Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: In the end it doesn't matter if Mizen misunderstood what he was told or willfully misrepresented what he was told. The result is the same: The Mizen Scam didn't happen.

Very true - if we leave out the possibility that he was speaking the truth, then the scam did not happen. If. I for one would never do that. I would think it treacherous to the sources to make such an omission. Other must do as they see fit, and live with it.

David Orsam may well be right. Personally, I subscribe to the view that Mizen said was he said as a result of the Lloyd's statement by Paul. To my way of thinking the statement, whether massaged or crafted by Lloyd's or directly from Paul's lips, was an attack piece on the Met. The timing of Mizen's testimony as well as the fact that Neil testified that he'd found the body without mention of Paul and Cross indicates - to me - that the first Mizen's superiors heard about the encounter in Baker's Row was when it appeared in Lloyd's. Thus, Mizen testified as he did primarily to blunt it's effect (both on himself and his employer, the Metropolitan Police).

He knew as he took the stand that if he lied, he would be contradicted by Lechmere, testifying after him. That is not blunting the effects - it is asking for them, together with a dismissal from the police corps. So my money is very firmly on him telling the truth.
Inventing a scenario where he was a worthless copper, ready to try and lie his way out, kind of stumbles on the two facts that he acted according to his testimony when he did not gainsay Neil and that he would set himself up for a dismissal from the police if he blatantly lied and was gainsaid by Lechmere and Paul.

For me, it's not an article that drives a killer from hiding to risk his life, rushing off to tell lies about policemen at inquests. It's a direct critique of a police organization that had - and would continue to be - under heavy criticism for their perceived ineffectiveness in apprehending the individual(s) responsible for Millwood, Wilson, Smith, and Tabram.

... involving a passage effectively saying "by the way, there was a man standing where the dead body of Polly Nichols lay, and I have no idea how long he had been there for".
And THAT is an article that drives a killer from hiding, especially since Mizen - and most likely Paul - were perfectly able to ID him. It should be perfectly obvious to anybody that he was in line for becoming the prime suspect.

But why are we doing this again? Why go through it all again? We have positioned ourselves firmly on our fix points ages ago, and not a iot has changed. So why?

[Fisherman]

As the clock chimes midnight the reasonable gentleman ripperologist melts away and the ranting Lechmere zealot returns!?

You mean, you turn back into Rainbow?



It's always a pleasure, Christer.

Thatīs good to hear, Henry. I am quite the fan of your measured thinking and posting, if that makes any difference.

If it doesnīt, I can perhaps do you the service of never again mentioning it?

[Fisherman]

While we all seem to accept she was covered intentionally it just a big assumption,let's remember the clothing was not cut, and maybe he did work under it by feel, the coroner seemed to consider it a possibility, so maybe it just fell like it did when the killer left.

Actually I think it probably was covered intentionally. But who knows we could all be making assumptions.
Reason- I go with Henry.

Steve

The difference between the phantom killer and Lechmere is that the phantom had much more of a stretch to cover. Lechmere could very silently and gently put his feet to the ground, backing off two steps, and he would literally be in the middle of the street. The phantom killer needed to scuttle down past the school building - at least - and in a hurry too, as Lechmere drew nearer.

As for the covered up wounds, I note that you agree that it was probably intentional.

And if it was, what do you conclude from it? Why leave the others on display but cover up Nichols?

If it was unintentional and he worked under the clothing - then thereīs the next why? He did not do so otherwise.

There is always a reason, groundbreaking or mundane.

Finally, of course: what reason is there to think that someone else did it? Before we can embrace that suggestion fully, we must rule Lechmere out. If we donīt, we are left with him being the prime suspect in the murder of Mary Ann Nichols, like it or not. No other person can take on that role, based on the case evidence.
So itīs a question of pointing NOT to Lechmereīs possible innocence, but instead to his logically established, evidence-based innocence.

I think it is fair to say that the noose will stay around his neck until further notice. But we cannot kick the stool out from underneath him yet.

[Elamarna]

The difference between the phantom killer and Lechmere is that the phantom had much more of a stretch to cover. Lechmere could very silently and gently put his feet to the ground, backing off two steps, and he would literally be in the middle of the street. The phantom killer needed to scuttle down past the school building - at least - and in a hurry too, as Lechmere drew nearer.

It's more like 3 steps

A hurry is a relative term. If he heard him enter the street plenty of time to slip away, don't see it as an issue at all.
Maybe Lech was singing as he entered Bucks Row - "MACK THE KNIFE" would have been perfect; if half a century out.

As for the covered up wounds, I note that you agree that it was probably intentional.

Main because it's the common assumption, but am open to other suggestions

And if it was, what do you conclude from it? Why leave the others on display but cover up Nichols?

Because he was disturbed, he was still evolving could be any number of reasons.

If it was unintentional and he worked under the clothing - then thereīs the next why? He did not do so otherwise.
There is always a reason, groundbreaking or mundane.


Learning, skills evolving. Realised he had more control by fully exposing.



Finally, of course: what reason is there to think that someone else did it? Before we can embrace that suggestion fully, we must rule Lechmere out. If we donīt, we are left with him being the prime suspect in the murder of Mary Ann Nichols, like it or not. No other person can take on that role, based on the case evidence.


That is where we still part company, suspect? possibly but so far not convinced. Prime suspect? Not by a long way.

So itīs a question of pointing NOT to Lechmereīs possible innocence, but instead to his logically established, evidence-based innocence.

You see Fish, I am old school. Innocent til proved guilty, don't go in for this he has to prove himself, in my view it those who believe he is guilty who need to prove that.

I think it is fair to say that the noose will stay around his neck until further notice. But we cannot kick the stool out from underneath him yet.

No I think you may have him under close surveillance, but he's not even charged yet, let alone sent to trial.

Steve

[Rainbow]

He will say:

"I suppose you think you are clever because you are going to hang me,' and he will try to repeat. 'But because you are to hang me you are not to get anything out of me.'

But this time, We got everything out of him , we knew he was Jack the Ripper and the Torso killer too!

[Henry Flower]

The difference between the phantom killer and Lechmere is that the phantom had much more of a stretch to cover. Lechmere could very silently and gently put his feet to the ground, backing off two steps, and he would literally be in the middle of the street. The phantom killer needed to scuttle down past the school building - at least - and in a hurry too, as Lechmere drew nearer.

As for the covered up wounds, I note that you agree that it was probably intentional.

And if it was, what do you conclude from it? Why leave the others on display but cover up Nichols?

If it was unintentional and he worked under the clothing - then thereīs the next why? He did not do so otherwise.

There is always a reason, groundbreaking or mundane.

Finally, of course: what reason is there to think that someone else did it? Before we can embrace that suggestion fully, we must rule Lechmere out. If we donīt, we are left with him being the prime suspect in the murder of Mary Ann Nichols, like it or not. No other person can take on that role, based on the case evidence.
So itīs a question of pointing NOT to Lechmereīs possible innocence, but instead to his logically established, evidence-based innocence.

I think it is fair to say that the noose will stay around his neck until further notice. But we cannot kick the stool out from underneath him yet.

Try telling that to Rainbow, who has tightened the noose, kicked the stool out, and is currently tugging down on Lech's ankles with all his/her strength, crying, "Die, murderer, die!"

There is always something commendable in what you say, Christer - you're not accusing Toulouse-Lautrec's doctor, or Vincent Van Gogh, or Walter Sickert, or Prince Eddie's proctologist - you're saying there's a case to answer concerning an unremarkable nobody who was very definitely at the scene of the crime with a possibly still-living victim, among other interesting circumstances.

Something that I often wish I had time to research is the subsequent lives of Cross, Diemschutz, PC Watkins. Why? I've often been struck by the story of Bruce Jones, once an actor in the long-running soap Coronation St, who had the deep misfortune to discover the most hideously mutilated corpse left by Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper. Bruce Jones amassed a fortune as an actor, but never managed to overcome the depression and alcoholism that he blamed at least partly on the terrible thing he had seen. He is currently a bankrupt living on welfare.

And I often wonder, were our Victorian forebears simply made of tougher stuff than I would be, or did Thomas Bowyer, for example, find his life blighted by the macabre satanic nightmare he glimpsed through that curtain?

If he was a witness merely, Cross seems to have been untroubled by what he found - probably because he actually didn't see the extent of the injuries. If he was indeed the killer, maybe we wouldn't expect from him any more abnormality in later life than we saw from someone like Dennis Rader.

(Apologies if this is off-topic, but I concur with Steve - it is useless to discuss in circles medical evidence without medical expertise, especially with someone who thinks there is nothing more to discuss anyway, and has resorted to mere assertion and reassertion.)

[Henry Flower]

Incidentally, Christer - phantom killer hears Cross approach in the distance. Quickly rearranges her clothes and stands up: 1 to 2 seconds. Time needed to disappear around the corner of the school building with head down, sticking close to the wall, walking quietly but quickly - 6 or 7 seconds. And that's a fact. I've timed it myself at the very spot.

The 'phantom' COULD be out of sight very easily and quickly. If you weren't looking for him you might well not see him from the other end of Bucks Row.

It's not as if JtR is well known for having been seen and nearly caught on many occasions, after all. He is generally thought of in the popular imagination as being a phantom killer precisely because he just seemed to be able to disappear without trace leaving next to no clues to his actual existence save a bleeding corpse.

What I'd like is to get 10 medical experts, give them the facts, and ask them what they think of the timing in this instance.

But I'm not sure it would enable us to reach a definitive conclusion.

What we really need is cctv.

[Fisherman]

No I think you may have him under close surveillance, but he's not even charged yet, let alone sent to trial.

Steve

You donīt have to be charged or on trial to be the prime suspect, Steve.

[Patrick S]

But why are we doing this again? Why go through it all again? We have positioned ourselves firmly on our fix points ages ago, and not a iot has changed. So why?

It's for the people.

[Elamarna]

You donīt have to be charged or on trial to be the prime suspect, Steve.

I know, however I wasn't linking the two Fish, the trial comment was in response to the noose comment.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Incidentally, Christer - phantom killer hears Cross approach in the distance. Quickly rearranges her clothes and stands up: 1 to 2 seconds. Time needed to disappear around the corner of the school building with head down, sticking close to the wall, walking quietly but quickly - 6 or 7 seconds. And that's a fact. I've timed it myself at the very spot.

The 'phantom' COULD be out of sight very easily and quickly. If you weren't looking for him you might well not see him from the other end of Bucks Row.

It's not as if JtR is well known for having been seen and nearly caught on many occasions, after all. He is generally thought of in the popular imagination as being a phantom killer precisely because he just seemed to be able to disappear without trace leaving next to no clues to his actual existence save a bleeding corpse.

What I'd like is to get 10 medical experts, give them the facts, and ask them what they think of the timing in this instance.

But I'm not sure it would enable us to reach a definitive conclusion.

What we really need is cctv.

I could think of a handful of other scenarios where the phantom killer did it - and got away with it.

But the more interesting thing is that we have no indication whatsoever that there WAS a phantom killer, whereas we have Lechmere firmly pinned down right by the murder spot at a time that is perfectly consistent with him having been the killer. Not only that, we know that a PC - who was discerning enough to even look for coagulation in the blood - said that Nicholsī blood was still running from her neck many minutes (reasonably no less than six or seven) after Lechmere had left the body, and we have a witness speaking about how the chest gave away some kind of movement as he examined the body a minute or so after the period when she MAY have been cut by Lechmere.

We also have the odd fact that the wounds in the abdomen were hidden from sight as Lechmere led Paul to the body.

We also have the odd fact that the man who initiated the samaritan programme by the body, actually refused to help prop the body up when asked to do so by the person whose assistance he had called for.

We also have the odd fact that Lechmere used the name Cross at the inquest, meaning that he suddenly altered his habit to use the name Lechmere when dealing with authorities.

We also have the odd fact that Lechmere actually disagreed with the police over what was said on the murder night.

We also have the odd fact that the PC he spoke to claimed that he said something that was tailormade to take him past the police.

As you know, there are other anomalies too.

Taken together, in a choice between the phantom killer and Lechmere, we MUST be able to clear Lechmere before we have a reason to assume that there was a phantom killer at all. Can we do that? No.

So much as we can all produce scenarios where the phantom dunī it, we canīt produce any phantom. And we canīt absolve Lechmere in any way at all.

The question I am asking is why we would NOT regard Lechmere as the prime suspect? It really is not damning as such - if we can produce the goods to clear him.

Steve is hinting at how there may be reason to think that Lechmere was further removed from the site as Nichols was murdered than "some" (I feel a tingling down my spine there) will have it. Or want to believe. Or whatever. Weīll see what he backs this up with. If anything.

This is the bottom line: If, in a murder case with a prime suspect, we can introduce doubt that this prime suspect must have been the killer, then the suspect must go free. Legally speaking, that is.

And thatīs where I feel we are with Lechmere; he must go free until further notice, because there IS reasonable doubt.

But that does not mean that he does not remain the prime suspect in the Nichols murder. He does. And rightly so. But people - a lot of them - absolutely HATE that idea. Which is weird - many people who have been prime suspects have subsequently been cleared. It is a status based on cold case facts, not a verdict. It may or may not be justified. But it is nevertheless important as a research tool. It would mean that if this was an ongoing investigation, the bulk of the work shuld revolve around trying to clear Lechmere, or - if that cannot be done - make as strong a case as possible against him.

[Scott Nelson]

Christer,

Do you ever correspond with Derek F. Osborne?

[Patrick S]

I could think of a handful of other scenarios where the phantom killer did it - and got away with it.

But the more interesting thing is that we have no indication whatsoever that there WAS a phantom killer, whereas we have Lechmere firmly pinned down right by the murder spot at a time that is perfectly consistent with him having been the killer. Not only that, we know that a PC - who was discerning enough to even look for coagulation in the blood - said that Nicholsī blood was still running from her neck many minutes (reasonably no less than six or seven) after Lechmere had left the body, and we have a witness speaking about how the chest gave away some kind of movement as he examined the body a minute or so after the period when she MAY have been cut by Lechmere.

We also have the odd fact that the wounds in the abdomen were hidden from sight as Lechmere led Paul to the body.

We also have the odd fact that the man who initiated the samaritan programme by the body, actually refused to help prop the body up when asked to do so by the person whose assistance he had called for.

We also have the odd fact that Lechmere used the name Cross at the inquest, meaning that he suddenly altered his habit to use the name Lechmere when dealing with authorities.

We also have the odd fact that Lechmere actually disagreed with the police over what was said on the murder night.

We also have the odd fact that the PC he spoke to claimed that he said something that was tailormade to take him past the police.

As you know, there are other anomalies too.

Taken together, in a choice between the phantom killer and Lechmere, we MUST be able to clear Lechmere before we have a reason to assume that there was a phantom killer at all. Can we do that? No.

So much as we can all produce scenarios where the phantom dunī it, we canīt produce any phantom. And we canīt absolve Lechmere in any way at all.

The question I am asking is why we would NOT regard Lechmere as the prime suspect? It really is not damning as such - if we can produce the goods to clear him.

Steve is hinting at how there may be reason to think that Lechmere was further removed from the site as Nichols was murdered than "some" (I feel a tingling down my spine there) will have it. Or want to believe. Or whatever. Weīll see what he backs this up with. If anything.

This is the bottom line: If, in a murder case with a prime suspect, we can introduce doubt that this prime suspect must have been the killer, then the suspect must go free. Legally speaking, that is.

And thatīs where I feel we are with Lechmere; he must go free until further notice, because there IS reasonable doubt.

But that does not mean that he does not remain the prime suspect in the Nichols murder. He does. And rightly so. But people - a lot of them - absolutely HATE that idea. Which is weird - many people who have been prime suspects have subsequently been cleared. It is a status based on cold case facts, not a verdict. It may or may not be justified. But it is nevertheless important as a research tool. It would mean that if this was an ongoing investigation, the bulk of the work shuld revolve around trying to clear Lechmere, or - if that cannot be done - make as strong a case as possible against him.

So.....are you calling anyone other than your man a 'phantom killer'? That's somewhat....um.....misleading. Don't you think?

[Fisherman]

I know, however I wasn't linking the two Fish, the trial comment was in response to the noose comment.


Steve

Yes, well - Lechmere is long dead. I have stood on his grave, roughly speaking. The noose I am speaking of is a metaphorical one, but I think you have that figured already!

[Fisherman]

So.....are you calling anyone other than your man a 'phantom killer'? That's somewhat....um.....misleading. Don't you think?

No, not in the least. He is a suggested entity who nobody knows if he ever existed, a figment of imagination. If he is ever proven to have existed, he seizes to be a phantom killer. If not, that status remains.