Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Apart from your "flaps" argument the Torso and JtR "series" couldn't be more different.

In both series, the victims were opened up from the breastbone to the pubes.

In both series, there were eviscerations.

In both series, one or more victims lost the uterus.

In both series, victims had rings stolen from their fingers.

In both series, prostitutes were targetted and attacked.

In both series, doctors remarked upon the skilful knofe work of the perpetrators.

Are you really, really sure that the series could not be more different, John? Did you really think that over before posting?

I would suggest that a poison murderer killing high profile men and an eviscerator killing prostitutes would be even more different than our two series. How do you feel about that? Do you agree or disagree?

[Patrick S]

Sam Flynn: It's not so much that it detracts from his viability as a killer, but that arguing the opposite artificially strengthens the argument of his being the killer, by giving the impression that he was caught red-handed standing right next to the body... when he wasn't.

And are you counting me to those people, who say he was over the body and caught red-handed, Gareth?

Whilst hiding his knife and washing the blood off his hands, all in the space of a few seconds?

I was more suggesting that he hid his knife before backing off, Gareth. What makes you think it cannot be done in that sequence? And how do we know he needed to wipe his hands?

You'll at least concede he had to have wiped the knife? Or do you contend he had a special knife, one which repelled blood? Or you do you contend that he tucked it within his clothing, bloody as hell, without wiping it, and was still so confident that not a spec of blood could be found on his person that he told the next two human beings he met about the woman he'd just killed?

[Fisherman]

I wouldn't say that standing in the middle of the (admittedly narrow) road constitutes close proximity. Albert Cadoche was in closer proximity to Annie Chapman when he passed the garden fence, and Louis Dymshitz was certainly in close proximity to Liz Stride when he bent over her with a lighted match. In fact, Dymshitz was in closer proximity to Stride than Lechmere was to Nichols when the former was sitting on the plank behind his pony's bum.

So standing ten feet from the victim does not constitute close proximity? How about this, then: does it constitute close enough proximinty ton have been the killer? And would it be wise to back off from the victim if you want to bluff it out? How do you feel about that?

[Elamarna]

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.

I know that's how you see it. That does not mean you are correct in your view.
I would be surprised if the majority of students of this subject saw Jackson as an addition to the C5.

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.


Again it is your view that the shape and size is of secondary interest, the're are some similarities but they are far from convincing enough to draw the conclusion you do from them.


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?

None of that is tangible data it is your intpretation of the wounds. The continued use of the completely non specific term flaps fits with the other highly circumstantial arguments offered very well however.

I am sorry, but that is just sheer nonsense.

It is clear to me that views which do not agree with your arguments are referred to as 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.

Ah I gather from that response that you have solid data for this theory, that is of great interest.

Steve

[andy1867]

Please don't apologise. That's how the Lechmere theory has been sold.

Oh, indeed. It's fair to say that Lechmere is somewhere on the spectrum between George Chapman and Vincent van Gogh.

I better get me act together then Sam...I reckon I fall into that broad swathe....

[andy1867]

Its a pity half the threads on here descend into acrimony, as there are good points made by all sides, but its taken so personally sometimes its hilarious
Whats the harm in just discussing it?
I mean..I'm now a bit suspicious of Robert Paul..He could have murdered Nicholls hid in a doorway then waited for Cross to trot up, thereby turning from murderer to simple bystander, while still being involved in the whole scenario from a self indulgent point of view.
Its so easy to do...I would expect someone to dissemble me ridiculous notion in two minutes...
I would then say fair enough and blame Mizen...
The whole thing is a guessing game for the most part

[Fisherman]

That's hardly the trouble with Lechmere. I don't think many - although there are some, no doubt - are opposed to getting closer to knowing the truth about the Whitechapel Murders. Personally, I find it obtuse to suspect Lechmere because he was "found" with a "freshly killed" victim after he appears to have not been suspected by anyone at the time. Its all fairly simple. He had a reason to be in Buck's Row at that time. Other than this "alternate name" business, nothing of interest has been learned. But we've nothing to put with that. As best we can tell he was never arrested, detained, questioned....about anything. Ever. Granted, there's a lot we don't know. But, there's a lot we DO know. And what we DO know leads us in another directions, doesn't it? Add that to how the man behaved, completely counter-intuitively, non-instinctive, and inexplicably WERE he Nichols' killer. His behavior, though, is EASILY explained if we accept one simple idea...that he DID NOT kill Nichols and acted as anyone who found a woman on the street WOULD have acted. In the end, it's that simple. We've nothing else in the man's life to suspect him. We have behavior and action that MAKE PERFECT SENSE if he were what he very likely was. A witness. A guy who found a woman's body and acted accordingly.

My main problem with your approach is that we need so many alternative, innocent explanations. There are too many anomalies or coincidences invlved for it to be a case of bad luck on the carmans behalf.

[John G]

In both series, the victims were opened up from the breastbone to the pubes.

In both series, there were eviscerations.

In both series, one or more victims lost the uterus.

In both series, victims had rings stolen from their fingers.

In both series, prostitutes were targetted and attacked.

In both series, doctors remarked upon the skilful knofe work of the perpetrators.

Are you really, really sure that the series could not be more different, John? Did you really think that over before posting?

I would suggest that a poison murderer killing high profile men and an eviscerator killing prostitutes would be even more different than our two series. How do you feel about that? Do you agree or disagree?

Well Fish, I think we both know your being selective with the evidence to make your theory fit. For instance, I'm not sure how a dismemberment killer could effectively dispose of body parts without removing organs.: I mean, it's not as if they could exit in a vacuum!

Uterus missing? In the case of the Torso victims I believe that only applies to Jackson, and her pregnancy suggests a very different motive.

Prostitutes targeted? Only one Torso victim was identified, Liz Jackson. Moreover, only one C5 victim was almost definitely soliciting: Nichols. Skilful knifework? Not in Kelly's case. Moreover, Dr Phillips seemed to think Chapman's perpetrator was possibly a medical man, whereas Dr Hebbert thought that a butcher might be responsible for the Torso crimes, and even that suggestion is open to question.

Of course I would agree with you that a poisoner would be a very different type of killer, but that isn't the point I was trying to make.

Thus, there was a huge difference in spatial behaviour: JtR, assuming he existed as a single perpetrator of the C5 victims, was a marauder, who targeted victims within an incredibly small geographical area. In sharp contrast the Torso perpetrator, assuming he existed, was a commuter, disposing of body parts all over London.

Then there's the fact that the Torso perpetrator, assuming he existed, liked spending time with his victims, or at least stored their remains-in the case of the Whitehall victim for several months. On the other hand, JtR simply slaughtered women in the street and then made a timely getaway.

The Torso perpetrator took precautions to prevent his victims from being identified; JtR didn't.

And then there's the matter of evolution of ritual. For instance, there have been instances of serial killers progressing from post mortem genital mutilation to dismemberment, but not a single instance, as far as I'm aware, of a killer alternating between the two.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Please don't apologise. That's how the Lechmere theory has been sold.

That is grossly unfair, Gareth, and I believe you know it. If there was any such selling, it was on behalf of the documentary, and both I and Edward have said that we would not have used the expression standing over - just as we would not totally exclude thatb Lechmere WAS quite close to the body. But once again - it does not matter at all, since I really think he would have backed off.

Oh, indeed. It's fair to say that Lechmere is somewhere on the spectrum between George Chapman and Vincent van Gogh.

Is it fair to say that you are somewhere on the spectrum between Pierre and Karen Trenouth? I don´t think anybody is on the same spectrum as Lechmere - he is the only realistic and factbased suspect.

[Fisherman]

You'll at least concede he had to have wiped the knife? Or do you contend he had a special knife, one which repelled blood? Or you do you contend that he tucked it within his clothing, bloody as hell, without wiping it, and was still so confident that not a spec of blood could be found on his person that he told the next two human beings he met about the woman he'd just killed?

"Concede"? Is that what I am supposed to do?

You seem agitated, Patrick? Why is that? Or am I wrong?

I haven´t got any idea at all how he treated his knife if he was the killer. I work from the assumption that he probably wiped it, but if he felt he was pressed for time and didn´t want the oncoming Paul to see anything at all, I suppose he may have tucked it into his pocket unwiped. It is not as if a knifeblade will carry half a litre of blood - most of it is wiped off against the wound opening, and often only a thin veil is left. In a jacket sewn from thick cloth it would not pose any real risk.
But as I said, I am not claiming anything at all about it. Why would I, and - not least - how could I?

[Fisherman]

Ah I gather from that response that you have solid data for this theory, that is of great interest.

Steve

Fascinating for you, I´m sure!

[Fisherman]

Its a pity half the threads on here descend into acrimony, as there are good points made by all sides, but its taken so personally sometimes its hilarious
Whats the harm in just discussing it?
I mean..I'm now a bit suspicious of Robert Paul..He could have murdered Nicholls hid in a doorway then waited for Cross to trot up, thereby turning from murderer to simple bystander, while still being involved in the whole scenario from a self indulgent point of view.
Its so easy to do...I would expect someone to dissemble me ridiculous notion in two minutes...
I would then say fair enough and blame Mizen...
The whole thing is a guessing game for the most part

There were no deep doorways to hide in, as far as I can tell. And he would have to move soundlessly in the oncoming Lechmeres direction for thirty or forty yards before ducking into that illustrous doorway. After that, the subsequent murders tally with Lechmere´s logical routes, but as far as we can tell, not with Pauls.
Plus why would Paul suggest finding a policeman? And why would he go to the press?
And we know that he was severely questioned by the police after the Chapman murder and let loose, possibly implicating that he had an alibi for the latter murder.

As always, he cannot be totally excluded - but he is not a good fit at all.

[Sam Flynn]

Its all fairly simple. He had a reason to be in Buck's Row at that time.

Indeed. One interesting point to ponder is, what reason had Polly Nichols to have been in Buck's Row at the same time? It's the more usual practice for prostitutes to pick up their clients by frequenting the busier thoroughfares, before going with them to more secluded secluded back-streets. Now, whilst Nichols might have happened to be wandering, alone, down Buck's Row at precisely the right time to meet her killer, is it not more likely that they met somewhere else? In which case, the very fact that Lechmere's route to work took him past Nichols' murder site is of no significance in implicating him in the murder; in fact, it argues against any such connection being made.

[Fisherman]

John G: Well Fish, I think we both know your being selective with the evidence to make your theory fit.

I think that is a complete lie, actually.

For instance, I'm not sure how a dismemberment killer could effectively dispose of body parts without removing organs.: I mean, it's not as if they could exit in a vacuum!

And so they ... open up the bellies from sternum to pubes? I see.

Uterus missing? In the case of the Torso victims I believe that only applies to Jackson, and her pregnancy suggests a very different motive.

Does that mean that her uterus was NOT missing? And the doctors were adamant that it was not any abortion gone awry, so don´t try that.

Prostitutes targeted? Only one Torso victim was identified, Liz Jackson.

Which is what I said: prostitutes were targetted in both series. You CAN read, can´t you?

Moreover, only one C5 victim was almost definitely soliciting: Nichols.

Did I say that they were soliciting or that they were prostitutes? Eh?

Skilful knifework? Not in Kelly's case.

It WAS suggested, just as I say. Whether you agree is neither here nor there, since it was never about that.

Of course I would agree with you that a poisoner would be a very different type of killer, but that isn't the point I was trying to make.

No, you made the point that the two series could not possibly be more different to each other. Which is complete and utter bonkers.

Thus, there was a huge difference in spatial behaviour: JtR, assuming he existed as a single perpetrator of the C5 victims, was a marauder, who targeted victims within an incredibly small geographical area. In sharp contrast the Torso perpetrator, assuming he existed, was a commuter, disposing of body parts all over London.

Aha. And that is the one parameter we are allowed to look at, is that it?

Then there's the fact that the Torso perpetrator, assuming he existed, liked spending time with his victims, or at least stored their remains-in the case of the Whitehall victim for several months. On the other hand, JtR simply slaughtered women in the street and then made a timely getaway.

... when he really should have flung them over his shoulder and carried them off.
It seems somebody else is carried off, to be honest...

The Torso perpetrator took precautions to prevent his victims from being identified; JtR didn't.

The torso killer did no such thing that we know of. And JtR cut away the face from Kelly and Eddowes. In the former case so much so that we still have an ongoing debate who the victim was.
So much for that point.

And then there's the matter of evolution of ritual. For instance, there have been instances of serial killers progressing from post mortem genital mutilation to dismemberment, but not a single instance, as far as I'm aware, of a killer alternating between the two.

John, John - don´t you read my posts? I have told you already that the ritual was THE SAME for the Ripper and the Torso killer. When will you understand that? Read my lips: TWO murder series - ONE ritual. Two murder series - ONE ritual. Two murder series - One ri...

[Fisherman]

Indeed. One interesting point to ponder is, what reason had Polly Nichols to have been in Buck's Row at the same time? It's the more usual practice for prostitutes to pick up their clients by frequenting the busier thoroughfares, before going with them to more secluded secluded back-streets. Now, whilst Nichols might have happened to be wandering, alone, down Buck's Row at precisely the right time to meet her killer, is it not more likely that they met somewhere else? In which case, the very fact that Lechmere's route to work took him past Nichols' murder site is of no significance in implicating him in the murder; in fact, it argues against any such connection being made.

This is all very new to me: So when a person has a route that coincides with a murder site, that effectively EXONERATES that person?
Personally, I would never rule out a person who shared paths with a murder site, but maybe that´s just me.

We are left to guesswork when it comes to Nichols. She may have been picked up in Whitechapel Road by Lechmere. She may have been picked up there by somebody else and taken to Bucks Row, whereupon the punter had his pleasure and left her alone and drunk in Bucks Row. She may have been traversing the street en route to another prostitution haunt. She may have been on her way to sleep rough somewhere.
There is any number of possibilities, and it is impossible to know what happened. But whoever killed here in Bucks Row apparently felt that it was a good idea to hide her wounds...
That IS a fact and infinitely more interesting as such.