Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: Well. There's been a lot posted about coincidences and all that. At some point "common sense solutions" matter. I mean, let's run it down:

Again? Oh, alright then.

Paul says he thought Nichols was breathing at 3:45am. We KNOW that when Neil shined his light, what is it, five, eight minutes later.....that her head has been (nearly) detached from her body. Thus, what's LIKELY is that Paul was mistaken. She wasn't breathing.

But that all hinges on how long we breathe after having had our necks cut. Which is what Steve is asking a medico to clarify. My own take is that a person with a neck severed to the bone and with very serious abdominal damage will not breathe for many a second, but I am prepared to stand corrected.

Cross waited for Paul to get to where he was. He called to him to look at the woman on the ground. Paul tried to avoid him. Cross persisted...."Come see.." Was this some grand ruse or simply a guy who acting like anyone (other than Rainbow) would had he found a woman lying on the street?...HE TOLD SOMEONE (rather than run screaming into the night). So, what common sense tell us is its LIKELY that he didn't kill Nichols.

But the fact that there was still blood running when both Neil and Mizen saw the woman makes my common sense go "Well, as there was nobody else there, it was likely Lechmere who did it". Which is in line with other factors surrounding the case too. It is therefore much a question of which questions we choose to ask.
Everybody knows that people who halt other people and ask for help when somebody is lying in the street, are normally good people.
But everybody also knows that bad people are very willing to deceive good people.
I would like to think I have as much common sense as the next man.

Mizen says he was told that he was "wanted" by a PC in Buck's Row. Cross says flatly that no one told him that was the case. Paul doesn't mention it, but he does mention that Mizen didn't much react to the news of a woman (Paul says a "DEAD" woman) and that he didn't say if he should come or not. What a great shame...since he'd been "told the woman was dead". Thus, its clear Mizen would benefit from selling a story about another PC. So...what's LIKELY is that Mizen fudged things a bit....to make him look....NOT QUITE as bad has Paul made him out in Lloyd's.

But it is totally unlikely that Mizen would accept that Neil was the finder if he had been told otherwise by the carman. When Mizen took the stand on the second day of the inquest, he would know that Lechmere was to witness after him. If he lied about matters, he would run the risk of getting fired. And Paul could be waiting in the wings for all Mizen knew. So common sense dictates that he did not lie.
You see? Once again, we change the angle we are looking from, and things look different.

I can give (and have given) dozens of such examples. But...I don't have the energy today.

Oh, I´m sure that you have all the energy you need, Patrick. Look at me, I´m sixty and I should be easily enough toppled over.

Common sense dictates that.

[Fisherman]

As you can see, Steve, the level of the debate is sinking dramatically again. Let´s see how long we can keep a useful exchange up before the vultures become too many and too loud.
My own suggestion is to ignore ignorance, but I feel you may use a more lenient approach?

[Elamarna]

As you can see, Steve, the level of the debate is sinking dramatically again. Let´s see how long we can keep a useful exchange up before the vultures become too many and too loud.
My own suggestion is to ignore ignorance, but I feel you may use a more lenient approach?

I have an awful feeling we will get another blood evidence type here.

A range that can work either way and rather than oozing or bleeding it breathing or not.

Still lets wait and see what we get on informed information.

I have to be honest because Rainbow kept saying endotracheal, I concentrated on that and never considered the issue of breathing stopping for other reasons.

Steve

[Rainbow]

I have an awful feeling we will get another blood evidence type here.

A range that can work either way and rather than oozing or bleeding it breathing or not.

Still lets wait and see what we get on informed information.

I have to be honest because Rainbow kept saying endotracheal, I concentrated on that and never considered the issue of breathing stopping for other reasons.

Steve

And I haven't for a moment thought you didn't recognise that!

[Elamarna]

And I haven't for a moment thought you didn't recognise that!

Well if you had not continually referred to the endotrachael rather than the blood vessels, I would have picked up on it. Especially as it has been said in the past that cutting the windpipe would result in instantaneous death, which of course is wrong.
It appeared you were making similar claims.

You were asked to make your argument in support of the suggestion; I have to say if you had gone down this line then we would have saved much time.

I have a good idea as to the time that breathing would stop in theses circumstances, certainly in animals. However we need the data from an expert before we can make any deductions about what this may mean.

It could for instances show that it was not possible for Paul to detect breathing, or it could suggest the opposite.

As I said to Fish my fear is that we will end up with an inconclusive figure that can be used by either side of the debate.

Steve

[Rainbow]

Breathing had been mentioned and reported in the inquest, and I will not discard this statement whatever others try.

Accurding to this, Lechmere was conclusively and exclusively Jack the Ripper.

[Bridewell]

I beg to differ on all counts.

I believe Lechmere did it.

From a policeman's view Lechmere is the only candidate who has a case to answer.

Barnett explained how he had been questioned by the police for four hours after the Kelly murder, They clearly thought he had a case to answer. Druitt, Kosminski and Tumblety were suspected more or less contemporaneously and there are still those who propose them as serious contenders. The man I consider to be the greatest authority on this subject bar none made a good case for Tumblety and is himself a retired policeman. Any attempt to portray Lechmere as the only 'serious' candidate with a case to answer is over-egging the pudding more than somewhat. Are you a police officer yourself or have you ever been? If not, how are you qualified to speak about a 'policeman's view' on the subject?

a) Whomever did the killings was supremely angry, skillful, quick and opportunistic.

Even if this is true it's not evidence that Lechmere was the killer as there is only surmise that he was any of these things.

b) Perhaps he knew exactly where the Bobbies were. I think I might if I were a homicidal killer.

The killer may have done - but that is not evidence that the killer was Lechmere.

c)You can't see it? I can.

That Lechmere is JtR? No I can't.

d)The "Mizen scam" holds up if the killer knew the aproximate whereabouts of the Bobbies on their rounds as any serial killer worth his salt should do.

The Mizen scam, so-called, is pure conjecture by a man with a suspect to promote.

e)The use of the "Cross" name is suspicious especially as he gave his address as 22 Doveton St where he was known as Lechmere. It is highly suspicious.

I never heard of any criminal giving the police a 'wrong' name but a correct address so I don't see Lechmere's giving of his step-father's surname as 'highly suspicious'.

f) The seperate & differing blood descriptions are highly significant and can't be dismissed easily, just like most of your assertions above.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Lechmere has been outed & come to light because the internet age has indexed all the pertinent records for us to be able examine at our modern leisure.

Outed as what?

Anybody who doesn't believe that Lechmere isn't Jack the Ripper has a book to sell or has invested millions in advancing their theory and therefor has a dog in the race.

Clearly not true as others have already explained.

It was the age old question, who,
on judgement day, will stand up and say,
I was Jack the Ripper?

It will be Charles Allen Lechmere
not Cross.

I suspect that it will be someone that none of us has ever even heard of.

[Bridewell]

The two reactions were NOT the same, even if you cried to make them so..

Whereas Diemshutz went himself and told his wife and the others about what he found there , Paul was hurrying to the scene of the murder when he spotted Lechmere standing where the still bleeding woman was.

That makes all the difference between the two cases, even if you cried making them the same.

Rainbow°

I see that the claim that Lechmere was "found over the body of a murder victim" is now moving into the realms of Ripper folklore. This is a claim oft repeated but not actually true. When Paul first saw Lechmere the latter was standing in the middle of the road. The body of Nichols was at the side of it and Lechmere had to take Paul to where the body was and draw it to his attention. And Paul was not "hurrying to the scene"; he was on his way to work, tried to pass Lechmere but was prevented from doing so. Diemschutz reacted by immediately sharing his find with others. So did Lechmere. The difference is that there were fewer people up and about in the latter case than the former.

[GUT]

Breathing had been mentioned and reported in the inquest, and I will not discard this statement whatever others try.

Accurding to this, Lechmere was conclusively and exclusively Jack the Ripper.

Except more cherry picking required

The evidence was he thought there may have been breathing.

I love how Paul's evidence needs to be accepted and rejected as it's worked through, one minute it's even more than he says, it goes from thought geoff may have felt breathing to proof positive she was, but then the Mizen scam, where he says HE spoke to the police man, oh he's just big noting himself.


Funny how that works with most suspects.

[Rainbow]

Cherry picking ... Cherry eating ... Cherry licking, that was more than enough...

[Rainbow]

I see that the claim that Lechmere was "found over the body of a murder victim" is now moving into the realms of Ripper folklore. This is a claim oft repeated but not actually true. When Paul first saw Lechmere the latter was standing in the middle of the road. The body of Nichols was at the side of it and Lechmere had to take Paul to where the body was and draw it to his attention. And Paul was not "hurrying to the scene"; he was on his way to work, tried to pass Lechmere but was prevented from doing so. Diemschutz reacted by immediately sharing his find with others. So did Lechmere. The difference is that there were fewer people up and about in the latter case than the former.

Completely wrong!

Paul disturbed Lechmere, but who disturbed Diemschutz ?!

and where did you find in my post that Lechmere was found over the body ?!

[GUT]

Completely wrong!

Paul disturbed Lechmere, but who disturbed Diemschutz ?!

and where did you find in my post that Lechmere was found over the body ?!

Paul disturbed Lechmere, doing what exactly?

Oh standing in the middle of the road.

[Rainbow]

picking Cherry .. ?!

No, the hypothesis was that the two reactions were the same , but they are not, in Lechmere case there was Paul who was coming, that makes all the difference!

[Sam Flynn]

The evidence was he thought there may have been breathing.

Absolutely. He thought there MAY have been breathing - or, at best, there may have been movement suggestive of breathing. Nothing about the escaping of air, nothing remotely about (e.g.) holding a mirror to the corpse's mouth to see if it misted up.

[Rainbow]

And this breathing... was Nichols last words to Paul:

"Lechmere has killed me"