The Bucks Row Project Summary Report.

[Sam Flynn]

And much as other people will also have had reason to walk these routes in this area, not a single one of them were found standing alone in close proximity to a ripper victim that was still bleeding.

Davis, Dymshitz, and Watkins for that matter, all had cause to be in the area, and they found still-bleeding bodies too. And - devil in the detail time, again - Cross was not in "close" proximity, and neither was he "found".

In truth, the only murder sites that can be directly associated with Cross's journey to work are Bucks Row and Hanbury Street, and the latter only if we leave aside the doubt over timings.

All sorts of objections can be offered... [lots of tangential stuff]

That tangential stuff apart, the key objection here is that we can only directly associate Cross's commute with Bucks Row and Hanbury Street, and the latter only if we disregard the controversy over timings.

Bearing these factors in mind, a man whose routine took him past only two of the murder sites on his way to work, and had to report for work almost immediately after such bloody atrocities had taken place, points away from his being the killer.

Ouch, Gareth. For a man who claims that I am asserting too much, you really should not claim that hos routine only took him past two of the sites.

Why not? Those two sites are categorically the only ones we can definitely associate with his route to work.

And while we are at it, letīs also admit that you have no idea about who he had to "report to"

I said that he had to report for work - that doesn't mean he had to "report to" anyone, although chances are that he would have.

Letīs be frank and honest and not add inclusions like these one on you behalf.

I am being frank and honest, and I'm not including anything that is not definitely known.

[Batman]

Are you familiar with the expression "comfort zone" and how that relates to serial murder? Are you familiar with the concept of opportunistic serial killing - choosing the opportunity that is open to you?
Good. Now combine the two and see what happens!

Of course he is not aware of the concept. And of course it is no proven thing that he lived in Flower and Dean Street. Thatīs just poppycock. The concept of killing along a used route (the way myriads of long-haul trucking serial killers do) is a total gamechanger in this department.

There is a conflict between 'comfort zone' and 'murdering along the way to work'. Comfort zones aren't supposed to identify the murderer. They just identify where the murderer prefers striking.

In this instance, it's mostly dark spots in public places/the very places unfortunates take their clients. Your comfort zones end up identifying your offender (if there is any evidence he walked by any other murder scene other than one).

You call the geographic profile poppycock, but yourself are trying to forward your own geographic profile, which as far as I can tell, doesn't have precedence, unlike Rossmo and I am trying to find precedence, for you, for serial murders along a route to work. I can't even find Lorry drivers who did this. I have other drivers, but they aren't on fixed routes.

The double event is explained by a failed attempt. Looking at other offenders who have done the same, or tried it, and we find they failed the first attempt and immediately went to find another. It wasn't planned. They simply switched to a backup plan (another place they planned killing in).

The inquest would also include investigators and PCs on the beat and journalists. So if he is walking the route, none of the witnesses who saw JtR recall this is the man they see out walking these routes at this time before? Not even the bobbies on the beat who are tuned into this? Especially after Chapman?

I think the reason why there are no comparative models for killing along the way to work is that it identifies them.

This, of course, is all based on the idea that he actually did walk those routes to and from work, of which we have only evidence for one, the rest are guessed that he did.

[Fisherman]

Did Lechmere work at Old Broad Street, in the City of London? This street is 0.6 miles from Mitre Square, City of London, so if he was JtR it would presumably be within his comfort zone.

Broad Street. Up at Liverpool Street Station. The Eddowes slaying took place in City territory.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: But it's not a plain and simple situation; as ever, the devil's in the detail.

Oh, it is extremely simple. Four women were killed in a small area that we know Lechmere would have walked through on his route to work. Ergo, he fits the bill geographically. That is not saying that he must have passed the three remaining sites, only that the size of the area in combination with the routes available allow for it.
And much as other people will also have had reason to walk these routes in this area, not a single one of them were found standing alone in close proximity to a ripper victim that was still bleeding.

In truth, the only murder sites that can be directly associated with Cross's journey to work are Bucks Row and Hanbury Street, and the latter only if we leave aside the doubt over timings. Then we have to take into account the nature of the crimes, and ask ourselves whether someone could commit such gory murders when he was expected to turn up for a day's work soon afterwards.

All sorts of objections can be offered if we put our minds to it. Would the killer really kill such a fat woman as Tabram? Would he really kill such a meager woman as Eddowes? That is not what I am after - I am after the fact that his working route would have taken him through the area inbetween Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street, and that - by sheer coincidence - was the small area where the Ripper killed four victims by the looks of things. As for whether he would have preferred to kill by means of chloroform overdoses or not, in order to arrive at Pickfords in as neat a shape as possible, I think that the urges of this killer do not allow for that speculation. We do not know how much blood he got on his person, what possibilities there were to hide it, how many people he came in contact with as he arrived to Pickfords, so these points are but idle speculation that do not alter the fact that Lechmere has a helluva lot going for him as the killer. And I wonīt even go into the old chestnut of the TOD:s - I donīt have to, since it is a certain thing that I MAY be right.

Bearing these factors in mind, a man whose routine took him past only two of the murder sites on his way to work, and had to report for work almost immediately after such bloody atrocities had taken place, points away from his being the killer.

Ouch, Gareth. For a man who claims that I am asserting too much, you really should not claim that hos routine only took him past two of the sites. Letīs be honest and admit that we donīt know that at all, shall we? And while we are at it, letīs also admit that you have no idea about who he had to "report to" - if anyone - just as you donīt know how much time there would have been between the slayings and the arrival time at Pickfords, other than in the Bucks Row case, where Jason Payne-James said that he did not think that there was any reason to suppose that the killer would have any visible blood on his person at all.
Letīs be frank and honest and not add inclusions like these ones on you behalf. Letīs be fair this time.

[John G]

Did Lechmere work at Old Broad Street, in the City of London? This street is 0.6 miles from Mitre Square, City of London, so if he was JtR it would presumably be within his comfort zone.

[Fisherman]

A killer caught in the act is going to one of three things:
a) make a run for it
b) try to bluff it out
c) kill the witness

In the scenario proposed, however, Lechmere was not caught in the act. He was aware of Paul's presence first. He dusted himself off, stood back and planned his next move. In the dark and hazy seclusion of Buck's Row he could've slipped away and ditched any incriminating evidence. By the time Paul raised the alarm - if he had - Lechmere would've been home and dry. Instead, Lechmere, who would've been bloodstained and carrying a murder weapon, takes the unnecessary risk of approaching the witness, and what's worse he accompanies him to find a policeman! Even with the serendipity of PC Mizen failing to inspect them or even take down their names, Lechmere then voluntarily comes forward to attend the inquest, making public his christian name, home address and place of business, key information that the investigators could've used to keep tabs on him. There's taking calculated risks and then there's being reckless. It's faulty, tautological reasoning to say that Lechmere was the killer because he got away with this, when the much likelier explanation is that he was just another innocent witness.

Are you saying that it is axiomatic that a killer not caught in the act must flee? Plus, of course, depending on when he realized Pauls presence, he may well have been more or less caught in the act anyway. And people totally caught in the act sometime employ a fourth option: give up and admit culpability.

As for faulty, tautological reasoning, you may have misunderstood the latter expression. Regardless of that, there is no fault in suggesting a perfectly possible development even if it is not the statistically most viable one. Statistics really donīt enter the issue, to be frank, since the individual circumstances are what govern things.

[Fisherman]

Fish you say - Does not the double event militate totally against your idea of the killer spreading out his doings? Why would he kill TWICE the same night? Ooooh, no - he would NEVER do that, it would be far too dangerous.

I really do not get this point you are actually arguing in a sort of negative way that Lech couldn't be the killer. Too dangerous to kill twice on his way to work on one night. And let's say you say he did it so people would think it was too dangerous thus exonerating him [ am I reading that right?]. You say they are not on his proven beat to work [which was?] but one is closer to his home and the other later, closer to his work. If the double event were some kind of plan why not do it the other way round IE Mitre first, now that really would doubt suspicion of this well, organized killer. Instead, its a case of " Hey Charles you know how you discovered that dead woman half an hour before you turned up for work, well two other women have been found dead, one nearer your house not long after you must have set off and the other nearer work not long before you err clocked in "

You may have missed that I was a tad sarcastic in my post? Let me be frank: if any post of mine has you thinking that I do not support the idea of Lechmere as the killer, then you will have misunderstood it. Totally.

As for the double event, Lechmere did in all probability not work on the ensuing morning. It was a Sunday. My gut feeling, by the way, is that the double event was not planned, that the killer was frustrated after Stride and that he likely sought out City territory for his next slaying.

[Harry D]

A killer caught in the act is going to one of three things:
a) make a run for it
b) try to bluff it out
c) kill the witness

In the scenario proposed, however, Lechmere was not caught in the act. He was aware of Paul's presence first. He dusted himself off, stood back and planned his next move. In the dark and hazy seclusion of Buck's Row he could've slipped away and ditched any incriminating evidence. By the time Paul raised the alarm - if he had - Lechmere would've been home and dry. Instead, Lechmere, who would've been bloodstained and carrying a murder weapon, takes the unnecessary risk of approaching the witness, and what's worse he accompanies him to find a policeman! Even with the serendipity of PC Mizen failing to inspect them or even take down their names, Lechmere then voluntarily comes forward to attend the inquest, making public his christian name, home address and place of business, key information that the investigators could've used to keep tabs on him. There's taking calculated risks and then there's being reckless. It's faulty, tautological reasoning to say that Lechmere was the killer because he got away with this, when the much likelier explanation is that he was just another innocent witness.

[Sam Flynn]

is it an advantage or a disadvantage for a suspect to have had it revealed that his working path passes through a confined area where multiple murder has occurred? And I donīt want the answer "Others will have passed through the area too". I just want an answer to the plain and simple question worded above.

But it's not a plain and simple situation; as ever, the devil's in the detail.

In truth, the only murder sites that can be directly associated with Cross's journey to work are Bucks Row and Hanbury Street, and the latter only if we leave aside the doubt over timings. Then we have to take into account the nature of the crimes, and ask ourselves whether someone could commit such gory murders when he was expected to turn up for a day's work soon afterwards.

Bearing these factors in mind, a man whose routine took him past only two of the murder sites on his way to work, and had to report for work almost immediately after such bloody atrocities had taken place, points away from his being the killer.

[Fisherman]

Darryl Kenyon: Fish You say he couldn't use the ruse again in Dutfields after Bucks, but then why use the ruse at all in Bucks.

Could have been a combination of circumstances just as it may have been something he simply enjoyed doing. There is no way to know the exact reason, all we can do is to realize how it is a totally possible thing.

If Lech was the killer he must have been an extremely calm and confident organized murderer, ice blood in his veins.

Yes, I agree. Indeed, this is something i have said many times, and many have used it to dub my picture of him one that earns the title of "a mastermind killer". I think that is perhaps going a bit too far, but certainly he will have been fearless and composed, and able to think of his feet.

With that regard it must have occurred to him he may have to use this ruse. So why Bucks Row? He could have saved it for a situation when it was much tighter and scurried away virtually unseen before Paul arrived.

Again, we donīt know why he chose this time. Again, it can have been a combination of circumstances. Again, all we can say is that the signs are there.

Also, most of the investigators at the time surmised that Jack had been interrupted at Dutfields I personally don't really see any reason to doubt them if you accept Jack killed Liz.

Interrupted? Quite possibly so. But what evidence places him in Dutfields yard at the time of Diemschitzī arrival? None, whatsoever, Iīm afraid. I donīt think that most investigators thought he was still in place, but you are welcome to correct me on that score. Certainly, the possibility will have been looked at, but I donīt hink there was ever any agreement about it. Nor should there be.

Regarding Mizen I accept your theory that Lech could have been cold calculating and totally believable to the copper, but I have to say it could also be because he was genuine.

If we disregard what Mizen tells us about what he said, yes. And we can see that Dew has him down as a rough but reliable character. Then again, many killers have made favourable impression on the police. Sadly, the judgment of the police is no certain thing. And psychopaths are well known to be very accomplished liars.
So much boils down not to HOW he said things but WHAT he said.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Fish you say - Does not the double event militate totally against your idea of the killer spreading out his doings? Why would he kill TWICE the same night? Ooooh, no - he would NEVER do that, it would be far too dangerous.

I really do not get this point you are actually arguing in a sort of negative way that Lech couldn't be the killer. Too dangerous to kill twice on his way to work on one night. And let's say you say he did it so people would think it was too dangerous thus exonerating him [ am I reading that right?]. You say they are not on his proven beat to work [which was?] but one is closer to his home and the other later, closer to his work. If the double event were some kind of plan why not do it the other way round IE Mitre first, now that really would doubt suspicion of this well, organized killer. Instead, its a case of " Hey Charles you know how you discovered that dead woman half an hour before you turned up for work, well two other women have been found dead, one nearer your house not long after you must have set off and the other nearer work not long before you err clocked in "

[Darryl Kenyon]

Fish You say he couldn't use the ruse again in Dutfields after Bucks, but then why use the ruse at all in Bucks. If Lech was the killer he must have been an extremely calm and confident organized murderer, ice blood in his veins. With that regard it must have occurred to him he may have to use this ruse. So why Bucks Row? He could have saved it for a situation when it was much tighter and scurried away virtually unseen before Paul arrived. Also, most of the investigators at the time surmised that Jack had been interrupted at Dutfields I personally don't really see any reason to doubt them if you accept Jack killed Liz. Regarding Mizen I accept your theory that Lech could have been cold calculating and totally believable to the copper, but I have to say it could also be because he was genuine.

[Fisherman]

Batman: I asked myself the question if it would have been an advantage or disadvantage for serial killers to murder along with their work route and the answer I keep coming up with is a big disadvantage because it identifies them hence why most of these lust murders, who are Marauders or Commuters, don't do it, if ever.

So I guess the next question would be, which serial killers do we know about that murdered along with their work route in a series?

Are you familiar with the expression "comfort zone" and how that relates to serial murder? Are you familiar with the concept of opportunistic serial killing - choosing the opportunity that is open to you?
Good. Now combine the two and see what happens!

Next, is the geographic profile, which matches a Marauder/Commuter model completely and utterly as if JtR is radially murdering away from Flower & Dean. JtR didn't know about geographic profiling. He isn't aware he has triangulated his hot zone.

Of course he is not aware of the concept. And of course it is no proven thing that he lived in Flower and Dean Street. Thatīs just poppycock. The concept of killing along a used route (the way myriads of long-haul trucking serial killers do) is a total gamechanger in this department.

Also, it's an autumn of terror, wherein the space of a few weeks, the C5 occurred. One would think he would have spaced things out a bit so as not to draw attention to himself walking by the murder scenes twice a day.

Does not the double event militate totally against your idea of the killer spreading out his doings? Why would he kill TWICE the same night? Ooooh, no - he would NEVER do that, it would be far too dangerous.
And if the morning trek was his opportunity window, he did not have any opportunity to go to Banbury to kill, did he? But he DID kill in various places, he did not keep to one street only, and he did add two murders that were not along his working path.
If ripperology early on could have produced a man where we could see that he had geographical connections to each and every murder spot, it would have been a magnificent breakthrough, but no such thing happened. What has been made is efforts to place the contemporary suspects anywhere near the spots, and the champagne has been uncorked if any such thing was ever happening; Kosminskis Providence street possibility, Francis Thompsonīs being close to Dorset Street, Chapmans Cable Street address and his 1891 working place near George Yard, those kinds of things.

But when we find a suspect who was found standing alone, close by a Ripper victim who was still bleeding, who is recorded as having disagreed with the police, who gave a name he otherwise did not give the authorities and so on - and who can be geographically linked to ALL the murder spots or their vicinity, one by one, people protest his likely innocence to a degree that is ridiculous.

Scrutinize away, by all means. But donīt loose your head in the process.

It is extremely hard to imagine that after the inquest nobody would have noticed him about these other places as a regular passerby at the same time.

Why? Because the jury members walked the Whitechapel streets at 3-4 AM, looking to see who was around in the area? They did not have to. The police know where he lived and worked, and so it would have been totally obvious to them that he passed the killing fields every day at the relevant hours.

So why did they not see the potential of the man as a suspect? To answer that, you must also answer the question "Why did not a hundred years plus of Ripperology turn Lechmere up as a suspect?".

Maybe it is not all that much of a given that this would happen?

Another matter is the question of which type of killer they were looking for: a middle-aged family man walking to a work he had held down for two decades or a drooling madman of foreign extraction, unemployed and a frequent guest at the asylums, preferably with a thick neck.
You need to understand the time to understand itīs mindset.

[Fisherman]

John G: Yes, I would agree that JtR would, in that situation, be relatively unconcerned about Paul. However, if he just walks calmly away then how much of a risk is he taking?

We donīt know, do we? It all hinges on circumstances beyond his control, that is what we can say; will Paul check the body? Will he see it? Will he sound the alarm? Will there be a PC around?
Thatīs part of the answer to your question. The other part lies in how we canīt tell to which - if any - degree Lechmere would have actually liked the idea of conning Paul.


However, by deciding to brazen it out by approaching Paul he is allowing himself to be identified. In fact, he is now very much in the public domain, even to the extent of having to reveal his name and give evidence at a public inquest.

True - but being identified as a benevolent witness trumps being identified as a guy running from a murder site every day in the week, John.

The second option, therefore, doesn't seem to me to amount to a very wise choice.

It would have had itīs advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage would be that he would no longer be an unwritten card, he would become part of the public domain. The advantages would be that if he pulled it off, he would be able to leave the spot in company with another man (less conspicious) and he would be in the clear if he pulled things off.
Remember that we must not work from the assumption that he freely accepted to contact the police and go to the inquest - his first intention may have been simply to fool Paul and then drift off into obscurity. He could not know that Paul would suggest finding a PC, could he?
Things will have escalated in that department from a position of a minimal exposure (only to Paul) into one with maximum exposure (police, inquest), and that will have been something he could not know from the outset.

Anyways, again it applies that all you have is your own thinking and your own conviction. Mine is different, and it has the support of Andy Griffiths, who should know a thing or two about these things.

He may well have chosen to stay. That is established and it will not go away. It is not the more common choice, as I freely admit, but the circumstances point to how it seems to be what did happen.

In the end, it is meaningless to push the idea that he MUST have fled, that he could NOT have chosen to bluff it out. You cannot prove such a thing and you cannot quantify in any shape or from how likely/unlikely it is.

Maybe the time has come to drop that part and try and find other angles, John?

[Batman]

PS. Did you reach any conclusion overnight - is it an advantage or a disadvantage for a suspect to have had it revealed that his working path passes through a confined area where multiple murder has occurred? And I donīt want the answer "Others will have passed through the area too". I just want an answer to the plain and simple question worded above.

I asked myself the question if it would have been an advantage or disadvantage for serial killers to murder along with their work route and the answer I keep coming up with is a big disadvantage because it identifies them hence why most of these lust murders, who are Marauders or Commuters, don't do it, if ever.

So I guess the next question would be, which serial killers do we know about that murdered along with their work route in a series?

Next, is the geographic profile, which matches a Marauder/Commuter model completely and utterly as if JtR is radially murdering away from Flower & Dean. JtR didn't know about geographic profiling. He isn't aware he has triangulated his hot zone.

Also, it's an autumn of terror, wherein the space of a few weeks, the C5 occurred. One would think he would have spaced things out a bit so as not to draw attention to himself walking by the murder scenes twice a day.

It is extremely hard to imagine that after the inquest nobody would have noticed him about these other places as a regular passerby at the same time.