Lechmere The Psychopath

[Rainbow]

She is a ripper victim until prove otherwise.

Rainbow°

[Mike J. G.]

I will ask you this, when did he gave his true adress?! was that at the night of the murder, or was that a while after, when he finaly stood in the inquest ?

Rainbow°

What on earth does that matter? lol. Was he even asked for his address on the night of the murder? If not, why would he just randomly offer it up? Most normal people don't want to be involved in police-work, much less when a murder is involved. I barely like calling the police to report most things, and I have to do it often as I work in security.

Here's the real question: Did Lech give his real address to the police?
Here's the answer: Yes.

Here's another question: Why did he do that?

[Harry D]

She is a ripper victim until prove otherwise.

Rainbow°

Just like Lechmere was an innocent witness until proven otherwise?

[Elamarna]

Nobody knows where Lech was for any other murder bar Nichols. Nobody can even prove that Lech arrived when Nichols was freshly killed.

Nichols' time of death is debatable, as is Lech's ideas on when he arrived at the scene.

Lech, the cold, calculated killer, studied police beats but gave his real identity and home address to the police, also brazenly lied in front of Paul and assumed Paul wouldn't notice.

Lech is certainly consistent in being inconsistent.

Agree entirely Mike

Steve

[Mike J. G.]

She is a ripper victim until prove otherwise.

Rainbow°

You don't seem to understand how the law works, mate.

[Rainbow]

Just like Lechmere was an innocent witness until proven otherwise?

Completely different, when I catch a man at 3:40 a.m. in a dark alley near a bleeding murdered woman he Had to clear himself then.

Rainbow°

[Mike J. G.]

Completely different, when I catch a man at 3:40 a.m. in a dark alley near a bleeding murdered woman he Had to clear himself then.

Rainbow°

But you didn't catch a man at 3:40am in a dark alley near a bleeding murdered woman, and neither did Paul.

Unless you can prove the TOD beyond reasonable doubt, and prove that Lech simply had to be there, then you're going to have a hard time making this conviction stick.

[Rainbow]

You don't seem to understand how the law works, mate.

You have to say that to one of the doctors who gave his report that she was a ripper victim

or you just need to throw the theory of Jack the ripper and consider every crime is a separate event.

Rainbow°

[Elamarna]

I can name a convicted killer with a Ripper-esque signature who fled London a couple of months after the last canonical victim, who had graffiti at his house implicating him as the Ripper.

Did he killed Mckenzie ?!

Huh ?!

Rainbow°

While I personally believe Mackenzie may in all probability been a victim of The Whitechapel killer; it is far from proven and probably not accepted by the majority of students of the murders.
To use such to exclude possible killers is an extremely weak argument in view of the lack of certainty.

Much better is to argue that if she was a victim then Lechmere could have done it whilst Bury could not.

It's not the same argument Rainbow.


Steve

[Mike J. G.]

You have to say that to one of the doctors who gave his report that she was a ripper victim

or you just need to throw the theory of Jack the ripper and consider every crime is a separate event.

Rainbow°

I'm not stating that she wasn't a Ripper victim, my point is that you can't assert that "she is until proven otherwise."

[Rainbow]

You seem not able to see his guilt because he didn't flee away, I will tell you, that was why this series of crimes hadn't been solved all that time.

Paul has said that Buck's Row is dangerous place, If I was passing that dark row and found a woman laying on the ground and heared someone approaching, the first thing I will do .. is to run...run... run...

That what a normal man will do


Rainbow°

[Elamarna]

I will ask you this, when did he gave his true adress?! was that at the night of the murder, or was that a while after, when he finaly stood in the inquest ?

Rainbow°

It was at the inquest has j assume you know. Which he voluntarily attended.

He did not give on the night as he was not asked.

Pray tell me why it makes a difference in your view as to when he gave it?

He could still be checked out could be not?


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is not a simple plan, that is a stupid plan.

He didn't run away at first place because he wanted everything to be under his control..

I will explain further, if they split up and Paul went on another way and found a policeman, what will Paul say ? he will say, I was hurrying to my work when I spoted a man standing where the woman was.. this man had told me that he will try to find a policeman too and vanished away

the policeman : do you know this man?

Paul: no, but I can recognise him again.

Do you see now how it will be a stupid plan, he will have completely no control on the situation . but more, he will turn in one second to the first police's suspect.


Rainbow°

'He wanted everything to be under his control.'

Unfortunately the pro-Lechmere case is full of assumptions like this. How can anyone possibly know that. If he wanted everything under his control why would he leave Buck's Row with Cross knowing that he'd somehow have to contrive a situation where he could give a police officer a version of events without his companion butting in with an alternative one.

It's a stupid plan because Paul, by speaking to a police officer alone, would immediately become the number one suspect.

So the police wouldn't think it strange that a killer, who could have kept quiet and passed him by, chose instead to stop him and tell him about the body in Buck's Row.

Paul would have been able to recognise him.

True. But they would still have had to have found him. The police never found 'Blotchy Man,' or 'Astrakhan Man,' or the men seen by Israel Schwartz or the suspect seen with Annie Chapman, despite having witnesses who would have been able to identify them. The main risk for Lechmere would have been due to the fact of his being stupid enough to kill at a spot that he (and very few others) passed each day at around the same time on his way to work.

'He will have completely no control on the situation.'

Like a man who waits, after hearing footsteps, for another person to arrive (a person who might even have been a policeman if Lechmere couldn't make him out in the dark) and then calls him over to see his handiwork. The 'crazy' alternative would have been to take advantage of the 30 or 40 seconds head start and simply walk away to almost guaranteed freedom.



Lechmere the witness. Ordinary working bloke whose absolute priority ( like Paul's) was not to risk his job by being late for work. He's a victim of circumstance in that he found a body just as someone came along ( I still say that the overwhelming likelihood would be that a guilty man would have run.) That fact apart he's no better a suspect than Diemschutz, Richardson or Bowyer.

[Rainbow]

While I personally believe Mackenzie may in all probability been a victim of The Whitechapel killer; it is far from proven and probably not accepted by the majority of students of the murders.
To use such to exclude possible killers is an extremely weak argument in view of the lack of certainty.

Much better is to argue that if she was a victim then Lechmere could have done it whilst Bury could not.

It's not the same argument Rainbow.


Steve

You may be right here

Rainbow°

[Elamarna]

Completely different, when I catch a man at 3:40 a.m. in a dark alley near a bleeding murdered woman he Had to clear himself then.

Rainbow°

He was not asked to. So please tell me how he could have done so?

It will be interesting to hear the reply


Steve