So would he have run?

[Fisherman]

DRoy: Fish,

If he was the killer I would say running would be the most logical choice to make.

If we accept him at his word, he heard Paul who is only 40 yards away so he had little time to react and decide what to do.

He would not be able to find the time to cover her up and stash the weapon in that time, DRoy - if he killed her, he obviously lied about the proximity of Paul. It would have been of the utmost importance to create a picture where he would not have had the time to kill her, and to my mind, the 19 October Swanson report shows that the police swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.

If Lech was the killer, I can't imagine him within that short period of time ignoring what most would find natural (run away) and somehow make a decision to stay and put himself in a position that could cause him to eventually jump through hoops to prove he was just an unlucky family man on his way to work.

Jumping through hoops like that beats running into the arms of a PC with an eviscerated woman laying in the street behind you, DRoy. Thatīs the whole point. As Iīve said a thousand times, do not apply yourself and your own thinking - imagine that you were a man that actually did not feel any fright at all, who was totally calm and who was able to turn what seemed a risk into an advantage; tagging along with Paul provided him with a safe way out, remember. You and I would have sweated and trembled (I know I would have, at least), while a full-blood psychopath would perhaps have enjoyed the show thoroughly.

If Lech was a serial killer, there is the point to make they don't always do what we might consider the most natural. However, I believe reliance on this would be a desperate solution with no evidence since we don't know who JTR was.

There is no desperation in what we suggest, I think. Itīs a rather easy and straightforward case, and it is to a great extent a jigsaw puzzle that will only fit in one way. This is why I and Lechmere (the poster) will sometimes look like siamese twins.
The psychopathy is one such matter - if he was the killer, then no normally functioning man would be able to pull off what he pulled off. It would have been a completely coldblooded affair, with remarkable solutions to difficult problems, and with very little time to spare. But the whole chain of events speaks the same language - there is not one instance where he wavered, if weīre on the money:

He was not phazed by Paulīs arrival, but was cool enough to judge the distance, stash the weapon, hide the wounds and con Paul into giving him an alibi.

Then, when he realized that Paul wanted to find a PC, he thought up the perfect ruse to avoid being stopped and held or brought back to the murder site.

And at the inquest, he coldbloodiedly served a story he would have known was contradicted by Mizen - knowing full well that it would be his word against the PC:s, and not thinking that Mizen was any match for him.
If he was the killer, then I think his "No, Sir - because there was no PC in Buckīs Row" is more than just a little bit gleeful.

And if was not the killer, then why did not one single killing take place in Selby Street, in Pelham Street, in Rutland Street - or in any other single street of all the hundreds and hundreds of East End streets where he had no reason to be present at the relevant hours? Why did each and every murder street tally with the roads he would arguably have had good reason to use?
Just how large is the chance that this would be the case - and that the timings would work too, with the Stride/Eddowes slayings being too early to fit with the working trek, but instead on a Saturday night?
What are the odds?

I've enjoyed reading your Lech theories, and I respect your knowledge and research skills. I also believe there could be more to Lech based on what you and Lechmere have put forward. That being said, I think there are holes that at this time can only be filled in with guess work and theories unprovable especially when they seem to go against rational thought and action (regardless if the argument is made that JTR was anything but rational and without rational thought).

Thatīs good to hear. Thank you for that! There are holes, and we must use conjecture at times, thatīs true. But it is less true of Lechmere than of any other named suspect, I think. While most other top suspects are suspects for reasons hidden to us, this is not so with Lechmere.
And as for what is rational thinking or not, itīs good we have Fleetwood Mac!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Patrick S:

So what do we have that indicates that Cross was psychotic?

Not psychotic, Patrick - a psychopath. And what we have is the total coolness with which he lied and conned his way through the affair, making very quick and accurate decisions, instead of getting nervous and running like a headless chicken.
That of course predisposes that he was the killer, mind you.

He had a family. Held a stready job for decades. He was a witness in the Nichols murder, and we never hear from him again. Of course the Lechmereophiles will point out examples of other psychopathic serial killers who had careers and families. But these are exceptions.

Lechmere would also have been an exception. And exceptional. Does that mean that he could not have been the killer?
Also, keep in mind that the serialists we have that had careers and families are not few! Ridgway, Gacy, Armstrong, Rader, David Russel Williams, Sutcliffe etcetera ... Thereīs enough of them to form a subgroup of itīs own.

And when you take a man who does nothing to indicate guilt and begin to label him a psychopath and a murder, but must relay upon exceptions to rules, outright assumptions, and unknown motives.....well....you begin to lose most rational observers.

Ah, well, thatīs where I need your help! Exactly what is an exception to the rule? And what rule? And have we got any suspect where we do NOT assume things? And what motive did Kosminski, Tumblety, Druitt etcetera have? That we do not know.
But we DO know what motive those other guys I mentioned had: to satisfy the lust to kill.
What motive would suit you? Money? Jilted love?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Patrick S:

Not only would it have been the better alternative, it would have been his natural instinct.

So why do psychopaths not adhere to these "natural instincts"? I trust you have read up on the subject?

There is a reason that Nichols, et al were not killed in broad daylight in the middle of Trafalgar Square.

Yes - the killer wanted to stay uncaught, and his best option to do so was to work at the small hours.
What methods he would prefer to stay uncaught is open to speculation, however. And running is not the only possibility.

The killer knew the difference between right and wrong.

Iīd say that the killer knew how others judged right and wrong. And I would urge you to ponder the difference and the implications of that difference.

There is a reason that Jack the Ripper was not caught in the act and never identified: I didn't wish to be caught. So you are asking us to believe that, not only would the killer NOT RUN...he would approach a man on the street, CALL HIS ATTENTION to the woman he JUST KILLED, and aske him to TAKE A LOOK AT HER?

Did you not read what I posted on Dahmer? No?

So let's look at this.

Yes, letīs!

He resisted the compulsion to run. Okay.

What makes you think he had such a compulsion? He could have chosen to run if he deemed it practical, but if he was a psychopath, why would he feel any compulsion at all? Psychopaths cry, yes, but not because they are sad. They cry since they have learnt that is what is expected of them.

He decides to play it cool, act like he just stumbled across this dead, mutilated woman.

He does not have to "play it cool", Patrick - he IS cool. Itīs the nature of such a predatory beast.

Let's play this out. He chooses not say something like, "Hey, old man! My wife's had a snootful and fallen on her backside!", or, "I paid for a rendezvous with this woman and she's fallen asleep! Think I can get a refund?"

He could only pick one way of telling the story, thatīs true.

Now, he just murdered this woman, right?

Absolutely. Iīm with you!

It's safe to assume he's armed with a large blade, right?

Very, very safe.

It's just Paul there.

Yep.

In the dark.

Yep.

Alone.

Out in the street? Yes. But they could potentially have been watched by peole inside the Essex Wharf, for example.

He decides not to run. Not to attack Paul.

Apparently, yes.

To engage him in conversation and ask him to take a look at the woman for himself.

Yep.

By involving Paul, he's virtually assured that he'll be interviewed by the police.

The risk must have been obvious. Then again, Iīm not sure that he would have called it "risk" as such.

So, he doesn't run.

Nope.

Doesn't attack Paul.

Nope.

Asks him to take a look at the dead woman.

Yes. You DO realize that this would give Lechmere an alibi for any blood he possibly had on him? And you DO realize that the police would look for ONE man, not two?

And gives his name.

Not to Paul, no. And not to the police either. He gave another name than his own.

Now, we can have that argument that is name was Lechmere.

We can. And we do.

But he gave a name that people knew him by.

Didnīt you warn against suppositions? Why would we think that people knew him by the name of Cross? All we know is that his kids were christianed Lechmere, and that the authorities he dealt with were under the impression that he was named Lechmere. He habitually signed himself Lechmere.

He gave a name that identifed him. He could be LOCATED by that name. He could have said he was Earl Washington or Levi Rumplestilskin! He didn't!

He also gave his correct address and working place, Patrick, so calling himself Rumplestiltskin would not ensure the police staying away from him just the same. If the police were to look for him only by using the name Charles Allen Cross, they would have a stiff job in fron to them, but he saved then that trouble.
If you read up on the Lechmere threads, you will get a picture of why I think he did so.

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

Fish,

He would not be able to find the time to cover her up and stash the weapon in that time, DRoy - if he killed her, he obviously lied about the proximity of Paul. It would have been of the utmost importance to create a picture where he would not have had the time to kill her, and to my mind, the 19 October Swanson report shows that the police swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.

He only obviously lied if your theory of the distance is accepted. But with no evidence of same it is a theory based on a theory based on a theory.

Jumping through hoops like that beats running into the arms of a PC with an eviscerated woman laying in the street behind you, DRoy. Thatīs the whole point.

See above...a theory supporting a theory, etc. He didn't have to sprint away, he could have jogged and said outloud to anyone he passed that he was late for work.

As Iīve said a thousand times, do not apply yourself and your own thinking - imagine that you were a man that actually did not feel any fright at all, who was totally calm and who was able to turn what seemed a risk into an advantage; tagging along with Paul provided him with a safe way out, remember. You and I would have sweated and trembled (I know I would have, at least), while a full-blood psychopath would perhaps have enjoyed the show thoroughly.

See above yet again Fish. No proof Lech was any of those things or he felt that way. I understand your theory on Lech's 'scam', I do, but you're missing proof he was a psychopath, you're missing proving JTR was a psychopath, etc.

There is no desperation in what we suggest, I think. Itīs a rather easy and straightforward case, and it is to a great extent a jigsaw puzzle that will only fit in one way. This is why I and Lechmere (the poster) will sometimes look like siamese twins.

I won't comment on the rest you wrote simply because I agree with Lechmere's post that this deals specifically with Lech running or not. But allow me to reiterate I understand your theory and I agree there could be more to Lech...but you don't have it yet. Is there something to what you and Lechmere have given us all to ponder? Could be and I might even lean more towards there is reason to be suspicious of him...I just don't think it's because he's JTR.

Thatīs good to hear. Thank you for that! There are holes, and we must use conjecture at times, thatīs true. But it is less true of Lechmere than of any other named suspect, I think. While most other top suspects are suspects for reasons hidden to us, this is not so with Lechmere.

(Sorry I guess I will comment on the entire case afterall) I disagree there is less conjecture than others. There really very little actual evidence. There are reasons to be curious and maybe even suspicious but in my opinion the only way to judge your current case against Lech is that you've compounded the conjecture to make a theory based on little evidence.

Cheers
DRoy

[Harry D]

Maybe Lechmere was a bit of a kinko and was too busy 'inspecting' Nichols that he didn't notice Paul chancing upon him?

[DRoy]

Harry D,

Maybe all the 'evidence' we have on Lech being guilty of something is because he was guilty...of an affair? Is that not just as possible?

Hence he didn't run after finding the body but eventually came up with a story to prevent his wife/family/friends from finding out what he was actually doing?

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

Harry D,

Maybe all the 'evidence' we have on Lech being guilty of something is because he was guilty...of an affair? Is that not just as possible?

Hence he didn't run after finding the body but eventually came up with a story to prevent his wife/family/friends from finding out what he was actually doing?

Cheers
DRoy

...speaking about theories built on theories ... Ehrm!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

DRoy:

I disagree there is less conjecture than others. There really very little actual evidence.

Yes - but MORE so than what applies with the other suspects, nevertheless.

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

...speaking about theories built on theories ... Ehrm!

The best,
Fisherman

Fish,

My point was there is as much evidence of an affair as there is him being a serial murderer.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Yes - but MORE so than what applies with the other suspects, nevertheless.

Fish,

Although I don't see MORE like you do, would MORE necessarily mean BETTER?

Cheers
DRoy

[DVV]

This thread is biased in its very title.
No need to run.
Cross had just to walk away, and perhaps Paul would have paid no attention to the "tarpaulin".
And if Paul had stopped over the tarpaulin, even better for Cross.

Glups !

[Abby Normal]

Hi fish
He did not even need to run. Even if he did hear Paul at only 40 yards it's still a distance at that time of night when he could have just walked away quickly.
On top of that even if he stayed to bluff it out with paul, I don't see him staing with him to find a cop. He would have gone his own way.

[DVV]

Fish's new suspect is on the run, isn't he ?

[Lechmere]

Why didn’t he give some excuse to the passing Paul, such as ‘My wife just passed out’ to get rid of him?

This option was not open to him which should be rather obvious.
When the papers reported the murder Paul might come forward and say a man gave a bogus excuse to him. This would lead to that man being searched for as suspect no 1.
Lechmere lived with his wife and kids and had a steady job. He could not readily flee London to escape and he had to walk that way to get to work every day.

Why didn’t he walk away rather than run?

It makes no real difference whether he potentially ran or walked.
Either way he ran the fatal risk of Paul raising a hue and cry when he came upon the body, as a beat policeman (who he would almost certainly knew patrolled those streets) blocked his way.
This was a far greater risk – putting himself in the capricious hands of whoever was coming up behind him, rather than being the master of his own destiny.

It is likely that the killer was a psychopath. So we should be looking for evidence of what could potentially be psychopathic behaviour. Running away would not be what we should expect to have happened.

Why didn’t he turn on Paul with his knife?
It is exceptionally rare for a serial killer to turn on a male passer-by or interrupter. They choose their victims because they are unlikely to put up much resistance. A grown man is a different proposition to a semi drunk and half-starved aging prostitute.

Did Lechmere take an extra risk by staying with Paul after they left the body?
I would say he minimised the risk, by controlling the events. By ensuring he did the talking to Mizen. By having the opportunity to bend Paul’s ear about the events. By finding out things about Paul which may have been useful to him – such as the location of Paul’s workplace.

The prime motivation behind many serial killings is control – control over life and death.
Many serial killers are control freaks. Lechmere’s behaviour on that morning can be shown to have conformed to that sort of behaviour.
It never ceases to amaze me that people who’s ‘hobby’ is to study this most notorious of serial killers fail to show the most basic understanding of how these type of killers tend to operate, and indeed prefer the discredited police-type suspects – the foreigners, homosexuals and madmen.

D Roy
The case for Lechmere being the murderer is based on his timing for leaving home giving him the opportunity.
That he should have been at least a quarter of a mile in front of Paul, not 40 yards.
That Llewellyn judged the time of death as being almost exactly the time that Paul met Lechmere.
That there is evidence to suggest the culprit was disturbed and no one else was seen to enter of leave Bucks Row.
That Lechmere was found by the body before he had raised the alarm.
That the way he approached Paul was unusual.
That he refused Paul’s suggestion to lift up the body- an action which would have made the neck wound obvious.
That he disputed the nature of the conversation he had with the policeman he met after leaving the crime scene.
Although supposedly late for work he chose to talk a longer route than necessary to accompany Paul and avoid walking in the direction of the Tabram and Smith murders.
He gave a name to the authorities that was at variance with the name he gave on around 100 other occasions during his life.

I don’t think it is as easy to make the case that he was having an affair.
Also Lechmere is pretty much the only suspect whose crime scene behaviour can be analysed.
The other ‘suspects’ are phantoms who appear from nowhere, commit their crimes and disappear in a puff of smoke.

Why give a false name that he is connected to? That is what most people do when they give a false name. It has the advantage of providing distance while at the same time allowing for an explanation of sorts –if exposed.

[Fisherman]

Fish,

My point was there is as much evidence of an affair as there is him being a serial murderer.

Cheers
DRoy

Then we should perhaps assume that Hutchinson was a deluded alchemist who thought prostituteīs blood would transform into gold if they were eviscerated first ...?
I donīt think it is a great point, DRoy - we know tehre was a killer on the streets, we know that Lechmere was found by one of the bodies, and we know that many anomalies attach to him.
Thatīs not a half bad case.

And anyway, married men with kids donīt have affairs, you should know that.

The best,
Fisherman