Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Abby Normal]

Brazening his way through was the least dangerous thing for Dahmer to do at that point. His disoriented victim had made it outside, several people had seen the victim, and the police had been called. If Dahmer had stayed put, the victim would have recovered and led the police straight to him.

The Ripper did take risks by usually killing in the street, but he could have taken a lot more. He struck when there was very little moon, making it harder to identify him.



The policeman, PC Mizen claimed that Lechmere had said that "he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row". Lechmere said this was incorrect.

This leaves several possibilities:

* PC Mizen lied. I can think of no reason for him to do so.
* Lechmere lied. Whether he was the Ripper or not, I can think of no reason for him to lie by telling PC Mizen that there was "a policeman in Buck's-row". if there was already a policeman at Buck's Row, that meant PC Mizen could have taken more time to question Lechmere and Paul. Also, if Lechmere gave this pointless lie, why did Paul never contradict Lechmere.
* PC Mizen was mistaken. Perhaps Lechmere said "he was wanted in Buck's-row", saw the other policeman at the murder site, and thought that Lechmere had meant "he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row".

The third option is the only one that explains Paul's failure to contradict Lechmere at the time or at the inquest. The authorities seem to have accepted this as they never bothered to question Paul about whether he had seen a policeman in Buck's-row



Just the idea of the Ripper killing on the way to work is insanely risky. Even a butcher, and Lechmere was not a butcher, who showed up at work covered in bloodstains would be very suspicious. By Paul's own testimony, Lechmere stopped Paul and asked him to look at the victim. If Lechmere was the Ripper stopping Paul was both insanely risky and incredibly stupid as it guaranteed several minutes where Paul could notice something was wrong and a face-to-face meeting with a policeman, who might also notice something was wrong. If Lechmere was the Ripper, then not stopping Paul would have been the easiest and safest thing. He could have continued his walk to work, never talking Paul or PC Mizen, never having to let eaither see him face-to-face.

And if the Ripper had gotten away with something that insanely risky and that incredibly stupid, he would have continued to take risks of that level and gotten caught.

hi Fiver. thanks for the response!

Brazening his way through was the least dangerous thing for Dahmer to do at that point. His disoriented victim had made it outside, several people had seen the victim, and the police had been called. If Dahmer had stayed put, the victim would have recovered and led the police straight to him.

Totally disagree. The kid was so disoriented he couldnt even give the police any specific info as to what happened, who did anything to him or where that person lived. Dahmer could have just avoided the situation. instead he engaged the police who were with the victim and the women who had called 911! Dahmer even led the police to his apartment and let them inside, even though he had the decomposing body of his last victim in his bedroom. and even if the victim could have led him to the apartment, Dahmer could have made sure not to answer, or be there, or if the police did find him totally denied anything. surely less risky than confronting the police shortly after the crime taking place. which if guilty, lech also did.

The Ripper did take risks by usually killing in the street, but he could have taken a lot more. He struck when there was very little moon, making it harder to identify him.

well im sure he could have taken more, but what he did, the events of the double event for example, where very risky in there own right. as was killing chapman in the backyard of a building in which people where stirring to get up for work and it was getting light from the sunrise-so yes very little moon light on that occasion! ; )

The policeman, PC Mizen claimed that Lechmere had said that "he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row". Lechmere said this was incorrect.

This leaves several possibilities:

* PC Mizen lied. I can think of no reason for him to do so.

* Lechmere lied. Whether he was the Ripper or not, I can think of no reason for him to lie by telling PC Mizen that there was "a policeman in Buck's-row". if there was already a policeman at Buck's Row, that meant PC Mizen could have taken more time to question Lechmere and Paul. Also, if Lechmere gave this pointless lie, why did Paul never contradict Lechmere.

* PC Mizen was mistaken. Perhaps Lechmere said "he was wanted in Buck's-row", saw the other policeman at the murder site, and thought that Lechmere had meant "he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row".

The third option is the only one that explains Paul's failure to contradict Lechmere at the time or at the inquest. The authorities seem to have accepted this as they never bothered to question Paul about whether he had seen a policeman in Buck's-row

I pretty much agree that option three is probably what happened. although lech may have lied to get past the PC, perhaps because he was late to work and wanted to minimize the situation by saying a cop was already there. ditto if he was guilty.

Just the idea of the Ripper killing on the way to work is insanely risky.

agree. and its my main beef against lech as the ripper. also, because post mortem type serial killers like to usually go straight to there bolt holes and have plenty of time right after a kill to play with there goodies.

even a butcher, and Lechmere was not a butcher, who showed up at work covered in bloodstains would be very suspicious. By Paul's own testimony, Lechmere stopped Paul and asked him to look at the victim. If Lechmere was the Ripper stopping Paul was both insanely risky and incredibly stupid as it guaranteed several minutes where Paul could notice something was wrong and a face-to-face meeting with a policeman, who might also notice something was wrong. If Lechmere was the Ripper, then not stopping Paul would have been the easiest and safest thing. He could have continued his walk to work, never talking Paul or PC Mizen, never having to let eaither see him face-to-face.

again pretty much agree. but perhaps if guilty, pauls appearance took lech by surprise and he froze for a moment, not knowing what to do or how much Paul had seen. and then decided to brazenly bluff it out, to the point of actually engaging the police officer, as my previous examples generally show, and the Dahmer example shows specifically- that that's what serial killers will do sometimes, no matter how insanely stupid and risky it seems to us.

[Fiver]

hi harry
what me and Notts are doing is merely showing that its not unheard of for serial killers to take insane risks by engaging police when they don't seem to have to. and IMHO these examples and specifically dahmers situation is very comparable. Dahmer could have just stayed put and not engaged the police at all-its actually mind boggling he didn't get busted right then and there!

Brazening his way through was the least dangerous thing for Dahmer to do at that point. His disoriented victim had made it outside, several people had seen the victim, and the police had been called. If Dahmer had stayed put, the victim would have recovered and led the police straight to him.

The Ripper did take risks by usually killing in the street, but he could have taken a lot more. He struck when there was very little moon, making it harder to identify him.

Im not exactly sure what you mean by this-but if you mean did he act or do anything suspicious-I guess that's up to interpretation. Its detective work 101 that the person who finds the body, especially if alone, is de facto a suspect, or at least person of interest, until cleared. then of course lech is seen near the body by paul before trying to raise any kind of alarm. little odd to me.

and specifically to your point-incongruous with the evidence- there is the discrepancy between said policeman whom lech engaged over who said what. so while I think that was probably a misunderstanding-according to the policeman-Lech lied to him. so theres that.

The policeman, PC Mizen claimed that Lechmere had said that "he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row". Lechmere said this was incorrect.

This leaves several possibilities:

* PC Mizen lied. I can think of no reason for him to do so.
* Lechmere lied. Whether he was the Ripper or not, I can think of no reason for him to lie by telling PC Mizen that there was "a policeman in Buck's-row". if there was already a policeman at Buck's Row, that meant PC Mizen could have taken more time to question Lechmere and Paul. Also, if Lechmere gave this pointless lie, why did Paul never contradict Lechmere.
* PC Mizen was mistaken. Perhaps Lechmere said "he was wanted in Buck's-row", saw the other policeman at the murder site, and thought that Lechmere had meant "he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row".

The third option is the only one that explains Paul's failure to contradict Lechmere at the time or at the inquest. The authorities seem to have accepted this as they never bothered to question Paul about whether he had seen a policeman in Buck's-row

the point is people were saying that lech wouldn't have gone with paul to find a copper because its insanely stupid and risky (blood on him, knife etc.), and I agree- the usual instinct would have been for Lech to flee as soon as he realized Paul was approaching, but there are many examples of serial killers who do this sort of thing, so lechs behavior, if guilty, isn't unheard of.

Just the idea of the Ripper killing on the way to work is insanely risky. Even a butcher, and Lechmere was not a butcher, who showed up at work covered in bloodstains would be very suspicious. By Paul's own testimony, Lechmere stopped Paul and asked him to look at the victim. If Lechmere was the Ripper stopping Paul was both insanely risky and incredibly stupid as it guaranteed several minutes where Paul could notice something was wrong and a face-to-face meeting with a policeman, who might also notice something was wrong. If Lechmere was the Ripper, then not stopping Paul would have been the easiest and safest thing. He could have continued his walk to work, never talking Paul or PC Mizen, never having to let eaither see him face-to-face.

And if the Ripper had gotten away with something that insanely risky and that incredibly stupid, he would have continued to take risks of that level and gotten caught.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't think we need to establish that serial killers are risk-takers. It comes with the territory. Some killers enjoyed taunting the police after the fact. Dahmer bluffed out a situation when he was close to being rumbled. None of this is comparable to Lechmere's "situation".

What we need to establish is was Lechmere's behaviour incongruous with the evidence, rather than construed as such by theorists.

I don't think you can categorize all serial killers Harry, and I know of some cases where great lengths were taken by the killer to avoid risk of being caught, as much as possible.

[Abby Normal]

I don't think we need to establish that serial killers are risk-takers. It comes with the territory. Some killers enjoyed taunting the police after the fact. Dahmer bluffed out a situation when he was close to being rumbled. None of this is comparable to Lechmere's "situation".

What we need to establish is was Lechmere's behaviour incongruous with the evidence, rather than construed as such by theorists.

hi harry
what me and Notts are doing is merely showing that its not unheard of for serial killers to take insane risks by engaging police when they don't seem to have to. and IMHO these examples and specifically dahmers situation is very comparable. Dahmer could have just stayed put and not engaged the police at all-its actually mind boggling he didn't get busted right then and there!

What we need to establish is was Lechmere's behaviour incongruous with the evidence, rather than construed as such by theorists

Im not exactly sure what you mean by this-but if you mean did he act or do anything suspicious-I guess that's up to interpretation. Its detective work 101 that the person who finds the body, especially if alone, is de facto a suspect, or at least person of interest, until cleared. then of course lech is seen near the body by paul before trying to raise any kind of alarm. little odd to me.

and specifically to your point-incongruous with the evidence- there is the discrepancy between said policeman whom lech engaged over who said what. so while I think that was probably a misunderstanding-according to the policeman-Lech lied to him. so theres that.

the point is people were saying that lech wouldn't have gone with paul to find a copper because its insanely stupid and risky (blood on him, knife etc.), and I agree- the usual instinct would have been for Lech to flee as soon as he realized Paul was approaching, but there are many examples of serial killers who do this sort of thing, so lechs behavior, if guilty, isn't unheard of.

[Harry D]

I don't think we need to establish that serial killers are risk-takers. It comes with the territory. Some killers enjoyed taunting the police after the fact. Dahmer bluffed out a situation when he was close to being rumbled. None of this is comparable to Lechmere's "situation".

What we need to establish is was Lechmere's behaviour incongruous with the evidence, rather than construed as such by theorists.

[Harry D]

Well, I mean, you could say that about every suspect couldn't you. Unfortunately that's how Police investigations work. Even today. You have a suspect and you need to either exonerate them or not. You're the only one saying guilty until proven innocent... I think everyone else means, suspicious until proven innocent.

That requires reasonable grounds for suspicion. There is none.

[Abby Normal]

Add to that BTK who played cat and mouse to be caught. Israel Keyes using the credit card of his victim even though every other murder was utterly thought out to avoid detection. Occasionally though you do get ones that go under the radar without attracting or seeking the limelight like Gary Ridgeway

hi Notts
yup-also couple more examples-Zodiac phoned the police station to report one of his murders from a pay phone within minutes of the murder and in sight of said police station. Kemper used to go to bars and places where the cops and detectives who worked the case used to hang out and talk ask them questions about it. The golden state killer called police to actually tell them what street he was going to hit that night-sure enough when they went to stake it out they saw him and a crazy chase occurred but he got away.

so it seems, some of these serial killers apparently like the cat and mouse as you say, and will intentionally at great risk engage police, whether in acts that they think may help them get away, and or for the sheer thrill of it apparently.

[NottsRipper]

while i agree it would seem that lech if guilty would more than likely just leave when he heard paul approach amd certainly not accompany him to fetch a policeman, ive said before many times, serial killers are by nature risk takers and sometimes prone to remarkable acts of brazeness. kemper visited his parole officer with the head of one of his victims in his car and dahmer went and fetched one of his young, naked and drugged victims, who had managed to escape amd get outside, from a couple of cops under the guise of gay lovers having a dispute.

Add to that BTK who played cat and mouse to be caught. Israel Keyes using the credit card of his victim even though every other murder was utterly thought out to avoid detection. Occasionally though you do get ones that go under the radar without attracting or seeking the limelight like Gary Ridgeway

[Abby Normal]

while i agree it would seem that lech if guilty would more than likely just leave when he heard paul approach amd certainly not accompany him to fetch a policeman, ive said before many times, serial killers are by nature risk takers and sometimes prone to remarkable acts of brazeness. kemper visited his parole officer with the head of one of his victims in his car and dahmer went and fetched one of his young, naked and drugged victims, who had managed to escape amd get outside, from a couple of cops under the guise of gay lovers having a dispute.

[Fiver]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Cross was searched when he was speaking to the Police Officer so... I mean... He could still have had the murder weapon on him. He was obviously just keeping up with the bluff of just finding her body so he could have just been banking on the fact that they wouldn't search a witness. And he was right, they didn't search him or Paul.

If Lechmere was the killer, he was banking on a lot more than not being searched. The killer almost certainly would have had fresh blood on him, so he would be banking on Paul never noticing the fresh blood, and PC Mizen never noticing the fresh blood, and his co-workers never noticing the fresh blood. Showing up for work spattered in fresh blood would be suspicious, even for a butcher, and Lechmere was a carman, not a butcher.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Cross was searched when he was speaking to the Police Officer so... I mean... He could still have had the murder weapon on him. He was obviously just keeping up with the bluff of just finding her body so he could have just been banking on the fact that they wouldn't search a witness. And he was right, they didn't search him or Paul.

Hello Kylie,

Welcome to Casebook.

Your’e right that he wasn’t searched there was still the risk. He couldn’t have been certain that Mizen wouldn’t have asked him and a Paul to accompany him back to the crime scene where he would inevitably ended up being searched. And this when he’d had the alternative of simply walking away when he’d heard Paul approach. Another point is that, in the dark, Lechmere couldn’t have been certain that he hadn’t gotten blood on him (with the risk of this being seen when he spoke to a police officer; possibly nearer to a street lamp.)

[Kyliebailey]

Guilty until proven innocent?

Well, I mean, you could say that about every suspect couldn't you. Unfortunately that's how Police investigations work. Even today. You have a suspect and you need to either exonerate them or not. You're the only one saying guilty until proven innocent... I think everyone else means, suspicious until proven innocent.

[Kyliebailey]

Then of course there’s the fact that he’d have been speaking to a Police Officer in possession of the murder weapon. There’s no way of showing that the killer wiped the knife so we’re left with either a bloody knife or one with at least traces of Polly’s blood on it. No knife was found in the area so we know that he didn’t dispose of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Cross was searched when he was speaking to the Police Officer so... I mean... He could still have had the murder weapon on him. He was obviously just keeping up with the bluff of just finding her body so he could have just been banking on the fact that they wouldn't search a witness. And he was right, they didn't search him or Paul.

[Abby Normal]

Thought you musta had a sex change or sumfin'

Someone was seeking that thread.
Thought it might be a novel way of re posting.

Thanks again for being a good sport.

nope. always been a dude. Abby Normal was the name of my band as a kid-from the mel brooks movie. and besides the name Abby can be a dude!

[DJA]

Thought you musta had a sex change or sumfin'

Someone was seeking that thread.
Thought it might be a novel way of re posting.

Thanks again for being a good sport.