The Bucks Row Project Summary Report.

[Harry D]

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.

[Fisherman]

Well of course it's a possibility. For instance, stress could have resulted in indecision, with the consequence that the killer freezes and remains rooted to the spot. But how does that support the hypothesis that Lechmere was most likely the perpetrator?

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!

[John G]

No, Herlock. I have Andy Griffiths who clearly tells us that the idea that he MUST have run is not a given matter.

It could have been either way, see? And your argument is only interesting if we can be SURE that he would have run, something you seem to like as a suggestion. But unfortunately, it does not work out. Many people think that he may have stayed and bluffed it out by his own choice.

And I donīt need any certainty that he MUST have chosen to do so - I only need the certainty that he could have done so.

And that certainty I do have. And it is nice to see that I share it with Griffiths, since he has all the experience that you donīt have of such matters. Itīs not that he must be right and that you must be wrong - it is that he is more likely to be right, given his experience and insights. A bummer, I know, but there you are.

It is the POSSIBILITY that he may have stayed and bluffed it out that I point to, not how it must have been so. See?

Well of course it's a possibility. For instance, stress could have resulted in indecision, with the consequence that the killer freezes and remains rooted to the spot. But how does that support the hypothesis that Lechmere was most likely the perpetrator?

[Rob1n]

Elamarna, very interesting, I look forward to reading the book. Great work.

[Batman]

The streets were all patrolled by PC:s, Batman. Any person aquainted with that knowledge would do well not to use these streets as racing courses. And as I said, picking up Paul and walking with him would be a stroke of genius if Lechmere was the killer. Try to look at it from that angle, and you may see how it works.

Maybe someone would do that when all hope is lost to make a quick exit, but in this instance, Lechmere had all the time in the world to leave and Paul would take somewhere between 30 seconds and a minute to arrive. Not to mention Paul didn't want to be a budding alibi at the start and took some persuading.

[Abby Normal]

In fairness, Gareth, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Griffiths had come across a few examples of criminals staying put at a crime scene and trying to blag there way out of the situation.

I believed Abby Normal posted an example from his own experience. I have one too (which I won't bore you with). Running away isn't a given. One doesn't need to be any kind of an expert to hold that opinion. And when it comes from a man with years (decades?) of experience of the behaviour of criminals it carries more weight than it would coming from Abbey or me.

Yes. Something very similar. Its partly why im rather sympathetic to lech.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I fear none of his former colleagues would either. And I know that he disagrees with Griffiths on the running matter. So he is well and truly screwed on that one since Griffiths is much his senior.

But we can all go on like this and have our little fun - "how can you tell us to listen to ONE policeman when you donīt listen to another yourself?"

It is not really ingenious, is it, Herlock? Itīs more like trolling. And you once again forget that I am not saying that Griffiths MUST be right. I am saying that it MUST be wrong to claim that he MUST have run.

Hope you followed that.

Of course I follwed it Fish.

If Lechmere cannot be categorically exonerated then he’s a suspect.

If something’s not impossible....then it’s possible.

Pretty much sums up the case against Lechmere

[Elamarna]

Well, us rehashing old material does not in any way preclude you doing so, does it?

I have another idea for a thread where we could bite into something fresh while the world awaits your revelations about Mizen. I think I will call the thread Lech versus Koz. It would be interesting to have your view on a little something I have been thinking about lately.

Lechminski?

I am game,

Steve

[Fisherman]

It is WE rehashing old material and convictions.

What any of us say does not simply stand without evidence, that applies to all of us
I fully agree with you last comment, until the arguments are fully presented, it is not possible to debate them.


Steve

Well, us rehashing old material does not in any way preclude you doing so, does it?

I have another idea for a thread where we could bite into something fresh while the world awaits your revelations about Mizen. I think I will call the thread Lech versus Koz. It would be interesting to have your view on a little something I have been thinking about lately.

[Elamarna]

You are welcome to present your evidence at any given time. Until that, what I say stands very firmly.

And probably afterwards too.

PS. You cannot put the idea of Paul being out of earshot to bed, Steve. You can put many a ripperologist to sleep, Iīm sure, but thatīs another matter.

Right now, you are only rehashing old material and convictions, and since there is nothing supporting it, we may give it a rest, methinks.

It is WE rehashing old material and convictions.

What any of us say does not simply stand without evidence, that applies to all of us
I fully agree with you last comment, until the arguments are fully presented, it is not possible to debate them.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Please read what is written, "in my suggestion". Which is what we are talking about, my suggestion, backed by evidence.
.




Indeed it did, but it did not iclude the tale of being wanted by another police officer




To say it turned him into a liar, almost portrays him as being someone who never told an untruth, he needed to be "turned..... into a liar".





Not knowing the argument, it is presumptive to suggest he would not tell an untruth, one which would have no actual bearing on the business of the inquest.



No lets not.
Both Carmen say they spoke to Mizen, and as you rightly pointed out above Paul's Lloyds Statement "includes a lot of the things that Mizen said, letīs not deny that". That suggests his within "earshot".
It really is bedtime for this particular flight of fancy.




It means to give attention to the first point, how funny you are!



Somethings are more intersting than others, not to ask a question to resolve an earlier unresolved issue requires a reason for that non question.

The reason may be simply: the issue is not important to the business of the Inquest, or it may be more complicted. All possibilities need to be considered and assessed.




Indeed the Possible truth does appear to have been overlooked, but maybe not as you beleive.
Maybe it is explosive, maybe its not.
Who is to say? Who is correct? Certainly not you or I.





The evidence is there, you may not agree with it.
However there is far more evidence to support the version I propose than the account given at the inquest on the 3rd by Jonas Mizen.



Steve

You are welcome to present your evidence at any given time. Until that, what I say stands very firmly.

And probably afterwards too.

PS. You cannot put the idea of Paul being out of earshot to bed, Steve. You can put many a ripperologist to sleep, Iīm sure, but thatīs another matter.

Right now, you are only rehashing old material and convictions, and since there is nothing supporting it, we may give it a rest, methinks.

[Fisherman]

I do see Fish.

Perhaps strange then, that as a former serving detective, you don’t favour Trevor’s opinions over your own,

I fear none of his former colleagues would either. And I know that he disagrees with Griffiths on the running matter. So he is well and truly screwed on that one since Griffiths is much his senior.

But we can all go on like this and have our little fun - "how can you tell us to listen to ONE policeman when you donīt listen to another yourself?"

It is not really ingenious, is it, Herlock? Itīs more like trolling. And you once again forget that I am not saying that Griffiths MUST be right. I am saying that it MUST be wrong to claim that he MUST have run.

Hope you followed that.

[Fisherman]

Legging it in front of a police officer probably won't be the smartest thing to do, but Paul isn't a police officer. So I am thinking the 'not legging it' has probably more to do with being seen by police than hanging around to chat with the next passerby who is 40 yards away in the dark.

The streets were all patrolled by PC:s, Batman. Any person aquainted with that knowledge would do well not to use these streets as racing courses. And as I said, picking up Paul and walking with him would be a stroke of genius if Lechmere was the killer. Try to look at it from that angle, and you may see how it works.

[Fisherman]

In fairness, Gareth, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Griffiths had come across a few examples of criminals staying put at a crime scene and trying to blag there way out of the situation.

I believed Abby Normal posted an example from his own experience. I have one too (which I won't bore you with). Running away isn't a given. One doesn't need to be any kind of an expert to hold that opinion. And when it comes from a man with years (decades?) of experience of the behaviour of criminals it carries more weight than it would coming from Abbey or me.

Wow, Gary - someone is THINKING here! But you know, "fairness" is not the number one remedy against the Lechmere ailment.

[Batman]

I donīt think anybody has suggested that Lechmere did not have time to leg it. Personally, I think he had more time than what would be offered by a 40 yard distance.

What is argued here is that not all criminals who have the opportunity must actually do so.

That is rather another matter, Iīm afraid.

Legging it in front of a police officer probably won't be the smartest thing to do, but Paul isn't a police officer. So I am thinking the 'not legging it' has probably more to do with being seen by police than hanging around to chat with the next passerby who is 40 yards away in the dark.