Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

Of course there’s risk involved Fish. No one could deny that. But remaining at the scene was close to handing himself in.

No, it was not. Remaining at the stage would, to begin with, only make him come in contact with a civilian, not with the police. From there, he would be able to decide what to do: bluff the oncomer, kill him if he was suspicious, go off in another direction when they left and so on. There would have been nothing at all that was tantamount to handing himself in, would there? The suggestion is wrong from the outset.
What I firmly believe is that Lechmere quicly realized that walking with Paul gave the perfect impression of two workmates en route to their job, and that combo would decidely not be what the police would have sought for. They would have expected a lone killer.

Of course, it was only when the police was involved that any real risk would be there, and as we all know, it seems he had the perfect lie ready to take him past any policeman, and so there was not much of a risk there either.

Last, but not least: If, as was almost certainly the case, the killer was of a psychopathic nature, psychopaths most certainly do not measure risks the way we do. They are often totally inclined to think that they are so superior to the rest of us, PC:s involved, that there can be no real risk involved in dealing with either category.

But we are not entering the hamster wheel of repetition again, and it would be nice if I did not need to explain the exact same things over and over and over again.

[John Wheat]

One upon a time, many people found it ridiculous when they had it suggested to them that the world was spheric, John. What you personally find ridiculous is therefore something I weigh it against what the people, some well versed in Ripperology, say. And when I do, I find that your take on things is nothing I have to worry about.
It would be nice, though, if you could bring something valuable to the table once in a while, in stead of repeatedly puking about how Lechmere is a bad suspect. Then again, such a thing takes knowledge and motivation in combination, and we are not quite there, perhaps.

Ta-da.

You never bring anything new to the table yourself you just repeat the same old bullshit about Lechmere. All there is against Lechmere is that he found a body. And that he used a different name albeit one that could easily be traced back to him.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, of course they would. IF they stopped him and IF he had lots of blood on his hands. But how does that mean that a killer who did not anticipate to be disturbed when cutting into the belly of a victim, and who certainly would not have expected to engage in conversation with a PC on the night would never have decided to bluff an oncoming civilian?
How do we, for example, know that Lechmere had not made the decision to kill Paul if he seemed to understand what Lechmere was about? And how do we know that he had not checked his hands for blood as Paul arrived? All it would take would be a quick glance and some little rubbing of the hands, and he would know if they were in any way wet or not.
And again, we are dealing with a man who cut out innards from women in public spots. Let´s never forget that.

And you are yet again ducking and diving avoiding having to answer direct questions if Lechmere had been the killer and he had a significant amount of blood on his hands which you would expect given the position the body would have had to have been in for the throat to be cut, and the blood that would flow from that type of wound I would expect a significant amount to be transferred to the killers hands.

Where and how would he have been able to clean his hands given that the blood on his hands would dry on his hands almost as soon as it hit the morning air.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, of course they would. IF they stopped him and IF he had lots of blood on his hands. But how does that mean that a killer who did not anticipate to be disturbed when cutting into the belly of a victim, and who certainly would not have expected to engage in conversation with a PC on the night would never have decided to bluff an oncoming civilian?
How do we, for example, know that Lechmere had not made the decision to kill Paul if he seemed to understand what Lechmere was about? And how do we know that he had not checked his hands for blood as Paul arrived? All it would take would be a quick glance and some little rubbing of the hands, and he would know if they were in any way wet or not.
And again, we are dealing with a man who cut out innards from women in public spots. Let´s never forget that.

I’d say because he had no reason to bluff him. Why take the risk when there was a better alternative in simply walking or running away. I doubt we’re ever going to agree on this point as we’ve spent many hours on it in the past. Your second point raises another question worth asking Fish. Why did Lechmere risk walking to see a Constable with Paul when he could have just killed him and solved his problem?

[Fisherman]

I’d say because he had no reason to bluff him. Why take the risk when there was a better alternative in simply walking or running away. I doubt we’re ever going to agree on this point as we’ve spent many hours on it in the past. Your second point raises another question worth asking Fish. Why did Lechmere risk walking to see a Constable with Paul when he could have just killed him and solved his problem?

We will never agree, perhaps. To me, the one and only thing that matters is that you must concede yourself that the misgivings you personally have are not something that means that Lechmere could not have been the killer. It is a matter you find more illogical than logical, whereas I find it more logical than illogical. And so it has no value as a clincher in either direction.

I thought I explained why he did not kill Paul, as far as I am concerned: because Paul offered a possibility to look innocent, walking together. It may of course also be that Lechmere perceived Paul as a much harder kill than a drunken woman.

[Fisherman]

You never bring anything new to the table yourself you just repeat the same old bullshit about Lechmere.

I have brought hundreds of aspects about Lechmere to the table, so you are very much mistaken. I am not the one with a one-line performance out here.

All there is against Lechmere is that he found a body. And that he used a different name albeit one that could easily be traced back to him.

If you have failed to understand that there are different views about that, it would be truly sad.

Again ta-da.

[Fisherman]

And you are yet again ducking and diving avoiding having to answer direct questions if Lechmere had been the killer and he had a significant amount of blood on his hands which you would expect given the position the body would have had to have been in for the throat to be cut, and the blood that would flow from that type of wound I would expect a significant amount to be transferred to the killers hands.

Yes, you would perhaps expect that. Jason Payne James said that he would not necessaarily have expected much or indeed any blood on the hands. So how does that make me ducking and diving, Trevor? Is it not more a case of me providing expert-based counterpoints to your ideas, counterpoints that you may not like but will have to live with?

Where and how would he have been able to clean his hands given that the blood on his hands would dry on his hands almost as soon as it hit the morning air.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Where and how did I suggest that he DID clean his hands? Where and how do we have evidence that he needed to? Where and how do we know that he would have cared? Where and how is it impossible for him to have rubbed his hands against each other and felt that there was no significant amount of wet blood on them?
Again this is the same old, same old. It does not represent any obstacle for the Lechmere theory in any way and it never did. So can we move on? And could you stop claiming that I duck and dive when I never do? Or present evidence that I do? Put up or shut of, sort of?

[John Wheat]

If you have failed to understand that there are different views about that, it would be truly sad.

Again ta-da.

So what? If Lechmere was not the Ripper and the evidence suggests that he wasn't then you have wasted your time.

[Fisherman]

So what? If Lechmere was not the Ripper and the evidence suggests that he wasn't then you have wasted your time.

Yes, and if he WAS the killer as suggested by the evidence, then you have wasted your time and made a fool of yourself in the process. To be fair, I consider that the latter applies even if he was not the killer, but I don´t think you need to fear that.

I´ll try again: Ta-da.

[Darryl Kenyon]

No, it was not. Remaining at the stage would, to begin with, only make him come in contact with a civilian, not with the police.

How did he know the approaching civilian was not a policeman ? Even an off duty one. Or even someone who once served with the force

[John Wheat]

Yes, and if he WAS the killer as suggested by the evidence, then you have wasted your time and made a fool of yourself in the process. To be fair, I consider that the latter applies even if he was not the killer, but I don´t think you need to fear that.

I´ll try again: Ta-da.

Face it Fisherman there is no evidence that Lechmere was the killer. Therefore you have wasted your time.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Following on from my last post. How did Lech not know that the policeman him and Paul set out to encounter would not be as lax as Mizen ? He could have easily been an experienced and intuitive officer who would immediately question Lech, and possibly search him further.

[Darryl Kenyon]

However much blood the killer might or might not have got on his hands Fish we surely at least have to accept the very real possibility (even probability) that the killer would have had some blood on his hands plus a bloodied knife. When he heard Paul approaching he had the opportunity to walk away into the darkness. By the time that Paul arrived at the body, checked and found that she was dead, perhaps 30, 40 or 50 seconds would have passed by which time the killer would have left Bucks Row. Anyone that he ‘might’ have bumped into wouldn’t have known about the murder and would have paid little attention to him especially in the poorly lit streets. And how many people who decide to chase after a knife-wielding killer?

Yes ther are always risks but taking flight was a massively less risky option for the killer. By waiting for Paul to arrive Lechmere couldn’t have failed to realise that getting a Constable would have been suggested. This would have meant first walking past street lamps with the chance of Paul spotting blood plus the added risk of close questioning by a Constable with a request to “turn out your pockets.’

Of course there were massive risks involved in killing a woman in the streets but the killer killed because he was compelled to do so and would probably have intended to continue doing so (as he did) To do this, very obviously, he needed to remain at liberty. So why the absolutely needless risk when a far lower risk option was available. And let’s face it, this wasn’t a complex decision.

Agreed Herlock. Lech could easily have lost himself on the Whitechapel rd, being just another face , or stay secluded down the maze of darkened streets and alleyways if he chose.

Regards Darryl

[Fisherman]

Following on from my last post. How did Lech not know that the policeman him and Paul set out to encounter would not be as lax as Mizen ? He could have easily been an experienced and intuitive officer who would immediately question Lech, and possibly search him further.

Answer: Lechmere could not know what gifts and talents any PC he would come across would be possesed of.
Question 1: What killer CAN?
Question 2: How many killers have refrained from killing on account of this factor? I have a guess, but you may have the actual number, perhaps?

[Abby Normal]

How did he know the approaching civilian was not a policeman ? Even an off duty one. Or even someone who once served with the force

hi dk
to me it wouldnt matter who it was and lech(if guilty) probably didnt know either. it could be he was just surprised by it and in a split second decided to not flee and try to bluff it out. there is flight or flight in animals and humans we all know but psychologists have also said there is a third option.. freeze. it could be lech simply froze in that instant.

i was one fishes biggest critics when he first proposed lech and was for a while but my stance softened when i was involved in a similar situation. ive stated before so just to be brief: i was walking back to my car in a darkened lonely parking lot after a night of partying in Georgetown(DC). as i turned a corner to enter the lot i came across a man standing near another downed man. he said something along the lines of this guy is hurt go get get help. so i went and found a cop and brought him back. the standing man was gone and the downed man was coming round and told us it was the standing man that had knocked him out. not exactly the same situation as lech but similar. he didnt fight he didnt flee right off, but stayed and bluffed it out until he could get away. ive been more amenable to fishs theory ever since. and also over time in analyzing the whole circs with lech ive come to realize hes not that bad of a suspect, he has other yellow flags.

do i think he was the ripper? no, but i think hes a worthy of a good long hard look, and frankly im quite baffled by the hysterical almost knee jerk vitriol against him. IMHO fish should be commended for his theory and research into him. these are exactly the type of valid suspects that need looking into.