The Mizen scam

[Jon Guy]

Hi Fisherman

Yes, but he approached the tarpaulin thinking it was a tarpaulin (taking less than 30 seconds to pick up and carry on.. and a splendid find too. Use it for work, sell it to his boss, give it to his boss, pawn it, sell to a friend...)

But it was a prone woman, so he called for help, made her descent and went off to find a copper on the way. Perfectly reasonable!!

Out of the two carmen, Paul should have been looked at closer once Chapman had been found around the corner from Paul`s workplace, and especially considering Chapman`s TOD.

[lynn cates]

part 2

Hello Christer. Thanks.

“Including the pulling down of the dress, obscuring the wounds...?”

If he did this, which is likely, it seems to me merely an instinctive LVP modesty reaction.

“ Including the refusal to prop her up?”

That seems prudent as “propping” could do a great bit of harm.

“ Why did he have time to feel the hands and the face, but not to prop her up? Was he rushed at one stage but not at the other?’

Time was not a factor in the propping, nor yet in the check for vital signs. When in a hurry, some things are done; some are not.

“It seems now that he did actually NOT give his name to Mizen. There is an Echo report that tells us something along the lines of "Mizen, now knowing that the man was a carman named Cross ..." et cetera, . . . “

Even better. No name, but only, “you are wanted back there.”

“. . . pointing to the possibility that he went to the police himself and gave his name at THAT stage, when he realized that he would be called to the inquest.”

But if he were not known, how would he have been called to the inquest? Would such a killer seek out the police?

“If so, was he still trying to avoid to get too deeply involved? He WAS already inquest involved. How much deeper could it get?’

But by “knowing” less, less involvement at the inquest seems assured—hence less time.

“I can think of no other reason to lie the way he did. So it´s either or, and I don´t invest in or, I´m afraid.”

But why insist on “lie”? That is not established.

“Maybe I was unclear. What I mean to convey is that if Chapman had been killed on a Saturday night, and Stride on a Tuesday morning, then the scenario with Lechmere killing on his route to job or on the way to visit his mother/daughter weekendwise, would not apply. But it does apply!”

Thanks for the clarification. But for someone to kill and then chat up his family—well, my mind boggles.

“It only applies in Kelly´s case, Lynn. And only potentially, since we know she worked Leman Street, leading down to Old Montague Street. The rest of the slayings are all within the fewest of yards from Hanbury Street or Old Montague Street.”

Very well. Then in HER case, how far before you lose interest in Lechmere?

“Kate is the odd one out, . . .”

Agreed. However, I would have said, “An odd one out.” (heh-heh)

“ . . . but if there was a double event, . . .”

A HUGE if, as you, yourself, formerly held.

“ . . . then this could explain things. “

Indeed—along with a vast number of alternatives.

“And of course he was not en route to his job; it was the night between Saturday and Sunday, and my presumption is that he had been visiting his mother´s house, killed Stride on his way back home, . . .”

OK, so far.

“ . . . was interrupted for some reason, . . .”

Ughhh. Et tu, Piscatore?

“. . . aborted the kill . . .”

But why the much less deep cut to the throat? Let’s say he was indeed interrupted. Then why not have Liz with a deep throat wound—like Polly and Annie—but no mutilations? She is different from first to last.

“ . . . and went in search of another victim, . . .”

This sounds more like the serial killer with an impulse to kill and who cannot be satisfied without the kill. We were talking about a monomaniacal, angry frustrated superior chap?

“ . . . preferably not too close to the hornet´s nest he had created.”

Seems to indicate a desire to be caught—like pure suicide.

“I agree very much that he must have been a cool customer to be the killer. But that is entirely feasible - the mechanisms we find when looking at him in the killer´s role all speak the same language. Imaginative, almost brilliant, quick in thought and with no remorse.”

Not sure I see those traits at all. No remorse? He seemed almost solicitous of Polly as he spot checked her.

“Those are all traits that tally with a sociopath, who easily copies the normal man’s behaviour and feelings, but who feels nothing at all himself like sorrow, fear, panic etcetera. They know when to cry and why, and they can do so - they just don´t understand the need for it, but are willing to copy the behaviour to fit in.”

Again, we don’t know he was a sociopath, nor do all sociopaths kill.

“ And with respect, no matter if he was the killer or just anxious to get to work in time, he STILL produced that elaborate lie, . . .”

Ahem! Story, possibly true.

“ . . . aimed to get past Mizen.”

And perhaps to cut his time losses.

“He thus STILL was a pretty cool customer, and so we DO have the trait on record no matter what we think in the guilt question.”

But surely thinking quickly on one’s feet and being able to not break a sweat around others after committing cold blooded murder are not the same? I have done the former on many occasions; not the latter.

“But do we know this? Do we know that he did not harass people, that he did not make life hell for his wife, that his neighbours were not scared of him et cetera? What we know, Lynn, is that we DON`T know.”

Then this must be researched. And I wish you all the best in that regard.

“What we DO know, however, was that the Pinchin Street torso was found in 1889 in the exact railway arch outside 147 Cable Street, where his mother resided, perhaps twenty, thirty yards away from her doorstep. And we know that Phillips spoke of similarities in the knife work, if I don´t misremember things. So maybe, Lynn, Lechmere´s life was not as bland as we may want to believe!"

Very well. Any good reason for the different MO/signature?

“Thanks, Lynn. I have no problems at all to say that the same goes for you!”

Thank you, indeed!

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I think you're probably familiar enough by now with my objections to your geography-related arguments. There is no evidence that he ever used a route to work which would have taken him past George Yard or Mitre Square, and the murders that were on his known work-route were committed too late for a carman like Cross to be credibly in the frame for. The murder times and locations point very much away from Cross being responsible, in my opinion, which is why I'm constantly surprised that people keep bringing up the issue as a perceived plus in favour of his candidacy.

With regard to the present discussion, I believe your contention is that Cross lied to Mizen about encountering a policeman in Buck's Row in order to put the latter's mind as rest that he and Paul had already been searched and cleared by this Buck's Row policeman. In which case, two fairly major problems jump out at me straight away.

1) What was to prevent Paul saying to Cross, with Mizen in earshot: "Policeman? We never saw or spoke to any policeman in Buck's Row? What are you talking about?"...?

I can't see Cross getting out of that one terribly successfully.

2) What was to prevent the following exchange taking place between PCs Mizen and Neil:

"Oh look, a horrible murder. I wonder who could be responsible?"

"Well, presumably you checked out those two carmen you met a short while ago?"

"What two carmen?"

"Oh, $hit!"

I can't see Cross getting out of that one either, had he been responsible.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"Yes, but he approached the tarpaulin thinking it was a tarpaulin (taking less than 30 seconds to pick up and carry on.. and a splendid find too. Use it for work, sell it to his boss, give it to his boss, pawn it, sell to a friend...)"

I can clearly see what you are saying, Jon, and I have no objections to it. But the point I am pressing here is that obviously Lechmere did not mind adding another half a minute or two to his tardiness, and thus I think it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that he did not fear for his job on account of being a little late.
Therefore it ALSO applies that coming clean to Mizen, saying that he and Paul had seen a woman lying in the street and that she could be either dead or drunk, would have been the logical thing to do, giving Mizen the opportunity to search them, should he feel the need to (normally, people who find themselves a PC to report things like these are NOT killers) and take their names and adresses before sending them on. It would not have added much time to the errand, and they would in all probability not be sacked for arriving seven minutes late if they were not fired for four minutes. That is what I´m after here!

"But it was a prone woman, so he called for help, made her descent and went off to find a copper on the way. Perfectly reasonable!! "

Well, if I ever fall down in the street, due to a heart attack or something like that, I would hope that at least one of the two people who find me actually stays with me til help arrives. Other than that, and just like usual, Lechmeres action here, just like in most other instances, can be interpreted as good will.

"Out of the two carmen, Paul should have been looked at closer once Chapman had been found around the corner from Paul`s workplace, and especially considering Chapman`s TOD."

Paul nearly gave Lechmere away when he arrived. He also threatened to leave Lechmere alone with the body, waiting for a PC. He furthermore suggested a propping up that Lechmere did NOT want. See what I´m getting at? Lechmere had at least three reasons to feel pissed off relating to Paul. Maybe he chose 29 Hanbury Street to pay back?

To see Paul as the killer would be to surmise that he went back through Buck´s Row after having left Nichols there. That makes very little sense to me, so I thankfully observe that you will take care of that angle, Jon!

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

To see Paul as the killer would be to surmise that he went back through Buck´s Row after having left Nichols there. That makes very little sense to me, so I thankfully observe that you will take care of that angle, Jon!

Funnily enough, when you noted that PC Neil could hear PC Thain walking in Brady St yet Cross never heard Paul until Paul was half way up Bucks Row it did make me think.

Perhaps, Paul killed Nichols and started walking along Bucks Row towards Brady St until Cross suddenly entered Bucks Row walking towards Paul.
Knowing that Cross would pass him and then come across the body of Nichols, Paul stands back in the shadows of Bucks Row and secretes the knife somewhere. Then joins Cross (Paul suddenly appearing half way up Bucks Row) who has just discovered the body.

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"If he did this, which is likely, it seems to me merely an instinctive LVP modesty reaction."

What are you saying here, Lynn? That he found Nichols, pulled her dress down, and THEN stepped into the street again?
If so, why did he not say so at the inquest? It would not exactly de damning, would it?
Or are you saying that he first killed her and then, in a sudden fit of modesty, pulled her dress down...? Not very Ripperish, seeing as that was not weighed in with the following victims.

"That seems prudent as “propping” could do a great bit of harm."

That was not a widespread insight in them days, I should think. And it only applies with spinal injuries and such things, whereas Nichols gave the impression of a drunken woman, a fainted woman or a woman struck by a heart attack or a stroke, neither of which would mean any harm getting worsened by a propping up.

"Time was not a factor in the propping, nor yet in the check for vital signs. When in a hurry, some things are done; some are not."

And of course, we may observe that the things that WERE done were all things that would NOT give away what had happened, whereas the omitted things would have done so. That interests me.
In fact, all of the "coincidences" do.

"if he were not known, how would he have been called to the inquest?"

By calling in at the nearest police station as a helpful citizen, before anybody started to harbour any sort of suspicion. He KNEW that it was out that he had been alone with the body.

"Would such a killer seek out the police?"

Not only that, Lynn - he would potentially enjoy doing it.

"why insist on “lie”? That is not established."

Either he lied or Mizen did. Lechmeres lie would have been productive, Mizens would have been improductive. Accepting that Mizen was wrong has cost us 124 years of being unable to see any sense in the exchange, whereas accepting Lechmere as the liar provides us with all the sense in the world.

"Thanks for the clarification. But for someone to kill and then chat up his family—well, my mind boggles."

My mistake - I of course mean that he killed AFTER leaving his mother and daughter!

"Then in HER case, how far before you lose interest in Lechmere?"

When I can´t see him getting in contact with her on his way to work. Through the Leman Street connection I can easily see that happen, though.

"Et tu, Piscatore?"

Si, Brute. The evidence is not onesided here.

"But why the much less deep cut to the throat?"

Can´t say, Lynn. Obviously!

"This sounds more like the serial killer with an impulse to kill and who cannot be satisfied without the kill. We were talking about a monomaniacal, angry frustrated superior chap?"

Then use the "superior" here - HE calls the shots, HE decides if somebody is going to have her entrails torn out, not some silly bugger who disrupts his scheme for no good reason at all.

"Seems to indicate a desire to be caught—like pure suicide."

Or a sense of superiority.

"we don’t know he was a sociopath, nor do all sociopaths kill."

Agreed on both counts. But it still applies that IF he was the killer, then he behaved very much like a totally fearless man, quick in thought and able to supress any panic in favour of cool calculation. That´s all I´m saying. It fits that way.

"Ahem! Story, possibly true."

It´s that, or Mizen did not speak the truth. I prefer to believe in a PC who would have done himself no favour at all by lying in this manner.

"And perhaps to cut his time losses."

Not as good a suggestion, methinks. Exspecially not since it seems he kept track of Neil, knowing exactly when he could place him at the murder spot. Why would a hapless, morning tired carman have that knowledge?

"But surely thinking quickly on one’s feet and being able to not break a sweat around others after committing cold blooded murder are not the same? "

Surely, Lynn! It is the context and the shape of the lie that is of interest here. And don´t forget that we are discussing whether he lied in order to save time or to save his neck from the gallows. One applies, and you have never come that close to catching the Ripper before ...

"this must be researched. And I wish you all the best in that regard."

It must, as well as it can 124 years on. But it is not an easy task! Did YOU record in a book the last time over you had words with your good wife?

"Any good reason for the different MO/signature?"

How about boredom? How about he felt he did not get out of the killings what he wanted to, he made a half-hearted attack on MacKenzie in the summer of 1889, only to realize that he needed some other sort of fix, opting for a torso killing in the autumn, inspired by other murders like that? It is no a simple question to answer, but once the interest is there for Lechmere, it is a hard thing to do to look away from a murder on his mother´s doorstep...

All the best, Lynn!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben.

"I think you're probably familiar enough by now with my objections to your geography-related arguments. There is no evidence that he ever used a route to work which would have taken him passed George Yard or Mitre Square"

...and I believe you are equally aquainted with my answer: There WERE two thoroughfares to Broad Street, out of which Old Montague Street was the slightly quicker one. We KNOW he used Hanbury Street, and the assumption that he may have preferred the quickest route at other occasions is a very logical one.

It also applies that as Lechmere spoke to Mizen, the PC would have been aware that three weeks earlier, a gruesome murder had taken place in George Yard. That may well have affected Lechmere´s choice of route as he left Mizen, if he did not want the PC to put two and two together. Likewise, if he wanted to dominate Paul and find out exactly who and what his fellow carman was and how much he had seen in Buck´s Row, then Hanbury street, alongside Paul, was the better choice on THAT morning.

"The murder times and locations point very much away from Cross being responsible, in my opinion"

The LOCATIONS point AWAY from him? I´m amazed! We DO see things very differently, Ben. I would have thought that access to the murder spots INCREASED the possibility of guilt, not decrease it.

"With regard to the present discussion, I believe your contention is that Cross lied to Mizen about encountering a policeman in Buck's Row in order to put the latter's mind as rest that he and Paul had already been searched and cleared by this Buck's Row policeman."

Exactly so. Well, not necessarily searched or questioned - the image Lechmere produced could just as well entail the fictive PC making the find by himself, only to have Lechmere and Paul pass by two minutes later, whereupon he told the carmen to fetch a PC as quickly as they could. In such a case, he would not have searched them or questioned them at all. But the general picture you have is correct.

"In which case, two fairly major problems jump out at me straight away."

Aha? Well, let´s hear them then!

"1) What was to prevent Paul saying to Cross, with Mizen in earshot: "Policeman? We never saw or spoke to any policeman in Buck's Row? What are you talking about?"...? Can't see Cross getting out of that one terribly successfully?"

Nothing at all. And Paul probably would have done just that. Which is why I think that he never heard it. From the inquest reports we know that Mizen says that "Cross" was the guy who spoke to him, and in the Star, Mizen says that there was another man in company with "Cross", a man that proceeded up Hanbury Street. It can therefore be suggested that Cross said to Paul, late as the latter was, "You walk on ahead, and I will tell the PC of our find". And what Paul did not hear, he could not protest against.

"What was to prevent the following exchange taking place between PCs Mizen and Neil:
"Oh look, a horrible murder. I wonder who could be responsible?"
"Well, presumably you checked out those two carmen you met a short while ago?"
"What two carmen?"
"Oh, $hit!"

I can't see Cross getting out of that one either, had he been responsible."

Well, what would have prevented it initially was that Neil sent Mizen for the ambulance, pronto. Please observe that Mizen would not have been amazed by seeing Neil in place - for that tallied exactly with what Lechmere had told him. So why would he say "Two carmen sent me here" - for all he knew, Neil already was aware of that, since he had been the one who sent them! It would have been surplus information.
Likewise, Neil was not of the meaning that Mizen had arrived on any other initiative than Neil´s own. He said at the inquest that he signalled a PC in Brady Street (Thain) and then the PC in Baker´s Row (Mizen). Neil would therefore have THOUGHT that he had summoned Mizen by means of his lamp.

And there you are, Ben! When Mizen arrived back, there were other PC:s around and the horse-slaughterers and the doctor were in place. Why would Mizen seek out Neil and tell him about the carmen at that stage? He would be of the meaning that Neil already knew about them.
It was probably not until Mizens superiors spoke to him that the two carmen came to their attention, and that opens up an interesting perspective: The police were at that stage stuck with a scenario in which two unidentified carmen, probably honest, had stated that they had seen a PC with Nichols in Buck´s Row, whereas Neil fervently denied ever having seen the carmen.
They must have asked themselves who that PC was. Was he the killer? Why else would he have disappeared before Neil reached the spot?

Lechmere´s surfacing, telling them that there never HAD been a PC in Buck´s Row, must have been a relief to them!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"Perhaps, Paul killed Nichols and started walking along Bucks Row towards Brady St until Cross suddenly entered Bucks Row walking towards Paul.
Knowing that Cross would pass him and then come across the body of Nichols, Paul stands back in the shadows of Bucks Row and secretes the knife somewhere. Then joins Cross (Paul suddenly appearing half way up Bucks Row) who has just discovered the body."

But if he hid from Lechmere as the latter passed him by - why would he jump out and reveal himself later? He could bank on Lechmere proceeding westwards!

I think that is a worse snag than it is a good suggestion that Lechmere only heard him forty yards away due to his hiding at that distance.

All the best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

part 3

Hello Christer. Thanks.

“What are you saying here, Lynn? That he found Nichols, pulled her dress down, and THEN stepped into the street again?”

That would depend on his initial pulling. I wonder when—if ever—he adjusted her skirt.

“If so, why did he not say so at the inquest? It would not exactly de damning, would it?”

Would this have mattered?

“Or are you saying that he first killed her and then, in a sudden fit of modesty, pulled her dress down...?“

Well, the last part is OK. Killed her? I need evidence.

“Not very Ripperish, seeing as that was not weighed in with the following victims.”

Indeed. I prefer the non-mythological approach.

“That was not a widespread insight in them days, I should think. And it only applies with spinal injuries and such things, whereas Nichols gave the impression of a drunken woman, a fainted woman or a woman struck by a heart attack or a stroke, neither of which would mean any harm getting worsened by a propping up.”

In those cases, the head should be de-elevated—to increase blood flow. Propping makes bad matters worse.

“And of course, we may observe that the things that WERE done were all things that would NOT give away what had happened, whereas the omitted things would have done so. That interests me.
In fact, all of the "coincidences" do.”

Well, checking vital signs seems obligatory to me.

“By calling in at the nearest police station as a helpful citizen, before anybody started to harbour any sort of suspicion. He KNEW that it was out that he had been alone with the body.”

But how would they have found him? By recognising a face in the passing crowd?

“Not only that, Lynn - he would potentially enjoy doing it.”

Oh, dear. The FBI rot again?

“Either he lied or Mizen did. Lechmeres lie would have been productive, Mizens would have been improductive. Accepting that Mizen was wrong has cost us 124 years of being unable to see any sense in the exchange, whereas accepting Lechmere as the liar provides us with all the sense in the world.”

Again, not all false information is a lie. “It’s raining. Oops, no it isn’t. Silly of me.”

“My mistake - I of course mean that he killed AFTER leaving his mother and daughter!”

Fair enough. Chatting with family can make a man do some vile things. (heh-heh)

“When I can´t see him getting in contact with her on his way to work. Through the Leman Street connection I can easily see that happen, though.”

A bit vague here.

“Si, Brute. The evidence is not one sided here.”

No, but it has ALWAYS been Deus ex machina to prop up a theory—as you should well know.

“Can´t say, Lynn. Obviously!”

Fair enough. As with the Mann theory, he was having a bad night. Fortunately, he recovered sufficiently for Mitre Square.

“Then use the "superior" here - HE calls the shots, HE decides if somebody is going to have her entrails torn out, not some silly bugger who disrupts his scheme for no good reason at all.”

Sigh. Back to the FBI.

“Or a sense of superiority. “

If this were established, it would be helpful.

“Agreed on both counts. But it still applies that IF he was the killer, then he behaved very much like a totally fearless man, quick in thought and able to suppress any panic in favour of cool calculation. That´s all I´m saying. It fits that way.”

Given the rules of conditional logic, I cannot disagree. After all, a false antecedent ALWAYS yields a true conditional.

“It´s that, or Mizen did not speak the truth.”

Or a misstatement; or . . .

“Not as good a suggestion, methinks. Especially not since it seems he kept track of Neil, knowing exactly when he could place him at the murder spot. Why would a hapless, morning tired carman have that knowledge?”

Well, as Leibniz put it, we are aware of many things—but as background noise.

“Surely, Lynn! It is the context and the shape of the lie that is of interest here. And don´t forget that we are discussing whether he lied in order to save time or to save his neck from the gallows. One applies, and you have never come that close to catching the Ripper before ...”

Again, to call it a lie, without further ado, is to poison the well.

“It must, as well as it can 124 years on. But it is not an easy task!”

I sympathise—really.

“Did YOU record in a book the last time ever you had words with your good wife?”

No comment.

“How about boredom? How about he felt he did not get out of the killings what he wanted to, he made a half-hearted attack on MacKenzie in the summer of 1889, only to realize that he needed some other sort of fix, opting for a torso killing in the autumn, inspired by other murders like that? It is no a simple question to answer, but once the interest is there for Lechmere, it is a hard thing to do to look away from a murder on his mother´s doorstep...”

A curious mixture of the FBI and professor Trow. Well, just as you wish.

Good luck!

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

But if he hid from Lechmere as the latter passed him by - why would he jump out and reveal himself later? He could bank on Lechmere proceeding westwards!

Because Cross would pass him and then find the body and the Police would be looking for the man matching Paul`s description who was in Bucks Row at 3.35am.

Once, Cross had discovered the body Paul could walk up the street, pretending to be innocently walking to work.

Why would Paul retrace his steps eastwards down Bucks Row?
Well, whoever killed Nichols probably picked her up on the Whitechapel Rd and walked into Bucks Row through Bakers Row or one of the roads off the Whitechapel Rd. Paul could not risk been seen walking out the same way, except on his own.

Perhaps, as seems evident, it would have been safer walking the 60 yards or so back up Bucks Row towards Brady St, turn right and then get lost in the masses on the Whitechapel Rd going westwards - safer for him than coming across the coppers in the quiter streets of Bakers Row and Old Montague St.

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

" I wonder when—if ever—he adjusted her skirt."

Before he stepped out into the street to speak to Paul. It fits with the rest of his behaviour and purposes.

"Would this have mattered?"

Perhaps not - but he told all about the rest, purportedly.

"In those cases, the head should be de-elevated—to increase blood flow. Propping makes bad matters worse."

Did an 1888 carman know that? I think not. The normal approach to a drunken person would be a propping up and a slap on the cheek.

" how would they have found him? By recognising a face in the passing crowd?"

They did not HAVE to find him - he called in himself, I believe.

"Oh, dear. The FBI rot again?"

No. The Fisherman rot. Exemplified by many a killer.

"not all false information is a lie. “It’s raining. Oops, no it isn’t. Silly of me.”

Ah. So "A PC awaits you in Buck´s Row" could mean "No, he´s not - silly of me"? Come on, Lynn ...

"A bit vague here."

What is vague? Leman Street was firm enough. It ran to Old Montague Street. Dew tells us that Leman Street was Kelly´s prostitution area. So what´s vague?

"As with the Mann theory"

You COULD be a bit more generous, one would have thought.

" Back to the FBI."

Nope. Back to Fisherman. As exemplified by many a killer.

"Or a misstatement"

By Mizen? Like that? Not very credible, I´d say. He was adamant about things, and did not wawer in the least.

"Well, as Leibniz put it, we are aware of many things—but as background noise."

And YOU accuse ME of leaning on the FBI ...?

"to call it a lie, without further ado, is to poison the well."

On the contrary. Mizen, my dear fellow, was the well, remember?

"A curious mixture of the FBI and professor Trow."

You DO realize, Lynn, that Swedenborg is just a fraction of a step away when leaning on Leibniz ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"Because Cross would pass him and then find the body and the Police would be looking for the man matching Paul`s description who was in Bucks Row at 3.35am."

They would? Why? if nobody had seen him, then why?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

For the same reason you give Cross for using Paul as his get out card, when most of us wonder why Cross just didn`t just leg it?

[Fisherman]

But in your scenario, Jon, Lechmere has already passed Paul without noticing him. Thus Paul made an effort to stay undetected, and succeeded in this. Why on earth would he give that up? It makes no sense at all.

Lechmere, on the other hand, could hardly stay undetected at Browns Stable Yard. So it was either legging it or bluffing it out, and by the looks of things, Lechmere chose the better option.

And even if Paul was looking for a get out card, it is along Lechmere´s routes to work the subsequent murders occur. It is en route to his mother´s house Stride dies. And Lechmere is the one who gives the wrong name, plus he is the one that misinforms Mizen.

So why Paul?

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hi Fisherman ,

I think my main point point of contention would have to be Pauls statement where he first encounters Lechmere ...

" He said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Paul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway"

He clearly places lechmere in the middle of the road .. I also think that Lechmere could have easily made good his escape if indeed he needed too, having seen Paul at the other end of the Row ( which is still quite some distance off ) heading towards him .

Another thing that plays on my mind is, Where would he have run into Annie ? I'm guessing that she wasn't just hanging about in bucks row on her own waiting to be murdered ! Did he allow extra time that morning on route to work for trawling the streets ?

I do however see your Man as someone not wishing to be too involved in the ongoing shenanigans .. But i am guessing there are plenty other reasons for that other than him being the actual Killer .

But hey .. what do any of us know !

All the best ,

Moonbegger .