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:
Periodicals: Upcoming Article - by TomTomKent 1 hour and 7 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - by packers stem 1 hour and 13 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - by packers stem 1 hour and 21 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Help On Some Details - by packers stem 2 hours ago.
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - by Elamarna 2 hours ago.
Non-Ripper Books by Ripper Authors: "Prey Time" - by Trevor Marriott 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Mary Jane Kelly: Help On Some Details - (21 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - (9 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Most accurate reconstruction (Graphic Warning) - (7 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - (2 posts)
Periodicals: Upcoming Article - (1 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (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
  #851  
Old 12-19-2018, 07:46 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
And there, in a nutshell, is the rub.

Once this unidentified 'man' had left Mizen behind, whether he lied to him or not, what could they have proved?

According to Fish: Nothing.

So remind me again why, if he was the killer, he would have felt either the need or desire to attend the inquest, with the additional burden of muddying the waters concerning his real surname, to try and pull the wool over the eyes of some nebulous, unspecified individuals who might otherwise become suspicious of him - and been able to prove what?

Love,

Caz
X
1. He would have gone to the inquest in order not to be named the prime suspect.

2. He would have had the aim to defuse whatever nefarious ideas about himself the police could have had.

It is dead easy, really - if, that is, you put your mind to it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #852  
Old 12-19-2018, 08:19 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Why is it that I never find any logical line in your posts that I can criticize? Itīs like swimming in a diarrhea.
Fortunately, I wouldn't know, Fish. I don't have your experience as I don't swim in the same bowl.

Going through the motions...

Quote:
And you always write little plays with funny characters saying stupid things that are totally unrelated to what I have stated.

Somehow, you are trying to get away with the idea that Charles Lechmere always had to think about how jobrelated a matter he commented on was before he could decide whether to think of himself as Charles Cross or Charles Lechmere.

I could write a REALLY funny sketch about that.
Possibly, but it would only be related to your overly complicated idea of what idea I was trying to get away with. It was merely the suggestion that if someone is always known at his place of work as Cross, it would make sense to use that name when requesting absence from work to attend an inquest as the person who found a body on the way to work.

How is that so implausible?

Quote:
But why would I? All the laughter it could bring down from the rest of the posters could never hide the fact that you - the target for the sketch - would probably not be able to understand it.
Now that is funny, considering your own admitted failure to comprehend my 'little plays'.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #853  
Old 12-19-2018, 08:31 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
1. He would have gone to the inquest in order not to be named the prime suspect.
We can stop there really.

How was he going to be 'named' as anything, had he not attended? Mr Unknown Prime Suspect? That's about the worst name he could have been saddled with.

Just like the previous man to see Nichols, whoever that was, and whether or not he killed her.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #854  
Old 12-19-2018, 08:40 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
We can stop there really.

How was he going to be 'named' as anything, had he not attended? Mr Unknown Prime Suspect? That's about the worst name he could have been saddled with.

Just like the previous man to see Nichols, whoever that was, and whether or not he killed her.

Love,

Caz
X
His REAL name would not be known, but he would nevertheless be the prime suspect. That is no anomaly at all; many people whose names we do not have have been crowned the prime suspect in many a case.

Trying to make a meal out of how his name would no be known is not the way to go about things, Caz. Not that I am surprised - it is in perfect line with your normal debating technique - but it is nevertheless dumb.

He was known by sight by Paul and Mizen, and he would be sought for as the probable killer if he did NOT report in at the cop shop.

Keep in mind that all the information about when he left home, when Paul arrived, how close they were in time and so on was NOT known until Lechmere supplied that (in all probability false) information. So the police would have a man on their hands who had been found alone with the victim at a remove in time that was consistent with being her killer and for all the police knew, he could have been alone with her for half an hour.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #855  
Old 12-19-2018, 08:47 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 495
Default

If you're a psychopath at night, you're also a psychopath at the breakfast table.

It's hard-wired; you can't turn it on and off like a hot water tap.

So, it seems to me, if you want to argue your suspect is a psychopath, then you need to show some empirical evidence for it--a history of violent, criminal, or irrational and antisocial behavior.

Anything. Even a whisper.

Since you can't do this, Fish, you respond by saying that he was 'successfully sinister.' He stayed below the radar. He was never identified as this lying, cheating, person.

So, in other words, you have nothing to distinguish him from M.J. Druitt, Sir William Gull, Booth, Barnett, Maybrick, the local Vicar, Frederick Charrington, etc etc, or any other random person that we can similarly claim was a psychopath but who 'stayed below the radar.'

Ripperologists love to name this or that person as 'the Ripper.' Few like to actually point to people with a known history of psychopathic behavior, be it Ostrog, Deeming, Cream, Tumblety, etc.

Last edited by rjpalmer : 12-19-2018 at 08:49 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #856  
Old 12-19-2018, 08:49 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Itīs La-La Land. Nothing will ever come of it and as a lead in the case it is 100 per cent worthless until more evidence can be added. And letīs face it, that is not going to happen some time soon.
Were you talking about Anderson's suspect or your own, Fish?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #857  
Old 12-19-2018, 08:49 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Fortunately, I wouldn't know, Fish. I don't have your experience as I don't swim in the same bowl.

Going through the motions...



Possibly, but it would only be related to your overly complicated idea of what idea I was trying to get away with. It was merely the suggestion that if someone is always known at his place of work as Cross, it would make sense to use that name when requesting absence from work to attend an inquest as the person who found a body on the way to work.

How is that so implausible?



Now that is funny, considering your own admitted failure to comprehend my 'little plays'.

Love,

Caz
X
This post is of no interest but for one small thing:

How is it implausible that he called himself Cross at work and that he was an innocent finder of the body, you ask.

To begin with, have I said that it IS implausible? Or is it just your way of wording it?

These matters can be either way, and there has never been any bones about that from my side. BUT! It is NOT a common thing to use one name in all other contacts with authorities but the police! If he was Lechmere officially, then he was so with the police too. It MAY be that he wanted to protect the name from publicity or that he was afraid of the Ripper, but all things considered, we have an anomaly nevertheless.
Ergo, it is possible that he used one name at work and another officially, and that he on this occasion only decided to use is work name with the authorities (can you see the anomaly?), but it is a tortured suggestion.
As for being innocent, yes, he MAY have been - but isnīt it a coincidence that one out of six bodies had the wounds hidden, and that one victim just happened to be Nichols? Isnīt it a coincidence that Mizen just happened to lie or misreport? Isnīt it a coincidence that PC and witness should disagree at all? Isnīt it a coincidence that Lechmere happened upon the body as it was still bleeding? Isnīt it a coincidence that Paul arrived just in time to get Lechmere off the hook? Isnīt it a coincidence that Lechmere passed through the killing zone? Isnīt it a coincidence that he had links to St Georges and the Mitre Street area?
There is a name for people in murder cases who have so many coincidences attaching to themselves: killer.
So that is why it is implausible that he was innocent. He MAY have been, but if he was, he sure had a nasty habit of amassing coincidences.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #858  
Old 12-19-2018, 08:52 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Were you talking about Anderson's suspect or your own, Fish?

Love,

Caz
X
Thatīs it, Caz. You just disqualified yourself from any right to any sort of respect. What a moronic thing to say.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #859  
Old 12-19-2018, 09:04 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,726
Default

rjpalmer: If you're a psychopath at night, you're also a psychopath at the breakfast table.

It's hard-wired; you can't turn it on and off like a hot water tap.

Yes! But do psychopathic serial killers murder the ones they have breakfast with?
Psychopath killers - at least some of them - can be very charming people at times, and they can be masterful liars.

So, it seems to me, if you want to argue your suspect is a psychopath, then you need to show some empirical evidence for it--a history of violent, criminal, or irrational and antisocial behavior.

Not at all - that only applies if I want to PROVE it. Because many serial killers who are psychopaths have NO history of violence. Take Joel Rifkin, for example. A meek guy, not looked upon as a violent man at all.
And THAT is just about as far as it goes. How on earth are we to say that Lechmere did not give examples of "irrational or antisocial" behavior - 130 years down the line? Isnīt that asking a bit much?
You must have noticed how many people in close proximity to disclosed serial killers have gone "WHAT!!!!???" Why do you think that is? Because they knew the person in question to be violent or criminal, irrational and antisocial? Or because they knew the person in question as a normal member of society?
Anything. Even a whisper.

A whisper that can be heard from 130 years away?

Since you can't do this, Fish, you respond by saying that he was 'successfully sinister.' He stayed below the radar. He was never identified as this lying, cheating, person.

If he was the killer, then yes, to us it would seem he stayed under the radar - as does ANY killer as long as he stays unsuspected and uncaught.

So, in other words, you have nothing to distinguish him from M.J. Druitt, Sir William Gull, Booth, Barnett, Maybrick, the local Vicar, Frederick Charrington, etc etc, or any other random person that we can similarly claim was a psychopath but who 'stayed below the radar.'

Oh yes - I distinguish him from those men by having been found alone with a Riper victim that was still bleeding. He is a REAL suspect in terms of police investigation work. The rest are not. None of them are disclosed as psychopaths. Any of them who was the Ripper WAS a psychopath, though.

Ripperologists love to name this or that person as 'the Ripper.' Few like to actually point to people with a known history of psychopathic behavior, be it Ostrog, Deeming, Cream, Tumblety, etc.

I would positively love to point to any psychopath who had as much going for him practically as Lechmere has. I have nothing at all against psychopathic suspects but I want them to be practically and physically linked to the case.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #860  
Old 12-19-2018, 09:13 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,238
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
If you're a psychopath at night, you're also a psychopath at the breakfast table.

It's hard-wired; you can't turn it on and off like a hot water tap.

So, it seems to me, if you want to argue your suspect is a psychopath, then you need to show some empirical evidence for it--a history of violent, criminal, or irrational and antisocial behavior.

Anything. Even a whisper.

Since you can't do this, Fish, you respond by saying that he was 'successfully sinister.' He stayed below the radar. He was never identified as this lying, cheating, person.

So, in other words, you have nothing to distinguish him from M.J. Druitt, Sir William Gull, Booth, Barnett, Maybrick, the local Vicar, Frederick Charrington, etc etc, or any other random person that we can similarly claim was a psychopath but who 'stayed below the radar.'

Ripperologists love to name this or that person as 'the Ripper.' Few like to actually point to people with a known history of psychopathic behavior, be it Ostrog, Deeming, Cream, Tumblety, etc.
theyve all been ruled out except tumble buns
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
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 01:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.