Lechmere The Psychopath

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=harry;422253
Another essential element.It must be PROVEN that there was an intent to kill.
Can it be proven that Cross left home that morning with an intent to kill?,developed an intent after leaving home?,or formed an intent in some other manner.I haven't heard of such.The only intent, expressed by himself,was to go to work at Pickfords.
[/QUOTE]

Hi Harry

A point that I've made recently is that if CL set out to kill that morning (as it's unlikely in the extreme that a killer of Jack's type would just 'leap' on a prostitute on the spur of the moment) he allowed himself a ridiculously short time to do so. Most reports appear say that he left home at 3.30; the Times said 3.20. This allows him, at most 40 minutes, or probably nearer to 30 to do all he needed to.
First, find a prostitute. Not as simple as it sounds at that time of the morning. He could easily have spent half an hour or more doing so.
Second, find a spot. Wouldn't have taken long as those women knew the places.
Third, do the deed. Probably only 5 minutes at most.
Fourth, we can't know for certain if he would have gotten blood on him and neither could he. Someone heading for work would need to find a place with a bit of light to check himself over for blood. He might then need to clean up (not in the middle of the street either.)
Fifth, he'd have to get to work. Taking into consideration of course that he wouldn't have known where he would have found his victim. It could have been considerably off his route to work. He might, therefore, have still had 15 or 20 mins walking still to do.

The ripper wasn't utterly reckless. He avoided capture (even until now). So it's reasonable to assume that he would have allowed himself sufficient time to cover most possibilities. There's no way he could have expected to find a victim in Bucks Row on his regular walk to work.

Regards
Herlock

[harry]

Myself,along with many police from 1888,must be either ,or had been ,deceiving ourselves or been/are ignorant,as we have not considered Cross even a suspect.
On my part,I study the elements of the murder of Nicholls.What the elements are,there are at least two,can be found quite easily by a search on Google.
Take this element.The murderer must have been in the company of Nicholls at the time she was killed.It couldn't have been otherwise. WAs Cross placed in her company while she was alive?,either by direct or circumstantial evidence.Not to my knowledge.
Another essential element.It must be PROVEN that there was an intent to kill.
Can it be proven that Cross left home that morning with an intent to kill?,developed an intent after leaving home?,or formed an intent in some other manner.I haven't heard of such.The only intent, expressed by himself,was to go to work at Pickfords.
So no,on those two elements alone,there is no case against him,either by direct or circumstantial means.

[Scott Nelson]

Your piece of circumstantial evidence is ruling your life.

Isn't that the sad truth for us all?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;422154]

You know the exact answer to that question, Herlock. He lived in 22 Doveton Street, he worked at the Pickfords depot at Broad Street, the two simplest and fastest routes there were the Hanbury Street route and the Old Ontague Street route, both more or less equally timeconsuming.

In 1888 the statistical risk of being murdered in that area as well as becoming a witness to crime and to find a murder victim was much higher than the statistical risk of being the extremely rare serial killer Jack the Ripper.*

We know that he walked through Bucks Row at the night of the Nichols murder, he reasonably used it alwyas, since it was the only way through that made sense, and thereafter he would opt for the Hanbury Street route or the Old Montague Street route.

The reason he found Nichols and not any other victim was that she was found at the murder site closest to his home!

We do not know that he used either route on the occasions of the deaths of Tabram, Chapman and Kelly, but we know that it is consistent with where he lived and worked to suggest that he did.

What was the problem with living where he lived and working where he worked?*

And all people in that area who used those routes must now be suspects.

It is also probable that Tabram, Chapman and Kelly all died at roughly the time when he would have been en route to work

At least it is an historical fact that this was the case with Nichols.

And that is why you have your spurious relation.

There was no cctv that caught him, and there is no evidence that puts him there. All there is is a totally logical suggestion that fits with what we know.

Every madness has itīs logic.

It was 1888. It is therefore a hell of a lot more than anybody could ask for. And it puts every other suspect in the shade by comparion. No wait, not in the shade - in total darkness.

You have to say that, since your theory is a total twisting of sources.

It is a piece of circumstantial evidence that is breathtakingly interesting to anybody with an interest in the case, and a nail in the eye of the Lechmere naysayers.

And that is where it remains.

Your piece of circumstantial evidence is ruling your life.

Pierre

[Herlock Sholmes]

Very good!

It's a little known fact that Simon pays me a small commission for every sale of his book, so I've having a great month.

I think that you should have a crack at The Julia Wallace next

Regards
Herlock

[David Orsam]

Hello David

I'm just over half way through it and I'm intrigued. All I've ever known about the case has come via the Sickert angle. As I would have expected you've given it the 'fine toothed comb' treatment. I also know nothing about the Islington case which I'll go for next. Just ordered Deconstructing Jack after reading your 'chats' with Mr Wood.

Very good!

It's a little known fact that Simon pays me a small commission for every sale of his book, so I've having a great month.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Highly recommended!

Hello David

I'm just over half way through it and I'm intrigued. All I've ever known about the case has come via the Sickert angle. As I would have expected you've given it the 'fine toothed comb' treatment. I also know nothing about the Islington case which I'll go for next. Just ordered Deconstructing Jack after reading your 'chats' with Mr Wood.

Regards
Herlock

[David Orsam]

I'm currently reading David's Camden Town Murder Mystery.

Highly recommended!

[Pierre]

Please donīt try and paint it out as if I am saying that all people, psychopaths or not, always follow the same pattern of behaviour.

I am saying what I have always said: That Lechmereīs behaviour, if he was the killer, is perfectly consistent with psychopathy.

I would very much warn against oversimplifying matters on my behalf and pretend that I was the one making the suggestion. It is unfair and unethical.

The problem is that you have to try and prove SECONDS.

Your theoretical point (an extremely short point!) in time consists of SECONDS.

That is the point when Lechmere hypothetically stands up when having killed a woman and Paul arrives.

That point is a theoretical point of SECONDS.

This problem is that you CAN NOT PROVE SECONDS in the past with the sources you have.

There is no way of measuring those SECONDS.

And still you want to show everyone that there was "simoultaneity" IN those seconds.

Impossible!

Therefore the time historical point does not exist. It can NOT BE HISTORICALLY ESTABLISHED.

It is just and idea!

But still you draw a lot from it. You BUILD on it, as if it was a proven point in time. When it is not.

Pierre

[Abby Normal]

You've added another variable in the form of the smoking gun evidence, which is a far, far more significant indicator of guilt. It's the strength of the smoking gun evidence that's relevant, not the percentage of "ordinary men" who happen to be serial killers. Given the figures - and it's probably more like 0.00002% than 0.2% - the latter is nowhere near strong enough to be a remotely useful diagnostic tool.

Hi sam
We could look at it from a different angle and ask how many serial killers had apparently normal work and/or family? A great many of them.
His having this as any indication of whether he could be a serial killer or not is basically useless.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You know the exact answer to that question, Herlock. He lived in 22 Doveton Street, he worked at the Pickfords depot at Broad Street, the two simplest and fastest routes there were the Hanbury Street route and the Old Ontague Street route, both more or less equally timeconsuming. We know that he walked through Bucks Row at the night of the Nichols murder, he reasonably used it alwyas, since it was the only way through that made sense, and thereafter he would opt for the Hanbury Street route or the Old Montague Street route.
We do not know that he used either route on the occasions of the deaths of Tabram, Chapman and Kelly, but we know that it is consistent with where he lived and worked to suggest that he did. It is also probable that Tabram, Chapman and Kelly all died at roughly the time when he would have been en route to work

There was no cctv that caught him, and there is no evidence that puts him there. All there is is a totally logical suggestion that fits with what we know.

It was 1888. It is therefore a hell of a lot more than anybody could ask for. And it puts every other suspect in the shade by comparion. No wait, not in the shade - in total darkness.

It is a piece of circumstantial evidence that is breathtakingly interesting to anybody with an interest in the case, and a nail in the eye of the Lechmere naysayers.

And that is where it remains.

So we can say that CL, along with a thousand other blokes on there various ways to work, was in the general area of the 'killing ground' at roughly the times of the murders.

How is this a nail in the eye of the 'Lechmere naysayers?' CL is becoming the Frankenstein's monster of Ripperology! A lifeless corpse that you keep breathing life into by making statements such as the above one. No one has doubted that he could have been in the area. There's nothing breathtaking about it.
Looking at the times. Tabram was probably killed around 2.30. Kelly is debatable due to Maxwell and Eddowes was around 1.30. Chapman was 4.30 according to Phillips but could well have been later considering the evidence of Long and Cadosche. Was CL on flexi-hours?
You also see nothing strange about the idea of killing and mutilating on the way to work. 'I'm off to work love. Now, I must remember to buy a paper, get a packet of fags oh and kill and hideously mutilate a prostitute.'

Herlock the Naysayer

[Elamarna]

Yawn.

Oh - now it REALLY shows how flustered I am by your brilliant criticism. Bugger!!

My point is proven by that response , the refusal to partake in meaningful debate very clear.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Have you read up on where Maria Louisa Lechmere lived when Stride died, by the way?

I was aware of that, but as I don't believe that Stride was killed by the Ripper, it doesn't count for much in my estimation.

[Elamarna]

Yes, it tells us that I have provided all the material it takes to show that you were barking up the wrong tree. I need not go there again, therefore. Old hat, consequentially.

Oh no it does not work like that.
You accuse others of abusing you and then will not back up those accusations.

So be it.

Steve

[Fisherman]

I think I will leave you to your party for now. Enjoy.