Lechmere Continuation Thread

[drstrange169]

>> I note that you are still avoiding to admit that what you wrote was, and I quote ad verbatim:"Not so, even if the two carmen didn’t mention another PC, Mizen had no obvious reason to suppose Neil could not have been the first to discover Mrs. Nichols body."THIS is what you said in your post.<<

I'm avioding nothing, I'm waiting for you to explain your accusatation.

>>I have asked for an explanation as to how this could have happened, but I am seeing no such explanation coming forward.<<

No what you wrote was,
“I would much rather prolong the VERY interesting discussion you inititated about how Mizen could have been told by the carmen that they found the body and STILL entertain an idea that Neil could have found it before them. Could you elaborate on that ingenious suggestion?”

I repeat:

I initiated no discussion, I simply replied to your post. Do you understand the difference between initiating and replying?

And I also repeat:

I did not, and as back as I can remember, I have never claimed Xmere and Paul told Mizen they found the body.

There certainly is aviodance going on, but it's not from me. Can you point to the exact wording in the sentence you keep quoting where I say they did? How exactly should I answer something that only exists in your mind?


>>The one and only interesting thing here is that you falsely claim that Mizen denied having knocked people up after Lechmere spoke to him ...<<

"Witness went to the spot directly Cross told him, and did not stop to knock any one up."
‘Nuff said.

RE: Protocol
>>I never said that Mizen broke it<<

Correct.
You said,
“And as I have already said, Mizen seems to have acted properly and accordoing to protocol.”

And I asked you to cite the protocol you claimed he followed, once again you’re altering what people say to, it seems, aviod answering questions.


>>I sometimes think that it was because I pulled your pants down about the Emily Lechmere business that things have taken such a vicious turn. You really should try and shrug it off instead - we cannot all know everything, Dusty.<<

As I've pointed out before, I realised you were not here for serious reseach when you wrote the line I use as a sign off at the bottom of my posts. I can't recall ever being "vicious" about anything it's not my nature, but I don't shy away from people who throw crap out there.

I understand why you don't like it, but the solution isn't in my hands, it's in yours.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:
I note that you are still avoiding to admit that what you wrote was, and I quote ad verbatim:"Not so, even if the two carmen didn’t mention another PC, Mizen had no obvious reason to suppose Neil could not have been the first to discover Mrs. Nichols body."THIS is what you said in your post.

I'm avioding nothing, I'm waiting for you to explain your accusatation.

Accusation? I am making no accusation. I want you to explain how Mizen would have had no obvious reason to suppose that Neil could not have been the first to discover the body even if the two carmen did not mention another PC.

Should be simple and straightforward enough, one would think?

I have asked for an explanation as to how this could have happened, but I am seeing no such explanation coming forward.

No what you wrote was,
“I would much rather prolong the VERY interesting discussion you inititated [I]about how Mizen could have been told by the carmen that they found the body and STILL entertain an idea that Neil could have found it before them. Could you elaborate on that ingenious suggestion?”

I repeat:

I initiated no discussion, I simply replied to your post. Do you understand the difference between initiating and replying?

Letīs see, do I understand that difference? Eh, is one that you start something yourself and the other that you reply to what somebody else has started? Is that it?

Now that this has been cleared up, I want an answer to the question I put to you: How on earth would Mizen ponder that Neil could have been the first finder even if the carmen had not mentioned the other PC?

You said that this was so. No matter if you feel that I initiated the discussion or not, I want my answer.

It should be entertaining, I can say that much.

And I also repeat:

I did not, and as back as I can remember, I have never claimed Xmere and Paul told Mizen they found the body.

Nor did I say that you have, did I? Although it would be very informative if they/he did, and very odd if he/they did not.

I am not sure what this has to do with my question, however.

There certainly is aviodance going on, but it's not from me.

Until you answer my question, that is untrue.

Can you point to the exact wording in the sentence you keep quoting where I say they did? How exactly should I answer something that only exists in your mind?

I am not saying they did. I am saying that even if Paul and Lechmere never said A/ that there was another PC in Bucks Row, and even if they never told Mizen B/ that HE/THEY were the finder/s, it would still make no sense for Mizen to accept that Neil could have been the finder. Please explain how such a thing would work.


The one and only interesting thing here is that you falsely claim that Mizen denied having knocked people up after Lechmere spoke to him ...

"Witness went to the spot directly Cross told him, and did not stop to knock any one up."

‘Nuff said.

But that leaves out our knowledge that he DID say that he only finished off his ongoing knocking up errand before he went down to Bucks Row. It therefore remains that although some papers miss out on this detail, it WAS stated by Mizen.
You choose the report from the Echo, where nothing is said about how Mizen qualified himself in this respect, and I would suggest that for example The Daily News reveals the full context:

A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?

Witness - No. I only finished knocking up one person.

Here we have the full context. We can see that it has been suggested that Mizen continued his knocking up business after having spoken to the carman, and that the PC explains what happened: He broke off his knocking up, but since he had already knocked on one door or window with no answer, he saw that particular errand through before proceeding to Bucks Row.

What you seem to state is that there is a discrepancy built into Mizens testimony on this point, but there cannot be. He either said that he did not proceed to knock people up or he did not. And it is not until we look at all the reports that we can see what happened. To pick one specific report and look away from all the others to try and strengthen an untenable argument will not do under these circumstances.

RE: Protocol

I never said that Mizen broke it

Correct.
You said,
“And as I have already said, Mizen seems to have acted properly and accordoing to protocol."

And I asked you to cite the protocol you claimed he followed, once again you’re altering what people say to, it seems, aviod answering questions.

It does not lie upon me to cite the protocol, since my answer was in response to YOUR suggestion that Mizen broke protocol. In other words, you inititated the protocol discussion (see, I used that word again!), and therefore it is your responsibility to cite protocol.
If you are correct, it is an eminent chance to show off, Dusty - you should pounce on it!

I sometimes think that it was because I pulled your pants down about the Emily Lechmere business that things have taken such a vicious turn. You really should try and shrug it off instead - we cannot all know everything, Dusty.

As I've pointed out before, I realised you were not here for serious reseach when you wrote the line I use as a sign off at the bottom of my posts. I can't recall ever being "vicious" about anything it's not my nature, but I don't shy away from people who throw crap out there.

But how can it be less serious research to know what you are talking about? And how is your not being familar with the facts serious research? It is "Alice in Wonderland" all over again.
And how is accusing me of having misled you when I told you that Emily was already dead serious research? Is it not true that I did not have to mislead you at all - that you had managed to do so on your very own?

You really need to sort these matters out before you try to lesson on serious research.

I understand why you don't like it, but the solution isn't in my hands, it's in yours.

Yes, I know. But you always seem to protest when I say that the solution is in my hands, not yours.

[Columbo]

drstrange169:
I note that you are still avoiding to admit that what you wrote was, and I quote ad verbatim:"Not so, even if the two carmen didn’t mention another PC, Mizen had no obvious reason to suppose Neil could not have been the first to discover Mrs. Nichols body."THIS is what you said in your post.

I'm avioding nothing, I'm waiting for you to explain your accusatation.

Accusation? I am making no accusation. I want you to explain how Mizen would have had no obvious reason to suppose that Neil could not have been the first to discover the body even if the two carmen did not mention another PC.

Should be simple and straightforward enough, one would think?

I have asked for an explanation as to how this could have happened, but I am seeing no such explanation coming forward.

No what you wrote was,
“I would much rather prolong the VERY interesting discussion you inititated [I]about how Mizen could have been told by the carmen that they found the body and STILL entertain an idea that Neil could have found it before them. Could you elaborate on that ingenious suggestion?”

I repeat:

I initiated no discussion, I simply replied to your post. Do you understand the difference between initiating and replying?

Letīs see, do I understand that difference? Eh, is one that you start something yourself and the other that you reply to what somebody else has started? Is that it?

Now that this has been cleared up, I want an answer to the question I put to you: How on earth would Mizen ponder that Neil could have been the first finder even if the carmen had not mentioned the other PC?

You said that this was so. No matter if you feel that I initiated the discussion or not, I want my answer.

It should be entertaining, I can say that much.

And I also repeat:

I did not, and as back as I can remember, I have never claimed Xmere and Paul told Mizen they found the body.

Nor did I say that you have, did I? Although it would be very informative if they/he did, and very odd if he/they did not.

I am not sure what this has to do with my question, however.

There certainly is aviodance going on, but it's not from me.

Until you answer my question, that is untrue.

Can you point to the exact wording in the sentence you keep quoting where I say they did? How exactly should I answer something that only exists in your mind?

I am not saying they did. I am saying that even if Paul and Lechmere never said A/ that there was another PC in Bucks Row, and even if they never told Mizen B/ that HE/THEY were the finder/s, it would still make no sense for Mizen to accept that Neil could have been the finder. Please explain how such a thing would work.


The one and only interesting thing here is that you falsely claim that Mizen denied having knocked people up after Lechmere spoke to him ...

"Witness went to the spot directly Cross told him, and did not stop to knock any one up."

‘Nuff said.

But that leaves out our knowledge that he DID say that he only finished off his ongoing knocking up errand before he went down to Bucks Row. It therefore remains that although some papers miss out on this detail, it WAS stated by Mizen.
You choose the report from the Echo, where nothing is said about how Mizen qualified himself in this respect, and I would suggest that for example The Daily News reveals the full context:

A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?

Witness - No. I only finished knocking up one person.

Here we have the full context. We can see that it has been suggested that Mizen continued his knocking up business after having spoken to the carman, and that the PC explains what happened: He broke off his knocking up, but since he had already knocked on one door or window with no answer, he saw that particular errand through before proceeding to Bucks Row.

What you seem to state is that there is a discrepancy built into Mizens testimony on this point, but there cannot be. He either said that he did not proceed to knock people up or he did not. And it is not until we look at all the reports that we can see what happened. To pick one specific report and look away from all the others to try and strengthen an untenable argument will not do under these circumstances.

RE: Protocol

I never said that Mizen broke it

Correct.
You said,
“And as I have already said, Mizen seems to have acted properly and accordoing to protocol."

And I asked you to cite the protocol you claimed he followed, once again you’re altering what people say to, it seems, aviod answering questions.

It does not lie upon me to cite the protocol, since my answer was in response to YOUR suggestion that Mizen broke protocol. In other words, you inititated the protocol discussion (see, I used that word again!), and therefore it is your responsibility to cite protocol.
If you are correct, it is an eminent chance to show off, Dusty - you should pounce on it!

I sometimes think that it was because I pulled your pants down about the Emily Lechmere business that things have taken such a vicious turn. You really should try and shrug it off instead - we cannot all know everything, Dusty.

As I've pointed out before, I realised you were not here for serious reseach when you wrote the line I use as a sign off at the bottom of my posts. I can't recall ever being "vicious" about anything it's not my nature, but I don't shy away from people who throw crap out there.

But how can it be less serious research to know what you are talking about? And how is your not being familar with the facts serious research? It is "Alice in Wonderland" all over again.
And how is accusing me of having misled you when I told you that Emily was already dead serious research? Is it not true that I did not have to mislead you at all - that you had managed to do so on your very own?

You really need to sort these matters out before you try to lesson on serious research.

I understand why you don't like it, but the solution isn't in my hands, it's in yours.

Yes, I know. But you always seem to protest when I say that the solution is in my hands, not yours.

I've got to start using the colors. Much easier to follow the responses.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

I've got to start using the colors. Much easier to follow the responses.

Columbo

I use it to try and lay down that there are three or more layers of discussion: Quoted old posts, reactions to those posts, and my answers to the reactions.

Technically, I am pathetic.

[Columbo]

Wouldn't have done much for the doco......

Correct, and as Fisherman pointed out, he didn't have final say on the documentary's content.

I also think it's very dangerous to take what experts say in these things as gospel. We don't know in what context it was said because of the editing process. Unless a question is posed to an expert un-edited and the response is un-edited it leaves too much open for interpretation.

Quite frankly it would be foolish of us to use the documentary as the basis for a factual discussion. Most documentaries on any subject just don't have the time to explore every angle of all they're discussing, which is a little unsettling because they sometimes cherry-pick the information, especially in crime when the documentary focuses on one suspect.

Cross as a suspect didn't need some of the changes in the doc, i.e, a graphic showing him crouching over the body, to push suspicion his way. There's enough, no matter how weak some may think it is, to take a look at him. But let's not put him in the patheons as the Super Serial Killer. If he did it, he got lucky not getting caught by Paul, and by not(as far as we know)being considered suspect by the police. I still have problems with the proposed escape because it's just too complicated and risky on his part, but that doesn't make it any less intriguing.


Columbo

[Fisherman]

Correct, and as Fisherman pointed out, he didn't have final say on the documentary's content.

I also think it's very dangerous to take what experts say in these things as gospel. We don't know in what context it was said because of the editing process. Unless a question is posed to an expert un-edited and the response is un-edited it leaves too much open for interpretation.

Quite frankly it would be foolish of us to use the documentary as the basis for a factual discussion. Most documentaries on any subject just don't have the time to explore every angle of all they're discussing, which is a little unsettling because they sometimes cherry-pick the information, especially in crime when the documentary focuses on one suspect.

Cross as a suspect didn't need some of the changes in the doc, i.e, a graphic showing him crouching over the body, to push suspicion his way. There's enough, no matter how weak some may think it is, to take a look at him. But let's not put him in the patheons as the Super Serial Killer. If he did it, he got lucky not getting caught by Paul, and by not(as far as we know)being considered suspect by the police. I still have problems with the proposed escape because it's just too complicated and risky on his part, but that doesn't make it any less intriguing.


Columbo

There you go!

But I consider the docu a very useful starting point for a discussion.

[Columbo]

There you go!

But I consider the docu a very useful starting point for a discussion.

Absolutely! There are several bits of information provided by yourself that have raised questions in my mind. I think people need to realize though that the docu is not the final, totally reliable story of Cross case as put forth by Edward and yourself, and quoting the experts' opinions may not be the best idea because we don't know what was edited out.

The documentary source problem was put forth on this forum when a poster asked why, in the docu To Kill and Kill Again, Donald Rumbelow, during one of his Ripper Walks, said an axe may have been used on MJK to split her thigh bone, when that was not suggested in the autopsy report. That idea was put forth years ago because an axe was found in the room although not tied to her death. So we have a renowned expert (who I think wrote the most definitive book on the case with his revised "The Complete Jack the Ripper) speculating to a crowd of people, not the facts, but basically gossip. that should've been fact-checked and edited out, but because this is a 128 year old case, the documentary makers don't make the effort towards accurancy that they should.

I could go on for hours on this but you get the point.

Columbo

[Columbo]

[I][B]>>
>>I sometimes think that it was because I pulled your pants down about the Emily Lechmere business that things have taken such a vicious turn. <<

Columbo

[Columbo]

And we can but assume they were provided the same as viewers of the documentary, things like Paul finding Cross crouched over the dead body, for example.

I'm not too sure about that because the graphics would've been prepared after the live shots. I don't recall, but if the experts were told on camera Cross was crouching then that would be ridiculous because all they had to do was read the available information.

On most documentaries they have researchers. Does anyone know if there were any other researchers besides Fisherman?

Columbo

[John G]

Hello John G,

>>Paul's account in the Lloyds interview is confusing, as he seems to be contradicting what was said in evidence at the inquest-that might indicate that he was somewhat of an attention seeker, who wanted to make it seem as though his role was more important than it actually was.<<

He or the reporter, I agree most wholeheartedly.

Which is why we should cross check to see which parts of that story are verified by independent information. On this specific subject, we have both Paul and Xmere saying the same thing, i.e. that Paul told Mizen, he thought Mrs. Nichols might be dead.

>>... in the Lloyds interview he strongly implies that he alone went in search of a police officer, whilst presumably Cross continued on his journey to work:"I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw."<<

Of course the operative word you used was "implied".

Was this the reporters doing or Paul's?

What we do know is that the sentence is not inaccurate. Once again Xmere confirmed that Paul said he would go for a policeman.

>>He's then reported as saying that the "woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time...." However, at the inquest we're told that the victim's face felt warm and, far from believing she'd been "dead some time", Paul was of the opinion that she was still alive: "I think she is still breathing...."<<

This is suspect, because it is not supported by any independent evidence.

>>Regarding Cross, I don't think he would have simply "disappeared in to the night ". He was clearly a local man so the police would have had little problem in subsequently identifying him. And, by not going in search of a police officer his actions would have appeared extremely suspicious.<<

I'm sorry I don't understand. How could the police identify a man they never saw, if he "disappeared into the night"?

>>However, if he was the killer I doubt he would have wanted Paul tagging along whilst he looked for a police officer: Paul could have contradicted him, i.e. as regards another officer already being in attendance, and might have said something that cast suspicion on him. But he had an easy way out of this predicament: he could simply have told Paul, "Look there's no point in both of us being even later for work-you get off, whilst I look for a policeman. Then, when he found Mizen, he would have had no fear of being contradicted by Paul and there would be no witnesses to their conversation, so if the account was disputed it would be his word against Mizen's.<<

I agree.

The issue concerning Cross disappearing into the night is a tricky one. Assuming he was the killer, then I think he made a strategic mistake in approaching Robert Paul, which I think can only be satisfactorily explained by arguing that he over thought things.

Thus, when he noticed Paul's arrival, which according to him was from 40 yards away, he had the opportunity to simply walk away. At this point Paul would at best have had only a partial view of him and in poor lighting conditions. It's therefore very unlikely that he would have subsequently been able to identify Cross. In fact, even in the unlikely event that Cross is subsequently identified, he could simply argue that, upon inspecting Nichols, he could not see any injuries and therefore assumed she was just drunk -probably a common occurrence for this neighbourhood. And, as he was already late for work, he decided to take no further action.

Furthermore, there's a reasonable possibility that Paul would have simply walked past the victim without noticing she was there-or if he did notice, he might still not have investigated, assuming it to be a case of public drunkenness. As Cross himself pointed out:" I could not tell in the dark what it was at first; it looked to me like a tarpaulin sheet, but stepping into the road, I saw that it was the body of a woman."

However, by drawing Paul's attention to the incident he allowed himself to be seen, greatly increasing the chances that Paul would be able to identify him in the future, particularly as he both lived and worked locally.

At this point I think he has to seek out a police officer, because to do otherwise would mean that Paul's version of events would be the one reported to the police, and he might convey the impression that there was something suspicious about Cross. And Cross' failure to report the incident, particularly after it became clear to Paul that Nichols was in a bad way, would have then seemed highly suspicious.

[Fisherman]

... if the experts were told on camera Cross was crouching then that would be ridiculous because all they had to do was read the available information.
Columbo

Exactly so.

[Fisherman]

The issue concerning Cross disappearing into the night is a tricky one. Assuming he was the killer, then I think he made a strategic mistake in approaching Robert Paul, which I think can only be satisfactorily explained by arguing that he over thought things.

Thus, when he noticed Paul's arrival, which according to him was from 40 yards away, he had the opportunity to simply walk away. At this point Paul would at best have had only a partial view of him and in poor lighting conditions. It's therefore very unlikely that he would have subsequently been able to identify Cross. In fact, even in the unlikely event that Cross is subsequently identified, he could simply argue that, upon inspecting Nichols, he could not see any injuries and therefore assumed she was just drunk -probably a common occurrence for this neighbourhood. And, as he was already late for work, he decided to take no further action.

Furthermore, there's a reasonable possibility that Paul would have simply walked past the victim without noticing she was there-or if he did notice, he might still not have investigated, assuming it to be a case of public drunkenness. As Cross himself pointed out:" I could not tell in the dark what it was at first; it looked to me like a tarpaulin sheet, but stepping into the road, I saw that it was the body of a woman."

However, by drawing Paul's attention to the incident he allowed himself to be seen, greatly increasing the chances that Paul would be able to identify him in the future, particularly as he both lived and worked locally.

At this point I think he has to seek out a police officer, because to do otherwise would mean that Paul's version of events would be the one reported to the police, and he might convey the impression that there was something suspicious about Cross. And Cross' failure to report the incident, particularly after it became clear to Paul that Nichols was in a bad way, would have then seemed highly suspicious.

I think the perhaps most common mistake we make when we try to understand what governed Lechmereīs actions in Bucks Row if he was the killer, is that we apply our own personalitites on the question. We are for example all convinced that if there was any way that the carman could have chosen flight, then he would have.
I donīt think that this was necessarily so.
I thoroughly reccommend studies of the psyche of psychopaths, since they represent very different beasts to us "normal" people. And we do not have to look upon serial killers only - psychopaths are not all that uncommon, and can be found in all segments of society.
Take, for example, the war heroes who walk directly into bulet rains with no fear. We take a look at them and think "what courage!", but courage is not involved at all if they have a psychopathic disposition. In such a case, they lack the ability to panick, and much as they realize that they run the risk of getting shot, they prioritize the heroes role and walk fearlessly towards the danger. They are attention freaks, and they feel superior to the rest of us.

Combine this kind of mindset with that of a serial killer, and you will get an explosive brew. Add to it how it is common knowledge that psychopaths are deceptive and convincing liars, and you can start to see the outline of a man who, far from overthinking things, embraces a situation that seems dangerous and calls for flight to the normal mind.

I do think that his initital reaction to Pauls arrival was one of irritation. But once he assessed the situation, he realized hos he could play the circumstances like a violin and more or less enjoyed the ride, not least the part about fooling the inquest.

That is what I am seeing, and how I believe that the carman reasoned. Of course, Dusty will probably say that I am disagreeing with the known evidence and misquoting and all that, but I really donīt care. This is what I think happened, more or less. I donīt think he allowed himself to feel out of control for a single second.

And if anybody says that it is impossible to make that call, I will agree wholeheartedly.

[Pierre]

I think the perhaps most common mistake we make when we try to understand what governed Lechmereīs actions in Bucks Row if he was the killer, is that we apply our own personalitites on the question. We are for example all convinced that if there was any way that the carman could have chosen flight, then he would have.
I donīt think that this was necessarily so.
I thoroughly reccommend studies of the psyche of psychopaths, since they represent very different beasts to us "normal" people. And we do not have to look upon serial killers only - psychopaths are not all that uncommon, and can be found in all segments of society.
Take, for example, the war heroes who walk directly into bulet rains with no fear. We take a look at them and think "what courage!", but courage is not involved at all if they have a psychopathic disposition. In such a case, they lack the ability to panick, and much as they realize that they run the risk of getting shot, they prioritize the heroes role and walk fearlessly towards the danger. They are attention freaks, and they feel superior to the rest of us.

Combine this kind of mindset with that of a serial killer, and you will get an explosive brew. Add to it how it is common knowledge that psychopaths are deceptive and convincing liars, and you can start to see the outline of a man who, far from overthinking things, embraces a situation that seems dangerous and calls for flight to the normal mind.

I do think that his initital reaction to Pauls arrival was one of irritation. But once he assessed the situation, he realized hos he could play the circumstances like a violin and more or less enjoyed the ride, not least the part about fooling the inquest.

That is what I am seeing, and how I believe that the carman reasoned. Of course, Dusty will probably say that I am disagreeing with the known evidence and misquoting and all that, but I really donīt care. This is what I think happened, more or less. I donīt think he allowed himself to feel out of control for a single second.

And if anybody says that it is impossible to make that call, I will agree wholeheartedly.

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, perhaps one could hypothesize that the killer was a psychopath. But that goes, then, for all hypothesized suspects. Is there any evidence, by the way, for Lechmere having been a psychopath?

There are some questions that I believe you are capable of answering, since you seem to be convinced that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. Could you be so kind as to try and answer the following questions?

1. Why should Lechmere have started the killing spree in the particular time period of the C-5?

2. What was the motive of Lechmere?

3. Why did he kill on the 30th September of all nights?

4. Why did he do the last of the C-5 indoors?

5. Have you found any evidence at the other murder sites, confirming that Lechmere is a relevant hypothetical killer?

6. Why did the murders stop after Kelly?

7. Why did they start again 1889?

8. Why did the murders stop after McKenzie?

9. If Lechmere killed on his way to work, he should have been recognized. Why are there no witness sightings of Lechmere on the other nights?

10. Why should Lechmere have cut off womenīs noses?

11. Why should Lechmere have disembowelled the victims?

12. Was Lechmere right handed?

13. Why should Lechmere have wanted to leave (a) clue(s) to the police if you think he did?

14. Is it an established fact that Lechmere had a personal problem that could have functioned as a trigger for starting the killing spree?

15. What evidence is there that Lechmere was capable of doing the mutilations?

Thank you.

Pierre

[John G]

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, perhaps one could hypothesize that the killer was a psychopath. But that goes, then, for all hypothesized suspects. Is there any evidence, by the way, for Lechmere having been a psychopath?

There are some questions that I believe you are capable of answering, since you seem to be convinced that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. Could you be so kind as to try and answer the following questions?

1. Why should Lechmere have started the killing spree in the particular time period of the C-5?

2. What was the motive of Lechmere?

3. Why did he kill on the 30th September of all nights?

4. Why did he do the last of the C-5 indoors?

5. Have you found any evidence at the other murder sites, confirming that Lechmere is a relevant hypothetical killer?

6. Why did the murders stop after Kelly?

7. Why did they start again 1889?

8. Why did the murders stop after McKenzie?

9. If Lechmere killed on his way to work, he should have been recognized. Why are there no witness sightings of Lechmere on the other nights?

10. Why should Lechmere have cut off womenīs noses?

11. Why should Lechmere have disembowelled the victims?

12. Was Lechmere right handed?

13. Why should Lechmere have wanted to leave (a) clue(s) to the police if you think he did?

14. Is it an established fact that Lechmere had a personal problem that could have functioned as a trigger for starting the killing spree?

15. What evidence is there that Lechmere was capable of doing the mutilations?

Thank you.

Pierre

I think question 15 is an interesting one. For instance, Dr Phillips seemed to think Chapman's killer may have been a medical expert. And Dr Brown thought Eddowes killer was possibly a medical student.

However, caution is required. For instance, one of the victim's of the Australian serial killer, William MacDonald, had his genitals removed in such an expert manner that the police believed, wrongly, the perpetrator could have been a deranged expert surgeon, with years of surgical expetience.

And, of course, other doctors, most notably Dr Bond, did not believe JtR exhibited any surgical expertise.

[Columbo]

I think question 15 is an interesting one. For instance, Dr Phillips seemed to think Chapman's killer may have been a medical expert. And Dr Brown thought Eddowes killer was possibly a medical student.

However, caution is required. For instance, one of the victim's of the Australian serial killer, William MacDonald, had his genitals removed in such an expert manner that the police believed, wrongly, the perpetrator could have been a deranged expert surgeon, with years of surgical expetience.

And, of course, other doctors, most notably Dr Bond, did not believe JtR exhibited any surgical expertise.

I think the surgical expertise argument is overblown. It's pretty obvious JTR was lucky in some of his extractions and extremely sloppy in others. Cross very easily could have done it.

The Eddowes kidney extraction on the other hand is a different story for me. I tend to agree with Trevor Marriott's assertion that it may have been someone who had access to the body at the morgue who took it to prank George Lusk.

Columbo