Lechmere Continuation Thread

[drstrange169]

>>Anyone else have as much trouble as I do following these posts in different fonts and colours that you're supposed to understand by some form of osmis what was said by who???<<

Don't worry he hasn't actaully put any relevent content in them.

[drstrange169]

>>The problem Edward was talking about was how we could not use the northern side of Bucks Row in the re-enactment, since it was shut off due to construction work.<<

As this still from the programme clearly shows, there was plenty of room a more accurate sequence.

[GUT]

Yes, I assumed it was just me though!

That's a relief, because I thought it was me.

[John G]

Anyone else have as much trouble as I do following these posts in different fonts and colours that you're supposed to understand by some form of osmis what was said by who???

Yes, I assumed it was just me though!

[GUT]

Anyone else have as much trouble as I do following these posts in different fonts and colours that you're supposed to understand by some form of osmis what was said by who???

[Fisherman]

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.

It’s more than a tad disingenuous to pretend I haven’t answered or that I'm trying to avoid a question when you have accumulated such a long list of unanswered questions.

Why would you need me to explain a question that you already know the answer to?
We’ve had this debate many times here and over at Jtrforums just look my answers up there. Or perhaps you could just read my explanation on page 26 of Ripperologist 142.

Why is it that so much of what you post has such a dishonest bent to it.?

So no answer. But just as informative, of course!


Should be simple and straightforward enough, one would think?

Very straight forward, you don’t even have to go the trouble of looking up my last to examples. You could have just browsed this very thread to see Caligo O and Gut give you the same explanation.

I am not looking at what others say to establish what you mean. And you are not explaining yourself. I can only surmise that is because you have no explanation to give.

But as aways, it’s not about the facts it’s about covering your mistakes and perceived point scoring.

Exemplify away, Dusty! Otherwise, it will be all smoke and no facts. That is how it works - put up or shut up.

No matter if you feel that I initiated the discussion or not, I want my answer.

As is now painfully obvious, you always had the answer, you are just posturing.

Then just answer me and be done with it! If you are truthful, that should eb a piece of cake. Instead you call me dishonest - and refuse to answer. How hard can it be?


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

YOU: Nor did I say that you have, did I?<<

No you didn’t “say” it you wrote it.

“… you inititated a discussion 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 …”

So yes you did write it. And now you are pretending you didn't.

Those are two DIFFERENT matters:

1. The matter whether Lechmere and Paul told Mizen that they had found the body or not.

2. The question whether Mizen could have been told by the carmen that they were the finders and still entertain the idea tht Neil could have been the original finder.

Either you are totally unable to read and write comprehensibly, or you are not being truthful.
Which is it?

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?

Interesting response, you managed to move the conversation completely away from the subject matter you claim to be replying to.

No, I am spot on. Ever since you disclosed your ignorance on the matter, you have repeatedly claimed that the problem is that you were deceived by me. You were no such thing - you had yourself managed to avoid reading up on Emily Lechmere, and there is absolutely no way that such a thing can be my problem.

To remind you, was the quote of yours I use as a sign off.
Now, since you hold such store about getting replies, are you read to answer some of the long list that is accumulating on this thread and have so far run away from? There not just mine.

Why would I for a second accept to answer anything asked by a poster who calls me dishonest instead of quite simply replying to what he is asked? What use would it be to lay out the text for somebody who is seemingly too illiterate to understand the difference between a question about whether the carmen claimed to have been the finders of the body and a question whether PC Mizen would have entertained the belief that Neil was the finder of it if he was not told that the carmen were the finders?
If you cannot tell the difference between these totally different questions, one has to wonder what you would make of any answer I give to any question you ask, regardless of the topic.

[Fisherman]

Hello Columbo,

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

I'm afraid this is a bit more of Christer's spin.

Ed Stow told me the production company knew the graphic was wrong but went ahead with it anyway, for continuity reasons. They wanted it to match Christer and Andy Grittihs renactment, which was on the wrong side of the road and next to where they placed the cardboard cutout of Nrs Nichols body.

If Ed is correct and I've never known him to lie, the problem arose because of Christer.

The problem Edward was talking about was how we could not use the northern side of Bucks Row in the re-enactment, since it was shut off due to construction work. That meant that we had to use the southern pavement only, which was of course not historically correct.

If you think that was a problem that arose because of me, you are overestimating my influence on the construction sites of London.

Columbo is 100 per cent correct in saying that I had no final say about the contents of the docu. Both me and Edward were asked about numerous matters since the team wanted to get everything as correct as possible, and we sometimes offered advice on our own account, but after that, it was out of our hands.

You seem to be saying that I lay behind how there was a graphic depiction of Lechmere crouching over Nichols. If that is what you think, you are emphatically wrong. And speaking of a spin on my behalf is as unsavoury as it is ridiculous.

[drstrange169]

Hello Columbo,

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

I'm afraid this is a bit more of Christer's spin.

Ed Stow told me the production company knew the graphic was wrong but went ahead with it anyway, for continuity reasons. They wanted it to match Christer and Andy Grittihs renactment, which was on the wrong side of the road and next to where they placed the cardboard cutout of Nrs Nichols body.

If Ed is correct and I've never known him to lie, the problem arose because of Christer.

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

It’s more than a tad disingenuous to pretend I haven’t answered or that I'm trying to avoid a question when you have accumulated such a long list of unanswered questions.

Why would you need me to explain a question that you already know the answer to?
We’ve had this debate many times here and over at Jtrforums just look my answers up there. Or perhaps you could just read my explanation on page 26 of Ripperologist 142.

Why is it that so much of what you post has such a dishonest bent to it.?


>>Should be simple and straightforward enough, one would think?<<

Very straight forward, you don’t even have to go the trouble of looking up my last to examples. You could have just browsed this very thread to see Caligo O and Gut give you the same explanation.

But as aways, it’s not about the facts it’s about covering your mistakes and perceived point scoring.


>>No matter if you feel that I initiated the discussion or not, I want my answer.<<

As is now painfully obvious, you always had the answer, you are just posturing.


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

YOU: Nor did I say that you have, did I?<<

No you didn’t “say” it you wrote it.

“… you inititated a discussion 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 …”

So yes you did write it. And now you are pretending you didn't.


>>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?<<

Interesting response, you managed to move the conversation completely away from the subject matter you claim to be replying to.

To remind you, was the quote of yours I use as a sign off.
Now, since you hold such store about getting replies, are you read to answer some of the long list that is accumulating on this thread and have so far run away from? There not just mine.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.