Lechmere The Psychopath

[Elamarna]

So letīs hear it.

Sorry you will have to wait, keeping my powder dry until I am ready.

It will be in part two of the Bucks Row project ( sorry taking longer than expected, but by before end of month.)

The full discussion will be part 3. So you may see It in a few weeks if you look hard enough if not then probably end of August.


Steve

[Elamarna]

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?

They went West down Bucks Row. Neil came East. If they heard his footsteps they should have seen him.
That is independent of his actual beat, if they herd is steps from a side road, looking along that road they should have seen him and therefore passed him; NOT nesseciraly literally passed him side by side, I should have been more pricise.

Steve

[Fisherman]

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

Iīd like to see that one! The inquest files are lost, Herlock - what you are readin is the report from the Daily Telegraph.

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.

Others can walk steady ans slow too, Iīm afraid. An assumption would not have been good enough for Mizen.

Why would PC Neil need or expect help?

So you think it must have been Neil they heard? But Neil arrived from Thomas street up west, so why did the carmen not meet him? Or wait for him, seeing as they looked for a PC. Why run away from an approaching one...? It makes absolutely no sense.

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.

Yes, yes - but he had NOT called for assistance in this case - the carmen supposedly only heard him approaching. Why would they take it upon themselves to convey a wish for help?

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.

If the carmen had told the truth: "We found a woman lying in Bucks Row, and we think she is dead or drunk", Mizen would NOT have let them on their way, no questions asked. The mere idea borders on the surrealistic.

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.

So you think the PC:s kept track on where their fellow PC:s were every minute of the way?
I donīt.


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.

But why did Lechmere not say that he told Mizen about another PC arriving up at Bucks Row? That is what I want to know.

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.

And why would another PC be different from Neil? In fact, Neil would have been their best bet since he was close to the spot. Finding a PC a log way from the site would risk a much longer process.
It makes absolutely no sense not to alert Neil if he was close by. None whatsoever.

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

Yes, I concluded that you see no mystery. Maybe that is connected to how you misspelt Sherlock Holmes...?

[Fisherman]

They went West down Bucks Row. Neil came East. If they heard his footsteps they should have seen him.
That is independent of his actual beat, if they herd is steps from a side road, looking along that road they should have seen him and therefore passed him; NOT nesseciraly literally passed him side by side, I should have been more pricise.

Steve

They did not say that they heard a PC:s footsteps in the West, Steve. They did not specify it at all. Why could they not be hearing Thain, in the East? Or a PC up North?

Not that I think they heard anybody at all... or said that they did.

[Sam Flynn]

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

On a pavement in the open air? There surely must have been better places to crash out.

[Fisherman]

On a pavement in the open air? There surely must have been better places to crash out.

Have a look at the phrase "sleeping rough" on Google pictures, Gareth. And when you see what I am talking about, add your knowledge that Nichols was seriously drunk.
The street was a quiet one - that would have sufficed.

We may also need to weigh in that she must not have slept rough where she was killed and found. For securityīs sake, that is!

[Abby Normal]

On a pavement in the open air? There surely must have been better places to crash out.

when your drunk and tired pretty much anywhere will do.
trust me I know.

[Harry D]

There was a whole hour between the last sighting of Nichols alive to the discovery of her body. It's entirely possible that she found a punter, pissed up what little money she earned and then slumped in Buck's Row worse for wear. That would explain why no one heard a sound, because the killer throttled her while she was already unconscious on the ground.

However, I don't believe that a serial killer who targeted prostitutes just happened to find a victim lying in the gutter on a silver platter for him like that. He must have been a punter.

[Henry Flower]

Can anyone think of a reason why it would take an alert man more than literally two or three seconds to place a knife quickly back into an inside pocket and simultaneously take a few steps away from a body?

I do get tired of perfectly reasonable suppositions being dismissed as feats of stupendous physical improbability.

Might he have had bloodstained hands if he were the murderer of Nichols? Maybe so. I recall Paul asked him to help prop the woman up, but he refused. That, of course, would've involved taking his hands out of his pockets and exposing them to clear view. Might that not be one possible explanation for his otherwise callous indifference to a woman he had taken the trouble to stop and examine? Everything he did gives the impression of concern: he 'stops' by her body, draws attention to her, finds a policeman; but the one personal thing that is often done to help those in such a situation - ie, propping them up - he point-blank refused to do.

If I were fisherman I might be surmising that Mr Lechmere's hands were in his pockets, and they were damn-well staying there.

[Fisherman]

when your drunk and tired pretty much anywhere will do.
trust me I know.

I trust you, Abby - but will Gareth? Maybe this picture from 1908 can sway him:

http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/2319c5af84b74bdb897ae42f43f555ed/unemployed-sleeping-rough-in-london-date-1908-g3bbcm.jpg

[Fisherman]

Can anyone think of a reason why it would take an alert man more than literally two or three seconds to place a knife quickly back into an inside pocket and simultaneously take a few steps away from a body?

I do get tired of perfectly reasonable suppositions being dismissed as feats of stupendous physical improbability.

I admit I was somewhat flummoxed by the supposition that he could not have hidden his knife before backing off...

Otherwise, in response to your initital question, I would say that a lot of people can think of a lot of reasons to dismiss all sorts of things. It is par for the course out here

PS. A very reasonable suggestion about Lechmere perhaps hiding his hands in his pockets. But can you PROVE that he did? No! You cannot even prove that he had pockets to put them in.

A misleading charlatan, thatīs what you are, Sir!

I nevertheless bid you a very good night...!

[Elamarna]

They did not say that they heard a PC:s footsteps in the West, Steve. They did not specify it at all. Why could they not be hearing Thain, in the East? Or a PC up North?

Not that I think they heard anybody at all... or said that they did.

Good questions

Why not Thain?

Well because he does not arrive at the junction with Bucks Row until after Neil arrives at the murder scene. . At the point they leave he must be in the Whitechapel Road or even in what was called Dogs Row (bottom end of Cambridge Heath road). Too far away to be heard.

North?

It seems the North side of the Western end of Bucks Row was on Neil's beat. On the Eastern end there are no turning until Brady street so any noise should be blocked by the buildings there.

Steve

[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.

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

[Elamarna]

Can anyone think of a reason why it would take an alert man more than literally two or three seconds to place a knife quickly back into an inside pocket and simultaneously take a few steps away from a body?

I do get tired of perfectly reasonable suppositions being dismissed as feats of stupendous physical improbability.

He is crouching and apparently still cutting when he hears footsteps. He finishes the work.
He adjusts the clothing to hide the abdominal cuts, gets up and puts the knife into hiding either in a pocket or inside a coat and then has to move quietly a few feet back to the middle of the road.

Yes only seconds but almost certainly more than the two or three you suggest.

Might he have had bloodstained hands if he were the murderer of Nichols? Maybe so. I recall Paul asked him to help prop the woman up, but he refused. That, of course, would've involved taking his hands out of his pockets and exposing them to clear view. Might that not be one possible explanation for his otherwise callous indifference to a woman he had taken the trouble to stop and examine? Everything he did gives the impression of concern: he 'stops' by her body, draws attention to her, finds a policeman; but the one personal thing that is often done to help those in such a situation - ie, propping them up - he point-blank refused to do.

Nice idea but Lechmere touches Paul on his shoulder with his hand, so one at least is not in a pocket and close to Paul's face.

If I were fisherman I might be surmising that Mr Lechmere's hands were in his pockets, and they were damn-well staying there

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Iīd like to see that one! The inquest files are lost, Herlock - what you are readin is the report from the Daily Telegraph.

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.

Others can walk steady ans slow too, Iīm afraid. An assumption would not have been good enough for Mizen.

Why would PC Neil need or expect help?

So you think it must have been Neil they heard? But Neil arrived from Thomas street up west, so why did the carmen not meet him? Or wait for him, seeing as they looked for a PC. Why run away from an approaching one...? It makes absolutely no sense.

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.

Yes, yes - but he had NOT called for assistance in this case - the carmen supposedly only heard him approaching. Why would they take it upon themselves to convey a wish for help?

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.

If the carmen had told the truth: "We found a woman lying in Bucks Row, and we think she is dead or drunk", Mizen would NOT have let them on their way, no questions asked. The mere idea borders on the surrealistic.

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.

So you think the PC:s kept track on where their fellow PC:s were every minute of the way?
I donīt.


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.

But why did Lechmere not say that he told Mizen about another PC arriving up at Bucks Row? That is what I want to know.

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.

And why would another PC be different from Neil? In fact, Neil would have been their best bet since he was close to the spot. Finding a PC a log way from the site would risk a much longer process.
It makes absolutely no sense not to alert Neil if he was close by. None whatsoever.

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

Yes, I concluded that you see no mystery. Maybe that is connected to how you misspelt Sherlock Holmes...?

So you are assuming that the DT's transcription of the trial is incorrect? On what basis?
Maybe they heard footsteps but it wasn't Neil's. Obviously from the direction that Neil came he would have passed them. Or did Cross and Paul both hide and sneak past him. Perhaps they both killed her?

Why would another PC further away be any different from Neil?

Because they would at least have been moving in the direction of their ultimate destination, work. Perhaps, weird though it may seem, they didn't want to be around a corpse.

You asked if I thought PCs kept track of others beats?

It's not impossible by any means. As I said, what if Mizen had been on Neil's beat recently?

You say it's surreal that Mizen let them on their way.

Ok. Cross and Paul are desperate to get to work. So they just say that there's a policeman in Bucks Row with a drunk woman and he needs your help. What do they achieve by that? Well, they are allowed to go to work and if anyone questioned them later they could say 'we sent Mizen to Bucks Row,' The wording is only relevant to your case if they said 'dead'. Mizen said according to the DT's transcript of the inquest, that they'd said a woman was 'lying,' in Bucks Row. Therefore Mizen had no need to detain them. As I said, no mystery

And I spelt my name Herlock Sholmes intentionally because I don't claim to be Sherlock Holmes. It appears that your name Fisherman is more apt though. You've taken someone who was around at the time and 'fished around' for a mystery where none exists.

No matter how much I read of this theory I, and I'm not alone, can't get past the notion that Jack the Ripper would kill on the way to work. Too many unnecessary risks. I also can't get past the fact that all the killer had to do was walk away. That's all. Just walk away. But Lechmere the Ripper decided to hang around for whoever was making the footsteps so that he can draw attention to his handiwork. And after all that the police didn't suspect him. I wonder why?

Herlock