Lechmere The Psychopath

[Henry Flower]

Well, at least we seem to have gotten Nobody off the hook, and thatīs a good thing. I think he is underrated in Ripperological circuits, and that he was a good guy.
After all, Nobody seems to have had the solution, we all agree on that. And Nobody accused Lechmere.

Case closed, Anybody?

"And don't call me Shirley!"

[Fisherman]

"And don't call me Shirley!"

!!!

[Rainbow]

In Alice Mackenzie's inquest , Dr. George Baxter Phillips said:

The wound in the neck was 4 in. long, reaching from the back part of the muscles, which were almost entirely divided. It reached to the fore part of the neck to a point 4 in. below the chin. There was a second incision, which must have commenced from behind and immediately below the first. The cause of death was syncope, arising from the loss of blood through the divided carotid vessels, and such death probably was almost instantaneous

As I stated, breathing will stop very very soon because the death in this case will happen very fast after almost severing the head from the body, almost in one minute, therefore I conclude two things:

- If Paul had detected breathing, that means only one thing, Charles Allen Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

- The throat cut may very will happened next, when Lechmere noticed Paul coming, and I think, from this event, Lechmere had learned to start by cutting the throat first in his next murders.

[Pierre]

Further to this, I would like to point to how it would be reasonable to interpret any movement at the chest as part of the respiration. The chest heaves when breathing, and so it is logical to think that any movement in it has to do with breathing.
Furthermore, when Paul felt her chest, he would not anticipate the kind of twitch that is tied to having been recently murdered by the infliction of sharp violence - he would presumably have thought that the woman was either drunk or dead on behalf of some natural cause. So he would not have expected whatever he felt at the chest to be anything but breathing, methinks.
A stirring movement, a sort of soft twitch or something like that would very probably go down as breathing in Pauls mind, if I am making a correct assessment of the situation.

Once more, we will never be able to decide WHAT Paul felt, but it is important to note that he seemingly felt SOMETHING, and that does not bode well for Lechmere in my book. Maybe a medico will allow for a significant time of twitching, thus keeping the door ajar for the "phantom killer" - most medicos are reluctant to rule anything at all out.

Weīll see.

I will say this: It is good to have this discussion opened up. Before the Lechmere case was put before the boards, there was no such discussion at all, and Nichols was a case the fewest took any primary interest in. If Lechmere was the killer, then we have had the info all along about how Nichols bled for many minutes and how she seemingly produced a movement in her chest as Paul felt her. To think that htis has been allowed to pass uncommented on more or less for so many years is mindboggling. I have even encountered a Ripper author of some repute and fame (no names mentioned) who claimed that as far as he knew, Stride was the only victim that was found while still bleeding! Another poster said, five years ago or so, that he didnīt think Lechmere would be discussed at all in ten years time.
There is still five years to go before we know if he was right or wrong. My money is firmly on the latter bid.

Dripping erodes stone. Thatīs a good thing. Time speaks for Lechmere, as far as I can see.

1. Was Paul a reliable person? He made biased statements in the article where he is first referred to.

2. Are the newspaper articles about breathing reliable? They differ a lot.

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;419632]

Mmm. But this is about the Nichols murder only -

that is where he is the prime suspect.

Lechmere was never a suspect. And he is no suspect now. He is your brain model.

As a matter of fact, Nobody may be the phantom killer we are looking for on the streets surrounding Bucks Row - clearly, Neil said that there was Nobody.

Phantoms do not exist and that is your silly point.

"Neil said..." is exactly the same silly point.

I rate Lechmere the number one suspect in Bucks Row, with Nobody coming in as the second best bid.

I rate the serial killer as the killer in Buckīs Row, with Lechmere as the finder of his victim.

And I rank Nobody as the first bid in the other cases, with Lechmere coming in as the contender.

And I rank the serial killer as the killer in the other cases, with Lechmere being nowhere near.

[Henry Flower]

Lechmere was never a suspect. And he is no suspect now. He is your brain model.

You don't get to decide who is and is not a suspect.

You might think you do. But you don't.

Hope that helps clarify things for you.

[Elamarna]

In Alice Mackenzie's inquest , Dr. George Baxter Phillips said:




As I stated, breathing will stop very very soon because the death in this case will happen very fast after almost severing the head from the body, almost in one minute, therefore I conclude two things:

- If Paul had detected breathing, that means only one thing, Charles Allen Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

- The throat cut may very will happened next, when Lechmere noticed Paul coming, and I think, from this event, Lechmere had learned to start by cutting the throat first in his next murders.

Ok let's be very clear here.

That does not say when breathing stops, do you not see that?

That report gives no timings at all and advances us no further.

Comments from 1888 about medic matters are often less than accurate and so we still need modern medical opinion.

Do you not realise that if the timing is very short it actually precludes Paul from detecting any breathing at all!

So I am not sure why you appear to be celebrating, which in itself is somewhat distasteful.
Given this is a murder case, with real victims and a real man being accused, it needs real evidence. Yet this still does not have sufficient evidence to take an informed view. However the most astounding thing is that there appears to be no actual grasp what an instantaneous cessation of breathing means in this case.

This real must stop.


Steve

[Pierre]

You don't get to decide who is and is not a suspect.

You might think you do. But you don't.

Hope that helps clarify things for you.

Itīs not a decision but well known established facts.

[Henry Flower]

Itīs not a decision but well known established facts.

*yawn*

[Henry Flower]

Ok let's be very clear here.

That does not say when breathing stops, do you not see that?

That report gives no timings at all and advances us no further.

Comments from 1888 about medic matters are often less than accurate and so we still need modern medical opinion.

Do you not realise that if the timing is very short it actually precludes Paul from detecting any breathing at all!

So I am not sure why you appear to be celebrating, which in itself is somewhat distasteful.
Given this is a murder case, with real victims and a real man being accused, it needs real evidence. Yet this still does not have sufficient evidence to take an informed view. However the most astounding thing is that there appears to be no actual grasp what an instantaneous cessation of breathing means in this case.

This real must stop.


Steve

Rainbow, if you want us to take Phillips at his word, let's do that. Once Nichols' throat was cut and her carotid divided, death from syncope would've been 'almost instantaneous'. My Cambridge English Dictionary defines instantaneous as 'happening immediately, without any delay'.

So you're agreeing with Steve that Paul was mistaken when he thought he felt a movement and interpreted it as breathing. That would've been impossible if she had died almost instantaneously.

So that's progress of a sort.

Or would you prefer a more precise, modern scientific take on the actual timing of these things, after all?

You would? Splendid!

[Fisherman]

*yawn*

*Zzzzzzzzz....*

[Henry Flower]

*Zzzzzzzzz....*

Wake up Christer! Pierre is back, with his magic Bias Detector!

[caz]

What I dislike very much is when things are claimed on my behalf though - if I should exemplify, I can take the recent post from Caz, where she portrays me as inconsequent by saying on the one hand that Lechmere - if the killer - was fearless, and on the other hand that he was easily scared.

Inconsequent, Fishy? Did you mean inconsistent? If so I humbly apologise because I genuinely misunderstood your reasoning on this. I may have been thinking of the Hutchinson arguments Ben used to make, where his ripper could be both a brazen risk taker and a worried risk dodger at the same time. To me this always seemed like having it both ways. He came forward because he dared not run the risk of staying away, lest Sarah Lewis saw too much and he was dragged in as a suspect. If anyone challenged this view, okay then, he came forward for the pure thrill of being right under Abberline's nose and leading him a merry dance. In fact, Ben used to argue, it could have been a bit of both.

If this is nothing like your own reasoning regarding Lechmere's motivation for coming forward, on reading Paul's account, that can only be a good thing. But I genuinely thought I had read at least one post of yours arguing that it was Paul, blabbing to the press about the 'man' who was first at the scene, who left Lechmere with little choice but to identify himself as that man and try to clear himself of any suspicion that might otherwise come his way. To me, that would suggest he weighed up the risks and decided that coming forward gave him the better chance of remaining free to kill again. If you were actually arguing that he chose to brazen it out with the police and at the inquest because he enjoyed the greater risk involved in doing so, compared with staying well out of it, again that's fine, but he could have done that anyway, with or without Paul's supposed trigger. That's what I'm still confused about. Did Paul's article coax Lechmere out into the open [like some believe Lewis's testimony did for Hutch] or didn't it? By the same token, was it brazen of him to give his name as Cross, or did he do that as a precaution against certain people learning of his encounter with the dead prostitute? Change fearless/fearful to daredevil/dare not, and I think I may still have a point here about wanting it both ways.

She made a rot of a post, falsely claiming that I had said that Lechmere was spooked by Pauls interview, something I have not done. Plus I regard it as brazen, not cowardly, if a person comes forward to face the police and an inquest in spite of being guilty.

Such things are predestined to confuse people, to distort the debate and to make me a less friendly poster. The debate must be cleansed from things like these before it can become truly useful.

A tad harsh, because there was no intent on my part to falsely accuse you of anything, to confuse others, to distort the debate or to make you 'a less friendly poster', whatever that means. Maybe I am just too thick to grasp some of the subtleties of your arguments. And I'd sooner be called thick than dishonest.

Of course, I could turn the other cheek, but Caz has a long tradition of being spiteful in her exchanges with me. It can only be compared to how I have just as long a tradition of mocking her for it.

So I'm 'spiteful' to you while you are merely 'mocking'? You should demand a refund of those charm school fees.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Inconsequent, Fishy? Did you mean inconsistent? If so I humbly apologise because I genuinely misunderstood your reasoning on this. I may have been thinking of the Hutchinson arguments Ben used to make, where his ripper could be both a brazen risk taker and a worried risk dodger at the same time. To me this always seemed like having it both ways. He came forward because he dared not run the risk of staying away, lest Sarah Lewis saw too much and he was dragged in as a suspect. If anyone challenged this view, okay then, he came forward for the pure thrill of being right under Abberline's nose and leading him a merry dance. In fact, Ben used to argue, it could have been a bit of both.

If this is nothing like your own reasoning regarding Lechmere's motivation for coming forward, on reading Paul's account, that can only be a good thing. But I genuinely thought I had read at least one post of yours arguing that it was Paul, blabbing to the press about the 'man' who was first at the scene, who left Lechmere with little choice but to identify himself as that man and try to clear himself of any suspicion that might otherwise come his way. To me, that would suggest he weighed up the risks and decided that coming forward gave him the better chance of remaining free to kill again. If you were actually arguing that he chose to brazen it out with the police and at the inquest because he enjoyed the greater risk involved in doing so, compared with staying well out of it, again that's fine, but he could have done that anyway, with or without Paul's supposed trigger. That's what I'm still confused about. Did Paul's article coax Lechmere out into the open [like some believe Lewis's testimony did for Hutch] or didn't it? By the same token, was it brazen of him to give his name as Cross, or did he do that as a precaution against certain people learning of his encounter with the dead prostitute? Change fearless/fearful to daredevil/dare not, and I think I may still have a point here about wanting it both ways.



A tad harsh, because there was no intent on my part to falsely accuse you of anything, to confuse others, to distort the debate or to make you 'a less friendly poster', whatever that means. Maybe I am just too thick to grasp some of the subtleties of your arguments. And I'd sooner be called thick than dishonest.



So I'm 'spiteful' to you while you are merely 'mocking'? You should demand a refund of those charm school fees.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, you were completely wrong in claiming that I have ever said that Lechmere was spooked by the interview, and I am relieved to hear that you have now understood that.

As you know, I am of the meaning that if Lechmere was the killer, then he was also a psychopath. Psychopaths do not spook, simple as.

Sadly, you persist by saying: ". But I genuinely thought I had read at least one post of yours arguing that it was Paul, blabbing to the press about the 'man' who was first at the scene, who left Lechmere with little choice but to identify himself as that man and try to clear himself of any suspicion that might otherwise come his way."

I have said that more than one time - but it does not mean that I think that Lechmere was in any way spooked. He was instead seemingly careful and proactive and willing to take great risks.

I sincerely hope we are done with this miscomprehension of yours. I donīt mind being heavily criticised for what I think, but I am quite opposed to having what I DONīT think pointed to as weaknesses in my theory.

Maybe you could ask before posting next time? It would help.

Thank you.

[Henry Flower]

I donīt mind being heavily criticised for what I think, but I am quite opposed to having what I DONīT think pointed to as weaknesses in my theory.

Christer, I personally think the weakest element of your argument is the idea that Cross/Lechmere murdered Nichols because he had prematurely ejaculated over her abdomen and then been forced to pay up anyway by Nichols, who mocked his anger by saying, "Don't be so cross, Cross!"

It's an absurd idea unsupported by any evidence, and the fact that you've never claimed to believe it is simply no defense!