Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

But you have to consider the type of serial killer we're dealing with. In his profile of JtR the FBI's John Douglas concluded: "We would not expect this type of offender to be married."

... which is not the same as "we would not rule out that this type of offender could be married".

The danger area here lies in profiling individual killers, where we know from experience that profilers have gotten things totally wrong at times. I have little doubt that Dougas et al made their call because they leaned against an idea of an unhinged killer, a disorganized one, if you will, to a large degree, depending on the combination of the eviscerations and the public spaces used for killing, involving great risk. It is a fair and logical assessment on their behalf too. And they opted for Kosminski, as I remember things; a tycial representative of that group.

They could also have opted for a man like Issenschmid, who became unhinged over time - but who was married nevertheless, his marriage attaching to a period in life where he appeared sane.

There are examples of when profilers have gotten it eerily correct, but there are equally examples of when they have gotten it ridiculously wrong in individual cases, and that is something that needs to be weighed in. Looking at Chikatilos victims, they would make the same call as for the Ripper and for the same reasons - but he was a married teacher.

As for Ressler, he did NOT speak of an individual case, he spoke of his combined experience from a long life in profiling, and therefore his verdict was grounded on the basic facts. And he arrived at the conclusion that the typical serialist was in his late thirties, a family man and with a steady job.
That was not based on an educated guess, it was based on the facts. Therefore, it carries a lot more weight as an overall established "truth".

[Elamarna]

Having read the thread through, I find the same sort of critique I always find, from the same people who always present it. I will therefore not respond to for example Patricks posts - I have done so before, and Patrick knows that. If he - or anybody else - should feel that there has been any new point raised, then please repeat that point, and I will look into it.

indeed Fisherman, the same critique; and the same responses still largely not based on hard facts, but assumptions.

If he was the killer, then we can see that he probably used more than one route to his work, effectively spreading the murder sites over an area that would not make sense for the police to combine with any logical route. If he had killed along the Hanbury Street route only, it would have been another thing, but connecting the dots as they emerged would not benefit the police until they had a suspect.


Interesting murders 1 and 2 of the C5 are on the same route.
True 3 and 4 are not, but have you not constantly argued that these are done on a day he is not working and indeed may be visiting his mother who lived reasonably close to site 3.
Site 5 can equally be seen as being on the same route from Doveton street to Pickfords as 1 & 2.

There is nothing to say he used more than one route to work, is it not just an asumption?
If there is source data to back this claim up please tell what this is?


But he saw to it that he did not leave his name with Mizen, and he made no initial effort to seek out the police after it was revealed that the woman he claimed to have found was murdered.

Neither did Mr Paul, does that make him a suspect too.

It was not until after the Paul interview was published that he took that step, and when he did, he could tell the police that he was on his way to work when he came across Nichols.

The same old often repeated reply, It is clear he could not at that point be identified and had no need to come forward at all, but he did. Again look at the comparison to Paul's approach.
However we have all done this before have we not, and nothing changes.


Did he, Herlock? Where are the examples that he ever used the name Cross other than in combination with police murder investigations? From where does you information that he used "Cross" in everyday life emanate?


Fish one thing we can agree upon. There is no source data to say he used Cross in everyday life. It seems clear from the data that in official life he used Lechmere.
However that is far from establishing that he did not use Cross as an everyday day life name, we cannot know and Herlock's comment is therefore not accurate.


The papers spoke of him as Charles Cross, and with one exception (The Star), he was not given any home address. I think he gained a huge advantage from that if he wanted it not to be known in society that he was involved with the Nichols murder. If he wanted to keep family and friends and associates out of the loop, this was the way to do it.

The fact that the address was published in one paper shows that at some point it was given. If such was not given at the inquest there was no need to give it to a single paper. To give the correct address completely fails to hide the identity of the witness. Indeed without it, the debate on him as a suspect would never have begun. That is hardly an advantage to most people.


He told Mizen that another policeman had things in hand. Isn't it possible that Mizen had criticised him for leaving the body and Cross had replied something like 'look, I need to get to work or I'll lose my job. Besides it's on one of your beats so another copper will be there by now. I sometimes pass him on my way to work.'

If Mizen did this, then why did he not say so at the inquest? And Mizen never said that it was claimed that another PC would arrive - he firmly stated that he was told that another PC was THERE, in place.

Again this almost blind faith like approach to accepting what Mizen said is shown.
We have two witnesses saying he was not told this against his statement; it is unprovable what was said. Over the last few months I have changed my mind about Mizen several times. My latest take on him is far from flattering and will be discussed In depth I am sure in a few months.




He didn´t stop. I am certain that the Ripper and the Torso killer were the same man. That applies regardless if it was Lechmere or not. This killer killed in 1873 and 1889, at the very least, and not just in 1888, to my mind.

Two points here:

1. The Ripper type killings certainly stopped. Why?

2. Apart from a similarity in the words used to describe body parts, in this case the use of "flaps"; nothing has been produced in the form of data to back this idea up. Many arguments about how unlikely it is that two killers are working at the same time; but no real tangible data.
If it exists produce it and if it holds up then I will happily accept it and say you were right and I am wrong.



Steve

[John G]

Two points here:

1. The Ripper type killings certainly stopped. Why?

2. Apart from a similarity in the words used to describe body parts, in this case the use of "flaps"; nothing has been produced in the form of data to back this idea up. Many arguments about how unlikely it is that two killers are working at the same time; but no real tangible data.
If it exists produce it and if it holds up then I will happily accept it and say you were right and I am wrong.



Steve

I agree with this assessment. Apart from a possible connection between Liz Jackson, Chapman and Kelly in respect of the type of mutilation-which I have previously explained in detail, highlighting the fact that even as regards this issue there are substantial differences and objectives-the two "series" of crimes couldn't be more different.

[Harry D]

Two points here:

1. The Ripper type killings certainly stopped. Why?

Fish apparently has other murders that he can link to Lechmere. As Lechmere was both the Ripper & the Thames Torso killer he was able to adapt his methods. He may also assert that some killers do just stop killing of their own volition or remain dormant for long periods of time.

Personally, I don't see the Ripper as that kind of serial killer. A serial killer who murders five women, possibly more, in the space of ten weeks, with the risks involved and the evolving signature, suddenly packing it in? It's practically unheard of for a serial killer of that type to de-escalate to such a degree unless forced to.

[Patrick S]

I've read Fisherman's replies and he's right. We have covered this same ground again and again. And, I'll do my part to continue covering that ground so long as new people become exposed to his Cross/Lechmere theory. Those people require a dose of simple reason, some connection to reality in order to see it for what it is and move on. So, I - and others - will continue to provide that service, free of charge.

I'm sure Fisherman will accuse me of being mean to him again and resorting to insults (we know he never does so himself). So, I'll reiterate again that I have respect for the man's work. I was initially intrigued by the theory and I've done my research on the man, the crimes, Buck's Row, the inquest, the police, everything that's been presented to fit the witness Charles Cross as Jack the Ripper. The theory didn't hold up. At all. Not for a moment.

I have seen the "internationally sent" documentary. I liked it. Very well done. Congratulations. Kudos. But I don't believe it. In my opinion it misrepresents many things. I understand how it - like many Ripper programs, books, etc. - may convince the uninitiated. But, I don't think many rational thinkers, educated on matters related to the crimes, and - especially - Cross/Lechmere ascribe to it a shred of credibility.

If a book is released, I'll buy it. Happy to support a fellow traveler and I'm sure it will be well done. I'm sure it will spur the imagination. And I'll likely enjoy imagining that it's true as I've done Cornwell, et al. But, the suspension of disbelief can only last so long. Simple reason and common sense creep in and.....well. There it is.

I think it's apparent to anyone willing to invest the time to read posts on these pages that it takes no outlandish assumptions to realize that this man wasn't Jack the Ripper (or any East End murderer Fisherman casts him as). One must rely upon the invention of unknowable (and ultimately nonsensical) motivations in order to make even the most tenuous case against "the carman". On this thread I've again presented simple, easy to understand, common sense observations from sources other than Charles Cross that TELL US, if we are willing to accept it, that ""the simplest explanation is usually the correct one": Cross was what the facts of his life tell us he was (i.e. NOT a serial killer).

I think what I've laid out here stands on its own. It doesn't require assumptions or invention. Take for instance this question, one that's been asked for more than 100 years: Why did the Ripper stop killing? Knowing what we do of serial killers we know that it's very unlikely that he'd simply had enough, gotten his fill, laid down his knife and returned to a normal life. Thus, Fisherman has cast "the carman" as responsible for other murders, he was the Torso Killer, a psychopath, one of the most successful serial killers of all time. How else to explain that while the Ripper seems to have stopped killing prostitutes in the East End in 1888-1889, Charles Cross continued to live there until 1920. Invention.

Then we look at this absurd behavior.

Our man stays with his victim when he needed only to walk away. Rather than walk into the darkness he stops carving Nichols up, stows the knife in his jacket, takes a few steps back....and waits. He remained on the spot of the murder after hearing Paul's footsteps approaching, waiting for him to arrive on the scene, not knowing if was a PC, his victims husband, brother, boyfriend, or pimp.

When the man tries to avoid him, showing no desire to interact, he goes TO HIM, touches his shoulder, asks him to come see. He's desperate to keep his victims wounds hidden, thus he refuses to accept Paul's invitation to move the body, but...wait. Just a few seconds before, he approached a man, sight unseen, asked him to see the body? He was certain that the man didn't have a match? Diemshutz had a match in Dutfield's Yard didn't he? He was certain that Neil wouldn't happen along with his lantern while the man accepted his invitation to inspect Nichols? After all, Neil DID come along just a few moments later. Invention. Bad invention.

If you're thinking this makes no sense, you're correct. It doesn't.

Paul tells Cross he thinks he detects breathing. Cross doesn't agree. She's dead, he says.

Cross has a chance to leave the scene without Paul, go in the other direction. He doesn't. He goes with Paul, agreeing to find a PC. He agrees to this as he has the murder weapon on him and no fear that any blood has gotten on his clothing. Fisherman can spout what he likes about the killer having no blood on his clothing, but the knife did. And he hid that in his clothing. In pitch black. Yet, so certain was he that there was no blood visible on his person that he's grabbing people off the street to check out his handiwork and asking them to tramp around the East End looking for police. Bad invention.

It doesn't occur to him that this may be a bad idea at any point on his trek with Paul. He doesn't attempt to part ways at the top of Buck's Row. He doesn't say, "I go this way. I'll look for a PC as I make my way to work and you do the same." He stays with Paul until they succeed in finding a PC!

He's found Mizen. He's killed a woman. Hid the knife in his coat. Waited for man to walk upon him. Showed the man his victims body. Accompanied the man in a quest to find a cop to tell about the woman he's just killed, butchered, and shown to his new best friend. He finds the PC. NEVER afraid that the PC may ask him to return to the scene with him, or ask his name, or inspect his clothing with his lantern, or search his clothes where he's hidden the bloody knife. Well, he must have been a psychic because none of that happened. And he got off scot free! Except.....

He showed up at the inquest on Monday morning. 48 hours later. Paul gave a statement in Lloyd's, as we know. That statement - if anything - highlighted Paul's actions and essentially eliminated Cross from the story completely. "A man" tells Paul to come see this woman and Paul is off, all action! Inspecting bodies and searching for PCs, without further mention of "the man". Mizen didn't ask his name. Didn't ask his address, place of work. And he shows up, takes the stand. And he KILLED NICHOLS?

Why would ANYONE do ANY of this? Well....because he was a psychopath, Fisherman tells us! But, how do you know he was psychopath? Because he was Jack the Ripper, Fisherman tells us!

Anyone seeing why I struggle with this? But, do we know that Charles Lechmere was psychopath? Was he committed, arrested, incarcerated? Well! There's no evidence of any of that!......But he was Jack the Ripper! So he had to be a psychopath! And this is no exaggeration, folks. This is the theory.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:
Two points here:

1. The Ripper type killings certainly stopped. Why?

"Certainly"? I don´t think so. I think the Jackson murder is very much a Ripper type killing. Cut open from breastbone to pubes, the uterus plucked out, the abdominal wall taken away in large flaps...
I don´t know what it takes for you to see these traits as "ripperish", but I know I do. So the "certainly" is false, as far as I´m concerned.

2. Apart from a similarity in the words used to describe body parts, in this case the use of "flaps"; nothing has been produced in the form of data to back this idea up.

And much as it would be interesting to know the exact shape and size of the flaps, that remains of inferior interest. Wht matters is that we have definitive proof that the abdominal wall WAS removed in flaps, and that is very, very rare. going on that feature alone, we should accept a probably connection, and when we add Jacksons opened up abdomen, her missing uterus, the rings stolen from her finger we have no choice but to acknowledge great similarities.

Many arguments about how unlikely it is that two killers are working at the same time; but no real tangible data.

"No tangible data"? It is not "tangible" that both killers both took out the uterus? It is not "tangible" that they both cut from breastbone to pubes? It is not "tangible" that they took away the abdominal wall in flaps?
I am sorry, but that is just sheer nonsense.

If it exists produce it and if it holds up then I will happily accept it and say you were right and I am wrong.

It´s a good thing then that your acceptance is of a very peripherous interest to me, Steve.

[Abby Normal]

Elamarna:
Two points here:

1. The Ripper type killings certainly stopped. Why?

"Certainly"? I don´t think so. I think the Jackson murder is very much a Ripper type killing. Cut open from breastbone to pubes, the uterus plucked out, the abdominal wall taken away in large flaps...
I don´t know what it takes for you to see these traits as "ripperish", but I know I do. So the "certainly" is false, as far as I´m concerned.

2. Apart from a similarity in the words used to describe body parts, in this case the use of "flaps"; nothing has been produced in the form of data to back this idea up.

And much as it would be interesting to know the exact shape and size of the flaps, that remains of inferior interest. Wht matters is that we have definitive proof that the abdominal wall WAS removed in flaps, and that is very, very rare. going on that feature alone, we should accept a probably connection, and when we add Jacksons opened up abdomen, her missing uterus, the rings stolen from her finger we have no choice but to acknowledge great similarities.

Many arguments about how unlikely it is that two killers are working at the same time; but no real tangible data.

"No tangible data"? It is not "tangible" that both killers both took out the uterus? It is not "tangible" that they both cut from breastbone to pubes? It is not "tangible" that they took away the abdominal wall in flaps?
I am sorry, but that is just sheer nonsense.

If it exists produce it and if it holds up then I will happily accept it and say you were right and I am wrong.

It´s a good thing then that your acceptance is of a very peripherous interest to me, Steve.

hi fish
if the killings stopped I would say they probably stopped with the pinchin case.

[Fisherman]

I've read Fisherman's replies and he's right. We have covered this same ground again and again. And, I'll do my part to continue covering that ground so long as new people become exposed to his Cross/Lechmere theory. Those people require a dose of simple reason, some connection to reality in order to see it for what it is and move on. So, I - and others - will continue to provide that service, free of charge.

I'm sure Fisherman will accuse me of being mean to him again and resorting to insults (we know he never does so himself). So, I'll reiterate again that I have respect for the man's work. I was initially intrigued by the theory and I've done my research on the man, the crimes, Buck's Row, the inquest, the police, everything that's been presented to fit the witness Charles Cross as Jack the Ripper. The theory didn't hold up. At all. Not for a moment.

I have seen the "internationally sent" documentary. I liked it. Very well done. Congratulations. Kudos. But I don't believe it. In my opinion it misrepresents many things. I understand how it - like many Ripper programs, books, etc. - may convince the uninitiated. But, I don't think many rational thinkers, educated on matters related to the crimes, and - especially - Cross/Lechmere ascribe to it a shred of credibility.

If a book is released, I'll buy it. Happy to support a fellow traveler and I'm sure it will be well done. I'm sure it will spur the imagination. And I'll likely enjoy imagining that it's true as I've done Cornwell, et al. But, the suspension of disbelief can only last so long. Simple reason and common sense creep in and.....well. There it is.

I think it's apparent to anyone willing to invest the time to read posts on these pages that it takes no outlandish assumptions to realize that this man wasn't Jack the Ripper (or any East End murderer Fisherman casts him as). One must rely upon the invention of unknowable (and ultimately nonsensical) motivations in order to make even the most tenuous case against "the carman". On this thread I've again presented simple, easy to understand, common sense observations from sources other than Charles Cross that TELL US, if we are willing to accept it, that ""the simplest explanation is usually the correct one": Cross was what the facts of his life tell us he was (i.e. NOT a serial killer).

I think what I've laid out here stands on its own. It doesn't require assumptions or invention. Take for instance this question, one that's been asked for more than 100 years: Why did the Ripper stop killing? Knowing what we do of serial killers we know that it's very unlikely that he'd simply had enough, gotten his fill, laid down his knife and returned to a normal life. Thus, Fisherman has cast "the carman" as responsible for other murders, he was the Torso Killer, a psychopath, one of the most successful serial killers of all time. How else to explain that while the Ripper seems to have stopped killing prostitutes in the East End in 1888-1889, Charles Cross continued to live there until 1920. Invention.

Then we look at this absurd behavior.

Our man stays with his victim when he needed only to walk away. Rather than walk into the darkness he stops carving Nichols up, stows the knife in his jacket, takes a few steps back....and waits. He remained on the spot of the murder after hearing Paul's footsteps approaching, waiting for him to arrive on the scene, not knowing if was a PC, his victims husband, brother, boyfriend, or pimp.

When the man tries to avoid him, showing no desire to interact, he goes TO HIM, touches his shoulder, asks him to come see. He's desperate to keep his victims wounds hidden, thus he refuses to accept Paul's invitation to move the body, but...wait. Just a few seconds before, he approached a man, sight unseen, asked him to see the body? He was certain that the man didn't have a match? Diemshutz had a match in Dutfield's Yard didn't he? He was certain that Neil wouldn't happen along with his lantern while the man accepted his invitation to inspect Nichols? After all, Neil DID come along just a few moments later. Invention. Bad invention.

If you're thinking this makes no sense, you're correct. It doesn't.

Paul tells Cross he thinks he detects breathing. Cross doesn't agree. She's dead, he says.

Cross has a chance to leave the scene without Paul, go in the other direction. He doesn't. He goes with Paul, agreeing to find a PC. He agrees to this as he has the murder weapon on him and no fear that any blood has gotten on his clothing. Fisherman can spout what he likes about the killer having no blood on his clothing, but the knife did. And he hid that in his clothing. In pitch black. Yet, so certain was he that there was no blood visible on his person that he's grabbing people off the street to check out his handiwork and asking them to tramp around the East End looking for police. Bad invention.

It doesn't occur to him that this may be a bad idea at any point on his trek with Paul. He doesn't attempt to part ways at the top of Buck's Row. He doesn't say, "I go this way. I'll look for a PC as I make my way to work and you do the same." He stays with Paul until they succeed in finding a PC!

He's found Mizen. He's killed a woman. Hid the knife in his coat. Waited for man to walk upon him. Showed the man his victims body. Accompanied the man in a quest to find a cop to tell about the woman he's just killed, butchered, and shown to his new best friend. He finds the PC. NEVER afraid that the PC may ask him to return to the scene with him, or ask his name, or inspect his clothing with his lantern, or search his clothes where he's hidden the bloody knife. Well, he must have been a psychic because none of that happened. And he got off scot free! Except.....

He showed up at the inquest on Monday morning. 48 hours later. Paul gave a statement in Lloyd's, as we know. That statement - if anything - highlighted Paul's actions and essentially eliminated Cross from the story completely. "A man" tells Paul to come see this woman and Paul is off, all action! Inspecting bodies and searching for PCs, without further mention of "the man". Mizen didn't ask his name. Didn't ask his address, place of work. And he shows up, takes the stand. And he KILLED NICHOLS?

Why would ANYONE do ANY of this? Well....because he was a psychopath, Fisherman tells us! But, how do you know he was psychopath? Because he was Jack the Ripper, Fisherman tells us!

Anyone seeing why I struggle with this? But, do we know that Charles Lechmere was psychopath? Was he committed, arrested, incarcerated? Well! There's no evidence of any of that!......But he was Jack the Ripper! So he had to be a psychopath! And this is no exaggeration, folks. This is the theory.

So this is how you will present me and my case now?

I am "spouting". I will accuse you of being mean to me. I invent things. People are "exposed" to the theory, as if it was a disease.

Thanks for that, Patrick.

But the overall tactic you employ is one where you assert an imagined audience that you are the voice of common sense. You struggle with the many absurd suggestions on my behalf - I am the outrageous phantasist, and my theory is that Lechmere was a psychopath and therefore he must have been Jack the Ripper. And I have nothing to prove that he WAS a psychopath, and accordingly I am being outrageous for suggesting it.

Before I pluck one small passage from a former post of yours, I must correct you on this score. This is what I am saying:

The murders as such are indicative of having been perpetrated by a psychopath. There is a total lack of respect for other peoples lives involved and there is a pattern of killing with great risk to get detected. This is per se something that points straight to psychopathy, where the disrespect for other peoples lives is often coupled to a brazen modus operandi. This is on account of how psychopaths are unable to panick. They do not feel either fear nor remorse - they satisfy their cravings and they do so at the expense of other people.

So THIS is what I am saying, Patrick: That the person who was the Ripper was in all probability a psychopath. Many a psychiatrist have agreed about it over the years.

Further to that, I am saying that it therefore applies that IF Lechmere was the killer, then he will also have been a psychopath. It follows that if a man is responsible for a series of psychopathich deeds, then he is very likely a psychopath.

Many have done what you have: said that it is a circular reasoning, implying that I am saying "Lechmere was the killer, the murders were psychopathich, Lechmere was a psychopath, and so it must have been him".

The ones who claim this on my behalf can be divided up in two categories: Those who have failed to understand what I am saying and those who have understood but chosen to misrepresent me. Maybe all fall into one category only, but these are nevertheless the only two options: ignorance or malevolence.

Now, over to the promised look at one of your points from an earlier post, post 71. It goes like this:


5. Speaking of Lloyd's and inquest. Let's stick with the fantasy that Cross/Lechmere is our man. He killed Nichols. But, wait. He SHOWS UP at the inquest 48 hours after the murder? BUT WHY? Because of the bombshell that was Paul's statement in Lloyd's you see. That bombshell has Paul crediting himself with ALL of the action. The killer is merely "a man". That's the extent of his description. A man. Paul saw a man by the body. And from there Paul is the prime actor. He inspects the body. He goes in search of Mizen. HE tell us that Mizen acted improperly and that it was a great shame as he'd just been told the WOMAN WAS DEAD! Oh, and another thing....Mizen didn't ask either man his name, where he lived, worked, or anything at all. He merely said, "Alright"....and walked on. Yet...here is the killer. At the inquest. Ready to testify. Just as he approached Paul. Just as he went to find Mizen. Now he's at the inquest. Evil genius or innocent man? Clearly we know the answer. It's obvious to anyone with common sense and no agenda.

Let´s look at this in little pieces:

1. You begin by dubbing the theory a "fantasy". It kind of sets a deplorable tone. It´s your prerogative, but it is important for me to point out how you work. Instead of calling it a theory or an idea or a suggestion, you choose "fantasy". That´s how you work.

2. You implicitly claim that since Lechmere was only called "a man" in Pauls interview, he could easily have refrained from coming forward. "A man" is not much of a description.
But the more interesting thing is of course if the police would be able to GET a description. And since we know that Mizen recognized Lechmere on seeing him at the inquest, we also know that he would have been able to go looking for him together with his colleagues. It is a fair assumption that Paul would also be able to decribe him in detail.
So far from being known as "a man" only, he was at risk to be ID:s unless he left London. And if the police decided that a man who was found "where the body was" and about whom nothing was known, not when he had arrived there, not how long he had been there etcetera, was a very viable suspect in the murder - and they would decide exactly that if he did not come forward, let´s not beat about the bush on that score - he would be at risk.

So your "common sense" and "simple" deductions fall flat to the ground when scrutinized - Lechmere had all the reason in the world to understand that he was about to become the prime suspect in the murder case.

3. You make a meal of how Paul described himself as the man who ran the show after finding Nichols - but we know that this was not true, since we have both Lechmere and Mizen testifying about how they had the conversation up at Bakers Row, with Paul only parttaking to a minor extent - and ONLY in Lechmeres story. In Mizens story, he did not say a word.
But your reason for mentioning this is because you are proposing that if Paul was stupid enough to take things upon himself, then Lechmere could have refrained from coming forward or simply said that Paul WAS running the show. This, however, is not as easy as that - there was to consider that both Paul and Mizen would contradict this at the inquest, and that would leave Lechmere with no clad cards.

4. Mizen did not ask his name or workplace or anything at all, you say, and this too is suposedly meant to imply to us that Lechmere could have stayed away and noone would have looked for him. This is not true - once Paul was accepted as a truthful witness, there was no longer any way that Lechmere could stay away without evoking suspicion.
What is REALLY interesting is the question WHY Mizen did not take the name and workplace down, and why he didn´t detain two men who had found a dead woman with noone else in place to corroborate their story.
Well, if Mizen was correct in saying that he was told that another PC had the errand in hand, and if he was only told that the woman was on her back, then it suddenly becomes very obvious why Mizen did not take their names and working places - because his colleague hade taken care of checking the carmen out and found them kosher.
That is another question, but it deserves pointing out. "Common sense" in this case dictates to you that Mizen lied. To me, it dictates that Mizen was the truthful part, and Lechmere the liar. The fact that Mizen did not protest when Neil claimed to be the finder of the body is in line with my suggestion - to Mizen, Neil was "the other PC".

5. You then sign off the paragraph by writing "Evil genius or innocent man? Clearly we know the answer. It's obvious to anyone with common sense and no agenda."
So "we" know the answer. Everybody but me, that is, I take it? And you know it on account of being superior to me in using common sense and by having no agenda. So you are the good guy and I am the bad one - the one with no common sense, replacing it with an agenda instead.
That too is how you work, Patrick.

Please observe that I am pointing to the facts only here. I am not calling you names, and I am not picking some sort of a fight - I have too little time and inclination for it.
I am merely pointing to what I think is a splendid example of propaganda, directed towards me, and I am exercising my right to take it apart and show how it is constructed.

I am not very interested in doing this exercise all over again, but I am fairly convinced that you will not mind going on - after all, you more or less wowed to cleanse the boards from the plague that I represent, and promised to stand guard for the benefit of all those people who are at risk to be seduced by my theory; a very gallant promise indeed. I´m sure that many will thank you from saving them from my poisonous bite, and be grateful for your sacrifice in the service of the truth.

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, I do believe that a number of readers will go "Is that Patrick character on it again? And with all the same old hat things again?"

I take great comfort in that thought. You must forgive me for not engaging any further in debate over this, I feel I have nailed the underlying structure and aims of your criticism, and as far as I can see, it would be superfluous to do so again. But, as I said before, if you have something genuinely new to say, then don´t hesitate to do so, and I will respond at first opportunity.

[Patrick S]

So this is how you will present me and my case now?

I am "spouting". I will accuse you of being mean to me. I invent things. People are "exposed" to the theory, as if it was a disease.

Thanks for that, Patrick.

But the overall tactic you employ is one where you assert an imagined audience that you are the voice of common sense. You struggle with the many absurd suggestions on my behalf - I am the outrageous phantasist, and my theory is that Lechmere was a psychopath and therefore he must have been Jack the Ripper. And I have nothing to prove that he WAS a psychopath, and accordingly I am being outrageous for suggesting it.

Before I pluck one small passage from a former post of yours, I must correct you on this score. This is what I am saying:

The murders as such are indicative of having been perpetrated by a psychopath. There is a total lack of respect for other peoples lives involved and there is a pattern of killing with great risk to get detected. This is per se something that points straight to psychopathy, where the disrespect for other peoples lives is often coupled to a brazen modus operandi. This is on account of how psychopaths are unable to panick. They do not feel either fear nor remorse - they satisfy their cravings and they do so at the expense of other people.

So THIS is what I am saying, Patrick: That the person who was the Ripper was in all probability a psychopath. Many a psychiatrist have agreed about it over the years.

Further to that, I am saying that it therefore applies that IF Lechmere was the killer, then he will also have been a psychopath. It follows that if a man is responsible for a series of psychopathich deeds, then he is very likely a psychopath.

Many have done what you have: said that it is a circular reasoning, implying that I am saying "Lechmere was the killer, the murders were psychopathich, Lechmere was a psychopath, and so it must have been him".

The ones who claim this on my behalf can be divided up in two categories: Those who have failed to understand what I am saying and those who have understood but chosen to misrepresent me. Maybe all fall into one category only, but these are nevertheless the only two options: ignorance or malevolence.

Now, over to the promised look at one of your points from an earlier post, post 71. It goes like this:


5. Speaking of Lloyd's and inquest. Let's stick with the fantasy that Cross/Lechmere is our man. He killed Nichols. But, wait. He SHOWS UP at the inquest 48 hours after the murder? BUT WHY? Because of the bombshell that was Paul's statement in Lloyd's you see. That bombshell has Paul crediting himself with ALL of the action. The killer is merely "a man". That's the extent of his description. A man. Paul saw a man by the body. And from there Paul is the prime actor. He inspects the body. He goes in search of Mizen. HE tell us that Mizen acted improperly and that it was a great shame as he'd just been told the WOMAN WAS DEAD! Oh, and another thing....Mizen didn't ask either man his name, where he lived, worked, or anything at all. He merely said, "Alright"....and walked on. Yet...here is the killer. At the inquest. Ready to testify. Just as he approached Paul. Just as he went to find Mizen. Now he's at the inquest. Evil genius or innocent man? Clearly we know the answer. It's obvious to anyone with common sense and no agenda.

Let´s look at this in little pieces:

1. You begin by dubbing the theory a "fantasy". It kind of sets a deplorable tone. It´s your prerogative, but it is important for me to point out how you work. Instead of calling it a theory or an idea or a suggestion, you choose "fantasy". That´s how you work.

2. You implicitly claim that since Lechmere was only called "a man" in Pauls interview, he could easily have refrained from coming forward. "A man" is not much of a description.
But the more interesting thing is of course if the police would be able to GET a description. And since we know that Mizen recognized Lechmere on seeing him at the inquest, we also know that he would have been able to go looking for him together with his colleagues. It is a fair assumption that Paul would also be able to decribe him in detail.
So far from being known as "a man" only, he was at risk to be ID:s unless he left London. And if the police decided that a man who was found "where the body was" and about whom nothing was known, not when he had arrived there, not how long he had been there etcetera, was a very viable suspect in the murder - and they would decide exactly that if he did not come forward, let´s not beat about the bush on that score - he would be at risk.

So your "common sense" and "simple" deductions fall flat to the ground when scrutinized - Lechmere had all the reason in the world to understand that he was about to become the prime suspect in the murder case.

3. You make a meal of how Paul described himself as the man who ran the show after finding Nichols - but we know that this was not true, since we have both Lechmere and Mizen testifying about how they had the conversation up at Bakers Row, with Paul only parttaking to a minor extent - and ONLY in Lechmeres story. In Mizens story, he did not say a word.
But your reason for mentioning this is because you are proposing that if Paul was stupid enough to take things upon himself, then Lechmere could have refrained from coming forward or simply said that Paul WAS running the show. This, however, is not as easy as that - there was to consider that both Paul and Mizen would contradict this at the inquest, and that would leave Lechmere with no clad cards.

4. Mizen did not ask his name or workplace or anything at all, you say, and this too is suposedly meant to imply to us that Lechmere could have stayed away and noone would have looked for him. This is not true - once Paul was accepted as a truthful witness, there was no longer any way that Lechmere could stay away without evoking suspicion.
What is REALLY interesting is the question WHY Mizen did not take the name and workplace down, and why he didn´t detain two men who had found a dead woman with noone else in place to corroborate their story.
Well, if Mizen was correct in saying that he was told that another PC had the errand in hand, and if he was only told that the woman was on her back, then it suddenly becomes very obvious why Mizen did not take their names and working places - because his colleague hade taken care of checking the carmen out and found them kosher.
That is another question, but it deserves pointing out. "Common sense" in this case dictates to you that Mizen lied. To me, it dictates that Mizen was the truthful part, and Lechmere the liar. The fact that Mizen did not protest when Neil claimed to be the finder of the body is in line with my suggestion - to Mizen, Neil was "the other PC".

5. You then sign off the paragraph by writing "Evil genius or innocent man? Clearly we know the answer. It's obvious to anyone with common sense and no agenda."
So "we" know the answer. Everybody but me, that is, I take it? And you know it on account of being superior to me in using common sense and by having no agenda. So you are the good guy and I am the bad one - the one with no common sense, replacing it with an agenda instead.
That too is how you work, Patrick.

Please observe that I am pointing to the facts only here. I am not calling you names, and I am not picking some sort of a fight - I have too little time and inclination for it.
I am merely pointing to what I think is a splendid example of propaganda, directed towards me, and I am exercising my right to take it apart and show how it is constructed.

I am not very interested in doing this exercise all over again, but I am fairly convinced that you will not mind going on - after all, you more or less wowed to cleanse the boards from the plague that I represent, and promised to stand guard for the benefit of all those people who are at risk to be seduced by my theory; a very gallant promise indeed. I´m sure that many will thank you from saving them from my poisonous bite, and be grateful for your sacrifice in the service of the truth.

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, I do believe that a number of readers will go "Is that Patrick character on it again? And with all the same old hat things again?"

I take great comfort in that thought. You must forgive me for not engaging any further in debate over this, I feel I have nailed the underlying structure and aims of your criticism, and as far as I can see, it would be superfluous to do so again. But, as I said before, if you have something genuinely new to say, then don´t hesitate to do so, and I will respond at first opportunity.

I agree. Let's not do this "exercise" all over again. I've read your tired, convoluted counter arguments and they required even more assumption and mental gymnastics as the theory itself. Let's just let those who frequent these boards read our posts and make up their own minds. I must admit, though. I've seen very few with comments along the lines of, "That Patrick character is at it again!" But, they're free to do so and, I'm a big boy. I can take it.

[Fisherman]

I agree. Let's not do this "exercise" all over again. I've read your tired, convoluted counter arguments and they required even more assumption and mental gymnastics as the theory itself. Let's just let those who frequent these boards read our posts and make up their own minds. I must admit, though. I've seen very few with comments along the lines of, "That Patrick character is at it again!" But, they're free to do so and, I'm a big boy. I can take it.

If my arguments are tired, it is because they are called for again and again, and so they will become worn. It´s no surprise.

However, the counterarguments are just as worn and tired too, so in that respect, we are on equal footing.

As for "convoluted", that is your take on things, and you are entitled to it. I don´t agree in the least, however, since I find the defence for Lechmere a lot more strained when it comes to the argument side. There is a lot of assuming going on there!

I am relieved to hear that you have decided to leave it to posters to decide for themselves what they think - for a moment there, you had me a bit puzzled about your promise to stand guard over every post that speak for Lechmere as the killer, as some sort of personal pest control. It didn´t sound like the thing one expects to find on a supposedly rational discussion board.

And I agree, of course - let people decide for themselves.

[Patrick S]

If my arguments are tired, it is because they are called for again and again, and so they will become worn. It´s no surprise.

However, the counterarguments are just as worn and tired too, so in that respect, we are on equal footing.

As for "convoluted", that is your take on things, and you are entitled to it. I don´t agree in the least, however, since I find the defence for Lechmere a lot more strained when it comes to the argument side. There is a lot of assuming going on there!

I am relieved to hear that you have decided to leave it to posters to decide for themselves what they think - for a moment there, you had me a bit puzzled about your promise to stand guard over every post that speak for Lechmere as the killer, as some sort of personal pest control. It didn´t sound like the thing one expects to find on a supposedly rational discussion board.

And I agree, of course - let people decide for themselves.

WE AGREE!

[andy1867]

In no way am I entering into the argument as a protagonist on either side..
I mean its only recently I found out Cross and Lechmere were the same person

(I know..but thats me..I flit in and out of it )


But you read theories about it being Vincent Van Gogh, Prince Eddie, Queen Victoria, Lewis Carrol...(Me own Thomas Hardy thingy is on the go...just waiting to hear from Pierre)
So I honestly don't see, that a suspect theory, regarding a bloke actually on his own over the still warm body of a victim..is so outlandish

[Sam Flynn]

What matters is that we have definitive proof that the abdominal wall WAS removed in flaps, and that is very, very rare

Is it rare, though? There are only so many ways to access the abdominal viscera, after all. One is a long, vertical cut, ā la Eddowes, and another is to cut away flaps of flesh, ā la Chapman and Kelly (and, possibly, what the killer intended for Nichols). Short of laparoscopy, I can't think of too many others.

[Abby Normal]

In no way am I entering into the argument as a protagonist on either side..
I mean its only recently I found out Cross and Lechmere were the same person

(I know..but thats me..I flit in and out of it )


But you read theories about it being Vincent Van Gogh, Prince Eddie, Queen Victoria, Lewis Carrol...(Me own Thomas Hardy thingy is on the go...just waiting to hear from Pierre)
So I honestly don't see, that a suspect theory, regarding a bloke actually on his own over the still warm body of a victim..is so outlandish

neither do I Andy

[Fisherman]

Is it rare, though? There are only so many ways to access the abdominal viscera, after all. One is a long, vertical cut, ā la Eddowes, and another is to cut away flaps of flesh, ā la Chapman and Kelly (and, possibly, what the killer intended for Nichols). Short of laparoscopy, I can't think of too many others.

It is rare, yes. I have encouraged you to look for examples in the past, but you were quite reluctant to do so. Maybe the time has come now?