Lechmere a witness to the killer

[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?

4. That Lechmere did not want to give his adress?

Sometimes historical sources kick back. You have to let them.

Sorry.

Pierre

[GUT]

Except poor old Lech gave his address both home and work.

[Pierre]

Except poor old Lech gave his address both home and work.

Didnīt Fisherman find that Lechmere gave 22 Doveton Street as his home adress (it was his mothers adress by the time of the murder) and that hundreds of men worked at his work adress?

Pierre

[curious4]

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?

4. That Lechmere did not want to give his adress?

Sometimes historical sources kick back. You have to let them.

Sorry.

Pierre

Sorry Pierre

Lechmere and Paul adjusted her clothing, thinking that she had been sexually assaulted.

PS Swedish?

[Fisherman]

Whoa there!

If you please - can I answer Pierres questions, since he directed them to me...?

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

Technically, yes - but that would mean that the killer was in Bucks Row as Lechmere arrived. If so, it is odd that the PC:s and watchmen claimed not to have seen anybody leave the place to evoke attention. But if the killer managed to sneak out unseen, the yes, Lechmere could have witnessed the murder.

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

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

Why would he do that, if he knew that Lechmere had seen him killing Nichols? Or are we discussing a scenario where Lechmere did not witness the actual murder? Or one where he did, but unknown to the killer?

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

For what exact reason? One must asssume that if he witnessed the murder, he would be acutely aware that he needed to come forward and clear himself.

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

If he was not the killer, then why would he hesitate to do that? Using the wrong name could get him into a lot of trouble. If he was the killer, he may have thought it worth the risk but if he was not...?

4. That Lechmere did not want to give his adress?

Same thing there, Pierre!

Didnīt Fisherman find that Lechmere gave 22 Doveton Street as his home adress (it was his mothers adress by the time of the murder) and that hundreds of men worked at his work adress?

No. 22 Doveton Street was the address to which he moved in mid June 1888, leaving his mother (and one of his daughters who stayed with her) behind. It was the first time he lived away from a very close proximity to his mother.

22 Doveton Street was at no stage his mothers address.

[Monty]

If the exchange is purely meant to be between Pierre and Christer, then take it to PM.

The rhetoric is numbingly dull, yet painfully misleading.

A contradiction, as ever.

Monty

[Pierre]

Whoa there!

If you please - can I answer Pierres questions, since he directed them to me...?

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

Technically, yes - but that would mean that the killer was in Bucks Row as Lechmere arrived. If so, it is odd that the PC:s and watchmen claimed not to have seen anybody leave the place to evoke attention. But if the killer managed to sneak out unseen, the yes, Lechmere could have witnessed the murder.

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

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

Why would he do that, if he knew that Lechmere had seen him killing Nichols? Or are we discussing a scenario where Lechmere did not witness the actual murder? Or one where he did, but unknown to the killer?

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

For what exact reason? One must asssume that if he witnessed the murder, he would be acutely aware that he needed to come forward and clear himself.

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

If he was not the killer, then why would he hesitate to do that? Using the wrong name could get him into a lot of trouble. If he was the killer, he may have thought it worth the risk but if he was not...?

4. That Lechmere did not want to give his adress?

Same thing there, Pierre!

Didnīt Fisherman find that Lechmere gave 22 Doveton Street as his home adress (it was his mothers adress by the time of the murder) and that hundreds of men worked at his work adress?

No. 22 Doveton Street was the address to which he moved in mid June 1888, leaving his mother (and one of his daughters who stayed with her) behind. It was the first time he lived away from a very close proximity to his mother.

22 Doveton Street was at no stage his mothers address.

Thanks Fisherman.

1. Alt 1) If Lechmere showed up when the killer were performing the mutilations the killer would cover them up, trying to make the witness believe he was in a sexual act with the woman. Alt 2) He would try to get the scene to look less serious, thereby avoiding Lechmere shouting for the police. Alt 3) He would just cover it up in panic and run.

2. For the exact reason of beeing very scared after witnessing the mutilations or even threatened by the killer. I guess nobody here believes that the killer couldnīt act threatening if he got a witness.

3. He would hesitate giving his true name if he was afraid of the killer. Giving the name and getting it printed in the papers could mean becoming a target for the killer.

4. Thanks for the info about Doveton Street. But didnīt you find that he gave this adress to the police exclusively and not to the jury when he testified? So the adress wouldnīt be printed in the papers.


So giving a false name (which I think I read he never hade done before, please correct me if Iīm wrong) could cause trouble with the justice system.

But giving the true name could cause death. So he probably chose the least risky strategy.


Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

Thanks Fisherman.

1. Alt 1) If Lechmere showed up when the killer were performing the mutilations the killer would cover them up, trying to make the witness believe he was in a sexual act with the woman. Alt 2) He would try to get the scene to look less serious, thereby avoiding Lechmere shouting for the police. Alt 3) He would just cover it up in panic and run.

2. For the exact reason of beeing very scared after witnessing the mutilations or even threatened by the killer. I guess nobody here believes that the killer couldnīt act threatening if he got a witness.

3. He would hesitate giving his true name if he was afraid of the killer. Giving the name and getting it printed in the papers could mean becoming a target for the killer.

4. Thanks for the info about Doveton Street. But didnīt you find that he gave this adress to the police exclusively and not to the jury when he testified? So the adress wouldnīt be printed in the papers.


So giving a false name (which I think I read he never hade done before, please correct me if Iīm wrong) could cause trouble with the justice system.

But giving the true name could cause death. So he probably chose the least risky strategy.


Regards Pierre

Itīs colourful, Iīll give you that! But I donīt buy into it. If Lechmere was innocent, then why would he remain standing in the street, awaiting the arrival of Paul?
In your scenario, Lechmere lies about being just 30 or 40 yards ahead of Paul. Why did he not leave the place immediately after the killer did? Why remain there?

As for his address, one paper only got it, the rest missed out. My guess is that this sole paper (The Star) got the address from a source the other papers never accessed.

[Pierre]

Itīs colourful, Iīll give you that! But I donīt buy into it. If Lechmere was innocent, then why would he remain standing in the street, awaiting the arrival of Paul?
In your scenario, Lechmere lies about being just 30 or 40 yards ahead of Paul. Why did he not leave the place immediately after the killer did? Why remain there?

As for his address, one paper only got it, the rest missed out. My guess is that this sole paper (The Star) got the address from a source the other papers never accessed.

Thanks Fisherman,

I think Lechmere remained standing in the street because he was stunned and afraid to move or call for somebody, given the risk that the murderer was in the area.

So Lechmere waited for the steps to come closer before he dared to make contact with somebody else.

Itīs rather funny but the probability that someone like Lechmere, who often moved around in this area, would actually witness a murder or another crime cannot be very low. And in the way we have been thinking about the ripper, he never had witnesses. But the probability of that is low. He avoided the police, yes, but the choice of the murder site in this case gives a high probability that someone like Lechmere would come along.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;354462]Thanks Fisherman,

I think Lechmere remained standing in the street because he was stunned and afraid to move or call for somebody, given the risk that the murderer was in the area.

But if he was threatened, then he knew which way the killer took. Plus he knew he was at risk, standing by the body.

So Lechmere waited for the steps to come closer before he dared to make contact with somebody else.

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. Nobody but the killer knew abut him, and he was not gonna give him away.

Itīs rather funny but the probability that someone like Lechmere, who often moved around in this area, would actually witness a murder or another crime cannot be very low. And in the way we have been thinking about the ripper, he never had witnesses. But the probability of that is low. He avoided the police, yes, but the choice of the murder site in this case gives a high probability that someone like Lechmere would come along.

In essence, no - the back streets were empty and silent, as witnessed about by Neil. Nobody was about at 3.15 and nobody was about as he returned.
Sorry, Pierre, but it does not pan out. Does this belong to your theory...?

[caz]

Thanks Fisherman,

I think Lechmere remained standing in the street because he was stunned and afraid to move or call for somebody, given the risk that the murderer was in the area.

But if he was threatened, then he knew which way the killer took. Plus he knew he was at risk, standing by the body.

So Lechmere waited for the steps to come closer before he dared to make contact with somebody else.

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. Nobody but the killer knew abut him, and he was not gonna give him away.

Itīs rather funny but the probability that someone like Lechmere, who often moved around in this area, would actually witness a murder or another crime cannot be very low. And in the way we have been thinking about the ripper, he never had witnesses. But the probability of that is low. He avoided the police, yes, but the choice of the murder site in this case gives a high probability that someone like Lechmere would come along.

In essence, no - the back streets were empty and silent, as witnessed about by Neil. Nobody was about at 3.15 and nobody was about as he returned.
Sorry, Pierre, but it does not pan out. Does this belong to your theory...?

Right, so it makes no sense for an innocent Lechmere to wait there in case Paul thought he was the killer? He needed to get out of there and stay off the map?

So how does it make any more sense for a guilty Lechmere to wait there, confident Paul would not think he was the killer? Wouldn't he too have been better off getting out of there and staying off the map, like the killer in Pierre's scenario?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Right, so it makes no sense for an innocent Lechmere to wait there in case Paul thought he was the killer? He needed to get out of there and stay off the map?

So how does it make any more sense for a guilty Lechmere to wait there, confident Paul would not think he was the killer? Wouldn't he too have been better off getting out of there and staying off the map, like the killer in Pierre's scenario?

Love,

Caz
X

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.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;354467]

Thanks Fisherman,

I think Lechmere remained standing in the street because he was stunned and afraid to move or call for somebody, given the risk that the murderer was in the area.

But if he was threatened, then he knew which way the killer took. Plus he knew he was at risk, standing by the body.

So Lechmere waited for the steps to come closer before he dared to make contact with somebody else.

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. Nobody but the killer knew abut him, and he was not gonna give him away.

Itīs rather funny but the probability that someone like Lechmere, who often moved around in this area, would actually witness a murder or another crime cannot be very low. And in the way we have been thinking about the ripper, he never had witnesses. But the probability of that is low. He avoided the police, yes, but the choice of the murder site in this case gives a high probability that someone like Lechmere would come along.

In essence, no - the back streets were empty and silent, as witnessed about by Neil. Nobody was about at 3.15 and nobody was about as he returned.

Sorry, Pierre, but it does not pan out. Does this belong to your theory...?

Hi Fisherman,

The explanation of what you say makes no sense is that people tend to do irrational things when in a state of shock.

And the street wasnīt empty: Both Lechmere and Paul was there.

I understand if you would never elaborate on this scenario since you have invested in your theory about Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.

But being a good writer as you are, you could certainly reverse the story if you wanted to and make Lechmere a witness to the killer. I mean, that would give you a good chance to honestly test your data. Because you do want evidence, donīt you?

I have nothing from this scenario in my theory since I have other pieces of data. Actually, the murder of Mary Ann is the one I know least about. So I do really respect your knowledge about the case. But - all data must be tested and very often one tends to misinterpret historical sources. This can be very dangerous - and that statement includes myself.


Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Right, so it makes no sense for an innocent Lechmere to wait there in case Paul thought he was the killer? He needed to get out of there and stay off the map?

So how does it make any more sense for a guilty Lechmere to wait there, confident Paul would not think he was the killer? Wouldn't he too have been better off getting out of there and staying off the map, like the killer in Pierre's scenario?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I agree with that. If he was the killer, he would not have come up close, showing his face and speaking to people.

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.

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.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;354505]

Hi Fisherman,

The explanation of what you say makes no sense is that people tend to do irrational things when in a state of shock.

And the street wasnīt empty: Both Lechmere and Paul was there.

I understand if you would never elaborate on this scenario since you have invested in your theory about Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.

But being a good writer as you are, you could certainly reverse the story if you wanted to and make Lechmere a witness to the killer. I mean, that would give you a good chance to honestly test your data. Because you do want evidence, donīt you?

I have nothing from this scenario in my theory since I have other pieces of data. Actually, the murder of Mary Ann is the one I know least about. So I do really respect your knowledge about the case. But - all data must be tested and very often one tends to misinterpret historical sources. This can be very dangerous - and that statement includes myself.


Regards Pierre

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.