What happened to Lechmere......

[Trevor Marriott]

Very true, Caz. If there WAS another killer, he DID save himself time and trouble by running when Lechmere arrived. Of course, that predisposed that he had the good fortune not to run into a PC, but if there WAS another killer, he apparently did not (a little circular, but there you go...)

So what is it you are trying to say with this? That Lechmere was not a very practical man, having missed out on the opportunity to run? And WAS there such an opportunity? Plus, of course, if there was - how would Lechmere have known about it?

You put a lot of time and effort into saying that you think that the fact that Lechmere did not act according to your wishes and desires if he was the killer, would somehow disqualify the suggestion that he was.

You don´t spare yourself that work either, for some reason. Why is that?

Lets not lose sight of the fact that the time of death cannot be firmly established. You and Ed seem to be the only ones who are suggesting the time of death fits in with the movements of Lechmere, now I wonder why you are the only two ?

So in fact the killer could have been long before anyone ever arrived at the crime scene.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Right, so this other psychopath would not have stayed around to bluff things out for the sheer fun of it. He would still have been incapable of panicking or feeling fear, but when asking himself what to do, he would have answered: "Best run for it".

I can't say I'd blame him. Look at all the time and trouble he would have saved himself, compared with Lechmere, who had a family to provide for and would have risked loss of wages or worse by fannying about having fun with Paul and Mizen, and then more fun with everyone at the inquest.

Love,

Caz
X

Very true, Caz. If there WAS another killer, he DID save himself time and trouble by running when Lechmere arrived. Of course, that predisposed that he had the good fortune not to run into a PC, but if there WAS another killer, he apparently did not (a little circular, but there you go...)

So what is it you are trying to say with this? That Lechmere was not a very practical man, having missed out on the opportunity to run? And WAS there such an opportunity? Plus, of course, if there was - how would Lechmere have known about it?

You put a lot of time and effort into saying that you think that the fact that Lechmere did not act according to your wishes and desires if he was the killer, would somehow disqualify the suggestion that he was.

You don´t spare yourself that work either, for some reason. Why is that?

[caz]

Again, we travel the same road and "Fisherman" is the only one who cannot understand why it's impassible to all but him and an ever decreasing few.

When we view Lechmere's actions as those of man who found Polly Nichols' body while walking to work, they are completely appropriate, understandable, and require no leaps in logic or undiagnosed mental disorders in order to seem perfectly plausible.

When we do as "Fisherman" has suggested and view "Lechmere's actions with an eye on him being guilty (never a great way to start), well, it becomes something of a different story doesn't it? In order for this thing to make any sense whatever we must assume "Mizen Scams" and psychopathy in a man who - based on what we actually KNOW of his life - showed no signs of being ill-tempered, much less a psychopath! We must ascribe only the purest character traits to those that "help" the theory, Jonas Mizen's legendary HONESTY chief among them. We must view Robert Paul as a dishonest publicity seeker with a grudge against the police. And - again and most importantly - we must view Charles Allen Lechmere as a psychopath. We must ignore the obvious explanation, the one that was accepted by the police at the time and by students of the case for the past 130 years and go with invention, fiction, fantasy. It's more fun, I'll grant you that!

This is worth repeating, Patrick, and not just because Christer would not see your wise words otherwise, if he still has you on 'ignore'.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Of course, there is no evidence other than secondary such, that Lechmere was a psychopath. With that I mean that for him to have been the killer, he must also have been a psychopath. If he was not, then he was in all likelihood not the killer either. Then we need to squeeze another man in who WAS a psychopath.

Right, so this other psychopath would not have stayed around to bluff things out for the sheer fun of it. He would still have been incapable of panicking or feeling fear, but when asking himself what to do, he would have answered: "Best run for it".

I can't say I'd blame him. Look at all the time and trouble he would have saved himself, compared with Lechmere, who had a family to provide for and would have risked loss of wages or worse by fannying about having fun with Paul and Mizen, and then more fun with everyone at the inquest.

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

Again, we travel the same road and "Fisherman" is the only one who cannot understand why it's impassible to all but him and an ever decreasing few.

When we view Lechmere's actions as those of man who found Polly Nichols' body while walking to work, they are completely appropriate, understandable, and require no leaps in logic or undiagnosed mental disorders in order to seem perfectly plausible.

When we do as "Fisherman" has suggested and view "Lechmere's actions with an eye on him being guilty (never a great way to start), well, it becomes something of a different story doesn't it? In order for this thing to make any sense whatever we must assume "Mizen Scams" and psychopathy in a man who - based on what we actually KNOW of his life - showed no signs of being ill-tempered, much less a psychopath! We must ascribe only the purest character traits to those that "help" the theory, Jonas Mizen's legendary HONESTY chief among them. We must view Robert Paul as a dishonest publicity seeker with a grudge against the police. And - again and most importantly - we must view Charles Allen Lechmere as a psychopath. We must ignore the obvious explanation, the one that was accepted by the police at the time and by students of the case for the past 130 years and go with invention, fiction, fantasy. It's more fun, I'll grant you that!

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

Even if you had the least reason to believe Lechmere was a psychopath, this combination of 'disliking' the idea of becoming a suspect if he fails to identify himself as the first person seen with the murder victim, yet being incapable of panic or fear in the event that he does become a suspect, just looks like an unholy mess cobbled together to keep a theory alive.

A simpler argument would be that he did everything he did for the sheer hell of it, and didn't care if his lies got him into hot water. The hotter the better, apparently.

Love,

Caz
X

Tell me, Caz: Have you ever read up about psychopathy? You really ought to, you know.
As it stands, you seem to think that I am the ignorant one of us.

Read up, and you will know better.

I will help out with a little something. Have you noticed that I quote a psychologist called Hare, and his work on psychopathy? Here is a little excerpt about him, from when he started to cover the topic of psychopathy:

The amygdala, of course, is the brain's fear center -- an ancient evolutionary development that's worked to keep homo sapiens sapiens alive if not thriving for hundreds of thousands of years. A sudden movement, a sharp sound: The amygdala reacts at the slightest provocation. It's up to the prefrontal cortex, the seat of reasoning, of "executive function," to quiet the amygdala, once it's determined that the movement or sound doesn't represent an actual threat. In the case of people who panic, it's believed that the prefrontal cortex doesn't have the "oomph" needed to shut down the amygdala's warning screech as appropriate. Why else would you panic because you're riding an elevator or driving over a bridge?

If you panic, you may have wondered what it would be like to be unburdened by an amygdala. Maybe it would be awesome; maybe you'd feel free to become the you you've always wanted to be. Maybe it would make you fearless if a bit odd.

Or maybe it would make you a psychopath. At least, that'a conclusion reached in a recent article in the Guardian UK, an excellent piece called How to spot a psychopath:
In the mid-60s, Hare was working as a prison psychologist in Vancouver. He put word around the prison that he was looking for psychopathic and non-psychopathic volunteers for tests. He strapped them up to various EEG and sweat- and blood pressure-measuring machines, and also to an electricity generator, and explained to them that he was going to count backwards from 10 and when he reached one they'd receive a very painful electric shock.

The difference in the responses stunned Hare. The non-psychopathic volunteers (theirs were crimes of passion, usually, or crimes born from terrible poverty or abuse) steeled themselves ruefully, as if a painful electric shock were just the penance they deserved. They were, Hare noted, scared.
"And the psychopaths?" I asked.

"They didn't break a sweat," said Hare. "Nothing." The tests seemed to indicate that the amygdala, the part of the brain that should have anticipated the unpleasantness and sent the requisite signals of fear to the central nervous system, wasn't functioning as it should. It was an enormous breakthrough for Hare, his first clue that the brains of psychopaths were different from regular brains.

Are you beginning to understand what I am talking about now, Caz? A deficiency in the brain prevents psychopats from panicking. Thay CANNOT panick. They instead get annoyed or angry with things that don´t go their way.

Imagine a person like this out on a street, a person who has just killed somebody who is lying on the same street. When such a person hears approaching steps, he will NOT panick. He will in all probability be annoyed, if he is not done with what he came for, and he will adjust to the reality and ask himself which is the best thing to do: run or bluff it out.
His knowledge or guesswork about the surroubding circumstances will govern what he do PLUS he may choose the bluffing for the sheer fun of it.

Psychopaths like to play games and lie too, you see.

If you need me to quote Hare on that too, just say the word. I´m always glad to help.

Of course, there is no evidence other than secondary such, that Lechmere was a psychopath. With that I mean that for him to have been the killer, he must also have been a psychopath. If he was not, then he was in all likelihood not the killer either. Then we need to squeeze another man in who WAS a psychopath.

[caz]

No, I am pulling this one - he disliked the idea of getting stopped. If you do not know how such matters work with a psychopath involved, then you should not make a spectacle of yourself by flaunting it out here.

Psychopaths CANNOT panick, Caz - so much for your "funniest argument". It´s dead stupid. Again.

If you want to know how much terror a psychopath feels for the hangmans noose, then you should look at how Carl Panzram died.

Read up. Get smart. It´s anybody´s prerogative.

Hi Christer,

Even if you had the least reason to believe Lechmere was a psychopath, this combination of 'disliking' the idea of becoming a suspect if he fails to identify himself as the first person seen with the murder victim, yet being incapable of panic or fear in the event that he does become a suspect, just looks like an unholy mess cobbled together to keep a theory alive.

A simpler argument would be that he did everything he did for the sheer hell of it, and didn't care if his lies got him into hot water. The hotter the better, apparently.

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

Anybody who has been a policeman? Like Andy Griffiths, you mean? Who said that Mizen had no reason to lie?

Maybe SOMEBODY who has been a policeman has a pretty BAD idea of who´s lying in this errand, Colin?

As has been pointed out before, the coroner definitely took the police to task when they had neglected their duties. But he never once criticized Mizen. And why? Because, quite simply, Mizen never neglected any duty at all.

God. Please. No more of this Andy Griffiths business, "Fisherman"? Please? Tell us all, for the love of GOD, that you understand that Mr. Andy Griffiths was not paid to perform in your "internationally sent documentary" to SUBVERT this "theory"? You do comprehend that? Don't you?

[Rosella]

Was the report, which appeared in a provincial newspaper nearly a week after Chapman's murder, true though? Maybe the girl did see marks and showed Chandler, perhaps there was a bloodied bit of paper lying around in one those back yards, which probably had all sorts of rubbish lying around in them. None of it was discussed at the inquest, however.

Jack was probably young. If he had to, he could have vaulted over a fence or two (which weren't that high and perhaps not in very good repair) if he didn't leave by the front door of No. 29.

[Pierre]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Hervey Milton Cleckley (1903 – January 28, 1984) was an American psychiatrist and pioneer in the field of psychopathy.

(ibid.)

[MysterySinger]

Outside 29 Hanbury St, Sept 8th, 1888:

Charlie Cross emerges into the morning light, adrenaline coursing through his veins, and walks smack into the man who found him in Buck's Row with the body of Mary Nichols.

Robert Paul : "Hey, watch where you're goin' mate... blimey, it's you. I read in the papers that you've been giving evidence about finding that poor woman last week. Rather you than me. Anyway, nice meeting you again. It's Mr. Cross from Pickfords, ain't it? I'm a carman too. Small world, eh?"

Now if that wouldn't have been enough to strike terror into Crossmere's soul, in the wake of Annie Chapman's body being found ripped to shreds, I don't know what would.

Love,

Caz
X

If this newspaper report had been true, perhaps the said meeting could have taken place outside number 25. Or, as an alternative, the murderer could have lived at number 25 perhaps if it wasn't Lechmere-Cross. Whoever it was, they must have been quite fit to vault these fences one assumes.

[Fisherman]

"Psychopath"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

[Fisherman]

Anybody who's ever been a policeman has a pretty good idea of who's lying here to save his own skin - and why. It's not Charles Allen Lechmere.

Anybody who has been a policeman? Like Andy Griffiths, you mean? Who said that Mizen had no reason to lie?

Maybe SOMEBODY who has been a policeman has a pretty BAD idea of who´s lying in this errand, Colin?

As has been pointed out before, the coroner definitely took the police to task when they had neglected their duties. But he never once criticized Mizen. And why? Because, quite simply, Mizen never neglected any duty at all.

[Bridewell]

The first duty of a constable is to protect life. That's been the case since the Metropolitan Police was founded The duties were listed, by Joint Commissioner Sir Richard Mayne, in order of priority:

The Protection of Life and Property.
The Maintenance of Order
The Prevention and Detection of Crime
The Prosecution of Offenders Against the Peace.

What does Mizen do when he is told that there is a woman 'dead or drunk' in Bucks Row? He carries on knocking up and makes his way there in time to ensure that a 'J' Division colleague has got there first. You can call this anything you like but what it is is Neglect of Duty, neglect of the most important duty an officer is expected to fulfil - what should be his number one priority.

Cross & Paul's account is of telling Mizen of a woman who is dead or drunk and who needs the officer's help.

Mizen's account is of being told that another police officer needs his help - who is already present.

Anybody who's ever been a policeman has a pretty good idea of who's lying here to save his own skin - and why. It's not Charles Allen Lechmere.

[Pierre]

No, I am pulling this one - he disliked the idea of getting stopped. If you do not know how such matters work with a psychopath involved, then you should not make a spectacle of yourself by flaunting it out here.

Psychopaths CANNOT panick, Caz - so much for your "funniest argument". It´s dead stupid. Again.

If you want to know how much terror a psychopath feels for the hangmans noose, then you should look at how Carl Panzram died.

Read up. Get smart. It´s anybody´s prerogative.

"Psychopath"?