So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel?

[Batman]

Double post.

[Batman]

This is what the main suspects in the case all have in common. Their targets and what they did to them demonstrates these are traits to be expected of JtR.

All Cross ever demonstrates is the opposite. That he cared enough about them to try to help one that we know about.

[Fisherman]

This is what the main suspects in the case all have in common. Their targets and what they did to them demonstrates these are traits to be expected of JtR.

All Cross ever demonstrates is the opposite. That he cared enough about them to try to help one that we know about.

That brings tears to my eyes, I´m sure, Batman. But I fear the approach as such is worthless.

For it to be a decisive matter for the killer to have been violent, you must prove that all serial killers have a record of violence when they are caught.

You cannot do that, since some of them don´t.

Furthermore, we can of course ask any aquaintance of any serial killer caught today about whether the serial killer has been violent or not. How do you propose that we should be able to do that in Lechmere´s case? Any ideas?

There is also the question of how domestic violence was regarded in 1888 versus today. Do you really believe that if Lechmere was violent towards his wife, it would be on record? If so, think again.

In fact, this is a point that is often brought up. It is a worthless parameter since we can´t check it and since we cannot show that serialists must have a record of violence before they can go ahead with their serialist careers.
So I´m afraid I am sending you to where I have directed you before - back to the drawing board. You have to come up with something else to diminish the carman´s candidacy. The old "we don´t know that he was violent" card cannot be played. I don´t know if you heard it before, but Robert Ressler of the FBI, the founding father of criminal profiling (you must be pleased to hear that!) said that the archetypical serial killer was a man in his thirties who had a wife, a family and a steady work.
Do you want me to tell you about viwes of serial killers who have all said that the man they knew was a very good man? I´m game: Ridgway, Armstrong, Kürten...

Shall I go on?

No, Batman, if this is all you have to bring to the table, you have effectively nothing. The sooner you understand that, the better.

I would also like to know how you conclude that the Ripper was a misogynist. How do you know that? Do all serial killers hate the people they kill as such?

[Batman]

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-charles-cross.html

This article was published in 2006 and 12 years later Lechmere advocates just rehash most of that's article contents with nothing much new, especially in terms of him being JtR.

One would almost think they try to do as little research on Cross as possible. I wonder why the burden of proof is always shifted to show he wasn't JtR?

From what I can tell, all that has happened is more details on relatives and information turning up that Cross used his surname Cross elsewhere and therefore giving the name Charles Cross, isn't as sinister as some try to make it out to be.

To go from a man who we have evidence of trying to help an unfortunate in distress, to a serial killer who actually wants to kill them, is quite a leap... and there is nothing about the character of Cross to suggest that at all... unlike ALL the other major suspects.

[Fisherman]

https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...les-cross.html

This article was published in 2006 and 12 years later Lechmere advocates just rehash most of that's article contents with nothing much new, especially in terms of him being JtR.

One would almost think they try to do as little research on Cross as possible. I wonder why the burden of proof is always shifted to show he wasn't JtR?

From what I can tell, all that has happened is more details on relatives and information turning up that Cross used his surname Cross elsewhere and therefore giving the name Charles Cross, isn't as sinister as some try to make it out to be.

To go from a man who we have evidence of trying to help an unfortunate in distress, to a serial killer who actually wants to kill them, is quite a leap... and there is nothing about the character of Cross to suggest that at all... unlike ALL the other major suspects.

Michael Connors dissertation is a groundbreaking one and a very competent opus. He was not the first to point a finger at Lechmere; Derek Osborne preceded him.

I don´t know if you are trying to depress me and Edward Stow and make us feel that we have contributed nothing new at all, but if you are I can only say that it is not only a deplorable thing to do, but also very wrong.

Edward Stow - who found posting out here an exercise in futility, more or less - is a researcher of a calibre that has not many parallels in Ripperology. He has dug up Lechmere´s whole family history and tracked the carman very closely. It has been a mammoth task and to say, the way you do, that what is divulged about Lechmere out here is only rehashing Connors work is rude in the extreme visavi Edward Stow.

Michael Connor was not aware about the true identity of Lechmere as he wrote his piece. Therefore, all that is known about his family and ancestors is something that has been added - not rehashed - during the last few years. There are a lot of other matters that are also new, for example the research into the disagreement between Lechmere and Mizen, plus there are many, many other matters that have been added.

You seem to revel in making mistakes and flaunting a profound ignorance. This matter only goes to highlight that. The idea that the violence evinced by other suspects point to how the Ripper must have been such a man is of course stupid. The suggestions made about these people are based on how their proponents have had a fixed idea abut the character of the killer that may be right or wrong. And of course not all suspects suggested have records of violence, the way you falsely lead on. Suggesting that adds to how you repeatedly prove your lack of knowledge. Robert Mann. Lewis Carroll. Albert Victor. Walter Sickert. Montague Druitt.
Where is the evidence that these men - and a good few others - were given to violence and had records of violent outbursts?

I think this is where our paths part, Batman. There really is no reason to waste time on you any further until you have read up on the case.

[Batman]

In your previous reply you asked what should we do to find out more about him because he is absent of any traits I mentioned.

Now you are suggesting new research has revealed so much more without so much as a link to where to read about this.

Instead you strawman my claims by saying I am attacking the character of people I never mentioned. You certainly can't quote me doing so.

You constantly berate people personally if they dare question this helpful character turned into something nefarious because like thousands of other morning job walker's had to go through Whitechapel. If you had good arguments you wouldn't have to throwing ad-hominems around the place in defence.

So in 12 years what's the biggest piece of new evidence to even suspect him of being JtR?

There is none is there?

[MrBarnett]

It can’t be right that a serial killer’s family and geographical connections are necessarily irrelevant to his crimes can it?

I’ve added a few bits of info to the Lechmere tale myself. No smoking guns, it goes without saying, but equally nothing that undermines what I believe to be the conjectural case against him.

[Fisherman]

It can’t be right that a serial killer’s family and geographical connections are necessarily irrelevant to his crimes can it?

I’ve added a few bits of info to the Lechmere tale myself. No smoking guns, it goes without saying, but equally nothing that undermines what I believe to be the conjectural case against him.

You won´t find me contributing to the discussion visavi Batman anymore, Gary, so I´m glad to see that you are around.

Once a poster goes from ignorant to revealed for ignorance to a lust for revenge and from there on to trolling, I find I have better things to do than to feed the troll.

[Batman]

Wow. He did everything short of calling me Jack the Ripper.

You point out something like 12 years drawing nothing to make this innocent witness into a violent maniac who murdered carelessly on his way to work and get called names.

That's not any form of argument for Lechmere.

[John G]

There is a very good case to be made for Lechmere being responsible for more than a dozen murders. As such, that does not mean that he was responsible for all murders in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Furthermore, there are examples of serial killers who have killed many times as many as a dozen victims.

Could you explain to me why a serial killer in the late nineteenth century could not kill a dozen women, John? And how is it more likely with two or more eviscerating serial killers in the same city and time?

Firstly, Christer, on the crossover, point, I think there are enough differences between Pinchin Street and the other Torso crimes, including the early ones, to categorize this as a crossover Torso murder: lack of evisceration, coroner didn't believe perpetrator had anatomical knowledge, arms not removed from body, not wrapped in fabric or paper.

Secondly, I obviously agree that a serial killer could kill as many as a dozen victims.

Thirdly, two evisceration murderers operating in the same city is obviously very unusual. However, big coincidences sometimes happen: http://archive.westendextra.com/news...-camden-ripper

Fourthly, probability is often misunderstood. For instance, if I throw a coin 99 times and on each occasion it lands on heads, what are the chances that the next throw will also be head? You'll be amazed how many people get that conundrum wrong.

Therefore, if a serial killer, who commits evisceration murders, appears on the streets of London in the late nineteenth century, what are the chances that the next evisceration serial killer will also emerge from London. Well, considering London was the most populous city at the time, higher than any other named city.

I have in the past described the Torso Perpetrator as a defensive dismembered, but I no longer think this is a tenable argument. I now believe that, like Anthony Hardy, he was defensive/offensive.

How rare is this? Well, in the UK, out of over 80 dismemberment murders between 1985 and 2016, only 6 were def/off. However, if we look at Sweden, we get a very different ratio: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...chiatric_study

Lies, damn lies, and statistics as they say.

It's also interesting to note that 6 out of 22 of the Swedish dismemberment crimes involved two people. Food for thought, maybe.

[Fisherman]

John G: Firstly, Christer, on the crossover, point, I think there are enough differences between Pinchin Street and the other Torso crimes, including the early ones, to categorize this as a crossover Torso murder: lack of evisceration, coroner didn't believe perpetrator had anatomical knowledge, arms not removed from body, not wrapped in fabric or paper.

And Hebbert was adamant that the killer was the same in the cases he examined. Whether a body is wrapped in cloth or paper or not isw very secondary to that. In fact, all matters are. She was cut by the same man.

Secondly, I obviously agree that a serial killer could kill as many as a dozen victims.

Well, it´s not as if there was an alternative, is it?

Thirdly, two evisceration murderers operating in the same city is obviously very unusual.

No John, it is unheard of. It´s not "unusual".

However, big coincidences sometimes happen: http://archive.westendextra.com/news...-camden-ripper

Yep. And so that is the only opening there is - if a huge coincidence happened here, it would be two killers. But it is not just the one coincidence, is it? The two evscerators. The flaps. The uteri. The hearts. The cutting from groin to chest. A whole heap of coincidences must be accepted. And I won´t do it. It is so very close to impossible so as to enable us to speak of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Fourthly, probability is often misunderstood. For instance, if I throw a coin 99 times and on each occasion it lands on heads, what are the chances that the next throw will also be head? You'll be amazed how many people get that conundrum wrong.

50-50, John.

Therefore, if a serial killer, who commits evisceration murders, appears on the streets of London in the late nineteenth century, what are the chances that the next evisceration serial killer will also emerge from London. Well, considering London was the most populous city at the time, higher than any other named city.

No other city before or after has had it. And many of those cities are twice the size of London or more. Unheard of. And that must count for something.

I have in the past described the Torso Perpetrator as a defensive dismembered, but I no longer think this is a tenable argument. I now believe that, like Anthony Hardy, he was defensive/offensive.

That was always very clear, John, and I´m glad you got on that train at long last. I know I shouldn´t, but I feel extremely frustrated by such things. Then again, I am elated once they are discarded.
Some will say it was all offensive, but I agree that parts of it were probably not. But I will not make the same calls about what was offensive and what was not as you do, I think. For instance, disarticulating the 1873 victim at the knees and elbows was defensive. Sawing the limbs off at the thighs and shoulders was offensive. I believe the fewest will see how that works...

How rare is this? Well, in the UK, out of over 80 dismemberment murders between 1985 and 2016, only 6 were def/off. However, if we look at Sweden, we get a very different ratio: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...chiatric_study

Lies, damn lies, and statistics as they say.

It's also interesting to note that 6 out of 22 of the Swedish dismemberment crimes involved two people. Food for thought, maybe.

Yes, it is - but I am not hungry for that dish. Overall, the dismemberer is typically a lone perp. Not that I rule out two or more here, I just don´t think it was like that.

[Batman]

if I throw a coin 99 times and on each occasion it lands on heads, what are the chances that the next throw will also be head?

It depends on which statistics model you use. Selection of the right model is important.

The reality is, one would assume the coin isn't a fair coin from that history.

A casino regulator would be very interested in that coin's properties after the odds start to drop less than 1% which is about 7 heads in a row. So after the first 7, the regulator would be alerted.

This is Bayesian inference rather than a frequentist interpretation. We have the experience of prior experiments (99 tosses) to consider. Everything indicates that the incredible low probability is due to the coin being unfair rather than it being a sequence of fair coin tosses.

[Sam Flynn]

Yep. And so that is the only opening there is - if a huge coincidence happened here, it would be two killers. But it is not just the one coincidence, is it? The two evscerators

The torso murders were NOT primarily evisceration murders, either in number or in nature.

If you want to talk about "coincidences", at last make sure you're comparing apples with apples.

[Fisherman]

The torso murders were NOT primarily evisceration murders, either in number or in nature.

If you want to talk about "coincidences", at last make sure you're comparing apples with apples.

I´m not comparing fruit, Gareth. I´m comparing removed abdominal walls with removed abdominal walls, excised uteri with excised uteri, taken out hearts with taken out hearts and people cut from groin to breast with people cut from groin to breast.

Nothing more needs to be said. Nothing more CAN be said. Its just that you say it anyway, and you try to impress upon people that these similarities are not similarities at all. To pull that off, you invent different scenarios and different reasons for the measures taken, although none of us can know that there WERE such differences.

You cannot accept that these are similar matters, and so you try to rearrange them.

That means that you have absolutely no idea what is apples and what is pears here. All you actually know is that the outcome was the same in these instances: lost hearts, lost uteri, lost abdominal walls and large gaping holes in the front of the body.

These are the facts. F-A-C-T-S. The rest is your conjecture. You actually don´t even know whether the torso murders were primarily evisceration murders or not - the Rainham victim lacked heart and lungs, just as Jackson did (and she had these parts "removed"), the Whitehall victim lacked her uterus, the way Jackson did (and the killer was the one who took it out). So at least three of the torso murders MAY have been evisceration murders and one is proven beyond doubt to be so.

But why accept this when you can make up your own truths?

[Harry D]

Levy is thus tenuously tied to Goulston Street. But what about Berner Street, Bucks Row, Mitre Square, Hanbury Street, Dorset Street and George Yard?

You have Lechmere "tied" to Buck's Row and possibly Hanbury Street (depending on TOD). What about the rest? Those are what we call tenuous.

And on how many murder sites was he found standing alone by a victim´s side, a freshly killed victim who was still bleeding?

How many serial killers are found standing alone by a victim's side?