Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

It easy to prove that the "documentary" is full incorrect statements and opinion presented as facts.

Just before Jame Scobie is quoted it said "He was found standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols.. Lechmere was alone with her for longer than he admits. Lechmere then lied to the police and gave false details at the inquest. And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area. Wearing blood stained overalls his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred."

"He was found standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols" - This statement is provably false. Robert Paul testified Lechmere was "standing in the middle of the road".

"Lechmere was alone with her for longer than he admits." - This statement is based on fudging the times. It starts by using 3:20am, the time Lechmere usually left for work, instead of 3:30am, the time Lechmere testified he left for work. It further fudges the time by assuming a ten minute walk would take 7 minutes or less. It fudges the time a third time by ignoring the time estimates of Lechmere and of all three of the first policemen to arrive in favor of the time estimate of Robert Paul.

It also ignores that the Ripper inflicted far worse mutilations in Catherine Eddowes body in only about 10 minutes. If the Ripper had 18 minutes alone with Polly Nichols he could have inflicted all of the actual mutilations and been 10 minutes walk down the street by the time Robert Paul arrived. An 18 minute time gap contradicts the idea that Lechmere was the Ripper, interrupted in his work.

"Lechmere then lied to the police..." - Lechmere's testimony contradicted PC Mizen's testimony. If that's proof that Lechmere was the Ripper, then it also proves Robert Paul was the Ripper, since he also contradicted PC Mizzen. This whole phrase is based on "guilty until proven innocent". It assumes that Lechmere was lying while completely ignoring the possibilities of Mizen lying or Mizen misunderstanding what Lechmere said.

"...and gave false details at the inquest." - Lechmere gave no provably false details at the Inquest. He did use his stepfather's surname as he had done in 1876 in an accidental death case. It's not unusual for men to use a stepfather's surname. It is unusual for men to use a stepfather's surname part of the time and their father's surname part of the time, but Lechmere had started doing that at over a decade before the first Ripper murder. It does not prove that Lechemere "gave false details at the inquest", let alone that he was the Ripper.

"And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area." - this statement is provably false. Charles Lechmere's family moved to the area decades before the Ripper killings began.

"Wearing blood stained overalls..." - Carmen wore sack aprons. Nobody present at the time noticed bloodstains on Lechmere. Lechmere worked for Pickford's, not a meat packing plant, so a bloodstained apron would have been an occasional on-the-job hazard for those times he carried meat and it was improperly packed.

"...his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred." - this statement is provably false. Lechmere's job placed him at one of the killings around the time that it occurred - Polly Nichols. Martha Tabram was killed near Lechmere's route to work and might have been killed while he was walking to work. Annie Chapman was killed while Lechmere was at work. Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly were not killed along Lechmere's route to work and they were not killed on work days.

Scobie said "The timings really hurt him because she could have been very very recently fatally killed. You can inflict injuries, as I'm sure a pathologist will tell you, with a knife in seconds and the question is, "where were you?" "what were you doing during that time?" Because actually he has never given a proper answer. He is somebody who seems to be acting in a way, behaving in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like. A jury would not like that. When the coincidences add up, mount up against a defendant, and they mount up in this case, it becomes one coincidence too many. The fact that there is a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, of which he is linked geographically and physically, you add all those points together, piece it all together and the prosecution have the most probative powerful material the courts use against individual suspects. What we would say is that he has got a prima facie case to answer which means there is a case good enough to put before a jury which suggests that he was the killer."

The timing do not hurt Lechmere. Lechmere did not act in a suspicious manner. Lechmere was not physically linked to a "pattern of offending". Lechmere was one of hundreds if not thousands who lived and worked in the area,It seems clear Scobie was fed a mix of false information and opinion masquerading as facts. As the old computer saying goes - GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Once again, Fiver, the task at hand for you if you want to prove that Scobie was misinformed is to point out the exact nature of HIS material - not point to what was said in the documentary.

[Harry D]

Thatīs an odd question, isnīt it? What would Lechmere have to do to convince me of his innocence? Are you asking me to identify an act of sorts that would more or less guarantee innocence? If that is what you are after, then Iīd say that unless this act PROVED innocence, it could always be interpreted as an effort by Lechmere to clear himself.

Not quite as odd as your response, Fish. You've more or less admitted that any innocent behaviour on Lechmere's part would be interpreted as a smokescreen. He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. That's the problem with suspect-based theories in general, you take a presumption of guilt and work backwards to interpret the facts through this prism.

My money is on Lechmere being a psychopath. Psychopaths are very likely to try and con people and play games, if you like.

What reasons and qualifications do you have to describe Lechmere as a psychopath? Although, I think the correct term is antisocial personality disorder, since psychopath is not an actual medical term. But again, what foundation do you have to make this diagnosis?

So letīs imagine that Charles Lechmere was recorded as shouting at the top of his voice in Buckīs Row:

"Hey, thereīs a woman who needs help out here, she seems to be in a bad way! Anybody!!"

And then, when say Walter Purkiss opened his window and asked what was afoot, Lechmere would go "Please get out here quickly and see what you can do for this woman, while I run for help!"

At this stage, Paul would have arrived, and we can imagine that Lechmere would have directed him to go looking for a policeman in the other direction from the one he took himself, saying "Run, man, quickly! I believe the woman needs help swiftly!"

And then he would run off himself like a scolded troll, find Mizen and usher him towards the murder site, all the while going "Please, constable, quicker!".

This all sounds overdramatized and exaggerated. I can't think of any other witnesses reacting in such an hysterical way, notwithstanding those who found something ghoulish. It wasn't apparent to the two carmen whether Nichols was dead or not, let alone brutally murdered.

[FrankO]

We don't know what time Lechmere left home though, only what time he said he left.

Hi Dickere,

True, of course, but if we can do the math with a 'starting time' of 3.30 and an 'end time' of 3.45, leaving a gap of some 8 minutes for Lechmere to have been alone with Nichols, then so could the police of the day, and, perhaps more importantly, so could a guilty Lechmere. If he was Nichols’s killer, he would have had some idea of how long he'd been with her when he heard Paul. So, why wouldn’t he say he left home at about 3.35 or shortly after 3.30?

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 ?

As Jeff said, Lechmere stated that he was “behind time”, which doesn’t necessarily mean late for work as Jeff also explained. It may even be that he only got “behind time” because he stopped to for a woman lying in the street. Since Lechmere gives us no reason to believe that he sometimes or often saw drunk or sleeping women in Buck’s Row, seeing that the woman was motionless and soundless, he might well have thought the woman wasn’t just drunk or sleeping and stopped to take a closer look for that reason.

[Fisherman]

Not quite as odd as your response, Fish. You've more or less admitted that any innocent behaviour on Lechmere's part would be interpreted as a smokescreen.

COULD be interpreted as a smokescreen, Harry. Plus I pointed out that my saying so would likely make people go : "You just admitted..." - and Heureka, what did you just do?

If it wasnīt so sad, it would be hilarious.

He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

For the simple reason that I pointed out to you: Any thing he did to make himself look better if he was the killer is always a risk to buy as being a sign of innocence.

That's the problem with suspect-based theories in general, you take a presumption of guilt and work backwards to interpret the facts through this prism.

I know exactly which risks I run. One of them is that some people think that some things PROVE innocence; crying, hurrying for help, aiding at a murder site etcetera. It is naive to do so, Harry. Of course, in 99 per cent of the cases, such things WILL be benevolent inclusions, but with a dishonest psychopath in place, there MUST be room for another interpretation. I think that if you really put your mind to it, you will realize how this works.
I did my utmost not to have you going on the way you do, I warned you that some people would take that stance - but to no avail whatsoever. Itīs priceless. I rarely have other posters proving things for me like that.

What reasons and qualifications do you have to describe Lechmere as a psychopath?

None whatsoever. And have I pointed this out before? Yes. Did you read it? Apparently not. But I ALSO pointed out that more than 90 per cent of sexual serial killers ARE psychopaths, and I also said - time and time again - that what I am saying is that I find that Lechmere is the killer of Nichols and with great certainty the Ripper, and therefore he must also be a psychopath. Because the Ripper WAS a psychopath, everything points in that direction with enormous clarity.

Although, I think the correct term is antisocial personality disorder, since psychopath is not an actual medical term. But again, what foundation do you have to make this diagnosis?

See the above. Please!!

This all sounds overdramatized and exaggerated.

Yes, but you are allowed to overreact and exxagerate, Harry, so now that you do it, I can only point pout where you go wrong.

I can't think of any other witnesses reacting in such an hysterical way, notwithstanding those who found something ghoulish. It wasn't apparent to the two carmen whether Nichols was dead or not, let alone brutally murdered.

Iīll tell you a secret: I think Lechmere actually KNEW that she was dead or dying!!

Now, if you are going to ask me more questions like this one, for being "genuinely curious", PLEASE read what I say before you go ahead and do exactly what I warn about.

PS. Here is why I prove your question an odd one: YOU point out to ME what Lechmere could have done in Bucks Row that would PROVE him innocent, please! Not what would implicate innocence in your eyes, but instead what would PROVE it.

Now do you see what I mean?

[Fisherman]

Not quite as odd as your response, Fish. You've more or less admitted that any innocent behaviour on Lechmere's part would be interpreted as a smokescreen. He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. That's the problem with suspect-based theories in general, you take a presumption of guilt and work backwards to interpret the facts through this prism.



What reasons and qualifications do you have to describe Lechmere as a psychopath? Although, I think the correct term is antisocial personality disorder, since psychopath is not an actual medical term. But again, what foundation do you have to make this diagnosis?



This all sounds overdramatized and exaggerated. I can't think of any other witnesses reacting in such an hysterical way, notwithstanding those who found something ghoulish. It wasn't apparent to the two carmen whether Nichols was dead or not, let alone brutally murdered.

Right, Harry, Iīve had my afternoon walk with the dog, and I have drawn my breath cooly and calmly a couple of times, and I am now ready to give my answer to your post a bit more formally, if you like. I was very disappointed and flabbergasted by your post, and so I should have given it a bit more time before I answered. Here is the collected version:

Anybody who committs a crime, wants to avoid responsibility for it but is found on the crime site will either confess the crime or try to lie his way out of it. The kind of person I think we are dealing with is the latter one.

A basic rule for a criminal who tries to lie his way out is that the more actions he can produce that are normally recognized as signs of innocence, the better his position will become. I donīt think this rule can be questioned, it is an absolute truth: If you want to be regarded as innocent, try and act as if you ARE innocent.
What these kinds of criminals do is best described as feigning innocence.

This is exactly what I beleive Lechmere did: he feigned innocence.

The overall imprtant thing to keep in mind here is that I am not saying that bringing Paul over to help examining the body of Nichols is a sign of guilt. In fact, most of what Lechmere did is very much in line with innocence, with the possible exception of how he refused to help prop Nichols up. And even this thing does not have to be any example of guilt at all, innocent people may well dislike the idea of handling a body that they believe may be dead.

So what I am saying is that I do not disagree if anybody says that nothing of what Lechmere did is indicative of guilt. And indeed, it is not because he asked Paul to help him examine Nichols that I point him out as her killer. I base that on other matters, like the name swap, the disagreements with Mizen, the geography, the blood evidence and so on. If these markers had not been around, if he had called himself Lechmere at the inquest, if he had described the events in the same way that Mizen did, if he had not had any reason to be near the murder sites as the other victims died, if he had helped prop Nichols up, if Paul had said that he heard someone walking in front of himself etcetera, then there would be ample reason to think that what Lechmere said and did on the murder night were indeed the signs of innocence they at first look seem to be. But once we add the inclusions above, that picture is reversed into the exact opposite: instead of saying that his actions are compatible with innocence, I instead say that we are probably looking at Lechmere feigning innocence.

You say that we have a situation where the carman cannot go free with me at the rudder: damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, you say. And yes, as long as the indications are what they are, as long as there are so many pointers that are in sync with each other, I will consider his actions in Bucks Row as compatible with guilt and as Lechmere feigning innocence.

There is another way to look at matters like these, if we take the trouble to reverse the angle we look at things. Letīs say that he was innocent. If this was the case, isnīt it odd that fate strikes him so very harshly? It is as if fate had decided to damn him regardless if he is innocent or not. It throws things his way that are indicative of guilt anyway:
Why did Mizen have to disagree with him on a number of points?
Why did he refuse to help prop Nichols up?
Why did he have to use the name Cross in a situation where he ought to call himself Lechmere?
Why couldnīt Pal have heard and testified about hearing Lechmereīs footfalls down Bucks Row?
Why did the murders have to occur along routes that were his logical work treks?
Why did Stride have to die near his mothers house?
Why did Eddowes have to die along his old work route from James Street?
Why must Nichols go on to bleed for so long?
Why did the Torso killer have to rip from ribs to pubes?
Why did he have to take out a heart and a uterus - at least?
Why did he have to be described as skilled? All these matters make him look like the Ripper, whose shoes - unfairly, of course - fit the carman like ... ehh, gloves?
Why did they have to find a bloody rag on the day after the Pinchin Street murder, in an EXACT line between the railway arch and his lodgings?

Regardless of how he is a good guy and a stand up citizen, it seems it does not matter what he does, it always somehow is compatible with him being a killer.

These matters always have two sides, Harry. And criminals feigning innocence are very aware of it.
I know that you feel strongly that Lechmere did nothing that is indicative of guilt in Bucks Row. The problem is that if he was guilty, then the more he did that seemed innocent, the better his position would be. And this is exactly why no action that is not proven to be one of innocence is necessarily innocent per se. It may be serving another purpose altogether if we have a criminal in place.

I hope this makes sense to you, Harry.

[Fisherman]

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.



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

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



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.

Iīve been thinking about this post of yours lately, Erobitha. In the paper you refer to, it is said that only secondary psychopathy, the version led on by a trauma somewhere in life, produces fearless psychopaths.

Traditionally, it has always been said that psychopaths ARE fearless individuals. Various investigations have proven that they do not panic the way we do, and they do not even have the reflex that makes normal people flee in the face of danger.
What one would want to know is whether these investigations only concerned themselves with secondary psychopaths...? And if so, why was this not stated in the papers?

I sense there is something amiss somewhere in all of this.

[erobitha]

I sense there is something amiss somewhere in all of this.

Like perhaps there is no evidence that Lechmere exhibited any traits we can reliably link to psychopathy in any way?

Like everything with ripperlogy, without hard evidence all many of us have is possibilities and hypotheses.

[Fisherman]

Like perhaps there is no evidence that Lechmere exhibited any traits we can reliably link to psychopathy in any way?

No, that is not the same thing at all. I have explained this on many occasions. What Lechmere officially did was to help out, and that is not linked to psychopathy at all. Then again, the evidence points clearly to how he was likely the killer of Nichols (I would even say that the mass of circumstantial evidence proves it beyond reasonable doubt) and so that is what points to psychopathy on Lechmeres behalf - because what the killer did was doubtlessly something that is psychopathic.
Pointing out, again and again, that we have no clinical evaluations of Lechmere is kind of useless in this context, I find.

Like everything with ripperlogy, without hard evidence all many of us have is possibilities and hypotheses.

Some of them very tenuously based on doubtful evidence, while others (or, to be frank, one theory only) is firmly based on a large amount of powerful circumstantial evidence. Powerful enough for a barrister to say that it would warrant a trial where the jury would not like the defendant.

Iīm happy with that, but it seems you are not?

Now, do you have any idea why the psychological evaluations made with psychopaths normally use to point out that they are fearless if only secondary psychopaths are true representatives of that propensity? After all, that was what I asked about.

[erobitha]

Some of them very tenuously based on doubtful evidence, while others (or, to be frank, one theory only) is firmly based on a large amount of powerful circumstantial evidence. Powerful enough for a barrister to say that it would warrant a trial where the jury would not like the defendant.

Iīm happy with that, but it seems you are not?

Now, do you have any idea why the psychological evaluations made with psychopaths normally use to point out that they are fearless if only secondary psychopaths are true representatives of that propensity? After all, that was what I asked about.

You are using circular arguments to fit your narrative.

Lechmere basically is guilty to you so every problem looks like a nail and all you have is your hammer. Banging away at it.

The only fact is he was the first to discover the body of Polly Nichols and Ryan Paul saw him. They both then left the scene together and alerted Mizen. That’s it.

Everything else is just conjecture, hypotheses and guesswork. There is no other proof of anything.

[Fisherman]

You are using circular arguments to fit your narrative.

Circular? I guess you can describe it like that if you want to since I have no mental evaluation of Lechmere. But basically, it is all very simple: Charles Lechmere has a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing in his way, enough of it to have a barrister saying that there is a case against him, suggesting that he is guilty, god enough to take to court. Therefore, it is no outrageous thing to do to say that he was in all likelihood the killer of Polly Nichols. Now, the killer of Polly Nichols was also very likely - and most of us agree about this - a serial killer with more victims on his conscience
So if Lechmere killed Nichols, and he very likely did, then he is in all probability the serial killer that is known as Jack the Ripper.
The nature of the Rippers crimes very evidently estblishes that he was a psychopath.

And there you are. Charles Lechmere was very likely a psychopath.

Yu call it circular. I call it logical. Others may decide for themselves what applies. To an extent, both can apply.

Lechmere basically is guilty to you so every problem looks like a nail and all you have is your hammer. Banging away at it.

No, not all problems look like nails to me. There are matters that are in sync with the carman being innocent, but the amount of circumstantial evidence tells us that they may equally be in sync with guilt. It should not be so hard to understand how this works. We can look at Harry D:s indignation when I said that a serial killer who wants to escape responsibility for a crime will likely feign innocence. Harry means that what Lechmere did in Bucks Row is all compatible with innocence, and I agree: it is. But if we isolate for example how he called Paul over to examine the body, we can see that although it may seem to implicate innocence, if Lechmere had decided to con his way out of Bucks Row then he would want to do things and say things that were in line with innocence. It is the nature of a lie; it is produced to convince people that the liar is innocent. Of course, this fact - for a fact it is - lends itself eminently for you to produce YOUR hammer and "bang away" about how the reasoning is circular. Again, it can be lookeed upon in that way, but are we to disregard that liars lie to get out of trouble...?
If you want evidence that is not circular in any way, then there is plenty:
-He DID use another name than he otherwise did in authority contacts.
-Nichols DID bleed for many minutes after Lechmere left the body.
-He DID disagree with Mizen on a number of accounts.
-The disagreement DID involve what would have been a perfectly shaped lie to take Lechmere past the police.
-He DID refuse to help prop Nichols up.
-He DID walk right through the killing fields on workday mornings.
-His mother DID live very close to the Stride murder scene.
-Mitre Square IS positioned more or less along the route he would have walked from James Street to the Broad Street depot for many years.
-The Goulston Street rag WAS placed roughlyn inbetween the murder site and 22 Doveton Street.

Of course, you can always say that it is "circular" to point out that he walked right through the killer fields on wirkday mornings, since not everybody who does must be a killer. But to be fair, there are no other ways to check viability as the killer than these ways as long as there is no absolute proof. But if you canīt resist swinging that hammer of yours, feel free, by all means!

The only fact is he was the first to discover the body of Polly Nichols and Ryan Paul saw him. They both then left the scene together and alerted Mizen. That’s it.

As you may read above, you are a bit short on facts. And itīs Robert Paul, not Ryan.

Everything else is just conjecture, hypotheses and guesswork. There is no other proof of anything.

And when did I say that there is absolute proof that he was the killer? I didnīt, did I? What I say is that there is enough CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE to take him to a trial where the jury would not like him, based on what he said and did. All according to a barrister.

It seems that to you, I should accept that there is no reason at all to suspect Lechmere, let alone to say that he is likely guilty, as long as there is no absolute proof? You may wish to read up on legal history in that case, and note how many capital cases there are that have been settled on circumstantial evidence only.

You may not like my stance on the matter, but it does very little to change it - nothing at all, in fact. Instead, once you start speaking about how Lechmere discovered the body is the only thing there is, I take heart in how those who criticize the theory regularly trip over themselves in this way.

PS. You still havent managed to explain why so much material speaks of psychopaths in general as being fearless, whereas "your" paper, presented in an earlier post, claims that only "secondary psychopaths" are. It of course does not change how Lechmere may have been that kind of a psychopath, but it is interesting nevertheless.

[erobitha]

And when did I say that there is absolute proof that he was the killer? I didnīt, did I? What I say is that there is enough CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE to take him to a trial where the jury would not like him, based on what he said and did. All according to a barrister.

It seems that to you, I should accept that there is no reason at all to suspect Lechmere, let alone to say that he is likely guilty, as long as there is no absolute proof? You may wish to read up on legal history in that case, and note how many capital cases there are that have been settled on circumstantial evidence only.

You may not like my stance on the matter, but it does very little to change it - nothing at all, in fact. Instead, once you start speaking about how Lechmere discovered the body is the only thing there is, I take heart in how those who criticize the theory regularly trip over themselves in this way.

PS. You still havent managed to explain why so much material speaks of psychopaths in general as being fearless, whereas "your" paper, presented in an earlier post, claims that only "secondary psychopaths" are. It of course does not change how Lechmere may have been that kind of a psychopath, but it is interesting nevertheless.

The only person diagnosing Lechmere as a psychopath is you. There is zero evidence of him doing anything different than any atypical person would do in that situation.

In fact someone even demonstrated an almost exact copy of that scenario in their own life on the ‘all roads lead to Lechmere’ thread. No psychopaths involved there.

Psychopathy is a spectrum and is not readily diagnosed without thorough cognitive testing, examination and consultation. You have decided if X did one X event that makes him a psychopath. You need much more than that. You would even struggle to say there was any anti-social disorder elements here either. You have a massive task to prove he is a psychopath on any level.

I understand how circumstantial evidences works but I would struggle to even call some of your examples even that.

I have never been convinced and still am not. My opinion on its own is not what matters, but it seems it is another voice to what seems an overwhelming ‘not convinced’ chorus.

I do however commend you on persevering in your case for promoting a candidate that most dismiss. I can empathise with the struggle. Good luck with it.

[FrankO]

I am also saying that if Neil found Nichols at 3.45, whereupon he very quickly signalled to Thain (who ALSO says that he was drawn into the matter at 3.45), then why is it that Thain, who had a two or three minute walk to Llewellyns practice, did not arrive there at 3.48ish but instead at around 3.55 - 4.00? If you want to get that part correct, then accepting that Paul arrived at the body at around 3.46 helps a whole lot.

I have the impression that you're not too fond of calculations and such, but bear with me, Christer...

Of course, things Ripperish are never simple. Let’s say Thain knocked on the doctor’s door at 4.00. Then it would be fair to say that Thain & the doctor would have arrived at the crime scene at about 4.05. If we combine this with what Neil stated – “Dr. Llewellyn came in about ten minutes.” – then Thain must have been sent away by Neil around 3.55 and this is simply too late, or so it seems to me. So, let’s say that Thain arrived at Llewellyn’s residence at 3.55 (which is the time the doctor gave in the Daily News of 1 September). This would mean that Thain was sent away by Neil around 3.50.

Remember that Neil found Nichols around the time that the carmen met Mizen. At the earliest, that would have been just after Lechmere addressed Mizen. So, in that sense the times of Neil finding the body and the carmen meeting Mizen are linked. If one is pushed back, then the other has to be pushed back as well; if one is pushed forward, then the other has to pushed forward, too.

So, if we assume that Neil sent Thain away at 3.50, then Mizen was signalled by Neil about half a minute later, which would mean that Mizen had left from the meeting point in Hanbury Street a minute or 2 earlier and let’s put this moment at 3.48. Now, for Lechmere to arrive and clock in at 4 o’clock at Pickford’s (which was a checkable thing for the police), he would have 12 minutes to cover the distance from the meeting point to where he entered the premises of Broad Street Station.

Walking at a pace of, say, 6.5 km per hour, 12 minutes would get him at 1300 meters from the meeting point. Doable, but only just. I don’t think I would be able to walk that quickly for 12 minutes, even though I’m fairly well trained, but let’s say it was only just doable. So, if he entered work in Eldon Street, he would not have made it by 4 o’clock, as that was about 1750 meters from the meeting point. There was another entrance in Appold Street, which was about 1420 meters from the meeting point, but even that couldn’t have been reached by Lechmere in time if he would have left Mizen at 3.48. He would only have gotten there just after 4.01. The only entrances that really fit are the ones in Worship Street, which gave access to the goods depot on the corner of Worship St. and Appold Street. They were 1230 and 1280 meters from the meeting point.

So, if you think Lechmere entered the entrance in Eldon Street, then he must have left Mizen at around 3.44 at the (sort of) latest. Which in turn would put Neil finding the body at around the same time. If, on the other hand, you think Lechmere must have entered one of the entrances in Worship Street, then the timing of Neil sending away Thain would be fitting with Llewellyn’s. This would, on the other hand, render it questionable whether Lechmere ever used Old Montague Street to get to work...

[Fisherman]

The only person diagnosing Lechmere as a psychopath is you.

Nope. Many do.

There is zero evidence of him doing anything different than any atypical person would do in that situation.

And zero evidence that he did not do it to make himself look innocent. Which is exactlyn what he would want to do if he was the culprit, by the way.

In fact someone even demonstrated an almost exact copy of that scenario in their own life on the ‘all roads lead to Lechmere’ thread. No psychopaths involved there.

But in Bucks Row!

Psychopathy is a spectrum and is not readily diagnosed without thorough cognitive testing, examination and consultation. You have decided if X did one X event that makes him a psychopath. You need much more than that. You would even struggle to say there was any anti-social disorder elements here either. You have a massive task to prove he is a psychopath on any level.

---

But an easy enough task to remind you that 90 per cent plus of the sexual serial killers are disgnosed as psychopaths.

I understand how circumstantial evidences works but I would struggle to even call some of your examples even that.

You would struggle on many levels, going by your posts. You even said that Lechmere discovering Nichols was the only fact there was. As if how he disagreed with Mizen was no proven fact.
You’ ve got some - hopefully - humbling catching up to do, erobitha.

I have never been convinced and still am not. My opinion on its own is not what matters, but it seems it is another voice to what seems an overwhelming ‘not convinced’ chorus.

There is more than one chorus singing here, I’ m afraid. Look at the reactions to the docu, have a look at how the name Lechmere creeps in every time the Ripper is discussed on the net.
Going blindfolded through life never helped anybody. The change is underway, it is inevitable. And tht owes to the quality of the evidence against the carman.

I do however commend you on persevering in your case for promoting a candidate that most dismiss. I can empathise with the struggle. Good luck with it.

I think it would be better to wish you a more insightful future, but thanks nevertheless.

[Fisherman]

I have the impression that you're not too fond of calculations and such, but bear with me, Christer...

Of course, things Ripperish are never simple. Let’s say Thain knocked on the doctor’s door at 4.00. Then it would be fair to say that Thain & the doctor would have arrived at the crime scene at about 4.05. If we combine this with what Neil stated – “Dr. Llewellyn came in about ten minutes.” – then Thain must have been sent away by Neil around 3.55 and this is simply too late, or so it seems to me. So, let’s say that Thain arrived at Llewellyn’s residence at 3.55 (which is the time the doctor gave in the Daily News of 1 September). This would mean that Thain was sent away by Neil around 3.50.

Remember that Neil found Nichols around the time that the carmen met Mizen. At the earliest, that would have been just after Lechmere addressed Mizen. So, in that sense the times of Neil finding the body and the carmen meeting Mizen are linked. If one is pushed back, then the other has to be pushed back as well; if one is pushed forward, then the other has to pushed forward, too.

So, if we assume that Neil sent Thain away at 3.50, then Mizen was signalled by Neil about half a minute later, which would mean that Mizen had left from the meeting point in Hanbury Street a minute or 2 earlier and let’s put this moment at 3.48. Now, for Lechmere to arrive and clock in at 4 o’clock at Pickford’s (which was a checkable thing for the police), he would have 12 minutes to cover the distance from the meeting point to where he entered the premises of Broad Street Station.

Walking at a pace of, say, 6.5 km per hour, 12 minutes would get him at 1300 meters from the meeting point. Doable, but only just. I don’t think I would be able to walk that quickly for 12 minutes, even though I’m fairly well trained, but let’s say it was only just doable. So, if he entered work in Eldon Street, he would not have made it by 4 o’clock, as that was about 1750 meters from the meeting point. There was another entrance in Appold Street, which was about 1420 meters from the meeting point, but even that couldn’t have been reached by Lechmere in time if he would have left Mizen at 3.48. He would only have gotten there just after 4.01. The only entrances that really fit are the ones in Worship Street, which gave access to the goods depot on the corner of Worship St. and Appold Street. They were 1230 and 1280 meters from the meeting point.

So, if you think Lechmere entered the entrance in Eldon Street, then he must have left Mizen at around 3.44 at the (sort of) latest. Which in turn would put Neil finding the body at around the same time. If, on the other hand, you think Lechmere must have entered one of the entrances in Worship Street, then the timing of Neil sending away Thain would be fitting with Llewellyn’s. This would, on the other hand, render it questionable whether Lechmere ever used Old Montague Street to get to work...

You are spot on in one instance; I do dislike mathematics. But I think I will rest most of this case until you have read my book, where I expand on my view of these things. Iīll only say that I think it is a tad entertaining when you say that "Thain must have been sent away by Neil around 3.55 and this is simply too late, or so it seems to me."

It doesnīt seem like that to me at all - Llewellyn said he was waken up by Thain at 4 AM or a few minutes before, depending on which material you look at, and that means that Thain must have set out at around 3.55. It is a very simple and logical matter in my world, and it dovetails precisely with how the coroner and Swanson both arrived at the conclusion that Nichols was found at around 3.45. The coroner says that there are many independent sources fixing this time, and I think Llewellyns being woken up by Thain is one of them.

I agree that in the other end, it would make it hard for Lechmere to arrive in time to the Broad Street terminal, but maybe the simple answer is that he didnīt. The sources (The Echo, The Star) say that he reached the Broad Street terminal at 4 o clock. Not around that time - exactly on it. That seems to me to be a very precise timing. I do not exclude that he said that he arrived there at around four o clock or something such. Or that he was due there at 4 AM.

Whichever way we look at these matters, not all details can be brought into sync. I will be interested to hear your take on my book and that passage therein. While Columbo will think it is indecent of me to try and sell copies of the book to an innocent Dutchman, but thatīs another story, all along the good old lines of smearing somebody and hoping to get people on your side. Weīve been there before, for example when Monty many moons ago accused me of profiting on the poor descendants of the Bethnal Green Tube disaster.

I really, really wish that people would avoid "debating" in that manner, but it is a forlorn hope, of course. Resorting to such things and to claiming that Blink Films would mislead expert witnesses in order to make somebody look more guilty that he ought to are par for the course nowadays.

That is why I am very fond of posters like you, who state their own convictions and comment on others in a fair manner. That too should be par for the course - but sadly it isnīt.

Have a nice Sunday, I know I will (I wonīt be Casebooking tomorrow in other words).

[Fiver]

The statistical method not I but a mathematical professor versed in these matters used is NOT flawed at all. It is the one and only correct method to use for these kinds of measurings.

Feel free to share the methodology. If it's like your medical methodology, it consists of you giving vague and misleading information to an expert, then interpreting it the way you want.