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

[Fisherman]

Patrick, for Gawd`s sake, you`ve got 15 mins to delete the post before Christer see`s it ;-)

He had more time, actually - I was out shopping for Christmas. And there is nothing in his post that I find outrageous in any way - contrary to that, I agree with him on many a point.

[Fisherman]

I see things are well in hand here on the boards.

I'd like to add only this: I used to become quite frustrated and agitated by posts like this one. I expended much energy and many keystrokes arguing against them, saying things like, "Thank God the criminal justice system doesn't work this way!", and pointing out the issues inherent in assuming Lechmere was a psychopath because his actions and likely behavior and demeanor - had he killed Nichols - might indicate that he WAS a psychopath (his interaction with Paul, Mizen, at the inquest, etc.).

Now, I still believe Lechmere didn't kill Nichols, was not Jack the Ripper, and was what I and others have always believed him to be: A witness in the case, a man who found "a woman lying in Buck's Row". But, I will say that I was dead wrong in maintaining that the "criminal justice system doesn't work this way".

Having been involved in an unrelated research project over most of past year, one focused on modern police methods, I am certain that Christer's suspicions around Lechmere would be quite mainstream and fully supported by many in the law enforcement community had these crimes been committed in, say, the past quarter century.

We began by looking at about 700 murder cases. One caveat: NONE of thse cases involved SERIAL murder. But, as I said, this was about the investigations, legal processes, etc. Now, The overwhelming majority of those cases were "solved" almost immediately. The killer committed suicide or was otherwise killed, or was immediately arrested, within hour or days, caught in act, identified by multiple eye witnesses, caught on camera, etc. The killer left behind a figurative truckload of physical evidence, DNA, fibers, the victims blood on their person, in their home... you get the idea. Of these, just under fifty cases fell out from over the past twenty-five years from across the United States and Canada. These cases left law enforcement somewhat stumped, with no immediate (usually fewer than 90 days) arrests.

It's clear that detectives/police don't like to be stumped. So, for the most part, with a few notable exceptions, they don't stay that way for long... for better or worse. Circumstantial cases are then built around theories that are, sometimes, at least in my view, FAR LESS credible than the one Christer has presented around Lechmere. And in the VAST majority of those cases the accused was convicted, jailed, sometimes executed.

So, my views with respect to Lechmere as the Ripper have not changed. But, my outrage or frustration or whatever you want to call it... about the theory itself has been muted because I was, frankly, largely ignorant as to how modern law enforcement (and then prosecution and the courts) conduct their business in "hard to solve" murder investigations.

I would not want to convict Lechmere on insufficient evidence. I have said before and I say again that if I was to pass judgment on him on the existing evidence, I would make the call "not guilty" - but I would feel that I let a guilty man walk afterwards.

I fully agree, therefore, that the judicial system must uphold a very demanding attitude when somebody is accused of something, and that attitude should only grow more demanding the more severe the crime and punishment grows.

I donīt assume as such that Lechmere was a psychopath other than in the meaning that I believe that he was guilty and I also believe that he must have been a psychopath if guilty.
It is not as if I award him a psychopath status before I make my call. There is absolutely not a scintilla of indications that he was a psychopath, and I dount very much that there will ever be, given the distance in time - to assess a psychopath, one must evaluate his interactions with other people, and we will not be able to do that in Lechmereīs case. It is only if some document surfaces that points in this direction that the suggestion can take flight, and I fully understand that.

This does not, however, detract from how I say that IF he was the killer, then he would certainly have been a psychopath, given the behaviour involved on both the murder night and at the inquest.

[Abby Normal]

No, he was treated for a number of decades at Broadmoor.



Broad daylight on Wimbledon Common - not risk taking !!!!!
Yes, a flat, ring any bells ;-) Read what he did to the poor woman.



Sutcliffe and Napper did well to remain at liberty then



C`mon Christer, facts !?!?

Anyway, I just popped in to chuck some chum in the water.
You have a great Christmas, and I hope you get who you want as your new manager next season ?

Sutcliff went to the asylum after he was busted. its a common ploy by murderes to act crazy. he wasnt schizophrenic.


napper, like chase and mullins probably was-and they get caught as do most bat **** crazy serial killers pretty quickly.


the ripper was not schizophrenic-no overtly insane person could get away with what the ripper did-convincing women at the height of the ripper scare to go with him no less, maintaining composure and ruses-and remain uncaught if they were scizo IMHO.

[Abby Normal]

What should he have done, Abby ?

But remember, it`s not a case of if they see a policeman. They would undoubtedly see a policeman.
Also, he may lose his job if he`s not at work on time.

anything but that. there was two of them. he could have said stay here while I get a policeman or a doctor, or he could have stayed there. Obviously its serious. the woman was in dire need of help. and its not like they just thought she was drunk-they could tell it was worse than that.

and screw his work, sometimes in life, if your a good person with a modicum of morals or empathy you do whats right. Not oh well im late for work, well tell the first cop we see. theres no guarantee they would see a cop either.

ef Lechmere, he also killed a kid, whether an accident or being careless. dude was bad news as far as im concerned.

[Jon Guy]

I see things are well in hand here on the boards.

I'd like to add only this: I used to become quite frustrated and agitated by posts like this one. I expended much energy and many keystrokes arguing against them, saying things like, "Thank God the criminal justice system doesn't work this way!", and pointing out the issues inherent in assuming Lechmere was a psychopath because his actions and likely behavior and demeanor - had he killed Nichols - might indicate that he WAS a psychopath (his interaction with Paul, Mizen, at the inquest, etc.).

Now, I still believe Lechmere didn't kill Nichols, was not Jack the Ripper, and was what I and others have always believed him to be: A witness in the case, a man who found "a woman lying in Buck's Row". But, I will say that I was dead wrong in maintaining that the "criminal justice system doesn't work this way".

Having been involved in an unrelated research project over most of past year, one focused on modern police methods, I am certain that Christer's suspicions around Lechmere would be quite mainstream and fully supported by many in the law enforcement community had these crimes been committed in, say, the past quarter century.

We began by looking at about 700 murder cases. One caveat: NONE of thse cases involved SERIAL murder. But, as I said, this was about the investigations, legal processes, etc. Now, The overwhelming majority of those cases were "solved" almost immediately. The killer committed suicide or was otherwise killed, or was immediately arrested, within hour or days, caught in act, identified by multiple eye witnesses, caught on camera, etc. The killer left behind a figurative truckload of physical evidence, DNA, fibers, the victims blood on their person, in their home... you get the idea. Of these, just under fifty cases fell out from over the past twenty-five years from across the United States and Canada. These cases left law enforcement somewhat stumped, with no immediate (usually fewer than 90 days) arrests.

It's clear that detectives/police don't like to be stumped. So, for the most part, with a few notable exceptions, they don't stay that way for long... for better or worse. Circumstantial cases are then built around theories that are, sometimes, at least in my view, FAR LESS credible than the one Christer has presented around Lechmere. And in the VAST majority of those cases the accused was convicted, jailed, sometimes executed.

So, my views with respect to Lechmere as the Ripper have not changed. But, my outrage or frustration or whatever you want to call it... about the theory itself has been muted because I was, frankly, largely ignorant as to how modern law enforcement (and then prosecution and the courts) conduct their business in "hard to solve" murder investigations.

Patrick, for Gawd`s sake, you`ve got 15 mins to delete the post before Christer see`s it ;-)

[Patrick S]

You miss my point! He was a psychopath and feigned to want to help, all the while amusing himself with Paul.

It is only if we are absolutely certain that he "tried to help the woman" out of good will that we can rule out that he was a psychopath.

To be fair, Jon - can you do that?

I see things are well in hand here on the boards.

I'd like to add only this: I used to become quite frustrated and agitated by posts like this one. I expended much energy and many keystrokes arguing against them, saying things like, "Thank God the criminal justice system doesn't work this way!", and pointing out the issues inherent in assuming Lechmere was a psychopath because his actions and likely behavior and demeanor - had he killed Nichols - might indicate that he WAS a psychopath (his interaction with Paul, Mizen, at the inquest, etc.).

Now, I still believe Lechmere didn't kill Nichols, was not Jack the Ripper, and was what I and others have always believed him to be: A witness in the case, a man who found "a woman lying in Buck's Row". But, I will say that I was dead wrong in maintaining that the "criminal justice system doesn't work this way".

Having been involved in an unrelated research project over most of past year, one focused on modern police methods, I am certain that Christer's suspicions around Lechmere would be quite mainstream and fully supported by many in the law enforcement community had these crimes been committed in, say, the past quarter century.

We began by looking at about 700 murder cases. One caveat: NONE of thse cases involved SERIAL murder. But, as I said, this was about the investigations, legal processes, etc. Now, The overwhelming majority of those cases were "solved" almost immediately. The killer committed suicide or was otherwise killed, or was immediately arrested, within hour or days, caught in act, identified by multiple eye witnesses, caught on camera, etc. The killer left behind a figurative truckload of physical evidence, DNA, fibers, the victims blood on their person, in their home... you get the idea. Of these, just under fifty cases fell out from over the past twenty-five years from across the United States and Canada. These cases left law enforcement somewhat stumped, with no immediate (usually fewer than 90 days) arrests.

It's clear that detectives/police don't like to be stumped. So, for the most part, with a few notable exceptions, they don't stay that way for long... for better or worse. Circumstantial cases are then built around theories that are, sometimes, at least in my view, FAR LESS credible than the one Christer has presented around Lechmere. And in the VAST majority of those cases the accused was convicted, jailed, sometimes executed.

So, my views with respect to Lechmere as the Ripper have not changed. But, my outrage or frustration or whatever you want to call it... about the theory itself has been muted because I was, frankly, largely ignorant as to how modern law enforcement (and then prosecution and the courts) conduct their business in "hard to solve" murder investigations.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: No, he was treated for a number of decades at Broadmoor.

Would it be fair to say that this issue has never been definitively decided, Jon? That the judge didnīt accept it? And that it has been debated ever since? I think so.


Broad daylight on Wimbledon Common - not risk taking !!!!!
Yes, a flat, ring any bells ;-) Read what he did to the poor woman.

But I didnīt say that it didnīt involve risk, did I? What I said was that it involved LESS risktaking than the Ripper deeds. Which is probably coincidental since a paranoid schizophrenic will normally not be opposed to risktaking. He will also normally get caught early when embarking on a killing spree.

Sutcliffe and Napper did well to remain at liberty then

Sutcliffe is out, as far as Iīm concerned - I donīt buy his parnoid schizophrenia at all. And yes, Napper "did well" - which is an exception to the rule. A paranoid schizophrenic Ripper remains a fringe possibility only, and an unlikely one at that.

C`mon Christer, facts !?!?

Yes, facts. It IS a fact that the victim still bled, and it IS a fact that Lechmere and Mizen disagreed. Which was what I said. Are you actually denying this? To be fair, these are ASCERTAINED facts, whereas it is NOT an ascertained fact that he really wanted to help Nichols!

Anyway, I just popped in to chuck some chum in the water.
You have a great Christmas, and I hope you get who you want as your new manager next season ?

I wish you the same, Jon - and thatīs a fact too. I want Pocchetini the next season too, but I can understand if he wants to move from stinking rich to stinking rich.

[Fisherman]

caz: I thought it was obvious I had my tongue firmly in my cheek, Fish, when I asked if the following referred to Anderson's suspect or your own.

Where you have your tongue is your business, thankfully not mine.


Think about it. How is anything ever going to come of suspecting Lechmere? Isn't it also 100% worthless as a lead unless or until some evidence can be found? Speculation and a series of 'what ifs' and 'maybes' do not amount to evidence, Fish. If you had any real evidence, you wouldn't need the speculation.

Well, it HAS already come to a doc where a queens counsellor and an ex murder squad leader agree that there is a very good case to be made that would warrant a trial.
Has it dawned on you, Caz, that there IS evidence - but not proof? Has it dawned on you that NO suspect can be proven guilty?
If so, what would you have? A prohibition against suspects? No board space for theories?
It is and has always been the very core of the Ripper enigma to try and name the killer. I am doing just that, and I have much circumstantial evidence to help me out.
Does that irk you or what? Because if it DOES, then I recommend that you take up another hobby. The reason being that you are barking up the wrong tree - these boards actually have a headline saying "Suspects". And I intend to keep using it.
If you just want somebody to quarrel with, try somebody else, and let me do what the boards are for.

So let's face it, I can't see you adding any evidence to your 'case' against Lechmere any time soon. It would be like a stupid woman thinking she could come back in January with an improved deal, after two years of failed negotiations, and it will be accepted and we'll all cheer.

Evidence HAS already been added, and it keeps being added in a degree that surpasses any other suspect. There are things coming to light all the time, and the case is strengthened all the time.
Why would I let a poster who cannot keep up with the developments have any impact on that?

Correct - I wouldnīt.

Insight. Information. A less quarellsome attitude. Logic. Sense. These are all matters that are decidedly hart to wrap up. It nevertheless wraps up what I think you should be asking Father Christmas for.

"Father", by the way - why not have a Mother Christmas? Misoginy!

[Jon Guy]

I believe Sutcliffe feigned paranoid scizophrenia, right?

No, he was treated for a number of decades at Broadmoor.

And Napper? very different circumstances, Wimbledon common and a flat -
he was never subjecting himself to anywhere near the risktaking of the Ripper.

Broad daylight on Wimbledon Common - not risk taking !!!!!
Yes, a flat, ring any bells ;-) Read what he did to the poor woman.

A paranoid schizophrenic Ripper would be immensely likely to get caught.

Sutcliffe and Napper did well to remain at liberty then

Saying that is denying the wealth of facts that is connected to the case.

C`mon Christer, facts !?!?

Anyway, I just popped in to chuck some chum in the water.
You have a great Christmas, and I hope you get who you want as your new manager next season ?

[Fisherman]

You miss my point !!
He`s not a psychopath, he tried to assist the woman.

You miss my point! He was a psychopath and feigned to want to help, all the while amusing himself with Paul.

It is only if we are absolutely certain that he "tried to help the woman" out of good will that we can rule out that he was a psychopath.

To be fair, Jon - can you do that?

[Fisherman]

And you wonder why some of us don't believe a case has yet been made against Lechmere?

You are not merely 'allowing' for deviations from statistics - you are trying to make a case with precious little else!

Lechmere could have been known as Cross in 1876...

Mizen could have misreported what he was told...

Robert Paul is not known to have been out of earshot...

Lechmere is not known to have been near each and every murder location at the right hour...

He is not known to have had any recognisable psychopathic traits...

His known behaviour is consistent with a man on his way to work, finding a woman lying in the street, seeking assistance from the next man to come along and alerting the first policeman they see...

So what have you got that doesn't rely on being able to overturn all those statements?

Lechmere could not have been known as Cross in 1876?

Mizen could not have misreported what he was told?

Robert Paul is known to have been out of earshot?

Lechmere is known to have been near each and every murder location at the right hour?

He is known to have had recognisable psychopathic traits?

His known behaviour is not consistent with a man on his way to work, finding a woman lying in the street, seeking assistance from the next man to come along and alerting the first policeman they see?

Love,

Caz
X

Stale, as expected. And it changes nothing. If I had said that we have absolute proof that Lechmere was the killer, you would have a case.

But I donīt.

And you havenīt.

So itīs more time and space waste.

[Fisherman]

That word 'never' leaves Lechmere with the one option only - to stay. There was 'never' going to be the option to run, for any serial killer finding himself in Lechmere's position - according to Griffiths. No exceptions.

Words have meanings, Fish. And 'never' means 'never'. A choice that would 'never' be exercised is no choice at all.

If you can find a choice for Lechmere in the word 'never', you are more of a magician than a mathematician.

It's as simple as that.

Love,

Caz
X

In the kind of context it was uttered, Iīd say that "never" equates "implausible in the extreme". But will you accept that?

Never.

[Fisherman]

Taking into account that both Sutcliffe and Napper were paranoid schizophrenics, i`d say the chances were great.

I believe Sutcliffe feigned paranoid scizophrenia, right? And Napper? very different circumstances, Wimbledon common and a flat - he was never subjecting himself to anywhere near the risktaking of the Ripper. A paranoid schizophrenic Ripper would be immensely likely to get caught.

Anyways, the more important point I made was that it is totally wrong to caim that the only fact we have is that Lechmere tried to help a person in the street. Saying that is denying the wealth of facts that is connected to the case.

[Jon Guy]

Psychopath or not, one things for sure. He callously and selfishly, left a woman who was drunk or dead or dying, lying in the street with the thought of if we happen across a police man well tell them.

What should he have done, Abby ?

But remember, it`s not a case of if they see a policeman. They would undoubtedly see a policeman.
Also, he may lose his job if he`s not at work on time.

[Abby Normal]

Psychopath or not, one things for sure. He callously and selfishly, left a woman who was drunk or dead or dying, lying in the street with the thought of if we happen across a police man well tell them.