Lechmere The Psychopath

[Henry Flower]

And "ifs". Don´t forget those!

You earn the right to say that when you have the guts to name your suspect, coward.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock

The issue is that many see Lechmere's behaviour in Bucks Row being perfectly inline with that of an innocent man. The problem however is that Fisherman sees this as a suggestion of guilty. The thinking is that he is guilty and he is acting like an innocent man and such a predetermined view can never hope to be successful in finding a true resolution of the facts presented.

Just look at the case:
A man finds a body, he gives a name other than his birth one; but one under which he has legally been recorded.

That is it.

The blood flow theory, while initially intriguing fails to stand up to scrutiny.
The other murders being on his possible routes is weak to say the least.

The case for him being the Torso killer is based on the term flaps being used in both series of murders, with no evidence that the terms mean the same thing.

Can we say Lechmere was not the killer of Nichols; Of course not, just as we cannot prove
Kosminski did not do it.

What we can say is the arguments put forward to place him as the murder are no stronger than circumstantial, in some instances they are incorrect.
Could be be the killer, certainly possible.
Was he the killer.... probably not.


Steve

That just about sums it up for me Steve. I need to read up about the blood flow theory though.

Herlock

[harry]

Steve,
Winthrop street runs parallel to and merges with Bucks Row.There is no railw ay in between.
The murder site and and the back of the site where Mulshaw watched, were quite close.A good illustration can be found in John Wilding's,Jack the Ripper Revealed.

[Elamarna]

Steve,
Winthrop street runs parallel to and merges with Bucks Row.There is no railw ay in between.
The murder site and and the back of the site where Mulshaw watched, were quite close.A good illustration can be found in John Wilding's,Jack the Ripper Revealed.

There are two separate rail lines East to West which passes under the bridge at Woods Buildings and a North South line which lies directly to the West of the murder site and the area where Mulshaw probably was.
This is clear on any map from the time.

The two sites while close in distance (about 30 yards) are separated by housing and the two above rail lines from each other. The point being that Mulshaw would have difficulty in hear a slight scuffle but certainly may have heard a scream.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Harry please let me clarify as my previous post may not have been clear.

The East-West line would have been either directly behind Mulshaw if he were in the roadway, or if in the yard of the Working Lads Institute it would have been directly under him. This line is a cut and cover line. Some parts such as by Woods Buildings are above ground while others are just below the surface.
His actual position is not clear while he says 30 yards from the murder site two distances are given for the distance from the slaughter yard, 50 and 70 yards. If 70 yards it would put him directly in front of the open cutting of the East-West line. However that line was not in operation at that time of day, there may have been engineering work going on who knows, but certainly no trains and this line can be ignored as creating any noise.

The North-South line is a different matter. It is directly adjacent to the murder site, and if Mulshaw is 50 yards from the slaughter yard so is he. At 70 yards he is the South West side of the North-South line while the murder is at the North East.
This line was in use at that time of the morning a train is known to have passed at approximately 3.30 and this could easily have obscured any noise.

Indeed how much Mulshaw would be aware of is made clear at the inquest when he says he heard nothing at all, not just the murder, but Paul and Lechmere passing down Bucks Row or their conversation or indeed the police in Bucks Row, nothing until a passer by informed him there had been a murder.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes: Fisherman:

'If they were that callous why inform a policeman at all? It would involve the risk of being detained?'

Not if they didn't mention anything about Nichols being dead.

Which is exactly what I am saying.

You forgot the comma. 'The other man, who walked down Hanbury Street.'
And then, your reasons for thinking that Paul walked on......because he did not overhear Lechmere's lies......because Mizen said that Paul never uttered a word.....because Paul seems less than friendly with the police.......because if Lechmere was the killer,that would be what he would do.....

I genuinely can't believe that you are proposing these nothings just to artificially separate Lechmere from Paul. They left Bucks Row together, met Mizen together. Again you assume mystery by a kind of conspiracy theorist thinking.

Then don´t believe it, Herlock. I really don´t care all that much. But don´t present things as facts that are not facts - they left Bucks Row together, it would seem - but did they really meet Mizen together? What do you base this statement on and how do you propose to prove it?
The devil is in the details. And so is the truth.

If it could be proved that Charles Lechmere was not a psychopath then I would say that he was not the killer.

And I would say, if it can't be proved that Charles Lechmere was a Psychopath, and it categorically cannot, then I would say that we have to discount him.

For what reason? For it not being establishable if he was a psychopath or not? Those are your grounds?
Amazing. Not unique, not new - but always amazing. A real cop out. In my world, it disqualifies any claim of yours to have a view.

I'd like to end this post with a question if I may.

If you got, say, 10 experts. All with the same or greater level of qualification and experience as Andy Griffiths. Do you think that every one of them would say that Lechmere the Ripper would choose to stay with the body and brazen it out rather than the far safer option of walking away?

I find that a somewhat immature question, if you forgive me. But hey, let´s give it a useful answer anyway:
Yes, I think the more likely thing is that they would all agree that Lechmere would have stayed. Why? Because your thought-up panel of experts would need 30 yeras or more of policing, they would need to have been leaders of murder squads and they would need a degree in psychology to equal Griffiths - and that was the suggestion from your side - equal or more knowledge and experience.
And if that knowledge and experience led Griffiths to his desicion, then why would not equal or more knowledge lead the ten experts in the same direction?

A logical answer to a not very good question.

[Fisherman]

Herlock

The issue is that many see Lechmere's behaviour in Bucks Row being perfectly inline with that of an innocent man. The problem however is that Fisherman sees this as a suggestion of guilty.

Steve

So you have a problem with me, Steve?

Now, ask yourself - is what you say really true? Is it what many people see as perfectly innocent that I regard as a suggestion of guilt? Is that really so?

Or is it instead a case of people like you identifiyng TWO possible outcomes of each detail, where you choose to go for the innocent explanation, that we are discussing?
Is it not true that you know quite well that giving the name Cross could be an effort to keep his real name from the papers?
Is it not true that you are very much aware that the Mizen scam can be Lechmere´s invention to get part the police without being stopped pr searched?
Is it not true that you know quite well that the covered wounds can have been Lechmere´s preparation for a bluff?
Is it not true that the blood evidence cannot in any shape or form exclude Lechmere as the killer?

In other words, are you not very much aware that my interpretation may very well be the correct one? But that you have chosen to opt for the innocent explanation instead, which I myself admit may be the correct version?

If all of this is correct, then answer me: Exactly why is it a "problem" that I do not agree with you, Steve? Nota bene that you have even worse problems - Andy Griffiths opted for my solution to these questions too. He thought Lechmere was the probable killer. That must be another big, fat problem to you. No?

[Fisherman]

You earn the right to say that when you have the guts to name your suspect, coward.

No, I disagree. I think he has long ago wavered any right he could have had if he had followed a decent posting procedure.

He´s toast.

[Elamarna]

So you have a problem with me, Steve?

A problem with you? Certainly not!
However the theory proposed starts from an assumption of guilt, or so it appears, such a start point is bound to fail as a provider of reliable and valid research.



Now, ask yourself - is what you say really true? Is it what many people see as perfectly innocent that I regard as a suggestion of guilt? Is that really so?

In my view yes

Or is it instead a case of people like you identifiyng TWO possible outcomes of each detail, where you choose to go for the innocent explanation, that we are discussing?

I am afraid that what comes across is a refusal to even consider the alternative that does not fit the theory.

Is it not true that you know quite well that giving the name Cross could be an effort to keep his real name from the papers?

If such were to be a viable theory one needs to explain the issue of the correct work place given in many sources, which could be checked. The address although only apparently in one source was public knowledge following the inquest and could equally be checked.



Is it not true that you are very much aware that the Mizen scam can be Lechmere´s invention to get part the police without being stopped pr searched?

I do not accept the scam is real. My analysis of the sources suggest a very different reason for mizen's story. Unfortunately you will have to wait until I publish the details in a few months.


Is it not true that you know quite well that the covered wounds can have been Lechmere´s preparation for a bluff?

The source data give no indication at all that Lechmere adjusted the clothing of Nichols before Paul arrived. The hypothesis he did is based on pure speculation and therefore it fails from a scientific stand point.

Provide evidence that he did so and we can have a serious debate on the subject.


Is it not true that the blood evidence cannot in any shape or form exclude Lechmere as the killer?

Ah I see a different approach. You have stated it places him in the eye of the storm, now you change it to can we use it to prove he was not there. I wonder why the change of emphasis?

The theory, which fails by the way on many levels, cannot place him at the scene at the time. Neither can it not because it simply is not a valid theory to start with.

In other words, are you not very much aware that my interpretation may very well be the correct one? But that you have chosen to opt for the innocent explanation instead, which I myself admit may be the correct version?

That he could have killed Nichols cannot in my view, despite Pierre's post be completely disregarded, to do so would be bias.
Having said that I find the major issues you use to point to him do not work.

The name issue while important in your eyes is not an issue for many.

The Mizen scam does not in my view exist.

The Blood evidence which I have spent 8 months on just does not work once one takes all the available data into account.


If all of this is correct, then answer me: Exactly why is it a "problem" that I do not agree with you, Steve?

As I said I have no problem with you. The issue is that the case presented against Lechmere fails to stand up.


Nota bene that you have even worse problems - Andy Griffiths opted for my solution to these questions too. He thought Lechmere was the probable killer. That must be another big, fat problem to you. No?

That is the real problem you have in that you base so much on the view of others whom you quote continually as experts as if the word of a single person is gospel.
As I have said before put 5 experts in a room. Give them a problem and see if all 5 agree.




Steve

[Sam Flynn]

And if that knowledge and experience led Griffiths to his desicion, then why would not equal or more knowledge lead the ten experts in the same direction?

There was something other than mere knowledge and experience, though, wasn't there? Namely, the completeness and objectivity of the information at Griffiths's disposal, and was he given access to information about other - potentially "stronger" - suspects?

Besides, even confronted with the same data, it's by no means certain that another expert would come to the same conclusion. This isn't an exact science.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock Sholmes: Fisherman:

'If they were that callous why inform a policeman at all? It would involve the risk of being detained?'

Not if they didn't mention anything about Nichols being dead.

Which is exactly what I am saying.

You forgot the comma. 'The other man, who walked down Hanbury Street.'
And then, your reasons for thinking that Paul walked on......because he did not overhear Lechmere's lies......because Mizen said that Paul never uttered a word.....because Paul seems less than friendly with the police.......because if Lechmere was the killer,that would be what he would do.....

I genuinely can't believe that you are proposing these nothings just to artificially separate Lechmere from Paul. They left Bucks Row together, met Mizen together. Again you assume mystery by a kind of conspiracy theorist thinking.

Then don´t believe it, Herlock. I really don´t care all that much. But don´t present things as facts that are not facts - they left Bucks Row together, it would seem - but did they really meet Mizen together? What do you base this statement on and how do you propose to prove it?
The devil is in the details. And so is the truth.

If it could be proved that Charles Lechmere was not a psychopath then I would say that he was not the killer.

And I would say, if it can't be proved that Charles Lechmere was a Psychopath, and it categorically cannot, then I would say that we have to discount him.

For what reason? For it not being establishable if he was a psychopath or not? Those are your grounds?
Amazing. Not unique, not new - but always amazing. A real cop out. In my world, it disqualifies any claim of yours to have a view.

I'd like to end this post with a question if I may.

If you got, say, 10 experts. All with the same or greater level of qualification and experience as Andy Griffiths. Do you think that every one of them would say that Lechmere the Ripper would choose to stay with the body and brazen it out rather than the far safer option of walking away?

I find that a somewhat immature question, if you forgive me. But hey, let´s give it a useful answer anyway:
Yes, I think the more likely thing is that they would all agree that Lechmere would have stayed. Why? Because your thought-up panel of experts would need 30 yeras or more of policing, they would need to have been leaders of murder squads and they would need a degree in psychology to equal Griffiths - and that was the suggestion from your side - equal or more knowledge and experience.
And if that knowledge and experience led Griffiths to his desicion, then why would not equal or more knowledge lead the ten experts in the same direction?

A logical answer to a not very good question.

So in your world I'm disqualified from having a view. I am slightly wounded that I can't live up to your level of Holmes-like genius!

And my question, basically asking if all experts would agree, is an immature one!

Would that be as immature as the petulant strop that you appear to descend into when anyone questions your theory?

You choose to interpret every aspect of these events with a pre-defined slant that Lechmere is obviously a murdering psychopath which you can do with almost any suspect. Most of us though try and see if events have a prosaic and reasonable explaination. And they usually do.

I'd also like to point out that I have no suspect and therefore no axe to grind or bias. I wouldn't burst into tears if Lechmere was proven to be Jack the Ripper. I'm not alone in saying that, of course, he could have been. But you seem to possess an, shall we say, almost unhealthy level of confidence. And I, and others, cant see where that level of confidence comes from.

So I will continue to give an opinion. Whether you think that I 'qualify' for one or not.

[Fisherman]

There was something other than mere knowledge and experience, though, wasn't there? Namely, the completeness and objectivity of the information at Griffiths's disposal, and was he given access to information about other - potentially "stronger" - suspects?

Besides, even confronted with the same data, it's by no means certain that another expert would come to the same conclusion. This isn't an exact science.

I am a bit flummoxed that you should lower yourself to these kinds of antics, Gareth. Less so than I used to be, but still...

You are of course correct - Griffiths was either lied to or kept in the dark, and he was deprived of all the stronger suspect there are (we all know how there is a plethora of better suspects, with lots and lots of evidence pointing to them). He became the sixth victim of the Ripper, having all main information arteries cut off down to the bone.

It is a very sad state of affairs ripperology has come to. The ones carrying the coffin to the grave will be remembered, I can say that much.

Enough of the irony now, since you have grown sensitive lately.
Griffiths was - as has been stated a thousand times - given a very comprehensive overlook of the case. I saw it myself and had an exact copy of it, and I can confidently say that there was no misleading and no cutting back on information in it that skewed the case in any way. Griffiths and I had many discussions about a number of the more popular suspects, so he was aware of them to a significant degree.

You may of course counter along the typical lines, and say that as long as you don´t have the material yourself, you reserve yourself the right to think that Griffiths was underinformed and misled. Actually, I don´t think that any film or book can ever be made that cannot be dragged through the **** and led on as being a piece of forgery, if one really puts one´s mind to it.

Consequentially, I can only say that any such tarnishing is - to the best of my knowledge - sad, rude and wrong.

As for your view on what experts would or would not say, the suggestion you make - that one cannot know until one asks - is a perfectly valid thing to say. Which is why I keep saying it myself.
However, my guess that people with a police background, having the same type of training and the same type of knowledge to a large degree, will make the same kinds of conclusions, is a useful and viable one. End of story.

If you should feel inclined to continue implying that Griffiths was lied to or misled or underinformed, I will not reply. There is only so much space one can justify being used up for that kind of a discussion.

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes: So in your world I'm disqualified from having a view. I am slightly wounded that I can't live up to your level of Holmes-like genius!

No, you are not. You should read more thoroughly - in my world, you are disqualified from having a view IF you discount Lechmere as a suspect on account of my not being able to prove that he was a a psychopath.
I think you would react in the same manner if I was to say that if we cannot prove that you are over average when it comes to criminology, then you cannot be correct in Lechmere being innocent and we can discount the suggestion. That would be just as stupid and useless, and if I was to present such an idea, I would disqualify myself from any discussion on that topic.

Can you see what I mean now, or are you still hurt?

And my question, basically asking if all experts would agree, is an immature one!

I find it to be, yes. It is the kind of stuff asked in Kindergartens about whose daddy is strongest - one that can never be productive until the fathers give it a try. Before that, there is no use at all in discussing it.

Would that be as immature as the petulant strop that you appear to descend into when anyone questions your theory?

A lot worse, actually. And you are welcome to question my theory every day in the week - I like discussing it, and I want it to get widely sread, and you are helping out with it.
But when somebody says that it cannot be true because it cannot be proven that Lechmere was a psychopath, we are getting bogged down in an ocean of sticky, smelly ignorance. We don´t want to go there, do we?

You choose to interpret every aspect of these events with a pre-defined slant that Lechmere is obviously a murdering psychopath which you can do with almost any suspect. Most of us though try and see if events have a prosaic and reasonable explanation. And they usually do.

I do the exact same thing. I also look at the possibility/viability of an innocent explanation. And I find there is always such an explanation to every detail used in the accusation act against Lechmere. The one thing that makes him guilty to my mind is that there should not be any need to find such an astonishing heap of innocent explanations.
He should have said "Lechmere" when asked his name, he should not have arrived when the blood was still running, he should not have the bad luck of the body being covered up, he should have had Paul arriving in time to see that Lechmere was innocent, the papers should not have written "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street", he should not have disagreed with the police, he should not go to work through the killing fields, the murders should not have happened when he did so, he should not have his mother living a stone´s throw away from the Stride murder site, the killer should not have used his approximate old working route when seeking out Eddowes, he should have said "I walked to work at 3.38", he should have helped prop Nichols up when asked, he should have stayed with the body when Paul said he was late...

Pick any of these things, say his traversing the killing fields - and we can all see that he had to, to get to work. And we can say that a number of people would have done the same.
Innocent. Perfectly understandable. Logical. Nothing to see here.

"Piece it all together and the prosecution has the most powerful, most probative case for a court to use". Or something like that. It was what Scobie said when looking at the case, adding that he very much disliked when the coincidences came thick and fast.

I'd also like to point out that I have no suspect and therefore no axe to grind or bias. I wouldn't burst into tears if Lechmere was proven to be Jack the Ripper. I'm not alone in saying that, of course, he could have been. But you seem to possess an, shall we say, almost unhealthy level of confidence. And I, and others, cant see where that level of confidence comes from.

I genuinely look upon that as your problem, not mine. Scobie and Griffiths saw it, and to me, this was what I have ben looking for for very long - experts of the field, unversed in ripperology and with no suspects of their own and no "the killer will never be found"-bias" (many have nailed their colours to that mast) looking at and judging Lechmere.
Of course, if I had chosen ripperologists, people would say "they are biased". I chose non-ripprologists instead, and the outcome was "they are not knowledgeable". Any way, you are damned. But it does not affect me at all, since I am old out here, and I know how people do their ripperology. For example, when they are dealing with somebody who will not acccept their misgivings as the better bid, they will say "He is possesed". That - too - is old hat.
My level of confidence comes from many sources, some of them still not revealed. I can say that much.

So I will continue to give an opinion. Whether you think that I 'qualify' for one or not.

Normally, you are as qualified as your brothers in arms out here. In the case of dismissing Lechmere if it could not be proven that he was a psychopath, you were making a serious mistake and suggesting something that ought never be done.
And as I said, keep it coming - it guarantees that Lechmere is not forgotten.

[andy1867]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;418212]Fisherman:

You ask why didn't they just go past Mizen and carry on to work?



If Lechemere/Cross..or for that matter Paul were the killer of Nicholls, it would seem to me sensible that one or the other would suggest "Going together and finding a copper"
One corroborates the others story, don't they?
If say they had gone on their ways without this agreement, what if one, bumped into a copper,and the other didn't? whether he was the killer or not, he's going to be in trouble for failing to report it.
Albeit the Police would not know the identity of the one who didn't report it, but either Cross or Paul are going to give a pretty decent description arent they?
They cannot be sure they both haven't been seen near the body...Seems like common sense to me.
Doesn't really point to guilt or innocence, because its sensible from the point of view of two innocent people as well.

[Sam Flynn]

I am a bit flummoxed that you should lower yourself to these kinds of antics, Gareth.

I am not "lowering myself" at all. I merely stated a fact - namely that the value of any expert's opinion will depend heavily on the quality and quantity of the data at their disposal. This is a fundamental tenet of science, so I really can't see why you should be "flummoxed" by my mentioning it.