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:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Simon Wood 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Fisherman 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Darryl Kenyon 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by rjpalmer 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Sam Flynn 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Joshua Rogan 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Torso Killings: torso maps - (20 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (18 posts)
Other: Book on antique medical specimens - (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
  #11  
Old 10-01-2015, 07:48 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Thanks Fisherman,

I think Lechmere remained standing in the street because he was stunned and afraid to move or call for somebody, given the risk that the murderer was in the area.
But if he was threatened, then he knew which way the killer took. Plus he knew he was at risk, standing by the body.

So Lechmere waited for the steps to come closer before he dared to make contact with somebody else.

It makes no sense. He would not want any contact in a case like this. He needed to get out of there and stay off the map. Nobody but the killer knew abut him, and he was not gonna give him away.

Itīs rather funny but the probability that someone like Lechmere, who often moved around in this area, would actually witness a murder or another crime cannot be very low. And in the way we have been thinking about the ripper, he never had witnesses. But the probability of that is low. He avoided the police, yes, but the choice of the murder site in this case gives a high probability that someone like Lechmere would come along.

In essence, no - the back streets were empty and silent, as witnessed about by Neil. Nobody was about at 3.15 and nobody was about as he returned.
Sorry, Pierre, but it does not pan out. Does this belong to your theory...?
Right, so it makes no sense for an innocent Lechmere to wait there in case Paul thought he was the killer? He needed to get out of there and stay off the map?

So how does it make any more sense for a guilty Lechmere to wait there, confident Paul would not think he was the killer? Wouldn't he too have been better off getting out of there and staying off the map, like the killer in Pierre's scenario?

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-01-2015, 09:27 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Right, so it makes no sense for an innocent Lechmere to wait there in case Paul thought he was the killer? He needed to get out of there and stay off the map?

So how does it make any more sense for a guilty Lechmere to wait there, confident Paul would not think he was the killer? Wouldn't he too have been better off getting out of there and staying off the map, like the killer in Pierre's scenario?

Love,

Caz
X
REALLY, Caz...!!!

Sometimes I realize the sheer potential in you as a future Lechmerian. It manly lies in the fact that you apparently have not understood a single thing I have said. Meaning that when and if you DO, then we may have a new disciple on our hands. And I am so looking forward to it!

Now, I could have said that I have explained this a thosuand times, but why would I do that - when it is so apparent that you never cottoned on anyway...?

So here goes again!

Imagine, if you will, TWO Lechmereīs. Twins, sort of. But only on the outside!

Lechmere number one is a serial killer. He is also a psychopath. He therefore lacks the startle reflex, meaning that he will not be scared by sudden potential threats. Nor does he possess the ability to panick. He is, however, a man who likes to control other people, and he is an accomplished and skilful liar, who likes to play games.

Lechmere number two is a family father, and a hardworking carman, first and foremost. He gets scared if something suddenly jumps out at him - his startle reflex is alive and kicking. If people around him panick, he will panick with them. He is truthful and helpful.

Now, Caz, very many people tell me that Lechmere would have fled immediately when he heard Paul, since that is what they perceive that people do. When arriving at this conclusion, they will have turned to themselves and asked "what would I do in a situation like this?" And they arrive - quite truthfully - at the conclusion that they would have gotten the hell out of Bucks Row.

They are, however, not psychopaths. They do not think the way psychopaths do. They foresee trouble and fear and flight, where a psychopath feels no fear, and instead focuses on playing the game of conning his surroundings.

It seems to me that Lechmere number one quickly decided on this exact route - Paul could not see any damage, and that damage involved seven bloodred cuts against a white belly and a two-inch gaping wound in the neck from which blood flowed. Paul, however, could see the hat, he could see the posture of the woman etcetera. It was not pitch dark. The woman was easy enough to see, thatīs what Paul said in the newspaper interview.
The inevitable conclusion is that Lechmere number one decided to bluff the newcomer, and that he took steps in order to enable him to do so: he saw to it that the wounds were covered. He prepared himself for the game.

In essence, Caz, depending on the situations we are talking about, there will always be two categories of people: those who run and those who donīt. And therein lies the answer to what you perceive as an enigma: Although we are talking of the same man, we are also talking about two TYPES of men.

I hope I managaged to explain what I am suggesting this time. I must have failed a thousand times before.

I am very, very sorry to have done what I did in order to facilitate things for you: I added another Lechmere.

I am quite aware that you are having all sorts of trouble with just the one.

Last edited by Fisherman : 10-01-2015 at 09:30 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-01-2015, 10:23 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=Fisherman;354467]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Thanks Fisherman,

I think Lechmere remained standing in the street because he was stunned and afraid to move or call for somebody, given the risk that the murderer was in the area.

But if he was threatened, then he knew which way the killer took. Plus he knew he was at risk, standing by the body.

So Lechmere waited for the steps to come closer before he dared to make contact with somebody else.

It makes no sense. He would not want any contact in a case like this. He needed to get out of there and stay off the map. Nobody but the killer knew abut him, and he was not gonna give him away.

Itīs rather funny but the probability that someone like Lechmere, who often moved around in this area, would actually witness a murder or another crime cannot be very low. And in the way we have been thinking about the ripper, he never had witnesses. But the probability of that is low. He avoided the police, yes, but the choice of the murder site in this case gives a high probability that someone like Lechmere would come along.

In essence, no - the back streets were empty and silent, as witnessed about by Neil. Nobody was about at 3.15 and nobody was about as he returned.

Sorry, Pierre, but it does not pan out. Does this belong to your theory...?
Hi Fisherman,

The explanation of what you say makes no sense is that people tend to do irrational things when in a state of shock.

And the street wasnīt empty: Both Lechmere and Paul was there.

I understand if you would never elaborate on this scenario since you have invested in your theory about Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.

But being a good writer as you are, you could certainly reverse the story if you wanted to and make Lechmere a witness to the killer. I mean, that would give you a good chance to honestly test your data. Because you do want evidence, donīt you?

I have nothing from this scenario in my theory since I have other pieces of data. Actually, the murder of Mary Ann is the one I know least about. So I do really respect your knowledge about the case. But - all data must be tested and very often one tends to misinterpret historical sources. This can be very dangerous - and that statement includes myself.


Regards Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-01-2015, 10:36 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Right, so it makes no sense for an innocent Lechmere to wait there in case Paul thought he was the killer? He needed to get out of there and stay off the map?

So how does it make any more sense for a guilty Lechmere to wait there, confident Paul would not think he was the killer? Wouldn't he too have been better off getting out of there and staying off the map, like the killer in Pierre's scenario?

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz,

I agree with that. If he was the killer, he would not have come up close, showing his face and speaking to people.

Lechmere must have understood that if he remained at the crime scene, the risk would increase that the police would arrive. Of course heīd want to avoid that if he was the killer.

Iīd say Lechmere seems to be really frightened and didnīt want any trouble. So he pretended to have seen nothing and didnīt want his name and adress in the papers so the killer could find him.

It is a shame though that he didnīt testify. We have probably lost a valuable source for how the killer looked. And so did the police.

Regards Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-01-2015, 10:39 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,179
Default

[quote=Pierre;354505]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post

Hi Fisherman,

The explanation of what you say makes no sense is that people tend to do irrational things when in a state of shock.

And the street wasnīt empty: Both Lechmere and Paul was there.

I understand if you would never elaborate on this scenario since you have invested in your theory about Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.

But being a good writer as you are, you could certainly reverse the story if you wanted to and make Lechmere a witness to the killer. I mean, that would give you a good chance to honestly test your data. Because you do want evidence, donīt you?

I have nothing from this scenario in my theory since I have other pieces of data. Actually, the murder of Mary Ann is the one I know least about. So I do really respect your knowledge about the case. But - all data must be tested and very often one tends to misinterpret historical sources. This can be very dangerous - and that statement includes myself.


Regards Pierre
Iīm happy to give it some thought, Pierre. But it does not sit well with me, I can say that much.

By the way, I know that Paul and Lechmere was in the street. I was referring to how Neil (and other sources) said that it was a very quiet night with not a soul about.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-01-2015, 10:50 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
REALLY, Caz...!!!

Sometimes I realize the sheer potential in you as a future Lechmerian. It manly lies in the fact that you apparently have not understood a single thing I have said. Meaning that when and if you DO, then we may have a new disciple on our hands. And I am so looking forward to it!

Now, I could have said that I have explained this a thosuand times, but why would I do that - when it is so apparent that you never cottoned on anyway...?

So here goes again!

Imagine, if you will, TWO Lechmereīs. Twins, sort of. But only on the outside!

Lechmere number one is a serial killer. He is also a psychopath. He therefore lacks the startle reflex, meaning that he will not be scared by sudden potential threats. Nor does he possess the ability to panick. He is, however, a man who likes to control other people, and he is an accomplished and skilful liar, who likes to play games.

Lechmere number two is a family father, and a hardworking carman, first and foremost. He gets scared if something suddenly jumps out at him - his startle reflex is alive and kicking. If people around him panick, he will panick with them. He is truthful and helpful.

Now, Caz, very many people tell me that Lechmere would have fled immediately when he heard Paul, since that is what they perceive that people do. When arriving at this conclusion, they will have turned to themselves and asked "what would I do in a situation like this?" And they arrive - quite truthfully - at the conclusion that they would have gotten the hell out of Bucks Row.

They are, however, not psychopaths. They do not think the way psychopaths do. They foresee trouble and fear and flight, where a psychopath feels no fear, and instead focuses on playing the game of conning his surroundings.

It seems to me that Lechmere number one quickly decided on this exact route - Paul could not see any damage, and that damage involved seven bloodred cuts against a white belly and a two-inch gaping wound in the neck from which blood flowed. Paul, however, could see the hat, he could see the posture of the woman etcetera. It was not pitch dark. The woman was easy enough to see, thatīs what Paul said in the newspaper interview.
The inevitable conclusion is that Lechmere number one decided to bluff the newcomer, and that he took steps in order to enable him to do so: he saw to it that the wounds were covered. He prepared himself for the game.

In essence, Caz, depending on the situations we are talking about, there will always be two categories of people: those who run and those who donīt. And therein lies the answer to what you perceive as an enigma: Although we are talking of the same man, we are also talking about two TYPES of men.

I hope I managaged to explain what I am suggesting this time. I must have failed a thousand times before.

I am very, very sorry to have done what I did in order to facilitate things for you: I added another Lechmere.

I am quite aware that you are having all sorts of trouble with just the one.
Hi Fisherman,

we have no psychylogical or psychiatric tests stating that Jack the Ripper was a "psychopath".

And we cannot give a person who is long since dead a diagnosis.

Do you really mean that you build your theory about Lechmeres behaviour in the past on an hypothesis about the killer having a psychatric diagnosis - without Lechmere having been tested for and given that diagnosis?

And is this non existing diagnosis the starting point of your whole theory of Lechmere being the killer?

Because then you have based the whole theory on bias and that will lead you to the wrong conclusions.

Regards Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-01-2015, 11:01 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=Fisherman;354511]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

Iīm happy to give it some thought, Pierre. But it does not sit well with me, I can say that much.

By the way, I know that Paul and Lechmere was in the street. I was referring to how Neil (and other sources) said that it was a very quiet night with not a soul about.
Hi Fisherman,

Sounds great. And I do understand that you meant PC Neils description and that you of course know about Paul and Lechmere, they being part of the history as well as your theory.

I also understand my hypothesis doesnīt sit well with you. Perhaps I will experience the same problem in the future when I communicate my theory to others.

Regards Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-01-2015, 11:15 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Hi Fisherman,

we have no psychylogical or psychiatric tests stating that Jack the Ripper was a "psychopath".

And we cannot give a person who is long since dead a diagnosis.

Do you really mean that you build your theory about Lechmeres behaviour in the past on an hypothesis about the killer having a psychatric diagnosis - without Lechmere having been tested for and given that diagnosis?

And is this non existing diagnosis the starting point of your whole theory of Lechmere being the killer?

Because then you have based the whole theory on bias and that will lead you to the wrong conclusions.

Regards Pierre
If you can spare the time to backtrack and read 23 447 posts, you will see that you are wrong. Myself, I have lost the will to live for now, so I will go and shoot myself in the head and be done with it. Or read a few posts out here - it should have the same sort of impact...

Anyway, before I do that, I will just say that the psychopathy part had nothing at all to do with why I suspect Lechmere. It is all grounded on the facts surrounding the case. QC James Scobie said that there is a prima faciae case against the man, suggesting that he was the killer. And Scobie said nothing at all about psychopathy. But the rest was quite enough!

If you are read up on Lechmere, you will be familar with Michael Connor. He was among the first to point a finger at the carman. One of his dissertations, he signed off by asking: "I wonder how he treated his horses?"

A typical trait with a psychopath is that he is oblivious of the pain he inflicts on other creatures. In a sense, I think that this was the fist suggestion ever made about Lechmere possibly being a psychopath, though Connor never spelt it out.

Please listen carefully now, for I will only say this once:

Grounded on the circumstantial and physical evidence, I am convinced that Charles Lechmere is by far the best suggestion we have for the killers role in the nichols case. He is also the probable Ripper, the way I see things.
If I am correct, then Lechmere could not have committed the murder in thousands of different ways. There is an exactituce involved in the material that allows for a very limited interpretation of how he would have gone about killing Nichols, and subsequently fooled Robert Paul, the police and the inquest. To my mind, only a psychopath would have done what I suggest that Lechmere did. So the psychopathy is secondary - but is is tied to the case as a demand. If Lechmere was not a psychopath, then he was not the killer and I am all wrong about this.
It also applies that the FBI have looked at the cases and arrived at the conclusion that there were traits of psychopathology on display at the sites.

Now, where did I put that gun...?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-01-2015, 11:16 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,179
Default

[quote=Pierre;354514]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post

Hi Fisherman,

Sounds great. And I do understand that you meant PC Neils description and that you of course know about Paul and Lechmere, they being part of the history as well as your theory.

I also understand my hypothesis doesnīt sit well with you. Perhaps I will experience the same problem in the future when I communicate my theory to others.

Regards Pierre
If you have a theory with a new suspect, I believe that the people out here will treat you with great gentleness and generosity, and do anything to support and help you.

They normally do.

Goodnight for now.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-01-2015, 11:23 AM
curious4 curious4 is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,748
Default

Please don't shoot yourself, Fisherman. You would be sadly missed!

C4
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 01:30 PM.


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