So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel?

[Harry D]

There is no use debating with suspect-based theorists, because all of their suspect's actions are viewed through a prism of guilt.

Lechmere...

* Alerted the first passer-by, who was yards behind him
* Accompanied said passer-by to find a policeman
* Attended the murder inquest of his own volition
* Volunteered his christian name, address and place of work. The only anomaly is the surname 'Cross', albeit his stepfather's surname. This may have been used by Charles in a professional capacity, thus it cannot be declared a completely bogus name.

These are not the actions of a guilty man. They are perfectly congruent with an innocent bystander. In suspect-based logic, however, innocent behaviour is indicative of hidden guilt. It's like Mr Marriott's rationale that the only victims whose organs were harvested by mortuary attendants were the victims that the Ripper carved open. You can't win against this fallacious reasoning.

What possible reason is there to suspect Lechmere, let alone accuse him as the Ripper? The man lived locally and his work route passed through the vicinity of one of the murders, if not two. There is a legit reason for Lechmere to find Nichols that morning in Buck's Row. We wouldn't even know of him if he hadn't been off to work that morning. Lechmere was not out of place. However, we are supposed to believe that for the umpteenth time he passed that route to work, he decided to pickup a prozzie and murder her in cold blood. Even though he'd been in the murder game since 1873, according to Fish. Tenuous links and speculations to the murder sites and familial ties are par for the course to (in MJ Trow's words) "build a framework of guilt and complicity".

[MrBarnett]

To highlight how long of a row it was.

https://wiki.casebook.org/images/e/ed/Bucks38.jpg

The name Buck's Row wasn't given to the row of 20-odd small terraced houses which ran along the southeastern side of the street of that name in 1888.

[Batman]

I wasn't asking for a definition of the word, I was asking why you capitalised it.

To highlight how long of a row it was.

https://wiki.casebook.org/images/e/ed/Bucks38.jpg

[MrBarnett]

A number of buildings in a straight line.

I wasn't asking for a definition of the word, I was asking why you capitalised it.

[Batman]

I'm curious, why did you capitalise ROW?

A number of buildings in a straight line.

[Batman]

Yes, and you donīt know when he noticed Paul.

Only if we ignore the inquest where he tells us he heard Paul coming 40 yards away from the direction he came.

And the reasons I have no example are a few:
I havenīt looked for one.
The circumstances are what decides, and no two murders have the same circumstances.
Even if I found an example, you would go: Okay, but it is extremely rare. And so it would be an exercise in futility.

That's your opinion but professionally, criminology uses examples. It is not an exercise in futility. Examples are used to support claims.

The remaining half of your reply is just personal stuff and completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I stand by what I have said - Andy Griffiths is a lot better judge in my eyes than you. You are probably more competent and clever in your own eyes, but I am not all that impressed by it.

Are we done now? Or do you need me to correct you some more? Once again, it is a complete and utter waste of time to debate it any further. Once again, the sooner you realize that, the better.

[MrBarnett]

Of course, he doesn't have to run. Paul is 40 yards away approx. Cross would have turned the corner and be gone from view.

https://wiki.casebook.org/images/thumb/e/ed/Bucks38.jpg/400px-Bucks38.jpg

This demonstrates that.

JtR had to be caught in the act or with direct incriminating evidence against him.

The reason why you don't have examples of what I was asking for is because no one is being caught red-handed here. Paul is 40 yards away approx.

That's nearly half the length of a soccer pitch, close to the centre lines circle diameter. Do you know how long a row of people stretches there on the sidelines?

Buck's ROW. It's a long road and Cross was close to a corner.

I'm curious, why did you capitalise ROW?

[Fisherman]

Of course, he doesn't have to run. Paul is 40 yards away approx. Cross would have turned the corner and be gone from view.

https://wiki.casebook.org/images/thumb/e/ed/Bucks38.jpg/400px-Bucks38.jpg

This demonstrates that.

JtR had to be caught in the act or with direct incriminating evidence against him.

The reason why you don't have examples of what I was asking for is because no one is being caught red-handed here. Paul is 40 yards away approx.

That's nearly half the length of a soccer pitch, close to the centre lines circle diameter. Do you know how long a row of people stretches there on the sidelines?

Buck's ROW. It's a long road and Cross was close to a corner.

Yes, and you donīt know when he noticed Paul. And the reasons I have no example are a few:
I havenīt looked for one.
The circumstances are what decides, and no two murders have the same circumstances.
Even if I found an example, you would go: Okay, but it is extremely rare. And so it would be an exercise in futility.

I stand by what I have said - Andy Griffiths is a lot better judge in my eyes than you. You are probably more competent and clever in your own eyes, but I am not all that impressed by it.

Are we done now? Or do you need me to correct you some more? Once again, it is a complete and utter waste of time to debate it any further. Once again, the sooner you realize that, the better.

[Batman]

Of course, he doesn't have to run. Paul is 40 yards away approx. Cross would have turned the corner and be gone from view.

https://wiki.casebook.org/images/thumb/e/ed/Bucks38.jpg/400px-Bucks38.jpg

This demonstrates that.

JtR had to be caught in the act or with direct incriminating evidence against him.

The reason why you don't have examples of what I was asking for is because no one is being caught red-handed here. Paul is 40 yards away approx.

That's nearly half the length of a soccer pitch, close to the centre lines circle diameter. Do you know how long a row of people stretches there on the sidelines?

Buck's ROW. It's a long road and Cross was close to a corner.

[Fisherman]

It is not that some criminals caught red-handed don't come up with non-incriminating excuses. Nor is it that some spouse murderers don't themselves call emergency services and claim an accident. We are well aware of these. What we are not aware of is a serial killer who waits with a body of their victim in an outdoor urban setting for a witness to come by to have a chat with them about the body before going off to the police about it.

That's what we are asking examples for.

But you have one, Batman!

Think of it like this: many say that a killer would never, ever do such a thing, to stay and bluff it out.

However, as members of the boards bear witness to after having seen it themselves, there are criminals who do just this thing.

What you now ask for is examples of serial killers who have done so. Do you think that the possibility will go away if no such serial killer can be presented?

What you fail to take on board is that the deciding factor lies in the circumstances. I fully agree that under normal circumstances a killer will flee the scene if he has the chance. I am even willing to say that I think that this will apply in at least 90 per cent of the cases.

But in the Lechmere case, I think we have a case derived from the remaining percentage. Bear in mind what Andy Griffiths said: There was never a chance that Lechmere would run.

He wasnīt speaking about the general picture. He would in all probability say what I say - at least 90 per cent will run.

But in cases like the Lechmere one, it seems he is of the meaning that ten out of ten will stay! He would NEVER have run, according to Griffiths.

There, you had my answer again. And you will also have the same addition you had before:

You cannot prove that no killer would do what I suggest that Lechmere did. The possibility is there, and Griffiths is instrumental in underlining that.

Accordingly, what we have is you saying that you personally think he would have run. And then we have the seasoned murder squad leader and academic criminologist Andy Griffiths, who on the surface of things is a hundred times more suited to make the call than you, who says he would never have run.

And that is as far as we are going to get. No example I dig up about criminals who stayed put and bluffed it out can make it a certainty that Lechmere did the same. No failure to find any other serial killer who did it can prove that Lechmere would not have done it either.

It is a complete and utter waste of time to debate it any further. The sooner you realize that, the better.

[Batman]

It is not that some criminals caught red-handed don't come up with non-incriminating excuses. Nor is it that some spouse murderers don't themselves call emergency services and claim an accident. We are well aware of these. What we are not aware of is a serial killer who waits with a body of their victim in an outdoor urban setting for a witness to come by to have a chat with them about the body before going off to the police about it.

That's what we are asking examples for.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Lechmere seemingly had time to partially pull down Nichols' skirts, back away into the middle of the road, and prepare to bluff it out, rather than simply walk away. Much likelier, the REAL killer was disturbed/spooked by someone (Lechmere), dropped the skirts before he was finished and slipped off into the night.

Therefore, the matter of the "concealed wounds" is as much a non-issue for me as it is for you.

Good. Then we wonīt hear from you on that score again. It was never as if you were going to say "The skirts were all the way down, he must be the killer!", was it?
It is in no way likelier that there was another killer. People that are figments of our imagination only are never likely at all until proven to have existed. Accordingly , the only one slipping here is you.

It comes back to what I spoke of before, your fallacious reasoning that contorts Lechmere's innocent behaviour into guilty behaviour, because a killer is bound to act innocent.

The concept as such is a complex one, I know. But there are a few examples of criminals who have tried to look innocent, believe it or not. Apalling, isnīt it? I would like to stress that - as usual - you are claiming that I accuse Lechmere of being the Ripper on account of how he seemed to be innocent. Of course, what I use to accuse him are the not so very innocent matters, like disagreeing with the police, changing his name, being at the site at a time consistent with the murder etc, and not with the innocent matters. That is something that you claim on my behalf, and it is of course ridiculous.
If he was the killer, then the matters that look innocent will not necessarily be so, but thatīs another matter entirely.

An innocent man isn't thinking about what would incriminate himself.

Canīt remember having said so.

Conversely, no killer in his right mind is going to do or say anything to attract suspicion.

No killer "in his right mind"? Is that what killers are? In their right minds? Of course, criminals who want to stay uncaught will avoid attracting suspecion if they can. Some canīt, some wonīt.

Lechmere ruled out the possibility of seeing anyone, and he volunteered this information unprompted.

Hoorah! Must be innocent, then! No killer in his right mind would volunteer information, we all know that they sulk and clam up.

The same goes for mistaking Nichols for a tarpaulin.

Yes, anyone saying such a thing simply MUST be honest! I mean, no killer would want to dupe the coroner and jury by saying such a thing. It would be unfair.

These statements have a ring of authenticity about them.

And those who think so have a ring of naivety about them if you ask me.

Of course, unless these were more machinations from the fiendish mind of Lech the Ripper!

Yes, unless they were precisely that. But surely, surely not...? It would be devious in the extreme to think something like that up and lie to the inquest.
Maybe, Harry, he realized what you realize: people speaking of tarpaulins are good people. And so he came up with the scheme of conning the jury with this infallible ruse? How about that?

Also, please learn to use the quote function. It's not that difficult.

Is reading black versus red difficult? Itīs like this, what I quote, I leave in black. What I add of my own, I use red for. So black is basically YOUR words and red are MINE. Once you get the hang of it, itīs really easy.

[Harry D]

Which of the two men do you think was in the worst hurry? I would say Lechmere.
What would have been his main object? I would say to conceal the wounds in the abdomen.
So there is your answer - he did what he could in what little time he had, and Paul, who was in no rush, was able to do a little bit better, but was unable to bring it all the way down.
It is a non-issue.

Lechmere seemingly had time to partially pull down Nichols' skirts, back away into the middle of the road, and prepare to bluff it out, rather than simply walk away. Much likelier, the REAL killer was disturbed/spooked by someone (Lechmere), dropped the skirts before he was finished and slipped off into the night.

Therefore, the matter of the "concealed wounds" is as much a non-issue for me as it is for you.

The choice he made was a clever one. If he claimed that there was someone else up at the body, then any witness along the suggested flight route could have gainsaid him. Of course he could have said that there may have been somebody up there, but since it was very quiet, he may have opted for not suggesting this as the coroner may have asked him how he could not have noticed the man.

The one solution that covers all problems is to say that he saw and heard nobody, and that he would have, had there been somebody. That way, he could not get into any sort of trouble - the murderer was gone, had vanished into thin air, and that could have happened at any time.
He of course forgot about the blood implications, but you can see even today that there are posters who allow for the body to have lain in place since the days of Methusalem.
Another non-issue, therefore.

It comes back to what I spoke of before, your fallacious reasoning that contorts Lechmere's innocent behaviour into guilty behaviour, because a killer is bound to act innocent.

An innocent man isn't thinking about what would incriminate himself. Conversely, no killer in his right mind is going to do or say anything to attract suspicion. Lechmere ruled out the possibility of seeing anyone, and he volunteered this information unprompted. The same goes for mistaking Nichols for a tarpaulin. These statements have a ring of authenticity about them. Of course, unless these were more machinations from the fiendish mind of Lech the Ripper!

Also, please learn to use the quote function. It's not that difficult.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: ...but Paul was able to bring her skirts down from her waist to her knees. The point stands that if Lechmere was the killer he would've done a better job of concealing his handiwork, particularly as he was going to draw Paul's attention to the victim.

Which of the two men do you think was in the worst hurry? I would say Lechmere.
What would have been his main object? I would say to conceal the wounds in the abdomen.
So there is your answer - he did what he could in what little time he had, and Paul, who was in no rush, was able to do a little bit better, but was unable to bring it all the way down.
It is a non-issue.

"It was very dark. If someone had been there, I might not have noticed them".

The choice he made was a clever one. If he claimed that there was someone else up at the body, then any witness along the suggested flight route could have gainsaid him. Of course he could have said that there may have been somebody up there, but since it was very quiet, he may have opted for not suggesting this as the coroner may have asked him how he could not have noticed the man.
The one solution that covers all problems is to say that he saw and heard nobody, and that he would have, had there been somebody. That way, he could not get into any sort of trouble - the murderer was gone, had vanished into thin air, and that could have happened at any time.
He of course forgot about the blood implications, but you can see even today that there are posters who allow for the body to have lain in place since the days of Methusalem.
Another non-issue, therefore.

[Sam Flynn]

Is it? What would you have him say?

"It was very dark. If someone had been there, I might not have noticed them".

Good call.