Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

Good point, ero.

In this regard I always think of Dr Harold Shipman, and wonder how many more victims he might have gone on to murder, if he hadn't stupidly used his own faulty typewriter to forge the will of one of the old ladies he had just done in, leaving all her money to her wonderfully caring GP, instead of to her grieving and understandably suspicious daughter.

He either thought he was invincible by that point, and all those around him must be fools, or part of him wanted the world to know just how prolific a killer he was, and how easy it had been for him to make a career of it without anyone suspecting a thing. What was the point of it all if nobody would ever know he was outstanding in his field - like an invisible farmer?

For Lechmere to have stayed at the scene in Buck's Row just for the thrill of nearly being caught makes little sense to me if he wanted to go on doing his thing over the weeks and months to come. It would be like Shipman forging the will - badly - of one of his earliest victims, before he could even get into his stride.

Love,

Caz
X

If Lechmere was a psychopath and the killer, then he did not stay in Bucks Row for "the thrill of nearly being caught", Caz. You need to read up on psychopathy!

[Dickere]

What would interest me at least would be for the barrister to look at things from both the prosecution and defence sides. Bearing in mind innocent until proven guilty, I'd love to know what he'd raise as possible reasonable doubts to lead to a not guilty verdict.

[caz]

He does have something of an Albert Fish about him, but would the photo look "disturbing" to you if it was uncoloured by the Ripper case?

The old boy worked his balls off in Victorian England while raising a dozen kids. I'm not surprised he looked dead inside.

This is the bit I don't get, Harry. How did the poor sod have the time or the opportunity to relive his murder experiences in comfort and privacy, with the aid of the body parts he removed? Isn't this usually a trait of the psychopathic, organ-harvesting serial killer, who operates on the streets and can't take his freshly killed victims with him? What were the organs for, if not trophies to feel and admire until they rotted, reminding him of what he'd achieved?

Did Lechmere just chuck them in the bin before he got to work, or take them home and hide them at the back of the wardrobe?

"Oh do come to bed, Charles dear. I want to pop out another one in 9 months' time."

"Damn the woman's eyes, I was just about to fondle the kidney I took in Mitre Square."

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If Lechmere was a psychopath and the killer, then he did not stay in Bucks Row for "the thrill of nearly being caught", Caz. You need to read up on psychopathy!

How do you explain Shipman and that typewriter then?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Christer,

Thank you for your views on the Mizen, Lechmere and Paul issue which you took great pains to write. I have previously studied this quite closely before writing. I feel as I explained previously - some things we know, some things we don't know, some info contradicts, and some is at least partly incorrect. We make our own assumptions from what we read.

I never said anything about Blink Films and Scobie.

[Fisherman]

How do you explain Shipman and that typewriter then?

The way it always is explained, Caz. And should be. Shipman got sloppy, simple as that. That´s more or less how they all go down; they get sloppy. And that is for a reason.

As I said, Lechmere would NOT have stayed put in Bucks Row for "the thrill of being nearly caught". A psychopath does not harbour any of the fear linked to that kind of thrills at all. He works from the presumption that he is smarter than the rest of us and so he will NOT get caught. There is therefore no thrill involved as there is no risk.

If I was to guess, I´d say that Lechmere may have thought it a bummer that he was not able to pull that stunt again, since he probably enjoyed it very much.

What we must understand about psychopaths is that they are basically fearless. They are physically unable to panic, for example, which is why I think Lechmere had a great advantage as he thought up his plan with the extra PC and how he would pass by any PC he met. While you and me would have gone "****, how am I going to get out of this?? Maybe I can... No, that won´t work! Should I...? Damn it, i can´t think straight!!!", a psychopath calmly considers his alternatives and chooses the one he likes best. It need not be the cleverest or least dangerous alternative, it may well be a much more perilous choice - but he never once entertains the idea that he won´t be able to pull it off.

We somethimes call somebody who calmly walk out into a bullet rain, gun in hand, and singlehandedly kill half a platoon of enemies a hero. But such a person is most likely a psychopath, and so he does not have to overcome any fear. And he never for a second thinks that he will end up dead. He thinks the other guys will, though.

And that is what brings us full circle to Shipman. A psychopath who takes precautions not to get caught, and who over and over again manages to stay uncaught, will always run the risk of thinking "I´m too clever for them, I won´t even need to take those precautions, they will never see through me anyway!"

And so he uses his own typewriter.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

Thank you for your views on the Mizen, Lechmere and Paul issue which you took great pains to write. I have previously studied this quite closely before writing. I feel as I explained previously - some things we know, some things we don't know, some info contradicts, and some is at least partly incorrect. We make our own assumptions from what we read.

We do indeed.

I never said anything about Blink Films and Scobie.

No? I could have sworn that you in post 721 said "I wonder what evidence James Scobie had, and what he didn't have."

Maybe I misunderstood that, though?

[erobitha]

As I said, Lechmere would NOT have stayed put in Bucks Row for "the thrill of being nearly caught". A psychopath does not harbour any of the fear linked to that kind of thrills at all. He works from the presumption that he is smarter than the rest of us and so he will NOT get caught. There is therefore no thrill involved as there is no risk.

Not true. Psychopaths fear their own death. There is no evidence that suggests they do not. The risk in Victorian times would be getting hung for murder. The sensation of avoiding that is worth something. Look at how Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy kept up their acts as long as they could, still trying to convince those around them they were innocent up until the end. They do fear being caught otherwise every psychopathic killer would be easily found and incarcerated. Why bother to bury victims? Why bother cleaning up crime scenes? They are not catatonic robots. Their addiction is to feel some form of sensation. That is why they kill in the first place. That is why they rape. That is why they engage in necrophilia. It is why they do what they do. That is why they want to live and not die. These things break through the general numbness of life. They take huge risks to increase that sensation and thrill. It is why Jack escalated.

What we must understand about psychopaths is that they are basically fearless. They are physically unable to panic, for example, which is why I think Lechmere had a great advantage as he thought up his plan with the extra PC and how he would pass by any PC he met. While you and me would have gone "****, how am I going to get out of this?? Maybe I can... No, that won´t work! Should I...? Damn it, i can´t think straight!!!", a psychopath calmly considers his alternatives and chooses the one he likes best. It need not be the cleverest or least dangerous alternative, it may well be a much more perilous choice - but he never once entertains the idea that he won´t be able to pull it off.

It's not that a psychopath has no feelings at all, that can switch empathy on and off actually - which makes them excellent manipulators. By default, their empathy setting is set to off. Psychopaths are not completely fearless. That is a generalisation. Psychopathy is a spectrum made up of elements that are nurture, nature and various and anti-social traits. Fearlessness tends to exhibit more with those with secondary psychopathy. The link below says “These results contradict the low-fear model of psychopathy and suggest that the low fear observed for psychopaths in previous studies may be specific to secondary psychopaths”

https://www.psypost.org/2016/06/brain-activity-study-suggests-psychopaths-not-fearless-thought-43373

We sometimes call somebody who calmly walk out into a bullet rain, gun in hand, and singlehandedly kill half a platoon of enemies a hero. But such a person is most likely a psychopath, and so he does not have to overcome any fear. And he never for a second thinks that he will end up dead. He thinks the other guys will, though.

Low anxiety is not the same as no fear at all. Again, you have used a generalisation.

And that is what brings us full circle to Shipman. A psychopath who takes precautions not to get caught, and who over and over again manages to stay uncaught, will always run the risk of thinking "I´m too clever for them, I won´t even need to take those precautions, they will never see through me anyway!"

And so he uses his own typewriter.

In the case of Shipman, he did harbour a superioty complex based on intelligence and "playing God" was something that gave him an overwhelming sense of power. That in turn led to carelessness with the typewriter.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Christer, I didn't mention Blink Films, so stop pretending that I did. What on earth could possibly be controversial about wondering what evidence Scobie had? We don't know whether he is an enthusiastic knowledgeable ripperologist, or whether he just expressed an opinion after reading selected information. We all know that the quality of decision making depends on the quality of the known information considered

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I've done a similar thing, but have chosen Lechmere's time of arrival at Broad Street Station at 4 o'clock as a starting point. I've further assumed, based on something Dusty wrote on another thread, that the entrance for Lechmere's work would be in Worship Street, which was about 1280 meters from where the men met Mizen.

This is what I come up with. P.S. I think that 3.25 mph comes closer to average walking speed.

(with 1280 meters between meeting point Mizen and entrance Broad Street)
Walking at an average speed of 3.75 mph (6.03 kmph):
4:00:00 am arrival at work
3:47:14 am departure from Mizen
3:46:54 am start conversation with Mizen
3:43:54 am departure from crime spot
3:43:34 am start examination body
3:43:04 am Lechmere hears & sees Paul
3:36:04 am Lechmere leaves home

Walking at an average speed of 3.5 mph (5.56 kmph):
4:00:00 am arrival at work
3:46:20 am departure from Mizen
3:46:00 am start conversation with Mizen
3:42:50 am departure from crime spot
3:42:20 am start examination body
3:41:50 am Lechmere hears & sees Paul
3:34:50 am Lechmere leaves home

Walking at an average speed of 3.25 mph (5.23 kmph):
4:00:00 am arrival at work
3:45:18 am departure from Mizen
3:44:58 am start conversation with Mizen
3:41:31 am departure from crime spot
3:41:01 am start examination body
3:40:31 am Lechmere hears & sees Paul
3:33:31 am Lechmere leaves home

In all of the above, I’ve assumed that:

• it took Paul 30 seconds to arrive & for the 2 men to then walk over to Nichols
• the examination of the body and decision to go look for a PC took 30 seconds
• the meeting/conversation with Mizen took 20 seconds

If you think one, two or all took longer than that (as you do), the time you would add can be deducted from the time “Lechmere leaves home”. Also, of course, if where Lechmere entered his place of work wasn’t in Worship Street, then the distance would increase by a couple of hundreds of meters/yards and the time by 2-3 minutes.

Anyhow, the time when "Lechmere leaves home" aren't much off, if at all, with what Lechmere stated at the inquest: "I left home about half-past 3 on Friday morning"

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Yes, those all look fine. Again, with having to estimate the duration of some of the events, walking speeds, and so forth, these are the kinds of things that create that margin of error in the estimations. I recall getting the average walking speed from some studies, but again, that too will just be an estimate and somewhere between 3-4 mph would be safe to work with. And again, using different parameters, all within reasonable ranges, you've also come to the same conclusion. That's a good thing as it shows the robustness of the finding (it's not been "fudged" by choosing just the right values to make it work).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

If he left home at 3.30.he should be at the murder site at 3.37. The claim of the police and the coroner was that the body was found at 3.45. That means that going on these figures, he was in Bucks Row around 8 minutes to late.
After that, we can juggle with figures as much as we want to, which is what you do. But there you are.

The body was found by PC Neil at 3:45, not Cross/Lechmere. PC Mizen was talking to Cross/Lechmere and Paul at that time. Paul estimated it was 4 minutes from the time he saw the body until they met PC Mizen, and the distance from the crime scene to PC Mizen, as you can see, would take approx. 3 minutes, allowing for about a minute to examine the body. That means, Cross/Lechmere is at the body around 3:40, minus the time for Paul to catch up, so he gets there around 3:39:30ish. And leaving home around 3:30 for a 7 minute walk, basically eats up all the time.

Once one places Cross/Lechere in the correct location at 3:45, there's no missing minutes.

It's not juggling Christer, it's not my opinion, it's math.

- Jeff

[Dickere]

The body was found by PC Neil at 3:45, not Cross/Lechmere. PC Mizen was talking to Cross/Lechmere and Paul at that time. Paul estimated it was 4 minutes from the time he saw the body until they met PC Mizen, and the distance from the crime scene to PC Mizen, as you can see, would take approx. 3 minutes, allowing for about a minute to examine the body. That means, Cross/Lechmere is at the body around 3:40, minus the time for Paul to catch up, so he gets there around 3:39:30ish. And leaving home around 3:30 for a 7 minute walk, basically eats up all the time.

Once one places Cross/Lechere in the correct location at 3:45, there's no missing minutes.

It's not juggling Christer, it's not my opinion, it's math.

- Jeff

We don't know what time Lechmere left home though, only what time he said he left. If he was late for work as he said, would he really be likely to stop for what was probably a drunk woman laying in the street ?

[Abby Normal]

The body was found by PC Neil at 3:45, not Cross/Lechmere. PC Mizen was talking to Cross/Lechmere and Paul at that time. Paul estimated it was 4 minutes from the time he saw the body until they met PC Mizen, and the distance from the crime scene to PC Mizen, as you can see, would take approx. 3 minutes, allowing for about a minute to examine the body. That means, Cross/Lechmere is at the body around 3:40, minus the time for Paul to catch up, so he gets there around 3:39:30ish. And leaving home around 3:30 for a 7 minute walk, basically eats up all the time.

Once one places Cross/Lechere in the correct location at 3:45, there's no missing minutes.

It's not juggling Christer, it's not my opinion, it's math.

- Jeff

hi jeff
dosnt Paul say he entered bucks row at 3:45. so its not strictly the math but choosing who you want to believe was correct about their time, no?

[AlanG]

What is it with 3:45am in this particular murder?

[JeffHamm]

hi jeff
dosnt Paul say he entered bucks row at 3:45. so its not strictly the math but choosing who you want to believe was correct about their time, no?

Hi Abby,

That's from the Lloyd's article though, in which he also goes into detail about all the things he spoke to PC Mizen about. However, Fisherman's theory is that Paul never spoke to PC Mizen, and at times it is suggested Paul didn't even stop and only Cross/Lechmere spoke to PC Mizen. If we, however, decide that despite all the other bits suggested to be lies by Paul in that article that his one bit of truth is the time, then that means one then has to argue that both PC Mizen and PC Neil lied about the time while under oath.

In short, one has to speculate that everybody, including Paul, is lying about the times and locations, except when Paul says he entered Buck's Row. It feels too much like cherry picking to me, and the far more realistic interpretation is that Paul was showing a bit of bravado, or perhaps may have been led into overstating things by the reporter, and that the details (like the time; how much he said; what he said, etc) are the less reliable than those given under oath at the inquest, which provide a more consistent description.

But, if people want to choose that time as being the one sane anchor in a raging sea of false belief, nothing I, or multiple independent testimonies, suggest to the contrary will shift them.

- Jeff