Lechmere The Psychopath

[andy1867]

Cheers Fisherman...

took you more than 2 minutes tho lol

[Fisherman]

Cheers Fisherman...

took you more than 2 minutes tho lol

You are welcome, Andy - I am warmed by anybody who manages to make a post without calling me a liar or a phantasist...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've just tried to catch up with the thread. There are too many points to answer in total; especially ones that Patrick has already answered in detail. But...

The point about Mizen is surely a perfect example of a mystery where none exists. At the inquest Mizen said that the two men (Cross and Paul) had said that another policeman wanted him in Bucks Row where a woman was lying. Cross, at the inquest said that they heard a policeman coming and moved on. When asked if he'd told Mizen that another policeman wanted him in Bucks Row he answered no because they hadn't seen one.
Is it obvious that this is just a very slight and unimportant misunderstanding. They told Mizen about the body and the fact that a policeman would have been there by now. And so Mizen, knowing that PC Neil would require assistance, said that he'd been told another policeman was waiting for him in Bucks Row. Where is the mystery? What could anyone see of the sinister about this? Absolutely nothing. I used to read a fair bit about the Kennedy assassination and one thing you learn about is the way conspiracy theorists think (I'm not calling anyone a conspiracy theorist by the way.) To them, any error (especially involving the police) has a sinister meaning. They also don't think that coincidences ever occur. The 'Mizen thing' is a non-event.

Regards
Herlock

[Patrick S]

"Concede"? Is that what I am supposed to do?

You seem agitated, Patrick? Why is that? Or am I wrong?

I havenīt got any idea at all how he treated his knife if he was the killer. I work from the assumption that he probably wiped it, but if he felt he was pressed for time and didnīt want the oncoming Paul to see anything at all, I suppose he may have tucked it into his pocket unwiped. It is not as if a knifeblade will carry half a litre of blood - most of it is wiped off against the wound opening, and often only a thin veil is left. In a jacket sewn from thick cloth it would not pose any real risk.
But as I said, I am not claiming anything at all about it. Why would I, and - not least - how could I?

Using the word concede hardly indicates agitation.

[Fisherman]

Using the word concede hardly indicates agitation.

True enough - but it was the overall post that made me wonder. So much the better if there was no agitation!

It would, nevertheless, be nice if you reacted to the gist of my post and not just my suggestion of agitation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whatever is said about 'geographical patterns that fit' (sorry, I haven't a clue about them? No patterns as far as I can see) or the fact that the killer 'might' not have had blood on him the fact remains that any killer that kills shortly before he is due to arrive at work isn't just a risk taker. He's monumentally stupid. Yes the murder wouldn't have taken long but if he left home with the intention of killing how did he know how long it would take to find a victim. There were many prostitues in Whitechapel as we al know but he wouldn't have exactly been tripping over them. Then when he finds one they have to find a secluded spot. He does the deed. He then has to check himself for blood and wash any away that he might have before he clocks in. Then, he hears someone approach. Possibly a policeman. What does he do? Walk away and so ensure that he is in no way involved in this case or does he hang around for a chat with whoever it is that turns up?
Whatever way you look at it. No matter how many twists and turns these are the bare facts of that particular episode. Are we suggesting that Jack the Ripper (a man who has evaded capture or even identification for 130 years) when faced with two simple options was such a witless imbecile that he chose the obviously worse, and possibly catastrophic one. All other arguments, to me, pale into insignificance compared to this unavoidable problem of a) obvious and sensible choice and b) stupid and dangerous one.

Regards
Herlock

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes:

The point about Mizen is surely a perfect example of a mystery where none exists. At the inquest Mizen said that the two men (Cross and Paul) had said that another policeman wanted him in Bucks Row where a woman was lying. Cross, at the inquest said that they heard a policeman coming and moved on. When asked if he'd told Mizen that another policeman wanted him in Bucks Row he answered no because they hadn't seen one.

The "just then we heard a policeman coming"-line is only represented in the DT, and in no other paper. It is not in evidence therefore that it was ever said, it is generally looked upon as a misreporting.

Is it obvious that this is just a very slight and unimportant misunderstanding.

It is nothing of the sort, Iīm afraid. Why does not a single other newspaper cover the sentence?

They told Mizen about the body and the fact that a policeman would have been there by now. And so Mizen, knowing that PC Neil would require assistance, said that he'd been told another policeman was waiting for him in Bucks Row.

It was said that Mizen was "wanted by a policeman". How did that come about? Why would not the PC supposedly arriving in Bucks Row be able to tend to the errand himself? Why would anybody predispose that he needed help, and that Mizen was that help?

Where is the mystery? What could anyone see of the sinister about this? Absolutely nothing. I used to read a fair bit about the Kennedy assassination and one thing you learn about is the way conspiracy theorists think (I'm not calling anyone a conspiracy theorist by the way.) To them, any error (especially involving the police) has a sinister meaning. They also don't think that coincidences ever occur. The 'Mizen thing' is a non-event.

On the contrary - the Mizen scam is vital to the case, not least since the scam as such was perfectly shaped to take Lechmere past the police. And much as "conspiracy theorists" are allergic to coincidences (so are queens councellors like James Scobie, by the way), I find it quite interesting that the wording was of that character.

Can you explain to me how the men could KNOW that it was a PC arriving up there? And can you tell me why Mizen would bank on it to a degree where he abstained from taking the carmens names and let them loose, no questions asked? Plus, not least, the carmen VERY clearly agreed to go find a PC. So why would they not just wait for half a minute until the PC arrived? Why go away looking for ANOTHER PC?

There, Herlock, is part of the mystery. And letīs add that IF Lechmere had told Mizen that another PC was on his way, why would he then deny having told Mizen about an extra PC at the inquest?

[Elamarna]

Once again Fishermen I agree with some of your post.

I have no doubt that the two Carmen never heard a policeman approaching: if they had they would not only have seen him but passed him.

However neither do I believe that Mizen was told he was wanted by another Policeman.
For along time I accepted it was a misunderstanding not so now.
I believe there is sufficient data from the sources to explain the reason behind his statement.


Steve

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Fisherman;417998

QUOTE Elamarna:

Two points here:

1. The Ripper type killings certainly stopped. Why?

"Certainly"? I donīt think so. I think the Jackson murder is very much a Ripper type killing. Cut open from breastbone to pubes, the uterus plucked out, the abdominal wall taken away in large flaps...
I donīt know what it takes for you to see these traits as "ripperish", but I know I do. So the "certainly" is false, as far as Iīm concerned.

There is no evidence that Jackson was a Ripper victim. There is evidence that McKenzie and the Pinchin Street woman was.

It would be very interesting to read an analyze examining the differences between the descriptions of Jackson and the Pinchin Street case if there was one.

2. Apart from a similarity in the words used to describe body parts, in this case the use of "flaps"; nothing has been produced in the form of data to back this idea up.

Very good, Steve.

And much as it would be interesting to know the exact shape and size of the flaps, that remains of inferior interest. Wht matters is that we have definitive proof that the abdominal wall WAS removed in flaps, and that is very, very rare. going on that feature alone, we should accept a probably connection, and when we add Jacksons opened up abdomen, her missing uterus, the rings stolen from her finger we have no choice but to acknowledge great similarities.

Was the abdominal wall of Nichols removed in flaps?

Was the uterus of Nichols missing?

Were the rings stolen from the finger of Nichols?

Many arguments about how unlikely it is that two killers are working at the same time; but no real tangible data.

"No tangible data"? It is not "tangible" that both killers both took out the uterus? It is not "tangible" that they both cut from breastbone to pubes? It is not "tangible" that they took away the abdominal wall in flaps?
I am sorry, but that is just sheer nonsense.

If it exists produce it and if it holds up then I will happily accept it and say you were right and I am wrong.

Itīs a good thing then that your acceptance is of a very peripherous interest to me, Steve.

Was the uterus of Polly Nichols taken out?

Was Polly Nichols cut from breastbone to pubes?

Was the abdominal wall of Polly Nichols taken away in flaps?

Your hypothetical model is that:

A) Lechmere killed Polly Nichols
B) The victims share some similar wounds: cut from breastbone to pubes, abdomen wall taken away, uterus taken away.
C) Therefore Lechmere killed all the victims

But Polly Nichols was not cut open from the breastbone to the pubes, did not have the abdomen wall waken away and did not have the uterus taken away.

And Polly Nichols did not have mutilations on her face.

Yet, you try to infer from Polly Nichols to ALLA THE OTHER VICTIMS!

TELL US: WHAT do you have to say about this?

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Once again Fishermen I agree with some of your post.

I have no doubt that the two Carmen never heard a policeman approaching: if they had they would not only have seen him but passed him.

However neither do I believe that Mizen was told he was wanted by another Policeman.
For along time I accepted it was a misunderstanding not so now.
I believe there is sufficient data from the sources to explain the reason behind his statement.


Steve

So letīs hear it.

[Fisherman]

QUOTE=Fisherman;417998

QUOTE Elamarna:



There is no evidence that Jackson was a Ripper victim. There is evidence that McKenzie and the Pinchin Street woman was.

It would be very interesting to read an analyze examining the differences between the descriptions of Jackson and the Pinchin Street case if there was one.



Very good, Steve.



Was the abdominal wall of Nichols removed in flaps?

Was the uterus of Nichols missing?

Were the rings stolen from the finger of Nichols?



Was the uterus of Polly Nichols taken out?

Was Polly Nichols cut from breastbone to pubes?

Was the abdominal wall of Polly Nichols taken away in flaps?

Your hypothetical model is that:

A) Lechmere killed Polly Nichols
B) The victims share some similar wounds: cut from breastbone to pubes, abdomen wall taken away, uterus taken away.
C) Therefore Lechmere killed all the victims

But Polly Nichols was not cut open from the breastbone to the pubes, did not have the abdomen wall waken away and did not have the uterus taken away.

And Polly Nichols did not have mutilations on her face.

Yet, you try to infer from Polly Nichols to ALLA THE OTHER VICTIMS!

TELL US: WHAT do you have to say about this?

Pierre

That I - as always - have better things to do than to read your posts, let alone answer them. I regard you as a joke when it comes to Ripperology. I hope and pray that you are better than that, and I am fully prepared for you to show it.

What are you waiting for?

PS. On the issue of Nichols not having been cut from sternum to bow, I reccomend Joshua Rogans post here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8173&page=2

...along with what Spratling said, it clearly points to a cut similar to those suffered by the other victims in the Ripper and Torso series.

Donīt thank me, Iīm always happy to help out.

[Fisherman]

Once again Fishermen I agree with some of your post.

I have no doubt that the two Carmen never heard a policeman approaching: if they had they would not only have seen him but passed him.

Steve

Not to be a nuisance, but would that not depend on when they left the street and when the PC entered it? And would not passing him predispose that they walked in the same direction? Why would we predispose that? Am I missing something here?

[Abby Normal]

Indeed. One interesting point to ponder is, what reason had Polly Nichols to have been in Buck's Row at the same time? It's the more usual practice for prostitutes to pick up their clients by frequenting the busier thoroughfares, before going with them to more secluded secluded back-streets. Now, whilst Nichols might have happened to be wandering, alone, down Buck's Row at precisely the right time to meet her killer, is it not more likely that they met somewhere else? In which case, the very fact that Lechmere's route to work took him past Nichols' murder site is of no significance in implicating him in the murder; in fact, it argues against any such connection being made.

I think theres a good chance she wandered into bucks row and crashed there-where the ripper found her.

[Fisherman]

I think theres a good chance she wandered into bucks row and crashed there-where the ripper found her.

For example, yes. We would run unnecessary risks if we were to reason that she must have been soliciting in Whitechapel Road. The suggestion is quite viable, but not in any way a necessity.

The idea that she crashed in Bucks Row has the distinct advantage of explaining why nobody saw her enter the street at the relevant hour - she may have gone into Bucks Row some time before she was killed, and the street may have seem deserted in the crucial minutes.

After that, the only evidence we have is one of a carman going into the street, and another carman arriving there later.

These are the only ones accounted for.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock Sholmes:

The point about Mizen is surely a perfect example of a mystery where none exists. At the inquest Mizen said that the two men (Cross and Paul) had said that another policeman wanted him in Bucks Row where a woman was lying. Cross, at the inquest said that they heard a policeman coming and moved on. When asked if he'd told Mizen that another policeman wanted him in Bucks Row he answered no because they hadn't seen one.

The "just then we heard a policeman coming"-line is only represented in the DT, and in no other paper. It is not in evidence therefore that it was ever said, it is generally looked upon as a misreporting.

Is it obvious that this is just a very slight and unimportant misunderstanding.

It is nothing of the sort, Iīm afraid. Why does not a single other newspaper cover the sentence?

They told Mizen about the body and the fact that a policeman would have been there by now. And so Mizen, knowing that PC Neil would require assistance, said that he'd been told another policeman was waiting for him in Bucks Row.

It was said that Mizen was "wanted by a policeman". How did that come about? Why would not the PC supposedly arriving in Bucks Row be able to tend to the errand himself? Why would anybody predispose that he needed help, and that Mizen was that help?

Where is the mystery? What could anyone see of the sinister about this? Absolutely nothing. I used to read a fair bit about the Kennedy assassination and one thing you learn about is the way conspiracy theorists think (I'm not calling anyone a conspiracy theorist by the way.) To them, any error (especially involving the police) has a sinister meaning. They also don't think that coincidences ever occur. The 'Mizen thing' is a non-event.

On the contrary - the Mizen scam is vital to the case, not least since the scam as such was perfectly shaped to take Lechmere past the police. And much as "conspiracy theorists" are allergic to coincidences (so are queens councellors like James Scobie, by the way), I find it quite interesting that the wording was of that character.

Can you explain to me how the men could KNOW that it was a PC arriving up there? And can you tell me why Mizen would bank on it to a degree where he abstained from taking the carmens names and let them loose, no questions asked? Plus, not least, the carmen VERY clearly agreed to go find a PC. So why would they not just wait for half a minute until the PC arrived? Why go away looking for ANOTHER PC?

There, Herlock, is part of the mystery. And letīs add that IF Lechmere had told Mizen that another PC was on his way, why would he then deny having told Mizen about an extra PC at the inquest?

The line 'just then they heard a policeman coming' is in the Coroners inquest.

How did he/they know that it was a policemen?
Either they recognised the regulation tread of a policeman and made the assumption or, because Cross used that route to work every day of the week and he knew that it was part of a police beat. He probably knew one was due but didn't know the exact time. No mystery.

Why would PC Neil need or expect help?
Policemen do 'call for assistance.' Perhaps he wanted Mizen to stand guard over the body while he made a search or questioned locals. No mystery.

How is this 'scam' needed to get Lechmere past the police? If he'd have just said 'there's a body in Bucks Row and we're not sure if she's dead or alive' it would have got him past the police. Besides, he turned up at the inquest! No mystery.

Why would Mizen bank on the fact that there was actually a policeman at Bucks Row?
Well, the fact that he was a policeman himself for a start. He would have known that it was a police beat and that the other policeman would have been there by now. He'd possibly even done that beat himself at some point. No mystery.

Why would he deny having told Mizen that there was 'actually' a policeman waiting for him in Bucks Row?
It was a slight misunderstanding over wording. He could have said 'there should be a copper in Bucks Row by now.' And Mizen thought he said 'there is a copper.." An unimportant misunderstanding. No mystery.

Why didn't they wait for PC Neil to get there?
Because they were both desperate not to be late for work and face the possibility of losing their jobs. Waiting for PC Neil would have led to waiting for Neil to examine the body and then more time consuming questions. No mystery

As you may have deduced. I see no mystery. No sinister undertones except imagined ones.

Regards
Herlock