Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

What do you mean by theatrical manner ?

The placing of the organs around the body, the pillow made up by the uterus and a breast, then hand seemingly resting in the opening of the abdominal cavity, the flesh on the table... Those kinds of things. There is not much of that character in the other cases; perhaps the things at Chapmans feet, perhaps the colon piece stretched out alongside Eddowes, but no real comparison.

[Henry Flower]

Surely Fisherman gave a precise figure ONLY if we know what the sample size was from which the 99,999 correct diagnoses were drawn?

I do begin to doubt whether the Lechmere case will be proved or disproved on this particular thread.

But on the plus side, it is a relief to see Pierre at last perfecting his impersonation of a human being, and responding to what he sees as the absurdities of others' theories with the same level of derisive, amused scorn that others so frequently heap upon his own

[Patrick S]

On that we agree - but if the carman told him that she was probably dead, it would involve great risks to be tardy.

Because - as you well know - a key feature of Mizen's testimony was that he was NOT told that the woman was dead. I'll remind you here that both Paul and Cross say he WAS told the woman was dead. Mizen testified that he was told only that he was "wanted in Buck's Row where a woman was lying".

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: Simple.

If it is, why is it that there are two camps, Patrick?

Having been told that a PC was already in Buck's Row, attending the situation, explains Mizen's lack of urgency (which Paul thought "a great shame") - and the fact that he didn't report the interaction with Paul and Cross - to the public and/or his superiors at the Met, allowing Neil to take the stand and testify as he did.

No, it does no such thing at all. If, as you seem to believe, Mizen was told that the woman coud well be dead, then she could also well be dying. And if a colleague requests your help, then that would be because the overall situation required that help. And in cases of near death, dragging your legs behind you is not an alternative.
So when Mizen heard that a woman that could be dead or dying was lying in Bucks Row, where a colleague awaited his help, he should have run as fast as he could, and double quick too.
And that means that if he did NOT run, then he was probably NOT told about the potential severity of the errand.
Odd, but I feel like saying "simple" now.

For me, the scenario is far less elaborate, more plausible than the "Mizen Scam", by which Cross is pulling Mizen aside for clandestine conversations, excluding Paul, duping them both, making assumptions about how Mizen will behave, what he'll do, once he's told a PC in Buck's Row.

Yes, I agree. I think the whole world agrees. The innocent scenario is much simpler than the guilty one. But that does not have any bearing on whether Lechmere was the killer or not. If he WAS the killer, then he HAD to find a more elaborate, guilty scenario to get out of the spot he was in than the innocent scenario.
The fact that an innocent scenario is simpler than a guilty one cannot influence the events in retrospect, Patrick- that is an illusion.

This has Mizen - already with information in the form of what's been printed in Lloyd's - and presenting an explanation after the fact, not in advance of a set of actions that the "Mizen Scam" perfectly informs as necessary to get Cross "off the hook". Of course, as we know, Cross jumped BACK ON THE HOOK two days later by showing up ant the inquest. And that makes my scenario - again, in my view - far more likely.

Can I please ask you to clarify this passage? I cannot make heads or tails of them, so I do not know what you are trying to say. Let me just say once more that "simpler" scenarios are not per se more credible than "complex ones", other than in a strictly general meaning. When we have a specific case, the facts must be weighed in before a decision can be made.

[Patrick S]

Well, they certainly do not impress me that way. As I said, it would involve a very obvious risk, a near certainty in fact, that Mizen would loose his job and be forced stand trial himself, on accusations of wilfully having obstructed justice.

Risk. So, this is implausible because Mizen was taking "very obvious risk". But your has Cross killing Nichols, grabbing the first fellow that happens along and forcing him to have a look at his victim, then dashing off with the man to find a PC to tell about the woman he's just killed, telling that PC lies about another PC awaiting him at the scene, then appearing voluntarily at the inquest two days later to tell lies about the PC he lied to, in court. And that's plausible....because Cross was a psychopath. At this point I'll remind you that we have exactly the same amount of evidence that Mizen was a psychopath as we have evidence telling us that Cross was a psychopath. So, now what?

[Jon Guy]

The placing of the organs around the body, the pillow made up by the uterus and a breast, then hand seemingly resting in the opening of the abdominal cavity, the flesh on the table... Those kinds of things. There is not much of that character in the other cases; perhaps the things at Chapmans feet, perhaps the colon piece stretched out alongside Eddowes, but no real comparison.

Chapman`s left hand was found lying in the same position as Kelly`s, and the killer always left the body parts he has removed lying around the corpse. The intestines dropped on the right side of the victim in 3 cases, and Chapman`s belly wall by her left shoulder.

[Fisherman]

Because - as you well know - a key feature of Mizen's testimony was that he was NOT told that the woman was dead. I'll remind you here that both Paul and Cross say he WAS told the woman was dead. Mizen testified that he was told only that he was "wanted in Buck's Row where a woman was lying".

So Paul and Lechmere could corroborate each other in claiming that Mizen was told that the woman may have been dead/dying! Ergo, Mizen would not be able to pull a lie off; he would be found out and he would be in trouble.

I am working from the presumption that he was not a fool, and if he was not, then he should not be tardy. And if he nevertheless WAS, he needed to find himself a better excuse than "I was never told that the woman could be dead/dying", since he KNEW that he would be revealed on that point.

If, for example, he said "They said she was dead, I heard nothing about being drunk, and so I knew that no haste in the world could help her", he would have been better off.

Of course, the more logical reason for any slow reaction you may perceive (personally, I think he set off quickly enogh) would be that he was NOT told of the gravity of the errand. Itīs all about perspectives, as always.

[Henry Flower]

Chapman`s left hand was found lying in the same position as Kelly`s, and the killer always left the body parts he has removed lying around the corpse. The intestines dropped on the right side of the victim in 3 cases, and Chapman`s belly wall by her left shoulder.

It's slightly OT for this post, but the placing of two body parts under her head?
Unless they were simply placed on the bed like the other parts, and at some point the body got shifted to make his 'work' easier, and what was left of the head ended up on those parts inadvertently. That would of course be the opposite of 'theatrical'.

[Fisherman]

Chapman`s left hand was found lying in the same position as Kelly`s, and the killer always left the body parts he has removed lying around the corpse. The intestines dropped on the right side of the victim in 3 cases, and Chapman`s belly wall by her left shoulder.

Tell me something I did not know already, Jon ...

So turn it around and ask yourself "which murder had the largest degree of grotesquely exhibited details"?

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: Simple.

If it is, why is it that there are two camps, Patrick?

Having been told that a PC was already in Buck's Row, attending the situation, explains Mizen's lack of urgency (which Paul thought "a great shame") - and the fact that he didn't report the interaction with Paul and Cross - to the public and/or his superiors at the Met, allowing Neil to take the stand and testify as he did.

No, it does no such thing at all. If, as you seem to believe, Mizen was told that the woman coud well be dead, then she could also well be dying. And if a colleague requests your help, then that would be because the overall situation required that help. And in cases of near death, dragging your legs behind you is not an alternative.
So when Mizen heard that a woman that could be dead or dying was lying in Bucks Row, where a colleague awaited his help, he should have run as fast as he could, and double quick too.
And that means that if he did NOT run, then he was probably NOT told about the potential severity of the errand.
Odd, but I feel like saying "simple" now.

For me, the scenario is far less elaborate, more plausible than the "Mizen Scam", by which Cross is pulling Mizen aside for clandestine conversations, excluding Paul, duping them both, making assumptions about how Mizen will behave, what he'll do, once he's told a PC in Buck's Row.

Yes, I agree. I think the whole world agrees. The innocent scenario is much simpler than the guilty one. But that does not have any bearing on whether Lechmere was the killer or not. If he WAS the killer, then he HAD to find a more elaborate, guilty scenario to get out of the spot he was in than the innocent scenario.
The fact that an innocent scenario is simpler than a guilty one cannot influence the events in retrospect, Patrick- that is an illusion.

This has Mizen - already with information in the form of what's been printed in Lloyd's - and presenting an explanation after the fact, not in advance of a set of actions that the "Mizen Scam" perfectly informs as necessary to get Cross "off the hook". Of course, as we know, Cross jumped BACK ON THE HOOK two days later by showing up ant the inquest. And that makes my scenario - again, in my view - far more likely.

Can I please ask you to clarify this passage? I cannot make heads or tails of them, so I do not know what you are trying to say. Let me just say once more that "simpler" scenarios are not per se more credible than "complex ones", other than in a strictly general meaning. When we have a specific case, the facts must be weighed in before a decision can be made.

Mizen testified to two things. Both are features of your Mizen Scam: 1. That he was wanted in Buck's Row. 2. That a woman was "lying" in Buck's Row (NOT that the woman was dead or dying). I hope others can understand the point that's being made because I think you may be willfully ignoring it: Both Paul and Cross said Mizen was told Nichols was dead. Mizen said he as NOT told she was dead. Neither Cross nor Paul corroborate Mizen's claim that he was told he was wanted by another PC in Buck's Row. Mizen is alone on both points. And both points explain his lack of urgency: He was NOT told she was dead, and that the situation was IN HAND in Buck's Row. If Mizen was told only that a woman was lying in Bucks Row and we both agree that he felt it likely she was drunk rather than dead and that another PC was already on the scene why in the world WOULD HE rush off to Buck's Row?

If you refuse to comprehend this, that's fine. Let's leave it. It's enough that it's here for others who will clearly understand the point, which further damages the theory, I think.

[Fisherman]

Henry Flower:

Surely Fisherman gave a precise figure ONLY if we know what the sample size was from which the 99,999 correct diagnoses were drawn?

You can read, Henry, you can read!

[Fisherman]

Risk. So, this is implausible because Mizen was taking "very obvious risk". But your has Cross killing Nichols, grabbing the first fellow that happens along and forcing him to have a look at his victim, then dashing off with the man to find a PC to tell about the woman he's just killed, telling that PC lies about another PC awaiting him at the scene, then appearing voluntarily at the inquest two days later to tell lies about the PC he lied to, in court. And that's plausible....because Cross was a psychopath. At this point I'll remind you that we have exactly the same amount of evidence that Mizen was a psychopath as we have evidence telling us that Cross was a psychopath. So, now what?

Now what? Try again. Thatīs what.

[Patrick S]

So Paul and Lechmere could corroborate each other in claiming that Mizen was told that the woman may have been dead/dying! Ergo, Mizen would not be able to pull a lie off; he would be found out and he would be in trouble.

I am working from the presumption that he was not a fool, and if he was not, then he should not be tardy. And if he nevertheless WAS, he needed to find himself a better excuse than "I was never told that the woman could be dead/dying", since he KNEW that he would be revealed on that point.

If, for example, he said "They said she was dead, I heard nothing about being drunk, and so I knew that no haste in the world could help her", he would have been better off.

Of course, the more logical reason for any slow reaction you may perceive (personally, I think he set off quickly enogh) would be that he was NOT told of the gravity of the errand. Itīs all about perspectives, as always.

Presumption: Mizen - not a fool. Cross - psychopath.

Again. I think I've explained it clearly enough. I think you're answers here speak volumes and it's enough for me to allow others to read them and judge for themselves.

[Henry Flower]

Henry Flower:

Surely Fisherman gave a precise figure ONLY if we know what the sample size was from which the 99,999 correct diagnoses were drawn?

You can read, Henry, you can read!

Only after a rum and coke, Christer

[Patrick S]

Now what? Try again. Thatīs what.

I think this give and take illustrates very clearly what I've been saying for some time: One must choose a very specific path to Cross the Ripper. This is more of that. Mizen's risk is absurd, not work taking. Because he was a good cop who did good work. Cross' many risks are plausible and understandable because he was a psychopath.