Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[The Baron]

Charles Allen Lechmere shouldn't be considered anything except a witness, because:

1.He wouldn't kill a woman and go searching for a Policeman carrying the bloody knife he used on himself, not only that, but taking with him the only witness who saw him standing alone where the woman was.

2.After disagreeing with Mitzen in front of the jury and the coroner, he wouldn't be sure that the Police will not suspect him and keep watching him, and go to kill again another woman in one week.


Those two ponits alone destroy the Lechmere theory beyond recognition.


I challenge any Lechmere the ripper believer to prove otherwise.



The Baron

[Fisherman]

Charles Allen Lechmere shouldn't be considered anything except a witness, because:

1.He wouldn't kill a woman and go searching for a Policeman carrying the bloody knife he used on himself, not only that, but taking with him the only witness who saw him standing alone where the woman was.

2.After disagreeing with Mitzen in front of the jury and the coroner, he wouldn't be sure that the Police will not suspect him and keep watching him, and go to kill again another woman in one week.


Those two ponits alone destroy the Lechmere theory beyond recognition.


I challenge any Lechmere the ripper believer to prove otherwise.



The Baron

Well, that proves Lechmere´s innocence beyond reasonable doubt. We can all go home now.

You first.

[etenguy]

Well, that proves Lechmere´s innocence beyond reasonable doubt. We can all go home now.

You first.

This made me wish there was a 'funny' button to click.

[The Baron]

Well, that proves Lechmere´s innocence beyond reasonable doubt. We can all go home now.

You first.

Innocent beyond reasonable doubt!!





Lechmere is already innocent.


The Baron

[Fisherman]

Innocent beyond reasonable doubt!!





Lechmere is already innocent.


The Baron

Yes! And so is Peter Sutcliffe, at last according to your "logic". He was interviewed THIRTEEN times by the police, so he would never have dared to go on killing, right?
And luckily, we can write off Jeff Dahmer too, since he actually approached the two policemen who had taken care of Dahmers intended victim, a young Thai boy. What did Dahmer do when he saw this happening from his kitchen window?
Hide?
Flee?
Run?
Stay as long away from the police as he possibly could?
Nope. He trotted down the stairs, went up to the policemen and said that the boy was his young lover, and it would be nice if the police could return him into Dahmers loving care.
Which the police did.
Whereupon Dahmer strangled him pronto.
Strangely enough meaning that he could not possibly be the killer, because according to you, serial killers are careful individuals who never challenge fate in that way.

You must excuse me for not investing all that much in your, ehrm, "logic". I rarely do, when reality points the other way. But that´s just me, of course.

And that concludes our exchange on my behalf. I only wish you had not taken up bandwidth by opening up a new thread with nothing to show for it.

Thank you and have a great evening.

[The Baron]

Actully You had nothing at all to show in regard to those two points I've adressed in my first post.

First I am talking about a man who contradicted a policeman in front of the jury and the coroner, you came up with a murderer who was interviewed 13 times.

Second you talk about a man who killed a boy after he talked to the polce, and you compare it to a man who killed a woman before, then took the bloody knife on himself, and the only witness who saw him alone by the victim and went searching for a policeman.

Wake up Fisherman, don't feel the need to comment if you don't have anything to defend your position.

And lastly, you creat your own law, that a suspect is guilty until proven beyond reasonable doubt to be innocent!

You opened 1000 threads accusing an innocent man, and now you are giving me the advice not to do.

Take your personal feelings outside of this, stick to the topic.


The Baron

[Fisherman]

Actully You had nothing at all to show in regard to those two points I've adressed in my first post.

First I am talking about a man who contradicted a policeman in front of the jury and the coroner, you came up with a murderer who was interviewed 13 times.

Second you talk about a man who killed a boy after he talked to the polce, and you compare it to a man who killed a woman before, then took the bloody knife on himself, and the only witness who saw him alone by the victim and went searching for a policeman.

Wake up Fisherman, don't feel the need to comment if you don't have anything to defend your position.

And lastly, you creat your own law, that a suspect is guilty until proven beyond reasonable doubt to be innocent!

You opened 1000 threads accusing an innocent man, and now you are giving me the advice not to do.

Take your personal feelings outside of this, stick to the topic.


The Baron

I won´t spend much time on this. Here´s a piece of advice for you: before you ask the same questions that have been answered over and over again on existing threads, turn the tables and read BEFORE you post the next time. And when doing so, you must allow for the possibility that you may be wrong.

You see, just because you cannot understand things, it may just be that others actually CAN every once in a while.

It is a cruel perspective, I know. But learn from it, don´t let it get you down! And once you have read up, come back and we can have a much better discussion. Promise!

Until then, eh?

[The Baron]

You don't have answers, you are just trying to give the impression you did.

Accepting Lechmere as a good suspect in spite of those two points mentioned above is fighting against logic, against common sense, against axiomatics.

No wonder you take it personaly, and no wonder you will not understand the big holes in your theory.

Take this advice and read those points again, and again and again, maybe one day you could be able to see the light through the holes.



The Baron

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

There are Axioms in Ripperology!? Well, this is a revelation. Can someone direct me to the core undisputed, non controversial Axioms that we all agree on?

[Fisherman]

You don't have answers, you are just trying to give the impression you did.

Accepting Lechmere as a good suspect in spite of those two points mentioned above is fighting against logic, against common sense, against axiomatics.

No wonder you take it personaly, and no wonder you will not understand the big holes in your theory.

Take this advice and read those points again, and again and again, maybe one day you could be able to see the light through the holes.



The Baron

I have to commend you on your clear-sightedness - I really cannot see those large holes in my theory, no matter how hard I try. You are dead right there. Other holes, some small and many veeeeeery big are perfectly visible to me, but those? Nope. Not for the life of me.

[Fisherman]

There are Axioms in Ripperology!? Well, this is a revelation. Can someone direct me to the core undisputed, non controversial Axioms that we all agree on?

To be perfectly honest, I can think of a few axiomatics involved in Ripperology. Then again, they mostly relate not so much to the case material per se as to how the insight levels of some posters are a hundred per cent predictable.

Does that count? Or baron?

[etenguy]

Hi fisherman

I do think Baron has raised one interesting question about Lechmere. What happened to the knife? If it was concealed about his person you would expect him to be a bit nervous of approaching a policeman, especially with the possibility of being taken to a police station, if only to give a statement. It would have been relatively easy for Lechmere to send Paul for a policeman to avoid being caught with the murder weapon. Sorry if I have missed this in a previous thread.

The other point Baron raises doesn't really amount to a significant challenge to Lechmere being the ripper IMHO.

[The Baron]

Hi fisherman

The other point Baron raises doesn't really amount to a significant challenge to Lechmere being the ripper IMHO.

If you are a Policeman, an a person told you there is another Policeman wants you in Bucks Row.

Then in front of the jury and the coroner, came this man, and told them that he didn't tell you this.

How would you find this?!


The Baron

[Fisherman]

Hi fisherman

I do think Baron has raised one interesting question about Lechmere. What happened to the knife? If it was concealed about his person you would expect him to be a bit nervous of approaching a policeman, especially with the possibility of being taken to a police station, if only to give a statement. It would have been relatively easy for Lechmere to send Paul for a policeman to avoid being caught with the murder weapon. Sorry if I have missed this in a previous thread.

The other point Baron raises doesn't really amount to a significant challenge to Lechmere being the ripper IMHO.

None of the points he raises amounts to nothing much at all. When it comes to the knife, there are many possibilities, and one of them is actually that he may have thoproughly enjoyed speaking to a PC with the weapon in his pocket. Many of the serial killers (around 90 per cent of them) are psychopaths, and psychopaths enjoy playing games and lying. They are also people who have a sense of being more clever than the rest of us. And to a fair part of them, any suggestion that they may get caught is perceived as an uninformed insult.

That alone suffices - in my world, at least - to show us how Lechmere could have done what I suggest he did. As I have pointed out numerous times, a full blown psychopath is unable to panic. These people do not break a sweat when in a situation like the one Lechmere would have been in - on the contrary, they enjoy it. They fly past lie detectors.

But let´s walk you through the aspects of the matter; I´ve done the tour before, so I know it quite well.

1. Lechmere kills Nichols, and in doing so, he focuses so totally on what he is doing that he gets into a stage of tunnel vision. When he realizes that he is not alone in the street, he quickly decides that running would give away what had happened and he does not want to be the hare in a fox hunt. He realizes that he has ample time to con the oncomer, and so he cuts the throat of Nichols to ensure that she is dead, stashes the knife, covers the wounds and backs out into the street to measure up the new kid on the block. He has at this stage no idea that he will find himself speaking to PC, knife in pocket, less than ten minutes later.

2. He engages Paul in discussion and shows him the woman, whereupon Paul says that he is late and will go find a PC to send back to the spot. Lechmere now contemplates whether he should wave farewell to Paul to make his own escape after Paul has disapperared, but on weighing things up, he decides that would be a bad idea - once Nichols is found by a third party, Paul will be able to tell about the man he found on the scene, and Lechmere will potentially be in trouble. There were only so many carmen passing through Bucks Row, and if the streets are staked out by the police, he may suffer.

3. He realizes that once the hunt for a killer is on, the police will look for a killer, a single man, likely running away at speed. They will not look for two carmen, calmly walking together, seemingly on their way to work, so he decides to claim to Paul that he himself is also late, and far from staying in place, he will tag along with Paul. With any luck, no PC will show, and he will be able to get away scot free. But to be able to handle the situation IF a PC should show up, he starts to concoct a lie that will enable him to pass that PC by - a story of only being a messenger, sent on by the PC who found the body in Bucks Row. He aslo decides to play down the matter, so that any PC they meet is not told about possible death and foul play, but instead only of a woman who is likely drunk. He realizes that the best thing to do, if they should run into a PC, would be to get rid of Paul, and ponders how to do this.

4. Once they see Mizen on turning into Bakers Row, Lechmere tells Paul that he will inform the policeman and that Paul should walk on to work so that he does not get too late. He then quickly approaches Mizen alone, and gives him a very short and condensed information, including the lie about the second PC, and as Mizen says "Okay", he lenghtens his stride and catches up with Paul, and the two walk on together down Hanbury Street. This is actually why Mizen says that he was informed about things by "a" man, not by two men - something a fair number of posters will not accept.

This is how I see what probably happened. There are matters that can have different solutions or variations of the theme, but all in all, this will not be far off the mark, as I see things. And if somebody thinks that nobody would be that cool and able to think on his feet, then that somebody has simply not read up on psychopathic (90 per cent) and narcissistic (60 per cent) serial killers.
The idea that "he would never dare" is not a correct one. It may well be that he would choose to avoid it if he had the option, but once things turned out the way they did, the actions I suggest on behalf of Lechmere are perfectly logical and rational when dealing with a psychopath.

Our knighted co-poster tells me that I cannot compare what Dahmer did to what Lechmere did, but I not only can, but also WILL do so, and the comparison is totally relevant. Both men sought out the police in spite of how they could have chosen not to, both and both men took a risk by doing so. It is a very good example of why we should not expect psychopaths to panick and start shaking uncontrollably at the prospect of dealing with the police in direct combination with a murder. The Milwaukee policemen were charmed and persuaded by the glib and well spoken Jeffrey Dahmer, and charming and persuading people in order to fool them is part of the psychopathic nature. Moreover, if the opportunity to do so does not present itself, psychopaths are likely to get bored and actively seek out these possibilitites. And they do not do so in the face of great risk for the simple reason that they do not think there is any risk at all involved, on account of how they are convinced that they are so much more clever than the rest of us.

You see, etenguy, I think the suggestion that Lechmere would never have contacted a PC with a knife in his pocket is beyond ridiculous. It is a complete non-issue to me. But I can see how others, failking to be able to use the appropriate perspective and reasoning that a psychopath is nothing much different from the rest of us, have a hard time accepting what I say.

I´ve come to terms with it, but it is nevertheless a tad tiresome.

[The Baron]

None of the points he raises amounts to nothing much at all. When it comes to the knife, there are many possibilities, and one of them is actually that he may have thoproughly enjoyed speaking to a PC with the weapon in his pocket. Many of the serial killers (around 90 per cent of them) are psychopaths, and psychopaths enjoy playing games and lying. They are also people who have a sense of being more clever than the rest of us. And to a fair part of them, any suggestion that they may get caught is perceived as an uninformed insult.

That alone suffices - in my world, at least - to show us how Lechmere could have done what I suggest he did. As I have pointed out numerous times, a full blown psychopath is unable to panic. These people do not break a sweat when in a situation like the one Lechmere would have been in - on the contrary, they enjoy it. They fly past lie detectors.

But let´s walk you through the aspects of the matter; I´ve done the tour before, so I know it quite well.

1. Lechmere kills Nichols, and in doing so, he focuses so totally on what he is doing that he gets into a stage of tunnel vision. When he realizes that he is not alone in the street, he quickly decides that running would give away what had happened and he does not want to be the hare in a fox hunt. He realizes that he has ample time to con the oncomer, and so he cuts the throat of Nichols to ensure that she is dead, stashes the knife, covers the wounds and backs out into the street to measure up the new kid on the block. He has at this stage no idea that he will find himself speaking to PC, knife in pocket, less than ten minutes later.

2. He engages Paul in discussion and shows him the woman, whereupon Paul says that he is late and will go find a PC to send back to the spot. Lechmere now contemplates whether he should wave farewell to Paul to make his own escape after Paul has disapperared, but on weighing things up, he decides that would be a bad idea - once Nichols is found by a third party, Paul will be able to tell about the man he found on the scene, and Lechmere will potentially be in trouble. There were only so many carmen passing through Bucks Row, and if the streets are staked out by the police, he may suffer.

3. He realizes that once the hunt for a killer is on, the police will look for a killer, a single man, likely running away at speed. They will not look for two carmen, calmly walking together, seemingly on their way to work, so he decides to claim to Paul that he himself is also late, and far from staying in place, he will tag along with Paul. With any luck, no PC will show, and he will be able to get away scot free. But to be able to handle the situation IF a PC should show up, he starts to concoct a lie that will enable him to pass that PC by - a story of only being a messenger, sent on by the PC who found the body in Bucks Row. He aslo decides to play down the matter, so that any PC they meet is not told about possible death and foul play, but instead only of a woman who is likely drunk. He realizes that the best thing to do, if they should run into a PC, would be to get rid of Paul, and ponders how to do this.

4. Once they see Mizen on turning into Bakers Row, Lechmere tells Paul that he will inform the policeman and that Paul should walk on to work so that he does not get too late. He then quickly approaches Mizen alone, and gives him a very short and condensed information, including the lie about the second PC, and as Mizen says "Okay", he lenghtens his stride and catches up with Paul, and the two walk on together down Hanbury Street. This is actually why Mizen says that he was informed about things by "a" man, not by two men - something a fair number of posters will not accept.

This is how I see what probably happened. There are matters that can have different solutions or variations of the theme, but all in all, this will not be far off the mark, as I see things. And if somebody thinks that nobody would be that cool and able to think on his feet, then that somebody has simply not read up on psychopathic (90 per cent) and narcissistic (60 per cent) serial killers.
The idea that "he would never dare" is not a correct one. It may well be that he would choose to avoid it if he had the option, but once things turned out the way they did, the actions I suggest on behalf of Lechmere are perfectly logical and rational when dealing with a psychopath.

Our knighted co-poster tells me that I cannot compare what Dahmer did to what Lechmere did, but I not only can, but also WILL do so, and the comparison is totally relevant. Both men sought out the police in spite of how they could have chosen not to, both and both men took a risk by doing so. It is a very good example of why we should not expect psychopaths to panick and start shaking uncontrollably at the prospect of dealing with the police in direct combination with a murder. The Milwaukee policemen were charmed and persuaded by the glib and well spoken Jeffrey Dahmer, and charming and persuading people in order to fool them is part of the psychopathic nature. Moreover, if the opportunity to do so does not present itself, psychopaths are likely to get bored and actively seek out these possibilitites. And they do not do so in the face of great risk for the simple reason that they do not think there is any risk at all involved, on account of how they are convinced that they are so much more clever than the rest of us.

You see, etenguy, I think the suggestion that Lechmere would never have contacted a PC with a knife in his pocket is beyond ridiculous. It is a complete non-issue to me. But I can see how others, failking to be able to use the appropriate perspective and reasoning that a psychopath is nothing much different from the rest of us, have a hard time accepting what I say.

I´ve come to terms with it, but it is nevertheless a tad tiresome.

Not a single word that addresses my two objections.

The man is talking and talking and defending why Lechmere didn't run away, as if that was the question.

And the second point wasn't even defended or mentioned at all.

No wonder why you don't see the holes.

You still at the first surface level of analysing the theory and didn't go deeper.


He would't approach a police man with the bloody knife on himself, taking the only witness ever that saw him standing alone by the victim.

You better live with it.


He wouldn't go killing in 5 days after rising red questions about his person by contradicting a Policeman in from of the jury and the coroner.


I am sure you don't have anything to add other than Lechmere was a psychopath.


It is a theory that suits your imagination, of course you will like it.



The Baron