Lechmere a witness to the killer

[Pierre]

REALLY, Caz...!!!

Sometimes I realize the sheer potential in you as a future Lechmerian. It manly lies in the fact that you apparently have not understood a single thing I have said. Meaning that when and if you DO, then we may have a new disciple on our hands. And I am so looking forward to it!

Now, I could have said that I have explained this a thosuand times, but why would I do that - when it is so apparent that you never cottoned on anyway...?

So here goes again!

Imagine, if you will, TWO Lechmereīs. Twins, sort of. But only on the outside!

Lechmere number one is a serial killer. He is also a psychopath. He therefore lacks the startle reflex, meaning that he will not be scared by sudden potential threats. Nor does he possess the ability to panick. He is, however, a man who likes to control other people, and he is an accomplished and skilful liar, who likes to play games.

Lechmere number two is a family father, and a hardworking carman, first and foremost. He gets scared if something suddenly jumps out at him - his startle reflex is alive and kicking. If people around him panick, he will panick with them. He is truthful and helpful.

Now, Caz, very many people tell me that Lechmere would have fled immediately when he heard Paul, since that is what they perceive that people do. When arriving at this conclusion, they will have turned to themselves and asked "what would I do in a situation like this?" And they arrive - quite truthfully - at the conclusion that they would have gotten the hell out of Bucks Row.

They are, however, not psychopaths. They do not think the way psychopaths do. They foresee trouble and fear and flight, where a psychopath feels no fear, and instead focuses on playing the game of conning his surroundings.

It seems to me that Lechmere number one quickly decided on this exact route - Paul could not see any damage, and that damage involved seven bloodred cuts against a white belly and a two-inch gaping wound in the neck from which blood flowed. Paul, however, could see the hat, he could see the posture of the woman etcetera. It was not pitch dark. The woman was easy enough to see, thatīs what Paul said in the newspaper interview.
The inevitable conclusion is that Lechmere number one decided to bluff the newcomer, and that he took steps in order to enable him to do so: he saw to it that the wounds were covered. He prepared himself for the game.

In essence, Caz, depending on the situations we are talking about, there will always be two categories of people: those who run and those who donīt. And therein lies the answer to what you perceive as an enigma: Although we are talking of the same man, we are also talking about two TYPES of men.

I hope I managaged to explain what I am suggesting this time. I must have failed a thousand times before.

I am very, very sorry to have done what I did in order to facilitate things for you: I added another Lechmere.

I am quite aware that you are having all sorts of trouble with just the one.

Hi Fisherman,

we have no psychylogical or psychiatric tests stating that Jack the Ripper was a "psychopath".

And we cannot give a person who is long since dead a diagnosis.

Do you really mean that you build your theory about Lechmeres behaviour in the past on an hypothesis about the killer having a psychatric diagnosis - without Lechmere having been tested for and given that diagnosis?

And is this non existing diagnosis the starting point of your whole theory of Lechmere being the killer?

Because then you have based the whole theory on bias and that will lead you to the wrong conclusions.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;354511]

Iīm happy to give it some thought, Pierre. But it does not sit well with me, I can say that much.

By the way, I know that Paul and Lechmere was in the street. I was referring to how Neil (and other sources) said that it was a very quiet night with not a soul about.

Hi Fisherman,

Sounds great. And I do understand that you meant PC Neils description and that you of course know about Paul and Lechmere, they being part of the history as well as your theory.

I also understand my hypothesis doesnīt sit well with you. Perhaps I will experience the same problem in the future when I communicate my theory to others.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

we have no psychylogical or psychiatric tests stating that Jack the Ripper was a "psychopath".

And we cannot give a person who is long since dead a diagnosis.

Do you really mean that you build your theory about Lechmeres behaviour in the past on an hypothesis about the killer having a psychatric diagnosis - without Lechmere having been tested for and given that diagnosis?

And is this non existing diagnosis the starting point of your whole theory of Lechmere being the killer?

Because then you have based the whole theory on bias and that will lead you to the wrong conclusions.

Regards Pierre

If you can spare the time to backtrack and read 23 447 posts, you will see that you are wrong. Myself, I have lost the will to live for now, so I will go and shoot myself in the head and be done with it. Or read a few posts out here - it should have the same sort of impact...

Anyway, before I do that, I will just say that the psychopathy part had nothing at all to do with why I suspect Lechmere. It is all grounded on the facts surrounding the case. QC James Scobie said that there is a prima faciae case against the man, suggesting that he was the killer. And Scobie said nothing at all about psychopathy. But the rest was quite enough!

If you are read up on Lechmere, you will be familar with Michael Connor. He was among the first to point a finger at the carman. One of his dissertations, he signed off by asking: "I wonder how he treated his horses?"

A typical trait with a psychopath is that he is oblivious of the pain he inflicts on other creatures. In a sense, I think that this was the fist suggestion ever made about Lechmere possibly being a psychopath, though Connor never spelt it out.

Please listen carefully now, for I will only say this once:

Grounded on the circumstantial and physical evidence, I am convinced that Charles Lechmere is by far the best suggestion we have for the killers role in the nichols case. He is also the probable Ripper, the way I see things.
If I am correct, then Lechmere could not have committed the murder in thousands of different ways. There is an exactituce involved in the material that allows for a very limited interpretation of how he would have gone about killing Nichols, and subsequently fooled Robert Paul, the police and the inquest. To my mind, only a psychopath would have done what I suggest that Lechmere did. So the psychopathy is secondary - but is is tied to the case as a demand. If Lechmere was not a psychopath, then he was not the killer and I am all wrong about this.
It also applies that the FBI have looked at the cases and arrived at the conclusion that there were traits of psychopathology on display at the sites.

Now, where did I put that gun...?

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;354514]

Hi Fisherman,

Sounds great. And I do understand that you meant PC Neils description and that you of course know about Paul and Lechmere, they being part of the history as well as your theory.

I also understand my hypothesis doesnīt sit well with you. Perhaps I will experience the same problem in the future when I communicate my theory to others.

Regards Pierre

If you have a theory with a new suspect, I believe that the people out here will treat you with great gentleness and generosity, and do anything to support and help you.

They normally do.

Goodnight for now.

[curious4]

Please don't shoot yourself, Fisherman. You would be sadly missed!

C4

[Pierre]

If you can spare the time to backtrack and read 23 447 posts, you will see that you are wrong. Myself, I have lost the will to live for now, so I will go and shoot myself in the head and be done with it. Or read a few posts out here - it should have the same sort of impact...

Anyway, before I do that, I will just say that the psychopathy part had nothing at all to do with why I suspect Lechmere. It is all grounded on the facts surrounding the case. QC James Scobie said that there is a prima faciae case against the man, suggesting that he was the killer. And Scobie said nothing at all about psychopathy. But the rest was quite enough!

If you are read up on Lechmere, you will be familar with Michael Connor. He was among the first to point a finger at the carman. One of his dissertations, he signed off by asking: "I wonder how he treated his horses?"

A typical trait with a psychopath is that he is oblivious of the pain he inflicts on other creatures. In a sense, I think that this was the fist suggestion ever made about Lechmere possibly being a psychopath, though Connor never spelt it out.

Please listen carefully now, for I will only say this once:

Grounded on the circumstantial and physical evidence, I am convinced that Charles Lechmere is by far the best suggestion we have for the killers role in the nichols case. He is also the probable Ripper, the way I see things.
If I am correct, then Lechmere could not have committed the murder in thousands of different ways. There is an exactituce involved in the material that allows for a very limited interpretation of how he would have gone about killing Nichols, and subsequently fooled Robert Paul, the police and the inquest. To my mind, only a psychopath would have done what I suggest that Lechmere did. So the psychopathy is secondary - but is is tied to the case as a demand. If Lechmere was not a psychopath, then he was not the killer and I am all wrong about this.
It also applies that the FBI have looked at the cases and arrived at the conclusion that there were traits of psychopathology on display at the sites.

Now, where did I put that gun...?

Hi Fisherman,

You have an impressive knowledge about this case I hear. And it is a good thing you havenīt based the theory on the diagnosis-thing. I respect you for that and it makes your theory more valid and reliable.

Best regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Please don't shoot yourself, Fisherman. You would be sadly missed!

C4

Not to worry, Curious - I would probably miss and become the second family member with a pierced ear...

And thanks, by the way!

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

You have an impressive knowledge about this case I hear. And it is a good thing you havenīt based the theory on the diagnosis-thing. I respect you for that and it makes your theory more valid and reliable.

Best regards, Pierre

Iīm flabbergasted - I think you are the first one to voice an understanding and acceptance of my take.

I am so unused to this, I really donīt know what to say.

If I think of something, Iīll get back to you.

Goodnight now!

[caz]

REALLY, Caz...!!!

Sometimes I realize the sheer potential in you as a future Lechmerian. It manly lies in the fact that you apparently have not understood a single thing I have said. Meaning that when and if you DO, then we may have a new disciple on our hands. And I am so looking forward to it!

Now, I could have said that I have explained this a thosuand times, but why would I do that - when it is so apparent that you never cottoned on anyway...?

So here goes again!

Imagine, if you will, TWO Lechmereīs. Twins, sort of. But only on the outside!

Lechmere number one is a serial killer. He is also a psychopath. He therefore lacks the startle reflex, meaning that he will not be scared by sudden potential threats. Nor does he possess the ability to panick. He is, however, a man who likes to control other people, and he is an accomplished and skilful liar, who likes to play games.

Lechmere number two is a family father, and a hardworking carman, first and foremost. He gets scared if something suddenly jumps out at him - his startle reflex is alive and kicking. If people around him panick, he will panick with them. He is truthful and helpful.

Now, Caz, very many people tell me that Lechmere would have fled immediately when he heard Paul, since that is what they perceive that people do. When arriving at this conclusion, they will have turned to themselves and asked "what would I do in a situation like this?" And they arrive - quite truthfully - at the conclusion that they would have gotten the hell out of Bucks Row.

They are, however, not psychopaths. They do not think the way psychopaths do. They foresee trouble and fear and flight, where a psychopath feels no fear, and instead focuses on playing the game of conning his surroundings.

It seems to me that Lechmere number one quickly decided on this exact route - Paul could not see any damage, and that damage involved seven bloodred cuts against a white belly and a two-inch gaping wound in the neck from which blood flowed. Paul, however, could see the hat, he could see the posture of the woman etcetera. It was not pitch dark. The woman was easy enough to see, thatīs what Paul said in the newspaper interview.
The inevitable conclusion is that Lechmere number one decided to bluff the newcomer, and that he took steps in order to enable him to do so: he saw to it that the wounds were covered. He prepared himself for the game.

In essence, Caz, depending on the situations we are talking about, there will always be two categories of people: those who run and those who donīt. And therein lies the answer to what you perceive as an enigma: Although we are talking of the same man, we are also talking about two TYPES of men.

I hope I managaged to explain what I am suggesting this time. I must have failed a thousand times before.

I am very, very sorry to have done what I did in order to facilitate things for you: I added another Lechmere.

I am quite aware that you are having all sorts of trouble with just the one.

Hi Fish,

It wasn't your psychopathic killer's reaction that started me - as you say, we've heard that circular argument a thousand times. It was your insistence that an innocent Lechmere would not have waited for company lest he was thought to be the murderer.

You seem to have missed a rather crucial aspect here. An innocent Lechmere wouldn't have any blood on him, wouldn't have the bloody murder weapon on him, and could clear himself of any involvement in an instant, if anyone suspected him because of his proximity to the victim.

We know that Paul didn't suspect Lechmere for a second of being the killer, and he, more than perhaps anyone on the planet then or now, was in the best position to judge (even if his judgement was just not up to a murdering psychopath's uncanny ability to go from mutilating and nearly decapitating a woman to playing the concerned citizen in seconds flat).

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Lechmere must have understood that if he remained at the crime scene, the risk would increase that the police would arrive. Of course heīd want to avoid that if he was the killer.

Hi Pierre,

Exactly. We know PC Neil would very shortly arrive at the scene, and if Lechmere and Paul had still been there, they would almost certainly have had to give their details, explain their movements and probably faced a search too. Lechmere would have had no idea how long he could have safely stayed near the body before a beat copper came along, and he couldn't have taken two men on with his knife if asked to turn out his pockets.

Iīd say Lechmere seems to be really frightened and didnīt want any trouble. So he pretended to have seen nothing and didnīt want his name and adress in the papers so the killer could find him.

It is a shame though that he didnīt testify. We have probably lost a valuable source for how the killer looked. And so did the police.

I'm not sure Lechmere did see or hear anyone, but when he learned the woman had been murdered so horribly just before his own arrival, it must have spooked him a fair bit, so he may well have been wary of putting Mrs Lechmere and all the little Lechmeres at risk from the killer by giving his witness account publicly under that name, and he possibly mumbled his home address publicly too for the same reason. I'm not sure I would have wanted the murderer to know my family's surname and where we lived.

Another point is that a guilty Lechmere would have missed a trick by saying he saw and heard nothing. Safer to say he did, because everyone assumed the killer must have got away somehow just before Lechmere's arrival and was possibly even interrupted by him, so it wouldn't matter a jot if nobody else had noticed anything. People often don't, and nobody was expecting a murder on their doorstep before Lechmere alerted Paul to this one.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz: Hi Fish,

It wasn't your psychopathic killer's reaction that started me - as you say, we've heard that circular argument a thousand times.

Only it is not a circular argument. I am not saying that he was a psychopath, I am saying that if he was the killer, then he was apparently a psychopath.

You need to look at what circular means.

It was your insistence that an innocent Lechmere would not have waited for company lest he was thought to be the murderer.

I did not "insist" on it - I said that ot would be the by far more probable thing to do.

See the difference?

You know, I am totally fed up with all the apparently illiterate people who cannot debate soundly.

You seem to have missed a rather crucial aspect here. An innocent Lechmere wouldn't have any blood on him, wouldn't have the bloody murder weapon on him, and could clear himself of any involvement in an instant, if anyone suspected him because of his proximity to the victim.

Sigh. And?

We know that Paul didn't suspect Lechmere for a second of being the killer...

But who are "we", Caz? I for one canīt say that I know this. I suspect that this was so, but knowing is another thing.

...and he, more than perhaps anyone on the planet then or now, was in the best position to judge (even if his judgement was just not up to a murdering psychopath's uncanny ability to go from mutilating and nearly decapitating a woman to playing the concerned citizen in seconds flat).

No, he was not in the best position to judge, Caz, unless he was a chriminologist, a psychiatrist and a great character judge.

Just what are you trying to do here? Say that if Paul didnīt suspect Lechmere, then he could not be the killer? Geez!

[caz]

Only it is not a circular argument. I am not saying that he was a psychopath, I am saying that if he was the killer, then he was apparently a psychopath.

You need to look at what circular means.

I know exactly what circular reasoning is, Fish. It's starting with what you want to end up with. So whether you start with Lechmere being the killer and therefore apparently a psychopath, or Lechmere being a psychopath and therefore the likely killer, it's all circular because you have not yet begun to show he was either. That's precisely what circular reasoning is. It's all 'if x, then y', which takes you round in a circle but nowhere further forward. If Lechmere was the killer, good for you, but the evidence can equally indicate he was neither a killer nor a psychopath.

Surely you can see that the equal and opposite argument would be just as ridiculous and meaningless: 'If Lechmere wasn't the killer, he was apparently not a psychopath either'. Well dur. Both are unknowns, yet one depends on the other not only being stand-alone true, but demonstrably stand-alone true.

I did not "insist" on it - I said that ot would be the by far more probable thing to do.

See the difference?

This is what you actually wrote:

It makes no sense. He would not want any contact in a case like this. He needed to get out of there and stay off the map.

You went on to write:

Sorry, Pierre, but it does not pan out.

See the difference between that and giving an opinion on the probability? Well no, you couldn't have done.

You know, I am totally fed up with all the apparently illiterate people who cannot debate soundly.

Wow, but only 'apparently'? So you can't actually tell if someone is illiterate? That could explain an awful lot.

I wrote:

You seem to have missed a rather crucial aspect here. An innocent Lechmere wouldn't have any blood on him, wouldn't have the bloody murder weapon on him, and could clear himself of any involvement in an instant, if anyone suspected him because of his proximity to the victim.

You responded:

Sigh. And?

And, dear Fish, that means your argument (you know, the one where you went from saying 'it makes no sense' to wait for Paul, to 'it is far more probable' that he wouldn't wait for Paul, lest he was suspected) lies in tatters, because if he hadn't just committed the murder he had nothing to fear from being searched on the spot or examined more closely back at the police station. Not so the actual killer, unless you want to claim Lechmere got rid of the murder weapon before Paul arrived, in case the two were still fannying about at the scene when the next beat copper came along to investigate and he wouldn't get another chance.

Just what are you trying to do here? Say that if Paul didnīt suspect Lechmere, then he could not be the killer? Geez!

I thought I explained it quite simply, but if you have to ask...

My point concerned the speed at which this is all meant to happen, from Lechmere's final adrenaline-fuelled thrust of the knife into the prone body of Nichols, before suddenly becoming aware of Paul's approach, to his instant return to industrious family man on his way to work, with nothing in between the two to make the stranger suspect him of ill treating the woman himself. I know Paul couldn't have judged if the man was a psychopath or likely murderer if Lechmere was able to pull off this remarkable quick-change performance. What I question is the likelihood of Lechmere - or anyone for that matter - being able to do that, however cunning, or however twisted their mentality. It almost defies the laws of physics as they relate to the speed of human reactions.

Bottom line, since Paul does not appear to have noticed anything remotely inconsistent with Lechmere's stated role, that would seem more consistent with Lechmere's innocence than his guilt.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz: I know exactly what circular reasoning is, Fish. It's starting with what you want to end up with. So whether you start with Lechmere being the killer and therefore apparently a psychopath, or Lechmere being a psychopath and therefore the likely killer, it's all circular because you have not yet begun to show he was either.

Nope, it is not circular at all, since I do not claim to know that he was the killer.
I am saying that I think that the killer was a osychopat, and that it therefore applies that if Lechmere was the killer, then he would in al probability have been a psychopath.
There is nothing circular about that. It is completely logic.

Let me put ou out of your misery, so that you donīt go wrong again. Imagine a crime scene where a knife fight has taken place, leaving a person dead. On the scene, there is the victims blood of the type A. Imagine further that there is blood of type B in place too, obviously coming fro the killer. Imagine that the the police conclude that the killer probably is Mr C, since they can prove that he was there at the relevant time, and since there is a number of points implicating that he is the probable killer.
In such a case, the police WILL suppost that Mr C:s blood is of the B type.

It is perfectly logical to do so, moreover, and has nothing to do with circular reasoning.It is instead LOGICAL reasoning, and it applies that it can be right and it can be wrong, since there is no certainty - only implicartions - pointing to Mr C.

End of story.

If Lechmere was the killer, good for you, but the evidence can equally indicate he was neither a killer nor a psychopath.

Yes, exactly - that is the exact same thing as with Mr C: The implications were there that he was the culprit, but it will take evidence to prove that it really was him.

This is what you actually wrote:

I did not "insist" on it - I said that it would be the by far more probable thing to do.

See the difference?

You went on to write:

It makes no sense. He would not want any contact in a case like this. He needed to get out of there and stay off the map.

See the difference between that and giving an opinion on the probability? Well no, you couldn't have done.

I clearly see that I donīt postulate anything as a given, when it comes to his actions. I oersonally think that he would want no contact and that he needed to get out of there, and therefore I say that it would by far be the probable thing for him to do.

Then along comes you, not understanding what I write.

Wow, but only 'apparently'? So you can't actually tell if someone is illiterate? That could explain an awful lot.

See the above, Caz.

I wrote:

You seem to have missed a rather crucial aspect here. An innocent Lechmere wouldn't have any blood on him, wouldn't have the bloody murder weapon on him, and could clear himself of any involvement in an instant, if anyone suspected him because of his proximity to the victim.

And, dear Fish, that means your argument (you know, the one where you went from saying 'it makes no sense' to wait for Paul, to 'it is far more probable' that he wouldn't wait for Paul, lest he was suspected) lies in tatters, because if he hadn't just committed the murder he had nothing to fear from being searched on the spot or examined more closely back at the police station. Not so the actual killer, unless you want to claim Lechmere got rid of the murder weapon before Paul arrived, in case the two were still fannying about at the scene when the next beat copper came along to investigate and he wouldn't get another chance.

To begin with, how and in which universe are "it would not make sense to wait for Paul" and "It is not probable that he would wait for Paul" opposites...? You have a very strange way of arguing, I must say!

Secondly, can you or can you not see the implications of knowing for sure that you are standing right next to a freshly murdered woman, after having seen and been threatened by the killer who has taken off - like Pierre proposed? Can you or can you not see that Lechmere would know that he would have taken over the probable killers role, in the eyes of the newcomer? Can you or can you not see that Lechmere would not be able to know if the actual killer had driopped his weapon somewhere close to the body? Can you or can you not see that Lechmere would not possibky be in any position to know whether the crime as such must have set off any blood on the perpetrator? Jason Payne-James said that the killer would not necessarily have any blood on his person. Can you or can you not see that Lechmere would not have known who the first person to arrive would be? It could be a PC. Lechmere would have been upset and confused if he had just been threatened by a killer, and he would need to compose himself and come up with a credible story that did NOT involve mentioning the killer - for that was what Pierre postulated.
In such a case - how many would think "Hey, I have not any weapon, and I have no blood on my person, so Iīll just stay put and say that I happened to find this woman who lies bleeding on the street, and I had nothing at all to do with it, no Sir", and how many would think "If I get the hell out of here, I am guaranteed not to end up in trouble".

Whoa, Caz - it suddenly got complicated, didnīt it!

Just what are you trying to do here? Say that if Paul didnīt suspect Lechmere, then he could not be the killer? Geez!

I thought I explained it quite simply, but if you have to ask...

My point concerned the speed at which this is all meant to happen, from Lechmere's final adrenaline-fuelled thrust of the knife into the prone body of Nichols, before suddenly becoming aware of Paul's approach, to his instant return to industrious family man on his way to work, with nothing in between the two to make the stranger suspect him of ill treating the woman himself.

Exactly how speedy was it, Caz? Do YOU know? I donīt. I am counting on the time Lechmere stood waiting in the middle of the street to be anywhere between ten and forty seconds, or something like that. Are you saying that Caz the detective would easily see if any man standing close to a murdered woman was the killer or not? Is that it? Would it be impossible for Paul to miss out if Lechmere was the killer?
Paul stepped out in the road to avoid Lechmere. Was that beacuse he felt scared by him? Could it be that he did felt that something was wrong with the man - but then he accepted that it was finding the woman that had made him act strangely? We donīt know, do we. But we DO know that there is no minimum time recorded that guarantees that killers give themselves aaway if they do not reach that limit.

I know Paulcouldn't have judged if the man was a psychopath or likely murderer if Lechmere was able to pull off this remarkable quick-change performance.

Remarkabe? Shall we lay down that it must have been "remarkable"? I think not. Some people are quick to grasp things.
Not all, though...

What I question is the likelihood of Lechmere - or anyone for that matter - being able to do that, however cunning, or however twisted their mentality. It almost defies the laws of physics as they relate to the speed of human reactions.

No, it does nothing of the sort. That is just something you suggest because there are no REAL arguments to offer.

Bottom line, since Paul does not appear to have noticed anything remotely inconsistent with Lechmere's stated role, that would seem more consistent with Lechmere's innocence than his guilt.

There is no bottom at all in that line. It is open to the abyss. And if you DO know anything at all about circular reasoning, you should understand why!!!

[caz]

Nope, it is not circular at all, since I do not claim to know that he was the killer.
I am saying that I think that the killer was a osychopat, and that it therefore applies that if Lechmere was the killer, then he would in al probability have been a psychopath.
There is nothing circular about that. It is completely logic.

It may be logical, Fish, but it's still meaningless. Your theory is that Lechmere was the killer, because of x, y or z. Yet your premise above is 'if' he was, then x, y or z would follow. But let's examine it anyway. Firstly, it is impossible to know if this unknown killer was a psychopath or not. So you need to start with: If the killer was a psychopath, and if Lechmere was the killer... and then you could safely conclude that: Lechmere was a psychopath.

Congratulations, you have a perfectly valid and logical argument that takes you from your two premises to a valid conclusion - and back again to the two premises. Now all you need is the evidence that both premises are true. And if you had the evidence for Lechmere being the killer, you wouldn't need anything else, would you? I could equally argue that if Lechmere wasn't the killer, we wouldn't know if he was a psychopath or not, and it wouldn't matter anyway. But I too lack the evidence for my initial premise. We both speculate based on just his reported movements, conversations and statements, plus what little is known about the man's life outside of the Nichols enquiry.

Where it all becomes circular is when you start with the premise that Lechmere (probably) killed Nichols, examine his behaviour in that context only and find what you believe would be psychopathic traits if he indeed killed her, and then argue (or hope) that the killer was (probably) a psychopath so that hey presto, you end up where you started, with Lechmere becoming the probable killer.

Let me put ou out of your misery, so that you donīt go wrong again. Imagine a crime scene where a knife fight has taken place, leaving a person dead. On the scene, there is the victims blood of the type A. Imagine further that there is blood of type B in place too, obviously coming fro the killer. Imagine that the the police conclude that the killer probably is Mr C, since they can prove that he was there at the relevant time, and since there is a number of points implicating that he is the probable killer.
In such a case, the police WILL suppost that Mr C:s blood is of the B type.

Thank you, but that is not an argument based on what ifs and maybes; it's a suspicion based on real evidence that can be tested. If Mr C's blood turns out not to be type B, he is released; if it is type B, and DNA testing is not yet available, he will be investigated further.

Secondly, can you or can you not see the implications of knowing for sure that you are standing right next to a freshly murdered woman...?

I can if Lechmere was the killer, but he apparently couldn't. Luckily for him, nobody else seems to have seen the implications, including Paul.

Can you or can you not see that Lechmere would know that he would have taken over the probable killers role, in the eyes of the newcomer?

Yet apparently Lechmere didn't know he would be the probable killer in Paul's eyes, and he wasn't the killer in Paul's eyes. Luckily for him, he was the killer, otherwise Paul might have suspected him.

Can you or can you not see that Lechmere would not be able to know if the actual killer had driopped his weapon somewhere close to the body?

Would the killer have had time to clean it first? If not, it would be bloody, while Lechmere The Innocent would be without a spot. Lechmere the Guilty, on the other hand, supposedly didn't drip or drop his weapon anywhere between hearing Paul's approach and informing Mizen that the woman (he had just murdered) was lying in Buck's Row.

Can you or can you not see that Lechmere would not have known who the first person to arrive would be? It could be a PC.

Quite so. Yet Lechmere The Guilty carries on regardless - presumably because psychopaths are funny that way. A whole army of PCs could have come along but he knew he had enough wool to pull over their eyes, and not a speck of blood on him in the unlikely event that they even bothered to look that closely. Absolutely no fear of being asked for his name and address and searched for a weapon.

Lechmere would have been upset and confused if he had just been threatened by a killer, and he would need to compose himself and come up with a credible story that did NOT involve mentioning the killer - for that was what Pierre postulated.

But completely calm and composed if he had just been trying to decapitate the woman, and able to come up with a dozen credible stories before breakfast should the need arise.

In such a case - how many would think "Hey, I have not any weapon, and I have no blood on my person, so Iīll just stay put and say that I happened to find this woman who lies bleeding on the street, and I had nothing at all to do with it, no Sir", and how many would think "If I get the hell out of here, I am guaranteed not to end up in trouble".

And in such a case, how many psychopathic serial killers would think "Hey, I have the murder weapon on me, and I don't think I got any blood on me, so I'll just stay put... (and so on)", rather than "If I get the hell out of here before a copper comes sniffing round, I am guaranteed not to hang"?

Love,

Caz
X

[Pierre]

Hi Fisherman,

Have you ever tryed the following questions:

A) Could Lechmere have become an witness to the murder on
his way to work?

B) If Lechmere saw the killer, could that lead to:

1. That the killer tryed to cover the mutilations from Lechmere?

2. That Lechmere did not want to come forward with his testimony?

3. That Lechmere did not want to give his true name?

Pierre

I agree with this.

Pierre