Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: I'm coming to the end of coaching (and serving on the board of directors) a long season of baseball. If you think things are rough here, try dealing with 12-year old baseball parents pissed off because their kid didn't get the accolades he so richly deserves. Thus, my energy is sapped.

Been there, done that. Soccer, though.

The only thing worth commenting on here is that it's clear - TO ME - that two PCs misrepresented events on the stand in the Nichols inquest: Mizen and Thain.

You know my answer: it is anything but clear to me. Clarity takes certainty.

This new "breathing evidence" things does this theory no favors. It's clear that you'll grab onto any bit of information that can in some vague way bolster - or at least not damage - the theory, while shouting down or ignoring anything that may harm it (far too many instance of that to list here...as I AM low on energy, as I say).

Shouting? Have you read the last few pages? It has - for once - been a rewarding debate, with some real afterthought and productivity.
You may also have noted that although I pounce on anything according to you, I have pointed out that the breathing thing cannot count for very much as there is so much uncertainty involved.

As far as I'm concerned it's about what I know. I know a bit about how Cross behaved in Buck's Row (based on the reportage of his testimony and what's corroborated by Paul). In order for me to view his actions with any suspicion at all I must create motivations based on an assumption of guilt.

I didnīt make any such assumprion for 30 years plus, so I walked into the theory woth my eyes wide open and a sceptical approach. And like I tell you, what we think is always based on the angle we look at things from, the questions we ask ourselves and the prejudice we carry along.

I know a bit about what Cross said and did in Baker's Row (according to the reportage of his testimony and what's corroborated by Paul). In order for me to view his actions with any suspicion I must create motivations based on an assumption of guilt AND I must create scenarios by which conversations occur out of earshot and I must create motivations for Paul to misrepresent events after the fact.

Actually, you do not have to have Paul out of earshot at all. Itīs just that I think it is the explanation that covers all bases best, not least how Mizen leaves him out of his testimony until reminded of his existence.
However, Patrick, I am open to a suggestion where Lechmere walked down Bucks Row with Paul, telling him "So you are late and you do not wish to be remanded by the police? But hey, how about this: I tlk to the PC when we meet one, and I tell him that another PC is in place requesting help. That way, he will have to go to the woman, and she will have help from him, and we will be able to pass the PC and go to work. Howīs that?"
There are many possibilities open, Patrick, and this is but one of them. However, we still have Mizen not acknowledging Paul approaching him, so I am still rooting for the out-of-earshot solution.

I also know what Mizen said on the stand...and I know the vital (for you) bit about him being told he was "wanted in Buck's Row" is corroborated by no one.

A poster like David Orsam - a splendid analyser when he puts his mind to it - agrees that it is clear that Mizen came away with the impression of having been told that another PC was in place in Bucks Row. David, however, opts for Mizen having misinterpreted what he was told, but I concur with him - the whole scenario and the ensuing actions on Mizens behalf tell the story: he believed that Lechmere said that there was another PC in place in Bucks Row.

And, in order for me to believe that Mizen is correct and Cross is lying and Paul is (either lying or) allowing the Cross lies to stand through his failure to correct or owing to the fact that he was duped by Cross I must, again, view multiple actor's actions with suspicion and I must create motivations based on an assumption that Charles Cross was Jack the Ripper because - and this the only things we actually know - that his LEGAL name was Lechmere and because he found Nichols lying on the pavement in Buck's Row (we also know that he had a legitimate reason to be in Buck's Row as we know his address and the address of his employer).

I prefer to look at what happened, since it tells a story that leans very much toward Lechmere being the liar. I donīt worry all that much about being misled or about things not being logical in the sense that most ordinary people are not serialists. Of course they are not - but some are.

So...I found a little energy there. I think I may be done for the day.

Have a nice rest and welcome back.

[Pcdunn]

I would say subsequent events in Millers Crt render the theory slightly less than tenable

Unless, of course, the murderer of Polly was not the same person as the murderer of Mary Jane.

[Fisherman]

I would say subsequent events in Millers Crt render the theory slightly less than tenable

That is an excellent point. Maybe he warmed to the task, though?

[Rainbow]

Fine. The inconclusive breathing evidence is conclusive of Lechmere's guilt in your mind. Not even Christer would make this argument.

Yes it is! happily!

I told Pierre before but you may didn't notice, Fisherman is way more flexible and neutral comparing to me !

Happily!

[Fisherman]

I'm glad you spotted my tongue-in-cheek comment and took it in the correct spirit, Christer. Good man

Yeah, well, I make this once-a-year effort (with mixed results) to resurrect some sort of reputation of not being a through-and-through fanatic.

Tomorrow is another day, though.

[Fisherman]

Unless, of course, the murderer of Polly was not the same person as the murderer of Mary Jane.

Yes. True.

The murderer of Polly was, however, quite probably the murderer of Annie too. And if that holds true, then the murderer of Polly was also the murderer of Mary Jane, because the murderer of Annie was certainly the murderer of Mary Jane.

Flaps. Simple as.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: I'm coming to the end of coaching (and serving on the board of directors) a long season of baseball. If you think things are rough here, try dealing with 12-year old baseball parents pissed off because their kid didn't get the accolades he so richly deserves. Thus, my energy is sapped.

Been there, done that. Soccer, though.

The only thing worth commenting on here is that it's clear - TO ME - that two PCs misrepresented events on the stand in the Nichols inquest: Mizen and Thain.

You know my answer: it is anything but clear to me. Clarity takes certainty.

This new "breathing evidence" things does this theory no favors. It's clear that you'll grab onto any bit of information that can in some vague way bolster - or at least not damage - the theory, while shouting down or ignoring anything that may harm it (far too many instance of that to list here...as I AM low on energy, as I say).

Shouting? Have you read the last few pages? It has - for once - been a rewarding debate, with some real afterthought and productivity.
You may also have noted that although I pounce on anything according to you, I have pointed out that the breathing thing cannot count for very much as there is so much uncertainty involved.

As far as I'm concerned it's about what I know. I know a bit about how Cross behaved in Buck's Row (based on the reportage of his testimony and what's corroborated by Paul). In order for me to view his actions with any suspicion at all I must create motivations based on an assumption of guilt.

I didnīt make any such assumprion for 30 years plus, so I walked into the theory woth my eyes wide open and a sceptical approach. And like I tell you, what we think is always based on the angle we look at things from, the questions we ask ourselves and the prejudice we carry along.

I know a bit about what Cross said and did in Baker's Row (according to the reportage of his testimony and what's corroborated by Paul). In order for me to view his actions with any suspicion I must create motivations based on an assumption of guilt AND I must create scenarios by which conversations occur out of earshot and I must create motivations for Paul to misrepresent events after the fact.

Actually, you do not have to have Paul out of earshot at all. Itīs just that I think it is the explanation that covers all bases best, not least how Mizen leaves him out of his testimony until reminded of his existence.
However, Patrick, I am open to a suggestion where Lechmere walked down Bucks Row with Paul, telling him "So you are late and you do not wish to be remanded by the police? But hey, how about this: I tlk to the PC when we meet one, and I tell him that another PC is in place requesting help. That way, he will have to go to the woman, and she will have help from him, and we will be able to pass the PC and go to work. Howīs that?"
There are many possibilities open, Patrick, and this is but one of them. However, we still have Mizen not acknowledging Paul approaching him, so I am still rooting for the out-of-earshot solution.

I also know what Mizen said on the stand...and I know the vital (for you) bit about him being told he was "wanted in Buck's Row" is corroborated by no one.

A poster like David Orsam - a splendid analyser when he puts his mind to it - agrees that it is clear that Mizen came away with the impression of having been told that another PC was in place in Bucks Row. David, however, opts for Mizen having misinterpreted what he was told, but I concur with him - the whole scenario and the ensuing actions on Mizens behalf tell the story: he believed that Lechmere said that there was another PC in place in Bucks Row.

And, in order for me to believe that Mizen is correct and Cross is lying and Paul is (either lying or) allowing the Cross lies to stand through his failure to correct or owing to the fact that he was duped by Cross I must, again, view multiple actor's actions with suspicion and I must create motivations based on an assumption that Charles Cross was Jack the Ripper because - and this the only things we actually know - that his LEGAL name was Lechmere and because he found Nichols lying on the pavement in Buck's Row (we also know that he had a legitimate reason to be in Buck's Row as we know his address and the address of his employer).

I prefer to look at what happened, since it tells a story that leans very much toward Lechmere being the liar. I donīt worry all that much about being misled or about things not being logical in the sense that most ordinary people are not serialists. Of course they are not - but some are.

So...I found a little energy there. I think I may be done for the day.

Have a nice rest and welcome back.

In the end it doesn't matter if Mizen misunderstood what he was told or willfully misrepresented what he was told. The result is the same: The Mizen Scam didn't happen.

David Orsam may well be right. Personally, I subscribe to the view that Mizen said was he said as a result of the Lloyd's statement by Paul. To my way of thinking the statement, whether massaged or crafted by Lloyd's or directly from Paul's lips, was an attack piece on the Met. The timing of Mizen's testimony as well as the fact that Neil testified that he'd found the body without mention of Paul and Cross indicates - to me - that the first Mizen's superiors heard about the encounter in Baker's Row was when it appeared in Lloyd's. Thus, Mizen testified as he did primarily to blunt it's effect (both on himself and his employer, the Metropolitan Police).

For me, it's not an article that drives a killer from hiding to risk his life, rushing off to tell lies about policemen at inquests. It's a direct critique of a police organization that had - and would continue to be - under heavy criticism for their perceived ineffectiveness in apprehending the individual(s) responsible for Millwood, Wilson, Smith, and Tabram.

[Henry Flower]

That is an excellent point. Maybe he warmed to the task, though?

Yes, maybe he went from "Oh my God look what I've done! "

to

"Oh my God! LOOK what I'VE done!! "

[Henry Flower]

Yes it is! happily!

I told Pierre before but you may didn't notice, Fisherman is way more flexible and neutral comparing to me !

Happily!

Rest assured, it has been noted.

So to clarify: you're actually happy and proud to be inflexible, certain, and dogmatic on this issue? You say that's a good thing?

[Henry Flower]

Yeah, well, I make this once-a-year effort (with mixed results) to resurrect some sort of reputation of not being a through-and-through fanatic.

Tomorrow is another day, though.

As the clock chimes midnight the reasonable gentleman ripperologist melts away and the ranting Lechmere zealot returns!?

You mean, you turn back into Rainbow?



It's always a pleasure, Christer.

[Rainbow]

I said I am happily convinced that in my mind the breathing evidence is conclusive that Lechmere was the ripper!

believe me, if there was a 0.01% chance for a phantom killer, all the nonlechmerians will rush to it and ignore the 99.99% of his guilt..

So , I will make it easy for you , or for me at the least, there is even no such a chance...

Happily..

[Elamarna]

I identify three problems, as you may guess:

A/ Lechmere SAID he noticed Paul from 30-40 yards away, but I think he noticed him sooner than that - but he wanted to find a timerange that allowed for Paul not to have seen him and for himself not to have been able to be the killer.


lets try and carry on as yesterday. He was aware of him earlier. Can't be disproved, but neither can it proved. Lets agree to leave it open for now.

B/ Lechmere would have been either crouching in the shadows (if he was the killer) as Paul approached or standing in the "middle of the road" (if he was innocent). Either way, he would have been much more difficult to spot. To notice a man moving ahead would predispose first and foremost that he was heard, and Lechmere would not make much of a sound. So we need more time for the phantom killer than 30-40 seconds, since he would be audible all the way.


I just don't see that. Paul did not see Lechmere move into the street, I therefore see no reason why someone could not have slipped quietly by the board school.

2nd point, why suppose Lechmere would make little sound? If Paul made enough to be noticed I see no reason to suppose the same would not be true for Lechmere.

The suggestion you make in A is that Lechmere was aware of Paul far earlier than he stated, the same must apply if its amother killer and Lech must it not? I see no reason for any difference.
I do not of course accept your 3, if Lechmere moved from a body without being heard why could someone else not do the same? Think we need to agree to disagree.

However I can live happily with 1 minutes. 30-40 is just the minimum I feel is needed.

C/ The third problem belongs to another shpere of details - if the phantom killer noted that Lechmere turned into Bucks Row and decided to make a runner, then why did he cover up the wounds on Nichols first? What was there to gain?

While we all seem to accept she was covered intentionally it just a big assumption,let's remember the clothing was not cut, and maybe he did work under it by feel, the coroner seemed to consider it a possibility, so maybe it just fell like it did when the killer left.

Actually I think it probably was covered intentionally. But who knows we could all be making assumptions.
Reason- I go with Henry.

Steve

[Henry Flower]

While we all seem to accept she was covered intentionally it just a big assumption,let's remember the clothing was not cut, and maybe he did work under it by feel, the coroner seemed to consider it a possibility, so maybe it just fell like it did when the killer left.

Actually I think it probably was covered intentionally. But who knows we could all be making assumptions.
Reason- I go with Henry.

Steve

The clothes were in disarray. They weren't pulled neatly down as though an attempt had been made to make everything look as normal as possible. Is it possible for instance that the clothes had to be held up and out of the way for the stabbing, but that once the stabbing was done they were allowed simply to fall over the wounds?

I shouldn't have posted this. I should've looked first at what she was listed as having been wearing so as to picture the possibilities. But I'm working on a painting of my daughter and simply don't have time. Anyone fancy it?

[Henry Flower]

believe me, if there was a 0.01% chance for a phantom killer, all the nonlechmerians will rush to it and ignore the 99.99% of his guilt..

Childish piffle.

[Rainbow]

But I'm working on a painting of my daughter and simply don't have time. Anyone fancy it?

The painting would be wonderful if you add a Rainbow to it !