Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Herlock Sholmes]

We have been over this before, and you know my answer - far from reasoning poorly, it seems to me that Lechmere reasoned rationally and cooly.

I din´t see the relevance of bringing it up again, therefore. You have made your point, and I have made mine. That should suffice.

Then what’s the relevance of debating the same points on the Torso thread ad nauseum? If issues become irrelevant after both sides make their points then there’s little point of a forum. If you say that your response is conclusive then of course it must be.

I have to say though, if that’s your idea of rational reasoning I’d hate to ever find myself in the hands of an irrational reasoner.

[Rob1n]

Herlock, in reply to your last paragraph why didn't Letchmere kill Paul, I think the Ripper knew that the Women would be easy to overcome (i'd imagine that as the Ripper devoloped his methods he would have planned out options to different scenarios, what to do if....) but, to take on a Man, that's something else.
I believe he would've taken on either the Policeman or Paul only as a last resort, it would have been slightly stacked in the Rippers favour having the element of surprise.

[Fisherman]

Then what’s the relevance of debating the same points on the Torso thread ad nauseum? If issues become irrelevant after both sides make their points then there’s little point of a forum. If you say that your response is conclusive then of course it must be.

I have to say though, if that’s your idea of rational reasoning I’d hate to ever find myself in the hands of an irrational reasoner.

If you can show me where I say that my response is conclusive, you will have a brilliant point.

If you can´t, you will have been exposed for misinforming.

So which is it?

Herlock, you are extremely bitter about how I stick to my stance, and you falsely imply that I cannot tolerate anybody who disagrees with me. But how about looking in the mirror? How have you handled the fact that I don´t think that you are correct?

By accepting that you are not or by endlessly repeating that he would have run? By saying that I may be correct or by speaking about irrational research?

Enough is enough. And reason is reason.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, in reply to your last paragraph why didn't Letchmere kill Paul, I think the Ripper knew that the Women would be easy to overcome (i'd imagine that as the Ripper devoloped his methods he would have planned out options to different scenarios, what to do if....) but, to take on a Man, that's something else.
I believe he would've taken on either the Policeman or Paul only as a last resort, it would have been slightly stacked in the Rippers favour having the element of surprise.

I don’t disagree with you RobIn I just mention it as another ‘option’ for the killer avoid possible capture. Then again, would it have been massively more risky? If Lechmere stood behind Paul as he viewed the body; a quick hand over the mouth and a knife to the heart. As i said though, it was just an option.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you can show me where I say that my response is conclusive, you will have a brilliant point.

If you can´t, you will have been exposed for misinforming.

So which is it?

Herlock, you are extremely bitter about how I stick to my stance, and you falsely imply that I cannot tolerate anybody who disagrees with me. But how about looking in the mirror? How have you handled the fact that I don´t think that you are correct?

By accepting that you are not or by endlessly repeating that he would have run? By saying that I may be correct or by speaking about irrational research?

Enough is enough. And reason is reason.

As usual you are misrepresenting my motives by calling me bitter (which, from long experience, is par for the course.)

You said “I don’t see the relevance of bringing it up again, therefore. You have made your point and I have made mine. That should suffice.”

Does this apply to all aspects of Ripper debate? One side makes their point; the other side responds and that’s it. As we know the position of both sides the issue needs debating no further? I suspect that that is not what you believe at all as I don’t believe that anyone would join a Forum and hold that view. So unless there’s another reason that I’m unaware of I can only think that either a) you do not want to debate with me for personal reasons (something that you are free to do) or b) that you believe that your position is proven and so further debate is pointless. I gave you the credit of not being personal and so arrived at point b) the only that I could think of. If i was incorrect .... fine. So it’s unfortunate that you choose to call me bitter.

I’m certainly not bitter at how you stick to your stance unless you don’t feel that disagreement cannot be honest when it applies to me? Everything is not about you. Believe it or not, someone can view the facts then hear your viewpoints and disagree with them. On the other thread, more that once, I expressly stated that I accept that I could be wrong. I’ve done the same on Lechmere threads. How does this make me bitter?

Turn the mirror onto yourself for a change. It’s you that uses condescension and insults which result in a response which you then seek to turn around to make it appear to reflect badly on me. It’s you that gets annoyed when you are disagreed with. You do it with me, with Gareth, with Steve, with Trevor and others yet it’s always made to appear as if you are the injured party. Teflon Fish.

You categorically cannot tell me or any other poster that any aspect of this case is done and dusted and so should be debated no further. You are completely free to take no part in that debate however.

[Fisherman]

As usual you are misrepresenting my motives by calling me bitter (which, from long experience, is par for the course.)

You said “I don’t see the relevance of bringing it up again, therefore. You have made your point and I have made mine. That should suffice.”

Does this apply to all aspects of Ripper debate? One side makes their point; the other side responds and that’s it. As we know the position of both sides the issue needs debating no further? I suspect that that is not what you believe at all as I don’t believe that anyone would join a Forum and hold that view. So unless there’s another reason that I’m unaware of I can only think that either a) you do not want to debate with me for personal reasons (something that you are free to do) or b) that you believe that your position is proven and so further debate is pointless. I gave you the credit of not being personal and so arrived at point b) the only that I could think of. If i was incorrect .... fine. So it’s unfortunate that you choose to call me bitter.

I’m certainly not bitter at how you stick to your stance unless you don’t feel that disagreement cannot be honest when it applies to me? Everything is not about you. Believe it or not, someone can view the facts then hear your viewpoints and disagree with them. On the other thread, more that once, I expressly stated that I accept that I could be wrong. I’ve done the same on Lechmere threads. How does this make me bitter?

Turn the mirror onto yourself for a change. It’s you that uses condescension and insults which result in a response which you then seek to turn around to make it appear to reflect badly on me. It’s you that gets annoyed when you are disagreed with. You do it with me, with Gareth, with Steve, with Trevor and others yet it’s always made to appear as if you are the injured party. Teflon Fish.

You categorically cannot tell me or any other poster that any aspect of this case is done and dusted and so should be debated no further. You are completely free to take no part in that debate however.

Let´s see here ... anything new? Hmmm ... nope ....nope ... nope.

Okay.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let´s see here ... anything new? Hmmm ... nope ....nope ... nope.

Okay.

More than a little rich since you haven’t made a ‘new’ point on the Torso thread for months. Pathetic

[Fisherman]

More than a little rich since you haven’t made a ‘new’ point on the Torso thread for months. Pathetic

Let´s see here ... anything new? Hmmm ... nope ....nope ... nope.

Okay.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let´s see here ... anything new? Hmmm ... nope ....nope ... nope.

Okay.

I appreciate this Fish. At least you are now making no secret of that fact that you dislike being disagreed with. Progress of sorts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The next important aspect of the case against Lechmere is the alleged Mizen Scam. Lechmere and Paul leave Buck’s Row together with the intention of finding a police officer on their way to work. They come upon PC Jonas Mizen. Now it’s beyond doubt that there are conflicts as to what was actually said and by whom. Did Lechmere speak but Paul remained silent? Did Paul speak? Did Lechmere say that there was a policeman in Buck’s Row? Did Lechmere say that Nichols was just lying in the street? Or did he say drunk? Or did he say that she might be dead? It’s a bit of a minefield of conflict. Were lies told and who told them? Or was it a case of mis-hearing?
The case for a guilty Lechmere proposes that Lechmere and Paul met Mizen and then Lechmere intentionally separated Mizen and Paul so that he could speak to the Constable without Paul hearing. This would enable him him to lie about Nichols only being drunk and thus ensure that he wasn’t detained by Mizen. Police regulations actually stated that unless he suspected that a crime had been committed he was not obliged to detain witnesses. Of course we cannot assume that civilians like Lechmere and Paul would have been aware of this.
There’s nothing to suggest however that any such separation took place. They left Buck’s Row together with a common purpose therefore it’s quite reasonable to suppose that they were also together when Mizen was informed about Nichols. A couple of points worth mentioning are 1) could Lechmere have had any reason for confidence in his ability to separate Paul and Mizen? If Paul had simply stuck to his side it would have been plan over. So how could Lechmere, who had consciously decided to risk a meeting with a police officer after leaving the crime scene, have had any confidence that he’d have been in a position to ‘scam’ his way past Mizen? And 2) wouldn’t Paul, or Mizen for that matter, have though it slightly strange; suspicious even, that this man Lechmere pulled Mizen to one side despite the fact that they had approached him together? That Lechmere appeared to want to have some ‘alone time’ with Mizen? This makes little sense.
But what appears to make even less sense for a killer trying to avoid suspicion and possible arrest at some point, is the fact that he, according to those that propose Lechmere, simply lied to the police. Here we have a man who has just killed a women in a deserted (apart from Paul arriving later) Street. He’s cut her throat and mutilated her abdomen. He then meets up with Mizen and not only tells him that there was a police officer in Buck’s Row but that she was only drunk. In a face to face meeting. This leaves the police in this situation. They have a man who discovered the body whilst he was completely alone. A man who then proceeds to lie through his teeth to a police officer. A police officer who, along with Paul, can identify him. And yet at no time was Lechmere considered a possible suspect!
So we have Lechmere taking the decision to remain at the crime scene and then blatantly lying to a police officer who could identify him (as could Paul.)
My apologies in advance for mentioning these points again.

[Fisherman]

I appreciate this Fish. At least you are now making no secret of that fact that you dislike being disagreed with. Progress of sorts.

Let´s see here ... anything new? Hmmm ... nope ....nope ... nope.

Okay.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The next important aspect of the case against Lechmere is the alleged Mizen Scam. Lechmere and Paul leave Buck’s Row together with the intention of finding a police officer on their way to work. They come upon PC Jonas Mizen. Now it’s beyond doubt that there are conflicts as to what was actually said and by whom. Did Lechmere speak but Paul remained silent? Did Paul speak? Did Lechmere say that there was a policeman in Buck’s Row? Did Lechmere say that Nichols was just lying in the street? Or did he say drunk? Or did he say that she might be dead? It’s a bit of a minefield of conflict. Were lies told and who told them? Or was it a case of mis-hearing?
The case for a guilty Lechmere proposes that Lechmere and Paul met Mizen and then Lechmere intentionally separated Mizen and Paul so that he could speak to the Constable without Paul hearing. This would enable him him to lie about Nichols only being drunk and thus ensure that he wasn’t detained by Mizen. Police regulations actually stated that unless he suspected that a crime had been committed he was not obliged to detain witnesses. Of course we cannot assume that civilians like Lechmere and Paul would have been aware of this.
There’s nothing to suggest however that any such separation took place. They left Buck’s Row together with a common purpose therefore it’s quite reasonable to suppose that they were also together when Mizen was informed about Nichols. A couple of points worth mentioning are 1) could Lechmere have had any reason for confidence in his ability to separate Paul and Mizen? If Paul had simply stuck to his side it would have been plan over. So how could Lechmere, who had consciously decided to risk a meeting with a police officer after leaving the crime scene, have had any confidence that he’d have been in a position to ‘scam’ his way past Mizen? And 2) wouldn’t Paul, or Mizen for that matter, have though it slightly strange; suspicious even, that this man Lechmere pulled Mizen to one side despite the fact that they had approached him together? That Lechmere appeared to want to have some ‘alone time’ with Mizen? This makes little sense.
But what appears to make even less sense for a killer trying to avoid suspicion and possible arrest at some point, is the fact that he, according to those that propose Lechmere, simply lied to the police. Here we have a man who has just killed a women in a deserted (apart from Paul arriving later) Street. He’s cut her throat and mutilated her abdomen. He then meets up with Mizen and not only tells him that there was a police officer in Buck’s Row but that she was only drunk. In a face to face meeting. This leaves the police in this situation. They have a man who discovered the body whilst he was completely alone. A man who then proceeds to lie through his teeth to a police officer. A police officer who, along with Paul, can identify him. And yet at no time was Lechmere considered a possible suspect!
So we have Lechmere taking the decision to remain at the crime scene and then blatantly lying to a police officer who could identify him (as could Paul.)
My apologies in advance for mentioning these points again as it appears to be case closed.

[c.d.]

Even if Lechmere had never been considered a "suspect" by police, I think the essential question then becomes (just like Hutchinson) was he ever considered a "person of interest." And if so, would the police have done anything to determine that he did not fall into the suspect category?

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Even if Lechmere had never been considered a "suspect" by police, I think the essential question then becomes (just like Hutchinson) was he ever considered a "person of interest." And if so, would the police have done anything to determine that he did not fall into the suspect category?

c.d.

Hi c.d.

You’re right to make the distinction. Just because someone wasn’t a suspect at the time doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have been guilty. My point is though that this guy found the body so we know that he was alone with it then, according to those that believe him guilty, he told blatant, discoverable lies to a police officer immediately after the event. Knowing that he could be identified by two people (one of them a Constable). It’s difficult to see how he could have drawn attention to himself and made himself appear to be ‘of interest’ more. The fact that he appears not to have been a person of interest, to me, appears to show that the police felt that he’d done nothing suspicious.

[c.d.]

Hi Herlock,

If the police at the time did not consider him to be a person of interest then it would seem that they were grossly incompetent for the very reasons you mention. Like so many aspects of the case this involves the perceived competency of the police. Even if we have no record of it having taken place, we have to ask (and reach a conclusion) well wouldn't the police have checked him out? Now arguments can be made regarding the limitations of any investigation but we have to make a leap of faith and conclude that the police had some degree of competency and acted accordingly.

c.d.