Lechmere's Behavior in Buck's Row

[Patrick S]

Fisherman - All you can say about Lechmere's remarkably calm demeanor and brilliant (almost as if he could see the future!) decision making seconds after killing and mutilating Nichols is that 'he was a psychopath'? She was nearly decapitated. The guy's heartrate didn't budge. Didn't break a sweat. No blood on him. Makes all the right moves. Says all the right things. Has Paul come take a look and together they go off looking for a cop. He gets away free and clear until you come along, 130 years later. Sorry. Sounds more like someone's fantasy of what Jack the Ripper should be than anything that likely occured in 1888.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S:

I'm glad you put stock in press reports. I don't. Incorrect names ('Crass'?), details.

Well, Patrick, in this case, I was directing you to the different transcriptions of the Nichols inquest. As you may know, they are the only recordings we have from the inquest. In my case, that means I will use them. As for you, who can say? Maybe you can make do without them...?

Cross is interesting, I grant you. But, 70% sure he's the Ripper? Adding in Smith and Tabram because they were on his route? He's the Torso Killer, too? It took you thirty years to come up with this?

Well, to be fair, I did a few things along the side, work, fishing trips, family etcetera. But basically, yes, it took me thirty years to arrive at where I am, Ripperologically.

If I had realized that I could make a carreer in five minutes by dissing theories without having read the background material, I would definitely have considered that instead.

But we are what we are.

The best,
Fisherman

[Patrick S]

Patrick S:

I'm glad you put stock in press reports. I don't. Incorrect names ('Crass'?), details.

Well, Patrick, in this case, I was directing you to the different transcriptions of the Nichols inquest. As you may know, they are the only recordings we have from the inquest. In my case, that means I will use them. As for you, who can say? Maybe you can make do without them...?

Cross is interesting, I grant you. But, 70% sure he's the Ripper? Adding in Smith and Tabram because they were on his route? He's the Torso Killer, too? It took you thirty years to come up with this?

Well, to be fair, I did a few things along the side, work, fishing trips, family etcetera. But basically, yes, it took me thirty years to arrive at where I am, Ripperologically.

If I had realized that I could make a carreer in five minutes by dissing theories without having read the background material, I would definitely have considered that instead.

But we are what we are.

The best,
Fisherman

I've read the background. I just try not to apply imagination to what I've read.

Well, for fear we are devolving into incivility, I'll say this...Have a nice weekend, sir.

[DVV]

And psychopathic behaviour patterns should be expected.

I'm lost.
Did he brilliantly manage to save his neck in Buck's Row ?
Or did he take "psychopatic" and unnecessary risks ?

[Lechmere]

Yes you are lost.
Killing Nichols wasn't strictly necessary was it? It was a bit of a risk wasn't it?
Running off or even walking briskly off in the opposite direction to Paul was a risk - as he could have bumped into a policeman almost immediately.
A psychopath is always a psychopath. He doesn't lapse in and out of it.
So his behaviour when approaching Paul would have been governed by his psychopathic nature.

I would suggest that when he approached Paul he was not a figure of calmness and I would suggest that this is one of the reasons why Paul felt he was about to be mugged. Clearly it was only just because he was in a street that had a bad reputation. If Pau had been approached by a little old lady would he have thought he was about to be mugged. Clearly not. Cleary it was a combination of the streets reputation and Lechmere's demeanour.

By the way Lechmere didn't get away scot free as he was roped into appearing at the inquest and had to make a statement to the police.

[DVV]

Yes you are lost.

Am I ? If so, it's because my question hasn't been clearly answered. Cool down, it's a lovely morning and my question is worth an unambiguous reply.

Killing Nichols wasn't strictly necessary was it? It was a bit of a risk wasn't it?

Don't try to confuse the issue. In French, this is called "noyer le poisson".

Running off or even walking briskly off in the opposite direction to Paul was a risk - as he could have bumped into a policeman almost immediately.

Seriously, was it MORE risky than waiting for Paul at the murder scene and calling him, although Paul tried to avoid him ?

A psychopath is always a psychopath. He doesn't lapse in and out of it.
So his behaviour when approaching Paul would have been governed by his psychopathic nature.

"Psychopatic nature" means nothing, because it can mean whatever you like. Would you be kind enough, at last, to decide whether his supposed "psychopatic nature" prompted him to take MORE risk, or the reverse ?

[Patrick S]

Yes you are lost.
Killing Nichols wasn't strictly necessary was it? It was a bit of a risk wasn't it?

And here we reveal the entire inconsistency of thinking between those you find Lechmere a credible "suspect" and those who find it to be utter fantasy (or major bollocks): His pattern of behavior looks suspicious only if we START with the him killing Nichols. When we start with THAT "risky" act we view his interaction with Paul as such. When we view the surviving case records assuming that Lechmere is Jack the Ripper GOING IN....then we see the 'truth' (?).

I think we've found the disconnect.

[Rainbow]

thank you Lechmere for all your works on this suspect
the very first time I read about him in another site I knew this is a very strong case and couldn't believe how it was hidden all these years
I am a man who believe in science and mathematic , and the chance to have three men at the same time at the same place and at the moment this woman was killed is very very little chance ( if there was any other killer ) , and when he refused to touch the body and gave a false name and said there was another policeman waiting , all this make him guilty for me , the man was standing near the body and Paul didn't hear any foot steps , he was afraid of him ! sure , anyone will be afraid of a killer , it was a crime scence .. this man was Jack the ripper

[DVV]

thank you Lechmere for all your works on this suspect
the very first time I read about him in another site I knew this is a very strong case and couldn't believe how it was hidden all these years
I am a man who believe in science and mathematic , and the chance to have three men at the same time at the same place and at the moment this woman was killed is very very little chance ( if there was any other killer ) , and when he refused to touch the body and gave a false name and said there was another policeman waiting , all this make him guilty for me , the man was standing near the body and Paul didn't hear any foot steps , he was afraid of him ! sure , anyone will be afraid of a killer , it was a crime scence .. this man was Jack the ripper

Hi Rainbow

He did not give a false name. And he told the police where he lived and where he worked.
So where's the beef ?
I too appreciate Ed's works on this witness.
But still, it's a very unconvincing case, not to say a non-starter.

Cheers

[DVV]

His pattern of behavior looks suspicious only if we START with the him killing Nichols. When we start with THAT "risky" act we view his interaction with Paul as such.

Hi Patrick,

I have to disagree.
If Paul had walked towards Cross asking : "Hey, what are you looking at ?", the case for Lechmere-the-Ripper would be a bit more consistent.

Cheers

[Lechmere]

It's not a non starter - it's already started and us half way round the track and you haven't even got your trousers on yet.
As we say in ze Inglis - he is very fishy.

[DVV]

Well, that's just the rule with suspect-based ripperology.
But the way you conveniently use the supposed "psychopatic" nature of Crossmere adds little to his candidacy.
Same is true with the many murders you tend to attibute to this poor carman.

It's all so vague and so weak.

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick,

I have to disagree.
If Paul had walked towards Cross asking : "Hey, what are you looking at ?", the case for Lechmere-the-Ripper would be a bit more consistent.

Cheers

We agree on this point. I was attempting to point out - poorly it seems - that Lechmere and Fisherman view his interactions with Paul as the master plan of psychopath, as opposed to guy who just walked up on a body. In my mind, by saying 'come see this woman', he show's no consciousness of guilt whatsoever. Agreec, if Paul had walked up go him, Lechmere may have been hoping he'd walk on by, only going with the 'ruse' of 'finding the body' when it was clear Paul hadn't seen him doing anything other than standing near it. Again, they have stated clearly that nothing in the man's life, outside his being Jack the Ripper, leads them to believe he was a psychopath. It's back to the bayonet v. dagger argument. It could not have been a bayonet because that implicates a soldier, not Lechmere. Along the same line of thinking, Lechmere must have been a psychopath, because he was Jack the Ripper, and only a psychopath could have committed these murders. As absurd as that rationale sounds, it was said, almost verbatim, somewhere in this thread.

[MrBarnett]

Hi DVV,

Can I ask you a hypothetical question? If you were JTR, had just finished mutilating Nichols body and suddenly became aware of Paul a few yards away trying to sneak past you, what would you have done?

MrB

[DVV]

Hi Mr B

For sure, as I would have heard Paul coming (who was at about 40 yards behind me), I would have gone my way.
If Paul had stopped over the body and discovered it was a corpse, the only thing he could have said is that he had seen somebody leaning over the body, in the dark, and that this guy had then peacefully gone away.

The last thing I would have done is what Cross did, actually.

Cheers