Evidence of innocence

[SuperShodan]

But would any of that apply to a killer who heard the approach before he actually saw who it was? If the crime scene was really dark, and it appears to have been, then the killer would assume that if he couldn’t see the person approaching that it was highly probable that the person approaching couldn’t see him either. So Lechmere would have been pre-warned of Paul’s approach.

If Lechmere had been caught in the act then in supposedly pulling down her dress to hide the fact that she’d been attacked we have to ask why he didn’t cover her legs. A shortage of time can’t explain this as it would have taken no extra time. So he hears Paul approach, drops her skirt and moves to the middle of the road to see Paul come into view and approach from around 40 yards away.

Even if Paul had heard Lechmere run or walk away he couldn’t have connected this to anything sinister until he’d arrived at the scene, spotted the body (or what might have been a body) gone over to check and decided that she was dead rather than just lying drunk. We can’t know how long this would have taken of course but I’d suggest that a minute would be a reasonable estimation. So this would have given Lechmere a minutes head start (and if he’d heard him before he saw him possibly 10 or 15 seconds more. This would have been ample time for him to have gotten away. Then we have to consider how long it might have taken Paul to find a Constable (if he hadn’t simply turned a blind eye and proceeded to work which was far from unlikely) Lechmere would have been streets away.

The two options aren’t approaching equal in merit. Staying to blag it out would have been close to suicidal. We can’t even claim the thrill because Lechmere would have had zero control over the situation and even more certainly zero control over Paul. The Mizen Scam is suggested but how could Lechmere have believed that if they had arrived at a Constable that he’d have been able to have manipulated the situation to have allowed him to speak to the Constable without Paul hearing the conversation and adding his own thoughts? So how can we suggest that Lechmere would have had the thrill of trying to blag his way out of it when he’d have had no control to do this?

Im sorry but this simply doesn’t make sense. Although there are other reasons, this one ranks high in the list of reasons why I don’t think that Lechmere killed Nichols.

I actually agree about running away being the best option. I think if he ran Lechmere could get to the board school in 30 seconds. After that he had options on possible escape routes.

My main reasons for Lechmere staying are this ~

1. He was engrossed with Nichols and became aware of Pauls arrival too late. I think Lechmere had seconds to decide what to do. Lack of time to think changes the situation totally. Its now a classic fight or flight.
2. He was a psychopath. He felt confident he could manipulate, dominate and control anyone who came along. He had total confidence in his ability to confront anyone, he would take ownership of any situation that developed. I think we see this with his interaction with Paul.
3. He wasn’t aware of how much Paul had seen. After all he had been in the dark by the body. Perhaps Paul saw nothing, and Lechmere running away would be suspicious and counterproductive.
4. Running away had it risks too. He could run right into a policeman. A witness could see him running away, get a good look at him. He doesn’t know if anyone is just around the board schoolcorner, or turning into Bucks Row from Bakers Row. Both of which block his escape.

We have been over this before, but I just want to make the point that running away might not have been a realistic option. Staying and pretending to be a passer by, going through the pantomime of finding the body has its merits.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Dr Andy Griffiths, former head of Sussex Murder Squad must be delusional too.

“From a Police point of view, the person who finds a body in circumstances like this is always going to be significant to an enquiry.

I would imagine this was more so in Victorian England since the police at the time didn't have much else to go on like DNA , CCTV etc.

Regards Darryl

[FrankO]

I think if he ran Lechmere could get to the board school in 30 seconds.

Hi Bob,

Seeing that the distance from the crime spot to the corner of the board school was about 40 meters, he would have gotten around the corner in some 10 seconds if he ran at a speed of 14.4 km per hour (8.95 mph). I think that I, at 56 years old, can still manage to run at that sort of speed for that short a distance (and possibly even faster), so I don't think it would have been very different for 38-year old Lechmere.

Cheers,
Frank

[rjpalmer]

[*]He was a psychopath. He felt confident he could manipulate, dominate and control anyone who came along. He had total confidence in his ability to confront anyone, he would take ownership of any situation that developed. I think we see this with his interaction with Paul.

My apologies for being blunt, but to me, this comes across like a cartoon. There is almost admiration in your tone.

The Ripper was a Super Man. He was confident and dominant and fearless.

Sure; that's why he's choosing to kill drunken, frail, middle-aged women in the dead of night when he knows there won't be very many people about to see him or stop him.

Personally, I think this 'profile' is dead wrong. His actions don't reek of confidence; they reek of cowardice.

He wants you to think he is a brave warrior--that's why his crimes are so violent and extreme. In reality, he is picking on the weakest, because it really takes very little for him to piss his boots. He is afraid and he is cowardly.

And, by the way, the old idea that psychopaths don't feel fear has been largely debunked in recent years by advances in brain imaging, etc. There are many studies about it, including the long one below.

Frontiers | Psychopaths Show Enhanced Amygdala Activation during Fear Conditioning | Psychology (frontiersin.org)

[Trevor Marriott]

I totally agree. I’m not trying to. I was just trying to demonstrate that when killers are caught they don’t always try to get away. Sometimes they will try and talk their way out of it. Dahmer took an insane risk, but it actually worked.
In Lechmere’s case I think he was caught unawares, he had very little time to think, and just reacted on gut instinct. I think Lechmere is similar to Dahmer in that he took a huge gamble, bordering on recklessness, which paid off.

He saw and heard Paul coming down the road from a distance of 40 yards,so that would have been more than enough time to run away into the darkness unseen and unheard.

No need for him to even consider taking a gamble on should he stay or go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Personally, I tend to read the inquest statements:

Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.

We also know that PC Mizen was was engaged in knocking up people (you know, acting like an alarm clock), so he has every reason to be acutely aware of the time (it's also a job requirement for PC's in general).

We also have PC Neil's testimony, where he indicates he had previously seen the men at work at 3:15, or half an hour before he found the body. Again, the testimony places PC Neil's discovery at 3:45 (3:45 is 30 minutes after 3:15 after all).

And we have PC Thain's testimony which corroborates that, because he says that nothing drew his attention until he was signalled by a fellow constable at about 3:45.

So, given our view into the past is through the testimonies, and given the police job requirement involved them keeping track of time, and in particular given PC Mizen was knocking up people (so had even more reason to be aware of the time), yes, I think we should accept that the Police of the day knew better than us what the time was.

But feel free know better than the people who were actually there. But I'm wondering who it is exactly that's treating assumptions as facts here? I'm using the times given in testimony to avoid making assumptions, and none of the times that get estimated conflict with the inexact qualifiers that are also used in testimony (the discovery around 3:41 is indeed not far off 3:45, the doctor leaves home about 3:55 or 4:00ish; and so forth). You are stating times and values that for the most part are found nowhere in the testimonies.

- Jeff

The whole problem with the three PC:s 3.45 timings is - and it is not as if it has not been pointed out before - that they represent suggestions about what the time was. And although it would be nice, it is not as if three people giving the same timing means thnat this timing is true.

That is the way you look upon it, apparenty, but I beg to differ.

If we instead look at the time you discounted on account of how Mizen said 3.45 and it seemed to jibe with Thains and Neils times, namely Robert Pauls timing, it syands on itīs own as a suggested timing, but that - surprise, surprise - does not mean that it must be wrong.

The problem is more complex than that.

As I have pointed out, there is no anchoring for the 3.45 timigs given by the police. Neils time is not anchored by Thains and Mizens ditto - they are all mere suggestions that cannot be checked against anything.

Robert Pauls timing, however, CAN be checked to a degree - we can see that if the examination/ conference/trek to Mizen took around four minutes, as Paul suggested, and if he had arrived at the site at around 3.46, as suggested by how he said he was walking down Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 (strengthened by how he said at the inquest that he left home at approximately 3.45 or just thereafter), then he and Lechmere would have reached Mizen at around 3.50. And if the conference at the crossing of Bakers Row and Hanbury Street together with Mizens trek to the murder site took another logical 4 minutes, then he would have arrived at around 3.54, meaning that if we pair this with how Thain would have left for LLewellyn at around 3.53, we can see that it makes sense. Adding on how Llewellyn said 3.55 - 4.00 for Thains calling hi to Bucks Row, that too makes sense. In fact, every time offered in that end of the line makes sense - but ONLY if Lechmere found the body at 3.45. So there is the amount of independent data Baxter spoke of, and there are the only give times that CAN be checked.

You seem to think that the three PC:s cannot possibly all have given 3.45 if it wasnīt correct. But you fail to acknowledge that Pauls and LLewellyns timings are mutually corroborative. And, not least, you willingly accept that both these men would have given times that were simultaneously five minutes ahead - the amount of timne that we must alter is the same for both men, and it goes in the same direction.
Why would not that be at least as unexpected to have happened as it is that the PC:s could be wrong, Jeff?
Why would we not accept the timing that is supported by surrounding factors?
And why do you take the liberty to claim that I would think myself better than the people that were there? Were Paul and LLewellyn NOT there?
Mayby a slight thought process would be useful before you start flinging accusations around yourself- you, who think you are "better than" Llewellyn and Paul.

Childish, thatīs what it is.

[Fisherman]

There are a number of facts which disprove Fish`s theory...
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That, Iīm afraid, is an outright and blatant lie. And we are not supposed to lie out here, Trevor.

[Fisherman]

As Trevor said Griffiths was fed a load of crap by the documentary makers.

Well, since you ARE the crap expert, who knows, maybe you are right. At least you have seen the exact material Griffiths was given. Otherwise, you could not make accusations other than on grounds of guesswork.

[Fisherman]

You cannot compare Dahmers case with that against Lechmere

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You donīt WANT him to make the comparison, you mean. It is very obvious that he CAN. He just did.

[John Wheat]

Well, since you ARE the crap expert, who knows, maybe you are right. At least you have seen the exact material Griffiths was given. Otherwise, you could not make accusations other than on grounds of guesswork.

It is obvious Griffiths was fed a load of crap.

[Fisherman]

And yet you assume that ‘about 3.30’ couldn’t have meant 3.35. And you assume that just before 3.45 couldn’t have meant 3.40 or 3.41.

Ive been on here for 5 years Fish (nowhere near as long as you of course) and I have to say that I’ve always found Jeff to be the most scrupulously honest, fair-minded and unbiased of posters. I’ve also always found that he’s willing to admit to any error and he always accepts the merits of alternate interpretations.

Scrupulously honest, fair-minded and unbiased posters do not work from auppositions as if they were facts, though. I would like to direct you to my latest post to Jeff, and see part of my critique against him and his methods.

We would not want me to be hinted at as somebody pulling a scrupulously honest, fair-minded and unbiased poster over the coals, would we? What would that make me? A Mother Teresa denier? An insensitive and unfair guy?

I have given my reason for what I donīt think we can accept long time gaps. You can read all about it in my posts to Frank.

[Fisherman]

Dahmer had no other option. He could have run

Come again?

If he could have run, how is that NOT another option?

[John Wheat]

Scrupulously honest, fair-minded and unbiased posters do not work from auppositions as if they were facts, though. I would like to direct you to my latest post to Jeff, and see part of my critique against him and his methods.

We would not want me to be hinted at as somebody pulling a scrupulously honest, fair-minded and unbiased poster over the coals, would we? What would that make me? A Mother Teresa denier? An insensitive and unfair guy?

I have given my reason for what I donīt think we can accept long time gaps. You can read all about it in my posts to Frank.

If the cap fits.

[Trevor Marriott]

That, Iīm afraid, is an outright and blatant lie. And we are not supposed to lie out here, Trevor.

You have had that pointed out to you many times.Its about time you started to acknowledge the fact that your theory does not stand up to the close scrutiny which it has been subjected to.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

My apologies for being blunt, but to me, this comes across like a cartoon. There is almost admiration in your tone.

The Ripper was a Super Man. He was confident and dominant and fearless.

Sure; that's why he's choosing to kill drunken, frail, middle-aged women in the dead of night when he knows there won't be very many people about to see him or stop him.

Personally, I think this 'profile' is dead wrong. His actions don't reek of confidence; they reek of cowardice.

He wants you to think he is a brave warrior--that's why his crimes are so violent and extreme. In reality, he is picking on the weakest, because it really takes very little for him to piss his boots. He is afraid and he is cowardly.

And, by the way, the old idea that psychopaths don't feel fear has been largely debunked in recent years by advances in brain imaging, etc. There are many studies about it, including the long one below.

Frontiers | Psychopaths Show Enhanced Amygdala Activation during Fear Conditioning | Psychology (frontiersin.org)

There are psychopaths who cannot panick and who will not run. It has been suggested that a special type of psychopath differs. How does that remove the fearless and non-panicking ones? Any idea?

Whether or not you personally perceive the Ripper as a coward - just how and why should that govern how the rest of us choose to think about the matter? Taking psychopathic behaviour in to account? Any idea on that too?