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

[caz]

And if the Ripper was a psychopath, then it applies that if - IF! - Lechmere was the killer, then he must have been a psychopath. The actions from the murder night and the inquest are certainly totally in line with the suggestion, for example the invention of the second PC, something he would have had minutes only to concoct on his feet - if he was the killer.

If Lechmere was the killer, then he was the killer. I think we gathered that much a million posts ago, Fishy.

The problem is, you have to presume he was the killer, in order to conclude that he cunningly came up with Mizen's second PC [Lechmere himself emphatically denying that he had said anything of the kind, on the reasonable and verifiable grounds that he had seen no policeman in Buck's Row, which was why he and Paul headed off to collar the first PC they did see - Mizen], and was therefore manipulating the situation, like a typical psychopath, in order not to be detained and possibly searched, or asked for any identifying details [which he volunteered later anyway ] - and this argues for him being the killer you had to presume he was in the first place before the charm could be wound up. In the words of the sublime Sinatra, it's witchcraft.

I put it to you that if Lechmere really had told PC Mizen that a policeman wanted him in Buck's Row, he would not have been lying; he would have been making a prediction, which would shortly come true. Was he a psychic as well as a psychopath?

Mizen walks off to Buck's Row and hey presto! There's the policeman predicted by Lechmere, and lo and behold! PC Neil immediately has an errand for him to run - he is sent for an ambulance. So just as he claims the carman told him, there was indeed a second PC who wanted him in Buck's Row. Lechmere didn't invent him at all. Nor do I entertain the idea that Charlie Cross the carman was a clairvoyant.

The only rational conclusion I can come to is that PC Mizen was only human and doing what so many of us do - projecting backwards from actual events: PC Neil in Buck's Row, wanting him to go for the ambulance - to the conversation that initiated them, and getting the message slightly wrong while trying to marry the two.

This may have been a simple and understandable mistake on Mizen's part, but it also served to cover his arse if he failed to report his encounter with the carmen [after failing to take any details from either] until Robert Paul's account of it appeared in the newspaper.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

We have no certainty in that assumption at all.

No absolute certainty but SOME certainty, as I said - there were no logical alternative routes, and he would reasonably work on weekdays. That amounts to some certainty that he passed in near vicinity of or directly by the murder sites in the Spitalfields area.

Gee, Gareth - he DOES make you very nervous, does he not?

[Fisherman]

caz: If Lechmere was the killer, then he was the killer. I think we gathered that much a million posts ago, Fishy.

You see, this is the quality of your criticism - spiteful misrepresentations, with a winking smiley added. Itīs sad.

The problem is, you have to presume he was the killer, in order to conclude that he cunningly came up with Mizen's second PC [Lechmere himself emphatically denying that he had said anything of the kind, on the reasonable and verifiable grounds that he had seen no policeman in Buck's Row, which was why he and Paul headed off to collar the first PC they did see - Mizen], and was therefore manipulating the situation, like a typical psychopath, in order not to be detained and possibly searched, or asked for any identifying details [which he volunteered later anyway ] - and this argues for him being the killer you had to presume he was in the first place before the charm could be wound up. In the words of the sublime Sinatra, it's witchcraft.

Of course there is a link between him likely being the k iller and him lying to Mizen. Does that surprise you?
The problem YOU are having is that you have to presume that Mizen misheard Lechmere or lied about it after wards in order to present an innocent carman, Caz.
So we all have our problems, donīt we?
An added problem on your behalf is that it always was a more complex matter to believe in a mishearing than in a correct hearing, and it was always less likely that a PC would lie than a member of the public. In no case is that an unsurmountable obstacle, but it is a worse presumption in both cases. And so it may be you who employ witchcraft, not me. And witches ARE women, are they not? Or is that misogynistic to say?

I put it to you that if Lechmere really had told PC Mizen that a policeman wanted him in Buck's Row, he would not have been lying; he would have been making a prediction, which would shortly come true. Was he a psychic as well as a psychopath?

You tell me. It is at any rate a very odd thing to do, to surmise that a PC will be in place at the very moment you speak to a colleague of his, twohundred and fifty yards away. So I put it to you that you are discarding the likely explanation for an unlikely one.

Mizen walks off to Buck's Row and hey presto! There's the policeman predicted by Lechmere, and lo and behold! PC Neil immediately has an errand for him to run - he is sent for an ambulance. So just as he claims the carman told him, there was indeed a second PC who wanted him in Buck's Row. Lechmere didn't invent him at all. Nor do I entertain the idea that Charlie Cross the carman was a clairvoyant.

Sorry, but Lechmere DID invent the PC if he spoke of him - because he was NOT there as he and Paul left the site. If you had said "predicted" you would have been less wrong, but wrong nevertheless since Lechmere did not say that he THOUGHT that there was a PC in place or on his way.

The only rational conclusion I can come to is that PC Mizen was only human and doing what so many of us do - projecting backwards from actual events: PC Neil in Buck's Row, wanting him to go for the ambulance - to the conversation that initiated them, and getting the message slightly wrong while trying to marry the two.

Why is it an irrational explanation that Lechmere was the killer and lied about it, Caz? Exactly how is that "irrational"? You are misunderstading yourself - the only explanation you LIKE to think of is that Mizen got it wrong, thatīs how you are reasoning.

This may have been a simple and understandable mistake on Mizen's part, but it also served to cover his arse if he failed to report his encounter with the carmen [after failing to take any details from either] until Robert Paul's account of it appeared in the newspaper.

No, it would not be a simple mistake, it would be a rather complex one, and it would be very strange if he came up with the exact phrasing that would take the carmen past himself, no questions asked. It would furthermore not be something he construed in retrospect, since if he did NOT hear it said from the outset, he would not let Lechmere and Paul pass. Unless he was the complete deaf twit you WANT him to be. And NEED him to be. And HOPE that he is.
How about he had no problems hearing exactly what he was told, and how about that is the reason he did not have to ask twice, and maybe it explains why he let the carmen pass without even taking their names? Meaning that things are exactly what they seem to be?

[Sam Flynn]

No absolute certainty but SOME certainty, as I said - there were no logical alternative routes, and he would reasonably work on weekdays. That amounts to some certainty that he passed in near vicinity of or directly by the murder sites in the Spitalfields area.

You also said "at the relevant times". We have no certainty whatsoever that this was the case in all but the Nichols murder.

[Fisherman]

You also said "at the relevant times". We have no certainty whatsoever that this was the case in all but the Nichols murder.

So you understood that you were wrong about the "some certainty" matter? Good! As for the hours, all we can say is that it seems that a passage through the area at 3-4 Am seems to come close to the probable TOD:s of Tabram, Chapman and Kelly, as given by Killeen, Phillips and the "Murder" cry.

It is another matter that Lechmere could have had these days off or that he could have started working in the afternoon - he MAY have. But on the surface of things, saying that he seems to fit the bill roughly is no overstatement.

You should not regard it as a backdraw that we quite possibly can place him in the area at the correct hours. It is instead an advantage. After all, we ARE trying to solve the case, are we not?

Could it be that we are trying NOT to have the case solved?

[caz]

I asked you a question before. How much was he able to do if he was intent on not presenting the police with obviously false information but wanted to keep paper readers out of the know as much as possible?

So far, I have seen no answer to that question.

Sorry, Fish, I'm still trying to catch up with some of the older posts to this thread.

I see what you are getting at here, but a better bet would have been not to come forward at all, knowing he'd find himself in this unenviable and complex situation you describe above, of trying to keep his identity as the finder of a dead prostitute out of the public domain, while at the same time giving the authorities no reason to question the identifying details he chose to give out. PC Mizen had only seen him briefly, before daylight, and Robert Paul had only described him in the newspaper as 'a man', while making his feelings about the police all too clear. How would anyone have had a prayer of tracking down Lechmere again, let alone confirmed he was the same man? In the vanishingly unlikely event that he came face to face with Mizen and a suddenly co-operative Paul, who both claimed to recognise him, he had only to sport his best psychopath hat and plead ignorance - a clear case of mistaken identity. Failing that, he'd only have been guilty of the same sin as his identifier Robert Paul - not coming forward voluntarily!

You say "Fish's argument that Lechmere would not have been trying to fool the police in this way [because it wouldn't have worked had they checked - obviously] doesn't wash, because the police would not have known this, and he could hardly have explained who he was trying to fool and why".

What are you on about? The police would not have known what? That it would not have worked if they checked?

You may have strained yourself.

If the police had checked with Pickfords, and if there was no carman named Cross on their books, it wouldn't have mattered who Lechmere had or hadn't set out to deceive - the police or anyone else - or why. The deception itself would be what interested the police. That was my point.

I thought you had grasped why setting out to deceive the police in this way would have failed if a routine check had revealed his name as Lechmere, and I thought this was why you claimed the deception was not aimed at the police, but at certain people close to him, who might become suspicious if they saw his real name in the papers.

I really don't see what difference it makes either way. If the police had made enquiries and discovered his real name, which would have been with the assistance of Pickfords or Mrs Lechmere, at the addresses he had provided, the cat would have been out of the bag anyway - unless you wish to refine your argument again and claim the name deception was aimed at certain people other than the police; other than his wife; other than anyone at Pickfords.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

So you understood that you were wrong about the "some certainty" matter? Good!

No. It's YOU who's wrong on that score. There is zero certainty that Cross was anywhere near the other murder sites at the relevant times.

Could it be that we are trying NOT to have the case solved?

The case will not be solved by backing the wrong horses. Or ponies and carts, as the case may be.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: No. It's YOU who's wrong on that score. There is zero certainty that Cross was anywhere near the other murder sites at the relevant times.

Wrong? ME? You are hallucinating, surely? The expression "some certainty" is of course not a good one since certainty is an absolute commodity. So letīs just say that we are speaking of a high degree of plausibility.

The case will not be solved by backing the wrong horses. Or ponies and carts, as the case may be.

That is absolutely true! Backing the correct horses and carts and cart drivers if essential!

[caz]

You HAVE overstrained yourself.

You see complications where there are none. Lechmere had not signed any paper telling the police that he was called Cross at Pickfords, Caz. All he needed to do would be to say that he sometimes used the name or that he simply did so to honour his old stepfather.

It was a risk that could/would involve further interest from the police, but what could they prove, once he had left Mizen behind after having lied to him?

Thatīs correct: Nothing.

And there, in a nutshell, is the rub.

Once this unidentified 'man' had left Mizen behind, whether he lied to him or not, what could they have proved?

According to Fish: Nothing.

So remind me again why, if he was the killer, he would have felt either the need or desire to attend the inquest, with the additional burden of muddying the waters concerning his real surname, to try and pull the wool over the eyes of some nebulous, unspecified individuals who might otherwise become suspicious of him - and been able to prove what?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Sorry, Fish, I'm still trying to catch up with some of the older posts to this thread.

I see what you are getting at here, but a better bet would have been not to come forward at all, knowing he'd find himself in this unenviable and complex situation you describe above, of trying to keep his identity as the finder of a dead prostitute out of the public domain, while at the same time giving the authorities no reason to question the identifying details he chose to give out. PC Mizen had only seen him briefly, before daylight, and Robert Paul had only described him in the newspaper as 'a man', while making his feelings about the police all too clear. How would anyone have had a prayer of tracking down Lechmere again, let alone confirmed he was the same man? In the vanishingly unlikely event that he came face to face with Mizen and a suddenly co-operative Paul, who both claimed to recognise him, he had only to sport his best psychopath hat and plead ignorance - a clear case of mistaken identity. Failing that, he'd only have been guilty of the same sin as his identifier Robert Paul - not coming forward voluntarily!



If the police had checked with Pickfords, and if there was no carman named Cross on their books, it wouldn't have mattered who Lechmere had or hadn't set out to deceive - the police or anyone else - or why. The deception itself would be what interested the police. That was my point.

I thought you had grasped why setting out to deceive the police in this way would have failed if a routine check had revealed his name as Lechmere, and I thought this was why you claimed the deception was not aimed at the police, but at certain people close to him, who might become suspicious if they saw his real name in the papers.

I really don't see what difference it makes either way. If the police had made enquiries and discovered his real name, which would have been with the assistance of Pickfords or Mrs Lechmere, at the addresses he had provided, the cat would have been out of the bag anyway - unless you wish to refine your argument again and claim the name deception was aimed at certain people other than the police; other than his wife; other than anyone at Pickfords.

Love,

Caz
X

Sorry, but I have given my answers in this division too many times to want to do it again. Letīs just say that "he would have run" is an outdated and stale argument since many years back.

[Fisherman]

And there, in a nutshell, is the rub.

Once this unidentified 'man' had left Mizen behind, whether he lied to him or not, what could they have proved?

According to Fish: Nothing.

So remind me again why, if he was the killer, he would have felt either the need or desire to attend the inquest, with the additional burden of muddying the waters concerning his real surname, to try and pull the wool over the eyes of some nebulous, unspecified individuals who might otherwise become suspicious of him - and been able to prove what?

Love,

Caz
X

1. He would have gone to the inquest in order not to be named the prime suspect.

2. He would have had the aim to defuse whatever nefarious ideas about himself the police could have had.

It is dead easy, really - if, that is, you put your mind to it.

[caz]

Why is it that I never find any logical line in your posts that I can criticize? Itīs like swimming in a diarrhea.

Fortunately, I wouldn't know, Fish. I don't have your experience as I don't swim in the same bowl.

Going through the motions...

And you always write little plays with funny characters saying stupid things that are totally unrelated to what I have stated.

Somehow, you are trying to get away with the idea that Charles Lechmere always had to think about how jobrelated a matter he commented on was before he could decide whether to think of himself as Charles Cross or Charles Lechmere.

I could write a REALLY funny sketch about that.

Possibly, but it would only be related to your overly complicated idea of what idea I was trying to get away with. It was merely the suggestion that if someone is always known at his place of work as Cross, it would make sense to use that name when requesting absence from work to attend an inquest as the person who found a body on the way to work.

How is that so implausible?

But why would I? All the laughter it could bring down from the rest of the posters could never hide the fact that you - the target for the sketch - would probably not be able to understand it.

Now that is funny, considering your own admitted failure to comprehend my 'little plays'.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

1. He would have gone to the inquest in order not to be named the prime suspect.

We can stop there really.

How was he going to be 'named' as anything, had he not attended? Mr Unknown Prime Suspect? That's about the worst name he could have been saddled with.

Just like the previous man to see Nichols, whoever that was, and whether or not he killed her.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

We can stop there really.

How was he going to be 'named' as anything, had he not attended? Mr Unknown Prime Suspect? That's about the worst name he could have been saddled with.

Just like the previous man to see Nichols, whoever that was, and whether or not he killed her.

Love,

Caz
X

His REAL name would not be known, but he would nevertheless be the prime suspect. That is no anomaly at all; many people whose names we do not have have been crowned the prime suspect in many a case.

Trying to make a meal out of how his name would no be known is not the way to go about things, Caz. Not that I am surprised - it is in perfect line with your normal debating technique - but it is nevertheless dumb.

He was known by sight by Paul and Mizen, and he would be sought for as the probable killer if he did NOT report in at the cop shop.

Keep in mind that all the information about when he left home, when Paul arrived, how close they were in time and so on was NOT known until Lechmere supplied that (in all probability false) information. So the police would have a man on their hands who had been found alone with the victim at a remove in time that was consistent with being her killer and for all the police knew, he could have been alone with her for half an hour.

[rjpalmer]

If you're a psychopath at night, you're also a psychopath at the breakfast table.

It's hard-wired; you can't turn it on and off like a hot water tap.

So, it seems to me, if you want to argue your suspect is a psychopath, then you need to show some empirical evidence for it--a history of violent, criminal, or irrational and antisocial behavior.

Anything. Even a whisper.

Since you can't do this, Fish, you respond by saying that he was 'successfully sinister.' He stayed below the radar. He was never identified as this lying, cheating, person.

So, in other words, you have nothing to distinguish him from M.J. Druitt, Sir William Gull, Booth, Barnett, Maybrick, the local Vicar, Frederick Charrington, etc etc, or any other random person that we can similarly claim was a psychopath but who 'stayed below the radar.'

Ripperologists love to name this or that person as 'the Ripper.' Few like to actually point to people with a known history of psychopathic behavior, be it Ostrog, Deeming, Cream, Tumblety, etc.