The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Fisherman]

Hermithead: If the two co-witnesses Robert Paul and Charles Letchmere crossed paths at similar times on their way to work every morning then why would Letchmere risk carrying out the murder at this time and place?

The two were strangers to each other, so they did not cross paths every morning. Going by the accounts, they had never met before.

Either an opportunity presented itself in the form of victim prostitute Mary Ann (Polly) Nichols that he couldn’t refuse or he wasn’t the intelligent criminal we perceive the Ripper to be – which conflicts with his behaviour post-murder where it is believed that he crafted such a skilful lie that arouses no suspicion with PC Jonas Mizen.

I donīt think that we can rule out intelligence on his behalf because he killed in the open streets. I think it would be wiser to instead suggest that we need to couple fearlessness and arrogance to him - traits of a psychopath, that is. As is recklessness.

When Letchmere informs PC Jonas Mizen that “…a woman was lying on Buck’s Row and that another policeman requested his presence there” why does Robert Paul keep quiet and not refute this?

"The other man, who went up Hanbury Street", is what is said about Robert Paul in a press account. We know that Baxter had to remind Mizen that there WAS another man present. And Mizen says that "a man", not "two men" spoke to him. Apparently, Paul was not in the thick of things. My guess is that he was out of earshot, and I think it may well have been due to Lechmere telling him: "You just walk on and Iīll deal with the PC and catch up with you later."
This has been discussed ad infinitum on the threads, though.

And If Paul had spoken up PC Mizen would be hearing two conflicting reports from two eye witnesses providing enough suspicion for PC MIzen to detain both men for further questioning.

Yes. So how credible is it that Paul did hear what Lechmere said? Just how anxious would Lechmere - if the killer - be to keep Paul in the know in such a situation?

Upon coming across PC Mizen Charles Letchmere informs him that a woman is lying in the street “… and that another policeman requested his presence there”. This is believed to be a ruse by Letchmere in order to escape further questioning by PC Mizen however this does not appear to be officially confirmed by PC Neil other than he reports to have seen two slaughterhouse workman in the area around the same time.

How could Neil confirm the lie? He was not there.

Are these men Letchmere and Paul?

No, they are not.

Could these two unknown men who are at the scene at the time of the murder in slaughterhouse work wear that can easily explain away blood stains be the Ripper(s) instead?

Could? Neil could be the Ripper - or so I am told. As could Vincent van Gogh, Aaron Kosminski and WIlliam Bury. Or Albert Cadosch.
But only one named man fits the frame totally. And this man withholds his real name, has a different opinion about what was said from a serving PC, seems to have had time to do the deed, is acknowledged as presenting a viable court case by a renowned barrister and fits the blood evidence like a glove. Amongst other things. The coincidences mount up in his case, as James Scobie puts it - and it becomes one coincidence too many!

Has there been any research into Robert Paul to the extent that it has been for Letchmere? Do we know if these men were known to each other prior to this event?

Paul has been researched, yes. But not as much as Lechmere. If they were aquainted, they didnīt acknowledge it - they were strangers to each other, going by their testimonies.

By the way, skip the t - itīs Lechmere, not Letchmere!

[Hermithead]

If the two co-witnesses Robert Paul and Charles Letchmere crossed paths at similar times on their way to work every morning then why would Letchmere risk carrying out the murder at this time and place? Either an opportunity presented itself in the form of victim prostitute Mary Ann (Polly) Nichols that he couldn’t refuse or he wasn’t the intelligent criminal we perceive the Ripper to be – which conflicts with his behaviour post-murder where it is believed that he crafted such a skilful lie that arouses no suspicion with PC Jonas Mizen.

When Letchmere informs PC Jonas Mizen that “…a woman was lying on Buck’s Row and that another policeman requested his presence there” why does Robert Paul keep quiet and not refute this? And If Paul had spoken up PC Mizen would be hearing two conflicting reports from two eye witnesses providing enough suspicion for PC MIzen to detain both men for further questioning.

Upon coming across PC Mizen Charles Letchmere informs him that a woman is lying in the street “… and that another policeman requested his presence there”. This is believed to be a ruse by Letchmere in order to escape further questioning by PC Mizen however this does not appear to be officially confirmed by PC Neil other than he reports to have seen two slaughterhouse workman in the area around the same time. Are these men Letchmere and Paul? PC Neil doesn’t confirm this. Could these two unknown men who are at the scene at the time of the murder in slaughterhouse work wear that can easily explain away blood stains be the Ripper(s) instead?

Has there been any research into Robert Paul to the extent that it has been for Letchmere? Do we know if these men were known to each other prior to this event?

[Hair Bear]

If Lechmere had just killed Nichols then Paul would have been at the scene within one and a half minutes - examined her for about thirty seconds, had a brief discussion and left. The reason he didn’t notice any blood was because Nichols had only just been killed. Whether this all happened at 3.40 - 41, 42, 43 is irrelevant.

David McNab

I thought that PC Neil only saw blood because he shined his light by her throat - meaning, if he hadn't, he wouldn't have seen blood either. Apologies about the lateness of this post, I'm a newbie.

[Fisherman]

Fish,
This notion that they can stop is the rare exception...not the rule.
They can and will stop for periods due to whatever outside circumstances, but ultimately they will return to killing...Ridgway had several breaks in between his kill sprees...

If I had said that it was the rule, you would have had a great point.

As for "ultimately they will return to killing", I think we may need to pay attention to what the FBI calls that notion: a myth.

This notion of yours of course swears against your acknowledgement that there will be exceptions to the "rule", but that is another matter.

The sexual drive is something that lasts for decades within most men. If they start killing on account of their drive, most of them WILL go on as long as the drive is there. And most of them WILL get caught before that drive has subsided. And many of those caught will say that they would never have given up on it. Lord Byron said that in the choice betweem smothering a baby in itīs crib and giving up on his sexual urges, it was bye, bye baby.

That is how many people feel their sexual urges - like a river that cannot be stopped.

And that too will be why many of us think that serial killing is another side of the same coin: an unstoppable force.

I think that is wrong, since it does not take into account the withereing effect of time.

On another level, I think that serialists can also stop on account of things that happen in their lives and that have a powerful impact on them; the death of a near friend, a close own encounter with death etcetera.

Like I said before, hundreds of serialsts have gone uncaught. Do you think that they all died or were incapacitated? Or could it be that some of them simply did not have the need for the kind of kick a murder involved any longer?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Thanks Christer,

It's that he had a similar stoppage lasting 8 years, and then came two more victims. I believe, as the police believed, and the evidence collected from his house strongly indicated, that had he not been captured he would have killed again. Thankfully we will never know.

Happy Holidays,

JM

In the FBI material, it is clearly stated how Rader found substitutions for his murderous excursions. There was also an exemplification with another serialist, who also did this very thing - substituted murder for other release activities.

So it happens - and it happens for a reason: they give up eating meat and turn to vegetables instead. Sort of.

I would also point to the fact that very many serial killings are led on by a sexual drive. And the sexual drive within people normally tapers off with age. That means that we can identify a very logical reason as to why serialists may stop - the underlying urge is diminished. In Raderīs case, I donīt think we have it documented that he found other releases for his urges during his long hiatus, but we DO have it reported that this was something that came about in the many years leading up to his arrest.

I think you will find - if you go looking for it - that for example adultery (another sexually initiated matter) will be most prevalent in the years when the sexual drive is at itīs highest, while people "settle down" with age in this respect. I donīt think that serial killing will be much different in this respect, and - as I said before - I suspect that there are a good many uncaught, aged serialists out there that have given up killing on account of the drive having tapered off.

Thanks for the well wishes for 2015 - the very same to you!

The best,
Fisherman

[Major Kong]

Fish,
This notion that they can stop is the rare exception...not the rule.
They can and will stop for periods due to whatever outside circumstances, but ultimately they will return to killing...Ridgway had several breaks in between his kill sprees...

[jmenges]

As an aside, what you wrote about Rader in your former post - that he kept on stalking people and that he had fantasies about killing them after his last murder - is not any evidence that he had not given up his carreer as a serial killer. The one thing that could prove that he was still a serialist would be if he actually killed instead of stalking and fantasizing. There will undoubtedly be people who both things but never kill.
Iīve been meaning to post that before, but it slipped my mind.

The best,
Fisherman

Thanks Christer,

It's that he had a similar stoppage lasting 8 years, and then came two more victims. I believe, as the police believed, and the evidence collected from his house strongly indicated, that had he not been captured he would have killed again. Thankfully we will never know.

Happy Holidays,

JM

[Fisherman]

jmenges: Hi Christer,

Thanks for your reply.

No I do not believe I've pinned down what the Ripper was all about, and have never said as much. What I said was:

Whereas JtR had an element of mission-killing to his crimes.

I said this because the same FBI who you cite have identified four distinct types of motive. Visionary, mission-orientated, hedonistic and power/control.

I myself would not want to try and fit any suit at all on the Ripper until I knew what he was about, what he killed for, his incentives etcetera. Whether the FBI makes this classification or not is immaterail to this decision of mine. Squeezing the killer in under a subcategory can lead us very mucg astray.

We know very little about JtR but one thing we do know is that he specifically targeted prostitutes, putting him in the mission-orientated category while BTK lives comfortably in the power/control category. This is why I believe is it not particularly useful to draw comparisons between the two.

We actually only guess that he targetted prostitutes. If he targetted women and went out with an intent to kill at around three in the mornings, he would be likely to find prostitutes and unlikely to find any other women.
Thatīs not to say that I donīt think that he probably targetted prostitutes. But even if we accept that, we need an answer to WHY he targetted prostitutes before we try to sort him into a specific category of killers. We donīt exactly have a shortage of killers that were all about power/control and still targetted prostitutes, do we?

As an aside, what you wrote about Rader in your former post - that he kept on stalking people and that he had fantasies about killing them after his last murder - is not any evidence that he had not given up his carreer as a serial killer. The one thing that could prove that he was still a serialist would be if he actually killed instead of stalking and fantasizing. There will undoubtedly be people who both things but never kill.
Iīve been meaning to post that before, but it slipped my mind.

The best,
Fisherman

[Pcdunn]

So Cross was actually depicted kneeling over the body?

I think it's a pity that the film company incorrectly presented the encounter in this way. It strikes me as playing to the lowest common denominator in the general audience, that is, it is the easy way to graphically convey the guilt of Lechmere.

[Pcdunn]

It's a long slog, PC Dunn. We had a poster do that kind of thing once before, and we had to send out a search party for him.

I don't doubt that at all,
It took me a week or two to finish the DNA thread.
Fortunately, I am a librarian, and not afraid to wander among the stacks or cyberspace, seeking information.

Pat D.

[Robert]

It's a long slog, PC Dunn. We had a poster do that kind of thing once before, and we had to send out a search party for him.

[Pcdunn]

Hi PC Dunn

I would have thought that unless one is a doctor, the best thing to do with someone suspected to be ill is to leave them in place and get a doctor, perhaps after putting something soft under their head. What did Paul want to move her for?

Hello, Robert, that is an excellent question. I've read far enough here in this thread to have seen all the inquest testimony of Cross and Paul. Most agree that Cross refused to touch the body when Paul suggested moving her. One added that Paul apparently thought Nichols was still alive and wanted to help her breathe.
Cross probably was doing the right thing by not interfering with the body. His action here, as most of his actions, could be interpreted as either innocent or guilty. Indeed, there seems to be a great debate about this here.
Off to do errands. Back to page 75 of the thread when I return.

[Tom_Wescott]

To Fisherman:

Thank you for the reply. I'm in the USA, so haven't seen the TV doc yet, but will watch for it on Smithsonian Channel.

It's on youtube. Just type in 'missing evidence jack the ripper' and it will come up.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert]

Hi PC Dunn

I would have thought that unless one is a doctor, the best thing to do with someone suspected to be ill is to leave them in place and get a doctor, perhaps after putting something soft under their head. What did Paul want to move her for?

[Pcdunn]

It is NOT just about finding the body first. Howard Carter found Tutanchamon, and I donīt think he killed the pharaoh.

Lechmere was found standing alone with the victim. There can be no knowing for how long he had been alone with her. We have no corroboration for the carmans story. Paul says nothing about having heard or seen Lechmere until he stumbled over him outside Browns. And, first and foremost, Nichols was still bleeding from her neck when PC Mizen saw her, at least five or six minutes after Lechmere had left her. And we have a pathologist saying that with the kind of damage she had, she would have bled out in a couple of minutes.

So we effectively know that if it was NOT Lechmere, then it was somebody else who cut her immediately before Lechmere arrived. And even that seems a stretch, since she should only have bled for a couple of minutes. If we have another killer than Lechmere, then she must have bled for seven or eight minutes or even longer.

In other words, she would have been cut during the period when we cannot account for where Lechmere was - the minutes leading up to Paul finding him, without having heard him walk 30-40 yards in front of him.

So itīs not just about having found Nichols.

The best,
Fisherman

To Fisherman:

Thank you for the reply. I'm in the USA, so haven't seen the TV doc yet, but will watch for it on Smithsonian Channel.
This is a new theory to me, and at first I wasn't sure what a "carman" was, though it seems you're referring to something we Americans call a "teamster"-- rather funny, since the modern Teamster Union has sometimes been affiliated to crimes.
I am still reading up on Mr. Cross/Lechmere and the case, so am hesitant to say what I think until I get further along. It is interesting that Mr. Paul says "help me move her" (presumably because he thought she was alive), yet Cross consistently refuses to touch the body-- because he knew she was dead? Because he knew Paul would then see the blood? No, it was supposedly too dark... Hmm... ??