Lechmere The Psychopath

[Abby Normal]

Thatīs the whole thing, Abby - if he had not had his ritual, he would NOT have done it. It is a deeply, deeply illogical thing to do, as is cutting the abdominal wall away in flaps, when you can easily get at all the organs without that effort, once you have opened up the belly from ribs to pubes.

hey fish PMing you.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: One of the reasons you give for him being under superstition, is the conversation with Mizen, and the belief you hold that he lied.

In effect you are presenting a form of circular argument, which to me are rarely convincing.

Yes, Iīm sure the argument "policemen are often liars, and so Mizen lied" is a much better argument. But I am anything but sure that Lechmere was under superstition...

No the suggestion that policeman are often liars has not been used , that is an assumption of the arguments which may be used; has others have said today ...... invention .

Actual I do not think it is odd at all. One needs to look at Mizen's testimony/statements as a whole and see if anything stands out, if he is clear in all he says and if his statements are backed by any others

Of course it goes without saying that the same exercise must be done for both Lechmere and Paul, plus any one uses as comparators for Mizen, which in this case means PC Neil.

It remains odd to trust Lechmere over Mizen for no good reason at all, Iīm afraid.

Not at all if one has done the analysis of the data ( hate to sound like Pierre, but I this case it applies). And come to a reasoned conclusion.

The medical indicators Do NOT Point to Lechmere.

They do. Firmly so.

We disagree on the interpretation of the data, I am confident of what I believe mainly because I actually understand the data and am not just repeating what others have said.

In reality no one is seen or heard going along Bucks row, not even Lechmere or Paul. WE are only aware they did because THEY said they did.

Yes, we are aware of it since we have had it reported. And we have also had it reported that the streets were deserted and quiet, more so than normally. And we have it reported that no PC or night watchman saw anyone leave the street so as to evoke suspicion.

That is not a response to the point made.
However to address the point you make that is a snapshot of Neil's opinion which is based on the few minutes he spends in Bucks Row out of every half hour. It is not representative of what happens for the other 25 plus minutes out of each 30.

Of course Thain reported two persons heading towards Whitechapel road, given his route these surely came from either Dogs Row or Brady Street.

... and not a single person more was reported. So no crowds of people streaming through Bucks Row, a dead silent night with empty streets. Only the fewest had reason to be there.
That is not conclusive, but it is a fair hint that there was no phantom killer.

Who is mentioning crowds, only you from reading the posts; certainly not I.

The mysterious passer by was mentioned by the coroner at the inquest, with the police responding they had been unable to locate this person.
There is the person who apparently spoke to Mulshaw, and of course neither Purkiss or Green heard anything, not even Paul and Lechmere or indeed the regular police patrol. Only one local claimed to hear anything at all.

Neil was not heard or seen at 3.15
Paul and Lechmere were not heard or seen, unless by Lilley
Nichols was not heard or seen entering the street.
The attack was not heard (unless by Lilley) or seen
Neil was not heard or seen walking up to the murder site at approx 3.45.

And yet all of these happened, but were not noticed.

In short there is no evidence to support the view the area was deserted.

Yes, there is - Neil, for example, walked the streets and SAW that they were, generally speaking. Wherefrom did you get the idea that nobody heard Neil walking up Bucks Row? Who said that; "There was a PC there when I looked out my window, and strangely, I had not heard him arrive." Who, Steve?

The same point as above I see.
And the same reply: It's a snapshot view. It cannot by definition say if anyone passed down Bucks Row while he was not there.

No one mentioned him at all. Indeed Mulshaw claimed he hardly saw a policeman that night, only about once every two hours.
There is no need to provide a witness to say he was not hear, however please name a witness who said they heard him?

Go on?

Is it not true that you are claiming as a fact something that is not nearly a fact here? Conjuring up a false truth, as it were?[/B]

Provide evidence that Neil was heard and I will retract my statement.

And such a comment is really useful in trying to determine the truth without the the prejudice of predetermination.

I sometimes reply in the same manner I am spoken to. That IS useful, I find.

And of course no attempt to address the issue that the residents noticed nothing and had no idea who had been in the street that early morning.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Fair enough. As long as everyone understands that very little, if anything associated wit your theory IS fact, then we're on the same page. Each individual must decide for themselves how many 'would haves' and 'must haves' is too many.

Yes, and how many "would not be" and "is almost certainly not" there is room for.

As a matter of fact (!), I would say that no other suspect theory contains as many caserelated facts as the Lechmere theory. Nor nearly. And in all those other cases, there is a real need for them "must have" and "would have" bits.

[Fisherman]

No the suggestion that policeman are often liars has not been used , that is an assumption of the arguments which may be used; has others have said today ...... invention .


Not at all if one has done the analysis of the data ( hate to sound like Pierre, but I this case it applies). And come to a reasoned conclusion.



We disagree on the interpretation of the data, I am confident of what I believe mainly because I actually understand the data and am not just repeating what others have said.



That is not a response to the point made.
However to address the point you make that is a snapshot of Neil's opinion which is based on the few minutes he spends in Bucks Row out of every half hour. It is not representative of what happens for the other 25 plus minutes out of each 30.



Who is mentioning crowds, only you from reading the posts; certainly not I.


The same point as above I see.
And the same reply: It's a snapshot view. It cannot by definition say if anyone passed down Bucks Row while he was not there.

No one mentioned him at all. Indeed Mulshaw claimed he hardly saw a policeman that night, only about once every two hours.
There is no need to provide a witness to say he was not hear, however please name a witness who said they heard him?

Go on?


Provide evidence that Neil was heard and I will retract my statement.


And of course no attempt to address the issue that the residents noticed nothing and had no idea who had been in the street that early morning.



Steve

Once I got to the "I actually understand the data" part, I left the train. For obvious reasons.

[Patrick S]

You made rather a big affair of my take on the knife business and made a number of suggestions about how I was reasoning (one stranger than the other), and so I gave my view -and nothing happened. Here it is again:

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?

I was simply wondering if you had anything to object about this.

What can I object to? It's all made up, Christer. So, what's the point of debating these "details"? As you're well aware, I find the entire "Chuck the Ripper" tale laughable. EVERY detail is (yes, I'll say it again) INVENTED. You have invented convoluted reasons for his giving a "false" name (i.e a name we know was recorded by a census taker when he was boy, his stepfather's name) that simply defy logic: He gave this name rather than a completely false name because it gave him a fall back, deniability...... But he gave his real address and employer?

Conversely, YOU find it ILLOGICAL to ask why he gave any name at all when he wasn't asked for one on the night of the murder and was allowed to go on his way...only to voluntarily appear at the inquest and give this "false"/"alternate" name as part of his "bluff".

You present theories with respect to what motivated him to appear at the inquest, as well. And, again, we see - in my opinion - the absurdities mount. You tell us that he would have been sought by the police had he not. Why? The police - in the form of one PC Jonas Mizen - knew all about his role in finding the body in Buck's Row. Mizen knew he'd spoken to two men in Baker's Row. And now, suddenly, Paul's telling of what the police already KNEW so frightened him that he would risk his life A THIRD TIME when he'd already so skillfully extricated himself from the noose 48 hours previously?

Clearly I do not find it rational or plausible or even within the realm of possibility that Paul's statement would drive a killer who'd gotten away with murder out of hiding. And you, in order to have him so fearful of what may come of Paul's statement, must - I'll say it again - INVENT insights into your killer's state of mind when we don't know anything about his state of mind. BUT we DO know what Paul told Lloyd's. And we CAN evaluate that. And that is hardly something that would have compelled a man guilty of murder to come forward and risk his life by telling lies at the official inquest into A MURDER THAT HE COMMITTED.

Let's bear in mind. You have him successfully "bluffing" his way through his encounter with Paul. He opts for that rather than flight. Hard to believe but, let's say he froze. So, we'll play along. Then you have him going off searching for a PC with Paul. He finds Mizen. You then have him successfully duping Paul and misleading Mizen to an extent that allows him to escape the scene of the crime. He's never asked his name, employer, address. AND THEN......He's barely mentioned in Lloyd's, in an article that focuses mainly on what a "great shame" it was that the police allowed a woman's dead body to grow cold on the pavement and that the PC didn't say whether he would come or not even after he had been "told the woman was DEAD"....and he's driven out of hiding? He's terrified that he's NOW sought by the police? As we know, and it's worth repeating, Paul's statement does nothing to implicate your killer but it IS critical of the police and PC Jonas Mizen. And we're asked to believe THIS "bombshell" drove Jack the Ripper to appear bright and early Monday morning at the inquest?

[Fisherman]

What can I object to? It's all made up, Christer. So, what's the point of debating these "details"? As you're well aware, I find the entire "Chuck the Ripper" tale laughable. EVERY detail is (yes, I'll say it again) INVENTED. You have invented convoluted reasons for his giving a "false" name (i.e a name we know was recorded by a census taker when he was boy, his stepfather's name) that simply defy logic: He gave this name rather than a completely false name because it gave him a fall back, deniability...... But he gave his real address and employer?

Conversely, YOU find it ILLOGICAL to ask why he gave any name at all when he wasn't asked for one on the night of the murder and was allowed to go on his way...only to voluntarily appear at the inquest and give this "false"/"alternate" name as part of his "bluff".

You present theories with respect to what motivated him to appear at the inquest, as well. And, again, we see - in my opinion - the absurdities mount. You tell us that he would have been sought by the police had he not. Why? The police - in the form of one PC Jonas Mizen - knew all about his role in finding the body in Buck's Row. Mizen knew he'd spoken to two men in Baker's Row. And now, suddenly, Paul's telling of what the police already KNEW so frightened him that he would risk his life A THIRD TIME when he'd already so skillfully extricated himself from the noose 48 hours previously?

Clearly I do not find it rational or plausible or even within the realm of possibility that Paul's statement would drive a killer who'd gotten away with murder out of hiding. And you, in order to have him so fearful of what may come of Paul's statement, must - I'll say it again - INVENT insights into your killer's state of mind when we don't know anything about his state of mind. BUT we DO know what Paul told Lloyd's. And we CAN evaluate that. And that is hardly something that would have compelled a man guilty of murder to come forward and risk his life by telling lies at the official inquest into A MURDER THAT HE COMMITTED.

Let's bear in mind. You have him successfully "bluffing" his way through his encounter with Paul. He opts for that rather than flight. Hard to believe but, let's say he froze. So, we'll play along. Then you have him going off searching for a PC with Paul. He finds Mizen. You then have him successfully duping Paul and misleading Mizen to an extent that allows him to escape the scene of the crime. He's never asked his name, employer, address. AND THEN......He's barely mentioned in Lloyd's, in an article that focuses mainly on what a "great shame" it was that the police allowed a woman's dead body to grow cold on the pavement and that the PC didn't say whether he would come or not even after he had been "told the woman was DEAD"....and he's driven out of hiding? He's terrified that he's NOW sought by the police? As we know, and it's worth repeating, Paul's statement does nothing to implicate your killer but it IS critical of the police and PC Jonas Mizen. And we're asked to believe THIS "bombshell" drove Jack the Ripper to appear bright and early Monday morning at the inquest?

You give yourself away when you say "letīs say he froze", Patrick. Clearly, you have not understood what I am suggesting at all. If I am correct, Lechmere would have been more or less unable to "freeze".

But I digress. If you want to call a theory "invention" then okay - to an extent ALL theories are inventions.

And inventive people make the world go around, so Iīm happy enough. The rather rude passage about how the theory is laughable only tells me that we have different senses of humour too. A queens councellor and an ex murder squad leader saw no reason to laugh, so it bothers me not if people less suited to make that kind of a call disagrees.

[Pierre]

Thatīs the whole thing, Abby - if he had not had his ritual, he would NOT have done it. It is a deeply, deeply illogical thing to do, as is cutting the abdominal wall away in flaps, when you can easily get at all the organs without that effort, once you have opened up the belly from ribs to pubes.

Hi Fisherman,

what were the shape(s) of the flaps?

Pierre

[Pierre]

Fair enough. As long as everyone understands that very little, if anything associated wit your theory IS fact, then we're on the same page. Each individual must decide for themselves how many 'would haves' and 'must haves' is too many.

And "ifs". Donīt forget those!

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

what were the shape(s) of the flaps?

Pierre

Have we moved on? Are we not still engaged with your assertion that Nichols did not have her belly cut from breastbone to pubes?

[Fisherman]

And "ifs". Donīt forget those!

Iīm sure Patrick relishes the idea of having you as a brother in arms, Pierre. With such friends, who needs enemies? I have Scobie and Griffiths and he has you and all that data - should be interesting.

[Pierre]

Have we moved on? Are we not still engaged with your assertion that Nichols did not have her belly cut from breastbone to pubes?

The shape of the flaps, Fisherman? What were they?

[Fisherman]

The shape of the flaps, Fisherman? What were they?

Why would I discuss it with you, Pierre - regardless of how there is ample material telling us that Nichols had her abdomen cut open from breastbone to pubes, you insist that this was not the case.

Any information about the appearance of a murder victims damages therefore seems genuinely lost on you.

PS. The question you wanted to ask is "The shape of the flaps, Fisherman - what WAS it?" or "The shapes of the FLAPS, Fisherman - what were they?"

Now Iīm done playing with you. Letīs not get you spoiled by attention.

[Pierre]

Iīm sure Patrick relishes the idea of having you as a brother in arms, Pierre. With such friends, who needs enemies? I have Scobie and Griffiths and he has you and all that data - should be interesting.

Dear Fisherman,

I truly wish that you could give everyone some good evidence that Lechmere was the serial killer you seem to believe that he was.

It would be so interesting to hear his story.

As things are now, you know the resistance from people here. This is due to the poor evidence. I am sorry for that, but that is just so typical for historical sources and naturally, it is very difficult to find a serial killer a long time after the murders, using sources from that time.

You, and everyone who is trying, have to use the methods of history and forensic history, it is the only way.

I do understand that you think Lechmere is "the best bid", but that is actually because all the other "bids" are so poor.

Sorry, Fisherman. Is there any evidence at all that he did kill the other women? Please tell us.

I am very interested in the Kelly case from the perspective of your idea about Lechmere. I have been asking you about it but you do not explain how Lechmere can be connected to the Kelly murder.

You talk about the elements in the signature - but the problem is that there are elements in the signature present for Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly which are not present in the case of Nichols.

So you do have to make a giant leap from Nichols to the others. It is a leap with very poor connections if you try to do it with the signature.

Please understand that having lived and worked in Whitechapel is not enough "evidence" that Lechmere killed the other women.

As I said, I am sorry. Not much to do about it. It is typical. The sources remain silent. They do not answer. Even Plato noticed that.

Cheers, Pierre

[Pierre]

Why would I discuss it with you, Pierre - regardless of how there is ample material telling us that Nichols had her abdomen cut open from breastbone to pubes, you insist that this was not the case.

Any information about the appearance of a murder victims damages therefore seems genuinely lost on you.

PS. The question you wanted to ask is "The shape of the flaps, Fisherman - what WAS it?" or "The shapes of the FLAPS, Fisherman - what were they?"

Now Iīm done playing with you. Letīs not get you spoiled by attention.

Whatever, Fisherman. But perhaps you donīt know anything about the shape or shapes, since there are no sources for it?

I donīt know, but I am asking you, since you seem so interested in the flaps and their ritualistic element.

A ritual is the repeating of the same. So the flaps may have been the same shape. What do you say?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Comment seems a bit superfluous after Patrick's last post but I'll make a comment of my own about the 'Mizen Gambit.'

Fisherman, you said that it would have been 'surreal' if Mizen had allowed Cross and Paul (who would have had to have been in on any lie) to go on their way if he'd been told that Nichols was lying dead in Buck's Row. It would certainly not have won them any 'policeman of the year' award, true. So what could have happened?
Cross said that he'd told Mizen that the woman was dead or drunk. I'll suggest a 'what if' of my own here. What if Mizen misheard him and thought that he'd said 'there's a woman dead drunk in...?' Mizen said that he'd been told that 'you are wanted...' Maybe this phrase, which means 'your presence is required' got Mizen thinking that a fellow officer wanted his help?
If Cross (and by implication co-conspirator Paul) had lied and left out the 'dead' bit you are right, it would have ensured that they wouldn't have been detained by Mizen. Paul had said that they had both agreed that the best thing that they could do was to tell the first policeman they saw. But what if they hadn't seen one before they got to work? From this it's obvious that the priority of both Paul and Cross was to get to work and not to get tied up in a police enquiry. Even if it meant just leaving it until someone else came upon the body. There is nothing sinister going on here. Two blokes who wanted to get to work who may have told a lie to ensure that they didn't risk losing their jobs.

i have to add a comment about your suggestion that Lechmere would have run more of a risk by walking away than staying and playing innocent. Now that is surreal! You speak of Paul raising the alarm. By shouting? As I've said before. Cross guessed that Paul was around 40 yards away. That would give him a, say, 20 second head start. Paul gets to the body in no panic (as he doesn't immediately know it's a body.) He approaches and has a look. Maybe he gives her a shake to see if she responds. She doesn't so he goes looking for a policeman (possibly shouting as he goes). Cross would have been scot free. Guaranteed. Alternatively, Paul just passes by, either a) thinking the body was a tarpaulin, as Cross originally had. Or b) just ignoring her (maybe telling himself. 'Just a drunk.')

Nothing sinister unless you are desperately looking for it

Herlock