Consciousness of Guilt: Buck's Row

[Patrick S]

I don't know what he was but I think this threads about to be engulfed by the Swedish shark when he comes back from Milan

Nah. He won't engage me because he understands that I've taken the time to understand the information as opposed to relying upon he and his ilk to interpret it for me. Remember, I was once in Christer's good graces, back when I first learned of his Cross/Lechmere theory. He encouraged me to do some research, sure that I'd agree with the theory he was (and still is) peddling. I actually took my leave of the board for a bit and did just that. Of course, I committed the cardinal sin: I didn't agree. Of course, I then found myself - like Gaylord Focker - outside the fabled circle of trust. And there I remain. Recall also that I offered to debate Fisherman on this topic, pledging to pay for a venue, food, and adult beverages. He refused. Things got nasty. He refuses to respond to my posts. And here we are. I've come to the conclusion that Christer will not debate on this topic for same the reason he responds so aggressively to those who seriously question the logic of Lechmere as the Ripper, or the Mizen Scam: he doesn't believe it himself. Thus, I content myself with posting on these threads (when I can muster the energy it takes to get into my notes and assemble, essentially, the same posts I've made for the past few years, hoping to dissuade newcomers and neophytes, the naïve and gullible, from buying into this foolishness.

[Pcdunn]

I don't know what he was but I think this threads about to be engulfed by the Swedish shark when he comes back from Milan

No doubt, Columbo, no doubt.

[Columbo]

I thought The Ripper was also a "human tiger," according to other posters. Zoological metaphors aside, we can be sure that Lechmere was not the Ripper, because he did not at all behave like one.

I don't know what he was but I think this threads about to be engulfed by the Swedish shark when he comes back from Milan

[Pcdunn]

The wolf?

I thought The Ripper was also a "human tiger," according to other posters. Zoological metaphors aside, we can be sure that Lechmere was not the Ripper, because he did not at all behave like one.

[Patrick S]

QUOTE=Patrick S;398624

Consciousness of guilt is defined as “evidence that may include actions the defendant took to “cover up” his alleged crime. Flight, when unexplained, may indicate consciousness of guilt if the facts and the circumstances support it."



Or rather at what a journalist wrote about what Paul said if it is an excerpt from an article here below. And why this particular article and please give us the reference.






And Fisherman´s answer to this is that Lechmere was a "psychnopath" and that this is how serial killer psychopaths behave.



We hear this so often it is beginning to get national status as a fairy tale. We recognize it as well as Little Red Riding Hood by now.



The psychopath explanation again.



Fisherman says that there wouldn´t be any blood on Mr Psychopath. But The Wolf who killed Little Red Riding Hood must have had some blood on him.



We do not know how Lechmere came to appear at the inquest as a witness. But the most natural thing would have been to be called to the inquest.

The most far fetched idea would be that Lechmere wanted to come to the inquest because he was the killer.

Lechmere was not The Wolf. The Wolf was outside, free to walk the streets.

The wolf?

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Patrick S;398624

Consciousness of guilt is defined as “evidence that may include actions the defendant took to “cover up” his alleged crime. Flight, when unexplained, may indicate consciousness of guilt if the facts and the circumstances support it."

So, let’s look at Charles Lechmere’s actions ONLY in Buck’s Row, looking for some indication of “consciousness of guilt” that a prosecutor may have attempted to have used against him.

Or rather at what a journalist wrote about what Paul said if it is an excerpt from an article here below. And why this particular article and please give us the reference.

Early on the morning of August 31, 1888, 31 year old Robert Paul left his home in Foster Street, Whitechapel. Paul worked as a carman for Covent-Garden Market near Hanbury Street in Spitalfields and he was due at work at 4:00am. At around 3:45am, Paul was a little more than a half mile from work when he entered a street called Buck’s Row (today called Dunward Street). To Paul’s mind, the street wasn’t a particularly safe one. “Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot”, he would later say.

His pace quickened as walked through the cool morning darkness. He came upon a man standing in the road a short distance ahead. He attempted to walk around him, but the man, Charles Lechmere, approached Paul, touched his shoulder, and said, “Come and look at this woman.”

STOP! Let’s examine this. Let’s pretend that running or simply walking away wasn’t an option for Lechmere, and this is why he is still in Buck's Row even as he heard Paul approaching. Robert Paul is walking through Buck’s Row. He comes upon Lechmere in the road and attempts to walk around the him. What does Lechmere do? Does he LET Paul walk around him and proceed through Buck’s Row? Does he walk past Paul and proceed in the opposite direction, the direction from which Paul had come? NO. He touches Paul’s shoulder and asks him to come and see the woman lying in the road.

And Fisherman´s answer to this is that Lechmere was a "psychnopath" and that this is how serial killer psychopaths behave.

Paul accompanied Lechmere a short distance and found Mary Ann “Polly” Nichols – generally considered to be Jack the Ripper’s first victim - lying motionless on the pavement. She lay on her back, across a closed gateway. Robert Paul felt Nichols’ hands and face and found them cold. Her clothes were “disarranged” and he “helped to pull them down”. He placed his hand on her heart and thought he detected movement, albeit very slight. “I think she is breathing, but very little if she is”, he said to Lechmere. Paul suggested that they prop her up, but Lechmere refused to do so. Neither man wished to be late for work. After spending approximately two minutes with “Polly” Nichols in Buck’s Row, the two men agreed to continue on together, in hopes of finding a policeman to whom to report what they had found.

We hear this so often it is beginning to get national status as a fairy tale. We recognize it as well as Little Red Riding Hood by now.

STOP! Paul thinks the woman may be alive. He thinks he detects movement. Why didn’t Lechmere attempt to corroborate Paul's opinion? He might have said, “You’re right. She’s breathing and dead drunk! Let’s go on to work!” Further, Paul suggests they “give her a prop”. But Lechmere refuses. It was very dark in Buck’s Row. Lechmere had – according to the theory – just killed and mutilated Nichols, mere moments before. Why not assist Paul in moving the body? This would explain the blood that must have been on his person. It’s important to remember that Lechmere – as the theory goes – killed Nichols and hid the murder knife on his person, in his clothing. Thus, he killed a woman, mutilated her abdomen, stuck the knife into his coat, and showed no concern at all that any blood would be visible on his clothing (it was too dark for him to know either way) as he went off with Paul to find a PC with a bloody knife in his coat.

The psychopath explanation again.

We can later tackle how might find consciousness of guilt in Lechmere accompanying Paul to Baker's Row where spoke with Mizen, where he could have reasonably expected to be inspected by lantern light, with no excuse for any blood that must have been on his clothing, and the bloody knife in his coat.

Fisherman says that there wouldn´t be any blood on Mr Psychopath. But The Wolf who killed Little Red Riding Hood must have had some blood on him.

Then we can move on the consciousness of guilt that drove Lechmere to appear and testify at the Nichols' inquest 72 hours after the murder. Mizen hadn't asked his name. Paul didn't know his name. No one had offered any description of him at all. No one asked him to appear at the inquest. But there he was. Submitting himself to questioning, just as he'd submitted himself to inspection by Mizen in Baker's Row.

We do not know how Lechmere came to appear at the inquest as a witness. But the most natural thing would have been to be called to the inquest.

The most far fetched idea would be that Lechmere wanted to come to the inquest because he was the killer.

Lechmere was not The Wolf. The Wolf was outside, free to walk the streets.

[Patrick S]

Consciousness of guilt is defined as “evidence that may include actions the defendant took to “cover up” his alleged crime. Flight, when unexplained, may indicate consciousness of guilt if the facts and the circumstances support it."

So, let’s look at Charles Lechmere’s actions ONLY in Buck’s Row, looking for some indication of “consciousness of guilt” that a prosecutor may have attempted to have used against him.

Early on the morning of August 31, 1888, 31 year old Robert Paul left his home in Foster Street, Whitechapel. Paul worked as a carman for Covent-Garden Market near Hanbury Street in Spitalfields and he was due at work at 4:00am. At around 3:45am, Paul was a little more than a half mile from work when he entered a street called Buck’s Row (today called Dunward Street). To Paul’s mind, the street wasn’t a particularly safe one. “Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot”, he would later say.

His pace quickened as walked through the cool morning darkness. He came upon a man standing in the road a short distance ahead. He attempted to walk around him, but the man, Charles Lechmere, approached Paul, touched his shoulder, and said, “Come and look at this woman.”

STOP! Let’s examine this. Let’s pretend that running or simply walking away wasn’t an option for Lechmere, and this is why he is still in Buck's Row even as he heard Paul approaching. Robert Paul is walking through Buck’s Row. He comes upon Lechmere in the road and attempts to walk around the him. What does Lechmere do? Does he LET Paul walk around him and proceed through Buck’s Row? Does he walk past Paul and proceed in the opposite direction, the direction from which Paul had come? NO. He touches Paul’s shoulder and asks him to come and see the woman lying in the road.

Paul accompanied Lechmere a short distance and found Mary Ann “Polly” Nichols – generally considered to be Jack the Ripper’s first victim - lying motionless on the pavement. She lay on her back, across a closed gateway. Robert Paul felt Nichols’ hands and face and found them cold. Her clothes were “disarranged” and he “helped to pull them down”. He placed his hand on her heart and thought he detected movement, albeit very slight. “I think she is breathing, but very little if she is”, he said to Lechmere. Paul suggested that they prop her up, but Lechmere refused to do so. Neither man wished to be late for work. After spending approximately two minutes with “Polly” Nichols in Buck’s Row, the two men agreed to continue on together, in hopes of finding a policeman to whom to report what they had found.

STOP! Paul thinks the woman may be alive. He thinks he detects movement. Why didn’t Lechmere attempt to corroborate Paul's opinion? He might have said, “You’re right. She’s breathing and dead drunk! Let’s go on to work!” Further, Paul suggests they “give her a prop”. But Lechmere refuses. It was very dark in Buck’s Row. Lechmere had – according to the theory – just killed and mutilated Nichols, mere moments before. Why not assist Paul in moving the body? This would explain the blood that must have been on his person. It’s important to remember that Lechmere – as the theory goes – killed Nichols and hid the murder knife on his person, in his clothing. Thus, he killed a woman, mutilated her abdomen, stuck the knife into his coat, and showed no concern at all that any blood would be visible on his clothing (it was too dark for him to know either way) as he went off with Paul to find a PC with a bloody knife in his coat.

We can later tackle how might find consciousness of guilt in Lechmere accompanying Paul to Baker's Row where spoke with Mizen, where he could have reasonably expected to be inspected by lantern light, with no excuse for any blood that must have been on his clothing, and the bloody knife in his coat. Then we can move on the consciousness of guilt that drove Lechmere to appear and testify at the Nichols' inquest 72 hours after the murder. Mizen hadn't asked his name. Paul didn't know his name. No one had offered any description of him at all. No one asked him to appear at the inquest. But there he was. Submitting himself to questioning, just as he'd submitted himself to inspection by Mizen in Baker's Row.