Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Lechmere was Jack the Ripper
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Harry D View Post
Guilty until proven innocent?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kyliebailey View Post
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.
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.)Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kyliebailey View Post
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.
"The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren
"Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer
Comment
-
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.
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View Postwhile 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by NottsRipper View Post
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
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.Last edited by Abby Normal; 10-28-2019, 12:53 PM."Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kyliebailey View Post
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.
Comment
-
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.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Harry D View PostI 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.
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
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."Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Harry D View PostI 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
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!
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.
Originally posted by Abby Normal View PostIm 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.
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
Originally posted by Abby Normal View Postthe 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.
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."The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren
"Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fiver View Post
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.
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.
Last edited by Abby Normal; 10-28-2019, 08:06 PM."Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View Postagain 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.
Comment
Comment