The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Patrick S]

Patrick S:

Lechmere had to have KNOWN that Mizen would not ask them to return to the spot with him.

I only choose this one sentence, and I will leave most of the other post unread and uncommented on.

No, Patrick, Lechmere must NOT have known that Mizen would not take him back

He could not have known that they WOULD run into a policeman - he left it in the hands of destiny.

Once they did, he would have done his utmost to TRY and not to be taken back. He would not be certain that it would work, because you never CAN be - some PC:s are more, some less harsh and demanding.

The lie he seems to have fed Mizen, though, was perfectly shaped to optimize his chances of being allowed to walk on.

That is where the interest must lie for any serious researcher - it seems that Lechmere lied to Mizen, and interestingly, the lie is exactly shaped to allow him to pass by the PC.

What possible reason is there to argue that Lechmere MUST have known that Mizen would let him pass? None. It would be understandable if Mizen did, but it could not have been any certainty.

And why must it have been for Lechmere to try the ploy? Because if he had not been certain that it would work, he would never have risked killing Nichols in the first place? Or was it for some otrher reason?

I would be grateful if you could expand on this small point, Patrick. My excuses to you and others for my inability to work up a will to answer things. As of n ow, I am dealing with this monor issue only, since I find it disturbingly significant.

I'm not sure what point you'd like me address. It's not clear. You made a few points. Can you clarify?

I assume that you DO think that Lechmere as Jack the Ripper DID want to get away with Nichols' murder? Right? I mean, he did not - after all - say to Paul, "Look here! I just killed this woman! Take a look!"

[Fisherman]

I'm not sure what point you'd like me address. It's not clear. You made a few points. Can you clarify?

I assume that you DO think that Lechmere as Jack the Ripper DID want to get away with Nichols' murder? Right? I mean, he did not - after all - say to Paul, "Look here! I just killed this woman! Take a look!"

Itīs simple - precisely why do you think that Lechmere must have known that Mizen would not ask him to come back with him to the murder spot? Why would this be a certainty? What guarantees it?

If we can leave the other points aside for a while and concentrate on this one matter, I would be grateful.

[John G]

There are so many things about Chuck the Ripper meeting Nichols, either IN Buck's Row or (as is most likely) elsewhere and retreating there to conduct their business, killing her, mutilating her, and REMAINING there to engage in his subterfuge, which goes against every human instinct, simple reason, and common sense.

Your point is an excellent one. For instance, we know that Mrs. Green and her family lived at New Cottage, Buck's Row. Her window afforded her a view overlooking the murder site (from her window she was able to see the body after the police arrived). We know that Harriet Lilley slept feet from the murder site. If she had looked out her window she'd have witnessed the murder (she testified she may have heard the murder as well as whispers beneath her window). This is another instance of Lechmere - had he killed Nichols - behaving as if he had knowledge he simply could not have had, knowledge of what people unknown to him were doing, knowledge of the future.

He knew that no one had seen him with Nichols, either in conversation or in the act of killing and/or mutilating her body. Even though windows overlooking the spot are clearly visible to him he knows that no one has looked out and observed him. Therefore, he feels that this "bluff" of his is the best course of action and will lead - ultimately, after much consternation and several close calls including a conversation with a PC and his voluntary testimony at the inquest - to his escape. He knows that while he pulls his fast one on Paul no one will open a window and say, "That man killed that woman! I saw him! POLICE! POLICE!" He knows that no one else will enter Buck's Row and declare, "I just saw you with this woman around the corner! And now she's dead?"

He did all this rather just simply WALK away. It was very dark. He just killed a woman on a spot surrounded by windows. He likely lured his victim to Buck's Row from another spot, where he could have been seen in the dead woman's company. But, rather than simply disappear in the darkness when he hears footsteps, he stops mutilating Nichols, pockets his knife....and he waits for Paul. Somehow he KNOWS that Paul hadn't seen a thing. He KNOWS that he is not a police officer who will search his person and find the weapon that Fisherman tells us was hidden in his clothes. He KNOWS that Paul will not produce a match, see the wounds and notice some trace of blood on Lechmere and begin screaming for a cop. Amazing.

Remember also, that Paul took no notice of the body. Lechmere goes TO Paul. He touches his shoulder. Calls his attention to the body. He asks him to come and see. THIS was how he went about getting away with MURDER?

Then he continues with the man until they succeed in finding a PC and telling them what they'd seen? Let's leave the "Mizen Scam" out of it and just consider the act of going with Paul to find a PC. He could have simply told Paul he worked in the other direction. He could have said he goes left at the top of Buck's Row while Paul goes right. But he sticks with Paul until they do find Mizen..

Lechmere had to have KNOWN that Mizen would not ask them to return to the spot with him. The PC would not inspect his hands and clothing with a torch. He would not search his clothes and find the knife. We are supposed to believe that after successfully pulling his "Mizen Scam" (he's not searched, not detained, not questioned to any extent, not asked HIS NAME), he then shows up at the inquest on Monday morning. He wasn't compelled to do so. He wasn't named. He wasn't described. He was completely unknown.

Hi Patrick,

Excellent points. Do you think all this suggests that Nichols' killer was largely disorganized? And, as your post implies, surely for such a disorganized killer the simplest, safest and most instinctive thing to do would be to disappear into the Whitechapel labyrinth, which is presumably what, say, McKenzie's and Coles' murderer(s) elected to do.

[Patrick S]

Itīs simple - precisely why do you think that Lechmere must have known that Mizen would not ask him to come back with him to the murder spot? Why would this be a certainty? What guarantees it?

If we can leave the other points aside for a while and concentrate on this one matter, I would be grateful.

First off, nothing guarantees anything. Nothing is a certainty.

According to your theory, Lechmere had just killed and mutilated Nichols. You also allege that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, the Torso killer, a guy who killed - as you've said - for 25 years or more. In that he was never caught or suspected in his lifetime we can infer one of two things: either he was NOT Jack the Ripper, the Torso Killer, etc., or, he was a killer and he was pretty good at killing AND avoiding detection, capture, and suspicion.

So, we can assume that Lechmere, after doing for Nichols, had an objective: escape. I do not believe that Lechmere - as the killer - would have had to have known with certainty that Mizen would not haul him back to Buck's Row, search him, arrest him, in order to have tried your ruse. All option have some degree of risk. It stands to reason that if he'd run upon hearing Paul's footsteps he could have run into the waiting arms of Neil or Thain. Thus, he'd have had no guarantee of success there either. I would think that one cannot guarantee himself success in getting away with murder, after all.

What I am capable of doing is understanding what Lechmere's OBJECTIVE would have been had he killed Nichols: Escape, avoidance of suspicion, arrest.

From there I can try and understand his actions and determine if they would have RESONABLY served his achieving the objective.

Running or walking away into the darkness didn't guarantee success. But, it was far more likely to succeed than waiting for a stranger to get to where you are and recruit him to join you in looking at your victim and going off to find a cop. Leaving the scene is also instinctual. You have Lechmere inventing this ruse in seconds, executing it flawlessly, when he could have just.....walked away, and done that without much thought or planning as it's what most anyone WOULD have done and what the killer (i.e. NOT Lechmere) likely DID DO.

Now we have our killer staying with that man until he did indeed find a cop? Showing up voluntarily at the inquest to tell - as you allege - LIES about a PC? In order to AVOID arrest? In order to AVOID suspicion?

We've been over this. Again and again. For me, it's nonsense.

[John G]

And, as I've noted before, the Torso killer, assuming he existed, was also far more organized, i.e. he didn't murder victims in the middle of the street in broad daylight, at a time when people were leaving for work, and he successfully took steps to prevent his victims from being identified.

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick,

Excellent points. Do you think all this suggests that Nichols' killer was largely disorganized? And, as your post implies, surely for such a disorganized killer the simplest, safest and most instinctive thing to do would be to disappear into the Whitechapel labyrinth, which is presumably what, say, McKenzie's and Coles' murderer(s) elected to do.

I think that most of the Ripper killings suggest a killer that had elements of both an organized and disorganized serial killer. Personally, I struggle with that categorization. I'm sure others have more expertise in that arena. I think the Torso Killer (if there was one) can be fairly categorized as organized.

In general, especially under stress and in situations where reaction takes precedence over analysis and planning, I think that human beings will almost always choose the "simplest, safest, and most instinctive thing to do". In the case of Nichols, I think the killer very easily did exactly what you say. My guess is that he simply walked away, into the darkness. I don't think he ran. I don't think he needed to.

[Elamarna]

First off, nothing guarantees anything. Nothing is a certainty.

According to your theory, Lechmere had just killed and mutilated Nichols. You also allege that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, the Torso killer, a guy who killed - as you've said - for 25 years or more. In that he was never caught or suspected in his lifetime we can infer one of two things: either he was NOT Jack the Ripper, the Torso Killer, etc., or, he was a killer and he was pretty good at killing AND avoiding detection, capture, and suspicion.

So, we can assume that Lechmere, after doing for Nichols, had an objective: escape. I do not believe that Lechmere - as the killer - would have had to have known with certainty that Mizen would not haul him back to Buck's Row, search him, arrest him, in order to have tried your ruse. All option have some degree of risk. It stands to reason that if he'd run upon hearing Paul's footsteps he could have run into the waiting arms of Neil or Thain. Thus, he'd have had no guarantee of success there either. I would think that one cannot guarantee himself success in getting away with murder, after all.

What I am capable of doing is understanding what Lechmere's OBJECTIVE would have been had he killed Nichols: Escape, avoidance of suspicion, arrest.

From there I can try and understand his actions and determine if they would have RESONABLY served his achieving the objective.

Running or walking away into the darkness didn't guarantee success. But, it was far more likely to succeed than waiting for a stranger to get to where you are and recruit him to join you in looking at your victim and going off to find a cop. Leaving the scene is also instinctual. You have Lechmere inventing this ruse in seconds, executing it flawlessly, when he could have just.....walked away, and done that without much thought or planning as it's what most anyone WOULD have done and what the killer (i.e. NOT Lechmere) likely DID DO.

Now we have our killer staying with that man until he did indeed find a cop? Showing up voluntarily at the inquest to tell - as you allege - LIES about a PC? In order to AVOID arrest? In order to AVOID suspicion?

We've been over this. Again and again. For me, it's nonsense.

Patrick

I tend to agree with you on those issues, that leaves us with:

1. The "evidence" of his routes to work and his mother's neither of which in my opinion are more than possibilities and certainly not strong enough to be termed circumstantial evidence in my opinion.

2. The blood evidence, this I am still working on, suffice to say the actual comments from James-Payne on blood flow generally stand up, however it is how we apply that information, based on the witness statements and that I am still working on.
cheers

Steve

[John G]

I think that most of the Ripper killings suggest a killer that had elements of both an organized and disorganized serial killer. Personally, I struggle with that categorization. I'm sure others have more expertise in that arena. I think the Torso Killer (if there was one) can be fairly categorized as organized.

In general, especially under stress and in situations where reaction takes precedence over analysis and planning, I think that human beings will almost always choose the "simplest, safest, and most instinctive thing to do". In the case of Nichols, I think the killer very easily did exactly what you say. My guess is that he simply walked away, into the darkness. I don't think he ran. I don't think he needed to.

Thanks for the reply. I agree that it would have been pretty easy for him to escape simply by walking away, as this article, highlighting the serious difficulties the police faced, perfectly illustrates: http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true

[Patrick S]

Patrick

I tend to agree with you on those issues, that leaves us with:

1. The "evidence" of his routes to work and his mother's neither of which in my opinion are more than possibilities and certainly not strong enough to be termed circumstantial evidence in my opinion.

2. The blood evidence, this I am still working on, suffice to say the actual comments from James-Payne on blood flow generally stand up, however it is how we apply that information, based on the witness statements and that I am still working on.
cheers

Steve

With respect to his 'routes to work', I've always maintained that we'd be having a very different conversation had someone who's route to work DID NOT take him "through the killing" zone. We'd be asking, "What on earth was he doing there?" For instance, if man who neither lived nor worked anywhere around the East end found Nichols and sidled up to Robert Paul and then showed up at the inquest to tell the tale, I think someone may have asked, "Wait. What were doing in Buck's Row at 330am, again?"

We know why Lechmere was there. We know why he was there at that time of day. We know that these murders were committed across a very small geographic area, thus, as I've said before, close to Buck's Row means close to Hanbury Street means close to Miller's Court means close to George Yard. The witness associated with these murders are men and women who lived and worked close to these locations. Lechmere is no different.

His mother lived near Berner Street. Personally, I don't believe that Stride was a Ripper victim but if she were why on earth would Lechmere choose a victim so close to people who would now him by site? At that comparatively early hour? The theory must have Stride as a Ripper victim in order to tie her murder and that of Eddowes to Lechmere as those killings DO NOT fit into times that correspond with his route to work. Therefore, he was out visiting and decided to do some killing, as well.

As for the "blood evidence" it doesn't exist. As with so much associated with this theory it requires one to take literally and as verifiable fact second or third hand media accounts that was never meant to be taken as scientific analyses and presents them as such. Are we to pretend that scientific evidence, ACTUAL blood evidence, are not fragile things that must be handled carefully in order to give an accurate account of what occurred and who is to blame? We are to believe that a few comments, REPORTED SECOND HAND AND NOT BY THE PARTIES WHO REPORTEDLY UTTERED THEM, that were never intended as evidence of anything be treated as such? NOW? 130 years after the fact? Sorry. I cannot.

This is not to say that it's not a good story. It is. Brilliant. Good entertainment. But, as far as I am concerned in has been debunked. It's fantasy. THAT said, Fisherman says he has more. I'd like to hear about it and I'll approach it with an open mind as I did before I studied his information and formed the opinion I now hold. Perhaps he can change that opinion. He has, however, a long way to go.

[David Orsam]

As for the "blood evidence" it doesn't exist. As with so much associated with this theory it requires one to take literally and as verifiable fact second or third hand media accounts that was never meant to be taken as scientific analyses and presents them as such.

I can't agree with you there Patrick. We do have evidence from the witnesses relating to the blood. It is not from "second or third hand media accounts". It comes from first hand media reporting of the inquest evidence. That inquest evidence comes from people who were at the scene and who testified as to what they saw.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: First off, nothing guarantees anything. Nothing is a certainty.

Correct! So why say that Lechmere must have known that Mizen would not take him back? That was why I reacted. It is by no means at all any certainty!

According to your theory, Lechmere had just killed and mutilated Nichols.

Yes.

You also allege that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, the Torso killer, a guy who killed - as you've said - for 25 years or more.

Fifteen when he killed Nichols - if I am correct.

In that he was never caught or suspected in his lifetime we can infer one of two things: either he was NOT Jack the Ripper, the Torso Killer, etc., or, he was a killer and he was pretty good at killing AND avoiding detection, capture, and suspicion.

Indeed. Either or.

So, we can assume that Lechmere, after doing for Nichols, had an objective: escape.

We can assume that, and we may be right - but if you take a look at "The definitive story", it involves a professor who speaks with a Swedish accent, and who says that it may well be that the killer did not care if he was caught or not! So we cannot be certain on this score either.

I do not believe that Lechmere - as the killer - would have had to have known with certainty that Mizen would not haul him back to Buck's Row, search him, arrest him, in order to have tried your ruse.

I donīt think Mizen had any reason at all to suspect any ruse - why would he? At the murder site, it all panned out. There WAS a PC in place, just as Mizen had been told.

All option have some degree of risk.

And THAT is something you should speak to Caz about - she seems to think that no killer would risk anything at all to kill. I agree wholeheartedly - killing in itself involves immense risk, and when you allow the course of events to slip out of your control, the risks will come thick and fast.

It stands to reason that if he'd run upon hearing Paul's footsteps he could have run into the waiting arms of Neil or Thain.

Yup. Absolutely. There was no knowing.

Thus, he'd have had no guarantee of success there either.

Spot on.

I would think that one cannot guarantee himself success in getting away with murder, after all.

No. Nobody can guarantee that. But there IS an element that should be weighed in, witnessed about by many serialists: After having killed numerous times and getting away with it, they may develop a sense of invincibility, causing them to be incredibly outrageous. Many fall prey as a result of this, they get over-confident and do stupid things. But what about those who do outrageously stupid and risky things - and get away with it? They will think themselves divine! Impossible to catch! And such a figure could well lie behind a murder like the Nichols murder, grabbing a woman in the open street and killing and opening her up there.
If such a man is found with his victim, I think that he may well feel extremely confident about his chances of bluffing his way out. Why would he fear the police? They would not catch him if he sat in their lap!
Or, as that professor put it: It seems he didnīt care.

What I am capable of doing is understanding what Lechmere's OBJECTIVE would have been had he killed Nichols: Escape, avoidance of suspicion, arrest.

Yes - but the pertinent question is how far he believed he would be able to go without getting caught. Just how bold could he be? In that respect, thre will be two extremes - those who would leg it, crapping themselves in the process, and those who would meet any challenge with a rye smile and a sense of being in the driving seat, no matter what.

From there I can try and understand his actions and determine if they would have RESONABLY served his achieving the objective.

If he as the killer, the plan would have been:

1. Find woman and kill her.

2. Eviscerate her, and use her body as your belonging, leaving it behind when Iīm finished.

3. Leave, and let the idiots in the police try to find me!

Thing is, Paul broke the pattern up, so it was time for a new plan:

1. Fool the damn idiot coming down the street.

2. Leave, and let the idiots in the police try to find me!

Then Paul spoke to the press, so there was a new plan:

1. Read up on what has been said about the murder.

2. Shape a plan.

3. Go to the inquest and fool jury and coroner.

So he would have to reasess time and again. And if the Mizen scam was what I think it was, it is a shining example of the adaptability he was capable of - and the arrogance he had worked up.

Running or walking away into the darkness didn't guarantee success.

No.

But, it was far more likely to succeed than waiting for a stranger to get to where you are and recruit him to join you in looking at your victim and going off to find a cop.

How? If that stranger cried "Oh, murder!" as Lechmere turned the street and walked into the arms of, say, Neil - how would that be likelier to succeed? He WOULD run that risk if he left, and he WOULD dissolve that risk if he did NOT run. If he trusted himself to be able to get out of any trouble, no matter what, staying put was the only real option. Griffiths concluded the same thing, he immediately said that running was no option. I concur.

Leaving the scene is also instinctual.

To some. Not to others. A psychopath is per se unable to panick, and his muscles will not prepare him for flight. He is physically totally different from us in that respect.

You have Lechmere inventing this ruse in seconds, executing it flawlessly, when he could have just.....walked away, and done that without much thought or planning as it's what most anyone WOULD have done and what the killer (i.e. NOT Lechmere) likely DID DO.

There was no other killer to my mind, Patrick. Lechmere was a quick thinker and a good improvisor. Such people exist, and I firmly believe he was such a person. Ther is no need to cram somebody in, somebody who would - on account of the blood evidence - fit the picture worse that Lechmere. And he acts oddly afterwards, lying about the extra PC if Mizen was correct. And WHAT a strange coincidence if MIzen made it all up or misheard, that he came up with the exact type of ruse that would take the carman past the police! How big was THAT chance? And then he goes on to change his name at the inquest. And why, oh why, was Nichols of all the Ripper victims NOT put on display? Why were her wounds hidden?
It all fits, to a tee.

Now we have our killer staying with that man until he did indeed find a cop?

And how innocent it made him look! Think about it!! Going to the inquest later on would enhance that image.

Showing up voluntarily at the inquest to tell - as you allege - LIES about a PC? In order to AVOID arrest? In order to AVOID suspicion?

The alternative would be not to go to the inquest - and risk becoming the prime suspect.
Once at the inquest, the alternative would be to say "Yes, thatīs right, I DID say that there was another PC in place. I thought it was a jolly good joke." And then he would become the prime suspect.

He was tied, hands and feet, when it came to what he could do and say. And he played his cards brilliantly.

We've been over this. Again and again. For me, it's nonsense.

For me itīs not. For Scobie, it was not. For Griffiths, it was not. For David MacNab, it was not - it was the solution he never thought would arrive, and one he believed in. For Sam Taplin, it was not - he was certain that we were correct. For a good many people, commenting on the docu, it is decidedly not.

People will differ on these things. You prefer to call it nonsense, which I think very harsh. Hard to believe, I can buy. Probably wrong, I can buy. But I am not buying nonsense, which is good - if I did, you would not have it in your posession any more...

[Patrick S]

I can't agree with you there Patrick. We do have evidence from the witnesses relating to the blood. It is not from "second or third hand media accounts". It comes from first hand media reporting of the inquest evidence. That inquest evidence comes from people who were at the scene and who testified as to what they saw.

Corrected on that. Although, I think it's worth repeating all we have are media accounts of testimony. No transcripts exist, as far as we know. Therefore, we cannot say for certain that the words appearing in print were the words spoken at the inquest. That was my overarching point, exaggerated as it was.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: First off, nothing guarantees anything. Nothing is a certainty.

Correct! So why say that Lechmere must have known that Mizen would not take him back? That was why I reacted. It is by no means at all any certainty!

According to your theory, Lechmere had just killed and mutilated Nichols.

Yes.

You also allege that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, the Torso killer, a guy who killed - as you've said - for 25 years or more.

Fifteen when he killed Nichols - if I am correct.

In that he was never caught or suspected in his lifetime we can infer one of two things: either he was NOT Jack the Ripper, the Torso Killer, etc., or, he was a killer and he was pretty good at killing AND avoiding detection, capture, and suspicion.

Indeed. Either or.

So, we can assume that Lechmere, after doing for Nichols, had an objective: escape.

We can assume that, and we may be right - but if you take a look at "The definitive story", it involves a professor who speaks with a Swedish accent, and who says that it may well be that the killer did not care if he was caught or not! So we cannot be certain on this score either.

I do not believe that Lechmere - as the killer - would have had to have known with certainty that Mizen would not haul him back to Buck's Row, search him, arrest him, in order to have tried your ruse.

I donīt think Mizen had any reason at all to suspect any ruse - why would he? At the murder site, it all panned out. There WAS a PC in place, just as Mizen had been told.

All option have some degree of risk.

And THAT is something you should speak to Caz about - she seems to think that no killer would risk anything at all to kill. I agree wholeheartedly - killing in itself involves immense risk, and when you allow the course of events to slip out of your control, the risks will come thick and fast.

It stands to reason that if he'd run upon hearing Paul's footsteps he could have run into the waiting arms of Neil or Thain.

Yup. Absolutely. There was no knowing.

Thus, he'd have had no guarantee of success there either.

Spot on.

I would think that one cannot guarantee himself success in getting away with murder, after all.

No. Nobody can guarantee that. But there IS an element that should be weighed in, witnessed about by many serialists: After having killed numerous times and getting away with it, they may develop a sense of invincibility, causing them to be incredibly outrageous. Many fall prey as a result of this, they get over-confident and do stupid things. But what about those who do outrageously stupid and risky things - and get away with it? They will think themselves divine! Impossible to catch! And such a figure could well lie behind a murder like the Nichols murder, grabbing a woman in the open street and killing and opening her up there.
If such a man is found with his victim, I think that he may well feel extremely confident about his chances of bluffing his way out. Why would he fear the police? They would not catch him if he sat in their lap!
Or, as that professor put it: It seems he didnīt care.

What I am capable of doing is understanding what Lechmere's OBJECTIVE would have been had he killed Nichols: Escape, avoidance of suspicion, arrest.

Yes - but the pertinent question is how far he believed he would be able to go without getting caught. Just how bold could he be? In that respect, thre will be two extremes - those who would leg it, crapping themselves in the process, and those who would meet any challenge with a rye smile and a sense of being in the driving seat, no matter what.

From there I can try and understand his actions and determine if they would have RESONABLY served his achieving the objective.

If he as the killer, the plan would have been:

1. Find woman and kill her.

2. Eviscerate her, and use her body as your belonging, leaving it behind when Iīm finished.

3. Leave, and let the idiots in the police try to find me!

Thing is, Paul broke the pattern up, so it was time for a new plan:

1. Fool the damn idiot coming down the street.

2. Leave, and let the idiots in the police try to find me!

Then Paul spoke to the press, so there was a new plan:

1. Read up on what has been said about the murder.

2. Shape a plan.

3. Go to the inquest and fool jury and coroner.

So he would have to reasess time and again. And if the Mizen scam was what I think it was, it is a shining example of the adaptability he was capable of - and the arrogance he had worked up.

Running or walking away into the darkness didn't guarantee success.

No.

But, it was far more likely to succeed than waiting for a stranger to get to where you are and recruit him to join you in looking at your victim and going off to find a cop.

How? If that stranger cried "Oh, murder!" as Lechmere turned the street and walked into the arms of, say, Neil - how would that be likelier to succeed? He WOULD run that risk if he left, and he WOULD dissolve that risk if he did NOT run. If he trusted himself to be able to get out of any trouble, no matter what, staying put was the only real option. Griffiths concluded the same thing, he immediately said that running was no option. I concur.

Leaving the scene is also instinctual.

To some. Not to others. A psychopath is per se unable to panick, and his muscles will not prepare him for flight. He is physically totally different from us in that respect.

You have Lechmere inventing this ruse in seconds, executing it flawlessly, when he could have just.....walked away, and done that without much thought or planning as it's what most anyone WOULD have done and what the killer (i.e. NOT Lechmere) likely DID DO.

There was no other killer to my mind, Patrick. Lechmere was a quick thinker and a good improvisor. Such people exist, and I firmly believe he was such a person. Ther is no need to cram somebody in, somebody who would - on account of the blood evidence - fit the picture worse that Lechmere. And he acts oddly afterwards, lying about the extra PC if Mizen was correct. And WHAT a strange coincidence if MIzen made it all up or misheard, that he came up with the exact type of ruse that would take the carman past the police! How big was THAT chance? And then he goes on to change his name at the inquest. And why, oh why, was Nichols of all the Ripper victims NOT put on display? Why were her wounds hidden?
It all fits, to a tee.

Now we have our killer staying with that man until he did indeed find a cop?

And how innocent it made him look! Think about it!! Going to the inquest later on would enhance that image.

Showing up voluntarily at the inquest to tell - as you allege - LIES about a PC? In order to AVOID arrest? In order to AVOID suspicion?

The alternative would be not to go to the inquest - and risk becoming the prime suspect.
Once at the inquest, the alternative would be to say "Yes, thatīs right, I DID say that there was another PC in place. I thought it was a jolly good joke." And then he would become the prime suspect.

He was tied, hands and feet, when it came to what he could do and say. And he played his cards brilliantly.

We've been over this. Again and again. For me, it's nonsense.

For me itīs not. For Scobie, it was not. For Griffiths, it was not. For David MacNab, it was not - it was the solution he never thought would arrive, and one he believed in. For Sam Taplin, it was not - he was certain that we were correct. For a good many people, commenting on the docu, it is decidedly not.

People will differ on these things. You prefer to call it nonsense, which I think very harsh. Hard to believe, I can buy. Probably wrong, I can buy. But I am not buying nonsense, which is good - if I did, you would not have it in your posession any more...

I read your responses. Although, I knew what you were going to say. As Kirk said of Kahn in the best Star Trek movie ever made, "I'll say this for him, he's consistent." We'll add this to the catalogue of debate. However, I'm unmoved, as you're unmoved. What a stunner. I'll stand by my assertion that it's nonsense because it's harsh, over-the-top, mean-spirited....like me.

I'll say this honestly, I appreciate your willingness to mix it up and to debate each point in detail. Rest assured I'll among the first to buy several copies of your book. I'll see the movie (which there must because this FAR more believable than what saw from Michael Cain or Jonny Depp). It's just that, pending something to push me in another direction....I won't believe a word of it!

[David Orsam]

Corrected on that. Although, I think it's worth repeating all we have are media accounts of testimony. No transcripts exist, as far as we know. Therefore, we cannot say for certain that the words appearing in print were the words spoken at the inquest. That was my overarching point, exaggerated as it was.

Well that's the same for all the evidence and it was the job of a newspaper court reporter to accurately report what he heard. So while, of course, some words might have been misheard and the reporter's notes might not have been 100% accurate that would be the same even if we had an official transcript.

[Fisherman]

I read your responses. Although, I knew what you were going to say. As Kirk said of Kahn in the best Star Trek movie ever made, "I'll say this for him, he's consistent." We'll add this to the catalogue of debate. However, I'm unmoved, as you're unmoved. What a stunner. I'll stand by my assertion that it's nonsense because it's harsh, over-the-top, mean-spirited....like me.

I'll say this honestly, I appreciate your willingness to mix it up and to debate each point in detail. Rest assured I'll among the first to buy several copies of your book. I'll see the movie (which there must because this FAR more believable than what saw from Michael Cain or Jonny Depp). It's just that, pending something to push me in another direction....I won't believe a word of it!

For the moment, I will settle for you accepting the blood evidence. I have pointed out many times that the paper coverage of the inquest is as useful as it gets, more or less, and you have been totally reluctant to accept it. You have instead said that there is no blood evidence.
Now David says the same thing as I have said, and you change your opinion.

Iīll take that any day of the week, Christmas included.

See you out there, Patrick!