Proposed modification to Lechmere's route to work

[Mark J D]

... If he was that worried about RP leaving the woman immediately to chase and catch him, he was the one with the sharp knife! Which presumably he'd have used at the scene if RP had seen the extent of the injuries and become suspicious.

That suggestion raises an interesting question: to what extent do serial killers -- especially those who murder subsistence sex workers who are sleeping / terminally ill / drunk -- put up a fight when discovered or apprehended? I'm not a 'true crime' buff; but I remember a few specimens like Sutcliffe -- who went meekly off with two coppers after that badly conducted traffic stop: no violence against the men arresting him, and no hollywood-style holding a knife to the hostage's throat in a tense stand-off... Compare the rampage-killers we hear about, whose mass shootings end by way of a gunfight with cops and a sudden suicide...

M.

[Gary Barnett]

But that makes no logical sense, Christer. He had no need to run. He could have walked briskly on to work, leaving RP to notice the woman and go for help. How would Lechmere have been 'chased down and captured', given that RP didn't realise the woman had been violently attacked and killed, even when his attention was actively drawn to the body?

The better argument might be that Lechmere got off on the thrill of staying put and fooling people, with the bloody knife still on his person, and forfeiting a potentially strong alibi was worth it.

If he was that worried about RP leaving the woman immediately to chase and catch him, he was the one with the sharp knife! Which presumably he'd have used at the scene if RP had seen the extent of the injuries and become suspicious.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

How could he have been sure that Paul wouldn’t have suspected that the woman had been attacked, having seen a man walk/run/saunter away from the body?

Gary

[Caroline Brown]

I think we would end up in between if Lechmere had tried to run and been chased down and captured: we would never have heard the name Cross, but we WOULD have heard the name Lechmere.

But that makes no logical sense, Christer. He had no need to run. He could have walked briskly on to work, leaving RP to notice the woman and go for help. How would Lechmere have been 'chased down and captured', given that RP didn't realise the woman had been violently attacked and killed, even when his attention was actively drawn to the body?

The better argument might be that Lechmere got off on the thrill of staying put and fooling people, with the bloody knife still on his person, and forfeiting a potentially strong alibi was worth it.

If he was that worried about RP leaving the woman immediately to chase and catch him, he was the one with the sharp knife! Which presumably he'd have used at the scene if RP had seen the extent of the injuries and become suspicious.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mark J D]

... if Lechmere had tried to run and been chased down and captured...

I'm not personally convinced that the interior lighting was so terrific at Paul's house that his eyes were 'still adjusting to the dark' at 03:45; but it is amusing to imagine -- just for fun! -- that since Lechmere had been walking for a lot longer, he could have seen Paul approaching ... and wrongly assumed that Paul could see him equally well...

M.

[Christer Holmgren]

Hi All,

I would personally see no problem with JtR attacking a victim just fifteen minutes before he was due at work, as this would have given him a fairly robust alibi if needed, particularly given the difficulties with establishing accurate times for the various events related to each of the murders. I see this as something a street wise serial killer would have had in mind and planned for if he was striking between his other commitments, either at home or work.

But I would have more of a problem with JtR throwing away such a strong potential alibi that morning, by allowing a witness - a stranger who could have been anyone - to put him at the scene with his earliest, or one of his earliest victims, when he could have left that person to come across the dead woman on his own, while he was busy distancing himself and getting as near as physically possible to his place of work. By the time Robert Paul had found the nearest policeman, and it was realised that the woman was not simply drunk or sleeping rough, but had just been brutally murdered, JtR could have clocked on and begun his duties, and nobody would ever have heard the names Cross or Lechmere in connection with the series.

[Spare me the objections, Christer and Ed, as I could probably recite them all by now!]

Love,

Caz
X

I think we would end up in between if Lechmere had tried to run and been chased down and captured: we would never have heard the name Cross, but we WOULD have heard the name Lechmere.

[Caroline Brown]

Hi All,

I would personally see no problem with JtR attacking a victim just fifteen minutes before he was due at work, as this would have given him a fairly robust alibi if needed, particularly given the difficulties with establishing accurate times for the various events related to each of the murders. I see this as something a street wise serial killer would have had in mind and planned for if he was striking between his other commitments, either at home or work.

But I would have more of a problem with JtR throwing away such a strong potential alibi that morning, by allowing a witness - a stranger who could have been anyone - to put him at the scene with his earliest, or one of his earliest victims, when he could have left that person to come across the dead woman on his own, while he was busy distancing himself and getting as near as physically possible to his place of work. By the time Robert Paul had found the nearest policeman, and it was realised that the woman was not simply drunk or sleeping rough, but had just been brutally murdered, JtR could have clocked on and begun his duties, and nobody would ever have heard the names Cross or Lechmere in connection with the series.

[Spare me the objections, Christer and Ed, as I could probably recite them all by now!]

Love,

Caz
X

[Christer Holmgren]

Typical condescending waffle from a man who conveniently left out the word ‘about’ so that he could create a mysterious gap of time and so make Lechmere appear suspicious when he clearly wasn’t. I’m long past being concerned about your condescending, self-serving nonsense. There’s an blatantly obvious difference between killing whilst undertaking a convenient type of job (like Sutcliffe) and butchering a prostitute with only 15 minutes to get to work. At least you be happy that Lechmere appears to have been the only serial killer in history to have done this.

Im done with your biased nonsense Fish. Don’t bother responding. Save it for the gullible.

And you speak of a cop out on my behalf…? I don’ t think for a moment that you are done with my ”nonsense”. You have a noble battle to pursue against my bias, my dabbling with times, my misleadings and sinister bamboozling. Who shall lead that battle against the dark forces if not you?

That is right, is it not? Or ’about’ right.

Get some rest and get that blood down now, and I’ ll see you tomorrow.

[Michael Banks]

Then why is it that serial killers have killed at work, Michael? Very clearly, you logic tells you that it is silly to kill en route to work, and that it gets sillier the closer in time to arriving at work the suggested suspect is. Therefore, it would be beyond silly to kill at work according to your logic. And nevertheless, we have examples of it. How extremely silly!

The plain and simple truth is that serial killing has a large element of opportunism involved in it. Ridgway did not decide on a victim only to then go looking for her. Nor did Bundy. They both took the opportunities that arrived. In Lechmeres case, he walked to work alone, in empty and dark streets, where the women he came across were likely to be prostitutes with no company, vulnerable women, ready and willing to go with him to secluded places.
Nobody would come up with the idea that such a setting is anything but bliss for a serial killer. I hope you can see that much.
We do not know when Lechmere left home. If he was the killer, he could easily have added time to his morning trek, allowing for seeking out victims and doing away with them. That too is a very advantageous thing for a serial killer, and nobody is going to deny it. Well, maybe you want to have a try, but I would very much advice against it.

So what remains of your criticism? As I understand it nothing - unless you can prove that it carried great risk to enter Pickfords in the darkness at four o clock after having killed. Can you do that, Michael?

Do you know the circumstances under which this took place?

Do you know how many - if any - people he consorted with at this stage?

Do you know to what - if any - degree he would have had blood visible on his person as he entered Pickfords?

I will answer these three questions for you: No, no and no. Correct me if I am wrong. You can of course speculate that he passed through a well lit hall, where two hundred fellow carmen checked him for blood or that he was sprayed with luminol at the entrance. You can claim that he must have been bloodied from tip to toe. You can make any outrageous claim you like. But you cannot prove it in any case. Or even make a persuasive case for it.

The thing is, you dont have an idea about what applied in these respects. And therefore, you have no reason to call the suggestion silly. You have a RIGHT to do so, as we all have - I have the right to call your support for Druitt mindnumbingly idiotic. But I do not have a reason to do so - yet. I only have a reason to call it a doubtful support that has grown even more doubtful with the latest cricket news.

So that is it. I have a very good case, you don’ t like that and you went way too far trying to criticise it, concluding from ignorance instead of the available facts. Try and avoid such things in the future, or they will come back an bite you in your behind.

Typical condescending waffle from a man who conveniently left out the word ‘about’ so that he could create a mysterious gap of time and so make Lechmere appear suspicious when he clearly wasn’t. I’m long past being concerned about your condescending, self-serving nonsense. There’s an blatantly obvious difference between killing whilst undertaking a convenient type of job (like Sutcliffe) and butchering a prostitute with only 15 minutes to get to work. At least you be happy that Lechmere appears to have been the only serial killer in history to have done this.

Im done with your biased nonsense Fish. Don’t bother responding. Save it for the gullible.

[Christer Holmgren]

A very obvious cop out.

The chances of someone butchering a prostitute in the street when he’s 15 minutes from clocking in time is very close to silly.

Then why is it that serial killers have killed at work, Michael? Very clearly, you logic tells you that it is silly to kill en route to work, and that it gets sillier the closer in time to arriving at work the suggested suspect is. Therefore, it would be beyond silly to kill at work according to your logic. And nevertheless, we have examples of it. How extremely silly!

The plain and simple truth is that serial killing has a large element of opportunism involved in it. Ridgway did not decide on a victim only to then go looking for her. Nor did Bundy. They both took the opportunities that arrived. In Lechmeres case, he walked to work alone, in empty and dark streets, where the women he came across were likely to be prostitutes with no company, vulnerable women, ready and willing to go with him to secluded places.
Nobody would come up with the idea that such a setting is anything but bliss for a serial killer. I hope you can see that much.
We do not know when Lechmere left home. If he was the killer, he could easily have added time to his morning trek, allowing for seeking out victims and doing away with them. That too is a very advantageous thing for a serial killer, and nobody is going to deny it. Well, maybe you want to have a try, but I would very much advice against it.

So what remains of your criticism? As I understand it nothing - unless you can prove that it carried great risk to enter Pickfords in the darkness at four o clock after having killed. Can you do that, Michael?

Do you know the circumstances under which this took place?

Do you know how many - if any - people he consorted with at this stage?

Do you know to what - if any - degree he would have had blood visible on his person as he entered Pickfords?

I will answer these three questions for you: No, no and no. Correct me if I am wrong. You can of course speculate that he passed through a well lit hall, where two hundred fellow carmen checked him for blood or that he was sprayed with luminol at the entrance. You can claim that he must have been bloodied from tip to toe. You can make any outrageous claim you like. But you cannot prove it in any case. Or even make a persuasive case for it.

The thing is, you dont have an idea about what applied in these respects. And therefore, you have no reason to call the suggestion silly. You have a RIGHT to do so, as we all have - I have the right to call your support for Druitt mindnumbingly idiotic. But I do not have a reason to do so - yet. I only have a reason to call it a doubtful support that has grown even more doubtful with the latest cricket news.

So that is it. I have a very good case, you don’ t like that and you went way too far trying to criticise it, concluding from ignorance instead of the available facts. Try and avoid such things in the future, or they will come back an bite you in your behind.

[Michael Banks]

Very obviously, there is no instance that keeps tabs over the time gap between serial killers strikes and their working hours. Personally, I would say that the odds for a question like this varies with the circumstances involved. If those circumstances involve a likelihood to stay undetected, then as far as I can see, it poses no problem at all. In Lechmeres case, we do not know the circumstances. It could have involved problems, or it could have been problem free. Plus, of course, serial murder always comes with some level of risk.
To me, it is an invented problem only until it can be otherwise proven.

Maybe it is logical enough; when no factual problem is around, we invent substitutes as best as we can.

A very obvious cop out.

The chances of someone butchering a prostitute in the street when he’s 15 minutes from clocking in time is very close to silly.

[Michael Banks]

Fish... I mean Christer
Mr Banks is just trying to get revenge for you saying that statistically serial killers don't committed suicide unless they have been apprehended and for saying that statistically male gay serial killers seldom become sex lust killers of women.
Talking of chess, in his imagination he has check mated you with this thing about 15 minutes before Lechmere's work - as a finesse, a riposte - but that is purely in his imagination.

’Revenge?’

A perfect example of how this case has become a crusade for someone like you. Instead of approaching the subject reasonably you allow your transparent Lechmere obsession to colour your judgment leading you to try and place people in camps like football supporters so that you can project your own bias onto them.

I think Druitt an interesting suspect. I mildly favour him of the named suspects but think it likelier that the killer has yet to be named.

You on the other hand are convinced that it’s game over and Lechmere is the man.

So, general question……on the face of it who is the likelier to have bias on this subject?

Shall we take a vote?

[Michael Banks]

I don't know why you are so incredulous Mr Banks - and I'm not a fish.
The 'what other option did he have' makes 100% sense - and self evidently would to any 'normal' person. So by my reckoning it is not in the least unlikely. Whether or not the word unlikely looms in your conversations, has no relevance.

Serial killers and indeed criminals frequently commit crimes near where they live as the proximity creates degree of comfort. They tend not to stray to areas where they are unknown as they don't know what to expect around the corner.
That is why 'unknown local man' is so popular as the culprit. Its just that Lechmere was that man.
Druitt's distance from the East End is one of the many blots against his suspect status. You not accepting this changes nothing.

‘Normal’ person? Nice. Another person who takes leave of their senses and resort to personal digs when discussing this subject.

Any ‘normal’ person could see the point that I was making and anyone who had read previous posts on here but mainly Casebook would understand. Over the last few years Christer has regular provided examples from serial killer history to make a point (and there’s very obviously nothing wrong with that) But I’ve asked the question that I asked earlier numerous times over on Casebook and have been greeted with a silence. Not one single response. So I’ll try to be as specific as I can to eliminate the possibility (or I should say ‘probability’) that you or Fish will answer a completely different one. This was always a reasonable request and it long pre-dated the Druitt discussion by the way.

In the interests of comparison and to make the assessment of likelihood easier (as is done with many other aspects of the case)

1. How many serial killers do we know who murdered and mutilated a woman around 15 minutes or so before they were due to ‘clock on’ for work? Not ‘whilst at work,’ not ‘on the same day,’ ‘not the day before’ but 15 minutes before. Now, as I’ve said before, if there are examples then fine.

2. How many serial killers do we know who killed and mutilated a woman at a spot that he probably passed most days on the way to work (and please don’t say that he too a different route to work every day)

3. And, as you believe that he met her elsewhere we might add, how many serial killers met a victim in an area where they had no direct connection but then bought her to a spot that they did have a connection to, to kill and mutilate her.

[Mark J D]

... Spitalfields unfortunates started dropping like flies...

-- Can I just point out that that's flyist? People use flies as some kind of metaphor for fragility and mortality, when flies are in fact among the most successful and resilient species ever.

Just thought I'd point that out... Probably belongs in another thread...

M.

[Christer Holmgren]

Fish... I mean Christer
Mr Banks is just trying to get revenge for you saying that statistically serial killers don't committed suicide unless they have been apprehended and for saying that statistically male gay serial killers seldom become sex lust killers of women.
Talking of chess, in his imagination he has check mated you with this thing about 15 minutes before Lechmere's work - as a finesse, a riposte - but that is purely in his imagination.

I don´t think so. Since there is no earlier example of a case of someone getting back at somebody else for having said that serial killers are unlikely to commit suicide and that homosexual serial killers predominantly prey on members of their own sex, by way of claiming that no serial killer is at all likely to kill en route to work, your suggestion is actually more than a tad illogical.

Precedents first, Edward. Always precedents first.

[Edward Stow]

Fish... I mean Christer
Mr Banks is just trying to get revenge for you saying that statistically serial killers don't committed suicide unless they have been apprehended and for saying that statistically male gay serial killers seldom become sex lust killers of women.
Talking of chess, in his imagination he has check mated you with this thing about 15 minutes before Lechmere's work - as a finesse, a riposte - but that is purely in his imagination.