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

[caz]

My own theory is that the murderer was a regular user of prostitutes...

Mine too, etenguy. I would imagine he was at the very least comfortable with approaching, or being approached by his victim type, and not appearing to them like a fish out of water.

I don't know how many hours Lechmere spent working each day, including the walk there and back, but I also wonder how much time and energy he had left for engaging with prostitutes, considering all those prams he was busy filling at home.

Serial killing seems like a hobby far more suited to those with too much time on their hands and nobody to answer to - which might explain the explosion over the next century, as working hours became fewer and more flexible, and conditions less harsh, and families became much smaller, lessening financial responsibilities and increasing personal freedom.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I think he killed after Kelly, Darryl. And I know your stance, and I am not misrepresenting you.

Your whole point is that he could not have known if he was under suspicion.

My whole point is that psychopaths always work from the assumption that they are too clever to ever get under suspicion, and even if they end up as suspects, they believe that they will be able to talk their way out of it.

The whole problem with the "He would have run" argument and the "He would never dare to do that" argument, is that you are not researching the Ripper - you are researching Darryl Kenyon, and concluding that you would NEVER...! No, Sir - way too risky!

These people are not like you and me. Sutcliffe was interviewed NINE times. That should have put him off, right? But did it? No. And why? Because he worked from the assumption that he would not get caught. Or he did not even care, as long as he was free to kill. Experience told him he could go on. If they speak to you nine times and if they canīt nail you, then why stop?
Ridgway was suspected and kept killing.
Gacy was suspected and kept killing.
Bundy got caught and escaped from prison. Did he go to South America and stay calm? Or did he go to Florida and kill a whole bunch of women, leaving his teeth marks on the buttock of one victim?
That is what these guys do. There is no tomorrow for them, there is only here and now when they kill.

Hereīs a question for you, Darryl - would you merrily spend an hour or two in a locked room with Carl Panzram, if he was under suspicion of murder? On account of how you could feel safe in that case?

I know I wouldnīt.

Right, so remind me of Andy Griffiths's reasoning on this one, Fish. When he said he was 'adamant' that a serial killer in Lechmere's position would 'never' have run away [this assumes of course that Lechmere was indeed a serial killer, and not just an innocent witness who stayed to ask the next passer-by to assist], was this not because the killer would have feared the consequences of running and possibly being caught as a result? How would that fit with your ripper being a psychopath? Or was Griffiths only talking about psychopathic serial killers, and saying they would 'never' [that word again] have feared the consequences of running away in those circumstances, but would simply always opt for staying put and talking their way out of it - because they are all clever like that?

Did Griffiths mean 'no serial killer' would ever have run, or 'no psychopathic serial killer'? Was he not referring to the precarious position Lechmere was in if he was the killer, and the risks involved if he had tried to leg it? If not, what exactly was he referring to? Because you seem to be saying that Lechmere, in the ripper's shoes, would have seen no precarious position, but just the irresistible chance to show off how clever he was.

In short, how does your position equate with Griffiths's?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I honestly tried to work up the will to answer the old "He would not have run", "He seems to have been honest" and "Serial killers donīt make children" arguments, but I really couldnīt make myself do it.

Caz dislikes hearing about psychopaths, so letīs ruin her day while at the same time offer the ones who do not know how these people work get educated. This is a very comprehensive video that basically explains all we need to know about psychopathy. Take twelve minutes and wise up, people:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dv8zJiggBs&feature=share

Letīs hope that Caz understands who is the real twit after having watched it...

Thatīs all from me for today.

Just watched the video you recommended, Fish. At around 8 minutes in, I'm told by the expert that psychopaths often don't think in terms of consequences, so they have a tendency to lie, cheat and steal and they tend to have very inconsistent work histories - because they are not able to hold a job.

So much for ruining my day, eh Fishy?

So who is the real twit?

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

And that's why I doubt the police would have confronted Lechmere immediately, had they checked up on him and discovered his name wasn't really Cross, and that he used Lechmere on every occasion except when finding murdered women in the street. That would be evidence of deliberate deception, but not enough to hold him on suspicion of anything worse. He was bound to have an 'innocent' explanation for the name change, whether he was genuinely innocent, or a criminal with something to hide, so there would have been little to gain from asking the question and alerting him to the fact that he was in their sights as more than just an honest witness. And Lechmere would have had no opportunity to explain himself - yet.

If and when he put another foot wrong, however, the police could have been ready and waiting, for all he knew. How much harder would it then have been to find a second or a third 'innocent' explanation, when combined with his one-off use of a different name? For starters, there was the apparent lie he told PC Mizen on the night of the murder, and the apparent lie he told under oath at the inquest, using the wrong name, when he contradicted Mizen's version of their conversation. He had no way of knowing if the police were making careful notes and adding them to concerns they already had about him. He really would have been operating in the dark to pick up Annie Chapman so soon afterwards. Lucky old Lech!

Love,

Caz
X

The whole answer to this in my opinion is very simple.

It matters not what name he used up until the inquest, the point is that any ambiguities regarding this were obviously clarified by then, by the police, as there is no evidence that he was questioned about using different names, or that anyone had any cause for concern about him using different names when he gave his inquest testimony.

This name issue is just another smoke screen Fish is using to paper over the cracks in his wild speculative theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Abby,
The mistake I made,was in wondering if the Australian Andy Griffith was the person reffered to.So I am admitting to that mistake.Does that change things?

[Abby Normal]

No Fisherman and Abby,Griffiths and his credentials do not worry me.The worry seems to be on your side, you being so relient on his continued inclusion to bolster a theory that lacks evidence and credibility.Yes I know an Andy Griffith is an Australian commedian.I did at one time wonder he was the Andy Griffith in the documentary,being as comedy and the theory are so closely related.

We have the statement of Griffith,who is adamant,according to Fisherman,that the killer of Nichols would never have run.What is not included in the statement is WHY,and I suppose,though it is not mentioned,would not hide either.Now do not ask me if hiding was a possibility,the rules seem to be that a claim does not have to have a supporting explanation.If Nichols could reach Bucks Row without being seen or heard,then I see no reason why the killer could not have departed without being seen or heard,hence I see no reason for staying.

Well harry
If you knew that the laughing about Andy griffith was in reference to the australian comedian and not the criminologist then i guess youll admit your mistake when you said people were laughing at the criminologist because his credentials were suspect?

[harry]

No Fisherman and Abby,Griffiths and his credentials do not worry me.The worry seems to be on your side, you being so relient on his continued inclusion to bolster a theory that lacks evidence and credibility.Yes I know an Andy Griffith is an Australian commedian.I did at one time wonder he was the Andy Griffith in the documentary,being as comedy and the theory are so closely related.

We have the statement of Griffith,who is adamant,according to Fisherman,that the killer of Nichols would never have run.What is not included in the statement is WHY,and I suppose,though it is not mentioned,would not hide either.Now do not ask me if hiding was a possibility,the rules seem to be that a claim does not have to have a supporting explanation.If Nichols could reach Bucks Row without being seen or heard,then I see no reason why the killer could not have departed without being seen or heard,hence I see no reason for staying.

[caz]

To be a better suspect, Jack Random needs to be found by a freshly killed victims side, use the name Stupid instead of Random (a wise choice), disagree with the police, just happen to have a daily trek that took him past the murder sites or close to them, have links to St Georges and the Mitre Square area and so on.
The points FOR Lechmere do not go away on account of how you personally believe that he would have run in Bucks Row. Andy Griffiths, indefinitely better suited to understand this than you will ever be, was adamant that he would never have run.

Ooops, Caz.

Not quite sure I follow your drift here, Fish, but if you are saying that Jack Random would make a better suspect than Lechmere if he used the name Stupid and did all those stupid things, how stupid would that make Lechmere in your view, for doing those same stupid things?

Andy Griffiths may have been 'adamant' that the ripper would never have run in the same circumstances that Lechmere found himself in, but that doesn't make Lechmere the ripper, nor does it mean the ripper ever allowed himself to be 'found' [as you like to put it] in those circumstances. You have as much as admitted it yourself - if he did, he might as well have said: "Just call me Stupid".

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Even by 1888 you needed more than just circumstantial evidence for homicide convictions. You couldn't even hold people for very long without evidence, if at all. Witnesses who directly identified someone were the strongest evidence they had outside of being caught red-handed and it is often these types of convictions that are not always sound.

And that's why I doubt the police would have confronted Lechmere immediately, had they checked up on him and discovered his name wasn't really Cross, and that he used Lechmere on every occasion except when finding murdered women in the street. That would be evidence of deliberate deception, but not enough to hold him on suspicion of anything worse. He was bound to have an 'innocent' explanation for the name change, whether he was genuinely innocent, or a criminal with something to hide, so there would have been little to gain from asking the question and alerting him to the fact that he was in their sights as more than just an honest witness. And Lechmere would have had no opportunity to explain himself - yet.

If and when he put another foot wrong, however, the police could have been ready and waiting, for all he knew. How much harder would it then have been to find a second or a third 'innocent' explanation, when combined with his one-off use of a different name? For starters, there was the apparent lie he told PC Mizen on the night of the murder, and the apparent lie he told under oath at the inquest, using the wrong name, when he contradicted Mizen's version of their conversation. He had no way of knowing if the police were making careful notes and adding them to concerns they already had about him. He really would have been operating in the dark to pick up Annie Chapman so soon afterwards. Lucky old Lech!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz

Do you know if Cross would have been given a bit of paper summoning him to the inquest ? Something he could show his place of employment, and also to show the coroner`s officer when he arrives at the inquest ?

No, Jon, but I expect someone here must have some idea.

For me, the point is that Lechmere would surely have had to explain to his boss why he needed the time off. Now I don't know if the boss would simply have taken his word for it, or would have required something official in writing, but I can't believe he could have attended that inquest with the knowledge and agreement of Pickfords, then returned to work, without being asked about it, and without anyone querying the fact that the carman claiming to have found the murder victim gave his name as Charles Cross - if he had absented himself from work as Charles Lechmere.

Did he say nothing to the boss or his workmates about his involvement and just pull a sicky? I suppose that might just have worked if nobody at the inquest knew him by name or sight.

Love,

Caz
X

[Batman]

Last post of mine for now.

People have been tried and convicted for murder on much less evidence than that of the Lechmere case. Hearsay only has sometimes had people hanged, actually.

Not all murder convictions are based on absolute proof. Circumstantial evidence is all that is required in many cases to allow for a conviction.

So wrong again,Batman. When will you get something right? If ever?

Bye.

Even by 1888 you needed more than just circumstantial evidence for homicide convictions. You couldn't even hold people for very long without evidence, if at all. Witnesses who directly identified someone were the strongest evidence they had outside of being caught red-handed and it is often these types of convictions that are not always sound.

[Abby Normal]

No, Abby. But I'm sure it was a Lechmerian who suggested that Lechmere may have killed the following weekend in Hanbury Street in the hope of deflecting suspicion onto Robert Paul. What would that have achieved? If the police had suspected Paul, as the second man on the scene in Buck's Row, they'd have had to suspect Cross, as the first - and to suspect the pair of them of being in cahoots if it was deemed physically impossible for Cross to be innocent and Paul guilty. And that being so, the Hanbury Street location would have done Cross no more favours than Paul.

But I think we can use a bit of common sense here and accept that the two carmen had never met before their encounter with the dead or dying Nichols, and therefore Lechmere would have had no idea who he might shortly be dealing with when he chose to wait for the figure in the distance to materialise.

Love,

Caz
X

HI Caz
I agree with you on this one. I do NOT think lech killed in Hanbury to implicate Paul. IMHO that's going too far.

[Abby Normal]

But they weren't cut right through, were they? No. That's because the Ripper only intended to cut their throats to effect as swift a death as possible before he commenced his eviscerations. The torso victims were decapitated and disarticulated to render them unidentifiable and/or to facilitate the disposal of the bodies. These are wholly different things.

To describe throat-cutting and beheading as a "cut neck" is inaccurate and misleading - in both cases. With particular reference to the torso murders, you wouldn't describe the removal of an entire limb as a "cut leg" or "cut arm", would you?

Hi Sam

The torso victims were decapitated and disarticulated to render them unidentifiable and/or to facilitate the disposal of the bodies.

yes and they may have been kept as trophies. IMHO they probably were-as this is what most post moertem types do with them. The ripper was also a trophy taker.

To describe throat-cutting and beheading as a "cut neck" is inaccurate and misleading - in both cases. With particular reference to the torso murders, you wouldn't describe the removal of an entire limb as a "cut leg" or "cut arm", would you?

[/QUOTE]


totally get what your saying here, but the point to me anyway, is that both the ripper and torso man violently gashed the neck with a knife.The ripper cut so deeply I beleive one of the doctors thought the killer was trying to decapitate chapman. I mean he almost decaptitated her and some of the others the neck wound was so deep. (I know almost isnt the same -but close)

[caz]

Hi Caz
are you being sarcastic with this post? Paul came upon lech who was already by the dead victim. Your not seriously suggesting paul murdered Nichols, left and then circled around to re enter bucks row are you?

No, Abby. But I'm sure it was a Lechmerian who suggested that Lechmere may have killed the following weekend in Hanbury Street in the hope of deflecting suspicion onto Robert Paul. What would that have achieved? If the police had suspected Paul, as the second man on the scene in Buck's Row, they'd have had to suspect Cross, as the first - and to suspect the pair of them of being in cahoots if it was deemed physically impossible for Cross to be innocent and Paul guilty. And that being so, the Hanbury Street location would have done Cross no more favours than Paul.

But I think we can use a bit of common sense here and accept that the two carmen had never met before their encounter with the dead or dying Nichols, and therefore Lechmere would have had no idea who he might shortly be dealing with when he chose to wait for the figure in the distance to materialise.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jon Guy]

. There is no way on God's green earth that using the name Cross at the inquest would have left everyone at his place of work totally in the dark about who this Pickfords carman was.

Hi Caz

Do you know if Cross would have been given a bit of paper summoning him to the inquest ? Something he could show his place of employment, and also to show the coroner`s officer when he arrives at the inquest ?