The Bucks Row Project Summary Report.

[John G]

Yes a psychopath could calmly walk away. Nobody has ever contested that. Andy Griffiths was of the meaning that any calm man would NOT walk away, since it would mean taking a huge and unnecessary risk, but I agree with you - psychopaths often feel invincible, and so that should perhaps not have troubled him.

So yes, I am all for the suggestion that he could have walked calmly away.

Then again, what I am saying is that a psychopath could also make the other choice - to stay, and bluff it out.

And you know what? There is no gainsaying that. And what does that mean? Correct, it means that either he did or he didnīt, and we canīt tell which applies.

So in what possible context does your criticism function? Well, it only functions if we can prove that ALL men, psychopaths or not psychopaths, will ALWAYS run after having killed a person out in the open streets. That this is an axiomatic truth.

If that is so, then your point is a relevant and decisive one.

If not, all you have is a conviction that you cannot prove, whereas I have another conviction that you cannot disprove.

And that, John, is a background against which no prolonged discussion about whether he would have run or not should ever have surfaced.

PS. Your idea that JTR was not worried about witnesses builds on the supposition that the men you mention were actually the Ripper. To begin with, we donīt know that they were. To carry on, surely you can see how what you say actually strengthens the idea that he would not have worried much about the witness Paul either. He did not run from Long, he did not run from Lawende, so why would he run from Paul? Maybe because he was not given to panicking and running at all? Maybe because he was a cool customer who felt certain that he would always be able to get away with what he did?

Yes, I would agree that JtR would, in that situation, be relatively unconcerned about Paul. However, if he just walks calmly away then how much of a risk is he taking? I mean, if Paul notices him at all at this stage his description of the suspect would be of the back view of a man, observed in poor light and from a distance, and presumably wearing the same type of drab clothes that would have been common to most workmen of the period. To that extent, his description, such as it is, would be so general that it might be even more useless than Long and Lawende's equally general descriptions (descriptions of suspects seen in better lighting conditions and from closer range.)

However, by deciding to brazen it out by approaching Paul he is allowing himself to be identified. In fact, he is now very much in the public domain, even to the extent of having to reveal his name and give evidence at a public inquest.

The second option, therefore, doesn't seem to me to amount to a very wise choice.

[Fisherman]

Darryl Kenyon: What about Dutfields yard? It is generally accepted that the killer was still in the yard when Diemschutz arrived.

Eh - no. It is not generally accepted at all. I never thought he was still in place, I always thought he was long gone by then. And I think there are many who agree with me on that score.

How did he know that Diemschultz would go running into the building? He could have looked around the yard to see if he could spot someone else, he could have had a mate? He was likely to have been practically on top of the killer. Why didn't Lech try and blag his way out of that situation instead of making his getaway Ie ran for it. He could have said he had heard a noise and went to look, come from one of the cottages, used the privy etc. In a way he had more right to be passing down Berner st, and he could have gave himself another surname when the police arrived.

As you will realize, I donīt think any of these questions apply at all. You must also realize that once he had used the ruse in Bucks Row, he could not possibly do it again on any of the other spots. Up until Bucks Row, that was a card that he could play - but after Bucks Row, the deck was thinner. Accordingly, he would need to make it his business NOT to linger on a murder spot if he could avoid it.

And if you argue that the Police would have checked him for a knife, bloodstains etc how did he know that wouldn't have happened in Bucks row when a brutal murder of a woman had just occurred three weeks prior not far from the scene. In fact i am surprized Mizen didn't.

Why would Mizen do that, if he had been assured that the carmen had been sent by another PC to fetch help? If so, then he could bank on the carmen not being the finders of the body, they would instead have arrived in Bucks Row after that other PC. If the other PC had found them in place, he would not have let them go.
Mizen did the sensible thing if he was lied to. He felt free not to take their names and he would have accepted that they did not have anything at all to do with the murder as such, and he seems to have been given a picture of a female drunkenbolt, nothing more serious than so.
If, on the other hand, the carman/carmen admitted to Mizen that HE/THEY were the finders of what they believed to be a dead body, then he should not have let them go, he should have secured their names, he should have searched them and he should have taken them back to the murder spot.
He did neither of these things, and so he was either the sloppiest PC in London (belied by his service record) or he was lied to.

[Darryl Kenyon]

What about Dutfields yard? It is generally accepted that the killer was still in the yard when Diemschutz arrived. How did he know that Diemschultz would go running into the building? He could have looked around the yard to see if he could spot someone else, he could have had a mate? He was likely to have been practically on top of the killer. Why didn't Lech try and blag his way out of that situation instead of making his getaway Ie ran for it. He could have said he had heard a noise and went to look, come from one of the cottages, used the privy etc. In a way he had more right to be passing down Berner st, and he could have gave himself another surname when the police arrived. And if you argue that the Police would have checked him for a knife, bloodstains etc how did he know that wouldn't have happened in Bucks row when a brutal murder of a woman had just occurred three weeks prior not far from the scene. In fact i am surprized Mizen didn't.

[Fisherman]

Is there a reason why you know he decided not to live near where he worked, or conversely, not work near where he lived?

I know lots of people who travel even today because where they live and where they can find work are two different places.

I would think Whitechapel would offer even less options back then.

The best I can offer is guesswork, since I cannot ask him. To a degree, it could have been a question of economy - the further west you went, the more costly it would be to rent lodgings. Maybe the more important factor, though, is how Eastenders very often kept to defined territories - many of them moved very often but never very far away. They tended to keep to a district, and it seems there was no shortage of moving opportunities at all. If you look at Lechmere alone, you will find many an address on his part - moving was something of an everyday occurrence. If anything, the Eastenders moved a lot more than we do today.
Lechmereīs move to Doveton Street seems to be something of an exception to the rule of never moving far away, and so we cannot establish the ultimate reason for him choosing Doveton Street. Maybe he got a good deal there, maybe he preferred the schools in the area, maybe it was something else.
As an aside, I know many people who would not want to live too close to their working places, on account of a wish not to have work too close for comfort. I canīt say whether this is just a modern day sentiment, though.

PS. Did you reach any conclusion overnight - is it an advantage or a disadvantage for a suspect to have had it revealed that his working path passes through a confined area where multiple murder has occurred? And I donīt want the answer "Others will have passed through the area too". I just want an answer to the plain and simple question worded above.

[Batman]

The thing is, Batboy, that he did not have to walk through Whitechapel at all. It is only because he actually DID that we can say that he would have been at or close to the murder sites of Tabram, Chapman and Kelly, just as we know that he was in place with Nichols.

Your problem is that you only allow for Whitechapel, but he could have worked close by Canary Wharf, Holloway or Victoria Park.

Is there a reason why you know he decided not to live near where he worked, or conversely, not work near where he lived?

I know lots of people who travel even today because where they live and where they can find work are two different places.

I would think Whitechapel would offer even less options back then.

[Fisherman]

I am not sure how this is working out. Concentric circles will just give you possible places he could be relative to the same time, as the crow flies. This changes because streets constrict what pathways the crow can take. So the timings change.

He could take any pathway through Whitechapel going to and from work. Why does he need to travel the pathways going by murder sites?

It seems you are saying he needs to go these pathways because that is where the women were murdered.

However, that's circular reasoning I would think.

What you would have to show is that these were his normal routes and that he chanced upon all these women by going that route.

We actually don't know what routes he took beyond what he testified to with Buck's row, correct?

The thing is, Batboy, that he did not have to walk through Whitechapel at all. It is only because he actually DID that we can say that he would have been at or close to the murder sites of Tabram, Chapman and Kelly, just as we know that he was in place with Nichols.

Your problem is that you only allow for Whitechapel, but he could have worked close by Canary Wharf, Holloway or Victoria Park.

Our knowledge that he worked up at Broad Street does therefore not absolve him, it puts him in the frame.

If that is circular, then I am Peter Pan.

Iīm off now. Try and digest what I am saying while I sleep: Is having passed through an area (at the relevant hours) where murders have been perpetrated an advantage or a disadvantage for a suspect?

Itīs a tough nut to crack, but I have some little faith in you. Go for it.

[Fisherman]

One thing that may (oddly) need to be further clarified is this:

Do I think that the majority of all killers will stay put and bluff it out after having killed somebody?

Answer: No. I do not think that. I think that most killers will run.

Do I think that the majority of all psychopathic killers will stay put and bluff it out after having killed somebody?

Answer: No, I do not think that. I think that most psychopathic killers will run.

So why do I think that Lechmere may have chosen to stay put and bluff it out? Mainly because of the circumstances - these will differ from murder to murder. In this case, the surrounding streets were patrolled by PC:s and there was a risk to run - or calmly walk - into the arms of such a PC at a remove in time when Robert Paul could have yelled blue murder. And also because staying put and bluffing would be in line with a number of typically psychopathic traits, such as a gift for lying convincingly and wish to "play games". I also think that the hidden wounds tell us that there is a very real possibility that the killer had made preparations for bluffing it out. Plus, of course, if he told Mizen that another PC was in charge in Bucks Row, then we can see that he was a liar.

It is sometimes suggested that I am totally entrenched in my thinking and that I will stop at nothing to accuse poor old Charlie of being responsible for all murders from 1860 and up to the Russian revolution. I would humbly want to point out that in this particular case, I am all for allowing for TWO different perspectives:
1. I am saying that he may have stayed and bluffed it out.
2. I am saying that he may have chosen to run if he was the killer.

I am allowing for BOTH perspectives, and I am freely admitting that running is, from a generalized point of view, what can be expected from killers.

The problem is that those who oppose me, are seemingly only willing to allow for ONE perspective:

1. He would have run. End of.

I sleep soundly at night. I do not feel that I have unjustly cut down on the options about what a killer may or may not do. If I should loose sleep at any remove in time, it will owe to a sense of frustration that others are disinclined to allow for both takes.

Now I really must run. You would not want me to stay and bluff you, would you?

Goodnight.

[Batman]

Lechmere lived in Doveton Street.

From there, he could have walked any route to any work anywhere in London, south, west, east or north.

Use 22 Doveton Street as a center. Make concentric circles around it. Then look at how large a percentage of the circumference of that circle is represented by the area between Hanbury Street and old Montague Street. What do you end up with? 4-5 per cent? Something like that?

So why did not Lechmere walk in the direction of any of the other 96 per cent allowed for? Why did he have to use the EXACT area between Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street where four victims were killed? And at relevant hours of the day too? You see, the exact same applies here - he could have walked to Broad Street at any time of the day, but not only does the geography fit, the timings do too.

I am not sure how this is working out. Concentric circles will just give you possible places he could be relative to the same time, as the crow flies. This changes because streets constrict what pathways the crow can take. So the timings change.

He could take any pathway through Whitechapel going to and from work. Why does he need to travel the pathways going by murder sites?

It seems you are saying he needs to go these pathways because that is where the women were murdered.

However, that's circular reasoning I would think.

What you would have to show is that these were his normal routes and that he chanced upon all these women by going that route.

We actually don't know what routes he took beyond what he testified to with Buck's row, correct?

[Fisherman]

Well Fish, first of all I don't accept that psychopaths are an homogenous group: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/psyc...ing-psychopath.

However, even if they were I don't think it really gets us very far. For instance, you could just as easily argue that an individual devoid of fear might just walk calmly away, disappearing into the Whitechapel maze. After all, it's not as if Paul's likely to charge off in hot pursuit of a knife wielding maniac. Much more likely that he will go in search of a constable, by which point the assailant would be long gone.

Alternatively, if the perpetrator saw Paul as a threat, then he could have disposed of him as well.

And was JtR that bothered about witnesses? Lawende et al didn't seem to concern him, nor Mrs Long. And let's face it, any description Paul would be able to give, of an assailant seen from behind and at a distance, would probably be even more useless than Long's.

Yes a psychopath could calmly walk away. Nobody has ever contested that. Andy Griffiths was of the meaning that any calm man would NOT walk away, since it would mean taking a huge and unnecessary risk, but I agree with you - psychopaths often feel invincible, and so that should perhaps not have troubled him.

So yes, I am all for the suggestion that he could have walked calmly away.

Then again, what I am saying is that a psychopath could also make the other choice - to stay, and bluff it out.

And you know what? There is no gainsaying that. And what does that mean? Correct, it means that either he did or he didnīt, and we canīt tell which applies.

So in what possible context does your criticism function? Well, it only functions if we can prove that ALL men, psychopaths or not psychopaths, will ALWAYS run after having killed a person out in the open streets. That this is an axiomatic truth.

If that is so, then your point is a relevant and decisive one.

If not, all you have is a conviction that you cannot prove, whereas I have another conviction that you cannot disprove.

And that, John, is a background against which no prolonged discussion about whether he would have run or not should ever have surfaced.

PS. Your idea that JTR was not worried about witnesses builds on the supposition that the men you mention were actually the Ripper. To begin with, we donīt know that they were. To carry on, surely you can see how what you say actually strengthens the idea that he would not have worried much about the witness Paul either. He did not run from Long, he did not run from Lawende, so why would he run from Paul? Maybe because he was not given to panicking and running at all? Maybe because he was a cool customer who felt certain that he would always be able to get away with what he did?

[Fisherman]

The first time I heard this, I thought, wow, that's some work to have done on Lechmere and finding out he took these exact routes. However, this isn't the case, is it?

What you have is a circle with a large diameter and within this circle are all the murders. Outside the diameter is where Lechmere lives and works on opposite sides of the circle. You draw pathways connecting the two points and these pathways pass by any site you wish, including the murder sites, if that's what you want.

That this is the source of claim that 'Lechmere passed through these areas'.

I think I have the right.

Meaning as long as any person lived and worked on opposite sides of Whitechapel and these are outside the murder area, then you can draw a pathway for them passing by any murder site.

That we don't actually know for certain Lechmere did pass by the murder sites, except for one. Nichols on Buck's Row.

Lechmere lived in Doveton Street.

From there, he could have walked any route to any work anywhere in London, south, west, east or north.

Use 22 Doveton Street as a center. Make concentric circles around it. Then look at how large a percentage of the circumference of that circle is represented by the area between Hanbury Street and old Montague Street. What do you end up with? 4-5 per cent? Something like that?

So why did not Lechmere walk in the direction of any of the other 96 per cent allowed for? Why did he have to use the EXACT area between Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street where four victims were killed? And at relevant hours of the day too? You see, the exact same applies here - he could have walked to Broad Street at any time of the day, but not only does the geography fit, the timings do too.

If you really thought that there was proof that he had been on all the exact murder spots at all the exact TOD:s, then you are really more than a tad overoptimistic. In fact, if he WAS proven to have been on all spots at all the relevant hours, we would not be discussion who the Ripper was, would we?

As a matter of fact, there is no much need for it as it stands either. Only a blind man would fail to see the potential of his candidacy.

As these boards host more blind men than a WWI field hospital, I should be worried. But I am not. I enjoy the benefits of eyesight, see.

[Fisherman]

With all due respect to the ripperologists out there who know a lot more about the subject than me, it doesn't matter [in my opinion], if you are Stewart and Paul rolled into one. In the case of what Lechmere would have done normal common sense tells you that if someone had just murdered someone in a darkened street were you probably couldn't see clearly for more than a few feet and you heard or saw a figure coming towards you, unless he was right on top of the perpertator he would make a run for it.

"Common sense" seems to have told Andy Griffiths another story altogether. Then again, maybe he is not in possession of "common sense" at all? And maybe all that has been written about psychopathic behaviour is the polar opposite of "common sense"?

The funny thing about so called common sense is that it is not so very common at all, once you look closer.

You say that any perpetrator of any crime would ALWAYS run, no matter what. That, to you, is common sense.

In a way, you are correct. The sense of the common man tells him that criminals will run if they have the chance. And common men WILL run.

The problem is that psychopathic serial killers are not common men.

You lead on that there are ripperologists out there that know more than you. That is probably so. But one can always add to oneīs knowledge. If you should decide on taking that step, I would suggest that reading up on psychopathy could add a number of useful insights. I donīt say that to sound arrogant, it is more a humble wish on my behalf.
There was a reason for Andy Griffiths saying what he did. He has all the insights about these matters that one needs to have to make a fair call.

The fewest things make me more frustrated and tired than people saying "he would have run". One would have thought I should have gotten used to it by now, and in a way, I have. It never surprises me. What DOES surprise me is how so many people with so little knowledge about psychopathy are so convinced that they know all they need to know to make a call.

[Batman]

That the other victims just happened to fall prey in an area Lechmere passed through, considering how many other potential murder sites there were in the East End. That the two victims that were killed in another area and on other times of the night also had geographical ties to Lechmere.

The first time I heard this, I thought, wow, that's some work to have done on Lechmere and finding out he took these exact routes. However, this isn't the case, is it?

What you have is a circle with a large diameter and within this circle are all the murders. Outside the diameter is where Lechmere lives and works on opposite sides of the circle. You draw pathways connecting the two points and these pathways pass by any site you wish, including the murder sites, if that's what you want.

That this is the source of claim that 'Lechmere passed through these areas'.

I think I have this right.

Meaning as long as any person lived and worked on opposite sides of Whitechapel and these are outside the murder area, then you can draw a pathway for them passing by any murder site.

That we don't actually know for certain Lechmere did pass by the murder sites, except for one. Nichols on Buck's Row.

[John G]

I have said it a thousand times, but I donīt mind saying it again: The Ripper wass in all probability a psychopath. Some ninety per cent of all serial killers are, so it should not surprise us one little bit.
Psychopaths are people who do not have the flight reflex that people normnally have - once you and me are frightened, the muscles of our legs get tense and prepared for flight.
This is not so with psychopaths - they lack that reflex. They do not prepare themselves for flight in situations where you and me do.
They are more or less incapable of panicking. That is why psychopaths so often become heroes of war - where you and I soil our underwear, they walk steadfastly into a rain of bullets, feeling no fear at all. Some of them are exhilarated by the experience.

Can you see what kind of difference this makes in a tight spot, John? Far from "freezing" as you are able to imagine that the killer could have done, it will not for a second have been a question of freezing if the killer was a psychopath. I repeat, ninety per cent or thereabouts of all serial killers are psychopaths.
What I imagine he may have felt is frustration and anger with the oncoming stranger, since he interfered with Lechmereīs idea of fun.
So the "freezing" idea will in all probability belong in the dust bin. It never happened if the killer was a psychopath. He would not have been stressed at all.
If he was NOT a psychopath, he would in all probability have panicked and legged it.

My question to you is a simple one: Precisely why is this so hard to understand? Why is it something that is so very hard to imagine? Whereīs the problem?
I am not taking the piss on you, I am genuinely interested!

Well Fish, first of all I don't accept that psychopaths are an homogenous group: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/psyc...ing-psychopath.

However, even if they were I don't think it really gets us very far. For instance, you could just as easily argue that an individual devoid of fear might just walk calmly away, disappearing into the Whitechapel maze. After all, it's not as if Paul's likely to charge off in hot pursuit of a knife wielding maniac. Much more likely that he will go in search of a constable, by which point the assailant would be long gone.

Alternatively, if the perpetrator saw Paul as a threat, then he could have disposed of him as well.

And was JtR that bothered about witnesses? Lawende et al didn't seem to concern him, nor Mrs Long. And let's face it, any description Paul would be able to give, of an assailant seen from behind and at a distance, would probably be even more useless than Long's.

[Darryl Kenyon]

With all due respect to the ripperologists out there who know a lot more about the subject than me, it doesn't matter [in my opinion], if you are Stewart and Paul rolled into one. In the case of what Lechmere would have done normal common sense tells you that if someone had just murdered someone in a darkened street were you probably couldn't see clearly for more than a few feet and you heard or saw a figure coming towards you, unless he was right on top of the perpertator he would make a run for it.

[Fisherman]

Irrespective of other factors, I don't see anything untoward in Lechmere's behaviour. He inspected something peculiar in the street. He engaged the next passer-by and they reported it to the nearest copper.

Quite so! And indeed, these are not the factors I find suspicious.

What I find suspicious is that he just happened to come upon the body at a remove in time that is consistent with him having killed her. That Robert Paul was just far enough away not to be able to see Lechmere and what he did, but yet just close enough to provide Lechmere with an alibi of sorts. That the victimīs wounds just happened to be covered in the one and only case where Lechmere was the finder. That the other victims just happened to fall prey in an area Lechmere passed through, considering how many other potential murder sites there were in the East End. That the two victims that were killed in another area and on other times of the night also had geographical ties to Lechmere. That Mizen said that he was told by Lechmere that another PC was in place in Bucks Row. That the time Lechmere said he left home is not consistent with him being in Bucks Row at 3.40-3.45. That he was named Lechmere and otherwise always used that name in relation to authorities as far as we can tell - but this time over, he called himself Cross. That Paul could see no blood in spite of leaning in over Nichols. That Lechmere did not surface until after Pauls paper interview. That Lechmere worded himself in a manner that came close to how Paul worded himself in Lloyds. That Lechmere arrived to the inquest in his working gear.

The fact that he inspected something peculiar, contacted a passer-by and searched out a PC is however not suspicious in the least, just as you say. Then again, if he WAS the killer, he was not going to serve that truth to the inquest, was he? No, he would be far more likely to present a "truth" that seemed as inconspicious as possible. After that, it would be up to you and me to be taken in by it or not.