Lechmere The Psychopath

[Henry Flower]

Steve. Indeed he did, I forgot that. If it were important to me I would point out that 9 times out of 10 when we touch someone's shoulder our hand towards the rear of the shoulder, and unless we're starring in a melodrama the person we touch rarely looks at the hand. In fact, touching someone on the shoulder is a nice way of hiding your hand in plain sight. It's too close! I can't even get my eyes to focus on my shoulder.

But I'm not seriously trying to counter your point Steve, you're right. And as others have pointed out, propping her up could've given him the perfect pretext for any blood on his hands.

[Elamarna]

So you are assuming that the DT's transcription of the trial is incorrect? On what basis?

Hi Herlock,
I don't often agree with Fisherman's views but given such detail is not recorded in any of the other transcripts in the other papers it does need at the very least to be questioned

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?


If it was not Neil they heard it is highly improbably they heard another. The beats were such that only Thain and Mizen came close. And I have already explained why it is very highly improbable it was Thain.
For many years there has been much confusion over the beats; however they were published in the press at the time and seem to have been overlooked to a great extent by researchers.

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?

Mizen was in a different division to Neil and so he would not have been on Neil's beat.

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.

Herlock don't let the jibe about your username get to you. Rather sad that someone has to have a dig at a relatively new posters choice.



Herlock

Keep posting all the best


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Keep posting all the best


Steve

Hi Steve

I appreciate you pointing stuff out that I've either missed or misinterpreted. Because I drifted away from the case for a few years I really shouldn't fall into the trap of relying on a very imperfect memory. Especially when everyone's so on the ball. So many times I find myself having to check details that i would have known 8 or 10 years ago. Never assume.

I understand the doubt about the DT transcript. Could it just be a case of someone hearing Cross say that he heard Paul's footsteps and just confusing things. Maybe Cross could have told someone that he'd thought that Paul's footsteps were a policeman's

Couldn't they have heard the echo of footsteps from another street but they weren't those of a policeman?

The different divisions point is a definate error on my part. But I'd still suggest that it was not impossible that he knew that it was a beat and that a policeman passed every 'x' minutes.

Cheers for the comments Steve. I've got a lot of catching up to do. A bit of re-reading is in order I think.

Regards
Herlock

[Varqm]

A witness who was not a doctor and had nothing to add as to who was the killer,probably the first time he saw somebody dead - not a drunk lying down,waited for Paul and decide what to do from there.They went to seek a policeman,they would not have knew what the policeman would do.It does
not matter what conversations took place and people express/describe things differently.They reported there was what maybe was a dead person,this should suffice after all Lechmere was going to work,let the police take care of it.
It was then the policeman's job to ask questions,to be thorough,ask the witness's names and address (they must have carried a notebook/pen,I think it was a regulation,if for anything for their after-shift report or do what they had to do to take info),ask Paul and Lechmere to go back with him to the body if he had to,hold them and go to the nearest police station,do what he had to do.The policeman was the boss.
Mizen was not thorough.It was not Lechmere's fault.Then he went to do the most important thing that morning,which was go to work.There was no sense in going to the police again since he had no significant info as to who was the killer,everything else let the police take care of it.Then he sensed he was needed back,went back and retold his story.
What does an ordinary witness do that Lechmere did not do? This is like the most ordinary narrative of a normal witness.

The medical evidence?,this is a technical and intricate area,pictures,video and lab tests are required because it's unclear.
The route to work,it was what he deemed as best as posters point out.He was not alone in crisscrossing Whitechapel/Spitalfields to go to work.That's what people did.

[harry]

Herlock,
There was another person only 30 feet away from the body.A night watchman.

[John G]

John G: Well Fish, I think we both know your being selective with the evidence to make your theory fit.

I think that is a complete lie, actually.

For instance, I'm not sure how a dismemberment killer could effectively dispose of body parts without removing organs.: I mean, it's not as if they could exit in a vacuum!

And so they ... open up the bellies from sternum to pubes? I see.

Uterus missing? In the case of the Torso victims I believe that only applies to Jackson, and her pregnancy suggests a very different motive.

Does that mean that her uterus was NOT missing? And the doctors were adamant that it was not any abortion gone awry, so don´t try that.

Prostitutes targeted? Only one Torso victim was identified, Liz Jackson.

Which is what I said: prostitutes were targetted in both series. You CAN read, can´t you?

Moreover, only one C5 victim was almost definitely soliciting: Nichols.

Did I say that they were soliciting or that they were prostitutes? Eh?

Skilful knifework? Not in Kelly's case.

It WAS suggested, just as I say. Whether you agree is neither here nor there, since it was never about that.

Of course I would agree with you that a poisoner would be a very different type of killer, but that isn't the point I was trying to make.

No, you made the point that the two series could not possibly be more different to each other. Which is complete and utter bonkers.

Thus, there was a huge difference in spatial behaviour: JtR, assuming he existed as a single perpetrator of the C5 victims, was a marauder, who targeted victims within an incredibly small geographical area. In sharp contrast the Torso perpetrator, assuming he existed, was a commuter, disposing of body parts all over London.

Aha. And that is the one parameter we are allowed to look at, is that it?

Then there's the fact that the Torso perpetrator, assuming he existed, liked spending time with his victims, or at least stored their remains-in the case of the Whitehall victim for several months. On the other hand, JtR simply slaughtered women in the street and then made a timely getaway.

... when he really should have flung them over his shoulder and carried them off.
It seems somebody else is carried off, to be honest...

The Torso perpetrator took precautions to prevent his victims from being identified; JtR didn't.

The torso killer did no such thing that we know of. And JtR cut away the face from Kelly and Eddowes. In the former case so much so that we still have an ongoing debate who the victim was.
So much for that point.

And then there's the matter of evolution of ritual. For instance, there have been instances of serial killers progressing from post mortem genital mutilation to dismemberment, but not a single instance, as far as I'm aware, of a killer alternating between the two.

John, John - don´t you read my posts? I have told you already that the ritual was THE SAME for the Ripper and the Torso killer. When will you understand that? Read my lips: TWO murder series - ONE ritual. Two murder series - ONE ritual. Two murder series - One ri...

Well where do I even start with this! I'm sorry but your view on this is getting more and more blinkered. As I'm short on time ill just address a few points. To start with the ritual was not the same as the Torso perpetrator was a dismememberer and JtR wasn't: http://jaapl.org/content/38/2/239.long

The reason didn't fling any victim over his shoulder was because he was a completely different type of killer to Torso, who had no reason to do this as he must have taken his victim 's to a disposal site.

Eddowes' face wasn't cut away to prevent identification! If you believe that then you must be getting desperate. As for Kelly, was she decapitated?

And Jackson's uterus wasn't missing-the doctors actually examined it! The foetus may have been missing, although one was subsequently found in the river which may have been Jackson's. In events if the perpetrator did retain the foetus, but not the uterus, that suggests a very different motive to any of the C5 cases.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve

I appreciate you pointing stuff out that I've either missed or misinterpreted. Because I drifted away from the case for a few years I really shouldn't fall into the trap of relying on a very imperfect memory. Especially when everyone's so on the ball. So many times I find myself having to check details that i would have known 8 or 10 years ago. Never assume.

I understand the doubt about the DT transcript. Could it just be a case of someone hearing Cross say that he heard Paul's footsteps and just confusing things. Maybe Cross could have told someone that he'd thought that Paul's footsteps were a policeman's

Couldn't they have heard the echo of footsteps from another street but they weren't those of a policeman?

Of course they could. And that cannot be ruled out, it was reported that someone passed while Neil and others were in Bucks Row so why not before..

The different divisions point is a definate error on my part. But I'd still suggest that it was not impossible that he knew that it was a beat and that a policeman passed every 'x' minutes.

I agree. Indeed I think they were probably well aware of where beats intersected as they could meet and chat at those points. On Neil's beat that's at either end of Bucks Row
I
Cheers for the comments Steve. I've got a lot of catching up to do. A bit of re-reading is in order I think.

Regards
Herlock

All the best


Steve

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes: So you are assuming that the DT's transcription of the trial is incorrect? On what basis?

Oh, good - we have established that there is no coroners protocol!

I am - just like the majority of people - assuming that the passage about hearing a PC is a misreporting on behalf of DT, yes. The grounds? No other paper has the passage, and the developments in Bucks Row speak for a mistake on DT:s behalf.

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?

Yes, that sounds very probable - and naturally, they would seek out a PC together afterwards!
Can we be for real for a second? The idea that they heard footsteps and identified them as those of a PC approaching is effectively nullified by how we know they were looking for a PC. They would have awaited that PC:s arrival if they heard him coming. The suggestion thus becomes a non-starter.

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

In what respect, Herlock?

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.

But they did not know that it was a corpse - they opted for death OR drunkenness. And they did not mind examining the body, touching it and so on, so I don´t think they were picky in that department.
If there was a PC on his way, they would have waited and turned the errand over to him, since they clearly stated that this was their aim: to find a PC to deal with the body.

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?

I´m sorry, but of all the people out here, I thinbk I am the one who have suffered most for saying "what if?" It doesn´t wash, Herlock. The beats were long and the PC:s could be detained at any given moment. Of course, the PC:s could have a general idea where their colleagues were, but they could reasonably not keep a very close track of such things.

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

No. I say it was perfectly natural that he did. And then I add that if he was told the truth by the carmen - that they had found the body, that they had left it uncared for and that they knew she may well be dead, THEN it would be surreal if Mizen let them walk, no questions asked. But since I am convinced he was lied to, I actually think he acted rationally.

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.

Yes, that is true - the carmen only told Mizen that there was a woman flat on her back in Bucks Row - if we believe Mizen. But why would they not say that the woman was quite probably dead? And why would thay say that there was a PC in Bucks Row if they did n ot know that this was so - they effectively knew that there was noone at all in Bucks Row as they left it, but for Nichols.
Here is what the carman should have said:
Officer, I found a woman lying in Bucks Row, and then this man arrived. Together we looked at the woman, and we think she may be dead. And then we went in search of a PC and found you.
THAT is the impression Mizen should have come away with. Instead he comes away with the impression that there is a woman lying flat on her back in Bucks Row, but that a PC up there is in charge, is the finder of the body, and has sent the carmen to fetch help.
Can you see the implications of that alteration?

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.

My alter ego is VERY apt, but for other reasons altogether. My dig at your name was a joke.

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.

So there you are then - you have locked yourself, and you recommend a world where we can always discount people on their way to work as killers. It won´t happen, not even if they sneak out earlier to give them a chance to kill. No way, nope, nada, impossible.
Okay.

Too many unnecessary risks.

You ARE aware that there are people who actually WANT risks, who invite risks, who thrive on them? You DO know that there are killers who dump their victims in public places for the hell of it? You DO know this?

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?

The crucial question is not if he could walk away. Anyone can always walk away.
The question is: Did he think that he could walk away unnoticed? If Paul had come so close before Lechmere noted him, that the latter judged that he would be noticed walking/running away, we get a situation where much can be won by bluffing things out, and where all can be lost by running.
When we made the docu, Andy Griffiths (a retires murder squad leader with heaps of experience and close to a 100 per cent clearing rate) immediately said that Lechmere would to his mind never run, since that would be a tremendeous risk. To me, it all hinges on the mental disposition of the killer. I have no doubt at all that you yourself would run like a scared rabbit in this situation. And don´t take that as an insult, because I am equally sure that I would do the same myself.
But a psychopath - and I am certain that the killer was a psychopath - would NOT panick, and would be able to bluff it out, and even enjoy doing it.
So you see, I have a very good case when I say that Lechmere can have chosen to bluff, and may have preferred it. Once I know that, I am not very disturbed by the fact that others - who may not be very well informed about psychopathy, for example - make a call based on themselves and how they think they would have acted.
I regularly recommend people to read up on these things. I took that trouble myself, and it would be nice if people were aware of these things before they argue their case with too much gusto and too little insight.

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes:

Maybe Cross could have told someone that he'd thought that Paul's footsteps were a policeman's

That is not very likely, Paul was in a rush, and PC:s are normally walking at a slow, steady pace.

Couldn't they have heard the echo of footsteps from another street but they weren't those of a policeman?

If the DT is correct on the quotation, yes, of course - but the much more likely thing is that it was a misreporting. I fail to see why every other paper would leave it out.
If they said that there were steps, and that they did NOT belong to a PC, it would be a possible hearing of the killer, and that would be sensational stuff. Not a paper would miss it.

[Fisherman]

Varqm: A witness who was not a doctor and had nothing to add as to who was the killer,probably the first time he saw somebody dead - not a drunk lying down,waited for Paul and decide what to do from there.They went to seek a policeman,they would not have knew what the policeman would do.It does
not matter what conversations took place and people express/describe things differently.They reported there was what maybe was a dead person,this should suffice after all Lechmere was going to work,let the police take care of it.

But if Mizen was correct, then they did NOT report a maybe dead person at all. You should listen to Andy Griffiths: No matter how long time has passed, it all boils down to what was said anyway.
Relying on a person who is under suspicion for murder and taking his word as better than that of a servig PC is - at the very least - a irresponsible strategy.

It was then the policeman's job to ask questions,to be thorough,ask the witness's names and address (they must have carried a notebook/pen,I think it was a regulation,if for anything for their after-shift report or do what they had to do to take info),ask Paul and Lechmere to go back with him to the body if he had to,hold them and go to the nearest police station,do what he had to do.The policeman was the boss.
Mizen was not thorough.It was not Lechmere's fault.Then he went to do the most important thing that morning,which was go to work.There was no sense in going to the police again since he had no significant info as to who was the killer,everything else let the police take care of it.Then he sensed he was needed back,went back and retold his story.
What does an ordinary witness do that Lechmere did not do? This is like the most ordinary narrative of a normal witness.

The same thing again - you distrust Mizen and trust Lechmere. That is a very odd approach.

The medical evidence?,this is a technical and intricate area,pictures,video and lab tests are required because it's unclear.

It is unclear if the indications - that point straight to Lechmere - are 100 per cent trustworthy, yes. They are only idications. Pointing straight to Lechmere. Nothing else. Well spotted.

The route to work,it was what he deemed as best as posters point out.He was not alone in crisscrossing Whitechapel/Spitalfields to go to work.That's what people did.

In the crucial hour of the murder, no person was seen or heard traversing Bucks Row, and the back streets of the area were generally totally deserted.
But hey, that spells trouble for Lechmere, so let´s conjur up a picture where all of London passed through Bucks Row, a regular stampede. Great work there.

[Fisherman]

John G: Well where do I even start with this!

My advice would be NOT to start at all.

I'm sorry but your view on this is getting more and more blinkered.

... and that is why. You are not speaking the truth.

As I'm short on time ill just address a few points. To start with the ritual was not the same as the Torso perpetrator was a dismememberer and JtR wasn't: http://jaapl.org/content/38/2/239.long

WAIT!!! So the dismemberment was now a ritual? That is interesting - you have fervently claimed that it was simply a means to transport the body and to hide the ID of the victim. When did it pass into being a ritual?
The ritual was the exact same in both series, and it had a lot to do with dismemberment - but not in the way you are suggesting. You can find it in the 1873 victim, for example - if you know where to look. Once more, the joints that were easy to cut open and disjoint were sawed through, while the joints that were difficult to cut open and disjoint were not.
Can you see the anomaly here? The killer is well versed in how to disjoint and does it with superior skill. But he CHOOSES not to disjoint at the shoulders and hips, where he saws through the bone instead.

Once you can see what this is about, you will see the ritual involved and you will begin to understand why I keep telling you that the Kelly deed and the 1873 torso deed are twin cases.
My guess is that the penny won´t drop anytime soon.

The reason didn't fling any victim over his shoulder was because he was a completely different type of killer to Torso, who had no reason to do this as he must have taken his victim 's to a disposal site.

No, the reason Jack did not fling the victims over his shoulder was that he had already dumped them where he killed them. And the sites did not leave any clue to where he lived and worked. When he killed indoors, as the torso killer, he could not leave the bodies in his premises, because that would alert the police to him. In THOSE cases, he needed to dispose of the bodies.
Can you see how that works, even if you don´t ascribe to the suggestion yourself?

Eddowes' face wasn't cut away to prevent identification! If you believe that then you must be getting desperate. As for Kelly, was she decapitated?

The cuts to Eddowes face may have been added to make an ID harder, it is at least a possibility. And why do you move the goalposts for Kelly? I said that her face was so badly messed up and cut away that it could well be a question of making an ID harder - which was what we discussed. Do you or do you not agree that this was so? Do you remember that it was said that even Barnett had a very hard time ID:ing her? Or do you want to change subject instead, now that you have been revealed as worn on this point? Which is it?
As an aside, I am perfectly convinced that neither Eddowes´ nor Kellys facial cuts ahd anything at all to do with the killer trying to hide the identitites of his victims. But that is another matter altogether.

And Jackson's uterus wasn't missing-the doctors actually examined it! The foetus may have been missing, although one was subsequently found in the river which may have been Jackson's. In events if the perpetrator did retain the foetus, but not the uterus, that suggests a very different motive to any of the C5 cases.

Dear, oh dear! The uterus was "not missing"? It was taken out and floated down the Thames, inside the two abdominal flaps and together with cord and placenta. "Missing" in the context we are talking about means "taken out of the body". That is why we can see that Jackson, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly all had their abdomens cut open and their uteruses cut out.
The foetus found in the Thames was not Jacksons. And the removal of the foetus suggest no other motive at all than the one present in all C5 cases - one of a ritualistic behavior.

By the bye, there seems to be something missing in this debate too. And it is not because you are cut out to understand it. Excuse the pun.

[Harry D]

A witness who was not a doctor and had nothing to add as to who was the killer,probably the first time he saw somebody dead - not a drunk lying down,waited for Paul and decide what to do from there.They went to seek a policeman,they would not have knew what the policeman would do.It does
not matter what conversations took place and people express/describe things differently.They reported there was what maybe was a dead person,this should suffice after all Lechmere was going to work,let the police take care of it.
It was then the policeman's job to ask questions,to be thorough,ask the witness's names and address (they must have carried a notebook/pen,I think it was a regulation,if for anything for their after-shift report or do what they had to do to take info),ask Paul and Lechmere to go back with him to the body if he had to,hold them and go to the nearest police station,do what he had to do.The policeman was the boss.
Mizen was not thorough.It was not Lechmere's fault.Then he went to do the most important thing that morning,which was go to work.There was no sense in going to the police again since he had no significant info as to who was the killer,everything else let the police take care of it.Then he sensed he was needed back,went back and retold his story.
What does an ordinary witness do that Lechmere did not do? This is like the most ordinary narrative of a normal witness.

The medical evidence?,this is a technical and intricate area,pictures,video and lab tests are required because it's unclear.
The route to work,it was what he deemed as best as posters point out.He was not alone in crisscrossing Whitechapel/Spitalfields to go to work.That's what people did.

Well put. Lechmere acted in precisely the manner one would expect from a witness. He stopped the first passer-by, alerted him to the body, then accompanied him to find a policeman.

[Elamarna]

Herlock,
There was another person only 30 feet away from the body.A night watchman.

Hi Harry,

I assume you mean Purkiss and family? the Greens are of course even closure

regards

Steve

[Fisherman]

Well put. Lechmere acted in precisely the manner one would expect from a witness. He stopped the first passer-by, alerted him to the body, then accompanied him to find a policeman.

And do you expect witnesses not to use their real names, to disagree with the police over what was said and to refuse prop a woman in need up - a woman, who the witness himmself has drawn attention to?

That kind of changes the game, and consequently you left that out. And people say that I am the one picking and choosing...?

I can tell you, Harry, that if Lechmere was the killer and decided to bluff Paul, he would realistically not run instead of stopping and alerting his fellow carman, and he would not refuse to help find a PC.

You see, the whole idea about bluffing people involves pretending things that are not true.

It is all a very subtle thing, I know, but if you chew on it for some time, you may get the hang of how it works anyway.

Great post, by the way, knowledgeable, insightful and innovative!

(There´s another example of how a bluff is performed. This time, I wanted to convince people that I am a friendly poster who much admire your work, whilst all the time, I hold it rather low in regard. Can you see how the ruse works?)

[Fisherman]

Hi Harry,

I assume you mean Purkiss and family? the Greens are of course even closure

regards

Steve

C´mon, Steve - he just got it wrong again. Purkiss was no night watchman.