Lechmere The Psychopath

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Rainbow;418987

There were 3 / three policemen around Buck's Row, no one see a soul, the blood was oozung or running from the warm body, the only two persons there were Paul an Lechmere.

Rainbow°

Hi Rainbow,

I think this post is very interesting.

When we encounter these sources we read into them what Fisherman has told us to read into them.

Fisherman has told us that we should read into them that Lechmere did NOT find Nichols but that he instead killed her.

Fisherman has no other sources than the ones that you and the rest of us have.

As you say yourself "the only two persons there were Paul an Lechmere".

Does this actually mean that in the past, there was not one single other person at the site?

Or does this actually mean that we have not one single source were the murderer has been reported as having been seen?


Cheers, Pierre

[Mike J. G.]

I've received an 'infraction,' for a 'personal attack' for post #633!

I'm staggered! If that's a personal attack then there's no real point continuing to post on here

Herlock

Not to worry, it seems I received one, too.

Most forums these days work on the basis that if you attempt to talk about a person who is trolling, you're reprimanded for it. This is why many forums suffer trolls and people who're genuinely interested in discussing the subject are left to find better places to do it in.

[Mike J. G.]

deleted.

[Mike J. G.]

You suggested Rainbow was a sock puppet (fake name) for Fish, that's against the rules.

All I did was suggest that this person was having a laugh.
It is what it is.

Forums.

[Harry D]

Lechmere's reluctance to move the body has been put forward as another indicator of his guilt.

Like most elements of the Lechmere theory, I'm left somewhat perplexed. We're informed it's because Lechmere didn't want to expose Polly's mutilations to Paul. Even though this could provide a potential alibi for Lechmere having bloodstains found on his person. Lechmere had no way of knowing if he had avoided blood splatter as his grisly deed was interrupted under the cover of darkness. And if that were case, why even bother approaching the wary Paul in the first place? There was no guarantee that Paul wouldn't just ignore Lechmere's advice and try to move the body anyway. Why take on all that unnecessary risk when the smart thing to do was slip away down one of the sidestreets?

[Mike J. G.]

You should have given a false name and address Herlock lol

Should've ran away, that's what normal people do in such situations.

[Mike J. G.]

Lechmere's reluctance to move the body has been put forward as another indicator of his guilt.

Like most elements of the Lechmere theory, I'm left somewhat perplexed. We're informed it's because Lechmere didn't want to expose Polly's mutilations to Paul. Even though this could provide a potential alibi for Lechmere having bloodstains found on his person. Lechmere had no way of knowing if he had avoided blood splatter as his grisly deed was interrupted under the cover of darkness. And if that were case, why even bother approaching the wary Paul in the first place? There was no guarantee that Paul wouldn't just ignore Lechmere's advice and try to move the body anyway. Why take on all that unnecessary risk when the smart thing to do was slip away down one of the sidestreets?

Precisely what I thought when I first read about this. If Lech had killed Polly, he'd actually be better off moving the body with Paul to divert attention away from his obviously bloody appearance.

Moving the body with Paul would not only explain Lech's bloodstains should they become noticed, but it'd also put Paul in a position to be covered in such stains, too.

In reality, Lech probably didn't want to do much messing with the body for obvious reasons: you don't know who this person is, where they've been, or if touching them will put you in a position as to be questioned, or whether it'll hamper potential evidence.

Lech not touching her to the extent that is talked about, is rather natural for any general person who happens upon such a sight.

[Pcdunn]

A stupid plan is the one we're expected to believe; that Lech accompanied Paul to Mizen and within earshot talked a load of nonsense that Paul could've easily found strange and chimed in.

All of this "control" business is very overused. Lech is essentially a sorry sod caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and likely regretted ever stopping by the body at all.

The bolded phrase is probably true, given that in later years Dew will write insulting things about "the carman, Cross" and incorrectly assign to him the behavior of Paul, who had to be tracked down by the police before he would appear at the inquest.

[Rainbow]

QUOTE=Rainbow;418987



Hi Rainbow,

I think this post is very interesting.

When we encounter these sources we read into them what Fisherman has told us to read into them.

Fisherman has told us that we should read into them that Lechmere did NOT find Nichols but that he instead killed her.

Fisherman has no other sources than the ones that you and the rest of us have.

As you say yourself "the only two persons there were Paul an Lechmere".

Does this actually mean that in the past, there was not one single other person at the site?

Or does this actually mean that we have not one single source were the murderer has been reported as having been seen?


Cheers, Pierre

Pierre,

My attitude from the case has nothing to do with Fisherman.

Yes, he is a big supporter to it, but even if he later came and said Lechmere was innocent, I am not changing mine!

The sources said so, and I am building my case depending on those sources, my sentence belongs also to them, not to the true past..


But when the sources that have been written by different journalists at the time say the same things, there was not a soul, she was bleeding, he detected a breath, ... They can't be all wrong!

I accept that as a good source of the past, and analyse it, and come to my results using it..

I like your way of thinking Pierre, but what seams strange, is that you insists, that I am under the effects of Fisherman, no, we are different, you can notice this, I first read about Cross before even knowing this forum ..

Thank you.

Rainbow°

[Harry D]

Lech not touching her to the extent that is talked about, is rather natural for any general person who happens upon such a sight.

Almost as if he acted like a perfectly normal witness?

Off with his head!

[Elamarna]

But when the sources that have been written by different journalists at the time say the same things, there was not a soul, she was bleeding, he detected a breath, ... They can't be all wrong!
Rainbow°

Firstly it's is indeed possible that reports in different papers are taken from a common source or agency. There may be minor differences by the editor but it is normally obvious when this occurs. It is therefore not always different journalists just because it is a different paper.

One then has to analyse as Rainbow says. It's there we often get the problems.

Let's look at Rainbows examples:

1. Not a soul about. This is a comment by a policeman, it is a snapshot of his view during his beat.
It tells us that while he was in Bucks Row he saw no persons.
Yet we know at least 3 did go down Bucks Row during the 30 minutes before his arrival at approx 3.45. However if there had been no murder we would not know anyone passed as Neil said he saw no one.

The other inquest testimony shows that 2 men passed near to Bucks Row as PC Thain approached and that another walked passed the Police and body later on. This may or may not be the same individual who spoke to Mulshaw.

We can see that at least 4 people passed down Bucks Row in the hour around the murder, and 2 maybe 3 passed close by.

Therefore We can conclude that given the time, the road was not used heavily at all. It gave him when he walked it the impression it was empty. However to rule out that a person or persons could have used the road while Neil was absent is unsupported and illogical.

2. She was bleeding. This seems a strange point to keep bringing up as of course if you are cut you bled.
We have Neil saying he sees blood oozing from her neck when he arrives, by cross referencing the various testimonies and applying some maths we can get an approximation of the possible earliest time Neil could arrive after the two Carmen left.

That is approx 3 minutes after Lechmere and Paul left which suggest about 7 minutes after the attack starts, this includes the time taken from the moment Lechmere hears Paul and their subsequent actions over the body and the time of the actual attack. It's not from the last cut made but from the first, as blood pressure starts to drop with the first, be it abdomen or neck.

The comments by Mizen are sometime later, maybe much later.

The bleeding comment is only of any significance if one can be sure of the actual blood flow seen by Neil and we are not. He uses oozing and later running. There are explanations for this apparent discrepancy which have been discussed many times and which I shall discuss again in part 3 of the Bucks Row Project.
The use of the bleeding comment in the blood flow hypothesis is pointless as the actual hypothesis CANNOT set a TIME OF attack, it fails as an hypothesis.

3. He detected a breath, however that is not what is actually said

Looking at 10 newspaper reports on Paul we get the following

The Lloyds Weekly report and the copy in the Evening News of 3rd September make no mention of breathing at all. However this report is hotly debated and disputed but cannot be completely ignored

Of the other 8

The Times states Paul failed to detect breathing or life.
The Pall Mall Gazette just reports her hands and arms were cold.
The Morning Advertiser again makes no comment on breathing the same with the Evening Standard.
The Daily News gives a very different story not only does it claim he was sure he detected breathing but her body was partially warm, this is contrary to all the previous reports.
The Telegraph confirms the body was cold but says he detected a slight movement which was like breathing but it was very faint.
The Woodford Times agrees with the Daily News that there was breathing and the body was warm.
The East London advertiser mentions slight breathing but she is cold.


We have 4 reporting breathing of some description so such cannot be ruled out.

If however we look at Lechmere's account of the same event we find that the view is a little different, Paul first says she is dead, then says she MAY be breathing very faintly. There is obviously genuine debate and confusion here.

However for the sake of debate let us stick with she was breathing.

What does this really tell us?
On it's own nothing. To get a meaningful analysis of this we need to apply medical science:

a) Would the cutting of the windpipe stop the victim from breathing?

b) If not how long could it continue for?

c) What effect would the blood loss have on her breathing?

d) And what effect would blood from the Neck wound getting into the windpipe have?

From Rainbow's own statement on this forum its clear none of the four have been checked and the analysis applied to point to cutting within a few minutes is based on "logic". Given none of the four essential questions have been checked this is nothing more than Guesswork.


It seems just to claim the victim is breathing and this somehow fixes the time of the attack, this is not so far supported by any data provided.

This is the problem. Intreptation must be supported by data .


Steve

[Fisherman]

Well.

One goes away for a few days, expecting to rejoin the discussion when returning home.

However, I have just given the boards a read-through, and made note of the level of discussion. It would shame a pack of rats in a Victorian sewer system.

So I decided that this is not something that I want to be part of. Simple as that.

Itīs not that I am going away. I will stick around and hope that I just witnessed the rock bottom of Ripperology, which - with any luck - means that better days will come.

Until then, though - no thanks.

[Pierre]

Well.

One goes away for a few days, expecting to rejoin the discussion when returning home.

However, I have just given the boards a read-through, and made note of the level of discussion. It would shame a pack of rats in a Victorian sewer system.

So I decided that this is not something that I want to be part of. Simple as that.

Itīs not that I am going away. I will stick around and hope that I just witnessed the rock bottom of Ripperology, which - with any luck - means that better days will come.

Until then, though - no thanks.

Hi Fisherman,

It says a lot about the Lechmere-hypothesis that this is the hypothesis which is the subject for the sewer rat discussion.

If we do not get Minutiae in Buckīs Row, we get the "blood evidence" or the "Mizen scam" garbage. The rats love it.

And who was the one who fed them?

Cheers, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

Firstly it's is indeed possible that reports in different papers are taken from a common source or agency. There may be minor differences by the editor but it is normally obvious when this occurs. It is therefore not always different journalists just because it is a different paper.

One then has to analyse as Rainbow says. It's there we often get the problems.

Let's look at Rainbows examples:

1. Not a soul about. This is a comment by a policeman, it is a snapshot of his view during his beat.
It tells us that while he was in Bucks Row he saw no persons.
Yet we know at least 3 did go down Bucks Row during the 30 minutes before his arrival at approx 3.45. However if there had been no murder we would not know anyone passed as Neil said he saw no one.

The other inquest testimony shows that 2 men passed near to Bucks Row as PC Thain approached and that another walked passed the Police and body later on. This may or may not be the same individual who spoke to Mulshaw.

We can see that at least 4 people passed down Bucks Row in the hour around the murder, and 2 maybe 3 passed close by.

Therefore We can conclude that given the time, the road was not used heavily at all. It gave him when he walked it the impression it was empty. However to rule out that a person or persons could have used the road while Neil was absent is unsupported and illogical.

2. She was bleeding. This seems a strange point to keep bringing up as of course if you are cut you bled.
We have Neil saying he sees blood oozing from her neck when he arrives, by cross referencing the various testimonies and applying some maths we can get an approximation of the possible earliest time Neil could arrive after the two Carmen left.

That is approx 3 minutes after Lechmere and Paul left which suggest about 7 minutes after the attack starts, this includes the time taken from the moment Lechmere hears Paul and their subsequent actions over the body and the time of the actual attack. It's not from the last cut made but from the first, as blood pressure starts to drop with the first, be it abdomen or neck.

The comments by Mizen are sometime later, maybe much later.

The bleeding comment is only of any significance if one can be sure of the actual blood flow seen by Neil and we are not. He uses oozing and later running. There are explanations for this apparent discrepancy which have been discussed many times and which I shall discuss again in part 3 of the Bucks Row Project.
The use of the bleeding comment in the blood flow hypothesis is pointless as the actual hypothesis CANNOT set a TIME OF attack, it fails as an hypothesis.

3. He detected a breath, however that is not what is actually said

Looking at 10 newspaper reports on Paul we get the following

The Lloyds Weekly report and the copy in the Evening News of 3rd September make no mention of breathing at all. However this report is hotly debated and disputed but cannot be completely ignored

Of the other 8

The Times states Paul failed to detect breathing or life.
The Pall Mall Gazette just reports her hands and arms were cold.
The Morning Advertiser again makes no comment on breathing the same with the Evening Standard.
The Daily News gives a very different story not only does it claim he was sure he detected breathing but her body was partially warm, this is contrary to all the previous reports.
The Telegraph confirms the body was cold but says he detected a slight movement which was like breathing but it was very faint.
The Woodford Times agrees with the Daily News that there was breathing and the body was warm.
The East London advertiser mentions slight breathing but she is cold.


We have 4 reporting breathing of some description so such cannot be ruled out.

If however we look at Lechmere's account of the same event we find that the view is a little different, Paul first says she is dead, then says she MAY be breathing very faintly. There is obviously genuine debate and confusion here.

However for the sake of debate let us stick with she was breathing.

What does this really tell us?
On it's own nothing. To get a meaningful analysis of this we need to apply medical science:

a) Would the cutting of the windpipe stop the victim from breathing?

b) If not how long could it continue for?

c) What effect would the blood loss have on her breathing?

d) And what effect would blood from the Neck wound getting into the windpipe have?

From Rainbow's own statement on this forum its clear none of the four have been checked and the analysis applied to point to cutting within a few minutes is based on "logic". Given none of the four essential questions have been checked this is nothing more than Guesswork.


It seems just to claim the victim is breathing and this somehow fixes the time of the attack, this is not so far supported by any data provided.

This is the problem. Intreptation must be supported by data .


Steve

Steve, I wish more posts on casebook were as sane, as logical, and as rigorous as this. Nice work indeed, sir.

[Elamarna]

Steve, I wish more posts on casebook were as sane, as logical, and as rigorous as this. Nice work indeed, sir.

Thank you.



Steve