Lechmere The Psychopath

[Elamarna]

They arrived up at Bakers Row together - probably, but not proven. I all hinges on what we mean with "together". Once they saw Mizen, I think that Lechmere and Paul parted ways, Paul proceeding forward, Lechmere veering off to speak to Mizen. We all know that it cannot be proven that the men were close together and we all know that Mizen said that "A" man passing spoke to him. Not TWO men.

Thatīs evidence enough to put the being "together" in very serious doubt.

Let's look at this reply seriously.

1. They probably arrived together but not proven.?
All 3 of the individuals say that the two men arrived together. We have nothing in any source to counter that. To then suggest as you have this may not be the case is simply unsupportable.

2. You think that Lechmere and Paul parted ways.
The sources from all 3 witnesses say different. I have asked you to provide data/evidence to support this hypothesis and to refute the sources of Lechmere, Paul and Mizen. I do not see any provided.

3 . We all know it cannot be proven that the two men were close together.

Do we?
Lechmere in his sworn statement says they walked together and while he gave the majority of information to Mizen, Paul did speak too.
Paul in his sworn testimony says they went together to find a policeman which they did in Bakers Row.
In his newspaper article where he appears to be taking the credit he says it is him who speaks to Mizen, no mention of Lechmere at all. His attitude has changed by the time of the inquest and now lets look at Mizen.

In his testimony he is recorded as saying:
Cross was accompanied by another man. Or In company with another man. Depending on the report.

If you are in the company of another it normally means close together not yards apart as you attempt to suggest.

Mizen says one man spoke to him and said there was a woman in Bucks Row. True,however in all accounts he says there were two men together.

You give a partial quote in that a man passed and spoke to him however ALL sources which say this, also say the man was in the company of another, which you leave off.

That is certainly not sufficient evidence to put being "together" in doubt.
It is wishful think. Superposition not sourported by the data.


I repeat. The data sources of the witnesses say they arrived at Mizen together and Indeed left left together.

Lechmere says they parted at Corbetts Court, Shown to be Paul's place of work

Mizen as I previously quoted and which was ignored in the reply, said they both went down Hanbury street. He does not say they went seperatly and obviously he viewed them as being together.


I asked for supporting evidence for your hypothesis. All you offer is your view of what you think was meant. That is not evidence or data.

Do you have ANY Data, other than your opinion, that they were not together?
If so you hypothesis can be tested, if not it fails and it remains just another vague possibility along with so many others equally unsupported.


Steve

[Pierre]

They arrived up at Bakers Row together - probably, but not proven. I all hinges on what we mean with "together". Once they saw Mizen, I think that Lechmere and Paul parted ways, Paul proceeding forward, Lechmere veering off to speak to Mizen. We all know that it cannot be proven that the men were close together and we all know that Mizen said that "A" man passing spoke to him. Not TWO men.

Thatīs evidence enough to put the being "together" in very serious doubt.

Fisherman, we canīt even know which one of the two carmen spoke to Mizen.

Paul said he was the one who spoke to Mizen.

Cross said he didnīt say a PC was waiting in Buckīs Row.

Paul never got that question!

We can not even know if Mizen remembered which one of the two carmen spoke to him or which one said what.

He didnīt even call Lechmere Mr Cross or Robert Paul Mr Paul. He just stated "carman" and "carmen", because to him they were just carmen.

Your sources are really problematic. There is a very low validity.

Pierre

[Fisherman]

You say he was not misled (inadvertently or otherwise) and underinformed, but as far as I know you haven't yet told us precisely what briefing material Griffiths was given.

Please produce it, if only to reassure me that my reasonable caution as to the completeness of the information provided is, in this instance, misplaced.

I do not have it in my possesion, page for page. I have before stated that it was a large collection of paper articles, definitely more that a hundred of them, plus a comprehensive collection of many police reports.

I fail to see what material would have been left out so as to mislead Griffiths - for each victim, there were articled from many different publications, both regarding the finding of the body and quoting the inquest proceedings, as well as follow-up material from the press. Add to this the police reports we have.

What is it you propose was done? Would something have been stricken out of the articles? Would some important report have been left out? I failed to see any of this happening.
But maybe my word is not good enough, seeing as I am so often pointed out as balancing on the brink of madness due to an almighty bias?

[Pierre]

Let's look at this reply seriously.

1. They probably arrived together but not proven.?
All 3 of the individuals say that the two men arrived together. We have nothing in any source to counter that. To then suggest as you have this may not be the case is simply unsupportable.

2. You think that Lechmere and Paul parted ways.
The sources from all 3 witnesses say different. I have asked you to provide data/evidence to support this hypothesis and to refute the sources of Lechmere, Paul and Mizen. I do not see any provided.

3 . We all know it cannot be proven that the two men were close together.

Do we?
Lechmere in his sworn statement says they walked together and while he gave the majority of information to Mizen, Paul did speak too.
Paul in his sworn testimony says they went together to find a policeman which they did in Bakers Row.
In his newspaper article where he appears to be taking the credit he says it is him who speaks to Mizen, no mention of Lechmere at all. His attitude has changed by the time of the inquest and now lets look at Mizen.

In his testimony he is recorded as saying:
Cross was accompanied by another man. Or In company with another man. Depending on the report.

If you are in the company of another it normally means close together not yards apart as you attempt to suggest.

Mizen says one man spoke to him and said there was a woman in Bucks Row. True,however in all accounts he says there were two men together.

You give a partial quote in that a man passed and spoke to him however ALL sources which say this, also say the man was in the company of another, which you leave off.

That is certainly not sufficient evidence to put being "together" in doubt.
It is wishful think. Superposition not sourported by the data.


I repeat. The data sources of the witnesses say they arrived at Mizen together and Indeed left left together.

Lechmere says they parted at Corbetts Court, Shown to be Paul's place of work

Mizen as I previously quoted and which was ignored in the reply, said they both went down Hanbury street. He does not say they went seperatly and obviously he viewed them as being together.


I asked for supporting evidence for your hypothesis. All you offer is your view of what you think was meant. That is not evidence or data.

Do you have ANY Data, other than your opinion, that they were not together?
If so you hypothesis can be tested, if not it fails and it remains just another vague possibility along with so many others equally unsupported.


Steve

Very good, Steve. And Paul said he was speaking to Mizen.

Mizen, on the other hand, called them just "carmen" and "a carman".

So it may very well have been Paul who spoke about another PC, if anyone did.

Pierre

[Pierre]

I do not have it in my possesion, page for page. I have before stated that it was a large collection of paper articles, definitely more that a hundred of them, plus a comprehensive collection of many police reports.

I fail to see what material would have been left out so as to mislead Griffiths - for each victim, there were articled from many different publications, both regarding the finding of the body and quoting the inquest proceedings, as well as follow-up material from the press. Add to this the police reports we have.

What is it you propose was done? Would something have been stricken out of the articles? Would some important report have been left out? I failed to see any of this happening.
But maybe my word is not good enough, seeing as I am so often pointed out as balancing on the brink of madness due to an almighty bias?

Dear Fisherman,

I donīt think you are misleading. You seem to be an honest man.

I think you are misled.

By the sources.

Pierre

[Pierre]

They arrived up at Bakers Row together - probably, but not proven. I all hinges on what we mean with "together". Once they saw Mizen, I think that Lechmere and Paul parted ways, Paul proceeding forward, Lechmere veering off to speak to Mizen. We all know that it cannot be proven that the men were close together and we all know that Mizen said that "A" man passing spoke to him. Not TWO men.

Thatīs evidence enough to put the being "together" in very serious doubt.

Fisherman, we canīt even know which one of the two carmen spoke to Mizen.

Paul said he was the one who spoke to Mizen.

Cross said he didnīt say a PC was waiting in Buckīs Row.

Paul never got that question!

We can not even know if Mizen remembered which one of the two carmen spoke to him or which one said what.

He didnīt even call Lechmere Mr Cross or Robert Paul Mr Paul. He just stated "carman" and "carmen", because to him they were just carmen.

Your sources are really problematic. There is a very low validity.

Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

I do not have it in my possesion, page for page. I have before stated that it was a large collection of paper articles, definitely more that a hundred of them, plus a comprehensive collection of many police reports.

Thanks, but what about the rest of the case, Fish? What about info on other suspects? What about the socio-economic background to the murders? If most, if not all, the info he was given was Nichols/Lechmere related, how was he supposed to have come up with a balanced view? Even if the material were more wide-ranging, how much time would he need to take it all on board?

What is it you propose was done? Would something have been stricken out of the articles?

Let me be very clear: I am not suggesting deliberate tampering; not at all. I'm just very aware of the complexities and subtleties of this case. Having a hundred newspaper clippings and "many" police reports to digest in a short space of time is not going to equip anyone to make a truly informed decision.

[Fisherman]

I get your point Fish....but if I was Paul, I would expect to get drawn into it anyway, or would I presume Cross was not going to mention meeting me?
They had already pondered as to whether Nicholls was dead or not before meeting a policeman...
Surely Paul would realise he was going to be in the investigation one way or another.
I don't think I would have trusted someone else to put the whole story together with me as a participant, without putting my version across.
Unless of course Paul was a trusting soul and maybe not too savvy...I dunno..Theres a lot of supposition involved.
I am in no way denegrating your theory...I haven't got one myself, so would be the last to cast aspersions...and I fail to see how Cross/Lechmere isnt a suspect, given the rest of the "Cast"...

I can only caution against trying to put oneself in a witnesses place and concluding that the witness would have gone along with yourself.
Itīs not that you donīt make sense - you do. And just as I keep saying that I would have run myself in Bucks Row if I was the killer, I can see how I would have wanted to hear what Lechmere said the Mizen.

But I am looking at the possibility of Lechmere being the killer, and so I am always taking a sharp look at whether there is anything to bolster this supposition.
I think we must accept that if the killer is on record as being involved in the investigation, then it will not be obvious that he was guilty. It will not be a case of him saying outright that he killed the women, nor will it be a case of this matter presenting itself readily between the lines.
It will instead be very deeply hidden, and very hard to see, that is how I reason.

In the case of Pauls and Lechmeres arrival in Bakers Row and the ensuing discussion with Mizen, I am of the meaning that if Paul spoke to Mizen and if he heard Lechmere tell the PC about a colleague in Bucks Row, and if Paul did not then tell either the papers or the inquest about it, nor did he inform the police about it as he was hauled in and interrogated.
In such a case, he would be an accomplish. But I donīt think he was - the Ripper killings are the work of one man only, I am very certain of that.

So what remains for me is not to see what the papers seem to tell us. That has been done a million times and the weighed meaning is very clear - Paul and Lechmere both spoke to Mizen and Lechmere would have been heard lying by Paul if this was so. I can see that just as readily as anybody else!

But! Then I look at it assuming that Lechmere somehow whisked Paul away and lied to Mizen with his fellow carman out of earshot, and I ask myself: Could it be that this was what happend, and is there
A/ Anything to dismiss the idea in the papers and reports, or
B/ Anything to bolster the idea in the papers and reports.

In this case, I find that "together" is a very loose term indeed. And I reason that even if Paul stood twelve yards away from Lechmere as he spoke to Mizen, the latter may well have realized that the carmen were together. It may even be that Lechmere said loudly "You go on ahead, and I will speak to this officer here! Now, officer..."

This cannot be excluded. Saying that they arrived together, that they were "in company", does not guarantee that Paul must have heard what Lechmere told Mizen!

Next thing, I try to see if there is something that could serve as a confimation, partly or fully, of my suspicions. And in this case, we have the very indicative thing that Mizen says that he was approached by a carman, and not by two carmen. It is also of great weight that Mizen de facto never said a word about Paul having told him a single thing. Plus we have one paper saying about Paul "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street..."

So there we are - very clearly, there IS material supporting my take on things.

I think youa re spot on about Paul perhaps not being very savvy and instead easily led. It also seems that he was none too fond of the police, and I think ha may well have reasoned "Okay, maybe I will have to deal with those pesky coppers, but not today!", and so he avoided Mizen and let Lechmere do the talking. Presumably, he supposed that he would at any rate be given the chance to offer his version of events, and maybe he worked from the presumption that such a thing would disenable others to tell porkies, I donīt know. I donīt find such a suggestion a stretch in any way, at least.

Oveall, the fact that the door is always left open for Lechmere to have been the killer is something that tells me that he is a very good bid - I really think that at least one of these doors would have been shut if he was not guilty. But that never happens.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Let's look at this reply seriously.

I just did. You are welcome to do the same, and I suggest you read my post to Andy to see what I am talking about.

Just one thing - you say that "in company with" MUST mean in close proximity. That is and remains very wrong. I went to Gothenburg in company with my wife yesterday, and we were far from each other many times. We nevertheless travelled in company.

You also need to weigh in that it was the coroner who asked "When you spoke to Cross, was he in company with somebody"?
So it is the CORONER, and not Mizen who words himself like this. And if Mizen saw the two mena arriving together, perhaps chatting as they walked into Bakers Row, and if Paul was still present albeit a fair distance from Mizen and Lechmere as they spoke, just how large do you think the chance is that Mizen would answer "No, there was nobody else present, he was alone"?

Be a bit realistic. It helps immensely, Steve!

[Fisherman]

Please don't pretend to be a badass, Fish. Tough-typers like you don't intimidate me in the slightest.

I am not being anything but truthful. Whether it intimidates you or not is of no consequence to me.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Thanks, but what about the rest of the case, Fish? What about info on other suspects? What about the socio-economic background to the murders? If most, if not all, the info he was given was Nichols/Lechmere related, how was he supposed to have come up with a balanced view? Even if the material were more wide-ranging, how much time would he need to take it all on board?

He was asked to review the Nichols case, and that was where the information was centered. He was also quite aware of the other murders suggested to have been Ripper deeds, but the gist of the information and the focus was on the Nichols case.
I donīt think it would be realistic to ask him to take in all information. That would only have one advantge - the docu would still not be made and you would not have gotten into a twist over it.

The idea that any commentator must know it all is not a viable one. It has a very large value of itīs own to single out one case and look at it.

The question that must be asked is this: What information is there that- to your mind - would in any way be likley to sway Griffiths from his suggestion that the killer would never have run?

If this is really such a worry of yours, then you must be able to present a viable case for WHY you should feel concerned and what missing material you are suggesting would have made a difference.

Can you do that?

Let me be very clear: I am not suggesting deliberate tampering; not at all. I'm just very aware of the complexities and subtleties of this case. Having a hundred newspaper clippings and "many" police reports to digest in a short space of time is not going to equip anyone to make a truly informed decision.

I trust you are quite aware that I am just as knowledgeable as you are about the complexities and subtleties of the case.I find that I am therefore in every respect as good a judge as you about whether Griffiths was presented with an adequate amount of correct information to make his call. It also applies that he will have made that call not only based on the case detils but also to a very alrge degree on basis of his own experience of criminal behaviour, that of murderes included to a very large degree.
I donīt know what you describe as "a short space of time". Do you know for how long Griffiths read up on the case before the docu was made? Or are you just saying that it must have been a "relatively" short space of time?

Or is it just a case of not wanting to accept Griffiths words, no matter what? That would not be a good approach.
Let me remind you that Griffiths said what he said when i told him that it was a common thing to say amogst ripperologists that killers will always run. He stopped short, turned to me and immediately said "No, he would never have run" (possibly "no, he would not have run", I cannot remember exactly.) At this stage, he had taken in what is known about the PC:s and the night watchmen, and had a clear picture of how there were many perils involved for a fleeing man.
So it was more of an immediate reactio to a statement from my side than any weighed decision based on reading what was in the articles about it. To me, it seemed as if it was his experience talking. And personally, I liked the sound of it...

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;418335]

Elamarna: Let's look at this reply seriously.

I just did. You are welcome to do the same, and I suggest you read my post to Andy to see what I am talking about.

Just one thing - you say that "in company with" MUST mean in close proximity. That is and remains very wrong. I went to Gothenburg in company with my wife yesterday, and we were far from each other many times. We nevertheless travelled in company.

That is not relevant to this case.

You also need to weigh in that it was the coroner who asked "When you spoke to Cross, was he in company with somebody"?

And Mizen thought to himself "Cross? OK, whatever..."

So it is the CORONER, and not Mizen who words himself like this. And if Mizen saw the two mena arriving together, perhaps chatting as they walked into Bakers Row, and if Paul was still present albeit a fair distance from Mizen and Lechmere as they spoke, just how large do you think the chance is that Mizen would answer "No, there was nobody else present, he was alone"?

Be a bit realistic. It helps immensely, Steve!

Realism is a peculiar point of view. It dominates the points of view of others by telling them they are not "realistic".

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: Let's look at this reply seriously.

I just did. You are welcome to do the same, and I suggest you read my post to Andy to see what I am talking about.

I have done, it contains no data to support the hypothesis, it just a fuller explanation of your thinking. Basically it how you WISH to interpret "together " no more. no less.
Just a personal opinion, wishful thinking.


Just one thing - you say that "in company with" MUST mean in close proximity. That is and remains very wrong. I went to Gothenburg in company with my wife yesterday, and we were far from each other many times. We nevertheless travelled in company.


Just one problem I did not say MUST. I said:

"If you are in the company of another it normally means close together not yards apart as you attempt to suggest".


It's all about the context in which the language is used, the context of you and your wife traveling is different to that described at the inquest

You also need to weigh in that it was the coroner who asked "When you spoke to Cross, was he in company with somebody"?
So it is the CORONER, and not Mizen who words himself like this. And if Mizen saw the two mena arriving together, perhaps chatting as they walked into Bakers Row, and if Paul was still present albeit a fair distance from Mizen and Lechmere as they spoke, just how large do you think the chance is that Mizen would answer "No, there was nobody else present, he was alone"?

No that does not work. Mizen was asked a question. He replied very clearly to it and to infer somehow the coroner put words in his mouth is a really somewhat desperate attempt to try and invent a data source. Again your suggestion is based on supposition and not data.

Be a bit realistic. It helps immensely, Steve!

It would help all if you were.
I am most sorry but that attempt to infer that the coroner put words in Mizen's mouth or somehow made him say something that was not what he really meant is both laughable and incredibly sad at the same time.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes: Ok Fisherman, I've taken a deep breath. First an admission. The 'Lechmere not being a psychopath' one was ill considered. I framed it as an instant reaction/reversal of your statement without taking enough time to think about it. What I should have said was more along the lines of 'having no evidence of violent behaviour, mental imbalance or instability would, in my opinion, weaken any suspects claim to be Jack the Ripper. It wouldn't rule him out just because we are not aware of it but it makes some difference. Obvious if some of this kind of evidence existed Lechmere would instantly become more viable.'

Thank you for this, Herlock. It takes a very normal man to make a mistake but a less common one to make the kind of correction you make here. It honours you, and I bow to you.
I agree that some sort of evidence pointing to any type of mental instability as you put it, would make a clear difference for my bid. Having said that, I must point out that although I count psychopathy as a mental defect, I am less inclined to call it an instability. On the contrary, psychopaths are often VERY stable - it is part of their mental defect. A psychopath will happily walk into a rain of gunfire with the notion that he weill be able to take out the man with the gun - and often enoughm this succeeds on account of the gunman loosing his nerve. A psychopath will not suffer the same fate. Many was heroes have been clear-cut psychopaths; unable to feel any fear, they display what looks like an unearthly courage. They get medals awarded for great courage in the face of fear, but they actually never recognize that face. So maybe we should look for signs of Lechmere being totally fearless and brazen instead of searching for an instability, if you take my meaning.

On the 'experts' question I still don't see that my phrasing of it alters what I originally said. But, that's my perception. As you've accepted, my point was just that it would be interesting to hear other experts opinions, especially on the 'walk away or brazen it out,' debate. I'm in no way denigrating the opinion of Andy Griffiths. I may disagree though.

You are perfectly entitled to. And much as I think there were differences involved, I accept that what you meant was to look for other experts opinions, and that is a useful enough approach.

You said ' you could see what happens if you are less aggressive yourself.' Point taken Fisherman.

It is an aim on my behalf to be civil. Unfortunately, I have been treated to a lot of mailciousness out here, and I have a talent for retaliating. I believe it will sometimes mean that I have too short a fuse in exchanges with people who deserve better, which is a shame, if nothing else because it takes the focus away from where it should lie. It has cost me an apology or two, but such payment is for the benefit of the cause.

Keep calm and carry on. I think I've heard that before somewhere.

Not a bad piece of advice. Not at all.

[Fisherman]

It would help all if you were.
I am most sorry but that attempt to infer that the coroner put words in Mizen's mouth or somehow made him say something that was not what he really meant is both laughable and incredibly sad at the same time.


Steve

Hoping that Herlock Sholmes reads this post, Iīd like to point out that this is the kind of thing I truly despise - I am being pointed out as laughable and sad, while all the way what I am saying is a fact, not a suggestion:

The Morning Advertiser, September 4 1888:

Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question). I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?

The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman.

So we can see that the coroner has to remind Mizen about Paul to even have the PC mention him, and we can see that it was the coroner who suggested that the carmen were "in company". We cannot possibly know if Mizen would have used the expression, we can only see that he does not even mention Paul until reminded by Baxter.

It has nothing to do with putting words in somebodyīs mouth but it certainly had an influence on how we look at it today.

I donīt think any further commentary from my side is needed.