Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

I have nothing malicious to say about you. And I take full responsibility for everything I write out here. I assume you do the same, thus I suggest you read some of the responses you've given, on this thread, any thread. I think we can find plenty of "malicious material". I doubt you regret any of it and I'm sure you view all of it as perfectly appropriate. Direct all manner of maliciousness at me, if you like. You usually don't hold back. I don't complain. It's beside the point, isn't it. If you knew me you'd know I'm a pretty contented, confident guy. So I don't put much stock in message board trash-talk.

I post to challenge you're theory. Just as you post to advance it. I'm not here to ask for your respect and shown any (although I've stated mine for you and your work many times). I'm not here to denigrate you as a person. I don't KNOW you as a person.

Do I think you have tunnel vision when it comes to "the carman"? I do.

Do I think that makes you more or less the same as every man and woman who has ever presented a "suspect"? I do.

Do I think you honestly believe Lechmere was Jack the Ripper? I do.

Do I think it's appropriate for me to use any knowledge and perspective I may have to argue against the theory that Lechmere as Jack the Ripper? I do. And you should too.

And should you - if something monumental is found proving "the carman" was what you say he was - spike the ball in my face and tell everyone I'm a fool who should have his Ripperolgist badge confiscated? Absolutely you should. I'd take that with a smile on my face. In person. Id' fly to Sweden and toast you!

But, it's quite alright not to reply. As I've said, the posts are not necessarily for you anyway. You can't own these boards after all. Those reading your posts must have another, more reasonable view to consider, after all.

The question whether a view opposing mine is more reasonable or not cannot be answered, so letīs not pretend that this was ever so.

If Lechmere was the killer, then my view is as reasonable as it can be. If he was not the killer, then my view is less reasonable.

The salient point is that it is wrong of you to proclaim that your view would be more reasonable than mine - it MAY be, but thereīs no telling.

If Lechmere is ever proven the killer, I will not spike the ball in your face, and I will not call you a fool or propose that you should have your ripperology badge confiscated. That owes to two facts - one, I donīt think that you have given me a reason to do so yet, and two, I am quite aware that a graciously celebrated victory makes a lot better impression than a spiteful one.

Whether I will feel tempted to gloat is another matter...

[Fisherman]

I'm sorry, Christer. What vile things have I said?

I said the exchanges were vile, not that you specifically or solely was responsible for it.

And yes, I CAN pick some pretty vile things that you said (just as you may be able to do the same with me), but I am not going there. I would much rather say that I must have been mistaken and ask for an apology.

[Patrick S]

The question whether a view opposing mine is more reasonable or not cannot be answered, so letīs not pretend that this was ever so.

If Lechmere was the killer, then my view is as reasonable as it can be. If he was not the killer, then my view is less reasonable.

The salient point is that it is wrong of you to proclaim that your view would be more reasonable than mine - it MAY be, but thereīs no telling.

If Lechmere is ever proven the killer, I will not spike the ball in your face, and I will not call you a fool or propose that you should have your ripperology badge confiscated. That owes to two facts - one, I donīt think that you have given me a reason to do so yet, and two, I am quite aware that a graciously celebrated victory makes a lot better impression than a spiteful one.

Whether I will feel tempted to gloat is another matter...

All fair enough. You should understand that I'd be thrilled to learn Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, so long as we knew it was the truth. To fight that or argue against it would demonstrate one's foolishness completely. So, I'd be quick to join any celebration as anyone interested in this stuff should.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;421332]

As I said before, cutting the whole of the neck can never be an indication of anatomical insights, because such a thing is only shown where a conscious choice is made, and where we can see that there are BOTH attacked and unattacked areas. when all of the neck is cut, if anything it points to a lack of anatomical knowledge and a propensity to cut everything to avoid risks.

So now he wanted to "avoid risks", despite your idea that he killed, waited for another man in Buckīs Row, went to fetch a PC and showed up at the inquest.

Ha. Ha.

And as for "lack of anatomical knowledge": that concept can be conceptualized any way we want.

[Patrick S]

I said the exchanges were vile, not that you specifically or solely was responsible for it.

And yes, I CAN pick some pretty vile things that you said (just as you may be able to do the same with me), but I am not going there. I would much rather say that I must have been mistaken and ask for an apology.

I'm not a mean-spirited person. I don't assume that you are. So, I start from that place.

I love to debate. Any topic. I have fun doing it. Many of my friends cannot and will not debate with me because they don't understand that the argument - at least for me - is completely segregated to the topic at hand. It doesn't extend to someone's opinion on something else, some poor choice in women I might know was made years ago, or any character flaws I may have seen revealed in the past. I may seem upset, outraged, completely disturbed by one's view of the topic at hand, only to snap out ask if he/she wants a beer, saw the ballgame last week, or liked this movie or that. Those who know me well get it. They're in on the joke, so to speak. Those who don't know me well don't now quite what to make of it. Maybe there's some of that at play here.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: I just want to touch on something quickly. I understand that's why you feel like Lechmere is fair game. You think he's serial killer so why spare the rod.

Well, I donīt exactly call him a son of a bitch, I donīt say that he was a swine, I donīt express these kinds of things at all. I reason that he was the probable killer of Nichols, and by way of extension, reasonably the Ripper. Which is of course worse, buyt you can only say such a thing in so many ways. I try to avoid negatively coloured expressions about the carman, at any rate.

But try and understand that I, and others, feel that Lechmere was a good man.

I am perfectly aware that you do. And I am equally aware that a case can well be made for it.

At least, I feel as if the historical record indicates that he was.

I feel that too - because what is on record is all in his favour. It is what is not on record that has me voting for him as a serialist.

There's nothing in it to say he was not.

Not in the records, no.

Just as you feel Llewellyn and Mizen were good men.

Yes, what is on record in their cases indicate the exact same thing.

But a number of women WERE killed in a heinous fashion, and SOMEBODY did it. So we can conclude that not all men are good men. And we also know that many serialists were perceived as good men up until they were caught.

The distinction I've made many times before is this: Mizen can have done everything I THINK he did...and can still be good man.

I disagreed before, and I do so now too. If he lied, he was not a good man. It would tarnish him and paint him in a not very good light in my eyes.

At least in my opinion, if not yours.

No, not in my eyes.

I understand why a man might not tell the truth in order to protect his livelihood, or his reputation and that of his employer, the Met.

It would involve the risk that Lechmere was unfairly hanged, Patrick. And much as I understand the underlying incitements, I donīt condone them.

And even if he we agree that he was lying scum, he's still not accused of being Jack the Ripper.

Why would he be? He has a solid alibi. And I donīt buy into any idea that it is more okay to make this accusation than that accusation - it all boils down to the viability of the accusations. It also deserves to be said that Mizen was a civil servant, supposedly doing his work to protect society and itīs values. In that context, he had more of an obligation to stay true to this than the Jack the Rippers of this world.

As for Llewellyn, I've no real thoughts on him other than that I think he was a product of his times in terms of medical knowledge.

As were and are all doctors. In LLewellyns case, that means that he was quite aware that cutting the omentum is not instantly deadly - he would have performed that very thing himself, no doubt.

[Fisherman]

I'm not a mean-spirited person. I don't assume that you are. So, I start from that place.

I love to debate. Any topic. I have fun doing it. Many of my friends cannot and will not debate with me because they don't understand that the argument - at least for me - is completely segregated to the topic at hand. It doesn't extend to someone's opinion on something else, some poor choice in women I might know was made years ago, or any character flaws I may have seen revealed in the past. I may seem upset, outraged, completely disturbed by one's view of the topic at hand, only to snap out ask if he/she wants a beer, saw the ballgame last week, or liked this movie or that. Those who know me well get it. They're in on the joke, so to speak. Those who don't know me well don't now quite what to make of it. Maybe there's some of that at play here.

Only if this is a request on your behalf not to take what you say too seriously.
Is it?

[Patrick S]

Only if this is a request on your behalf not to take what you say too seriously.
Is it?

No. Not what's related to the topic: Lechmere, etc. Better to say, don't take the WAY I may say things personally...or seriously.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: I just want to touch on something quickly. I understand that's why you feel like Lechmere is fair game. You think he's serial killer so why spare the rod.

Well, I donīt exactly call him a son of a bitch, I donīt say that he was a swine, I donīt express these kinds of things at all. I reason that he was the probable killer of Nichols, and by way of extension, reasonably the Ripper. Which is of course worse, buyt you can only say such a thing in so many ways. I try to avoid negatively coloured expressions about the carman, at any rate.

But try and understand that I, and others, feel that Lechmere was a good man.

I am perfectly aware that you do. And I am equally aware that a case can well be made for it.

At least, I feel as if the historical record indicates that he was.

I feel that too - because what is on record is all in his favour. It is what is not on record that has me voting for him as a serialist.

There's nothing in it to say he was not.

Not in the records, no.

Just as you feel Llewellyn and Mizen were good men.

Yes, what is on record in their cases indicate the exact same thing.

But a number of women WERE killed in a heinous fashion, and SOMEBODY did it. So we can conclude that not all men are good men. And we also know that many serialists were perceived as good men up until they were caught.

The distinction I've made many times before is this: Mizen can have done everything I THINK he did...and can still be good man.

I disagreed before, and I do so now too. If he lied, he was not a good man. It would tarnish him and paint him in a not very good light in my eyes.

At least in my opinion, if not yours.

No, not in my eyes.

I understand why a man might not tell the truth in order to protect his livelihood, or his reputation and that of his employer, the Met.

It would involve the risk that Lechmere was unfairly hanged, Patrick. And much as I understand the underlying incitements, I donīt condone them.

And even if he we agree that he was lying scum, he's still not accused of being Jack the Ripper.

Why would he be? He has a solid alibi. And I donīt buy into any idea that it is more okay to make this accusation than that accusation - it all boils down to the viability of the accusations. It also deserves to be said that Mizen was a civil servant, supposedly doing his work to protect society and itīs values. In that context, he had more of an obligation to stay true to this than the Jack the Rippers of this world.

As for Llewellyn, I've no real thoughts on him other than that I think he was a product of his times in terms of medical knowledge.

As were and are all doctors. In LLewellyns case, that means that he was quite aware that cutting the omentum is not instantly deadly - he would have performed that very thing himself, no doubt.

I don't think Mizen tried to intimate that Cross killed Nichols in any way shape or form. I don't think it entered his mind. I think he claimed "the carman" told him a PC wanted him in Buck's Row in order to explain Paul's account of him in Lloyd's which paints him as inattentive, uncaring, and his inaction as "a great shame". I believe he thought the woman lying in Buck's Row was another drunk, passed out. Not the murder victim she proved to be. I think he realized his actions had been inappropriate once he reached Bucks Row and found a woman lying dead there. I believe that's why he kept his encounter with the two men to himself, allowing Neil to testify erroneously that he and he alone found Nichols. I think he had no intention of coming forward to tell the tale until he saw Lloyd's on Sunday. I imagine it was viewed as something of a bombshell by both Mizen and his superiors at the Met: It made them all look bad. Thus his testimony. For me, these dots connect far easier than the Lechmere as killer and scammer dots.

[Fisherman]

No. Not what's related to the topic: Lechmere, etc. Better to say, don't take the WAY I may say things personally...or seriously.

Thanks for the warning - or clarification. Or whatever. Thanks.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: I don't think Mizen tried to intimate that Cross killed Nichols in any way shape or form. I don't think it entered his mind.

Well, it should have - he reasonably knew that Lechmere was the finder of the body at this stage, and leading on that he had served the kind of lie that is implied by the "extra PC" would quite possibly get Lechmere into very serious trouble. Tampering with the evidence in a murder case will always turn perspectives and carry risks.

I think he claimed "the carman" told him a PC wanted him in Buck's Row in order to explain Paul's account of him in Lloyd's which paints him as inattentive, uncaring, and his inaction as "a great shame".

But why would his knowledge of another PC having requested his help make him go lazy? Why would it not produce the exact opposite reaction? It makes no sense to me.

I believe he thought the woman lying in Buck's Row was another drunk, passed out.

On that we agree - but if the carman told him that she was probably dead, it would involve great risks to be tardy.

Not the murder victim she proved to be. I think he realized his actions had been inappropriate once he reached Bucks Row and found a woman lying dead there.

I think he arrived there with a very clean conscience.

I believe that's why he kept his encounter with the two men to himself, allowing Neil to testify erroneously that he and he alone found Nichols.

But! He KNEW that Lechmere would testify after himself, and he KNEW that Paul was sought for and would quite probably turn up. If so, these men would undoubtedly blow him clean out of the water. It would become known that he had obstructed justice, because that would be what his ommission to correct Neil would have amounted to. I do not buy that for a split second, Iīm afraid.

I think he had no intention of coming forward to tell the tale until he saw Lloyd's on Sunday.

Agreed again.

I imagine it was viewed as something of a bombshell by both Mizen and his superiors at the Met: It made them all look bad.

Actually no. They chose not to beleive in it. It was not until Lechmere surfaced that the story was corroborated and accepted. And THEN, the police looked like a heap of crap, yes.

Thus his testimony. For me, these dots connect far easier than the Lechmere as killer and scammer dots.

Well, they certainly do not impress me that way. As I said, it would involve a very obvious risk, a near certainty in fact, that Mizen would loose his job and be forced stand trial himself, on accusations of wilfully having obstructed justice.

[Fisherman]

Off to bed now. See yaīll tomorrow.

[Brenda]

.

Just hopping in for a moment to say...

The reason I don't think Lechmere was the killer is that the police probably checked up on him after each subsequent murder, just to find out where he was and if anyone was with him who could give him an alibi for those times. The police back then were not total idiots, and I'm sure they realized that Lechmere had a window of opportunity, but without any evidence there was no way to accuse him of the murder. So I'm sure someone was checking in as the other murders dragged on, even if it was only a rookie cop.

Just my opinion.

[Fisherman]

Just hopping in for a moment to say...

The reason I don't think Lechmere was the killer is that the police probably checked up on him after each subsequent murder, just to find out where he was and if anyone was with him who could give him an alibi for those times. The police back then were not total idiots, and I'm sure they realized that Lechmere had a window of opportunity, but without any evidence there was no way to accuse him of the murder. So I'm sure someone was checking in as the other murders dragged on, even if it was only a rookie cop.

Just my opinion.

I donīt think so - I think that there are those who share the opinion.
I am not one of them, however.

I often see the exact same phrase that you now use, when these matters are discussed: "The police were not total idiots".

To be frank, I donīt think we can establish the level of idiocy that prevailed amongst the police - or the level of intelligence, for that matter.

What we CAN establish is nevertheless that they made mistakes, as is shown by how they failed to speak to all the inhabitants of Bucks Row, opting only for listening to what a handful of them had to say. For this, the police were taken to task by Baxter, and sent on their way to make amense.

Myself, I would say that making that kind of a mistake was totally idiotic, so we cannot exclude that they goofed up seriously in other departments too.

I also think that the fact that the carman was always called Cross in their reports and at the inquest, tells the story that they did not check him out in any real depth at all. If they had, they would have found out that his name was Lechmere and they would have used that name in their paper work.

Furthermore, I believe that IF they had found out that his name was Lechmere, they would have put the thumbscrews on him and gone to work properly. But apparently, neither thing happened.

If there had been a situation where the police felt they had their man for the Nichols murder, but lacked the evidence to act on it, I feel certain that we would have heard about it in one way or another through the press. And even if the police managed to clam up about their suspicions, it remains that Dew describes Lechmere as a paragon of rough honesty. So it does not work at all for me.

Summing up, much as I agree that the police were - in all probability - not total idiots, we can see that the failed a times, and it does not strike me as any given thing at all that they checked Lechmere after each murder if they did not do so after the first.

In the end, a suggestion like yours can of course not be discarded, only criticized to a fair degree - after that, it is up to you to provide some sort of evidence that Lechmere was checked before it can be taken as a fact.

An interesting experiment on your behalf would be to ask yourself: "If he was NOT checked or suspected in any way, then what?"

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;421428]

I donīt think so - I think that there are those who share the opinion.
I am not one of them, however.

I often see the exact same phrase that you now use, when these matters are discussed: "The police were not total idiots".

To be frank, I donīt think we can establish the level of idiocy that prevailed amongst the police - or the level of intelligence, for that matter.

What we CAN establish is nevertheless that they made mistakes, as is shown by how they failed to speak to all the inhabitants of Bucks Row, opting only for listening to what a handful of them had to say. For this, the police were taken to task by Baxter, and sent on their way to make amense.

Oh, no. The police never made mistakes. At least 99,9 percent of them never did.

Pierre