sleeper" and a good many other serialists.

Finally, a quotation from the FBI: "Serial murderers often seem normal; have families and/or a steady job." (Morton, Robert J. "Serial Murder". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved 2011-01-01) The former FBI chief Robert Ressler writes in his book "Whoever Fights Monsters: My Twenty Years Tracking Serial Killers For the FBI", that the classic serial killer is "a white male in his mid-to-late thirties with a stable home and steady job".

I hope this post once and for all sees off the idea that people with a polished surface cannot be serial killers. They most emphatically can.
You missed the point. It's a point that's been made on this board, by myself and others, many times: Lechmere's normality matters only because there's nothing to suggest he killed Nichols, or anyone else for that matter. When one has EVIDENCE, a suspect's normality or "polished" veneer becomes irrelevant. In the absence of EVIDENCE it's not used to suggest GUILT by comparison (specious as your comparisons are).

Many of the people you named were linked to their murders by DNA. Many confessed. Many took police to the their victims bodies. Thus, they were all confirmed "serialists" and we can say fairly confidently that they were NOT normal.

To deal with a few of these "normal" fellows you compare with Lechmere........I'm fairly well read on Kurten. You use him as an example of someone who was outwardly normal, married. In addition to having been married, Kurten was arrested and served multiple sentences for arson, theft. So we have something like that on Lechmere, right? Or, do we just have the marriage bit? That seems where your comparison with Kurten begins...and ends.

I'm also fairly well up on Andrei Chikatilo. You cite him as well. Normal guy, right? Married, a father, just like Lechmere. Two peas in a pod? Well, we know that his marriage was contrived, arranged by relatives, and that he was unable to maintain an erection. He did father two children, his wife collecting his semen and pushing it into her vagina with her fingers. I guess Lechmere's wife could have done this with each of their 11 kids. Do we know anything like this about Lechmere? I mean, since Chikalito's kids were conceived that way, who is to day Lechmere's weren't, as well? Andrei Chikatilo was a teacher. He was forced to resign his position because he committed multiple sexual assaults on students? Not that normal, in the end. Anything like that on Lechmere? Before or after Buck's Row? Are these the "dark stories" we were warned about a few years back?

I'll again say that I admire your work on this and I can even understand your dedication to the theory, your refusal to back away from it, regardless of how it's held up to scrutiny. In my view, you have invented a convoluted, logic defying narrative to fit Lechmere as Jack the Ripper (and - since he lived into the 1920s and was unlikely to have simply stopped killing - the Torso Killer, among others). Since his behavior in Buck's Row, Baker's Row, at the inquest shows no consciousness of guilt, no betrayal of some sinister deed or motivations, you ascribe to him preternatural ability to see several steps ahead, into the future, submitting himself to the police again and again for no rational reason because he knows he'll come out smelling like a rose, off scot free, free to continue his decades long avocation of murder.

We know that we'll likely not agree, unless you spring something new upon us in the coming months or years. More power to you and I'm interested in your work. I consider Lechmere as good a suspect as many. Alas, I don't thin that there are ANY good, realistic suspects out there.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-06-2016, 01:14 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
You missed the point. It's a point that's been made on this board, by myself and others, many times: Lechmere's normality matters only because there's nothing to suggest he killed Nichols, or anyone else for that matter. When one has EVIDENCE, a suspect's normality or "polished" veneer becomes irrelevant. In the absence of EVIDENCE it's not used to suggest GUILT by comparison (specious as your comparisons are).

Many of the people you named were linked to their murders by DNA. Many confessed. Many took police to the their victims bodies. Thus, they were all confirmed "serialists" and we can say fairly confidently that they were NOT normal.

To deal with a few of these "normal" fellows you compare with Lechmere........I'm fairly well read on Kurten. You use him as an example of someone who was outwardly normal, married. In addition to having been married, Kurten was arrested and served multiple sentences for arson, theft. So we have something like that on Lechmere, right? Or, do we just have the marriage bit? That seems where your comparison with Kurten begins...and ends.

I'm also fairly well up on Andrei Chikatilo. You cite him as well. Normal guy, right? Married, a father, just like Lechmere. Two peas in a pod? Well, we know that his marriage was contrived, arranged by relatives, and that he was unable to maintain an erection. He did father two children, his wife collecting his semen and pushing it into her vagina with her fingers. I guess Lechmere's wife could have done this with each of their 11 kids. Do we know anything like this about Lechmere? I mean, since Chikalito's kids were conceived that way, who is to day Lechmere's weren't, as well? Andrei Chikatilo was a teacher. He was forced to resign his position because he committed multiple sexual assaults on students? Not that normal, in the end. Anything like that on Lechmere? Before or after Buck's Row? Are these the "dark stories" we were warned about a few years back?

I'll again say that I admire your work on this and I can even understand your dedication to the theory, your refusal to back away from it, regardless of how it's held up to scrutiny. In my view, you have invented a convoluted, logic defying narrative to fit Lechmere as Jack the Ripper (and - since he lived into the 1920s and was unlikely to have simply stopped killing - the Torso Killer, among others). Since his behavior in Buck's Row, Baker's Row, at the inquest shows no consciousness of guilt, no betrayal of some sinister deed or motivations, you ascribe to him preternatural ability to see several steps ahead, into the future, submitting himself to the police again and again for no rational reason because he knows he'll come out smelling like a rose, off scot free, free to continue his decades long avocation of murder.

We know that we'll likely not agree, unless you spring something new upon us in the coming months or years. More power to you and I'm interested in your work. I consider Lechmere as good a suspect as many. Alas, I don't thin that there are ANY good, realistic suspects out there.
I did not miss the point at all. You forwarded a number of traits as being incompatible with or unlikely to be found within a serialist, and I produced the evidence to disprove it. There is very little to misunderstand or miss out on, Patrick. Robert Resllers assessment is a very clear indication of what I am saying: The typical serialist hides behind a picture of being a normal family man with a steady job and he is in his mid- or late thirties.
If Lechmere was the killer, he responds to that exact picture with some gusto, wouldnīt you say?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-06-2016, 01:33 PM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I did not miss the point at all. You forwarded a number of traits as being incompatible with or unlikely to be found within a serialist, and I produced the evidence to disprove it. There is very little to misunderstand or miss out on, Patrick. Robert Resllers assessment is a very clear indication of what I am saying: The typical serialist hides behind a picture of being a normal family man with a steady job and he is in his mid- or late thirties.
If Lechmere was the killer, he responds to that exact picture with some gusto, wouldnīt you say?
I WOULD, in fact, agree. Although, I do feel that SUCCESSFULLY hiding behind that faįade normality through 51 years of marriage, 20+ years stable employment, decades spent raising 11 children and moving upward though the socioeconomic structure without being suspected of anything is a different feat in that the thing makes one a killer is not "normal", after all.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-06-2016, 02:00 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
I WOULD, in fact, agree. Although, I do feel that SUCCESSFULLY hiding behind that faįade normality through 51 years of marriage, 20+ years stable employment, decades spent raising 11 children and moving upward though the socioeconomic structure without being suspected of anything is a different feat in that the thing makes one a killer is not "normal", after all.
If I am shown two family men with steady work, both of them 38 years of age, I do not work from the presumption that at least one of them is a serial killer...

Nor do I regard one single serialist as being "normal".

I am trying to make sense of my knowledge that so may revelations of people as being serial killers are greeted with total surprise by the ones having lived close to the perpetrator: friends, working comrades, wifes, children.

Of all the aspects involved in their heinous crimes, nothing frightens me more than the insight that somebody I think is a good man is instead something totally different.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.