Lechmere The Psychopath

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apologies guys but can I sort out something that's annoying me me once and for all. How does the quote function work?

If, for example, I want to reply to individual points within a quote, do I just click on quote, delete the bits I don't want and type my replies in the gaps? Will that,as I want it to, leave the original quotes shaded but my replies not shaded?

2nd question. What do the other 2 icons do. The one with the quotation marks and the one without.

Sorry but I'm technologically disadvantaged.

Thanks all

Herlock

[Abby Normal]

John G: Well where do I even start with this!

My advice would be NOT to start at all.

I'm sorry but your view on this is getting more and more blinkered.

... and that is why. You are not speaking the truth.

As I'm short on time ill just address a few points. To start with the ritual was not the same as the Torso perpetrator was a dismememberer and JtR wasn't: http://jaapl.org/content/38/2/239.long

WAIT!!! So the dismemberment was now a ritual? That is interesting - you have fervently claimed that it was simply a means to transport the body and to hide the ID of the victim. When did it pass into being a ritual?
The ritual was the exact same in both series, and it had a lot to do with dismemberment - but not in the way you are suggesting. You can find it in the 1873 victim, for example - if you know where to look. Once more, the joints that were easy to cut open and disjoint were sawed through, while the joints that were difficult to cut open and disjoint were not.
Can you see the anomaly here? The killer is well versed in how to disjoint and does it with superior skill. But he CHOOSES not to disjoint at the shoulders and hips, where he saws through the bone instead.

Once you can see what this is about, you will see the ritual involved and you will begin to understand why I keep telling you that the Kelly deed and the 1873 torso deed are twin cases.
My guess is that the penny wonīt drop anytime soon.

The reason didn't fling any victim over his shoulder was because he was a completely different type of killer to Torso, who had no reason to do this as he must have taken his victim 's to a disposal site.

No, the reason Jack did not fling the victims over his shoulder was that he had already dumped them where he killed them. And the sites did not leave any clue to where he lived and worked. When he killed indoors, as the torso killer, he could not leave the bodies in his premises, because that would alert the police to him. In THOSE cases, he needed to dispose of the bodies.
Can you see how that works, even if you donīt ascribe to the suggestion yourself?

Eddowes' face wasn't cut away to prevent identification! If you believe that then you must be getting desperate. As for Kelly, was she decapitated?

The cuts to Eddowes face may have been added to make an ID harder, it is at least a possibility. And why do you move the goalposts for Kelly? I said that her face was so badly messed up and cut away that it could well be a question of making an ID harder - which was what we discussed. Do you or do you not agree that this was so? Do you remember that it was said that even Barnett had a very hard time ID:ing her? Or do you want to change subject instead, now that you have been revealed as worn on this point? Which is it?
As an aside, I am perfectly convinced that neither Eddowesī nor Kellys facial cuts ahd anything at all to do with the killer trying to hide the identitites of his victims. But that is another matter altogether.

And Jackson's uterus wasn't missing-the doctors actually examined it! The foetus may have been missing, although one was subsequently found in the river which may have been Jackson's. In events if the perpetrator did retain the foetus, but not the uterus, that suggests a very different motive to any of the C5 cases.

Dear, oh dear! The uterus was "not missing"? It was taken out and floated down the Thames, inside the two abdominal flaps and together with cord and placenta. "Missing" in the context we are talking about means "taken out of the body". That is why we can see that Jackson, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly all had their abdomens cut open and their uteruses cut out.
The foetus found in the Thames was not Jacksons. And the removal of the foetus suggest no other motive at all than the one present in all C5 cases - one of a ritualistic behavior.

By the bye, there seems to be something missing in this debate too. And it is not because you are cut out to understand it. Excuse the pun.

Hi Fish

You can find it in the 1873 victim, for example - if you know where to look. Once more, the joints that were easy to cut open and disjoint were sawed through, while the joints that were difficult to cut open and disjoint were not.[/B]
Can you see the anomaly here? The killer is well versed in how to disjoint and does it with superior skill. But he CHOOSES not to disjoint at the shoulders and hips, where he saws through the bone instead.

so why did he do it and whats it got to do with his ritual?

[Elamarna]

Relying on a person who is under suspicion for murder and taking his word as better than that of a servig PC is - at the very least - a irresponsible strategy.

One of the reasons you give for him being under superstition, is the conversation with Mizen, and the belief you hold that he lied.

In effect you are presenting a form of circular argument, which to me are rarely convincing.

The same thing again - you distrust Mizen and trust Lechmere. That is a very odd approach.

Actual I do not think it is odd at all. One needs to look at Mizen's testimony/statements as a whole and see if anything stands out, if he is clear in all he says and if his statements are backed by any others.

Of course it goes without saying that the same exercise must be done for both Lechmere and Paul, plus any one uses as comparators for Mizen, which in this case means PC Neil.

It is unclear if the indications - that point straight to Lechmere - are 100 per cent trustworthy, yes. They are only idications. Pointing straight to Lechmere. Nothing else. Well spotted.

The medical indicators Do NOT Point to Lechmere.

In the crucial hour of the murder, no person was seen or heard traversing Bucks Row, and the back streets of the area were generally totally deserted.

In reality no one is seen or heard going along Bucks row, not even Lechmere or Paul. WE are only aware they did because THEY said they did.

Of course Thain reported two persons heading towards Whitechapel road, given his route these surely came from either Dogs Row or Brady Street.

The mysterious passer by was mentioned by the coroner at the inquest, with the police responding they had been unable to locate this person.
There is the person who apparently spoke to Mulshaw, and of course neither Purkiss or Green heard anything, not even Paul and Lechmere or indeed the regular police patrol. Only one local claimed to hear anything at all.

Neil was not heard or seen at 3.15
Paul and Lechmere were not heard or seen, unless by Lilley
Nichols was not heard or seen entering the street.
The attack was not heard (unless by Lilley) or seen
Neil was not heard or seen walking up to the murder site at approx 3.45.

And yet all of these happened, but were not noticed.

In short there is no evidence to support the view the area was deserted.

But hey, that spells trouble for Lechmere, so letīs conjur up a picture where all of London passed through Bucks Row, a regular stampede. Great work there.

And such a comment is really useful in trying to determine the truth without the the prejudice of predetermination.

For information I believe that few people probably used the street between 3 and 4am, however it is impossible to say how many may have, because people were sleeping or just not noticing.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Apologies guys but can I sort out something that's annoying me me once and for all. How does the quote function work?

If, for example, I want to reply to individual points within a quote, do I just click on quote, delete the bits I don't want and type my replies in the gaps? Will that,as I want it to, leave the original quotes shaded but my replies not shaded?



Herlock, you have several options, you can do as you say and mark your replies in bold, to do that just highlight them and click on the "B" in the toolbar of the posting box

or the second method.

Sorry but I'm technologically disadvantaged.

Thanks all

Herlock

you can put the end quote marker, {when you use the quote facility thats the last bit of code in the box , just copy and paste it) after the first section you want to reply to, then just type in your comments, move on to the next bit of the quoted text you want to reply to.
Now copy the original quote marker, from the top of the post, and paste it before that section you want,( it reads something like square bracket, name = a number square bracket.)
when you reach the end of the bit you want to quote put the end quote marker again and so on. the second method while more complicated gives distinct boxes for the quoted text..



hope that helps

steve

[Harry D]

And do you expect witnesses not to use their real names, to disagree with the police over what was said and to refuse prop a woman in need up - a woman, who the witness himmself has drawn attention to?

Only in your whacky world does any of that speak to Lechmere's guilt.

I can tell you, Harry, that if Lechmere was the killer and decided to bluff Paul, he would realistically not run instead of stopping and alerting his fellow carman, and he would not refuse to help find a PC.

That's the point, Fish, Lechmere didn't need to bluff anything out. Paul was trying to avoid him in the street. It was Lechmere who engaged him in conversation and took him over to the body. It's not a Jeffrey Dahmer type situation, where one of his victims had escaped onto the street and Dahmer needed to take control of the situation to save his own skin. Lechmere could've carried on his merry way and disappeared into the shadows. He could even dispose of the murder weapon while he was at it. Instead he approaches an evasive witness and then goes with him to find a policeman!?

Great post, by the way, knowledgeable, insightful and innovative!

(Thereīs another example of how a bluff is performed. This time, I wanted to convince people that I am a friendly poster who much admire your work, whilst all the time, I hold it rather low in regard. Can you see how the ruse works?)

Much like Lechmere's so-called bluff, it wasn't very well thought out, then was it? You could never convince us that you're anything other than a bitter, small-minded individual.

[Observer]

Apologies guys but can I sort out something that's annoying me me once and for all. How does the quote function work?

If, for example, I want to reply to individual points within a quote, do I just click on quote, delete the bits I don't want and type my replies in the gaps? Will that,as I want it to, leave the original quotes shaded but my replies not shaded?

2nd question. What do the other 2 icons do. The one with the quotation marks and the one without.

Sorry but I'm technologically disadvantaged.

Thanks all

Herlock

You were doing okay on the Maybrick thread.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Steve

[Patrick S]

True enough - but it was the overall post that made me wonder. So much the better if there was no agitation!

It would, nevertheless, be nice if you reacted to the gist of my post and not just my suggestion of agitation.

What should I react to? You gave a few "he may haves" and ultimately said you don't know. What else do we have to say on it?

[Patrick S]

Herlock Sholmes:

Maybe Cross could have told someone that he'd thought that Paul's footsteps were a policeman's

That is not very likely, Paul was in a rush, and PC:s are normally walking at a slow, steady pace.

Couldn't they have heard the echo of footsteps from another street but they weren't those of a policeman?

If the DT is correct on the quotation, yes, of course - but the much more likely thing is that it was a misreporting. I fail to see why every other paper would leave it out.
If they said that there were steps, and that they did NOT belong to a PC, it would be a possible hearing of the killer, and that would be sensational stuff. Not a paper would miss it.

More invention. Paul was in a rush, which was obvious by the sound his shoes made on the pavement. So, he Cross knew he wasn't a PC. He heard his footsteps and he immediately calculated that the approaching man was a publicity-seeking dupe with a grudge against the police (all of which you've stated previously) and decided to "bluff his way through" rather than....simply walk away.

[Fisherman]

More invention. Paul was in a rush, which was obvious by the sound his shoes made on the pavement. So, he Cross knew he wasn't a PC. He heard his footsteps and he immediately calculated that the approaching man was a publicity-seeking dupe with a grudge against the police (all of which you've stated previously) and decided to "bluff his way through" rather than....simply walk away.

Eh... "invention"?

How does that work?

The victorian PC:s had regulations governing the speed they walked at, and so they were identifiable as PC.s to most people. Neil, if you rremember, heard Thain pass in Brady Street, 130 yards away, and knew from the sound that he was hearing his colleague.

Paul was late for work, and resonably he would have kept a much higher pace.

So far from "inventing" anything, I am suggesting that Lechmere would probably not have mistaken Paul for a PC.

Was I not supposed to do that, Patrick? Is it not a reasonable suggestion? Did I present it as fact?

I need to know what I am allowed to suggest without being called an inventor. Please help me out.

[Fisherman]

What should I react to?
You gave a few "he may haves" and ultimately said you don't know. What else do we have to say on it?

You made rather a big affair of my take on the knife business and made a number of suggestions about how I was reasoning (one stranger than the other), and so I gave my view -and nothing happened. Here it is again:

I havenīt got any idea at all how he treated his knife if he was the killer. I work from the assumption that he probably wiped it, but if he felt he was pressed for time and didnīt want the oncoming Paul to see anything at all, I suppose he may have tucked it into his pocket unwiped. It is not as if a knifeblade will carry half a litre of blood - most of it is wiped off against the wound opening, and often only a thin veil is left. In a jacket sewn from thick cloth it would not pose any real risk.
But as I said, I am not claiming anything at all about it. Why would I, and - not least - how could I?

I was simply wondering if you had anything to object about this.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish



so why did he do it and whats it got to do with his ritual?

Thatīs the whole thing, Abby - if he had not had his ritual, he would NOT have done it. It is a deeply, deeply illogical thing to do, as is cutting the abdominal wall away in flaps, when you can easily get at all the organs without that effort, once you have opened up the belly from ribs to pubes.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: One of the reasons you give for him being under superstition, is the conversation with Mizen, and the belief you hold that he lied.

In effect you are presenting a form of circular argument, which to me are rarely convincing.

Yes, Iīm sure the argument "policemen are often liars, and so Mizen lied" is a much better argument. But I am anything but sure that Lechmere was under superstition...

Actual I do not think it is odd at all. One needs to look at Mizen's testimony/statements as a whole and see if anything stands out, if he is clear in all he says and if his statements are backed by any others.

Of course it goes without saying that the same exercise must be done for both Lechmere and Paul, plus any one uses as comparators for Mizen, which in this case means PC Neil.

It remains odd to trust Lechmere over Mizen for no good reason at all, Iīm afraid.

The medical indicators Do NOT Point to Lechmere.

They do. Firmly so.

In reality no one is seen or heard going along Bucks row, not even Lechmere or Paul. WE are only aware they did because THEY said they did.

Yes, we are aware of it since we have had it reported. And we have also had it reported that the streets were deserted and quiet, more so than normally. And we have it reported that no PC or night watchman saw anyone leave the street so as to evoke suspicion.

Of course Thain reported two persons heading towards Whitechapel road, given his route these surely came from either Dogs Row or Brady Street.

... and not a single person more was reported. So no crowds of people streaming through Bucks Row, a dead silent night with empty streets. Only the fewest had reason to be there.
That is not conclusive, but it is a fair hint that there was no phantom killer.

The mysterious passer by was mentioned by the coroner at the inquest, with the police responding they had been unable to locate this person.
There is the person who apparently spoke to Mulshaw, and of course neither Purkiss or Green heard anything, not even Paul and Lechmere or indeed the regular police patrol. Only one local claimed to hear anything at all.

Neil was not heard or seen at 3.15
Paul and Lechmere were not heard or seen, unless by Lilley
Nichols was not heard or seen entering the street.
The attack was not heard (unless by Lilley) or seen
Neil was not heard or seen walking up to the murder site at approx 3.45.

And yet all of these happened, but were not noticed.

In short there is no evidence to support the view the area was deserted.

Yes, there is - Neil, for example, walked the streets and SAW that they were, generally speaking. Wherefrom did you get the idea that nobody heard Neil walking up Bucks Row? Who said that; "There was a PC there when I looked out my window, and strangely, I had not heard him arrive." Who, Steve?
Is it not true that you are claiming as a fact something that is not nearly a fact here? Conjuring up a false truth, as it were?

And such a comment is really useful in trying to determine the truth without the the prejudice of predetermination.

I sometimes reply in the same manner I am spoken to. That IS useful, I find.

For information I believe that few people probably used the street between 3 and 4am, however it is impossible to say how many may have, because people were sleeping or just not noticing.

I donīt care what you "believe", Steve. Didnīt you know? I prefer to go with the case facts, including the many people who spoke of a silent night with nobody on the streets.
Steve[/QUOTE]

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Only in your whacky world does any of that speak to Lechmere's guilt.

I have you in my world, Harry, so yes, I sadly have to admit that it is whacky. Completely so.

That's the point, Fish, Lechmere didn't need to bluff anything out.

Very true. He did not. But he actively CHOSE to do so anyway, on account of reasoning that this was the beter and safer way to get out of trouble - or so I think.

Paul was trying to avoid him in the street. It was Lechmere who engaged him in conversation and took him over to the body. It's not a Jeffrey Dahmer type situation, where one of his victims had escaped onto the street and Dahmer needed to take control of the situation to save his own skin.

It actually is not very much apart from that Dahmer situation - a situation arises where the originator of a crime makes the call that he has more to win by playing innocent than by running. So thanks for the comparison.

Lechmere could've carried on his merry way and disappeared into the shadows. He could even dispose of the murder weapon while he was at it. Instead he approaches an evasive witness and then goes with him to find a policeman!?

Yes, indeed. And that was because there was no "merry way", but instead only the option of running or walking away, being heard by Paul who may seconds later raise the alarm.
How many times need I tell you that before you see what I am talking about? I am not asking you to accept it, only to understand the scenario as such.

Much like Lechmere's so-called bluff, it wasn't very well thought out, then was it? You could never convince us that you're anything other than a bitter, small-minded individual.

Actually, the boards are about Jack the Ripper and not about me and my mental shortcomings. In that department, I am doing just fine - but thatīs off the record.

You? No?

I can assure you, Harry, that if you take the discussion to the level you are aiming at, you will get a handful back. Just try me if you are in some sort of doubt about that as well.

[Patrick S]

Eh... "invention"?

How does that work?

The victorian PC:s had regulations governing the speed they walked at, and so they were identifiable as PC.s to most people. Neil, if you rremember, heard Thain pass in Brady Street, 130 yards away, and knew from the sound that he was hearing his colleague.

Paul was late for work, and resonably he would have kept a much higher pace.

So far from "inventing" anything, I am suggesting that Lechmere would probably not have mistaken Paul for a PC.

Was I not supposed to do that, Patrick? Is it not a reasonable suggestion? Did I present it as fact?

I need to know what I am allowed to suggest without being called an inventor. Please help me out.

Fair enough. As long as everyone understands that very little, if anything associated wit your theory IS fact, then we're on the same page. Each individual must decide for themselves how many 'would haves' and 'must haves' is too many.